A little-noticed state Supreme Court case might end up changing the commonwealth’s anti-nepotism rules.

The case involves a former Lehman Township, Pike County, supervisor/highways superintendent, who hired his son and approved the son’s time cards.

John Sivick signed 79 of the 81 time sheets that his son, Jay, turned in during the three years he was employed by the township. Jay Sivick was hired in 2013 at $15 an hour and reported directly to his father, which is in violation of the state’s anti-nepotism rule.

Robert Caruso, executive director of the State Ethics Commission, which filed a complaint against the elder Sivick, wanted him to make a restitution payment of $30,000 for the ethical breach.

“I have been with the commission for 37 years, and this is the first time this violation has been looked at by the courts,” Caruso told The Associated Press.

These types of cases in the past have been pretty much cut-and-dried, he said. This is what makes this case so important.

A successful appeal could turn things upside down when it comes to determining ethical behavior between officials and their relatives.

Earlier this year, Commonwealth Court upheld the restitution order, saying John Sivick’s discussions about eliminating the nepotism policy and hiring his son were made in his capacity as a Lehman Township official and employee.

“Sivick initiated the improper scheme to have the township’s nepotism policy repealed and his son hired, which directly resulted in the township employing his son and Sivick approving his son’s payroll records,” wrote Judge Anne Covey for the three-judge panel.

The Sivicks’ attorney believes that merely getting the job is not in itself a violation, that the younger Sivick would have had to do something illegal.

There is no anti-nepotism law in Pennsylvania, but the guidelines are set up by the state Ethics Commission.

Lehman Township, which is contiguous to Middle Smithfield Township in Monroe County and includes the village of Bushkill, adopted an anti-nepotism policy in 2009 that prohibited an official from supervising an immediate family member.

In 2012, John Sivick encouraged his two fellow township supervisors to allow Jay Sivick to be hired.

A year later, the supervisors scrapped the anti-nepotism policy, paving the way for Jay Sivick to be hired as part of the nine-member road crew.

John Sivick abstained on the official vote, but his two colleagues voted for the policy’s elimination.

In his brief to the court, Ethics Commission attorney Jeffery Frankenburger insisted that the job was created specifically by Sivick for his son.

“One of the reasons Sivick wanted his son to work for the township was that he had been going through some rough times in his personal life, and Sivick wanted to try to get his son on the right path,” Frankenburger wrote in the brief.

The Ethics Commission began its investigation in 2015 after receiving a complaint from a township resident. The elder Sivick was elected as supervisor in November 1993 and served four six-year terms between 1994 and 2017.

I have said this any number of times: Conflicts of interest and nepotism are damaging to an organization’s credibility. Elected officials should always avoid the appearance of preferential treatment, improper influence, bias and favoritism.

In the Lehman Township case, it’s obvious that both nepotism and conflicts of interest were involved, and the state Supreme Court should uphold the lower court ruling to enforce the restitution order.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com