Appeal from the Order of the State Civil Service Commission in case of State Civil Service Commission v. Ruth E. Vaniscak, Appeal No. 2813.
Larry B. Selkowitz, with him Ronald G. Lench, Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz & Adler, P.C., for petitioner.
Barbara G. Raup, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Mencer, Rogers, Blatt, Craig, MacPhail and Palladino. Judges Wilkinson, Jr. and Williams, Jr. did not participate. Opinion by Judge Blatt. Judge Wilkinson, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.
The petitioner, Ruth E. Vaniscak, seeks review of a decision of the State Civil Service Commission (Commission) dismissing her from the classified service because of her political activity.
On March 6, 1978, while the petitioner was employed as a psychiatric nurse by the Department of Public Welfare, she filed a petition as a candidate for election to the Republican Committee for Cambria Township in Cambria County. Upon being informed that seeking such an office could jeopardize her civil service status, she argues that she "resigned" her candidacy as of March 20, 1978, and placed a public notice of her resignation in a local newspaper on April 26 and May 3. Her name, however, appeared on the primary election ballot.
The Commission held a hearing, took evidence and thereafter concluded that the petitioner's act of filing as a candidate for committeewoman constituted a violation of the prohibition against political activity by employees in the classified service contained in Section 904 of the Civil Service Act (Act), Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, 71 P.S. § 741.904, and she was removed from her civil service position pursuant to Section 906 of the Act, 71 P.S. § 741.906.
The petitioner argues that the circumstances of her situation*fn1 establish that her actions were not a violation of Section 904 of the Act, and did not conflict with the Act's aim of insulating civil service employees from political pressures. Wasniewski v. Civil Service Commission, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 166, 299 A.2d 676 (1973). Alternatively she contends that her conduct was, at the worst, an unintentional, technical violation of the Act and that Sections 904 and 906 of the Act are unconstitutionally broad if they are interpreted as denying the Commission the discretion to impose a lighter discipline than removal in the case of a de minimis offense such as was involved here.
First, we cannot agree with the petitioner's interpretation of Section 904*fn2 of the Act as prohibiting
only her active participation in the political arena. There can be no doubt that the petitioner participated in the circulation of this petition in that it was she who sought the nomination and that without the affixing of her signature no petition for candidacy could have been filed. See e.g., Farview State Hospital v. Urda, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 607, 353 A.2d 61 (1976). Moreover, we believe that it would be absurd ...