The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent, David M. Whitehead, a member of Escambia County Commission, violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by having or holding an employment or contractual relationship with B & W Productions of Pensacola, Inc. (B & W Productions) which created a continuing or frequently recurring conflict between his private interests and the performance of his public duties or which impeded the full and faithful discharge of his public duties; whether Respondent violated Section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, by voting on measures that came before the Escambia County Commission regarding Carlan Killam Consulting Group, Inc. (Carlan Killam Consulting or Carlan Killam), Baskerville-Donovan, Inc. (Baskerville-Donovan), DelGallo-Morette Construction Company (DelGallo-Morette), and/or Champion International Corporation (Champion), all of whom were sponsors of a television show hosted by Respondent; and (3) if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, David M. Whitehead (Respondent), currently serves as county commissioner for Escambia County, Florida, and has continuously served in that capacity since taking office after his election in 1992. As a county commissioner for Escambia County, Respondent is subject to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees (Code of Ethics), and is a "public officer" as that term is defined in Sections 112.313(1) and 112.3143(1)(a), Florida Statutes. As a county commissioner for Escambia County, Respondent is subject to the provisions of Sections 112.313(7)(a) and 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent formed B & W Productions, a Subchapter S, for-profit corporation, for the purpose of producing a morning television show that was to be known as the "Lois and Mike Show" or the "Wake-Up with Lois and Mike Show" (the "Lois and Mike Show"). Respondent is "Mike" on the Lois and Mike Show and co- hosts the show with Lois Benson. B & W Productions was incorporated to shield the personal assets of Respondent and Benson in case of liability. B & W Productions was organized under the laws of the State of Florida, effective June 17, 1998. B & W Productions was active from June 17, 1998, through September 23, 1999. On September 24, 1999, B & W Productions was administratively dissolved for failure to file its annual report, as required by law. During its corporate existence, B & W Productions maintained a corporate bank account at SunTrust Bank, West Florida; produced periodic profit and loss statements of its activities; applied for a federal tax identification number as a Subchapter S corporation; filed a corporate tax return with the Internal Revenue Service; and entered into sponsorship agreements with specific sponsors of the Lois and Mike Show. However, during its corporate existence, the corporation failed to conduct meetings of its shareholders, to take minutes, and to file its annual report. Respondent served as chief executive officer of B & W Productions until approximately March of 1999. In March 1999, after Respondent stepped down as CEO, Benson took over the books and management of B & W Productions. Thereafter, Respondent was not involved in the active management of B & W Productions. In November of 1999, Respondent transferred to Benson "all ownership rights, rights to compensation in any form, and right to any benefits, accrued or accruing in the future, with regard to B & W Productions, Inc., and "Wake Up with Lois and Mike . . . ." Respondent transferred complete ownership of B & W Productions to Benson, free and clear of any obligation for repayment. The Lois and Mike Show began airing on a local cable station in Pensacola known as "BLAB TV" in September of 1998. Respondent and Benson have received no compensation for their efforts in connection with the Lois and Mike Show. Since the Lois and Mike Show first aired, over 200 guests, all local people, have appeared on the show. Daily rundowns of the show for the calendar year 1999 evidence a program highlighting local community events and personal information presented by local residents consistent with a weekly theme developed by Benson. As a political figure, Respondent receives an incidental benefit of appearing as local personality on the Lois and Mike Show. However, the show is not a political show. Rather, consistent with its mission, the show entertains and informs its audience on issues specific to the Pensacola area, highlighting local news and issues, local events, and local people. BLAB TV requires the payment of $1,250.00 for each week that the Lois and Mike Show is aired. Other costs incurred in the production of the show included contract labor and outside production companies used to produce a portion of the show. The primary source of income to pay for the Lois and Mike Show is money paid by sponsors or supporters of the Lois and Mike Show. Using a public broadcasting system model, Benson developed a market plan to secure sponsors for the Lois and Mike Show. The plan proposed different tiers of sponsorship: segment sponsors; traditional commercial sponsors; and friends and benefactors. Benson developed lists of potential sponsors which included a wide range of businesses in the Pensacola area. These businesses included but were not limited to Baskerville-Donovan, DelGallo-Morette and Champion. Various potential sponsors including Baskerville-Donovan, DelGallo-Morette and Champion, were targeted for a personal solicitation from either Benson and/or Respondent. Initially, B & W Productions was responsible for billing and collecting sponsorship fees. However, in December 1998, three months after the show was first aired, responsibility for billing and collection of sponsorship fees was assumed by BLAB TV. Since BLAB TV took over these responsibilities, all sponsors of the Lois and Mike Show are billed directly by BLAB TV. Both Respondent and Benson personally paid a portion of the costs for the airing and production of the Lois and Mike Show. Respondent paid approximately $16,000.00 of his personal funds for the production of the Lois and Mike Show. Benson expended approximately $30,000 of her personal funds for the production of the show. These payments have at various times been characterized as loans and capital contributions. In March of 1999, Respondent determined that he could not put anymore of his personal funds into B & W Productions and did not do so. Both before and after the airing of the first Lois and Mike Show, Respondent solicited funds from sponsors to help pay the amount charged by BLAB TV for airing the show. Sponsorships were solicited from over 200 individuals and entities in the Pensacola community by Respondent and Benson. Respondent solicited funds in 1998 for the sponsorship of the Lois and Mike Show from a number of sources, including Baskerville-Donovan, Carlan Killam Consulting, Champion, and DelGallo-Morette, all of whom gave money for the sponsorship of the Lois and Mike Show. There was never any discussion at the time the solicitations were made that any of these potential sponsors might have matters before the Escambia County Commission (County Commission or Commission). Respondent has not solicited sponsors for the show since March of 1999. Baskerville-Donovan, Carlan Killam Consulting, Champion, and DelGallo-Morette have all had matters come before the Escambia County Commission after giving money for the Lois and Mike Show. Respondent, as a county commissioner for Escambia County, has voted on matters that have come before the County Commission regarding Baskerville-Donovan, Carlan Killam Consulting, Champion, and DelGallo-Morette after those companies gave money to support the airing and/or production of the Lois and Mike Show. However, Respondent has never been employed by and has never owned property with or engaged in a business enterprise with Baskerville-Donovan, Carlan Killam Consulting, Champion, or DelGallo-Morette. Since July of 1998, Respondent has cast approximately 3,000 votes as a member of the County Commission. He has never abstained from a vote as a county commissioner or filed a conflict of interest disclosure form based upon payments that have been made by any entity to B & W Productions or for the Lois and Mike Show. Baskerville-Donovan provides architectural and engineering services to Escambia County. These services are provided pursuant to an on-going contract with the county. Respondent solicited a sponsorship from Baskerville- Donovan. Subsequently, Baskerville-Donovan became a regular sponsor of the Lois and Mike Show paying $200 a month, beginning September or October 1998, and continuing through April 2000. The following matters that came before the Escambia County Commission for a vote regarding Baskerville-Donovan just before and after it became a sponsor of the Lois and Mike Show: On June 23, 1998, the Commission approved issuance of a Task Order to Baskerville-Donovan on Contract PD 95- 96.74 in the amount of $394,568 to design several road projects to the 35 percent stage. This item was unanimously approved by the Commission upon motion made by Respondent. This vote occurred prior to any sponsorship funds being paid to B & W Productions by Baskerville- Donovan. On September 22, 1998, the Commissioner approved the extension of six contracts with various consultants, including Contract PD 95-96.74 to Baskerville- Donovan for the second consecutive one- year option period, October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, at the same price, terms, and conditions. The extensions applied to contracts that had been awarded on August 6, 1996. This item was unanimously approved as part of the Commission's Consent Agenda. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid by Baskerville-Donovan to B & W Productions. On December 22, 1998, the Commission approved Addendum Number 7 to Contract 95-96.63 to Baskerville-Donovan in the amount of $316,775.60 to provide full- time inspection and contract administration for the University Parkway Widening and Realignment Projects. This item was unanimously approved by the Commission with Respondent seconding the motion for approval made by Commissioner Boss. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions by Baskerville-Donovan and after responsibility for collecting and accounting for sponsorship funds for the Lois and Mike Show was transferred to BLAB TV. On January 21, 1999, the Commission approved issuance of a Task Order on Contract PD 95-96.74 to Baskerville- Donovan, in the amount of $490,729.00 to design various paving and drainage projects to the 30 percent stage. This item was unanimously approved as part of the Commission's Consent Agenda. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions and after responsibility for collecting and accounting for sponsorship funds for the Lois and Mike Show was transferred to BLAB TV. On January 21, 1999, the Commission approved extension of five current contracts with various consultants, including Contract PD 95-96.100 to Baskerville-Donovan, for the third consecutive one-year option period, March 14, 1999, through March 13, 2000, at the same prices, terms and conditions. The extensions applied to contracts that had been awarded March 14, 1998. The item was unanimously approved as part of the Commission's Consent Agenda. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions and after responsibility for collecting and accounting for sponsorship funds for the Lois and Mike Show was transferred to BLAB TV. On February 4, 1999, the Commission approved Amendment Number 4 to Contract PD 94-95.59 between Escambia County and Baskerville-Donovan, in the amount of $51,200, for architectural and engineering services for various projects. (The original contract was approved on April 25, 1995.) This item was unanimously approved as part of the Commission's Consent Agenda, with Respondent moving approval of the Consent Agenda. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions and after responsibility for collecting and accounting for sponsorship funds for the Lois and Mike Show was transferred to BLAB TV. On April 22, 1999, the Commission approved the expenditure of approximately $3,000 to Baskerville-Donovan to complete the design package for renovations to the Board Chambers located in the Old Courthouse. This item was approved by a vote of 4-0, with Commissioner Robertson absent. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions and after responsibility for collecting and accounting for sponsorship funds for the Lois and Mike Show was transferred to BLAB TV. On May 20, 1999 the Commission approved three items extending Contract PD 95- 96.83 to allow three consultants, including Baskerville-Donovan, to proceed with various tasks with respect to the extension of I-110. In the first vote, the Commission unanimously approved extension of the contract to allow consultants to proceed with the preparation of applications associated with the request for funds for the I-110 extension project. In the second vote, the Commission unanimously approved extension of the contract to allow the consultants to proceed with design and preparation of other documents required in connection with extension of I-110 to Nine Mile Road. In the third vote, the Commission approved, by a vote of 3-2, extension of the contract to allow consultants to proceed with design and preparation of related documents for further extension of I-110 using as much of the Gulf Power right-of-way as possible. With respect to each vote, Respondent seconded the motion for approval and voted in the affirmative on each item. These votes occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions and after responsibility for collecting and accounting for sponsorship funds for the Lois and Mike Show was transferred to BLAB TV. On October 7,1999, the Commission approved Contract PD 98-99.83 to Baskerville-Donovan, in the amount of $100,000 for a feasibility study for the Central Commerce Park. This item was approved unanimously by the Commission upon motion seconded by Respondent. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions and after responsibility for collecting and accounting for sponsorship funds for the Lois and Mike Show was transferred to BLAB TV. With respect to each of the matters which were the subject of votes referenced in paragraph 25, neither Respondent nor B & W Productions provided any services to Baskerville- Donovan. Nor did Respondent or B & W Productions have any responsibility for evaluating or inspecting Baskerville-Donovan's performance under any of these contracts. Moreover, neither Respondent nor B & W Productions provided any services with respect to any of the projects which were the subject of the Commission votes. Finally, neither the Respondent nor B & W Productions benefited from the votes of the County Commission approving various items involving Baskerville-Donovan. Respondent has never been employed or retained by Baskerville-Donovan. Respondent has never been engaged in a business enterprise with Baskerville-Donovan as a partner, a joint venturer, a co-owner of property, or in a corporate entity whose shares are not listed on a national or regional stock exchange. Carlan Killam Consulting provides architectural services to Escambia County, and has done so since 1973. These services have been provided to the county through on-going contracts. Carlan Killam Consulting provided one payment of $1,500.00 to sponsor the Lois and Mike Show. That payment was made on or about July 29, 1998. Benson initially approached Charles Carlan, the president of Carlan Killam Consulting, about sponsoring the Lois and Mike Show. Subsequently, Carlan met with Respondent and decided to have his company sponsor the show because it showed the positive side of Pensacola, as opposed to the negative side shown in the regular media. Carlan Killam Consulting engaged in a similar sponsorship endeavor with respect to the Pensacola Independent Newspaper. The following matters came before the Escambia County Commission for a vote regarding Carlan Killam Consulting just before and after it became a sponsor of the Lois and Mike Show: On June 23, 1998, the Commission, upon motion by Respondent, unanimously approved the issuance of a Task Order on Contract PD 95-96.74 to Carlan Killam in the amount of $254,920 to design several road projects to 30 percent stage. This vote occurred before sponsorship funds were paid by Carlan Killam. On July 28, 1998, the Commission unanimously approved, as part of its Consent Agenda, a Task Order on Contract PD 95-96.74 to Carlan Killam in the amount of $379,618 for various road paving and draining design projects. This vote occurred before any sponsorship funds were paid by Carlan Killam. On September 22, 1998, the Commission approved extensions of six current contracts with various consultants, including Carlan Killam (Contract PD 95.96.74), for the second consecutive one-year option period, October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, at the same prices, terms and conditions. (The extensions applied to contracts that had been awarded August 6, 1996.) This item was unanimously approved as part of the Commission's Consent Agenda. The vote occurred after the one-time sponsorship payment was made to B & W Productions by Carlan Killam. On November 24, 1998, the Commission considered and unanimously approved the Proposal Review Committee's ranking of firms based on their letters of interest regarding providing professional architectural consulting services to prepare a 10-year master space plan. Carlan Killam ranked second. This vote occurred after Carlan Killam made a one- time sponsorship payment to B & W Productions. On December 3, 1998, the Commission approved issuance of a Task Order on Contract PD-96.74.3P to Carlan Killam in the amount of $134,748 for services on various waste water projects. This vote occurred after the one-time sponsorship payment was made by Carlan Killam to B & W Productions. On December 22, 1998, the Commission approved issuance of a Task Order on Contract 95-96.74 in the amount of $104,927 for design, engineering, and surveying services for storm-water and drainage projects. This item was unanimously approved as part of the Commission's Consent Agenda. This vote occurred after the one-time sponsorship payment was made by Carlan Killam to B & W Productions. On March 18, 1999, the Commission approved issuance of three task orders on Contract PD 95-96.74 to Carlan Killam in amounts of $136,476; $504,771; and $69,087. These items were unanimously approved as part of the Commission's Consent Agenda. Respondent was not present for this meeting. On April 22, 1999, the Commission approved issuance of a Task Order on Contract PD 95-96.74 to Carlan Killam in the amount of $110,666 for the design and engineering for various road projects. This item was unanimously approved as part of the Commission's Consent Agenda for this date. This vote occurred after the one-time sponsorship payment was made by Carlan Killam to B & W Production. On May 20, 1999, the Commission approved three items extending Contract PD 95-96.83 to direct named consultants, including Carlan Killam, to proceed with various tasks with respect to the extension of I-110. In the first vote, the Commission unanimously approved extension of the contract to allow consultants to proceed with the preparation of applications associated with the request for funds for the I-110 extension project. In the second vote, the Commission unanimously approved extension of the contract to allow the consultants to proceed with design and preparation of other documents required in connection with extension of I-110 to Nine Mile Road. In the third vote, the Commission approved, by a vote of 3-2, extension of the contract to allow consultants to proceed with design and preparation of documents for further extension of I-110 using as much of the Gulf Power right-of-way as possible. With respect to each item, Respondent seconded the motion for approval and voted in the affirmative. These votes occurred after the one-time sponsorship payment was made by Carlan Killam to B & W Productions. On October 21, 1999, the Commission approved issuance of Task Order on Contract PD 95-96.83 to Carlan Killam in an amount not to exceed $263,727.28, to provide the first phase of project development to study the I-110 extension to Nine Mile Road. This item was approved by the Commission, by a vote of 4-1, with Respondent voting in the affirmative. This vote occurred after the one-time sponsorship payment was made to B & W Productions. With respect to each of the matters which were the subject of votes referenced in paragraph 31, neither Respondent nor B & W Productions provided any services to Carlan Killam. Moreover, neither Respondent nor B & W Productions had any responsibility for evaluating or inspecting Carlan Killam's performance under the aforementioned contracts or for providing any services with respect to any of the projects which were the subjects of these votes. Finally, neither Respondent or B & W Productions benefited in any manner from the votes of the County Commission approving various items involving Carlan Killam. Respondent has never been employed or retained by Carlan Killam. Respondent has never been engaged in a business enterprise with Carlan Killam as a partner, a joint venturer, a co-owner of property, or in a corporate entity whose shares are not listed on a national or regional stock exchange. DelGallo-Morette provides construction services to Escambia County. Benson suggested that Respondent contact DelGallo- Morette as a potential sponsor. Both Respondent and Benson discussed sponsorship of the Lois and Mike Show with Steve DelGallo, the president of DelGallo-Morette. Subsequently, DelGallo-Morette provided a one-time payment of $2,500 to sponsor the Lois and Mike Show. That payment was made on or about August 21, 1998. Benson's credible testimony was that she and DelGallo are good friends and that if there was any reason for DelGallo-Morette to sponsor the show, it was because she had just recently drawn the house plans for DelGallo free of charge. Matters that came before the Escambia County Commission for a vote regarding DelGallo-Morette just before and after it became a sponsor of the Lois and Mike Show include the following: On June 23, 1998, the Commission approved the unanimous recommendation of the Bid Review Committee to award a lump sum contract to DelGallo-Morette, in the amount of $89,5000 as the lowest, most responsive, and most responsible bidder, for a renovation construction project. This item was unanimously approved by the Commission, upon motion made by Respondent. This vote occurred prior to any sponsorship funds being paid to B & W Productions by DelGallo-Morette. On June 30, 1998, upon motion by Respondent, the Commission approved an increase in maximum price, by a sum not to exceed $385,000, for telecommunication system improvements at the M.C. Blanchard Judicial Center pursuant to a contract approved by the Commission on November 19, 1996, with Brown and Root Building Company, in association with DelGallo-Morette. This vote occurred prior to any sponsorship funds being paid to B & W Productions by DelGallo-Morette. On November 24, 1998, upon motion by Respondent, the Commission unanimously approved a guaranteed maximum price on the Escambia County Control Booking and Detention Facility in the amount of $14,661,576 with Brown and Root Building Company, as the contractor, in association DelGallo-Morette and a total project cost of $16,054,682 relative to Contract PD 97-97.155. This vote occurred after the one-time sponsorship payment was made paid to B & W Productions by DelGallo-Morette. On March 18, 1999, the Commission approved amending Contract PD 95-96.113 with Brown and Root Building Company, in association with DelGallo-Morette, to increase the guaranteed maximum price of $900,000 to provide for additional costs for construction change orders and other items associated with renovation of the M.C. Blanchard Judicial Center Expansion Project. This item was unanimously approved as part of the Commission's Consent Agenda by a vote of 4-0. Respondent was absent and did not vote. With respect to each of the matters which were the subject of votes referenced in paragraph 37, neither Respondent nor B & W Productions provided any services to DelGallo-Morette. Nor did Respondent or B & W Productions have any responsibility for evaluating or inspecting DelGallo-Morette's performance under the contracts addressed by the votes. Neither Respondent nor B & W Productions provided any services with respect to any of the projects which were the subjects of those votes. Further, neither Respondent nor B & W Productions benefited in any manner from the votes of the Commission approving various items involving DelGallo-Morette. Respondent has never been employed or retained by DelGallo-Morette. Moreover, Respondent has never been engaged in a business enterprise with DelGallo-Morette as a partner, a joint venturer, a co-owner of property, or in a corporate entity whose shares are not listed on a national or regional stock exchange. Champion is a forest products company whose primary products are a variety of papers, lumber, and plywood. Champion has a contract with Escambia County for the disposal of ash at the landfill in exchange for natural gas. In August or September 1998, Respondent and Benson met with representatives of Champion to discuss sponsorship of the Lois and Mike Show. Benson made most of the presentation which focused on the negative public image of Champion in the community at that time. Champion's negative image resulted from Champion's planned wastewater discharge into Escambia Bay. The Escambia County Commission did not have regulatory jurisdiction over this issue. Rather, regulatory jurisdiction resided at the Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Protection Agency. Champion was a segment sponsor of the Lois and Mike Show for a year, beginning in September 1998 through September 1999, at a rate of $260 a month. As a segment sponsor, Champion paid $260 monthly. From October 1999 through December 1999, Champion paid $178.50 per month to sponsor the show and in December 1999, Champion paid $119 in sponsorship fees. After December 1999, Champion discontinued its sponsorship of the show. The following matters that came before the Escambia County Commission regarding Champion before and after it became a sponsor of the Lois and Mike Show: On July 28, 1999, the Commission approved retaining Chris H. Bentley, Esquire, to monitor and advise the Commission on Champion's permitting activities regarding discharge of treated wastewater into Escambia River. This item was unanimously approved by Commission upon motion seconded by Respondent. This vote occurred prior to any sponsorship funds being paid to B & W Productions by Champion and did not address any item which Champion had before the Commission. On September 22, 1998, the Commission amended its License Agreements with Champion for the period January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998, to include installation of gas monitoring wells at various landfill sites which was inadvertently omitted from the prior approved agreements. This item was unanimously approved by the Commission, upon motion made by Respondent. This vote occurred prior to any sponsorship funds being paid to B & W Productions by Champion. On October 8, 1998, the Commission took two actions concerning Champion. First, it voted to accept, for filing in the minutes of the Commission, the "Escambia County Citizens' Executive Point Paper" regarding Champion's proposed discharge of wastewater into the Escambia River. This action was taken unanimously, upon motion seconded by Respondent. Second, the Commission voted to approve the staff's making a written request to Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Technology Team" to evaluate the impact of Champion's proposed wastewater discharge into Escambia Bay relative to the request of the Escambia County Citizen's Coalition, Inc. This action was taken unanimously, upon motion made by Respondent. This vote occurred prior to any sponsorship funds being paid to B & W Productions by Champion and did not address any item which Champion had before the Commission. On November 5, 1998, the Commission discussed a proposal from the Department of Environmental Protection that Escambia County form a partnership with Santa Rosa County and the EPA for a unified peer review approach to Champion's proposed relocation wastewater discharge point and to analyze the processing of wastewater discharge permitted for Champion and its impact on Escambia Bay and Perdido Bay. The Commission voted unanimously to refer to DEP's proposal to the County's Department of Neighborhood and Environmental Services for analysis and recommendation. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions by Champion and did not address any item which Champion had before the Commission. On November 24, 1998, the Commission approved the renewal of four License Agreements with Champion for the operation of water quality monitoring and gas wells located at various landfill sites, for the period January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999. This item occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions by Champion. On February 2, 1999, the Commission adopted a resolution urging Champion to use monies encumbered for construction and permitting of its proposed pipeline to the Escambia River to fund improvements to the effluent being dumped into Eleven Mile Creek. This item was approved by the Commission, by a vote of 3-2, with Respondent voting in the affirmative. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions by Champion and did not address any item which Champion had before the Commission. On April 8, 1999, the Commission authorized staff to negotiate the purchase of a parcel of property from Champion to be used as a district park. This item was unanimously approved by the Commission, upon motion made by Respondent, with Commissioner Boss absent. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions by Champion and after responsibility for collecting and accounting for sponsorship funds for the Lois and Mike Show was transferred to BLAB TV. On April 22, 1999, the Commission amended a previously approved Qualified Industry Tax Refund Incentive for Champion's dimensional lumber production facility. This item was unanimously approved by the Commission, upon motion made by Respondent, with Commissioner Robertson absent. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions by Champion and after responsibility for collecting and accounting for sponsorship funds for the Lois and Mike Show was transferred to BLAB TV. On June 22, 1999, the Commission adopted an ordinance establishing an economic development ad valorem tax exemption for Champion for its expansion of its Pensacola Mill located in Cantonment and for its hiring of additional employees. (Champion had expended $40 million in improvements at the facility that resulted in increased production and employment.) An employee of Champion met individually with Respondent as well as other members of the Commission to discuss this issue. The value of the ad valorem tax exemption to Champion was $1.8 million spread over 6.9 years. This item was unanimously approved by the Commission. This vote occurred after sponsorship funds were paid to B & W Productions by Champion and after responsibility for collecting and accounting for sponsorship funds for the Lois and Mike Show was transferred to BLAB TV. On July 15, 1999, the Commission approved the purchase of real property for a park from Champion for $375,000. This item was approved as part of the Commission's Consent Agenda by a vote of 4-0, with Respondent absent. With respect to each of the matters which were the subject of votes referenced in paragraph 43, neither Respondent nor B & W Productions provided any services to Champion. Nor did Respondent or B & W Productions have any responsibility for evaluating or inspecting Champion's performance under the items addressed by the votes. Neither Respondent nor B & W Productions provided any services with respect to any of the matters which were the subject of these votes. Neither Respondent nor B & W Productions benefited in any manner from the votes of the Commission on these items involving Champion. Respondent had no interest in the real property which the Commission directed staff to negotiate with Champion regarding purchase by the county. Respondent has never been employed or retained by Champion. Moreover, Respondent has never been engaged in a business enterprise with Champion as a partner, a joint venturer, a co-owner of property, or in a corporate entity whose shares are not listed on a national or regional stock exchange. Respondent was present and voted in favor of all of the issues involving sponsors as set forth in paragraphs 25, 31, 37, and 43 above, except as otherwise noted. All of the aforementioned sponsors paid for the sponsorship of the Lois and Mike Show. Furthermore, two of these sponsors, Baskerville-Donovan and Champion, continued to make monthly sponsorship payments in months just before, as well as after the votes, in the amounts of $200 and 260, respectively. Since the sponsorships reduced the personal contributions that had to be made by Respondent and his business associate, Benson, for the airing of the Lois and Mike Show, they directly benefited from money received from sponsors who did business with and regularly appeared before the Escambia County Commission. The facts show that all four of the above-mentioned sponsors were doing business with the Escambia County Commission and that both Baskerville-Donovan and Champion made sponsorship payments for the Lois and Mike Show during this interim period after dissolution but prior to the time that Respondent transferred his interest in the show to Lois Benson. Neither Respondent nor Benson believed that soliciting sponsorship from businesses that appear before the Escambia County Commission for a vote was a conflict. However, Respondent's contractual relationship with B & W Productions, and its interest in the Lois and Mike Show, his direct solicitation of sponsorships from businesses appearing before the County Commission, and Respondent's and B & W's dependence upon funds derived from those sponsors, constituted a continuing and frequently recurring conflict between Respondent's private interests and the performance of his public duties as a member of the Escambia County Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Ethics Commission enter a final order and public report finding that Respondent, David Whitehead: (1) did not violate Section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes; and (2) violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that for the violation of Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, the Commission impose a civil penalty of $2,000 against Respondent and issue a public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 15th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Peterson, III, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Mark Herron, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32801 Sheri L. Gerety, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner took an in-service distribution from his Investment Plan retirement account, and if so, must either repay the distribution in full or terminate employment with all FRS-participating employers, including his current employer, Orange County (County), for six calendar months.
Findings Of Fact The FRS is comprised of the Pension Plan, which is a defined benefit plan, and the Investment Plan, which is a defined contribution plan. The Division of Retirement administers the Pension Plan, while the SBA administers the Investment Plan. Section 121.4501(13) charges the SBA with administering the Investment Plan in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code in order to retain its qualified status. Until March 4, 2014, Petitioner was a member of the FRS Pension Plan by virtue of his employment as a Lieutenant with the Orange County Fire Rescue Department. The County participates in the FRS. Effective March 1, 2014, Petitioner used his one-time Second Election to switch from the FRS Pension Plan to the FRS Investment Plan. He switched plans in order to have ready access to his FRS retirement funds should he be terminated from employment by the County. On March 4, 2014, Petitioner was terminated from his employment for allegedly violating County rules and regulations. On March 10, 2014, Petitioner filed a formal grievance seeking reinstatement and all benefits. The decision to terminate his employment was later upheld. After the grievance was denied, but before he took a distribution, Petitioner obtained legal representation and initiated a lawsuit against the County on the basis that he was terminated because of his race and gender. On June 19 and July 1, 2014, Petitioner withdrew distributions totaling $991,811.60 from his Investment Plan account. Before taking an Investment Plan distribution, a member is required to answer several questions, either on-line or by telephone, to verify that he is eligible to take a distribution. Petitioner requested his distributions by telephone. One question asks if the member is "pending reemployment," a term that means, among other things, the member is seeking reinstatement through a pending action against his employer at the time of the distribution. If a member answers yes, he is ineligible to take a distribution. Even though he had a pending discrimination lawsuit against his employer, which could lead to reinstatement if he prevailed, Petitioner answered no. Had he answered the question correctly, Petitioner would not have been allowed to take a distribution. The SBA does not check in real time the veracity of a member's answers to the questions asked during the distribution request process. Petitioner was advised by written information, however, that the SBA might undertake a later review of his distribution and seek repayment if it was determined to be invalid. During the distribution process, if a member has a question regarding the distribution or other financial topics, they are provided access to Ernst & Young planners on the MyFRS Financial Guidance Line. Although offered that educational resource, Petitioner stated he had no questions. On May 24, 2016, Petitioner and his former employer entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release (Settlement Agreement) to resolve the discrimination lawsuit. Without admitting liability, the County agreed, among other things, for Petitioner to be reinstated to his former position with all seniority, benefits, and accrued back pay effective June 6, 2016. He also had service credit restored for the period March 2014 through June 2016. The Settlement Agreement further provided that a letter of reprimand would replace the termination notice. Petitioner was represented by an attorney during the settlement negotiations. The SBA was not a party to the agreement. Following the execution of the Settlement Agreement, but before payment of the settlement funds, the County was advised by the SBA that because Mr. McLean was being reinstated and the termination set aside, an in-service distribution had occurred in September 2015, and Mr. McLean would be required to either pay back the distribution in full or terminate employment with the County for at least six months. The County was also advised that a change to the language in the Settlement Agreement confirming that Mr. McLean had in fact been separated from employment with the County for a period of six months would resolve the in-service distribution issue and make it unnecessary to repay the distribution or be separated from employment with the County. This information was orally conveyed by the County to Petitioner's counsel. Despite this warning, Petitioner declined to modify the Settlement Agreement. The County reconfirmed this information in a letter dated June 14, 2016, to Petitioner's attorney. It read in pertinent part as follows: [T]his will confirm that you advised you met with Mr. McLean and counseled him on the potential implications of his acceptance of the enclosed payments under the Agreement (a copy of which was previously provided for your records), including the requirement that he repay to the Florida Retirement System (FRS) all sums that he previously received as disbursements from the FRS, and his responsibility for all penalties and tax consequences, if any, related to the Agreement payments and FRS disbursements. This will also confirm that although Orange County offered to enter into an alternate agreement form with Mr. McLean (for the same consideration) that would be acceptable to FRS and not require repayment of FRS disbursements, Mr. McLean elected to remain bound by the terms of the current Agreement and you advised Mr. McLean will make any FRS-related payments necessary. As we previously discussed, in the event Mr. McLean does not repay sums due and owing the FRS, Orange County will not repay such sums on his behalf. Further, in the event of Mr. McLean's non-repayment of funds to the FRS, we understand from Orange County that it may be compelled by FRS to separate Mr. McLean from his employment pursuant to applicable statutory laws, rules and regulations. In light of the serious consequences to Mr. McLean of non-repayment of the FRS funds, in an abundance of caution, Orange County once again advises that if an alternate form of settlement agreement that does not require repayment to FRS is preferred by Mr. McLean, Orange County stands ready to execute such an agreement in the form previously provided for your consideration. Jt. Ex. 8, pp. 0001-0002. This was fair warning to Petitioner that there were serious consequences if he chose to ignore the SBA's concerns. On June 15, 2016, Petitioner's counsel replied by letter that the settlement checks which accompanied the County's June 14 letter were cashed, Mr. McLean would not repay funds to the FRS, and Mr. McLean intended to return to work with the County. Id. at pp. 0003-0004. As of the date of the hearing, Petitioner had not repaid the distribution, and pending the outcome of this hearing, he has continued to work as a County employee pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Based upon an audit by the Division of Retirement after Petitioner was reinstated, which showed that Petitioner had received a distribution, he was currently receiving FRS contributions from his employer, and he had no County termination date, the SBA determined the distribution was invalid. On August 1, 2016, Petitioner was notified by the SBA that his September 2015 distributions were considered "in- service" distributions based on reinstatement to his FRS-covered position and service credit given for the period from March 2014 through June 2016. He was offered the option of returning the distributions to his account by September 30, 2016, or being terminated by his employer, with leave to be reemployed by an FRS-participating employer after six months. A copy of the letter was also sent to the County. Petitioner declined this option and filed an appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Hearing and determining that unless Petitioner repays the distribution to FRS within 30 days from the date of the final order, he must be declared a retiree and ineligible for future participation in the FRS; any retirement contributions received from Petitioner or the County after his first distribution on September 4, 2015, must be returned; service credit awarded for the period from March 2014 through June 2016 must be vacated; and Petitioner must be immediately terminated from employment for at least six calendar months. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of December, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Girley, Esquire The Girley Law Firm, P.A. 125 East Marks Street Orlando, Florida 32803-3816 (eServed) Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 (eServed) Sarah P.L. Reiner, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 Orlando, Florida 32801-2741 (eServed) Ash Williams, Executive Director and Chief Investment Officer State Board of Administration 1801 Hermitage Boulevard, Suite 100 Post Office Box 13300 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3300
The Issue The issue in case number 94-6750 is whether Respondent's Class "A" private investigative agency license should be disciplined. The issue in case number 95-1084S is whether Respondent's application for a Class "C" license should be denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of State, Division of Licensing (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is responsible for, among other things, the licensing of privateinvestigators and private investigative agencies in the State of Florida. Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. In pertinent part, the Division may issue, pursuant to Section 493.611, Florida Statutes, the following classes of licenses: Class "C": private investigator; Class "CC": private investigator intern; and Class "A": private investigative agency. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Keith P. Acuff, was licensed by the Division as a private investigator intern. Mr. Acuff holds a Class "CC" license from the Division. Mr. Acuff is also the owner of a private investigative agency known as Chatoyant Executive Protection and Investigative Services (hereinafter referred to as "Chatoyant"). Mr. Acuff holds a Class "A" license from the Division for Chatoyant. License Requirements. In order to qualify for a Class "C" license, an individual must operate for a minimum of twenty-four months as a private investigator intern. Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. During those twenty-four months, the intern must be sponsored and supervised by an individual holding a Class "C" license. See Sections 493.6101(11) and 493.6116, Florida Statutes. Anyone, regardless of licensure, may hold a Class "A" license. In order for the business to operate as a private investigative agency, however, the agency must be managed by a person holding a Class "C" license. Mr. Acuff's Investigatory Experience. Mr. Acuff first received his Class "CC" license in July of 1990. In October of 1994 Mr. Acuff applied for a Class "C" license. See Petitioner's exhibit 1. The Division denied the application based upon its conclusion that Mr. Acuff had failed to verify that he had accrued twenty-four months of sponsored service as a private investigator intern. Mr. Acuff was first employed by Don Hubbard Investigations. Mr. Acuff had not claimed, nor does the evidence support a finding, that he is entitled to any time toward a Class "C" license for his employment with Don Hubbard Investigations. From the middle of September, 1990, until December, 1991, Mr. Acuff was employed by The Brown Group. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at The Brown Group was Steve Brown. The Division was able to verify from documentation submitted by Mr. Brown that Mr. Acuff was entitled to 12 months of investigatory work while employed at The Brown Group. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to more than 12 months credit for his employment with The Brown Group. Although Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 15 months under Mr. Brown's sponsorship, he offered no proof from Mr. Brown to substantiate his testimony. From December 15, 1991, to February 15, 1992, Mr. Acuff was employed by Intercontinental Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at Intercontinental Detective Agency was Sean Mulholland. The Division was able to verify that Mr. Acuff had performed investigatory duties for Mr. Mulholland for 1 month. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to more than 1 month credit for his employment with Intercontinental Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 3 months under Mr. Mulholland's sponsorship but he offered no proof from Mr. Mulholland to substantiate his testimony. Mr. Acuff's testimony that he submitted a Sponsorship Term Addendum completed by Mr. Mulholland to the Division was not credible and, even if it had been credible, was insufficient to constitute substantiation from Mr. Mulholland of Mr. Acuff's work for him. Mr. Acuff's next investigatory work was for MG Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at MG Detective Agency was Michael G. Hatcher. Mr. Hatcher agreed to sponsor Mr. Acuff by executing a Letter of Intent to Sponsor Private Investigator Intern on October 27, 1992. See Respondent's exhibit 2. Cynthia L. Cartwright signed the form agreeing to be an alternative sponsor. Mr. Acuff did not list any time under Mr. Hatcher's sponsorship for credit on his application for Class "C" license. See Petitioner's exhibit 1. The Division was not able to verify that Mr. Acuff had performed any investigatory duties for Mr. Hatcher. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to any credit for his employment with MG Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 3 months under Mr. Hatcher's sponsorship but he offered no proof from Mr. Hatcher to substantiate his testimony. Mr. Acuff claimed on his application for Class "C" license that, upon leaving MG Detective Agency, he worked for Chatoyant from June of 1993 until August 1994. Mr. Acuff claimed that he was sponsored by Ms. Cartwright while employed for Chatoyant. Mr. Acuff also claimed that he performed investigatory work under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship during the period he worked for Chatoyant for at least 3 and 1/2 months. Initially the Division planned to issue Mr. Acuff a Class "C" license. The Division concluded that Mr. Acuff was entitled to at least 11 months of sponsored investigatory work under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. Before the Class "C" license was issued to Mr. Acuff, however, the Division concluded that Mr. Acuff was not entitled to any sponsored time under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. The evidence, as discussed, infra, proved that Mr. Acuff is not entitled to any credit for work performed under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Acuff provided verification that he had 13 months of sponsored investigatory service. Mr. Acuff is, therefore, 11 months shy of the 24-months of experience required for a Class "C" license. Mr. Acuff's Association with Ms. Cartwright. Mr. Acuff met Ms. Cartwright in late 1992 when he was employed briefly at MG Detective Agency. Ms. Cartwright has held a Class "C" license since 1991. Upon Mr. Acuff's termination of employment at MG Detective Agency, Ms. Cartwright was told by Mr. Acuff and a mutual friend, Carolyn Barber, that he only needed 2 or 3 months to complete the 2 years of internship required for a Class "C" license. Ms. Cartwright was asked if she would sponsor Mr. Acuff and act as the manager of Chatoyant for 2 or 3 months. Ms. Cartwright agreed to Mr. Acuff's request. She did so because Ms. Barber had asked her to and she felt sorry for Mr. Acuff because he had been terminated by MG Detective Agency only needing, Ms. Cartwright thought, 2 or 3 more months of sponsorship. Ms. Cartwright signed a Letter of Intent to Sponsor. The form she signed was blank. The Letter of Intent to Sponsor was subsequently completed, dated April 14, 1993 and filed with the Division. Ms. Cartwright admits she signed a blank form even though she understands that it was improper for her to do so. After agreeing to sponsor Mr. Acuff and act as the manager of Chatoyant, Ms. Cartwright changed her mind. She telephoned the Division's offices in Tallahassee in August of 1993 to ask how she could have her name removed as manager of Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright was informed that her name did not appear as manager of Chatoyant. In the fall of 1993 Mr. Acuff asked Ms. Cartwright to sign a form terminating her position with Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright told Mr. Acuff she did not see why she needed to sign a form based upon what she had been told during her conversation with the Division. When Mr. Acuff suggested that the Division might have made a mistake, Ms. Cartwright agreed to sign the form. In January or February of 1994 Ms. Cartwright signed a blank copy of a Termination/Completion of Sponsorship for Private Investigator Intern form. She gave the signed form to Ms. Barber. This form was ultimately completed, Ms. Cartwright's signature was notarized by Mr. Acuff's girlfriend, the form was dated August 30, 1994 and was then filed with the Division as part of Mr. Acuff's application for licensure. See Petitioner's exhibit 6. It was represented on Petitioner's exhibit 6 that Ms. Cartwright had sponsored Mr. Acuff from June 3, 1993 to August 26, 1994. An Employee Action Report was also filed with the Division. Petitioner's exhibit 5. The form indicates that Ms. Cartwright had resigned as manager of Chatoyant as of August 30, 1994. Ms. Cartwright did not sign the form. On October 5, 1994, Ms. Cartwright executed a Termination/Completion of Sponsorship for Private Investigator Intern form attesting that "I did not sponsor Patrick Acuff to my knowledge. I was not aware of Intent to Sponsor." Petitioner's exhibit 7. Ms. Cartwright did not sponsor any investigatory work by Mr. Acuff or act as the manager of Chatoyant. The Administrative Complaint. During the summer of 1994, the Division's office in Jacksonville received a letter questioning how Mr. Acuff could be working for Chatoyant without an appropriate license or manager. Ms. Norma Benvenuto, an investigator for the Division, checked the Division's records and determined that there was no sponsor listed for Chatoyant. Ms. Benvenuto spoke with Mr. Acuff and asked that he come to her office. Mr. Acuff complied. Mr. Acuff informed Ms. Benvenuto that Ms. Cartwright was the sponsor of Chatoyant. When asked for documentation, Mr. Acuff was only able to produce a blank form signed by Ms. Cartwright. Ms. Benvenuto asked Mr. Acuff to bring any documentation that would support his assertion that Ms. Cartwright was the manager of Chatoyant and that they had met to discuss his work during her sponsorship of him. Ms. Benvenuto telephoned Mr. Acuff more than once to remind him to bring the documentation. Mr. Acuff failed to provide any such documentation. Ms. Benvenuto contacted Ms. Cartwright in an effort to verify Mr. Acuff's assertions. Ms. Cartwright denied ever sponsoring Mr. Acuff or every actually performing any duties as the manager of Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright also admitted that she had initially agreed to sponsor Mr. Acuff but had subsequently changed her mind. On October 20, 1995, the Division entered an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Acuff. The Denial of Mr. Acuff's Application for a Class "C" License. By letter dated December 16, 1994, the Division notified Mr. Acuff that his application for a Class "C" license was denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Division sustaining Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Acuff in case number 94- 6750, requiring that he pay a fine of $1,000.00 and denying the application for a Class "C" license filed by Mr. Acuff or about August 30, 1994 in case number 95-1084S. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX The Division has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Acuff did not file a proposed order. The Division's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Hereby accepted. See 4-5. 2-3 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 22, 28 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 25 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 22 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 17 and hereby accepted. See 26 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 16 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 13, COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Jeffrey Grainger, Esquire 1722 University Boulevard South Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Don Bell Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, an elected circuit court judge, is entitled to renewed membership or is otherwise entitled to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS).
Findings Of Fact The FRS Plan There are two classes of members in the FRS: all officers or employees, except elected officers; and elected officers, including circuit judges. See §§ 121.051(1)(a) and 121.052, Fla. Stat. (2014). The second class is identified as the Elected Officers' Class (EOC). See § 121.052(1), Fla. Stat. Members of the FRS may elect to participate in either the Defined Benefit Retirement Program (Pension Plan) or the Public Employee Optional Retirement Program (Investment Plan). The Investment Plan has a one-year vesting requirement, thus enabling a vested participant to receive a distribution of his or her account at any time after leaving FRS-covered employment. Upon retirement, a vested Pension Plan member receives a monthly benefit for his or her lifetime whereas a vested Investment Plan member receives a lump-sum distribution of accumulated benefits from his or her account. Under both plans, a member must terminate all FRS-covered employment in order to receive a benefit. "Retiree" is defined at least three times in chapter 121, none the same. See §§ 121.021(60), 121.35(5)(h), and 121.4501(2)(k), Fla. Stat. However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, all Investment Plan retirees are covered by section 121.4501(2)(k), which defines a "retiree" as "a former member of the investment plan who has terminated employment and taken a distribution of vested employee or employer contributions as provided in s. 121.591." In 2009, the Legislature created section 121.122(2), which provides that a "retiree of a state-administered retirement system who is initially reemployed on or after July 1, 2010, is not eligible for renewed membership." See Ch. 2009-209, § 12, Laws of Fla. By virtue of this amendment, FRS retirees who did not become reemployed with a covered employer by July 1, 2010, were ineligible for renewed membership in the FRS. The same bill amended section 121.053 by adding a new subsection (3)(a), which provided that on or after July 1, 2010, a "retiree of a state-administered retirement system who is elected or appointed for the first time to an elective office in a regularly established position with a covered employer may not reenroll in the Florida Retirement System." Id. at § 5. This amendment makes clear that the prohibition in section 121.122(2) applies equally to elected officials. In 2012, the Legislature amended section 121.122(2) to provide that "[a] retiree of a state-administered retirement system who is initially reemployed in a regularly established position on or after July 1, 2010, may not be enrolled as a renewed member." See Ch. 2012-222, § 7, Laws of Fla. The sole purpose of the amendment was to "make it clear that a retiree of the investment plan . . . who is reemployed on or after July 1, 2010, is prohibited from being reenrolled as a renewed member of a state-administered retirement system." Fla. Govt. Oper. Comm., CS/HB 7079 (2012) Staff Analysis, p. 5 (final May 11, 2012)(available at http//www.myfloridahouse.gov).1 Petitioner's Employment History and Retirement Option Petitioner was a member of the FRS while employed as an Assistant State Attorney from January 2, 2001, through September 30, 2003. When first employed, Petitioner was a member of the Pension Plan. Shortly thereafter, the Legislature created the Investment Plan option, and Petitioner was given a deadline of August 31, 2002, to make an election between the two plans. On August 31, 2002, she switched to the Investment Plan. On or about September 30, 2003, Petitioner left the Office of State Attorney for private law practice. In January 2006, she took a complete distribution from her FRS Investment Plan in the amount of $8,154.52. By taking a lump- sum distribution, she became a "retiree." See § 121.4501(2)(k), Fla. Stat. ("Retiree" means a former member of the investment plan who has terminated employment and taken a distribution of vested employee . . . contributions."). She was not employed in an FRS-eligible position between September 30, 2003, and January 8, 2013. On August 14, 2012, Petitioner was elected to the position of Circuit Judge in the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. On January 8, 2013, Petitioner was commissioned as a Circuit Judge for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. The Proposed Agency Action In response to her request to enroll in the FRS, by letter dated November 14, 2013, Daniel Beard, who is Director of Policy, Risk Management, and Compliance for the State Board of Administration, advised Petitioner in pertinent part as follows: You retired from the FRS on January 23, 2006 when you requested a distribution of your FRS Investment Plan account. Section 121.4501(2)(k), Florida Statutes, defines a "retiree" as a member of the FRS Investment Plan who has terminated employment and has taken a distribution as provided in Section 121.591. There are no statutory provisions that would allow you to cancel or void your retirement, and there are no statutory provisions that would allow you to repay the distribution in order to be "unretired." Section 121.122, Florida Statutes, states that a retiree of a state-administered retirement system who is initially reemployed in a regularly established position on or after July 1, 2010 is not eligible to enroll in renewed membership and receive additional retirement benefits. This change in law pertained to any retiree of a state-administered retirement system who had not returned to FRS employment prior to July 1, 2010. You were hired by the Office of State Courts on January 8, 2013. Petitioner timely challenged the proposed agency action asserting that she is entitled to participate in the FRS as a compulsory member of the EOC pursuant to part I, chapter 121.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to reenroll in the FRS. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER 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 18th day of September, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Polish Mission Foundation, Inc., qualifies under Section 212.08(7)(o), Florida Statutes, for a consumer certificate of exemption as a "charitable institution," or as a "religious institution."
Findings Of Fact The Foundation is a recently organized not-for-profit corporation. It does not yet have any funds of its own. Having no funds, it has no history of expenditures. 1/ More specifically, the Foundation does not have a history of expending in excess of 50 percent of its operational expenditures towards "qualified charitable services," as defined in the Department's rules. The Foundation has not provided any such "qualified charitable services." The Foundation does not have an established physical place of worship where it regularly conducts religious services and activities. In the future, the Foundation plans to raise funds for the purpose of providing financial assistance to various activities of a church. Some of the activities to which the Foundation plans to provide financial assistance would be "qualified charitable services," others would not.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a consumer certificate of exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 21st day of January, 2000.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent took "agency action" when it certified the Okaloosa-Walton College Foundation, Inc. as its direct support organization and endorsed the Foundation's decision to sell the Mattie Kelly property; and whether Petitioners have standing to request an administrative hearing on those issues.
Findings Of Fact The Foundation was incorporated and first certified as a direct support organization in 1988. The Mattie Kelly property is approximately 13 acres of waterfront property on Choctawhatchee Bay in Destin, Okaloosa County, Florida. It includes the former residence of Mattie Kelly and the real property surrounding the residence. Destin, Okaloosa County, Florida, is a municipality, bounded on the north and west by Choctawhatchee Bay, on the south by the Gulf of Mexico, and on the east by Walton County, Florida. On August 17, 1992, Mattie Kelly executed her Last Will and Testament (will). Article VIII of the will states as follows: I give, devise and bequeath my personal residence located a 1200 Indian Trail Road, Destin, Florida 32541, including all real property surrounding the residence and the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000,000) to Okaloosa-Walton Community College for the establishment of the "Mattie Kelly Cultural and Environmental Institute of Okaloosa-Walton Community College." The purpose of the "Mattie M. Kelly Cultural and Environmental Institute of Okaloosa-Walton Community College" shall be: To provide a meeting place for literary societies, fine arts groups, and small performing groups. To provide a location for conferences and seminars offered through Okaloosa-Walton Community College. To provide a location for biology studies and marine science studies associated with Choctawhatchee Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. To provide a location for displaying the coastal heritage of Northwest Florida. The Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000,000) endowment which forms part of this gift shall be used only for maintenance and operating costs in furtherance of the above purposes, including the perpetual care, maintenance and upkeep of my mausoleum. A Personal Representative's Warranty Deed dated March 6, 1997, conveyed the property to the Foundation. At some point in time, the Foundation decided to sell the property to a real estate developer and entered into a contract to do so. On March 15, 2004, Petitioner Hammet filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing with the Board. The petition questioned whether the Board should support, endorse, and/or not oppose the sale of the property for private real estate development purposes, accept the college president's recommendation about the sale, and certify the Foundation to be operating in the best interest of the state. The Board's March 16, 2004, minutes state as follows in relevant part: ACTION AGENDA DSO Certification/IRS 990 The District Board of Trustees certified that requirements of Direct Support Organization under FS 1004.70 have been met and that the OWCC Foundation is in compliance with the procedures as herein described and accepts Form IRS 990 as submitted. Further, the District Board of Trustees supports and endorses the Foundation Board of Directors in its endeavor to sell the Mattie Kelly Property (Motion: Henderson; Second Rainer. Vote: 6 yes; 2 no (Smith, Wells). Motion carried. On April 22, 2004, the Board referred Petitioner Hammet's petition to DOAH, together with the Board's Motion to Dismiss. DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case No. 04-2049. On June 15, 2004, the Board referred the following to DOAH: (a) Petitioner Coastkeepers' Petition for Administrative Hearing; (b) Petitioner's Motion and Suggestion for Disqualification of Joseph Henderson and James R. Richburg; and the Board's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Administrative Hearing. DOAH assigned the case DOAH Case No. 04-2141. On July 8, 2004, some of Ms. Kelly's relatives filed a suit against the Foundation in Circuit Court. In Count I of the complaint, the relatives sought a declaratory judgment that the Foundation's proposed sale violates Ms. Kelly's will and that the relatives had reversionary rights to the property. In Count II of the complaint, the relatives sought injunctive relief to restrain the Foundation from selling the property to a third party in accordance with a written contract of sale. On April 20, 2005, the Florida Attorney General issued an Advisory Legal Opinion, stating that the Foundation is subject to Florida's Sunshine Law. On May 5, 2005, the Foundation voted to ratify the contract to sell the property and to confirm the prior decision to sell the property. On June 3, 2005, the First Circuit Court entered a "Final Judgment for Defendant" in L. Bernarr Kelly, Carol Kelly and Lowell B. Kelly v. The Okaloosa-Walton Community College Foundation, Inc., No. 2004-CA-405 (Fla. 1st Cir. Ct. June 3, 2005), which states as follows in pertinent part: . . . The Court is convinced by the nature of the Will, and the testimony and evidence that Mattie Kelly had legal advice in her estate planning, that if Mattie Kelly intended for the subject property to be placed in a trust, and if she desired to put restrictions on the subject property to prevent Defendant Foundation from selling it, that she knew how to accomplish this, and that she chose not to do so. The Court finds . . . that Mattie Kelly did not intend to limit or restrict the sale of the subject property in the future to fulfill her desires for the creation of a cultural and environmental institute. . . . The Court finds that the deed dated March 6, 1997, . . . does not contain a reverter clause or language creating any right of reversion. . . . The Court finds that the deed conveyed a fee simple title to the OWCC Foundation with no right of reversion. The Court further finds that this deed was in accordance with the intent of Mattie Kelly at the time she executed her will. The Court finds that Article VIII of the Will which devised the subject property contains no language of trust and no language of reverter, and did not create a charitable trust . . . . The Court further finds that Defendant's proposed sale of the subject property does not include the "mausoleum property." . . . Since the mausoleum property is not being conveyed, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs no longer have standing as to the remaining property, and would deny Plaintiffs relief on this basis, in addition to the foregoing reasons. Therefore, the Court finds for the Defendant, The Okaloosa-Walton Community College Foundation, Inc. and against the Plaintiffs, and ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows: Defendant Foundation's proposed sale of the subject property is not in derogation of Article VIII of the Last Will and Testament of Mattie Kelly, or the deed which conveyed the subject property to Defendant Foundation. Therefore, Defendant Foundation is not prohibited from selling the subject property, excluding the mausoleum property as described in Addendum #4 to the Contract for Sale and Purchase, in order to fulfill the intent of Mattie Kelly in creating the "Mattie M. Kelly Cultural and Environmental Institute;" however, all monies received from the sale of the subject property, including any matching funds, are to be used in the establishment and operation of the Mattie M. Kelly Cultural and Environmental Institute. [Emphasis added.] On June 8, 2005, Petitioners filed a Joint First Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing, stating as follows regarding standing: Petitioner Hammet's substantial interests will be affected by Respondent's determination because she and her family live within close proximity to the Mattie Kelly property and have often used and enjoyed the property for viewing the coastal heritage of Northwest Florida, and she wishes to continue to use and enjoy the property in the future. The Mattie Kelly property is a special place for Hammet and her family, where they have many pleasant memories and regularly have benefited from this public property being in their neighborhood. Hammet and her family will no longer be able to use and enjoy this accessible public resource if it is sold for private development. Petitioner Coastkeepers' substantial interest will be affected by Respondent's determination because it is a Florida non-profit corporation dedicated to protection of the environment in an area of the Gulf of Mexico Coast that includes Okaloosa and Walton Counties and Choctawhatchee Bay. Preservation of environmentally sensitive lands such as the Mattie Kelly property, and having the Mattie Kelly property as a location for biological studies, marine science studies, and studies of the coastal heritage of Northwest Florida, are vitally important to protecting Choctawhatchee Bay and the interest of Petitioner and its members, who include a substantial number of members who reside in Okaloosa and Walton Counties and have the present intention to use, visit, enjoy, and study biological, marine science and cultural heritage issues associated with Choctawhatchee Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Mattie Kelly property at the Mattie Kelly property. The Mattie Kelly property is ideally suited to provide waterfront environmental education in an otherwise highly urbanized environment, including education of local residents, which is vital to controlling urban runoff, and for highlighting, encouraging, and educating the public of the need to protect Choctawhatchee Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The Mattie Kelly property would no longer be available for such intended pursuits were the proposed sale of the Mattie Kelly property to private development interest go forward. Moreover, the proposed development of the very property set aside by Mattie Kelly would itself directly contribute to the urban runoff known to be causing problems in Choctawhatchee Bay. Choctawhatchee Bay has many examples of waterfront subdivision development and very little opportunity for environmental protection education in a local setting near where waterfront residential owners already live. These purposes will not be as well-served by educational efforts at OWC's main campus in Niceville, which is not waterfront and miles away from Choctawhatchee Bay. If properly managed, the Mattie Kelly property should be the field trip every school-age child in Okaloosa and Walton County takes, which would be a lasting legacy to Mattie Kelly that would truly be consistent with her express purposes. This opportunity will be forever destroyed if the property is developed as proposed. On June 24, 2005, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Joint First Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. On July 5, 2005, Petitioners filed a Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Joint First Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. Neither of the Petitioners holds any title interest in the property.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a final order dismissing the Petitions for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Richburg, President Okaloosa-Walton Community College 100 College Boulevard Niceville, Florida 32578-1295 Joseph D. Lorenz, Esquire 1270 North Elgin Parkway, Suite C-12 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Steven A. Medina, Esquire Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner & Proctor, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street Post Office Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses, the documentary evidence received at the hearing, and the record in DOAH case no. 88-6257, the following findings of fact are made: On October 24, 1988, the Department notified Sophie DeRuiter and Ann & Jan Retirement Villa that the license to operate an adult congregate living facility expired on October 23, 1988, and that the application for renewal was denied. The specific reasons listed as the grounds for such denial were a determination of confirmed medical neglect of residents and the inappropriate retention of residents. Thereafter, Petitioner timely sought an administrative review of the denial by filing a petition for administrative hearing with the Department which was subsequently forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on December 16, 1988. That matter was assigned DOAH case no. 88- 6257. Hearing of case no. 88-6257 was originally scheduled for March 17, 1989, by notice of hearing dated January 18, 1989. Thereafter, Petitioner scheduled a number of depositions and requested a continuance in the case to accommodate Sophie DeRuiter. That motion was unopposed by the Department and was granted by order entered February 27, 1989. That order also rescheduled the hearing for April 14, 1989, and required the parties to file a prehearing statement no later than March 24, 1989. Neither party timely filed a prehearing statement. In fact, the parties were unable to agree on a statement due to their disagreement as to the issues of the case. The unilateral statements filed by the parties established that Petitioner sought review of all grounds for the denial of the license renewal. On the other hand, the Department took the position that since Sophie DeRuiter was listed on the Florida Abuse Registry for confirmed medical neglect of residents, that such listing precluded renewal of the license. The Department alleged that Petitioner had not timely challenged the abuse report, and that such record could not be challenged in the instant case. The Department's letter denying amendment or expungement of the medical neglect had been issued December 7, 1988. Given the confusion of the parties and their failure to file prehearing statements as required, the hearing scheduled for April 14, 1989, was cancelled. Subsequently, the Department moved to limit the issue to whether there was a confirmed record of an abuse report (and thereby presume the underlying report correct). Such motion was denied on June 1, 1989. On June 9, 1989, the hearing of this matter was convened. At that time, the Department moved to continue the case due to illness of counsel and her inability to review an amended witness list filed by Petitioner. The motion was granted after it was apparent counsel for the Department was unprepared to go forward on all issues of the case (she represented she had just received the order requiring her to go forward on all issues on June 8, 1989). The case was rescheduled for August 10, 1989. Subsequently, the matter was continued again at Petitioner's request. The case was finally scheduled for hearing for September 8, 1989. The Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment on August 14, 1989. On September 7, 1989, the Department filed a notice of dismissal which was construed as an assent, in whole or in part, to the relief requested by the Petitioner. Consequently, the hearing was cancelled and jurisdiction was relinquished to the Department for such further action as would be appropriate. It was presumed that the abuse record would be expunged which would result in the reinstatement of the license. The Petitioner in the instant case has not, however, established the final resolution of DOAH case no. 88-6257. Petitioner did not comply with Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code by attaching the documents on which the claim that the small business party prevailed was predicated nor was proof of such document offered at the hearing of this matter. Sophie DeRuiter is the administrator and owner of Ann & Jan Retirement Villa which is located at 3486 Rostan Lane, Lake Worth, Florida. According to the style of the initial pleading filed by Petitioner in the instant case, Ann & Jan Retirement Villa has been incorporated. The proof offered at hearing suggested that Sophie DeRuiter is the sole proprietor of a business known as "Ann & Jan Retirement Villa." In August, 1988, Ms. DeRuiter employed approximately four full-time employees. In the three years she has owned and operated the facility, Ms. DeRuiter has never employed more than twenty-five full-time employees. The net worth of Ann & Jan Retirement Villa is less than two million dollars. Ms. DeRuiter's personal net worth is less than two million dollars. The combined worth of Ann & Jan Retirement Villa and Ms. DeRuiter is less than two million dollars. Ms. DeRuiter employed the law firm of Weissman and Chernay, P.A. to represent her in connection with the allegations in DOAH case no. 88-6257. In connection with that case, Ms. DeRuiter incurred legal fees in the amount of $8587.50 together with costs in the amount of $897.59. The reasonableness of those amounts was not disputed.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of reasonable prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs stemming from a prior consolidated action before ALJ F. Scott Boyd, DOAH Case Nos. 16-3298 and 16-3302, pursuant to section 185.05, Florida Statutes. Before the final hearing, the parties stipulated to an amount of reasonable prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs if the undersigned determines that Petitioners are entitled to an award of reasonable prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs stemming from that prior action before ALJ Boyd.
Findings Of Fact The City of Coral Springs is a municipality in Broward County, Florida. It exercises broad power pursuant to article VIII, section 2 of the Florida Constitution, and the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, chapter 166, Florida Statutes. The City Commission of the City of Coral Springs (“Commission”) may create other offices, boards, or commissions to administer the affairs of the city and may grant them powers and duties. The Commission has adopted the Coral Springs Police Officers’ Pension Plan (“the Plan”), which is amended from time to time by ordinance and is set forth in sections 13-5 through 13-17 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Coral Springs. The Plan is administered by the City of Coral Springs Police Officers’ Pension Fund Board of Trustees (“Board”), the powers of which are set forth in sections 13-13 through 13-15 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Coral Springs. The Plan is a local-law defined pension plan created pursuant to chapter 185. In February 2016, the Board adopted a policy to allow for the suspension of pension benefits of members who were charged with crimes specified at section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, and whose benefit payments had equaled or exceeded their contributions to the Plan. The Williamses are retired police officers whose pension benefits had fully vested at the time of the enactment of the aforementioned suspension policy. In February 2016, the Board sought to suspend Petitioners’ benefits under the newly-adopted policy because Petitioners had been charged with crimes specified in section 112.3173 and the benefit payments made to them had exceeded their contributions to the plan. Petitioners requested a formal hearing to challenge the authority of the Board to adopt the suspension policy. Petitioners’ benefits were never suspended at any time during the pendency of this suspension matter. The Board contracted with DOAH to conduct the formal hearing under the authority of section 120.65(6), Florida Statutes. DOAH assigned ALJ Boyd to the prior consolidated action, who issued pre-hearing instructions requiring a statement of all issues. The issue of attorney’s fees was not included by the parties. ALJ Boyd conducted the formal hearing on September 30, 2016, and October 10, 2016. On November 18, 2016, ALJ Boyd issued a Recommended Order finding that the Board did not have the authority to adopt the policy nor apply it to Petitioners. The Recommended Order made no mention of awarding attorney’s fees or costs. Nether Petitioners nor the Board filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. Petitioners raised the issue of fees in a letter to the Board dated December 2, 2016. Counsel for Petitioners appeared at a hearing held before the Board in December 2016 and sought fees as set forth in the December 2, 2016, letter. The Board adopted ALJ Boyd’s Recommended Order in toto on January 3, 2017. The Board also denied Petitioners’ request for a hearing regarding an award of attorney’s fees. On January 13, 2017, Petitioners sought an award of attorney’s fees by filing with DOAH a Verified Motion for Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees and Costs. On March 1, 2017, ALJ Boyd entered an Order dismissing Petitioners’ motion for fees, stating he lacked jurisdiction to hear the issue of fees. That Order was not appealed. Prior to the final hearing in this matter, Petitioners successfully petitioned the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court to compel the Board to grant them a hearing on entitlement to the fees and to quash the Order denying fees for violation of due process. Petitioners then successfully defended an appeal of that Order by the Board to the Fourth District Court of Appeal and a motion for rehearing thereon. Petitioners are not seeking fees for these extraordinary writ actions as these efforts do not fall under chapters 185 or 120. The parties stipulated that “the Williamses prevailed in challenging the Board’s authority to create a policy suspending the benefits.” The Board never applied its proposed suspension policy to Petitioners. Petitioners continue to receive their benefits to this day. Criminal charges against Petitioners remained pending at the time of the hearing in this matter. Petitioners are only seeking entitlement here to an attorney’s fee and costs award for their successful challenge of the suspension policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order denying Petitioners’ request for prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2021. Brandon J. Hechtman, Esquire Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A. 2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 800 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Pedro Herrera, Esquire Sugarman & Susskind, P.A. 100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Bonni Spatara Jensen, Esquire Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, Florida 33317 Kenneth R. Harrison, Esquire Sugarman & Susskind, P.A. 100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Gina Orlando, Administrator City of Coral Springs Police Officers’ Pension Fund 9551 West Sample Road Coral Springs, Florida 33065
