12-002329EC In Re: Glenda Parris vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, March 4, 2013.

Summary: Code enforcement officer is guilty of misusing her public position and entering into a contract that conflicted with her public responsibilities.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: GLENDA PARRIS , ) Case No. 12 - 2329EC

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was

conducted by video tel econference between West Palm Beach and

Tallahassee, Florida, on November 20, 2012, before Administrative

Law Judge Claude B. Arrington of the Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Advocate : Melody A. Hadley, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: No appearance

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Glenda Parris (Respondent), while employed as a West

Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer, violated section 112.313(6),

Florida Statutes, 1 / by using her position to rent property and/or

gain preferential treatment at a court proceeding and, if so, the

appropriate penalty.

Whether Respondent, while employed as a West Palm Beach Code

Enforcement Officer, violated section 112.313(7), by having a

contractual relationship that conflicted with her official

responsibilities and, if so, the appropriate penalty.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On May 9, 2012, the Florida Commi ssion on Ethics (the

Commission) issued an Order Finding Probable Cause to believe

that Respondent committed the two violations at issue in this

proceeding. Respondent timely requested a formal administrative

hearing to challenge the alleged violations, t he matter was

referred to DOAH, and this proceeding followed.

At the final hearing, the Advocate for the Commission

presented the testimony of Dr. Rhonda Nasser, John Alford, and

John Frasca. The Advocate offered 14 exhibits, each of which was

admitted i nto evidence.

Respondent made no appearance at the formal hearing.

A Transcript of the proceedings, consisting of one volume,

was filed on December 20, 2012. Also on December 20, the

Respondent filed a notice that she was unavailable between

Novembe r 19, 2012, and January 18, 2013, due to medical reasons.

In response to that notice, the undersigned extended the deadline

for the filing of proposed recommended orders to close of

business on January 28, 2013. The Advocate timely filed its

Proposed Rec ommended Order, which has been duly considered by the

undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order. The

Respondent has not filed a proposed recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was

e mployed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer.

2. Respondent is subject to the requirements of part III,

chapter 112, which consists of sections 112.311 - 112.326 , and is

known as the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees.

3. Respond ent's assigned duties includ ed inspecting,

observing, reporting, and enforcing the City of West Palm Beach's

code regulating zoning, housing, and the environment

4. Respondent's was assigned a work zone in West Palm Beach

that included 231 Lytton Court (t he subject property).

5. At the times relevant to this proceeding, Dr. Rhonda

Nasser was the owner and/or principal of El Nasco II, a limited

liability company. El Nasco II owned the house at 231 Lytton

Court.

6. In the summer of 2010, Respondent is sued multiple

notices of violation to Dr. Nasser relating to the subject

property.

7. In July 2010, Respondent and Dr. Nasser met at the

subject property to discuss the notices of violation. At that

meeting, Respondent asked Dr. Nasser if she could ren t the

subject property. Respondent was on duty and in her uniform when

she negotiated the lease of the subject property.

8. Dr. Nasser entered into an agreement with Respondent for

Respondent to rent the subject property for $1,200.00 per month

beginni ng in August 2010.

9. As soon as she moved in to the subject property,

Respondent began to complain to Dr. Nasser as to items that

needed to be repaired or replaced. Respondent wrote a demand

letter on August 31, 2010, that referenced code requirements. On

November 3, 2010, wrote a second demand letter that also

referenced code requirements.

10. Dr. Nasser testified, credibly, that she believed that

Respondent was threatening to use code violations to support her

demand as to items that needed to be i mpaired or replaced.

Dr. Nasser's belief was reasonable.

11. Respondent began to withhold rent because Dr. Nasser

would not make the improvements Respondent had demanded. At the

end of January or the beginning of February 2011, Dr. Nasser

initiat ed eviction proceedings against Respondent due to

Respondent's failure to pay rent.

12. John Frasca has been employed as a West Palm Beach Code

Enforcement Officer for more than 11 years. Respondent asked

Mr. Frasca on two separate occasions prior to May 26, 2011, to

inspect the subject property. At the first inspection,

Respondent deliberately withheld the fact that she lived at the

subject property.

13. At the time of the second inspection, Respondent

pressured Mr. Frasca to complete the inspection and informed him

that she needed the inspection report for her attorney.

14. A rental license for a residence is the official

authorization from the City of West Palm Beach that an owner may

rent its residence and that the residence will be inspected. A

rental license guarantees to a renter that the residence has been

inspected and maintained, and is meeting all current codes. A

rental license is required by the city code.

15. Mr. Frasca discovered that the owner of the subject

property had no rental license. Respondent should have known

that the owner did not have a rental license, and she should have

refused to rent the property until the owner obtained a rental

license.

16. The eviction proceedings initiated by Dr. Nasser

progressed to a court hearing before a judge. At the eviction

hearing, Respondent wore her work uniform, which consisted of

dark colored pants, a code enforcement badge on her belt, and a

shirt with "City of West Palm Beach, Code Enforcement" written on

it. Dr. Nasser believe d that Respondent wore the uniform in

court to give the appearance that Respondent was an expert in

code enforcement. Alleged code violations came up as an issue

during the eviction hearing. Respondent argued that she withheld

the payment of rent because Dr. Nasser would not correct

perceived code violations.

17. Following the eviction hearing, Dr. Nasser contacted

John Alford, who was, at that time, the Director of Public Works

for West Palm Beach. Mr. Alford supervised the West Palm Beach

Code Enfor cement Department, including the code enforcement

officers.

