Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1551 Payne In Re: Lori Payne, : File Docket: 08-064 Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1551 : Date Decided: 3/25/10 : Date Mailed: 4/9/10 Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Donald M. McCurdy Raquel K. Bergen Nicholas A. Colafella Mark Volk This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding possible violation(s) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above-named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an “Investigative Complaint.” A Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement waiving an evidentiary hearing were subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulated Findings are set forth as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement has been approved. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under the Ethics Act and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with the Ethics Act. Payne, 08-064 Page 2 I.ALLEGATIONS: That Lori Payne, a public official/public employee in her capacity as the Code Enforcement Officer and Police Chief, East Pittsburgh Borough, Allegheny County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1104(a) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a) and 1104(a), when she used the authority of her office for private pecuniary gain when she submitted hours for compensation that she did not work and when she failed to file Statements of Financial Interests, as Code Enforcement Officer, for the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years; and when she failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests, as Chief of Police, for the 2007 calendar year. II.FINDINGS: 1. Lori A. Payne has been employed as the Chief of Police for East Pittsburgh Borough (Borough), Allegheny County, from January 15, 2008, to the present. a. Payne also has held the position of code enforcement for the Borough since May 9, 1999. b. Lori Payne was employed as a Patrolman and Sergeant with the Police Department between May 1999 and 2008. 2. Since 1999, Lori Payne has held various Borough positions as follows: a. Payne was formally appointed to the position of Code Enforcement Officer at the May 9, 1999, regular Council meeting. b. Payne was hired as a Police Officer at the May 9, 1999, meeting and was formally appointed as the Code Enforcement Officer at the same meeting. c. Payne was promoted to Sergeant effective August 10, 2004. d. Payne was formally appointed [to] the position of Chief of Police at the January 15, 2008, regular Council meeting. 1. Payne did not formally begin serving as the Chief of Police until approximately April 5, 2008. aa. Payne did not begin serving as the Chief of Police until resigning from her full time employment as a Compliance Investigator with the Allegheny County Housing Authority. 3. Lori Payne, as the current Chief of Police for East Pittsburgh Police Department (hereafter EPPD) is responsible for, among other things, the following: - Scheduling of Officers; - Generation of department policy; - Overall office administration to include report review, sex offender registry, applicant interviews, conduction of applicant interviews, conduction of background investigations, maintaining department files, scheduling Officer updates/training, etc.; and - Conduction of actual patrol, investigations, etc. a. No specific job description for the Chief of Police currently exists at EPPD or Payne, 08-064 Page 3 East Pittsburgh Borough. 4. Lori Payne completed the Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s Municipal Police Training Academy at Indiana, Pennsylvania, and received a certification as a Police Officer under Act 120, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. a. Lori Payne was hired as a Police Officer for EPPD by unanimous vote of Council on May 9, 1999. 1. She was also appointed Borough Code Enforcement Officer. 2. Her effective employment date listed in Borough training documents is May 10, 2009. 5. The duty of code enforcement for East Pittsburgh Borough has been the responsibility of a Member of the EPPD since at least the mid-1990s. a. Officers performing code enforcement duties were not routinely assigned specific days or shifts during which to perform their duties. b. Officers performing code enforcement duties often performed those duties during their regularly assigned patrol schedules. 6. Officers responsible for completing code enforcement duties for East Pittsburgh Borough are responsible for, in part, the following: - Investigation of citizen complaints and proactive searching for possible ordinance violations, including site review, taking of pictures, issuing citations, generation of letters to property owners, etc.; - Distribution of ordinance information either via the United States Postal Service or in person (i.e. door-to-door); - Collection of Amusement taxes; - Working with Allegheny County Children & Youth Services, the Allegheny County Health Department, the Allegheny County Fire Marshall, and the Borough Building Inspector; and - General administrative duties associated with ordinance enforcement, such as generation and maintenance of ordinance files, review of false alarms from department daily call logs, data entry into department computers, etc. a. No specific job description exists for the position of Code Enforcement Officer for East Pittsburgh Borough. 1. Lori Payne is in the process of developing job descriptions. 7. East Pittsburgh Borough is composed of a total land area of approximately 0.4 miles. a. The current population of East Pittsburgh Borough is composed of approximately 2,060 residents. 8. East Pittsburgh Borough provides protection for its residents and their property by way of maintaining a twenty-four hour per day Police Department. Payne, 08-064 Page 4 a. [EPPD] is a Non-Civil Service Department. b. EPPD Officers are not unionized. c. EPPD Officers are “at-will” employees. 9. EPPD is considered a “part-time” Police Department regarding employment status. a. The Chief of Police position is the only position currently recognized as a full-time position. b. Although considered a part-time department, various EPPD Officers consistently work full-time hours (forty hours per week). 10. Louis Payne is Lori Payne’s father. a. Louis Payne is the current Mayor of East Pittsburgh Borough. 1. Louis Payne has served as the East Pittsburgh Borough Mayor since January 5, 1998. 11. Mayor Payne’s duties and responsibilities as Mayor are set forth in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Borough Code. a. The duties and responsibilities of the Mayor in relation to Borough Police Departments are established under Article IX, Powers, Duties, and Rights of Appointed Officers and Employees, Section 1121, of the Borough Code. b. Section 1121 of the Borough Code, titled “Appointment, Suspension, Reduction, Discharge, Powers; Mayor to Have Control,” delineates partial Mayoral duties in relation to Borough Police Departments. 1. The Mayor is noted as having “full charge and control of the Chief of Police and the Police force.” 2 The Mayor is noted as being responsible for directing the time during which, the place where, and the manner in which the Chief of Police and Police force shall perform their duties. 3. Specifically documented under said section is that Council is to determine the total weekly hours of employment that shall apply to Policemen. 12. Lori Payne completed various duties as a Patrol Officer for EPPD as well as specific code enforcement duties for East Pittsburgh Borough from approximately November 8, 2003, through August 11, 2004. a. Payne was assigned specific work days and shifts on the posted Police schedule at various times throughout the noted time period as a Patrol Officer and/or Code Enforcement Officer. 1. EPPD schedules from November 8, 2003, through August 11, 2004, document that Payne was specifically scheduled for only ninety-four (94) hours of code enforcement duty. 2. From November 8, 2003, through August 11, 2004, Payne was not specifically scheduled for any code enforcement hours on Payne, 08-064 Page 5 approximately thirty-two (32) schedules. b. Payne was routinely issued payment for hours worked in excess of those specifically documented on the posted Police schedules. 1. Notes on the posted Police schedule in addition to specific days and shifts assigned to Payne frequently indicated that Payne was to add code enforcement hours. aa. The posted schedule did not specify the number of hours which were to be added or the days on which they were to be worked. 1. Mayor Louis Payne and/or Borough Council provided Lori Payne the autonomy to claim whatever number of hours was necessary in order to complete her work as the Code Enforcement Officer. 2. Payne and/or Borough Council provided Lori Payne the autonomy to work the necessary hours when convenient for her. c. Louis Payne approved and forwarded payroll sheets to East Pittsburgh Borough office personnel for forwarding to the Turtle Creek Council of Governments (COG) for processing which specifically identified the number of patrol hours approved for payment and the number of code enforcement hours approved for payment to Lori Payne. 1. Hours specified in each position/capacity are not necessarily accurate. aa. Louis Payne added hours to or subtracted hours from available patrol and code enforcement budget hours paid to Lori Payne in order to have more budget flexibility in available patrol hours for remaining Officers. d. Lori Payne’s rate of pay as of August 13, 2004, was $10.00 per hour for both patrol hours and code enforcement hours. 13. Lori Payne was promoted to the position of Sergeant at the August 10, 2004, regular East Pittsburgh Borough Council meeting by unanimous vote. a. Payne’s promotion was to be effective August 12, 2004. b. Payne’s rate of pay increased $0.60 per hour from $10.00 per hour to $10.60 per hour as a result of her promotion to Sergeant. 1. Although Payne’s promotion was to be effective August 12, 2004, Payne’s rate of pay did not increase to $10.60 per hour until August 14, 2004. 