Whether the Respondent, Stephen A. Witkowski, violated Section 112.313(3), Florida Statutes, by, in his official capacity, purchasing goods from a company of which he was a director and a stockholder; and Whether Mr. Witkowski violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, by serving on the Board of Directors of, and owning stock in, Caribbean Computers, Inc., a company doing business with the Monroe County Sheriff's Office, while simultaneously being employed by the Monroe County Sheriff's Office.Respondent violated ethics code by purchasing, in his official capacity as sheriff's officer, goods from company in which he was stockholder and director.

Whether the Respondent, Charles Polk, violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, by having a contractual relationship with a real estate developer who was doing business with the Daytona Beach Community College?Community College president had contractual relationship with real estate developer doing business with his college in violation of ethics code.

Whether the Respondent, Gerald S. Rehm, violated Section 8(e), Article II, Constitution of the State of Florida, by representing the Top of the Bay Road Improvement Task Force for compensation before the Florida Department of Transportation during his term of office as a Florida state representative?Legislator violated Florida Constitution by representing group for compensation before Department of Transportation. No penalty provided for violation however.

Whether the Respondent, Alfred Welch, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by using his official position to attempt to secure a special benefit for himself in terms of his own sexual gratification, and by misusing his official position to conceal a traffic ticket received by Suzanne Pridgeon?Court clerk used his position to secure sexual gratification from female employees in violation of ethics code.

Whether the Respondent, Michael E. Langton, violated Sections 112.313(6) and 112.3141(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Section 8(e), Article II, Constitution of the State of Florida, by his activities and contacts with staff of the Department of Community Affairs on matters dealing with the Community Development Block Grant Program?Legislator violated ethics code and Florida Constitution by representing his business before Department of Community Affairs.

Whether the Respondent, Page Lamar Ford, violated Section 112.3145, Florida Statutes, by failing to list real property owned by the Respondent on financial disclosure forms filed by the Respondent in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989? On or about May 18, 1990, a Complaint was filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"). The Complaint was filed by Laban Bontrager and contained allegations of misconduct by Page Lamar Ford, the Respondent in this case. An amended Complaint was filed by Mr. Bontrager on August 19, 1990. Based upon a review of the Complaint and the amended Complaint against the Respondent, the Commission issued a Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate on September 10, 1990, ordering the staff of the Commission to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether the Respondent violated Sections 112.313(6), 112.3143(3) and 112.3145(3), Florida Statutes. Following the Commission's investigation of the allegations against the Respondent, a Report of Investigation was released on January 31, 1991. Based upon the Complaint and the Report of Investigation the Advocate for the Commission issued an Advocate's Recommendation on March 15, 1991. The Advocate determined that there was probable cause to believe that the Respondent had violated Section 112.3145, Florida Statutes. The Advocate also determined that there was no probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated Sections 112.313(6) and 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes. Based upon the Report of Investigation and the Advocate's Recommendation, the Commission issued an Order Finding Probable Cause on April 24, 1991, accepting the recommendation of the Advocate. The Commission ordered that a public hearing be conducted. By letter dated August 16, 1991, the Commission referred this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings and, in accordance with Rules 34-5.010 and 34-5.014, Florida Administrative Code, requested that the public hearing on the Complaint against the Respondent be conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to the formal hearing the parties filed a Prehearing Statement. The parties stipulated to certain facts in the Prehearing Statement. Those facts have been accepted in this Recommended Order. At the formal hearing the Advocate called no witnesses and offered no exhibits. The Respondent testified on his own behalf. The Respondent did not offer any exhibits into evidence. The parties stipulated that they would not order a transcript or file proposed recommended orders.City commissioner's failure to report real estate ownership on financial disclosure forms violated ethics code.

Whether the Respondent, Ilene Lieberman, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by using her position to falsely accuse the complainant of sexually harassing a City employee and taking other actions in order to force the complainant to resign his position as Financial Director for the City of Lauderhill?Failed to prove mayor of Lauderhill corruptly used her position falsely accusing complaintant of sexual harrassment and forcing compl. to resign.

Whether the Respondent, Cliff Hayden, Jr., violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by having the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority pay for food and beverage expenses incurred at the Tampa Club for meetings between the Respondent and members and/or staff of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority? Whether the Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by having the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority pay for golfing expenses for himself and a member of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority?Payment of golf fees and membership in Tampa club by executive director of Hillsborough Transit Authority not made corruptly in violation of ethics code.