The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Manuel Enrique Blanco (Petitioner), is entitled to the contracting license sought.Numerous criminal convictions, some related to contracting, preclude the Petitioner from being eligible for licensure.

The issue is whether Respondent may place on probation for 2017 Petitioner's approved program offering an associate's degree in nursing (ADN) due to the failure of its relevant graduates to achieve the required passing rate on the nursing licensing examination for 2015 and 2016.Operator of approved program for prelicensure education of students seeking an associate's degree in nursing is placed on probation for failure to achieve minimum passing rates in 2015 and 2016.

Whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes (2017).Petitioner is entitled to reasonable fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes, as the prevailing party in Case No. 16-6167.

Did Respondent, Robert Skidmore, III, violate section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ by using his position as county commissioner to ask a county staff member to approve a zoning application for Beach Road Boutique? Did Mr. Skidmore violate section 112.313(6) by asking a county employee to look for and selectively enforce code violations against J.J.'s Restaurant?Clear and convincing evidence proved commissioner used his position to try to have zoning application denial changed by staff. Also, commissioner tried to have licensing action taken against restaurant because of personal dispute.

There are seven alleged violations at issue, six of which are related to alleged financial disclosure violations. As stipulated by the parties, at issue is whether Respondent violated: Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes,1/ by requesting and/or accepting State reimbursement for travel expenses that were paid by campaign accounts and/or State office expense accounts; Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to or not properly reporting income; and/or stocks and bonds; and/or secondary source income on his 2005 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest; Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to or not properly reporting income; and/or stocks and bonds; and/or bank accounts; and/or real property; and/or secondary source income on his 2006 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest; Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to or not properly reporting income; and/or stocks and bonds; and/or bank accounts; and/or real property; and/or secondary source income on his 2007 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest; Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to or not properly reporting income; and/or stocks and bonds; and/or bank accounts; and/or real property; and/or secondary source income on his 2008 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest; Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to or not properly reporting income; and/or stocks and bonds; and/or bank accounts; and/or real property; and/or secondary source income on his 2009 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest; and Section 112.3144, Florida Statutes, by failing to file a CE Form 6F “Final Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests” within 60 days of leaving his position with the Florida House of Representatives.Respondent, a former state representative, was guilty of violating sections 112.313(6) and 112.3144, Florida Statutes, as well as Article II, Section 8 of the Florida Constitution.

Whether David Berrones (Respondent), while a member of the Board of Directors of the Homestead Housing Authority (HHA), violated section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), by voting on February 15, 2011, to hire Oscar Hentschel (an alleged business associate) as the Executive Director of the HHA.Board member of housing authority did not have a confllict of interest in voting to hire a candidate as executive director because he and the candidate were not business associates when the vote was cast.

The issues are whether the Florida Commission on Ethics (Ethics Commission) has jurisdiction over Counts I and IV of the Advocate's Amended Recommendation, pursuant to section 122.322(1), Florida Statutes; if jurisdiction exists over Count IV, whether Respondent, while a commissioner and vice mayor of the City of Margate (City), violated section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, by appearing before the City commission on behalf of his employer, which was seeking a beer and wine license for consumption on the premises (2COP); and whether Respondent is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes.Ethics Commission did not have jurisdiction over count for which it could not be clearly determined that the complainant had sworn to the underlying facts. As to other count, Advocate failed to prove substantial conflict prohibited by 112.313(7)(a).

The issues are whether Respondent, John Marks, committed the following violations as alleged in the Ethics Commission's two Orders Finding Probable Cause, both dated June 20, 2012: As to DOAH Case No. 12-2508EC, whether Respondent violated section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, by voting on September 15, 2010, on a measure that would inure to the special private gain or loss of the Alliance for Digital Equality ("ADE"), a principal by which Respondent was retained. As to DOAH Case No. 12-2509EC, whether Respondent violated s ection 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, by voting on March 28, 2007, September 19, 2007, June 13, 2007, and June 18, 2008, in connection with matters that inured to the special private gain or loss of Honeywell, a principal by which Respondent was retained.The Advocate failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes, by voting on matters that would inure to the special private gain or loss of a principal by whom he was retained.

The issues are whether Respondent, John Marks, committed the following violations as alleged in the Ethics Commission's two Orders Finding Probable Cause, both dated June 20, 2012: As to DOAH Case No. 12-2508EC, whether Respondent violated section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, by voting on September 15, 2010, on a measure that would inure to the special private gain or loss of the Alliance for Digital Equality ("ADE"), a principal by which Respondent was retained. As to DOAH Case No. 12-2509EC, whether Respondent violated s ection 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, by voting on March 28, 2007, September 19, 2007, June 13, 2007, and June 18, 2008, in connection with matters that inured to the special private gain or loss of Honeywell, a principal by which Respondent was retained.The Advocate failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes, by voting on matters that would inure to the special private gain or loss of a principal by whom he was retained.

The issue in this case, as stipulated by the parties, is whether Respondent violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2010),1/ by attempting to enter into, or by entering into, pre- dated employment agreements, and/or by attempting to destroy or destroying public records and/or evidence of wrongdoing and/or by attempting to enter into or entering into agreements which exceeded the Respondent's purchasing authority.Petitioner did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 112.313(6), as alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause.