The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is entitled to relocate its employee, Perry Kirkland, from an assignment in Jacksonville, Florida, to an assignment in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Perry Kirkland, the Respondent, is employed as a beverage sergeant with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He has been employed with that division for sixteen years. Within that employment period, he has worked for one year in Orlando, two years in Miami, a period of time in Daytona Beach and then was assigned to Jacksonville, Florida, where he has remained as an employee with the exception of a period of time of 28 days beginning on September 19, 1977, when he was working for the same division in West Palm Beach, Florida. His service in the present type of classification began in 1968 when he was made an enforcement supervisor. His category was later changed to beverage sergeant in 1975. He is a permanent status employee. The underlying nature of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent concerns the Petitioner's effort to have the Respondent moved from Jacksonville, Florida, to West Palm Beach, Florida, on a permanent basis, as a condition of the Respondent's employment. The propriety or impropriety of such a requirement may be best understood by discussing the background facts which led to his proposed relocation. In the late fall or early winter of 1976, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Charles A. Nuzum, in conjunction with his subordinates, determined that it was necessary to transfer certain personnel from the Marianna office to the Panama City office. The purpose of such transfer was to promote more comprehensive enforcement in the Panama City area which was thought to be necessary, and had as its correlative purpose the removal of employees from the Marianna office, where the workload was not as substantial as that in Panama City. In essence, it has been decided that a full-fledged office would he opened in Panama City, in contrast to a sort of impromptu office that was in existence at the time. To make this change in personnel, it was necessary for the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to get the approval of the Department of Administration, Division of Budget. Mr. Nuzum and his chief of law enforcement met with representatives of the Department of Administration, Division of Budget, to include Elton Revell, a senior budget analyst. The purpose of this meeting was to present the request for changes in the Marianna and Panama City Offices. Revell advised the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco that the Division of Budget could not go along with the "piecemeal" resolution of the problem of a disparity in the efforts of fulfilling the mission of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. It was Revell's position that it would be necessary to consider the entire state in evaluating such realignment, before any approval could be granted. As an example of his position, Revell specifically mentioned that he thought that Live Oak and Jacksonville were offices that were overstaffed. At the insistence of the Division of Budget, and in keeping with his own analysis of the needs of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Mr. Nuzum undertook the task of analyzing the assignment status of the manpower of the division statewide, in an effort to achieve the mandate of his division's function more uniformly. The director had the benefit of certain weekly and monthly reports filed by the field agents in the categories of the division's overall mission. He also had the benefit of an overview of the conditions in the district offices, having made personal visits to the offices around the state. However, it was determined that a more specific study was necessary to get a true picture of the conditions in the district and sub-district offices for purposes of presenting the proposed realignment of personnel to the Department of Administration, Division of Budget. The principal task of doing the study was assigned to John Berry, an auditor with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Berry performed a workload study for a period in 1976, which was designed to determine the time that the agents within the district offices were spending in the primary agency functions, which are licensing and enforcement. The result of this study may he found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Berry in compiling his study, examined the various functions being performed in the Jacksonville District Office and the West Palm Peach District Office, which are Districts III and X respectively. It was determined, per his workload study, that although Jacksonville and West Palm Beach had a comparable number of licenses in their district, the number of manhours being spent in the performance of the licensing and enforcement functions of the division were significantly disproportionate. This is borne out by an examination of the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which shows 2,067 licenses in Jacksonville and 2,015 licenses in West Palm Beach, for the various counties in the districts. Although this number is relatively close, manhours in the licensing function in Jacksonville was some 9,907 hours and the licensing manhours in West Palm Beach were 6,683. Likewise, the enforcement manhours in Jacksonville were 10,250, an even greater gap existed for enforcement in West Palm Beach in comparison to Jacksonville, in that the total manhours spent for that function in West Palm Beach was 3,355. These statistics were derived from an examination of the weekly and monthly reports from the personnel within the Jacksonville and Palm Beach offices. The statistics were also borne out by the testimony of the lieutenant in charge of the West Palm Beach office, who indicated that due to a shortage of manpower, the enforcement function in the West Palm Beach area was woefully inadequate. This discussion of the Jacksonville and West Palm Beach district offices leads to further consideration of the efforts made by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to have their personnel realigned. After Director Nuzum had received the workload study, he had a further discussion of the authenticity of that study, with members of the staff, to include the district supervisors. His communication with the district supervisors had been by sending them a copy of the workload study to solicit their remarks. This study was forwarded to the district supervisors some time in March, 1977. After this discussion, the study was accepted. On June 7, 1977, the director forwarded the reorganization proposal to Mr. J. Jackson Walter, the Executive Director of the Department of Business Regulation, of which the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is a part. This reorganization proposal was forwarded in conjunction with a request made by Mr. Walter. Again, the contents of this proposal are found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which includes the workload study and a specific indication of how many persons would be reassigned to the various offices. It also includes a copy of the then present manning chart and a copy of the proposed manning chart after the changes. At that point in time, the exact persons who would be moved had not been determined. Moreover, the criteria for moving individuals from one location to another was still under discussion. Finally, it was determined that the basis for movement would be on the grounds of seniority, should there be two possible candidates for relocation and a decision become necessary for selecting one of those two persons. Sergeant Kirkland was in that category, because within the Jacksonville district there were two beverage sergeants and the other beverage sergeant was a more senior member of the division. Therefore, Kirkland was chosen to be relocated from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach. The purpose of this relocation was primarily to promote a more consistent enforcement pattern in terms of hours spent in that function statewide and between Jacksonville and West Palm Beach. A related reason was to allow some assistance to the lieutenant in charge of the West Palm Beach office, in terms of supervision of the field beverage officers of basic rank. A letter was forwarded to the district supervisors and district auditors from Mr. Nuzum, indicating that the realignment of personnel assignments would be on the basis of seniority. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 submitted into evidence is a copy of that notification. After determining that seniority would be the criterion for the relocation of personnel involved, the Division Director submitted his proposals through the Department of Business Regulation for transmittal to the Department of Administration for their approval. The Department of Administration approved the reorganization and J. Revell of the Department of Administration informed Floyd L. Dorn of the Department of Business Regulation's personnel office, that this approval had been granted. This approval came about in August, 1977. After receiving the notification of approval, Director Nuzum then began to advise the personnel who were affected by the reorganization in terms of any relocation. As stated before, Sergeant Kirkland was a person involved in the relocation question. Assistant Chief of Enforcement, Ken Ball, on the basis of the seniority standard, determined that Sergeant Kirkland should be transferred from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach. This was approved by Director Nuzum and this particular change was indicated on the reorganization position chart, which was Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 submitted into evidence. His position number is 00092. The Respondent had filled the 00092 position while working in Jacksonville. His primary function was as supervisor of the enforcement section of the district, with the exception of the period of time in which he was acting in the dual capacity of enforcement supervisor and acting district supervisor. His duties during that latter period are described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. This duty description was made by Sergeant Kirkland. When the present district supervisor, Captain Oganowski, took over the permanent job of district supervisor in Jacksonville, Sergeant Kirkland went back to filling the duties of enforcement supervisor. This function entailed the supervision of the enforcement division, as opposed to enforcement and licensing or licensing. Sergeant Kirkland continued to hold this position except for a short period of time in 1975 when he changed positions with the licensing supervisor. This is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 shows the reassignment of Kirkland back to the job 00092, (enforcement supervisor) in Jacksonville. During his tenure with the division, Sergeant Kirkland has maintained a high standard of performance in his various assignments. The current description of duties and responsibilities which the Respondent is expected to assume in the West Palm Beach office may be found as a part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. This function includes the supervision of both enforcement and licensing personnel. When it was determined that Sergeant Kirkland would be sent to West Palm Beach, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco telephonically communicated the notice of this transfer. It was followed by a letter indicating the transfer, a copy of which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. The date of the written notification is August 25, 1977. The official report of personnel action setting the effective date of the relocation was dated September 15, 1977, and made the effective date September 19, 1977. A copy of this report of personnel action is Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. The type of action indicated on this form is original appointment, with the additional statement entered as "Continued." In fact, the relocation of Sergeant Kirkland is a reassignment within the meaning of Rule 22A-7.08, F.A.C. It is a reassignment because the appointment involved a move from one position in one class to a different position in the same class. The position move, is a move from the 00092 position in Jacksonville, which involves the supervision of enforcement personnel in Jacksonville, to the 00092 position in West Palm Beach, which involves the supervision of both enforcement and licensing personnel. Under the terms of Rule 22A-7.08, F.A.C., Kirkland may not appeal that reassignment. However, since it involves a geographic transfer of more than fifty miles the Respondent is entitled to appeal this decision to the Career Service Commission, in keeping with the authority of Rule 22A-7.09, F.A.C. The Respondent has challenged this relocation by his Career Service Appeal. That appeal has two principal contentions. The first contention concerns the assertion that the transfer does not fall within any of the types of enumerated appointments found in Rule 22A-7, F.A.C. As already shown, this position has been rejected, because the appointment has been determined to be a reassignment appointment. The second contention of the appeal is that any transfer from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach would cause irreparable financial harm and hardship on the Respondent and his wife. In connection with this assertion, Sergeant Kirkland produced evidence that the housing in the West Palm Beach area is more expensive than that in Jacksonville, and that, not withstanding the amount of equity which he might realize from the sale of his Jacksonville property, he still would incur approximately $15,000 additional cost for housing. This housing would not be comparable to his Jacksonville housing, due to the difference in the available amount of property and size of the home itself being smaller in West Palm Beach. The house that he is purchasing in Jacksonville is a four-bedroom, two-bath, two-carport home. The house being contemplated for purchase in West Palm Beach is a three-bedroom, two-bath home. Furthermore, the cost of the mortgage in Jacksonville is $165 and this cost would be exceeded in West Palm Beach even if the equity realized in the sale of Jacksonville home were put toward the down payment. It was also established that the restaurant cost in the West Palm Beach area is greater than that cost in Jacksonville. Sergeant Kirkland's wife testified that she is a hospital operating room nurse who has established a certain amount of seniority in her present employment. She is also only one year away from being able to retire with retirement benefits. If she is required to move, she would lose those benefits and also have to start at the bottom of the seniority list in any new employment in a hospital operating room in West Palm Beach. Finally, the Respondent demonstrated that to move from the Jacksonville community to West Palm Beach would cause him to lose church membership and other community activities in which he is involved. In spite of the degree of hardship which has been demonstrated by the Respondent in his presentation, a review of all the facts and circumstances would justify the Petitioner's action in its reassignment transfer of the Respondent. The action was not a punishment, it was a circumstance where the needs of the Petitioner in this instance, are more compelling than the hardship which will be caused Sergeant Kirkland and his family.
Recommendation It is recommended that the proposed reassignment appointment transfer of the Respondent from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach in the position 00092 he approved and that the appeal by the Respondent challenging this action by the Petitioner be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 30 day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Glickstein, Jr., Esquire 1205 Universal Marion Building Post Office Box 1086 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Francis Bailey, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32201 Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Division of Personnel and Retirement 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether DOT has improperly excluded Western Waste Industries, Inc. from bidding by combining two Volusia County sites in a single invitation to bid?
Findings Of Fact A three-man maintenance crew works out of DOT's Daytona Beach construction office, which is 16 miles distant from DOT's principal Volusia County facility, the Deland maintenance yard. In the summer, when both mowing operations and littering are at their peak, 72 DOT field people and 14 convicts set out from the Deland yard daily to sweep the roadways, police, grade and seed the shoulders, cut the grass and do other bridge, pipe and concrete maintenance. At one time, as the work day ended, crews dropped litter and mown grass at the county dump on their way back to the sites at which they assembled mornings in Deland and Daytona Beach. The Daytona Beach crew still does. But somebody calculated that DOT could save 100 man hours a month by arranging for "dumpsters" at both its Volusia County yards. That way all workers can return to their work stations directly, and no side trip is required in order to dispose of litter and cut grass. On April 1, 1988, petitioner Western Waste Industries, Inc. (WWII) installed two dumpsters, each with a capacity of eight cubic yards, at DOT's Deland yard. Under a month to month agreement, WWII empties both containers twice weekly in exchange for $273 monthly. DOT is satisfied with its decision to use dumpsters, but is obliged to invite bids, because DOT cannot procure the services it needs for less than $3000 a year. Among the specifications set out in DOT's invitation to bid is the form of the contract the successful bidder is to sign, which includes the following: 1.00 The Department does hereby retain the Contractor to furnish certain services in connection with Central Point Refuse Pickup and Disposal Originating at the Department's Maintenance Office Located at 1655 North Kepler Road, Deland, Florida, with an Option to Include Similar Services for the Department's Construction Office Located at 915 South Clyde Morris Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Florida. DOT's Exhibit No. 1 (emphasis in original) In Exhibit A to the form contract, entitled "SCOPE OF SERVICES," the specifications call for "trash containment and removal of litter ... from specific offices located in the Department's District Five." Id. Exhibit A specifies both the Daytona Beach and the Deland offices by name and address. Attachment B indicates that the successful bidder is to remove 40 cubic yards of refuse weekly from DOT's maintenance yard in Deland and, at DOT's option, additional refuse from the Deland yard, from the Daytona Beach office, or from both. If DOT exercised both options, the contractor would haul ten percent of DOT's refuse from the Daytona Beach office, on an annual basis. In its letter of protest, dated June 14, 1988, WWII complains that it "operate[s] on the West Side [of Volusia County] only." But the two companies who submitted bids in response to DOT's invitation to bid are willing to collect refuse at both sites. No exclusive franchise or other legal impediment precluded WWII from bidding on collection at both sites By soliciting bids for service at both sites, DOT avoids the administrative costs of inviting and evaluating two sets of bids.
The Issue Whether Respondent Heath Currier committed the violations alleged in the Final Notice of Discipline, and if so, the appropriate discipline that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The fire chief, on behalf of the City of Cape Coral Fire Department, is responsible for terminating the employment of employees of the fire department. At all times relevant to the this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a firefighter. The employment position that Respondent occupies is included in the positions covered by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Cape Coral Professional Fire Fighters Local 2424 of The International Association of Fire Fighters (Union). Petitioner has the authority to monitor and regulate its employees in accordance with the laws and rules of the State of Florida, the City of Cape Coral Charter, ordinances and rules promulgated thereunder, and the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Union. According to the Joint Pre-Hearing Statement, “Article 7(d)(2) of the union contract states that employees are entitled to Notice of Intended Discipline” and, according to Respondent, “Heath Currier wasn’t advised that his employment was being terminated until after the fire chief’s pre-disciplinary hearing.” The referenced article of the union contract was not offered into evidence. However, chapter 2, division 7 of the City of Cape Coral Ordinances (division 7), was received into evidence and this ordinance sets forth Respondent’s procedural disciplinary notice rights. Section 2-31.4(b) of division 7 provides in part that “[w]hen disciplinary action against an employee with regular status is contemplated by the city, the department head shall provide the employee with written notice of the intended action(s).” Section 2-31.4(c)(6) provides further that “[i]n no event shall the discipline imposed be greater than that specified in the notice of proposed disciplinary action.” On or about December 22, 2015, Respondent received a notice of proposed disciplinary action from Petitioner which informed him that the fire chief was considering disciplinary action including, but not limited to, “written reprimand, suspension, demotion, and/or termination of employment with the City.” Following the issuance of the notice of proposed disciplinary action, an investigation was conducted which resulted in the issuance of a final notice of disciplinary action which advised Respondent that his employment with the City of Cape Coral was being terminated “effectively immediately.” The notice of proposed disciplinary action provided Respondent with notice that termination of his employment with the City of Cape Coral was a possible consequence resulting from his alleged misconduct, and the notice was issued in accordance with the requirements of division 7. Respondent, at the time of the occurrences that provide the basis for the instant action, was a seven-year member of the Cape Coral Fire Department, and, during all times relevant hereto, worked primarily in the department’s division of operations. The fire department’s division of operations is divided into two battalions, “fire north” and “fire south.” Respondent was assigned to the fire south division. The division of professional standards is another division within the fire department, and, during all times relevant hereto, was under the supervision of then special operations battalion chief Timothy Clark. Housed within the fire department’s division of professional standards is the department’s special operations unit, which includes the department’s dive/rescue team. Mr. Clark, in his capacity as battalion chief for special operations, had the authority to direct fire department employees in matters related to dive/rescue operations. To become a member of the dive/rescue team, a firefighter must go through a competitive process that, if successfully completed, results in the firefighter receiving additional pay in the form of a wage supplement. Members of the dive/rescue team, according to Mr. Clark, must be proficient in the operation of dive-related equipment to the point of knowing the equipment “inside and out, upside down, sideways, backwards, eyes closed, [and] blindfolded.” Respondent is a member of the department’s dive/rescue team. At some point (the exact date is not clear in the record), Respondent was assigned to the fire station where the dive/rescue team is located. The dive/rescue team is under the direct supervision of Ryan Corlew. The dive/rescue team has regular training exercises which require members of the team to perform certain tasks so as to maintain operational efficiency. Mr. Corlew, when working with Respondent, determined that Respondent’s knowledge of the operational aspects of some of the dive/rescue equipment was deficient and in need of remediation. Special operations battalion chief Clark was informed of Respondent’s problems with the dive/rescue equipment, and armed with this information, met with Respondent to discuss the issue. Mr. Clark explained to Respondent that he was displeased that Respondent was not as proficient with the dive/rescue equipment as he should be, and that he was placing Respondent on a non-punitive three-week remedial training program. Mr. Clark “instructed [Respondent] at that time to work with the other guys in [his] station, the lieutenant, the engineer, the firefighters, all the divers there, to work with them and train with them and have them teach [you] so that when I come back in three weeks, [you will know] this stuff inside out . . . backwards . . . [and] blindfolded.” Respondent explained that after he was instructed by Mr. Clark to work with the other guys at his station, he repeatedly asked (“morning, noon, and evening”) his lieutenant, Mr. Corlew, for training, and each time he was refused. According to Mr. Corlew, Respondent, while at the dinner table one night, asked if Mr. Corlew could personally train him, and Mr. Corlew, as Respondent’s supervisor, told Respondent to first work with firefighters Stalions and Johnson, both of whom are extremely knowledgeable about the workings of the dive equipment. Mr. Corlew went on to advise Respondent that he would personally work with him once firefighters Stalions and Johnson raised Respondent’s proficiency with the equipment to an acceptable level. Firefighter Stalions testified that during this same discussion at the dinner table, he offered to train Respondent, but Respondent refused and said that he wanted to be trained instead by Mr. Corlew. Respondent testified that “[e]very single day [he] would take all of the dive equipment out of the compartments, disassemble it completely, reassemble it and do that at least twice a day.” In an attempt to corroborate this testimony, Respondent called Steven Jobe as a witness. Mr. Jobe testified that he “didn’t necessarily see [Respondent] putting [the dive equipment] together and taking it apart.” Although Mr. Clark told Respondent to be ready to demonstrate his proficiency three weeks from the time of their meeting, it was actually four weeks later when Mr. Clark again met with Respondent. During the follow-up meeting, Mr. Clark gave Respondent “a simple scenario that engine 2 had come back from a call, all the equipment was trashed and everything needed to be replaced.” According to Mr. Clark: I needed [Respondent] to go in the back room, get all the stuff together and assemble a dive setup, check it out and test it and make sure it was ready to go if a call came in. He fumbled through it. It took him a long time to put stuff together. He ultimately figured a couple things out throughout the process of elimination, but there was [sic] still some things that he had wrong. He had the weights, they weren’t properly in the BCs (undefined), which is a critical safety issue, because if you lose your weights on the call, it could cause you to bolt to the surface, which could cause injury to yourself or others. So by placing the weights improperly the way he did, to me was a huge [problem]. (Hearing transcript pg. 83). Mr. Clark went on to explain that “once we were all done, like I said, he had some issues and I knew--it was obvious that he hadn’t done what I instructed him to do[,] [s]o I asked him at the time who he had worked with over the course of that four weeks.” Mr. Clark explained that he asked Respondent who he had trained with during the four-week period because if the individuals that remediated Respondent were performing at or near the same level as Respondent, then Mr. Clark believed that he had a larger issue of operational preparedness that he needed to address by personally retraining all concerned. In response to Mr. Clark’s request for names, Respondent told Mr. Clark “the only people that I’ve had consistently with me are two firefighters that I’ve worked with,” named Johnson and Stalions. Soon after meeting with Mr. Clark, Respondent sent the following text message to firefighters Johnson and Stalions: Hey guys heads up, I just had my “non punative [sic] dive gear quiz” with [C]lark and I missed a few things. He asked who I had been working with and I reluctantly gave him your names after [C]orlew told him I never went to [M]edero for help. Not sure if there will be any fallout but I wanted to let you both know ahead of time. Mr. Johnson credibly testified that he was surprised to have received the referenced text message from Respondent given that he had never been asked to, nor had he ever provided any type of training to Respondent. Firefighter Stalions credibly testified that after receiving the text he spoke with Respondent and “told him I didn’t appreciate being pulled into it because training wise, I didn’t do any formal training with him and it kind of to me felt like he was looking for kind of some backup on it.” Firefighter Stalions went on to explain that he had never trained with Respondent, but certainly would have had he been asked. Because Respondent did not train with either firefighter Johnson or Stalions, Respondent lied to Mr. Clark when informing him that Respondent had trained with these individuals. Respondent’s poor performance on his remedial test, combined with the fact that not a single witness corroborated Respondent’s testimony of having disassembled and reassembled the dive equipment twice a day, every single day, makes incredible his testimony regarding self-directed remedial training. Respondent testified that he “did everything [he] thought [he] could do” to comply with Mr. Clark’s directions and recommendations. Respondent’s assertion is, however, belied by the evidence which demonstrates that Respondent did not train on the dive equipment with firefighters Madero and Johnson, and refused a direct offer from firefighter Stalions to assist Respondent with training. It was solely the fault of Respondent that he did not secure remedial training as directed by Mr. Clark.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Al Paruas (Respondent), as a member of the town council for the Town of Golden Beach, Florida, improperly used his influence, as a public officer, to have his wife’s parking ticket voided in violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was an elected member of the Town council. As such, the Respondent is subject to the mandates of the Code of Ethics for public officers and employees found in Chapter 112, Florida Statutes (2002). On February 10, 2000, at approximately 5:25 p.m. within the Town of Golden Beach, Florida, Dagmarra Paruas (the Respondent’s wife) illegally parked her motor vehicle in a handicapped zone at the public beach pavilion. Mrs. Paruas exited her vehicle for a short amount of time (to see about some tables at the pavilion) and when she returned to the car, Officer Santinello was at her vehicle preparing a citation. Had Mrs. Paruas been respectful, remorseful or apologetic at the time, Officer Santinello would have written only a citation warning as it is his policy to warn persons before writing a citation. Instead, Mrs. Paruas was disrespectful toward the officer. Based upon Mrs. Paruas’ parking violation and the disrespectful manner in which she exited the beach parking area, Officer Santinello decided he would let the citation stand. Factors contributing to the officer’s decision were: the aggressive backing out of the parking space causing Officer Santinello to move quickly out of Mrs. Paruas’ vehicle’s path; Mrs. Paruas’ demand to speak to Hernan (Hernan Cardeno, the Town’s police chief); and the way Mrs. Paruas threw the ticket back at him after he attempted to hand the citation to her. Mrs. Paruas is a member of the Town’s beach committee. At or near the time of the citation, Mrs. Paruas was checking on arrangements at the beach pavilion for the beach committee. She did not believe the citation was fair because she was at the pavilion for a short time and was there in her capacity as a Town beach committee member. After Mrs. Paruas advised the Respondent that she had received a citation for parking at the pavilion, the Respondent telephoned the Town’s chief of police. During the conversation with the chief (Hernan Cardeno) the Respondent stated he was unhappy with the way the police department was being run and was unhappy his wife had received a parking citation. Mr. Paruas did not understand why his wife had received the citation. At a subsequent meeting with the police chief at the police department, the Respondent asked when the Town started giving councilmen’s wives tickets. The Respondent again reminded the police chief that he was unhappy with the police department. At the time, the Respondent was serving as vice mayor for the Town. The Respondent was not persuaded by the information provided to him regarding the ticket. He continued to complain regarding the citation to the police chief and to Officer Santinello. At some point during the meeting at the police office, Officer Santinello was told it would be in his best interests to take back the citation. When Officer Santinello asked whether his job was being threatened, he advised the Respondent and the police chief that he would contact the police union. The Respondent told Officer Santinello to take back the ticket and apologize to his wife. A short while later (after the Respondent had left the police office), the police chief suggested to Officer Santinello that he should void Mrs. Paruas’ ticket. The next day, Officer Santinello voided the citation by preparing a County Court Cancellation Form for the ticket. Mrs. Paruas was not required to pay the citation or appear in court or have any adverse entry on her driving record. Officer Santinello voided the citation because he was afraid of losing his job. He did not want additional conflict over the matter. Officer Santinello did not want to get on the Respondent’s bad side, given his position in the Town. Officer Santinello would like the entire incident to be forgotten. Officer Santinello expressed regret over the incident as it has potentially damaged his employment future with the Town. Mrs. Paruas and the Respondent benefited from the cancellation of the citation. Had the Respondent not challenged Officer Santinello as he did, and had he not been a member of the Town council, the citation would not have been voided. Neither Mrs. Paruas or the Respondent took responsibility for the fact that she had, in fact, parked illegally at the beach pavilion. Mrs. Paruas is not entitled to park in a handicapped zone. Members of the Town council and their spouses are not entitled to park illegally as an extra benefit of their public roles within the Town.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Ethics Commission enter a Final Order and Public Report concluding that the Respondent, Al Paruas, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2002). The Respondent should be subject to a public reprimand and the imposition of a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000. S DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Commission on Ethics 3600 Macclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Macclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5709 James H. Peterson, III, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 James J. Birch, Esquire Law Office of Stuart R. Michelson 200 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for supplemental compensation pursuant to Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact 1. The Petitioner holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Michigan State University. The degree was earned in the College of Communication Arts and Science. The major on the Petitioner's degree is advertising. 2. The transcript of the courses taken by the Petitioner to earn his bachelor's degree does not list any courses that appear to come within the criteria listed at Rule 4A- 37.084(5) (b)1, Florida Administrative Code. 3. The transcript of the courses taken by the Petitioner to earn his bachelor's degree lists several courses that appear to come within the criteria listed at Rule 4A-37.084(5) (b)2, Florida Administrative Code. However, there are not enough of such courses to comprise a major. 4. The transcript of the courses taken by the Petitioner to earn his bachelor's degree lists one course that appears to come within the criteria listed at Rule 4A.37.084(5) (b)3, Florida Administrative Code. 5. The Petitioner is presently employed by the Miami Beach Fire Department as a Firefighter I. The Petitioner has been employed full-time in his present firefighter position at all times material to the pending application. 6. The Petitioner's fire department duties are described in a written position description for the Firefighter I position. It is clear from the description of those duties that a Firefighter I position with the Miami Beach Fire Department is not one of the "management positions within a fire department," nor is it a position that includes "arson investigators." Such a position is also not one of the "special positions" contemplated by Rule 4A-37.084(5) (b)4, Florida Administrative Code. 7. When the Petitioner submitted his present application, Floyd Jordan, the Fire Chief of the Miami Beach Fire Department, by letter dated November 15, 2000, advised the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training as follows: After review of the attached college transcript and the City of Miami Beach Job Description for Firefighter I, it is my conclusion that this request does not meet the requirements of the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program. As of the date of the final hearing, Chief Jordan continued to be of the same view of the matter. 8. The Petitioner was previously employed by the Boca Raton Fire-Rescue Services as a firefighter/paramedic. The Petitioner's job duties in the Boca Raton position were essentially the same as his job duties in his present position. While employed with the Boca Raton Fire-Rescue Services, the Petitioner applied for supplemental compensation on the basis of the same bachelor's degree on which he bases his present application. The Petitioner's prior application was approved and he received supplemental compensation while employed with the Boca Raton Fire-Rescue Services.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Chuck Pereny, pro se 259 Northwest 90th Avenue Coral Springs, Florida 33071 For Respondent: Elenita Gomez, Esquire James B. Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying the Petitioner's application and dismissing the petition in this case. Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. = DONE AND ENTERED this CS “day of June, 2001, in CH heseu Loe € MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this Q — day of June, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Alexander J. Milanick should be required to pay attorney fees and costs in the amount of $4,976.00 to Petitioner Charles Osborne to compensate Petitioner for his defense of an ethics complaint filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics.
Findings Of Fact The Town of Beverly Beach, Florida has a population of about 600 located in Flagler County, Florida. It is about one mile from north to south, and occupies about .4 square miles. It is bounded on the west by the Intracoastal Waterway and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. U.S. Highway A1A is the main north-south route through the town. Mr. Osborne is an aerospace engineer who served on the Beverly Beach Town Commission from 1997 through March 1999. He was mayor from March 1999 until 2001. He has lived at 2641 Osprey Circle, in Beverly Beach, in a home constructed at that location, since 1995. This residence is closer to the southern boundary of Beverly Beach than to the northern boundary. Dr. Milanick is a dentist who, along with his brother John, and a person named McGee, during times pertinent, owned land immediately north of Beverly Beach. On the property then and currently owned by Dr. Milanick, and east of A1A, is a restaurant named the Shark House. The premises has also been known as Crabby Joe's. In 1995, Dr. Milanick applied to the Town Commission to have his property, and that of his brother, and that of McGee, annexed into the town limits of Beverly Beach. He did this by asking a Mr. Taylor to do what was necessary to cause the annexation to occur. Mr. Taylor thereafter filed a petition with the Town Commission. By Ordinance 95-9-4, the Town Commission, in 1995, assented to the request and it was made effective November 15, 1995. The Ordinance purported to annex the Milanick property into the Town of Beverly Beach and to zone it general commercial. Mr. Osborne was not a member of the Town Commission and was not mayor during this time. The Ordinance, however, was defective in four ways. The Ordinance purported to annex the property into Bunnell, Florida; it was not properly signed by all commissioners; it was not publicly noticed; and it did not provide a legal description of the property. It was not filed with either the Flagler County Clerk of the Court or the Florida Secretary of State. The matter languished until 1997 when Dr. Milanick determined that his property had not in fact been moved within the boundaries of Beverly Beach. Dr. Milanick brought this to the attention of the Town Commission in October 1997. At a Town Commission meeting on December 3, 1997, the Town Attorney stated that he had not had a chance to look into the Milanick and Shark House issue. At a Town Commission meeting on February 4, 1998, Dr. Milanick inquired as to the progress being made on the annexation of his property and was told that the Town Attorney would get with him and discuss the procedure. Subsequently, the Town Attorney, Pat McCormick, suggested that it would be necessary to start the process from the beginning if the land was to be annexed. At a Town Commission meeting on March 4, 1998, Mayor Osborne stated that there was no benefit to the annexation of the Shark House. One member of the Town Commission suggested that they honor past commitments. Dr. Milanick was in attendance at this meeting. At a Town Commission meeting on May 5, 1999, Dr. Milanick and his brother again attended the Town Commission meeting and requested the annexation of their property and discussed the procedure that would be necessary. At a Town Commission meeting on June 2, 1999, a motion was made to go forward with Ordinance 95-9-4 and to amend the official city map and legal description to include the Shark House property. The motion passed but Mayor Osborne vetoed it. During a regular monthly meeting of the Town Commission on July 7, 1999, James Kearn, an attorney retained by Dr. Milanick, who was authorized to act for Dr. Milanick, appeared and requested that the Commission direct the Town Clerk to sign Ordinance 95-9-4 and to forward it to the county and the state in order to determine if the Ordinance was valid. This request was approved by the Town Commission. Mayor Osborne, vetoed the measure. Thereafter, the veto was over-ridden by the Commission. At a Town Commission workshop on July 21, 1999, there was additional discussion regarding the annexation of the Shark House. Mr. Kearn accused Mayor Osborne of discussing the Milanick annexation matter with Sid Crosby, Clerk of the Court of Flagler County. Mayor Osborne denied the charge. The discussion became heated and accusatory and Mayor Osborne threatened to have the sheriff eject Mr. Kearn from the meeting. Subsequent to the action of the Town Commission of July 7, 1999, the Town Clerk, Douglas Courtney, took Ordinance 95-9-4 to Syd Crosby, Clerk of the Court for Flagler County. In a memorandum dated July 26, 1999, Mr. Courtney reported to the Town Commission that Mr. Crosby would not file Ordinance 95-9-4 because it was defective. One of the defects cited was that the instrument purported to annex the land into the City of Bunnell, Florida. No creditable evidence was adduced which indicated that Mayor Osborne visited Syd Crosby for the purpose of preventing the recording of the annexation of Dr. Milanick's property. Mr. Crosby concluded from the beginning that Ordinance 95-9-4 was not recordable. Mayor Osborne suggested some solutions which would permit the annexation, including, re-submission of a proper application. Over a period of time some "glitch" bills were considered which would annex the land. However, none passed. Mr. Kearn attended the Town Commission meeting on February 2, 2000, and the minutes of the meeting noted that he was accompanied by "a person taking notes." Following this meeting, in a February 16, 2000, letter to Dennis Knox Bayer, Town Attorney, Mr. Kearn claimed that Mayor Osborne had a personal vendetta against Dr. Milanick, and that he was exercising dictatorial efforts to prevent citizens to speak at town meetings. He further demanded that ". . . all Town officials, including you as their representative, refrain from saying things that are simply and blatantly false, which only serve to incite Mr. Milanick." At a town meeting on March 1, 2000, Mr. Kearn complained about the annexation not being on the agenda and Mayor Osborne stated that a request for inclusion on the agenda had not been made in writing. Mr. Kearn was permitted to speak for three minutes, he spoke for three minutes, and immediately thereafter Mayor Osborne adjourned the meeting. On or about April 25, 2000, Dr. Milanick and his brother John, filed suit against the Town of Beverly Beach and Mayor Osborne personally, in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Flagler County. The suit alleged that the Town of Beverly Beach and Mayor Osborne violated the civil rights of the Milanicks. The suit alleged that Mayor Osborne had a vendetta against Dr. Milanick and should be held personally liable to Dr. Milanick. The Circuit Court dismissed the civil rights count against Mayor Osborne and the town, and this dismissal was affirmed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The Circuit Court also dismissed the mandamus action, finding that the 30- day limitations' period for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari applied and that a prima facie case for mandamus had not been established. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, on October 19, 2001, remanded that count to the Circuit Court with directions to grant the petition for mandamus, but upheld the dismissal of the civil rights counts. On January 23, 2003, the Circuit Court entered its Alternative Writ of Mandamus. The Writ incorporated the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint by reference and ordered that the Defendants take whatever steps necessary to sign and record Ordinance 95-9-4. When this occurred, Mr. Osborne was no longer an elected official of Beverly Beach. The Circuit Court complaint filed by Dr. Milanick recited that the recording of the ordinance did not occur because Mayor Osborne conferred with the Clerk of the Court to block recording of the ordinance. The adoption of the matters recited in the complaint as true, by the appellate court, does not make them proven facts because no evidence was taken in the case. The complaint, moreover, alleges actions, such as being tyrannical and peevish, which could not in any event constitute a violation of a person's civil rights. The complaint does not allege that Mr. Osborne took any action, as mayor, because he wished to obtain a personal advantage and does not allege that the annexation of Dr. Milanick's real property would affect Mr. Osborne's real property in terms of value or otherwise. As of the date of the hearing, Dr. Milanick's property had not been annexed into the corporate limits of Beverly Beach. Mr. Osborne, while serving as mayor, was not helpful in causing the annexation to occur and it is apparent that his relations with Mr. Kearn were not amicable. Mr. Osborne, while serving as mayor was irascible, intimidating, and controlling. Mr. Osborne believed that the annexation would bring no benefit to Beverly Beach and believed it would, "change the town's character." Mr. Osborne gained nothing directly or personally by preventing, or making difficult, the annexation of Dr. Milanick's land. As an elected official, he was permitted to advance his own ideas with regard to what he believed would be best for Beverly Beach and for himself as a citizen and property owner of Beverly Beach. He could act in this regard so long as he did not secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, as opposed to a general benefit. A letter signed by Mr. Kearn dated July 18, 2003, accompanied by an affidavit signed by Dr. Milanick, requested that the Commission conduct an investigation into the activities of Mr. Osborne during the period when he was the mayor of Beverly Beach. For reasons which become apparent hereafter, this letter, which had the words "Via Airborne Overnight Mail" stamped on its face, will be hereinafter referred to as the "Airborne" letter. The following statements were contained in the "Airborne" letter: Specifically, while Mayor, Charles Osborne simply refused to sign and record the ordinance duly adopted by the Town, which annexed land into the Town as a general commercial, simply because he personally did not want anymore general commercial land in the Town, which could jeopardize his personal investment in the Town. He also met with the former Clerk of Court for Flagler County, Mr. Syd Crosby, to persuade the Clerk to not record anything regarding the annexation of such land, in order to prevent the completion of the annexation. He thus plainly put his purely personal concerns, ahead of his duties as mayor, and fiduciary duty to the citizens of Beverly Beach. The mayor still refused to oblige the Town's request, or to honor the duly adopted resolution, for his own personal reasons, irrespective of his duties as mayor to the citizens of Beverly Beach.... Even worse, he met with the former Clerk of Circuit Court of Flagler County, Mr. Syd Crosby, to attempt to persuade Mr. Crosby to not record any ordinance presented by the Town, annexing the Milanicks' property. Mayor Osborne repeatedly ignored and defied the will of the Town to complete the annexation, to pursue his own personal agenda, i.e., stopping annexation of land as general commercial. The "Airborne" letter then parroted items that indicated that the Circuit Court had found to be true, as follows: Additionally, Mr. Osborne simply does not allow anyone to speak with whom he disagrees, or to address matter that he does not want addressed. Mayor Osborne has... refused to put the Milanicks' matters or requests on the Town Council agenda; taken action regarding the Milanicks' properties, without any notice to the Milanicks, or without knowledge by the Milanicks that such action was being taken against their property, as required by the Town's own law; refused to allow the Milanicks to speak to matters that affect their personal and property interests, once the Town Council had opened discussion regarding the annexation and zoning of the Milanicks' properties; blatantly and willfully misrepresented the Milanicks' positions, actions, and statements at Town meetings, beyond the scope of the privilege normally attendant to a politician's statements at such meeting, in order to defeat the Milanicks' requests, and to harm the Milanicks; refused to honor Ordinances passed by previous Town councils, as detailed above; refused to follow through with completing the annexation approved by previous council members of the Town; worked to undercut the recording of the completion of the signing of the ordinance, and the recording of the ordinance, to complete the annexation, all as detailed above. The matters in paragraph 25, are misleading because they indicate that the Circuit Court found these items to be true when in fact no evidentiary proceedings with regard to these items occurred in the Circuit Court. Moreover, the Complaint alleged several matters which Dr. Milanick either knew to be untrue, or should have known that it was untrue. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that Mayor Osborne "did not want anymore general commercial land in the Town, which could jeopardize his personal investment in the Town." This allegation implies that he was acting for some personal and specific reason financial reason, as opposed to a general opposition to development. This allegation, had it been true, would have been actionable pursuant to Section 112.313(6) The Complaint also alleged that Mayor Osborne met with Syd Crosby in order to prevent the annexation of the Milanicks' property. This allegation, coupled with the allegation as to a financial interest, bolsters the asserted improper purpose. Based on this Complaint, the Executive Director of the Commission issued a Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate, which was filed with the Commission on September 26, 2003, and assigned Complaint Number 03-091. Investigator Travis Wade of the Commission was directed to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether or not there was probable cause to believe a violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, had occurred. That section reads as follows: (6) Misuse of public position.--No public officer, employee of an agency, or local government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his or her official position or any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or others. This section shall not be construed to conflict with s. 104.31. Mr. Osborne learned of the Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate and thereafter retained Robert J. Riggio, of the firm of Riggio & Mitchell, P.A., located in Daytona Beach, as his attorney. Mr. Riggio worked on the case from October 24, 2003, until September 29, 2004. He charged $150 per hour, which is below the customary charge in the Daytona Beach area, and the hourly rate therefore, is reasonable. He expended 33 hours which is reasonable. He expended $180 in costs. These expenditures totaled $4,976 which was billed to Mr. Osborne. He paid the bill. On April 6, 2004, a second letter dated July 18, 2003, was sent to the Commission by Mr. Kearn by facsimile. This will be referred to as the "Fax" letter. This was precipitated by a request to Mr. Kearn from Investigator Wade that he provide a copy of the original letter. The "Fax" letter differed from the "Airborne" letter. In the second paragraph of the "Fax" letter the following sentence appears: "Specifically, while Mayor, Charles Osborne simply refused to sign and record the ordinance duly adopted by the Town, which annexed land just north of Mr. Osborne's manufactured home . . . ." And in the fourth paragraph of the "Fax" letter, the following sentence appears: "The Mayor objected, because it would serve to annex land as general commercial, just north of his own manufactured home." It further stated that his motivation was ". . . stopping land as commercial near him." Mr. Kearn testified under oath that when Investigator Wade was discussing the case with him, that he, Mr. Kearn, realized the "Fax" letter was a draft that had been sent to Investigator Wade in error. Mr. Kearn said that the "Fax" letter was a draft that had subsequently been edited by Dr. Milanick who knew, July 18, 2003, that Mr. Osborne did not live in a manufactured home located immediately south of the property which was sought to be annexed. Mr. Kearn said that it the "Airborne" letter was supposed to be the operative document. He said that he realized that the "Fax" letter was being used by Investigator Wade when he was talking to him on the telephone on June 8, 2004, and that he advised Investigator Wade of the error. He testified that he made it perfectly clear to Investigator Wade that the "Airborne" letter was the operative document. Investigator Wade's Report of Investigation, however, recites that during the telephone interview of Mr. Kearn, that Mr. Kearn advised him that Mr. Osborne resided in a mobile home community immediately south of the Milanick property, while he served as mayor and that Mr. Osborne's interest in stopping the annexation was to use his position for his personal benefit. At the hearing, Investigator Wade stated under oath that Mr. Kearn advised him during their telephone conversation that Mr. Osborne resided in a mobile home community immediately south of the Milanick property while he was serving as mayor. Investigator Wade stated that the issue of whether or not Mr. Osborne lived in the immediate vicinity of the Milanick property was the key element in his investigation because if that were true, stopping the annexation could be a personal benefit to Mr. Osborne. Mr. Wade was a disinterested and credible investigator and witness and his testimony is taken as true and accurate. Mr. Osborne did not live in either a manufactured or mobile home. The type of home he lived in is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Mr. Osborne did not live adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the Milanick property. In fact, Mr. Osborne did not live near the north side of town. He lived closer to the south side of town and it is unlikely that the annexation of the Milanick property would have an economic effect on Mr. Osborne's property. Mr. Kearn was aware of Mr. Osborne's resident address because he had him served with a civil suit at his residence in 2000. Mr. Kearn knew that Mr. Osborne did not live in a mobile home community, or in a manufactured home near the Milanick property, or anywhere near it. Nevertheless, he asserted that to be true when he talked to Investigator Wade. Mr. Kearn is the attorney and agent of Dr. Milanick. Mr. Kearn is, therefore, the alter ego of Dr. Milanick so that the actions of Mr. Kearn, are the actions of Dr. Milanick. The Commission, found in their Public Report, dated September 8, 2004, that Mr. Osborne's opposition to the annexation was not connected to any desire to secure a benefit for himself. The Commission dismissed the Milanick complaint on a finding of "no probable cause."
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter an order requiring Dr. Milanick to pay Mr. Osborne $4,976.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 James J. Kearn, Esquire James J. Kearn, P.A. 138 Live Oak Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-4912 Gary S. Edinger, Esquire 305 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Martin A. Pedata, Esquire Martin Pedata, P.A. 505 East New York Avenue, Suite 8 DeLand, Florida 32724 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phillip C. Claypool, General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Virlindia Doss, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
