Advisory board member needs waiver to continue serving when outside employer enters into contract with the county.
ISSUE: An advisory board member asked whether he would need a waiver to continue board service when his outside employer enters into a contract with the county.

HOLDING: A waiver or resignation from the board would be required by Sec. 2-443(d) once the contract has been entered into.

Advisory board member needs waiver to continue serving when outside employer enters into contract with the county
ISSUE: An advisory board member asked whether he would need a waiver to continue board service when his outside employer enters into a contract with the county.

HOLDING: A waiver or resignation from the board would be required by Sec. 2-443(d) once the contract has been entered into.

Advisory Board Waiver
ISSUE: A Customer Service Consultant for the Area Agency on Aging of Palm Beach/Treasure Coast Inc., which has a contract with Palm Beach County for paratransit services, asked if a prohibited conflict of interest would exist if an employee of the Agency becomes a member of the Palm Tran Service Board, which makes recommendations to the County about the paratransit services provided by Palm Tran Connection?

HOLDING: If selected to serve on the Palm Tran Service Board, the Agency employee will need to publicly disclose the existence of the contract between the County and the Agency when the employee is appointed. Based on the facts submitted, this advisory board is not purely advisory since the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners delegated its authority to approve Palm Tran fixed route transportation service adjustments to the Palm Tran Service Board. However, since the Palm Tran Service Board does not have any oversight, regulation, management, or policy-setting recommendations regarding its contract, only a disclosure is required.

Advisory board and contract oversight
ISSUE: A para-transit drive for First Transit, Inc. (FT), a vendor of the county, asked if his employment with FT prohibits him from serving as member of the Palm Tran Service Board (PTSB).

HOLDING: As an official, the code prohibits his outside employer from having any contracts with the county. However, this prohibition does not apply if the board does not have contract oversight regarding the subject contract. Here, because PTSB makes policy-setting recommendations regarding the contract between FT and the county, the PTSB is considered to have contract oversight. He is prohibited from serving on the board and must decline the appointment.

Potential advisory board member
ISSUE: The owner of MooreCars, LLC, asked if a prohibited conflict of interest would exist for her if she were to serve as a member of the Palm Tran Service Board (PTSB) when MooreCars is a vendor of First Transit, Inc.(FT), which is a vendor of the county.

HOLDING: She would be prohibited from using her official position as a member of the PTSB, or influencing others, in any way to give a special financial benefit to herself, to MooreCars, or to any customer or client of MooreCars, including FT. Further, if a matter before the PTSB would result in a special financial benefit for her, MooreCars, or any customer or client of MooreCars, she must publicly disclose the nature of the conflict, abstain from discussing and voting in the matter, and complete and file a State of Florida Commission on Ethics Voting Conflict Form.

Outside employment and board membership
ISSUE: The Palm Beach County League of Cities appointee to the COE asked if his outside business and employment as a mediator, which may include providing mediation services involving cases in which the county is a party, create a conflict of interest for him if he were to serve as a COE commissioner.

HOLDING: As an official, his outside business, Matrix Mediation, is prohibited from having any contracts or transactions for services with the county. However, this prohibition does not apply if the board does not have contract oversight regarding the subject contract. Here, the COE does not provide any regulation, oversight, management, or policy-setting recommendations regarding any contracts or transactions between Matrix Mediation and the county. Therefore, he is not prohibited from serving on the COE, but he must publicly disclose the existence of the contract or transactions at the time of his appointment or when any subject contracts or transactions are approved.

Waiver required if board is purely advisory but has contract oversight
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County advisory board member asked if a conflict of interest would exist for her if she was hired as a trainer by a county vendor to provide training as a part of a board project.
HOLDING: Because her board is purely advisory, she is eligible for a waiver. A waiver will require the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), upon full disclosure of the contract at a public meeting to waive the conflict on interest. If you were appointed by the entire BCC, or confirmation of your appointment was made by the entire board, an affirmative vote of a majority plus one of the total board membership is required. If you were appointed by only one member of the BCC, the appointing board member alone can waive this conflict of interest. Thus, as long as the conflict of interest in having a contractual relationship with the county vendor is waived, the Code does not prohibit you from working as a trainer for the vendor while serving as an advisory board member.

Advisory board member having contract with public entity he serves
ISSUE: A potential Palm Beach County advisory board member asked if the Code prohibits him from serving as a member of the Advisory Committee for the Palm Beach County Office of Equal Business Opportunity (OEBO) when his outside business has an ongoing contractual relationship with the county.

HOLDING: He is not prohibited from serving as a member of the OEBO Advisory Committee because the advisory committee is purely advisory and does not have any role in the oversight of the contracts between his outside business and the county. However, the existence of the contractual relationship with the county must be disclosed at a public meeting of the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners at the time of his appointment.

Advisory board members need for a waiver or disclosure
ISSUE: A county advisory board member asked if a conflict of interest would arise for him as a member of both the Palm Beach County Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals (CBAA) and the Infrastructure Surtax Independent Citizen Oversight Committee (ISICOC) if Verdex Construction (Verdex) submits bids for construction management in response to Requests for Proposals from the county when he is the president of Verdex?

HOLDING: Because the CBAA is purely advisory and does not have any authority to oversee, regulate, manage, or make policy-setting recommendations regarding the subject construction management contract(s) themselves, his membership on the CBAA does not prohibit such a contractual relationship between the County and Verdex as long as the existence of the subject contract is disclosed at a duly noticed public meeting of the BCC. However, although the ISICOC is also purely advisory, it has authority to oversee, regulate, manage, or make policy-setting recommendations regarding the subject construction management contract(s) themselves. Therefore, because of this contract oversight, the board member must obtain a waiver to continue serving on the ISICOC if Verdex is awarded any contracts. A waiver will require the BCC, upon full disclosure of the contract at a public meeting, to waive the conflict of interest by an affirmative vote of a majority plus one of the total membership of the BCC. If he was appointed by only one member of the BCC, the appointing board member alone can waive this conflict of interest.

Advisory board membership is not prohibited by the Code
ISSUE: A potential Palm Beach County advisory board member asked if the Code prohibits her from serving as a member of the Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department (PBCWUD) Advisory Board when her outside business occasionally accepts students who are benefitting from scholarships that are funded by Palm Beach County Youth Services. HOLDING: She is not prohibited from serving as a member of the PBCWUD Advisory Board because the advisory board is purely advisory and does not have any role in the oversight of the contracts between her outside business and the county. However, the existence of the contractual relationship with the county must be disclosed at a public meeting of the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners at the time of the appointment.

Customer/Client of advisory board member appearing before the board.
ISSUE: A member of the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission (PBZC) asked if a conflict of interest would arise for her if clients of her outside business – a travel agency – appeared before the PBZC. HOLDING: A prohibited conflict of interest does not arise based solely on a professional relationship that is unrelated to duties as a member of the PBZC. However, if any established clients were to come before the PBZC, abstention from any discussion or vote may be required if certain factors are met, including a determination as to if the people appearing before the board meet the definition of “customer or client” as proscribed by the Code of Ethics. The opinion outlines all of the necessary restrictions with specificity.

County advisory board member also a board member for a private company
ISSUE: A member of the Palm Beach County Citizens Committee on Airport Noise (CCAN) asked if an impermissible conflict would arise under the Code if she were also to become a board member of a Aeroauto, LLC, a private business operating in Palm Beach County. HOLDING: The Palm Beach County Code of Ethics does not prohibit membership on Aeroauto LLC’s board simultaneous with membership on the CCAN as long as certain requirements are met, including possible abstention from participation in discussions or voting were Aeroauto LLC to come before the CCAN.

Advisory board member must obtain waiver in advance of appointment based on her outside employment
ISSUE: A member of the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (EMSAC), who was recently appointed to that board by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, asked if the Code prohibited her membership on EMSAC considering she is employed by an organization that has an ongoing contractual relationship with Palm Beach County and the organization has been previously certified by EMSAC? HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit the EMSAC advisory council membership because the advisory board is purely advisory and the appropriate procedures were followed prior to Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners voting to approve the individual’s appointment to the EMSAC.

Charitable solicitation reporting requirements for advisory board member.
ISSUE: An employee of the Vinceremos Therapeutic Riding Center (Center) whose role includes soliciting donations for the Center asked what charitable solicitation reporting requirements she must comply with if she accepts an appointment to the Palm Beach County Sports Commission (Sports Commission).

HOLDING: If the employee of the Center accepts an appointment to the Sports Commission, she would not be prohibited from soliciting donations on behalf of the Center in her non-official capacity. However, if the Center solicits or accepts a donation in excess of $100 from a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist of the Sports Commission, she must maintain a record of the solicitation and submit a log to the COE within 30 days of the event, or if there is not an event involved, within 30 days of the solicitation. Additionally, as an appointed official, she is prohibited from using her official position as a member of the Sports Commission to give a special financial benefit, not shared with similarly situated entities in the community, to herself or her outside employer. Lending her name and official public title to the Center’s fundraising effort would per se constitute using her appointed position to provide a special financial benefit to the Center. Therefore, her participation in fundraising for the Center would need to be in her personal name without any reference to her official public title or connection to her official position as a member of the Sports Commission.

City soliciting and accepting donations from City vendors.
ISSUE: The assistant city attorney for the City of Delray Beach asked if the City’s Fire-Rescue Department may solicit donations from vendors of the City to raise money for teams to compete in several advanced life support competitions and one rapid intervention team competition.

HOLDING: The City’s Fire-Rescue Department is not prohibited from soliciting and accepting donations from city vendors using city resources or staff in excess of $100, annually in the aggregate, to raise funds for the teams to attend the training competitions as long as the competitions are determined to have a public purpose. Here, the City’s Fire-Rescue Department administration or the City Council must make a determination that solicitations for the competitions are for a public purpose.

Reporting requirements for charitable solicitation.
ISSUE: A City elected official asked if the funds solicited by her for a non-profit organization's yearly luncheon needs to be reported pursuant to the Code of Ethics.

HOLDING: Under the Code of Ethics, any solicitation must be disclosed. The solicitation form must contain the name of the nonprofit organization, the event for which the funds were solicited, the name of any person or entity that was contacted, and the amount of funds solicited. The solicitation form must be filed with the COE within 30 days after the event or if it is not related to an event then within 30 days from the date of the solicitation. Additionally, as a state reporting individual, she is required to comply with the State's gift reporting requirements.

Charitable solicitation log.
ISSUE: An employee of the Town of Palm Beach, who is also on the board of the Palm Beach Economic Crime Unit, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit charitable organization, asked if she was required to complete an annual gift disclosure report for a golf foursome that is being donated as a raffle prize for the charitable organization's fundraiser golf tournament.

HOLDING: The donation of the golf foursome to the charitable organization falls within the charitable solicitation section of the Code of Ethics. As such, she must maintain and submit a solicitation log to the COE. All of her solicitations must be disclosed in a solicitation log and the log must contain the name of the nonprofit organization, the event for which the funds were solicited, the name of any person or entity that was contacted, and the amount of funds solicited. The solicitation log must be filed with the COE within 30 days after the event or within 30 days of the solicitation if it is not related to an event.

Participation of city employees in a charitable event.
ISSUE: The Director of Human Resources for the City of Belle Glade asked if City employees may participate as a team in the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life of the Glades Walk for Cancer.

HOLDING: Based upon the facts submitted, City employees may participate as a team in the event. The Code does not prohibit the participation of City employees in a charitable event, such as the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life of the Glades Walk for Cancer, so long as there is no quid pro quo or other special consideration, including any direct or indirect special financial benefit to the official or employee or to the person or entity being solicited. However, no person or entity with a current application for approval or award may be solicited. Any solicitation of vendors, lobbyists, principals or employers of lobbyists who lobby the City that are in excess of $100 must be disclosed on a solicitation log and submitted to the COE within 30 days of the charitable event. In addition, the Code prohibits the use of on-duty municipal staff or municipal resources to be used in the solicitation of these charitable contributions. If an official or employee is a director or board member of the non-profit charitable organization, he or she is prohibited from using his or her official position to give any special financial benefit to the charity. The identification of the team as employees of the City does not violate the Code in and of itself, as long as the other provisions are followed.

Participation in future fundraising
ISSUE: A county commissioner asked whether fundraising by her daughter, to benefit her son-in-law’s medical needs violates the Code of Ethics, contractual relationship provisions, where she does not intend to participate, seek donations or attend the function. She further anticipates that she may have the opportunity to vote on matters involving donors to the fund.

HOLDING: The actions taken sufficiently isolate the commissioner from fundraising and therefore, there is no potential violation of the code.

Acting as master of ceremonies at fundraiser
ISSUE: A county commissioner asked whether he could serve as master of ceremonies, under the same circumstances presented in RQO 10-004

HOLDING: Utilizing the same precautions and conditions as stated in RQO 10-004, serving as master of ceremonies is not prohibited by the code.

Public employee is not prohibited from establishing a non-profit organization.
ISSUE: Whether a City police officer is prohibited from establishing a non-profit organization designed to fulfill the needs of children and vulnerable adults that officers encounter during their service.

HOLDING: A police officer is not prohibited from establishing a non-profit organization. However, once the organization is established, should the police officer serve as an officer or director of the organization, the police officer is prohibited from using his official position or title to secure donations. Furthermore, if the organization solicits and accepts donations from City vendors or lobbyists, the officer must maintain a charitable solicitation log and submit it to the COE.

Donations from personal friends are not reportable.
ISSUE: Whether solicitations from personal friends (in no way connected with a County vendor or lobbyist) on behalf of a nonprofit organization, are reportable, where none of the donations exceed $50 in value.

HOLDING: As long as these solicitations and any resulting gifts demonstrate that the motivation for the gift was the personal or social relationship rather than an attempt to obtain the goodwill or otherwise influence the employee in the performance of her official duties, they are not reportable. If there is any question about the status of the person solicited, the Code permits solicitation where there is no quid pro quo or other special consideration, including any direct or indirect special financial benefit to the official or employee or to the person or entity being solicited, there is no pending application for approval or award of an nature before the county, and a solicitation form is filed.

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.

Councilman may not use his name and official title in fundraising efforts for the non-profit organization that he works for.
ISSUE: Whether a Village Councilman is prohibited from accepting employment with a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization.

HOLDING: The Councilman is not prohibited from accepting employment with a non-profit charitable organization or from soliciting donations in his personal capacity. However, the Councilman may not use his elected office, such as lending his name and official title to its fundraising efforts, to give the organization a special financial benefit not available to other similarly situated organizations. If the organization solicits or accepts a donation in excess of $100 from a Village vendor or lobbyist, the Councilman must maintain a log and submit the log to the COE.

Use of county email to solicit donations
ISSUE: Whether county employees may use their county email to solicit donations and gifts on behalf of a non-profit from other county employees.

HOLDING: The county employee is not prohibited from using the county email system to solicit donations from other county employees on behalf of her Church's homeless project fundraising effort, so long as she is not an officer or director of the Church or the homeless project, and does not use her official position to corruptly benefit a donor in exchange for a donation.

Public employees are not prohibited from using their email to publicize charity events or from soliciting and accepting donations from their co-workers.
ISSUE: Whether a county employee may use her county email to invite coworkers to an upcoming charity event and whether she may sell raffle tickets associated with the event during her lunch breaks or other non-county time.

HOLDING: She is not prohibited from using her public email or soliciting donations from other county employees on behalf of the charity.

Fundraising by elected officials or employees
ISSUE: Whether municipal elected officials and employees may participate in a fundraising event for the Plumosa School of the Arts Foundation.

HOLDING: Elected officials or employees are not prohibited from participating in charitable fundraising events, provided that any solicitation or acceptance of donations in excess of $100 from a person they know, or should know, is a vendor or lobbyist of their municipal government, is recorded in accordance with the charitable solicitation requirements of the code. Public officials or employees who are officers or directors of the foundation may not use their official public position or title, directly or indirectly, to give a special financial benefit to the foundation.

Participation in fundraiser while on duty.
ISSUE: Whether County and municipal Fire Rescue personnel may participate in the annual Muscular Dystrophy Association "Fill the Boot Drive" while on-duty.

HOLDING: Firefighters and paramedics are not prohibited from participating in the annual MDA Boot Drive provided that any solicitation or donation in excess of $100 from a person or entity that the employee or official knows, or should know, is a vendor or lobbyist of their employer, complies with the charitable solicitation log requirements of the code.

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.

Acceptance of scholarship or emergency financial assistance grants by public employees
ISSUE: Whether Palm Beach Police Department employees may accept emergency financial assistance grants from the Palm Beach Police Foundation; and whether any solicitation prohibitions might be alleviated by the Foundation being adopted and administered as a Town function.

HOLDING: PBPD employees are not prohibited from accepting scholarship or emergency financial assistance grants from the Palm Beach Police Foundation Emergency financial assistance and scholarship grants must be reported on an employee's annual gift reporting form. While accepting grants is not prohibited, PBPD employees, or any other person on their behalf, may not solicit donations from a vendor or lobbyist of the Town where the funds are to be used for the employee’s personal benefit, the benefit of a relative or household member, or the benefit or any other PBPD employee or their relative or household member. Should the Town take over administration of the grants, donations solicited by employees or accepted by the Town for a public purpose are not gifts under the Code of Ethics.

Elected official soliciting donations for non-profit
ISSUE: Whether a Councilman, who also serves as a director of a non-profit corporation, is permitted to solicit donations and hold fundraising events for that non-profit.

HOLDING: As a director of the non-profit, the Councilman may not use his official position in any way to financially benefit the non-profit, including allowing the use of his official title in soliciting donations. The Councilman may not vote or participate in any matter that will result in a special financial benefit to him or that non-profit. The Council is not prohibited from soliciting contributions in his personal capacity on behalf of the non-profit, but he must refrain from using his official title. A solicitation log must be kept and filed with the COE, showing the solicitation and acceptance of donations in excess of $100 from vendors and lobbyists of the Town.

Elected officials invited to luncheon
ISSUE: Whether the Literacy Coalition of Palm Beach County could continue to host the Mayors' Literacy Luncheon, an event sponsored by the Coalition, Comcast Cable and the League of Cities, designed to inform city officials about literacy programs available to their citizens.

HOLDING: The Literacy Coalition is not prohibited from holding the Mayor's Literacy Luncheon and inviting the mayors and other city representatives from all 38 municipalities within the County to attend the event so long as the requirements and limitations of the gift law are followed.

An elected official is not prohibited from accepting an award for professional or civic achievement from an organization or from attending the award reception.
ISSUE: Whether the COE chairman could accept the Anti-Defamation League's jurisprudence award for his prior service to the community, unrelated to his current position on the COE, and attend a fundraising reception, where he will accept the award, and what limits, if any, apply to the League in advertising and soliciting for donations in conjunction with the event.

HOLDING: The commissioner is not prohibited from accepting an award for professional or civic achievement or from attending the award reception. ADL is not prohibited from using his name, the Honorable Edward Rodgers, in reference to his years of service as a Judge and as a civil rights leader and advocate, in the written materials promoting the award and the event, so long as they submit a record of all solicitations made and pledges and donations received from vendors and lobbyists of the COE, in accordance with the transparency requirements of the Code.

Municipality may hold fundraising event
ISSUE: Whether a municipality can hold a charitable fundraising event as a community outreach program, where such program is approved by the Village Council, organized and run by the combined efforts of a non-profit entity, off-duty employees of the Fire Department, and certain on-duty Village staff, and where donations to support these events are solicited from vendors of the municipality.

HOLDING: The municipality may hold a fundraising event for the purpose of assisting local non-profit organizations, so long as there is no quid pro quo or other special consideration given by officials or employees to any donor for their participation and no person or entity with a pending application for approval or award currently before the Council is solicited for a donation. The municipality may assign staff members and allow the use of resources provided they are not connected with solicitation of donations from municipal vendors or lobbyists.

An elected official, who is an officer or director of a non-profit, is prohibited from using her name and official title, to solicit donations on behalf of the non-profit.
ISSUE: Whether a conflict of interest would exist if a City Commissioner also serves on the board of directors of a local non-profit organization and whether the Commissioner could continue to fundraise on behalf of the non-profit organization.

HOLDING: The Commissioner may not use her elected office to give the non-profit a special financial benefit while serving as an officer or director of the charity. As an officer or director of a charity, soliciting donations on behalf of that charity using her name and official title would constitute a violation of the misuse of office portion of the code. If she chooses to resign her position as an officer or director, or use only her name and not her official title to solicit on behalf of the charity, any solicitation of donations from vendors or lobbyists of West Palm Beach greater than $100 must be kept in a detailed log of her contact with those donors and submit a copy to the COE.

Letter of support from County Commissioner for fundraising
ISSUE: Whether a County Commissioner may submit a letter of support on behalf of a non-profit organization seeking grant funding.

HOLDING: The Commissioner is not prohibited from submitting a letter of support in her official capacity as County Commissioner on behalf of non-profit organizations, as long as she is not an officer or director of the non-profit recipient. Should the letter be sent to a County vendor, any funding donated by the vendor to the non-profit must be logged and submitted to the COE.

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.

If soliciting or accepting donations for 501(c)(3) over $100 from vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist, you must maintain a log of the solicitations and submit the log to the COE
ISSUE: A member of the Palm Tran Service Board asked if he is prohibited from soliciting donations on behalf of the Palm Beach County Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) of which he is the vice president and a board member.
HOLDING: The code does not prohibit him from soliciting donations on behalf of NFB, since NFB is a registered 501(c)(3) charitable organization. However, his participation in fundraising for NFB would need to be in his personal name without any reference to his official title or connection to his official position as a member of the PTSB. This applies directly to him and to anyone indirectly soliciting on his behalf. If he solicits or accepts any donation in excess of $100 from a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist of the PTSB or of Palm Tran (the county department that is subject to PTSB’s authority), he, or someone entrusted by him, must maintain a record of the solicitation and submit a log to the COE within 30 days of the event, or if no event is involved, within 30 days of the solicitation
.

A management board is considered a board of directors if they fulfill the same functions as a typical board of directors.
ISSUE: A county commissioner asked what prohibitions under the Code of Ethics would apply to her if she serves as an "executive champion" of Achieve Palm Beach County (Achieve) in her private capacity and what prohibitions would the code place on fundraising efforts on behalf of Achieve.
HOLDING: Based on the information provided, the duties of the executive champions include the same duties as a typical board of directors. Because they are fulfilling the same functions, the executive champions are serving as a “de facto” board of directors. Therefore, she is prohibited from using her official position as Palm Beach County mayor in any way to give a special financial benefit to Achieve. If any matter comes before the BCC which would result in a special financial benefit to Achieve, she must (1) publicly disclose the nature of the conflict before the BCC discusses the matter; (2) refrain from voting on and participating in the matter; and (3) file a state voting conflict form (Form 8b).

In terms of fundraising, if she serves as an executive champion, she would be prohibited from lending her name and official title to a fundraising effort on behalf of Achieve. Any solicitation would need to be in her personal name without any reference to her public title or connection to her official position. If she wishes to use her official title to solicit donations on behalf of Achieve, then she may not serve as an executive champion. In addition, any solicitation in excess of $100 from a county vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist must be logged and the log must be submitted to the COE within 30 days of the event, or if no event, within 30 days of the solicitation.

Public employee fundraising on behalf of non-profit of which he is officer or director
ISSUE: A city of Delray Beach employee asked if he may solicit or accept donations from businesses on behalf of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization of which he is an officer or director.
HOLDING: He is not prohibited from soliciting or accepting donations from businesses on behalf of the nonprofit while maintaining his position with the nonprofit organization, provided that he does so in his private capacity. Any solicitation of donations would need to be in his name without reference to his title or position with the city. If he solicits donations in excess of $100 from a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist of the city of Delray Beach, then he must maintain a record of any solicitations.

Advisory board member fundraising on behalf of non-profit of which he is an officer or director
ISSUE: An advisory board member for the Town of Jupiter asked if it would violate the code if he solicits or accepts donations, on behalf of the Taras Oceanographic Foundation (TOF), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization of which he is an officer or director, from businesses that are vendors of the town?
HOLDING: He is prohibited from using his official position as a member of the Environmental Task Force to give a special financial benefit to TOF or to corruptly secure a special benefit of any kind for TOF. Any solicitation, including letters sent to solicit donations, on behalf of TOF can only include his name as long as there is no reference to his official position as a member of the Environmental Task Force. If he solicits donations in excess of $100 from any vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the Environmental Task Force or any town department that is subject to the Environmental Task Force’s authority, influence, or advice, then he, or TOF if solicitations are made in his name, must maintain a record of any solicitations from these town vendors, lobbyists, principals or employers of lobbyists, and submit a solicitation log to the COE within 30 days of the solicitation, or within 30 days of a fundraising event held.

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.

Donation to nonprofit organization when officer or director
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) prohibits him from accepting a donation from a county vendor for a nonprofit organization of which you are an officer or director.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit him from soliciting or accepting a donation for a nonprofit organization from a county vendor provided there is no quid pro quo or other special consideration given. He must maintain a record of any solicitations or donations from any county vendors or lobbyists or principals or employers of lobbyists who lobby the county and submit it to the COE within 30 days of the event or if not solicited or donated for an event, then within 30 days of the solicitation or donation. His participation in fundraising for the organization also needs to be in his personal name only without any reference to his official title or connection to his official position as a county employee.

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.

Fundraising for non-profit organizations
ISSUE: A city council member asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) if she solicits donations on behalf of two non-profit organizations.

HOLDING: Because she is not an officer or director of either of the non-profit organizations, the Code does not prohibit her from using her official position to give a special financial benefit to the two organizations. Thus, she is not prohibited from lending her name and official title as a municipal council member to a fundraising effort on behalf of the organization.

Sharing of details about fundraiser with co-workers when donations will be used for personal expenses
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics if she shared the details of a “GoFundMe” page with other county employees when the funds raised would benefit her and be used to offset expenditures associated with an incident unrelated to her employment. HOLDING: The COE opined as follows: The Code does not preclude a person from providing information to or soliciting donations on a “GoFundMe” page from other County employees as long as all of the requirements outlined in this opinion are adhered to including that any requests for donations be in the employees’ personal name only without any reference to her county title or position, that no gifts are solicited or accepted from a prohibited source, and that any noted gift reporting requirements are followed. The opinion outlines all of the guidelines with specificity in the opinion. The COE did not provide an opinion regarding County policies or procedures related to this query.

Cone of silence does not apply to persons who do not respond to the competitive solicitation.
ISSUE: The attorney for the Municipal Public Safety Communications Consortium of Palm Beach County (MPSCC) asked if the Palm Beach County Lobbyist Registration Ordinance’s cone of silence provisions apply to communications between members of the MPSCC and the officials and employees of the cities of Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, and Delray Beach, where those cities have entered into Interlocal Agreements with Palm Beach County concerning use of a proposed countywide public safety radio system (County RFP). The MPSCC did not submit a proposal for the County RFP.
HOLDING: The cone of silence provisions do not apply to MPSCC or any of its representatives since MPSCC is neither a respondent nor a representative of a respondent to the County RFP. The Interlocal Agreements between the County and Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, and Delray Beach are agreements that are separate and distinct from any agreement made between the County and the respondents to the County RFP.

“Cone of silence” provision of the Lobbyist Registration Ordinance does not prohibit oral communication at a public meeting.
ISSUE: AT own Attorney asked if the “cone of silence” provision in the county’s Lobbyist Registration Ordinance prohibit members of the Town’s Retirement Board of Trustees from discussing investment consulting firms the board shortlisted, at a public meeting held prior to the award of a contract for these services.
HOLDING: The “cone of silence” provision of the Lobbyist Registration Ordinance does not prohibit a discussion at a public meeting about the “shortlisted” firms being considered for investment consulting by the Retirement Board of Trustees. While this provision does generally prohibit oral discussions between potential decisions makers and bidders or proposers for a pending contract, such oral communications at any public proceeding, including pre-bid conferences, oral presentations before selection committees, contract negotiations during any public meeting, presentations made to the board or local municipal governing body as applicable, and protest hearings, are specific exceptions to this prohibition.

Cone of silence provision cannot be waived.
ISSUE: The interim city attorney asked if the city of Delray Beach Commission may waive the cone of silence provision in order to meet individually with each person who submitted proposals to provide city attorney legal services.

HOLDING: Because the city solicited competitive bids for city attorney legal services, the cone of silence provision applies. Any oral communication between any city commissioner and any person seeking the award of the legal services contract that occurs outside of a public meeting is prohibited under this provision. Therefore, city commissioners cannot meet individually with each proposer seeking the award of the contract unless these one-on-one meetings are held during a publicly-noticed proceeding. If the city chooses to reject all bids for legal services and use the city’s direct acquisition method, the cone of silence will terminate. When the cone of silence is not in effect, the code does not prohibit the city commission from meeting individually one-one-one with any applicants.

Cone of silence applies when municipality seeks bids to purchase land owned by municipality.
ISSUE: The city attorney for the city of Boca Raton asked if the cone of silence provision applies when the city of Boca Raton is seeking bids from interested parties to purchase land owned by the city and, if it does apply, when does the cone of silence terminate.

HOLDING: The cone of silence provision applies to this situation because the city is utilizing a competitive solicitation process by soliciting competitive bids from parties interested in purchasing the land. The cone of silence provision goes into effect at the submission deadline. Any oral communication made outside of a public meeting between any person seeking the award of the sale/purchase contract and any city council member, their staff, or any employee authorized to act on behalf of the city council is prohibited after that time, unless an exception applies. The cone of silence provision would remain in effect during any pre-award contract negotiations. The cone of silence terminates when the city council awards the contract to one of the interested parties, rejects all of the bids from the interested parties, or takes some other action which ends the competitive solicitation process regarding the sale of the land.

Cone of Silence is in effect until the governing body awards or approves a contract, rejects all bids or responses, or takes some action which ends the solicitation process.
ISSUE: A vendor asked if there is a conflict between the “cone of silence” language used by the county’s Purchasing Department in Requests for Proposals and the Palm Beach County Lobbyist Registration Ordinance (Ordinance). If yes, does the Ordinance prevail, and is your client permitted to contact the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) or their staff in a form other than in writing after its proposal has been determined to be non-responsive
HOLDING: A conflict does not exist between the “cone of silence” language used by the Purchasing Department in Requests for Proposals and that used in the Ordinance. Therefore, your client is not permitted to contact any members of the BCC or their staff in a form other than in writing unless done at a public meeting until the BCC awards or approves a contract, rejects all bids or responses, or takes some action which ends the solicitation process.

Appearance of impropriety but no conflict of interest
ISSUE: The assistant city attorney for the city of Delray Beach asked (1) if members of the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) are under the jurisdiction of the COE and subject to the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (code), and (2) if the chair of WARC, Joycelyn Patrick, who is also a city of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Board (PZB) member, has a voting conflict if a sponsor of WARC’s annual fundraising gala appears before the PZB.

HOLDING: WARC is a nonprofit organization which was created to advise the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency and the city of Delray Beach on redevelopment issues in the West Atlantic area of the city. However, its board members are not appointed by the city commission and, thus, they are not city officials or employees as defined by Section 2-442. Therefore, WARC board members are not under the jurisdiction of the COE and are not subject to the Code of Ethics.

However, as a member of the PZB, Ms. Patrick is under the jurisdiction of the COE and is subject to the code. Based on the information presented, although Ms. Patrick is the chair of WARC (a nonprofit organization), WARC would not receive, directly or indirectly, any special financial benefit from the sponsor’s project if she were to vote to recommend that project to the city commission. While there may be no per se prohibited conflict of interest, there is an appearance of impropriety created by Ms. Patrick’s position on both the WARC board (which accepted a “title sponsorship” donation from this developer) and on the PZB board where she will have to vote on whether to recommend this project to the city commission. As long as Ms. Patrick does not give any quid pro quo or other benefit to the local developer in exchange for the sponsorship of WARC’s fundraising gala, she is not prohibited from participating in or voting on the local developer’s project when it comes before the PBZ board.

Voting conflict concerning client of outside employer
ISSUE: The attorney for the village of Wellington asked if a councilmember has a voting conflict that would prohibit him from voting on and participating in a matter where Wantman Group, Inc., who is a client of his outside employer, is acting as an agent for Janus Real Estate, LLC (JRE) and will be presenting JRE’s pending application for a conditional use permit for approval before the village council.

HOLDING: The councilmember would have a voting conflict. Because the councilmember’s vote on the conditional use permit application will directly impact whether JRE can go forward on its proposed veterinary clinic project and thus whether Wantman Group will be employed by JRE to work on its project, the possibility of a financial benefit to Wantman Group is not remote or speculative. There is a direct nexus between the councilman's vote and Wantman Group receiving a special financial benefit. Therefore, the councilmember may neither participate in nor vote on this matter.

