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
The Issue The issue to be addressed is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), and/or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(5)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate number 972355, covering the area of elementary education. Respondent’s certificate was issued on July 1, 2008, renewed on March 5, 2013, and is valid through June 30, 2018. Respondent moved to the State of Florida in approximately March of 2011, from the State of Maine. She, her husband, and two small children moved into an apartment in Ocean Park Apartments at 801 First Street South, Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent’s apartment faced the beach and was within 100-200 yards from the beach. Shortly after moving there, Respondent obtained renters’ insurance through Geico. The renters’ insurance was issued on approximately March 23, 2011. On March 26, 2011, Respondent called the Jacksonville Beach Police Department to report a burglary at her residence. Respondent reported that she and her husband had taken their children to the beach for the day, and upon their return that afternoon, she and her husband placed the stroller, containing a beach bag and various other belongings they took to the beach, inside the front door to the apartment. Respondent and her husband then went upstairs to put the children down for a nap. When they returned downstairs approximately an hour later, the stroller and its contents were missing. Officer Michael Abate of the Jacksonville Beach Police Department responded to Respondent’s call. He found no signs of forced entry or any other indications that there had been an intruder. However, the home was apparently unlocked at the time of the reported incident, which would negate the need of forced entry. Assuming for the sake of this Recommended Order that the burglary occurred,1/ it appears that the theft was a crime of opportunity, given the apartment’s proximity to the beach and the number of people in the area on a spring weekend. Respondent furnished to Officer Abate a list of approximately twelve items she claimed were stolen: the baby stroller; a beach bag; a canon digital camera; an Apple iPad; sunglasses; flip flops; a Coach® wallet; a Maine Driver’s License; a Bank of America credit card; $100 in cash; children’s shoes; and towels. On May 5, 2011, Respondent went to the police department and provided a more extensive list (supplemental list) of items she claimed were stolen. This list contained 47 items as opposed to the 12 originally described for Office Abate. In addition to the number of items described, there were a number of discrepancies between the first and second lists. For example, the original list identified $100 in cash. The supplemental list reported $160 in cash. The Coach® wallet was originally valued at $200, while the supplemental list valued the wallet at $248. The value of a pair of sunglasses changed from $150 to $199, and the digital camera’s value was amended from $799 to approximately $1,200. Other items added to the claim in the supplemental list included an iPhone 4, Otterbox Defender case, and Invisible SHIELD screen protector; an iPad case; a Kobo E-reader; make-up and name-brand cosmetics; monogrammed beach wraps; and a pair of Lacoste sunglasses in addition to the pair of sunglasses previously listed. On April 1, 2011, Respondent filed a written claim with Assurant Insurance Company, which provided her renter’s policy. The value of the claim submitted was $6,024.56. With the exception of her wallet and driver’s license, Respondent claimed that all of the missing items were purchased within a year of the alleged theft. No depreciation was acknowledged for any item. Assurant referred the claim to its special investigations unit for further review, which was conducted by Special Investigator Charles Beall. Mr. Beall interviewed Respondent by telephone on May 17, June 21, and August 3, 2011. During his investigation, Mr. Beall had discovered that some photographs submitted by Respondent of items supposedly taken in the burglary were actually taken two to three weeks after the burglary had been reported. Moreover, the photographs were taken with the camera that was listed as stolen. When Mr. Beall confronted Respondent in the telephone conference on June 21, with the times the pictures were taken, she could not provide an explanation. Respondent was hired at a Duval Charter School at Baymeadows on June 21, 2011. She continues to teach there. Mr. Beall also discovered during his investigation that a receipt from Amazon.com submitted by Respondent for the camera equipment was altered to reflect a higher purchase price by $639. The original receipt indicated that a single item, the camera, was purchased for $599. The receipt was altered to show the purchase of two items (a more expensive camera and a separately purchased lens) for $1198.95. When asked to confirm the information on the invoice she had provided to Assurant, Respondent initially confirmed the information as accurate. When confronted with the information received from Amazon regarding the purchase, Respondent admitted to altering the Amazon.com invoice in order to make up the monetary difference in her claims deductible. It is found that neither the camera, nor the items photographed with the camera after the date the theft was reported to the Jacksonville Beach Police Department, was actually stolen. Based upon its investigation, Assurant denied Respondent’s claim in full and notified Respondent of the denial by certified mail dated August 1, 2011. It also referred the case to the National Insurance Crime Bureau and to the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Insurance Fraud. Investigator Ed Johnson (now Lieutenant) from the Division of Insurance Fraud was assigned to the case, and during his investigation interviewed Respondent. During the interview, Respondent provided a sworn statement, which reads in part: In March of 2011 my family moved to the above listed address. Within two weeks of our arrival, we were the victims of a theft. I then filed a police report with the Jacksonville Beach Police Department, and filed a claim with my insurance company. While filing a report and claim, I purposely [sic] and untruthfully stated that a Canon T2i camera was stolen. Through the investigation of Mr. Charles Beall at Assurant Insurance it was determined that my claim for the camera was false, and my claim was denied. I falsified the camera being stolen in order to make up for the deductible on my claim. I also claimed that my ME (Maine) license was stolen. It has been determined that my ME license was actually used to acquire a Florida Drivers License on April 11, 2011.[2/] Lt. Johnson prepared and submitted an arrest warrant for Respondent’s arrest on September 29, 2011, and a warrant was issued that same day. Respondent was charged with filing false insurance claims, a third-degree felony. Respondent was arrested the following day. On December 14, 2011, Respondent entered a pre-trial intervention program. On October 2, 2012, based upon her completion of the program, the State Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the charges. On April 29, 2013, Respondent submitted a letter to Pam Stewart as Commissioner of Education, in response to the preliminary investigation by DOE. The letter stated in pertinent part: In April, 2011, my home was robbed, while myself and my husband were settling our two young children upstairs for a nap. Our stroller was taken, along with all of the contents. The contents totaled less than $5,000, however the emotional toll was far more extensive. In the aftermath of such an event, our emotions were heightened, and we were in dismal spirits. Although we had renter’s insurance, we knew that we would struggle financially to replace all of the items that were stolen. At that time, I made a foolish decision to add an extra item to my insurance claim to make up for our deductible, so that we wouldn’t end up losing money. * * * They reported the case to local law enforcement, and I met with a Detective to explain how a law-abiding, well-respected community leader such as myself,[3/] had made such a decision. The Attorney General decided to pursue the case, and charge me of [sic] Insurance Fraud in the 3rd degree. I fully cooperated with law enforcement officers, and drove myself [to] the jail to accept my consequence. I bonded out of jail, hired a lawyer, and enrolled in a “Pre-Trial Diversion” program. . . . I completed several hours of community service, and paid a hefty fine during my “Pre-Trial Diversion” program. After a year, upon successful completion of the program, the charges were dropped, and I am left with an arrest record. I feel like I have paid the price for what I did, and learned several valuable lessons during the recovery process. My family has moved on financially from this crisis, but the emotional scars will remain. Educating children is my truest love. Giving back to my community and country by educating our future leaders, and enhancing the lives of people around me is really who I am. This situation has encouraged me to reflect deeply upon my character, and what I am passionate about. I appreciate your time and careful consideration regarding this situation. I made a poor decision, for which I have suffered immensely for [sic]. In both the letter submitted to the Commissioner of Education and during her appearance before a panel of the Education Practices Commission, Respondent consistently maintained that the residence was in fact robbed. Respondent’s admission that she inflated the amount of her insurance claim in order to cover the amount of her deductible is consistent with a burglary occurring. The fact that there was no evidence of forced entry into an unlocked home near the beach is not clear and convincing evidence that the theft did not occur.4/ Petitioner’s claim that Respondent was lying when she made statements that there was in fact a theft at her home is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(d), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Commission suspend her teaching certificate for a period of two years, followed by a period of probation for three years, and impose a fine of $1,000, payable within one year of the entry of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2014.
The Issue The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resides in Mebane, North Carolina. Sometime in April 2003, Petitioner requested the Board to release certain information that is public information within the meaning of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes (2003). Sometime in October 2003, the Board provided some of the information requested by Petitioner. The information included "scores, converted and raw and seat numbers of test applicants." Respondent did not include the "listed areas as agreed." The Board charged Petitioner $90.00 for providing "what they felt Petitioner should have," and the Board was "quite insulting about it." On a date not identified in the Petition, Petitioner asked a representative of the Board if the Board "currently" had an advertisement in the Florida Administrative Weekly concerning a "rule challenge that dealt with raw scores or scores in general." The representative stated there was no proposed rule change pertaining to scores. Petitioner asked for any and all data pertaining to scores as a rule change. The representative for the Board stated there was no such information to provide. At some time not identified in the Petition, Petitioner requested a copy of any records that "had been submitted" to the [B]oard pertaining to scores as part of a rule change. The representative of the Board repeated that nothing had gone before the Board pertaining to applicants sitting for the "Intern Test or the PE Exam." The Florida Administrative Weekly dated October 10, 2003, contains a proposed change to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21 that is directly related to Petitioner's "public information request." Petitioner believes that the Board had to approve the rule change before the Board advertised it on October 10, 2003, and that the previous denials by the Board's representative constituted "unethical" conduct. Petitioner requested a public hearing pursuant to the advertisement in the Florida Administrative Weekly on October 10, 2003, but doubts if the Board will comply with the "Florida Administrative Laws" based on what Petitioner believes to be the Board's "previous unethical behavior." The Board may be "in violation of The Florida Sunshine Law and the Florida Administrative Laws." The behavior of the Board's representative "in trying to deceive" Petitioner on this issue is "certainly a red flag" and indicates a necessity to notify all previous testing applicants to make sure they are aware of the proposed rule change before adoption. The Florida Administrative Weekly alone is not "a well read media for the general [sic] affected masses." Florida law states that any substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of a proposed rule by filing with DOAH a petition seeking such a determination within 21 days after the date of publication of the notice required by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner timely filed a petition challenging the proposed change to an existing rule. Petitioner believes the term "substantial" denotes "having a reasonable basis in law and fact" and that the term "reasonable" denotes "that which is fair, proper or moderate under the circumstances." Petitioner believes it is Respondent's "negligence in complying with FS 120, FS 119 that gives Petitioner standing in this case." Petitioner made a "public information request" sometime in July 2003. Respondent did not provide the information in the months of August and September 2003. In September 2003, Respondent requested Petitioner to pay $90.00 for release of part of the information requested by Petitioner. The information Respondent agreed to release included: statistical data broken down by race and sex identifying each applicant by assigned number and a list of the "number of applicants" who sat for the past five professional engineer exams; the number of times "testees" took the test; raw and converted scores; the "city of the testees"; and the race and sex of the "testees." When Respondent requested the payment of $90.00, Respondent failed to disclose that Respondent would not release all of the requested information. Respondent did not release the "testees' candidate numbers." There may be no statutory exemption for "testees' candidate numbers." Petitioner believes Respondent violated Chapter 119, Florida Statutes (2003), by exceeding the statutory time limit for releasing public records and by not releasing all of the information that Petitioner requested. Petitioner believes that Petitioner is entitled to all of the information she requested, asserts that it is a misdemeanor to violate Chapter 119, Florida Statutes (2003), and alleges that such a violation is grounds for removal or impeachment. Petitioner believes Respondent failed to grant Petitioner a public hearing in violation of applicable rulemaking procedures. During a conversation with a representative for Respondent concerning Petitioner's request for information, the representative failed to advise Petitioner of the proposed rule change advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly on October 10, 2003. If the proposed rule change were adopted, "without credibly addressing the remaining issues of Petitioner's public records request," there may be no further opportunity to retrieve the data now in the possession of Respondent. Respondent accepted payment for the requested data, cashed Petitioner's check, and "arrogantly" released what information Respondent felt Petitioner should have. Counsel for Respondent advised Petitioner that Respondent would not cash Petitioner's check, but would return the check to Petitioner. Counsel for Respondent also threatened in a telephone conversation to advise Respondent not to grant the request and to require Petitioner to come to Florida and "go through the records" herself. Petitioner requested counsel for Respondent to put the requested information in "chart form." Counsel stated he would not advise Respondent to place the information in any particular format. Counsel was "extremely hostile and arrogant" and "later apologized for his behavior." However, Petitioner believes counsel for Respondent is "extremely hot tempered with certain people." Counsel for Respondent stated to Petitioner that Respondent would release the information "just as it is" in Respondent's database, and Petitioner could then put the information in any format she desired. That is "exactly what Respondent did. The information was extremely fragmented and difficult to read." Respondent had "no credible basis" for denying Petitioner the requested information. Petitioner believes that Respondent's action, "at best was deceptive and nonresponsive to Petitioner's inquiry." The trier of fact cannot summarize the next assumptive finding from Petitioner's response to the Motion to Dismiss, but must quote from the response. On October 16, 2003, Petitioner asked [Respondent's representative] via e-mail for the immediate release of all data whether electronic or written or telephonic messaging; and any and all communications between staff, and any other entity, person, corporation, business, governmental agency relative to the proposed change of scores, etc. Identify the date of origination of the proposed rule change and the reason for the proposed change. Please indicate any Board action on this issue and the date of Board action. Please include any supportive reports or data submitted to the Board to support or necessitate the need for a change in policy. Lastly, will the legislature need to act on your proposed rule change? As the e-mails will illustrate [the representative] continued to deny that any rule change existed pertaining to the very same public records request by Petitioner. The actions of [the representative] breached the public trust [and] eroded the fiber of 'ethics' in government. When Petitioner found the proposed rule change in the October 10, 2003, issue of the Administrative Weekly, [the representative] was listed as the contact person. Petitioner believes Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (2003), creates a two-pronged right to participation in the rulemaking process, i.e., "those [at] whom the intended action is directed and those who may just be affected by the new rule." Rulemaking procedures require notice to all persons named in the rule and to all persons who have timely requested notice. Respondent conducted its "rule change meeting in a closed meeting not open to the public." The records of that meeting are not available to the public. The Florida Administrative Weekly is not a well read publication for the "affected parties, directly affected parties, or the intended target parties." Therefore, Petitioner believes "in the spirit of open government, Respondents [sic] failed to meet the standard."
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, Robert Dugger, committed the violations alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint, DPBR Case Number 2002-007094, filed by the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation on April 11, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of community association management pursuant to Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes. (Stipulated Fact). Robert Dugger, is and was at the times material to this proceeding a licensed Florida Community Association Manager (hereinafter referred to as a “CAM”), having been issued license number CAM 1148. (Stipulated Fact). At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Dugger’s address of record was 7401 Beach View Drive, North Bay Village, Florida 33141. Miramar Gardens. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Dugger was employed by Timberlake Group, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Timberlake”). In his capacity with Timberlake, Mr. Dugger served as the CAM for 30 homeowners’ associations. In particular, Mr. Dugger served as the CAM for Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”). (Stipulated Fact). The Association is made up of approximately 350 homeowner members. The Association was initially created by the Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners Association, Inc., Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions adopted on or about December 16, 1975. By-Laws for the Association were also adopted on December 16, 1975. Article X of the By-Laws provides the following homeowners’ rights concerning the books and records of the Association: The books, records and papers of the Association shall at all times, during reasonable business hours, be subject to inspection by any Member. The Declaration, the Articles and these By-Laws shall be available for inspection by any Member at the principal office of the Association, where copies may be purchased at reasonable cost. Prior to 2001, the Association, along with Vista Verde Townhome Homeowners Association (hereinafter referred to as “Vista Verde”), an adjacent community association, had been placed in receivership and was managed by a civilian board. These events came about due to the dismal state the two communities were in. Crime was rampant, there were no street signs or lights, common areas and alleys were unkempt, there were abandoned vehicles, and the associations for both areas were essentially non-existent. Miami-Dade County had taken over ownership of many homes in the community by foreclosure. Mr. Dugger became involved early with the reorganization and revitalization of the Association and Vista Verde. In 1997, Mr. Dugger was appointed by the receiver as the CAM for the Association and Vista Verde. At the end of 2000, the Association was ready to govern itself. Toward that end, on or about December 21, 2000, the Association and Timberlake, entered into a Management Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Management Agreement”). Pursuant to the Management Agreement, Timberlake was designated as the “Exclusive Managing Agent” for the Association commencing January 1, 2001. Among the duties assumed by Timberlake, are the following: 2) MAINTENANCE OF ASSOCIATION FILES: The Manager will collect, organize and maintain in the office of the Manager, all Association information, including but not limited to the Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, Declaration of, [sic] Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, site plans, owner lists, correspondence, rules and regulations, blue prints, specifications, corporate minutes, all maintenance and service contracts in effect and the necessary administrative financial information related to the Association. 8) ASSISTANCE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: The Manager will provide administrative support services to the Board of Directors, to include notifying Directors of Board meetings, circulating minutes of the preceding meeting, as prepared by the Secretary . . . . Timberlake has continued to provide the services of Mr. Dugger as CAM since 2001. During his tenure, street signs and lights have been installed, the common areas have been cleared, and the community has greatly improved. Proposed findings of fact 14 through 19 of Mr. Dugger’s Proposed Recommended Order generally describe Mr. Dugger’s efforts as CAM, the improvement of the community, and Mr. Dugger’s reputation as CAM. Count I: Criminal Violations. During 2003, Mr. Dugger served as a city commissioner for the City of North Bay Village, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Village”). On or about December 12, 2003, Mr. Dugger was charged with eight criminal violations in an Information issued in case number F03-33076, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The alleged violations arose out of Mr. Dugger’s activities as a city commissioner for the Village. Two of the criminal charges, Counts 2 and 8, are of pertinence to this matter: (a) Count 2 alleges a violation of Section 2-11.1(d), Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes; and (b) Count 8 alleges a violation of Section 2-11.1(i), Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes. As to Count 2 of the Information, it was more specifically alleged, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . ROBERT A. DUGGER SR., on or about April 08, 2003, in the County and State aforesaid, being a member of THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE COMMISSION, in Miami-Dade County, did vote on a matter presented to said COMMISSION, to wit: ITEM 7A, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 152.029 OF THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE CODE OF ORDINANCES (FIRST READING), when said defendant would or might, directly or indirectly, profit or be enhanced by this action of said COMMISSION on said matter, in violation of Miami-Dade County Code s.2.11.1(d) and s. 125.69, Fla. Stat. . . . As to Count 8 of the Information, it was more specifically alleged, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . ROBERT A. DUGGER SR., on or about July 01, 2003, in the County and State aforesaid, being a MUNICIAL OFFICAL to wit: MEMBER OF THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE COMMISSION, in Miami-Dade County, did fail to comply with the financial disclosure requirements of Chapter 112 (Part III) of the Florida Statutes by failing to DISCLOSE ALL LIABILITIES IN PART E. OF FORM 1 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR 2002, filed with the City Clerk of THE CITY OF NORTH BAY VILLAGE, in violation of Miami-Dade County Code s. 2-11.1(i) and s. 125.69, Fla. Stat. . . . Counts 2 and 8 were based upon the following allegations of the Complaint/Arrest Affidavit: Robert A. Dugger was elected Village Commissioner for the City of North Bay Village on November 19, 2002. On September 21, 2002, Mr. Robert Dugger filed his Statement of Financial Interest for the calendar year 2001, as required by Miami- Dade County ordinance. In Part E of the Statement of Financial Interest (this section is designated for Liabilities – major debts-and asks for the name and address of creditor), Mr. Dugger marked N/A in this section. Commissioner Robert Dugger has substantial indebtedness to Al Coletta that was incurred when Al Coletta assumed the mortgage on one of Dugger’s properties and paid off the mortgage on another. Rachael Dugger admitted these debts under oath during her sworn statement. Commissioner Dugger failed to report these debts on his Statement of Financial Interest. Additionally, on March 15, 2001, a Summary Final Judgement of Foreclosure was ordered and adjudged on behalf International Financial Bank, against Tomin Incorporated, and Robert Dugger and Rachael Dugger personally, in the amount of $1,154,427.50. Following the Judgement on March 15, 2001, title of the property in question was acquire by International Finance Bank on Mary [sic] 2, 2001 and sold to a third party on June 1, 2001. The sale amount of the property was $750,000. A short fall of $404,427.50 remained after the sale and is still unpaid. Commissioner Dugger also failed to report this debt on his Statement of Financial Interest for the year 2001. . . . . Based on Commissioner Robert Dugger’s indebtedness to Al Coletta, he had a Conflict of Interest by voting on matters involving Al Coletta, that came before the North Bay Village Commission, each vote is a separate violation of the Miami-Dade Code, Section 2-11.1(d), a second [degree] misdemeanor. Commissioner Dugger violated the aforementioned Section 2-11.1(d), of the Miami-Dade Code on the following occasions: April 8, 2002, Item 7A, Page 7 of the Regular City Commission Meeting Minutes: A zoning amendment concerning property owned by Al Coletta. Page 14 of the Regular City Commission Meeting Minutes, Commissioner Dugger voted – yes, for approval of the ordinance. . . . . . . . . This action is in violation of Miami-Dade Code, Section 2-11.1(d), a second-degree misdemeanor . . . . Additionally, Commissioner Dugger is in violation of Section 2-11.1(i)(3), Miami- Dade County Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance. This Section required that candidates for County and municipal office must comply with the filing requirements, under Chapter 112, Florida State Statutes. This is a second-degree misdemeanor. . . . Section 2-11.1(d) of the Miami-Dade County Code, prohibits, in pertinent part, the following: Additionally, no person included in the term defined in subsection (b)(1) shall vote on or participate in any way in any matter presented to the Board of County Commissioners if said person has any of the following relationships with any of the persons or entities which would be or might be directly or indirectly affected by any action of the Board of County Commissioners: (i) officer, director, partner, of counsel, consultant, employee, fiduciary or beneficiary; or (ii) stockholder, bondholder, debtor, or creditor, if in any instance the transaction or matter would affect the person defined in subsection (b)(a) in a manner distinct from the manner in which it would affect the public generally. . . . Section 2-11.1(i)(3), of the Miami-Dade County Code, requires that candidates for County and municipal elective office meet the filing requirements of Chapter 112, Part III, Florida Statutes, “at the same time that candidate files qualifying papers.” Section 125.69, Florida Statutes, which provides procedures for the prosecution of county ordinances, states that they are to be prosecuted “in the same manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted.” On July 29, 2005, Mr. Dugger entered a plea of nolo contendere to Counts 2 and 8 of the Information, in case number F03-33076, both second-degree misdemeanor violations of Section 2-11.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes. (Stipulation of Fact). Mr. Dugger was adjudicated guilty of the violations alleged in Counts 2 and 8, and was ordered to pay $468.00 in fines and costs. Mr. Dugger was, therefore, adjudicated guilty of having voted on a matter in which he had a conflict of interest because the matter involved an individual to whom he was indebted; and of having failed to fully disclose liabilities on financial disclosure forms he was required to file pursuant to Florida law at the time he qualified to run for public office. Neither of the convictions directly involved Mr. Dugger’s practice as a CAM. Nor has the Department made such an argument. Instead, the Department presented expert testimony in support of its position that at least one of the convictions relates to Mr. Dugger’s ability to practice as a CAM. That testimony was convincing. All CAMs are involved in a fiduciary relationship with the associations they manage. It takes little expert testimony to support a finding that such a fiduciary relationship requires trust and integrity. CAMs must be trusted to handle association money, maintain the records of the association, and to deal on behalf of the association with potential and existing vendors. The association must be able to assume that a CAM will fully disclose any possible conflict the CAM may have with the association’s vendors. Mr. Dugger is responsible for billing, writing checks, paying insurance premiums, and maintaining a payment book for the Association. Paragraph 10 of the Management Agreement specifically provides that Timberlake “shall provide financial management services to the Association . . . .” Paragraph D(11)(a) authorizes Timberlake to “solicit and analyze bids for necessary insurance coverage.” Mr. Dugger has similar responsibilities with Vista Verde. Clearly, the Association must be able to trust that Mr. Dugger will carry out all these duties without having any conflict of interest. The Association must be able to assume that Mr. Dugger is acting in its best interest and not his own. In his defense as to the voting of interest conflict charge, Mr. Dugger, prior to the pertinent vote, made disclosure of his relationship with Mr. Coletta, the owner of the property which was the subject of the vote, to the attorney for the City of the Village. The Department failed to prove that Mr. Dugger did not make full disclosure. Mr. Dugger was advised that no conflict existed. Mr. Dugger cast his vote after receiving this advice. Subsequent to the vote, Mr. Dugger sought an opinion from the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics & Public Trust (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”). The Commission, like the city attorney, opined in writing that no conflict of interest existed. Mr. Dugger entered his plea on the two charges in order to avoid the cost of litigation. The evidence, however, failed to prove why prosecutors agreed to accept a plea on only two of the eight counts. Count IV: Alleged Denial of Access to the Records of the Association. During 2003, Miryam Ruiz lived in Miramar Gardens Township and was a member of the Association. While she had been in arrears for 2001 and 2002, presumably in her association dues, she became current when she paid all outstanding dues in March 2003. On March 14, 2003, during normal business hours, Ms. Ruiz went to the office of Timberlake and requested that she be allowed to inspect certain records of the Association. She made her request verbally and in writing, leaving Petitioner’s Exhibit 13 with a Timberlake employee, apparently the receptionist, which listed the documents she wanted to inspect. She was told by the receptionist that she could not see the documents until she had made an appointment to do so. By letter dated Thursday, March 27, 2003, Ms. Ruiz was informed by Mr. Dugger’s wife, Rachel, that Ms. Ruiz could review the documents. She was also told that, “[i]f you would like, call us to make an appointment at your convenience.” On the morning of Monday, March 31, 2003, not having received Ms. Dugger’s March 27th letter, Ms. Ruiz sent a letter by facsimile to Timberlake stating that she would be at the office at 11:00 a.m. that morning to “pick up” the documents. When Ms. Ruiz arrived at the Timberlake office at 11:00 a.m. she was again told that she could not review the documents because she had no appointment. Ms. Ruiz left the office. Later that day, Ms. Ruiz sent a second facsimile letter addressed to Ms. Dugger. Ms. Ruiz ended the letter by informing Ms. Dugger that she would be at the office the next day, April 1, 2003, “for the inspection and copying of records at 9:30 a.m.” On April 1, 2003, Ms. Ruiz returned to the Timberlake office and was again told that the records were not available because no appointment had been made. Ms. Ruiz told the receptionist that she would return on Friday, April 4, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. to inspect the documents. In a letter to Ms. Dugger dated April 1, 2003, she stated that she was confirming the date and time. The evidence failed to prove whether the letter was received prior to April 4, 2003. When Ms. Ruiz arrived at the Timberlake office on April 4, 2003, she was again denied access to the documents and was told by Ms. Dugger that she had no appointment because the date and time suggested by Ms. Ruiz had not been confirmed by Timberlake. Ms. Ruiz left the office. The following day, April 5, 2003, Ms. Ruiz sent a letter by certified mail addressed to Mr. Dugger describing the events leading up to that moment and asking what it would take for her to be allowed to inspect the records. Mr. Dugger did not respond to this letter. In response to Ms. Ruiz’ April 5th letter, a letter dated April 22, 2003, was sent by Ms. Dugger. That letter indicated that the records would be available for inspection at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6, 2003. The letter, which was postmarked May 2, 2003, ten days after the date of the letter, was not received by Ms. Ruiz prior to May 6th. Sometime during the month of May 2003, approximately two months after first attempting to review the records of the Association, Ms. Ruiz was finally allowed to inspect the records. Ms. Ruiz, without doubt, had the right to review the records of the Association she had requested. Pursuant to the Management Agreement, Mr. Dugger was required to collect, organize and maintain the records of the Association. The Management Agreement also required that Mr. Dugger was to assist the Board of Directors in their enforcement of the provisions of the “Association documents and rules and regulations ” Pursuant to Article X of the By-Laws of the Association, also quoted, supra, gives Association members the right to inspect and copy all Association documents The right to inspect association documents is not an unfettered one. In light of the duty and responsibility of a CAM to “maintain” records, it is not unreasonable for a CAM to set reasonable safeguards for a member’s review of those records. The Department did not produce evidence to refute the evidence presented by Mr. Dugger concerning the reasonableness of a CAM insisting on being present during the inspection of documents. The evidence also failed to prove that, given the fact that Mr. Dugger is the CAM for as many as 30 associations, he is not always available at his office to supervise a review of documents. The procedure followed with regard to reviews of the Association’s had been announced at an Association meeting. Members were told that anyone who wished to review records could contact the Timberlake office and make an appointment so Mr. Dugger could be present during an inspection, or that a copy of a document could be obtained upon payment for the document. It is clear that not all of the requests to Timberlake made by Ms. Ruiz were totally reasonable: (a) her first request on April 14, 2003, was without any notice; (b) her notice of March 31, 2003, gave only three hours notice; (c) her request for review on April 1, 2003, gave only one day notice; and (d) her request for review on April 4, 2003, gave only 3 days notice. While Ms. Ruiz eventually was allowed to review the documents, it took approximately two months after her initial request had been made. It is also clear that, although she did not always give reasonable notice for appointments she announced, Mr. Dugger (and his employees) could and should have done more to remedy the situation. Mr. Dugger first became aware of the request on March 14, 2003. It took 13 days to respond to that request. When Ms. Ruiz mailed a certified letter to Mr. Dugger dated April 5, 2003, it was not until May 2, almost a month later that a letter in response to that letter was post-marked. Based upon the foregoing, while neither Ms. Ruiz nor Mr. Dugger did much to ameliorate the situation, for at least part of the two months it took Ms. Ruiz to obtain access to the records of the Association, Mr. Dugger “denied” Ms. Ruiz access to the records of the Association. Count VI: Alleged Failure to Maintain Association Records. Pursuant to the Management Agreement entered into by Mr. Dugger with Miramar Gardens, at paragraph D(2), quoted, supra, Mr. Dugger agreed to collect, organize, and maintain all Association documents in the offices of Timberlake. Beginning in 2001, the minutes of meetings of the Association (held jointly with the meeting of Vista Verde) were usually taken by Claudette Brinson, president of the Association. On occasions, they were taken by others. Minutes taken by Ms. Brinson were written by hand and, after the meeting, were taken home with her. On some occasions, Ms. Brinson would ensure that her hand-written minutes were typed at various locations, including Mr. Dugger’s office. When typed at Mr. Dugger’s office, a copy was retained by Mr. Dugger and maintained with the records of the Association. Ms. Brinson’s testimony at hearing as to whether Mr. Dugger was given a copy of all minutes was in conflict. She initially testified that she had provided him with a copy of all minutes. When recalled by Mr. Dugger, she testified that on some occasions, when she did not have the minutes typed at Mr. Dugger’s office, while maintaining a copy at her home, she did not always provide him with a copy. While the latter testimony was more convincing and has been credited, the bottom line is that Mr. Dugger did not maintain a copy of the minutes from all meetings of the Association. At hearing, Mr. Dugger admitted that when he was served an Investigative Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the Department on or about August 30, 2004, he realized that he did not have all the records the subpoena sought. In particular, Mr. Dugger did not have all of the documents requested in item number 5 of the subpoena: “[t]he minutes of all meetings of the board of directors and of the members of Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners Association, Inc.” Mr. Dugger, therefore, contacted Ms. Brinson and asked her if she could provide a copy of the minutes of Association meetings that he did not have. She was not able to do so within the time Mr. Dugger had to respond to the subpoena. In a letter to the Department dated September 17, 2004, Mr. Dugger indicted the following with regard to the minutes requested in item number 5 of the subpoena: “The Minutes in our possession. Original minute meetings are in the hands of the Receiver, which were retained for his records. Some additional minutes are in the hands of Board members, which we will attempt to locate.” During calendar year 2002, minutes had been kept for meetings held during February, March, April, May, June, July, October, and December. During calendar year 2003, minutes had been kept for meetings held during January, February, March, May, June, July, August, September, October, and November. Finally, during calendar year 2004, minutes were kept for meetings held in January, February, March, April, July, August and September. Mr. Dugger at the time of responding to the Department’s subpoena did not have minutes for all of these meetings. For example, for 2002 he only had minutes for the meetings held in February, March, and June, and for 2003, he only had minutes for the meetings held in January and December. While Ms. Brinson adequately explained why she was not always able to provide a copy of meeting minutes to Mr. Dugger, Mr. Dugger did not provide an adequate explanation as to why he had not made sure that he obtained a copy of all minutes so that he could fulfill his obligation under the Management Agreement. No evidence was presented to suggest that Mr. Dugger’s failure to maintain all minutes was the result of bad faith or any intent on the part of Mr. Dugger to circumvent the rules of the Department or the requirements of the Management Agreement. Prior Discipline Against Mr. Dugger’s CAM License. Mr. Dugger’s CAM license was disciplined in DBPR Case Number 00-02226, pursuant to a Stipulation entered into by the Department and Mr. Dugger which was accepted by Final Order entered on April 9, 2001. The Stipulation provides that Mr. Dugger “neither admits or denies the . . . facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint ”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Mr. Dugger committed the violations described in this Recommended Order and imposing the following penalties: A stayed suspension of his license for six months, with the stay being lifted should Mr. Dugger be found to have committed any additional violation with regard to his CAM license within two years of the issuance of the final order in this case; An administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00; Attendance at continuing education classes in records maintenance in an amount to be determined by the Department; and Payment of the costs of this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 22nd day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Philip F. Monte, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 E. Gary Early, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. 2618 Centennial Place Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
