RQO-15-004 | Contract with PBSO. ISSUE: The Chief Assistant County Attorney asked if a prohibited conflict of interest would be created if the son of Shelley Vana, the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Mayor, entered into a contract for services with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office (PBSO).
HOLDING: A prohibited conflict of interest would not be created by the contract between Mayor Vana’s son and the PBSO because the PBSO has sole discretion regarding its contracts for services with outside entities. The sheriff of Palm Beach County, as a constitutional officer, establishes and controls his own budget for his office, independent of the operating budget set by the BOCC. The sheriff's authority to purchase supplies and equipment, select personnel, and hire, fire, and set the salaries of such personnel is independent of the BOCC. Thus, the PBSO has sole discretion in determining whether to enter into a contract with the firm which employs the Mayor’s son. As such, as long as Mayor Vana does not use her official position to influence anyone to give her son’s firm the contract with the PBSO, a prohibited conflict of interest would not exist.
|
RQO-15-007 | Conflict of interest for City employee to award contract to sibling’s employer. ISSUE: The human resources administrator for the City of Delray Beach asked if a prohibited conflict of interest would exist for the special operations coordinator (SOC) of the City’s Fire-Rescue Department if the department uses Dive Gear Express as an active vendor, when the SOC’s brother is an employee of that company.
HOLDING: Because the SOC oversees the contracts or transactions for the purchase of equipment and has ultimate authority over the equipment procurement and sustainment, a prohibited conflict of interest would arise for the SOC if the City’s Fire-Rescue Department uses Dive Gear Express as an active vendor since the employer of the SOC’s brother would be receiving a special financial benefit. The Palm Beach County Code of Ethics broadly defines “financial benefit,” and the term includes any money or contract.
|
RQO-15-008 | Elected official’s use of official title for identification purposes only. ISSUE: An elected official asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics prohibits him from using his official title as vice mayor of the town of Jupiter on an organization’s list of sponsors.
HOLDING: As long as there is no quid pro quo in exchange for the donation and none of the persons or entities listed in Sec. 2-443(a) of the Code would receive a special financial benefit from your donation, the official is not prohibited from using his official title in the identification of himself as a sponsor. Under the circumstances provided, using his official title as vice mayor of the town of Jupiter on an organization’s list of sponsors would not violate the misuse of office provisions of the code.
|
RQO-15-015 | Appearance of impropriety ISSUE: A county code enforcement officer asked if she is allowed to work on cases that involve properties owned and managed by her landlord, or if those cases should be reassigned to other officers.
HOLDING: The employee is not prohibited from working on code enforcement cases involving properties owned and managed by her landlord as long as she does not use her official position as a county code enforcement officer in any manner to give herself a special financial benefit or to corruptly benefit her landlord. However, while the landlord-tenant relationship may not constitute a prohibited conflict, it may create an appearance of impropriety, especially if her acts are discretionary in nature.
|
RQO-15-016 | A governmental entity is excluded from definition of outside employer. ISSUE: An advisory board member for the Town of Loxahatchee Groves asked if a prohibited conflict of interest would exist if he performed repair work for the Loxahatchee Groves Water Control District (LGWCD).
HOLDING: A prohibited conflict of interest would not exist if he performs various repair work for LGWCD while also serving as an advisory board member for the town. The Code exempts governmental entities from the definition of outside employer or business. Since LGWCD is a special taxing district, and thus a governmental entity, it is not considered an outside employer under the Code.
|
RQO-15-019 | Elected official’s use of name and official title on display advertisements. ISSUE: An elected official asked if the Code allows her to use her personal funds to place display advertisements in local newspapers wishing her District 1 constituents a great summer or a happy and safe holiday season.
HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit an elected official from using her name and official title on a display advertisement wishing her constituents a great summer or a happy and safe holiday season when she pays for the advertisements and does not receive any quid pro quo for placing the advertisements in the local newspapers.
|
RQO-14-001 | No prohibited conflict of interest is created by public employee remaining on the board of not-for-profit when the not-for-profit provides service to his government employer. ISSUE: Whether the Economic Development Manager for a City could remain as an unpaid volunteer member of the board of directors of a not-for-profit corporation, when that not-for-profit has received grant funds from a private bank to be used to construct public improvements on City-owned property.
HOLDING: There is no prohibited conflict of interest created by the employee remaining on the board of not-for-profit when it provides service to his government employer, so long as neither the non-profit entity itself, nor the private business providing this funding grant, receives any improper benefit as a result of any official action by the employee. No prohibited special financial benefit flows to the not-for-profit from the City. The benefit of the grant funding is essentially given to his government employer by the not-for-profit by way of neighborhood improvements.
|
RQO-14-002 | An official is prohibited from using his official position to specially benefit a person who is known to him to work for the official's outside employer. ISSUE: Whether a Town Councilman is prohibited from voting on a comprehensive plan amendment relating to a five-acre area, where an employee who works for the official's outside employer is a part-owner of two restaurants within the plan area.
HOLDING: The Town Councilman may not use his official position, including participation and voting on an issue before the Town Council, to give a special financial benefit to a person who is known to him to work for his outside employer. The number of persons or entities that stand to gain from the proposed ordinance and the incentives provided by the PUD designation is too small a class to be considered similarly situated to members of the general public.
|
RQO-15-017 | Appearance of impropriety ISSUE: A county employee asked if a prohibited conflict of interest exists for her in her new position as the Planning and Evaluation Manager where she oversees the outcomes and performance measures of the Financially Assisted Agency contract for the Palm Beach County Division of the Children’s Home Society of Florida (CHSF), when she has an active private adoption application with the Treasure Coast Division of the CHSF.
HOLDING: A prohibited conflict of interest would not exist as long as she does not wrongfully use her official position to corruptly secure a special benefit for anyone, including a benefit that is not financial in nature. While there may be no per se prohibited conflict of interest under the Code, because she has an active private adoption application with the Treasure Coast Division of the CHSF, her oversight of the Palm Beach County Division’s outcomes and performance measures may create an appearance of impropriety. If she is concerned about this appearance of impropriety, she may choose to have her director or another member of her staff oversee the outcomes and performance measures of the Palm Beach County Division of the CHSF while her adoption application is pending.
|
RQO-14-005 | Voting conflict: Special financial benefit to official or a customer or client of his outside business ISSUE: Whether a City Commissioner is correct in his intention to refrain from voting on any matter which may come before the Commission, which would result in a special financial benefit to himself or a customer or client of his outside employer or business.
HOLDING: The Commissioner will need to publicly disclose the nature of the conflict before the City Commission discusses the matter, abstain from participating and voting on the matter, and file a state voting conflict form.
|
RQO-14-006 | Size of class affected ISSUE: Whether a Councilman is prohibited from participating and voting on a matter coming before the Village Council regarding a new civil aviation ordinance which affects the development where he lives.
HOLDING: The general line drawn involves situations where the interest of the public official involves 1% or less of the class, in other words, 100 or more affected persons. Based upon the size of the class presented here (265 home sites), he is not prohibited from participating and voting on the civil aviation ordinance even though he owns property in the affected area.
|
RQO-14-007 | Hiring the daughter of the Town's website maintenance provider is not prohibited ISSUE: A Town administrator asked whether the Town could hire the daughter of the Town's website maintenance provider.
HOLDING: The hiring of the daughter of the provider of the town's website maintenance is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics as long as the daughter does not use her official position to benefit her parent's business, which would be a misuse of public office or employment. Under the code, the applicant, if hired, will need to take great care to avoid acting, failing to act, or influencing others to act in a manner that would appear to favor her parent's company. She will have an ongoing responsibility to refrain from using her official position with the town to gain a financial benefit for her parent. This would include any improper action or inaction involving the awarding of town business to her parent's business.
|
RQO-14-012 | A conflict of interest is not automatically created with a former employer ISSUE: A City commissioner asked if it would be a prohibited conflict of interest for him to vote on matters involving Okeelanta Corporation, since that corporation was his former employer and contributed toward a pension plan which currently pays him retirement benefits.
HOLDING: The commissioner is not prohibited from voting on matters involving Okeelanta Corporation, which may come before the City Commission, as long as the matters do not involve issues that would affect his pension benefits and result in a special financial benefit to him. He would only be prohibited from voting on a matter involving Okeelanta Corporation if it would result in a special financial benefit to him.
|
RQO-14-013 | Publicly advertised offer is not considered a gift. ISSUE: A City director of development asked if City employees, who are eligible property owners, may participate in the city's Energy Edge Energy Efficiency Rebate Program, which is available to any resident of the city who meets the eligibility requirements.
HOLDING: City employees are not prohibited from participating in the rebate program because it applies to all similarly situated residents of the city. A discount available to all similarly situated city residents does not violate the code, provided that no "quid pro quo" or other benefit is offered or accepted because of any official public action taken, or legal duty performed or violated, by a public official or employee. Here, because the rebate program is a publicly advertised offer made available to the general public, it is not considered a gift. The employee's public status bears no relationship to eligibility for the rebate, and, therefore, any rebate received is not a reportable gift.
|
RQO-14-014 | Elected official cannot use his position to receive special financial benefit. ISSUE: The vice mayor of Loxahatchee Groves asked if he is allowed to keep the fill that was taken out of a town canal by the Loxahatchee Groves Water Control District and placed on his property.
HOLDING: The vice mayor is not prohibited from keeping and using the fill that was taken out of a town canal by the water control district and placed on his property. Here, since he contacted the water control district in his personal capacity to inquire about the fill, as did two other landowners who also received the fill, and the amount of fill available for the public was so small that it was distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, there is no indication that he used his official position as vice mayor to obtain the fill for his property.
|
RQO-14-015 | No voting conflict exists when there is no evidence of a special financial benefit. ISSUE: A municipal assistant village attorney asked if a council member is prohibited from participating in and voting on the selection of a design and award of a contract to construct a bridle and multipurpose path adjacent to the Palm Beach Point community, when the Palm Beach Point Property Owner's Association (POA) is a client of the councilwoman.
HOLDING: The Councilwoman is not prohibited from participating in and voting on the selection of a design and award of a contract to construct a bridle and multipurpose path adjacent to the Palm Beach Point community. Here, although the POA has been involved in the Village of Wellington meetings regarding the construction of the path and crossing options and has taken a position by opposing two of the three proposed options, there is no prohibited special financial benefit involved. None of the options would provide a direct financial benefit to the POA. Because every resident of the municipality who uses Palm Beach Point Boulevard would be affected equally by the selected plan, there is no prohibited special financial benefit to the POA.
|
RQO-14-018 | Public employee may accept gift from vendor in excess of $100 after retirement. ISSUE: The former interim city attorney for Delray Beach asked if the former acting Delray Beach city manager, who retired from city employment, could accept the use of a city vendor's condominium after retirement.
HOLDING: The former acting city manager is not prohibited from accepting the use of a city vendor's condominium after retirement so long as it was not in exchange for the past, present or future performance of an official act or legal duty while he was still employed with the city. Once the city manager retired, he was no longer under the jurisdiction of the code. Here, because the use of the condominium will take place after his retirement from the city and he did not use his official position to obtain this arrangement, he is not prohibited from accepting it.
|
RQO-14-019 | A voting conflict does not exist if there is no special financial benefit. ISSUE: The town attorney for Palm Beach asked if a member of the Landmarks Preservation Commission of Palm Beach was prohibited from voting on the certificate of appropriateness application filed by the Town for renovations to the Town Hall Historic District because he is a part-time employee at a restaurant within the Town Hall Historic District area.
HOLDING: The member is not prohibited from voting on the certificate of appropriateness for renovations in the district because there is no special financial benefit to the restaurant. Here, any financial benefit attributable to the restaurant is shared with similarly situated businesses in the district and does not constitute a unique circumstance. The renovation of the district area will affect all the businesses in the district in the same way. The additional parking spaces will be for public parking and not reserved for the restaurant's customers. Because all existing similarly situated businesses in the district area would be affected equally by the renovations, there is no prohibited special financial benefit.
|
RQO-14-020 | County employee's spouse is not prohibited from purchasing advertising on the County's internal website. ISSUE: A County employee asked if her spouse is prohibited from purchasing advertising on the county's internal website.
HOLDING: The County employee's spouse is not prohibited from purchasing advertising on the county's internal website, so long as the fee he pays for the advertising is the same amount that any other businesses would pay. Since the opportunity to purchase advertising on the internal website is available to any business, there is no special financial benefit to her husband or his outside employer.
|
RQO-14-022 | Elected officials must disclose conflict involving a client. ISSUE: The city attorney for Delray Beach asked if a commissioner, in his personal capacity, could provide legal services to an individual who previously had an ownership interest in a well-known restaurant/inn located in the city but does not have an ownership interest in any business in the city or any contracts, agreements, or applications pending with the city.
HOLDING: The Commissioner is not prohibited from providing legal services to the individual in his personal capacity. If a matter before the City Commission would result in a special financial benefit to a customer or client, the commissioner must disclose the nature of the conflict, abstain from voting and participating in the matter, and file a state voting conflict form (8B).
|
RQO-14-023 | Elected official may not participate or vote on matter that would give her client a special financial benefit. ISSUE: The city attorney for Delray Beach asked if the Deputy Vice Mayor could participate in a City Commission workshop involving the All Aboard Florida (AAF) project, when her client would be financially impacted by the AAF project, and whether she could vote on a formal resolution regarding the AAF project.
HOLDING: The Deputy Vice Mayor may not vote on the formal resolution or participate in the workshop. In order to comply with the Code of Ethics, she will need to publicly disclose the nature of the conflict before the City Commission discusses the matter, abstain from participating and voting on the matter, and file a state voting conflict form (8B). The AAF project will have a financial impact on her client. The client's location near the drawbridge on the New River will cause a disruption to its operation and deny access to the marina and shipyard each time the drawbridge is lowered. As such, voting on the matter would constitute giving a special financial benefit to a customer or client of the deputy vice mayor's outside business or employer.
|
RQO-14-024 | Providing special perks or privileges to volunteers. ISSUE: The director of Human Resources and Risk Management for the City of Boynton Beach asked if volunteers of the Links at Boynton Beach Golf Course could receive special privileges or perks for volunteering.
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit the City of Boynton Beach from offering a benefit to its volunteers. However, municipal volunteers fall within the definition of an employee. As such, the golf course volunteers are required to comply with the gift law requirement. Therefore, if the value of the privileges or perks received by a volunteer exceeds $100 in the aggregate, they are reportable gifts and must be reported in an annual gift disclosure report filed with the COE.
|
RQO-14-026 | Conflict of Interest ISSUE: The Chair of the Lake Work Community Redevelopment Agency (LWCRA) asked if he is prohibited from representing Adopt-a-Family, either for a fee or on a pro bono basis (unpaid), in a real estate transaction in his personal capacity as an attorney.
HOLDING: He is not prohibited from representing Adopt-a-Family in this real estate transaction in his personal capacity as an attorney. Based on the facts submitted, Adopt-a-Family would not be considered his customer or client because the anticipated income from his representation would be less than $2,000, which is below the $10,000 monetary threshold required by the Code. Second, if he provided unpaid representation on a pro bono basis to Adopt-a-Family, then Adopt-a-Family would not be considered his customer or client under the Code. Therefore, under both of these instances, if Adopt-a-Family comes before the LWCRA on a matter, his is not required to abstain from participating in or voting on the matter.
|
RQO-14-030 | Conflict of Interest ISSUE: The Village of Wellington village attorney asked if Councilwoman Anne Gerwig may participate in the selection process for the sale and development of a parcel of land known as K-Park, which is owned by the Acme Improvement District and the Village of Wellington, when HSQ, a customer or client of the councilwoman's outside business, Alan Gerwig and Associates, Inc., has been listed as a subcontractor on a proposal.
HOLDING: Councilwoman Gerwig may not participate in the selection process for the sale and development of K-Park because a customer or client of her outside business is listed as a vendor or subcontractor on one of the proposals. Because Alan Gerwig and Associates, Inc. has supplied services in excess of $10,000 over the previous 24 months to HSQ, HSQ is a customer or client of Councilwoman Gerwig's outside business. Here, the possibility of a financial benefit to HSQ would be direct and immediate if the proposal that includes work by HSQ is selected. Based upon the facts submitted, the relationship between the councilwoman's outside business and HSQ is that of a typical contractor/subcontractor. As such, since HSQ is listed in one of the proposals, participation by Councilwoman Gerwig in the selection of the proposal for the sale and development of the K-Park would constitute a violation of the code. In order to comply with the code, she will need to publicly disclose the nature of the conflict before the Village Council discusses the matter, abstain from participating and voting on the matter, and file a state voting conflict form (8B).
|
RQO-14-031 | Conflict of Interest ISSUE: The executive director of the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) asked if a conflict of interest would exist if her husband serves on the board of the Delray Center for the Arts while she is the executive director of the CRA.
HOLDING: A conflict of interest would exist if her husband serves on the board of the Delray Center for the Arts while she is the executive director of the CRA since the Delray Center for the Arts applies for funding from the CRA each year. As executive director of the CRA, she provides direction to CRA staff and supervises their actions. Based on the submitted information, even if she were not a member of the funding selection committee, she would still be involved in the selection process for the funding recommendations. A part of her responsibility as executive director is to review the written summaries that are presented to the CRA board and to approve them. Additionally, when questions arise about how to handle a particular issue or recommendation, she is involved in those discussions as well.
|
RQO-14-032 | Voting Conflicts ISSUE: The attorney for the Town of Highland Beach’s Board of Adjustment and Appeals (Board) asked two questions.
1-Are three members of the board prohibited by the code from voting on a variance application, submitted by a property owner to increase the maximum height from 35 feet to 209 feet in order to construct a 16-story high-rise building, when they all reside in a condominium development immediately adjacent to the proposed project?
2-Would it violate the code or be an appearance of impropriety for a member of the board who has made statements at a public meeting about the pending variance application to the effect that concerned citizens should appear before the board to voice any concerns, that the zoning will not be changed and that the board will uphold the statute so that nothing over 35 feet will be built, to vote on the variance application?
HOLDING: 1. Although two of the board members live immediately adjacent to the proposed variance site and one member lives approximately 500 feet away, the facts submitted do not establish a basis to differentiate among their interests. Rather, the facts establish that the three board members live in proximity to the site. The fact that Toscana has filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings establishes only that the group of homeowners, by virtue of their individual ownership of units and the association’s ownership of common property, is seemingly opposed to the variance. This is distinguished from a situation where a single homeowner lives immediately adjacent to a proposed development site and has voiced personal opposition to the project because it would cause personal financial loss. Based upon the size of the class affected and the other facts submitted, the economic benefit or loss affects a class large enough so as to remove any prohibited financial benefit. Therefore, the board members may participate in and vote on the matter.
2. Based upon the facts submitted, the board member’s comments would not violate the code or prohibit him from voting on the matter. Comments made by a board member at a public meeting about how he, or the board, may view the pending application do not give him or her a special financial benefit. The code does not regulate speech or comments which a board member may make under these circumstances. Similarly, while “the appearance of impropriety” is a guiding principle underlying the code and should be avoided, it is not a stated offense under the code. However, other laws, rules or regulations outside of COE jurisdiction may be involved.
|
RQO-14-034 | Conflict of Interest ISSUE: The Chief Assistant County Attorney asked if the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (the council) members who are also hospital employees are allowed to participate in the certificates of public convenience and necessity (COPCN) selection process when their hospital-employers have ongoing and prospective relationships with the COPCN applicants.
HOLDING: The council members, who are also hospital employees, may participate in the COPCN selection process because it would not result in a special financial benefit to their outside employer or to a customer or client of their outside employer. Under the facts provided, a vote to recommend any or all of the COPCN applicants would not provide a special financial benefit to a council member's hospital-employer. The COPCN only provides a license to the ambulance service provider, which then allows the provider to contract with hospitals for use of its services. As such, the council's recommendation vote would not result in a special financial benefit to any council member's hospital-employer. Likewise, voting to recommend any or all of the COPCN applicants would not provide a special financial benefit to a customer or client of a council member's hospital-employer. Although each ambulance service provider who receives a COPCN would receive a financial benefit (the license), the ambulance service providers are not customers or clients of the hospitals. The hospitals are the recipients of the services provided. Thus, the hospitals are the customers or clients of the ambulance service provider. As a result, a voting conflict would not exist for the council members who are also hospital employees because the vote would not result in a special financial benefit to a customer or client of their outside employers.
|
RQO-14-035 | Conflict of Interest ISSUE: The Vice Mayor for the Town of Palm Beach Shores asked if she may participate and vote on matters pertaining to a public works project for the Town when the project would benefit a condominium where she owns two units.
HOLDING: The Vice Mayor may participate in the discussion and vote on the matter as long as the public works project does not benefit only her condominium. There are only 89 units in her condominium. If the public works project would provide a benefit to her condominium only, then her interest in the benefit would be more than 2% of the class. The size of the class would be too small, and the project would result in a special financial benefit to her. As such, she would not be able to participate in the discussion and vote on the project. However, based on the facts submitted, because the proposed public works project would benefit other buildings and property owners, in addition to her condominium, then the economic benefit or loss affects a class large enough so as to remove any prohibited financial benefit. Therefore, in that instance, she may participate in the discussion and vote on the matter.
|
RQO-14-036 | Conflict of Interest ISSUE: A councilman from the Village of Wellington asked if he is required to abstain from voting on matters involving a series of upcoming land development approvals related to the Wellington Country Place PUD project (the PUD), specifically Master Plan Amendment and Site Plan, Re-Plat and Special Use Permit applications, when two of his law firm’s clients own property within the affected area.
HOLDING: Based on the facts submitted, he is required to abstain from voting on and participating in the matters involving the Master Plan Amendment, the Site Plan application for Pod F, Phases V and VI, the Re-Plat application for Pod F, and any Special Use Permit application, which involves the properties of Pierwell or Chickering. Here, the Village of Wellington staff report states that this Master Plan Amendment will affect 250 acres of the 958 acres within the PUD. Chickering owns 5.9293 of the 250 acres affected by the Master Plan Amendment, which results in a 2.37% interest in the affected class. Pierwell owns 15.4999 acres out of the 250 acres affected, which equals a 6.20% interest in the affected class. Therefore, because the class of persons affected is small and the Master Plan Amendment would provide a unique benefit to customer or clients of his law firm, the Code prohibits him from voting on or participating in this matter. Similarly, he is prohibited from voting on and participating in the Site Plan for Pod F, Phases V and VI, the Re-Plat application for Pod F, and any Special Use Permit application, which involves the properties of Pierwell or Chickering. Based on the information submitted, Pierwell’s interest in Pod F, the area affected by the Site Plan, Re-Plat, and Special Use Permit applications, is approximately 29%; Chickering’s interest in Pod F is approximately 11%. Since Pierwell and Chickering each own more than 1% of the property to be affected, the benefit to them would be considered “special.”
|
RQO-15-022 | No prohibited conflict for City employee to assist parent in entering into an arrangement with contractor of the city. ISSUE: A City of Delray Beach employee asked if he would have a prohibited conflict of interest if he assists his mother in entering into an arrangement with AKA Services, Inc. for use of his mother’s property to store equipment and materials for a neighborhood improvement project in exchange for tree removal services and restoration of the property when the project is completed.
HOLDING: The employee would not have a prohibited conflict of interest because the contractor and project manager chose the property on their own. They were not approached by the city employee, and the city employee did not use his official position to arrange this opportunity for his mother. The city employee would also not violate the contractual relationship prohibition because he would not be entering into a contract with the city. His mother would be entering into an agreement with AKA Services, Inc.
|
RQO-15-024 | Voting conflict when serving on the board of directors ISSUE: The attorney for the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) asked:
(1) if a CRA commissioner who serves on the board of directors for a not-for-profit entity is prohibited from voting on a matter that comes before the CRA involving agreements, services, financial assistance, or any other matter related to that not-for-profit entity, when the bylaws for the not-for-profit entity require that a CRA commissioner serve on its board of directors, and
(2) if a CRA commissioner is prohibited from voting on a matter that comes before the CRA involving agreements, services, financial assistance, or any other matter related to a not-for-profit entity of which the CRA commissioner serves as a liaison.
HOLDING: (1) A CRA commissioner who serves on the board of directors for a not-for-profit entity is prohibited from voting on, as well as discussing or participating in, any matter that comes before the CRA involving that not-for-profit entity if the vote would result in a special financial benefit to that entity.
(2) A CRA commissioner who merely serves as a non-voting liaison to a not-for-profit entity is not prohibited from voting on a matter related to that not-for-profit entity as long as none of the prohibited persons or entities listed in Sec. 2-443(a) of the Code would receive a special financial benefit.
|
RQO-15-027 | Misuse of office and voting conflict. ISSUE: The attorney for the City of Riviera Beach asked if Councilman Terence Davis could donate community benefit funds for a program at a local church of which he is a member without violating the Code.
HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit Councilman Davis from donating community benefit funds for a program at St. James Missionary Baptist Church, where neither he nor his spouse is a director or officer of the church, so long as the funds collected are taken into the general revenue funds for the city, and the distribution of these funds to the church is determined to be for a “public purpose.”
|
RQO-15-028 | Advisory board member and conflict of interest issues. ISSUE: A member of the Palm Beach County Library System’s Library Advisory Board (LAB) asked (1) if her service on LAB prohibits her grandchild from being hired by Palm Beach County to work in the library system, and (2) would a prohibited conflict of interest arise with her continued service on LAB if her grandchild is hired to work in the Palm Beach County Library System.
HOLDING: (1) Her service on LAB does not prohibit her grandchild from being hired to work in the library system. However, she must take great care to avoid using her official position to influence others to hire her grandchild. (2) If her grandchild is hired to work in the library system, a prohibited conflict of interest would not exist if she remains a member of LAB so long as she does not use her official position to give a special financial benefit to her grandchild or use her position in an improper manner to obtain a benefit for her grandchild.
|
RQO-15-029 | Elected officials must abstain from voting and may not participate in a matter if they have a voting conflict. ISSUE: The attorney for the City of Riviera Beach asked if “participation” in a matter by an elected official who has a voting conflict concerning that matter is a violation of the Code, even if the official abstained from voting.
HOLDING: Participation in a matter by an elected official who has a voting conflict concerning that matter is a violation of Sec. 2-443(c), even if the official abstained from voting. Under the Code, even if the official abstains from voting, an elected official is prohibited from participating in any matter which would give a special financial benefit to any of the persons or entities specified in Sec. 2-443(a)(1-7).
|
RQO-15-030 | Sealed bid, low bid exception. ISSUE: A City of Delray Beach employee asked if the city issued a competitive bid for police department leased vehicles, would a prohibited conflict of interest arise for a city police information specialist who is the daughter of one of the owners of a company that has submitted a bid, if that company is awarded the bid.
HOLDING: Generally, the contractual relationships provision of the Code would create a prohibited conflict of interest where a business owned by an employee’s father contracts with the municipality. However, because the bid here is awarded by the city under a system of sealed, competitive bidding to the lowest bidder, as long as the employee does not participate in the bid specifications or the award of the bid, does not use influence to persuade the award of the bid, and files a disclosure statement with the Supervisor of Elections and the COE, the exception applies.
|
RQO-10-036 | A vendor who appears before an advisory board may post an advertisement in a member’s outside employer’s newsletter and website. ISSUE: An advisory board member asked whether a vendor who appears before the board may post an advertisement in a newsletter and on the website of his outside employer.
HOLDING: Because there is no financial gain, the conduct does not violate Sec. 2-443(b).
|
RQO-10-031 | County employee may not accept a gift of 2 play tickets where the gift was given because of an “official action taken” or “duty performed.” ISSUE: A county employee asked whether he could accept 2 tickets to a play offered by a person who sought services from him in his official capacity.
HOLDING: Here the gift was offered in appreciation of services which the county employee provides as a normal part of his employment. Because it is tied to the employee’s official act of helping the public, the gift is prohibited by Sec. 2-444(c).
|
RQO-10-026 | Employee may complete REAP Grant application in connection with unpaid duties as a property manager. ISSUE: A county employee asked whether it would violate the code to complete the landlord portion of a REAP Grant application for a prospective tenant in connection with her duties as an unpaid property manager for a rental property owned by her sister.
HOLDING: There is no violation of Sec. 2-443(a) by undertaking this activity. The employee is not using her official position to benefit her sister. Similarly, Sec 2-443(c) is not violated as the employee is not entering into a contract.
|
RQO-10-019* | Volunteer service on board of non-profit permitted ISSUE: A county employee asked whether he may serve as a volunteer board member for the Palm Beach County Red Cross.
HOLDING: Such volunteer service is not misuse of office under the code. However, the employee must not use his official title to confer a financial benefit on the organization (Sec. 2-443 (a) (7)). Similarly, he may not solicit or accept gifts or donations on behalf of the organization from lobbyists, principals, or employers of lobbyists. (Sec. 2-444(a)).
|
RQO-10-009 | No general prohibition against advisory board members working on political campaigns ISSUE: A covered official asked whether the Code of Ethics prohibits advisory board members from working on political campaigns.
HOLDING: There is no general prohibition on this activity under the code. However, paid work, voting conflicts, use of county resources, using an official title, and appearance of impropriety may be prohibited under the code in certain circumstances.
|
RQO-10-004 | Receiving honors at fundraiser ISSUE: A county commissioner asked whether the code prohibited him from being honored at a Temple fundraising dinner when he is not a board member of the Temple and would not participate in any way in fundraising.
HOLDING: The conduct is not prohibited. The commissioner was cautioned that no fundraising could occur by him, that he could not benefit financially, that there be no suggestion that contributors would receive special benefit from him, and that he must also follow the requirements of state law.
(MODIFIED BY RQO11-041) |
RQO-10-003 | Definition of official or employee; potential consultant services conflict ISSUE: The county administrator asked whether a private company, performing consultant services for the county, violates the Code of Ethics, by performing similar services for private clients at the same time.
HOLDING: Because a private consultant (company) is not an “official or employee” under Section 2-422, it is not subject to the prohibited contractual relationships provision of Section 2-433(c).
|
RQO-13-001 | Outside employment issues for advisory board member. ISSUE: Whether outside employment as a coastal engineer with a firm that performs engineering work for the Florida Inland Navigation District creates a conflict for a City Marine Advisory Board member.
HOLDING: The advisory board member is prohibited from participating or voting on an issue that would give a special financial benefit to himself, his outside employer, or a customer or client of his outside employer, not shared with similarly situated members of the general public. While each issue coming before the City Marine Advisory Board will need to be examined individually for any conflict issues, the Code of Ethics does not prohibit him from serving on the board.
|
RQO-13-021 | Public employee is prohibited from using his official position to specially benefit his son or his son’s employer. ISSUE: How the Code of Ethics impacts an employee’s role in a business relationship between the County and Rechtien International where the employee is the Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Fleet Director and his son is an employee of Rechtien International, a vendor of the County.
HOLDING: The employee may not use his official position as Fire Rescue Fleet Director to recommend the purchase of vehicles from his son’s employer, Rechtien International. However, the use of Rechtien International to repair International brand trucks under a “sole source” agreement is not prohibited.
|
RQO-13-023 | Conflict for employee to also serves as director of a non-profit organization. ISSUE: Whether a City employee, who is involved in land development issues, could remain as an unpaid director and managing member of a non-profit, when the City wishes to enter into a 30-year leasing agreement with a subordinate LLC that is created and controlled by the non-profit.
HOLDING: The City employee must resign her positions as a director and managing member of the non-profit prior to the LLC entering into a lease with the City to develop City-owned land, since as a City employee, she supervises the preparation and presentation of staff recommendations regarding land development issues made to City officials charged with approval of such matters, and advises the City Manager and Assistant City Manager on land development issues.
|
RQO-12-001 | Sole source exemption to the contractual relationship prohibition. ISSUE: Whether a public employee’s outside business may continue to provide software support and receive compensation from the City of West Palm Beach for EMS software, previously provided to the City by your company, until a new County system is operational. HOLDING: The employee’s outside business is the sole source provider of software support and maintenance for its EMS software, and the employee is not prohibited from entering into a contract with the City to provide such service provided there is full disclosure of your interest in the business to the City and the Commission on Ethics.
|
RQO-12-003 | Lobbyists are not prohibited from serving on a county or municipal advisory board. ISSUE: Whether the Code prohibits a lobbyist who lobbies Palm Beach County from being appointed to the Palm Beach County Commission of Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit a lobbyist, who does not have a contractual relationship with the county, from serving on a county or municipal advisory board, but advisory board members are prohibited from using their official position to give a special financial benefit, not shared with similarly situated members of the general public, to themselves, their outside employer or business or a customer or client of their outside employer or business. If a conflict exists, the advisory board member must abstain from voting and not participate in the matter before the board.
|
RQO-12-023 | Requirements for non-profit organization honoring County Commissioner at a fundraising event ISSUE: Whether a County Commissioner can be an honoree at non-profit fundraising events.
HOLDING: A County Commissioner is not prohibited from being honored by nonprofit organizations as part of a fundraising event, provided the organization is recognized as a charitable non-profit organization as defined under the Internal Revenue Code. Although the Commissioner will not personally solicit or accept donations for these events, a solicitation log must be maintained by the organization, including any solicitation of or donation by a County vendor or lobbyist.
|
RQO-12-026 | Commissioner not prohibited from sponsoring Small Business Week proclamation ISSUE: Whether a city commissioner, who also serves as a Certified Business Analyst for the Small Business Development Center at Palm Beach State College, may initiate a proclamation declaring May 20-26, 2012, as Small Business Week in the City of Lake Worth concurrently with the United States Business Administration's National Small Business week.
HOLDING: The city commissioner is not prohibited from sponsoring a general proclamation declaring May 20-26, 2012, as Small Business Week in the City concurrently with the United States Business Administration's National Small Business week, provided that her official action does not specially financially benefit herself personally and she does not otherwise obtain a quid pro quo benefit in exchange for her actions.
|
RQO-12-027 | The code specifically excludes other government entities in the definition of outside employer. ISSUE: Whether a City Commissioner, who is also a Certified Business Analyst for the Small Business Development Center at Palm Beach State College, can meet with a City vendor to assist their development as a small business, and whether such a meeting will result in a conflict of interest should this vendor appear before the City Commission in the future.
HOLDING: The code specifically excludes other government entities in the definition of outside employer, so Palm Beach State College does not constitute an outside employer. Unless there is a special financial benefit to the official personally, or a corrupt use of her position for her personal benefit or the benefit of others, inconsistent with the proper performance of her office, the commissioner is not prohibited from assisting the small business. However, counseling the small businesses may result in an appearance of impropriety if the official participates or votes on an issue if this vendor appears before the City Commission in the future.
|
RQO-12-028 | Participation in fundraising event by elected official ISSUE: Whether an elected official may participate in a fundraising event for the benefit of a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, where the official does not serve on the bard of the organization.
HOLDING: An elected official is not prohibited from participating and using his official title in charitable fundraising events, as long as the official or the official’s spouse is not an officer or director of the charitable organization. Any solicitation or acceptance of donations in excess of $100 from City vendors and lobbyists must be recorded and submitted to the COE. The COE recommends that should an individual vendor or lobbyist of the City spend more than $500 at the event, the 20% of his or her receipt representing the charitable donation should be separately logged and recorded by library staff to provide greater transparency.
|
RQO-12-029 | Soliciting funds ISSUE: Whether a member of the Convention and Visitor's Bureau (CVB), appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, may participate in the development of an event where his outside business would solicit public funding from non-profit tourism development organizations, including the CVB.
HOLDING: The board member may not seek funding from the County or any county board or department, since the BCC appointed him to this position. However, this contractual prohibition does not extend to private non-profit entities funded in part by County tax dollars, such as the Palm Beach County Sports Commission, CVB, or Cultural Council. If the official’s business seeks funding from his board, he cannot vote or participate in a presentation before the board.
|
RQO-12-031 | Using or attempting to use one’s official position or the name of her county supervisor to influence or otherwise give yourself a special financial benefit would constitute a violation of the Code. ISSUE: What are the obligations of a county employee in addressing a personal financial dispute between the employee, the Palm Beach County Workforce Alliance (WA), and Florida Atlantic University, when the employee’s supervisor serves on the WA’s board of directors.
HOLDING: A county employee must take great care to not use her official position, and not influence her supervisor, to take or fail to take any action that will result in her receiving a special financial benefit. This may include using her official title in discussions with FAU and WA, using public resources, asking her supervisor to intervene in the dispute or otherwise invoking her position or the position of her supervisor in any aspect of this matter.
|
RQO-12-032 | Official’s monthly travel and expense allowance ISSUE: Whether an elected City official may receive a monthly expense allowance, established by the City Commission by resolution and contained in the City personnel policy manual, to cover travel and expense expenditures made in the performance of his official duties; whether a record of these expenditures should be submitted by the City Commissioners for purposes of transparency; and whether the official can use a portion of the expense stipend to make charitable contributions supporting non-profit organizations within the community, including a school that employs his wife.
HOLDING: A government body may transparently resolve to advance travel and other expenses to the Mayor and City Commissioners, incurred in the performance of their official duties. However, if the expense funds are used for personal benefit and not in the performance of official duties, such use may constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, depending upon the facts and circumstances. Additionally, since neither the official nor his spouse are officers or directors of a non-profit organization, use of expense funds to make charitable contributions would not violate the misuse of office section specific to those conflicts.
|
RQO-12-034* | Employee is not prohibited from accepting hotel rewards points received in exchange for selecting a hotel as a meeting site in her personal capacity for a nongovernment professional organization. A municipal employee is not prohibited from accepting hotel rewards points received in exchange for selecting a hotel as a meeting site in her personal capacity for her nongovernment professional organization's annual conference. ISSUE: Whether a municipal employee may make group hotel and conference center reservations in her private capacity for members of a non-governmental professional organization and receive rewards points through a hotel rewards system; whether her municipal employer can reimburse her travel expenses for the conference where her attendance is in her official capacity, for a public purpose, and approved by her municipal supervisor; and whether the employee is permitted to keep hotel rewards points for her personal hotel stay, notwithstanding the fact that her public employer reimbursed the hotel fees.
HOLDING: A municipal employee is not prohibited from accepting hotel rewards points received in exchange for selecting a hotel as a meeting site in her personal capacity for her nongovernment professional organization's annual conference. As a bargained for benefit of hosting a conference at a Marriott Hotel, the rewards points are not considered a gift and are not reportable. The employee is not prohibited from attending professional development conferences and receiving travel reimbursement from her public employer, so long as her attendance is for governmental purposes, related to her duties and responsibilities as a municipal employee, and attendance has been approved by her supervisor. She is not prohibited from accepting personal hotel reward points related to attending a conference in her official capacity, notwithstanding the fact that her travel expenses are reimbursed by her public employer.
|
RQO-12-037 | Where there is no nexus between a gift given to spouse and employee’s status as a public employee, the gift may be viewed as given to her spouse. ISSUE: Whether a County employee may benefit from gifts given to her husband unrelated to her status as a County employee and if so, whether the value of these gifts must be reported.
HOLDING: Where there is no nexus between the gift and her status as a public employee, the gift may be viewed as given to her spouse and is neither prohibited nor otherwise regulated under the Code, notwithstanding the fact that she may share in its benefit.
|
RQO-12-049 | Profit-sharing transaction with private company ISSUE: Whether the Drowning Prevention Coalition of Palm Beach County (DPC) may enter into a profit-sharing transaction with a private company to sell its products in order to raise funds for a county water safety swim program when no DPC employee has an ownership interest or is employed by the company, personally or through his or her household or family members.
HOLDING: The DPC is not prohibited from selling products provided by the company, reimbursing the company the cost for the products upon sale, and collaterally promoting the product through informational displays and water safety presentations, provided there is no special financial benefit to any DPC employee or related person or entity.
|
RQO-12-051 | The Code does not limit or regulate political activity that does not involve a corrupt misuse of official position. ISSUE: Whether the clerk’s office may provide an elected official with an email database, which is available to the public through a public records request, of local condominium residents and home owner association directors, and whether the use of the database by the elected official to advocate a position on an upcoming issue before the Town Council violates the Code.
HOLDING: The Code does not limit or regulate political activity that does not involve a corrupt misuse of official position. There is no indication that the elected official received a special financial benefit as defined by the Code. Regulation of political activity or public records disclosure is controlled by state and federal law.
|
RQO-12-058 | The Preservation Board member may not participate and vote in a matter involving a proposed construction in a vacant lot adjacent to her home. ISSUE: Whether a member of a Historical Preservation Board may participate and vote in a matter involving a proposed construction in a vacant lot adjacent to her home, where she has filed objections to the proposed construction, and whether the member may attend and participate as an individual homeowner should she be required to abstain.
HOLDING: The Preservation Board member may not participate or vote on this matter. While she remains a member of the Preservation Board, she may not personally participate, notwithstanding her views as an individual homeowner.
|
RQO-12-059 | Where the frequency of conflicts becomes significant, such an arrangement creates an appearance of impropriety. ISSUE: Whether a member of a Historical Preservation Board may "hire out as a personal consultant to the persons submitting the plans for board review."
HOLDING: While the Code does not address the issue of recurring conflicts, where the frequency of conflicts becomes significant, such an arrangement creates an appearance of impropriety. An official is prohibited from participating in discussions, presentations or voting on any issue that comes before her board which would specially financially benefit a customer or client of hers. The member may not solicit business or otherwise use her official position as a member of the Preservation Board, for her personal financial benefit or the benefit of her outside business, employer or client.
|
RQO-12-061 | Public employee serving on non-profit’s board of directors ISSUE: Whether county water utilities staff may take training from a non-profit organization when two county water utilities superintendents serve on the non-profit’s board of directors and the non-profit receives payment from the county for the training.
HOLDING: County employees are prohibited from using their position as water utilities superintendents to give a special financial benefit, not shared with similarly situated training providers, to a non-profit organization of which they are directors. The superintendents may not select one non-profit over other similarly situated organizations while serving as directors of that non-profit. In order for the non-profit to continue providing training for county staff, the board members must either resign their positions with the non-profit, or remove themselves entirely from any involvement in the selection, organization, or approval process regarding all future training sessions.
|
RQO-12-063 | In evaluating conflict of interest, the COE considers the number of persons who stand to gain from a decision and whether the gain or loss is remote and speculative. ISSUE: Whether an employee of a corporation that owns property within a study area may serve on an advisory board created to review potential development proposals for the study area and if so, whether he may participate and vote on any ultimate recommendation submitted to the Town.
HOLDING: Where the class of persons who stand to gain from a decision is small, it is more likely that a member will have a conflict. Here, based upon the limited class of persons or entities (15 landowning entities) that stand to gain from the board’s process and the absence of significant contingencies to obtain that gain if changes are approved, the potential financial benefit to a board member's employer is not so remote and speculative as to eliminate a conflict of interest. In evaluating conflict of interest, the COE considers 1) the number of persons who stand to gain from a decision and 2) whether the gain or loss is remote and speculative.
|
RQO-12-065 | Financial benefit to personal friend. ISSUE: Whether an ongoing conflict of interest exists based upon a friendship between a Councilman and a Village resident.
HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit the Councilman from voting on matters that may result in a financial benefit to his personal friend, so long as the Councilman does not use his official position to corruptly to secure a special benefit for his friend in a manner inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duty, or use his official position to obtain a special financial benefit for himself.
|
RQO-12-068 | Town Commissioner is not prohibited from assisting her homeowner's association in her personal capacity as resident and homeowner. ISSUE: Whether a Town Commissioner is prohibited from assisting members of her homeowners association in cleaning up a local lake.
HOLDING: The Commissioner may not participate or vote on the project should it come before the Town Council or use her official position or title in any way to advance the project. However, she is not prohibited from assisting her homeowner's association in her personal capacity as resident and homeowner. In working with her neighbors on this project in her personal capacity, she must keep in mind that using resources uniquely accessible to her as a Commissioner to benefit the lake project will violate this prohibition.
|
RQO-12-070 | Acceptance of tickets ISSUE: Whether complimentary tickets may be given to local elected officials to attend a gala, hosted by a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, where the tickets are supplied directly by the non-profit. The non-profit does not employ lobbyists and is not a vendor of the County or any municipality within the County.
HOLDING: Elected officials are not prohibited from accepting a ticket, pass, or admission in connection with public events related to official county or municipal business, if furnished by the non-profit organization sponsoring the event, as long as the non-profit are not vendors and do not lobby. If the value of tickets given to any individual elected official or employee exceeds $100, the tickets are reportable as gifts under the Code of Ethics and/or state law.
|
RQO-12-071 | Chairman of advisory board is not prohibited from voting on a matter where his interest in the affected area would be less than one-tenth of a percent. ISSUE: Whether the Chairman of the Wellington Planning, Zoning, and Adjustment Board is prohibited from on voting on a matter coming before his board regarding a new development in one of the subdivisions within his property owners association when there are 1450 owners in the POA.
HOLDING: Any financial benefit or loss attributable to him as an individual homeowner with the POA, is "shared with similarly situated members of the general public" and does not constitute a unique circumstance whereby his personal gain or loss exceeds significantly other members of the affected class because his interest in the area is less than one-tenth of a percent.
|
RQO-12-072 | Prohibition from soliciting contributions from members of the public and other governmental entities in official capacity. ISSUE: Whether County Commissioner is prohibited from soliciting donations from members of the public and/or other governmental entities for her weekend radio show, and whether it is appropriate for her to use her Palm Beach County email as a County Commissioner to publicize her Sunday morning program.
HOLDING: The Commissioner is prohibited from soliciting donations from members of the public and other governmental entities in her official capacity. She is not prohibited from soliciting donations for her radio program in her personal capacity, so long as she does not solicit or accept donations in excess of $100 from vendors, lobbyists, principals or employers of lobbyists of Palm Beach County.
|
RQO-12-075 | The councilman is prohibited from voting on or participating in an application that may result in a financial benefit to a fellow board member. ISSUE: Whether a Councilman, who also serves as the chairman of the board of a private company, is prohibited from voting on changes to a zoning variance unrelated to his board or outside employer, where the variance is opposed by an entity owned in part by another board member of the official’s outside employer.
HOLDING: The official may not vote on this matter because the potential financial benefit to someone who is known to him to work for his outside employer is not remote or speculative.
|
RQO-12-076 | Sealed bid, low bid exemption to contractual relationship prohibition. ISSUE: Whether a prohibited conflict of interest is created if an employee’s outside business bids for and is awarded a contract with Palm Beach County, his public employer.
HOLDING: The code provides an exemption for contracts entered into under a process of sealed, competitive bidding, where an employee’s outside business is the lowest bidder, provided that he has not participated in the bid specifications or determination of the lowest bidder, has not used his position in any way to influence the award, and has disclosed the nature of his interest in the business submitting the bid.
|
RQO-12-080 | The brother-in-law of a Village employee is not prohibited from submitting a proposal to her municipal employer. ISSUE: Whether a Village employee is prohibited from considering and awarding a bid submitted by her brother-in-law.
HOLDING: The brother-in-law of the employee is not prohibited from submitting a proposal to her municipal employer. While the Code prohibits the employee from using her official position to give herself or her sister a special financial benefit, it does not prohibit her from overseeing the contract specifications or award between her municipality and her brother-in-law. However, this scenario creates an appearance of impropriety. Therefore, the COE recommends that another member of the staff or another department supervisor review the qualifications and issue the award should her brother-in-law submit a proposal.
|
RQO-12-082 | When all existing similarly situated businesses would be affected equally by plan, there is no prohibited special financial benefit. ISSUE: Whether an elected official is prohibited from voting on a "cure plan" proposed by the Florida Department of Transportation and Town of Palm Beach Staff where an employee who works for the official's outside employer is a part-owner of two restaurants within the plan area.
HOLDING: The "cure plan" is unrelated to the restaurant’s application and by its very nature does not benefit a particular business, shop, or restaurant. Rather, it is a plan of general application related to the available public parking spaces for over 100 businesses, shops and restaurants. Because all existing similarly situated businesses would be affected equally by plan, there is no prohibited special financial benefit.
|
RQO-12-083 | Conflict of interest exists when the number of persons or entities directly affected by potential changes is too small a class to be considered similarly situated to members of the general public. ISSUE: Whether a Councilman is prohibited from voting on changes to zoning regulations relating to a five-acre area where an employee who works for the official’s outside employer is a part-owner of two restaurants within the plan area. The restaurant owner is one of 15 property owners that would be subject to any changes approved by the Town Council, and if adopted, property owners would be eligible to apply for incentives allowed for by the change.
HOLDING: Councilman Wildrick is prohibited from voting on this matter. The number of persons or entities directly affected by potential changes is too small a class to be considered similarly situated to members of the general public. The Town Councilman may not use his official position, including participation and voting on an issue before the Town Council, to give a special financial benefit to a person who is known to him to work for his outside employer.
|
RQO-12-085 | An elected official is not prohibited or restricted from volunteering personal time to a charitable organization, in a non-fundraising capacity ISSUE: Whether a councilperson, who is also a member (not an officer or director) of a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, can volunteer to serve on an ad hoc committee of that organization to review student applications and interview students for the purpose of awarding college scholarships.
HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit or restrict the councilperson from volunteering his personal time to a charitable organization, in a non-fundraising capacity, to select high school candidates for college scholarships, provided that he does not use his official position to obtain a quid pro quo or to specially financially benefit a person or entity with whom he has a fiduciary, familial or financial relationship.
|
RQO-11-120 | Whether the size and volume of customers of a national banking institution eliminates a conflict of interest in the context of similarly situated members of the general public. ISSUE: Whether an elected official whose outside employer is a large national bank or financial institution, is required to abstain in every instance any client or customer of the outside employer appears before her board.
HOLDING: An official who is employed by a large national bank as a "business banker" at a local bank branch and responsible for opening small business/customer accounts, does not automatically have a conflict when customers of the bank appear before her due to the fact that the pool (i.e., number of similarly situated persons) of bank customers is sufficiently large to avoid a violation of the Code. However, personal or branch clients may present a conflict.
|
RQO-11-117 | A board member is prohibited from presenting his client's project to his board at any point in time, and he is prohibited from working with his board’s staff once a matter has come before the board. ISSUE: (1)May a General Contractor, who serves on the community appearance board (CAB), work with city staff on non-CAB matters to complete the permitting process for his outside employer and continue working with the staff after the matter before the CAB is concluded, and (2) may he present a project, which requires Community Redevelopment Agency authorization, that authorization process requires the applicant to come before the CAB for comments on a preliminary basis, to the CAB when no vote will be taken.
HOLDING: The board member is prohibited from presenting his client's project to the CAB board at any point in time, and he is prohibited from working with CAB staff once a matter has come before the CAB board. The Code does not prohibit a business associate from representing a customer or client provided that the board member publicly discloses the nature of the conflict, files the required state disclosure form, refrains from voting, and does not participate in or influence the process. Once a matter before the CAB has been concluded and is no longer subject to its decision-making authority, the board member is not prohibited from working with CAB staff in the normal course of business and during construction. The CAB member is not prohibited from meeting with and presenting to non-CAB City staff and other related city advisory boards before or after a vote is taken by the CAB, so long as he does so in his professional and not official capacity.
|
RQO-11-116 | $10,000 threshold value calculation for customer or client ISSUE: (1) How the $10,000 threshold value of goods or services provided to a customer or client of an official or employee's outside employer is calculated when the employer is a national financial institution, (2) in the event that an official or employee's outside employer is divided into operational departments and/or divisions, should all goods and services for all departments be included in the calculation of the threshold amount, and (3) does the reference in the code to the "previous 24 month period" suggest that each time a matter comes before a governing body, an official recalculate the aggregate value of goods or services provided to a customer or client of their outside employer to ascertain whether or not the $10,000 threshold has been met.
HOLDING: With respect to a banking institution, $10,000 means the aggregate of total goods or services provided to a customer or client over the course of a 24 month period whether in the form of goods, fees, or financial services, including mortgage interest costs if the mortgage is serviced by the bank. For the purpose of calculating the $10,000 threshold, so long as the employer has provided $10,000 in goods or services, which department provided those services has no significance. The relevant threshold amount is determined at the time a matter comes before a council, board, or commission. Therefore, should a customer or client return to petition the council, the value of goods or services provided over the previous 24 months is calculated at that time.
|
RQO-11-115 | Lending name and official title to fundraise for a charity, while serving as an officer or director for that charity, is prohibited. ISSUE: Whether a City Manager could also serve on the board of directors of a non-profit charitable organization and whether he could continue to fundraise on behalf of the non-profit organization.
HOLDING: While serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization, the City Manager may not use his public position, such as lending his name and official title to a fundraising effort, to give the non-profit a special financial benefit, not shared with similarly-situated charitable organizations. If the City Manager chooses to use only his name and not his official title to solicit on behalf of the charity or to resign his position as an officer or director, he must keep a detailed log of any solicitation of donations from vendors or lobbyists of the City in excess of $100.
|
RQO-11-112 | Donations for public purpose and donations for personal benefit of employees ISSUE: Whether an officer and director of the public safety non-profit organization, who is also an employee of a city police department, may solicit donations from City residents for the benefit of the police department and its employees and if so, in what manner may they solicit such donations.
HOLDING: The City employee who serves as officer and director of the non-profit may not use his official position in any way, including official title on the organization's letterhead, to solicit donations. Except for donations specifically earmarked to the police department solely for a public purpose, such as the purchase of equipment or training, employees may not solicit donations on behalf of the non-profit from Town vendors or lobbyists.
|
RQO-11-107 | Board members are officials, under the Code of Ethics, if they are appointed by the BCC or one of the 38 municipal governing bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the COE. ISSUE: Whether members of the Countywide Intergovernmental Coordination Program boards are subject to the Code of Ethics.
HOLDING: The Program was not created solely by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) or by a municipal governing body. Therefore, it is not an advisory board within the meaning of the Code of Ethics. However, members of the Program's three boards are officials, as defined under the Code of Ethics, if they are appointed by the BCC or one of the 38 municipal governing bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission on Ethics.
|
RQO-11-099 | Whether or not an official or employee knows or should know of a conflict of interest can only be made on a case by case basis. ISSUE: Whether an elected official, whose outside employer is a large national bank or financial institution, is required to abstain in every instance any client or customer of the outside employer appears before her board. HOLDING: A determination of whether or not an offi cial or employee knows or should know of a conflict of interest can only be made on a case by case basis, based on the facts and circumstances presented. If there is no apparent financial nexus, and the circumstances indicate no direct or constructive knowledge on the official's part indicating a special financial benefit to their employer or client, then a violation is unlikely. However, if a person or company comes before a governing body, and the official knows them as a customer or client of his or her outside employer, the conflict is apparent.
|
RQO-11-096 | A Town Attorney may not participate in a RFQ process for a new Town Attorney contract if he or his outside employer is seeking the contract. ISSUE: Whether the current Town Attorney, who has a contract with the Town through his law firm, may meet for lunch with Town employees or officials to discuss the RFQ process to select his replacement after he resigned his position.
HOLDING: A Town Attorney may not participate in a RFQ process for a new Town Attorney contract if he or his outside employer is seeking the contract. A contract employee of the Town, with a pending application before the Town, may not discuss the application with officials or employees unless all other applicants are given the same opportunity in the same manner as that employee. This extends to an application submitted by the employee's outside employer. If the Town Attorney or his outside employer is not seeking to contract with the Town, the issue of special financial benefit is moot, and the Town Attorney is not prohibited from meeting with employees or officials in the matter.
|
RQO-11-094 | Fundraising by employee when her son would receive the benefit ISSUE: Whether a municipal employee may participate in fundraising efforts on behalf of Project Graduation for the high school, when her child plans to attend the event.
HOLDING: Public employees are not prohibited, in their personal capacity, from soliciting or accepting donations for the benefit of their children, from persons and entities who are not vendors or lobbyists of the municipality, as long as there is no quid pro quo or other benefit given for an official act or performance of a public duty and they do not use their official position or title to solicit donations.
|
RQO-11-090 | Sealed bid, low bid exemption to the contractual relationship prohibition. ISSUE: Whether a prohibited conflict of interest is created if the spouse of a public employee bids for and is awarded a contract to provide lawn and landscape services to the Town for which the employee works.
HOLDING: The code provides an exemption for contracts entered into under a process of sealed, competitive bidding, where the spouse’s business is the lowest bidder, provided that the employee has not participated in the bid specifications or determination of the lowest bidder, has not used his position in any way to influence his colleagues, and has disclosed the nature of his interest in the business submitting the bid.
|
RQO-11-086 | County employees are not prohibited from playing the Florida or Powerball lotteries ISSUE: Whether it violates the Code of Ethics for employees of Palm Beach County Fire Rescue to participate as a group in the Florida or Powerball Lotteries, and whether the employees can use their personal computer at home to scan copies of lottery tickets purchased and then email these copies to their coworkers using the county email system.
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit County employees from playing the Florida or Powerball lotteries, which are both authorized and sanctioned lottery systems by the State of Florida, either individually or as a group. The use of county email to send personal messages as described does not reach the level of being a corrupt misuse of official position.
|
RQO-11-085 | Elected official with an Outside business ISSUE: An elected member of a Town Council asked if it violates the Code of Ethics for her, as a shareholder of an engineering and consulting firm, to work as both designer and inspector on a project for a municipality, where her stepson works for the construction company that is contracted to work on the project.
HOLDING: When the official or her firm is contracted by a local municipality to design and oversee a specific engineering project, and where she or her firm has no power to determine what specific contractor is engaged by the client municipality to complete the work on that project, and where her contract with the municipality does not indicate that you are engaged as contract personnel or contract administrator performing a government function, she is acting as a "vendor" for the municipality and the Code does not apply. However, where she is contracted by a municipality as a Town Engineer to review and oversee all engineering projects within a municipality, she is performing a government function and assumes the role of contract employee, and she is prohibited from taking or influencing others to take any official action that would give your step-son's employer a "special financial benefit" not available to other similarly situated contractors. As an elected official, she and her firm are prohibited from entering into any contract for goods and services with the Town unless one of several exceptions applies, and she is prohibited from voting on or participating in any matter that would give a special financial benefit to her firm, her stepson, or his employer.
|
RQO-11-084 | Prohibited gift from vendor ISSUE: Whether the City Council may direct $45,000, semi-annually, from Waste Management of Florida, Inc. pursuant to contract, to be donated to "charitable events, not-for-profit organizations, or City functions or projects." Each City Councilperson personally determines what organization will receive up to $7,500 of the funds semi-annually; however, the donations are made directly by WMF to the event, organization or city project.
HOLDING: Although the funds are earmarked by contract, they do not come within the municipal budget to be used by the municipality directly for public purpose. The donations are given directly by the vendor to the recipient, without inclusion into the public budget. To the extent that these donations are given to private entities, they would constitute a gift, given by the City vendor on behalf of the councilperson, and are prohibited if in excess of $100. Therefore, the current system of direct distribution of funds by Waste Management to any non-City entity or program in this manner is prohibited by the Code of Ethics.
|
RQO-11-081 | Public employees may solicit and accept donations for scholarship programs from persons and entities who are not vendors or lobbyists. ISSUE: Whether the Town’s public safety employees may participate in fundraising events on behalf of several scholarship programs where their children may be eligible to receive scholarship dollars from those funds.
