Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1316 McDowellIn Re: Jacqueline McDowell File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Daneen E. Reese Donald M. McCurdy Michael Healey Paul M. Henry Raquel K. Bergen 02- 068 -C2 Order No. 1316 March 11, 2004 March 26, 2004 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 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 allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was not filed and a hearing was waived. The record is complete. A Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings were submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulation of Findings is quoted as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement was subsequently approved. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998 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 Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Jacqueline McDowell, a public official /public employee, in her capacity as General Manager for Property Management Scattered Sites for the Philadelphia Housing Authority violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a), and 1105(b)(4) and (5) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law (65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq.) when she used the authority of herofficefor a private pecuniary gain, including but not limited to directing and /or utilizing authority employees to perform repairs and /or additions and improvements to her home, including but not limited to replacing windows, doors and installation of ceramic tile; and when she attempted to use her position to direct a subordinate employee to sell PHA owned property to her for a nominal figure of $1.00; and when she failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002; and when she failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years creditors, and sources of income in excess of $1,300. II. FINDINGS: 1. Jacqueline McDowell has served as General Manager for Scattered Sites for the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) since August 13, 1999. a. McDowell was employed prior to this position with a non - profit organization, Tenant Support Services, which is affiliated with the PHA. b. McDowell's current annual salary is approximately $95,000. 2. The PHA manages both scattered sites and conventional housing sites. a. Conventional Housing includes various high rise buildings containing apartments operated by the PHA. b. Scattered Sites housing includes those units which would include individual row homes located on numerous sites throughout the City of Philadelphia. 3. Prior to August 13, 1999, the duties and responsibilities for the scattered sites program rested with the General Manager of Housing Operations. a. The General Manager of Housing Operations had responsibility for both scattered sites and conventional sites. b. The PHA at the direction of Executive Director Carl Greene later divided the position into two jobs, one position identified as General Manager for Scattered Sites and the other as General Manager for Conventional Sites. c. McDowell was selected for the position of General Manager for Scattered Sites at an annual salary of $87,000. 4. McDowell's duties and responsibilities include oversight of the PHA's approximate 6,400 row homes and supervision of nearly 60 employees. 5. Included as part of the scattered sites division of housing operations is the Home Ownership Division. a. McDowell supervised this division from August 13, 1999, to December 2001. 6. In 2000 and 2001 the Home Ownership Division consisted of three employees: Luz Paradoa Program Manager Joseph Cornell Asset Manager McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 3 Sheila Arrington Administrative Assistant 7. The Housing Ownership Division of the Scattered Sites Operation included responsibilities for overseeing the collection of rent, property management and oversight for the sale of PHA properties. 8. In 1984, with revisions in 1996, the PHA developed a home ownership program known as 5(b) Demonstration Plan with the intent to sell 300 of its scattered sites properties. a. The 5(h) plan refers to federal regulations of HUD. b. A 5(h) plan, approved by HUD, is written when a public housing authority creates a home ownership plan to provide home ownership opportunities for residents of public housing. c. PHA's 5(h) plan provides that homes may be sold to residents who currently live in those homes, or to other PHA residents participating in the Scattered Sites program. d. Eligibility for home ownership under PHA's 5(h) program requires an applicant to be a resident of public housing for a minimum of 30 days and be capable of assuming the financial obligations of home ownership. e. The sale price of homes will be based on affordability to the purchaser and in no instance will the price exceed the appraised fair market value. 9. PHA's 5(h) Home Ownership Program has been administered by the Home Ownership Division. a. McDowell had ultimate supervisory responsibility for this division and its programs. 10. Luz Paradoa has been employed by the PHA since March 17, 2000. a. In 2000 and 2001 Paradoa served as Program Manager for the Turnkey III program and 5(h) plans. b. Paradoa reported directly to McDowell in 2000 and 2001. 11. Joseph Cornell was employed by the PHA as the Asset Manager for Home Ownership Office from at least the summer of 2000 until resigning effective March 8, 2002. a. Paradoa was Cornell's immediate supervisor. 12. William Santiago was employed by the PHA from April 1988 until January 2001 in Property Management /Asset Management. a. Jacqueline McDowell was the director of this division. b. Luz Paradoa was his immediate supervisor. 13. McDowell has been a resident of 617 North 55 Street, a PHA Scattered Site property since October 1972. a. McDowell is paying the maximum rent of $531 per month along with a subsidy of $250 /month for utilities. 14. In or about the summer of 2000, McDowell, on two occasions, discussed with McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 4 Santiago, a subordinate employee, the prospect of purchasing her home at 617 North 55 Street. a. During the second conversation Santiago informed McDowell of some of the steps in the process including that an appraisal would be done to determine the value of the property. b. McDowell responded to Santiago that she wanted to buy the property for one dollar. c. Santiago laughed but never did anything regarding McDowell's statement. 1. Santiago did not know if McDowell was serious about purchasing the property for a dollar. 15. McDowell had additional discussions with PHA subordinate employees regarding the purchase of her property during the late summer of 2000. a. By this time both Paradoa and Cornell were employed by PHA. 1. Paradoa was Cornell's immediate supervisor. 16. As a result of McDowell's inquiries to purchase the property, Cornell ordered an appraisal. a. The appraisal was performed by the Add Valuation Group, an independent appraiser used by the PHA. 17. On September 13, 2000, Add Valuation Group provided Cornell with an appraisal of the McDowell property of $21,000. a. Cornell subsequently provided McDowell with the appraisal. 18. In or about October 2000 Paradoa discussed with McDowell the rules and regulations governing the 5(h) program. a. Paradoa advised McDowell the sales price was determined to be the $21,000 amount set by the independent appraiser. b. McDowell questioned whether other potential home buyers under the 5(h) program were purchasing their homes for $1.00, and if so, she wanted to buy her house for $1.00. c. Paradoa informed McDowell the program rules require that she pay the appraised value. 19. During this time frame, other residents of the Scattered Sites Program were making offers on homes less than the appraised price. a. Residents wanted to purchase their properties for less than the appraised value because of the amount of work they put into their properties. b. Some of these residents were using their funds and labor to maintain dwellings owned by the PHA. c. Residents wanted credit for their labors. d. McDowell was aware residents were making these types of offers. McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 5 20. From October 2000 to November 2001, McDow discussed with subordinate staff her desire to purchase the property at 617 North 55` Street. a. McDowell attended a meeting along with Paradoa, Cornell and Santiago during which her purchase of the property was discussed. 1. The meeting occurred after the appraisal of September 13, 2000, was obtained. b. McDowell stated to the group that she wanted to purchase the property for $1.00. 1. Cornell believed the offer was made in jest. 2. Paradoa and Santiago believed McDowell's offer was serious. c. McDowell was aware others were offering $1.00 for their properties and wanted the same consideration. 21. After receiving the appraisal on or about September 13, 2000, Santiago discussed with McDowell payment options. a. McDowell told Santiago that she had $10,000 and did not want to take out a loan. b. Santiago reaffirmed to McDowell that the price was $21,000 and no adjustments could be made. c. No action was taken by Santiago on McDowell's offer. 22. During this period in September to November 2000, McDowell made inquiries of subordinate staff to buy the property for less than the appraised value. a. In or about October 2001 McDowell again questioned the Home Ownership staff about the appraised price of $21,000. b. McDowell advised staffers that she received information that some neighboring properties were being sold in the $16,000 to $17,000 price range. 23. McDowell had separate conversations during mid to late October 2001 with Paradoa, Cornell and Malvin Reyes, PHA Asset Manager. a. During the conversations McDowell offered to pay $16,000 for the property. 1. McDowell also asked Reyes if $16,000 was a fair price for the property. 2. Reyes was unfamiliar with the 5(h) program at the time, and informed McDowell that she needed to follow the program guidelines. b. Cornell did not respond or take any action to McDowell's offer. c. Paradoa informed McDowell if she was dissatisfied with the appraisal, she (McDowell) could independently appraise the property. 24. McDowell continued to attempt to purchase the property but contends that she was attempting to purchase the property at no more than what other residents were offering for their properties. McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 6 25. Neither Paradoa nor any other employee in Paradoa's unit took any further actions with regard to McDowell's property. 26. McDowell anc[ Paradoa disagreed over McDowell's intent to purchase the property at 617 North 55 Street. a. Paradoa believed McDowell wanted the property at less than appraised price. b. McDowell asserts she wanted the property at a price others were paying. 27. In or about November 5, 2001, McDowell initiated an action to demote Paradoa. a. McDowell sought to have Paradoa demoted from Turnkey III Program Manager (salary of $60,407.04) to Asset Manager I (Salary of $44,302.92). 1. McDowell's reason for terminating Paradoa was substandard performance. 2. McDowell wanted to promote Reyes who worked for the PHA for less than one month. b. McDowell also issued a reprimand to Paradoa on December 5, 2001. c. No action was ever taken by the PHA regarding McDowell's attempt to demote /terminate Paradoa. 28. During November 2001 when McDowell was attempting to purchase her home, McDowell also had an inspection of her home by PHA employees. a. Paradoa contacted Keith Caldwell, Area Manager for Scattered Sites, on November 23, 2001, to arrange the inspection. 1. McDowell had requested the inspection. b. The inspection was conducted pursuant to HUD regulations which require inspections to determine if any dangerous or potentially dangerous conditions exist. 1. In a sworn statement provided to Commission investigators, Caldwell asserted that the inspection was not related to McDowell's offer to purchase the property. c. McDowell's property was inspected on November 30, 2001, by Keith Caldwell. d. Caldwell's inspection noted the following deficiencies eligible for repair: 1. Secure foyer tiles 2. Kitchen — replace exterior storm door 3. Bedroom #3 — replace broken window and screen 29. On December 3, 2001, during a meeting with Paradoa, McDowell received atele hone call from William Lawrence, PHA Building Maintenance Superintendent, who informed McDowell that he could not match the tiles in the foyer. a. Lawrence told McDowell she could go to Home Depot to pick out new tile. McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 7 b. McDowell then instructed Paradoa to get information from Caldwell to get the tiles. c. Caldwell's inspection report did not specify that tiles be replaced. 30. On December 4, 2001, Paradoa authored a memo to McDowell regarding McDowell's request to purchase the property at 617 North 55 Street. a. Paradoa's memo highlighted that she felt uncomfortable with McDowell's approach to Paradoa and her staff to purchase the property at less than the appraised price. b. Paradoa's memo also noted that the repairs as indicated on the inspection report of November 30, 2001, were not necessary as the appraisal done on September 3, 2001 [sic], did not conclude that such repairs were needed. c. Paradoa's memo noted that other properties were waiting for repairs much longer than McDowell and that getting repairs done timely has always been a problem. d. Paradoa summarized her concerns as having been put in an inappropriate situation by her supervisors concerning the sale of McDowell's home. e. One day later, on December 5, 2001, McDowell issued a written reprimand to Paradoa. 31. Paradoa's memo was also sent to Carl Greene, PHA Executive Director. a. The PHA subsequently contracted with the law firm of Blank, Rome, Comiskey and McCauly to conduct an internal investigation into the 5(h) Home Ownership Program, including allegations of misconduct by McDowell. 32. On or about April 4, 2002, Blank, Rome, Comiskey and McCauly issued its findings and recommendations which included the following: a. PHA should issue a written response to Paradoa's memo. b. Rescind written reprimand issued to Paradoa on December 5, 2001. c. Reprimand McDowell for violating PHA's personnel and disciplinary policies. 33. The PHA on May 22, 2002, request [sic] a waiver from HUD to permit the sale of the property at 617 North 55 Street to McDowell. a. HUD's response of August 23, 2002, noted that: 1. Due to the uncertainty as whether the sale would violate the PA Housing Authority Law of 1937 (HAL), HUD suggested that PHA obtain a PA Attorney General opinion on the matter before HUD can consider the waiver. 2. The issue was whether McDowell would exercise any responsibilities or functions to the home ownership contract to which the waiver pertains. HUD noted that, "McDowell in her capacity would formulate and influence decisions regarding the disposition of scattered site properties." HUD requested the PHA identify steps in the 5(h) program as well as staff involved in making decisions over which scattered sites McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 8 will be sold. The chain of command for all the procedural steps and decisions must be clearly identified in order to address the issue." b. In October 2002, the Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll law firm, on behalf of PHA, advised HUD the Office of Attorney General could not provide an opinion regarding HAL. The letter further advised that applicable state law would not prohibit the sale. c. HUD responded on November 1, 2002, directing the PHA to seek an opinion from the State Ethics Commission before a waiver could be considered. 34. McDowell has not yet purchased the property at 617 North 55 Street from the PHA but continues to reside there. 35. In her position as General Manager for Scattered Sites, McDowell is required to file Statements of Financial Interests (SFI). a. McDowell was required to file SFIs for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 calendar years. b. The forms are mandated to be filed by May 1 of the following years. c. Forms were due to be filed by May 1, 2000; May 1, 2001; and May 1, 2002. 36. The responsibility of notifying McDowell and other PHA employees of similar positions of the Statement of Financial Interests filing requirements is the responsibility of the PHA Office of General Counsel. a. The Office of General Counsel did not always provide consistent instruction to McDowell and other PHA employees regarding filing requirements. 1. Not all employees required to file did so based on direction from the Office of General Counsel. b. In 1999, 2000 and 2001, McDowell was not certain that she was required to file Statements of Financial Interests. 37. Records of the PHA, Department of Human Resources, confirm that McDowell filed Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1999 and 2000. a. Both forms signed by McDowell were dated October 29, 2001. 1. The form for calendar year 1999 was required to be filed by May 1, 2000. 2. The form for calendar year 2000 was required to be filed by May 1, 2001. 38. A Statements of Financial Interests compliance review conducted by the State Ethics Commission on or about June 29, 2002, confirmed that McDowell did not fully disclose all financial interests as required. a. McDowell did not disclose on line 10 of the forms filed for 1999 and 2000 any direct or indirect sources of income. 1. McDowell was employed by PHA during 1999 and 2000 and earned in excess of $1,300 each year. McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 9 b. On November 26, 2003, McDowell, through her counsel, submitted forms for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years dated October 29, 2001, both of which listed the Philadelphia Housing Authority as a direct or indirect source of income in excess of $1,300. 39. The compliance review of Statements of Financial Interests confirmed that Jacqueline McDowell did not file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002. III. DISCUSSION: Respondent Jacqueline McDowell (also referred to herein as "Respondent" or "McDowell') has at all times relevant to these proceedings been a public official /public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which Act is referred to herein as the "Ethics Act." The allegations are that McDowell, as General Manager for Property Management Scattered Sites for the Philadelphia Housing Authority (also referred to herein as 'PHA "), violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a), and 1105(b)(4) and (5) of the Ethics Act when she used the authority of her office for a private pecuniary gain, including but not limited to directing and /or utilizing authority employees to perform repairs and /or additions and improvements to her home, including but not limited to replacing windows, doors and installation of ceramic tile; and when she attempted to use her position to direct a subordinate employee to sell PHA owned property to her for a nominal figure of $1.00; when she failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002; and when she failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years creditors, and sources of income in excess of $1,300. 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. McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 10 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 requires that each public official /public employee file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year, each year that the position is held and the year after leaving it: § 1104. Statement of financial interests required to be filed (a) Public official or public employee. - -Each public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public employee and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the department, agency, body or bureau in which he is employed or to which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Any other public employee or public official shall file a statement of financial interests with the governing authority of the political subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Persons who are full -time or part -time solicitors for political subdivisions are required to file under this section. 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a). Sections 1105(b)(4) and (5) of the Ethics Act provide as follows: § 1105. Statement of financial interests (b) Required information. - -The statement shall include the following information for the prior calendar year with regard to the person required to file the statement: (4) The name and address of each creditor to whom is owed in excess of $6,500 and the interest rate thereon. However, loans or credit extended between members of the immediate family and mortgages securing real property which is the principal or secondary residence of the person filing shall not be included. (5) The name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more. However, this provision shall not be construed to require the divulgence of confidential information protected by statute or existing professional codes of ethics or common law privileges. McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 11 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1105(b)(4), (5). Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act requires that the filer list the name and address of each creditor to whom is owed in excess of $6,500 and the interest rate on each debt owed to such creditors. Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act requires that the filer list the name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are reproduced above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. Since August 13, 1999, Respondent McDowell has served as PHA's General Manager for Property Management Scattered Sites. As part of her official duties, from August 13, 1999, to December 2001, Respondent supervised the PHA Home Ownership Division and specifically the sale of PHA properties through a HUD - related program known as the "5(h) Home Ownership Program." Under the PHA's 5(h) Home Ownership Program, an applicant for home ownership must be a resident of public housing for a minimum of 30 days and must be capable of assuming the financial obligations of home ownership. The sale price of homes is based upon affordability to the purchaser and may not exceed the appraised fair market value. Since October 1972, Respondent has been a resident of a PHA Scattered Site property located at 617 North 55 Street. Commencing in or about the summer of 2000, Respondent engaged in numerous discussions with various subordinate PHA employees regarding her desire to purchase this property from the PHA. Subordinate William Santiago, an employee of the Property Management /Asset Management Division, informed Respondent that an appraisal would be done to determine the value of the property. Respondent told Santiago that she wanted to buy the property for one dollar. Santiago laughed but did not know whether Respondent was serious. In September 2000, an independent appraiser appraised the property at $21,000. The appraisal was provided to Respondent. Thereafter, Santiago discussed payment options with Respondent. Respondent told Santiago that she had $10,000 and did not want to take out a loan. Santiago reaffirmed to Respondent that the price was $21,000 and that no adjustments could be made. In or about October 2000 another of Res ondent's subordinates, Luz Paradoa, Program Manager for the Turnkey III program and 5 h) plans, discussed with Respondent the rules and regulations governing the 5 (h) Home wnership Program. Paradoa advised Respondent that the sales price was determined to be the $21,000 amount set by the independent appraiser. Respondent questioned whether other potential homebuyers under the Program were purchasing their homes for $1.00, and indicated that if they were, she wanted to buy her house for $1.00. Paradoa informed Respondent that the Program rules required that she (Respondent) pay the appraised value. At some point between October 2000 and November 2001, Respondent attended a meeting with Paradoa, Santiago, and another subordinate, Joseph Cornell, Asset Manager for the PHA Home Ownership Office, at which meeting Respondent stated to the group that she wanted to purchase the property at 617 North 55 Street for $1.00. Cornell believed that the offer was made in jest, but Paradoa and Santiago believed Respondent's offer was serious. Per the stipulated Findings, Respondent was aware that there were other 5(h) Home Ownership Program applicants who were offering $1.00 for their properties, and Respondent wanted the same consideration. McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 12 In or about October 2001 Respondent again questioned the Home Ownership Division staff regarding the appraised price of $21,000. Respondent advised staffers that she received information that some neighboring properties were being sold in the price range of $16,000 to $17,000. During mid to late October 2001 Respondent held separate conversations with Paradoa, Cornell, and Malvin Reyes, the new PHA Asset Manager. During these conversations, Respondent offered to pay $16,000 for the property. Respondent asked Reyes if $16,000 was a fair price for the property. Reyes, who at that time was unfamiliar with PHA's 5(h) Home Ownership Program, told Respondent that she needed to follow the Program guidelines. Cornell did not respond or take any action. Paradoa informed Respondent that if she was dissatisfied with the appraisal, she (Respondent) could have the property independently appraised. On or about November 5, 2001, Respondent initiated an action to demote Paradoa due to alleged substandard performance. On November 30, 2001, at Respondent's request and pursuant to HUD regulations, PHA employees inspected Respondent's home to determine whether any dangerous or potentially dangerous conditions existed. The inspection noted only three deficiencies eligible for repair: (1) securing foyer tiles; (2) replacing an exterior storm door in the kitchen; and (3) replacing a broken window and screen in a bedroom. On December 3, 2001, the PHA Building Maintenance Superintendent informed Respondent that he could not match the tiles in the foyer and that Respondent could go to Home Depot to pick out new tile. Respondent then instructed Paradoa to get information from the inspector with respect to getting the tiles. The inspection report had not specified that tiles be replaced. On December 4, 2001, Paradoa authored a memo to Respondent indicating, interalia, that she felt uncomfortable with Respondent's approach to Paradoa and her staff to purchase the property at 617 North 55 Street at less than the appraised price, and that the repairs indicated on the inspection report of November 30, 2001, were not necessary per the prior appraisal. On the following day, December 5, 2001, Respondent issued a written reprimand to Paradoa. Paradoa's memo was sent to the PHA Executive Director. The PHA subsequently arranged for an internal investigation into the 5(h) Home Ownership Program, including allegations of misconduct by Respondent. See, Findings 31 -32. On May 22, 2002 the PHA requested a waiver from HUD to permit the sale of the property at 617 North 55 Street to Respondent. HUD suggested that PHA first obtain an opinion from the Pennsylvania Attorney General, due to Respondent's official involvement. When an opinion could not be obtained from the Pennsylvania Attorney General, HUD directed the PHA to seek an opinion from the State Ethics Commission before a waiver could be considered. Respondent has not yet purchased the property at 617 North 55 Street from the PHA, but she continues to reside there. Finally, as PHA's General Manager for Scattered Sites, Respondent was required to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 calendar years by May 1, 2000, May 1, 2001, and May 1, 2002, respectively. Respondent filed Statements of Financial Interests dated October 29, 2001,for calendar years 1999 and 2000. Respondent did not file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002. On the 1999 and 2000 calendar year forms, Respondent did not disclose any direct or indirect sources of income on line 10 of the forms, despite being employed by PHA during 1999 and 2000 and earning in excess of $1,300 each year. On November 26, 2003, Respondent, through her counsel, submitted forms for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years listing the PHA as a direct or indirect source of income in excess of $1,300. McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 13 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. The Consent Agreement proposes that this Commission find: (1) no violation of Section 1103(a ) of the Ethics Act regarding the allegation that Respondent directed PHA employees to repair tile, windows and doors on her home; (2) an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to the offers Respondent made to subordinate staff of the PHA to purchase a PHA owned property for less than the appraised value; (3) no violation of Section 1105(b)(4)* of the Ethics Act, in that Respondent did not have creditors owed in excess of $6,500 required to be reported; (4) a technical violation of Section 1105(b)(5)* of the Ethics Act as to Respondent's failure to disclose a source of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, which forms have already been amended; (5) a technical violation of Section 1104 of the Ethics Act as to the late filing of Statements of Financial Interests by Respondent for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years; and (6) a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act as to Respondent's failure to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002. ( *The Consent Agreement inverted the citations for items three and four above, which errors we have corrected). As art of the Consent Agreement, Respondent has agreed to make payment in the amount of $500.00 in settlement of this matter, with said amount to be 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. In considering the Consent Agreement, it is clear that the elements for a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act do not exist regarding the allegation that Respondent directed PHA employees to repair tile, windows and doors on her home. Per the stipulated Findings, the repairs occurred as the result of an inspection performed pursuant to HUD regulations. Furthermore, Respondent was and continues to be a mere tenant in the home, which is owned by the PHA. Therefore, based upon the stipulated Findings, we shall accept the parties' negotiated agreement that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred regarding the allegation that Respondent directed PHA employees to repair tile, windows and doors on her home. We also agree with the parties that, based upon the stipulated Findings, an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Respondent made offers to subordinate staff of the PHA to purchase a PHA owned property for less than the appraised value. Under the facts and circumstances detailed above, Respondent's intgractions with subordinate staff as to her proposed purchase of the property at 617 North 55 Street constituted uses of the authority of Respondent's public position. Respondent's official actions were directed to securing a private pecuniary benefit for Respondent, specifically, ownership of the property at far less than the appraised fair market value. See, Taylor, Order 983. Intent is not a requisite element for a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. See, e.q., Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, 531 A.2d 536 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). Nevertheless, we find that the aforesaid violation was unintentional. While we do not condone Respondent's conduct, based upon the stipulated Findings it would appear that Respondent's intentions were to secure the property under terms that she believed might have been extended to other PHA 5(h) Home Ownership Program applicants. Accordingly, we conclude that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Respondent made off to subordinate staff of the PHA to purchase the PHA owned property at 617 North 55 Street for less than the appraised value. Based upon the stipulated Findings, there was no violation of Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act by Respondent as alleged, in that Respondent did not have creditors owed in McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 14 excess of $6,500 that were required to be reported on her 1999 and 2000 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests. A technical violation of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act occurred as to Respondent's failure to disclose the PHA as a source of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, which forms have already been amended. A technical violation is appropriate given that anyone reviewing the forms would likely have assumed that the PHA, as Respondent's governmental employer, was a source of income for her. We also find that a technical violation of Section 1104 of the Ethics Act occurred by Respondent's late filing of Statements of Financial Interests for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years. By law, these forms were due to be filed by May 1, 2000, and May 1, 2001, respectively, but in fact, they were not filed until October 29, 2001. Finally, we find that a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Respondent failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002. Once again, Respondent failed to meet the legally prescribed deadline. We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth the proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, Respondent McDowell is directed to make payment in the amount of $500.00 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Order. Additionally, if she has not already done so, Respondent is directed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2001 with the PHA and to forward a copy verifying the filing to this Commission within 30 days of the mailing date of this 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. Jacqueline McDowell ( "McDowell "), as General Manager for Scattered Sites for the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA), is a public official /public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. No violation of Section 1103(a ) of the Ethics Act occurred regarding the allegation that McDowell directed PHA employees to repair tile, windows and doors on the PHA - owned home that she rented. 3. An unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when McDowell made offers to subordinate staff of the PHA to purchase a PHA owned property for less than the appraised value. 4. There was no violation of Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act by McDowell as alleged, in that McDowell did not have creditors owed in excess of $6,500 that were required to be reported on her 1999 and 2000 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests. 5. A technical violation of Section 1105(b)(5) occurred when McDowell failed to disclose the PHA as a source of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, which forms were later amended. 6. A technical violation of Section 1104 of the Ethics Act occurred by the late filing of Statements of Financial Interests by McDowell for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, which forms were due to be filed by May 1, 2000, and May 1, 2001, respectively. McDowell 02- 068 -C2 Page 15 7. A violation of Section 1104(a) occurred when McDowell failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002. In Re: Jacqueline McDowell ORDER NO. 1316 File Docket: 02- 068 -C2 Date Decided: March 11, 2004 Date Mailed: March 26, 2004 1. Jacqueline McDowell ( "McDowell "), a ublic official /public employee in her capacity as General Manager for Scattered Sites for the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA), did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act regarding the allegation that she directed PHA employees to repair tile, windows and doors on the PHA -owned home that she rented. 2. McDowell unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she made offers to subordinate staff of the PHA to purchase a PHA owned property for less than the appraised value. 3. McDowell did not violate Section 1105(b)(4) of the Ethics Act as alleged, in that McDowell did not have creditors owed in excess of $6,500 that were required to be reported on her 1999 and 2000 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests. 4. A technical violation of Section 1105(b)(5) occurred when McDowell failed to disclose the PHA as a source of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, which forms were later amended. 5. A technical violation of Section 1104 of the Ethics Act occurred by the late filing of Statements of Financial Interests by McDowell for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, which forms were due to be filed by May 1, 2000, and May 1, 2001, respectively. 6. McDowell violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when she failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002. 7. If she has not already done so, McDowell is directed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2001 with the PHA and to forward a copy verifying the filing to this Commission within 30 days of the mailing date of this Order. 8. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, McDowell is directed to make payment in the amount of $500.00 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Order. a. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. b. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair