Sometimes abstinence really is the best policy, at least for elected officials who consider handing public jobs to their relatives.

Lawmakers designed the Pennsylvania Ethics Act to eliminate conflicts of interest, but the statute cannot prevent cases of back-scratching among elected officials who vote to hire their colleagues' kin and abstain on votes to hire their own relatives.A PA Independent investigation found that happening in the small northeastern Pennsylvania borough of Throop, but council members there just shrugged and insisted they weren't using their public positions to benefit their relatives.That's not the only end-around, loophole or gray area found in the Ethics Act, either. There are other ways to skirt the law, which bars public officials from using the authority of their position to financially benefit themselves, their immediate family or their businesses.The state Ethics Commission has proposed almost 30 changes or clarifications that could strengthen the law. The General Assembly hasn't taken action, even on something as simple as setting limits on gifts that public officials can accept.That's left the state's Ethics Act, some say, with little teeth to stop the types of practices found in Throop, where borough council members protected themselves with abstaining votes.While ethics experts have said elected officials hiring relatives can breed distrust of government, Robert Caruso, executive director of the state Ethics Commission, said it's difficult to make a case that officials are fixing votes to shield each other."It's almost nearly impossible to prove, unless the members who voted for it said 'yes,' and most of the time they're not going to tell you," he said, noting that school boards have historically used the tactic when hiring teachers with family ties.In-law free for allThe law, passed in 1978, has another glaring loophole: It does not include in-laws or stepchildren in its definition of immediate family members.That didn't stop investigators with the Ethics Commission, Caruso said, from trying to argue about 15 to 20 years ago that a school board director violated the law when he voted to promote his son-in-law, a move that came with a substantial increase in pay.Trying to make a case the raise also benefited the school director's daughter who was an immediate family member investigators subpoenaed bank accounts, mortgage records and vehicle records to trace the money to the relative, Caruso said.The commission determined a violation occurred, but the school board member appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which found there was no wrongdoing because the action directly benefited the in-law and not the daughter.Caruso said the commission has been "stuck" with the ruling ever since, but has recommended lawmakers add in-laws and stepchildren to the act."It's a nice idea, but if it has no teeth, what good is it?" asked Charlotte Raup, leader of the local crime watch in Wilkes-Barre, a city just south of Throop.They're justexecutive ordersRaup recalls a frustrating encounter with the Ethics Act from 2011. At the time, Wilkes-Barre Mayor Tom Leighton had come under fire for signing executive orders that hired dozens of people including his children and other relatives to summer jobs with the city.Somebody filed an ethics complaint, but the commission's executive director at the time, John Contino, declined to launch a full investigation. He wrote a letter explaining the human resources director made the hires "without input or direction from the mayor.""The only action in which the mayor engaged as part of the hiring process was to sign executive orders listing the individuals to be hired for such summer positions along with their salaries," Contino wrote, noting with the exception of one year, all summer applicants were hired.Another exemption in the Ethics Act supported the decision. The law says conflicts of interest don't include actions that affect "to the same degree a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group, which includes the public official or a member of the public official's immediate family," Contino said.Frank Sorick, a political activist who is now running to succeed the retiring Leighton as mayor, subsequently filed an ethics complaint against the city's human resources director, noting her child was among the workers hired by Leighton.Contino responded that there was not enough information provided to start an investigation."How does any of this make sense?" Sorick asked. "It was just another example the state Ethics Commission is just as corrupt as anything else in the state."The same exemption cleared former Philadelphia Mayor John Street of ethical wrongdoing after he voted to award contracts to a group of law firms, including one that employed his son, while in his capacity as a member of the Philadelphia Housing Authority.Caruso has said he'd like to see the exemption eliminated, but the commission has recommended it be further defined.Ethics matter, unless there's a tieThe majority of Pennsylvania's townships are governed by three-person boards of supervisors. When one supervisor has a conflict of interest, votes can end in a 1-1 tie.To avoid municipal gridlock, the Ethics Act allows the supervisor to break the tie, regardless of any conflict. The Ethics Commission has recommend lawmakers revise that portion of the law."This provision would seem to run contrary to the very heart of the Ethics Act and needs to be modified or restricted to extremely limited circumstances," the commission noted.Closing that loophole could have practical ramifications, said Elam Herr, assistance executive director of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors. No officials want gridlock, nor do they want something to move forward because of a technicality, he said.Herr recalled one case in which two of three supervisors couldn't agree whether to hire one official's wife as a township roadmaster. The husband eventually broke the tie, voting against hiring his wife."Now, I'm not sure whether they were still married when they go home that night," Herr joked, "but in that case, if he couldn't have broken the gridlock, I don't know how long they would have gone until they agreed on a different candidate."The law as it stands now strikes a balance between protecting the public and official without being overly burdensome, Herr said. Most officials, he believes, don't set out to violate the Ethics Act."A lot of them are violations that really are slaps on the hands instead of really serious violations," Herr said. "But again, a violation's a violation. It shouldn't happen."No changes despite recommendationsAddressing exemptions for in-laws, subclasses and township ties are just a handful of instances in which the ethics commission has said the law needs to be revisited. It still sets no limitation on public officials accepting gifts, a loophole that has been extensively covered.The Ethics Commission suggested 27 changes to the law about two years ago. Some of them closed gaping loopholes, while others were simple clarifications to align the law with court rulings, but the General Assembly has not enacted any, Caruso said.State Sen. John Yudichak, D-Luzerne, said the Legislature isn't known for acting swiftly, and that "all good ideas take time." He knows just how difficult it is to make sweeping changes, too. Three times since 2011 he's proposed replacing the Ethics Commission with a corruption-fighting Public Integrity Commission with more than double the budget.The idea has yet to gain traction, but Gov. Tom Wolf, who has made ethics a hallmark of his first few months in office, could be an ally in improving the state's ethical climate, Yudichak said.Perhaps loopholes could be revisited if something like the Public Integrity Commission was created."I believe undoubtedly there would be a second look at the Ethics Act," Yudichak said.