14. Payne completed various duties as a Sergeant for EPPD as well as specific code enforcement duties for East Pittsburgh Borough from approximately August 12, 2004, through January 14, 2008. a. Payne was not consistently assigned specific work days and shifts as a Sergeant and/or Code Enforcement Officer on the posted Police schedule. Payne, 08-064 Page 6 1. EPPD schedules from August 14, 2004, through January 14, 2008, document that the only time Payne was specifically assigned an eight hour shift for code enforcement was on January 12, 2005. a. Of the one hundred seventy-eight Police (178) schedules posted representing the timeframe of August 14, 2004, through January 14, 2008, Payne was not specifically scheduled for any specific work day or shift in her Sergeant/patrol capacity on a minimum of sixty (60) schedules. b. Of the one hundred seventy-eight (178) Police schedules posted representing the timeframe of August 14, 2004, through January 14, 2008, Payne was not scheduled for any specific work day or shift in her Code Enforcement Officer capacity on a minimum of one hundred seventy-four (174) schedules. c. Of the one hundred seventy-eight (178) Police schedules posted representing the timeframe of August 14, 2004, through January 14, 2008, Payne was not scheduled for any specific work day or shift in any capacity on a minimum of sixty (60) schedules. 1. Two EPPD schedules during the timeframe of August 14, 2004, through January 14, 2008, could not be obtained. 15. Lori Payne was routinely issued payment for hours worked in excess of those specifically documented on the posted Police schedules. a. Of the one hundred seventy-eight (178) Police schedules posted representing the timeframe of August 14, 2004, through January 14, 2008, add code enforcement or a similar derivative thereof was documented on approximately one hundred (100) schedules in relation to Payne. 1. The posted schedule did not specify the number of hours which were to be added or the days on which they were to be worked. 2. Louis Payne and/or Borough Council provided Lori Payne the autonomy to claim whatever number of hours was necessary in order to complete her work as the Code Enforcement Officer. 3. Louis Payne and/or Borough Council provided Lori Payne the autonomy to work the necessary hours when convenient for her. 16. Louis Payne, as Mayor, approved and forwarded payroll sheets to East Pittsburgh Borough office personnel for forwarding to the Turtle Creek Council of Governments (COG) for processing which specifically identified the number of patrol hours approved for payment and the number of code enforcement hours approved for payment to Lori Payne. a. Hours specified in each position/capacity are not necessarily accurate. 1. Louis Payne added hours to or subtracted hours from available patrol and code enforcement budget hours paid to Lori Payne in order to have more budget flexibility in available patrol hours for remaining Officers. Payne, 08-064 Page 7 17. Lori Payne’s rate of pay as of January 14, 2008, was set at $11.35 per hour for both patrol hours and code enforcement hours. a. All Members of the EPPD received a $0.25 per hour raise effective January 14, 2006. 18. A motion was made by William Coles, seconded by Kevin Narey at the January 15, 2008, Council meeting, to hire Lori Payne as the full time Chief of Police effective immediately at a wage of $18.50 per hour and $200.00 per month for benefits. a. The motion to hire Payne as the full time Chief of Police passed via 4-0 unanimous vote. 19. Lori Payne has completed various duties as the full-time Chief of Police for EPPD as well as specific code enforcement duties for East Pittsburgh Borough from approximately April 5, 2008, through the present. a. Payne assigned herself specific work days and shifts as the Chief of Police, including code enforcement duties, on the posted Police schedule throughout the noted time period. 1. Payne assumed the responsibility for generation of EPPD work schedules on or about June 9, 2008. 2. Payne was not specifically scheduled to perform code enforcement functions on at least sixty-four schedules spanning the time frame of April 5, 2008, through August 23, 2009. 20. Payne was routinely issued payment for hours worked in excess of those specifically documented on the posted Police schedules. a. Notes on the posted Police schedule in addition to specific days and shifts assigned to Payne often indicated that Payne was to add code enforcement hours, meetings, etc. b. The posted schedule did not specify the number of hours which were to be added or the days on which they were to be worked. 1. Louis Payne and/or Borough Council provided Lori Payne the autonomy to claim whatever number of hours was necessary in order to complete her work as the Code Enforcement Officer. 2. Louis Payne and/or Borough Council provided Lori Payne the autonomy to work the necessary hours when convenient for her. c. Louis Payne approved and forwarded payroll sheets to East Pittsburgh Borough office personnel for forwarding to the Turtle Creek Council of Governments (COG) for processing which specifically identified the number of patrol hours approved for payment and the number of code enforcement hours approved for payment to Lori Payne. 1. Hours specified in each position/capacity are not necessarily accurate. aa. Louis Payne added hours to or subtracted hours from available patrol and code enforcement budget hours paid to Lori Payne Payne, 08-064 Page 8 in order to have more budget flexibility in available patrol hours for remaining Officers. d. On April 19, 2008, Payne began receiving the hourly wage established for her as the Chief of Police. 21. Prior to 2009, Louis Payne, as the Borough Mayor, was specifically responsible for generation of budget figures for the Police Department, scheduling of all Police Officers, and approval and submission of payroll hours to the Borough clerk for processing through the Turtle Creek COG during his tenure. a. Louis Payne was responsible for reviewing yearly department expenses and comparing those expenses to yearly budget amounts to properly budget for the subsequent year. 1. Budget figures presented to Council by Louis Payne represented estimates of department costs for the subsequent year. 2. Preliminary budget figures are routinely generated and reviewed by Council between September and November of each year. 3. The preliminary budget figures are routinely approved by a vote of Council in November of each year. 4. The final approval of the Borough budget, including the budget for the Police Department, is typically voted on by Council in December for the upcoming year. b. Louis Payne was responsible for the generation of work schedules for all Officers to include specific days worked, specific shifts worked, and the total number of work hours assigned to each Officer. 1. Louis Payne scheduled Officers based on their availability and the number of hours desired (if possible). 22. Louis Payne was also responsible for compiling the total number of hours worked by each individual Officer, including Lori Payne, and documenting those hours on a payroll sheet for processing. a. Louis Payne tallied total hours worked by reviewing daily sign-in/sign-out logs maintained at the EPPD station. 1. Officers are to sign in at the start of each shift and sign out at the end of each shift. 2. Officers at times sign in and out at the start of a shift; sign in and out at the end of a shift; sign in and out at the end of the week for all shifts worked, etc. b. Louis Payne collected the sign-in/sign out logs at the completion of each payroll period for review. 1. No daily sign-in/sign-out logs exist prior to the April 19, 2008, payroll period. c. Louis Payne routinely provided the payroll sheet to employees in the Borough office for forwarding to the Turtle Creek COG for processing and Payne, 08-064 Page 9 issuance of Police payroll checks. 23. Lori Payne’s sign-in/sign out logs for payroll periods beginning April 19, 2008, and concluding on August 31, 2009, document at least eighteen days for which no specific shift hours were noted in the sign-in/sign-out log. a. Lori Payne’s presence was noted by her name and a checkmark in the log. 24. Code enforcement/ordinance files currently maintained by EPPD document a minimum of three thousand five hundred twenty records developed in associat[ion] with code enforcement within the Borough [between] October 3, 2002, and September 8, 2009. a. Included in the definition of records are warning letters, correspondence, telephone messages, pictures, citations, daily call logs, internet website information printouts, occupancy permit applications, reports, etc. b. A minimum of 408 records of the 3,520 are undated. 25. The budget for the Chief of Police’s payroll and the Code Enforcement Officer’s payroll is documented under line item/account number 41010 and 41018 [respectively] of the East Pittsburgh Borough Budget. a. The budgeted payroll amounts for both positions are included within the entire budget amount for the EPPD. 26. Between late October 2003 and late August 2009, Lori Payne was issued payment for a minimum of 6,876 hours of service from the line item documented in the Police Department budget for code enforcement. a. Payne received payment for approximately 2,823 hours from the code enforcement line item within the Police Department budget for which no specific records could be located to document code enforcement work completed. 1. Although paid from the line item assigned to code enforcement, Payne may have performed actual patrol duties during hours for which no documentation could be located. 2. Payne routinely performed services in relation to her code enforcement duties which would not result in the generation of any specific records/documentation (i.e. phone calls, proactive property examinations, meeting with property owners, etc.). 27. Payne was issued one hundred thirty-one payroll checks from the East Pittsburgh Borough payroll account at The Huntington National Bank (Account Number XXXXXX30775) covering the time period of August 14, 2004, through August 21, 2009, totaling $108,723.49. a. All one hundred thirty-one checks issued to Payne between September 3, 2004, and August 27, 2009, included funds received partially as a result of wage increases due to Payne’s promotion to Sergeant and Chief of Police. b. Various checks issued to Payne include payment for hours claimed which were not specifically scheduled. 28. In an interview with Commission investigators on October 13, 2009, Lori Payne Payne, 08-064 Page 10 stated the following: a. She was given the autonomy to determine and work the number of hours necessary to complete her duties as the Code Enforcement Officer. b. The need for code enforcement activity has increased significantly in East Pittsburgh Borough during the last several years. c. She was significantly involved in performance of administrative duties which would typically be completed by the Chief of Police when Cassidy served in that position. d. Payne completed various activities in relation to code enforcement duties for which no specific records were generated to document the activities (i.e. phone calls, property visits, proactive patrolling, etc.). e. She did not accept payment from East Pittsburgh Borough for any hours claimed which were not actually worked. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT PAYNE, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND CHIEF OF POLICE FOR EAST PITTSBURGH BOROUGH, FAILED TO FILE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2007. 29. Statement of Financial Interests filing requirements for public officials and public employees are mandated by Section 1104 of the State Ethics Act. st a. Payne was required to file Statements of Financial Interests by May 1 annually in her position as the Chief of Police for East Pittsburgh Borough and as the Borough Code Enforcement Officer. 30. A Statement of Financial Interests compliance review was conducted at the East Pittsburgh Borough Municipal Building on October 16, 2008. a. All Statements of Financial Interests on file at the Borough office were presented for review. 31. Payne had no Statements of Financial Interests on file with the Borough for calendar years 2003 through 2007 in relation to either her position as Code Enforcement Officer or Chief of Police at the time of the review. a. Payne was required to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2003 through 2007 as the Borough Code Enforcement Officer. b. Payne was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2007 as the Borough Chief of Police. 32. Lori Payne was never provided with Statement of Financial Interests forms by the Borough to file as Code Enforcement Officer. 33. Lori Payne was not provided with blank Statements of Financial Interests to complete as Police Chief, until or about January 2009. a. Lori Payne filed a Statement of Financial Interests as Police Chief for calendar year 2008. III.DISCUSSION: Payne, 08-064 Page 11 As Code Enforcement Officer of East Pittsburgh Borough (“Borough”), Allegheny County, from May 9, 1999, to the present, and as Borough Chief of Police from 2008 to the present, Respondent Lori Payne, hereinafter also referred to as “Respondent,” “Respondent Payne,” and “Payne,” has been a public official/public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. The allegations are that Payne violated Sections 1103(a) and 1104(a) of the Ethics Act: (1) when she used the authority of her office for private pecuniary gain when she submitted hours for compensation that she did not work; and (2) when she failed to file Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) as Code Enforcement Officer for the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years and as Chief of Police for the 2007 calendar year. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest: § 1103. Restricted activities (a)Conflict of interest.— No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a). The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official/public employee from using the authority of public office/employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official/public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each public official/public employee must file an SFI for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he leaves it. Payne, 08-064 Page 12 As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are set forth above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. Since May 9, 1999, Respondent Payne has been employed in various positions with the Borough Police Department (“EPPD”) and has served as the appointed Borough Code Enforcement Officer. Payne served as a Patrol Officer for EPPD from approximately May 10, 1999, through August 11, 2004, and was promoted to Sergeant effective August 12, 2004. Payne was formally appointed to the position of Chief of Police at the January 15, 2008, regular Council meeting. Payne did not formally begin serving as Chief of Police until approximately April 5, 2008. The duty of code enforcement for the Borough has been the responsibility of a Member of the EPPD since at least the mid-1990s. Officers performing code enforcement duties were not routinely assigned specific days or shifts during which to perform their duties. Officers performing code enforcement duties often performed those duties during their regularly assigned patrol schedules. As Borough Code Enforcement Officer, Payne is responsible, inter alia, for investigating citizen complaints, proactively searching for possible ordinance violations, issuing citations, and collecting amusement taxes. As Borough Chief of Police, Payne is responsible, inter alia, for office administration, scheduling officers, generating department policy, and conducting patrols/investigations. Per the Borough Code, a borough mayor is in charge of the chief of police and police force. 53 P.S. § 46121. Since January 5, 1998, Payne’s father, Louis Payne, has served as the Borough Mayor. Prior to 2009, Louis Payne, as Borough Mayor, was responsible, inter alia, for generating budget figures for the EPPD, scheduling all Police Officers, compiling the total number of hours worked by each individual Officer and documenting those hours on a payroll sheet, and approving and submitting payroll hours to the Borough Clerk for processing through the Turtle Creek Council of Governments. The parties have stipulated that the hours specified in each position/capacity are not necessarily accurate. While serving in each of her positions with the EPPD, Payne was routinely issued payment for hours worked in excess of those specifically documented on posted Police schedules. Louis Payne and/or Borough Council provided Payne the autonomy to claim whatever number of hours was necessary in order to complete her work as the Code Enforcement Officer and to work the necessary hours when convenient for her. Additionally, Louis Payne added hours to or subtracted hours from available patrol and code enforcement budget hours paid to Payne in order to have more budget flexibility in available patrol hours for remaining Officers. As Chief of Police, Payne assigned herself specific work days and shifts on posted Police schedules. Payne was not specifically scheduled to perform code enforcement functions on at least sixty-four schedules spanning the time frame of April 5, 2008, through August 23, 2009. However, Louis Payne and/or Borough Council continued to provide Payne the autonomy to claim whatever number of hours was necessary in order to complete her work as the Code Enforcement Officer and to work the necessary hours when convenient for her. No daily sign-in/sign-out logs exist prior to the April 19, 2008, payroll period. Payne, 08-064 Page 13 Payne’s sign-in/sign out logs for payroll periods beginning April 19, 2008, and concluding on August 31, 2009, document at least eighteen days for which no specific shift hours were noted in the sign-in/sign-out log. Payne’s presence was noted by her name and a checkmark in the log. Between late October 2003 and late August 2009, Payne was issued payment for a minimum of 6,876 hours of service from the line item documented in the Police Department budget for code enforcement. Payne received payment for approximately 2,823 hours from the code enforcement line item within the Police Department budget for which no specific records could be located to document code enforcement work completed. However, Payne routinely performed services in relation to her code enforcement duties which would not result in the generation of any specific records/documentation. Also, the parties have stipulated that although paid from the line item assigned to code enforcement, Payne may have performed actual patrol duties during hours for which no documentation could be located. In an interview with Commission investigators on October 13, 2009, Payne stated, inter alia, that she was given the autonomy to determine and work the number of hours necessary to complete her duties as Code Enforcement Officer, and that she did not accept payment from the Borough for any hours claimed which were not actually worked. With regard to Payne’s SFIs, an SFI compliance review was conducted at the Borough Municipal Building on October 16, 2008. At that time, Payne had no SFIs on file with the Borough for calendar years 2003 through 2007 in relation to either her position as Code Enforcement Officer or Chief of Police. Payne was required to file SFIs for calendar years 2003 through 2007 as the Borough Code Enforcement Officer. Payne was required to file an SFI for calendar year 2007 as the Borough Chief of Police. Payne filed an SFI as Chief of Police for calendar year 2008. Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations as follows: 3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation to the above allegations: a. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a), occurred in relation to the allegation that Payne submitted hours for compensation that she did not work. b. That unintentional violations of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a), occurred when Payne failed to file Statements of Financial Interests, as Code Enforcement Officer, for calendar years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007; and as Chief of Police for the 2007 calendar year. 4. Payne agrees to make payment in the amount of $250.00 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Payne, 08-064 Page 14 5. Payne agrees to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years, as the Code Enforcement Officer, and for calendar year 2007, as Police Chief, with East Pittsburgh Borough and forward copies to the State Ethics Commission for compliance purposes within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. 6. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to review this matter further. Consent Agreement, at 1-2. In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the recommendation of the parties for a finding that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to the allegation that Payne submitted hours for compensation that she did not work. Although the Stipulated Findings establish that Payne was routinely issued payment for hours that were not specifically documented on the posted Police schedules, and that Louis Payne added hours to or subtracted hours from available patrol and code enforcement budget hours paid to Payne in order to have more budget flexibility in available patrol hours for remaining Officers, the Stipulated Findings do not establish to what extent, if any, Payne may have received unauthorized compensation for hours not worked. Based upon the Stipulated Findings, we hold that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to the allegation that Payne submitted hours for compensation that she did not work. We further accept the recommendation of the parties that unintentional violations of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Payne failed to file SFIs as Code Enforcement Officer for calendar years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and as Chief of Police for the 2007 calendar year. Payne was required to file SFIs in her aforesaid capacities for the calendar years indicated. Although intent is not a requisite element of a violation of the Ethics Act, see, Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, 531 A.2d 536 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987), the parties are in agreement that the aforesaid violations were unintentional. We note that Payne has submitted an SFI to the Borough for calendar year 2008. We hold that unintentional violations of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Payne failed to file SFIs as Code Enforcement Officer for calendar years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and as Chief of Police for the 2007 calendar year. As part of the Consent Agreement, Payne has agreed to make payment in the amount of $250.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Payne, 08-064 Page 15 Payne has further agreed to file with the Borough SFIs for the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years, as the Code Enforcement Officer, and for calendar year 2007, as Police Chief, and to forward copies of all such filings to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter for compliance verification purposes. We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth a proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Payne is directed to make payment in the amount of $250.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and th forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Payne is directed to file with the Borough SFIs for the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years, as the Code Enforcement Officer, and for calendar year 2007, as Police Chief, and to forward copies of all such filings to this Commission by no later than th the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. As Code Enforcement Officer of East Pittsburgh Borough (“Borough”), Allegheny County, from May 9, 1999, to the present, and as Borough Chief of Police from 2008 to the present, Respondent Lori Payne (“Payne”) has been a public official/public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. Payne did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to the allegation that she submitted hours for compensation that she did not work. 3. Unintentional violations of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred when Payne failed to file Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) as Code Enforcement Officer for calendar years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and as Chief of Police for the 2007 calendar year. In Re: Lori Payne, : File Docket: 08-064 Respondent : Date Decided: 3/25/10 : Date Mailed: 4/9/10 ORDER NO. 1551 1. Lori Payne (“Payne”), a public official/public employee in her capacities as Code Enforcement Officer of East Pittsburgh Borough (“Borough”) from May 9, 1999, to the present, and as Borough Chief of Police from 2008 to the present, did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to the allegation that she submitted hours for compensation that she did not work. 2. Unintentional violations of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred when Payne failed to file Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) as Code Enforcement Officer for calendar years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and as Chief of Police for the 2007 calendar year. 3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Payne is directed to make payment in the amount of $250.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the th thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order. 4. Payne is directed to file with the Borough SFIs for the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years, as the Code Enforcement Officer, and for calendar year 2007, as Police Chief, and to forward copies of all such filings to the Pennsylvania State th Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order. 5. Compliance with Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Order will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. a. Non-compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, ___________________________ Louis W. Fryman, Chair