200 word response 1 reference/ intext citation from the internet
Due 2/22/2025
Marcelo
Explain how the public would lose confidence in the person who requested the opinion if that person failed to follow the opinion’s guidance (ie. would that hurt the agency’s reputation in the public’s eye and undermine government in general? why/why not)
The “Sunshine Amendment” – Article II, Section 8, Florida Constitution.
A) Does the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees or the Sunshine Amendment operate to prohibit a police officer from accepting a reduction in rent in exchange for part-time, off-duty services as a Courtesy Officer for the apartment complex offering the rent reduction?
In essence, the question is whether a police officer can receive a rent reduction for providing part-time off-duty security services for an apartment complex they reside in.
B) This question was posed by Stephen K. Aldrich who was the Chief of Police for the City of Holly Hill. He made this inquiry because an apartment complex within the City had requested to have a police officer reside at the property to serve as a Curtesy officer when off-duty. The City Police Department requires officers to disclose in-kind rent reductions on their federal income tax filings which prompted this request.
E) This inquiry was found to fall under Section 112.313(7)(a) of the Florida Statutes. This section sets the standards of conduct for public officers, employees of agencies, and local government attorneys. The opinion notes that the first clause of the subsection prohibits public officers or employees from being employed or having a contractual relationship with a business entity or an agency that is regulated or does business with their agency. The second part of the subsection prohibits a public officer or employee from having such a relationship that would create a continuous conflict of interest that would interfere with their ability to faithfully perform their job duties.
In the opinion of the commission, there is nothing wrong with officers accepting off-duty work as security guards with an entity that the officer’s agency does not regulate. They also stated that under subsections 2 and 4 of this statute, there was no indication that the officer solicited the rent reduction and that the reduction would have any bearing on any official action they might take. There was no evidence of the officer misusing their position to obtain a disproportionate benefit. Although the rent reduction may be a disproportionate benefit that is not available to the public at large the commission has generally found that an arm’s-length agreement for rent reduction is not itself a demonstration of wrongdoing. Without any evidence indicating that the officer has a wrongful intent to obtain this benefit, it is not a violation of the statute and can therefore receive the rent reduction by working as a Courtesy Officer.
