The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Order of Probable Cause issued June 1, 2007, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact In the 2006 election, Mr. Lunkins was a candidate for the Florida Senate, District 32. On or about April 20, 2005, Mr. Lunkins filed a State of Florida Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Candidates form (DS-DE-9), designating himself as his campaign treasurer. By letter dated April 26, 2005, and sent on the same date, to Mr. Lunkins from Kristi Reid Bronson, Chief, Bureau of Election Records, Division of Elections, Ms. Bronson provided Mr. Lunkins with a user identification number and initial password, which allowed him to access the Division of Elections’ electronic filing system. The letter from Ms. Bronson was sent to the address provided to the Division of Elections. Further, Ms. Bronson’s letter contained information about filing campaign treasurer reports. She advised Mr. Lunkins that all candidates filing their campaign treasurer’s reports with the Division of Elections were required to file the reports using the electronic filing system. Also, she advised him that Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, the 2005 Calendar of Reporting Dates, and the 2004 Candidate and Campaign Treasurer Handbook were available for printing on the Division of Elections' website. By letter dated July 12, 2006, and sent on the same date, from Ms. Bronson to Mr. Lunkins, she notified him, among other things, that he had failed to file his 2006 Q2 Campaign Treasurer’s Report, which was due on July 10, 2006. By a second letter dated August 30, 2006, and sent the same date by certified mail, from Ms. Bronson to Mr. Lunkins, she notified him, among other things, that he had failed to file his 2006 Q2 Campaign Treasurer’s Report, which was due on July 10, 2006. On September 1, 2006, Mr. Lunkins claimed and received Ms. Bronson’s certified letter dated August 30, 2006. Mr. Lunkins failed to file his 2006 Q2 Campaign Treasurer’s Report, which was due on July 10, 2006. Mr. Lunkins’ failure to file his 2006 Q2 Campaign Treasurer’s Report was willful.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent committed the violations of Sections 106.07(5) and 106.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), as set forth in the Order of Probable Cause and accompanying Statement of Findings issued by the Florida Elections Commission on August 13, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent John Morroni is a member of the Florida House of Representatives, representing District 50. He was first elected in 1992, and has been reelected subsequently. In 1995, Representative Morroni was serving his second term and beginning his reelection campaign for 1996. Representative Morroni appointed Robert P. Symanski, a certified public accountant, as his campaign treasurer. Representative Morroni designated himself as deputy treasurer for the campaign. Prior to the commencement of each campaign, Representative Morroni signed a "Statement of Candidate" form, attesting that "I have received, read, and understand the requirements of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes." Thomas Carey is a trial lawyer from Clearwater. Representative Morroni had known Mr. Carey before 1992. After Representative Morroni was elected, Mr. Carey served as the liaison between the Florida Academy of Trial Lawyers and Representative Morroni. Mr. Carey is nationally known as a leader in efforts to prevent drunk driving, having served as a local and a national officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Mr. Carey had worked with Representative Morroni in connection with drunk-driving issues. Representative Morroni was reelected without opposition in 1994. After that election, Mr. Carey approached Representative Morroni and offered to throw a kick-off party for his next campaign, telling Representative Morroni to let him know when the time was right to plan such a function. At some point in the summer of 1995, Representative Morroni called Mr. Carey and told him the time was right to plan the kick-off party for the 1996 campaign. Mr. Carey told Representative Morroni that his home could not be used for the party, but that his sister’s house would be ideal for the party. Mr. Carey and Representative Morroni decided that the party would be held on the last week of August. Mr. Carey obtained the consent of his sister, Patricia Rowan, and her husband, Dr. Patrick Rowan, to use their home on Clearwater Beach for the party. The Rowans also agreed to contribute $500 each as an in-kind contribution to defray the costs of the party. In July 1995, Mr. Carey was in the midst of a large jury trial, and did not have the time to oversee the details of the party. At this time, Mr. Sandy Golden was working as a volunteer for Mr. Carey on drunk driving issues, and was beginning to take on some paid personal duties for Mr. Carey. Mr. Carey delegated the planning of the party to Mr. Golden and his friend, Marilyn Curtis. Mr. Golden testified that he had nothing to do with the planning of the party, beyond getting his friend Ms. Curtis involved. Mr. Golden testified that he found Ms. Curtis and that Mr. Carey hired her to coordinate the party. Mr. Carey testified that he had no recollection of "hiring" Ms. Curtis. He testified that he believed Ms. Curtis was volunteering her services, and that it was only after the fact that he agreed to pay her, at the urging of Mr. Golden. Ms. Curtis testified that she had no discussions with Mr. Carey concerning payment for her services. She testified that Mr. Golden assured her that she would be paid. Mr. Carey testified that at the outset he established a budget of $1,500 for the party, and that he based this number on the fact that he and each of the Rowans could lawfully provide $500 as in-kind contributions to the Morroni campaign. Neither Mr. Golden nor Ms. Curtis remembered a firm dollar amount being established before the party. Ms. Curtis telephoned Representative Morroni to obtain a list of invitees and other information for the party. Representative Morroni testified that he knew Ms. Curtis had planned major events for corporate clients, including the president of Outback Steakhouse, and he was concerned that his campaign kickoff party not be too ostentatious. Representative Morroni cautioned Ms. Curtis that this was not a fundraiser, but a party for his campaign co-chairs and friends, and that a "fancy" party was not required or wanted. Ms. Curtis designed and mailed the invitations. She was reimbursed for the printing and mailing of the invitations by personal check from Mr. Carey, in the amount of $106.44, dated August 16, 1995. The party was held at the Rowans’ house on August 26, 1995. Mr. Carey testified that he arrived early and was presented with invoices from the various vendors who provided goods and services for the party. It is undisputed that Mr. Carey paid the following amounts by personal checks dated August 26, 1995: $52.50 for valet parking services; $296.80 for bartending services; and $900 for catering services and dinner buffet; $100 for photography services. By check dated September 13, 1995, Mr. Carey paid an invoice of $79.18 for floral arrangements. At Mr. Golden’s urging, Mr. Carey wrote a check for $300 to Ms. Curtis to compensate her for 15 hours' work on the party, at a rate of $20 per hour. This check was written on August 27, 1995, the day after the party. Thus, Mr. Carey wrote checks totaling $1834.92 to cover expenses for the party, including the $300 payment to Ms. Curtis and the late payment of $79.18 to the florist. There was some dispute at the hearing as to how Mr. Carey came to write these checks and whether he was reimbursed for his outlay of all the expenses for the party. Representative Morroni testified that it was obvious the party cost more than the $500 an individual is allowed by law to contribute, and that he remembered a passing conversation in which he complimented Mr. Carey on the party and expressed the hope that someone was sharing the expenses with him. Representative Morroni testified that a more detailed discussion as to the division of expenses would have been improper, given that this was a party and there were 28 other campaign people present. He also considered Mr. Carey to be knowledgeable and experienced in political matters, and thus not in need of a lecture about contribution limits. Mr. Golden testified that he was present during the brief conversation between Mr. Carey and Representative Morroni. Mr. Golden’s recollection was similar to that of Representative Morroni. Mr. Golden recalled Representative Morroni complimenting Mr. Carey on the party, then reminding Mr. Carey of the $500 limitation and telling Mr. Carey to be sure he "split out" the costs of the party. Mr. Carey testified that a more detailed conversation took place. As noted above, Mr. Carey testified that he had established a $1,500 budget for the party, based on $500 contributions from him and from each of the Rowans. As the invoices rolled-in during the party, Mr. Carey became concerned that the $1,500 budget was going to be exceeded, and concerned as to the logistics of paying the invoices. Mr. Carey testified that he discussed these matters with Representative Morroni in the presence of Mr. Golden and Mrs. Rowan. One option discussed was for Mr. Carey and the Rowans to write $500 checks to the Morroni campaign, which would in turn pay the invoices. Another option was to divide each invoice three ways and write three separate checks to cover each one. Mr. Carey testified that Representative Morroni suggested that, because Mr. Carey had already paid some of the invoices, he keep writing his personal checks to cover them, then have the Rowans reimburse him. Mr. Carey thought this the most workable option, and so continued paying the invoices by personal check. Mr. Carey testified that the group still had to deal with the contingency of the expenses exceeding the $1,500 budget. Mr. Carey testified that, at Representative Morroni’s suggestion, Mr. Golden agreed that any amount over $1,500 would be attributed to him, and that Mr. Golden would reimburse Mr. Carey by working for him without pay on drunk-driving issues. Mr. Golden flatly denied ever agreeing to such an arrangement or agreeing to make a contribution of any kind to the Morroni campaign. As noted above, Representative Morroni testified that he had no recollection of this detailed conversation taking place, let alone suggesting the payment/reimbursement plan outlined by Mr. Carey. Representative Morroni’s testimony, as corroborated by Mr. Golden's, is credited on this point. Representative Morroni testified that he had a difficult time getting hold of Mr. Carey to obtain the contribution details for inclusion in his campaign finance report. As the reporting deadline approached, Representative Morroni made several telephone calls to Mr. Carey. At length, he reached Mr. Carey, who gave him the needed information over the telephone. Representative Morroni relayed the information to Mr. Symanski, his campaign treasurer, who in turn included the information in the campaign treasurer’s report for the period July 1, 1995 through September 30, 1995, filed October 10, 1995. Mr. Carey testified that he had no clear recollection of providing the numbers to Representative Morroni, and that he believed Mr. Golden had provided the information to the Morroni campaign. Mr. Carey testified that if he did call Representative Morroni with the information, he simply would have been relaying information provided to him by Mr. Golden. Representative Morroni’s testimony is credited, and it is found that Mr. Carey provided the numbers to Representative Morroni. It was undisputed that the figures included in the referenced treasurer’s report accurately reflected Mr. Carey’s oral report to Representative Morroni. The relevant figures related to the kick-off party were as follows, all listed as "in-kind contributions" and dated August 26, 1995: Name Amount Description Dr. Patrick Rowan $500 Kick-off Party Expenses Mrs. Patrick Rowan $500 Kick-off Party Expenses Mr. Tom Carey $500 Kick-off Party Expenses Ms. Marilyn S. Curtis $79.26 Kick-off Party Expenses Mr. Sandy Golden $300 Kick-off Party Expenses Thus, the total reported expenses for the party were $1,879.26, as compared to $1,834.92 in actual paid invoices. Representative Morroni testified that he took these figures from Mr. Carey at face value, seeing no reason to question their accuracy or completeness. He knew that all the individuals listed as contributors were present at the party and were involved in its organization. Representative Morroni testified that he took down the figures and reported them directly to Mr. Symanski. Mr. Symanski testified that he had no previous experience serving as a campaign treasurer, and felt that it was not his position to "challenge" someone who claimed to have made an in-kind contribution. His practice was to refer any questions regarding in-kind contributions to Representative Morroni. Mr. Symanski testified that $1,800 "seemed like a lot more than what we would have spent, but if that’s what they said they spent, that’s what I recorded." He testified that the $500 allocations for the party did not raise concerns in his mind, because he knew beforehand that the costs of the party would have to be split up in some fashion. Both Representative Morroni and Mr. Symanski testified that, as a general matter, they reported in-kind contributions based upon the word of the contributor. They did not ask for receipts or other verification of the amount claimed by the contributor, provided those amounts seemed reasonable. Neither man was aware of any legal requirement that a candidate or campaign obtain documentation of the value of in-kind contributions. Other factual issues were raised by the parties that are ultimately tangential to the resolution of this case but nonetheless require resolution to complete the record. First, the Commission questions the veracity of Mrs. Rowan’s testimony regarding the $500 contributions made by her and her husband, because Dr. and Mrs. Rowan initially executed affidavits, on forms sent by the Commission’s investigator, attesting that they made no contributions to the Morroni campaign. Mrs. Rowan’s explanation of this seeming contradiction is credited. She testified that her husband has been extremely ill, having been diagnosed with a brain tumor in January 1998. In fact, as of the date of the hearing, Dr. Rowan had already outlived his initial prognosis of one year. The Rowans learned of Dr. Rowan’s condition at roughly the same time they executed the original affidavits. Mrs. Rowan testified that under the circumstances neither she nor Dr. Rowan paid much attention to the affidavits. Mrs. Rowan testified that someone later mentioned to her a newspaper article listing her as a contributor to the Morroni campaign. The article jogged her memory regarding the party and caused her to execute a corrected affidavit reflecting her $500 in-kind contribution. She had no explanation as to why the corrected affidavit was not provided to the Commission until the date of the hearing. On the date of the kick-off party, Mrs. Rowan wrote a check to her brother, Mr. Carey, in the amount of $4,200. She testified that $1,000 of this amount was the contribution of her and her husband to the party expenses, and the remainder was payment for legal services performed by Mr. Carey. Her testimony is credited on this point. Respondent presented testimony regarding a subsequent falling-out between Mr. Carey and Mr. Golden over tactics in the crusade against drunk driving, as well as testimony regarding Mr. Golden’s feeling that Representative Morroni had "sold out" on the drunk-driving issue. Respondent’s purpose was to provide an ulterior motive for Mr. Golden’s filing the confidential complaint in this matter some two years after the events occurred, and to at least imply that Mr. Golden is mentally unstable and unreliable as a witness. It is found that the facts concerning the Carey/Golden feud, all of which occurred after the events here at issue, are irrelevant to this proceeding, except as they provide some indicia that both Mr. Carey and Mr. Golden have reasons, rational or otherwise, to make each other look as bad as possible. Mr. Golden’s motive in filing the confidential complaint is irrelevant. As to Mr. Golden’s reliability as a witness, the only relevant point on which his testimony is contradicted concerns whether he agreed to have the party expenses exceeding the purported $1,500 budget attributed to him, to be "worked off" at a later time. For the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law below, it makes no difference to the resolution of this case whether Mr. Golden or Mr. Carey is credited as to whether this arrangement was made. The relevant point is whether Representative Morroni was aware of any such arrangement, such that he could be found to have willfully signed a false or incorrect report. Representative Morroni’s testimony that he was not aware of such an arrangement is credited.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order dismissing the charges against the Respondent, Representative John Morroni. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 28th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael T. McGuckin Assistant General Counsel Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Chris Haughee, Esquire Greene, Donnelly & Schermer 102 West Whiting, Suite 201 Tampa, Florida 33602-1480 Barbara Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Steven Christensen, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue Whether Petitioners violated provisions of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Order of Probable Cause filed August 23, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Chapters 97 through 106, Florida Statutes, comprise the Florida Election Code (Code). Pursuant to the Code, the Commission is empowered specifically to enforce the provisions of Chapters 104 and 106, Florida Statutes. Mary McCarty was elected to the City Commission of Delray Beach, Florida in 1987. She was elected to the Palm Beach County Commission in 1990. She has been returned to that office in each subsequent election and she is currently a member of the Palm Beach County Commission. In November of 2002, she was elected to her fourth term as Chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Executive Committee. The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary was an unincorporated entity. It was a de facto committee, which, for reasons addressed herein, did not ever become a "political committee" as defined in Section 106.011(1), Florida Statutes. Ms. McCarty has run for public office six times and was successful on each occasion. Prior to each election she received from the Florida Secretary of State a handbook addressing campaign financing. She is familiar with the statutes and rules with regard to financing an individual campaign. Sometime before the Thanksgiving Holiday in 2000, Ms. McCarty received a telephone call from Roger Stone of Washington, D.C. Ms. McCarty knew Mr. Stone, who at various times had been a campaign operative for Senator Arlen Specter, had been involved in opposing the sugar tax amendment in Florida, and had been a consultant to Donald Trump, during his short-lived presidential campaign. Ms. McCarty was aware that Mr. Stone and Craig Snyder were principals of IKON Public Affairs, a business entity with offices in Washington, D.C., and Miami Beach, Florida. Roger Stone informed Ms. McCarty that he was forming a committee to raise funds for the purpose of taking action against the Florida Supreme Court. Mr. Stone stated that he had formed The Committee and that he wished for her to be the chairperson. She did not initially commit to undertake this responsibility. A few days after the conversation with Mr. Stone, Ms. McCarty received a facsimile draft of a fundraising letter that The Committee proposed to post. The facsimile was sent by Roger Stone from Washington. She made some suggested changes and returned it to the address in Washington from whence it came. Subsequently, she had a telephone conversation with Lora Lynn Jones of Unique Graphics and Design in Alexandria, Virginia. Ms. Jones was in the business of making mass mailings. Ms. McCarty told Ms. Jones that her name could be used on the fundraising letter although Ms. McCarty did not sign the fundraising letter. Nevertheless, the document was mailed to a large number of people and it bore the printed name, "Mary McCarty, Palm Beach County Commissioner." The first time Ms. McCarty saw The Committee's finished product it was in the form of a "Telepost, high priority communication." She first saw the "Telepost" when it arrived in her mailbox in early December 2000. The wording of the letter was different from the draft Ms. McCarty had seen earlier. Unlike the draft, it targeted specific justices on the Florida Supreme Court. It cannot be determined from the evidence the date the December "Telepost" was posted, but it was posted before Ms. McCarty determined that she had become Chairperson of The Committee. The "Telepost," dated December 2000, solicited funds so that The Committee could, ". . . send a clear message to the Florida Supreme Court that we will not tolerate their efforts to highjack the Presidential election for Al Gore." Later in December 2000, Mr. Stone called Ms. McCarthy and told her that she should be the chairman of The Committee. She agreed. Ms. McCarty signed a "Statement of Organization of Political Committee," which was dated December 19, 2000. This is a form provided by the Division of Elections, which, if properly completed and filed, officially establishes a political committee. She also signed a form entitled "Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Political Committee." Mr. Stone, or his operatives, provided these forms to Ms. McCarty. She signed them and mailed them to Mr. Stone's address in Washington, D.C., which was the headquarters of the IKON Public Affairs Group. The "Statement of Organization of Political Committee," dated December 19, 2000, was received by the Division of Elections on December 26, 2000. It listed Amber McWhorter as Treasurer. Inez Williams, who works in the document section of the Division of Elections, processed the form. When Ms. Williams received it, she recognized that the form was incomplete because on the face of it the reader could not determine if the committee was an "issue" committee, or a "candidate" committee. Ms. Williams noted that the mailing address on the form dated December 19, 2000, was "c/o VisionMedia," 1680 Michigan Avenue, Suite 900, Miami Beach, Florida. Ms. Williams found a telephone number for that business and dialed it, on December 27, 2000. No one answered so she left a message on VisionMedia's answering machine. In addition to the telephone call, Ms. Williams prepared a letter with the address of, "Mary McCarty, Chairperson, The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary, 1348 Washington Avenue, Suite 177, Miami Beach, Florida." This letter was dated December 27, 2000, and was signed by Connie A. Evans, Chief, Bureau of Election Records. This is the address found on the "Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Political Committee," which had also been received by the Division of Elections on December 26, 2000. The letter signed by Ms. Evans on December 27, 2001, informed Ms. McCarty that items 3 and 7 needed to be "rephrased." It further informed Ms. McCarty, that upon receipt of the requested information the committee would be included on the "active" list. The message recorded on The Committee answering machine on December 27, 2001, generated a response from a person who identified himself as Mr. Snyder, on January 2, 2002. Mr. Snyder engaged in a telephone conversation with Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams explained to Mr. Snyder that items 3, 5, 7, and 8, would have to be completed properly as a condition of The Committee's being recognized. A letter dated January 4, 2001, bearing the letterhead of "The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary," and signed by Amber Allman McWhorter, was faxed to the Division of Elections on January 4, 2001, and received that date. This letter referenced the telephone call between Ms. Williams and Craig Snyder, who was further identified as The Committee's attorney. The letter stated that a corrected Statement of Organization of Political Committee, and a designation of treasurer, would be forwarded to the Division of Elections within the next 72 hours. On January 8, 2001, a filing was received by the Division of Elections that was deemed by the Division to be complete. Subsequently, in a letter dated January 10, 2001, and signed by Connie Evans, informed Ms. McCarty and The Committee that the Statement of Organization and the Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for The Committee complied with the Division of Elections' requirements. The Committee was provided with Identification No. 34261. Posted with the letter was a copy of the "2000 Handbook for Committees," which is published by the Division of Elections. The letter and the handbook were sent to The Committee operation in Miami, not Ms. McCarty, and no one in the Miami Beach operation ever forwarded it to her. Connie Evans, Bureau Chief of Election Records, the entity that supervises the filing of the forms mentioned above, believes that due to a court ruling in Florida Right to Life v. Mortham, Case No. 98-770-Civ-Orl-19A, the language in Section 106.011, Florida Statutes, which defines a "political committee," has been found to be unconstitutional. She believes that a political committee is not required to register with the Division of Elections but that if a committee does register, it must abide by the statutes regulating political committees. Ms. Evans has informed numerous entities of this interpretation of the law in letters. The efficacy of that case, and Ms. Evans' interpretation of it, will be discussed further in the Conclusions of Law, below. Ms. McCarty signed a "Campaign Treasurer's Report Summary"(CTR-Q1) which was filed with the Division of Elections on April 10, 2001. This addressed the period January 1, 2001 until March 31, 2001. Under the certification section of the CTR-Q1 are the words, "It is a first degree misdemeanor for any person to falsify a public record (ss. 839.13, F.S.)." Immediately above her signature are the words, "I certify that I have examined this report and it is true, correct, and complete." The box found immediately above and to the right of her signature, was checked to signify that Ms. McCarty was the chairperson of The Committee. According to Ms. Evans, The Division of Elections regulates several kinds of committees. There are "issues" committees, "candidate" committees," "party executive" committees, and "committees of continuing existence." Depending on the nature of the committee, different rules apply. The Committee was a "candidate" committee so the contribution regulations of a political candidate applied to the committee. That meant that the maximum contribution per person was $500. The CTR-Q1 indicated in the "Itemized Contributions Section" that seven people contributed $1,000 and one person contributed $2,000. Walter Hunter, Neda Korich, Arthur Allen, William Shutze, Caroline Ireland, Henry Allen, and Honore Wansler, contributed $1,000, each. Robert Morgan contributed $2,000. The amounts in excess of $500 were eventually returned to the $1,000 contributors, except that in the case of Henry Allen, the refund was made to Allen Investment corporation. The sum of $1,500 was returned to Robert Morgan, the $2,000 contributor, but the CTR-Q1 listed only a $500 repayment. Therefore, the CTR-Q1 in its expenditures section was incorrect with regard to Mr. Morgan. The CTR-Q1 also listed in the "Itemized Contributions Section" the receipt, on January 2, 2001, of $150,000 for "LOA/INK extension of credit for direct mail services." These words may be interpreted to mean that a loan in the form of an "in kind" service had been provided. This was reported under the name of Creative Marketing, 2760 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 250, Alexandria, Virginia. The Committee had a bank account at CityBank of Miami, Florida. The sole authorized signatory on the account was Diane Thorne. The Account No. was 3200015694. There was no entry in the bank account of the receipt of $150,000. This indicates that the item was not processed through the bank and it would not have been processed through the bank if it were really an "in kind" contribution. Because the beginning balance was zero on February 8, 2001, it is concluded that the inception date of Account No. 3200015694 was February 8, 2001. Lora Lynn Jones, is the principal of Unique Graphics and Design, which is located in Suite 253, at an address in Alexandria, Virginia, which is not further identified in the evidence of record. Ms. Jones prepared and posted the fundraising letter of December 2000, at the direction of Mr. Stone. Ms. Jones talked on the telephone with Ms. McCarty prior to mailing the fundraising letter and determined that the language in the letter was agreeable to Ms. McCarty. At the direction of Mr. Stone, Ms. Jones requested payment and received payment for her work, but from whom she cannot remember, except that she is sure that Creative Marketing did not pay it. The money for this production was paid in advance by wire transfer. There is no evidence in the record that this was paid from the account of The Committee. In fact, because the payment was made sometime in early December 2000, it could not have been paid from the account because it had not been opened. Ms. Jones is aware of an entity by the name of Creative Marketing Company and she believes it may be located in Northern Virginia, but she is not involved with it. It is found by clear and convincing evidence that the fundraising letter was not paid for by Creative Marketing, 2760 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 250, Alexandria, Virginia. The bank records of The Committee reflect a $50,000 expenditure made to Unique Graphics and Design, paid with a check dated May 9, 2001. This represents a payment for something other than the fundraising letter dated December 2000. The $50,000 item was reported as an expenditure on the CTR-Q1 that was reported to have been made on March 12, 2001. It was reported as having been made to Creative Marketing as payee. The only check in the amount of $50,000, reflected in The Committee checking account for the period February 8, 2001, to June 30, 2001, was payable to Unique Graphics and Design and was dated May 9, 2001. Therefore, it is found that the CTR-Q1 is incorrect when it was reported as having been made on March 12, 2001, to Creative Marketing. Ms. Jones believes there is a company by the name of Creative Marketing Company, which she believes may be located in Northern Virginia, but she is not involved with it. Contributions remitted in response to the fundraising letter were forwarded to one of Mr. Stone's two addresses. Because the address of 1348 Washington Avenue, Suite 177, in Miami Beach, Florida, is the address listed on the fundraising letter, it is likely that contributions in response to the fundraising letter went to Mr. Stone's Miami Beach operation. In any event, it is found as a fact that Ms. McCarty did not personally receive or have any contact with any of the contributions remitted to The Committee. The people handling the receipt of funds and the deposits were Roger Stone and people paid by his organization, including Diane Thorne, the secretary; Amber McWhorter, the treasurer; and Craig Snyder. Just as Ms. McCarty was not involved in the receipt of income to The Committee, she was also not involved in the disbursement of funds. The CTR-Q1 was completed by The Committee's staff in either Miami Beach or Washington, D.C., but Ms. McCarty had no input into its preparation. When Ms. McCarty signed the CTR-Q1 she was without knowledge as to whether the report was truthful, correct, or complete. It is further found that she made no effort to ascertain whether the report was truthful, correct, or complete. She believed it to be true and correct because she trusted Mr. Stone's operatives to accurately prepare the report. Ms. McCarty, excepting the current litigation, has never been the subject of a Commission action. Ms. McCarty has an income of approximately $80,000. She owns a residence jointly with her husband which is valued at approximately $300,000 and which is subject to a mortgage of approximately $200,000. She owns a vacation home in Maine jointly with her husband that is valued at approximately $25,000. She and her husband own three automobiles. She owns stocks, annuities, mutual funds or certificates of deposit of an indeterminate value.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Orders of Probable Cause entered in the case of both Mary McCarty and The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 21st day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kendall Coffey, Esquire Coffey & Wright, LLP 2665 South Bayshore Drive Grand Bay Plaza, Penthouse 2B Miami, Florida 33133 J. Reeve Bright, Esquire Bright & Chimera 135 Southeast 5th Avenue, Suite 2 Delray Beach, Florida 33483-5256 Mark Herron, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Ruching, Clerk Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner effectively elected to move her retirement account from the Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) Pension Plan to the FRS Investment Plan prior to her retirement from state employment or, if not, whether Respondent, State Board of Administration (“SBA”) is estopped from claiming that Petitioner did not successfully elect to move her retirement account into the FRS Investment Plan.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Adrian Wagner began her state employment on April 22, 1994, with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, which was renamed the Department of Children and Family Services after a 1996 reorganization. Since 2012, the agency has been named the Department of Children and Families. Upon her hiring, Ms. Wagner was enrolled in the Pension Plan, which was the only retirement program available for eligible employees in 1994. In 2002, the Investment Plan was made available for employees participating in the FRS. Ms. Wagner was provided a three month window, from December 1, 2002, through February 28, 2003, to switch to the Investment Plan. The Plan Choice Administrator did not receive an election from Ms. Wagner during the three month period. Therefore, Ms. Wagner remained in the Pension Plan by statutory default. See § 121.4501(4)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Wagner changed employers but remained in the FRS system until her last day of employment on April 3, 2019. At the time of her retirement from FRS-eligible employment, Ms. Wagner was working for the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office. On March 4, 2019, Ms. Wagner logged onto the FRS website, MyFRS.com, from her home computer. Her intention was to use the second election opportunity afforded by section 121.4501(4)(f), Florida Statutes, to move from the Pension Plan to the Investment Plan. Ms. Wagner recalled clicking a green button to change her plan, which took her to a page that read, “ready to make a decision” to change from the Pension Plan to the Investment Plan. It set out the steps needed to make the change. Ms. Wagner testified that she clicked on a green arrow that said, “change your plan,” which took her to a page that set forth the amount of money she would have in the Investment Plan. She continued to a page showing the different plans available to participants in the Investment Plan. The website advised her to contact an Ernst and Young (“EY”) financial planner to discuss her plan options. Ms. Wagner testified that a few minutes later she used the phone number provided by the MyFRS.com website to contact the EY financial planners. She testified that the EY planner with whom she spoke was named “Josh.” The EY call summary log for Ms. Wagner was entered into evidence. The log is a record of every phone call between EY and Ms. Wagner. It includes the date and time of the call, the name of the EY employee who spoke to Ms. Wagner, and a brief summary of their discussion. The EY call summary log identified the EY planner who spoke with Ms. Wagner at 12:10 p.m., on March 4, 2019, as Joshua Kantrowitz. Ms. Wagner testified that Mr. Kantrowitz told her that he could not see in his computer that she had made the switch to the Investment Plan. While Mr. Kantrowitz waited, Ms. Wagner clicked several “back” buttons on the MyFRS.com website. She then went through the same page progression she had done previously to make her plan selection. Ms. Wagner recalled finalizing her decision by clicking a button that read “send,” or “submit,” or “continue.” Ms. Wagner testified that Mr. Kantrowitz told her that he could now see that she had elected to change her retirement from the Pension Plan to the Investment Plan. They discussed fund options, tax questions, and penalties for taking funds out of the Investment Plan. Mr. Kantrowitz verified Ms. Wagner’s email address so that he could send her an FRS Investment Beneficiary Form. Ms. Wagner understood Mr. Kantrowitz to say that she would not be able to see that she had changed to the Investment Plan on the website for about a month. The conversation was interrupted when the phone connection was lost. Ms. Wagner testified that it was her understanding that she had successfully changed her retirement from the Pension Plan to the Investment Plan, and that this change had been confirmed by Mr. Kantrowitz. A transcript of the conversation between Ms. Wagner and Mr. Kantrowitz was entered into evidence. The transcript does not confirm every aspect of Ms. Wagner’s recollection. The transcript records that Ms. Wagner told Mr. Kantrowitz that she “just switched over from the FRS Pension Plan to the Investment Plan.” Mr. Kantrowitz asked when she made the switch. Ms. Wagner responded, “I just hit it today. Did it today.” She added that she made the election “about ten minutes ago.” The transcript clarifies that Mr. Kantrowitz accepted, but did not confirm, Ms. Wagner’s statement that she made the switch to the Investment Plan. After Ms. Wagner told him that she made the switch only 10 minutes ago, Mr. Kantrowitz stated: Okay. And you did it by--basically, you know, if you do--you know, it’s still being processed at the moment. Basically, you know, in the next month, it’s going to make that conversion. In order to, you know, switch and make that choice, you know, the types of investments you’re putting into. Okay. So I do want to keep you aware of that if you did fill it out today, okay. Mr. Kantrowitz never confirmed that the second election had been completed nor did he state whether he could or could not see the change on his computer. Mr. Kantrowitz simply accepted Ms. Wagner’s word and went on to tell her what would happen next if she indeed made the change. Mr. Kantrowitz did state that the conversion would be made in the next month, confirming in part Ms. Wagner’s recollection that she was told that it would be a month before she could see the switch to the Investment Plan on the website. Again, however, this statement was contingent: if Ms. Wagner made the change, the conversion would take about a month. The EY call summary log entry for the March 4, 2019, conversation, presumably completed by Mr. Kantrowitz, records Ms. Wagner’s “Question or Problem” as “made a switch to the FRS IP. [D]oesn’t plan to work in the FRS anymore.” The log records the “Resolution” with a series of four bullet points: talked about IP. taxation, timelines, HIS. says she spoke with admin and they said she would hit NRA at April 1 for 25 YOS SR. she did the 2nd election online and was defaulted into the FRS RDF. needs to set up beneficiaries sending out beneficiary form It could be argued that the second bullet point confirms that Ms. Wagner successfully completed the second election into the Investment Plan. However, when read in tandem with the transcript, Mr. Kantrowitz’s notes clearly set forth his summary of the conversation as it occurred, not his independent conclusion that Ms. Wagner had completed the second election. After the call with Mr. Kantrowitz was dropped, Ms. Wagner called back to inquire as to her exact retirement date. She spoke briefly with another EY planner, Zach Brown, who told her that the Division of Retirement keeps the record of official years of service for employees. Mr. Brown transferred the call to the Division of Retirement. The transcript indicates that Ms. Wagner remained on hold for some time, then hung up before speaking with a Division of Retirement representative. Ms. Wagner testified that on March 18, 2019, she again contacted the EY financial planners. She spoke for roughly a half-hour with a woman whose name she did not recall. The woman verified Ms. Wagner’s personal account information. After being verified, Ms. Wagner asked tax and health care subsidy questions and stated that she planned eventually to move her Investment Plan account from EY to an outside investment firm. Ms. Wagner testified that the EY planner never stated that she was not enrolled in the Investment Plan. The EY call summary log does not show a phone call from Ms. Wagner on March 18, 2019. Ms. Wagner testified that on March 19, 2019, she met with Shawn Powers, the human resources manager for the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office, to discuss Ms. Wagner’s impending retirement. As Ms. Powers filled out a retiree insurance data sheet, Ms. Wagner told her that she had enrolled in the Investment Plan. Ms. Powers cautioned her about the risks involved in the Investment Plan. Ms. Wagner assured her that she understood the risks. Ms. Powers checked the “Investment Plan” box on the insurance form. Ms. Wagner signed the form, attesting to her understanding that she had made the election to move from the Pension Plan to the Investment Plan. Ms. Wagner testified that, after the March 4, 2019, conversation with Mr. Kantrowitz, she received several emails from EY financial planners. She understood these emails as indirect confirmation that she had successfully elected to move to the Investment Plan. During cross-examination, Ms. Wagner conceded that none of these communications affirmatively stated that she was now in the Investment Plan. The third-party Plan Choice Administrator for the Investment Plan is Alight Solutions. FRS members who wish to utilize their second election have multiple options: they may complete and mail in a hard copy form; they may submit a second election form on the MyFRS.com website; or they may log into their account on the MyFRS.com website and go through the process of submitting and confirming their second election online. Fla. Admin. Code R. 19-11.007(3). If an FRS member successfully utilizes the online MyFRS.com process for submitting a second election, an “election confirmation” page appears that informs the member that the election has been received by Alight Solutions. Ms. Wagner had no specific recollection of receiving an electronic confirmation that her election to move to the Investment Plan had been successfully submitted or that it had been received by Alight Solutions. If an FRS member successfully submits an election form to Alight Solutions, a hard copy letter is mailed to the member confirming receipt. Ms. Wagner had no specific recollection of receiving any type of correspondence confirming receipt of her Investment Plan election via conventional mail. Ms. Wagner retired from the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office on April 3, 2019. The parties stipulated that the SBA has no record of receiving a second election from Ms. Wagner during her term of employment with an FRS-participating employer. On April 8, 2019, Ms. Wagner logged onto the MyFRS.com website and saw that she was still enrolled in the Pension Plan. Ms. Wagner immediately phoned the number for the EY financial planners and was transferred to a “solutions person” named Nichole. Ms. Wagner explained to Nichole that on March 4, 2019, she had elected to move her retirement account from the Pension Plan to the Investment Plan via the MyFRS.com website. She provided Nichole with the chronology of events from March 2019 as she remembered them. Nichole told Ms. Wagner that she would research the matter and get back to her within two weeks. Ms. Wagner testified that on or about April 22, 2019, Nichole phoned her to say that she could find no record of anything Ms. Wagner claimed to have done on the MyFRS.com website. Nicole told Ms. Wagner that she would need more time, possibly another two weeks, to do further research on the matter. Ms. Wagner told Nichole how upset she was. Nichole assured Ms. Wagner that she would do her best to find out what happened. Nichole also stated that she would send Ms. Wagner a form to request that the SBA intervene. Ms. Wagner subsequently filed a Request for Intervention, which was received by the SBA on May 17, 2019. Ms. Wagner testified that after she filed her Request for Intervention, but before the SBA responded, she attempted to contact Nichole. Her call was answered by an unnamed EY planner who stated that he would remain on the line while putting her through to a solutions person. Ms. Wagner began speaking with the solutions person but was interrupted by the EY financial planner, who stated that he had found notes by Mr. Kantrowitz indicating that she had changed from the Pension Plan to the Investment Plan. It is highly likely that the unnamed EY financial planner was referencing the EY call summary log notes quoted at Finding of Fact 18. As found above, Mr. Kantrowitz’s contemporary notes reflected what he was told by Ms. Wagner. The notes do not constitute an independent confirmation that Ms. Wagner successfully completed her second election. The SBA submitted into evidence a spreadsheet titled “Participant Web Activity Detail.” SBA witness Allison Olson testified that this document was produced by Alight Solutions in response to her request for all records of Ms. Wagner’s March 4, 2019, activity on the MyFRS.com website. Ms. Olson is the Director of Policy, Risk Management, and Compliance in the Office of Defined Contribution Programs. She credibly testified that she is familiar with reading the Alight Solutions spreadsheets and that she saw nothing on Ms. Wagner’s page indicating that Alight Solutions received her Investment Plan election. Petitioner’s information technology expert, Philip Schwartz, testified that the document provided by Alight Solutions was a “program log,” a high level program that runs to handle a particular task such as an accounting function. Mr. Schwartz testified that he suggested to his client that she request the “server log” for the relevant date. The server log captures every keystroke and click made by a user such as Ms. Wagner, even in situations in which the server is too busy to complete the requested function. Mr. Schwartz believed the program log was insufficient because it showed only which page of the website Ms. Wagner was on at a given moment, not which buttons she clicked or whether she had hit the “send” button. Mr. Schwartz’s suggestion was that Ms. Wagner might have done everything necessary to complete the second election but that the MyFRS.com server may not have recorded her election. The server log would have provided a more accurate representation of Ms. Wagner’s intentions. Ms. Olson testified that, after an informal hearing attempting to resolve the case, she requested a server log from Alight Solutions. The company responded that it did not have the server log. Ms. Olson testified that the program log would indicate the second election had it been completed by Ms. Wagner. Ms. Olson stated that FRS members are always advised to follow through and make sure their election has been received. Mr. Schwartz testified that there is no industry standard as to the length of time a program log should be kept. He has known companies to hold them for as long as a year, but has also known companies to keep them for only 90 days. Mr. Schwartz testified that there is no legal requirement for a company such as Alight Solutions to maintain a program log at all. Mr. Schwartz testified that he did not have enough knowledge of Alight Solutions’ terminology to state whether the program log indicated that Ms. Wagner’s election had been received. Thus, there is no evidence to contradict Ms. Olson’s credible testimony that the Alight Solutions program log did not indicate receipt of Ms. Wagner’s Investment Plan election. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Ms. Wagner intended to make her second election on March 4, 2019, and to move her retirement account from the Pension Plan to the Investment Plan. The preponderance of the evidence also establishes that Ms. Wagner failed to complete her second election and that Alight Solutions, the Plan Choice Administrator for the Investment Plan, did not receive her election.1/ The evidence was insufficient to show that the SBA or any entity or person acting on its behalf or as its agent made any representation to Ms. Wagner that her second election had been received by the Plan Choice Administrator.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Florida Retirement System Investment Plan Petition for Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 8th day of January, 2020.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent accepted campaign contributions and made expenditures before designating a campaign treasurer and campaign depository, signed a check without sufficient funds written on a campaign account with insufficient funds to cover the check, and accepted a campaign contribution in excess of the legal limit in violation of Subsections 106.021(1)(a), 106.11(4), and 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the campaign laws of the state. During 2006, Respondent attempted, unsuccessfully, to qualify as a candidate for the United States Congress and then campaigned for election to the state Legislature. Sometime in 2006, Respondent attempted to qualify as a candidate for the United States House of Representatives, District 12. On May 15, 2006, Respondent accepted two checks from Mr. Kent Lilly, an attorney in Bartow, Florida. One check was a campaign contribution of $500.00. Mr. Lilly intended the other check to be a loan of $5,000.00. Although the loan from Mr. Lilly satisfied the definition of a campaign contribution in Subsection 106.011(3)(a), Mr. Lilly and Respondent understood that Respondent was to repay the loan from subsequent campaign contributions. Respondent learned by letter dated May 18, 2006, that he did not qualify as a candidate for federal office because the qualifying papers he filed did not contain an original signature. Respondent decided to campaign as a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives, District 63. Respondent retained the campaign funds contributed by Mr. Lilly in a bank account divided into two sub-accounts. The two sub-accounts are identified in the record as the Sub 1 and Sub 2 accounts. The Sub 1 account contained funds collected for the Congressional campaign, and the Sub 2 account contained funds collected for the state legislative campaign. Respondent did not designate a campaign treasurer and depository for the state legislative campaign until July 19, 2006. Respondent signed the Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Candidates (the DS-DE 9) form on July 5, 2006. The DS-DE 9 form designated Ms. Shirley Goodwine as the campaign treasurer. Respondent filed the DS-DE 9 form with the state’s Division of Elections on July 13, 2006. The original DS-DE 9 form was insufficient. The original form did not include the name of the political office sought and the date of Ms. Goodwine’s signature. Respondent filed an amended DS-DE 9 form on July 19, 2006. The amended form corrected the errors in the original form and was sufficient to designate a campaign treasurer and depository for state office. On July 6, 2006, Respondent accepted a contribution to his Sub 2 account before designating a campaign treasurer and depository. Respondent transferred $2,000.00 from the Sub 1 account to his Sub 2 account. The funds came from the loan from Mr. Lilly. The $2,000.00 contribution was excessive, within the meaning of Subsection 106.19(1)(a). It exceeded the maximum allowable contribution of $500.00 by $1,500.00. On July 12, 2006, Respondent expended $16.80 from his Sub 2 account before designating a campaign treasurer and depository. The charge to his account in the amount $16.80 was for checks to be used on the account. On July 18, 2006, Respondent signed a check in the amount of $1,859.76, which was drawn on the Sub 2 account. Insufficient funds were available to cover the check. The check was payable to the state Division of Elections and was intended to pay the qualifying fee to run for state office. On July 22, 2006, Respondent signed a check drawn on the Sub 2 account without sufficient funds. The check was payable to Publix Supermarket for $100.00. Respondent has a prior disciplinary history. Petitioner previously fined Respondent for filing campaign treasurer reports late. Respondent has not paid the previous fines. Respondent reports his net worth to be $103,000.00. Respondent has not repaid the loan from Mr. Lilly. Respondent submitted no evidence of mitigating factors that may have reduced the fine proposed by Petitioner. Respondent committed the foregoing acts willfully within the meaning of former Section 106.37, which was in effect at the time Respondent committed the acts. Respondent committed the acts with reckless disregard for whether the acts were prohibited by relevant campaign laws of the state.
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Section 106.09(1), Florida Statutes, by accepting four cash contributions in excess of the legal limit.
Findings Of Fact 1. Respondent was a candidate for the Orlando City Commission, District 5, in the March 2010 election. 2. On July 13, 2009, Respondent filed his 2009 Q2 campaign treasurer’s report covering the period of April 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. Respondent certified that the report was true, correct, and complete. Respondent’s report listed four $100 cash contributions received on May 15, 2009.' The four cash contributions were from Virginia Howell, Enrique Howell, Judith White, and Sam Cahman. 3. On July 20, 2009, Alana Brenner, the Orlando City Clerk, sent Respondent a letter notifying him that she discovered what appeared to be several items on his 2009 Q2 report which may be election law violations. Ms. Brenner listed the four excessive cash contributions as possible violations. . 4. On the bottom of page 23 of the June 2008 Candidate’s Handbook (Handbook), it states in bold letters that effective January 1, 2008, the maximum contribution a person can accept in cash or by means of a cashier’s check is $50. 5. Respondent testified in his November 5, 2009, affidavit that he possessed and had read the Handbook. | 6. On August 29, 2009, Respondent sent the Commission’s investigator, Cedric Oliver, a letter that stated: In response to Commission Daisy Lynum’s complaint to the election office in regards to the acceptance of four cash contribution[s] of $100.00, the Vibert White Campaign committee has taken steps to reverse this benign and small error. Due to our mistake in following the guidelines of an older election manuscript that allows for $100.00 cash gifts we failed to consult the newer " Respondent mislabeled the 2009 Q2 report as a G1 report. Faa004 (7/09) instructional guide that allows for only $50.00 cash offerings. Thus, we are sending the contributions back to the donors. 7. Despite Respondent’s promise to send back the excessive cash contributions, there was no record of the cash being returned to the contributors. 8. On October 12, 2009, after the complaint was filed in this case, Respondent filed an amended 2009 Q2 campaign report. Respondent certified the report was true, correct, and complete. On the report, Respondent changed the four May 15, 2009, $100 cash contributions to four August 11, 2009, $100 check contributions. 9. There was no record of the four checks being deposited in Respondent’s campaign bank account. 10. Respondent’s conduct was willful. Respondent accepted the four excessive cash contributions while showing reckless disregard for whether he was prohibited from accepting cash contributions in excess of $50.
Conclusions For Commission Eric M. Lipman General Counsel 107 W. Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, FL 32399 For Respondent Frederic O’Neal - PO Box 842 Windermere, FL 34786
Appeal For This Case This order is final agency action. Any party who is adversely affected by this order has the right to seek judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by filing a notice of administrative appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Clerk of the Florida Elections Commission at 107 West Gaines Street, Suite 224, Collins Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050, and by filing a copy of the notice of appeal with the appropriate district court of appeal. The party must attach to the notice of appeal a copy of this order and include with the notice of appeal filed with the district court of appeal the applicable filing fees. The notice of administrative appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of this order is filed with the Commission. ‘The date this order was filed appears in the upper right-hand corer of the first page of the order. Copies furnished to: Eric M. Lipman, General Counsel Vibert White, Respondent (certified mail) Frederic O’Neal, Attorney for Respondent (certified mail) Daisy W. Lynum, Complainant Florida Division of Elections, Filing Officer Faa004 (7/09) ae
The Issue The issues are: whether proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code1 Rules 9K-9.003(6) and 9K-9.006(2) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority under Section 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes2; and, if so, whether costs and attorney's fees should be assessed against Respondent and paid to Petitioner under Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The FCT has the power "to undertake, coordinate, or fund activities and projects which will . . . serve to conserve natural resources and resolve land use conflicts, including . . . [w]orking waterfronts." § 380.507(2)(g), Fla. Stat. The FCT also is specifically authorized to "award grants and make loans to local governments and nonprofit organizations for" that purpose. Id. at ¶ (6). In 2008, the Florida Legislature enacted the Stan Mayfield Working Waterfront grant program. Codified as Section 380.5105, Florida Statutes, paragraph (2) of the statute authorizes the FCT to promulgate "rules specifically establishing an application process and a process for the evaluation, scoring and ranking of working waterfront acquisition projects. . . . Such rules shall establish a system of weighted criteria to give increased priority to projects: Within a municipality with a population less than 30,000; Within a municipality or area under intense growth and development pressures, as evidenced by a number of factors, including a determination that the municipality's growth rate exceeds the average growth rate for the state; Within the boundary of a community redevelopment agency established pursuant to s. 163.356; Adjacent to state-owned submerged lands designated as an aquatic preserve identified in s. 258.39; or That provide a demonstrable benefit to the local economy." The purpose of the grant program is to preserve working waterfronts, which have been under pressure to convert to other uses. Some driving forces behind the conversion of working waterfront to other uses include: high coastal property values; high and unpredictable property taxes; increased regulation of commercial fishing to protect reduced fishery stocks; confusing and time-consuming regulatory processes for expanding or creating new working waterfronts; increased cheaper imported seafood; and rising fuel costs. The Stan Mayfield Working Waterfront grant program is administered by the FCT. In 2008, the FCT adopted rules governing the program, including Rule Chapter 9K-9 on Grant Application Procedures. In the first cycle of grant applications, evaluations, and awards, Monroe County applied for a grant to purchase and preserve Intervenor's property on Stock Island in Key West. Monroe County's Stock Island application was not granted. The FCT announced its intention to amend the rules based on the experience of the first grant cycle under the existing rules and input from "stakeholders" (mostly local governments and private not-for-profit entities interested in applying for grants) throughout the State. Workshops were conducted, and stakeholders (including Monroe County) participated. Proposed amendments were drafted, and stakeholders were invited to comment on the draft proposed amendments. The draft proposed amendments and comments were considered by the governing board of the FCT at its meeting in May 2009. The Board made some revisions to the draft proposed amendments and initiated rulemaking. Petitioner and Intervenor challenge proposed amendments to Rules 9K-9.003(6) and 9K-9.006(2). The proposed amendment to Rule 9K-9.003(6) caps awards at five million dollars or the amount appropriated by the Legislature, if less than five million dollars (sometimes referred to as "the cap"). The proposed amendment to Rule 9K-9.006(2) adds paragraph (d) and awards evaluation points based on the amount of grant money requested in an application, as follows: 8 points for a request not exceeding $1.5 million; 4 points for a request not exceeding $2.5 million; and 2 points for a request not exceeding $3.5 million.3 This proposed rule amendment is sometimes referred to as "the sliding scale." It is common for grant programs to adopt a "cap" on awards. The FCT's proposed "cap" took into account recent and expected future legislative appropriations, as well as the grant amounts requested in the first grant application cycle and expected in the immediate future, with the understanding that the "cap" could be adjusted by rule amendment in the future if that became necessary. The purpose of the proposed "cap" was to ensure that at least two applicants would receive grant money in each grant cycle. The proposed "sliding scale" was suggested by a representative of Dixie County at a noticed public FCT meeting. It was designed promote the use of non-State matching funds and to help local governments with less resources to compete in the grant application process. The proposed "sliding scale" was thoroughly discussed in-house by FCT staff and was discussed by the FCT governing board before it was approved unanimously. The challenged proposed rules cite Sections 380.507 and 380.5105(2), Florida Statutes, as their statutory authority. They cite Sections 259.105 and 380.501-380.515, Florida Statutes, as the specific laws they implement. Section 259.105, Florida Statutes, is the Florida Forever Act. Some of the funds in the Florida Forever Trust Fund are designated for distribution "to the Department of Community Affairs for the acquisition of land and capital project expenditures necessary to implement the Stan Mayfield Working Waterfronts Program within the Florida communities trust pursuant to s. 380.5105." § 259.105(3)(j), Fla. Stat. Sections 380.501-380.515, Florida Statutes, are the Florida Communities Trust Act, which includes the Stan Mayfield Working Waterfronts grant program. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the proposed rule amendments are not authorized by statute and enlarge, modify, or contravene the law implemented because they add to the evaluation criteria in Section 380.5105(2), Florida Statutes. But it is clear that, besides the two proposed rule amendments under challenge in this case, the "system of weighted criteria" adopted in Rule Chapter 9K-9 includes several unchallenged criteria, in addition to the ones required by the statute to be given "increased priority." In addition, the evidence was that evaluation criteria in addition to those to be given "increased priority" are essential for the "system of weighted criteria" to function properly to differentiate and rank the most worthy grant applications. Without additional criteria, it is likely that many if not all grant applications would get the same score in the evaluation process. Petitioner and Intervenor also contend that the proposed "cap" and "sliding scale" result in "increased priority" not being given to the criteria specified in Section 380.5105(2), Florida Statutes. Actually, "increased priority" still is given to the criteria listed in Section 380.5105(2), Florida Statutes. Rule 9K-9.006(1)(c) gives "increased priority" (ten points) for the criterion listed in Section 380.5105(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Rule 9K-9.006(2)(b) gives "increased priority" (ten points) for the criterion listed in Section 380.5105(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Rule 9K-9.006(1)(a) gives "increased priority" (ten points) for the criterion listed in Section 380.5105(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Rule 9K-9.006(1)(b) gives "increased priority" (ten points) for the criterion listed in Section 380.5105(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Rule 9K-9.006(2)(a) gives "increased priority" (ten points) for the criterion listed in Section 380.5105(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Petitioner and Intervenor also contend that the challenged proposed amendments discriminate against grants to higher-priced properties. They contend that higher prices indicate higher pressure to convert, larger size, and greater benefit to the local economy from preservation. They contend that all of these indicators exist in the case of Intervenor's Stock Island property--indeed, the Stock Island property is under relatively high pressure to convert, is relatively large in size, and would stand to continue to greatly benefit the local economy if preserved. They contend that discriminating against higher- priced properties like Intervenor's Stock Island property is not authorized by statute, contravenes the statutes, and is arbitrary and capricious. Actually, the challenged proposed rules do not necessarily discriminate against higher-priced properties. An applicant can use non-State matching funds to bring a more costly proposal under the "cap" of the proposed amendment to Rule 9K- 9.003(6), and unchallenged existing Rule 9K-9.006(4)(a) provides that grant proposals with non-State matching funds score significant points--far more than would be lost under the "sliding scale" of paragraph (d) of the proposed amendment to Rule 9K-9.006(2). In addition, higher-priced projects are favored by other criteria in parts of the rule and proposed rule amendments that are not under challenge. For example, points are awarded for docking facilities, seafood houses, storage areas for traps, nets, and other gear, and boat ramps. These are more likely to be attributes of a larger, more expensive property. A proposed amendment to Rule 6K-9.006(3) significantly increased the amount of points available for docking facilities, especially existing usable docking facilities, which are more likely to exist on larger properties. A grant proposal with these kinds of amenities and attributes will "blow away in point-scoring" an application for a smaller grant for a proposal without these features. In support of their contentions, Petitioner and Intervenor hypothesize two grant proposals for projects (whether in the same locale or in different parts of the state) with identical attributes except for property cost. However, the evidence was that such a scenario is unlikely. If that unlikely scenario were to occur, it is possible that the higher-cost proposal would exceed the "cap" of the proposed amendment to Rule 9K-9.003(6), and the lower-cost proposal would score more points as a result of the proposed addition of paragraph (d) to Rule 9K- 9.006(2). However, the former scenario would create the desired incentive to secure enough non-State matching funds to get under the "cap"; and under the latter scenario, it would make sense to favor the grant proposal requesting less State money. Petitioner and Intervenor also contend that the proposed amendments fail to include a provision suggested by Monroe County to adopt a "sliding scale" for the "benefit to the local economy" and add other quantifiable criteria on a "sliding scale" (e.g., a "sliding scale" to give credit for the capacity of docking facilities and storage areas) that would give a greater competitive advantage to a large project like Monroe County's Stock Island proposal. The evidence was that these kinds of criteria would be difficult to devise and implement to achieve the desire result. For example, a large project might appear to benefit the local economy greatly but actually just consolidate several different areas of economic activity into one location. As a result, it was logical for the FCT not to adopt rules attempting to quantify and score these criteria on a "sliding scale." The challenged proposed amendments are supported by logic and the necessary facts, and were adopted with thought and reason and are rational. The contention that the FCT thoughtlessly adopted a suggestion by a representative of Dixie County and ignored suggestions by Monroe County is rejected.
The Issue Does correspondence dated August 18, 1997, from John M. Awad, Ph.D., District Administrator for District II, State of Florida, Department of Children and Family Services, directed to Theodore R. Buri, Jr., Regional Director, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal employees, AFL-CIO, identify Respondent’s agency policy? If yes, is that policy a “Rule” as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996)? If a “Rule," has Respondent promulgated the policy in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996)? If the policy is a “Rule” that has not been promulgated, does a statutory basis exist for its promulgation?
Findings Of Fact The individual Petitioners are employed at the Florida State Hospital. This is a mental health facility operated by the Respondent. The individual Petitioners have contact with the clients who reside in the hospital. Because those individual Petitioners have client contact in performing their employment at the hospital, Respondent, as their employer, is responsible for screening the employees to ascertain whether those individual Petitioners have been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to certain offenses set forth in Sections 435.03 and 435.04, Florida Statutes (1995). Such a finding would disqualify the employees from working directly with the clients. The requirement for screening is in accordance with Section 110.1127(3), and Section 394.4572, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Florida Public Employees Council 79, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME), represents the individual Petitioners in collective bargaining between those Petitioners and the State of Florida. Each of the individual Petitioners received notification from Robert B. Williams, Hospital Administrator, Florida State Hospital, that each person had been declared ineligible to hold a position of “special trust” based upon certain offenses attributable to the Petitioners. The basis for the disqualifications was Chapter 435, Florida Statutes (1995). This meant that the individuals could not have client contact. As a consequence, Petitioners were told, through the correspondence notifying them of their disqualifications, that they could seek exemption from disqualification and/or contest the accuracy of the records declaring their disqualifications. All Petitioners sought relief from Respondent in accordance with Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes (1995), by requesting exemption from disqualification before the Respondent. Bobby Jones, Clarence Cornell Simmons, Freddie Lee, and Frank Lawrence Dickens were denied exemption. Whether those Petitioners have contested the preliminary decision by Respondent denying their exemption through hearing procedures set forth in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes is not known. The other Petitioners were granted exemption from disqualification by action of the Respondent. Before Respondent made its preliminary determination on eligibility, on August 13, 1997, Theodore R. Buri, Jr., Regional Director of AFSCME Florida Council 79, wrote to Dr. John Awad, District Administrator, District II, Department of Children and Family Services. The purpose of the letter concerned the disqualification of the individual Petitioners to continue work in positions of “special trust” by having contact with clients at Florida State Hospital. That correspondence stated: The above referenced employees have been previously notified of disqualification, allegedly under the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. These employees have notified Council 79, through their local union, that they are scheduled for a hearing on a possible exemption from the provisions of Chapter 435 on August 27, 1997. I have reviewed the documents of these individuals and I have found, without exception, that the charges which served as the basis of potential disqualification all occurred prior to October 1, 1995. As I am sure you are aware the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, did not become effective until October 1, 1995. Further, the notations are consistent throughout Chapter 435, indicating that the provisions of Chapter 435 shall apply only to offenses committed subsequent to October 1, 1995. It appears that these, and other, employees are being improperly required by the Department to defend themselves against provisions of Florida Statutes which do not apply to them. I wish you would immediately review this concern with your legal department and direct Florida State Hospital to immediately make the affected employees whole and to terminate the pending actions against these employees. Your prompt attention in this matter is very much appreciated. On August 18, 1997, Dr. Awad responded to Mr. Buri’s inquiry through correspondence, in which Dr. Awad stated: The concerns expressed in your letter dated August 13, 1997, concerning background screenings were reviewed approximately a year and a half ago by an agency statewide workgroup, which included several background screening coordinators, District Legal Counsels, and attorneys from the General Counsel’s office. The legal research from that group resulted in the issuance of Agency policy addressing this and other statewide issues. In response to a question similar to that raised in your letter, Agency policy is that although Section 64 of Chapter 95-228, Laws of Florida, states that “this act shall take effect October 1, 1995, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after that date,” it applies only to the new criminal offense of “Luring or enticing a child” created by Section 1 of the law and does not apply to screening provisions. Therefore, in accordance with established principals [sic] of statutory construction, a person being rescreened after 10-1-95, must meet the requirements of the law in effect as of the date of the rescreening, which includes the broadened offenses, just as a new job applicant must meet such requirements. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, you may wish to have your attorney discuss this with the Agency’s General Counsel. The exemption hearings before Respondent were held on August 27, 1997, leading to the grant of exemptions for some Petitioners, and denial for others. Through their Petition to determine the invalidity of a “Rule," Petitioners allege and request the following relief: Although Chapter 435 of the Laws of Florida concerning employment screening specifically states that it applies to offenses committed on or after October 1, 1995, the Respondent applies employment screening to all employees and to all offenses regardless of the date of the offense. The Respondent articulated this policy of application in correspondence addressed to Theodore R. Buri from John Awad dated August 18, 1997,. . . The Respondent’s policy, as more fully described above, is a 'Rule' within the meaning of Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, because it is an 'agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of the agency.' Id. This rule should be declared an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the following reasons: The above described rule has not been adopted in substantial compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes; The Respondent has no statutory or rule authority to adopt the above described rule as applied to offenses predating October 1, 1995, thus the rule violates Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The rule imposes a civil penalty against the individually named Petitioners for which there is no specific statutory authority. The rule is arbitrary and capricious as applied to offenses predating October 1, 1995, and thus violates Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The rule adversely affects the Petitioners' substantial interest in continued employment in a position of 'special trust.' The rule is an unconstitutional impairment of the contract of employment. It unfairly burdens the Petitioners and others similarly situated with the duty to timely request and prove by clear and convincing evidence that [sic] either an entitlement to an exemption from disqualification or that the records are inaccurate. It is an oppressive and unreasonable condition of employment. As a penalty attached to an offense committed prior to October 1, 1995, the Rule is unlawful as an ex post facto law. The immediate removal from a position of trust before an employee may be heard denies the employee due process. The rule attacks a protected property and liberty interest of the individually named Petitioners and those similarly situated. The Agency’s actions against the Petitioners based on the Rule stigmatizes the employee. Petitioners also request that they be granted costs and attorneys fees pursuant to Section 120.595(3) and (4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Chapter 95-228, Laws of Florida, referred to by Dr. Awad in his August 18, 1997, correspondence to Mr. Buri, created Chapter 435, Florida Statutes.