No voting conflict when the possibility of financial benefit is remote and speculative.
ISSUE: The attorney for the town of Juno Beach asked if the code prohibits two members of the town of Juno Beach Town Council from participating in discussions and voting on ordinances amending the land use classification and zoning designation of a vacant parcel of real property owned by the town. One of the council members owns a unit in the condominium complex located across the street from the vacant property, and the other council member resides in a single-family residence directly northwest of the vacant property.

HOLDING: Because the vote has no direct and immediate financial benefit to Councilmember Fahy or Councilmember Wheeler, they are not prohibited from participating in and voting on the amending of the land use classification and the zoning designation of the vacant property under the circumstances listed.

A management board is considered a board of directors if they fulfill the same functions as a typical board of directors.
ISSUE: A county commissioner asked what prohibitions under the Code of Ethics would apply to her if she serves as an "executive champion" of Achieve Palm Beach County (Achieve) in her private capacity and what prohibitions would the code place on fundraising efforts on behalf of Achieve.
HOLDING: Based on the information provided, the duties of the executive champions include the same duties as a typical board of directors. Because they are fulfilling the same functions, the executive champions are serving as a “de facto” board of directors. Therefore, she is prohibited from using her official position as Palm Beach County mayor in any way to give a special financial benefit to Achieve. If any matter comes before the BCC which would result in a special financial benefit to Achieve, she must (1) publicly disclose the nature of the conflict before the BCC discusses the matter; (2) refrain from voting on and participating in the matter; and (3) file a state voting conflict form (Form 8b).

In terms of fundraising, if she serves as an executive champion, she would be prohibited from lending her name and official title to a fundraising effort on behalf of Achieve. Any solicitation would need to be in her personal name without any reference to her public title or connection to her official position. If she wishes to use her official title to solicit donations on behalf of Achieve, then she may not serve as an executive champion. In addition, any solicitation in excess of $100 from a county vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist must be logged and the log must be submitted to the COE within 30 days of the event, or if no event, within 30 days of the solicitation.

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).

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.

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
.

Is there a conflict if the PBC Director of Economic Sustainability (ES) if his wife helps her clients and members of their church apply for a financial aid program if ES is the administrator of the program.
Because the awarding of financial assistance through the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) is not discretionary in nature and the HOME program is available to any eligible member of the general public, a prohibited conflict of interest would not exist as long as he does not use his official position in any way to give a special financial benefit to any of the persons or entities specified in Sec. 2-443(a)(1-7) or uses his official position to corruptly secure any kind of special benefit for anyone.

Voting conflict concerns for official who owns property near the matter before his board
ISSUE: A member of the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board (HPB) asked if he is precluded from voting on a matter before the HPB involving building plans to a property in the Marina Historic District of the city of Delray Beach when he also owns property in that district. His interest in the area is less than one percent.
HOLDING: Because the economic benefit or loss affects a class large enough so as to remove any prohibited individual financial benefit, he is not prohibited from voting on or participating in discussions on these building plans. In addition, based on the location of his property and uncertainty of the construction process, the potential for any financial benefit to result from this vote is not direct and immediate but remote and speculative at best.

No voting conflict.
ISSUE: Two members of the town of Jupiter Planning and Zoning Commission asked:
1) Would it violate the misuse of office prohibitions or the voting conflicts prohibitions for them to participate in discussions or vote on proposed amendments to a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) when they are named parties in a circuit court action filed against the town of Jupiter by a not-for-profit citizen's group, Citizen Owners of Love Street (COOLS), challenging the procedural correctness of the 2016 project approval by the Jupiter Town Council, and they are both also listed as officers or directors of COOLS?
2) Would such a vote under these conditions violate the corrupt misuse of official positions prohibitions under the Code of Ethics?
3) Did their motion, participation in discussions and vote at the July 11, 2017, PZC meeting concerning tabling the issue of the Love Street PUD amendments until they were able to obtain an advisory opinion from the COE as to whether they were precluded from participating in discussions or voting on the Love Street PUD amendments, constitute a violation of the voting conflicts section of the Code of Ethics?

HOLDING:
(1) No. Such actions will not result in a prohibited "special financial benefit" to themselves or to any other person or entity set forth in Section 2-443(1-7) of the Code, including COOLS.
(2) No. The fact that an official holds a well-known position on a controversial issue, and takes that position in discussions or votes concerning that issue, does not make those actions a "corrupt misuse" of their official position by being "inconsistent with the proper performance of their public duties," even where that position is in the minority among voting members, so long as they receive no prohibited special benefit by these actions.
(3) No. The motion to table was not a discussion or vote on the relevant matter of the Love Street PUD amendment itself, and it also did not provide an improper benefit to them or to COOLS.

Local realtor serving on PZB board
ISSUE:The president of the town of Briny Breezes Town Council asked if a conflict of interest would exist for a local licensed Realtor to serve on the town’s Planning and Zoning Board (PBZ) and to also act as an unpaid broker for the town on the sale of its cooperative property.
HOLDING: The Realtor would not be prohibited from serving on the PBZ while also acting as the broker for the sale of the town’s cooperative property as long as he does not use his position as a PBZ member in any way to give a special financial benefit to his outside business or a customer or client of his outside business. If a matter before the PBZ would give a special financial benefit to any of the persons or entities specified in Section 2-443(a)(1-7), he would be prohibited from participating in or voting on that matter.

Elected official having an outside job
ISSUE: The mayor of the city of Boynton Beach City asked if he is prohibited from having outside employment with the Greater Boynton Beach Chamber of Commerce (the chamber).
HOLDING: His employment with the chamber would not create a conflict as long as he does not use his position as the mayor in any way to give a special financial benefit to the chamber or any customer or client of the chamber. He is also prohibited from using his position to corruptly secure a special benefit for anyone. If a matter before the city commission would give a special financial benefit to the chamber or a customer or client of the chamber, he would be prohibited from participating in or voting on that matter

Advisory board and contract oversight
ISSUE: A para-transit drive for First Transit, Inc. (FT), a vendor of the county, asked if his employment with FT prohibits him from serving as member of the Palm Tran Service Board (PTSB).

HOLDING: As an official, the code prohibits his outside employer from having any contracts with the county. However, this prohibition does not apply if the board does not have contract oversight regarding the subject contract. Here, because PTSB makes policy-setting recommendations regarding the contract between FT and the county, the PTSB is considered to have contract oversight. He is prohibited from serving on the board and must decline the appointment.

Potential advisory board member
ISSUE: The owner of MooreCars, LLC, asked if a prohibited conflict of interest would exist for her if she were to serve as a member of the Palm Tran Service Board (PTSB) when MooreCars is a vendor of First Transit, Inc.(FT), which is a vendor of the county.

HOLDING: She would be prohibited from using her official position as a member of the PTSB, or influencing others, in any way to give a special financial benefit to herself, to MooreCars, or to any customer or client of MooreCars, including FT. Further, if a matter before the PTSB would result in a special financial benefit for her, MooreCars, or any customer or client of MooreCars, she must publicly disclose the nature of the conflict, abstain from discussing and voting in the matter, and complete and file a State of Florida Commission on Ethics Voting Conflict Form.

Outside employment and board membership
ISSUE: The Palm Beach County League of Cities appointee to the COE asked if his outside business and employment as a mediator, which may include providing mediation services involving cases in which the county is a party, create a conflict of interest for him if he were to serve as a COE commissioner.

HOLDING: As an official, his outside business, Matrix Mediation, is prohibited from having any contracts or transactions for services with the county. However, this prohibition does not apply if the board does not have contract oversight regarding the subject contract. Here, the COE does not provide any regulation, oversight, management, or policy-setting recommendations regarding any contracts or transactions between Matrix Mediation and the county. Therefore, he is not prohibited from serving on the COE, but he must publicly disclose the existence of the contract or transactions at the time of his appointment or when any subject contracts or transactions are approved.

Parent company and subsidiary issue
ISSUE: Does a conflict of interest exists for Council Member Andrea O’Rourke where her spouse is employed by Merrill Lynch, a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation (BOA), when certain banking service agreements and bonds issued by the city that come before the city council involve BOA or BOA subsidiaries.
HOLDING: Council Member O’Rourke is not prohibited from voting on or participating in the renewal of or amendments to existing banking service agreements and bonds involving BOA and BOA subsidiaries as long as Merrill Lynch is not also involved in those matters. In addition, she is not prohibited from voting on or participating in new service agreements and bonds involving BOA and other BOA subsidiaries as long as Merrill Lynch is not also involved in those matters. Where Merrill Lynch is involved in the procurement of these banking services and bond financing arrangements, Council Member O’Rourke must abstain from participating in and voting on the matter, disclose the nature of the conflict, and file a State of Florida Commission on Ethics Conflict Form 8B.

Sole Source Exception to Contract Prohibition
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County Fire Rescue (PBCFR) Division Chief asked if a conflict of interest would exist for PBCFR if it enters into a contract with First Response Medical Consultants, LLC (FRMC) which provides mobile-integrated health (MIH) or community paramedicine (CP) services, where FRMC is owned by the PBCFR Medical Director and Associate Medical Director.
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics prohibits the Medical Director, Associate Medical Director, or their outside business from entering into a contract with PBCFR, unless an exception applies. Based on the facts provided, the sole source exception applies to their situation. Because FRMC is currently the only source of the MIH-CP services within the county, FRMC meets the sole source exception. In addition, they are prohibited from using their county positions to give themselves, FRMC, or any customers or clients of FRMC a special financial benefit. They must refrain from using or referring to their official positions, titles, county email, or wearing their county uniform while advertising or marketing their services to the general public while off duty. The code also prohibits them from using their official positions in any way that is inconsistent with the proper performance of their duties as the PBCFR medicals directors to corruptly secure a special privilege or benefit for anyone, including any of their clients. Thus, clients of FRMC cannot be given preference over other 911 calls for service.

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.

Conflict of interest issues if County employee's child works at County Vendor
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if a conflict of interest would exist for him if he were to participate on a selection committee that would choose the provider of property and liability claims handling services for the county, where his son is working as a summer intern for a county vendor who will most likely bid for that contract.

HOLDING: Because he had no involvement with the internship, his son’s application, or how the internship recipients were selected, there is no prohibited conflict of interest per se under the Code of Ethics based solely on the father-son relationship where his son works for the county vendor, so long as the employee does not use his official position as the director of Risk Management to give a special financial benefit to his son or his son’s outside employer (the county vendor). While there may be no per se prohibited conflict of interest, if he chooses to participate on the selection committee, an appearance of impropriety may exist.

Employees cannot accept tips for performing their public duties
ISSUE: The director-curator of Mounts Botanical Gardens (MBG) asked if a conflict of interest would exist for her if she were to receive compensation from the Friends of Mounts Botanical Gardens (Friends of MBG), a nonprofit organization, for oversight of the county’s Ambassadors of the Wetlands education program that is funded by a grant the Friends of MBG received from the Community Foundation for Palm Beach and Martin counties.

HOLDING: A conflict of interest would exist for her if she were to receive compensation from the Friends of MBG for providing administrative oversight of the Ambassadors of the Wetlands program. Although it was determined that oversight of the program should be provided by the MBG staff, and this role become an additional responsibility for her as the director-curator, she is prohibited from accepting compensation from a source other than her public employer for performing her public duties, unless her employment contract states otherwise. Because the assistance she provided since July 2017 was in her official capacity as a Palm Beach County employee, she is prohibited from accepting the compensation from the Friends of MBG for oversight of the Ambassadors of the Wetlands program.

Employee with outside business
ISSUE: A City of West Palm Beach employee asked if a conflict of interest would exist for her if: (1) the business entities that she and her outside business normally work with enter into contracts to provide goods or services with the city, or (2) her outside business was hired as a subcontractor by business entities who are vendors of the city to work on projects for the county or other municipalities, except the city.
HOLDING:
(1) Because she has not provided over $10,000 in goods or services to any of these entities in the previous 24 months, under the code of ethics, they are not customers or clients of her outside business. Therefore, as long as she does not use her official position with the city to give herself or her outside business a special financial benefit, a prohibited conflict of interest would not exist for her if any of the entities that her outside business normally works with enter into contracts with the city.
(2) Although the code prohibits her outside business from working as a subcontractor on projects for the City of West Palm Beach, the contractual relationship provision of the code does not prohibit her business from working as a subcontractor on projects for the county or other municipalities. Because she is not a member, official, director, proprietor, partner, or employee of the business entities that hire her outside business to perform work as a subcontractor, then those entities are not her outside employer. Because those entities are not her outside employer, the code does not prohibit her or her outside business from working as a subcontractor on their projects for the county or other municipalities.

Outside business cannot contract with public employer unless an exception applies
ISSUE: A county employee asked if it would violate the code of ethics if she registers her outside business with Palm Beach County’s Small Business Enterprise (SBE) program.
HOLDING: As an owner of the business, she is prohibited from using her official position with the county in any way to give a special financial benefit to herself, her daughter, or their outside business. These prohibitions include taking any action to influence or speed up the application and approval process for her business. As long as she uses the proper channels available to all members of the general public and does not influence the process, she is not prohibited from registering her business as a small business with the county. Although the code does not prohibit her from registering her outside business for the SBE Certification and attending events hosted by SBE, her outside business is prohibited from entering into any contracts or transactions for goods or services with the county, unless an exception applies.

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.

A department hiring an employee's child.
A Palm Beach County Fire Rescue employee asked if the code prohibits his department from hiring the daughter of a Fire Rescue employee.

The COE opined as follows: Based on the facts provided, the code does not prohibit the hiring of the daughter. The anti-nepotism section would not apply to this situation because the employee does not have the authority to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals within the section where his daughter would be working. Additionally, because the employee had no involvement with the interview process involving the position that his daughter applied for or the selection of his daughter, there is no prohibited conflict of interest per se under the code based solely on the father-daughter relationship. However, the department must also take care to follow any applicable policies that the employing entity may have established regarding the hiring of any family relative of a current employee.

Public employment and advisory board membership
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if it would violate the code of ethics if he continues to serve as a member of the City of Riviera Beach’s Planning & Zoning Board if he accepts a position as a legislative aide for a city councilperson.
HOLDING: As long as he does not use his official position as a municipal advisory board member and as a city employee in any way, including participating in or voting on a matter, to give a special financial benefit to any of the prohibited persons or entities listed in §2 443(a), the code would not prohibit him from continuing to serving as a member of the city’s Planning & Zoning Board while also working as a legislative aide. However, while there may be no per se conflict of interest, an appearance of impropriety does exist.

Advisory board member who also serves as director of a non-profit
ISSUE 1: A Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board (HPB) member asked if she could discuss and vote on an application coming before the HPB which seeks to list the Carver High School buildings on the City of Delray Beach’s Register of Historic Places when she is the director of the Carver High School Historical Preservation Society, Inc. (Carver Preservation Society), a non-profit organization which supports having Carver High School listed on both the local and national Register of Historic Places.
HOLDING 1: (1) It is remote and speculative as to whether her vote on an application seeking to list Carver High School on the city’s Register of Historic Places would result in a special financial benefit being given to the Carver Preservation Society. Because there is no direct causal relationship between this vote and a special financial benefit being given to the Carver Preservation Society, any discussion or vote by her on an application seeking to list Carver High School buildings on the city’s Register of Historic Place would not violate the code.
ISSUE 2: She also asked If the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics prohibits her from discussing and voting on an application before the HPB that is supported by or opposed by the Delray Beach Preservation Trust (Trust), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, if the Trust provides financial support to the Carver Preservation Society or becomes a fiscal sponsor of the Carver Preservation Society?
HOLDING 2: As long as she does not use her official position as a member of the HPB in any way, including participating in or voting on a matter, to give a special financial benefit to any of the prohibited persons or entities listed in Section 2-443(a) of the code, and further provided there is no “quid pro quo” or other benefit offered or accepted in exchange for the financial support from the Trust, the code would not prohibit her from voting on an application before the HPB that the Trust supports or opposes.

Official voting on "no outlet" sign at entrance of her street
ISSUE: The attorney for the Town of Juno Beach asked if a voting conflict would arise for a councilmember of the Town of Juno Beach if she votes on the installation of a “no outlet” sign at the entrance to a street on which she owns a home and resides?
HOLDING: It is remote and speculative as to whether her vote regarding the installation of a “no outlet” sign would result in a special financial benefit being given to herself or her husband as property owners. Although the installation of the sign may reduce misdirected traffic from driving down that road, any impact the sign would have on the value of the property is remote and speculative at best. Because there is no direct causal relationship between this vote and a special financial benefit being given to the councilmember or her husband, any discussion or vote by her on this matter would not violate the Code.

Voting conflict exists when interest in affected class exceeds 1%
ISSUE: Whether a voting conflict would arise for two Electric Utility Advisory Board (EUAB) members if they participate in the discussion and vote on the city of Lake Worth Beach Electric Utility’s Net Metering Program (Program) policy when they are both participants in the Program and one of them owns a solar energy systems installation business.
HOLDING: Only the solar customers are considered “similarly situated members of the general public” for purposes of determining whether a voting conflict exists regarding the Program. Because the class affected is limited to the 86 solar customers, both of their interests in the affected class currently exceed 1%. Therefore, the benefit is considered “special,” and they are prohibited from voting on or participating in this matter at this time. They must publicly disclose the nature of their conflict, abstain from voting, not participate in discussion on the matter, file a state voting conflict form (Form 8B), and submit a copy of the form to the COE.

Official is prohibited from voting on and participating in a matter which gives a special financial benefit to a customer or client of the official's outside business or employer.
ISSUE: Whether the mayor is prohibited by the code from participating in discussions and voting on a land development application that may come before the Village Council when the applicant is a customer or client of her outside business or employer.
HOLDING: The possibility of a special financial benefit (gain or loss) to the customer or client of the mayor’s outside business or employer from a vote to approve or reject a land development application would be direct and immediate. Therefore, the mayor is prohibited from participating in or voting on the land development application submitted on behalf of the customer or client individually or through a corporate entity in which the customer or client has an ownership interest.

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.

Outside employment as a consultant
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the code prohibits her from working as a consultant in her private capacity during non-work hours where none of her consulting work would involve applications that would need approval from the county.

HOLDING: As long as she and her outside business do not enter into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with the county, directly or indirectly, and she operates her business outside of her county work hours, she will not be in violation of the prohibited contractual relationships provision of the code. She is also prohibited from using her position with the county to influence another person to take some action which would give a special financial benefit to her customers or clients, soliciting business during her county work hours, and identifying herself as a county employee on any written or verbal communication to attempt to obtain a customer.

Voting conflict - "taking part" in a presentation
ISSUE: A member of the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) for the city of Delray Beach asked if she is prohibited by the code of ethics from attending the presentation on her application before the HPB and answering questions that her representatives cannot answer, if she only answers directly to her representatives who then address the HPB on her behalf.
HOLDIING: Although an appearance of impropriety may exist, as long as she provides and directs her answers only to her representatives out of earshot of the board, and as long as only her representatives then address the board, she would not be “taking part” in the presentation but merely providing requested information to her representative. However, the COE believes the best way for her to protect against allegations of improper participation in the discussions is to remain out of the room while the presentation is being made, and her representative could then come outside of the meeting room to obtain the answer for the HPB.

Indirect contract with the city is prohibited
ISSUE: A City Attorney asked if a councilperson, who in his private capacity works as a certified process server and has contracts with private investigations firms, is prohibited from serving subpoenas when those subpoenas are related to a lawsuit in which the city is a party.
HOLDING: The councilperson would be prohibited from serving the subpoenas on behalf of the law firm representing the city when the subpoenas are related to a lawsuit in which the city is a party. Although the private investigations firm hires the process server, it is the city who would be paying for the process server’s services through its contract with law firm who hires the investigations firm. If the councilperson were to serve the subpoena’s related to the lawsuit involving the city, a prohibited indirect contract with the city would be created because the city would be ultimately paying for the councilperson’s services.

No conflict if insufficient nexus
ISSUE: An elected official asked if he is prohibited from participating in discussions and voting on a matter involving an investor in 88 Napkins, LLC, where 88 Napkins is a client of a company that has an ownership interest in the official’s outside business.
HOLDING: Because the official does not have an ownership interest in any of the companies involved and 88 Napkins is not a customer or client of his outside business, there is not a sufficient nexus between 88 Napkins, LLC and his outside business to prohibit a vote by him regarding the solicitation involving the investor in 88 Napkins, LLC. Similarly, because the 88 Napkins investor does not have an ownership interest in the company that has an ownership interest in the official’s outside business, there also is not a sufficient nexus between the investor in 88 Napkins, LLC and his outside business which would prohibit a vote by him in this matter. Thus, he is not prohibited from voting on or participating in this matter as long as the companies that have an ownership interest in his outside business are not involved with this upcoming solicitation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Prohibition against giving special financial benefit to nonprofit organization of which employee serves as officer or director
ISSUE: A municipal employee asked if the Code of Ethics prohibited him from serving on the board of a nonprofit organization that has previously been cited for code violations by the city of Belle Glade when he works as a code enforcement officer for the city.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit him from serving on the board of the nonprofit organization as long as he does not use his official position as a city code enforcement officer in any way to give the nonprofit organization a special financial benefit or to corruptly secure a special benefit for the nonprofit organization. Thus, while on duty, he must treat the nonprofit organization in the same manner as he would treat any other property or business within the city. For example, he cannot ignore any city ordinance or code violations by the nonprofit organization while on duty, and he cannot ask another city employee to ignore any violations by nonprofit organization. However, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, any cases assigned to him that involve the nonprofit should be reassigned to another code enforcement officer.

The size of the class is large enough so as to remove any prohibited individual financial benefit
ISSUE: A member of the Lake Worth Beach Historic Resources Preservation Board (HRPB) asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) prohibits him from participating in discussions or voting on matters before the HRPB regarding the renovation and new construction at the Gulfstream Hotel, when he owns a unit in a condominium within 400 feet of the hotel.

HOLDING: Because the area in the immediate vicinity of the Gulfstream Hotel consists of approximately 115 property owners, his interest in the area is less than one percent. There is also nothing in the facts that currently show that the location of his property provides a unique circumstance wherein his personal gain or loss by this vote would exceed significantly that of other property owners in the immediate vicinity of the Gulfstream Hotel. Therefore, because the economic gain or loss from the Gulfstream Hotel project affects a class large enough so as to remove any prohibited individual financial benefit, he is not prohibited from voting on or participating in discussions on the renovation and new construction plans for the hotel.

Voting on reimbursement of legal fees for another council member
ISSUE: The City Attorney for the city of Boca Raton (City) asked if two City Council members are prohibited from participating in discussions or voting on a resolution authorizing the reimbursement of the City deputy mayor’s legal fees when the legal fees were incurred defending a complaint that involved the City deputy mayor’s endorsement of the two council members’ reelection campaigns.

HOLDING: The City Council members are not prohibited from voting on the reimbursement resolution coming before the City Council, because the resolution does not give either one of them a special financial benefit; only the deputy mayor will be receiving the financial benefit.

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.

Public employee working as independent contractor for vendor of public employer
ISSUE: A municipal employee asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits him from working as an independent contractor for a company that is a vendor of his public employer.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit him from working as an independent contractor for a vendor of his public employer as long as he does not perform any work, directly or indirectly, for his public employer and his work is performed outside of his municipal work hours.

Advisory board member having contract with public entity he serves
ISSUE: A potential Palm Beach County advisory board member asked if the Code prohibits him from serving as a member of the Advisory Committee for the Palm Beach County Office of Equal Business Opportunity (OEBO) when his outside business has an ongoing contractual relationship with the county.

HOLDING: He is not prohibited from serving as a member of the OEBO Advisory Committee because the advisory committee is purely advisory and does not have any role in the oversight of the contracts between his outside business and the county. However, the existence of the contractual relationship with the county must be disclosed at a public meeting of the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners at the time of his appointment.

Voting on issue involving litigation along a road that official has represented clients as a realtor
ISSUE: A municipal official asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits her from voting on issues related to the pending inverse condemnation litigation which claims the municipality widened B Road north onto private property without compensating the affected property owners, considering in her capacity as a realtor she has (both past and present) represented clients living or owning property on B Road.

HOLDING: She is not prohibited from participating in discussions or voting on these matters because the possibility of a special financial benefit is too remote and speculative and none of the affected property owners are her customer or client.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Municipal elected official's employment with County not considered outside employment
ISSUE: A municipal attorney asked if the Code prohibits a councilmember from participating in and voting on matters related to contract negotiations between the municipality and the County’s Fire Rescue Department (PBCFR) when the councilmember works for PBCFR as a firefighter/paramedic.

HOLDING: The councilmember 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 his personal gain or loss from a change to the contract would be significantly different from that of any other firefighter/paramedic employed by PBCFR.

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.

Fundraising for non-profit organizations
ISSUE: A city council member asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) if she solicits donations on behalf of two non-profit organizations.

HOLDING: Because she is not an officer or director of either of the non-profit organizations, the Code does not prohibit her from using her official position to give a special financial benefit to the two organizations. Thus, she is not prohibited from lending her name and official title as a municipal council member to a fundraising effort on behalf of the organization.

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.

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.

Advisory board members need for a waiver or disclosure
ISSUE: A county advisory board member asked if a conflict of interest would arise for him as a member of both the Palm Beach County Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals (CBAA) and the Infrastructure Surtax Independent Citizen Oversight Committee (ISICOC) if Verdex Construction (Verdex) submits bids for construction management in response to Requests for Proposals from the county when he is the president of Verdex?

HOLDING: Because the CBAA is purely advisory and does not have any authority to oversee, regulate, manage, or make policy-setting recommendations regarding the subject construction management contract(s) themselves, his membership on the CBAA does not prohibit such a contractual relationship between the County and Verdex as long as the existence of the subject contract is disclosed at a duly noticed public meeting of the BCC. However, although the ISICOC is also purely advisory, it has authority to oversee, regulate, manage, or make policy-setting recommendations regarding the subject construction management contract(s) themselves. Therefore, because of this contract oversight, the board member must obtain a waiver to continue serving on the ISICOC if Verdex is awarded any contracts. A waiver will require the BCC, upon full disclosure of the contract at a public meeting, to waive the conflict of interest by an affirmative vote of a majority plus one of the total membership of the BCC. If he was appointed by only one member of the BCC, the appointing board member alone can waive this conflict of interest.

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.

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.

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.

The Code does not prohibit a council member from volunteer and charitable work
ISSUE: A newly elected city council member asked if it would violate the Code of Ethics if she continued her volunteer work with a variety of non-profit organizations, including one where her spouse is on the board of directors.

HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit volunteer and philanthropic work for non-profit or charitable organizations. In the one instance where the council member’s spouse is on the board of directors, the Code prohibits the council member from using her official position to give a special financial benefit to any non-profit organization of which her spouse serves as an officer or director. Thus, as long as her city council position is not used in any way to give the organization a special financial benefit, her spouse is free to continue his board membership and volunteer work with this charity.

Customer/Client of advisory board member appearing before the board.
ISSUE: A member of the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission (PBZC) asked if a conflict of interest would arise for her if clients of her outside business – a travel agency – appeared before the PBZC. HOLDING: A prohibited conflict of interest does not arise based solely on a professional relationship that is unrelated to duties as a member of the PBZC. However, if any established clients were to come before the PBZC, abstention from any discussion or vote may be required if certain factors are met, including a determination as to if the people appearing before the board meet the definition of “customer or client” as proscribed by the Code of Ethics. The opinion outlines all of the necessary restrictions with specificity.

County advisory board member also a board member for a private company
ISSUE: A member of the Palm Beach County Citizens Committee on Airport Noise (CCAN) asked if an impermissible conflict would arise under the Code if she were also to become a board member of a Aeroauto, LLC, a private business operating in Palm Beach County. HOLDING: The Palm Beach County Code of Ethics does not prohibit membership on Aeroauto LLC’s board simultaneous with membership on the CCAN as long as certain requirements are met, including possible abstention from participation in discussions or voting were Aeroauto LLC to come before the CCAN.

Purchase of personal property from private citizen
ISSUE: A town employee asked if the code prohibited him from purchasing an item of personal property from a local citizen when the item had not been advertised for sale to the general public. HOLDING: The Code does not preclude the purchase of the item as long as the guidance in the opinion is followed, including determining the actual fair market value of the item being purchased, and, if necessary, completing and filing the appropriate gift form with the COE. If the seller of the item is a prohibited source, and the fair market value of the item is $100 or more than the sale price, then the purchase would not be allowed under the Code. The opinion outlines the details of the necessary analysis that must be undertaken prior to completion of the transaction.

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.

Whether an advisory board position is allowed by the Code
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) if she accepted a position on the Palm Beach State College (PBSC) advisory board. HOLDING: Although PBSC is a vendor of the County, the employee plays no role in the negotiations of County contracts or transactions involving PBSC. Additionally because the position on PBSC’s advisory board is unpaid, PBSC is not considered her outside employer. She will also not be serving as an officer or director of PBSC, merely as a member of the PBSC advisory board. Also important is that the appointment to the board will be made by a representative from PBSC. Because of these things, as long as all of the guidance in the advisory opinion is followed, serving on the PBSC advisory board will not violate the Code.

Whether an advisory board position is allowed by the Code
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) if he accepted a position on the Palm Beach State College (PBSC) advisory board. HOLDING: Although PBSC is a vendor of the County, the employee plays no role in the negotiations of County contracts or transactions involving PBSC. Additionally because the position on PBSC’s advisory board is unpaid, PBSC is not considered his outside employer. He will also not be serving as an officer or director of PBSC, merely as a member of the PBSC advisory board. Also important is that the appointment to the board will be made by a representative from PBSC. Because of these things, as long as all of the guidance in the advisory opinion is followed, serving on the PBSC advisory board will not violate the Code.

Potential conflict of interest during discussion and/or vote
ISSUE: An elected official for the City of Boynton Beach asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) if he participated in discussions or voted on matters before the Boynton Beach City Commission concerning a proposed ordinance regarding regulations for short-term rentals (STR) within the city limits of Boynton Beach (City).
HOLDING: Although the official owns a property that is currently registered as a STR, the size of the class (the number of STR properties in the City) is large enough that the official’s interest in the measured class was well below 1%. Further, there was nothing to indicate that the official’s STR property provided a unique situation wherein the personal gain or loss as related to any potential ordinance would exceed significantly that of other owners of STR properties in the City. Thus, any possible economic benefit or loss surrounding a new ordinance affected a class large enough to remove any prohibited individual financial benefit. Because of this, the Code does not prohibit voting on or participating in discussions related to the proposed ordinance.

Potential conflict of interest during discussion and/or vote
ISSUE: A councilmember for the City of Boca Raton (City) asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) prohibited him from participating in discussions or voting on matters before the Boca Raton City Council concerning a proposed “text amendment” to the City’s zoning code that will effectively apply only to a single parcel? HOLDING: Even though the councilmember owns two separate commercial properties within the City that are zoned the same as the parcel that is the subject of the proposed amendment, neither of those properties are located within an area that would be affected by the proposed “text amendment.” Because of this, it is remote and speculative that his vote on this matter would result in any special financial benefit to a prohibited person or entity. Thus, the Code does not prohibit voting on or participating in discussions involving the proposed amendment.

Employee entering into contract with municipality on behalf of a non-profit
ISSUE: The attorney for a municipality asked if a conflict of interest arose if an employee of the municipality, acting on behalf of a non-profit organization, entered into a contract with the municipality where the non-profit pays the associated fees and the municipality provides the venue and designated services during a co-sponsored fundraising event? HOLDING: Based on the facts provided, especially considering the terms of the proposed contract between the municipality and the non-profit closely mirror previous contracts between the municipality and other non-profit organizations, the co-sponsorship agreements would not result in a special financial benefit to the non-profit. Additionally, the Code prohibits the employee or his outside business or employer from entering into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with his municipality. Although the employee is the president of the non-profit, because he serves as a volunteer and receives no compensation, it does not qualify as his outside employer or business. Therefore, the contractual relationship prohibition found in the Code does not apply.

Potential voting conflict for elected official when customer or client of outside business participated in project
ISSUE: The attorney for a municipality asked if a voting conflict arose if an elected official participated in discussions or voted on an issue where a customer or client of the official’s outside business had participated in a preliminary component of the project. HOLDING: An elected official is prohibited from participating in discussions or voting on matters that will give a special financial benefit to a client or customer of her outside business. Here, the customer or client will not receive a special financial benefit from the official’s vote because the possibility of economic gain or loss is remote and speculative.

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.

Possible special benefit to customer or client of outside business
ISSUE: Does a voting conflict arise if an elected official participates in discussions or votes on an issue that involves a customer or client of the official’s outside business? HOLDING: An elected official is prohibited from participating in discussions or voting on matters that will give a special financial benefit to a customer or client of his or her outside business. Here, because the discussions do not implicate any special financial benefit to the customer or client, the Code does not require you to limit your involvement. Considering that the resolution between the City and the outside client has been finalized, there are many situations where a special financial benefit would not be implicated. Thus, the elected official must be certain that the position is not used in a manner that will result in a special financial benefit for the customer or client of the outside business.

Outside employment with a vendor of the municipality served by the employee
ISSUE: Would a conflict of interest arise if an employee for a municipality accepted secondary employment with a company, when that outside employment would result in the employee providing services to the municipality. HOLDING: In general, the Code prohibits public employees or their outside employer from having any contracts or transactions to provide goods or services with their municipal employer. However, the Code has several exceptions to the contractual relationship prohibition. Here, unless an exception applies, this outside employment would be prohibited because the outside employer is a vendor of the municipality. However, the Code provides for a sole source exception where the outside employer is the sole source of the product or service within the municipality. Because the municipal employee is the only qualified provider in the area, the sole source exception would apply.

May an employee's spouse provide goods to a business owned by members of local advisory boards
ISSUE: An employee of a local municipality asked if the Code would prohibit his spouse from providing goods or services to a local business when both owners of that business are members of different advisory boards for the municipality, and the employee routinely appears before both boards as a function of his employment. HOLDING: Based on the facts as they currently exist, the Code does not prohibit the employee’s spouse from a transactional relationship with the business as long as he does not use his position with the municipality in any way to give a special financial benefit to his wife’s outside business. He is also precluded from using his position in any way to corruptly secure a special benefit of any kind to his wife’s outside business or to the business to which she will be providing goods or services.

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.

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.

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.

Acceptance of a gift
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) if she accepted tickets to “Evening on Antique Row”, when the tickets are being provided by the Historical Society of Palm Beach County (HSPBC).
HOLDING: Because HSPBC is a vendor of the County, the Code prohibits the employee from accepting any gifts with an aggregate value that exceeds $100 for the calendar year from HSPBC. If the value of the tickets is $100 or less for both tickets, and she has not accepted any other gifts from HSPBC during the calendar year, she may accept the tickets without further action. However, if the value of the two tickets exceeds $100, in order to accept the tickets, she must reimburse any value in excess of $100 to HSPBC within 90 days of the event.

Employee's outside employment as a realtor
ISSUE: A County employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) prohibited her outside employment as a realtor. HOLDING: Generally, the Code would only restrict outside employment if that employment resulted in a prohibited person or entity receiving a special financial benefit; thus, as long as that does not occur and the guidance in the opinion is carefully followed, the Code does not prohibit the outside employment as a licensed realtor.

Working for a vendor in a volunteer capacity only
ISSUE: May a County employee work as a peer reviewer in a volunteer capacity for a County vendor. HOLDING: Generally, the Code would only restrict relationships with vendors if that relationship resulted in the vendor becoming an outside employer. Here, because the position is uncompensated, the work is akin to a volunteer position. Additionally, because the training for the position is offered at no cost to any qualified individual, it is not considered a gift from a prohibited source. Thus, as long as the guidance in the opinion is carefully followed, the Code does not prohibit the employee serving as a peer reviewer in a volunteer capacity.

Outside employer of County employee's spouse entering into a contract with the County
ISSUE: May the outside employer of a County employee's spouse enter into a contract with the County to provide professional services? HOLDING: The Code generally restricts any actions that would result in a spouse or a spouse’s employer receiving a special financial benefit. However, if the County employee carefully follows the guidance in the opinion, and the employee abstains from participation in certain aspects of relevant projects, then the Code will not preclude the employer from becoming a County vendor.

Voting conflict when project is near a board member's home and the size of the class is small
ISSUE: A member of the Palm Beach County Zoning Commission (ZC) asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) prohibited her from participating in discussions and voting on an agenda item that involves a property located directly adjacent to her home address. HOLDING: The Code generally restricts any actions that would result in a prohibited special financial benefit. Based on the size of the class affected by this project, the Code would prohibit the ZC member from participating in discussions or voting on this project.

Outside business of councilmember may not enter in contract or transaction with municipality
ISSUE: The attorney for a municipality asked if the Code of Ethics would prohibit the municipality from purchasing goods from the outside business of one of its council members. HOLDING: Generally, the Code restricts any actions that would result in a council member’s outside business entering into a contract or transaction with their municipality. Thus, unless an exception applies, the Code would prohibit a contractual relationship between the municipality and the outside business of the councilmember.

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.

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.

May an elected official vote on an issue that may impact property previously owned by the official.
ISSUE: A municipal official asked if the Code would prohibit him from participating in discussions and voting on a zoning change for a development project when he recently sold property located on the same street as the proposed project. HOLDING: The official is not prohibited from participating in discussions or voting on this matter because, based on the facts he provided, there is no possibility that his participation will result in a current or future special financial benefit to a prohibited person or entity, including himself.

Employee participation in the marketing program of a vendor
ISSUE: Does the Code prohibit a county employee from participating in a marketing program intended to promote the product of a current County vendor. HOLDING: Generally, the Code would only restrict relationships with vendors if that relationship resulted in the vendor becoming an outside employer. Here, because the endorsement of the product is uncompensated, the work is akin to a volunteer position. Thus, as long as the guidance in the opinion is carefully followed, the Code does not prohibit the employee from taking part in the marketing program proposed by the vendor.

Elected official voting on an issue related to her outside business
ISSUE: An elected official who owns an auto repair business asked if the Code would prohibit her from participating in discussions or voting on matters before the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners concerning a request for proposals to build an auto racetrack in Palm Beach County. HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit her from participating in discussions or voting on the proposal regarding the auto racetrack because any potential for loss or gain to her outside business is remote and speculative

Elected official participating in matters involving former employer
ISSUE: An elected official asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics prohibited him from participating in discussions or voting on matters that involved a former employer. HOLDING: Because the question involves a former employer, the Code does not prohibit the elected official’s participation or vote as long as the participation does not result in a special financial benefit to any other prohibited persons or entities.

Municipality limiting the criteria of an assistance program to its own employees
ISSUE: A municipality asked if the Code of Ethics would prohibit them from limiting the eligibility criteria of a housing assistance award in a manner that would make only the municipality’s employees eligible to receive the benefit. HOLDING: Although there is a benefit involved, because this benefit is available to every employee (as long as the award criteria is satisfied), the award would not be considered a special benefit under the Code. Therefore, based on the facts provided, where every employee is afforded the opportunity to apply for the housing award, the Code does not prohibit the municipality from offering this benefit to them. Additionally, the award would likely be considered a gift, and, as such, any employee who receives the award would be required to report it on a gift disclosure form since the value most likely exceeds $100.

When an employee may accept outside employment with a vendor of their organization
ISSUE: An employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) would prohibit county employees from accepting part-time employment with an organization that is a County vendor, where the vendor's contract is overseen by the department in which the employees work. HOLDING: The Code would prohibit employees from obtaining part-time employment with this organization because it is a vendor of their public employer, and the specific department the employees work within oversees the subject contract. Because of this, employees working within that department would not be able to comply with all of the requirements of the part-time employment exception and waiver provision.

A County employee's outside business may contract with state, federal regional, local or municipal government entities, excluding Palm Beach County.
ISSUE: Whether an employee of Palm Beach County, may sell a training prop he designed to other federal regional, local or municipal government entities.

HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit an employee from selling a training prop which he designed and manufactured on his own time with his own materials through his outside business to state, federal regional, local or municipal government entities, excluding Palm Beach County.

Sale of property owned solely by an official's spouse.
ISSUE: Whether a Town Council Member in the Town of Cloud Lake would violate the Code of Ethics if his spouse sold a vacant lot, owned solely by her, to the Town.

HOLDING: The Council Member may not use his official position or office to give a special financial benefit to himself or his spouse in this proposed property sale by his spouse to the Town. While the proposed sale of property owned solely by his spouse to the Town is not prohibited by this section, he must proceed cautiously in this matter.

Exceptions allowing contracts with public employer
ISSUE: An employee of County Fire Rescue asked if a prohibited conflict of interest is created if his outside business bids for and is awarded a contract with the County, his public employer.

HOLDING: There are two potential exceptions where the Fire Rescue employee could enter into a contract with the county without violating the code's contractual relationship prohibition. Section 2-443(e)(1) provides an exception for contracts entered into under a process of sealed, competitive bidding, where his 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 filed a statement with the Supervisor of Elections and the COE disclosing the nature of his interest in the business prior to submitting the bid. Section 2-443(e)(4) also provides an exception when the total amount of his outside business's contracts or transactions with the county does not exceed $500, in the aggregate, then he is not prohibited from contracting with the county. As long as his bid submission comports with one of these exceptions, he is not prohibited from applying and accepting bids awarded.

City employee’s husband wishes to contract with the city
ISSUE: A City of Delray Beach employee asked if a prohibited conflict of interest would exist for her if her husband’s business sells saw blades to the city’s fire rescue department, when her husband’s business is the sole source of a trademarked blade.

HOLDING: Since the Code prohibits a business of which a member of the employee’s household has at least a five percent ownership share from contracting with the city, her husband’s business may only enter into a contract or a transaction to sell saw blades to the city if an exception to the contractual relationship prohibition applies. Since the business is the sole source of the trademarked EXTRACTOR Rescue Blade, that product meets the sole source exception, and a conflict of interest would not exist if his business sells that product to the city. For the other products that her husband sells which do not meet the sole source exception, the Code provides an exception for contracts or transactions totaling less than $500 per calendar year and for contracts awarded under a system of sealed, competitive bidding, where the lowest bidder is selected.

City employee may not work as sub-contractor for private company providing contracted services to the city.
ISSUE: A city employee asked whether it was a violation of the code to perform work as sub-contractor for private company providing contracted services to the city.

HOLDING: A subcontractor relationship provides sufficient “privity” to establish an indirect contractual relationship with the city. The work would violate Sec. 2-443(c).

Assisting a non-profit organization facilitate grants from charitable organizations to improve county property is not a prohibited contractual relationship.
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether assisting a non-profit organization facilitate grants from charitable organizations to improve county property is a prohibited contractual relationship.

HOLDING: Sec. 2-443(c) permits employees to enter into contracts with the county as part of their official duties. Here, the employee is within that provision. Additionally, she is not on the board of the organization and does not benefit directly or indirectly. This, therefore, does not violate Sec. 2-443(a) (1)-(7).

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.

Free presentation of “story time” program
ISSUE: A library worker asked whether it violates the code to present a free “story time” program to a patron’s child’s birthday party.

HOLDING: There is no prohibited contractual relationship in providing this free service. Even if the service was paid, it would only be prohibited if the patron had a contractual relationship with the county.

Independent contractor not an “employee” under the definition of “outside employer
ISSUE: An attorney who represents a number of local governments by contract asked whether he is prohibited from serving as a volunteer lawyer for the COE.

HOLDING: Although he is considered a county official by performing volunteer services, as an independent contractor to local governments, the prohibited contractual relationship provision does not apply in this situation.

Contract with State of Florida, not PBC
ISSUE: An attorney providing court mediation services under a contract with the State of Florida asked whether he is prohibited from serving on an advisory board.

HOLDING: Because his employment contract is with the state and not the county, the prohibited contractual relationships provision is inapplicable in this situation. This employment, along with advisory board service, is not prohibited by the Code of Ethics.

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).

Housing Finance Authority members appointed by the BCC will be regarded as advisory board members for the limited purpose of Code interpretation and enforcement.
ISSUE: Whether the waiver provisions for “advisory board members" applied equally to Housing Finance Authority board members and County appointed advisory board members where HFA appointees provide no regulation, oversight, management or policy-setting recommendations to the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BCC).

HOLDING: HFA members appointed by the BCC will be regarded as Advisory Board members for the limited purpose of Code interpretation and enforcement. The Code provides waivers, exemptions and exceptions for advisory board members only, recognizing that an advisory board member's ability to influence public decision making, as a result of the appointment, is limited to the narrow reach of his or her advisory board.

Sealed bid, low bid exemption to the contractual relationship prohibition.
ISSUE: Whether it is a prohibited conflict of interest if a Palm Beach County employee bids for and is awarded a contract with Palm Beach County.

HOLDING: A county employee can contract with the county through a sealed bid process where the employee is neither setting bid specifications nor reviewing the sealed bids submitted and has disclosed the nature of their interest in the business submitting the bid.

Sealed bid, low bid exemption to the contractual relationship prohibition.
ISSUE: Whether as a County advisory board member a prohibited conflict of interest is created if his outside business bids for and is awarded a contract with Palm Beach County through a sealed, competitive bid process.

HOLDING: A county advisory board member may not use his official position to give a special financial benefit to his outside business and may not enter a contract for goods or services with Palm Beach County unless it is through a sealed bid process. The advisory board member 1) must not participate in the determination of bid specifications, 2) must not use their official position to influence or persuade their government entity other than by the mere submission of the bid, and 3) must file a statement with the Supervisor of Elections and the Commission on Ethics disclosing the nature of the interest in the outside business prior to submitting the bid.

Guidelines for advisory board member with outside employer
ISSUE: Whether membership on a non-decisional purely advisory board would prevent a board member’s outside employer from contracting with the City.

HOLDING: An advisory board member’s outside employer is not prohibited from having a contractual relationship with the City provided that the subject contract or transaction is disclosed at a public meeting of the municipal governing body and the advisory board provides no regulation, oversight management, or policy-setting recommendations regarding the subject contract or transaction.

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.

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.

Entering into a contract for goods or services with the City prior to becoming an official for the City would not violate the contractual relationships provision of the Code.
ISSUE: Whether a filed candidate running for City commissioner may participate in a Request for Qualifications and ultimately enter into a contract with the City, and whether, if elected, the contract can be ongoing. You also asked whether you would have a conflict if elected, should the contract be ongoing.

HOLDING: Entering into a contract for goods or services with the City prior to becoming an official for the City would not violate the contractual relationships provision of the Code, and the Code does not apply retroactively to actions that have taken place before a person becomes subject to its jurisdiction. Upon taking office, any change, revision, alteration or renewal would alter the status of the contract or transaction and may violate the prohibition against contracting with one's government.

Outside employer is not prohibited from having a contractual relationship with the City
ISSUE: Whether sitting as a member of a non-decisional, purely advisory board of the City of West Palm Beach (the City), prohibits the advisory board member’s outside employer from contracting with the City.

HOLDING: A City advisory board member’s outside employer is not prohibited from having a contractual relationship with the municipality provided that the subject contract or transaction is disclosed at a public meeting of the municipal governing body and the advisory board does not regulate, oversee, manage, or make policy recommendations regarding any contract or transaction between the outside employer and the City.

A municipality has authority to impose more stringent rules and policies regarding outside employment of its municipal employees.
ISSUE: Whether a municipal employer could require their employees to sign a City outside employment request form in addition to the standard conflict of interest waiver form as provided by the Commission on Ethics.

HOLDING: Contractual relationship prohibitions and waiver requirements under the Code apply to part-time outside employment where the outside employer transacts business with your municipality. A waiver of the contractual relationship prohibition requires that you adhere to your municipal merit rules, policies and obtain the approval of your municipal supervisor. A municipality has authority to impose more stringent rules and policies regarding outside employment of its municipal employees.

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.

County Official’s Contractual Relationships
ISSUE: Whether an individual is prohibited from serving as an appointed member of the County Housing Finance Authority because his outside employer may contract with the HFA.

HOLDING: He is not prohibited from accepting an appointment to the HFA under the current facts. Since the BCC appoints the HFA members, he is considered a County official. As such, he is prohibited from entering into contracts or transactions with the County. Additionally, as an independent entity, the HFA it is not within the jurisdiction of the Code. Therefore, neither he nor his outside employer is prohibited from entering into contracts or transactions with the HFA.

The outside employer of a member of a purely advisory board may be allowed to have a contractual relationship with the County.
ISSUE: Whether the Code prohibits the outside employer of a member of a non-decisional, purely advisory board of Palm Beach County from contracting with the County.

HOLDING: The outside employer of a member of a purely advisory board is not prohibited from having a contractual relationship with the County, provided that the subject contract or transaction is disclosed at a public meeting of the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners and the advisory board does not provides regulation, oversight, management, or policy-setting recommendations regarding the subject contract or transaction.

Financial services professionals involved in the public issuance of bonds are not prohibited from contractual arrangements or compensation contingent upon the closing of the subject transaction.
ISSUE: Whether the contingency fee prohibition applies to investment or financial advisors, underwriters, investment banks, credit enhancers, sureties, bond, underwriter or issuer's counsel, bank or disclosure counsel, title insurers or ratings agencies, where the normal and customary compensation for these services are contingent upon an action or decision of government.

HOLDING: When acting in the normal course of their profession, financial services professionals involved in the public issuance of bonds are not prohibited from contractual arrangements or compensation contingent upon the closing of the subject transaction. This arrangement is ordinary and customary in the bond underwriting industry as compensation paid under this sort of contract comes from the monies financed.

Working groups reporting to advisory boards
ISSUE: Whether an employee of Engenuity Group, Inc., a County vendor, may continue to serve as a member of the Technical/Professional Working Group of the Palm Beach County Water Resources Task Force.

HOLDING: The COE’s jurisdiction over vendors is limited and does not include the prohibited contractual relationship section of the Code. Here, while the Technical/Professional Working Group reports to a County advisory board, it is not an advisory board created by the County or a municipality. Since she is appointed by the League of Cities, she is also not an official as defined by the Code.

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.

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.

A public employee’s outside business is not prohibited from providing pet vaccination services at a county vendor, provided the employee gives the store adequate consideration for use of their space.
ISSUE: Whether a veterinarian employed by Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control, is permitted to provide low cost vaccination and spay/neuter surgeries through her outside business, for cats and dogs at The Red Barn, a vendor of Palm Beach County, when she pays $50 monthly rent to use folding tables in the aisle way for two hours once a month.

HOLDING: The public employee’s outside business may provide pet vaccination services at The Red Barn, a county vendor, so long as she gives the store adequate consideration for use of their space, in order to avoid the receipt of a prohibited gift in excess of $100 from a vendor.

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.

A government entity is specifically exempted from the definition of outside employer or business under the Code of Ethics.
ISSUE: Whether the Director of the City of Greenacres Leisure Services Department allowing Palm Beach State College to use city-owned classroom facilities under the management of her department presents a conflict of interest where she is also employed as a part-time adjunct instructor at the college.

HOLDING: Because government entities are specifically exempt from the definition of outside employer or business, the arrangement between Greenacres and PBSC to use city classrooms is not prohibited even though the public employee works part-time for PBSC as an adjunct instructor. However, she may not use her public position to obtain a special financial benefit through this arrangement.

A former county employee’s outside business may contract with county even though girlfriend is county employee
ISSUE: A former employee asked whether his “outside business” may contract with the county when his girlfriend is also a current county employee.

HOLDING: There is no prohibition as even if the former employee is covered by the Post-Employment Ordinance, he left employment 6 years ago- well beyond the 2 year prohibition. As long as his girlfriend is not an officer or shareholder of the “outside employer,” there would be no prohibition.

City employee’s outside business is prohibited from contracting for water-related services with municipalities which purchase water from the city
ISSUE: A city water plant operator asked whether his outside business may contract with other municipalities to conduct water testing on samples when they purchase water from his city.

HOLDING: Under these circumstances, a conflict of interest arises and the employee may not contract “indirectly” with his own employer.

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.

Contractual relationship exception and travel expenses related to membership in organization.
ISSUE: The attorney for the City of Lake Worth asked:
1) if City of Lake Worth Commissioner Andy Amoroso may sell newspapers to the City’s library for an amount not to exceed $500 per year without violating the Code, and
2) if the Code allows Commissioner Amoroso to accept travel expenses from the National League of Cities without any requirement to report the expenses on the gift reporting form?

HOLDING:
1) Commissioner Amoroso may sell newspapers to the City of Lake Worth without violating the contractual prohibition provision of the Code as long as the amount of the transaction with the City does not exceed $500 per year.
2) Commissioner Amoroso is not prohibited from accepting the National League of Cities’ payment or reimbursement of the travel expenses as long as his travel is related to the City’s membership in the National League of Cities. However, although the Code permits Commissioner Amoroso to accept the travel expenses, state law controls the gift reporting requirements for state reporting individuals. Since Commissioner Amoroso, as a local elected official, is a state reporting individual, he needs to determine whether the travel expenses must be reported under state law. Under the Code, if a state reporting individual is required to file a State of Florida Quarterly Gift Disclosure Form (Form 9) with the state, he or she must also file a copy of the Form 9 with the COE at the same time.

City employees are prohibited from also working as dance team instructors for their public employer’s dance team.
ISSUE: The Assistant City Attorney for the City of Delray Beach asked if the Code prohibits a City employee from also working as a dance team instructor for the City’s dance team.
HOLDING: The Code prohibits the City employees from also working as dance team instructors for the City’s dance team because none of the exceptions to the contractual relationship prohibition apply.

Public employees prohibited from contracting with their public employer unless an exception applies.
ISSUE: An employee of Palm Beach County’s Palm Tran asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits her or her outside business from contracting with the county and municipalities located within the county.
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics prohibits a county employee or her outside business from entering into a contract for goods or services with the county, directly or indirectly, unless one of several exceptions apply as found in code section 2-443(e). However, the code does not prohibit a county employee from entering into a contract for goods and services with any municipality within the county. There is no prohibition against entering into a contract for services with any municipality, so long as she does not use her official position as a county employee to assist her in obtaining municipal contracts.

Waiver form for outside employment
ISSUE: Can a City employee who owns an outside business which offers mandatory fire rescue training from providing such training to City fire rescue employees if (1) the City pays for the training di re ctly or (2) City fire rescue employees pay for the training directly and are then reimbursed by the City?
HOLDING:
1) Yes, the employee is prohibited from providing such training. As the owner of the business, the city employee who has an outside business which offers the training is not eligible to receive an outside employment waiver, even where he may also be a part-time employee of this outside business.
2) Yes, the employee is prohibited from providing such training. Because the owner of this business is a city employee and his or her business cannot contract with the city to provide goods or services, the city employee who works part-time at this business cannot receive a part-time outside employment waiver, as the outside employer cannot contract with the city for goods or services.
3) The city employee may be eligible for an outside employment waiver under Section 2-443(e)(5) of the Code of Ethics, which establishes a process by which the contractual relationship prohibition is waived for employees. As long as he or she meets all of the waiver requirements as set forth in Section 2 443(e)(5), including not working directly within the section or division of the West Palm Beach Fire Rescue Department or another city department that is specifically authorized to enforce, oversee, or administer the contract, the city employee who works part-time for a business which offers fire rescue training is not prohibited from providing such training to city fire rescue employees when that business is not owned by a city employee.

Possible sole source exception
ISSUE:The attorney for the Town of Cloud Lake asked if a prohibited contractual relationship would exist for Mayor W. Patrick Slatery if his son’s business, Clean Slate Property Maintenance, LLC, enters into a contract with the Town of Cloud Lake to provide pump maintenance services to the town.

HOLDING: If Clean Slate Property Maintenance is the only business located within the Town of Cloud Lake that provides these pump maintenance services, that business would meet the sole source exception and a prohibited conflict of interest would not exist. If another business within the Town of Cloud Lake also provides the pump maintenance services, then the sole source exception would not apply here. However, if Clean Slate Property Maintenance meets the sole source exception, prior to the transaction or contract being approved, the Mayor must fully disclose his interest in the business to the Town of Cloud Lake and to the COE.

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.

Contracting with your public employer - exception
ISSUE: The town administrator for the town of Lake Clarke Shores asked if it would violate the contractual relationship section of the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics if the town enters into a new or modified contract with Achieve Agency, the outside business or employer of Town Council member John Studdard, to update and host the town’s website?

HOLDING: The code prohibits Mr. Studdard, as a town official, and Achieve Agency, as his outside employer or business, from entering into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with the town, unless an exception applies. Section 2-443(e)(4), which provides an exception when the total amount of the contracts or transactions in the aggregate between an official’s outside business or employer and the municipality does not exceed $500 per calendar year, may apply. If the total amount of Achieve Agency’s contracts or transactions with the town does not exceed $500, in the aggregate, then the contract between the town and Achieve Agency would not be prohibited.

Contracting with public employer prohibited unless an exception applies
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the code prohibits him from bidding on and being awarded a contract to provide concessionaire services to Palm Beach County, his public employer.

HOLDING: The code prohibits him or his outside business from contracting with the county, his public employer, unless an exception applies. Here, an exception does not apply. As an owner of the outside business entering into the contract with the county he is not eligible for a part-time employment waiver; he and his business are not the sole source of concession services in the county; the concession services would not constitute an emergency purchase; the contract between him or his business and the county would exceed $500; and the bid is not following the sealed bid/low bid process.

Parent company and subsidiary issue
ISSUE: Does a conflict of interest exists for Council Member Andrea O’Rourke where her spouse is employed by Merrill Lynch, a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation (BOA), when certain banking service agreements and bonds issued by the city that come before the city council involve BOA or BOA subsidiaries.
HOLDING: Council Member O’Rourke is not prohibited from voting on or participating in the renewal of or amendments to existing banking service agreements and bonds involving BOA and BOA subsidiaries as long as Merrill Lynch is not also involved in those matters. In addition, she is not prohibited from voting on or participating in new service agreements and bonds involving BOA and other BOA subsidiaries as long as Merrill Lynch is not also involved in those matters. Where Merrill Lynch is involved in the procurement of these banking services and bond financing arrangements, Council Member O’Rourke must abstain from participating in and voting on the matter, disclose the nature of the conflict, and file a State of Florida Commission on Ethics Conflict Form 8B.

Sole Source Exception to Contract Prohibition
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County Fire Rescue (PBCFR) Division Chief asked if a conflict of interest would exist for PBCFR if it enters into a contract with First Response Medical Consultants, LLC (FRMC) which provides mobile-integrated health (MIH) or community paramedicine (CP) services, where FRMC is owned by the PBCFR Medical Director and Associate Medical Director.
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics prohibits the Medical Director, Associate Medical Director, or their outside business from entering into a contract with PBCFR, unless an exception applies. Based on the facts provided, the sole source exception applies to their situation. Because FRMC is currently the only source of the MIH-CP services within the county, FRMC meets the sole source exception. In addition, they are prohibited from using their county positions to give themselves, FRMC, or any customers or clients of FRMC a special financial benefit. They must refrain from using or referring to their official positions, titles, county email, or wearing their county uniform while advertising or marketing their services to the general public while off duty. The code also prohibits them from using their official positions in any way that is inconsistent with the proper performance of their duties as the PBCFR medicals directors to corruptly secure a special privilege or benefit for anyone, including any of their clients. Thus, clients of FRMC cannot be given preference over other 911 calls for service.

City employment and potential contractual relationship prohibition involving father-in-law
ISSUE: The attorney for the City of Delray Beach (City) asked if it would violate the contractual relationships section of the code for the father-in-law of a city employee to enter into an agreement with the city to rent a residence he owns to an unrelated person, and accept funds from the city’s rental assistance program on behalf of the potential renter, where the city employee himself or his wife has no ownership or other legal interest in the subject property.
HOLDING: Such an arrangement would not violate the contractual relationships section of the code because the city employee has no ownership or other legal interest in the subject property. However, the city employee must refrain from taking any official actions to assist his father-in-law or the proposed renter in this arrangement or to influence the approval or disbursement process, as such actions could violate the code.

Waiver required if board is purely advisory but has contract oversight
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County advisory board member asked if a conflict of interest would exist for her if she was hired as a trainer by a county vendor to provide training as a part of a board project.
HOLDING: Because her board is purely advisory, she is eligible for a waiver. A waiver will require the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), upon full disclosure of the contract at a public meeting to waive the conflict on interest. If you were appointed by the entire BCC, or confirmation of your appointment was made by the entire board, an affirmative vote of a majority plus one of the total board membership is required. If you were appointed by only one member of the BCC, the appointing board member alone can waive this conflict of interest. Thus, as long as the conflict of interest in having a contractual relationship with the county vendor is waived, the Code does not prohibit you from working as a trainer for the vendor while serving as an advisory board member.

Part-time employment with a non-vendor
ISSUE: A county employee asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics if he works part-time selling tools for a franchise owner representing a large national tool manufacturing company, where neither the franchise owner nor the tool company are vendors of the county, and where all sales are made directly to individual automobile service professionals at their place of work, which includes sales to other county employees on county property at their assigned worksites.
HOLDING: His employment would not violate the code so long as the sales are conducted on his personal time, and he does not use or attempt to use his position as a county employee to influence or assist in these sales, or in gaining access to the county work sites to make such sales.

Contracting with public employer
ISSUE: Would it violate the code of ethics if a public employee's outside business enters into a contract or transaction to provide goods to his public employer.
HOLDING: The code prohibits his outside business from entering into any contract or other transaction for goods with his public employer, unless one of the exceptions apply.

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.

Disclosure of conflict for advisory board member
ISSUE: An advisory board member for the village of Tequesta asked if he is prohibited from serving on the board when he had entered into a contract with the village to provide construction contract administration prior to his appointment to the advisory board.
HOLDING: Because the advisory board does not provide any oversight of the subject contract, there is no prohibition as long as the existence of the contract is disclosed at a public meeting of the Village Council.

Prohibition on contracting with public employer
ISSUE: A city of Boynton Beach employee asked if she is prohibited from submitting her photographs for the city’s New City Hall Arts Project and receiving compensation if her work is selected.
HOLDING: A violation will not occur so long as the total amount of the contracts or transactions for the art commissions does not exceed $500 per calendar year, or she donates her photographs to the city without receiving any compensation, and she does not use her position with the city in any way to have her work selected over the work of another applicant.

Outside employment as a consultant
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the code prohibits her from working as a consultant in her private capacity during non-work hours where none of her consulting work would involve applications that would need approval from the county.

HOLDING: As long as she and her outside business do not enter into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with the county, directly or indirectly, and she operates her business outside of her county work hours, she will not be in violation of the prohibited contractual relationships provision of the code. She is also prohibited from using her position with the county to influence another person to take some action which would give a special financial benefit to her customers or clients, soliciting business during her county work hours, and identifying herself as a county employee on any written or verbal communication to attempt to obtain a customer.

Outside employment as a county employee
ISSUE: A prospective county employee asked what restrictions would the code of ethics place on her regarding outside employment if she accepts a position with the county.

HOLDING: The code prohibits her from entering into any contracts with any entity where she would be providing services to the county or where the county would pay for her services through her contract with the entity. The code’s prohibition on contractual relationships also applies to any ongoing contracts she entered into prior to her employment with the county.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Public employee working as independent contractor for vendor of public employer
ISSUE: A municipal employee asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits him from working as an independent contractor for a company that is a vendor of his public employer.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit him from working as an independent contractor for a vendor of his public employer as long as he does not perform any work, directly or indirectly, for his public employer and his work is performed outside of his municipal work hours.

Outside employment conflict
ISSUE: An employee of a local municipality asked if a prohibited conflict would arise under the Code if, in addition to his City employment within the Public Works Department, he was also employed on a part-time basis with a private company who has a current contract managed by the City’s Public Works Department. HOLDING: The Code generally prohibits public employees from accepting employment, directly or indirectly, with any "outside employer or business" that is a vendor of their public employer. Although there are some exception recognized by the Code, none of those exceptions apply here, thus the outside employment is prohibited by the Code.

Employee entering into contract with municipality on behalf of a non-profit
ISSUE: The attorney for a municipality asked if a conflict of interest arose if an employee of the municipality, acting on behalf of a non-profit organization, entered into a contract with the municipality where the non-profit pays the associated fees and the municipality provides the venue and designated services during a co-sponsored fundraising event? HOLDING: Based on the facts provided, especially considering the terms of the proposed contract between the municipality and the non-profit closely mirror previous contracts between the municipality and other non-profit organizations, the co-sponsorship agreements would not result in a special financial benefit to the non-profit. Additionally, the Code prohibits the employee or his outside business or employer from entering into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with his municipality. Although the employee is the president of the non-profit, because he serves as a volunteer and receives no compensation, it does not qualify as his outside employer or business. Therefore, the contractual relationship prohibition found in the Code does not apply.

Outside employment with a vendor of the municipality served by the employee
ISSUE: Would a conflict of interest arise if an employee for a municipality accepted secondary employment with a company, when that outside employment would result in the employee providing services to the municipality. HOLDING: In general, the Code prohibits public employees or their outside employer from having any contracts or transactions to provide goods or services with their municipal employer. However, the Code has several exceptions to the contractual relationship prohibition. Here, unless an exception applies, this outside employment would be prohibited because the outside employer is a vendor of the municipality. However, the Code provides for a sole source exception where the outside employer is the sole source of the product or service within the municipality. Because the municipal employee is the only qualified provider in the area, the sole source exception would apply.

May an employee's spouse provide goods to a business owned by members of local advisory boards
ISSUE: An employee of a local municipality asked if the Code would prohibit his spouse from providing goods or services to a local business when both owners of that business are members of different advisory boards for the municipality, and the employee routinely appears before both boards as a function of his employment. HOLDING: Based on the facts as they currently exist, the Code does not prohibit the employee’s spouse from a transactional relationship with the business as long as he does not use his position with the municipality in any way to give a special financial benefit to his wife’s outside business. He is also precluded from using his position in any way to corruptly secure a special benefit of any kind to his wife’s outside business or to the business to which she will be providing goods or services.

Outside employer of County employee's spouse entering into a contract with the County
ISSUE: May the outside employer of a County employee's spouse enter into a contract with the County to provide professional services? HOLDING: The Code generally restricts any actions that would result in a spouse or a spouse’s employer receiving a special financial benefit. However, if the County employee carefully follows the guidance in the opinion, and the employee abstains from participation in certain aspects of relevant projects, then the Code will not preclude the employer from becoming a County vendor.

Outside business of councilmember may not enter in contract or transaction with municipality
ISSUE: The attorney for a municipality asked if the Code of Ethics would prohibit the municipality from purchasing goods from the outside business of one of its council members. HOLDING: Generally, the Code restricts any actions that would result in a council member’s outside business entering into a contract or transaction with their municipality. Thus, unless an exception applies, the Code would prohibit a contractual relationship between the municipality and the outside business of the councilmember.

What qualifies for the sole source exception to the outside employment restrictions
ISSUE: An employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) would prohibit veterinarians who are employed with Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control from accepting outside employment with other providers of low cost spay and neuter programs when these outside employers are Palm Beach County vendors? HOLDING: Generally, the Code prohibits public employees from accepting concurrent employment, directly or indirectly, with any "outside employer" that is a vendor of their public employer unless certain criteria are satisfied. However, considering the facts as presented, the scenario here is one of first impression for the COE, and a limited exception based on the sole source provider is being implemented in this specific situation because of the dearth of qualified veterinarians available within the county.

Broad based public employee discounts are exempted from the gift law prohibitions.
ISSUE: Whether County employees may accept discounted mobile phone packages provided by AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-mobile which are offered to all government employees. AT&T, Verizon and Sprint are County vendors.

HOLDING: County employees are not prohibited from accepting cellular phone discounts, provided that the discount is not based on preferred treatment of the vendor by the employee, the discount applies to all similarly situated government employees or officials, and it is not otherwise offered as a quid pro quo or convey a special financial benefit.

Public employee discounts are exempted from the gift law prohibitions.
ISSUE: Whether Town employees may accept discounted food from local establishments that may be Town vendors, where this benefit is provided because of the employees’ employment status with the Town and is a general discount available to all employees without exception.

HOLDING: Town employees are not prohibited from accepting discounted food at local restaurants, provided that the discount is not based on preferred treatment of the vendor by the employee, the discount applies to all similarly situated government employees or officials, and it is not otherwise offered as a quid pro quo or to convey a special financial benefit.

Hotel discounts available to County Fire-Rescue personnel.
ISSUE: Whether County Fire-Rescue employees may accept a travel discount offered by two Best Western properties located in Daytona Beach, Florida, which discount is available to all Palm Beach County Fire-Rescue personnel.

HOLDING: County employees are not prohibited from accepting this hotel discount. However, discounted stays with an aggregate value in excess of $100 must be reported in an annual gift disclosure report filed with the COE.

Acceptance of complimentary admission to an event.
ISSUE: An elected official asked if he is allowed to accept complimentary admission to a non-profit organization’s event, when invited by the non-profit organization and attending in his official capacity as Town Councilman, or if he must purchase a ticket to attend the event.

HOLDING: The official is not prohibited from accepting complimentary admission to the event if the non-profit organization does not employ a lobbyist and the ticket is given to him by a representative of the non-profit organization who is not a lobbyist, vendor, or principal or employer of a lobbyist. In general, under the Code, a ticket to an event would be considered a gift. However, the Code provides an exception for a ticket to a public event that is related to official municipal business from a non-profit sponsor. Notwithstanding this exception, if the value of the ticket to the event exceeds $100, the official, as a state reporting individual, must report the value in accordance with state law and send a copy of any required submission to the COE.

Responsibility of co-chair of non-profit business league organization’s event.
ISSUE: A County employee asked what her obligations are under the Code when she is on the board of directors of the American Contract Compliance Association (ACCA) and co-chairing the 2015 ACCA National Training Institute.

HOLDING: Because the ACCA is not a non-profit charitable organization, the county employee may not accept a donation or sponsorship on behalf of the ACCA that is over $100 from any county vendor or lobbyist per year. Neither she nor ACCA may accept a gift of any value from any county vendor or lobbyist if the gift is for her personal benefit. While gifts from non vendors or non lobbyists are not prohibited by the Code, any gift over $100 must be reported yearly to the COE. Since she is a member of the ACCA’s board of directors, the Code prohibits her from using her official position as a county employee to give a special financial benefit to herself or ACCA or to corruptly secure any benefit for ACCA or any other person. However, other than the misuse of office provisions and gift law prohibitions, the Code does not prohibit her from planning and organizing the ACCA event while on county time.

Acceptance of tickets to SunFest
ISSUE: A county employee asked if she is allowed to accept tickets to SunFest for working the event on two days when she is also receiving comp time from the County, and does she need to report any of the tickets she receives for volunteering at the event.

HOLDING: The Code allows the acceptance of tickets in connection with public events related to official county business if furnished by a nonprofit sponsor organization of the public event. Here, she will be working Sunfest in her official capacity as a County employee on the two days where she will receive comp time and in her personal capacity as a volunteer on a third day. She may accept tickets for each day she works since the tickets are coming from a sponsor organization of Sunfest. However, since the value of three one-day SunFest tickets is more than $100, they must be reported.

A scholarship to conference for educational training related to job duties and responsibilities does not need to be reported.
ISSUE: A county code enforcement officer asked if the Code prohibits her from applying for a scholarship from a company, which is not a vendor or lobbyist of the county, to attend the American Association of Code Enforcement (AACE) Conference.

HOLDING: The employee may apply for the company’s scholarship to attend the AACE Conference because the entity offering the scholarships is not a vendor, lobbyist, contractor, service provider, bidder, or proposer of the county. In addition, the scholarship does not have to be reported to the COE because it is for educational training costs related to her duties and responsibilities as a county code enforcement officer and is not considered a gift under the Code.

Gifts over $100 must be reported.
ISSUE: A commissioner of the Town of Ocean Ridge asked if the Code prohibits him from inviting town officials and staff on hunting trips, and whether the officials and staff are allowed to accept the trips.

HOLDING: Town officials and town staff are not prohibited from accepting the flight on his privately owned aircraft or the lodging at his hunting leases. However, if the value of the gift is over $100, it must be reported. Under the Code, elected officials, as state reporting individuals, must timely report the gift on their State of Florida Quarterly Gift Disclosure Form (Form 9). A copy of the Form 9 must also be filed with the COE at the same time. Town staff who are not state reporting individuals must report gifts valued at over $100 on their annual gift reports due no later than November 1 for the previous reporting year.

Gift under $100 does not need to be reported.
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the Code prohibits the Palm Beach County Library System Team from accepting a Loop the Lake for Literacy bike jersey, which is provided to a person or team who fundraises over $400.

HOLDING: The Palm Beach County Library System Team may accept the bike jersey. Under the Code, if a gift is not from a vendor or lobbyist and has a value over $100, it must be reported. Here, since the value of the bike jersey is under $100, it does not need to be reported.

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.

Holiday gifts over $100 must be reported.
ISSUE: A municipal police chief asked if using holiday money donated by Town residents to purchase personal firearms for all of the sworn members of the police department and vest covers for police officers' vest plates would violate the code, and if these purchases are acceptable, will the recipients need to file a gift report form for the items.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit the purchase of vest plate covers and firearms with the holiday money donated by town residents. The Town may accept holiday money from residents to give to the police department employees, as long as funds in excess of $100 were not accepted from any vendor or lobbyist of the town and the distribution to employees is based on each worker's status as sworn employees of the town and not on the past, present or future performance of a legal duty. Employees who receive any gift worth more than $100 must file an annual gift disclosure report with the COE no later than November 1 for the period ending September 30 of each year.

Free catering order given to public employees
ISSUE: A Town employee asked if her fiancé, who works as a marketing coordinator for a business, may provide a free catering order to the Town Hall for Town employees to share, and if he is allowed to provide this gift, what implications would it have on the Town employees who receive it.

HOLDING: Since Jersey Mike's Subs is not a vendor of the Town, her fiancé does not fall under the jurisdiction of the code. Therefore, he is not prohibited from providing a free catering order to the town employees to share as long as other businesses in the area will also receive free food. However, as a public employee, she will have an ongoing responsibility to refrain from using her official position to corruptly secure a special benefit for him. This would include any improper action involving the awarding of town business to her fiancé's employer. Here, the town employees may accept the free catering order but would need to report the gift if the value exceeds $100. To determine the individual value of a gift of food given to multiple employees, the total value of the gift is divided by the number of employees who share in that gift. If the individual value exceeds $100, the gift must be reported by the employees.

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.

Accepting awards ceremony dinner
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if her attendance at an awards ceremony dinner, valued in excess of $100 sponsored by a registered lobbyist in consideration of her participation as a judge in the “Build Florida Award” program, is considered a gift under the Code.

HOLDING: Based upon the facts submitted, her attendance at the awards dinner is not a gift under the Code. As such, she is not prohibited by the Code from attending the event and there is no need to report it on a gift disclosure form. Under the Code, she may not accept a gift in excess of $100 from a lobbyist. Gifts in excess of $100, not otherwise prohibited or excluded, must be reported on an annual gift disclosure report. An exception to the definition of a gift is a gift accepted in performance of official duties, by the county, for a public purpose. Furthermore, when the county employee performs work and preparation for the event as part of his/her official duties, it constitutes adequate consideration for any benefit received.

"Active Vendor" clarification.
ISSUE: The Chief Assistant County Attorney asked if LRP, a company listed on the county’s vendor registry as an “active vendor,” meets the definition of a “vendor” for purposes of the gift law of the code, where the company does not have a pending bid proposal, does not have an offer to sell goods or services, is not currently selling goods or services, and where the last sale of goods was for $169.50 over four years ago.

HOLDING: Based upon the facts submitted, LRP is not a vendor of the county and the gift in question is not prohibited by Sec. 2-444(a)(1). LRP does not have a pending bid proposal, does not have an offer to sell goods or services, and is not currently selling goods to the county. The fact that the county maintains a vendor database gives the commissioner an additional source of information in making this determination. That source, however, is not infallible and has limitations based upon the facts submitted. The fact that the county maintains a vendor registry, to facilitate the procurement process, does not automatically mean that a listed company is a vendor under the gift law. Rather, where the only nexus between the company and the county is a prior sale of goods over four years ago, this is not a sufficient enough relationship to establish it as a vendor within the meaning of Sec. 2-442.

Acceptance of tickets
ISSUE: A Town of Juno Beach employee asked if town employees may accept tickets from the Northern Palm Beach County Chamber of Commerce for events in the community.

HOLDING: Since the Northern Palm Beach County Chamber of Commerce is not a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist in the Town of Juno Beach, there is no prohibition on the amount of a gift. An employee must report the gift of the tickets if the total value of the tickets given to that employee from the Northern Palm Beach County Chamber of Commerce exceeds $100.

County employee may solicit donations from vendors solely for use by the county in conducting official business.
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether he may solicit donations from vendors solely for use by the county in conducting official business.

HOLDING: Sec. 2-444(e) provides an exception to the gift law in these circumstances. He may solicit these “gifts” because they are for the sole benefit of the county in conducting official business.

County employees may accept conference registration fees from non-profit corporation that is not a county contractor, vendor, service provider, bidder or proposer and this is not a “gift”.
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether he may accept conference registration fees from non-profit corporation that is not a county contractor, vendor, service provider, bidder or proposer and whether this is a “gift.”

HOLDING: These expenses are not prohibited by 2-443 (e).

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).

County employee has burden to show that apartment rented from spouse of a lobbyist is at fair market value in order to comply with gift law
ISSUE: A county employee was considering renting an apartment from the spouse of a lobbyist. He asked whether this is in compliance with the gift law.

HOLDING: The employee would have the burden to show that the apartment was rented to him at fair market value. To the extent that the rental rate was below market value, that portion would be considered a gift. The employee would need to ensure that any gift did not exceed $100 in order to be in compliance with the gift law.

Assisting a non-profit organization facilitate grants from charitable organizations to improve county property is not a prohibited contractual relationship.
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether assisting a non-profit organization facilitate grants from charitable organizations to improve county property is a prohibited contractual relationship.

HOLDING: Sec. 2-443(c) permits employees to enter into contracts with the county as part of their official duties. Here, the employee is within that provision. Additionally, she is not on the board of the organization and does not benefit directly or indirectly. This, therefore, does not violate Sec. 2-443(a) (1)-(7).

Fundraiser tickets provided by vendor.
ISSUE: Whether vendor sponsors of a "Gala and Golf Classic" fundraiser can invite County employees or officials as their guests without violating the gift prohibitions. The price for the dinner and golf is $150 per person.

HOLDING: Officials and employees may not accept gifts in excess of $100 from vendors or lobbyists. Here, the official or employee may not accept the gift of golf and dinner but they may accept a ticket to the dinner only, which costs $75.

$100 limit on gifts from lobbyist, principal or employee of lobbyist applies to advisory board member
ISSUE: An advisory board member asked whether he could be the beneficiary of donations (gifts) to a medical expense fund made by those who appear before his board.

HOLDING: The $100 limit applies to these gifts from lobbyists, principals or employees of lobbyists. Accepting these gifts in excess of $100.00 would violate the Code.

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)).

Gifts received from a voluntary employee fund are reportable when they meet the $100 threshold
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether congratulatory or condolence gifts received from a voluntary employee fund in a county department are reportable.

HOLDING: Since these gifts would not meet an exemption under Sec. 2-244(e) (1), they are reportable when they exceed $100.

Definition of gift when other consideration given to donor
ISSUE: A county commissioner asked whether lodging received from a friend who leases property from the county is a reportable gift where he gave corresponding consideration to the host with a monetary value in excess of the cost of the accommodations. The lodging “gift” was valued at $320 while his consideration of food, beverages and air transportation was valued at $2200.

HOLDING: Using state law as a guide, where the consideration provided to the donor is greater than the amount of any benefit conferred, there is no net “gift” to report.

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)

Employee is not prohibited from assisting non-profit or private organizations in providing community services, so long as no one personally benefits financially from the transaction.
ISSUE: Whether the Community Education Coordinator for Palm Beach County Fire Rescue may hold a child passenger seat check at Fire Station 23 sponsored by the Safety Council of Palm Beach County and a law firm.

HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit the Community Education Coordinator from partnering with public or private organizations to organize and hold child safety seat checks. In her official capacity as a County employee, she is not prohibited from assisting non-profit or private organizations in providing community services, so long as she or any other person or entity do not personally benefit financially from the transaction.

The gift law provides an exception for publicly advertised offers for goods and services.
ISSUE: Whether CFR Financial may provide the same complimentary lunch and financial action strategy plan, that is available to any member of the public, to County and municipal employees and officials.

HOLDING: CFR is not prohibited from providing complimentary lunch and financial plans to County and municipal employees and officials. The financial plans provided by CFR are offered to the general public under the same terms and conditions as provided to public employees and officials whose public entity does business with CFR.

Direct donations from residents to an employee
ISSUE: Whether a municipal employee can accept direct donations from Town residents for legal defense expenses incurred, and whether it is permissible under the Code of Ethics for a municipality to collect donations and create a legal defense fund for the benefit of the municipal employee.

HOLDING: Provided that donations to a legal defense fund established by the Town are not solicited or accepted from any Town vendor or lobbyist and the disbursement of such donations to the employee is not based on any official act or legal duty taken or to be taken, residents of the Town are not prohibited from making direct donations to the employee or donating to a legal defense fund which distributes the collected donations to the employee. However, solicitation for personal benefit while in uniform, or otherwise in an official capacity, is prohibited. Any donation from a non-vendor that is greater than $100 must be reported as required by the Code.

An employee is assigned additional duties, in his or her official capacity, additional compensation provided to the employee from his or her public employer is not a prohibited or reportable gift.
ISSUE: Whether Jupiter Police Department officers may live in residential property within the jurisdiction of the police department in an attempt to diminish potential crime and quality of life issues created by large tracts of abandoned property.

HOLDING: Where a municipal employee is assigned additional duties, in his or her official capacity, additional compensation or value provided to the employee from his or her public employer is not a prohibited or reportable gift. Thus, the police department is not prohibited from selecting officers to reside in residential property within the Department's jurisdiction and control.

Donations from personal friends are not reportable.
ISSUE: Whether solicitations from personal friends (in no way connected with a County vendor or lobbyist) on behalf of a nonprofit organization, are reportable, where none of the donations exceed $50 in value.

HOLDING: As long as these solicitations and any resulting gifts demonstrate that the motivation for the gift was the personal or social relationship rather than an attempt to obtain the goodwill or otherwise influence the employee in the performance of her official duties, they are not reportable. If there is any question about the status of the person solicited, the Code permits solicitation where there is no quid pro quo or other special consideration, including any direct or indirect special financial benefit to the official or employee or to the person or entity being solicited, there is no pending application for approval or award of an nature before the county, and a solicitation form is filed.

Acceptance of scholarship dollars for professional certification programs from a non-vendor or non-lobbyist.
ISSUE: Whether City employees may accept scholarship dollars from a local non-profit to attend professional certification programs at Palm Beach State College.

HOLDING: County and municipal employees are not prohibited from accepting scholarship dollars from an entity that is a non-vendor and non-lobbyist of their governmental employer, as long as there is no quid pro quo or special treatment or privilege given to the non-profit organization in exchange for offering these scholarships. Educational fees and costs related to an employee's governmental duties and responsibilities are not gifts as defined by the Code and thus are neither prohibited nor reportable.

Soliciting vendors for donations to be used solely by the municipality for a public purpose.
ISSUE: Whether a Veterans Advisory Commission member may solicit construction materials and services from past and potential vendors of the City solely for use by the City in constructing public monuments in a City park. The vendors being solicited do not appear before the board nor do they do business with department within the board’s authority.

HOLDING: There is no prohibition against soliciting or accepting a gift of any amount provided the vendor or lobbyist does not vend or lobby the volunteer official's board or the department within the board's authority. Additionally, the board may solicit and accept gifts over $100 from vendors who do appear before the board, if the donations will be used solely by the municipality for a public purpose.

Holiday gifts from residents
ISSUE: Whether unsolicited gift cards given by a homeowners association to the Palm Beach Fire Rescue employees at a specific PBCFR station serving the residents in that area, which are then used by station personnel to purchase food items for preparing meals for on duty employees at the station, is either prohibited or reportable as a gift.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit the distribution of unsolicited gift cards donated by residents of a homeowners association as a holiday gift to a particular PBCFR station for the collective use by its employees, where the gifts are not based on any official act or legal duty or other quid pro quo arrangement. If the individual value of the gift per employee (total value divided by the number of employees) exceeds $100, the gift must be reported by each individual employee.

Gift from lobbyist in excess of $100
ISSUE: Whether a County employee could accept two tickets, with a face value of $125 each, to a banquet given by a non-profit trade organization that lobbies the Palm Beach County government where the employee is receiving a plaque honoring her work in creating a county-wide "universal building permit application."

HOLDING: The County employee is not prohibited from accepting an award for civic or professional achievement. The employee is prohibited from accepting a gift with a value, in the annual aggregate, of more than $100 from a lobbyist or principal of a lobbyist who lobbies her government employer. Therefore, to the extent the value of the tickets she receives exceeds $100, she must return the difference to the organization.

Awards for professional or civic achievement are not considered gifts.
ISSUE: Whether City employees could attend a non-profit sponsored employee awards dinner, and if so, what is required of the non-profit sponsor and of the City employees.

HOLDING: While the Code of Ethics ordinarily would allow a non-profit honoring a public employee or official to solicit or accept donations, provided vendor and lobbyist donations in excess of $100 are recorded on a log and filed with the COE, such solicitation from vendors or lobbyists are prohibited if the gift will personally benefit City employees. As such, the non-profit cannot solicit funds for the Awards Dinner and employee awards from vendors or lobbyists of the City. Solicitation of donations from residents or other entities that are non-vendors or non-lobbyists is not prohibited, provided there is no official quid pro quo offered in exchange for the donation. The police department may solicit donations from vendors, lobbyists and principals or employers of lobbyists if the donations are specifically solicited and earmarked for the operational needs of the police department and no quid pro quo benefit is given to the donor, as these solicitations would be for a public purpose and not for personal benefit.

A discount offer to all local government employees would not be prohibited by the gift law under the exception for publicly advertised offers made available to the general public.
ISSUE: Whether BB&T may offer banking benefits, including fee waivers and other discounted services, to employees of municipalities who are BB&T’s customers and what effect offering these same benefits to all county or municipal employees, regardless of whether their government employer is a customer would have on BB&T’s ability to offer public employee discounts.

HOLDING: A discount offer to all local governmental employees would not be prohibited by the gift law under the exception for publicly advertised offers made available to the general public. Where BB&T is offering discounted services only to employees of municipalities with whom BB&T has a business relationship, BB&T may not offer this benefit to these targeted employees if the value of the benefit is greater than $100 annually for any individual employee, or if any benefit is offered as a quid pro quo for any official public action or the past, present or future performance of any legal duty. However, if BB&T wishes to offer this benefit to all municipal and county governmental employees across the board, then the discounts would not be targeted and the $100 annual aggregate gift prohibition may therefore not apply.

Employee is not prohibited from attending a professional development conference in official capacity and can receive reimbursement for travel from a non-vendor professional organization.
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether he could attend a professional development conference and receive reimbursement for travel and related expenses from a professional organization that he belongs to and which is not a vendor of the county.

HOLDING: The county employee is not prohibited from attending a professional development conference in his official capacity and is not prohibited from accepting reimbursement for travel as this entity is not considered a vendor as defined by the code. There is not a requirement that he obtain a waiver from the BCC for travel expenses that are not given, directly or indirectly, by a county contractor, vendor, service provider, bidder or proposer. Registration fees and other related costs associated with educational or governmental conferences/seminars and travel expenses are not subject to gift reporting requirements if the attendance is for governmental purposes and related to the duties and responsibilities as a county employee.

Board member not prohibited from entering into contract with a former City vendor.
ISSUE: Whether a member of the Boynton Beach Historic Resources Preservation Board may enter into a publishing agreement with a publishing company that is a former vendor of the municipality she serves.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit a board member from entering into a book publishing contract with a company that formerly provided goods and services to Boynton Beach. However, she may not use her official position to give a special financial benefit to herself or the publishing company in the promotion of her book.

County employees are not prohibited from accepting training and licensing stipends from the County.
ISSUE: Whether a county department may provide employees with a stipend for training and licensing costs where such training and licensing is required by an employee's position and if so, whether such a stipend would be considered a gift.

HOLDING: County employees are not prohibited from accepting training and licensing stipends from the County. Educational fees and costs related to an employee's governmental duties and responsibilities are not gifts and are not reportable.

Attending an educational seminar provided by a vendor of the County.
ISSUE: Whether County planning employees are permitted to attend a free educational seminar provided by a County vendor, where the employees’ attendance is for educational purposes and will be in their official capacity.

HOLDING: County employees are not prohibited from attending a tuition free educational seminar in their official capacity as County employees, notwithstanding the fact that the training is provided by a County vendor. However, should an employee receive anything at the seminar from a vendor, lobbyist, principal or employer of a lobbyist of the County, with an annual aggregate value in excess of $100, such a gift or gifts would be prohibited.

City employees may accept reduced tuition to attend a FIU online MBA program
ISSUE: Whether City employees may accept reduced tuition to attend a FIU online MBA program.

HOLDING: City employees and their relatives may accept a tuition discount or scholarship from FIU based upon their status as a City employee, as long as there is no quid pro quo or special treatment or privileges given to FIU or its agent in exchange for offering these scholarships. For those employees or their relatives, whose chose to take advantage of the tuition discount, the employees must report the scholarships that exceed $100 on their annual gift reporting form.

A county department is not prohibited from using a free software program that is available to any governmental entity, corporation, or home users alike.
ISSUE: Whether hosting a software program, available at no cost to the County and for the benefit of the Emergency Operations Department, violates the Code.

HOLDING: A county department is not prohibited from using a free software program that is available to any governmental entity, corporation, or home users alike.

Solicitations for meals for employees.
ISSUE: Whether public employees can solicit local restaurants for donations providing lunch and dinner to 911 operators in recognition of National Telecommunicator Week.

HOLDING: Soliciting donations for employee meals from City vendors or lobbyists is prohibited. This prohibition does not extend to soliciting or accepting donations from persons and entities who are not vendors or lobbyists of the City, as long as there is no quid pro quo or other benefit given for the past, present or future performance an official act or legal duty. If the value of an individual meal received by an employee exceeds $100, it is a reportable gift.

City not prohibited from offering resident discounts to non-resident employees.
ISSUE: Whether giving resident-only public facilities discounts or other resident privileges to City employees who are not City residents violates the Code.

HOLDING: The City is not prohibited from offering a benefit to its non-resident employees, such as reduced fees or special access for parking at its municipal beach. If the value of the benefit received by an employee exceeds $100, it would be a reportable gift.

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.

Tickets from non-vendor.
ISSUE: Whether the West Palm Beach Library Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, may give tickets with a face value in excess of $100 to City library employees to attend a WPBLF event. WPBLF is not a vendor and does not lobby the City.

HOLDING: City employees and officials are not prohibited from accepting tickets and attending events hosted by the WPBLF. Where the per person face value of the tickets exceed $100, they must be reported on the gift reporting form.

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.

Donation to county for use solely by the county for county purposes.
ISSUE: Whether the Drowning Prevention Coalition of Palm Beach County, a county governmental entity, may accept donated booth space at a public event to distribute drowning prevention literature and otherwise inform the public about this issue.

HOLDING: Since the donation of the booth space is accepted by DPC on behalf of the county for use solely by the county for county purposes, the donation is not a gift. Any gift received in conjunction with this event that is not used exclusively for county purposes would be considered a gift and subject to the prohibitions and reporting requirements within the Code.

Employee is not prohibited from accepting a familiarization trip in performance of public duties, but may not use official position to secure an additional special financial benefit.
ISSUE: Whether a public employee may accept a two night stay at the Gaylord Palms Resort in her official capacity as the program supervisor of the Village Leisure Department, and whether she may also accept complimentary accommodations for family members accompanying her on this official fact-finding trip.

HOLDING: The employee is not prohibited from accepting a familiarization trip from a hotel in performance of her public duties as travel club program supervisor. Her trip is not considered a gift and is neither prohibited nor reportable. However, she may not use her official position to provide a special financial benefit to her relatives. Therefore, if a family member accompanies her on the official fact-finding trip and the family member receives a benefit, the employee will need to reimburse the hotel or the municipality’s general fund within 90 days to eliminate the financial benefit.

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.

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.

Donations accepted by County employees on behalf of the County, in performance of their official duties, for use solely by the County for a public purpose.
ISSUE: Whether County employees may host a Chili Cook-off and solicit supplies/ingredients and raffle prizes from vendors in order to fund a County-sponsored event, in conjunction with the Palm Beach County School Board, to benefit school children within the County.

HOLDING: County employees are not prohibited from soliciting and accepting donations from County vendors in excess of $100, annually in the aggregate, so long as these donations are accepted by County employees on behalf of the County, in performance of their official duties, for use solely by the County for a public purpose.

Gift from friend who is director of organization that employs a lobbyist.
ISSUE: Whether a Councilman may accept temporary housing from a personal friend, who is a director of a civic organization that employs a lobbyist compensated by a third party.

HOLDING: Where a personal friend is a director of a civic organization, and the organization is a principal or employer of a lobbyist, the Councilman is prohibited from accepting a gift from his friend of a value in excess of $100, annually in the aggregate.

Gifts from personal friend and client
ISSUE: Whether a board member’s service on a municipal advisory board has a conflict when a client of the board member’s outside business, who is also a personal friend, gives her Christmas and birthday gifts.

HOLDING: The advisory board member is not prohibited from accepting gifts of any value from her clients who are not vendors, lobbyists, principals or employers of lobbyists who do business with or lobby her advisory board or the municipal department within her authority. Gifts in excess of $100 in value are ordinarily reportable on an annual gift report form; however, an exception exists for personal friends or co-workers where the circumstances demonstrate the gift is motivated by the personal or social relationship rather than to influence the performance of your official duties.

Inviting elected officials to attend the two-day leadership summit.
ISSUE: Whether a church may invite the Palm Beach County Commission, City of Palm Beach Gardens Council, City of West Palm Beach Commission, Village of Royal Palm Beach Council, and City of Boynton Beach Commission to attend a two-day leadership summit.

HOLDING: The church is not prohibited from inviting elected officials to attend the two-day leadership summit. The elected officials must comply with the gift valuation and the reporting requirements.

City employees, in their official capacity, are not prohibited from accepting a vendor gift which is for the benefit of the City for a public purpose.
ISSUE: Whether two City employees may attend a local training session paid for by the City, where the training is sponsored by a vendor and attendees will receive a $50 voucher for water testing services provided for use by the City upon course completion.

HOLDING: City employees are not prohibited from accepting a vendor voucher in their official capacity, for the benefit of the City, for use by the City for a public purpose.

Offering an employee appreciation cruise and barbecue to employees as a general gesture of appreciation for public employees and their families from a non-vendor of a municipality is not prohibited.
ISSUE: Whether a local cruise company may hold a City Parks and Recreation appreciation cruise for department employees and their families.

HOLDING: Offering an employee appreciation cruise and barbecue to all employees of a City's Parks and Recreation Department as a general gesture of appreciation for public employees and their families from a non-vendor of a municipality is not prohibited, provided that the event does not reward individual employees for the specific performance of an official act or public duty and there is no quid pro quo or other special consideration given to the donor in exchange for the donated gifts. If the value of the event for an individual employee and his or her family members exceeds $100, the gift must be reported as required by the Code.

Employee is not prohibited from accepting airline reward points when booking travel for a personal or work related conference.
ISSUE: Whether a County employee is prohibited from accepting airline travel rewards ("skymiles") for reimbursed travel to the National Association of Government Webmasters (NAGW) conference.

HOLDING: The employee is not prohibited from accepting airline reward points when booking travel for a personal or work related conference, notwithstanding the fact that he will ultimately be reimbursed by a non-vendor association.

An elected official is not prohibited from attending development conferences and accepting reimbursement from her outside employer, a governmental entity.
ISSUE: Whether an elected official is permitted to attend small business development center conferences and receive travel and related expense reimbursement from her outside employer, Palm Beach State College.

HOLDING: The elected official is not prohibited from attending development conferences and accepting travel reimbursement from her outside employer, a governmental entity. The Code specifically excludes travel expenses paid by governmental entities from regulations related to travel reimbursement.

A municipality is not prohibited from giving holiday gifts to all its employees and volunteers.
ISSUE: Whether a Town may give holiday gifts to Town employees and volunteers.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit a municipality from giving holiday gifts to all its employees and volunteers, provided the decision is transparently made or approved by the elected body.

A City is not prohibited from accepting a donation from a non-vendor business.
ISSUE: Whether the Code prohibits employees and officials from soliciting sponsorships from persons or entities who are not vendors or lobbyist of the City, where the sponsorship may personally benefit a City official or employee.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit officials and employees from soliciting or accepting gifts from non-vendors and non-lobbyists, as long as the gift is not solicited or accepted in exchange for an official action taken or legal duty performed.

Passing gifts on to a charitable organization
ISSUE: Whether gifts that a Commissioner does not accept personally as a matter of policy may be passed on to a charitable organization or government department without potentially violating the Code of Ethics gift law limitations and prohibitions.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit accepting a gift and passing it along to a charitable organization unless the gift is from a vendor, lobbyist, principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies, sells or leases to the county and is valued in excess of $100, annually in the aggregate. However, the Commissioner may accept a gift of any value, from whatever source, if done so on behalf of the county, in his official capacity as County Commissioner, for use solely by the county for a public purpose. If the vendor has no pending application for approval or award of any nature before the county, the Commissioner may pass the gift on to a non-profit, charitable organization, but he must maintain and submit a log in accordance with the transparency provisions of the Code.

An exception exists for publicly advertised offers for goods and services from a vendor under the same terms and conditions as made available to the general public.
ISSUE: Whether Wells Fargo Bank, a vendor to the County and several municipalities, may provide a complimentary lunch and financial action strategy plan to County and municipal employees and officials, where the plan is also available to the general public.

HOLDING: Wells Fargo is not prohibited from providing complimentary lunch and financial strategy plans to County and municipal employees and officials. The financial plans provided are offered to the general public under the same terms and conditions as provided to public employees and officials whose public entity does business with Wells Fargo.

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.

Elected officials may accept tickets from non-profit sponsor.
ISSUE: Whether complimentary tickets may be given to local elected officials to attend a fundraising gala, hosted by a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, where tickets are supplied directly by the non-profit organization.

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 a non-profit sponsor organization of the event, provided that the sponsor organization does not employ a lobbyist and the ticket is given to the elected official by a representative of the organization. If the value of the tickets exceeds $100, the official will need to report the gift.

The specific facts and circumstances surrounding a gift will determine whether or not the gift is considered an indirect prohibited gift provided with the intent to benefit the public employee.
ISSUE: Whether a City employee may accept tickets from a close personal friend when the tickets were given to the friend by the friend's brother, who is a vendor of the City.

HOLDING: The employee is not prohibited from accepting a ticket from her friend to attend an upcoming concert because the gift was directly and unconditionally given to the Vendor's sister. Here, there is an independent relationship between the vendor and his sister that would motivate the gift of tickets to her. The sister was not acting under the direction of the vendor, nor was she being reimbursed by the vendor for the cost of the ticket being given to the City employee. There is a close independent relationship between the vendor's sister and the City employee that predates her public employment. The vendor's sister had full and independent decision-making authority to determine whether the City employee, or another, would receive the gift.

Acceptance of tickets
ISSUE: Whether a County Commissioner may accept a ticket to attend the 2012 World Stem Cell Summit at the Palm Beach County Convention Center.

HOLDING: The Commissioner is not prohibited from accepting complementary admission to attend the conference in his official capacity as a Commissioner. The County is a sponsor of the event, and the non-profit organization hosting the event provided tickets to sponsors pursuant to their sponsorship agreement. The Commissioner must report the value of admission in accordance with state law and send a copy of any required submission to the COE.

Holiday gifts are generally permitted.
ISSUE: Whether a County employee is permitted to accept an unsolicited gift of a box of candy, with a value less than $100, as a holiday “thank you” gift for assisting a patron in the normal course of his duties as reference librarian over the course of the year.

HOLDING: Holiday gifts from non vendors or lobbyists of your public employer, not connected to the past, present or future performance of a legal duty or an official act, are generally permitted.

An official or employee may not solicit a gift of any value from a City vendor if the gift is for his or her benefit, the benefit of a relative, or any other official or employee of the City.
ISSUE: Whether procedures in place regarding the solicitation of vendor donations for a City-sponsored 4th of July event, where the solicitation and acceptance of food and drink donations for the VIP area is exclusively for the benefit of City officials, employees, and their guests, are in compliance with the revised code of ethics.

HOLDING: The current procedure for soliciting donations for the 4th on Flagler VIP tent area violates the Code of Ethics since the benefit of the solicitation is received by City officials, employees, and their guests and, therefore, is not used solely by the municipality for a public purpose. Solicitation for donations by public employees to vendors for a City-sponsored event is not prohibited by the code when the contributions are solicited or accepted on behalf of the City for use solely by the City for a public purpose.

Use of contributed gifts from a vendor exclusively for senior clients of the Senior Center is not prohibited.
ISSUE: Whether Palm Beach County Senior Center employees may accept donations from Publix Supermarkets (a county vendor) of bakery items, provided the items are used exclusively for senior citizen clients of the Center to be donated as prizes for bingo games.

HOLDING: Gifts solicited or accepted directly into a government department for use by that department in a public program or other public purpose, not for the personal benefit of employees, are not prohibited, as long as there is no unlawful quid pro quo involved in the transaction.

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.

Solicitation of donations by public employees
ISSUE: Whether employees of a City may solicit donations from vendors or residents of the City, to establish a fund to purchase gift cards, which would then be distributed to "the elderly that are in need."

HOLDING: City employees are not prohibited from soliciting donations to purchase gift cards for distribution to elderly persons in need, so long as no donation of more than $100 is solicited or accepted from a City vendor or lobbyist and a solicitation log must be kept. Donations of any kind, from any person or entity, may not be solicited or accepted by an employee if based on a quid pro quo or the past, present or future performance or non-performance of any public act or legal duty.

There is no prohibition against an employee or official giving a gift to a vendor or lobbyist.
ISSUE: Whether County Employees may give vendors gifts as an expression of appreciation.

HOLDING: County employees are not prohibited from giving a county vendor a personal gift as an expression of appreciation.

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.

Solicitation of donations from residents
ISSUE: Whether it violates the Code of Ethics for a City to solicit monetary donations from residents of the City for "The Employee Holiday Fund," where these funds are later distributed equally to each employee of the City.

HOLDING: Providing that donations are not solicited or accepted from any City vendor or lobbyist over $100 and the disbursement of such donations to employees is not based on any official act or legal duty taken or to be taken, the Code does not prohibit City residents from donating to this Fund, or the distribution of collected donations to employees of the City as a holiday gift.

County-sponsored fundraising
ISSUE: Whether the Code of Ethics affected the county sponsored United Way Campaign, a county sponsored program that enables employees to voluntarily give to charitable organizations via payroll deductions.

HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit county facilitated employee fundraising as provided by the United Way Campaign. Donations are from county employees and elected officials only. There is no coercion, benefit of quid pro quo offered in exchange for donations, and the program is sponsored and coordinated by county staff.

Tickets from lobbyists
ISSUE: Whether a firm, which is a lobbyist and is co-sponsoring a public ticketed luncheon event with the Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce, may give tickets to public employees and officials valued at $20, and if so, does the firm have an obligation to fill out gift or lobbying forms.

HOLDING: Provided the total value of the tickets given to any individual public employee does not exceed $100 and that the gift is not in exchange for the past, present or future performance or non-performance of a public action or legal duty, the code does not prohibit the gift. The County Lobbyist Registration ordinance, Section 2-353(d), requires lobbying expenditures in excess of $25 to be reported on an annual lobbyist expenditure report.

Employees are not prohibited from attending training conferences where the travel expenses are paid for by a county vendor, provided the employees obtain a waiver from their public employer.
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether he, or other ISS employees, were prohibited from accepting a tuition waiver for a future training class provided by IBM, a vendor of the County. The tuition waiver was offered in return for assisting IBM in a product evaluation survey.

HOLDING: ISS employees are not prohibited from attendance at any educational training conference where the travel expenses are paid for by a county vendor, provided that the employees obtain a waiver from the Board of County Commissioners. However, ISS employees are prohibited from accepting anything of value in excess of $100, other than the related travel expenses, from a vendor/lobbyist of the county.

Funds solicited by public employees from vendors or lobbyist are prohibited if the employees will receive a personal benefit.
ISSUE: What procedures need to be followed for holding a silent auction of donated items for the PBC Municipal Clerk's Association, to raise funds to be used for the continued professional education and professional certifications of municipal clerks throughout the County?

HOLDING: Because the professional certifications are for the personal benefit of each member who receives them, any funds solicited by a public employee from vendors or lobbyists are prohibited. A donation from a vendor or lobbyist may not be accepted if the value exceeds $100, annually in the aggregate.

General holiday gifts are not prohibited but may be reportable.
ISSUES:
(1) May employees exchange holiday gifts?
(2) May employees accept shared food items such as fruit baskets, candy or baked goods?
(3) May employees accept individual holiday gifts which are placed in a pool to be randomly raffled at the end of the holiday season?
(4) May Town sanitation workers accept holiday gifts of cash as a general expression of appreciation where such gifts are not tied to a specific task or trash pick-up?

HOLDING: A general holiday gift, not tied to a public act or duty, is not prohibited. A blind raffle of donated gifts and conducted by the Town is not prohibited, provided the donor is not a vendor or lobbyist of the Town, and there is no quid pro quo or other special consideration given to the donor in exchange for the donated gifts. Any gift, of a value in excess of $100, must be reported. To determine the individual value of a gift of food, given to multiple employees, the total value of the gift is divided by the number of employees who share in that gift. Lastly, unsolicited holiday gifts to sanitation workers that are not connected to a specific official action, but rather, are given as a general expression of appreciation, are not prohibited.

Gift from silent auction bid.
ISSUE: Whether a County employee is required to file a gift disclosure form to report a "sunset cruise" gift certificate valued at $100, for which she paid $55 in a silent auction.

HOLDING: Public employees who are non-state reporting individuals are required to file an annual gift disclosure report if they have received a gift valued at greater than $100 during the fiscal calendar year. The gift certificate she received is valued at exactly $100 and would not require disclosure. Further, by paying $55 for the gift certificate in a silent auction, the net value of the gift to the employee is $45, well below the value that would trigger the Code's disclosure requirement.

Holiday gifts.
ISSUE: Whether an officer/shareholder of a private law firm who serves as an attorney for a municipality may provide holiday gifts to council members and staff of the municipality provided the gifts are valued at less than $100, in the aggregate for the calendar year.

HOLDING: Provided the gifts are not given as a quid pro quo for an official public action or a legal duty performed or violated by a public employee or official, and the value of the gift is not more than $100, in the aggregate for the calendar year, the Code of Ethics does not prohibit the giving of such a gift, even if the donor is a vendor, lobbyist, principal or employer of a lobbyist who sells, leases or lobbies the employee or official's public employer.

Gift card from a client.
ISSUE: Whether a County employee could accept a $15 gift card from a client in appreciation of the therapy provided in the course of his public employment.

HOLDING: The assistance the employee provided was in his official capacity as a Palm Beach County employee, therefore he is prohibited from accepting the gift.

Gift from personal friend.
ISSUE: Whether a Town employee is required to report a gift of discounted tickets to the Town Policeman's Ball, valued in excess of $100, when the gift was motivated by his personal or social relationship to the donor rather than an attempt to obtain his goodwill or otherwise influence him in the performance of his official duties.

HOLDING: The Town employee is not required to report a gift motivated by a personal friendship or social relationship, provided the gift is not given by a vendor, lobbyist, principal or employer of a lobbyist who sells, leases or lobbies the Town, and is not otherwise given to influence the performance of his official duties.

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.

Gift reporting for trustees appointed by Town Council
ISSUE: Whether Trustees of a Town’s Firefighter Board of Trustees, who are subject to the Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics, must report salary, benefits, services, fees, commissions, gifts or expenses associated primarily with the Trustees employment, business or service as an officer or director of a corporation or organization; and whether a Trustee nominated or selected by the other four Trustees to this retirement board, but ultimately appointed by the governing body of the Town, is subject to the jurisdiction of the COE.

HOLDING: FBT Trustees are subject to state gift reporting requirements as listed under Chapter 112, Florida Statutes and must report as required by state law. Although the FBT itself is a state created board and therefore not an advisory board, trustees who are appointed by the Town Council are considered "officials" and subject to the code. The fact that one appointment is based on a selection by the existing Trustees does not negate the fact that the ultimate appointment is made by the governing body and the appointee is therefore subject to the Code of Ethics.

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.

Elected official soliciting donations.
ISSUE: Whether the Vice Mayor of a City, in his official position, can solicit donations from local businesses, if these items are solicited for a City-sponsored event.

HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit the Vice Mayor from soliciting donations from local businesses in his official position, so long as the donations are given to the City for use in conducting City business, including a City sponsored special event, and not based on any quid pro quo or other improper reason.

Complimentary admission to gala.
ISSUE: Whether a County Commissioner may accept free admission for two persons to the Business Development Board Gala from a non-vendor or non-lobbyist.

HOLDING: The Commissioner is not prohibited from accepting complimentary admission for himself and a guest to the BDB Gala. Because the total value of the tickets is $500, it must be timely reported on the State of Florida Quarterly Gift Disclosure Form, and a copy must be sent to the COE.

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,

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.

Educational scholarships for Town employees.
ISSUE: Whether the children of Town employees may accept educational scholarships provided by the Palm Beach Country Club and Palm Beach Day Academy, who are not vendors or lobbyists of the Town.

HOLDING: Town employees are not prohibited from accepting scholarship dollars on behalf of their children by the Palm Beach Country Club and Palm Beach Day Academy, provided that there is no quid pro quo or special treatment or privileges given to either organization in exchange for offering these scholarships. Should the value of the scholarships exceed $100, they are a reportable gift and must be disclosed in the appropriate annual gift reporting form.

Value of gift from vendor in excess of $100.
ISSUE: Whether a City Planning and Zoning Board member may accept two tickets valued at $150 each to attend a Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce event from a local attorney who lobbies the board.

HOLDING: The board member may not accept more than $100 from a lobbyist who lobbies his advisory board or the municipal department over which his board has authority. If the board member chooses to accept the tickets, then he must reimburse the value of the tickets in excess of $100 to the donor within 90 days.

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.

Attending a vendor-sponsored event.
ISSUE: Whether a County employee may attend a vendor-sponsored reception at a conference.

HOLDING: The employee is not prohibited from attending the vendor-sponsored reception, so long as the value of that event does not exceed $100, and he does not accept more than $100 annually, in the aggregate, from the vendor. He may not accept a gift of any value, including meals, from any person or entity in exchange for the past, present or future performance of "a legal duty" or an "official action."

Acceptance of tickets.
ISSUE: Whether City employees and officials may accept tickets provided by the City to events held at the Mizner Park Amphitheater, and if so, are they reportable gifts.

HOLDING: City employees and officials are not prohibited from accepting tickets to attend events at the Mizner Park Amphitheater. Promoters or event companies who lease space are not vendors of the City. However, if the value of event tickets exceeds $100, they are reportable gifts.

Fundraising by independent special district
ISSUES:
(1) Whether a Commissioner, who also serves as a council member of the Children’s Services Council, would be considered as "soliciting" the entities that CSC solicits as part of its statutory mandate to raise funds for agencies operated for the benefit of children, where the Commissioner’s name and title are not used as a part of the solicitation, and
(2) if the CSC were to voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the COE by contract, would this affect the duties and requirements of Commissioner Abrams, other CSC Council members, or staff.

HOLDING: Since the Commissioner’s names or titles is not used when soliciting a contribution for a non-profit organization and the Commissioner is not involved, directly or indirectly, with solicitations made by CSC, the donations would not be considered gifts solicited or accepted by the official "or any other person or business entity on his or her behalf.” So long as the manner of solicitation and acceptance of donations remains as described, the CSC coming within the jurisdiction of the COE would not change this relationship.

Solicitation and acceptance of donations from vendors.
ISSUE: Whether a Village police department may solicit and accept donations from a Village vendor in order to refurbish a newly acquired armored vehicle.

HOLDING: The Village police department is not prohibited from soliciting and accepting donations for the police departments from Village vendors, so long as the funds are used solely for the Village in conducting its official business for a public purpose.

Employees may attend a symposium and lunch sponsored by a vendor as long as the cost of the event per person is not greater than $100.
ISSUE: Whether Village employees may attend an annual symposium presented by a Village vendor.

HOLDING: Village employees are not prohibited from attending a symposium and lunch sponsored by a vendor of the Village, so long as the cost of the event per person does not exceed $100 and the gift is not accepted in exchange for the performance or non-performance of a legal duty or an official public action.

Trustees appointed by the City Council are considered officials, and officials and City employees who serve as Trustees are required to comply with the Code of Ethics
ISSUE: Whether Trustees of the City of Boca Raton Police and Firefighters' Retirement System 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 BRPFRS related seminars and conferences?

HOLDING: The trustees who are appointed by the City Council are considered officials, and employees and officials of the City are required to comply with the Code of Ethics. Employees/trustees who are elected by other employees still maintain their status as City employees and must comply with the Code of Ethics when acting in an official capacity for the City. Limitations and prohibitions relating to the solicitation or acceptance of gifts only apply to City vendors or lobbyists. Travel reimbursement from City vendors may be accepted provided the trustee obtains a waiver from the City Council. Any gifts, not otherwise prohibited, in excess of $100 must be reported on an annual gift report. Travel reimbursement associated with educational or governmental conferences or seminars, properly waived if required, does not need to be reported.

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.

Scholarships for children of Town employees.
ISSUE: Whether the children of Town employees may accept college scholarships provided by Neiman Marcus and the Palm Beach Chamber of Commerce.

HOLDING: The children of Town employees are not prohibited from accepting scholarship dollars provided by the Palm Beach Chamber of Commerce and Neiman Marcus. These scholarships are available to any college-bound Town resident or any child whose parent is employed by a business within the Town and neither the Chamber of Commerce nor Neiman Marcus is a vendor, lobbyist, principal or employer of a lobbyist of the Town.

Distributing donated gifts to employees.
ISSUE: Whether a Town can distribute donated gifts to individual employees of the Town through the use of a "blind draw" raffle.

HOLDING: The Town is not prohibited from distributing donated gifts to employees, where those items were donated by persons or organizations that are non-vendors and non-lobbyists of the Town. If any item received by an employee is valued at more than $100, it must be reported pursuant to the reporting requirements of the code. However, a municipal official or employee may not accept, directly or indirectly, any gift with a value of greater than $100 annually in the aggregate from any vendor, lobbyist or principal that lobbies, sells or leases to the municipality.

Public employee discounts are exempted from the gift law prohibitions.
ISSUE: Whether Town employees may accept discounted food from local establishments that may be Town vendors, where this benefit is provided because of the employees’ employment status with the Town and is a general discount available to all employees without exception.

HOLDING: Town employees are not prohibited from accepting discounted food at local restaurants, provided that the discount is not based on preferred treatment of the vendor by the employee, the discount applies to all similarly situated government employees or officials, and it is not otherwise offered as a quid pro quo or to convey a special financial benefit.

Awards for "outstanding performance," or recognition of their length of reputable service to the Town, are expressly excluded from the definition of gifts.
ISSUE: Whether awards given to employees for outstanding performance (such as Employee of the Year, Officer of the Month) are considered "gifts," where these awards are sponsored by either the Town, or a private entity; and whether a non-profit organization, which is a non-vendor or a non-lobbyist of the Town, may donate funds for two employee recognition programs, where awards are given to employees based on time of employment with the Town or at retirement from employment with the Town.

HOLDING: Town employee awards for "outstanding performance" or recognition of their length of reputable service to the Town, are expressly excluded from the definition of "gifts." As such, they are not subject to the gift law prohibitions and annual reporting requirements, regardless of whether they are sponsored by the Town or by private entities.

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.

Acceptance of an award for civic achievement
ISSUE: Whether a Palm Beach County Commissioner could accept the 2011 County Commissioner of the Year Award from the Palm Beach County Business Leadership Network and attend the associated awards luncheon.

HOLDING: The Commissioner is not prohibited from accepting an award for civic achievement from the Palm Beach County Business Leadership Network or from attending the awards luncheon. Awards for professional or civic achievement are not considered gifts under the gift law provisions of the code of ethics.

Gifts from vendors and non-vendors
ISSUE: How gift law affects various items a Village Police Chief received while attending a conference for the Florida Police Chiefs Association.

HOLDING: A gift received from non-vendors and non-lobbyists of the Village of Palm Springs (the Village), is not prohibited, however it must be reported if its value exceeds $100. Gifts received by any vendor or lobbyist of the Village that exceed $100, annually in the aggregate, are prohibited, but the prohibited portion of the gift (that portion over $100) may be returned to the giver within 90 days of receipt without violating the code. A gift does not include attendance fees paid by the Village for your attendance at a conference in your official capacity, or any awards received for civic or professional achievement.

Elected officials invited to luncheon
ISSUE: Whether the Literacy Coalition of Palm Beach County could continue to host the Mayors' Literacy Luncheon, an event sponsored by the Coalition, Comcast Cable and the League of Cities, designed to inform city officials about literacy programs available to their citizens.

HOLDING: The Literacy Coalition is not prohibited from holding the Mayor's Literacy Luncheon and inviting the mayors and other city representatives from all 38 municipalities within the County to attend the event so long as the requirements and limitations of the gift law are followed.

An elected official is not prohibited from accepting an award for professional or civic achievement from an organization or from attending the award reception.
ISSUE: Whether the COE chairman could accept the Anti-Defamation League's jurisprudence award for his prior service to the community, unrelated to his current position on the COE, and attend a fundraising reception, where he will accept the award, and what limits, if any, apply to the League in advertising and soliciting for donations in conjunction with the event.

HOLDING: The commissioner is not prohibited from accepting an award for professional or civic achievement or from attending the award reception. ADL is not prohibited from using his name, the Honorable Edward Rodgers, in reference to his years of service as a Judge and as a civil rights leader and advocate, in the written materials promoting the award and the event, so long as they submit a record of all solicitations made and pledges and donations received from vendors and lobbyists of the COE, in accordance with the transparency requirements of the Code.

Public employees may not accept more than $100 annually from a vendor of their public employer.
ISSUE: Whether a City employee could accept meals of less than $100 from a City vendor and whether the code distinguishes between a vendor that the employee has significant contact with in his official capacity and a vendor having no nexus with the employee’s position or authority.

HOLDING: The City employee is not prohibited from attending dinners with City vendors, so long as he does not accept anything of any value in exchange for the past, present or future performance of his job. Employees may not accept more than $100 annually, in the aggregate from a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist of the City.

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.

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.

Accepting tickets from a non-vendor
ISSUE: Whether complementary tickets may be given to County Commissioners and staff to a portion of the 6th Annual Film Florida Conference, hosted by the Palm Beach County Film and Television Commission, who supplied the complimentary tickets.

HOLDING: County Commissioners or county staff are not prohibited from accepting complementary tickets, if given by a representative of the Film and Television Commission who is not otherwise a vendor, lobbyist, principal, or employer of a lobbyist. If the value of the tickets exceeds $100, the official or employee will need to report.

An elected official, who is an officer or director of a non-profit, is prohibited from using her name and official title, to solicit donations on behalf of the non-profit.
ISSUE: Whether a conflict of interest would exist if a City Commissioner also serves on the board of directors of a local non-profit organization and whether the Commissioner could continue to fundraise on behalf of the non-profit organization.

HOLDING: The Commissioner may not use her elected office to give the non-profit a special financial benefit while serving as an officer or director of the charity. As an officer or director of a charity, soliciting donations on behalf of that charity using her name and official title would constitute a violation of the misuse of office portion of the code. If she chooses to resign her position as an officer or director, or use only her name and not her official title to solicit on behalf of the charity, any solicitation of donations from vendors or lobbyists of West Palm Beach greater than $100 must be kept in a detailed log of her contact with those donors and submit a copy to the COE.

Tips accepted in the service industry
ISSUE: Whether employees of a city golf course, may accept tips in the normal course of their employment without violating the Code of Ethics.

HOLDING: City employees specifically hired for service-related jobs where the negotiated compensation includes salary or hourly wages plus tips, where such arrangements also reflect standard compensation practices within the service industry, may accept service tips.

County commissioner may accept tickets to pre-tournament gala sponsored by non-lobbyist, non-vendor but these gifts are reportable
ISSUE: A county commissioner asked whether he may accept tickets to an event from a non-lobbyist, non-vendor and whether they are reportable.

HOLDING: The tickets may be accepted but are reportable.

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.

(MODIFIED BY RQO12-037) Gifts in connection with husband’s employment from non-vendors are not prohibited but are reportable if they exceed $100.
ISSUE: A county airport employee asked whether gifts received by her in connection with her husband’s employment as a pilot are prohibited or reportable.

HOLDING: The gifts are not prohibited as they are from non-vendors. However, they are reportable if they exceed $100.

County employee’s solicitation and acceptance of donations from vendors not prohibited where gifts are solely used in performance of official duties for public purpose
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether he may solicit and accept gifts from vendors in connection with a public exposition where they are taken as part of the performance of official duties solely for a public purpose.

HOLDING: These solicitations and gifts fit the public purpose exception which makes them permissible under the code.

Event with admission fee is not a gift but free attendance may be a reportable gift
ISSUE: A city employee asked whether attending an event, sponsored by a non-lobbyist, which carries an admission fee, is a gift; whether free attendance at an event is a gift.

HOLDING: Where an employee has to pay an admission fee, the event is not a gift. However, a free attendance at such an event may be a reportable gift if the value exceeds $100.

Gift card from non-lobbyist used by county in conducting official business not prohibited or reportable
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether a gift card for $50 received from a non-lobbyist and used by the county in conducting official business was prohibited or reportable.

HOLDING: Under these circumstances, the gift card is neither prohibited nor reportable.

Gift of a hotel stay paid for by County employee’s second cousin is reportable
ISSUE: A County employee asked whether a gift of a hotel stay given by her second cousin is a reportable gift. The total value of the gift was $448.

HOLDING: Because by definition a second cousin does not meet the definition of a “relative,” the gift is reportable.

City officials may accept gift of events tickets from non-lobbyist, and the same is not reportable, where the cost is $100 per person
ISSUE: A city manager asked whether city officials may accept dinner dance tickets from a non-lobbyist. The cost of the tickets is $100 per person.

HOLDING: Because the tickets are from a non-lobbyist and the cost does not exceed $100 per person, these gifts are not prohibited and are non-reportable.

Advisory board member not appointed by BCC or governing body of covered municipality is not under jurisdiction of COE for gift law purposes, but is under COE jurisdiction by virtue of employment.
ISSUE: An advisory board member, not appointed by BCC or governing body of a covered municipality asked whether the gift law provisions applied to him.

HOLDING: They do not. However, county or municipal employees under the code by virtue of their employment would be subject to the code, including the gift laws.

County employee may accept “travel expenses” from a vendor in the form of waiver of conference registration fees where he attends in the capacity as an instructor
ISSUE: A county ISS employee asked whether it would violate the code to accept waiver of conference registration fees from a vendor where he is an instructor for the course.

HOLDING: Waiver of conference registration fees under these circumstances does not violate the code because this constitutes adequate consideration for the employee’s work as an instructor. Similarly, it does not violate the gift law.

Gift of ticket to advisory board member from FPL (non-lobbyist and does not appear before board) is not prohibited but is reportable
ISSUE: An advisory board member asked whether she may accept a ticket to an awards banquet from FPL, (which is not a lobbyist and does not appear before the board).

HOLDING: The gift is not prohibited by Sec. 2-444(b) but is reportable under Sec. 2-444(d)(2).

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.

Town employees may attend off-duty “appreciation event” at private country club.
ISSUE: A Town manager asked whether town employees could attend an “appreciation event” sponsored by a private country club which does not have contracts with the Town. Additionally, the club does not have any pending bid proposals or offers to sell goods or services to the town and does not lease any property to or from the town.

HOLDING: Attendance at the event under these circumstances is not prohibited by the gift law. However, if the value of attendance to an employee exceeds $100, it must be reported.

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.

Airboat tour for commissioner not a gift but lunch from lobbyist is a gift
ISSUE: A County commissioner asked whether an everglades airboat tour, with lunch provided by a lobbyist is a prohibited gift.

HOLDING: The tour is not a gift as it was provided by a U.S. Government department and part of the commissioner’s official duties. A box lunch provided by a lobbyist is a gift. Because the value of the lunch was under $100, it was not a prohibited gift.

Hotel discounts available to County Fire-Rescue personnel.
ISSUE: Whether County Fire-Rescue employees may accept a travel discount offered by two Best Western properties located in Daytona Beach, Florida, which discount is available to all Palm Beach County Fire-Rescue personnel.

HOLDING: County employees are not prohibited from accepting this hotel discount. However, discounted stays with an aggregate value in excess of $100 must be reported in an annual gift disclosure report filed with the COE.

The county, as opposed to any particular employee, may accept $2500 in free training and support from Microsoft, a contracted vendor.
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether the county could accept free training and support from a contracted vendor where the services are for the benefit of the county and not any particular employee.

HOLDING: The training is for the benefit of all employee use in the performance of their official duties. This is within the exception of Sec. 2-444 (e)(1) and therefore permissible.

Holiday gifts to employees
ISSUE: Whether members of the Town Police Department may accept a $50 gift card from a Town resident, who does not vend, lease or lobby the Town, as a holiday gift.

HOLDING: A general holiday gift to all police department employees is not prohibited provided it is not given in exchange for the past, present or future performance of an official act or a legal duty.

Solicitation and acceptance of gift over $100 from vendor or lobbyists is prohibited.
ISSUE: May the clerks of the 38 municipalities within Palm Beach County, who are under the jurisdiction of the COE, participate in the Florida Association of City Clerks (FACC) Summer Academy's 50/50 raffle by buying or selling raffle tickets?
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit the clerks of the 38 municipalities within Palm Beach County from participating in FACC's 50/50 raffle by purchasing raffle tickets since FACC is not a vendor or a lobbyist of any of the municipalities within the county; however, the state law may prohibit such a raffle. Also, caution must be taken if the clerks sell any raffle tickets to vendors, lobbyists, or principals of lobbyists of their respective municipalities.

Award for professional or civic achievement is not a gift.
ISSUE: A City of Greenacres employee asked if the Code prohibits City employees from being recognized for being instrumental in championing program quality and accepting a monetary award from a non-profit organization who is neither a vendor nor lobbyist of the City.
HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit the City employees from accepting an award for professional or civic achievement, even where such an award is monetary. Since an award for professional achievement is an exception to the definition of a gift, the City employees are not required to report the award to the COE.

Exception for gifts accepted by public officials or employees on behalf of their government which will be used solely for a public purpose.
ISSUE: The Human Resources Director for the Village of Tequesta asked if the Code prohibits the Village from accepting an offer of free pressure cleaning services for the gutter and sidewalk area of a public roadway, where the provider is a Village resident who resides along that roadway.
HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit the Village from accepting an offer of free pressure cleaning services for the gutter and sidewalk area of a public roadway from the Village resident as long as the pressure cleaning services are determined to have a public purpose and the resident offering the service does not receive any unlawful benefit for providing such a service.

Acceptance of gifts that are general in nature
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if the Code prohibits county employees at the Gardens Branch of the Palm Beach County Library System from accepting complimentary chair massages from a local business as a general gesture of appreciation for their service.
HOLDING: The county employees are not prohibited from accepting the complimentary chair massages because the gift is general in nature and not being provided because of the performance or non-performance of an official act or legal duty or as a quid pro quo given to the donor in exchange for the gift, and the donor is not a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist of the county. If the value of the chair massage exceeds $100, the gift must be reported as required by the Code.

City employees may accept a discounted hotel rate offered by a local hotel on the night of the city's holiday party.
ISSUE: The assistant director of human resources for the City of Delray Beach asked if city employees may accept a discounted hotel rate offered by a local hotel.
HOLDING: If the hotel is a vendor, lobbyist, or a principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the city, acceptance of a discount from the hotel over $100 in the aggregate for the calendar year would be a violation of the Code. If the hotel is not a city vendor or a lobbyist or a principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the city, then the above prohibition does not apply. However, depending on the amount of the discount, the city employees who accept the hotel discount may be required to report the gift.

Reward points accrued in conjunction with a contract
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the county may redeem its Snack Reward credits from Betty Mills, a vendor of the county, and donate the redeemed snacks to the Senator Philip D. Lewis Center, a local homeless center.
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit the county from accepting these generally offered Snack Rewards accrued in conjunction with purchasing products from Betty Mills. The Code also has no prohibition regarding the donation of these Snack Rewards to the homeless center because the Code of Ethics is not implicated in such an instance. Once received, the Snack Rewards become county property and, thus, can be disposed of in any manner allowed by county policy.

Gift from non-vendors and non-lobbyists
ISSUE: The assistant city attorney for the city of Delray Beach asked if city public safety employees may attend an event hosted by a private country club as an expression of appreciation for the work of those employees.
HOLDING: Because the country club is not a vendor, lobbyist or principal or employer of lobbyists of the city, as long as there is no "quid pro quo" or special treatment or privileges given to the country club by any city employee in exchange for hosting this event, the Code does not prohibit employees from attending. However, if the value of gift to each employee exceeds $100, then the gift must be reported.

Fundraising donation to a town
ISSUE: An employee from the town of Jupiter asked if any of the gift law provisions of the Code of Ethics would be implicated if representatives of Roger Dean Stadium solicit and accept donations for the town’s Explorer Program during its National Night Out event.
HOLDING: The code’s gift law provisions do not apply to the circumstances presented. The $100 gift limit from vendors or lobbies of the town of Jupiter would not apply because town employees are not involved in the solicitation and acceptance of donations. Further, because the donations will not be distributed to any town employees, the town would not be prohibited from accepting the donated funds from the National Night Out event.

Accepting a gift when the gift was given by an anonymous source.
After making a reasonable attempt to identify the source of the gift by contacting the retail outlet, which refused to provide the information, Sec. 2-444(a)(1) is not applicable because the gift cannot be deemed to have come from a “prohibited source” since the source’s identity is unknown.

Because the gift was not from a prohibited source, you must determine the value of the gift to know if you must report the gift on a gift disclosure form. The valuation of the gift should be the actual cost to the gift giver. The retail outlet that fulfilled the order on behalf of the anonymous gift giver stated that the cost of the order exceeded $100. Thus, the gift must be reported on a gift form.

Accepting a gift from a vendor
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if employees who work in the Water Utilities Department may accept food from a county vendor without violating the Code of Ethics.
HOLDING: County employees are not prohibited from accepting lunch, so long as (1) the cost per person does not exceed $100, (2) the recipients of the lunch have not accepted additional gifts from that vendor totaling, in the aggregate, more than $100, and (3) there is no "quid pro quo" or special treatment or privileges given to the vendor by any county employee or official in exchange for providing the food at the luncheon.

Gifts from public employer to its employees
ISSUE: A North Palm Beach village employee asked if the municipality may provide its employees with lunches four times per year as well as with gift cards to Publix at the end of the year as a show of appreciation for their hard work and dedication.
HOLDING: General gifts of appreciation given by the village officials and administration to all of its employees would not be prohibited. However, the employees may be required to report the gifts on gift disclosure forms if the value of the gifts exceed $100 in the aggregate.

Donation to the city
ISSUE: A City of Delray Beach employee asked if the city is prohibited from accepting a donation of streetlights and other light components from a company located in Delray Beach.
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit the city from accepting a donation of streetlights identical to the ones used throughout the city from the company as long as the donation is determined to have a public purpose and the general contractor providing the streetlights does not receive any unlawful benefit for providing such goods.

Public purpose exception to gift law
ISSUE: A City of Boynton Beach Fire Rescue employee asked if the department may accept a scholarship from the Health Care Institute of Palm Beach County (HCI), a vendor of the City of Boynton Beach, which will be awarded to a Fire Rescue Department employee to earn an Associate of Science Degree in Emergency Medical Services from HCI free of charge.
HOLDING: The Fire Department administration or the city council must determine whether the award of the scholarship for an employee to earn an Associate of Science Degree in Emergency Medical Services would be for a public purpose. If the tuition scholarship is determined to have a public purpose, then the City Fire Department is not prohibited from accepting the scholarship from HCI. If it is not determined to have a public purpose, then the acceptance of the scholarship is prohibited because the gift is from a vendor and its value exceeds $100 in the aggregate.

A supervisor of a social center accepting an unsolicited gift from a center member.
A municipal employee asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits him from accepting an unsolicited gift for Father’s Day from a member of the senior center where the employee works when the gift giver is not a municipal vendor or a lobbyist or principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies his public employer.

The COE opined as follows: Based on the facts provided, the employee did not use his official position as the supervisor of the senior center to obtain this gift from one of the center’s members. Because this was an unsolicited gift that was not given to him in exchange for any quid pro quo or other special consideration, but rather as a general expression of appreciation, it is not prohibited by the code. Although the code does not prohibit the acceptance of this gift, the employee must also take care to follow any policies that his public employer has established regarding gifts.

Board membership and travel reimbursement
ISSUE: The attorney for the Board of Trustees of the City of Boca Raton Police and Firefighters’ Retirement System (BRPFRS) asked if the BRPFRS members who are either City of Boca Raton (city) officials or employees would violate the prohibited conduct section or the gift law section of the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (code) if BRPFRS accepts reimbursement of travel expenses from their investment consultant for the members’ attendance at his conference.
HOLDING: Because the investment consultant who will provide the reimbursement for the conference is not a city vendor and is not a lobbyist or principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the city, the code does not prohibit the city employees who serve on the BRPFRS from accepting any gift over $100 from the investment consultant. Further, because the investment consultant is also not a city contractor, service provider, bidder, or proposer, the code does not prohibit the city employees and officials serving as BPFRS trustees from accepting travel expenses, directly or indirectly, from the investment consultant. Further, the reimbursement meets the requirements of Section 2-444(g)(1) h. of the code, and the reimbursement to BRPFRS from the investment consultant is not considered a “gift” under the code and does not need to be reported by the trustees.

Discounted gym membership
ISSUE: An employee of the Village of Tequesta asked if Village employees may accept a discounted gym membership rate from a local business without violating the code.
HOLDING: So long as the local business is offering the discounted rate to all Village employees and it is not offered as a quid pro quo for an official public action or the past, present or future performance of any legal duty, Village employees would not be prohibited from accepting this discount unless the provider was a lobbyist, principal, or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the Village and the discount value exceeds $100 annually in the aggregate.

Public purpose exception to gift law
ISSUE: The Executive Director of the Palm Beach County Legislative Delegation asked if she is prohibited from soliciting or accepting sponsorship donations for the Legislative Delegation reception from county vendors or from lobbyists or principals or employers of lobbyists who lobby the county, where the reception will be free and open to the public, with the exception of those individuals who under state or local law are prohibited from receiving such a gift and who will be charged a fee of $15 to attend.
HOLDING: No violation will occur so long as the following conditions are met:
(1) County Administration or the Board of County Commissioners must declare the event to have a public purpose;
(2) The donations are accepted on behalf of the county and used solely for a public purpose;
(3) No quid pro quo or other special consideration is given to donors in exchange for a donation.

Tickets given to city pursuant to a contract
ISSUE: The City Attorney for the city of Delray Beach asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits city officials and employees from accepting tickets to the Delray Beach Open Tennis Tournament from the city.

HOLDING: City officials and employees are not prohibited from accepting these tickets because the tickets are an inseparable part of the contract between the vendor and the City. Because the city is paying for these tickets through the contract, it is not prohibited from distributing the tickets to its officials or employees. However, city officials and employees must report the tickets as gifts from the city if the value exceeds $100.

Donations accepted by public officials or employees on behalf of their government for use solely by the county for a declared public purpose are not considered gifts and do not have to be reported
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the Medical Examiner’s Office is prohibited from accepting the donation of furniture from a local business who is not a vendor, lobbyist, or a principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the county.
HOLDING: Because the furniture is not being donated in exchange for any quid pro quo or special consideration, and the donor is not a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the county, the employees are not prohibited from accepting a donation of furniture from the local business, even if the value of the furniture exceeds $100. Additionally, as long as the Medical Examiner’s Office administration determines that the use of the furniture would be for a public purpose because it would be used in conducting official county business, then the donation of the office furniture would not be considered a gift to employees who receive it, and they would not have to report it on a gift form.

Gifts from entity that is not a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics prohibits him from accepting gifts from JFK Medical Center where he serves on its Board of Trustees, and if the code prohibits his county employment from being listed on his biography for the Board webpage.
HOLDING: As long as JFK Medical Center is not a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the county, he is not prohibited from accepting any gifts from JFK Medical Center. However, if the value of any gift from JFK Medical Center exceeds $100, it must be disclosed on a gift form. Additionally, the code does not prohibit the mere listing of his professional experience, including his county employment and title, on the Board webpage.

Gift cards donated to city from non-vendor/non-lobbyist
ISSUE: A city of Delray Beach employee asked (1) if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) prohibits city employees, who are recognized as employee of the month, from accepting gift cards as a part of that award if the gift cards are donated by a civic organization, and (2) if the Code prohibits employees of the Delray Beach Police Department (DBPD) from accepting gift cards from a national auto parts corporation to provide to drivers as part of a traffic selective enforcement program, when neither the civic organization nor the national auto parts corporation are a city vendor or a lobbyist or principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the city?
HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit city employees from accepting the gift cards as a part of their award for professional or civic achievement, nor does it prohibit the DBPB from accepting gift cards from a national auto parts corporation when these gift cards are offered for use solely by the municipality for a public purpose.

Donation to a municipality
ISSUE: A municipal employee asked if it would violate the code if a non-profit organization purchases a vehicle as a donation to the municipality and the title and registration are transferred directly from the dealership to the municipality, or if the non-profit organization needs to have the title transferred from the dealership to the organization who then transfers the title to the municipality.

HOLDING: The code does not prohibit the municipality from having the vehicle titled and registered directly from the dealership to the municipality or from having the title transferred from the dealership to the non-profit organization and then to the municipality. Because the vehicle is being purchased by the non-profit organization on behalf of the municipality, in either scenario, the non-profit organization is the source of the gift to the municipality.

Gift of ticket to awards dinner from non-vendor
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the Code prohibits her from accepting a ticket to an awards dinner.

HOLDING: Whether she may accept a gift is based on who is providing the gift and the value of the gift. As long as the gift giver is not a county vendor or a lobbyist or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the county, she is not prohibited from accepting gifts with a value over $100 from that gift giver. Although the Code does not prohibit her from accepting this ticket, because she is a state-reporting individual for gift reporting purposes, state law controls whether she must report the ticket on a gift form. If the gift of the ticket to the dinner is reportable, she must file a copy of the gift form with the COE within 10 days of filing the form with the state.

Donation to nonprofit organization when officer or director
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) prohibits him from accepting a donation from a county vendor for a nonprofit organization of which you are an officer or director.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit him from soliciting or accepting a donation for a nonprofit organization from a county vendor provided there is no quid pro quo or other special consideration given. He must maintain a record of any solicitations or donations from any county vendors or lobbyists or principals or employers of lobbyists who lobby the county and submit it to the COE within 30 days of the event or if not solicited or donated for an event, then within 30 days of the solicitation or donation. His participation in fundraising for the organization also needs to be in his personal name only without any reference to his official title or connection to his official position as a county employee.

Gifts from nonprofit organization
ISSUE: The President of Delray Citizens for Delray Police (DCDP) asked if the employees of the Delray Beach Police Department were prohibited from accepting prizes from DCDP for competing in a volleyball tournament.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit the employees from attending the tournament and accepting the prizes as long as DCDP is not a vendor of the city, is not a lobbyist or principal or employer of a lobbyist that lobbies the city, and as long as there is no "quid pro quo" or special privilege or treatment given to DCDP by the employees or the city based on the hosting of this event. In addition, the food, beverages, and prizes from the event may be reportable gifts.

Public Purpose Exception
Issue: A county employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) prohibits employees from soliciting or accepting sponsorship donations for Palm Beach County Day events.

Holding: The Code’s gift prohibitions pertaining to vendors, lobbyists, or principals or employers of lobbyists does not apply when solicitations are made and donations are accepted on behalf of the county for use solely by the county for a public purpose. A violation will not occur as long as (1) county administration or the board of county commissioners declares the events have a public purpose; (2) the donations are accepted on behalf of the county and used solely for a public purpose; and (3) there is no quid pro quo or other special consideration given to donors in exchange for a donation.

Prizes won in a drawing
ISSUE: A municipal employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics prohibits her from accepting prizes she won in a drawing while attending a work conference.

HOLDING: Because the prizes are not from vendors, lobbyists, or principals or employers of a lobbyist who lobby, lease, or sell to her municipal employer, she is not prohibited from accepting the prizes regardless of their value as long as there is no "quid pro quo" or special treatment or other privilege given to or obtained by the entities in exchange for the prizes. However, if the value of the prize exceeds $100, it must be reported on a county gift form by January 31, 2023.

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.

Gift from town is allowed as long as it is properly reported
ISSUE: A town manager asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics prohibited the town from allowing its employees complimentary use of town facilities in light of the fact that the general public must pay for use. While the town has considered making this a formal employment benefit, it has not yet done so. HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit the town from allowing employees complimentary use of town facilities. However, because there is no policy codifying this benefit, the complimentary use likely qualifies as a gift from the town to any employee who takes advantage of this opportunity. Because the value of the facility rental exceeds $100, any employee who receives complimentary use must report the gift in accordance with the Code's reporting requirements.

The Code does not prohibit an individual from hosting a party for outgoing mayor
ISSUE: A town manager asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits an individual who employs a lobbyist who lobbies the town in question, from hosting a private party for the town’s outgoing mayor. HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit the individual from hosting a party for the outgoing mayor. Further, town officials or employees would not be prohibited from attending the event as long as the following conditions are met: (1) the cost per person does not exceed $100, (2) those attending the event have not accepted additional gifts from the individual or his business totaling more than $100, in the aggregate for the calendar year, and (3) there is no “quid pro quo” or special treatment given to the individual or his business in exchange for hosting the event.

Sharing of details about fundraiser with co-workers when donations will be used for personal expenses
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics if she shared the details of a “GoFundMe” page with other county employees when the funds raised would benefit her and be used to offset expenditures associated with an incident unrelated to her employment. HOLDING: The COE opined as follows: The Code does not preclude a person from providing information to or soliciting donations on a “GoFundMe” page from other County employees as long as all of the requirements outlined in this opinion are adhered to including that any requests for donations be in the employees’ personal name only without any reference to her county title or position, that no gifts are solicited or accepted from a prohibited source, and that any noted gift reporting requirements are followed. The opinion outlines all of the guidelines with specificity in the opinion. The COE did not provide an opinion regarding County policies or procedures related to this query.

Reporting a scholarship as a gift
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if it would violate the Code of Ethics if she applied for and/or accepted an educational scholarship that she became aware of only because of a training she had delivered related to her position as a County employee. HOLDING: The Code does not preclude a person from applying for and accepting a scholarship if it is awarded, even if the opportunity was learned about through a work assignment, as long as the guidance provided by the COE is followed, including the filing of the appropriate gift form. The opinion outlines all of the necessary guidelines with specificity. The COE did not provide an opinion regarding County policies or procedures related to this query.

Purchase of personal property from private citizen
ISSUE: A town employee asked if the code prohibited him from purchasing an item of personal property from a local citizen when the item had not been advertised for sale to the general public. HOLDING: The Code does not preclude the purchase of the item as long as the guidance in the opinion is followed, including determining the actual fair market value of the item being purchased, and, if necessary, completing and filing the appropriate gift form with the COE. If the seller of the item is a prohibited source, and the fair market value of the item is $100 or more than the sale price, then the purchase would not be allowed under the Code. The opinion outlines the details of the necessary analysis that must be undertaken prior to completion of the transaction.

Acceptance of a gift for professional achievement
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics prohibited her from accepting a cash gift award for being recognized as the “Humana Healthy Horizons Best Direct Service Employee of the Year” when the award is funded by an organization who is a vendor of the County. HOLDING: Because the Code specifically excludes awards for professional or civic achievement from the definition of "gift," a county employee is not prohibited from accepting an award with a monetary component for professional achievement even when the award is given by a vendor of her public employer.

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.

Acceptance of a gift
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) if she accepted tickets to “Evening on Antique Row”, when the tickets are being provided by the Historical Society of Palm Beach County (HSPBC).
HOLDING: Because HSPBC is a vendor of the County, the Code prohibits the employee from accepting any gifts with an aggregate value that exceeds $100 for the calendar year from HSPBC. If the value of the tickets is $100 or less for both tickets, and she has not accepted any other gifts from HSPBC during the calendar year, she may accept the tickets without further action. However, if the value of the two tickets exceeds $100, in order to accept the tickets, she must reimburse any value in excess of $100 to HSPBC within 90 days of the event.

Jurisdiction of the COE
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the employees and the Board of Trustees of Morikami, Inc. (Morikami), a non-profit partner of the county’s Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens, are subject to the Code.

HOLDING: Neither Morikami’s Board of Trustees nor its employees are subject to the Code because they are not county or municipal officials or employees. The members of Morikami’s Board of Trustees are not considered “officials” under the Code because none of the members are appointed by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commission to sit on the board. Additionally, Morikami’s employees are not county employees because those employees’ salaries are funded solely by Morikami. However, the county employees, who work at Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens and are paid by the County, are under the jurisdiction of the COE and are subject to the Code.

Only persons under the jurisdiction of the Code may request an advisory opinion.
ISSUE: The chairperson of two political action committees (PAC) asked if a conflict of interest would arise for her if she ran for a political office.

HOLDING: The COE has jurisdiction over all Palm Beach County and municipal employees, elected officials, and appointed officials. The COE does not have jurisdiction over PAC members. COE Rule of Procedure 2.2 states that only persons who are under the jurisdiction of the Code may request an advisory opinion regarding the interpretation or application of the Code. Thus, the COE cannot comment on any potential conflicts of interest if she runs for office while serving as chairperson of two PACs.

Advisory board member appointed by the board itself, not the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), is not subject to the jurisdiction of the COE
ISSUE: A member of a volunteer advisory board, appointed by the board itself and not the BCC, asked whether he is under the code and the COE.

HOLDING: Because he is appointed to the advisory board by the board itself and not the BCC, he is not subject to the code or the jurisdiction of the COE.

The Code of Ethics does not limit or regulate political activity or speech.
ISSUE: Whether the Code of Ethics limits or prohibits a municipal councilwoman’s endorsement or support of partisan and non-partisan candidates for primary or general elections.

HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not limit or regulate political activity or speech that does not involve a corrupt misuse of official position. The COE cannot opine on matters involving political activity and speech regulated by state and federal law unless they rise to the level of a corrupt misuse of office.

Volunteers are considered employees of a municipality if they are given discretionary power to act in an official capacity.
ISSUE: Whether volunteers who participate in the Town Police Department programs are subject to the Code of Ethics, including mandatory ethics training.

HOLDING: Volunteers are within the definition of employee if they have the ability to exercise discretionary power to act in an official capacity. All employees, including volunteers who may exercise such discretionary power, must complete mandatory ethics training. A municipal government may require more stringent regulations through its own policies and procedures, and may require training for volunteers who otherwise would not be mandated to do so under the Code.

The COE cannot opine as to matters that involve City policies and procedures that are not subject to its jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Whether a City Recreation Services Department may charge food vendors at the City's Annual Winter Children's Fair on a percentage basis and charge other non-food vendors a fixed, cost per table.

HOLDING: The COE cannot opine as to matters that involve City policies and procedures that are not subject to its jurisdiction. The municipal jurisdiction of the COE is limited to the Countywide Code of Ethics.

Charitable organization is not under jurisdiction of COE
ISSUE: Whether the Executive Director of a charitable organization, receiving federal funds administered through a county department, had a conflict of interest if he obtained a personal financial benefit through a rental property used by the applicant of the charitable funding.

HOLDING: The COE does not have jurisdiction over employees, officers or directors of a charitable organization in regards to conflicts of interest. Both the Conflict of Interest and Misuse of Office sections of the Code of Ethics pertain to Public Officials and Employees only.

County vendor not covered under the code
ISSUE: A vendor of the county asked whether he could serve on the board of a non-profit organization without a conflict of interest.

HOLDING: Vendors are not within the jurisdiction of the COE under the code.

As of May, 2011, the COE did not have jurisdiction over the City of Pahokee
ISSUE: An employee of the City of Pahokee asked a question regarding prohibited contractual relationships.

HOLDING: On of May 06, 2011 the COE did not have jurisdiction over the City of Pahokee. Therefore, the question asked was not answered.

"Resident Inspector", in this case, was not under the jurisdiction of the COE
ISSUE: Will a conflict of interest arise for a Town of Palm Beach “resident inspector” when he owns both a private building code inspection company and a general contracting company in the Town of Palm Beach, if the inspection company does not inspect any of the properties that used his general contracting company to complete the applicable work.
HOLDING: The COE cannot render an advisory opinion to him in this matter, or comment on any potential conflicts of interest between his private building code inspection company and his general contracting company in the Town of Palm Beach because he is not under the jurisdiction of the COE. He is not a Palm Beach County or municipal employee, elected official, or appointed official and does not fall within the definition of “official or employee” that includes “contract personnel and contract administrators performing a government function,” .

Persons required by ordinance to be a member of an advisory board/commission, and not appointed to the board/commission by either the BCC or a municipal governing body, not under jurisdiction of COE.
ISSUE: The Executive Director of the Palm Beach County Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) asked whether, and in what context, public sector and private sector members of the CJC are subject to the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics when they are either appointed or required by law to be a member of the CJC.
HOLDING: Any person appointed by the BCC to serve on that advisory board is considered an official under the Code and is subject to the jurisdiction of the COE in his or her capacity as an appointed member of the CJC. Those persons who are required by ordinance to be a member of an advisory board or commission, and not appointed to the board or commission by either the BCC or a municipal governing body, do not meet the Code’s definition of an official. Since those persons are not considered officials, they are not under the jurisdiction of the COE and are not subject to the Code.

Lobbyists appearing in their personal capacity.
ISSUE: A municipal assistant village attorney asked if the Palm Beach County Lobbyist Registration Ordinance requires registered lobbyists to disclose their lobbyist status on the record or on a Town comment card if they are appearing in their personal capacity as residents or as members of an organization, and if it is not required, if the Town is prohibited from requiring such disclosure.

HOLDING: The Lobbyist Registration Ordinance does not require registered lobbyists to disclose their lobbyist status when they are appearing in their personal capacity as residents or as members of an organization, as long as the agenda items on which they are commenting does not pertain in any way to a principal they represent in exchange for compensation. However, the Lobbyist Registration Ordinance does not prohibit the Town from imposing a stricter standard of conduct upon registered lobbyists. Registered lobbyists must comply with the rules or other policies and procedures that the Town imposes as long as those procedure are not in conflict with the County Lobbyist Registration Ordinance.

Cone of Silence
ISSUE: A Boynton Beach City Commissioner asked if the cone of silence requirement of Palm Beach County Lobbyist Registration Ordinance Section 2-355 applies to him, when he was authorized by Resolution of the City Commission to enter into preliminary negotiations with the County to purchase at below market rate vacant County-owned land for a public purpose outside the confines of a pending formal bid process.

HOLDING: Based upon the facts submitted, the cone of silence requirement of Section 2-355 of the Palm Beach County Lobbyist Registration Ordinance does not apply to him under these circumstances. He is clearly within the definition of “Persons or entities,” under the Ordinance. However, he is not seeking, on behalf of the City pursuant to the Resolution, an award from a competitive solicitation. Because he is seeking, on behalf of the City for a public purpose, the sale of property at below market rate outside of the confines of the pending formal bid process, the cone of silence requirement, by the plain language of the Ordinance, is inapplicable to him under these circumstances.

Persons under contract who communicate with officials or employees regarding issues related only to the performance of services under their contract are not required to register as lobbyists.
ISSUE: Whether the City of Boca Raton Police and Firefighters Retirement System is subject to the Countywide Lobbyist Registration Ordinance and if so, whether investment advisory services providers must register as lobbyists when conducting a meeting with the board for the limited purpose of a yearly portfolio review.

HOLDING: As long as an investment advisory services providers only meet with retirement system members for the limited purpose of reviewing the board's plan investments, they are not required by the ordinance to register as lobbyists. Persons under contract with the county or municipalities who communicate with officials or employees regarding issues related only to the performance of services under their contract are not required to register as lobbyists.

Purely ministerial or administrative functions may not rise to the level of lobbying.
ISSUE: Whether landscape architecture firm staff members who meet with County staff members for the purpose asking technical questions related to a project are "lobbying" as defined by the lobbyist registration ordinance; and when the Vice President of the firm is a registered lobbyist for a principal and he attends a meeting as a lobbyist, and is assisted by several staff members including engineers, for the purpose of assisting him or answering technical questions, must the accompanying staff members or traffic engineers also register as lobbyists.

HOLDING: Staff members who are not engaged in lobbying activities and merely seek to extract information may meet with County staff in order to obtain that information without registering as a lobbyist. Any attempt to engage in negotiation, or otherwise influence the process will likely change the relationship to one of lobbying and will require registration. The same analysis applies to professional staff, including contracted engineering professionals, who accompany a registered lobbyist, where they directly participate in seeking to influence a decision.

Staff members whose principal responsibility is marketing and business development do not fall within the definition of a lobbyist.
ISSUE: Whether members of a company's executive team are required to register as lobbyists if they meet with elected officials or county and municipal staff on a few occasions.

HOLDING: When members of staff are not employed principally for the purpose of overseeing or representing the company in its contacts with government, the members are not required to register as a lobbyist pursuant to the Lobbyist Registration Ordinance.

Being considered a lobbyist depends on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the status and the nature of the contact between an individual and public employees or officials.
ISSUE: Whether the President of the Greater Delray Chamber of Commerce needs to register as a lobbyist if he meets periodically with elected officials, where the interaction is normal operating practice for a person in his capacity and whether he can continue to participate as a member of an advisory board when he also serves on board of a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

HOLDING: His contacts and interactions with elected officials on behalf of the Chamber are not his principal responsibility as president of the Chamber and is not required to register as a lobbyist. He is also not prohibited from serving on the advisory board, provided that he abstains and does not participate in any issue that comes before the advisory board that would financially benefit the charitable organization or the Chamber of Commerce, in a manner not shared with similarly situated members of the general public.

Retention of a lobbyist
ISSUE: Whether an organization that has previously retained a lobbyist for land planning matters, and may again retain a lobbyist in the future, but does not presently retain a lobbyist, is a principal or employer of a lobbyist as defined by the Code of Ethics.

HOLDING: The organization is not a principal or employer of a lobbyist because, although the organization has employed a lobbyist in the past, such employment was remote in time and the organization does not have an existing or pending contract with any individual or entity for lobbying services.

Consultant, who seeks to influence decision making, must register as a lobbyist.
ISSUE: Whether a real estate development consultant who spends less than one percent of his consultation time in contact with government officials or staff members, where the conversations include an exchange of information and ideas, must register as a lobbyist.

HOLDING: As a paid consultant seeking to influence the decision-making of a public employee or official, the consultant is required to register as a lobbyist.

A lobbyist is not required to calculate and disclose personal travel to and from meetings with County or municipal employees or officials as a lobbying expenditure
ISSUE: Whether or not a lobbyist must calculate and disclose, in their annual lobbyist expenditure report, expenses related to personal travel to and from a meeting where lobbying occurs.

HOLDING: Personal travel by a lobbyist to and from a meeting with County and municipal officials or employees is not a reportable expenditure required to be disclosed on the annual lobbyist expenditure report, so long as the lobbyist is not providing travel for the employee, official or others for the purpose of lobbying.

Cone of Silence
ISSUE: The attorney for the Board of Trustees of the City of Boca Raton Pension Plan for Police and Firefighters (BRPFRS) asked if the cone of silence section of the Lobbyist Registration Ordinance applies to the BRPFRS while they are soliciting and evaluating bids for an investment consultant.

HOLDING: The trustees of the BRPFRS are not subject to the cone of silence section of the Lobbyist Registration Ordinance when they are soliciting and evaluating bids for an investment consultant because the BRPFRS trustees are not county or municipal elected officials. Sec. 2 355 prohibits all oral communication between any person seeking the award of a competitive solicitation and county or municipal elected officials or their staff or any employee authorized to act on behalf of the county or the municipal governing body. In addition, the cone of silence section does not apply to oral communication that occurs on the record at a public meeting. Therefore, even if the trustees were subject to the cone of silence section, under these facts, since the due diligence interviews will be broadcasted with live audio and visual feed during a publicly noticed BRPFRS workshop, the cone of silence requirement would not apply.

A fixed monthly retainer is not a contingency fee.
ISSUE: A member of a consulting and lobbying firm, the Aaronson Group LLC., asked if his firm’s fee arrangement with a company to perform consulting work and lobbying before the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners and other governmental entities in Palm Beach County would violate the code.

HOLDING: A contingency fee would not be involved in the fee arrangement here. Since the arrangement specifies a fixed percentage of ownership and a fixed monthly retainer that will not change regardless of the success or failure of the firm’s efforts, the firm’s fee arrangement will not violate the code’s contingency fee prohibition.

Registration as lobbyist must occur prior to representation of client at an advisory board, council, or commission meeting.
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if his outside business which offers planning, zoning, and real estate services creates a prohibited conflict of interest where he may represent clients at municipal or county commission, council, or advisory board meetings.
HOLDING: There is no per se prohibited conflict of interest as long as he does not represent a company or individual receiving financing from any funding program offered by Palm Beach County which his department administers or oversees. However, he must register as a lobbyist prior to representing a client before an advisory board, council, or commission.

Whether a volunteer of a non-profit must register as a lobbyist
ISSUE: A volunteer for a registered non-profit organization asked if the Palm Beach County Lobbyist Registration Ordinance (Ordinance) requires her to register as a lobbyist if she were to use funds donated to the non-profit to inform and educate the public on actions taken by local elected officials. HOLDING: A lobbyist is a person who is “employed and receives payment for the purpose of lobbying on behalf of a principal,” thus, an unpaid volunteer is not considered a lobbyist under the Ordinance. Therefore, she is not required to register as a lobbyist.

Lobbyist for the County also lobbying for County vendors
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County vendor, who lobbies on behalf of the County at the state level, asked if the Code precluded him from also providing lobbying services to potential County vendors, when he would be lobbying the County on behalf of those vendors.
HOLDING: The Code does not preclude a County vendor from providing lobbying services to other vendors of the County, even if those services result in his appearance before the County. The opinion outlines the Code’s requirements regarding lobbyist registration and the applicable gift law provisions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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).

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.

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).

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).

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.

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)).

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.

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)

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

$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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Owning home adjacent to a proposed townhome project created a voting conflict.
Owning home adjacent to a proposed townhome project created a voting conflict.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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
.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anti-nepotism provision prohibits the employment of the County Administrator’s son to a position within the County Administrator's oversight.
ISSUE: Whether the anti-nepotism provision prohibits the County Administrator’s son from accepting an advertised position as Assistant Director of the Traffic Engineering Division for the County.

HOLDING: The County Administrator has ultimate statutory, non-delegable authority over the hiring of employees within the jurisdiction of the BCC. As such, the anti-nepotism provision of the Code prohibits the employment of the son of the County Administrator to any position within the County Administrator's oversight.

The anti-nepotism provision does not require the discharge of a person who becomes a relative or whose relative takes a higher position after the person's employment.
ISSUE: Whether an assistant county administrator’s fiancée is prohibited from continuing to work for the County and, if her continued employment is not prohibited, whether the anti-nepotism provisions exclude her from receiving any promotion or advancement while her fiancée serves as an assistant county administrator.

HOLDING: The anti-nepotism provision prohibits a public official from employing, appointing, promoting or advancing their relative. The provision does not require the discharge of a person who becomes a relative or whose relative takes a higher position after the person's employment. To comply with the Code, the public official should not exercise control over promotion or employment within the department where the relative works and may not advocate for her promotion in the future.

A City council member of a municipality with a population less than 35,000 need not abstain from voting.
ISSUE: Whether a City council member must abstain from voting on the reappointment of her son as a Trustee for the Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund.

HOLDING: It is not prohibited for a City council member of a municipality with a population less than 35,000 to advocate or vote for the re-appointment of her son as a trustee to a board in the municipality over which the city council has appointment authority, so long as the appointment is not to a board with land-planning or zoning responsibilities. The council member is not required to abstain from voting for such a re-appointment under these circumstances.

May a person work in a department where her spouse is a director
ISSUE: The director of a county department asked if the Code prohibited his spouse from working in the same department as the one he supervises. HOLDING: The anti-nepotism provision of the Code prohibits an official from appointing, employing, promoting, or advancing a relative, or advocating for any of those actions on behalf of a relative. A spouse is considered a relative. Based on the facts provided, the anti-nepotism section would apply to this situation because a department director has the ultimate authority to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals within the division. Thus, the director’s spouse may not work in the department he supervises.

Relative of director of library may volunteer without violating the Anti-nepotism clause of the Code
ISSUE: A municipal employee asked if the Code would prohibit her niece from volunteering at the Public Library where she serves as director. HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit the niece’s volunteer work at the library where the employee serves as the director. This is because the niece will be an unpaid volunteer who will not exercise any discretionary authority and will therefore not be covered by any of the prohibitions outlined in the Anti-nepotism section of the Code.

Acceptance of promotion when sibling would be in chain of command
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if the Code of Ethics (Code) would prohibit him from accepting a promotion to a position that would result in his sibling reporting to a supervisor when that supervisor would be in the employee’s direct chain of command. HOLDING: Generally, the anti-nepotism section of the Code does not preclude the advancement of a person to a position higher than a relative who is currently employed with the same governmental agency. It also does not require the discharge of a person whose relative takes a higher position after the person’s employment is established. As long as the guidance in the opinion is carefully followed, including exercising no control over the sibling’s promotion or employment and abstaining from advocating for any future promotion, the employee is not precluded from accepting the new position.

Whether family members may work in the same department when the familial relationship occurs after employment is established
ISSUE: An employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) would prohibit him from working and/or advancing within the same section as a co-worker who will soon be marrying into his family when the employee/relative falls within his chain of command. HOLDING: Generally, the anti-nepotism section of the Code does not preclude the employment or advancement of persons who are currently employed with the same governmental agency when the familial relationship occurs. It also does not require the discharge of a person who becomes a relative after employment is established. As long as the guidance in the opinion is carefully followed, including exercising no control over the relevant promotion or employment, and abstaining from advocating for a promotion in the future, there is no prohibition from remaining or advancing within the section.

Part-time outside employment prohibited if employee unable to comply with all of the requirements of section 2-443(e)(5).
ISSUE: An employee of Palm Beach County, who works in the Aquatics Division of the Parks and Recreation Department, asked if he could accept part-time outside employment as a Masters Swim coach for LB2 Enterprises, Inc. (LB2), a company which contracts with the Aquatics Division.

HOLDING: This part-time employment with LB2 would violate the prohibited contractual relationships section of the Code of Ethics because the employee would be unable to comply with all of the requirements of the waiver and exceptions provisions as set forth in section 2-443(e)(5). In general, the Code prohibits public employees from entering into any contract or other transaction to provide services to the public entity they serve, including any contract or transaction between their public employer and their outside employer. However, there are exceptions and a process by which this prohibition can be waived for employees. One of the requirements of the waiver and exceptions provision is that the employee or relative of the employee may not work in the department which will enforce, oversee, or administer the contract. Here, both the employee and his spouse work in the Aquatics Division of the County’s Parks and Recreation Department, and the Aquatics Division oversees the contracts with LB2. As such, he would not be able to comply with all of the requirements of the exceptions and waiver provisions, and he will need to decline this offer for part-time outside employment.

County employee working as a lobbyist cannot lobby the County, which is his public employer.
ISSUE: Whether a Palm Beach County Fire Rescue (PBCFR) employee could register and work as a lobbyist, during non–work hours, for a principal firm that lobbies Palm Beach County (County) and municipal councils on matters unrelated to goods and services provided to or used by PBCFR.

HOLDING: The PBCFR employee is prohibited from lobbying the County as his public employer. He is not prohibited from lobbying municipalities within the County. As a lobbyist working for a principal firm that lobbies the County and the municipal councils, the firm would be his outside employer under the Code. Lobbying his public employer on behalf of his outside employer would violate the contractual prohibition provision. The Code provides several exceptions to the contractual relationship prohibition, but none of those exceptions apply to his situation. Thus, as a County employee, he is prohibited from working as a lobbyist who lobbies the County; he is not prohibited from lobbying municipalities within the County. When lobbying, he must take great care to not use his official public position or title as a County firefighter, directly or indirectly, in any of his dealings with these municipalities. Using his official public position or title as a firefighter would per se constitute using his public job to influence others to give a special financial benefit to himself, his outside employer, or a customer or client of his outside employer.

Part-time outside employment waiver
ISSSUE: A forensic technician for the County Medical Examiner's Office asked if she could accept part-time outside employment at a funeral home removal service company.

HOLDING: The County employee's part-time employment would not violate the prohibited contracts section of the Code of Ethics, as long as she complies with all requirements as set forth in Section 2-443(e)(5), including merit rule approval by her supervisor. She must also refrain from using her official position as a county employee to obtain a financial benefit for herself or her outside employer. The employee's responsibility to comply with the code regarding her part-time employment will be ongoing.

**No longer good law** See RQO 16-022 for reliable advisory opinion regarding independent contractor
ISSUE: A County Fire Rescue employee, who also works as a sales representative for Schaeffer's Specialized Lubricants, asked if he could try to sell the Schaeffer's product to the fleet maintenance department of his county employer.

HOLDING: The employee is not prohibited from trying to sell the Schaeffer's products to the county in his personal capacity and on his own time IF he can fully comply with the part-time employment section of the code and obtains a conflict of interest waiver for his part-time outside employment prior to the county potentially entering into a contract with Schaeffer's to purchase their product. Best practices would include refraining from using his official position, title, county email, or wearing his county uniform to pitch the Schaeffer's products to the county. At all times, he must follow the channels or procedures that are available to any representative who wishes to sell products to the county.

Contractual Relationship
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if his outside business or employer could enter into a contract for services with the County.

HOLDING: The County employee's outside business or employer may not enter into a contract for services with the County unless one of the exceptions to the contractual relationship prohibition applies. In general, the Code prohibits an employee from entering into any contract or other transaction to provide goods or services to the public entity he serves, including any contract or transaction between his public employer and his outside employer or business. The Code also prohibits a business of which a member of his household has at least a five percent ownership share from contracting with his public employer. However, the Code has several exceptions to the contractual relations prohibition which may apply to his situation.

First, the Code provides an exception for contracts awarded under a system of sealed, competitive bidding, where his company is the lowest bidder. The sealed bid exception applies so long as he 1) does not participate in the determination of bid specifications, 2) does not use his official position to influence or persuade his public employer other than by the mere submission of the bid, and 3) files a statement with the Supervisor of Elections and the Commission on Ethics disclosing his interest in the business prior to submitting the bid.

In addition, the Code provides a sole source exception where the outside employer or business is the sole source of the services within the County. The sole source exception applies if the employee's outside employer or business is the only source of the training courses in the County and he fully discloses his interest to his public employer and the Commission on Ethics prior to the transaction. Finally, the Code provides an exception for contracts or transactions totaling less than five hundred dollars ($500) per calendar year. Under this exception, his outside business or employer would not be prohibited from contracting with the County if the total amount of the contracts between his outside employer or business and the County does not exceed $500, in the aggregate.

Definition of outside employer excludes County or any other federal, regional, local, or municipal government entity.
ISSUE: A commissioner for the City of Riviera Beach asked if his appointment to the board of directors of the Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) by the City of Riviera Beach would create a prohibited conflict of interest for him because of his public employment with Palm Beach County as a transit planner for Palm Tran.

HOLDING: His appointment to the MPO board of directors, his employment with Palm Beach County as a transit planner for Palm Tran, and his position as a commissioner for the City of Riviera Beach would not create a prohibited conflict of interest because the MPO, the City of Riviera Beach, and Palm Beach County are all governmental entities and not among the prohibited persons or entities under Sec. 2-443(a).

City employee may not work as sub-contractor for private company providing contracted services to the city.
ISSUE: A city employee asked whether it was a violation of the code to perform work as sub-contractor for private company providing contracted services to the city.

HOLDING: A subcontractor relationship provides sufficient “privity” to establish an indirect contractual relationship with the city. The work would violate Sec. 2-443(c).

Outside employment with Palm Beach State College is permissible.
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether he could maintain employment as an instructor at Palm Beach State College.

HOLDING: Because PBSC is part of the Florida College System, it is not within the definition of an outside employer or business under the Code. This employment is not prohibited.

Employee may operate outside business
ISSUE: A County employee asked whether he could operate a business outside of employment hours, which does not contract with the County and for which he has received merit rule approval from his supervisor.

HOLDING: As long as his outside business does not enter into any contract with or other transaction for goods or services with the County, he does not violate the prohibited contractual relationship provision of the Code. The employee may operate such a business.

If employee meets the prohibited conduct waiver provisions, he may maintain outside employment
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether he may maintain outside employment.

HOLDING: Because he has complied with all of the requirements of Sec. 2-443(e)(5), he may maintain outside employment.

Outside employment with a state university.
ISSUE: A County employee asked whether he could maintain employment as a professor at FAU.

HOLDING: Because FAU is a “State University” under Florida Law, it is not within the definition of an outside employer or business. The Code, therefore, does not prohibit this employment.

Outside employment permitted with a waiver.
ISSUE: A County employee asked whether it would violate the Code to teach at Palm Beach State College during the evening hours.

HOLDING: Since the employee complied fully with the waiver provision, his part-time employment under the circumstances described is permitted under the code.

County veterinarian working part-time for pet clinics or maintain outside business.
ISSUE: A county veterinarian works part time for two clinics that are not vendors and do not have contracts with the county. She also has an outside business which provides pet vaccinations on the premises of a county vendor.

HOLDING: These arrangements do not constitute prohibited contractual relationships as presented.

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.

Voting conflict and outside employer
ISSUE: Whether a Councilman is prohibited from participating in a workshop discussing the creation of a fiber network by the Town of Jupiter, where he is an employee of Florida Power and Light. FPL is a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy, which owns FPL FiberNet, one of the providers of fiber networking services in the Town.

HOLDING: The Councilman is not prohibited by the Code from participating and voting on this matter at this time. As an employee of FPL, he is compensated for his work by FPL alone, and he is not compensated by and does not provide services for FiberNet.

Outside employment waiver
ISSUE: Whether public employees with part-time, outside employment need to complete a waiver form.

HOLDING: The conditions and processes of the part-time employment waiver, including completing the waiver form, are only necessary when the employee wants to work for an outside employer who has contracts or other transactions for goods and services with his public employer. The Code does not regulate the part-time, outside employment with employers not having contracts or other transactions with the County or municipality.

Governmental entities are exempted from the definition of outside employer or business
ISSUE: Whether a public employee can accept part-time employment with the Lake Worth CRA where the County employee would be working with County vendors on the Lake Worth CRA project.

HOLDING: The public employee is not prohibited from accepting outside employment with a municipal redevelopment agency because governmental entities are exempted from the definition of “outside employer or business,” and the County does not have contracts with Lake Worth CRA.

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.

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.

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.

A municipality has authority to impose more stringent rules and policies regarding outside employment of its municipal employees.
ISSUE: Whether a municipal employer could require their employees to sign a City outside employment request form in addition to the standard conflict of interest waiver form as provided by the Commission on Ethics.

HOLDING: Contractual relationship prohibitions and waiver requirements under the Code apply to part-time outside employment where the outside employer transacts business with your municipality. A waiver of the contractual relationship prohibition requires that you adhere to your municipal merit rules, policies and obtain the approval of your municipal supervisor. A municipality has authority to impose more stringent rules and policies regarding outside employment of its municipal employees.

An employee is not prohibited from accepting a research credit in her personal capacity in a forthcoming book.
ISSUE: Whether a City employee’s name may be acknowledged in a forthcoming book for which she provided research and editing assistance in her personal time.

HOLDING: The employee is not prohibited from accepting a research credit in a forthcoming publication in exchange for research services provided in her personal time

Councilman may not use his name and official title in fundraising efforts for the non-profit organization that he works for.
ISSUE: Whether a Village Councilman is prohibited from accepting employment with a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization.

HOLDING: The Councilman is not prohibited from accepting employment with a non-profit charitable organization or from soliciting donations in his personal capacity. However, the Councilman may not use his elected office, such as lending his name and official title to its fundraising efforts, to give the organization a special financial benefit not available to other similarly situated organizations. If the organization solicits or accepts a donation in excess of $100 from a Village vendor or lobbyist, the Councilman must maintain a log and submit the log to the COE.

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.

The prohibition against a public employee working for an outside employer who has contracts with their government employer does not apply when working for other governmental agencies.
ISSUE: Whether it would violate the Code of Ethics for County Emergency Management/Department of Public Safety personnel to accept part-time employment as dispatchers with a municipal police department where the County employees have a direct influence over financial and budget matters that could potentially impact the municipal dispatch centers.

HOLDING: A governmental entity is not considered an outside employer and the contractual relationship section of the Code does not apply to a public employee whose outside employer is another government entity. Notwithstanding, financial and corrupt misuse of office sections apply to public employees who use their official position to financially benefit themselves or otherwise corruptly use their office to obtain any benefit for themselves or any other persons.

The Misuse of Office section does not extend to the customers or clients of a relative’s employer or business.
ISSUE: A county commissioner asked whether the Code applies to issues that may come before the Commission involving the customers or clients of her son’s employer, and what "reasonable care" and "special financial benefit" mean within the context of an elected official’s public duty under the Code.

HOLDING: The Misuse of Office provisions involving special financial benefit do not apply directly to customers or clients of your son's employer. However, if the official's action would result in a financial benefit to her son’s employer, not shared with similarly situated members of the general public, she may not vote or participate in the matter. There is no bright line definition of reasonable care or special financial benefit. Reasonableness necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances presented. Determining what constitutes a special financial benefit, not shared by similarly situated members of the general public, depends upon the size of the class who stand to gain or lose financially from a public decision, and whether the benefit is shared equally among that class of persons or entities.

Section 2-443(e)(5)g. applies to all public safety uniformed extra duty details contracted or administered by the county or municipality.
ISSUE: Whether the uniformed extra duty detail outside employment provisions of the Code of Ethics applied equally to Law Enforcement and Fire Rescue Agencies.

HOLDING: Uniformed fire rescue extra duty details that are contracted or administered by the applicable municipal public safety agency provide the same service in the same manner as do police agency details. Section 2-443(e)(5)g. applies to all public safety uniformed extra duty details contracted or administered by the county or municipality, as applicable, provided all Code requirements for administration, record retention and maintenance are followed.

As long as the outside part-time employer is another governmental entity, the employee does not have to obtain and file an outside employment waiver.
ISSUE: Whether a County employee needs to file an outside employment waiver when his outside part-time employer is the City of West Palm Beach, another governmental entity.

HOLDING: Because the City of West Palm Beach is a governmental entity and is not considered an outside employer as defined by the Code of Ethics, the employee is not prohibited from accepting part-time employment with the City and is not required to complete a conflict of interest waiver.

Governmental entities are not considered outside employers
ISSUE: Whether an elected official may serve as a Certified Business Analyst for the Small Business Development Center at Palm Beach State College.

HOLDING: The official is not prohibited from serving as an analyst with the Small Business Development Center at Palm Beach State College. Because Palm Beach State College is a government entity, it is not an outside employer under the Code of Ethics.

Village worker may maintain outside employment where business does not contract with village and he complies with other requirements
ISSUE: A village worker asked whether he may conduct an outside business which does not contract with the village and complies with the other requirements of the code.

HOLDING: He may have an outside employer under these circumstances.

City employee’s outside business is prohibited from contracting for water-related services with municipalities which purchase water from the city
ISSUE: A city water plant operator asked whether his outside business may contract with other municipalities to conduct water testing on samples when they purchase water from his city.

HOLDING: Under these circumstances, a conflict of interest arises and the employee may not contract “indirectly” with his own employer.

Where outside employer does not have contracts with the city, outside employment is not prohibited.
ISSUE: A city employee asked whether it would violate Sec. 2-443(c) to receive compensation for services rendered to an outside employer which does not maintain contracts with the city.

HOLDING: Because there are no contracts maintained with the city, this outside employment is not prohibited.

Definition of outside employer
ISSUE: A prospective member of a county advisory board asked whether the fact that his partner receives payment for administering an escrow account for construction in Delray Beach would constitute a prohibited contractual relationship.

HOLDING: An advisory board member is an “official” under the code. Therefore, “outside employer” contracts are prohibited unless they meet a statutory exception. Here, no exception applies. Only a properly secured waiver, Section 443(d), would cure the problem.

Employee may not work as an independent contractor for a vendor.
ISSUE: A County employee asked if the outside employment waiver provision would allow him to accept part-time employment as an independent contractor for a county vendor.

HOLDING: Under the facts, he would be working as an independent contractor, not as an employee, of the county vendor. Since an independent contractor is not considered an employee under the code, the county vendor would not be considered his outside employer. Thus, the part-time outside employment waiver provision cannot be used in this situation, and the contractual relationship prohibition precludes him from working as an independent contractor for this county vendor.

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.

Conflict of interest involving outside employment.
ISSUE: The Public Art Manager for the City of Boynton Beach asked if it is a prohibited conflict of interest for her, as part of her outside employment, to assist two artists with bid proposals in cities other than Boynton Beach.
HOLDING: The two artists may be or become customers or clients of her outside business, based on the amount she is paid by them for work on their behalf. Thus, she is prohibited from using her official position to give a special financial benefit to them as customers or clients of her outside business. This would include using her official position to assist them in securing any work for the public entity that employs her, the City of Boynton Beach, should they choose to bid on a City project.

City employees are prohibited from also working as youth basketball referees for their public employer.
ISSUE: The Assistant City Attorney for the City of Delray Beach asked if the Code prohibits a City employee from also working as a youth basketball referee for the City.
HOLDING: The City employees cannot also work as City youth basketball referees without violating the Code because none of the exceptions to the contractual relationship prohibition apply.

A public employee is not prohibited from having an outside business as long as he does not contract with his public employer.
ISSUE: A county employee asked if he is prohibited from providing business analytics, research, and evaluation services on his own time to non-profit organizations, small businesses, and municipal governments when he is a county employee.
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit him from providing business analytics, research, and evaluation services on his own time through his outside business to non-profit organizations, small businesses, and municipal governments. Here, since he is not proposing to "enter into any contract or other transaction for goods or services" with Palm Beach County, his employer, this would not be "prohibited conduct" under Sec. 2 443(d) of the Code. However, he is prohibited from entering into any contractual relationships with a vendor of Palm Beach County if he would be providing goods and services to his public employer through that contract. This would create an indirect contract with the county and violate Sec. 2-443(d) of the Code.

Part-time outside employment with a private business that is not a vendor of the public employer where all work will be completed during the employees non-working hours is not prohibited.
ISSUE: A new county employee asked if the Code of Ethics prohibited her from accepting part-time employment with her former private employer, where all work was to be done on off-duty hours, and where the outside employer was not a vendor of the county.
HOLDING: While the Code of Ethics generally prohibits public employees from obtaining outside employment with a vendor of the public entity they serve, it does not prohibit part-time outside employment with a private business that is not a vendor of the public employer where all work will be completed during the employees non-working hours for the county. However, she is also cautioned that she must also follow the county policies regarding off-duty employment, and that she cannot use her county employment in any way to give a special financial benefit to her outside employer.

Governmental entities are specifically exempted from the definition of outside employer.
ISSUE: The town clerk for the Town of Loxahatchee Groves asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits her from providing consulting services as an independent contractor for the City of Riviera Beach when she is a contract employee of the Town of Loxahatchee Groves, which does not have any contracts for goods or services with the City of Riviera Beach.
HOLDING: Sec. 2-442 of the Code specifically exempts other governmental entities from the definition of outside employer. Based on the facts provided, because the City of Riviera Beach does not meet the definition of an outside employer and the city does not have any contracts to provide goods or services to the Town of Loxahatchee Groves, there would be no conflict of interest if she works as an independent contractor for the City of Riviera Beach. Therefore, she is not prohibited from accepting part-time employment with the City of Riviera Beach.

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.

Independent contractors may not enter into indirect contracts between themselves and their public employers.
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County Fire Rescue employee asked if a conflict of interest would arise for him if he also works as an independent contractor for Schaeffer’s Specialized Lubricants and sell the Schaeffer’s products to NAPA Auto Parts (NAPA), a Palm Beach County vendor.
HOLDING: If Shaeffer’s enters into any contracts with NAPA, the employee would be prohibited from promoting or selling Shaeffer’s products to NAPA (a county vendor) if the contract between NAPA and Shaeffer’s will solely be for products that NAPA will use to fulfill a contract that it has with the county, as this would constitute a prohibited indirect contract with NAPA. and the county

Outside business of a public employee
ISSUE: A city of West Palm Beach employee who works in the Geographic Information System (GIS) Division asked if he may also operate a part-time GIS consulting business.
HOLDING: As long as he or his outside business does not enter into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with the city and he operates his business outside of his city work hours, he will not be in violation of the prohibited contractual relationships provision of the code. He must also take great care not to misuse his governmental employment in any way to give a special financial benefit to himself, his outside business, or the customers or clients of his outside business.

Outside employment with entity that is regulated by public employer may be prohibited
ISSUE: A city of Delray Beach employee asked if he would have a prohibited conflict of interest if he works part-time, while off-duty, for a company that operates in the area he oversees as a city code enforcement officer.
HOLDING: The Code of Ethics does not prohibit this outside employment as long as there is no misuse of his official position, however, the employee should be aware that it may be a violation of state law. Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, precludes a public official or employee from having any employment or contractual relationship with any business entity which is subject to the regulation of the agency of which he or she is an officer or employee.

Outside employment and advisory board membership
ISSUE: A Village of Wellington Construction Board of Adjustments & Appeals (CBAA) advisory board member asked if his outside employment as a forensic engineer at an engineering consulting firm would create a conflict with his service on the CBAA.
HOLDING: His employment with the engineering consulting firm would not create a conflict as long as he does not use his position as a member of the CBAA in any way to give a special financial benefit to his outside employer or any customer or client of his outside employer or to corruptly secure a special benefit for anyone. If his outside employer or a customer or client of his outside employer were to appear before the CBAA on a matter or would receive a special financial benefit from the matter, the Code requires that he publicly disclose the nature of the conflict, abstain from participating in or voting on the matter, and file a state voting conflict form (Form 8B).

Waiver required if board is purely advisory but has contract oversight
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County advisory board member asked if a conflict of interest would exist for her if she was hired as a trainer by a county vendor to provide training as a part of a board project.
HOLDING: Because her board is purely advisory, she is eligible for a waiver. A waiver will require the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), upon full disclosure of the contract at a public meeting to waive the conflict on interest. If you were appointed by the entire BCC, or confirmation of your appointment was made by the entire board, an affirmative vote of a majority plus one of the total board membership is required. If you were appointed by only one member of the BCC, the appointing board member alone can waive this conflict of interest. Thus, as long as the conflict of interest in having a contractual relationship with the county vendor is waived, the Code does not prohibit you from working as a trainer for the vendor while serving as an advisory board member.

Part-time employment with a non-vendor
ISSUE: A county employee asked if it would violate the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics if he works part-time selling tools for a franchise owner representing a large national tool manufacturing company, where neither the franchise owner nor the tool company are vendors of the county, and where all sales are made directly to individual automobile service professionals at their place of work, which includes sales to other county employees on county property at their assigned worksites.
HOLDING: His employment would not violate the code so long as the sales are conducted on his personal time, and he does not use or attempt to use his position as a county employee to influence or assist in these sales, or in gaining access to the county work sites to make such sales.

Outside employment as a consultant
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the code prohibits her from working as a consultant in her private capacity during non-work hours where none of her consulting work would involve applications that would need approval from the county.

HOLDING: As long as she and her outside business do not enter into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with the county, directly or indirectly, and she operates her business outside of her county work hours, she will not be in violation of the prohibited contractual relationships provision of the code. She is also prohibited from using her position with the county to influence another person to take some action which would give a special financial benefit to her customers or clients, soliciting business during her county work hours, and identifying herself as a county employee on any written or verbal communication to attempt to obtain a customer.

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.

City commissioner's outside employment
ISSUE: A city commissioner asked if the code prohibits her from accepting employment with Police Athletic League of West Palm Beach (PAL), a non-profit organization that is not a city vendor or a lobbyist or principal or employer of a lobbyist who lobbies the city.
HOLDING: No, the code does not prohibit her from accepting this employment. However, any participation in fundraising for PAL would need to be in her personal name without title or connection to her official position as a city commissioner. She would also be prohibited from using her elected position with the city in any way, including participating in or voting on any matter, to give a special financial benefit to PAL. Since PAL is a 501(c)(3) organization, should the commissioner or anyone else acting under her direction solicit or accept a donation in excess of $100 from a vendor, lobbyist, or principal or employer of a lobbyist of the city, she must maintain a record of the solicitation and submit the record to the COE within 30 days of the event, or if no event, within 30 days of the solicitation.

No conflict for starting outside business as long as the requirements of Code are met
ISSUE: The Town Manager for the Town of Lake Clark Shores asked if the code prohibits him from starting a business and consulting for other businesses during non-work hours.
HOLDING: As long as neither he nor his outside business enter into any contracts or other transactions for goods or services with the town, directly or indirectly, and he operates his business outside of his town work hours, he will not be prohibited from having an outside business. However, he is prohibited from entering into any contractual relationships to provide paid services with a town vendor. He is also prohibited from using his position with the town to influence another person to take or fail to take some action that would give a special financial benefit to his customers or clients, soliciting business during his town work hours, and identifying himself as the Town Manager or a town employee on any written or verbal communication in an attempt to obtain a customer. The COE also recommends that he refrain from working for any potential customer or client who may need to obtain Town Council or department approvals, as it may create an appearance of impropriety even where he is not directly involved in the approval process as the Town Manager.

Outside employment as a county employee
ISSUE: A prospective county employee asked what restrictions would the code of ethics place on her regarding outside employment if she accepts a position with the county.

HOLDING: The code prohibits her from entering into any contracts with any entity where she would be providing services to the county or where the county would pay for her services through her contract with the entity. The code’s prohibition on contractual relationships also applies to any ongoing contracts she entered into prior to her employment with the county.

Indirect contract with the city is prohibited
ISSUE: A City Attorney asked if a councilperson, who in his private capacity works as a certified process server and has contracts with private investigations firms, is prohibited from serving subpoenas when those subpoenas are related to a lawsuit in which the city is a party.
HOLDING: The councilperson would be prohibited from serving the subpoenas on behalf of the law firm representing the city when the subpoenas are related to a lawsuit in which the city is a party. Although the private investigations firm hires the process server, it is the city who would be paying for the process server’s services through its contract with law firm who hires the investigations firm. If the councilperson were to serve the subpoena’s related to the lawsuit involving the city, a prohibited indirect contract with the city would be created because the city would be ultimately paying for the councilperson’s services.

No conflict if insufficient nexus
ISSUE: An elected official asked if he is prohibited from participating in discussions and voting on a matter involving an investor in 88 Napkins, LLC, where 88 Napkins is a client of a company that has an ownership interest in the official’s outside business.
HOLDING: Because the official does not have an ownership interest in any of the companies involved and 88 Napkins is not a customer or client of his outside business, there is not a sufficient nexus between 88 Napkins, LLC and his outside business to prohibit a vote by him regarding the solicitation involving the investor in 88 Napkins, LLC. Similarly, because the 88 Napkins investor does not have an ownership interest in the company that has an ownership interest in the official’s outside business, there also is not a sufficient nexus between the investor in 88 Napkins, LLC and his outside business which would prohibit a vote by him in this matter. Thus, he is not prohibited from voting on or participating in this matter as long as the companies that have an ownership interest in his outside business are not involved with this upcoming solicitation.

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.

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.

Outside employment while a public employee
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (code) prohibits her from working as a freelance graphic designer in her private capacity.

HOLDING: She will not be in violation of the prohibited contractual relationships provision of the code if she works as a graphic designer in her private capacity as long as her client is not a vendor of the county, she or her outside business do not enter into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with the county, and she operates her graphic design business outside of her county work hours using her personal software and equipment. She must also take great care not to misuse her governmental employment in any way to give a special financial benefit to herself, her outside business, or any customer or client of her outside business.

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.

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.

Working as independent contractor in private capacity
ISSUE: A county employee asked if a conflict of interest exists for her when the owner of the company she works for as an independent contractor in her private capacity (Sterling International) becomes a vendor of the county through a different company that the owner owns (Innovative Group T & D).
HOLDING: Because the two companies are separate entities and the company that she works for as an independent contractor does not have any contracts or transactions for goods or services with the county, as long as she do not enter into any contractual relationships where she would provide goods or services to the county through that contract, a prohibited conflict of interest will not exist for her. However, since both entities are owned by the same sole proprietor, she must also take care that she is not conducting any business or doing any work on behalf of the Innovative Group T& D, especially where she would be indirectly providing any goods or services to the county.

Outside employment as consultant
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits him from accepting work in his private capacity for a company as a consultant on various 911 technologies and operations.

HOLDING: As long as he 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, and he performs his consulting work outside of his county work hours and does not use county resources, software, or equipment, the Code does not prohibit him from working as an independent contractor for the company. The employee has an ongoing responsibility to refrain from using his official position with the county to give a special financial benefit to himself or his outside business. This would include using his position to influence another person to take some action, which would give a special financial benefit to himself or his outside business, soliciting business during his county work hours, or identifying himself as a county employee in an attempt to obtain a customer, including providing any written or verbal communication using his title or position with the county.

Prohibition against giving special financial benefit to nonprofit organization of which employee serves as officer or director
ISSUE: A municipal employee asked if the Code of Ethics prohibited him from serving on the board of a nonprofit organization that has previously been cited for code violations by the city of Belle Glade when he works as a code enforcement officer for the city.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit him from serving on the board of the nonprofit organization as long as he does not use his official position as a city code enforcement officer in any way to give the nonprofit organization a special financial benefit or to corruptly secure a special benefit for the nonprofit organization. Thus, while on duty, he must treat the nonprofit organization in the same manner as he would treat any other property or business within the city. For example, he cannot ignore any city ordinance or code violations by the nonprofit organization while on duty, and he cannot ask another city employee to ignore any violations by nonprofit organization. However, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, any cases assigned to him that involve the nonprofit should be reassigned to another code enforcement officer.

Outside employment as an independent contractor for a vendor
ISSUE: A municipal employee asked if the Code prohibits him from working as an independent contractor for a company that is a vendor of his public employer.
HOLDING: As long as his consulting business does not enter into any contract or other transaction for goods or services with his municipal employer, the Code does not prohibit him from operating this business outside his municipal work hours. Further, the Code prohibits him from entering into any contractual relationships with a vendor of his municipal employer if he would be providing good or services to his municipal employer through that contract. He also has an ongoing responsibility to refrain from using his official position in any way to give a special financial benefit to himself, his outside consulting business, or a customer or client of his outside consulting business.

Customer/client of city commissioner's outside employer has contracts with the City
ISSUE: A municipal Ethics Officer asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits a city commissioner’s outside employer from continuing to represent a client when the client has contracts with the city and periodically has matters come before the City Commission.

HOLDING: The city commissioner’s outside employer is not prohibited from continued representation of its client as long as the commissioner does not use her position in any way, including participating in discussions or voting on any matter, to give her outside employer or its client a special financial benefit. When faced with a voting conflict, the commissioner must publicly disclose the nature of the conflict before the City Commission discusses the issue, refrain from participating in the discussions and voting on the matter, and file a state voting conflict form (8B) with the clerk and submit a copy to the COE.

Municipal elected official's employment with County not considered outside employment
ISSUE: A municipal attorney asked if the Code prohibits a councilmember from participating in and voting on matters related to contract negotiations between the municipality and the County’s Fire Rescue Department (PBCFR) when the councilmember works for PBCFR as a firefighter/paramedic.

HOLDING: The councilmember 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 his personal gain or loss from a change to the contract would be significantly different from that of any other firefighter/paramedic employed by PBCFR.

Employment as an independent contractor
ISSUE: A county attorney asked if the Code prohibits a county employee, who serves as the Ryan White CARE Council Coordinator for the county, from working in her private capacity as an independent contractor for a company where she would co-facilitate trainings to benefit other CARE Council Coordinators, Ryan White Program Administrators, or other staff.

HOLDING: As long as neither she nor her outside business 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, and she performs her consulting work outside her county work hours and does not use any county resources, software, or equipment, the Code does not prohibit her from working as an independent contractor for the company.

Outside employment conflict
ISSUE: An employee of a local municipality asked if a prohibited conflict would arise under the Code if, in addition to his City employment within the Public Works Department, he was also employed on a part-time basis with a private company who has a current contract managed by the City’s Public Works Department. HOLDING: The Code generally prohibits public employees from accepting employment, directly or indirectly, with any "outside employer or business" that is a vendor of their public employer. Although there are some exception recognized by the Code, none of those exceptions apply here, thus the outside employment is prohibited by the Code.

Employee's outside employment as a realtor
ISSUE: A County employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) prohibited her outside employment as a realtor. HOLDING: Generally, the Code would only restrict outside employment if that employment resulted in a prohibited person or entity receiving a special financial benefit; thus, as long as that does not occur and the guidance in the opinion is carefully followed, the Code does not prohibit the outside employment as a licensed realtor.