HOLDING: Public safety employees who have a dependent child who may become eligible to receive scholarships from these programs may not use their official public position or title, directly or indirectly, to give a special financial benefit to themselves, their children, or the charitable organization. The employees are not prohibited from soliciting or accepting donations for scholarship programs from persons and entities who are not vendors or lobbyists of the Town, as long as there is no quid pro quo or other benefit given for an official act or the past, present or future performance of a public duty and they do not use their official position or title if their children are eligible for, or already receiving,
|
RQO-11-080 | Educational scholarships for Town employees. ISSUE: Whether the children of Town employees may accept educational scholarships sponsored by the Palm Beach Civic Association and the Citizen's Association of Palm Beach and administered by the Town.
HOLDING: Town of Palm Beach employees are not prohibited from accepting scholarship dollars on behalf of their children from the Town of Palm Beach. Employees may not use their official position to take, fail to take or influence others to take or fail to take any action In order to secure a scholarship for their child. Should the value of these scholarships exceed $100, the scholarships funds are a reportable gift and must be disclosed in the appropriate annual gift reporting form.
|
RQO-11-078 | Advisory board member conflict with spouse’s outside employer ISSUE: Whether a conflict of interest exists if an appointed volunteer advisory board member you to also serves on the board of directors of three non-profit organizations, including one in which his wife is the executive director, and these organizations may apply for grant funding from the advisory board.
HOLDING: An appointed volunteer advisory board member is not prohibited from serving on the board as long as he does not use his appointed office to give his spouse's outside employer or the non-profits of which he serves as an officer or director a special financial benefit. When faced with a conflict, he must disclose, not participate, and file the required conflict disclosure form 8B.
|
RQO-11-072 | Employee is not prohibited from serving as a juror for the ArtiGras selection committee and accepting a stipend for her time and effort. ISSUE: Whether a City employee may receive compensation from the Northern Palm Beach County Chamber of Commerce for selecting artists to participate in its 27th annual ArtiGras Fine Arts Festival.
HOLDING: The City employee is not prohibited from serving as a juror for the ArtiGras selection committee and accepting a stipend for her time and effort. The value of her time in preparation for and attendance at the events is consideration for the stipend and meal, which are not "gifts" within the meaning of the code.
|
RQO-11-059 | Employees participate in fundraiser ISSUE: Whether public employees may participate in the American Cancer Society’s Making Strides against Breast Cancer fundraiser.
HOLDING: Public employees may participate in the annual American Cancer Society fundraiser, but use of on-duty staff or municipal resources to solicit contributions for this event from vendors or lobbyists is prohibited. The exception to the $100 gift limit from vendors and lobbyists applies here, so long as there is no quid pro quo or other special consideration, including any special financial benefit to the employee or the person or entity being solicited. A solicitation log must be maintained and submitted to the COE within 30 days of the fundraising event.
|
RQO-11-058 | A county employee is not prohibited from obtaining a Palm Beach County-funded HUD loan where they are approved for the loan on the same terms as any other Palm Beach County resident. ISSUE: Whether an income-eligible county employee may receive a purchase assistance mortgage or rehabilitation mortgage from the Palm Beach County Housing and Community Development Department, a program that is funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
HOLDING: In this case, county employees are receiving and contracting for the same benefit as eligible members of the general public which is an exception to section 2-442(d). Because the HUD program is advertised to employees in the same manner as it is advertised to the general public, and employees must be income-eligible in the same way as any other member of the public, they are similarly situated and there is no special financial benefit.
|
RQO-11-052 | Public employees and officials are not prohibited from accepting discounts from local restaurants ISSUE: Whether an offer of a 15% discount for all municipal employees by the Friendly's Restaurant located within the municipality violates the Code of Ethics.
HOLDING: The Friendly's Restaurant is not a vendor or lobbyist of the municipality. A discount to all similarly situated government employees does not violate the Code of Ethics, provided that no "quid pro quo" or special privilege or treatment given to the restaurant in exchange for the discount.
|
RQO-11-044 | The Code of Ethics for co-workers to agree to switch work shifts. ISSUE: Whether it violates the Code of Ethics for co-workers to agree to switch work shifts, where one worker agreed to provide additional financial compensation directly to the co-worker who agreed to work the less desirable shift.
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit co-workers from switching work shifts, even where one receives additional financial compensation from the other.
|
RQO-11-042 | A public employee cannot oversee or participate in transactions between the city he works for and his outside employer or his wife's outside employer. ISSUE: Whether the Greenacres Parks Supervisor’s part-time employment and his spouse's full-time employment with Publix, a vendor of Greenacres, create a prohibited conflict of interest under the Code, where his public employment requires him to purchase items on behalf of Greenacres and the items are purchased from Publix.
HOLDING: An employee may not use his public position to give a special financial benefit to his outside employer or his spouse's outside employer. Thus, he is prohibited from overseeing or participating in transactions between his outside employer or his wife's outside employer and Greenacres. Unless the facts and circumstances of the transactions come within an exception to the section 2-443(d), he may not maintain both his public and private employment without violating this section of the code.
|
RQO-11-038 | No inherent special financial benefit to monopoly’s customers ISSUE: Whether a Town official’s outside employment by FPL presented an inherent conflict of interest based upon customers and clients of FPL appearing before his council in most, if not all decision-making matters. FPL is effectively the sole source of electric power, making individuals and businesses within the Town customers or clients of FPL.
HOLDING: Most persons and entities coming before the council would be similarly situated members of the general public as customers or clients of FPL. Because FPL is a publicly regulated utility and maintains an effective monopoly among users of electric power within the community, the official is not inherently in violation of the misuse of office or voting conflict provisions of the Code. The fact that his outside employer maintains contracts with the Town is not a prohibited contractual relationship because FPL is the sole source provider within the Town.
|
RQO-11-037 | Appearance of impropriety ISSUE: Whether the sibling relationship between a town’s Building Official and his brother, who has an ownership interest in a private firm hired by a landowner of commercial property to act as a Resident Inspector on a construction project, creates a prohibited conflict of interest, where the Resident Inspector is required to submit inspection and compliance reports to the Building Official, and where the Building Official is responsible for final approval of the work completed.
HOLDING: There is no per se prohibited conflict of interest created when a town’s Building Official completes his inspection and compliance assessment duties, provided that in completing his official duties, the Building Official does not act or fail to act, or influence others to act or fail to act, in any manner that will result in a special financial benefit for his brother that is not shared by other landowners. However, the issue of an appearance of impropriety is clearly present in such an arrangement.
|
RQO-11-036 | Volunteer work at non-profit ISSUE: Whether a county employee’s volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity of Palm Beach County or their Family Support Committee, both non-vendors of the county, causes a prohibited conflict of interest under the Code. Neither the employee nor any member of his household is an officer or member of the board of directors of Habitat for Humanity.
HOLDING: A prohibited conflict of interest is not created for the employee who chooses to volunteer during non-working hours with HFH or their Family Support Committee, so long as he does not corruptly misuse his official position with the county to benefit himself, or HFH.
|
RQO-11-035 | Public employees serving as pension board members ISSUE: Whether Trustees for the Palm Tran Pension Plan, as members of the Palm Tran Pension Board, are subject to the jurisdiction of the COE and Code of Ethics, and if the trustees are subject to the Code, what are their duties and responsibilities regarding the Board’s related seminars and conferences?
HOLDING: While the Trustees are not considered "officials" within the definitions of the Code, and the Pension Board is not considered an advisory board, the current Trustees of the Pension Board are also employees of the county and are required to comply with the Code of Ethics. There is a sufficient nexus between their duties as trustees and status as county employees to require adherence to the financial and corrupt misuse sections of the code in matters involving the Pension Board. Trustees must also comply with code provisions regarding acceptance of travel expenses from contractors and vendors of the county or soliciting or accepting prohibited gifts from lobbyists or vendors of the county.
|
RQO-11-034 | Charity events and complimentary lunches ISSUE: Whether the Director of Construction or his employer, who own and operate The Gardens Mall, are prohibited from inviting officials and employees of Palm Beach Gardens or the County to attend various charity events as guests, where the cost of attendance is paid for by the employer; and whether the Director is prohibited from providing complementary lunches to various city employees at monthly meetings to discuss a range of issues concerning the Gardens Mall and the PGA corridor area.
HOLDING: Since the Director of Construction and his employer are non-vendors and non-lobbyists, he is not prohibited from giving the officials or employees complementary tickets to charity events, or complementary lunches at meetings, so long as these items are provided to the official or employee directly from the employer, and as long as these items are not provided to "corruptly" and improperly influence officials or employees in carrying out their official duties, or indirectly provided by a prohibited source. If the value of admission to a charity event, or the value of the lunch is greater than $100, the official or employee needs to report it.
|
RQO-11-033 | The Code of Ethics does not regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. ISSUE: Whether it is a violation of the Code of Ethics for an elected official to use money left over from her campaign to help pay for a trip to Southend-on-Sea, England where she will represent her municipality at a conference and street painting festival modeled after the Lake Worth Street Painting Festival.
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics neither prohibits nor authorizes the use of campaign funds. These issues are subject to regulation under state and federal law.
|
RQO-11-030 | Existence of inherent conflict of interest ISSUE: Whether a county employee, who also serves as an officer of a non-profit organization, can be involved in matters where she directly assesses the eligibility of applicants for county housing assistance funds, when the applicants include potential clients of the non-profit organization on which she serves.
HOLDING: An inherent conflict of interest exists between the employee’s assigned duties as a county employee and her position as an officer and board member of the non-profit organization. Regardless of whether she has final authority over approval of applications for housing assistance from her employer, her responsibility is to assess applications for housing assistance funds, and the Code prohibits an employee from using her official position to take any action that would lead to a financial benefit for the non-profit organization due to her position as an officer and/or member of the board of directors
|
RQO-11-027 | Employee, who is an officer or director of a non-profit organization, may not use city resources, such as city email, to ask city employees to volunteer for the event. ISSUE: Whether a municipal employee, who also serves as president of a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, can obtain and use an official database to email other municipal employees and officials and ask them to volunteer at an upcoming event.
HOLDING: The employee is prohibited from using his official position to give a special financial benefit to a non-profit organization of which he is an officer or director. Because he is the president of the non-profit, he may not personally use city resources, such as city email, to ask city employees to volunteer for the event.
|
RQO-11-023 | A county commissioner may solicit on behalf of political party as long as it is not prohibited conduct or corrupt misuse of official position ISSUE: A county commissioner asked whether he may solicit donations on behalf of a political party.
HOLDING: As political contributions are specifically exempted from the definition of a gift, he may solicit them. However, care must be exercised not to run afoul of the prohibited conduct or corrupt misuse of official position sections in doing so.
|
RQO-11-010 | County employee may serve on the board of a non-profit organization but may not use official position to financially benefit the non-profit organization. ISSUE: A county employee asked whether the Code of Ethics prohibits her from serving on the board of a non-profit organization.
HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit this service. However, the employee must take great care to not use her official position to financially benefit the organization or solicit or accept a gift in excess of $100 from a lobbyist, principal or employer of a lobbyist.
|
RQO-11-008 | County employee may not accept gift cards offered in appreciation of official action taken or duty performed. ISSUE: A County employee asked whether she could accept two “thank you” gift cards offered by a citizen who appreciated her work on a pending matter.
HOLDING: Such gifts are prohibited by Sec. 2 – 444 as they are offered because of an official public action taken or a legal duty performed.
|
RQO-11-006 | Lagoon tour for commissioner not a gift but bringing nieces may be prohibited conduct. ISSUE: A County commissioner asked whether a lagoon tour sponsored by the county for a public purpose is a gift. Also asked was whether she could bring her nieces along for an educational purpose.
HOLDING: The trip was not a prohibited gift. However, bring her nieces along would be a misuse of office as it confers a special benefit. Paying the fair value of the trip, assuming full reimbursement, would cure any code violations regarding the niece’s attendance.
|
RQO-11-003 | Advisory board waiver not necessary where outside employer does not have contracts with county. ISSUE: An advisory board member asked whether is necessary for him to obtain a waiver from the board of county commissioners to serve where his outside employer does not maintain contracts with the county.
HOLDING: Because the outside employer does not have contracts with the county, the waiver provision in Sec. 2-443(c) is not invoked. The employee does not need a waiver in this situation.
|
RQO-11-088 | An employee of a vendor is not prohibited from serving on volunteer advisory boards for the municipality. ISSUE: Whether it violates the Code for an employee of AT&T, a vendor of communication services to the City of Boca Raton, to serve on either of two (2) Boca Raton Advisory Boards, The Downtown Boca Raton Advisory Committee (DAC), and The Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA).
HOLDING: It does not violate the Code for an employee of a city vendor to serve on either the DAC or ZBA, provided that neither of the advisory boards of which the employee is a member provides regulation, oversight, management, or policy-setting recommendations regarding Boca Raton's contracts or transactions with his outside employer, and provided that this conflict is disclosed at a duly noticed public meeting of the City Council.
|
RQO-10-020* | Representing county department on board of non-profit which receives grants from the county would constitute misuse of office ISSUE: A county planner (employee) asked whether she may represent the county as a board member of a non-profit where the business and funding of that corporation includes an on-going relationship with the county.
HOLDING: Service as a board member under these circumstances would constitute misuse of office as the on-going relationship between the county and this non-profit are intricately intertwined.
|
RQO-15-011 | Writing letter on official letterhead ISSUE: A West Palm Beach Police Department captain asked if the Code prohibits the Chief of Police from writing a letter on official letterhead, which does not ask for donations but states that the West Palm Beach Police Foundation (Foundation) is the only charitable organization with a partnership with the Police Department.
HOLDING: As long as there is no quid pro quo in exchange for the letter or a special financial benefit to any of the prohibited persons or entities listed in Sec. 2-443(a) of the Code, the Chief of Police is not prohibited from writing a letter on official letterhead, which only states that the Foundation is the only charitable organization with a partnership with the Police Department.
|
RQO-15-032 | No prohibited conflict of interest involving a cousin’s employer. ISSUE: A City of Delray Beach employee asked if a conflict of interest would arise for him if the City of Delray Beach purchases light fixtures from his cousin’s employer, SESCO Lighting.
HOLDING: A prohibited conflict of interest would not arise for him if the city purchases light fixtures from his cousin’s employer. The Code prohibits him from using his position in any way to give a special financial benefit to specified persons or entities. A cousin and a cousin’s outside business or employer are not among the persons or entities specified in Sec. 2-443(a)(1-7). However, if he is concerned about this appearance of impropriety, he may choose to select a different lighting vendor for such projects.
|
RQO-15-034 | Not a conflict of interest for advisory board member to learn about Town’s new accounting system. ISSUE: The vice chair of the Town of Loxahatchee Groves’ Financial Advisory and Audit Committee (FAAC), which advises the Town Council on issues related to the town’s budget, financial activities and performance, and annual audit, asked if a prohibited conflict of interest would arise for him if he volunteers to learn about the town’s new accounting system.
HOLDING: A prohibited conflict of interest would not arise for him if he familiarizes himself with the new accounting system since taking such an action will not result in a special financial benefit to him. The new accounting system is related to his duties and responsibilities as a FAAC member since the FAAC members use the information processed by the accounting software to give financial and audit advice.
|
RQO-15-037 | Conflict of Interest ISSUE: The Chief Assistant County Attorney asked if a conflict of interest would arise for a member of the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission, if G.L. Homes appears before her board when her client, Tuscany Property Owners Association, Inc. (POA), presently consists of officers who are associated with G.L. Homes.
HOLDING: A prohibited conflict of interest would not arise for Ms. Scarborough if G.L. Homes appears before the Zoning Commission because G.L. Homes and the POA are separate legal entities. While there may be no per se conflict of interest created for Ms. Scarborough under the Code regarding the appearance of G.L. Homes before the Zoning Commission, since officers associated with G.L. Homes currently control the POA, there may be an appearance of impropriety if G.L. Homes appears before her board. This appearance of impropriety would exist until developer control of the POA cedes to the unit owners.
|
RQO-16-006 | Municipal employee's outside business ISSUE: An employee of the City of Boynton Beach asked if she was prohibited from providing contracting and other services, during her non-work hours, to businesses and individuals located outside the city. HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit the employee from providing contracting and other services, during her non-work hours, to businesses and individuals located outside the City of Boynton Beach so long as those business and individuals are not vendors of the City, and the contract does not require her to provide services to the City. |
RQO-15-045 | The Code exempts governmental entities from the definition of "outside employer." ISSUE: A prospective member of the Palm Tran Service Board (PTSB) asked if the Code prohibits her from serving as a PTSB member if her husband works for the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County and if she may still seek employment with Palm Beach County or with Palm Tran. HOLDING: Her husband’s employment at the Solid Waste Authority, a governmental entity, would not prohibit her from serving as a PTSB member. In addition, the Code does not prohibit her from seeking employment with the County or with Palm Tran as long as she does not use her position on the PTSB or influence others to take or fail to take any action which would give her a special financial benefit. |
RQO-15-049 | Participation in referral program only allowed in limited circumstances ISSUE: A Palm Beach County Fire Rescue (PBFR) captain asked if PBFR employees, as emergency medical services professionals (EMS professional), are prohibited from participating in a referral program with the private personal emergency response service “Life Alert” by personally referring people who can benefit from monitoring services offered by Life Alert in exchange for receiving a monetary fee for each person who enters into an agreement with Life Alert. HOLDING: EMS professionals employed by PBFR, as well as EMS professionals employed by local municipalities, are not prohibited from participating in the Life Alert referral program and receiving monetary fees from Life Alert for such referrals, as long as they do not use their public employment to assist them in any manner while participating in this referral program, including suggesting such services to a patient, family member, or caregiver of a patient, and so long as they strictly adhere to the narrow circumstances listed in this opinion. The EMS professionals may not make any referral solicitations on or off duty while in uniform, or while displaying any badge, insignia or emblem that identifies them as a publicly employed EMS professional.
|
RQO-15-042 | Employee cannot give special financial benefit to spouse's outside employer ISSUE: An employee of Palm Tran asked if her husband’s employment at Maruti Transit, a vendor of Palm Tran Connection, created a prohibited conflict of interest for her. HOLDING: Her husband’s employment would not create a prohibited conflict of interest for her as long as she does not wrongfully use her official position or influence others to take any action to corruptly secure a special benefit, including a benefit that is not financial in nature, for her husband’s outside employer (Maruti Transit). However, although there may be no per se prohibited conflict of interest under the Code, there may be an appearance of impropriety, especially if any discretionary actions are involved, since the person who oversees the complaint process for Palm Tran Connection reports directly to her.
|
RQO-15-043 | Advisory board member ISSUE: An appointed official asked (1) if his membership on the West Palm Beach Downtown Action Committee (DAC) prohibits him from interviewing persons on his radio show who have previously appeared, who may appear, or who will be appearing before the DAC and (2) if the Code restricts who he solicits to be advertisers or sponsors of his show.
HOLDING: (1) The official’s membership on the DAC does not prohibit him from interviewing persons who have previously appeared, who may appear, or who will be appearing before the DAC as long as he does not use his official position to give a special financial benefit to any prohibited person or to corruptly secure a special benefit, including a benefit that is not financial in nature, for anyone. (2) The official, and anyone soliciting indirectly on his behalf, is prohibited from soliciting advertising or sponsorships from members of the public in his official capacity as a DAC member. He is not prohibited from soliciting advertisers or sponsors for his radio show in his personal capacity, so long as he does not solicit or accept donations in excess of $100 from any vendor, lobbyist, or any principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the DAC. He must take great care not to use your official position to benefit an advertiser or sponsor appearing before the DAC.
|
RQO-16-002 | City commissioner in his persoanal capacity may hire city law firm to represent him in a matter if he pays the same cost and fees as any other customer. ISSUE: A law firm which serves as the special litigation counsel for a city in Palm Beach County asked if a commissioner of that city, in his or her personal capacity, is prohibited from selecting that law firm to represent him or her in an employment discrimination matter. HOLDING: The city commissioner is not prohibited from selecting that law firm to represent him or her in the employment discrimination matter, as long as the city commissioner pays the same cost and fees for the representation as any other customer.
|
RQO-16-003 | Board member may not give a special financial benefit to an organization of which he is an officer or director and an organization who is outside business' customer or client. ISSUE: May a Delray Beach Downtown Development Authority (DDA) board member vote on and discuss any matters, including the DDA budget, which concern an organization of which he is an officer or director (Pine Grove Arts District) and an organization who is a customer or client of his outside business (Delray Beach Marketing Cooperative). HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit the DDA board member from voting on the budget as a whole. However, when the DDA board discusses the budget line by line, the DDA board member must not participate in the discussions or vote on any “line-by-line” budget issue concerning PGAD or the DBMC since the funding would be a financial benefit to those two entities. In order to comply with the Code, the DDA board member must publicly disclose the nature of the conflict before the DDA board discusses the issues involving PGAD and DBMC and not participate in discussions. If any “line-by-line” vote takes place while reviewing the budget, the DDA board member must also abstain from voting on the matters concerning PGAD or the DBMC, file a state voting conflict form (8B) with the clerk of the DDA board and submit a copy to the COE.
|
RQO-16-005 | Owning home adjacent to a proposed townhome project created a voting conflict. Owning home adjacent to a proposed townhome project created a voting conflict. |
RQO-16-007 | Participation in 50/50 raffle. ISSUE: A county employee and member of the board of directors of the Gold Coast Band of Boynton Beach (the Band), asked if she is prohibited from participating in a 50/50 raffle at the Band’s concert, including selling raffle tickets. HOLDING: So long as she does not use her official position as a county employee to give some special financial benefit to herself, or certain other specified persons or organizations, including any civic group, union, social, charitable, or religious organization for which she serves on the board of directors, the Code does not prohibit her from participating in a 50/50 raffle. She is cautioned against the use of her public employment in such an endeavor. This includes identifying herself to potential buyers as a county employee, or the wearing of any patch, badge, lapel pin or clothing which would identify her as a county employee while selling these tickets. She must also take care not to accept more than $100 in donations or raffle ticket sales from any person or entity who is a City vendor, or who is a lobbyist that lobbies the City, or who employs a lobbyist, or is the principal of a lobbyist who lobbies the City. Finally, while the COE cannot comment on state law, she should review the state law requirements for conducting such a lottery |
RQO-16-012 | Employee can serve as a member of a board as long as he does not use his position to give an improper special benefit to himself or to any of the specified persons or entities under Sec. 2 443(a)(1-7) ISSUE: A City employee asked if he is prohibited from sitting as a member of the Volunteer Leadership Board of the Palm Beach County chapter of the American Cancer Society (ACS), from becoming a member of ACS Cancer Action Network (CAN), or from participating in fundraising efforts for the ACS.
HOLDING: He is not prohibited from serving as a member of the local ACS Volunteer Leadership Board or from becoming a member of the ACS Cancer Action Network as long as he does not use his position as director of communications to give an improper special benefit to himself, the person or entity from which he is soliciting donations, or to any of the specified persons or entities under Sec. 2 443(a)(1-7). He is also not prohibited from participating in efforts to fundraise for the ACS because he does not serve as an officer or director of ACS. However, he is prohibited from soliciting donations from any person or entity that has a current application for approval or award of any nature before the city and from using any city resources in the solicitation of donations for any nonprofit organization, including ACS. If he solicits donations, directly or indirectly, in excess of $100 from a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist of the city of West Palm Beach, he must maintain a record of the solicitations from city vendors, lobbyists, principals or employers of lobbyists, and submit a log to the Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics within 30 days of the event, or if no event, within 30 days of the solicitation.
|
RQO-16-013 | Size of the class affected by a decision determines whether an official may vote on the matter if he has an interest in the matter. ISSUE: A councilman for the town of Loxahatchee Groves asked: 1) if a conflict of interest would arise for him if he speaks with the town’s legal counsel regarding a potential conflict between a town land development code and the Florida Constitution when he has a pending code complaint against him regarding the same land development code; and 2) if a voting conflict would arise for him if he votes on the land development code during a Town Council meeting while he has the pending code complaint against him. HOLDING: 1) As long as he refrains from discussing the code complaint against him and does not use his discussions with the town’s legal counsel to give himself an improper special benefit, a conflict of interest would not arise for him if he discusses the potential conflict between the town land development code and the Florida Constitution. 2) As long as any benefit or loss attributed to him as an individual resident of the town is shared with similarly situated members of the general public and does not constitute a unique circumstance whereby any personal gain or loss to him exceeds significantly other members of the affected class, a conflict would not exist. Under the facts presented, if the changes to the town’s land development code that he is voting on would affect all of the residents of the town of Loxahatchee Groves in the same way, then he would not have a conflict of interest because the size of the class would be large. However, if the changes to the town’s land development code would affect a small class of residents within the town of Loxahatchee Groves and would provide a unique benefit to him, then a conflict of interest would exist. In such a case, in order to avoid violating the voting conflict provision of the code, he needs to publicly disclose the nature of the conflict, abstain from voting, not participate in discussion on the matter, complete and file a State of Florida Commission on Ethics Conflict Form (Form 8B), and submit a copy of the Form 8B to the COE.
|
RQO-16-015 | A conflict of interest does not exist when none of the persons or entities specified in Sec. 2-443(a)(1-7) would receive a special financial benefit. ISSUE: A city manager asked if a conflict of interest would arise for him if the city applies for the demolition of a building on his sister-in-law’s property through a Palm Beach County program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HOLDING: Neither he nor any of the persons or entities specified in Sec. 2-443(a)(1-7) would receive a special financial benefit from the demolition of the building because he, his spouse, and his sibling do not have any ownership interest in the building or the property. Further, while any potential special financial interest given to his brother using his official authority is subject to Sec. 2-443(a)(1-7), a special financial interest given to his brother’s wife is not under this section. In addition, since he is not involved in selecting the buildings that are submitted for demolition and does not influence the selections, a prohibited conflict of interest would not arise for him if the city applies to the Palm Beach County program for the demolition of the building on his sister-in-law’s property. Moreover, the code’s provision against “corrupt” misuse of his authority is also not applicable in this circumstance. The use of his authority as the city manager to ultimately request the demolition of buildings that have been deemed unsafe cannot be considered a corrupt misuse of his authority, as that act is not inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties.
|
RQO-16-016 | Board member may not represent a client before his Board. ISSUE: A member of the Palm Beach County Fair Housing/Equal Employment Opportunity Board asked if he or a member of his law firm may represent a customer or client of his law firm when the client has a matter that may come before his Board. HOLDING: The board member may not represent the client before his Board or take part in any presentation or discussion with his fellow members of the Board regarding this client’s case. The board member must also abstain from any vote on the matter. However, the Code does not prohibit him from representing the client prior to the matter coming before the Board, but he must be acting in his professional capacity as an attorney as opposed to his official capacity as a Board member. Additionally, other members of the law firm (his outside business) are not prohibited from representing the client’s interest in this matter.
|
RQO-16-022 | Outside employment as an Independent Contractor ISSUE: Palm Beach County Fire Rescue (PBCFR) employee asked if a conflict of interest would arise for him if he works as an independent contractor for Stealth Air Corp (SAC), a drone manufacturer when he serves as a PBCFR Unmanned Aircraft Systems Committee member. He also asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits him from listing his PBCFR employment on his resume.
HOLDING: He may not use his official position as a PBCFR employee to sell any SAC products or services as this would give a special financial benefit to him. He is prohibited from selling any SAC products or services to the county in his personal capacity, unless an exception under Sec. 2-443(e) applies. However, he is not prohibited from contracting to sell SAC products or services to other municipalities, entities, and individuals in his personal capacity and on his own time. But, he must still refrain from using his official position as a county employee to provide these services to any of those customers. Best practices would include refraining from using his official position, title, county email, identifying himself as a PBCFR employee, or wearing his county uniform while promoting any Stealth Air Corp products. The COE noted that if SAC ever becomes a county vendor by entering into any contracts with the county, the Code of Ethics prohibits the employee from continuing to work as an independent contractor for SAC. The Code of Ethics does not prohibit him from outlining his professional experience by including his county employment and title on his resume.
|
RQO-16-026 | Member of the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board purchasing historic property in Delray Beach ISSUE: A member of the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board (HPB) asked if a conflict of interest would arise for him if he purchases a historic property in the City of Delray Beach while serving as a member of the board. HOLDING: As long as he does not use his official position as an HPB member to obtain a special financial benefit or to corruptly secure any special benefit and further provided there is no "quid pro quo" or other benefit offered or accepted in exchange for the purchase of the property, the Code does not prohibit him from purchasing a historic property in the City of Delray Beach while serving as a member of the HPB. If he decides to remain on the HPB after purchasing the historic property, the Code prohibits him from voting on an issue or participating in a matter before the HPB that gives a special financial benefit to himself or his spouse.
|
RQO-16-028 | No voting conflict if special financial benefit is remote and speculative ISSUE:The attorney for the Village of Wellington asked if a councilman is prohibited from participating in and voting on a special use permit, where a client of the councilman’s outside employer will present the permit application to the Village Council on behalf of a property owner but will not be performing any other services for the property owner after the presentation. HOLDING: Because the vote on the special use permit will not affect whether or how much the client is paid by the property owner, any financial benefit that the client may receive is remote and speculative. Because the vote has no direct and immediate financial benefit to the client of his outside employer, the councilman is not prohibited from participating in and voting on the special use permit which the client will be presenting on behalf of a property owner. However, an “appearance of impropriety” may exist.
