IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

State Ethics Commission, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Elvera Honore, : No. 4 M.D. 2015

Respondent : Heard: November 2, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: November 3, 2016

Before this Court is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Ethics 

Commission’s (Commission) Motion for Adjudication of Civil Contempt (Motion)

against Elvera Honore (Honore). Honore did not file an answer or other responsive 

pleading.

Honore, a Department of Human Services, Income Maintenance 

Caseworker, is a public employee required to file a Statement of Financial Interests 

(SFI) by May 1, 2013 pursuant to Sections 1104 and 1105 of the Public Official and 

Employee Ethics Act (Ethics Act),

1

65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1104, 1105. Honore did not file 

 

1

The original Ethics Act, Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 883, 65 P.S. §§ 

401–413, was reenacted in 1989. The 1989 act was then repealed and 

replaced by the current act enacted in 1998. A financial interest 

statement must be filed on a form prescribed by the Commission. 

Section 1105(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(a). Any person 

who fails to file a financial interest statement commits a misdemeanor 

and, upon conviction, is sentenced to pay a fine up to $1000 or to 

serve imprisonment for up to one year, or both. Section 1109(b) of 

the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1109(b). In addition, the Commission 

may assess a civil penalty of not more than $25 a day, up to a total of 
2

her SFI by May 1, 2013. By September 23, 2013 letter, the Commission notified 

Honore that she could avoid civil penalties for failing to file the SFI, if she filed it 

within 20 days.2 By November 4, 2013 letter, the Commission again notified Honore 

that she could avoid civil penalties by filing her SFI within 20 days. Due to her 

continued failure to comply with the Commission’s notices, on October 6, 2014, the 

Commission issued a final adjudication ordering Honore to file her 2012 SFI and pay 

a $250.00 civil penalty by the 30th day after the mailing date of the order. The final 

adjudication was mailed to Honore’s known address and warned that her “[f]ailure to 

comply with . . . [the o]rder will result in the initiation of an appropriate enforcement 

action.” Commission Pet. to Enforce Ex. A. Honore did not appeal from the 

Commission’s order, nor did she timely respond on or before November 5, 2014. 

On January 5, 2015, the Commission filed a petition for enforcement of 

its administrative order with this Court. By January 8, 2015 order, this Court directed 

the Commission to serve the order upon Honore and Honore to answer the petition by 

January 23, 2015, and scheduled a hearing for January 28, 2015. Due to the 

Commission’s difficulties effectuating personal service on Honore of the enforcement 

petition and this Court’s order, the Commission requested a general continuance of 

the hearing, which this Court granted on January 26, 2015.

On April 23, 2015, the Commission filed a praecipe with this Court to 

schedule the previously-continued enforcement hearing, reflecting that the sheriff was 

able to serve the enforcement petition upon an adult at Honore’s known address on 

March 3, 2015. Accordingly, on April 27, 2015, this Court ordered the Commission 

to serve the order upon Honore and ordered Honore to answer the enforcement 

___________________________________________________

$250, for the time that the statement remains delinquent. Section 

1109(f) of the Ethics Act; 51 Pa.Code § 19.3(e).

Quaglia v. State Ethics Comm’n, 986 A.2d 974, 976 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

2

This notice and all others thereafter, were mailed to Honore’s only known address and 

were not returned.
3

petition by May 21, 2015, and scheduled the enforcement hearing for May 28, 2015. 

According to a proof of service filed with this Court on April 30, 2015, the 

Commission served Honore with the Court’s April 27, 2015 order by first class mail.

On May 28, 2015, this Court granted the Commission’s enforcement 

petition, stating:

NOW, this 28th day of May, 2015, following a hearing on 

[the Commission’s] Petition for Enforcement of a Final 

Administrative Order . . . , the Court being satisfied that 

[Honore] has been duly served with the petition and notice 

of the hearing despite her failure to appear at the hearing 

and satisfied that [the Commission] has established its right 

to the requested relief, it is hereby ordered that:

1. Judg[]ment in the amount of $250.00 plus court 

costs and service of process fees in the amount of 

$231.50, for a total judg[]ment amount of $481.50, 

is hereby entered against [Honore] and in favor of 

the [Commission].

2. [Honore] shall complete and file her [SFI] for the 

2012 calendar year directly with the [Commission]

within and no later than 30 days from the date of 

this Order.

3. [Honore] shall forward to [the Commission]

within and no later than thirty (30) days from the 

date of this Order, payment by cash, check, or 

money order, in the amount of $250.00, payable to 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, plus court 

costs and service of process fees in the amount of 

$231.50, payable to the [Commission], for a total 

amount of $481.50.

4. In the event [Honore] fails to comply with this 

Order, [the Commission] may return to this Court 

and petition the Court to order [Honore] to appear 

and show cause why she may not be adjudged in 

civil contempt.

5. [The Commission] shall serve this Order upon 

[Honore] and file a Proof of Service with this Court.
4

May 28, 2015 Order. According to a proof of service filed with this Court on June 3, 

2015, the Commission served Honore with the Court’s May 28, 2015 order by first 

class mail. Shortly thereafter, Honore submitted her 2012 SFI to the Commission,3

but failed to pay the assessed penalties, fees and costs.

On September 26, 2016, the Commission filed the Motion requesting 

this Court to issue an order to show cause requiring Honore to appear, answer and 

show cause why she should not be held in civil contempt for violating the Court’s 

May 28, 2015 order, and an order holding Honore in civil contempt and confining her 

until such time as she complies with her financial obligations. The Motion notified 

Honore to respond within 20 days of the Motion, or such other date as this Court shall 

impose.

On September 28, 2016, this Court ordered the Commission to serve the 

order upon Honore and ordered Honore to answer the Motion by October 26, 2016, 

and scheduled a hearing on the Motion for November 2, 2016. According to a proof 

of service filed with this Court on September 30, 2016, the Commission served 

Honore with the Court’s September 28, 2016 order by first class mail. Honore did 

not file an answer to the Motion, she did not attend the November 2, 2016 hearing, 

and she has not paid the penalties, fees and costs. At the November 2, 2016 hearing, 

the Commission’s Assistant Counsel Jeffery Frankenburger (Attorney 

Frankenburger) advised the Court that Honore had telephoned him on October 3, 

2016 and, after being informed that the Commission could not remove the monies she 

owed from her Commonwealth paycheck, stated that she did not intend to pay the 

penalties, fees and costs. Attorney Frankenburger further informed the Court that,

during his telephone conversation with Honore, he reminded her of this Court’s 

scheduled November 2, 2016 hearing which she had been ordered to attend. 

 

3 Honore’s 2012 SFI was dated April 27, 2015.
5

The Commission has the burden of proving an Ethics Act violation. 

Kistler v. State Ethics Comm’n, 958 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), aff’d, 22 A.3d 

223 (Pa. 2011). This Court has declared that income maintenance caseworkers, like 

Honore, are public employees subject to the Ethics Act’s SFI filing requirements. 

Quaglia v. State Ethics Comm’n, 986 A.2d 974 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Section 1104 of 

the Ethics Act states, in pertinent part:

(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. . . . 

. . . .

(d) Failure to file required statement.--No public official 

shall be allowed to take the oath of office or enter or 

continue upon his duties, nor shall he receive compensation 

from public funds, unless he has filed a statement of 

financial interests as required by this chapter.

(e) Public inspection and copying.--All statements of 

financial interests filed pursuant to the provisions of this 

chapter shall be made available for public inspection and 

copying during regular office hours, and copying facilities 

shall be made available at a charge not to exceed actual 

cost.
6

65 Pa.C.S. § 1104 (text emphasis added). Accordingly, under the Ethics Act, Honore 

was required to file her 2012 SFI by May 1, 2013. 

Section 1107(5) of the Ethics Act mandates, in relevant part: 

If, upon inspection, it is determined that a reporting person 

has failed to file a statement of financial interests . . . , then 

the [C]ommission shall in writing notify the person. Such 

notice shall state in detail the deficiency and the penalties 

for failure to file or for filing a deficient statement of 

financial interests.

65 Pa.C.S. § 1107(5). Here, the Commission twice notified Honore of her violation 

of state law, afforded her the opportunity to submit her SFI without civil penalty, and 

warned that continued failure to comply with the Ethics Act would result in further 

penalties. The notices were sent to her only known address and were not returned.