Working for a vendor in a volunteer capacity only
ISSUE: May a County employee work as a peer reviewer in a volunteer capacity for a County vendor. HOLDING: Generally, the Code would only restrict relationships with vendors if that relationship resulted in the vendor becoming an outside employer. Here, because the position is uncompensated, the work is akin to a volunteer position. Additionally, because the training for the position is offered at no cost to any qualified individual, it is not considered a gift from a prohibited source. Thus, as long as the guidance in the opinion is carefully followed, the Code does not prohibit the employee serving as a peer reviewer in a volunteer capacity.

County employee starting a consulting firm as outside business
ISSUE: A county employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) imposed any restrictions upon him if he were to start a consulting business. HOLDING: Generally, the Code would not prohibit a county employee from working as a consultant in a private capacity. As long as the county employee does not enter into a contract or transaction, either directly or indirectly, with the county and carefully follows the rest of the requirements as described in this advisory opinion, there is no conflict of interest involving this outside business.

When an employee may accept outside employment with a vendor of their organization
ISSUE: An employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) would prohibit county employees from accepting part-time employment with an organization that is a County vendor, where the vendor's contract is overseen by the department in which the employees work. HOLDING: The Code would prohibit employees from obtaining part-time employment with this organization because it is a vendor of their public employer, and the specific department the employees work within oversees the subject contract. Because of this, employees working within that department would not be able to comply with all of the requirements of the part-time employment exception and waiver provision.

What qualifies for the sole source exception to the outside employment restrictions
ISSUE: An employee asked if the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (Code) would prohibit veterinarians who are employed with Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control from accepting outside employment with other providers of low cost spay and neuter programs when these outside employers are Palm Beach County vendors? HOLDING: Generally, the Code prohibits public employees from accepting concurrent employment, directly or indirectly, with any "outside employer" that is a vendor of their public employer unless certain criteria are satisfied. However, considering the facts as presented, the scenario here is one of first impression for the COE, and a limited exception based on the sole source provider is being implemented in this specific situation because of the dearth of qualified veterinarians available within the county.

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.

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.

Post-Employment Ordinance only applies to a county commissioner, a Level 1 employee, or a Level 2 employee.
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if the Palm Beach County Post-Employment Ordinance placed any restrictions on him if he were to leave county employment and seek employment or a contract with another public entity or with a private company or organization.

HOLDING: The Post-Employment Ordinance would not apply to him because he is not a county commissioner, a Level 1 employee, or a Level 2 employee. The Post-Employment Ordinance prohibits individuals who work in County Administration and in management-level positions, specifically county commissioners, Level 1 employees, and Level 2 employees, from representing anyone other than the county or another public entity for certain time periods.

Post-Employment Issues for Level 1 employee
ISSUE: The former county engineer for Palm Beach County asked if the Palm Beach County Post Employment Ordinance (PEO) prohibits him, as a former county employee, from accepting payment from a telecommunications company to work with the municipalities within the county and the county itself on the development of one or more standard permit forms.

HOLDING: He is not prohibited from working for a telecommunications company where he would interact with municipalities within the county and the county itself on the development of one or more standard permit forms. Under the PEO, as a former Level 1 employee, he is prohibited from representing anyone besides the county or another public entity for six months after leaving county employment. An additional 18-month restriction applies for “any particular matter involving common issues of law and fact in which the county is a party or has an interest in and which the former employee participated personally, substantially and directly for the county for an additional period of eighteen months.” Because his employment with the county ended on August 31, 2017, his six-month prohibition, under the PEO, ended on February 28, 2018. In addition, because the work he has described would not involve a matter of which the county is a party, and he did not substantially participate in the development of the form as the county engineer, the additional 18-month prohibition does not apply. Therefore, the PEO does not prohibit him from accepting this employment.

Post Employment Ordinance only applies to certain county officials and employees.
ISSUE: A former county employee asked what restrictions the Post Employment Ordinance places on him seeking employment with an entity that is a vendor of the county?

HOLDING: The Post Employment Ordinance, which would apply employment restrictions on certain county officials and employees, would not apply to him because he was not a county commissioner, a Level 1 employee, or a Level 2 employee. Even if the ordinance did apply to him, he would not be prohibited from accepting this type of employment because it would not involve representing anyone at a proceeding before the board of county commissioners or any personal communications made with officials or employees of the county.

Post employment ordinance restrictions
ISSUE: What, if any, employment restrictions does the Palm Beach County Post-Employment Ordinance (Post-Employment Ordinance) place on an employee who retires from their employment position with the county. HOLDING: The Post-Employment Ordinance prohibits individuals who work in County administration and in management-level positions, specifically county commissioners, Level 1 employees, and Level 2 employees, from representing anyone other than the county or another public entity for certain time periods. Based on the facts submitted, the Post-Employment Ordinance will not apply to this employee because she is not a county commissioner, a Level 1 employee, or a Level 2 employee. As such, with these facts, the Post-Employment Ordinance does not place any restrictions on employment or contracting with another entity after leaving county employment.

Travel expense reimbursement.
ISSUE: A prospective advisory board member of the Palm Tran Service Board (PTSB), who works as a speaker and workshop facilitator in her personal capacity and who receives travel reimbursements from companies who hire her services, asked how she can avoid violating the travel expense reimbursement and the contractual relationship prohibitions of the Code of Ethics.

HOLDING: To avoid violating the travel expense reimbursement prohibition, she would need to either incorporate her “travel expenses” into the negotiated speaking fee that she charges companies, rather than being reimbursed separately for travel afterwards, or have the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) waive the prohibition of those fees for each entity that pays them if they are a PTSB vendor. Additionally, to avoid violating the contractual relationship prohibition, she must obtain an additional waiver from the BCC to enter into a contractual relationship for every entity that has a contract with the PTSB and wishes to engage her services.

County employees may accept conference registration fees from non-profit corporation that is not a county contractor, vendor, service provider, bidder or proposer and this is not a “gift”.
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether he may accept conference registration fees from non-profit corporation that is not a county contractor, vendor, service provider, bidder or proposer and whether this is a “gift.”

HOLDING: These expenses are not prohibited by 2-443 (e).

General guidelines on reimbursement of travel expenses.
ISSUE: A county department director asked multiple questions concerning travel expense reimbursement based upon future speculative circumstances and past events.

HOLDING: The commission is unable to opine on these types of questions. General guidelines on travel reimbursement were outlined.

Employee may accept travel expenses from a non-profit corporation which is not a contractor, vendor, service provider, bidder or proposer
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether she may accept travel expenses incidental to a presentation made at a conference sponsored by a non-profit corporation representing special districts.

HOLDING: Because the entity providing travel expenses is a non-profit corporation and not a contractor, vendor, service provider, bidder or proposer, the employee may accept these travel expenses.

Prohibition on accepting travel expenses from a vendor does not apply to expenses ultimately paid by the municipality from municipal funds.
ISSUE: Whether including the cost of employee travel expenses for pre-build conferences and acceptance conferences for Fire-Rescue and other Fire Apparatus Vehicles in the contract price of the vehicles violates the prohibition on accepting travel expenses from vendors.

HOLDING: The contract/quality related conferences are an inseparable part of the cost associated with the emergency vehicles and are borne by the City as a line item included into the price of the units. Therefore, the costs are identified and ultimately paid by the City per contract, although the initial payment is provided by the vendor. As a line item, the travel cost is identified and quantified transparently. While public employees may not accept, directly or indirectly, travel expenses from a municipal vendor, service provider, bidder or proposer, this prohibition does not apply to expenses ultimately paid by the municipality from municipal funds pursuant to a contract for the purchase of goods and where the purpose of the travel is to ensure that the terms of the contract are fulfilled.

An official is not prohibited from attending and receiving travel reimbursement for an annual training from a non-vendor.
ISSUE: Whether an official can receive travel reimbursement from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Quantum Foundation grant to the School Board of Palm Beach County for attendance at an annual training for the Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities Project as a community partner with the School Board.

HOLDING: The Code does not prohibit you from attending and receiving travel reimbursement for the event because neither organization is a vendor or principal of lobbyists of Palm Beach County Government. The official must adhere to all standards and requirements imposed under state law regarding the reporting of gifts

City employee can receive reimbursement from a City vendor for travel expenses to an educational seminar, provided she obtains a waiver from the City Commission.
ISSUE: The Training and Development Manager for the City of Delray Beach asked whether she could attend an educational seminar and receive travel and related expense reimbursement from a vendor.

HOLDING: The manager is not prohibited from attending an educational seminar in her official capacity, and she is not prohibited from receiving reimbursement from a City vendor for travel expenses, provided she obtains a waiver from the City Commission.

Trustees appointed by the City Council are considered officials, and officials and City employees who serve as Trustees are required to comply with the Code of Ethics
ISSUE: Whether Trustees of the City of Boca Raton Police and Firefighters' Retirement System 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 BRPFRS related seminars and conferences?

HOLDING: The trustees who are appointed by the City Council are considered officials, and employees and officials of the City are required to comply with the Code of Ethics. Employees/trustees who are elected by other employees still maintain their status as City employees and must comply with the Code of Ethics when acting in an official capacity for the City. Limitations and prohibitions relating to the solicitation or acceptance of gifts only apply to City vendors or lobbyists. Travel reimbursement from City vendors may be accepted provided the trustee obtains a waiver from the City Council. Any gifts, not otherwise prohibited, in excess of $100 must be reported on an annual gift report. Travel reimbursement associated with educational or governmental conferences or seminars, properly waived if required, does not need to be reported.

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.

County employee may accept “travel expenses” from a vendor in the form of waiver of conference registration fees where he attends in the capacity as an instructor
ISSUE: A county ISS employee asked whether it would violate the code to accept waiver of conference registration fees from a vendor where he is an instructor for the course.

HOLDING: Waiver of conference registration fees under these circumstances does not violate the code because this constitutes adequate consideration for the employee’s work as an instructor. Similarly, it does not violate the gift law.

Travel expenses from member organization may be accepted
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether she may receive travel expenses from an organization (RIMS) of which the county is a member.

HOLDING: Because the county is a member of RIMS, the prohibition against accepting travel expenses under Sec. 2-443(e) is not triggered. The employee may accept such expenses from the member organization where the travel is related to that membership. If vendors provide events within the conference, however, those may be prohibited or reportable gifts.

Contractual relationship exception and travel expenses related to membership in organization.
ISSUE: The attorney for the City of Lake Worth asked:
1) if City of Lake Worth Commissioner Andy Amoroso may sell newspapers to the City’s library for an amount not to exceed $500 per year without violating the Code, and
2) if the Code allows Commissioner Amoroso to accept travel expenses from the National League of Cities without any requirement to report the expenses on the gift reporting form?

HOLDING:
1) Commissioner Amoroso may sell newspapers to the City of Lake Worth without violating the contractual prohibition provision of the Code as long as the amount of the transaction with the City does not exceed $500 per year.
2) Commissioner Amoroso is not prohibited from accepting the National League of Cities’ payment or reimbursement of the travel expenses as long as his travel is related to the City’s membership in the National League of Cities. However, although the Code permits Commissioner Amoroso to accept the travel expenses, state law controls the gift reporting requirements for state reporting individuals. Since Commissioner Amoroso, as a local elected official, is a state reporting individual, he needs to determine whether the travel expenses must be reported under state law. Under the Code, if a state reporting individual is required to file a State of Florida Quarterly Gift Disclosure Form (Form 9) with the state, he or she must also file a copy of the Form 9 with the COE at the same time.

Registration fees may be accepted if not from a vendor, bidder, service provider, contractor, or proposer of public employer.
ISSUE: A County employee asked if an employee of the County’s Information Systems Services (ISS) Department is prohibited from accepting payment of registration fees for a specialized training program from Palm Beach County Law Enforcement eXchange, Inc. (LEX), which is not a vendor, bidder, service provider, contractor, or proposer of the County.

HOLDING: The ISS employee is not prohibited from accepting the registration fees from LEX for the training since LEX is not a vendor, bidder, service provider, contractor, or proposer of Palm Beach County. In addition, since the registration fee for the training is an exception to the definition of a gift, the ISS employee who attends the conference is not required to report the cost of the registration to the COE.

Travel expenses from a vendor must be waived
ISSUE: W.W. Grainger, Inc (Grainger), a vendor of the county, asked if it could provide a complimentary one-day pass to county employees for attendance to the 2017 Grainger Show/Conference.

HOLDING: Because Grainger is a vendor doing business with the county, county employees would be prohibited from accepting travel expenses from Grainger, including conference fees and meals, unless it is waived by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). If the travel expenses are waived by the BCC and the county employees’ attendance at the conference is in their official capacity and for educational or governmental purposes, the waiver or reimbursement of the $300 event pass would not be considered a gift as defined by Section 2-444(g) of the gift law and, therefore, does not need to be reported. However, if the county employees receive anything of value in excess of $100 at the conference from a non-vendor of the county, the gift must be reported on their annual gift reports.

May a County employee accept travel expenses to a conference from a County vendor.
ISSUE: A Palm Beach County employee asked if the Code of Ethics would prohibit him from accepting costs associated with a conference when it is sponsored by a vendor of the County. HOLDING: Generally, public officials and employees are prohibited from accepting, directly or indirectly, payment of travel expenses, including conference fees, transportation, and other expenses, “from any county or municipal contractor, vendor, service provider, bidder or proposer.” However, the prohibition against accepting travel expenses may be waived by the board of county commissioners or the local municipal governing body by a majority vote.

County employee serving as volunteer church board member may not solicit or accept a gift from a lobbyist, principal or employer of lobbyist
ISSUE: A county employee asked whether a gift to a church, for which he serves as a volunteer board member, runs afoul of the gift law.

HOLDING: A gift from a lobbyist, principal or employer of a lobbyist under these circumstances is subject to the gift law prohibitions.

Advisory board members do not have a voting conflict when they are considered “similarly situated members of the general public.”
ISSUE: The deputy director of the county airports department asked whether advisory board members, who purchase fuel themselves, have a voting conflict when voting on setting a fuel flowage fee.

HOLDING: There is no voting conflict under the code because the members are similarly situated members of the general public.

Voting conflict and outside employer
ISSUE: Whether a Councilman is prohibited from participating in a workshop discussing the creation of a fiber network by the Town of Jupiter, where he is an employee of Florida Power and Light. FPL is a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy, which owns FPL FiberNet, one of the providers of fiber networking services in the Town.

HOLDING: The Councilman is not prohibited by the Code from participating and voting on this matter at this time. As an employee of FPL, he is compensated for his work by FPL alone, and he is not compensated by and does not provide services for FiberNet.

Insufficient nexus to create conflict of interest
ISSUE: Whether an elected official, who owns a property management company that provides services to a condominium association (COA), is prohibited from participating or voting on a matter that may financially benefit an investor whose family own a significant percentage of the property within the COA.

HOLDING: There is an insufficient nexus between the investor, the COA, and the proposed project coming before the City Council for the official to be prohibited from voting on this matter. The COA is not involved in any way in the Boca Project and has no interest in the Project.

Limited class of persons or entities that stand to gain means that the potential financial benefit to the board member is not so remote and speculative as to eliminate a conflict of interest.
ISSUE: Whether an Aviation and Airports Advisory Board member is prohibited from participating and voting on the selection of a fixed base operator for the Palm Beach County Park Airport where he leases two hangers from the existing fixed base operator.

HOLDING: An advisory board member may not use his official position, including participation and voting on issues before the AAAB or its proposal selection committee, where he leases 2 of 68 available hangers at the Lantana Airport. Because of limited class of persons or entities that stand to gain from the proposal process and the absence of significant contingencies to obtain that gain if changes are approved, the potential financial benefit to the board member is not so remote and speculative as to eliminate a conflict of interest.

Abstaining from voting
ISSUE: Whether Mayor Glickstein is correct in his intention to recuse himself and not vote on a matter expected to come before the City Commission in the future regarding the City's actions on a contract with a development company of which he is president; and whether Mayor Glickstein is correct in his intention to recuse himself and not to vote on a potential future matter which may come before the City Commission in the event that the City does not exercise an option under the contract and he dedicates land to the City for additional open space.

HOLDING: Mayor Glickstein's intention to recuse himself and abstain from voting on these two matters is correct. He is obligated to follow the procedures in Sec. 2-443(c) disclosing the conflict publicly, not voting, and filing the proper 8B form.

Elected official prohibited from participation in discussions and voting only on the agenda item regarding his specific request for reimbursement.
ISSUE: Whether Mayor Robert Margolis can vote on reimbursement from the Village of Wellington to be paid to Councilmember John Greene for attorney's fees he incurred in defending lawsuits in which he was a named party, filed as a result of the March, 2012 municipal elections; whether Councilmember John Green may vote on such reimbursement for Mayor Robert Margolis, who was also named in lawsuits and incurred legal fees stemming from this same election; and whether Councilmember Matt Willhite could vote on these reimbursement requests, since he also may have incurred legal expenses from the municipal elections, although he has not as of this time made a request to be reimbursed.

HOLDING: Mayor Margolis is prohibited from participating in discussions and voting on the agenda item pertaining only to his reimbursement request. Similarly, Councilmember Greene is prohibited from participation in discussions and voting only on the agenda item regarding his specific request for reimbursement. Councilmember Matt Willhite is not prohibited from participating in discussions or voting on either Mayor Margolis' or Councilmember Greene's petition for reimbursement of legal fees, but would be prohibited from taking such actions concerning his own reimbursement should he choose to file a request.

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.

Advisory board member is not prohibited from participating or voting on matters even though a business associate serves as a non-profit director or officer.
ISSUE: Whether an advisory board member must abstain and not participate in voting when a person appearing before the board is represented by the Legal Aid Society, a non-profit organization, and some of the advisory board member’s colleagues serve as officials or board members of that non-profit.

HOLDING: Provided that there is no special financial benefit to his firm, the advisory board member is not prohibited from participating and voting on matters, even though his business associates are directors of the non-profit organization or represent clients before his board on behalf of Legal Aid. The Code prohibits only those persons (or their spouse or domestic partner) serving as a non-profit officer or director from participating and voting on issues unique to that non-profit.

Outside business contracts with government
ISSUE: Whether a County Commissioner, whose outside business provides rental space to a municipality, may participate and vote on inter-local agreements, annexation issues, and lawsuits between the county government he serves and his municipal customer or client.

HOLDING: The commissioner is not prohibited from voting on issues involving the annexation of county property or other development issues involving the municipality where it is the only municipality with boundaries contiguous to the property and the municipality itself is not specially financially benefited in a manner unlike similarly situated entities in the county, so long as the decision does not give a special financial benefit to the commissioner or his outside business. Officials whose outside business or employer contracts with other governments are not prohibited from voting on issues between their government-client and the government they serve, provided that the matter is unrelated to their business relationship with the government-client.

An official’s appearance before a City advisory board is not prohibited, provided that he does not use his official position in any manner to obtain a special financial benefit.
ISSUE: Whether a City commissioner may represent a customer or client of his firm in front of the City’s Historic Preservation Board, which is completely independent of the City Commission in its deliberations and approvals, as long as he abstains from voting and does not participate in any part of the decision-making process when the matter eventually reaches the City Commission.

HOLDING: An appearance before a City advisory board is not prohibited, provided that the official does not use his official position in any manner to obtain a special financial benefit for himself or his client. The elected official is not prohibited from working with City staff on his clients project up and until it goes before the City Commission, so long as it is in his personal capacity and not as a commissioner. Voting on a clients proposal or related issues pending before the City Commission, participating in conversations, or attempting to influence his fellow commissioners, city staff, or advisory board members would constitute a misuse of office.

Whether a financial benefit is shared with similarly situated members of the general public.
ISSUE: Whether a member of a City Board would have a conflict of interest if a non-profit civic organization, of which she is also a director, appears and advocates a position on a matter before the City Board.

HOLDING: Because the matter, as proposed, is of equal application citywide, the official is not prohibited from participating in the matter at this point in time. However, should the civic organization advocate a modification to the matter that would uniquely benefit its members as compared to all City residents, it may result in a special financial benefit to its members, creating a conflict. If a conflict does exist, the official must publicly disclose the nature of the conflict, file the required state disclosure form, and refrain from voting or participating in, or influencing the process.

Elected City official’s company doing business with other entities within the City.
ISSUE: What are the obligations of an elected official and member of the City Commission as an owner of a company that does business with other entities within the City.

HOLDING: An elected official is prohibited from using her position to give a special financial benefit, not shared with similarly situated members of the general public, to herself, her outside business, or a customer or client of her outside business. Voting on a client's proposal, participating in conversations or attempting to influence City staff or fellow commission members would constitute a misuse of office. When faced with a conflict, she must disclose the nature of that conflict, refrain from participating, and file the required 8B conflict disclosure form.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

$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.

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.

Where an official/employee has an outside employer that is a government entity, such employment will not be considered to be an "outside employer" for the purposes of disclosure and voting conflicts.
ISSUE: Whether the Seacoast Utility Authority, a governmental regional water and wastewater utility, which employs an elected official as an engineer, is considered an "outside employer" of the official under the Code. If so, under what circumstances would the official’s participation in the Water Resources Task Force advisory board result in a prohibited special financial benefit to Seacoast Utility.

HOLDING: The Code limits the definition of an "outside employer or business" by excluding any county, state, federal, regional, local, or municipal government entity. The voting and participation restrictions involving outside employment conflicts that would normally apply to a member or alternate member of an advisory do not apply if the outside employer is another governmental entity.

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.

Elected official may vote on contracts between the County, her outside business’ client, and the municipality she serves, provided that there is no quid pro quo.
ISSUE: Whether a municipal councilperson whose outside business provides engineering services to the County may vote on inter-local agreements between the municipality she serves and the County, as her customer or client.

HOLDING: A municipal councilperson is not prohibited from voting on inter-local agreements involving the municipality and the County, even though the County is a customer or client of her outside business, provided that the inter-local agreement does not give the councilperson, her spouse, or her outside business a special financial benefit. Voting on matters unrelated to her outside business, but that would result in a benefit the County, would not give a “special financial benefit” to the County, as it would benefit all residents within its political boundaries.

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.

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.

State law permits local government to adopt more stringent standards of conduct than those specified in the Florida Code of Ethics.
ISSUE: Whether advisory board members whose appointment requires professional licensure pursuant to city ordinance are subject to the abstention and non-participation requirements of the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics where an exemption exists for these members under the Florida Code of Ethics.

HOLDING: State law permits local government to adopt more stringent standards of conduct than those specified in the Florida Code of Ethics provided those standards do not otherwise conflict with the state code. The Palm Beach County Code of Ethics, in certain instances, does more tightly regulate potential financial misuse of the office. Advisory board members, regardless of any professional licensure requirements associated with their appointment, may not use their appointed office to give themselves, their outside business or a customer or client of their outside business a special financial benefit. When faced with a conflict, they must disclose, abstain, not participate and file the required conflict disclosure form. The Code does not prohibit a business associate or other individual from representing a client's interests before the official's board.

Outside business voting conflict
ISSUE: Whether a member of a community appearance board’s outside business may represent a customer or client of his firm in front of the board, so long as he abstains from voting and does not participate in any part of the decision-making process.

HOLDING: An appointed official may not use his position as an advisory board member to give himself, his outside business, or a customer or client of his outside business, a special financial benefit, not shared with similarly situated members of the general public. The Code does not prohibit a business associate from the outside business from representing a customer or client provided that the official publicly discloses the nature of the conflict, files the required state disclosure form, and refrains from voting and participating in the process.

Special financial benefit prohibition
ISSUE: Whether a conflict of interest exists if a city councilperson participates and votes to change an ordinance increasing the allowable size of a boat or RV parked on a single family residential property if he owns a racing shell that may be covered under the ordinance.

HOLDING: Voting on an ordinance change that would give the official a special financial benefit would constitute a misuse of office because an elected official may not use his official position to give himself a special financial benefit not shared with similarly situated members of the general public. When the facts do not indicate that there are a sufficient number of similarly situated individuals to negate the application of the special financial benefit prohibitions, the official must continue to publicly disclose the nature of the conflict, file the required state voting conflict form, and refrain from voting and not participate in the process, if this issue comes before the council.

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.

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.

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.

Appearance of impropriety but no conflict of interest
ISSUE: The assistant city attorney for the city of Delray Beach asked (1) if members of the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) are under the jurisdiction of the COE and subject to the Palm Beach County Code of Ethics (code), and (2) if the chair of WARC, Joycelyn Patrick, who is also a city of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Board (PZB) member, has a voting conflict if a sponsor of WARC’s annual fundraising gala appears before the PZB.

HOLDING: WARC is a nonprofit organization which was created to advise the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency and the city of Delray Beach on redevelopment issues in the West Atlantic area of the city. However, its board members are not appointed by the city commission and, thus, they are not city officials or employees as defined by Section 2-442. Therefore, WARC board members are not under the jurisdiction of the COE and are not subject to the Code of Ethics.

However, as a member of the PZB, Ms. Patrick is under the jurisdiction of the COE and is subject to the code. Based on the information presented, although Ms. Patrick is the chair of WARC (a nonprofit organization), WARC would not receive, directly or indirectly, any special financial benefit from the sponsor’s project if she were to vote to recommend that project to the city commission. While there may be no per se prohibited conflict of interest, there is an appearance of impropriety created by Ms. Patrick’s position on both the WARC board (which accepted a “title sponsorship” donation from this developer) and on the PZB board where she will have to vote on whether to recommend this project to the city commission. As long as Ms. Patrick does not give any quid pro quo or other benefit to the local developer in exchange for the sponsorship of WARC’s fundraising gala, she is not prohibited from participating in or voting on the local developer’s project when it comes before the PBZ board.

Voting conflict concerning client of outside employer
ISSUE: The attorney for the village of Wellington asked if a councilmember has a voting conflict that would prohibit him from voting on and participating in a matter where Wantman Group, Inc., who is a client of his outside employer, is acting as an agent for Janus Real Estate, LLC (JRE) and will be presenting JRE’s pending application for a conditional use permit for approval before the village council.

HOLDING: The councilmember would have a voting conflict. Because the councilmember’s vote on the conditional use permit application will directly impact whether JRE can go forward on its proposed veterinary clinic project and thus whether Wantman Group will be employed by JRE to work on its project, the possibility of a financial benefit to Wantman Group is not remote or speculative. There is a direct nexus between the councilman's vote and Wantman Group receiving a special financial benefit. Therefore, the councilmember may neither participate in nor vote on this matter.

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.

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.

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.

No voting conflict when the possibility of financial benefit is remote and speculative.
ISSUE: The attorney for the town of Juno Beach asked if the code prohibits two members of the town of Juno Beach Town Council from participating in discussions and voting on ordinances amending the land use classification and zoning designation of a vacant parcel of real property owned by the town. One of the council members owns a unit in the condominium complex located across the street from the vacant property, and the other council member resides in a single-family residence directly northwest of the vacant property.

HOLDING: Because the vote has no direct and immediate financial benefit to Councilmember Fahy or Councilmember Wheeler, they are not prohibited from participating in and voting on the amending of the land use classification and the zoning designation of the vacant property under the circumstances listed.

No voting conflict involving spouse's outside employer
ISSUE: The city attorney for the city of Boca Raton asked if a voting conflict would arise for Councilmember Andrea Levine O’Rourke when a client of her spouse’s employer (the firm) appears before the city council on a matter unrelated to the services provided by the firm.
HOLDING: Councilman O’Rourke will not have a voting conflict under these circumstances. The matter before the city council involving the client of Councilmember O’Rourke’s spouse will not provide a financial benefit to her spouse or to the firm. The client will be appearing on issues related to the multiple properties throughout the city of Boca Raton in which he has a financial interest. These issues are unrelated to the services provided by her spouse or the firm. Therefore, a voting conflict would not arise for Councilmember O’Rourke under Sec. 2-443(2) or Sec. 2-443(4) because neither her spouse nor her spouse’s employer would receive a financial benefit from the matter before the City Council concerning the client’s properties.

No voting conflict involving former employer
ISSUE: The Palm Beach County chief assistant county attorney asked if a voting conflict would arise for Mary Lou Berger, a member of the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), when Burt Aaronson, a former BCC commissioner and her former supervisor, appears before the commission.
HOLDING: Because the code does not prohibit officials from participating in and voting on a matter giving a special financial benefit to a former employer or supervisor, Commissioner Berger is not prohibited from participating in discussions and voting on matters when Mr. Aaronson appears before the BCC as long as the vote will not give a special financial benefit to any of the prohibited persons or entities listed in Sec. 2-443(a)(1-7).

Voting conflict concerns for official who owns property near the matter before his board
ISSUE: A member of the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board (HPB) asked if he is precluded from voting on a matter before the HPB involving building plans to a property in the Marina Historic District of the city of Delray Beach when he also owns property in that district. His interest in the area is less than one percent.
HOLDING: Because the economic benefit or loss affects a class large enough so as to remove any prohibited individual financial benefit, he is not prohibited from voting on or participating in discussions on these building plans. In addition, based on the location of his property and uncertainty of the construction process, the potential for any financial benefit to result from this vote is not direct and immediate but remote and speculative at best.

No voting conflict.
ISSUE: Two members of the town of Jupiter Planning and Zoning Commission asked:
1) Would it violate the misuse of office prohibitions or the voting conflicts prohibitions for them to participate in discussions or vote on proposed amendments to a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) when they are named parties in a circuit court action filed against the town of Jupiter by a not-for-profit citizen's group, Citizen Owners of Love Street (COOLS), challenging the procedural correctness of the 2016 project approval by the Jupiter Town Council, and they are both also listed as officers or directors of COOLS?
2) Would such a vote under these conditions violate the corrupt misuse of official positions prohibitions under the Code of Ethics?
3) Did their motion, participation in discussions and vote at the July 11, 2017, PZC meeting concerning tabling the issue of the Love Street PUD amendments until they were able to obtain an advisory opinion from the COE as to whether they were precluded from participating in discussions or voting on the Love Street PUD amendments, constitute a violation of the voting conflicts section of the Code of Ethics?

HOLDING:
(1) No. Such actions will not result in a prohibited "special financial benefit" to themselves or to any other person or entity set forth in Section 2-443(1-7) of the Code, including COOLS.
(2) No. The fact that an official holds a well-known position on a controversial issue, and takes that position in discussions or votes concerning that issue, does not make those actions a "corrupt misuse" of their official position by being "inconsistent with the proper performance of their public duties," even where that position is in the minority among voting members, so long as they receive no prohibited special benefit by these actions.
(3) No. The motion to table was not a discussion or vote on the relevant matter of the Love Street PUD amendment itself, and it also did not provide an improper benefit to them or to COOLS.

Local realtor serving on PZB board
ISSUE:The president of the town of Briny Breezes Town Council asked if a conflict of interest would exist for a local licensed Realtor to serve on the town’s Planning and Zoning Board (PBZ) and to also act as an unpaid broker for the town on the sale of its cooperative property.
HOLDING: The Realtor would not be prohibited from serving on the PBZ while also acting as the broker for the sale of the town’s cooperative property as long as he does not use his position as a PBZ member in any way to give a special financial benefit to his outside business or a customer or client of his outside business. If a matter before the PBZ would give a special financial benefit to any of the persons or entities specified in Section 2-443(a)(1-7), he would be prohibited from participating in or voting on that matter.

Voting conflict
ISSUE: Does a prohibited conflict of interest exist for Councilman McLendon if he participates in discussions and votes on a developer’s Planned Unit Development amendment when Aldi, Inc., a customer or client of his outside business, is listed as one of the potential tenants for the developer’s property
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 Aldi, Councilman McLendon, or his outside employer from this vote. Thus, any financial benefit that Aldi, Councilman McLendon, or his outside employer may receive is remote and speculative. Because the vote has no direct and immediate financial benefit to Aldi, his outside business, or himself, Councilman McLendon is not prohibited from participating in and voting on this Planned Unit Development amendment application.

No Voting Conflict when there is uncertainty as to economic gain or loss.
ISSUE: The city attorney for the Town of Juno Beach asked if the Code of Ethics prohibits a councilman from participating in discussions and voting on the future use of a vacant property owned by the Town of Juno Beach when the councilman owns a unit in the condominium complex which is located across the street from the vacant property.
HOLDING: The Town Council will be discussing and voting on whether to leave the vacant property “as is,” convert the vacant property into a park, or declare the vacant property as surplus real property and offer it for sale. The matter before the Town Council does not involve any specific development application; it only involves a preliminary determination of future use. Therefore, although the councilman lives in a condominium complex across the street from the vacant property, whether any of the proposed uses of the vacant property would result in a special financial benefit to him is remote and speculative. Because the vote has no direct and immediate financial benefit to the councilman, he is not prohibited from participating in and voting on the future use of the vacant property under the circumstances listed.