The Issue Whether Petitioner, as a candidate for the Leon County Commission, District 1, in the 1998 elections, willfully violated Subsection 106.07(5), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a candidate from certifying to the correctness of a campaign treasurer's report that is incorrect, false or incomplete, on 13 separate occasions; and Subsection 106.11(3), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a candidate from authorizing any expenses from the primary campaign account without sufficient funds on deposit in the primary campaign account to pay the full amount of the authorized expenses, to honor all outstanding checks, and to pay all previously authorized but unpaid expenses, on five separate occasions. Whether Petitioner, as a candidate for the Leon County Commission, District 1, in the 1998 elections, knowingly and willfully violated Subsection 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a person from accepting a contribution in excess of $500 for each election, on one occasion; Subsection 106.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a person or organization from failing to report a contribution required to be reported by Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, on 53 separate occasions; Subsection 106.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a person or organization from falsely reporting or failing to report information required by Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, on 130 separate occasions; and Subsection 106.19(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a person or organization from making or authorizing any expenditure prohibited by Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, on five separate occasions; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony, documentary evidence, entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: At the time of the alleged violations, Petitioner was a candidate for re-election to the office for the Leon County Commission, District 1, for the general election in November 1998. Respondent had won the primary, run-off and general election in 1996. He had been a candidate for election to the office of Leon County Superintendent of Schools in 1992. Petitioner has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Howard University (1981), a Doctorate of Jurisprudence from Howard University (1984), and has done advanced studies in Theology and Ethics at Boston University School of Theology. He has been employed as a Legal Assistant and Training Specialist by the State of Florida. In addition, he has served as a Staff Assistant to a United States Senator and a Special Assistant to a Governor of Florida. He serves as an adjunct professor at a local university. Prior to the alleged violations, Petitioner signed a statement indicating that he had a copy of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, and that he had read and understood same. Petitioner is a highly educated, sophisticated individual and an experienced candidate. The charging document in this case is the Order Of Probable Cause, which set out in unnumbered paragraphs, each statutory provision that Petitioner allegedly violated and the number of times of each alleged statutory violation. Attached to the Order of Probable Cause, and incorporated in the Order of Probable Cause by reference, is a Statement of Findings which lists with specificity each alleged violation. Specifically, it alleged: Probable cause to believe that the Respondent[²] violated Section 106.07(5), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a candidate from certifying to the correctness of a campaign treasurer's report that is incorrect, false, or incomplete, on 13 occasions; Probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated Section 106.11(3), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a candidate from authorizing any expenses from the primary campaign account without sufficient funds on deposit in the campaign account to pay the full amount of the authorized expenses, to honor all outstanding checks, and to pay all previously authorized but unpaid expenses, on six occasions; Probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a person or organization from accepting a contribution in excess of $500 for each election, on one occasion; Probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes, failure of a person or organization to report a contribution required to be reported by this chapter, on 56 occasions; Probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a person or organization from falsely reporting or failing to report information required by this [sic], on 131 occasions. Probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(d), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a person or organization from making or authorizing any expenditure prohibited by this chapter, on seven occasions. Attached to the Order of Probable Cause, and incorporated in the Order of Probable Cause by reference, is a Statement of Findings which lists with specificity each alleged violation. As it relates to the 13 alleged violations of Subsection 106.07(5), Florida Statutes, paragraph 17 of the Statement of Findings lists each of the 13 Campaign Treasurer's Reports and each alleged unreported or incorrectly reported campaign contribution or expenditure. As it relates to the six alleged violations of Subsection 106.11(3), Florida Statutes, paragraphs 19-26 list each check returned for non-sufficient funds and other relevant information to the alleged violations. As it relates to the alleged violation of Subsection 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, it is discussed with specificity in paragraph 34 of the Statement of Findings. As it relates to the 56 alleged violations of Subsection 106.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes, paragraphs 17 and 36 of the Statement of Findings specifically list each of the unreported contributions. As it relates to the 131 alleged violations of Subsection 106.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes, paragraphs 17, 38 and 39 of the Statement of Findings specifically list the 131 unreported or incorrectly reported expenditures. As it relates to the seven alleged violations of Subsection 106.19(1)(d), Florida Statutes, each of the prohibited expenditures is discussed with specificity in paragraphs 19-26 and 41 of the Statement of Findings. In his Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, Petitioner "disputes issues of material fact" listed in paragraphs 3-6, 8-10, 13-20, 22-28, 30, and 33-43 of the Statement of Findings which is incorporated by reference into the Order Finding Probable Cause. In so doing, Petitioner specifically delineates his denial of each of the specifically alleged violations incorporated in the Order of Probable Cause by the Statement of Findings and demonstrates his awareness of the specific number of alleged violations and that the Commission intended to impose a fine for each violation. On June 17, 1996, Petitioner opened a campaign account at the Florida A & M University Credit Union which was given the account number 9174. This account was opened for Petitioner's 1996 campaign. The only bank signature card on file for the campaign account is the original card dated June 17, 1996. It designates two signatories: William Proctor and Fredrick T. Smith, campaign treasurer. Although account 9174 was inactive after the end of the 1996 campaign, it was activated for the 1998 campaign. On May 19, 1997, on opening his re-election campaign, Petitioner filed form DS-DE 9 designating himself Campaign Treasurer and the Florida A & M University Credit Union as campaign depository. On January 12, 1998, he filed a second form DS-DE 9 designating Thomas Rollins as Campaign Treasurer. None of the campaign checks or deposit slips offered into evidence were signed by Tom Rollins. An examination of records of the campaign account records produced by representatives of the Florida A & M University Credit Union indicate that Petitioner personally handled essentially all campaign banking activities. In his sworn responses to inquiries directed to unreported transfers of funds from the campaign account to Petitioner's personal accounts, unreported cash received by Petitioner at the time he deposited checks payable to the campaign account, cash withdrawals, unreported campaign contributions, and other financial irregularities, Petitioner typically gave the following answer: My campaign staff was instructed to record all expenditures [or contributions ] for reporting purposes. However, this expenditure was not reported because the campaign staff included inexperienced, non- professional clerical and bookkeeping personnel who did not always follow instructions to record the contributions and expenditures for reporting purposes. In addition, the campaign had a high turnover of staff, which further complicated efforts to insure that staff properly followed instructions. The Florida A & M University Credit Union will, at any time during business hours, print-out the last 30 days' account activity for a $3.00 fee. This allows an account holder to keep track of deposits, paid checks, issued checks that have not yet been paid, etc. Campaign account records show that this was done in August 1998. On July 27, 1998, prior to the first primary election, a $500 transfer was made from the account of William Proctor, Sr. and Patricia Proctor, account number 5016, to Petitioner's campaign account. This transfer is not reported in the campaign treasurer's report. Petitioner's campaign account records indicate that a transfer of $1,000 was made to Petitioner's campaign account from the account of William Proctor, Sr., and Patricia Proctor, account number 5016, which was maintained at the Florida A & M University Credit Union, on October 12, 1998, after the first primary and prior to the general election. This transfer is not reported in the campaign treasurer's report. In addition to the $1,500 in unreported contributions that were transferred from an individual account within the Florida A & M University Credit Union mentioned in paragraphs 17 and 18, an examination of the campaign account records reveals an additional $4,900 in unreported contributions was transferred into the campaign account from another account maintained by Petitioner within the Florida A & M University Credit Union. Petitioner's campaign account records indicated that the following 53 contributions totaling $8,075 were received by the campaign but were not reported in the campaign treasurer's reports: DATE CONTRIBUTOR AMOUNT 7-11-97 1996 Bill Proctor Campaign, Account No. 5016 $345.00 10-6-97 Eight Star Land Company $50.00 10-6-97 A. L. Buford, Jr. $50.00 10-9-97 Lewis Buford $100.00 10-19-97 Barbara Rouse $25.00 10-23-97 Charles Lockhart $150.00 10-28-97 Dr. Clinitia Ford $50.00 12-19-97 R & R Corporate Systems $200.00 2-10-98 Rudolf Maloy $100.00 4-13-98 Mitchell Asphalt $450.00 4-14-98 Hannah Plumbing $100.00 4-14-98 Suber & Weaver Equipment Repair $50.00 4-16-98 Tallahassee Mack Sales $250.00 4-16-98 Capital City Lawn Care $100.00 4-22-98 Eli Roberts & Sons, Inc. $100.00 4-27-98 Fort Knox Center $250.00 4-30-98 McKenzie Tank Lines $150.00 5-7-98 Gilbert Brown $50.00 6-5-98 Jimmy R. Jones Construction $250.00 7-17-98 Walter T. Mathis $100.00 7-20-98 Ron and/or Wanda Brafford $125.00 7-24-98 William and/or Deborah Grudice $100.00 7-27-98 Transfer from Patricia Proctor Account No. 1912 $500.00 7-27-98 Transfer from Patricia Proctor Account $400.00 7-27-98 No. 1912 Transfer from William Proctor Account $500.00 7-28-98 No. 5016 Jessie Dennis $100.00 7-29-98 Mary Middlebrooks $300.00 8-1-98 John and/or Phyllis Green $100.00 8-6-98 James H. Tookes $100.00 8-6-98 Charles Lockhart $100.00 8-7-98 Angela McNair $15.00 8-8-98 Marion Camps $100.00 8-9-98 Estate of Reginal Settles-Yolanda Foutz $100.00 8-11-98 Settles Ruby Seymour Bass $100.00 8-12-98 Martin and/or Susan Proctor $100.00 8-13-98 Cherry Bluff $200.00 8-13-98 Realtors PAC of Florida $500.00 8-18-98 Alfreda Blackshear $100.00 8-19-98 Davis Insurance Agency $25.00 8-19-98 John Haughabrook $50.00 8-19-98 Brown's Paint and Body Shop $100.00 8-20-98 Winnie Davis $100.00 8-24-98 Limm-Ann Griffin $50.00 9-4-98 Charles A. Francis $100.00 9-22-98 Allan Franklin $50.00 9-23-98 Marie Roy $50.00 9-24-98 Mitchell Asphalt $500.00 10-8-98 Marcus Robinson $25.00 10-9-98 Michael Moore $150.00 10-17-98 Sharon Durham $15.00 10-27-98 Catherine Gretsch $50.00 10-27-98 Catherine Gretsch $50.00 11-1-98 Rev. Jaycee Oliver $300.00 Petitioner's campaign account records indicated that the following 35 expenditures totaling $11,149.11 were made by campaign check but were not reported in the campaign treasurer's reports: DATE PAYEE AMOUNT 7-24-98 Lamar Advertising (Check No. 1003) $3,930.00 7-24-98 Sears (Check No. 1004) $26.92 8-5-98 Bill Doolin (Check No. 1003) $25.00 8-15-98 Petrandis Realty (Check No. 1004) $700.00 8-6-98 Morrison's (Check No. 1007) $12.38 8-12-98 Sprint (Check No. 514) $280.00 8-18-98 Bethel Family (Check No. 1012) $30.25 8-21-98 Feron Jones (Check No. 1030) $100.00 8-26-98 Gallery Graphics (Check No. 1076) $350.00 8-18-98 Payee Illegible (Check No. 516) $401.25 8-29-98 Jumbo Sports (Check No. 1077) $121.79 8-29-98 Knights of Pythias (Check No. 1078) $85.00 9-2-98 Sprint (Check No. 520) $269.78 9-2-98 Sprint (Check No. 521) $30.00 9-23-98 Zakiya Williams (Check No. 1079) $300.00 9-23-98 Arthur Gaines (Check No. 1080) $50.00 9-27-98 Angelo's Seafood (Check No. 1102) $68.81 9-28-98 Books-A-Million (Check No. 1103) $29.10 9-28-98 Morrison's (Check No. 1093) $10.93 10-2-98 Zakiya Williams (Check No. 1105) $150.00 10-7-98 All-World (Check No. 1106) $565.00 10-8-98 Comcast (Check No. 1107) $350.00 10-8-98 Comcast (Check No. 1108) $2,023.00 10-9-98 Danny Harris (Check No. 1081) $300.00 10-14-98 CUP, Inc. (Check No. 1109) $25.00 10-20-98 Ada Ibraahim (Check No. 1114) $70.00 10-2-98 Zakiya Williams (Check No. 1086) $125.00 10-26-98 Olive Garden (Check No. 1129) $13.67 10-27-98 Morrison's (Check No. 1091) $12.10 11-5-98 Aaron Rental (Check No. 1093) $310.92 11-5-98 Sprint (Check No. 1094) $245.80 11-9-98 Morrison's (Check No. 1115) $22.26 11-17-98 Ming-Tree (Check No. 1095) $20.80 11-24-98 Gene Sutton (Check No. 1116) $75.00 11-28-98 Soft-Touch (Check No. 1098) $20.00 Petitioner's campaign account records indicated that 56 cash withdrawals were made from the campaign account totaling $20,070.10. None of these cash withdrawals were listed on the campaign treasurer's reports. Sixteen "official checks" (i.e., guaranteed payment checks paid for by withdrawals from the campaign account for which his campaign account paid the amount of the check plus a fee of $2 per check, similar to a cashier's check issued by a bank), totaling $9,000.10 were issued by the Florida A & M University Credit Union, and apparently used to pay campaign debts. None of these official checks were reported in the campaign treasurer's reports. A listing of these "official checks" follows: DATE PAYEE AMOUNT 4-21-98 Eugene Stanton (Check No. 144650) $300.00 4-21-98 Ricky Coring (Check No. 144716) $1,750.00 6-28-98 Lamar Advertising $500.00 7-1-98 Gene Sutton (Check No. 145837) $100.00 7-1-98 Lamar Advertising (Check No. 145843) $530.00 7-1-98 Rugenia Speight (Check No. 145844) $200.00 7-7-98 Lamar Advertising (Check No. 146000) $130.00 7-20-98 Augustus Colston (Check No. 146159) $600.00 9-1-98 The Links, Inc. (Check No. 146837) $150.00 9-1-98 Aaron Roberts (Check No. 146838) $675.10 9-30-98 WHBX Radio (Check No. 147256) $1,700.00 10-1-98 M. Feron Jones (Check No. 147305) $210.00 10-1-98 WHBX Radio (Check No. 147306) $70.00 10-14-98 Zakiya Williams (Check No. 147507) $150.00 10-16-98 Zakiya Williams (Check No. 147528) $350.00 11-4-98 Petrandis Realty (Check No. 147835) $1,585.00 Although the evidence is inconclusive, it appears that all or most of the "official checks" were the result of cash withdrawals from the campaign account. Assuming that to be the case, approximately $11,000 in cash withdrawals remain unaccounted for. In connection with making 12 deposits to the campaign account, cash was deducted from each deposit. The amount of cash received totaled $1,460. The use of this cash was not shown in the campaign treasurer's reports. Four transfers totaling $2,900 were made from the campaign account to accounts numbered 9120-2 and 6038-2 which are Petitioner's personal accounts. These transfers were not listed in the campaign treasurer's reports. The records of Petitioner's campaign account indicate that the following checks in the total amount of $4,132.93 were presented and returned for insufficient funds: CHECK NO. PAYEE AMOUNT OF CHECK 1002 Unknown $319.93 1016 WHBX $1,170.00 1017 WHBX $600.00 1108 Comcast $2,023.00 1097 Unknown $20.00 An examination of campaign checking account records reveal that fees were charged by the campaign depository for returned checks and other special banking services, totaling $165.00, which were not listed in the campaign treasurer's reports. In sum, 123 expenditures (excluding bank fees), amounting to $44,579.31 were not listed in Petitioner's campaign treasurer's reports during the 1998 campaign. On March 2, 1999, Petitioner filed an amended campaign treasurer's report for the period October 10, 1998 to October 29, 1998, indicating that he had loaned his campaign $8,000 on October 12, 1998. The campaign account does not reflect such a loan. The original campaign treasurer's report for the period October 10, 1998 to October 29, 1998, reflects "loans $8,000” without further documentation. Petitioner certified the correctness of 13 campaign treasurer's reports each of which was incorrect, false, or incomplete. On October 8, 2001, Petitioner was convicted of 8 counts of violating Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes (failure to report campaign contributions during the 1998 campaign), adjudicated guilty, and sentenced to 12 months probation, to be served concurrently, and 100 hours of community service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order: Imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $13,000 for 13 violations of Subsection 106.07(5), Florida Statutes. Imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $2,500 for five violation of Subsection 106.011(3), Florida Statutes. Imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $5,300 for 53 violations of Subsection 106.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $59,000 for 130 violations of Subsection 106.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Not imposing an enhanced penalty, as provided in Subsection 106.19(2), Florida Statutes, for Petitioner's violation of Subsection 106.19(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Dismissing the alleged violations of Subsection 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 25th day of January, 2002.
The Issue As the parties have stipulated, the issue in this case is whether Respondent Florida Housing Finance Corporation (the “Corporation”) properly interpreted Rule 67-48.032(2), Florida Administrative Code, and the corresponding provisions on the same subject found in paragraph 2, at page 2, of the Corporation’s 2000 Qualified Allocation Plan (collectively, the "Instructions"), when it applied the Instructions to determine the substantial interests of Petitioners and Intervenors.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Corporation and Its Duty to Allocate Federal Income Tax Credits The Corporation is a public corporation that administers governmental programs relating to the financing and refinancing of housing and related facilities in Florida. It is governed by a nine-member board composed of eight persons whom the governor appoints plus the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs, sitting ex-officio. Among other things, the Corporation is the state's designated "housing credit agency" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. As such, the Corporation has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures necessary for the allocation and distribution of low-income housing federal tax credits, which are created under and governed almost entirely by federal law. These tax credits, which are designed to encourage the development of low-income housing for families, provide a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the holder’s federal income tax liability and can be taken each year, for up to ten years, that the low-income housing project for which the credits were awarded continues to satisfy Internal Revenue Code requirements. Housing tax credits are allotted annually to the states on a per capita basis and then awarded, through state-administered programs, to developers of rental housing for low-income and very low-income families. Once awarded, there is a market for these tax credits; consequently, a developer may sell them at a discount to obtain immediate cash for its project. As a populous state, Florida receives between $18 million and $18.5 million in federal tax credits each year. The Corporation allocates the state's share of tax credits to eligible recipients pursuant to a Qualified Allocation Plan ("QAP") that federal law requires be prepared. The QAP, which must be approved by the governor, is incorporated by reference in Rule 67-48.025, Florida Administrative Code. In accordance with the QAP, the Corporation employs various set-asides and special targeting goals that play a substantial part in determining which applicants will receive tax credits in a particular year. While targeting goals are "aspirational" in nature, set-asides are relatively inflexible. Thus, special targeting goals may be met if credits are available. In contrast, credits that were reserved (or "set- aside") for specific project types will be awarded to applicants whose developments fall within the defined set-aside. The set-asides that have spawned the instant dispute are the Geographic Set-Asides and the Non-Profit Set-Aside. The Geographic Set-Asides require that a pre-determined portion of the available tax credits be awarded to applicants in each of the following county groups: Large County, Medium County, and Small County. In 2000, the allocation percentages for these groups were 64%, 26%, and 10%, respectively. The Non-Profit Set-Aside, which is a function of federal law, requires that at least 12% of the credits be awarded to non-profit applicants. None of the other set-asides is either at issue here or affects the analysis or outcome. The same is true of the special targeting goals. For simplicity's sake, therefore, special targeting goals will be ignored in the discussion that follows, and it will be assumed, unless otherwise stated, that the Geographic and Non-Profit Set-Asides are the only factors (besides merit) that affect the Corporation's award of tax credits. The Petitioners and Intervenors (Collectively, "Petitioners") Lakesmart is a Florida limited partnership which has as one of its general partners a non-profit corporation. In the 2000 application cycle, Lakesmart applied to the Corporation for an award of tax credits from the Medium County allocation. Lakesmart is a "Non-Profit Applicant" for purposes of the Non- Profit Set-Aside. RPK is a Florida limited partnership. In the 2000 application cycle, RPK applied to the Corporation for an award of tax credits from the Large County allocation. For purposes of the Non-Profit Set-Aside, RPK is a "for-profit Applicant." Meadow Glen and Coral Village are Florida limited partnerships. Each has a non-profit corporation as one of its general partners. Both applied to the Corporation in the 2000 application cycle for an award of tax credits from the Medium County allocation. Each is considered a "Non-Profit Applicant" for purposes of the Non-Profit Set-Aside. Evaluation, Ranking, and the Tentative Funding Range To distribute the finite amount of tax credits available each year, the Corporation has designed a competitive process whereby potential recipients file applications that the Corporation grades according to selection criteria set forth in the QAP. Points are assigned based on compliance with these criteria. At the end of the evaluation process, each applicant that met the threshold requirements will have earned a final score that determines its rank in terms of relative merit, with higher-scored projects being "better" than lower-scored projects. Because of the set-asides, however, credits are not awarded simply on the basis of comparative scores. Instead, the Geographic Set-Asides require that the applicants be sorted and ranked, according to their scores, within the Large County, Medium County, and Small County groups to which they belong and from whose credit allocations the successful applicants will be funded. As a result, therefore, if the several applicants with the three highest scores in the entire applicant pool were all in the Large County group and the applicant with the fourth highest score were in the Small County group, for example, then the latter applicant would be ranked first in the Small County group. This means, to continue with the example, that if the first- and second-ranked projects in the Large County group were to exhaust the credits allocated to that group, then the applicant with the third highest score overall would not be funded, while the applicant with the fourth highest score in the applicant pool (but ranked first in a county group) would be funded. 16/ After the Corporation has sorted the applicants by county group and ranked them, within their respective groups, from highest to lowest based on the applicants' final scores, it draws a tentative funding line within each group. Applicants above these lines are within the tentative funding range and thus apparently successful. Conversely, an applicant below the tentative funding line in its county group will not receive tax credits unless, to satisfy a set-aside or fulfill a special targeting goal, it is moved into the funding range. In the 2000 application cycle, a preliminary outcome which had occurred only once before, in 1997, happened again: the aggregate of credits requested by the non-profit applicants within the tentative funding range did not amount to the Non- Profit Set-Aside percentage — 12% in 2000 — of total available credits. Therefore, the Corporation needed to elevate as many apparently unsuccessful non-profit applicants into the funding range — and concomitantly to remove as many apparently successful for-profit applicants from the funding range to make room for the favored non-profit applicant(s) — as necessary to fulfill the 12% quota. An Aside on Categorical Ranking The separation of applicants into three groups according to the Geographic Set-Asides, and the effect that has on determining which applicants will receive credits, was mentioned above. To better understand the parties' dispute regarding the procedure for satisfying the Non-Profit Set-Aside when, as in 2000, it is necessary to award credits to a putatively unsuccessful non-profit applicant at the expense of a putatively successful for-profit applicant, a second, more detailed look at the implications of categorical ranking will be helpful. Because of the Non-Profit Set-Aside, the set of all qualified applicants ("Applicant Pool") is divided into two classes: non-profit and for-profit corporations. As will be seen, the class of non-profit corporations is further separated, for purposes of the Non-Profit Set-Aside, into two subclasses: domestic non-profits and out-of-state, or foreign, non-profits. Finally, to repeat for emphasis, all qualified applicants, regardless of class or subclass (if applicable), fall within one of three groups according to the Geographic Set-Asides: Small County, Medium County, and Large County. The following chart depicts the relevant classification of applicants within the Applicant Pool: Applicant Pool Non-profits For-profits Domestic Foreign Small County Medium County Large County Because, as the chart shows, each applicant fits into several categories, applicants may be ranked in order of their comparative scores in a variety of combinations, depending on how they are sorted, e.g. all applicants, all Large County for- profits, all foreign non-profits, etc. Once the Corporation has drawn the tentative funding lines (which, recall, are county group-specific) and determined preliminarily which applicants will receive funding and which will not, two additional categories exist: applicants within the funding range and applicants below (or outside) the funding range. Owing to the nature of the instant dispute, however, the only non-profits discussed below are those outside the tentative funding range, unless otherwise stated, and the only for-profits considered are those within the tentative funding range, unless otherwise stated. 1/ The above makes clear, it is hoped, that a reference to the "highest scored" applicant, without more, may describe many applicants, such as the highest scored domestic non-profit, the highest scored non-profit in the Small County group, the highest scored foreign non-profit in the Large County group, and so on. More information is needed to pinpoint a particular entity. For ease of reference, and to facilitate the discussion and disposition of the present dispute, the following abbreviations will be used in this Recommended Order as shorthand descriptions of applicants’ defining characteristics: Abbreviation Meaning NP Non-profit applicant FP For-profit applicant High- highest scored Low- lowest scored D domestic entity (i.e. organized under Florida law) F foreign entity (i.e. organized under the law of a state other than Florida) S, M, and L Small, Medium and Large County, respectively ! highest or lowest scored within the indicated category; e.g. High- NP(S!) means highest scored non- profit within the Small County group; Low-FP(S!) means lowest scored for-profit in the Small county group x, y variables Combining these abbreviations provides an increasingly precise description, as more information is added. For example: Combination Description High-NP Highest scored non-profit in some, unknown category High-NP[D!] Highest scored domestic non- profit, unknown group; is not necessarily the highest scored non-profit in the class of non- profits High-NP[F!] Highest scored foreign non-profit, unknown group; is not necessarily the highest scored non-profit in the class of non-profits High-NP[D!](S) Highest scored domestic non- profit, located in the Small County group; not the highest scored non-profit within the Small County group High-NP[D](S!) Highest scored non-profit in the Small County group; is a domestic corporation but is neither the highest scored non-profit nor highest scored domestic non-profit High-NP[D](S) Highest scored domestic non-profit in the Small County group; is neither the highest scored non- profit, the highest scored domestic non-profit, nor the highest scored non-profit in the Small County group Low-FP! Lowest scored for-profit in the class of for-profits Low-FP(M!) Lowest scored for-profit in Medium County group; is not necessarily the lowest scored for- profit in the class of for-profits The Controversy: Gored Oxen and Leapt-Over Frogs The solution to the problem that arose in the 2000 application cycle when an insufficient number of non-profit applicants wound up initially within the tentative funding range is found in two places: Rule 67-48.032, Florida Administrative Code, and the 2000 QAP. Although the language of the two is not identical, the parties agree that the rule and the pertinent QAP provisions have the same meaning, despite their differences in wording. The undersigned has concluded, however, that the differences, though subtle, substantially affect the outcome of this case. It is necessary, therefore, to read them carefully. Rule 67-48.032(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: To ensure that the minimum 10% is set aside, the Corporation has determined that an initial allocation of 12% to qualified Non- Profits will be met. In order to achieve the initial 12% set aside, Applications from Applicants that qualify or whose General Partner qualifies as a Non-Profit entity pursuant to Rule 67.48.002(71), F.A.C., HUD Regulations, Section 42(h)(5)(c), subsection 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Code and organized under Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, or organized under similar state law if organized in a jurisdiction other than Florida and meet scoring threshold requirements shall be moved into the funding range, in order of their comparative scores, with Applicants whose Non-Profit entity is organized under Florida law receiving priority over Non-Profit entities of other jurisdictions, until the set-aside is achieved. The last Non-Profit Development that is moved into the funding range in order to achieve the 12% initial set-aside shall be fully funded even though that may result in a higher Non-Profit set-aside. This will be accomplished by removing the lowest scored Application of a for-profit Applicant from the funding range and replacing it with the highest scored Non- Profit Application below the funding range within the applicable Geographic Set-Aside pursuant to the QAP. This procedure will be used again on or after October 1, if necessary, to ensure that the Agency allocates at least 10% of its Allocation Authority to qualified Non-Profit Applicants. Any for-profit Applicant so removed from the funding range will NOT be entitled to any consideration or priority for the receipt of current or future Housing Credits other than placement on the current ranking and scoring list in accordance with its score. Binding Commitments for Housing Credits from a future year will not be issued for Applicants so displaced. Paragraph 2, at page 2, of the Corporation’s 2000 QAP states: [The Corporation] has determined that an initial allocation of 12% to qualified Non- Profits will ensure that the 10% requirement will be met in the event that all Developments included in the initial 12% do not receive an allocation. In order to achieve the initial 12% set-aside a tentative funding line will be drawn. Then, Applications from Non-Profit Applicants that meet scoring threshold requirements shall be moved into the tentative funding range, in order of their scores with Applicants whose Non-Profit entities are organized under Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, having priority, until the 12% set-aside is achieved. This will be accomplished by moving the lowest scored Application of a for-profit Applicant in the funding range down in ranking so it is ranked below the lowest Non-Profit Applicant within the funding range and moving the highest scored Non-Profit Applicant organized under Chapter 617, Florida Statutes below the funding range within the applicable Geographic Set- Aside pursuant to the QAP up in ranking so it is ranked one ranking space above the for-profit Applicant that was moved down in ranking. If no such Applicant exists, the highest Non-Profit Applicant organized under similar statutes from another state which is below the funding range within the applicable Geographic Set-Aside pursuant to the QAP, will be moved into funding range in the same manner as stated in the previous sentence. This procedure will be used again on or after October 1, 2000, if necessary, to ensure that the [Corporation] allocates at least 10% of its Allocation Authority for 2000 to qualified Non-Profit Applicants. Any for-profit Applicant so removed from the funding range will NOT be entitled to any consideration or priority for the receipt of current or future housing credits other than placement on the current ranking and scoring list in accordance with its score. Binding Commitments for housing credits from a future year will not be issued for Applicants so displaced. The last Non- Profit Applicant moved into the funding range, in order to meet the initial 12% set- aside or in order to meet the minimum 10% set-aside after October 1, 2000, will be fully funded contingent upon successful credit underwriting even though that may result in a higher Non-Profit set-aside. After the full Non-Profit set-aside amount has been allocated, remaining Applications from Non-Profit organizations shall compete with all other Applications in the HC Program for remaining Allocation Authority. The Corporation's interpretation of Rule 67-48.032, Florida Administrative Code, and paragraph 2 of the 2000 QAP (collectively, the "Instructions") to determine the procedure for satisfying the Non-Profit Set-Aside in connection with the 2000 application cycle has caused considerable controversy — and led to this proceeding. The controversial interpretation was publicly manifested on September 15, 2000, when the Corporation published a preliminary ranking sheet on its web site which reflected adjustments that its staff had made to fulfill the Non-Profit Set-Aside. Within days, adversely affected applicants were complaining that the Corporation's staff had misinterpreted the Instructions. The Corporation's staff had construed the Instructions to mean that when it is necessary to displace a for-profit within the tentative funding range to satisfy the Non-Profit Set-Aside, the following procedure must be followed: Remove Low-FP!(x!) and replace it with High- NP[D](x). 2/ If there is no domestic non- profit in county group x, then replace Low- FP!(x!) with High-NP[F](x!). 3/ This construction permits High-NP[D!], if there is one, High- NP![F!] if not, to remain outside the funding range, because it might not be in county group x. In practice, the process that the Corporation’s staff had settled upon operated, in the circumstances presented, to the detriment of Petitioners. Here is how it worked. After the tentative funding range was established, the lowest scored for- profit in the class of for-profits was in the Small County group. 4/ There were no non-profits, domestic or foreign, in that group to elevate, however, and so Low-FP!(S!) could not be removed; the fall-back procedure was followed. See endnote 4. As it happened, RPK was Low-FP(L!) and had a lower score than Low-FP(M!). Thus, under the Corporation's staff's interpretation of the Instructions, as revealed by the rankings posted on September 15, 2000, High-NP[D](L!) was moved into the funding range in the place of RPK, even though High-NP[D](L!)'s final score was lower than that of Lakesmart — which was High- NP. (Coral Village and Meadow Glen were the second- and third-ranked domestic non-profits, respectively, in the Medium County Group. Sorted by class, Lakesmart, Coral Village, and Meadow Glen would be ranked first, second, and sixth in the class of non-profit applicants.) 5/ The second lowest-scored for-profit in the class of for-profits was also in the Large County group. Thus, it became Low-FP!(L!) after RPK was removed. It, too, was replaced by the Large County non-profits that became, in turn, High-NP[D](L!) as the next highest-ranked non-profit in that group was moved up into the funding range to satisfy the 12% Non-Profit Set-Aside. In all, the Corporation's staff proposed to elevate — and hence award tax credits to — four non-profit applicants whose final scores were lower than Lakesmart's and Coral Village's. One of those four putative beneficiaries had a lower final score than Meadow Glen's. Lakesmart and others who disagreed with the Corporation’s staff advanced an alternative interpretation of the Instructions. In their view, to ensure that the Non-Profit Set-Aside is met requires the following maneuver: Remove Low-FP(x!) and replace it with High- NP[D!](x). 6/ If there is no domestic non- profit outside the funding range, then replace Low-FP(x!) with High-NP. 7/ This interpretation admits the possibility that Low-FP! might remain in the funding range, because it might not be in county group x. Under this interpretation, favored by all Petitioners, Lakesmart and Coral Village would be elevated into the funding range, rather than being "leap-frogged" by lower-scored non- profits, and RPK would not be displaced. (Of course, Petitioners' interpretation would require that some other for- profit ox be gored — one having a higher score than RPK's.) These competing interpretations of the Instructions were presented to the Corporation's board for consideration at its public meeting on September 22, 2000. After a discussion of the issues, in which members of the public participated, the board voted unanimously to accept the interpretation that the staff had acted upon in preparing the September 15, 2000, rankings. Later in the same meeting the board adopted final rankings, which were prepared in accordance with the approved interpretation, that resulted in the denial of Petitioners' applications for tax credits. The 1997 Awards: Precedent or Peculiarity? Petitioners maintain that their interpretation of the Instructions is supported by a supposed precedent allegedly set in 1997 that, they say, was binding on the Corporation in 2000. In the 1997 cycle, it so happened that after drawing the tentative funding lines, the sum total of credits sought by non-profits within the preliminary funding range failed to reach the then-required threshold of 10%. Thus, for the first time, the Corporation faced the need to replace higher-scored for- profits (that were apparently in line for funding) with lower- scored non-profits that otherwise would not have received credits. The QAP that governed the 1997 awards provided for the Non-Profit Set-Aside but was silent on the procedure for satisfying it: The Agency will allocate not less than 10% of the state’s allocation authority to projects involving qualified, non-profit Applicants, provided they are non-profits organized under Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, and as set forth in Section 42(h)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and Rule Chapter 9I-48, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's Exhibit 2, page 8. Rule 9I-48.024(3), Florida Administrative Code (1997), did contain directions for carrying out the required substitution. It prescribed the following procedure for elevating non-profits: If 10% of the total Allocation Authority is not utilized by Projects with Non-Profit Applicants, Applications from Non-Profit Applicants that meet scoring threshold requirements shall be moved into the funding range, in order of their comparative scores, until the 10% set-aside is achieved. This will be accomplished by removing the lowest scored Application of a for-profit Applicant from the funding range and replacing it with the highest scored Non-Profit Application below the funding range within the applicable Geographic Set-Aside pursuant to section (2) above. Petitioners' Exhibit 1. These provisions will be referred to hereafter as the "1997 Directions," to distinguish them from the Instructions. Gwen Lightfoot was the Corporation's Deputy Development Officer in 1997. In that capacity, she was directly responsible for implementing the rules relating to the award of low-income housing tax credits. To satisfy the Non-Profit Set- Aside, Ms. Lightfoot followed the 1997 Directions as she understood them. In so doing, she sorted the eligible non- profits by class (i.e. without regard to their respective county groups) and ranked them in score order, from the highest scoring project to the lowest scoring project. 8/ Then, Ms. Lightfoot moved the highest scoring non-profit in the class of non-profits to a position immediately above the for-profit with the lowest score in the same geographic set-aside as the favored non-profit so that the non-profit project would be fully funded. That is, she replaced Low-FP(x!) with High-NP!(x!). This process was repeated, moving the next highest ranked non-profit to a position immediately above the lowest-ranked for-profit in the same geographic set-aside as the elevated non-profit, until the Non-Profit Set-Aside was met. Although the Corporation presently argues that its board was not fully informed in 1997 as to the procedure that Ms. Lightfoot followed in fulfilling the mandate of the Non- Profit Set-Aside, a preponderance of evidence established that Ms. Lightfoot's actions were within the scope of her authority and taken in furtherance of her official duties; that the board was aware of what she had done; and that the board took no action to change the results that followed from Ms. Lightfoot's interpretation and implementation of the 1997 Directions. Ms. Lightfoot's application of the 1997 Directions, in short, was not the unauthorized act of a rogue employee. Rather, as a matter of fact, her action was the Corporation's action, irrespective of what any individual board member might subjectively have understood at the time. In the years following the 1997 awards, Rule 9I- 48.032, Florida Administrative Code, was re-numbered Rule 67- 48.032 and amended three times, the most recent amendment becoming effective on February 24, 2000. As a result, the 1997 Directions evolved into the language of Rule 67-48.032(2) which, though not identical, retains the essential meaning of its predecessor. During the same period, the QAP was also amended three times, the version controlling the 2000 application cycle having been approved by the governor on December 16, 1999, and adopted by reference in the Florida Administrative Code on February 24, 2000. Unlike the revisions to Rule 9I-48.032(3), however, the changes in the QAP that relate to the issue at hand are significant, because the 2000 QAP sets forth a procedure for fulfilling the Non-Profit Set-Aside when the collective amount of credits sought by non-profits in the tentative funding range falls short of the mandated mark, whereas the 1997 QAP did not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Corporation enter a final order dismissing the petitions of Petitioner Lakesmart, Petitioner RPK, and Intervenors Meadow Glen and Coral Village. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 7th day of February, 2001.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner, James P. Appleman, "willfully" violated Subsections 106.021(3), 106.07(5), and Section 106.1405, Florida Statutes, as alleged by Respondent, Florida Elections Commission, in its Order of Probable Cause; and whether or not Petitioner, James P. Appleman, "knowingly and willfully" violated Subsections 106.19(1)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes, as alleged by Respondent, Florida Elections Commission, in its Order of Probable Cause.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, documentary evidence, record of proceedings, and the facts agreed to by the parties in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the following Findings of Fact are made: In 2000, Petitioner was reelected to the office of State Attorney, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit. Prior to his reelection in 2000, Petitioner had been elected to the same office in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996. Petitioner, on February 1, 1999, signed a Statement of Candidate indicating that he had received, read, and understood Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. During the 2000 campaign, Petitioner made the following purchases using his personal funds in the form of cash, check or charge upon his personal credit card: a. Purchase 1: 7/12/99 Down payment/purchase of vehicle- $525.00 b. Purchase 2: 7/12/99 Purchase of vehicle/tax and title-$602.85 c. Purchase 3: 1/07/00 Bay Pointe Properties-$100.35 d. Purchase 4: 1/13/00 Delchamps Liquors-$58.50 e. Purchase 5: 1/22/00 Delchamps Liquors-$135.10 f. Purchase 6: 1/22/00 Cafe? Thirty A-$144.11 g. Purchase 7: 1/30/00 Pineapple Willy's-$17.45 h. Purchase 8: 5/05/00 Skirt/Jones of New York-$104.00- blouse/Jones of New York-$63.00 i. Purchase 9: 5/09/00 Tie/Dillards-$30.00-tie/Dillards- $40.00-misc. Big & Tall/Dillards- $8.75 j. Purchase 10: 5/23/00 Blazer/Polo Store-$199.99-short sleeve shirt/Polo Store-$39.99- short sleeve shirt/Polo Store- $39.99-short sleeve shirt/Polo Store-$39.99-shorts/Polo Store- $29.99 k. Purchase 11: 5/05/00 Casual bottoms/Brooks Brothers- $34.90-casual bottoms/Brooks Brothers-$34.90 casual bottoms/Brooks Brothers-$34.90 l. Purchase 12: 5/05/00 Shorts/Geoffrey Beene-$24.99- shorts/Geoffrey Beene-$24.99 m. Purchase 13: 5/05/00 Sport coat/Dillards-$195.00 n. Purchase 14: Telephone expense-$23.49 o. Purchase 15: 8/11/00 Tie down/Wal-Mart-$19.96-security chain/Wal-Mart-$19.26 p. Purchase 16: 8/11/00 Trailer hitch ball-$16.99 q. Purchase 17: 8/12/00 Event admission-$60.00 r. Purchase 18: 8/23/00 Liquor purchase/Delchamps-$37.41 s. Purchase 19: 8/30/00 Gas purchase/Shop a Snack-$20.00 t. Purchase 20: 8/30/00 Event admission-$40.00 u. Purchase 21: 8/30/00 Event admission/DEC-$15.00 v. Purchase 22: 8/26/00 Sign charge-$20.64 w. Purchase 23: 8/30/00 Auto insurance charge-$100.00 x. Purchase 24: 9/02/00 Gas purchase/Happy Stores-$34.00 y. Purchase 25: 9/02/00 Campaign staff/meal/food-$140.00 z. Purchase 26: 9/04/00 Ice purchase/Winn Dixie-$6.36 aa. Purchase 27: 9/05/00 Gas purchase/Swifty Store-$25.00 bb. Purchase 28: 9/06/00 Meal purchase/ St. Andrews Seafood House-$27.52 cc. Purchase 29: 9/08/00 Posthole digger-$42.90 dd. Purchase 30: 9/08/00 Lunch for sign crew-$20.14 None of these purchases were individually listed on Petitioner's Campaign Treasurer's Reports. Petitioner was reimbursed for each of the above- referenced expenditures by a check written on the campaign account, which was listed as an expenditure on Petitioner's Campaign Treasurer's Reports filed with the Division of Elections as follows: Date Name and Address of Person Receiving Reimbursement Purpose Amount 07-17-99 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 02-11-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 Reimb. Cmpgn. Vehicle Expenses Reimb. Cmpgn. Expenses $1,127.85 $830.81 06-10-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 08-07-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 Reimb. Cmpgn. Expenses Reimburse vehicle & Phone exp. $1,000.00 $400.00 08-30-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 09-08-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 Reimbursement/ Campaign Expense Reimbursement Camp. Expense $670.51 $295.92 On July 18, 2000, a campaign check for $140.99 was written to Winn Dixie. This check was reported on Petitioner's Campaign Treasurer's Report with the purpose listed as being "Campaign Social Supplies." The Winn Dixie purchase included the following items: A cat pan liner. 4 cans of cat food. A box of dryer sheets. A package of kitty litter. f. A jug of laundry detergent. The total cost of these items was $33.88. Petitioner signed all of his Campaign Treasurer's Reports, certifying as to their accuracy. The July 18, 2000, purchases at Winn Dixie were made by Mrs. Appleman, Petitioner's wife, and were a result of an inadvertent error. Immediately realizing that she had purchased personal items with campaign funds, she brought the matter to Petitioner's attention. Petitioner took possession of the Winn Dixie cash register receipt for the purchases; on the receipt he circled the inappropriate purchases with a pen, noted the total amount of inappropriate purchases on the receipt adding his initials, submitted the cash register receipt to his campaign treasurer, and several days later wrote a check reimbursing the campaign for the inappropriate purchases. During the campaign, Petitioner made 30 purchases listed in paragraph 3, supra, with personal funds, i.e., cash, personal check, or personal credit card, for which he provided receipts, and sought and received reimbursement from campaign funds by campaign check. These 30 purchases were not individually reported as expenditures on Campaign Treasurer's Reports during the reporting periods during which the purchases were made, but were reported as reimbursements as reflected in paragraph 4, supra. No evidence was presented that suggested that Purchases 3-7, Purchase 14, Purchases 17-22, or Purchases 24-30 listed in paragraph 3, supra, were not for campaign-related purposes. During the April 1 through June 30, 2000, campaign reporting period, Petitioner purchased 16 items of clothing (listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchases 8-13) for which he received reimbursement from campaign funds by campaign check. Petitioner and his wife testified that these items of clothing were used exclusively for campaign functions and purposes. Admittedly, each of the items of clothing could be used for non- campaign functions and purposes. However, the Campaign Treasurer's Reports reflect that in excess of $1,100 of "campaign shirts" were purchased during the campaign, supporting Petitioner's contention that he, his wife and campaign workers were all attired, while campaigning, in a color-coordinated "uniform of the day": red shirts, and tan/khaki trousers or walking shorts. This is further supported by photographs admitted into evidence. I find credible and accept the testimony of Petitioner and his wife that the items of clothing in the questioned purchases were used exclusively for campaign functions and purposes and not to "defray normal living expenses." During the August 12 through August 31, 2000, campaign reporting period, Petitioner purchased the following items for which he received reimbursement from campaign funds by campaign check: trailer hitch ball, trailer security chain, and sign tie-downs (listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchases 15 and 16). These three items were clearly used for campaign purposes and not to "defray normal living expenses." On August 30, 2001, Petitioner received a campaign check from the campaign treasurer reimbursing him for several campaign expenses he had paid. Among these campaign expenses, Petitioner sought reimbursement for $100 for "auto insurance" (listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchase 23). From the onset of his campaign, Petitioner had consistently either paid his automobile liability insurer, United Services Automobile Association, directly with a campaign check or sought reimbursement for payments he personally made for liability insurance on his personal vehicle or the "campaign Jeep" for automobile liability insurance cost attributable to the use of the motor vehicles in the campaign. Automobile liability insurance expense is a legitimate campaign expense and can reasonably be considered an actual transportation expense exempt from the statutory prohibition against payments made to "defray normal living expenses." On July 12, 1999, Petitioner purchased a 1997 Jeep to be used as a campaign vehicle (the down payment, tax and tag are listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchases 1 and 2); thereafter, loan payments to Tyndall Federal Credit Union and automobile liability insurance payments to United Services Automobile Association for the campaign vehicle were paid by the campaign treasury. On December 7, 1999, the 1997 Jeep was sold/traded to a third party for a 1999 Honda which was not used as a campaign vehicle. The Tyndall Federal Credit Union lien was transferred to the 1999 Honda. After December 7, 1999, the 1999 Honda was driven by Petitioner's adult stepdaughter. At the time of the transfer of the vehicles, Petitioner and his wife agreed that she would reimburse the campaign $800 which was determined to be the value lost by the campaign when the 1997 Jeep was traded. Petitioner later determined that he should reimburse the campaign an additional $525, the amount of the down payment paid when the 1997 Jeep was purchased in July 1999. On June 2, 2000, Petitioner's wife tendered a personal check drawn on her personal account to the campaign account for $800, which was reported under an entry date of June 5, 2000, on the Campaign Treasurer's Report for the period ending June 30, 2000, as a "REF" made by Petitioner. On March 14, 2001, Petitioner tendered a personal check to the campaign account for $617. This included $525 for the 1999 Jeep down payment reimbursement and an automobile liability insurance refund. Prior to the June 5, 2000, "REF" entry on the Campaign Treasurer's Report, there had been no report reflecting the sale of the campaign vehicle. The sale of the 1999 Jeep should have been reported on the Campaign Treasurer's Report for the period ending December 31, 1999; it was not. Petitioner certified that he had examined the subject Campaign Treasurer's Report and that it was "true, correct and complete" when, in fact, it was not as it did not reflect the sale of the campaign vehicle or the failure of Petitioner to pay the campaign treasury either $800 or $1,325, the amount Petitioner ultimately determined the campaign treasury should have been reimbursed as reflected by his late reimbursements.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order finding that Petitioner, James P. Appleman, violated Subsection 106.07(5), Florida Statutes, on one occasion and Subsection 106.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes, on one occasion and assess a civil penalty of $1,000 for the violation of Subsection 106.07(5), Florida Statutes, and a civil penalty of $2,400 for violation of Subsection 106.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and dismissing the remaining alleged violations of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, against him as asserted in the Order of Probable Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David F. Chester, Esquire Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Mark Herron, Esquire Messer, Caparello and Self, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Rushing, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street 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
Findings Of Fact In Exhibit 3 Petitioner disputes the overpayment of sales tax, penalties and interest in the amount of $62,035.63. At the hearing it was stipulated that the disputed sum is $62,000.00. Petitioner is owner and publisher of a weekly paper, The Tampa/Metro Neighbor (Neighbor), published in Tampa and distributed in the Tampa metropolitan area of Hillsborough County. The Neighbor is distributed to readers free of charge. Petitioner started rack sales September 27, 1980, and has sold approximately 125 per week since that time. Its total circulation is approximately 164,000. The Neighbor has not been entered or qualified to be admitted and entered as second class mail matter at a post office in the county where it is published. The Neighbor is delivered by approximately one thousand carriers to residences and apartments in Hillsborough County each Thursday. The papers are placed in plastic bags to protect them from the weather. Petitioner claims sales tax exemption for the purchase of newsprint, ink, and plastic bags used to print and distribute the Neighbor. Newspapers such as The Tampa Tribune are exempt from sales tax on these items. The Neighbor is organized into seven departments. These are: editorial, retail advertising, classified advertising, accounting, circulation, production, and printing. The editorial staff provides all items in the paper other than advertising. The editorial/advertising mix of the Neighbor is approximately 25 percent-75 percent. No 12-month breakdown of these percentages was presented. The Neighbor defines editorial content as everything except paid advertising. Only newspapers and other periodical publications are eligible for mailing at second class rates of postage. Publications primarily designed for free circulation and/or circulation at nominal rates may not qualify for the general publications category (Exhibit 24). General publication primarily designed for advertising purposes may not qualify for second class privileges. Those not qualifying include those publications which contain more than 75 percent advertising in more than half of the issues published during any 12- month period (Exhibit 24). Second class mail privilege is a very valuable asset for newspapers and other qualifying publications. The editorial content of the Neighbor, as defined in Finding of Fact 7 above, is comprised of local news, sporting news, local investigative reporting, an opinions section, and an entertainment section. The advertising is split into classifieds and other. The Neighbor contains no national or international news, no wire service reports, no comics, no stock market reports, no sports statistics, no weather reports, no nationally syndicated columnists, no state capital news, no obituaries, no book review section, and no special section such as home designs, gardening, etc. Neighbor considers its primary competition to be The Tampa Tribune. However, this competition is limited to advertising, as the Neighbor has none of the traditional newspaper functions above noted which are normally carried in daily newspapers. Petitioner presented two expert witnesses who opined that the Neighbor met the requirements to be classified as a newspaper because it was published in newspaper format; that it had an editorial section which provided some news as contrasted to that provided in a shopping guide; that the 75 percent-25 percent advertising-editorial content did not make the Neighbor primarily an advertising paper; that the requirements of the U.S. Post Office for a periodical to obtain second class mail privileges is not relevant to a determination that the Neighbor is not a newspaper; that the requirements of the Department of Revenue Rule 12A-1.08(3)(d) and 12A-1.08(4), Florida Administrative Code, are not relevant in determining whether the Neighbor is a newspaper; and that in a journalistic concept the Neighbor is a newspaper. The Neighbor was purchased in 1979 by North American Publications, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Morris Communications Corporation. Morris Communications Corporation owns several newspapers scattered from Florida to Alaska, both daily and weekly publications. Most of these publications are sold to paid subscribers. Petitioner's testimony that sales tax was not collected from Petitioner's predecessor owner was flatly contradicted by the testimony of Respondent's witness. Since the latter witness is in a much better position to know the facts respecting sales taxes levied on the former owner of the Neighbor, this testimony is the more credible. In any event, Petitioner did not claim estoppel.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and the Florida Elections Commission are responsible for enforcing Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. In 1993, Respondent qualified as a candidate for re- election to Seat Five of the Tallahassee City Commission. She was defeated for this office in the general election on February 22, 1994. On December 27, 1993, Respondent signed a Statement of Candidate indicating that she had received, read and understood the requirements of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, as required by Section 106.023, Florida Statutes. Respondent has run for public office on four different occasions. Respondent's 1994 campaign staff was made up of volunteers. Some of these volunteers were supporters who had worked in her prior campaigns. Others were supporters who were participating in a political campaign for the first time. In the early days of the campaign, Respondent met with her supporters at weekly campaign committee meetings. As time went on, Respondent's employment and campaign schedule prevented her from attending these meetings. She also found it increasingly difficult to spend much time at her campaign headquarters. In 1994, Respondent used the same system she had used in prior campaigns for registering the names, addresses and telephone numbers of supporters for purposes of organizing the campaign. These cards included a check-list of jobs for which a campaign worker could volunteer. The cards also had a signature line for volunteers who were willing to publicly support Respondent. The cards did not contain a place to indicate the date of the signature. Respondent's campaign headquarters was initially staffed entirely by part-time volunteers including, but not limited to, Vivian Pelham. As a result, the card filing system became disorganized. In many instances, there were duplicate cards for campaign supporters. Some of the cards were misplaced or lost as they were in constant use for campaign work in the neighborhood. In mid-January, Chuck Cyrus began working at Respondent's campaign headquarters on a full-time basis. He unsuccessfully attempted to organize the card filing system. At the conclusion of the campaign, all of the cards that could be located were stored along with other campaign records. On or before January 6, 1994, Respondent's staff decided to prepare a flyer for circulation at a Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA) meeting. Respondent's husband, Jim Crews, instructed Vivian Pelham and other part-time workers to make telephone calls to people to verify approval of the use of their names on the flyer prior to its distribution. Ms. Pelham did not search for signature cards before she called people because she did not think about it. In retrospect, Ms. Pelham knew it was necessary to have signatures of people willing to publicly support Respondent. However, Ms. Pelham did not know that endorsers had to sign cards at any particular time. She was not aware of a difference between "written" and "verbal" approval before a candidate may use a person's name in a campaign advertisement. Rather, Ms. Pelham thought specific "verbal" approval was better than "written" approval as long as an endorser signed a card at some point in time. One of the people Respondent's staff contacted by phone was Dennis Murphy. Mr. Murphy refused to allow the use of his name on the flyer. Consequently, Respondent's staff did not include him as an endorser on the campaign advertisement. The flyer ultimately contained the names of twenty-two "neighborhood leaders" who endorsed Respondent's candidacy. The flyer listed the neighborhood of each person under their name. The following disclaimer was located at the bottom of the flyer: The above individuals are current or past officers in their neighborhood associations. This document does not represent an endorsement by the Council of Neighborhood Associations nor any individual neighborhood group. This is a paid political advertisement paid for by the campaign treasurer. There is no competent persuasive evidence that the flyer, read in its entirety, misrepresented the personal endorsement of the people named therein as an endorsement by a particular neighborhood group. The only names included on the flyer which are at issue here are Sterling and Rosemarie Bryant and Dorothy Rose. Mr. and Mrs. Bryant were long- time supporters of Respondent. They worked in Respondent's 1994 and previous campaigns. Ms. Rose supported Respondent in 1994 but was not actively involved in the campaign. At the time Respondent circulated the subject flyer, neither the Bryants nor Ms. Rose had signed a 1994 campaign card stating that they were willing to publicly endorse Respondent. Mr. Bryant did not remember receiving a call about the flyer prior to January 6, 1995. However, Ms. Rose did receive such a call. On the evening of January 6, 1994, Respondent arrived at the CONA meeting just before it convened where she reviewed the flyer for the first time. Respondent recognized the name of each person listed on the flyer as a past and/or current supporter. She had no reason to doubt whether the people listed had signed a 1994 campaign card prior to her staff's preparation of the flyer. The document was circulated at the meeting to about thirty-five (35) people, many of whom were listed on the campaign advertisement. Dennis Murphy was present at the January 6, 1994, CONA meeting. He did not see the flyer at that time. Days later Mr. Murphy became aware of the flyer. He went to Respondent's campaign headquarters and got a copy of it. On January 14, 1995, Mr. Murphy filed a sworn complaint with Petitioner alleging that Respondent had violated Section 106.143(3), Florida Statutes. He filed the complaint because he thought Respondent failed to get proper authorization to use the names of the people listed on the flyer. Soon thereafter, Respondent's staff learned about the complaint informally. Jim Crews instructed Vivian Pelham and other campaign workers to locate signature cards for each person listed on the flyer. If a card could not be located, the workers were to call the people and get a duplicate. No one on Respondent's staff advised her about the rumored complaint. Several campaign workers began looking for signature cards. Vivian Pelham could not find a card for Sterling Bryant and called him. Because the Bryants were elderly, Ms. Pelham went to their home where Mr. and Mrs. Bryant signed a card. Ms. Pelham's testimony that she specifically requested the Bryants' signature relative to the flyer and not a subsequent newspaper advertisement is more persuasive than Mr. Bryant's testimony to the contrary. The subsequent newspaper advertisement, published on January 27, 1994, included a picture of Respondent with several neighborhood leaders, including the Bryants. Petitioner sent a letter dated January 19, 1994, to Mr. Murphy informing him that it had initiated an investigation of his complaint. Petitioner's letter to Mr. Murphy also requested information concerning the issue of "willfulness." That same day, Petitioner sent Respondent a letter, by regular United States Mail, enclosing a copy of the complaint. This letter gave Respondent the opportunity to submit a response in the form of a sworn statement. Respondent's staff received the letter on her behalf but did not bring it to her attention or respond to it in any way because they thought cards were available for each of the people listed on the flyer. Petitioner sent Respondent a second letter dated February 21, 1994. This letter was sent certified mail, return receipt requested. Respondent was in her headquarters when the letter arrived on February 23, 1994. She learned about the complaint for the first time when she signed for the letter. Respondent immediately located Petitioner's first letter and initiated a search of her records for the cards in question. Respondent was able to locate a card for everyone listed on the flyer except Dorothy Rose. Consequently, Respondent called Ms. Rose and went to her home where she obtained Ms. Rose's signature on a card. Respondent thought she was obtaining a duplicate card for Ms. Rose. During her 1994 campaign, Respondent continued to work as Mayor and City Commissioner of Tallahassee, Florida. She also worked full-time for Florida State University School in various administrative positions. Because of the demands of her schedule, she relied on her family, friends and volunteers to run her campaign. On the day before the primary, Respondent became ill and was hospitalized due to the intense stress of the campaign and pressure associated with her employment. In a letter to Petitioner dated February 24, 1995, Respondent denied the allegations in the complaint and enclosed copies of signature cards for the people listed in the flyer. The cards did not have dates to indicate when Respondent's supporters signed them. By letter dated June 28, 1994, Petitioner requested Respondent to furnish dates for the signatures and the names of the campaign workers who solicited the signatures. Respondent was unable to furnish this information because it was unavailable. With the exception of Ms. Rose's signature card, Respondent did not know when the cards were signed or which of the cards in her possession might have been duplicates of lost or misplaced cards. She was still under the impression that Ms. Rose's card was a duplicate. C. L. Ivey investigated the complaint for Petitioner. He randomly selected approximately twelve (12) people from the list of names on the flyer and contacted as many of them as he could reach. Most of them could not remember when they signed the cards. No one expressed an objection to Respondent's use of their name. Mr. Ivey subsequently deposed several of Respondent's supporters including Sterling Bryant and Dorothy Rose. The only cards they remembered signing in 1994 were executed after January 6, 1994. Mr. Bryant had not seen the subject flyer before Petitioner deposed him. He would have preferred to see a stronger disclaimer than the one at the bottom of the flyer. In 1994, Mr. Bryant was president of his neighborhood association and did not want to give the impression that the association endorsed a particular candidate. However, he did not object to Respondent publicly representing that he personally endorsed her candidacy. Respondent did not willfully violate Section 106.143(3), Florida Statutes. Neither she nor her campaign staff were aware that the Bryants and Ms. Rose had not signed a card prior to distribution of the flyer. To the contrary, Respondent and her staff knew that each of the people listed on the flyer were Respondent's past and/or current supporters. Their failure to ensure that they had a signature card on file for each person was at most simple negligence. The actions of Respondent and her staff after they learned about the complaint were not motivated by a desire to circumvent the election code. At all times, Respondent and her staff attempted to conduct themselves within the letter of the law. After the election, it was not reasonable to expect Respondent to know when the endorsers signed the cards because they were not dated. There is no competent persuasive evidence that Respondent received an unfair advantage by publishing the flyer without the prior written approval of the Bryants and Ms. Rose. Moreover, there is no competent persuasive evidence that distribution of the flyer resulted in harm to any person. The Bryants and Ms. Rose continue to espouse their friendship and support for Respondent. It did not become clear that the Bryants and Ms. Rose had not timely signed a signature card until after Petitioner completed its investigation. By then, Respondent had no effective means to remedy the situation.
Recommendation Based on the above referenced findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the Florida Elections Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent did not willfully violate Section 106.143(3), Florida Statutes and dismissing the charges against her. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 14th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes the undersigned's specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Facts (FOF) number 1. Accepted in FOF number 2. Accepted in FOF number 13. Accepted in FOF numbers 12-13. Accepted in FOF numbers 10 and 14 as modified therein. Accepted in FOF numbers 17-18. Accepted in FOF numbers 5 and 21. Accepted in FOF number 22. Accepted in FOF numbers 23-24. Accepted as modified in FOF 6 & 15. Accepted in FOF numbers 12, 16, and 24-25. Rejected. See FOF numbers 16 and 25. Accepted as modified in FOF numbers 12 and 19. Accepted in FOF 3-4. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent did not number her proposed findings of facts. They are included in her proposed recommended order on page 1 through the first whole paragraph of page 6. The undersigned accepts all of Respondent's proposed findings of facts in substance as modified in FOF numbers 1-29 of this Recommended Order except: Mr. Murphy's political opposition to Respondent is not relevant; (2) Reference to any conversation between Mr. Murphy and a Mr. Fulford is uncorroborated hearsay; (3) Mr. Murphy's reason for not reporting the alleged violation to the Leon County Supervisor of Elections is not relevant; and (4) Reference to any newspaper articles that Petitioner's investigator relied upon is not relevant and uncorroborated hearsay. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Westcott, Esq. The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Robert Augustus Harper, Esq. P. O. Box 10132 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2132 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Don Bell, Esq. Dept. of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent, Jean M. Hovey, willfully violated Subsection 106.143(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), as alleged in the Order of Probable Cause dated August 26, 2009, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Facts are made: Respondent was a candidate for Winter Springs, Florida, city commission in 2008. Respondent was a first-time candidate for public office. She evidenced her decision to enter the city commission race by qualifying on August 28, 2008, one day prior to the deadline to qualify. A component of qualifying is the candidate's assertion that they have read and understand the requirements of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. As a result of her late filing, Respondent had only five or six weeks to actively campaign. Responding to the advice of volunteer advisors, on September 4, 2009, Respondent hired Denise Ryser to manage her campaign. Ms. Ryser had previously managed a successful city commission race and was managing two other Winter Springs city commission races. Ms. Ryser was qualified to manage a city commission campaign. Ms. Ryser's initial focus was to prepare a campaign mailer. It was important that the mailer be presented to the voters as quickly as possible. Respondent provided the biographical information for the mailer; Ms. Ryser did the graphics, layout, color selection, and the "marketing" of the mailer. Several layouts/mock-ups of the mailer were prepared by Ms. Ryser and submitted to Respondent for approval. Each layout/mock-up submitted to Respondent contained the statutorily-mandated disclaimer. Subsection 106.143(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that: Any political advertisement that is paid for by a candidate and that is published, displayed, or circulated prior to, or on the day of, any election must prominently state: "Political advertisement paid for and approved by (name of candidate), (party affiliation), for (office sought)." After Respondent finally approved what she believed to be the final layout/mock-up, Ms. Ryser, on September 19, 2008, electronically forwarded a layout/mock-up to a printer in Miami. Inexplicably, the layout/mock-up forwarded by Ms. Ryser did not contain the statutorily-mandated disclaimer. This failure was attributed to a transmission error. Because Ms. Ryser perceived a need for "handouts" to be distributed by Respondent at personal appearances, Ms. Ryser, on the same day, September 19, 2008, ordered 100 additional mailers from a local printer. These mailers contained the statutorily- mandated disclaimer. When the Miami printer returned the mailers to Ms. Ryser, without further examining the mailers, she took them directly to a "mail-house" in Winter Park, Florida, to be mailed to 11,000 registered Winter Springs, Florida, voters. They were mailed on October 2, 2008. Respondent did not receive a mailer, as she was not on the mailing list. Ms. Ryser received a mailer at her home on Saturday, October 3, 2008. It was not until Sunday, October 4, 2008, that she noticed the absence of the statutorily-mandated disclaimer. Ms. Ryser immediately called Michael Ertel, Seminole County, Florida, supervisor of elections, and advised him of the error. Mr. Ertel did not testify. However, the parties stipulated that he would have testified that he advised Ms. Ryser to remail the mailer with the proper disclaimer and destroy the remaining mailers without the disclaimer. On Monday, October 6, 2008, Ms. Ryser discarded the mailers in her possession. At Ms. Ryser's direction and paid for by her, the mail-house printed the appropriate disclaimer on the remaining 3,000 mailers in its possession and mailed them to voters. On Tuesday, October 7, 2008, Respondent attended a candidates' night at Highland's in Winter Springs, and mailers were available to the public at this event. Unrefuted testimony indicates that Respondent's mailers, without the statutorily- mandated disclaimer, were available to the public at this meeting. Respondent did not learn that the mailers did not have the statutorily-mandated disclaimer until October 8, 2008, when she and her volunteer campaign advisors confronted Ms. Ryser about the error. Ms. Ryser acknowledged that the failure to include the statutorily-mandated disclaimer was her error and that Respondent was unaware of the error until October 8, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent willfully violated Section 106.07(5), Florida Statutes (2004), by certifying to the correctness of five campaign treasurer's reports (CTRs), which did not disclose payments that Respondent's media consultant made to two television stations on Respondent's behalf.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has jurisdiction to investigate and enforce Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. Respondent was an unsuccessful candidate for the Walton County Commission in 2004. Respondent was defeated in the August 31, 2004, primary election. Respondent is not an experienced politician. The 2004 campaign was his first and only attempt to run for public office. Respondent's campaign was entirely self-funded. Guy Davidson was the political consultant for Respondent's opponent. On or about August 22, 2004, Mr. Davidson filed a sworn complaint with Petitioner against Respondent. The complaint alleged that Respondent was running television ads (requiring cash in advance) although no expenditures to stations for airtime appeared on Respondent's CTRs. On March 10, 2004, Respondent signed a Statement of Candidate form as required by Section 106.023, Florida Statutes (2003). The statement indicates that Respondent had received, read, and understood the requirements of Chapter 106, Florida Statute (2003). On March 10, 2004, Respondent filed his Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Candidates. Respondent appointed his personal and business bookkeeper, Iris Schipper, to serve as his campaign treasurer. Respondent had confidence in Ms. Schipper, who had accounting experience, but no experience with political campaigns. On July 15, 2004, Respondent appointed himself as his deputy campaign treasurer. In the spring of 2004, Respondent hired Steven Petermann, the owner of Petermann Corporation, as his campaign media consultant for the purpose of creating, producing, distributing and disseminating political advertisements for Respondent's campaign. Mr. Petermann was in charge of all media aspects concerning Respondent's campaign. Respondent had known Mr. Petermann for years. Prior to the 2004 campaign, Respondent employed Mr. Petermann for advertising services concerning business ventures unrelated to Respondent's campaign. Mr. Petermann was experienced in providing campaign advertising for local political races. He had done so for approximately 30 campaigns. Mr. Petermann provided Respondent with advertising services which were similar to the services that Mr. Petermann provided to other political candidates. Respondent never specified to Mr. Petermann what advertising to buy or how much to spend. Respondent and Mr. Petermann had no specific payment or billing terms in mind when Mr. Petermann agreed to act as Respondent's media consultant or at anytime during the campaign. Generally, Mr. Petermann did not expect his political clients to pay him until the end of their campaigns. However, Respondent attempted to pay Mr. Petermann in full in accordance with the balance due on Petermann Corporation statements or in advance on those occasions when Respondent knew about projected campaign costs. In other words, Respondent tried to make sure that Mr. Petermann was paid in advance or promptly reimbursed for campaign expenses. In this regard, Respondent acted consistently with his prior private business relationship with Mr. Petermann. With regard to Respondent's campaign advertising budget, Respondent told Mr. Petermann to do "whatever it took to run a successful campaign." Respondent trusted Mr. Petermann's professional judgment as to how much advertising was needed and in which mediums the advertising was to run. Respondent knew Mr. Petermann was making expenditures on behalf of the campaign. Respondent was aware of each and every expenditure his campaign made to Mr. Petermann because he was very involved in his campaign finances. Mr. Petermann wrote the following checks on his business account directly to WJHG-TV and WBBM-TV for advertising time on behalf of Respondent's campaign: Date of Check Check Number Payee Television Station Amount of Petermann Expenditure for Perry 06-11-04 025246 WMBB-TV $442.00 06-14-04 025247 WJHG-TV $450.50 06-29-04 025294 WJHG-TV $450.50 06-29-04 025297 WMBB-TV $446.25 07-26-04 025405 WJHG-TV $743.75 07-26-04 025406 WMBB-TV $956.25 08-12-04 025491 WJHG-TV $743.75 08-12-04 025492 WMBB-TV $956.25 08-30-04 025548 WJHG-TV $331.50 Respondent made no expenditures from his campaign account directly to a television station. Additionally, no expenditures to television stations were listed on Respondent's CTRs. Mr. Petermann purchased all of the television airtime on behalf of Respondent's campaign. Mr. Petermann periodically sent Respondent statements for campaign services and expenses. The statements did not itemize each expenditure for television airtime. The statements did list television advertising and various other advertising purchases in general. Respondent did not list the checks that Mr. Petermann paid directly to WJHG-TV and WMBB-TY for Respondent's television airtime on any CTR during his 2004 campaign. A member of the public could not look at Respondent's CTRs and determine the following: (a) which television stations Respondent paid for campaign advertising; (b) how much Respondent paid for television advertising; and (c) how much Respondent paid for Mr. Petermann's professional services. During the course of the campaign, Respondent reported making several payments to Petermann Advertising or Petermann Corporation. Respondent listed each payment made to Mr. Petermann on his CTRs. Respondent did not break down the expenditures and itemize the components of the expenditures on his CRTs, including how much was paid to Mr. Petermann for his professional services. In a letter dated June 24, 2004, Mr. Beasley, Walton County Supervisor of Elections, advised all candidates, including Respondent, to read an enclosed memorandum from Phyllis Hampton, Chief of the Bureau of Election Records for the Department of State, Division of Elections. Mr. Beasley requested all candidates to sign an enclosed statement and return the statement to his office in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope. Ms. Hampton's memorandum was dated June 17, 2004. It specifically referred to "2004 Campaign Finance Legislative Changes." The memorandum discussed the disclaimer that candidates were required to use on campaign advertising effective July 1, 2004. The last two paragraphs of Ms. Hampton's memorandum stated as follows: Enclosed is a copy of Chapter Law 2004- 252 (CS/SB 2346 &516). Section 5 of this law amends Section 106.143, Florida Statutes. We are also enclosing a handout that contains Section 106.143, Florida Statutes, as amended, as well as examples of political disclaimers under the new law. There are other changes in this law that affect campaign financing for candidates and a summary of those changes is enclosed. The Division of Elections of the Department of State has posted all enacted legislation that affect The Florida Election Code, Chapters 97-106, Florida Statutes, on its web site. That web site is http://election.dos.state. fl.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at 850-245-6240. When Mr. Beasley received Ms. Hampton's memorandum, it included a copy of Public Law 2004-252. Mr. Beasley did not duplicate the law when he sent Ms. Hampton's memorandum to candidates in Walton County. If any candidate had requested a copy of the new law, Mr. Beasley would have obtained a copy for the candidate or referred the candidate to the Internet. Respondent received Ms. Hampton's memorandum regarding the changes in the law, but he did not read it over in detail. Instead, Respondent continued to direct his attention to campaign issues. There is no evidence that Respondent took any affirmative steps to inquire which sections of the law were amended in addition to the requirements for political disclaimers. Respondent did not go to the Department of State, Division of Elections' website to review the law or a copy of the updated candidate's handbook. All Respondent did was to send a copy of the letter to Mr. Petermann. Respondent did not give Ms. Schipper a copy of Ms. Hampton's June 17, 2004, memorandum during the campaign. Ms. Schipper received the memorandum and filed it in one of Respondent's campaign files after the campaign ended. Respondent wrote a personal check dated June 30, 2004, made payable to Peterman Corp. in the amount of $7,500. The check does not state its purpose. Mr. Petermann deposited this check in his business account on July 1, 2004. Respondent wrote the June 30, 2004, personal check to Petermann Corp. because he was in Mr. Petermann's office and wanted to make sure Mr. Petermann was paid promptly for his services and expenses on Respondent's behalf. On June 30, 2004, Respondent had not yet appointed himself as his deputy campaign treasurer and did not have a campaign check signed by Ms. Schipper. Respondent's Q2 CTR, which covered the period from April 1, 2004, to June 30, 2004, was due to be filed on July 12, 2004. The report listed no expenditure to Mr. Petermann. The report did not disclose that Mr. Petermann had spent $1,789.25 on behalf of Respondent's campaign to pay for advertisements on two television stations during the reporting period. On July 24, 2004, Respondent, as deputy campaign treasurer, wrote a check on his campaign account. The check was payable to Petermann Advertising in the amount of $10,000. The check did not state its purpose. On August 5, 2004, Ms. Schipper wrote a check on Respondent's campaign account. The check was payable to Respondent in the amount of $7,500. The purpose of the check was to reimburse Respondent for the amount Respondent paid to Mr. Petermann out of Respondent's personal account on June 30, 2004. On August 6, 2004, Ms. Schipper wrote a check on Respondent's campaign account. The check was payable to Petermann Advertising in the amount of $10,000. The check states that its purpose was advertising. Respondent's F2 CRT, which covered the period from July 24, 2004, through August 6, 2004, was due to be filed on August 13, 2004. The F2 CRT listed the following payments as expenditures: (a) a check dated July 24, 2004, to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $10,000; (b) a check dated August 5, 2004, to Petermann Advertising/mlp (Respondent's initials) for campaign advertising in the amount of $7,500; and (c) a check dated August 6, 2004, to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $10,000. The August 5, 2004, check, listed as payable to Petermann Advertising/mlp, was a reimbursement to Respondent for the personal check he wrote on June 30, 2004. Respondent's F2 CTR did not disclose that Mr. Petermann spent $1,700 on behalf of Respondent's campaign to pay for advertisements on two television stations during the reporting period. Ms. Schipper contacted someone in Mr. Beasley's office in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida, by telephone on August 13, 2004, before she filed Respondent's F2 CRT. Ms. Schipper inquired about the proper method of reporting the August 5, 2004, payment of campaign funds to reimburse Respondent for his personal check dated June 30, 2004, to Mr. Petermann. During the hearing, Ms. Schipper testified as follows: Okay. I called the -- there was a question about this particular expense because the nature of the check that I just explained because I wasn't sure. I knew I had to report it, but I wasn't sure how I should report it. So I called the supervisor of elections office and I told them what had happened, including the fact that Lee Perry was totally self-funding his campaign and that he had a paid check personally that we need to record as an expenditure on the campaign account and I told her that I had to -- to fund the campaign account and then pay it back to Lee and it was just like an in and out transaction, but I had to report it, but it was to Petermann Advertising. We had other checks to Petermann Advertising. It was all the campaign advertising. How did I need to do that. After speaking with an unidentified female in Mr. Beasley's office, Ms. Schipper was not comfortable with the answer to her inquiry. Ms. Schipper decided to list the check as payable to Petermann Advertising/mlp. Ms. Schipper did not call anyone else regarding the proper method of reporting the June 30, 2004, check, which reimbursed Respondent for reimbursing Mr. Petermann for advertising services and advertising expenses paid to television stations. On August 20, 2004, Ms. Schipper wrote a campaign check payable to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $15,000. Respondent's F3 CTR, covering the period from August 7, 2004, through August 26, 2004, was due to be filed on August 27, 2004. Respondent's F3 CTR listed one expenditure to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $15,000. Respondent's F3 CTR did not disclose that Mr. Petermann had spent $1,700 on behalf of Respondent's campaign to pay for advertisements on two television stations during the reporting period. On September 10, 2004, Ms. Schipper wrote a campaign check payable to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $11,422.23. Respondent's G1 CTR, covering the period from August 27, 2004, through September 10, 2004, was due to be filed on September 17, 2004. Respondent's G1 CTR listed a check payable to Petermann Advertising as an expenditure. The check, dated September 10, 2004, was for campaign advertising in the amount of $11,422.23. Respondent's G1 CTR did not disclose that Mr. Petermann spent $331.50 on behalf of Respondent's campaign to pay for advertisements on one television station during the reporting period. On October 19, 2004, Ms. Schipper wrote a campaign check payable to Petermann Advertising for the "Perry Campaign" in the amount of $9,100. After filing Respondent's F3 CTR, Ms. Schipper realized that Mr. Petermann never received the August 20, 2004, campaign check in the amount of $15,000. Therefore, Ms. Schipper cancelled the check and filed an Amended F3 CTR on October 22, 2004. Respondent's Amended F3 CTR indicated that $15,000 was subtracted from Respondent's expenditures. The Amended F3 CTR listed the October 19, 2004, check as an expenditure. The check was payable to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $9,100. Mr. Beasley has two offices. The main office is located in Defuniak Springs, Florida. The satellite office is located in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Neither office has a written record of inquiries concerning the reporting of expenditures for Respondent's campaign. As a general office practice, Mr. Beasley's staff does not make notes or records of telephone conversation with candidates or other individuals who call regarding campaign issues. Ms. Schipper called Mr. Beasley's office in Santa Rose Beach, Florida, when she had a question about her duties as campaign treasurer. If she could not get an answer to her question, Ms. Schipper called Mr. Beasley's office in Defuniak Springs, Florida. Ms. Schipper's office during the 2004 campaign was in Respondent's residence, which had two telephone lines. During the hearing, Respondent presented telephone records showing seven telephone calls from the residence to Mr. Beasley's main office in Defuniak Springs, Florida, on the following dates: July 1, 2004; July 7, 2004; July 16, 2004; July 17, 2004; August 27, 2004; August 30, 2004; and September 9, 2004. The telephone records do not show any calls made to Mr. Beasley's office in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Ms. Schipper called Mr. Beasley's Santa Rosa Beach office to inquire about reimbursing Respondent for the June 30, 2004, personal payment to Mr. Petermann. However, there is no evidence that Ms. Schipper called either of Mr. Beasley's offices to inquire specifically about the proper method of reporting campaign expenditures, paid directly to Mr. Petermann, part of which included indirect payments or reimbursements for advertising on television stations. Mr. Beasley has no independent recollection of speaking with Ms. Schipper during the campaign. There is no evidence that anyone on Mr. Beasley's staff remembers speaking with Respondent or Ms. Schipper about campaign finance reports during the 2004 campaign. Mr. Beasley's office provided Respondent with a copy of the 2004 Candidate and Campaign Treasurer Handbook (published November 2003)(handbook) and Chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent and Ms. Schipper referred to these resources from time to time during the campaign on an as needed basis. The handbook did not specifically require a candidate to "itemize" expenditures to media consultants. The handbook contains the following statement on the first page: Important Notice The information contained in this publication is intended as a quick reference guide only and is current upon publication. Chapter 97-106, Florida Statutes, the Constitution of the State of Florida, Division of Elections' opinions and rules, Attorney General opinions, county charters, city charters and ordinances, and other sources should be reviewed in their entirety for complete information regarding campaign financing and qualifying. In addition, the following publication produced by the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections should be reviewed for further information regarding candidates and committees: 2004 Federal Qualifying Handbook 2004 Committee and Campaign Treasurer Handbook 2004 Handbook on Filing Campaign Reports 2004 Election Cycle Calendar of Reporting Dates for Candidates, Political Committees and Committees of Continuous Existence 2004 Election Cycle Calendar of Reporting Dates for Political Party Executive Committees. All forms and publications provided by the Division of Elections are available on our web site at http://election.dos.state.fl.us. Please direct any questions to either your county supervisor or elections or the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections at (850) 245-6240. (Emphasis included) Chapter 7 of the handbook states as follows regarding the duties and responsibilities of campaign treasurers: IMPORTANT: No contribution or expenditure, including contributions or expenditures of a candidate or of the candidate's family, shall be directly or indirectly made or received in furtherance of the candidacy of any person for nomination or election to political office in the state except through the duly appointed campaign treasurer of the candidate. (Emphasis included) Chapter 10 of the handbook states as follows regarding campaign expenditures: An expenditure is a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, transfer of funds by a campaign treasurer or deputy campaign treasurer between a primary depository and a separate interest-bearing account or certificate of deposit, or gift of money or anything of value made for the purpose of influencing the results of an election. * * * A candidate shall: 1. Pay all campaign expenditures by a check drawn on the campaign account (except petty cash); (emphasis included) Chapter 14 of the handbook states as follows regarding the filling of campaign reports: Reporting Expenditures Form DS-DE 14, Itemized Expenditures is used to report all expenditures made, regardless of the amount and must contain: Full name an address of each person to whom expenditures have been made along with the amount, date and clear purpose of the expenditure. Name, address and office sought by each candidate on whose behalf such expenditure was made. Full name and address of each person to whom an expenditure for personal services, salary or reimbursed expenses was made along with the amount, date and clear purpose of the expenditure. A candidate or any other individual may be reimbursed for expenses incurred for travel, food and beverage, office supplies, and mementoes expressing gratitude to campaign supporters as provided for in section 106.021(3), F.S. * * * 5. Amount and nature of debts and obligations owed by or to the candidate, which relate to the conduct of any political campaign. (Emphasis included) On July 1, 2004, amendments to Chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2004), became effective, including the addition of Section 106.07(4)(a)13., Florida Statutes (2004), which states as follows: (4)(a) Each report required by this section shall contain: * * * 13. The primary purpose of an expenditure made indirectly through a campaign treasurer for goods and services such as communications media placement or procurement services, campaign signs, insurance, and other expenditures that include multiple components as part of the expenditure. The primary purpose of an expenditure shall be that purpose, including integral and directly related components that comprises 80 percent of such expenditure. After July 1, 2004, the Department of State, Division of Elections, revised and published the 2004 Candidate and Campaign Treasurer Handbook (effective July 2004)(amended handbook). The preface to the amended handbook states as follows: "This publication has been amended in July of 2004 to reflect changes as provided by Chapter Law 2004-252. New language is displayed in red." The notice on the first page of the amended handbook was not revised. Chapter 7 of the amended handbook states as follows regarding the duties and responsibilities of campaign treasurers: IMPORTANT: No contribution or expenditure, including contributions or expenditures of a candidate or of the candidate's family, shall be directly or indirectly made or received in furtherance of the candidacy of any person for nomination or election to political office in the state except through the duly appointed campaign treasurer of the candidate, subject to the following exceptions: * * * Reimbursements to a candidate or any other individual for expenses incurred in connection with the campaign by a check drawn upon the campaign account and reported pursuant to Section 106.07(4), F.S. After July 1, 2004, the full name and address of each person to whom the candidate or other individual made payment for which reimbursement was made by check drawn upon the campaign account shall be reported pursuant to Section 106.07(4), F.S., together with the purpose of such payment; Expenditures made indirectly through a treasurer for goods or services, such as communications media placement or procurement services, campaign signs, insurance or other expenditures that include multiple integral components as part of the expenditure and reported pursuant to Section 106.07(4)(a)13 . . . . (Emphasis included) Chapter 10 of the amended handbook states as follows regarding campaign expenditures: An expenditure is a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, transfer of funds by a campaign treasurer or deputy campaign treasurer between a primary depository and a separate interest-bearing account or certificate of deposit, or gift of money or anything of value made for the purpose of influencing the results of an election or making an electioneering communication. An expenditure for an electioneering communication is made when the earliest of the following occurs:A person executes a contract for applicable goods or services;A person makes payment, in whole or in part, for applicable goods or services ; orThe electioneering communication is publicly disseminated. * * * A candidate or other individual may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with the campaign by a check drawn on the campaign account and reported pursuant to section 106.07(4), F.S. After July 1, 2004, the full name and address of each person to whom the candidate or other individual made payment for which reimbursement was made by check drawn upon the campaign account shall be reported pursuant to Section 106.07(4), F.S., together with the purpose of such payment. * * * A candidate shall: 1. Pay all campaign expenditures by a check drawn on the campaign account (except petty cash); (Emphasis included) Chapter 14 of the amended handbook states as follows regarding the filling of campaign reports: Reporting Expenditures Form DS-DE 14, Itemized Expenditures is used to report all expenditures made, regardless of the amount and must contain: Full name an address of each person to whom expenditures have been made along with the amount, date and clear purpose of the expenditure. Name, address and office sought by each candidate on whose behalf such expenditure was made. Full name and address of each person to whom an expenditure for personal services, salary or reimbursed expenses was made along with the amount, date and clear purpose of the expenditure. A candidate or any other individual may be reimbursed for expenses incurred for travel, food and beverage, office supplies, and mementoes expressing gratitude to campaign supporters as provided for in section 106.021(3), F.S. (Emphasis included) * * * 5. Amount and nature of debts and obligations owed by or to the candidate, which relate to the conduct of any political campaign. * * * 7. The primary purposes of an expenditure made indirectly through a campaign treasurer for goods and services such as communications media placement or procurement services, campaign signs, insurance, and other expenditures that include multiple components as part of the expenditure. The primary purpose of an expenditure shall be that purpose, including integral and directly related components, that comprises 80 percent of such expenditure. (Emphasis included) For the 2004 campaign, reporting forms applicable to candidates did not provide for "itemization" of payments made by media consultants to various component providers of goods and services. In contrast, forms applicable to political parties and committees required and provided a reporting mechanism for itemizing payments made by third party consultants to the providers of the component services. Those forms did not specifically apply to individual candidates. At the time of the hearing, the Department of State, Division of Elections, was in the rulemaking process to develop standards and reporting forms for candidates to use when itemizing component parts of an expenditure made to a campaign consultant or vendor. Respondent and Ms. Schipper never called the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections, to make campaign finance report inquiries. After reviewing the handbook as published in November 2003, Ms. Schipper believed she had a fair understanding of campaign reporting requirements. Ms. Schipper did not review Chapter 106.07(4), Florida Statutes (2004), or the amended handbook. Respondent also reviewed Chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2003), and the handbook as published in November 2003. He did not review Section 106.07(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), but primarily relied on Ms. Schipper to properly report campaign expenditures. All checks written on Respondent's campaign account were reported on Respondent's CTRs. Respondent's CTRs reflect that Respondent's total campaign account receipts equaled his total expenditures. During the hearing, the parties stipulated that Respondent had the ability to pay the maximum fine possible if it was determined that he committed the violations charged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Section 106.07(5), Florida Statutes (2004), as charged in Counts 1-5 of the Order of Probable Cause, dismiss Count 6 of the Order of Probable Cause, and impose a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2006, 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 30th day of June, 2006.