|
RQO-16-030 | Voting conflict issues when officer of non-profit organization ISSUE: The town attorney for the town of Palm Beach asked if a conflict of interest exist for a member of the Town of Palm Beach’s Recreation Advisory Commission (RAC), where he also serves as an officer of a non-profit organization (Palm Beach Friends of Recreation) which is raising funds for a new community center in the town HOLDING: Because he is an officer of the Palm Beach Friends of Recreation, the RAC member is prohibited from voting on or participating in any matter coming before the RAC that would result in a special financial benefit to the Friends of Recreation. He is also prohibited from using his name and official position as a RAC member on any fundraising effort on behalf of Friends of Recreation as this would per se constitute using his appointed position to give Friends of Recreation a special financial benefit. If he solicits donations, directly or indirectly, in excess of $100 from a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the RAC or any town department that is subject in any way to RAC’s influence or advice, he must maintain a record of those solicitations and submit a log to the COE.
|
RQO-17-007 | Municipal advisory board membership while a County employee ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if a conflict of interest would arise for him if he is appointed to the One-Cent Citizen Surtax Committee and the Charter Review Board for the City of Riviera Beach. HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit him from serving on either advisory board, as these board memberships do not create a per se conflict of interest with his county employment. He may not use his official position as a municipal advisory board member or as a county employee in any way to give a special financial benefit to himself or to any of the prohibited persons or entities listed in Section 2 443(a). In addition, because he would have the ability to participate in discussions as well as to vote on matters before these board, as a member of either advisory board, he may neither participate in nor vote on any matter that will give a special financial benefit to himself or any of the persons or entities listed in Section 2-443(a). |
RQO-17-008 | Issues involving board membership, outside businesses, and past employment An applicant for the director position with Palm Beach County’s Department of Economic Sustainability (DES) asked several questions.
|
RQO-17-009 | City councilman's outside employer coming before city council ISSUE: A Lake Worth City Commissioner asked what prohibitions would exist for him as a commissioner when he is employed with Adopt-A-Family of the Palm Beaches (AAF) in his private capacity and AAF has matters presented before the City Commission? HOLDING: The Code of Ethics prohibits him from using his official position as a city commissioner in any way to give a special financial benefit to AFF. Additionally, if AAF has a matter before the City Commission that would give a special financial benefit to AAF, he is prohibited from both participating in discussions on the matter and voting on the matter. He is also prohibited from acting as a city commissioner to attempt to influence city staff in their recommendation to the City Commission regarding matters where AAF would receive any special financial benefit. Finally, as a city commissioner, he is prohibited from wrongfully securing any special benefit for anyone, including AAF . |
RQO-18-008 | Possible conflicts with outside employment ISSUE: A city firefighter asked if a conflict of interest exists for him if he accepts employment with a restoration company where he would introduce himself to fire department representatives during active fires to see if they would introduce him to the homeowner so he can offer restoration services to them. HOLDING: He is prohibited from using his position as a city firefighter to give the restoration company or himself a special financial benefit. Further, the code prohibits him from marketing, selling, or attempting to sell, the services of the restoration company while on duty. While off-duty, he must refrain from using or referring or alluding to his official position or title, from using his city email, and from wearing his city uniform while promoting or marketing the restoration company’s services to the general public. In addition, he is prohibited from using his official position as a city firefighter to influence the fire department representative on scene to introduce him to the homeowners or for the fire department representative to refer or allude to his title or position with the city fire department while introducing him to a homeowner.
|
RQO-18-015 | Appointment to board required by ordinance and state statute ISSUE: A municipal police officer asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics if he serves on the municipality’s Police Pension Board when he may vote on items that will affect his pension benefits. HOLDING: Because his appointment to the board is required by municipal ordinance and by Florida statutes, he will only have a voting conflict if there are circumstances unique to him as the voting official which would enable him to gain (or lose) more than the other members of the class vested or those who will become vested in the municipality’s Police Pension. If such a circumstance arises, he must abstain from both voting and participating in the matter, publicly disclose the nature of the conflict, file a State of Florida Conflict Form (Form 8B), and submit a copy of the conflict form to the COE. However, where a vote by him would affect all members of the class equally, no voting conflict would exist.
|
RQO-19-017 | Sole source exception for contractual relationship ISSUE: A City of Boynton Beach commissioner asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics prohibits her from accepting employment with Leadership Palm Beach County, a non-profit organization, who is a vendor of the city. HOLDING: No, the Code does not prohibit her from accepting this employment because it meets the sole source exception, but she must ensure the requirements of the Code as described in the advisory opinion are followed. |
RQO-19-018 | Scholarships awarded to children of Village employees ISSUE: The attorney for the Village of Tequesta (village) asked if any of the code provisions are implicated if elected officials of the village serve on the college scholarship selection committee for a non-profit organization where scholarships are awarded to children of village employees and where one or more of the non-profit organization’s board members own commercial property within the village and may appear before the Village Council?
HOLDING: The code would not prohibit a local business owner from establishing a non-profit organization for the purpose of awarding college scholarship funds to the children of village employees even where he may appear before the Village Council on occasion. It would also not prohibit the elected officials from serving on the selection committee for award of these funds, so long as neither the officials nor the employees of the village use their official positions improperly.
|
RQO-19-020 | Unpaid volunteer ISSUE: A county employee asked if the code prohibits him from serving as an unpaid technical advisor for a nationally syndicated television program.
HOLDING: Because he is volunteering his services as a technical advisor, he is not receiving any compensation for his services, and he did not use his official position to solicit or otherwise approach anyone about retaining this position, he would not be in violation of the misuse of public office or employment section of the code.
|
RQO-20-009 | Voting conflict exists if client would receive a special financial benefit ISSUE: The Deputy County Attorney asked if participation on the Palm Beach County Fair Housing Board (FHB) by an attorney who represents various communities that have fair housing complaints filed against them, which may come before the FHB, would violate the code of ethics. HOLDING: If the attorney’s law firm has supplied services in excess of $10,000 to the housing communities during the previous 24 months, then they are considered customers or clients of his law firm, and he would be prohibited from voting on or participating in any matter that would give a special financial benefit to these customers or clients. Additionally, as long as the attorney does not interfere with or attempt to influence the investigation or the determination of probable cause, he is not prohibited him from serving as a member of the FHB.
|
RQO-20-011 | Outside employer's contract with a public entity other than public employer ISSUE: Does the Code prohibit the outside employer of a West Palm Beach commissioner from entering into a contract to provide technology training to the West Palm Beach Downtown Development Authority (DDA). HOLDING: Because the outside employer would be contracting with the DDA, which is a public entity separate from the city, the contract between the DDA and the commissioner’s outside employer would not be prohibited as long as the city of West Palm Beach is not directly or indirectly providing the funding for the training. Further, as long as the goods or services provided to the DDA by her outside employer for the previous 24 months does not exceed $10,000, then the DDA would not be considered a customer or client of her outside business, and a voting conflict would not exist based on this contractual relationship should the DDA come before the city commission.
|
RQO-21-002 | Voting conflict concerning project adjacent to official's home ISSUE: An assistant city attorney asked if a city commissioner, who owns a home located adjacent to a proposed right of way, may participate in discussions and vote on requests for appeal and land development regulation waivers regarding the proposed right of way.
HOLDING: Although the developer may receive a financial benefit (gain or loss) depending on the outcome of the vote, there is uncertainty as to whether there would be any economic gain or loss to the value of the commissioner’s property from this vote. An approval or denial of the appeal request would not have any direct and immediate impact of the value of the commissioner’s property. Thus, any financial benefit that the commissioner may receive is remote and speculative. Because the vote has no direct and immediate financial benefit to the commissioner, the commissioner is not prohibited from participating in and voting on this request for an appeal.
|
RQO-21-003 | Advisory board member with outside employment ISSUE: A prospective county advisory board member asked if a prohibited conflict of interest exists for him if he were to serve on the county’s Community Action Advisory Board (CAAB) when the Duo Center, which is both his outside employer and a non-profit of which he serves as an officer or director, participates in the county’s summer camp scholarship program.
HOLDING: There is no per se prohibition against him accepting this position, so long as he follows the guidelines listed in the opinion. Those guidelines include not using his official position as a CAAB member to give a special financial benefit to the Duo Center, not attempting to influence other CAAB members or county staff in any way to give a special financial benefit to the Duo Center, and not voting or participating in any matter before CAAB that will result in a special financial benefit to the Duo Center.
|
RQO-21-006 | Public official with outside business ISSUE: A municipal official asked how the code of ethics affects the operation of her outside business.
HOLDING: As long as she and her outside business do not enter into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with the city she represents or with a city vendor, other than where an exception applies, she is not prohibited from providing her services to members of the general public. Although the code does not prohibit her outside business from providing these services in her private capacity, she would have an ongoing responsibility to refrain from using her official position as a city commissioner to give a special financial benefit to herself or her outside business.
|
RQO-21-007 | Public employee with outside business ISSUE: A potential county employee asked whether the code would prohibit her from seeing other county employees in her private capacity as a mental health therapist.
HOLDING: The code does not prohibit her from offering her services to county employees in her private capacity during non-work hours as long as her outside business does not enter into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with the county or with a county vendor, other than where an exception applies. Although the code does not prohibit her from seeing county employees in her private capacity, she would have an ongoing responsibility to refrain from using her official position with the county to give a special financial benefit to herself or her outside business.
|
RQO-21-008 | Official has voting conflict if project would only improve streets within his HOA community ISSUE: An assistant city attorney asked if the code prohibits an advisory board member from discussing a capital improvement project that is coming before the board when the project was requested by the homeowner’s association (HOA) on which he serves as a board member.
HOLDING: The board member would be prohibited from discussing the capital improvement project requested by the HOA because it would only impact roads used by his community so it would give a special financial benefit only to the community within which the PZB member lives.
|
RQO-21-009 | Conflict concerns for official whose outside employer has contract with the public entity the official serves ISSUE: Does a prohibited conflict of interest exist for a commissioner for the city of West Palm Beach who is employed by a non-profit foundation, which leases building space from the city for $1 per year?
HOLDING: A prohibited conflict of interest would not exist as long as the commissioner remains completely removed from any negotiations or the management of the lease between the city and the non-profit foundation, does not use her official position to influence the process in any way, does not participate in discussions or vote on any matter which would give a special financial benefit to the foundation, and does not wrongfully use her official position to corruptly secure any special benefit for the foundation, including a benefit that is not financial in nature. In addition, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, the commissioner should not be the foundation’s representative who signs the contract between the city and the foundation, even though she will not be involved in the negotiations. In addition, a prohibited contract does not exist between the foundation and the city because the total amount of the contract does not exceed $500 per calendar year. |
RQO-21-011 | Municipal employee serving as president of non-profit organization ISSUE: The Village Attorney for the Village of Wellington asked if it would violate Section 2-443(a) of the Code if the Wellington Historical Society (Society), of which she is the president, enters into a co-sponsorship agreement with the Village, her public employer
HOLDING: Because she is on the board of directors of the Society, the Code prohibits her from using her official position as the Village Attorney, or influencing others to take some action, to give a special financial benefit to the Society. Because no funding is involved in the co-sponsorship agreement, both the Society and the Village will provide services for each other, and such co-sponsorship agreements are offered to other organizations, the co-sponsorship agreement would not result in a special financial benefit to the Society. However, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, it is recommended that she remain completely removed from any negotiations or discussion regarding the agreement and she should not be one of the representatives who executes the agreement between the Village and the Society.
|
RQO-21-010 | Elected official soliciting for donations on behalf of organization of which the official serves as an officer or director ISSUE: The Village Attorney for the Village of Wellington asked how an elected official who serves on the board of a non-profit organization could avoid violating the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) while soliciting for donations on behalf of that organization.
HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit elected officials or employees from participating in charitable fundraising, provided any solicitation or acceptance of donations in excess of $100 from a vendor, lobbyist, principal or employer of a lobbyist who sells, leases or lobbies their municipal government is transparently recorded in accordance with the charitable solicitation requirements of the code. They must also refrain from using their official position while soliciting on behalf of an organization of which they are an officer or director.
|
RQO-21-013 | Advisory board member with outside employment ISSUE: Would an advisory board member for the city of Lake Worth Beach violate the Code if the board member recommends to the City Commission that they score bidders with project labor agreements more favorably when in his private capacity, he works as a consultant for local chapters of a national electrical industry trade association and labor union located in Nevada and California? HOLDING: Because he does not provide any goods or services to the local Florida chapters of national electrical industry trade association and labor union, then those chapters are not customers or clients of his outside business. His recommendation that the city commission score potential bidders who use project labor agreements involving the local Florida chapters more favorably would not result in a special financial benefit being given to a customer or client of his outside business. Although the local Nevada and California chapters fund the organization he works for, which are independent from the local Florida chapters, these chapters do share a common national organization in name, which could lead to an “appearance of impropriety.” The COE suggests that he disclose this relationship and highlight the autonomy of each organization prior to offering his recommendation to the board. |
RQO-21-015 | Voting conflict regarding location of official's home ISSUE: A councilmember of the town of Loxahatchee Groves asked four questions: 1. Does the Code prohibit her from voting on or discussing road and drainage projects taking place along North B Road when her property is located on North B Road? 2. Does the Code prohibit her from voting on or discussing road and drainage projects taking place along South B Road? 3. Does the Code prohibit her from voting on financing that will cover town projects, including road and drainage projects on North or South B Road? 4. Does the Code prohibit her from voting on or discussing any other matters related to North B Road or South B Road?
HOLDING: 1. Because her property is directly adjacent to North B Road, which is the only road that accesses her property, her property would be directly impacted by projects involving road improvements and drainage on that road, and the possibility of a financial gain would be direct and immediate. In addition, the number of persons or entities directly affected is too small and the financial benefit would be considered special. Therefore, when this matter comes before the Town Council, the official must 1) publicly disclose the nature of her conflict before the matter is discussed; 2) abstain from voting and discussing or otherwise participating in the matter; and 3) file a state voting conflict form with the clerk and submit a copy to the COE. 2. Based on the location of her property which is over a mile away from South B Road and the fact that it is not the road used to access her property, the potential for any financial benefit to her from a vote on road and drainage projects along South B Road would be remote and speculative. Therefore, she is not prohibited from participating in and voting on these projects. 3. She is not prohibited from voting on the budget as a whole when it includes the financing of all Town projects. However, if the budget is discussed “line by line” or the financing of each project is discussed separately, she is prohibited from participating in the discussions or voting on any "line-by-line" budget issue concerning the road and drainage projects along North B Road, since the financing of the North B Road projects would involve a special financial benefit to her. 4. Since this question is general in nature and involves a speculative factual scenario, the Commission cannot opine other than to offer general guidelines under the Code. Whether a matter rises to the level of a voting conflict will be based upon the facts and circumstances presented to the COE. Best practice would be to request guidance from the COE when she is unsure if she has a prohibited conflict of interest regarding a matter coming before the Town Council.
|
RQO-21-012 | Employee with outside business ISSUE: Does the part-time outside employment waiver in Section 2-443(e)(5) of the Code apply to a public employer, who is the owner of an outside business, and what other provisions of the Code could be implicated by him operating an outside business? HOLDING: As long as his outside business does not enter into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with his public employer, the Code does not prohibit him from operating this business outside of his municipal business hours. The contractual relationship prohibition would preclude him from working as an independent contractor for this vendor if he would be providing goods or services to his public employer through that contract.
|
RQO-21-017 | Social media post for city ISSUE: A municipal employee asked if the Code prohibits him from writing a social media post about another employee who donated a Little Free Library (LFL) to the city, which he does for anyone who donates one.