18. There existed an unwritten policy that code enforcement

officers were not to wear their uniforms on unofficial business.

Mr. Alford had admonished the code enforcement officers,

including Re spondent, to "take care while wearing the badge."

19. The City of West Palm Beach investigated Respondent's

actions and prepared a document titled "Timeline - 231 Lytton

Ct., WPB." That document, which is in evidence as E xhibit 9,

reflects Respondent's a ctions regarding the subject property.

20. West Palm Beach uses a computer tracking system called

Community Plus System that tracks all activities relating to a

building code complaint and/or violation. A code officer puts in

all information related to a n inspection plus action taken for

the property by its owner or a magistrate. The public can go to

a website to view the status of a property in the City.

21. The City prepared a report based on the Community Plus

System for the subject property. Mr. Al ford determined that

Respondent had manipulated entries for the subject property in

the Community Plus System by changing information relating to

inspections.

22. On June 7, 2011, Mr. Alford notified Respondent in

writing that he was going to terminate her employment.

23. On July 6, 2011, Respondents' employment was terminated

for violations of the City's Employee Handbook and Code of

Ethics.

24. Mr. Alford determined that Respondent's actions of

proposing and negotiating a lease agreement while on d uty and in

uniform violated subparagraph 6 of the City's Ethics Policy 4.4,

which is as follows: "City representatives shall not engage in

financial transactions using non - public information or allow the

improper use of such information to further any pri vate interest

or gain."

25. Mr. Alford also determined that Respondent violated the

City's Code of Ethics provision 4.4 by wearing her City - issued

uniform and badge to court for a personal matter giving the

appearance that she was acting on behalf of the City.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

26. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and

the parties to this case pursuant to sections 120.569 and

120.57(1).

27. Section 112.322 and Florida Administrative Code Rule

34 - 5.0015, authorize the Commission to conduct investigations and

to make public reports on complaints concerning violations of

Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees.

28. The Commission seeks to penalize Respondent for her

alleged violations of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and

Em ployees. Consequently, the Commission has the burden of

proving by clear and convincing evidence the allegations against

Respondent. See Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla.

1987); Evans Packing Co. v. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. ,

550 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); and Inquiry Concerning a

Judge , 645 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1994).

29. Section 112.313(6) provides as follows:

(6) MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION. Ï No public

officer, employee of an agency, or local

government attorney shall corruptly use or

attempt to use his or her official position

or any property or resource which may be

within his or her trust, or perform his or

her official duties, to secure a special

privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself,

herself, or others . . ..

30. The Advoc ate established, by the requisite standard,

that Respondent violated section 112.313(6) by her dealings with

Dr. Nasser. Respondent negotiated the lease arrangement while on

duty and in uniform. In her dealings with Dr. Nasser, Respondent

made repeated r eferences to code violations. Respondent wore her

uniform, including her badge, to the hearing, during which she

argued that she withheld rent due to alleged code violations.

31. Section 112. 313(7)(a) provides as follows:

(7) CONFLICTING EMPLOYMENT OR CONTRACTUAL

RELATIONSHIP. Ï

(a) No public officer or employee of an

agency shall have or hold any employment or

contractual relationship with any business

entity or any agency which is subject to the

regulation of, or is doing business with, an

agency of which he or she is an officer or

employee, excluding those organizations and

their officers who, when acting in their

official capacity, enter into or negotiate a

collective bargaining contract with the state

or any municipality, county, or other

politica l subdivision of the state; nor shall

an officer or employee of an agency have or

hold any employment or contractual

relationship that will create a continuing or

frequently recurring conflict between his or

her private interests and the performance of

his or her public duties or that would impede

the full and faithful discharge of his or her

public duties.

32. Respondent violated section 112. 313(7)(a) by utilizing

the threat of code violations to negotiate improvements to the

subject property. Responden t had the duty to cite any known code

violation in her work zone. Respondent allowed her personal

interests to interfere with her job responsibilities.

33. Pursuant to section 112.317(1)(d), the Commission has

the authority to impose a civil penalty fi ne against Respondent

up to $10,000.00 per violation. In its Proposed Recommended

Order, the Advocate proposed a civil penalty in the amount of

$3,000.00 for the violation of section 112.313(6) and a civil

penalty in the amount of $2,000.00 for the violat ion of section

112.313(7). The Commission has the authority to impose civil

penalties in those amounts. However, in making the

recommendations that follow, the undersigned has considered that

the City of West Palm Beach has imposed a substantial penalty on

Respondent by terminating her employment based on the facts at

issue in this proceeding.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics

enter a Final Order and Pub lic Report that finds that Respondent,

Glenda Parris, violated section 112.313(6) and imposes against

her a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00. It is further

RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a Final

Order and Public Report that finds that Respondent, Glenda

Parris, violated section 112.313(7) and imposes against her a

civil penalty in the amount of $500.00, for a total civil penalty

of $1,000.00.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March , 2013 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florid a.

S

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl. us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 4th day of March , 2013 .

ENDNOTE

1 / All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2012).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Melody A. Hadley, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Kaye B. Starling , Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

Glenda Parris

Post Office Box 74 1902

Boynton Beach, Florida 33474

Virlindia Doss, Executive Director

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

C. Christopher Anderson, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 1570 9

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

Advocates for the Commission

Office of the Attorney General

The Capital, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions wit hin

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.