STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In Re ALFRED WELCH, )
)
Respondent, ) CASE NO. 91-4386EC
) COMPLAINT NO. 90-51
)
)
)
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to written notice, a formal hearing was held in this case before Larry J. Sartin, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, November 4 through 6, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Virlindia Doss
Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
For Respondent: Lorence Jon Bielby, Esquire
Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard
101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
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?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On or about March 28, 1990, a Complaint against the Respondent, Alfred Welch, was filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"). Based upon a review of the Complaint, the Commission issued a Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate on April 23, 1990, ordering the staff of the Commission to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether Mr. Welch violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes.
Following the Commission's investigation of the allegations against Mr.
Welch, a Report of Investigation was released on March 25, 1991. Based upon the Complaint and the Report of Investigation the Advocate issued an Advocate's Recommendation on April 16, 1991. The Advocate determined that there was
probable cause to believe that Mr. Welch had violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes.
Based upon the Report of Investigation and the Advocate's Recommendation, the Commission issued an Order Finding Probable Cause on June 12, 1991. The Commission ordered that a public hearing be conducted.
By letter dated July 12, 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 Mr. Welch be conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The hearing was scheduled for the week beginning November 4, 1991.
On October 24, 1991, Mr. Welch filed a Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law, and a Request for Oral Argument. The Request for Oral Argument was granted. Oral argument was heard on November 1, 1991. Following oral argument, and after consideration of the pleadings, the Motion to Dismiss was denied.
Prior to the formal hearing the parties filed a pre-hearing statement containing stipulated findings of fact. Those facts have been accepted in this Recommended Order.
At the formal hearing the Advocate presented the testimony of Cheri Williams Sims, Madeline Ginn, Ramona Dickinson, Patsy J. Stewart, Jeanette Carter, Catherine Ann Reams, Rachel Bush, Richard Dale Hurst, Judge Wetzel Blair, Margaret M. Brown and Judy James. The Advocate also offered eighteen exhibits for identification purposes. All of those exhibits, except Advocate's exhibit 18, the deposition testimony of Tammy Waldrep Colee, were accepted into evidence. Two of the exhibits accepted into evidence consisted of the deposition testimony of Mr. Welch and Melinda Jan Mims, formerly known as Jan Oladell, the person who filed the Complaint in this case.
Mr. Welch testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Barbara Hudson, Elizabeth Welch, Mary Floyd, Donna Blair, Vera Tombs, Joyce Wells, Francis Ginn, Nancy Curl, Sylvia Williams, Walton Fain Poppell, Madeline Ginn, Brinson Fisher, Clay Schnitker, Jerry Blair and Kay Schnitker. Mr. Welch also offered nineteen exhibits for identification purposes. Respondent's exhibit's 1-3, 9-16 and 18-19 were offered and accepted into evidence.
Respondent's exhibit 10 consisted of the deposition testimony of Suzanne Pridgeon. Respondent's exhibits 4 and 7-8 were not offered into evidence. Respondent's exhibit 17 was a duplicate of Advocate's exhibit 9. Finally, Respondent's exhibit's 5-6 were rejected.
The parties stipulated that no transcript of the hearing would be ordered and that they would not file proposed recommended orders.
FINDINGS OF FACT
GENERAL.
The Respondent.
The Respondent, Alfred Welch, is the Clerk of the Circuit Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Clerk") for Madison County, Florida.
Mr. Welch has continuously served as the Clerk for the past eleven years.
At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Welch served as a public officer subject to Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes.
Clerk's Office Personnel.
At the time that Mr. Welch took office as Clerk there were approximately six to seven employees employed in the Clerk's office.
During the period of time since Mr. Welch took office as Clerk there have been as many as ten persons employed in the Clerk's office. Employees of the Clerk's office were hired by Mr. Welch, were subject to his supervision and could be fired by him.
Mr. Welch's employees were all female because it was very rare that a male applied for a position in the Clerk's office.
During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, the following individuals worked for Mr. Welch in the Clerk's office and were under his supervision and control:
Cheri Williams Sims: Ms. Sims worked for Mr. Welch on three separate occasions: (1) She began work for Mr. Welch on a part-time basis while attending a community college; (2) She left to attend a four-year college and later returned to a full-time position; and (3) She left again, this time to join the Navy, and later returned full-time. Ms. Sims was known as Cheri Williams while she was employed in the Clerk's office.
Madeline Ginn: Employed as a deputy clerk since 1973.
Ramona Dickinson: Employed as a deputy clerk since 1979.
Jeanette Carter: Employed as a deputy clerk for the past twenty years.
Catherine Ann Reams: Employed from approximately March, 1986, until 1989.
Rachel Bush: Employed as a deputy clerk from 1977 until June of 1986.
Melinda Jan Mims: Employed in 1978 or 1979, left the Clerk's office and returned part-time in late 1982. She became a full-time employee of the Clerk's office from April, 1983, until approximately February or March, 1986. Ms. Mims was known as "Jan Rutherford" when she worked for the Clerk's office and as "Jan Oladell" after she left the Clerk's office until some time prior to the taking of her deposition testimony in this case.
Judy James: Employed in the Clerk's office since February, 1984. She was formerly known as Judy Pride.
Suzanne Pridgeon: Employed in the Clerk's office from 1983 until 1987.
Barbara Hudson: Employed in the Clerk's office for approximately two to two and one-half years. She was employed part of the time that Ms. Mims worked for Mr. Welch.
Mary Floyd: Employed in the Clerk's office for the past ten years.
Joyce Wells: Employed in the Clerk's office since August, 1986. Prior to August, 1986, she worked for the County Commission in the courthouse where the Clerk's offices were located.
Several other current employees of the Clerk's office testified: Donna Blair (began employment December, 1989); Vera Tombs; and Nancy Curl (began employment March, 1990). Their testimony, in large part, did not apply to the relevant period of time at issue in this proceeding.
Several of the employees of the Clerk's office have been known by different names at different times relevant to this proceeding. Throughout this Recommended Order, references to individuals have been made using the individuals' name as of the date of the formal hearing.
The Clerk's Offices.
The Clerk's offices were, and still are, located in the Madison County courthouse in Madison, Madison County, Florida.
The Clerk's offices consisted of two separate areas referred to generally as the north and south offices.
A "vault" area was located in the south offices. Official records of the Clerk's office were kept in the vault area. There was a table in the middle of the vault and there were large sliding drawers around the walls of the vault where records were kept. The shelves would slide out into the room making the room even more cramped. The book in which traffic citations were indexed was kept in the vault. The entire area was very cramped.
Downstairs from the Clerk's offices was a restroom which was used by all employees of the Clerk's office and others. It was not dedicated to any one sex; it was used at different times by males and females.
Outside of the downstairs restroom there were file cabinets for Clerk's office records, a telephone and a County Commission office.
Most areas of the Clerk's offices were very cramped. It was generally not possible for two persons to pass abreast of each other in most areas. It was also difficult in some areas for two people to turn sideways and pass each other without touching.
Mr. Welch's Improper Treatment of Clerk's Office Employees.
General.
In making the findings of fact in this case, the undersigned has considered the fact that there was a tendency of many of the employees of the Clerk's office to gossip--to discuss matters concerning the activities of other employees of the Clerk's office, including rumors of romantic and sexual relationships.
The length of time which has elapsed since the events described in this Recommended Order and the effect the passage of time has had on the witnesses has also been taken into account.
In concluding that Mr. Welch was attempting through many of the actions described, infra, to obtain a special privilege or benefit for himself through his treatment of certain female employees of the Clerk's office, it has been recognized that the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Welch told employees that their jobs, pay, promotions or job duties would be affected in any specific way if they did not respond favorably to his actions. It has also been recognized that Mr. Welch did not specifically ask for sexual favors from his employees and, except for two instances, his inappropriate touching of employees was somewhat subtle. The conclusion that some of Mr. Welch's actions were taken to obtain a special privilege or benefit, however, is based upon the totality of the evidence, Mr. Welch's position of power over the employees involved in this matter and the inescapable conclusion that his ultimate reason for treating his employees in the inappropriate manner described in this Recommended Order was to obtain sexual gratification and favors. His actions were of a general sexual nature and constituted sexual harassment of female employees. Although Mr. Welch's employees, with one exception, did not respond favorably to Mr. Welch's inappropriate behavior, and although it was not reasonable to conclude that his efforts would be successful, his efforts were nonetheless intended to gain a special privilege or benefit: sexual gratification and favors.
General Office Sexual Banter.
As is probably common in many offices, some, but not all, of the employees of the Clerk's office would, at times, talk and joke about matters involving sex.
Jokes that might be considered "off-color" or of a sexual nature would from time to time be told by some of the Clerk's office employees when Mr. Welch was present.
There were also some employees who did not join in the talk about sexual matters or the telling of jokes with sexual overtones. There were also some employees who were not even aware of such talk or jokes.
There were a number of cards and cartoons which were passed around the office at various times by employees. Of those that were offered into evidence, some, but not all, included curse words and direct or indirect sexual overtones.
Mr. Welch's nickname is "Turkey." Many of his employees referred to Mr. Welch at times by his nickname. Most of the cards and cartoons offered into evidence were addressed to Mr. Welch as "Turkey."
With one exception, the weight of the evidence failed to prove who actually gave the cards and cartoons offered into evidence to Mr. Welch or exactly when. Most were from the "office" and were given to him on or near various holidays. The one exception was Respondent's exhibit 5, a cartoon which Ms. Bush admitted she put on Mr. Welch's desk.
Respondent's exhibit 5 was addressed "To Alfred" and was signed "From Rachel". The cartoon was a picture of a Peanuts comic strip character saying "Working here is like working in a whorehouse--the better you perform, the more you get screwed."
The weight of the evidence failed to prove when Respondent's exhibit 5 was given to Mr. Welch.
The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the cards and cartoons given to Mr. Welch or the sexual banter and joking which went on in the Clerk's office were in anyway a violation of the law.
The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the cards and cartoons given to Mr. Welch or the sexual banter and joking was intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself or others: sexual gratification and favors.
At various times since Mr. Welch has been Clerk, he has made comments of a sexual nature in the presence of employees of the Clerk's office. The evidence failed to prove that any of the comments were made to any one employee; more than one employee was always present. In particular, Mr. Welch made the following statements of a sexual nature:
"I never get enough";
"I have not done it in so long, I do not remember how";
"I had a dream and when I woke up I had a hard on";
"It was stuck up like a tent" in discussing another dream; and
"My wife is not giving me any".
The foregoing statements were made in the presence of Cheri Sims, Ramona Dickinson and Catherine Reams.
Mr. Welch's denial that he made these statements is rejected because several witnesses testified that such comments were made and their testimony on this point was credible. The fact that not every person who worked in the Clerk's office or who may have had contact with the Clerk's office or Mr. Welch ever heard any comments from Mr. Welch of a similar nature was not sufficient to prove that no such statement was ever made. Nor was such testimony sufficient to conclude that the witnesses who indicted that the comments were made by Mr. Welch were not credible.
The weight of the evidence proved that the sexual comments made by Mr. Welch quoted in finding of fact 29 were intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors.
The Fine Line Between a Compliment and a "Come-on".
It was not uncommon for Mr. Welch to compliment Clerk's office employees concerning their appearance or the perfume or cologne they were wearing. Compliments of a similar nature were also paid to Mr. Welch by his employees.
Ms. Bush indicated that Mr. Welch made comments to her almost daily that she "looked nice", had on "nice clothes" or that she "smelled nice". Mr. Welch's comments made Ms. Bush feel uncomfortable because of the "way he said it: he would look me up and down."
Without more, it would be difficult to determine whether Mr. Welch's comments to Ms. Bush were simply the compliments of a considerate employer or were inappropriate come-ons or comments from a boss to an employee. As is discussed, infra, however, the evidence proved more: Mr. Welch's interest in
Ms. Bush was not merely the interest of a considerate employer; Mr. Welch was interested in a romantic/sexual relationship with Ms. Bush. It is, therefore, concluded that Mr. Welch's comments to Ms. Bush concerning her appearance and her cologne/perfume were sexually motivated.
Mr. Welch told Ms. Sims that she had "nice lungs". This comment was a reference to Ms. Sims' breast size. Mr. Welch's testimony concerning this comment was not credible. In a response dated April 9, 1990, to the Commission's investigative report, Mr. Welch denied making the comment. At the formal hearing Mr. Welch testified that he did not recall whether he made the comment. Mr. Welch then testified that Ms. Sims sang in a church choir and had a pretty voice. Therefore, Mr. Welch speculated that, if he did make such a comment, it might have been in reference to her singing ability. Mr. Welch's attempted explanation was, at best, naive. His comment was not a reference to Ms. Sims' ability to sing; it was a comment about her anatomy, which she recognized, and, consequently, felt uncomfortable about.
The weight of the evidence proved that the comments made by Mr. Welch described in findings of fact 33 and 35 were intended Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors.
Invitations to "Have a Good Time".
At some time during the 1980's Mr. Welch suggested to Ms. Dickinson that they "go off for the weekend." Mr. Welch told her "you need to go off with me and I'll show you a good time."
On another occasion, Mr. Welch suggested that Ms. Bush needed to "go off" with him to a clerk's convention and that they would "have a good time." Mr. Welch suggested that if she did, she "would not want to go back to your husband."
Mr. Welch travelled to conventions and seminars for the Clerks of Court in Florida on a regular basis. Some of the conventions and seminars included training which was beneficial to various employees in Mr. Welch's office. Consequently, Mr. Welch would take various employees to some of the conventions and seminars he attended so that they could participate in the training sessions.
Although Mr. Welch admitted that he might have told employees when talking about going to conventions and seminars that they would "have a good time", nothing sexual was meant by such a comment. Mr. Welch indicated that such a comment was merely a statement of fact since the clerks did have a good time at the conventions and seminars they attended.
Mr. Welch's suggestion that the comments to Ms. Dickinson and Ms. Bush described in findings of fact 37 and 38 were of the type of innocent comment described in finding of fact 40 is not credible and is rejected.
During the early 1980's Ms. Bush had to take her daughter to Valdosta, Georgia, twice a week to receive allergy shots. Mr. Welch was aware of this fact. On at least two occasions, Mr. Welch, who traveled to Valdosta occasionally, suggested that they "meet for coffee" in Valdosta.
Mr. Welch testified that he did some farming and that he often went to Valdosta to acquire materials needed for his farming. Mr. Welch also admitted
that he probably had told Ms. Bush something like "if I see you in Valdosta, we'll stop for coffee."
As was true of the compliments by Mr. Welch to Ms. Bush, it would be difficult to determine whether Mr. Welch's explanation of his comment to Ms. Bush about having coffee in Valdosta was simply an innocent invitation with no sexual overtone or was an inappropriate invitation with sexual innuendo from a boss to an employee. Based upon the fact, as is discussed, infra, that Mr. Welch's interest in Ms. Bush was in having a romantic/sexual relationship with her, it is concluded that his comment to Ms. Bush concerning having coffee was an invitation with sexual innuendo. That is how Ms. Bush interpreted the invitations and it made her feel uncomfortable.
On another occasion, Mr. Welch requested that Ms. Sims give him a ride home because his pickup truck was in the shop and Ms. Sims' mother lived near Mr. Welch.
Ms. Sims agreed to give Mr. Welch a ride. At some time during the ride, Mr. Welch asked Ms. Sims to come in for a drink when they got to his house and told her that they could "have a good time." Ms. Sims declined.
Ms. Sims later told Ms. Ginn about this incident and Ms. Ginn told Mr. Welch that if it had happened it "was not right."
Mr. Welch gave the following version of the ride home with Ms. Sims:
Mr. Welch indeed needed a ride home and while talking to his wife about coming to get him, Ms. Sims walked by and he asked her if she would take him. She agreed.
A discussion had taken place during the day about a drink which Mr. Welch described as a "shooter". On the way home that evening, Ms. Sims told Mr. Welch that she had never had a shooter and he offered to fix one for her when they arrived. There was nothing suggestive about the invitation because Ms. Welch was home.
When Ms. Sims and Mr. Welch arrived at Mr. Welch's home, Ms. Welch was outside. Ms. Sims and Ms. Welch struck up a conversation while Mr. Welch went inside. Nothing more was said about the drink and Ms. Sims did not come inside.
Mr. Welch's explanation of the incident is not credible.
Although Ms. Welch verified some of Mr. Welch's explanation, Ms. Welch's recollection was in all likelihood based upon another incident.
The weight of the evidence proved that the comments made by Mr. Welch described in findings of fact 46 were intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification or favors.
Personal Telephone Calls.
On a number of occasions, Mr. Welch telephoned various employees of the Clerk's office at their homes after working hours. These telephone calls were made primarily for personal, as opposed to business, purposes. The calls were uninvited.
During a two to three-month period Mr. Welch telephoned Ms. Reams a couple of times a week during the evening:
The calls were uninvited and unwelcome by Ms. Reams.
Mr. Welch and Ms. Reams discussed the office generally, and Suzanne Pridgeon and Ms. Bush. In particular, Mr. Welch told Ms. Reams that he was having a relationship with Ms. Pridgeon; that he "cared about Ms. Pridgeon but Ms. Bush was the one he loved."
Mr. Welch told Ms. Reams that "he would have to stop calling because he was getting used to it."
Ms. Reams quit answering her telephone because of Mr. Welch's calls. She worked out a code with a friend and her mother so that they could call her and she would know it was them and not Mr. Welch.
Mr. Welch admitted telephoning Ms. Reams but indicated he was merely attempting to help her with a personal problem; she was trying to break off a relationship with a man she had been seeing and was not sure how to go about doing it. Mr. Welch indicted that he did not believe it would have been appropriate to discuss this problem at work and that is why he called her at home. This testimony was not credible when compared with Ms. Reams' testimony. Additionally, when explaining why he stopped to see Ms. Reams one evening, as discussed, infra, Mr. Welch indicated that he had been discussing her personal problems with her at work and stopped to see her because they had not finished their discussion that day. He obviously did not mind discussing her problems in or out of the office.
Mr. Welch also telephoned Ms. James on at least one occasion and discussed Ms. Pridgeon.
Mr. Welch telephoned Ms. Bush at least ten times, and maybe as many as twenty times, during the evening while she was employed at the Clerk's office. Mr. Welch's telephone calls were not requested by Ms. Bush and they made her feel uncomfortable.
Mr. Welch telephoned Ms. Mims twice one night:
During the first call, Mr. Welch told Ms. Mims, who had recently divorced, that his wife was out of town and he suggested that they meet for a drink. Ms. Mims declined.
Mr. Welch also kept telling Ms. Mims that he could not come to her house because of her children and because her mother lived next door, and that she could not come to his house.
Mr. Welch told Ms. Mims that he was lonely.
During the second telephone call, Ms. Mims told Mr. Welch that she had tape recorded the first conversation and that he should not call her again. Ms. Mims did not, in fact, make such a recording.
Mr. Welch admitted telephoning Ms. Mims but indicated that he did so because he had heard that she had told someone that he was having an affair with Ms. Pridgeon. Mr. Welch stated that he called Ms. Mims to request that she come over to discuss her comments. This testimony was not credible. In addition to
other problems with Mr. Welch's testimony, it is unreasonable to believe that Mr. Welch would not deal with comments by one employee about her boss' alleged affair with another employee by speaking to the employee in the office. It was an office matter affecting office relationships and should have been dealt with as such in the office. It is not reasonable to believe that Mr. Welch would ask a recently divorced female employee over to his home at night to discuss such a matter.
The day following Mr. Welch's telephone calls to Ms. Mims, Mr. Welch spoke to Ms. Mims in the office:
Mr. Welch asked Ms. Mims not to say anything about the telephone calls.
When Ms. Mims mentioned the alleged recording, Mr. Welch became angry and made statements which led Ms. Mims to be concerned about her job. Ms. Mims could not, however, remember exactly what Mr. Welch had said that caused her concern about her job.
In Mr. Welch's April 9, 1990, response to the Commission, he indicated he did not recall any conversation with Ms. Mims after the telephone calls to her. During the formal hearing, Mr. Welch denied that the meeting took place.
The weight of the evidence proved that the telephone calls Mr. Welch made to Ms. Reams, Ms. Bush and Ms. Mims described, supra, were intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors.
Gifts.
During the Christmas season, Mr. Welch gave gifts to his employees. These gifts were usually purchased and wrapped by Mr. Welch's wife.
One Christmas Mr. Welch also gave small bottles of cologne, which he had been given during a Clerk's convention, to Ms. Bush and to Ms. Pridgeon.
Mr. Welch also sent flowers to Ms. Bush both before and after she left employment with the Clerk's office. Mr. Welch sent flowers to Ms. Bush on her birthday and Secretaries' Day after she left the Clerk's office. Mr. Welch did not send flowers to any other current or former employees of the Clerk's office.
The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Welch's actions in giving Ms. Bush gifts as described, supra, were intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors.
After-Hour Visit.
On one occasion, Mr. Welch went to Ms. Reams' home at approximately 10:30 p.m. Mr. Welch blew the horn of his automobile and, when Ms. Reams came out, he asked her to turn off her porch light, which she did.
Mr. Welch was on his way home from a club meeting when he stopped at Ms. Reams' house. Mr. Welch admitted that he stopped to see Ms. Reams and testified that he stopped to finish a conversation concerning her personal problem which they had started at the office, but had not had time to finish.
Mr. Welch was apparently drunk, and was vulgar and rambling. At some point he got on the hood of his automobile.
Mr. Welch did not make any advances to Ms. Reams or request anything from her during the visit to her house.
Following this visit, which took place during the time that he was telephoning Ms. Reams at home at night, Mr. Welch quit calling Ms. Reams.
The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Welch's actions in visiting Ms. Reams as described, supra, was intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors.
Mr. Welch's Pass at Ms. Bush.
There was an office in the courthouse for a circuit court judge who came to Madison periodically. This office was empty, however, much of the time.
The circuit judge's office was used by Mr. Welch for private meetings and conversations from time to time. Clerk's office employees met with Mr. Welch in the circuit judge's office at times.
Some time during the later part of 1985 or early 1986, Mr. Welch asked to see Ms. Bush in the circuit judge's office and Ms. Bush complied with Mr. Welch's request.
After Ms. Bush entered the office, Mr. Welch grabbed Ms. Bush, attempted to kiss her and hold her in his arms and expressed "his strong feelings for her". Ms. Bush pulled away from Mr. Welch told Mr. Welch that he was confusing his dependence on her as an employee with love, and left.
As a result of Mr. Welch's actions toward Ms. Bush in the circuit judge's office, Ms. Bush decided she had to find employment elsewhere. Ms. Bush resigned her position with the Clerk's office approximately six months after the incident.
When Ms. Bush left employment with the Clerk's office she had been with the Clerk's office for almost ten years, the minimum period of time necessary to have any vested retirement benefits. By leaving when she did, she did not accrue any vested retirement benefits for her service with the State of Florida.
Mr. Welch's actions with Ms. Bush were sexually motivated and intended to benefit himself.
I. Accidental or Intentional Inappropriate Touching?
The City of Madison is a relatively rural community with a relatively small population. It is the type of community where most people were born and raised in the community and, consequently, everybody knows everybody else.
As a consequence of the nature of the community, it is not uncommon for many people, when they meet, to greet each other with a hand shake, a pat of the back or shoulder, or a hug.
Mr. Welch has lived in Madison essentially all of his life. Additionally, he has been a "public figure" for a number of years. Consequently, Mr. Welch knows most of the residents of Madison.
As a lifelong resident of Madison, it is common practice for Mr. Welch to greet people with a hand shake, a pat on the back or shoulder, or a hug.
It was also common for Mr. Welch to pat his employees on the back or shoulder or to occasionally give them a hug or put his arm around an employee. Mr. Welch would also greet the employee or comment on their good work.
A number of employees of the Clerk's office and other residents of Madison indicated that Mr. Welch had touched them in the manner described in findings of fact 82 and 83. They all indicated that they were not offended by such behavior and that they believed that there was nothing improper in the manner in which Mr. Welch had acted toward them or toward other persons they observed Mr. Welch with.
Other employees and persons who observed Mr. Welch from time to time in the Clerk's office and elsewhere indicated that Mr. Welch never touched them and that they had never observed any improper touching by Mr. Welch.
The evidence also proved that due to the fact that the Clerk's offices were cramped, it was not unusual for Mr. Welch and other employees to touch each other when they passed. There were times when it was almost impossible for one person to pass another person in the Clerk's office and not touch. When this occurred, however, it was the usual practice for the person attempting to pass to say "excuse me" or to otherwise let the person being passed or touched know that the person attempting to pass was going to pass and/or touch them. It was also common for a person to ask another to move so that he or she could pass.
There were also times when employees of the Clerk's office were so busy that they would bump against another employee or touch another employee accidentally, and nothing would be said.
Despite the foregoing, the weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Welch inappropriately touched employees of the Clerk's office.
Mr. Welch was described by one former employee of the Clerk's office as a "toucher." This characterization of Mr. Welch is attributable, in part, to the manner in which some people in Madison greet and react to each other. The characterization of Mr. Welch as a "toucher", however, is also attributable to Mr. Welch's tendency to brush against or touch some female employees in an inappropriate sexual manner.
Mr. Welch would at times pass some female employees (Ms. Bush, Ms. Sims, Ms. Dickinson and Ms. Mims) and touch his body to theirs in an inappropriate manner.
It is, of course, often difficult to distinguish between a greeting, an innocent bump or touch and one that is sexually motivated. All of the witnesses who felt Mr. Welch touched them inappropriately and for sexual gratification had difficulty articulating how they distinguished an inappropriate touch from an appropriate touch. It has been concluded that Mr. Welch, at times, touched female employees inappropriately for sexual gratification largely based upon the following:
The incidents described as inappropriate touching usually occurred when others were not present.
Mr. Welch would not say "excuse me" or otherwise acknowledge that he had touched the employee.
There were several female employees who concluded that they had been inappropriately touched.
The degree to which Mr. Welch sometimes touched an employee was more than just a "bump" or just brushing past the employee. There were times when Mr. Welch's body, from his lower chest to his upper thighs, would touch an employee's body from her lower chest to her upper thighs. Sometimes Mr. Welch would be facing the employee's back and sometimes Mr. Welch and the employee would be facing each other when he would pass them. Mr. Welch's hands would brush Ms. Sims' "backside" when he passed her.
There were times when Mr. Welch could have passed without touching and there were times when he should have asked the employee he passed to move to let him pass.
On at least one occasion, Mr. Welch put his arm around a female employee, Ms. Sims, when she came out of the downstairs restroom. Mr. Welch said nothing to Ms. Sims. This type of contact is not consistent with the custom of people in Madison and was inappropriate.
On another occasion, Mr. Welch walked up behind Ms. Carter and "goosed" or poked her below both of her armpits. Ms. Carter told Mr. Welch to "get his mind out of the gutter" and "don't do that again."
While riding to the airport in Tallahassee, Florida, in Ms. Sims' small pickup truck, Mr. Welch put his hand on Ms. Sims' thigh.
The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Welch's actions in touching Ms. Bush, Ms. Dickinson, Ms. Sims and Ms. Carter as described, supra, were intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors.
III. Mr. Welch's Involvement with Ms. Pridgeon.
The Nature of Mr. Welch's Relationship with Ms. Pridgeon.
Ms. Pridgeon was physically abused by her husband during the time that she worked at the Clerk's office. Mr. Welch and the other employees of the Clerk's office were aware of this problem.
Mr. Welch was considerate of Ms. Pridgeon's situation and attempted to help her.
Additionally, Mr. Welch and Ms. Pridgeon were paramours. This finding is based upon statements that Mr. Welch made to Ms. Reams (finding of fact 53) and the following incident:
Ms. Sims went downstairs to the area where the downstairs restroom was located one day during office hours.
Ms. Sims saw Mr. Welch and Ms. Pridgeon kissing and embracing.
The meaning of Mr. Welch's admissions to Ms. Reams about his relationship with Ms. Pridgeon and the incident witnessed by Ms. Sims were explained and supplemented, at least in part, by statements which, although hearsay, Ms.
Pridgeon made to Ms. Williams, Ms. Dickinson, Ms. Bush and Ms. Mims. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Ms. Pridgeon's Traffic Citation.
On June 14, 1985, at approximately 6:40 p.m., Ms. Pridgeon was stopped by Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Rick Hurst. Trooper Hurst issued a Florida Uniform Traffic Citation to Ms. Pridgeon for travelling 91 MPH in a 55 MPH speed zone.
Mr. Welch's home may be reached by travelling on Highway 6 in Madison County or another route not relevant to this proceeding. When stopped for speeding on June 14, 1985, Ms. Pridgeon was travelling on Highway 6 toward Madison and away from Mr. Welch's home.
When stopped, Ms. Pridgeon tried to talk Trooper Hurst out of issuing the citation. When this failed, Ms. Pridgeon attempted to get Trooper Hurst to issue the citation inside the Madison city limits and not where he had stopped her. Trooper Hurst refused.
Later during the evening on June 14, 1985, Ms. Pridgeon telephoned Mr. Welch's house. Mr. Welch had just come into the house and was taking a shower. Ms. Welch answered the telephone and took a message. Mr. Welch later returned Ms. Pridgeon's call.
Ms. Pridgeon informed Mr. Welch that she had been issued a traffic citation on Highway 6. Mr. Welch told Ms. Pridgeon that he would go see the county court judge about the ticket to see what could be done.
Both Ms. Pridgeon and Mr. Welch were concerned that the fact that she had been issued a citation would be printed in the local newspaper and Ms. Pridgeon's husband would see it and physically abuse her. Because of Mr. Welch's personal relationship with Ms. Pridgeon, it is concluded that Mr. Welch was also concerned that people would speculate, as they ultimately did, that Ms. Pridgeon had been coming from his house when she was stopped. Mr. Welch also wanted to assist Ms. Pridgeon simply because people who have a personal relationship try to help each other out in times of need. Finally, Mr. Welch wished to assist Ms. Pridgeon, if for no other reason, than because she was one of his employees.
Following his telephone conversation with Ms. Pridgeon, Mr. Welch telephoned Ms. James. Ms. James was the deputy clerk at that time that handled traffic citation cases filed with the Clerk's office.
Mr. Welch told Ms. James that Ms. Pridgeon had been issued a traffic citation and instructed her to look for the citation to come into the office. Mr. Welch told Ms. James that she was to do nothing with the citation when it came in except to notify him.
When Ms. Pridgeon's traffic citation was filed in the Clerk's office, within a week or possibly two weeks after it was issued, Ms. James telephoned Mr. Welch and informed him. Mr. Welch instructed Ms. James to pull Ms. Pridgeon's citation out of the batch of citations that had been filed; that he
would come get it. Ms. James put it in a blank envelope, referred to as a "shuck", and did not process it.
Normally, traffic citations issued by the Florida Highway Patrol in Madison County were periodically filed in batches with the Clerk's office. Each citation was placed in an envelope referred to as a "shuck", was identified with a number and was "indexed" or recorded in the Clerk's office records. A separate book was kept to index or record traffic citations. Traffic citations indexed in the Clerk's office were reported in the local newspaper, thus disclosing the name of any person who was issued a citation. If a traffic citation was not indexed, there was no public record of the ticket in the Clerk's office and no way to determine in the Clerk's office that a citation had been issued.
Eventually, after a traffic citation of the type issued to Ms. Pridgeon had been indexed, the person who received the citation would be required to appear before the county court judge and enter a plea. The county court judge ultimately rendered a decision regarding the citation which was recorded on the shuck. Eventually, the ultimate disposition of the citation was also noted on the shuck.
By instructing Ms. James not to index Ms. Pridgeon's citation, Mr. Welch failed to follow the established procedure for handling traffic citations in Madison County. Mr. Welch failed to follow the established procedures for the reasons set out in finding of fact 101. Therefore, his failure to follow established procedures was inappropriate for a public officer such as Mr. Welch.
After Ms. Pridgeon's traffic citation was filed in the Clerk's office, Mr. Welch went to see County Court Judge Wetzel Blair, a cousin of Ms. Pridgeon.
Mr. Welch informed Judge Blair of the citation and asked him how she could be "helped" or "assisted." Judge Blair told Mr. Welch that he would allow Ms. Pridgeon to plead nolo contendere, attend driver's school and pay court costs. He also told Mr. Welch that he would reduce the speed to 79 MPH to reduce the "points" against her driver's license, continue the case for 6 months and, if she did not receive any additional citations, withhold adjudication.
Mr. Welch also asked Judge Blair what could be done to prevent the newspaper from disclosing that Ms. Pridgeon had been issued a citation. Judge Blair told Mr. Welch that any such attempt would only make things worse; that it would move the story from the back of the newspaper to the front page. Judge Blair told Mr. Welch not to jeopardize his position over an employee's personal problems.
Mr. Welch went to see Judge Blair on behalf of Ms. Pridgeon for the reasons set out in finding of fact 101. Other persons issued a traffic citation in Madison did not have the benefit of the Clerk speaking in private with the county court judge about the disposition of their citations. Mr. Welch's action was, therefore, inappropriate for a public officer such as Mr. Welch.
Ms. Pridgeon did not enter a plea on the traffic citation and she did not immediately sign up for driver's school. Nor was the citation indexed immediately after the meeting between Judge Blair and Mr. Welch.
About a week after Ms. James told Mr. Welch that the citation had arrived, Mr. Welch told her how Judge Blair had indicated he would handle the citation. Ms. James wrote on the shuck that she had put the citation in:
6-24-85 - hold for 6 months (12-24-85) per Judge Blair. If no other ticket rec'd w/h adj.
There was a great deal of testimony and evidence concerning the use of the term "hold" on the shuck. That evidence was essentially irrelevant.
At some time after the citation had been issued, Trooper Hurst came to the Clerk's office and asked Ms. Bush whether the citation he had issued to Ms. Pridgeon had been indexed. Ms. Bush checked the index book and was unable to find any record of the citation.
After Trooper Hurst informed Ms. Bush about the citation and she was unable to find any record of it, she informed Judge Blair. Ms. Bush took this action because she believed that Mr. Welch and Ms. Pridgeon were romantically involved and, therefore, she was concerned about whether the citation was being handled properly. Judge Blair told Ms. Bush to wait and see if the citation showed up. This meeting probably took place in July, 1985.
Judge Blair also believed that Mr. Welch and Ms. Pridgeon were romantically involved and, in light of the fact that Mr. Welch had approached him about helping Ms. Pridgeon, he also checked to see if the citation had been indexed. When he failed to find any record of the citation, he asked his secretary to look for it. Judge Blair's secretary also did not find any record of the citation.
Judge Blair took his concerns to a circuit court judge. Judge Blair decided to continue to wait and see what happened.
On approximately September 26, 1985, Ms. Bush confronted Mr. Welch and asked him where Ms. Pridgeon's citation was. Mr. Welch initially asked "what citation." Eventually, Mr. Welch pulled the citation from his desk drawer. He did not tell Ms. Bush that the citation had not been indexed because he was attempting to protect Ms. Pridgeon from her husband. Following this incident, Mr. Welch gave the citation to Ms. James and told her to index it.
Ms. James indexed Ms. Pridgeon's citation on or about September 26, 1985, more than three months after it had been issued and only after Ms. Bush confronted Mr. Welch about it. Until the citation was indexed, there was no record of the citation to Ms. Pridgeon in the Clerk's office, Ms. Pridgeon had not entered a plea and Ms. Pridgeon had taken no action to pay court costs or sign up for driver's school.
At some time after confronting Mr. Welch, Ms. Bush informed Judge Blair about the incident. Judge Blair spoke to the State Attorney's office about the matter and recorded a statement of his recollection of the events in the presence of Ms. Bush and Ms. James.
On November 9, 1985, Ms. Pridgeon attended driver's school. She had to wait until November because that was the next time that the course was offered in Madison after the citation was finally indexed.
On November 22, 1985, Ms. Pridgeon paid court costs for the citation.
The citation was ultimately disposed of on December 24, 1985, in conformance with Judge Blair's sentence.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded Mr. Welch's treatment of Ms. Pridgeon's traffic citation was intended to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors.
III. The Respondent's Attempts to Discredit His Accusers.
General.
The Respondent presented evidence intended to discredit the testimony of many of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the Advocate. The following facts were proved and considered in making all of the findings of fact in this case. These findings were not, however, sufficient to discredit the testimony and evidence which supports the findings of fact made, supra, in this Recommended Order:
Ms. Bush made a comment in August, 1989, to Ms. Welch about coming back to work at the Clerk's office. The comment was an "offhand" remark not intended as a serious request to return to the Clerk's office.
Ms. Sims, despite the incidents described in this Recommended Order she was involved in, assisted Mr. Welch in his campaign for re-election as Clerk in 1988 and sent him a congratulatory card after his re-election. Ms. Sims has known the Welch family all her life. Just as Ms. Pridgeon stayed in an abusive relationship for seventeen years, it is not unusual for people to do things in life which do not always seem to make sense to someone "on the outside looking in". Ms. Sims probably put up with the incidents she described because of family, work and community ties, until after Mr. Welch fired her. Once Mr. Welch fired Ms. Sims, she lost her reason for avoiding causing hard feelings, however.
Mr. Poppell, a Madison County Commissioner, was involved in the decision of Ms. Mims to file the complaint against Mr. Welch with the Commission. Mr. Poppell spoke to other employees of the Clerk's office and asked them if they would also file a complaint. The evidence failed to prove that the facts which have been found in this Recommended Order are not true due to any involvement in the filing of the complaint by Mr. Poppell. The motives for the filing of the complaint in this case were essentially irrelevant. At issue is whether Mr. Welch violated the law and the weight of the evidence proved that he did regardless of why Ms. Mims filed her complaint and regardless of Mr. Poppell's involvement.
Evidence concerning the fact that many of the employees did not confront Mr. Welch about his actions or ask him to stop some of his offensive conduct was also presented:
It is true that very few of the employees who testified about inappropriate conduct by Mr. Welch ever questioned him about it. A few of them, however, did say something to him: Ms. Carter, for instance. Ms. Mims lied about the tape recording, jeopardizing her job, to stop Mr. Welch from telephoning her. Others handled the situation by joking about it.
The failure to confront Mr. Welch is understandable, in part, because he was the "boss." He had the authority to determine whether they continued to have a job, their means of supporting themselves and their families. If they had told Mr. Welch that his conduct was not acceptable or that he should stop, they were not sure how he would react. Although it may be easy to decide what the right course of action a person should take may be, it is not always easy to actually take that action. Additionally, Mr. Welch's conduct was often subtle enough that the employees involved were probably not sure whether their perception of Mr. Welch's actions was correct.
Most of the employees had known Mr. Welch and his family for years. Again, Madison is a small, close community. There was, therefore, a reluctance on the part of some employees to create "hard feelings", which ultimately have resulted anyway.
Ms. Bush did take action to find other employment. Mr. Welch's pass at her was not subtle. Therefore, she immediately began to look for other employment and left even though she was close to having ten years of employment with the State. That it took her six months to leave after the incident was very reasonable and understandable in light of the fact that Madison is a relatively small community and in light of her apparent need, like most people, to have an income. By leaving when she did, Ms. Bush lost an opportunity to vest some retirement benefits. She obviously wanted out.
Employees Who Were Terminated.
The third time that Ms. Sims worked for the Clerk's office, she was fired by Mr. Welch while she was on probation, not too long after she had been hired. The evidence was inconclusive as to whether Mr. Welch was justified in firing Ms. Sims. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Sims' testimony was not credible. At best, the evidence proved that after Mr. Welch fired her, Ms. Sims had less reason to be concerned about creating "hard feelings."
Ms. Mims was also fired by Mr. Welch:
During the end of 1985 or early 1986, Ms. Mims' one-year old daughter broke her leg. Ms. Mims could not leave her at day-care and, therefore, she had to stay home with her daughter.
While Ms. Mims was out of the office, several checks which she had written and cashed in the Clerk's office were returned for insufficient funds. The first check returned was never found. The weight of the evidence failed to prove what happened to it, however. The first returned checks discovered by Clerk's office personnel were received in early February, 1986.
Ms. Ginn and Mr. Welch made several attempts to reach Ms. Mims over a period of, at most, seven working days. Ms. Mims was staying with a boyfriend and, therefore, the efforts to reach her were unsuccessful. Therefore, Mr. Welch telephoned Ms. Mims' mother and told her it was important that Ms. Mims contact him.
On or about February 10, 1986, Mr. Welch telephoned the State Attorney, informed him that Ms. Mims had cashed checks in the Clerk's office which had been returned for insufficient funds and made a complaint against Ms. Mims.
On February 13, 1986, an investigator for the State Attorney's office, Mr. Fisher, went to meet with Mr. Welch about the checks.
While Mr. Fisher was meeting with Mr. Welch, Ms. Mims came to the office to see Mr. Welch. She met with Mr. Fisher, Mr. Welch and Ms. Ginn. Ms. Mims admitted that she had cashed the checks and made restitution of the amount of the checks ($165.00) that had been returned as of that date, including the missing check. She also told Mr. Welch that there were two other checks that would be returned. Ms. Mims ultimately also paid those checks.
During the meeting with Mr. Fisher, Mr. Welch and Ms. Ginn, Ms. Mims asked what would happen if she made restitution. Mr. Fisher or Mr. Welch telephoned the State Attorney, Mr. Jerry Blair, to determine what action would be taken. Mr. Blair, because of a prior incident in the Clerk's office involving public funds and because of the fact that public funds were involved, indicated that he would have to prosecute the matter even if she made restitution. Ms. Mims was informed of this conversation.
During the February 13, 1986, meeting Mr. Welch informed Ms. Mims that she was suspended. It was apparent to Ms. Mims that Mr. Welch intended to terminate her because of the returned checks. Ms. Mims was very upset and threatened to get even with Mr. Welch.
Ms. Mims was informed that she was terminated by letter dated March 14, 1986.
Ms. Mims ultimately pled guilty to several counts of violating Section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes, as a result of cashing the checks and was sentenced to six months of unsupervised probation. Adjudication was withheld.
Ms. Mims had deposited a check in payment of child support from a former husband which would have been enough to pay the checks she had cashed with Clerk's office funds. The check she deposited was returned for insufficient funds, however, and therefore the checks she cashed in the Clerk's office were also returned for insufficient funds.
Although Ms. Mims had threatened Mr. Welch during the February 13, 1986, meeting, she admitted in her deposition testimony that he had the right to fire her because of the incident with the checks.
Regardless of Ms. Mims' motives for filing the complaint which instituted this proceeding, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the charges against Mr. Welch were not true.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Jurisdiction and Burden of Proof.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1989). Section 112.322, Florida Statutes, and Rule 34-5.0015, Florida Administrative Code, authorize the Commission to conduct investigations and make public reports on complaints concerning violations of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes (the "Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees").
The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to the contrary, is on the party asserting the affirmative of the issue of the proceeding. Antel v.
Department of Professional Regulation, 522 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d
249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In this proceeding it is the Commission, through the Advocate, that is asserting the affirmative: that Mr. Welch violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the burden of proving the elements of Mr. Welch's alleged violations was on the Commission.
Mr. Welch's Alleged Violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes.
Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, provides:
(6) MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION.--No public officer or employee of an agency shall corruptly use or attempt to use his official position or any property or resource which may be within his trust, or perform his official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself or others. This section shall not be construed to conflict with s. 104.31.
A violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, requires proof of the following elements:
Mr. Welch must be either a public officer or public employee;
Mr. Welch must have used or attempted to use his official position or property or resources within his trust, or performed his official duties:
Corruptly; and
With an intent to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption for himself or others.
1. The First Element: Public Officer or Public Employee.
Section 112.313(1), Florida Statutes, defines the terms "public officer" to include "any person elected or appointed to hold office in any agency . . . ." An "agency" is defined in Section 112.312(2), Florida Statutes, to mean "any state, regional, county, local, or municipal government entity of this state, whether executive, judicial, or legislative "
The evidence proved that Mr. Welch was the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Madison County, Florida. Therefore, Mr. Welch was a "public officer" for purposes of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes.
2. The Second Element: Use of Official Position or Property or Resources.
The second element of a violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, has also been proved. The evidence proved that Mr. Welch used his official position as Clerk and the employer of the women involved in this proceeding with the intent of securing a special privilege or benefit for
himself or others: for his personal sexual gratification and to gain sexual favors. Although Mr. Welch may not have had any reason to reasonably expect any favorable response to many of his actions, there is not other logical explanation for much of his conduct. Regardless of whether Mr. Welch was successful or could even reasonably expect to be successful, he was attempted to get a favorable response from his female employees to sexually motivated actions.
The evidence also proved that Mr. Welch sought to benefit himself "corruptly". The term "corruptly" is defined in Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, as follows:
(7) "Corruptly" means done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining, or compensating or receiving compensation for, any benefit resulting from some act or omission of a public servant which is inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties.
The evidence in this case proved that Mr. Welch made uninvited and unwanted sexual advances to several female employees. Some of those advances were subtle; a few were obvious. No other reasonable explanation for Mr. Welch's conduct was presented. Mr. Welch's inappropriate conduct was inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties as a clerk of circuit court.
Considered alone, it would be difficult to conclude that many of Mr. Welch's actions were in violation of the law. For example, if an employer sends unwanted and uninvited gifts, such as flowers, to an employee, does that constitute sexual harassment? When considered together, however, Mr. Welch's conduct evidenced a general treatment of many of the female employees under Mr. Welch's control which was inappropriately sexually motivated. Mr. Welch's actions took place with a number of female employees and over an extended period of time. His conduct can be generally characterized as sexual harassment.
Mr. Welch attempted to use his official position and acted within his role as public officer in the activities dealt with in this case. His actions were taken either in his office during normal working hours or were sufficiently connected to his official position. Mr. Welch's authority over the female employees involved in this matter enabled him to act in an unacceptable, uninvited and unwanted manner toward some of his female employees.
Although there were no specific threats against his employees and although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Welch actually retaliated against employees who rejected or questioned his actions, there was an implicit understanding on the part of the employees under Mr. Welch's authority that failure to act in a certain manner or failure to accept his conduct might constitute a threat to their employment.
Mr. Welch's inappropriate actions were intentional, uninvited, unwanted and were taken through his position as a public officer. His actions were inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties. Therefore, Mr. Welch acted with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining a special privilege or benefit inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties.
Although not sexual harassment, Mr. Welch's activities in handling the traffic citation of Ms. Pridgeon were also sexually motivated and inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties as a clerk of circuit court. Even if Mr. Welch had not been sexually involved Ms. Pridgeon, his actions in attempting to assist an employee under his control and supervision were not consistent with the proper performance of his public duties.
3. Conclusion.
Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that Mr. Welch violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Administrative Code. See Garner v. Commission on Ethics, 415 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Bruner v. Commission on Ethics, 384 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); In re Pellicer, 9 FALR 4388 (Fla. Com. on Ethics, 1987); In re Garner, 5 FALR 105A (Fla. Com. on Ethics, 1982); In re Lancaster, 5 FALR 1567A (Fla. Com. on Ethics, 1983); and In re Bruner, 2 FALR 1034A (Fla. Com. on Ethics, 1980).
D. Penalty.
Section 112.317, Florida Statutes, provides penalties which may be imposed for a violation of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Section 112.317, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, the following:
Violation of any provision of this part
. . . shall, pursuant to applicable constitutional and statutory procedures, constitute grounds for, and may be punished by, one or more of the following:
In the case of a public officer:
Impeachment.
Removal from office.
Suspension fro office.
Public censure and reprimand.
Forfeiture of no more than one-third salary per month for no more than 12 months.
A civil penalty not exceed $5,000.
Restitution of any pecuniary benefits received because of the violation committed.
. . . .
The Advocate has not recommended what penalty should be imposed in this matter.
The offenses committed by Mr. Welch are serious. Mr. Welch used his power and position as a public officer and servant to satisfy his own personal desires at the expense of employees who were under his supervision and control. Employees who had little realistic recourse to combat Mr. Welch's inappropriate behavior. Mr. Welch made many of the employees under his supervision uncomfortable and caused at least one employee to leave her employment. Mr. Welch's actions also occurred on several occasions evidencing a pattern of improper conduct.
Mr. Welch's conduct in handling Ms. Pridgeon's traffic citation also a serious violation of the very laws which Mr. Welch is closely involved in enforcing.
Based upon a consideration of all of the evidence in this case, it is concluded that Mr. Welch should be publicly censured and reprimanded and that the Governor of the State of Florida should suspend Mr. Welch from office as the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, for a period of at least sixty days. A longer penalty might be appropriate but for the penalty imposed in those cases involving sexual harassment cited, supra.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public
Report finding that the Respondent, Alfred Welch, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Complaint No. 90-51. It is further
RECOMMENDED that Mr. Welch be subjected to public censure and reprimand and that the Governor of the State of Florida suspend Mr. Welch from office as the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, for a period of at least sixty days.
DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.
LARRY J. SARTIN
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1991.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Virlindia Doss
Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 101
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Lorence Bielby, Esquire Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Bonnie J. Williams Executive Director Commission on Ethics The Capitol, Room 2105 Post Office Box 6
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 29, 1992 | Final Order and Public Report filed. |
| Dec. 10, 1991 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 11/4-6/91. |
| Nov. 04, 1991 | Advocate`s Response to the Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Nov. 04, 1991 | Final Hearing Held 11/4-6/91; for applicable time frames, refer to CASE STATUS form stapled on right side of Clerk's Office case file. |
| Nov. 04, 1991 | Advocate`s Response to The Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Nov. 01, 1991 | Order Granting Motion to Except Witness From the Rule of Sequestration and Denying Motion to Dismiss sent out. |
| Nov. 01, 1991 | Respondent`s Addendum to Pre-Hearing Disclosure filed. |
| Oct. 29, 1991 | Notice of Hearing filed. (From Lorence Jon Bielby) |
| Oct. 29, 1991 | (Respondent) Response to Advocate`s Motion to Except Witness filed. |
| Oct. 29, 1991 | (Joint) Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
| Oct. 24, 1991 | (Respondent) Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law; Request for Oral Argument filed. |
| Oct. 17, 1991 | Motion to Except Witness From The Rule of Sequestration filed. (From Virlindia Doss) |
| Oct. 07, 1991 | Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Interrogatories to Advocate; Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Request for Production of Documents to Advocate filed. (From Lorence Jon Bielby) |
| Sep. 20, 1991 | Amended Notice of Taking Deposition filed. (From Virlindia Doss) |
| Sep. 17, 1991 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Sep. 16, 1991 | Notice of Taking Deposition filed. (from Virlindia Doss) |
| Sep. 16, 1991 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Aug. 27, 1991 | Notice of Taking Deposition filed. (from Lorence Jon Bielby) |
| Aug. 23, 1991 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Subpoena Ad Testificandum (2) w/Returns of Service for Deposition Testimony) filed. (From Lorence Jon Bielby) |
| Aug. 22, 1991 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Subpoena Ad Testificandum (2) w/Returns of Service for Deposition Testimony filed. |
| Aug. 20, 1991 | Amended Notice of Taking Deposition (3) filed. (From Lorence Jon Bielby) |
| Aug. 20, 1991 | Subpoena Ad Testificandum w/Returns of Service (8) filed. (From Lorence Jon Bielby) |
| Aug. 15, 1991 | Notice of Taking Deposition (3) filed. (From Lorence Jon Bielby) |
| Jul. 31, 1991 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out. |
| Jul. 31, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Nov. 4-8, 1991; 9:00am;Tallahassee). |
| Jul. 29, 1991 | Response to Notice of Assignment and Order filed. (From Virlindia Doss) |
| Jul. 26, 1991 | (Respondent) Response to Initial Order filed. (From Lorence Jon Bielby) |
| Jul. 16, 1991 | Notice of Assignment and Order sent out. |
| Jul. 15, 1991 | Agency referral letter; Complaint; Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate; Advocate`s Recommendation; Report of Investigation filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 28, 1992 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 10, 1991 | Recommended Order | Court clerk used his position to secure sexual gratification from female employees in violation of ethics code. |