HOLDING: Because he is treating the employee the same as every other donor of a LFL, he is writing the post as a part of his normal duties as the public information officer, and the donation of the LFL was not given as quid pro quo in exchange for promoting the employee’s book, the municipal employee would not violate the Code by writing the post about the donation. |
RQO-21-018 | Serving on board of directors of nonprofit ISSUE: The police chief of a municipality asked if the Code prohibits him from serving on the board of directors of Habitat for Humanity (HFH), a nonprofit organization that operates in the county and builds homes in his municipality, when he will not be involved in any City Commission-related approvals or denials of HFH projects or contractual relationships between the city and HFH.
HOLDING: He may not use his official position as the police chief in any way to give a special financial benefit to HFH. Therefore, any fundraising on behalf of HFH needs to be in his personal name only without any reference to his official title or connection to his official position as the police chief. |
RQO-22-007 | No conflict due to "former outside employer" relationship ISSUE: A county employee asked if he is prohibited from participating as a committee member for the Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Department’s upcoming Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) solicitation when his former employer will likely submit a bid for the CCNA solicitation.
HOLDING: Although his former outside employer will likely be submitting a bid for the CCNA solicitation, the Code does not prohibit him from participating on the shortlist or selection committees for the CCNA contract as long as his participation will not give a special financial benefit to any other prohibited persons or entities listed in Sec. 2-443(a)(1-7). Although there may be no per se prohibited conflict of interest under the Code, an appearance of impropriety may exist due to the engineering firm being his former outside employer.
|
RQO-22-011 | Soliciting donations ISSUE: A municipal councilmember asked if municipal councilmembers were prohibited from holding private events to raise money, including the solicitation of donations, to benefit, for example, a town scholarship fund and/or Project 425?
HOLDING: The Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) does not prohibit councilmembers from raising or soliciting money for charitable causes. Where the organization is a non-profit charitable organization, as defined under the Internal Revenue Code, the solicitation or acceptance of a donation of over $100 by a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist who sells, leases, or lobbies the Town is not prohibited as long as a charitable solicitation log is maintained. Where the organization is not a non-profit charitable organization, as defined under the Internal Revenue Code, the solicitation or acceptance of a donation of over $100 by a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist who sells, leases, or lobbies the Town is prohibited.
|
RQO-22-012 | Advisory board member's outside employment ISSUE: An advisory board member asked if the Code prohibited him from representing a buyer who may petition the County and/or the city of West Palm Beach (City) for gap funding to complete a property purchase when is a member of the Impact Fee Review Committee (IFRC).
HOLDING: He is not prohibited from representing a purchaser who is seeking gap funding from the County and/or the City as long as he was not using his official position as a member of the IFRC in any way to give a special financial benefit to himself, his outside business, or to a customer or client of his outside business. Further, if an indirect contract with the County is create when the buyer applies for, and obtains, gap funding from the County or from the City, since the IFRC is purely advisory and does not exercise transactional oversight, the advisory board member would not be prohibited from representing the buyer in the noted purchase and sale as long as the existence of the subject transaction was disclosed at a duly noticed public meeting of the BCC.
|
RQO-22-013 | Elected official's spouse impacted by vote ISSUE: A municipal official asked if she is prohibited from participating in and voting on the potential merger between the municipality and the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office when her spouse works for the municipality’s police department.
HOLDING: She is not prohibited from participating in the discussions and voting on the matter because the size of the class affected is large enough and there is no indication that her spouse’s personal gain or loss from the merger would exceed significantly that of other municipal police officers.
|
RQO-22-014 | Location of official's home and size of the class affected ISSUE: A municipal official asked if she is prohibited from entering into settlement discussions and voting on matters related to the pending inverse condemnation lawsuit between the municipality and the east side of North B Road.
HOLDING: In evaluating conflict of interest under the Code, the COE considers 1) the number of persons who stand to gain from a decision and 2) whether the gain or loss is remote and speculative. Here, the number of persons affected is small and her interest in the class affected exceeds 1%. Due to the location of her home, her potential for loss or gain from this vote would not be remote or speculative. Therefore, she is prohibited from participating in discussions or votes involving the litigation or possible settlement of the lawsuit involving North B Road.
|
RQO-22-018 | A client of outside business or employer appearing before your advisory board ISSUE: An advisory board member asked if he may represent a client of his law firm in federal court on a discrimination claim when that client has a related complaint that may come before his advisory board.
HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit his representation of this client in federal court as long as the representation is limited to the claim that was filed in federal court. However, when this complaint comes before his advisory board, he would have a voting conflict and would be required to abstain from any discussion or vote on the matter if his firm has provided over $10,000 in services to the client. However, even if his law firm has not met the $10,000 threshold and he would not have a per se voting conflict, the COE recommends that he abstain from voting on or participating in this matter when it comes before the advisory board because an appearance of impropriety may exist, especially since the two matters are related.
|
RQO-22-020 | Voting issues ISSUE: A city council member asked if the Code prohibits her from participating in discussions and voting on the hiring of a specific finalist for City Manager, when that candidate, and her spouse, are both currently employed by the Boynton Beach Police Department (BBPD).
HOLDING: The Code would prohibit her from participating in discussions or voting on this matter if facts and circumstances showed that the hiring of this candidate would provide a unique benefit to her or your spouse. However, based on the facts provided, her involvement in the hiring process, including voting on whether to hire this specific candidate as well as the ratification of the final contract, would not result in a financial benefit to either her or her spouse. Additionally, the Code would prohibit her from participating in discussions or voting on this matter if it would give a special financial benefit to someone who works for her husband’s outside employer. Although the final candidate for the city manager position is employed by BBPD, where her husband also works, Section 2-442 of the Code specifically exempts local and municipal government entities from the definition of outside employer. Because the city is a municipal government entity and BBPD is a department within the city, BBPD is exempt from the Code’s definition of outside employer. As such, she is not prohibited from participating in and voting on this matter when it comes before the City Commission.
|
RQO-22-022 | Golf course employee sponsorship from golf manufacturer ISSUE: A municipal golf course employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) prohibits him from entering into a professional sponsorship agreement with a brand name manufacturer of golfing or sports equipment when the terms would include promoting and stocking the brand in the course golf shop in exchange for complimentary or discounted golfing equipment and/or apparel for employees working at the municipal golf course.
HOLDING: Such an arrangement is the equivalent of a “quid pro quo” – e.g., the carrying and promotion of a specific brand of golf equipment in exchange for free or discounted items – which is prohibited by the Code.
|
RQO-22-024 | Daughter's employment with a vendor ISSUE: A county employee asked if a conflict of interest would exist for her as the Director of the county’s Office of Equal Business Opportunity (OEBO) if a county-certified minority vendor becomes your daughter’s employer.
HOLDING: Based on the facts provided, she had no involvement with her daughter obtaining employment with the vendor, and she had no involvement with vendor becoming certified as a minority business enterprise. Therefore, the Code does not prohibit her daughter from working for this vendor as long as the county employee does not use her position in any way to give a special financial benefit to her daughter or her daughter’s employer and as long as the offer of employment was not given in exchange for any quid quo pro.
|
RQO-22-025 | Spouse of county employee working for a company that serves as subcontractor on certain County projects. ISSUE: The Director of Palm Beach County Parks and Recreations (P&R) asked if a prohibited conflict of interest exists for her if her spouse is employed by a company who is a certified vendor for the county, and participates in the actual construction of projects for the P&R Department, as an employee of a company sub-contracted for that specific portion of the job. She stated she understand that the Code prohibits her from being involved in discussions or decisions to select DWRS for County projects and that she must refrain from any discussion or decision making or acting as a signor or endorser of a project if DWRS were ever listed as a sub-contractor as those actions would give a special financial benefit to her spouse’s employer.
HOLDING: There is no prohibited conflict of interest per se under the Code of Ethics based solely on their spousal relationship, as long as they do not use their official position as the P&R Director in any way to give a special financial benefit to her spouse or her spouse’s employer. The Code also prohibits her from participating in the selection process for any contract or transaction where her spouse’s employer, DWRS, is listed as a vendor. She is also prohibited from influencing others to take some action which would give DWRS a special financial benefit. However, as long as she does not improperly use her official position to give DWRS a special financial benefit, a conflict of interest would not arise for her, her spouse would not be prohibited from continuing to work for DWRS, and DWRS would not be prohibited from continuing to operate as a certified-County vendor and perform sub-contracting work for other vendors of the County, including for the P&R Department. |
RQO-22-026 | Public employee with outside business ISSUE: A County employee asked if the Code prohibits her outside business, Sarah’s Slow Jam (SSJ) from supplying goods to Discover the Palm Beaches (DTPB), a County-funded entity.
HOLDING: Because DTPB is a County-funded entity and County funding would be used to purchase the goods from SSJ, SSJ would be prohibited from entering into such a contract or transaction with DTPB as this would create a prohibited indirect contract between SSJ and the County, unless an exception applies. Under the exception found in Section 2-443(e), SSJ could sell its product to DTPB as long as the total amount of the contracts or transactions between SSJ and DTPB is $500 or less in the aggregate per calendar year. The County employee also has an ongoing responsibility to refrain from using her official position with the County to give a special financial benefit to herself or her outside business.
|
RQO-23-010 | Whether a voting conflict arises if a board member is a customer of an entity coming in front of the board ISSUE: A member of the Boca Raton Planning and Zoning Board asked if the Code prohibited her from voting on construction or site plan issues involving Paradise Bank, considering that both she and her outside business are customers of the bank. Paradise Bank is not a customer or client of her outside business or employer. HOLDING: Although Paradise Bank may receive a financial benefit (gain or loss) depending on the outcome of the vote, there does not seem to be any nexus between the vote on the proposal and any economic gain or loss being received by the board member or her business, or by any other general customer of the bank. Therefore, the Code does not prohibit her from voting on or participating in matters involving Paradise Bank as long as her vote or participation does not result in a special financial benefit for herself or any other prohibited persons or entities.
|
RQO-23-011 | Possible voting conflict based on a speculative special financial benefit for a prohibited entity ISSUE: A member of the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) asked if the Code prohibited her from voting on a proposed comprehensive plan amendment involving GL Homes of Florida (GLH). HOLDING: Based on the facts submitted, because there does not seem to be any direct nexus between her vote on the proposed variance and any potential special financial gain or loss being received by the commissioner or any other prohibited person or entity, the Code does not prohibit her from participating in discussions or voting this matter involving GLH. The potential prohibited entities are discussed fully in the opinion. |
RQO-23-018 | Allowable conduct while volunteering at place of employment ISSUE: Does the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) prohibit a County employee from video recording her interactions with animals housed at Animal Care and Control’s (ACC) shelter while she is off duty and in her private capacity as a volunteer, when those recordings will be used by both her outside business and by ACC. HOLDING: The question is whether recording and using training sessions made while volunteering at ACC gives a special financial benefit to the employee or her outside business. Based on the facts provided, making and using such recordings while volunteering at ACC would not result in a special financial benefit because other volunteer animal trainers are also permitted to make this type of training video. Even though the employee’s outside business may benefit from the recordings, it appears that ACC will receive an equal value from the content of the recordings. The ongoing relationships ACC maintains with volunteer animal trainers appears to be entirely symbiotic, thus no special financial benefit is implicated.
|
RQO-23-027 | Gift of event attendance when event is related to official business and gift is from a vendor ISSUE: A county employee asked if the Code would prohibit her complimentary attendance at an event when her presence is related to official county business and her admission is gifted by the non-profit agency hosting the event. HOLDING: Based on the facts submitted, as a county employee, the Code does not prohibit the acceptance of complimentary admission to this specific event. This is because the non-profit organization does not employ a lobbyist who lobbies the county and the ticket is offered by a representative of the non-profit organization who is not a lobbyist or principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the county. Although acceptance of the ticket may not be prohibited, because the published cost of attendance exceeds $100, the gift must be reported on a county gift form and submitted to the Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics.
|
RQO-23-028 | City employee may not participate if those actions will benefit the outside employer of his child Section 2-443(a) of the Code prohibits employees from using their official position in any way, including influencing others to take some action, to give a special financial benefit to specified persons and entities. A child’s outside employer is among those prohibited persons or entities. Thus, any discretion exercised to benefit the child’s outside employer would result in them receiving a special financial benefit and would violate Section 2 443(a) of the Code. Additionally, in situations where there is no per se prohibited conflict of interest, any input by the employee where the child’s outside employer is involved, even if limited to answering questions, may create the appearance of impropriety. Ultimately, the COE recommended the employee consider not participating if the child’s employer is involved. |
RQO-23-029 | County employee must exercise caution when participating in projects that involve a spouse's future employer The Code prohibits the County employee from using his official position to give a special financial benefit to specified persons or entities. Among those prohibited entities are a spouse and the spouse’s outside employer. Here, the employee intends to avoid any decision making authority regarding bid proposals, avoid future RFP’s that involve the potential employer, ensure that there is no influence exerted on bid awards when the potential employer is involved, and avoid actions that have an affiliated cost. Based on the facts provided, as long the guidance in the opinion is followed, the Code will not be violated. |
RQO-24-006 | Serving on the board of a non-profit ISSUE: A municipal employee asked if the Code of Ethics would prohibit his membership on the board of a local non-profit organization that is headquartered within the municipality and regularly interacts with his municipal employer. HOLDING: Generally, the Code only restricts actions that result in a prohibited entity receiving a special financial benefit. As long as the employee carefully follows the guidance in the opinion to ensure this does not happen, the board membership is not prohibited by the Code.
|
RQO-24-008 | Municipal employee serving on the board of a non-profit ISSUE: A municipal employee asked if the Code of Ethics would prohibit her membership on the board of a local non-profit organization that regularly interacts with her municipal employer. HOLDING: Generally, the Code only restricts actions that result in a prohibited entity receiving a special financial benefit. As long as the employee carefully follows the guidance in the opinion to ensure this does not happen, the board membership is not prohibited by the Code.
|
RQO-24-009 | May an elected official accept training funds from other departments within the municipality. ISSUE: An elected official asked if the Code of Ethics would prohibit him from accepting an offer to reallocate the training budget from one division within the City in order to fund the official’s attendance in a specific training program. HOLDING: Generally, the Code only restricts actions that would result in a prohibited person or entity receiving a special financial benefit. The re-allocation of these training funds does not appear to violate this provision of the Code. However, because the elected official participates in both the performance review and salary determination of the employee offering to relinquish his training monies, there may be an appearance of impropriety were he to accept the funds.
|