Panel details ethics violation
The State Ethics Commission has determined that Fayette County Housing Authority Chairwoman Angela Zimmerlink committed “an unintentional/technical violation of the (ethics) act” in voting on Section 8 voucher payments that went to her estranged father. Zimmerlink, also the chairwoman of the county commissioners, agreed to pay $250 to settle the matter. An ethics commission filing indicated that Zimmerlink in 2003 relied on the opinion of FCHA solicitor John Purcell, who indicated that because she did not have an interest in her father’s Section 8 housing she could vote on approving payment voucher lists for program landlords.
“As an effort to resolve the matter … I agreed to a nominal monetary resolution only because I was informed that an amount would have to be paid regardless of the way in which the matter finally came to resolution,” Zimmerlink said via a press release.
“While the outcome may not be to the benefit of the person or persons who filed this unfounded allegation, it did bring to light that FCHA management and legal staff have, for years, failed to follow and understand some of the HUD regulations,” she continued.
Zimmerlink said she believes that the report was politically motivated because the allegation was timed to occur during an election year. Zimmerlink said that the ethics commission “carried out their responsibility and ruled on an allegation filed against me by a person or persons who still remain anonymous.”
“I knew that making decisions in the best interest of the taxpayers would upset the bureaucrats and politicians, and I expected that they would seek vengeance but I will not let their tactics affect the way in which I make my decisions,” Zimmerlink wrote.
The Section 8 program provides rental assistance to eligible low-income families through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Zimmerlink’s father, Robert M. Keill, applied to be a Section 8 landlord in August 2002. Keill, according to the commission findings, received monthly payments from the FCHA as a Section 8 landlord from October 2002 through August 2005.
The ethics commission finding indicated that Zimmerlink and her father have been estranged for a number of years, and that Keill filed a Section 8 landlord application in August 2002 for a Connellsville rental property. Under Section 8, tenants apply for and receive a rent voucher from the FCHA, and are free to shop around for a willing landlord of their own choosing.
The filing stated that until July 2003, Zimmerlink did not know her father was a Section 8 landlord and that she was voting to approve his payment vouchers – along with dozens of other Section 8 landlords on the voucher list. The situation came to light when Keill’s tenant told an FCHA employee that he was Zimmerlink’s father. The finding indicated that Keill did not know Zimmerlink was on the board because the two had not had contact for several ears.
Zimmerlink publicly disclosed the connection during a July 2003 FCHA meeting and said she would abstain from voting on Section 8 vouchers, but Purcell said that was unnecessary because she had no interest in the property. In a press release, Zimmerlink noted that she immediately informed the public once she realized her father was a landlord with the Section 8 program.
Relying in part on that opinion, from July 2003 through May 2005 Zimmerlink continued to vote on Section 8 voucher payments to landlords, a mass approval of all payments that is a routine part of every FCHA monthly meeting.
The payments to Keill in that nearly two-year period totaled just over $7,000, but the commission findings noted, “Zimmerlink did not personally benefit from any payments made to Robert Keill.”
HUD investigated and found in April 2005 that Keill could not be a Section 8 landlord as long as Zimmerlink was on the FCHA board because it was a conflict of interest.