Due to Honore’s refusal to timely comply with the initial notices, the 

Commission was authorized to and did issue an order adjudicating Honore in 

violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act and imposed penalties as permitted by 

Section 1109(f) of the Ethics Act.4 Because of Honore’s failure to timely comply 

with the Commission’s order, the Commission sought enforcement, as authorized by 

 

4

Section 1109(f) of the Ethics Act provides:

In addition to any other civil remedy or criminal penalty provided for 

in this chapter, the commission may, after notice has been served in 

accordance with [S]ection 1107(5) [of the Ethics Act] (relating to 

powers and duties of [C]ommission) and upon a majority vote of its 

members, levy a civil penalty upon any person subject to this chapter 

who fails to file a statement of financial interests in a timely manner 

or who files a deficient statement of financial interests, at a rate of not 

more than $25 for each day such statement remains delinquent or 

deficient. The maximum penalty payable under this paragraph is 

$250.

65 Pa.C.S. § 1109(f).
7

Section 1107(13) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1107(13).5 After this Court’s order 

was served upon an adult at Honore’s known address, Honore still failed to appear at 

the May 28, 2015 hearing, and has only partially complied with this Court’s May 28, 

2015 enforcement order.

The law is well-established that ‘[c]ourts possess an 

inherent power to enforce their orders by way of the power 

of contempt.’ Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Cromwell Twp., 

Huntingdon Cnty., . . . 32 A.3d 639, 653 ([Pa.] 2011) 

(Cromwell [Twp.]) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bowden, . . . 

838 A.2d 740, 760 ([Pa.] 2003)). ‘Courts have broad 

discretion in fashioning and administering a remedy for 

civil contempt.’ Mulligan v. Piczon, 739 A.2d 605, 611 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), aff’d, . . . 779 A.2d 1143 ([Pa.] 2001).

‘The purpose of civil contempt is to compel performance of 

lawful orders[.]’ Gunther v. Bolus, 853 A.2d 1014, 1018 

(Pa. Super. 2004) (quoting Cecil Twp. v. Klements, 821 

A.2d 670, 675 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)). Because [this Court’s 

May 28, 2015] order was intended to coerce [Honore] to 

comply with the [Commission’s October 6, 2014] order to 

produce [Honore’s SFI and pay penalties], it is a civil 

contempt order. ‘Pennsylvania courts . . . have stated that 

in civil contempt proceedings, the burden is generally on 

the complaining party to prove noncompliance with the 

court order by a preponderance of the evidence.’ Schnabel 

Assocs., Inc. v. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of Phila. & 

Vicinity, AFL-CIO, . . . 487 A.2d 1327, 1336-37 ([Pa. 

Super.] 1985). However, mere noncompliance with a court 

order is insufficient to prove civil contempt. Bold v. Bold, . 

. . 939 A.2d 892 ([Pa. Super.] 2007).

To sustain a finding of civil contempt, the 

complainant must prove certain distinct elements: 

(1) that the contemnor had notice of the specific 

order or decree which he is alleged to have 

disobeyed;[FN]10 (2) that the act constituting the 

contemnor’s violation was volitional; and (3) that 

the contemnor acted with wrongful intent.

 

5

Section 1107(13) of the Ethics Act provides, in pertinent part: “The [C]ommission or the 

Office of Attorney General shall have standing to apply to the Commonwealth Court to seek 

enforcement of an order requiring such restitution.” 65 Pa.C.S. § 1107(13).
8

Epstein v. Saul Ewing, LLP, 7 A.3d 303, 318 (Pa. Super.

2010) (emphasis added) (quoting Lachat v. Hinchcliffe, 769 

A.2d 481, 489 (Pa. Super. 2001)).

[FN]10 [I]n order for a trial court to hold a party 

in contempt, a five-step process must first be 

completed. . . . That process includes: [(]1) a 

rule to show cause . . . ; [(]2) an answer and 

hearing; [(]3) a rule absolute; [(]4) a hearing 

on the contempt citation; and [(]5) an 

adjudication of contempt.

Cleary v. Dep’t of Transp., 919 A.2d 368, 372 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2007). ‘Fulfillment of all five factors is 

not mandated, however. ‘[W]hen the contempt 

proceedings are predicated on a violation of a 

court order that followed a full hearing, due 

process requires no more than notice of the 

violations alleged and an opportunity for 

explanation and defense.’’ Wood v. GeisenhemerShaulis, 827 A.2d 1204, 1208 (Pa. Super. 2003) 

(quoting Diamond v. Diamond, 792 A.2d 597, 601 

(Pa. Super. 2002)); see also Schnabel Assocs., Inc.

W. Pittston Borough v. LIW Invs., Inc., 119 A.3d 415, 421 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)

(emphasis added).

In the instant case, because this proceeding is “predicated on a violation 

of a court order that followed a full hearing[]” on May 28, 2015, “due process 

requires no more than notice of the violation alleged and an opportunity for 

explanation and defense.” Id. at 421. 

With respect to the notice requirement, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil 

Procedure No. 440 provides, in relevant part:

[(a)](2)(i) If there is no attorney of record, service shall be 

made by handing a copy to the party or by mailing a copy 

to or leaving a copy for the party at the address endorsed on 

an appearance or prior pleading or the residence or place of 

business of the party . . . .
9

(ii) If such service cannot be made, service shall be made 

by leaving a copy at or mailing a copy to the last known 

address of the party to be served.

Note: This rule applies to the service upon a party of all 

legal papers other than original process and includes, but is 

not limited to, all other pleadings as well as motions, 

petitions, answers thereto, rules, notices, interrogatories and 

answers thereto.

. . . .

(b) Service by mail of legal papers other than original 

process is complete upon mailing.

(c) If service of legal papers other than original process is to 

be made by the sheriff, he shall notify by ordinary mail the 

party requesting service to be made that service has or has 

not been made upon a named party or person.

Pa.R.C.P. No. 440 (emphasis added). 

It is clear based on this record that the Commission met the notice 

requirement by serving its September 23, 2013 notice, its November 4, 2013 notice 

and its October 6, 2014 final adjudication at Honore’s known place of residence. The 

notices were not returned. On March 3, 2015, the Dauphin County sheriff served the 

enforcement petition “upon [Honore] by personally handing [it] to ERIE YOUNG . . . 

. ADULT PERSON IN CHARGE WHO ACCEPTED FOR [HONORE] AT TIME 

OF SERVICE,” and “making known to him/her the contents thereof.” Sheriff’s 

Return March 3, 2015. Accordingly, Honore was on notice to answer the 

enforcement petition and to appear at the May 28, 2015 hearing, yet she did neither. 

Thereafter, a copy of this Court’s May 28, 2015 order was served upon Honore at the 

same address. Although Honore submitted her 2012 SFI to the Commission, her

payment of the assessed penalties, fees and costs remain outstanding. A copy of this 

Court’s September 28, 2016 order requiring Honore to answer the Commission’s

Motion by October 26, 2016 and to appear at the November 2, 2016 hearing were 
10

also served upon Honore. Rather than attend the hearing and/or pay the penalties, 

fees and costs, Honore declared her intent to further violate this Court’s orders. 

Accordingly, the Commission’s Motion is granted, and Honore is 

adjudicated in contempt of this Court’s May 28, 2015 order, insofar as the penalties, 

fees and costs have not been paid.

 

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

State Ethics Commission, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Elvera Honore, : No. 4 M.D. 2015 

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2016, upon hearing on the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission’s (Commission) Motion 

for Adjudication of Civil Contempt (Motion), after notice to Elvera Honore (Honore)

and an opportunity to be heard on the issue of contempt but having failed to appear or 

pay the penalties, fees and costs, the Commission’s Motion is GRANTED and 

Honore is adjudicated IN CONTEMPT of this Court’s May 28, 2015 order. 

Honore is directed to appear before the Court on December 28, 2016, at 

10:00 a.m., Courtroom 3001, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth 

Avenue, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for imposition of sentence, unless the contempt is 

purged by Honore making payment of $481.50 by cash, check or money order to the 

Commission within 30 days of the date of this Order. If Honore fails to purge herself 

of the contempt or to appear before the Court, the Court may issue a bench warrant 

for Honore’s arrest. If Honore purges herself of the contempt, the Commission shall 

certify to the Court within seven (7) days that Honore has so complied.

The Commission shall obtain the services of a court stenographer

for the December 28, 2016 hearing. The Commission shall also file a proof of 

service of this Order upon Honore.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge