The Issue The issue is whether Jonathan A. Mantay, violated the Florida Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Article II, Section 8, Florida Constitution, and Section 112.320, the Commission is empowered to serve as the guardian of the standards of conduct for the officers and employees of the state. Pursuant to Sections 112.324 and 112.317, the Commission is empowered to conduct investigations and to issue a Final Order and Public Report recommending penalties for violations of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees (Code of Ethics). Respondent Mantay is subject to the Code of Ethics. Mr. Mantay, during times pertinent, was County Manager of Bay County, Florida, and is a reporting individual, as that term is used in the Code of Ethics, and is required to file annual financial disclosures with the Bay County Supervisor of Elections, as provided by Section 112.3145(2)(c). In 2001, Mr. Mantay left his position and moved to metropolitan Portland, Oregon. On or about August 31, 1999, the Bay County Commission was addressing the problem of inmate overcrowding in its county correctional facilities, which were operated by CCA. On or about that time, the county correctional facility exceeded capacity by about 352 inmates. The Bay County Commissioners decided to address the issue. The Bay County Commission directed Mr. Mantay and his staff to study the problem and to recommend courses of action. As a result of the study, two possible courses of action were recommended. One possible course of action was the adoption of the "Lifeline" program operated by CCA in Nashville, Tennessee, which CCA claimed would reduce recidivism by teaching inmates life skills and addressing drug abuse, among other things. CCA's corporate headquarters is located in Nashville. The other possible course of action was to emulate the program operated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio's program consists of housing inmates in tents that are sufficiently primitive that inmates, after having had the tenting experience, avoid repeating it either by not committing crimes in Maricopa County, or by committing them elsewhere. In order to evaluate the two courses of action, the Bay County Commission decided that three commissioners and certain staff should travel to the two sites and evaluate the programs. Mr. Mantay, Chief of Emergency Services Majka, Jr., and County Attorney Zimmerman, were among those who were designated to travel to Nashville and Phoenix. Mr. Mantay was not involved in planning the trip. He relied on the County Attorney's Office to coordinate the event. County Attorney Zimmerman called Mr. Wiggins on February 6, 2000, and inquired if CCA would pay for the airline tickets to Nashville. Mr. Zimmerman told Mr. Wiggins, when he asked CCA to pay for the trip, that having CCA pay the airfare, ". . . was the County's preferred way of doing things, and, in fact, that's when he recounted the story of the County taking some trips to New York and maybe some other places." Mr. Wiggins was not authorized by CCA to approve the payment of travel expenses for customers or others. He forwarded County Attorney Zimmerman's request to James Ball, his supervisor. Subsequently, Mr. Wiggins happened upon the CEO of CCA, a Dr. Crants, while walking about the Nashville headquarters of CCA. Dr. Crants directed Mr. Wiggins to fund the trip. Ultimately, as a result of these conversations, CCA paid Trade Winds Travel, Inc., of Panama City, Florida, for the cost of the air travel for the entire Bay County contingent to Nashville, and thence to Phoenix, and back to Panama City. The evidence is not conclusive as to whether it was the intent of CCA to fund the trip beyond Nashville, but they paid for the cost of the airfare for the entire trip. The request for the payment and the request to visit CCA in Nashville was driven by Bay County's needs, not by the needs of CCA. Bay County was one of CCA's most valued customers, however, and CCA was motivated to respond to their request. This was especially true because one of CCA's first contracts to provide correctional services was with Bay County. County Attorney Zimmerman's "marching orders" for many years was that if there was an opportunity to require a third party to pay an expense, then the third party should pay rather than Bay County. That policy is reflected in a variety of Bay County ordinances including the requirement that developers pay for the cost of permitting. The third party payor policy was also reflected in a 1997 trip where Westinghouse was required by the County Commissioners to pay for the commissioners' and County staff's trip to Vancouver, B.C., and Long Island, New York, to evaluate the transfer of the resource recovery facility to another vendor. This was the trip that County Attorney Zimmerman discussed with Mr. Wiggins. This policy was set forth in a letter by County Attorney Zimmerman dated October 30, 1997, which informed the County Commissioners that all expenses in connection with their travel, and with the travel of staff, would be funded by Westinghouse. He further stated that, "[it] is our opinion that the payment of these necessary expenses are not 'gifts,' as that term is defined in State law." Prior to the trip to Nashville, Mr. Mantay had a discussion with County Attorney Zimmerman with regard to whether the fact-finding trip would be "legal." One of the reasons he asked that question was that County Commissioners would be traveling together and he was concerned about "sunshine" issues. County Attorney Zimmerman said that the trip was legal. Mr. Mantay also recognized that this trip, like the trip to New York and British Columbia, was different from attending a seminar alone. Mr. Mantay received his airline ticket when a courier from Trade Winds Travel brought it to him, along with an invoice that he sent to Mr. Zimmerman. On Thursday, February 24, 2000, Messrs. Zimmerman, Majka, and Mantay, traveled with Bay County Commissioners Danny Sparks, Richard Stewart, and Carol Atkinson, and a television reporter, Carmen Coursey, by commercial air, to Nashville, Tennessee. On Saturday, February 26, 2000, they traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, and they returned to Panama City on Tuesday, February 29, 2000. The trip was authorized by the Bay County Commission subsequent to several public discussions concerning the need for an on-site visit to Nashville and Phoenix. There was a legitimate public purpose for the trip. Channel 13 television news reporter, Carmen Coursey accompanied the officials. It is clear that there was nothing about the trip that was accomplished sub rosa. The airfare was paid by CCA directly to Trade Winds Travel, Inc. CCA did not ask for or receive reimbursement from either Bay County or the travelers. The cost of Mr. Mantay's airfare for the entire trip was $1,257. Mr. Mantay did not learn that CCA paid for the airfare until 2003 when he was notified of the ethics investigation. Mr. Mantay at the time of the trip had no reason to contemplate the cost. After learning that CCA paid the tariff, he also learned that the cost of the trip exceeded $100. Upon arrival in Nashville, Mr. Mantay, and the other travelers were greeted by Mr. Wiggins, who transported them to the Downtown Courtyard Marriott Hotel in a van. The cost of the transportation was paid by CCA, and CCA neither asked for nor received reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers. The value was not established. Mr. Mantay did not know who paid for the ground transportation. The travelers ate the evening meal, February 24, 2000, as a group. Someone paid for Mr. Mantay's dinner, but the record does not indicate that CCA paid for it. On Friday, February 25, 2000, Mr. Mantay and the other travelers toured the Davidson County (Tennessee) Correctional Facility from 9:00 a.m. until noon. They ate lunch at the CCA corporate headquarters provided by CCA. That afternoon they met with Mr. Wiggins and other representatives of CCA. They discussed the possibility of CCA providing "Lifeline" and "Chances" programs operated by CCA, to Bay County. That evening, at CCA's expense, Mr. Mantay and the other travelers were transported to a dinner that was paid for by CCA. The cost of the transportation and dinner was paid by CCA, and CCA neither asked for nor received reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers. Mr. Mantay was not aware of either the cost of the dinner or who paid for it. Mr. Mantay and the other travelers stayed two nights at the Marriott at a cost of $224.24. The cost of the hotel was paid by CCA, and CCA neither asked for nor received reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers. Mr. Mantay learned after checking out from the Marriott, on February 26, 2000, when he attempted to pay a personal telephone bill, that CCA had paid the hotel bill, but there is no evidence of record that he knew the amount, or that it was an amount more than $100. No evidence was adduced proving that Mr. Mantay reasonably believed at that time that it was of a value of more than $100. Mr. Mantay paid cash for his personal telephone call during the check-out process. On Saturday, February 26, 2000, Mr. Mantay and the other travelers departed for Phoenix by air and observed Sheriff Arpaio's program the following Monday morning. They also toured the Phoenix Fire Department. The travelers, with the exception of County Attorney Zimmerman, stayed at the San Carlos Hotel. Mr. Mantay 's hotel bill in Phoenix was paid with a credit card issued to him by Bay County. On Tuesday February 29, 2000, they all returned to Panama City. Bay County originally contracted with CCA to operate their detention facilities on September 3, 1985. This contract had a term of 20 years; however, it was amended on September 16, 1996, to reflect an expiration date of September 24, 1999. Other extensions followed. An amendment dated June 18, 2000, provided that "CCA shall operate the 'Lifeline Program' through September 1, 2001." On May 15, 2001, the contract was extended to September 30, 2006. Mr. Mantay did not derive any person financial benefit as a result of CCA paying the lodging expenses in Nashville or as a result of CCA paying for his airfare. At no time has he attempted to reimburse CCA for the cost of the trip. Mr. Mantay did not receive per diem or any amount in excess of the actual cost of the trip. The entity receiving a benefit from the trip was Bay County. Mr. Mantay had a County credit card in his possession but by County policy he was not allowed to charge meals on it. He did, as noted, use it to pay the hotel bill in Phoenix. His usual practice, when traveling on behalf of the County, is to obtain receipts and file an expense report at the conclusion of the trip. He would thereafter be reimbursed for his travel expenses. He did not file an expense report subsequent to this travel. It is found as a fact that the cost of the airfare to Nashville and back to Panama City and the cost of the hotel in Nashville totaled more than $100 and Mr. Mantay became aware that the cost, when aggregated, was more than $100. Mr. Mantay could not have learned this, however, until more than three years after the trip because that is when he learned that CCA had paid for the airfare. It was not uncommon for Mr. Wiggins and other CCA officials to appear before the Bay County Commissioners on behalf of CCA, or to otherwise interact with representatives of CCA. Brad Wiggins was a lobbyist, as that term is defined in Section 112.3148(1)(b)1., and others interacted with Bay County on behalf of CCA and they were lobbyists also. During times relevant, Bay County did not maintain a lobbyist registration system.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics issue a Final Order and Public Report finding that Jonathan A. Mantay did not violate Section 112.3148(4), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the complaint filed against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Linzie F. Bogan, Esquire Advocate for the Florida Commission on Ethics Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Albert T. Gimbel, Esquire E. Gary Early, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32319-5709 Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32319-5709
The Issue The issue is whether Robert J. Majka, Jr., violated the Florida Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Article II, Section 8, Florida Constitution, and Section 112.320, the Commission is empowered to serve as the guardian of the standards of conduct for the officers and employees of the state. Pursuant to Sections 112.324 and 112.317, the Commission is empowered to conduct investigations and to issue a Final Order and Public Report recommending penalties for violations of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees (Code of Ethics). Respondent Majka is subject to the Code of Ethics. Mr. Majka, during times pertinent, was Chief of Emergency Services for Bay County, Florida, and is a reporting individual, as that term is used in the Code of Ethics, and is required to file annual financial disclosures with the Bay County Supervisor of Elections, as provided by Section 112.3145(2)(c). On February 7, 2006, long after the events involved with this case, he was promoted to the position of Assistant County Manager. As Chief of Emergency Services, Mr. Majka was in charge of the County's corrections program. During times pertinent he employed a staff member named Ann Cahall, whose duties included interacting routinely with the County's privatized corrections provider, CCA. On or about August 31, 1999, the Bay County Commission was addressing the problem of inmate overcrowding in its county correctional facilities, which were operated by CCA. On or about that time, the county correctional facility exceeded capacity by about 352 inmates. The Bay County Commissioners decided to address the issue. The Bay County Commission directed County Manager Jonathan A. Mantay and his staff to study the problem and to recommend courses of action. As a result of the study, two possible courses of action were recommended. One possible course of action was the adoption of the "Lifeline" program operated by CCA in Nashville, Tennessee, which CCA claimed would reduce recidivism by teaching inmates life skills and addressing drug abuse, among other things. CCA's corporate headquarters is located in Nashville. The other possible course of action was to emulate the program operated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio's program consists of housing inmates in tents that are sufficiently primitive that inmates, after having had the tenting experience, avoid repeating it either by not committing crimes in Maricopa County, or by committing them elsewhere. In order to evaluate the two courses of action, the Bay County Commission decided that three commissioners and certain staff should travel to the two sites and evaluate the programs. Mr. Majka, County Manager Mantay, and County Attorney Zimmerman, were among those who were designated to travel to Nashville and Phoenix. Mr. Majka's role, in giving that plan effect, was to contact CCA and Maricopa County and determine dates that they could support a visit from persons from Bay County. He contacted Brad Wiggins, the Director of Business Development for CCA, and also talked to the public information officer with the Maricopa County sheriff's office, in order to determine convenient dates. This was Mr. Majka's only involvement with the planning phase of the proposed trip. County Attorney Zimmerman called Mr. Wiggins on February 6, 2000, and inquired if CCA would pay for the airline tickets to Nashville. Mr. Zimmerman told Mr. Wiggins, when he asked CCA to pay for the trip, that having CCA pay the airfare, ". . . was the County's preferred way of doing things, and, in fact, that's when he recounted the story of the County taking some trips to New York and maybe some other places." Mr. Wiggins was not authorized by CCA to approve the payment of travel expenses for customers or others. He forwarded County Attorney Zimmerman's request to James Ball, his supervisor. Subsequently, Mr. Wiggins happened upon the CEO of CCA, a Dr. Crants, while walking about the Nashville headquarters of CCA. Dr. Crants directed Mr. Wiggins to fund the trip. Ultimately, as a result of these conversations, CCA paid Trade Winds Travel, Inc., of Panama City, Florida, for the cost of the air travel for the entire Bay County contingent to Nashville, and thence to Phoenix, and back to Panama City. The evidence is not conclusive as to whether it was the intent of CCA to fund the trip beyond Nashville, but they paid for the cost of the airfare for the entire trip. The request for the payment and the request to visit CCA in Nashville was driven by Bay County's needs, not by the needs of CCA. Bay County was one of CCA's most valued customers, however, and CCA was motivated to respond to their request. This was especially true because one of CCA's first contracts to provide correctional services was with Bay County. County Attorney Zimmerman's "marching orders" for many years was that if there was an opportunity to require a third party to pay an expense, then the third party should pay rather than Bay County. That policy is reflected in a variety of Bay County ordinances, including the requirement that developers pay for the cost of permitting. The third party payor policy was also reflected in a 1997 trip where Westinghouse was required by the County Commissioners to pay for the commissioners' and County staff's trip to Vancouver, B.C., and Long Island, New York, to evaluate the transfer of the resource recovery facility to another vendor. This was the trip that County Attorney Zimmerman discussed with Mr. Wiggins. This policy was set forth in a letter by County Attorney Zimmerman dated October 30, 1997, which informed the County Commissioners that all expenses in connection with their travel, and with the travel of staff, would be funded by Westinghouse. He further stated that, "[it] is our opinion that the payment of these necessary expenses are not 'gifts,' as that term is defined in State law." Prior to the trip to Nashville, Mr. Majka was present during a conversation between the County Manager and County Attorney. The discussion concerned whether Bay County or CCA would fund all or part of the trip. Mr. Majka could not have learned from this discussion that CCA would fund all or part of the trip, and nothing occurred which would have required him to make further inquiry. He specifically heard County Attorney Zimmerman opine during this conversation, that the trip was "legal." Subsequently, Mr. Majka was contacted by a Ms. Rogers in the County Manager's Office. He was directed to go to the County Manager's office to obtain an airline ticket for the trip. He does not recall if he received that information directly from Ms. Rogers or whether it was relayed to him by Ms. Cahall, but it was clear to him that the County Manager was requiring him to participate in the travel. He picked up the ticket as directed. The ticket did not indicate how payment was made. On Thursday, February 24, 2000, Messrs. Zimmerman, Majka, and Mantay, traveled with Bay County Commissioners Danny Sparks, Richard Stewart, and Carol Atkinson, and television reporter Carmen Coursey, by commercial air, to Nashville, Tennessee. On Saturday, February 26, 2000, they traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, and they returned to Panama City on Tuesday, February 29, 2000. The trip was authorized by the Bay County Commission subsequent to several public discussions concerning the need for an on-site visit to Nashville and Phoenix. There was a legitimate public purpose for the trip. Channel 13 television news reporter, Carmen Coursey accompanied the officials. It is clear that there was nothing about the trip that was accomplished sub rosa. The airfare was paid by CCA directly to Trade Winds Travel, Inc. CCA did not ask for or receive reimbursement from either Bay County or the travelers. The cost of Mr. Majka's airfare for the entire trip was $1,257. Mr. Majka did not learn that CCA paid for the airfare until three or more years after the trip was completed. Mr. Majka at the time of the trip had no reason to contemplate the cost. After learning that CCA paid the tariff, he also learned that the cost of the trip exceeded $100. Upon arrival in Nashville, Mr. Majka, and the other travelers were greeted by Mr. Wiggins, who transported them to the Downtown Courtyard Marriott Hotel in a van. The cost of the transportation was paid by CCA, and CCA neither asked for nor received reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers. The value was not established. Mr. Majka did not know who paid for the ground transportation. The travelers ate dinner, February 24, 2000, as a group that evening. Someone paid for Mr. Majka's dinner, but the record does not indicate that CCA paid for it. On Friday, February 25, 2000, Mr. Majka and the other travelers toured the Davidson County (Tennessee) Correctional Facility from 9:00 a.m. until noon. They ate lunch at the CCA corporate headquarters provided by CCA. That afternoon they met with Mr. Wiggins and other representatives of CCA. They discussed the possibility of CCA providing "Lifeline" and "Chances" programs operated by CCA, to Bay County. That evening, at CCA's expense, Mr. Majka and the other travelers were transported by CCA to a dinner that was paid for by CCA. CCA neither asked for nor received reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers. Mr. Majka was not aware of either the cost of the dinner or who paid for it. Mr. Majka and the other travelers stayed two nights at the Marriott at a cost of $224.24. The cost of the hotel was paid by CCA, and CCA neither asked for nor received reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers. Mr. Majka learned after checking out from the Marriott, on February 26, 2000, through talking with others, that CCA had paid the hotel bill, but there is no evidence of record that he knew the amount, or that it was an amount more than $100. No evidence was adduced proving that Mr. Majka reasonably believed at that time that it was of a value of more than $100. On Saturday, February 26, 2000, Mr. Majka and the other travelers departed for Phoenix by air and observed Sheriff Arpaio's program the following Monday morning. They also toured the Phoenix Fire Department. The travelers, with the exception of County Attorney Zimmerman, stayed at the San Carlos Hotel. Mr. Majka's hotel bill in Phoenix was paid with a credit card issued to County Manager Mantay by Bay County. On Tuesday February 29, 2000, they all returned to Panama City. Bay County originally contracted with CCA to operate their detention facilities on September 3, 1985. This contract had a term of 20 years; however, it was amended on September 16, 1996, to reflect an expiration date of September 24, 1999. Other extensions followed. An amendment dated June 18, 2000, provided that "CCA shall operate the 'Lifeline Program' through September 1, 2001." On May 15, 2001, the contract was extended to September 30, 2006. Mr. Majka did not derive any person financial benefit as a result of CCA paying the lodging expenses in Nashville or as a result of CCA paying for his airfare. At no time has he attempted to reimburse CCA for the cost of the trip. Mr. Majka did not receive per diem or any amount in excess of the actual cost of the trip. The entity receiving a benefit from the trip was Bay County. Mr. Majka had a County credit card in his possession but by County policy he was not allowed to charge meals on it. His usual practice, when traveling on behalf of the County, is to obtain receipts and file an expense report at the conclusion of the trip. He would thereafter be reimbursed for his travel expenses. He did not file an expense report subsequent to this travel. It is found as a fact that the cost of the travel to Nashville and back to Panama City, and the cost of the hotel in Nashville, totaled more than $100 and Mr. Majka ultimately knew that the cost, when aggregated, was more than $100. Mr. Majka could not have acquired this belief, however, until more than three years after the trip because that is when he learned that CCA had paid for the airfare. It was not uncommon for Mr. Wiggins and other CCA officials to appear before the Bay County Commissioners on behalf of CCA, or to otherwise interact with representatives of CCA. Brad Wiggins was a lobbyist, as that term is defined in Section 112.3148(1)(b)1., and others interacted with Bay County on behalf of CCA and they were lobbyists also. During times relevant, Bay County did not maintain a lobbyist registration system.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics issue a Final Order and Public Report finding that Robert J. Majka, Jr. did not violate Section 112.3148(4), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the complaint filed against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Linzie F. Bogan, Esquire Advocate for the Florida Commission on Ethics Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Albert T. Gimbel, Esquire Gary E. Early, Esquire Mark Herron, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact William B. Barker, Jr., is certified as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida employed by the Walton County Sheriff's Department and stationed at DeFuniak Springs, Florida. On or about 20 June 1981, Diana Marie Preston was driving her automobile west on Interstate Highway 10, in Walton County, Florida, on her way to her grandparents' home in Gulf Breeze, Florida. She had just completed the Law School Admissions Test in Tallahassee that morning and was on her way back home. Due to heavy rain in the area, she was driving carefully and was not exceeding the speed limit. At approximately 3 to 4 p.m., she was hailed by a police officer in a county police car. When she pulled over to the roadside at his request, the officer advised her she had been speeding and requested to see her driver's license. Since her license was in her purse which was in the trunk of her car, she had to get out of her car and open the trunk, at which time the officer noticed a pair of high-heeled shoes she had in there and asked her to take them out, indicating he had been looking at a pair like that for his wife. When Ms. Preston got her license out, the officer requested that she accompany him to his car, get in on the passenger side and close the passenger door. She complied, though she did not close the door completely. During this period, she noticed that though the officer was in uniform, he was not wearing either a name tag or a badge with a number on it. She does not recall whether he was wearing a pistol, but states there was a rifle in the vehicle on which he placed his hand several times while talking to her. The officer took Ms. Preston's driver's license and reached across her to the glove compartment for his ticket book, but at no time did he use his radio to call in either her driver's license number or her car tag number. Before writing out the ticket, the officer indicated he would not issue a ticket to her if she would put on her high heels (she had been driving barefoot) and let him try to guess her shoe size. He stated that for every size he was off in his guess, he would kiss her foot a certain number of times. Ms. Preston repeatedly refused, but because the officer was insistent and she felt she was in a difficult position due to the fact that she was alone on a lightly travelled (at the time) section of highway, she ultimately acquiesced. Though the officer had ample opportunity to see the shoe size when he examined the shoes, he guessed wrong on the size by several sizes. At this time, her left foot was in his lap, and he picked it up and kissed it several times. When he was finished, in the course of conversation, the officer asked her what she had been doing in Tallahassee. She told him she had been taking the LSAT, and his attitude changed immediately. He told her to go on with her trip, but cautioned her not to tell anyone what had happened, as he could get into trouble. Upon being released by the officer, Ms. Preston proceeded on to Gulf Breeze to the home of her grandparents, whom she told about the incident the following day. She did not report the incident to the police nor discuss it until several weeks later when she was contacted by two investigators who showed her a large photograph of individuals who, it was represented to her, were members of the Walton County Sheriff's Department. From this group, she identified the Respondent, Barker, and subsequently again identified him at the hearing as the officer in question, describing him as a heavyset man with a mustache and wearing tinted glasses. Respondent, upon graduation from high school, attended O. W. Junior College and then went on to the University of West Florida where he received his bachelor's degree in criminal justice. He unequivocally denies the allegations against him, stating he had never seen Ms. Preston until the day of the hearing at the hearing room. In fact, his shift was over, and he signed out just prior to 3 p.m. on 20 June 1981. In his opinion and that of his mother, the allegations against him are attributable to his stated position in a political dispute during which he sided against the incumbent sheriff for whom he was working. There is no evidence bearing on this issue other than the testimony of the Respondent and his mother.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in this Administrative Complaint. It is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1983.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a resident legal expense sales representative should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On September 9, 2003, Petitioner filed an electronic application with the Department seeking licensure as a resident legal expense sales representative. Petitioner answered "no" to the following question on that application: Have you ever had any professional license subjected to any of the following actions by any state agency or public authority in any jurisdiction: Revocation in Florida less than 2 years ago, Revocation in another state at anytime or in Florida more than 2 years ago, Suspension, Placed on probation, Administrative fine or penalty levied, Cease and desist order entered. At the end of the online application, immediately above a space for the applicant's signature and in a section of the application titled "Applicant Affirmation Statement," appears the following language: I do solemnly swear that all answers to the foregoing questions and statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. . . . * * * Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for license and that the facts stated in it are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of The Florida Insurance and Administrative Codes and may result in the denial of my application and/or the revocation of my insurance license(s). Pursuant to the instructions on the online form, Petitioner printed the "Applicant Affirmation Statement," signed it on September 15, 2003, and mailed it to the Department. After receipt of Petitioner's application, the Department received records from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, indicating that the State of Wisconsin had previously taken an administrative action against Petitioner's license. Specifically, in 1988, Ms. Seibert had executed a Stipulation and Order with the State of Wisconsin regarding her alleged failure to respond to a written inquiry from the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. That Stipulation and Order provided for a $250 forfeiture payable to the State of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin records ultimately obtained by the Department during the application process indicated that: In 1988, Ms. Seibert held a license with the State of Wisconsin as a permanent individual intermediary-agent. On June 13, 1988, while working for K&K Insurance Agency, Ms. Seibert wrote a letter to M.J.'s Action Cycle, Inc., whose insurance coverage was handled by Ms. Seibert's agency. The letter read, in part: [a]fter reviewing the Motor Vehicle Reports (MVR's) of your employees, our Underwriting Department has determined that the driving records of Bonnie M. Whitt and Marshall E. Whitt are being monitored at this time. Any additional violations will result in their being excluded from coverage under our policy. On June 28, 1988, Bonnie Whitt, one of the owners of M.J.'s Action Cycle, wrote a letter to the Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner's office requesting assistance with regard to Ms. Seibert's letter, specifically asking how far back in time their carrier could look at driving records, and at what point in time certain 1983 and 1984 tickets would be off the records. Bonnie Whitt's letter was received by the Insurance Commissioner's office on June 30, 1988. On August 24, the Commissioner's office sent a letter to K&K Insurance Agency, with a copy of Bonnie Whitt's letter attached, asking K&K to respond to Ms. Whitt and to provide the Commissioner's office with the response and other pertinent information. On August 26, 1988, Ms. Seibert responded to the Commissioner's office with the information requested. On September 8, 1988, the Commissioner's office wrote back to Ms. Seibert. Their letter stated: We are in receipt of your response dated August 26, 1988. Please review your letter dated June 13, 1988, addressed to . . . M.J.'s Cycle Action, Inc. Please explain how the statement that any additional violations will result in their being excluded from coverage under [your] policy is in compliance with s. 632.32(3), Wis. Stat.? Drivers may not be excluded in Wisconsin. In addition, please have Transamerica Insurance Company respond to the practice of excluding drivers. Pursuant to s. 601.42, Wis. Stat., your reply is requested within 15 days from your receipt of this letter. After Ms. Seibert received the September 8, 1988 letter from the Insurance Commissioner's office, she forwarded that letter to the Assistant Vice President of K&K Insurance. There was no response provided to the Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner's office within the time frame provided by that office. Under cover of a letter dated December 2, 1988, the Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner's office issued a Notice of Hearing, captioned In the Matter of Julie Seibert, Respondent, Case No. 88-C20630. According to the Notice of Hearing, the issue to be considered was whether Ms. Seibert's "permanent insurance intermediary agent license should be revoked, suspended, or limited in whole or in part . . ., whether a forfeiture should be ordered from Respondent . . ., and whether remedial orders should be issued. . . ." As a basis for the proceeding, the Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner's office alleged: Respondent, Julie Sweibert [sic], K&K Insurance Agency, Inc., . . . at all material time periods was a licensed Wisconsin intermediary agent (license #1026897) and subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Commissioner. On or about October 10, 1988, Respondent received a letter from the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance requesting a written reply. Respondent failed or refused to reply to this request. The allegations as set forth in paragraph (2) constitutes [sic] a violation of s. 601.42, Wis. Stat. Petitioner's employer, K&K Insurance, took full responsibility for the failure to respond to the Insurance Commissioner's office. In a letter dated December 28, 1988, the Assistant Vice President of K&K wrote the Insurance Commissioner's office, expressly noting that Petitioner had done all that was necessary to assure that the response to the written inquiry from the State of Wisconsin was made in a timely manner. He further noted that the delay which resulted in the Stipulation and Order resulted from improper handling on his part as Director of Compliance. The Wisconsin Stipulation and Order signed by Petitioner is captioned In the Matter of Julie Seibert, Case No. 88-C20630, and provides that Ms. Seibert "agrees to the imposition of a forfeiture of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) payable to the State of Wisconsin." Petitioner signed the Stipulation and Order on December 27, 1988. Petitioner's employer, K&K Insurance, paid the fine. In response to the Department's written inquiry about the Wisconsin administrative action during the licensing process, Petitioner indicated: . . . I am unable to provide an explanation as to the exact incident as I do not have records of it. My employer handled this at the time, K&K Insurance. I merely signed the document as a representative of the company as requested and their legal department handled it at that time. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that, based on the information she had seen during the Florida application process, her license had in fact been subject to an administrative fine by the Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner's office in 1988. She testified, however, that at the time she filled out her application, she had not recalled the incident.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Petitioner violated Subsection 642.041(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and denying Petitioner's application for licensure, without prejudice for her to immediately reapply as provided by Section 626.191, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 9th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Julia M. Seibert 3930 75th Street, West, No. 1620 Bradenton, Florida 34209 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's law enforcement officer certification should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for multiple violations of Section 943.145(3), Florida Statutes (1981). At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses Virgil P. Sandlin, David Charles Myers, Joseph Weil, and Neal Branch. Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. The Respondent testified on his own behalf and offered no exhibits into evidence. Subsequent to the formal hearing, the Respondent filed a motion to supplement the record and that motion is denied on the basis that the documents sought to be made a part of the record are irrelevant to these proceedings. Respondent also filed a motion to dismiss and that motion is hereby denied. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent filed proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as irrelevant to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to these proceedings the Respondent was and is the holder of law enforcement certificate number 02-13259. That certificate is now in inactive status. During the months of April through November, 1981, the Respondent was an employee of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and was under the supervision of Blanchard Neal Branch. While employed with the Commission as an investigator, Atwell was issued a Toyota pickup truck, firearms, credentials, and confidential identification. The identification was a driver's license with Atwell's cover name. This driver's license was to be used strictly for identification and Respondent had been instructed of this fact on several occasions prior to June, 1981. Respondent was also issued a credit card for the purchase of gasoline for the government vehicle only. On June 24, 1981, Respondent was stopped for speeding by Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Virgil P. Sandlin. When stopped Respondent gave his name as Robert Leonard Austin and gave the trooper his confidential identification as his driver's license. The name, Robert Leonard Austin, was Respondent's cover name and the name that appeared on the license. This stop took place on U.S. 19 about five or six miles north of Inglis, Florida. The Respondent was given a ticket for driving 69 miles per hour in a 55-mile-per-hour zone. At the time he was stopped, Respondent had another individual in the truck with him. Approximately a month after the citation was issued Respondent contacted Trooper Sandlin and asked to meet with him. Trooper Sandlin did meet with Respondent and Respondent showed him his badge and asked the trooper to speak with the judge and ask him to withhold adjudication on the speeding ticket. Trooper Sandlin said he would do it as a professional courtesy. During this meeting Respondent used the name of Bobby Austin. As a result of the citation Respondent was found guilty and fined $25. The case was heard on August 13, 1981, and the fine was to be paid within ten days. The fine was not paid and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles was notified to suspend Respondent's confidential driver's license. After learning of this, Captain Branch ordered Respondent to go to the court in Levy County and pay the fine. At the time of the stop in Levy County on June 24, 1981, Respondent was assigned to an undercover investigation in Dixie County and had lost complete contact with his backups for the 24-hour period in which he had been stopped. Prior to being assigned to the Dixie County investigation, Respondent had been assigned to an investigation in Levy County, but was not authorized to work on that investigation during the time he was assigned to the Dixie County investigation. Prior to June 24, 1981, Respondent had been counseled about driving at excessive speeds and had been cautioned to abide by the speed limits posted. On October 31, 1981, Respondent was stopped for speeding near Chiefland, Florida. The officer did not get an official clocking on Respondent's truck but estimated his speed to be in the range of 55 to 70 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour zone. When the Chiefland police officer, David C. Myers, stopped the Respondent, he shined his spotlight on Respondent's vehicle and Respondent got out of the vehicle with his hands up. The police officer had radioed in a description of the truck and was informed that a vehicle meeting that description had been involved in a domestic dispute earlier in the day. As a result of this information, when Respondent gave the officer his driver's license, the officer began to run a wanted check on the license, which carried a Quincy address. At this time Respondent gave the officer a second driver's license with the same picture. He also showed the officer his credentials and explained that he was in the area working undercover with the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Respondent described for the officer the case on which he was working. At no time during this stop did the officer draw his weapon. No charges were brought by the officer. After this incident Respondent informed Captain Branch, his supervisor, that he had had a run-in with a Chiefland police officer and that the officer had pulled a gun on him. Captain Branch called the police officer and questioned him about the incident. The officer denied pulling his gun and Captain Branch again questioned Atwell about the incident. Atwell again stated that the officer had pulled a gun and demonstrated the combat stance the officer had taken. At the time he was stopped in Chiefland, Respondent was assigned to an undercover investigation in Levy County where Chiefland is located. Because of problems relating to unauthorized trip extensions and problems with per diem (the method Respondent had used for claiming per diem), Respondent had been counseled and placed on a very strict schedule prior to October, 1981. He was instructed in each assignment as to when he would report to the assignment and when he would return. He was also given a call-in schedule and was instructed to call in and get authorization for any change or extension of his return time. In October, 1981, Respondent had two unauthorized trip extensions. On or about October 9, 1981, Respondent was on a trip and extended the trip two or three days without authorization. He did not call in and his supervisor had no knowledge of his whereabouts for that two- or three-day period. On October 23, 1981, Respondent left on a trip and was instructed to return no later than the morning of October 25, 1981. Respondent did not return and did not call in until October 27, 1981, when Captain Branch received a call from Respondent from his home in Quincy. He was two days overdue. When questioned about the unauthorized extension, Respondent stated he was with the subject of the investigation the entire time and could not call in. However, Respondent's investigative report revealed that he was not with the subject from midnight on October 24 to 1:00 p.m. on October 25, and from midnight on October 25 to the afternoon of October 26. Respondent could have called in during these time periods. During his employment with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission the Respondent was counseled regarding irregularities in his per diem travel expense reports and vehicle cost reports. During the months of April through October, 1981, there were numerous discrepancies and unexplained irregularities in the travel expense reports, vehicle cost reports, law enforcement itinerary, and law enforcement investigative activity reports filed by Respondent. These irregularities include: A per diem report filed by Respondent reflects that he was on assignment in Levy County from 5:00 p.m. on April 9, 1981, through 8:00 a.m. on April 12, 1981. Per diem for this period was claimed and paid. On April 10, 1981, 20.7.gallons of gasoline were purchased in Quincy on Respondent's government credit card. On April 11, 1981, 31.2 gallons of gasoline were purchased in Chattahoochee on Respondent's government credit card. The itinerary report filed by Respondent for April 14, 1981, indicates 8 hours of duty. However, Respondent's vehicle cost report for the same date indicates his vehicle was in Quincy (home) on April 14. On April 18, 1981, Respondent purchased 18 gallons of gasoline in Quincy. On April 21, 1981, Respondent purchased 30.7 gallons of gasoline in Quincy. Respondent's itinerary for this period states that he was off duty on April 18 and 19 and worked in Tallahassee on April 20. The cost report for Respondent's vehicle indicates 266 miles were driven to Tallahassee and back to Quincy and vicinity. On April 24, 1981, Respondent purchased 33.3 gallons of gasoline in Quincy and on April 27, 1981, purchased 35.4 gallons of gasoline in Quincy. The itinerary report filed by Respondent for this period reflects that he was off duty April 24 through April 26, 1981, and worked four hours in Tallahassee on April 27. Respondent's vehicle cost report shows Respondent's vehicle was idle during this period except for a trip to Tallahassee. 70 miles were reported as driven during this period, but 35.4 gallons of gasoline were purchased. On May 15, 1981, 32 gallons of gasoline were purchased on Respondent's government credit card. On May 16, 1981, 31.9 gallons of gasoline were purchased on Respondent's government credit card. These purchases were made on a credit card issued in the name of Fredrick R. Tedder, an alias used by Respondent in a prior case. On May 19, 1981, 28.3 gallons of gasoline were purchased by Respondent on his government credit card in Quincy, Florida. Respondent's itinerary indicates he was off duty May 16 and 17 and worked in Tallahassee on May 18. The purchase on May 16 was not logged on the vehicle cost report and no receipts were submitted for this purchase. On May 23, 1981, Respondent purchased 12.2 gallons of gasoline in Quincy and on May 26, 1981, purchased 32.3 gallons of gasoline in Quincy. Respondent's itinerary report shows he was off duty May 23 and 24, and worked four hours in Tallahassee on May 25. The vehicle cost report shows the vehicle was idle on May 24 and made a trip to Tallahassee on May 25. 75 miles were reported as driven on these dates, but 32.3 gallons of gasoline were purchased. On June 6, 1981, Respondent purchased 17.4 gallons of gasoline in Quincy and on June 10, 1981, purchased 31 gallons of gasoline in Quincy. Respondent's itinerary report reflects that he was off duty June 6, 7, and 8 and worked 6 hours in Tallahassee on June 9. 18 miles were reported as driven on these dates but 31 gallons of gasoline were purchased. The purchase on June 6, was not logged on the vehicle cost report and Respondent submitted no receipts for this purchase. On June 11, 1981, Respondent purchased 11.2 gallons of gasoline in Crystal River, Citrus County, Florida. Respondent's travel voucher, itinerary report and investigative report show activities in Levy County from June 10 to June 12. The June 11 purchase was not logged on the vehicle cost report and no receipts were turned in. The license tag number recorded by the station attendant was not that of Respondent's commission-issued vehicle but was the tag number of a vehicle registered to Anita M. Simzyk of Inglis, Florida. On June 12, 1981, Respondent purchased 27.5 gallons of gasoline in Quincy and on June 16 purchased 23.6 gallons of gasoline in Capps, Florida. Respondent's itinerary report shows he was off duty on June 13 and 14 and worked in Tallahassee 6 hours on June 15. The vehicle cost report shows Respondent's vehicle was idle on these dates except for a trip to Tallahassee on June 15. 70 miles were reported as driven on these dates, but 23.6 gallons of gasoline were purchased. On June 17, 1981, Respondent purchased 36 gallons of gasoline in Chiefland, Levy County, Florida. Respondent's travel voucher indicates he left Tallahassee at 9:00 a.m. on June 16, en route to Dixie County and returned to Tallahassee at 1:00 p.m. on June 19. Respondent's investigative trip report indicates he arrived in Cross City, Dixie County, at 10:00 a.m. on June 16, went to Inglis in south Levy County from 10:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June 16 and returned to Cross City until midday on June 19. The vehicle cost report and itinerary also indicate detail in Dixie County during this period. On July 1, 1981, Respondent purchased 19.9 gallons of gasoline in Chiefland, Levy County, Florida. Respondent's travel voucher indicates he left Tallahassee for Dixie County at 2:00 p.m. on June 30 and returned to Tallahassee at 8:00 p.m. on July 3. No investigative trip report was submitted for this period and the vehicle cost report and itinerary report indicate detail in Dixie County during this period. On July 9 and July 13, 1981, Respondent's itinerary report shows 10 hours duty and 3 hours duty respectively. Respondent's vehicle cost report indicates his vehicle was idle on these two dates. On July 10, 1981, Respondent purchased 31.3 gallons of gasoline in Quincy and on July 14, 1981, purchased 29.3 gallons of gasoline in Quincy. Respondent's itinerary report indicates he was off duty July 4 and 5, worked in Tallahassee July 6 and 7, was off duty July 8, worked in Tallahassee July 9 and 10, was off duty July 11 and 12 and worked in Tallahassee July 13. The vehicle cost report indicates Respondent's vehicle was idle on these dates except for trips to Tallahassee on July 6, 7, and 10. There were 196 miles reported as driven during this period, but 60.6 gallons of gasoline were purchased. A travel voucher filed by Respondent indicates he left Tallahassee for Inglis at 10:00 a.m. on July 22, 1981, and returned to Tallahassee on July 24 at 4:00 a.m. There was $100 in per diem paid for this trip but no investigative report was filed for this period indicating travel to Inglis. The vehicle cost report shows travel from Tallahassee to Key West on July 19, Key West to Inglis on July 22 and return from Inglis to Tallahassee on July 23. On July 20, 1981, Respondent purchased 32.9 gallons of gasoline in Quincy. On July 25, 1981, Respondent purchased 33 gallons of gasoline in Quincy, Florida. On July 28, Respondent purchased 14.3 gallons of gasoline in Quincy. Respondent's travel voucher indicates he returned to Tallahassee at 4:00 a.m. on July 24. His itinerary indicates he was off duty on July 24, worked 7 hours on July 25, was off duty July 26, and worked 5 hours in Tallahassee on July 27. Respondent's vehicle cost report indicates his vehicle was idle on these dates except for trips to Tallahassee on July 25 and July 27. 230 miles were reported as driven during this period and 14.3 gallons of gasoline were purchased. On July 24, 1981, Respondent claimed investigative expense money. His itinerary for July 24, 1981, indicates he was off duty on July 24. On August 1 and 2, Respondent claimed investigative expense money of $8.75 and $6.50 respectively. Respondent's itinerary shows he was off duty both of these days. Respondent submitted no vehicle cost information for the period August 1 to August 10. The last logged mileage on July 31, 1981, was 52,282 and the next logged mileage was 53,525 on August 10. 1,243 miles were reported as driven during this period and 950 miles were unaccounted for. On August 6, 1981, Respondent purchased 37 gallons of gasoline in Quincy, Florida. Respondent's itinerary indicates he was off duty August 1 through 5. The July 6 purchase was not logged on the vehicle cost report and no receipts were turned in for the purchase. Respondent's travel voucher indicates he left Tallahassee for Inglis at 11:00 a.m. on August 6. His investigative trip report indicates he arrived in Inglis at 4:30 p.m. on August 6 and returned to Tallahassee on August 10 at 8:30 p.m. The distance from Tallahassee to Inglis round trip is 290 miles. The Respondent purchased 14.2 gallons of gasoline in Otter Creek and 31.9 gallons of gasoline in Crystal River on August 10, 1981. The purchase in Otter Creek was not recorded on the vehicle cost report. On September 2, 4, and 8, respectively, Respondent purchased 23.2 gallons of gasoline, 29 gallons of gasoline, and 27.4 gallons of gasoline in Quincy, Florida. Simultaneous with the purchase of 27.4 gallons on September 8, the Respondent also purchased 14.9 gallons of gasoline in Quincy. An itinerary filed by the Respondent indicates he was off duty from September 1 through September 3, worked 8 hours in Tallahassee on September 4, and was off duty September 5 through September 9. The vehicle cost report reflects that Respondent's government truck was idle during this time period except for the trip to Tallahassee on September 4. The 14.9 gallons of gasoline purchased on September 8 were not recorded on the vehicle cost report and no receipts were turned in for this purchase. 632 miles were recorded as driven and 94.5 gallons of gasoline were purchased during this time period. Respondent's itinerary indicates he worked 7 hours on September 21, and the vehicle cost report indicates Respondent's vehicle was in Levy County on September 21. However, Respondent's trip report and travel vouchers show that he returned to Tallahassee at 10:00 p.m. on September 20. Respondent's travel voucher reflects he left Tallahassee at 2:00 p.m. on September 24 en route to Inglis. His investigative trip report states that Respondent arrived in Inglis at 6:00 p.m. on September 24 and went back and forth from Inglis to Floral City until September 29. Respondent's travel voucher and trip report state that he returned to Tallahassee at 7:00 p.m. on September 29. However, an additional day of per diem for September 30, was added after the last entry on September 29. On October 1, 1981, Respondent purchased 23 gallons of gasoline in Quincy. Respondent's travel voucher stated he returned from Inglis at 7:00 p.m. on September 29 and the recorded ending mileage was 59,529. Respondent's itinerary report indicates he worked in Tallahassee 6 hours on September 30 and 10 hours on October 1. The recorded ending mileage on October 1 was 59,870. 341 miles miles were recorded as driven during this period and 23 gallons of gasoline were purchased. On October 6, Respondent's itinerary report indicates he worked 6 hours. His vehicle cost report for the same date reflects his vehicle was idle that date. Respondent's travel voucher indicates he left Tallahassee at 5:30 a.m. en route to Cross City and returned to Tallahassee at 11:00 p.m. the same day. Respondent's itinerary report indicates he was on duty 3 hours that date. Respondent's travel voucher states that he left Tallahassee at 5:30 a.m. on October 13, en route to Cross City and returned at 11:30 p.m. the same day. His itinerary report shows Respondent was off duty on October 13. The vehicle cost report indicates travel from Quincy to Cross City on both October 12 and October 13. On October 15, 1981, Respondent purchased 23.8 gallons of gasoline in Chiefland, Levy County, Florida. His itinerary report for the same date indicates he was off duty. The vehicle issued to Respondent was a four-cylinder Toyota pickup truck with dual fuel tanks. This truck was to be used for official state business only.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 943.145(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1981) , and revoking Respondent's law enforcement officer certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Grady Henry Atwell Post Office Box 667 Quincy, Florida 32351 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Daryl G. McLaughlin, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times material herein, the Respondent was a licensed Health and Legal Expense Insurance agent in the State of Florida. By criminal indictment filed October 4, 1984, Respondent was charged with the crimes of conspiracy to commit fraud, use of the mails to defraud and the use of a fictitious name or address to defraud. After a jury trial, Respondent was convicted of the offenses of conspiracy to commit fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC, Section 1341, Title 29, USC, Section 501(c), all in violation of Title 18, USC, Section 371, as charged in Count One of the Indictment and mail fraud, all in violation of Title 18, USC, Sections 1341 and 1342, as charged in Counts Two through Five of the Indictment. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) was at all times material herein a labor union affiliated with the AFL- CIO, a labor organization as defined in Section 402 of Title 29, United States Code. Florida Public Employees Council 79 (Council 79) was at all times material herein a labor union affiliated with AFSCME and the AFL-CIO, a labor organization as defined in Section 402 of Title 29, United States Code. The scheme upon which the Respondent's conviction rests, was directed toward both AFSCME and Council 79. At all times herein, Respondent was employed by either AFSCME or Council 79. Upon Council 79 being chartered, Respondent became its Tallahassee Regional Director. The record does not reflect any persons as victims of the scheme upon which the Respondent's conviction rests other than AFSCME and Council 79. Respondent's participation in the schemes upon which his conviction rests was as follows: (a) at the directions of William Van Zandt, Assistant to Jerry Wurf, President of AFSCME, and Thomas J. Fitzpatrick, President of Council 79, Respondent enrolled David J. Michalski as an employee of Council 79 and met with David J. Michalski in November 1979 to set up an address where payments on expense account vouchers and salaries would be delivered, and assisted David J. Michalski in opening an account at the bank for this purpose, and; (b) contacted George Albert Cuneo, Jr., President and owner of Cuneo Advertising, Inc., and requested that Cuneo mail bills for printing a Council 79 newspaper directly to G.A.D., Inc. G.A.D., Inc. was a corporation used by defendants other than Respondent to funnel inflated bills for advertising and public relations for payment by AFSCME or Council 79. The record is clear that Respondent had no knowledge of the schemes, was following orders of his superiors, and received no money, property, or other consideration for his participation in the schemes. The only evidence in the record concerning the Respondent's participation in the mail fraud is that the Respondent did apparently mail some matters concerning David R. Michalski's expense vouchers. Whether he mailed anything concerning the "kick-back scheme" or the inflated bills for advertising and public relations is not clear from the record. Respondent had never been convicted of a crime before this conviction. Respondent was sentenced to three (3) years on Count One but served only eight (8) months. The sentences in Count Two through Five were suspended and Respondent was placed on probation. Respondent was placed on probation for six (6) months on Counts Two through Four which began immediately and was placed on three (3) years probation on Count Five which was to run consecutively with the sentence imposed in Count One. After serving the eight (8) months of his sentence, Respondent returned to Tallahassee and enrolled in, and completed, a course in insurance at Tallahassee Community College hoping to further expand his existing insurance license. The record is clear that Respondent's reputation for truth and veracity in the community is good despite his conviction, and the Respondent enjoys a good reputation as far as his integrity in dealing with others in concerned.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Insurance, enter a Final Order dismissing all counts of the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4404 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 with the exception of the phrase "with in excess of ten numbers" which is rejected as immaterial since there was no substantial competent evidence in the record to show that any individual member had been defrauded or that any conspiracy to defraud was directed at any individual member. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 2-7. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Facts 9 and 11. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 19.-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert V. Ellias, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire PATTERSON and TRAYNHAM 1215 Thomasville Road Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether Mary McCarty, Respondent in a complaint to the Florida Commissions on Ethics, is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees from the complainant, Leslie F. McDermott, pursuant to Section 112.317(8), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Mary McCarty has resided in Delray Beach, Florida for approximately twenty years. She is politically active as a Republican; she served as a Delray Beach city commissioner from 1987 until 1990, and now currently serves as chairperson of the Palm Beach County Commission. William (Bill) Andrews, also a Republican, was elected to the Delray Beach City Commission approximately one year after Ms. McCarty. The two worked together on certain issues, including an issue regarding the firing of the city manager, and more often than not, they voted on the same side. Leslie F. McDermott lives in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. He has never resided in Delray Beach. He is employed as an engineer for a computer company and is well known and respected in the community as an active member of the NAACP. He served as president of the south county branch of the NAACP for seven or eight years until recently, and now serves on the executive board of that local branch. Jeanette (Jay) Slavin is a "grass roots" political activist in the south county area. As a Democrat she has been very involved in political campaigns and has openly supported candidates and issues in heated opposition to Mary McCarty. Malcolm Byrd, a Republican, served on the Delray Beach City Commission from 1979 until 1987, and was city manager from 1989-90. At first he supported Mary McCarty, but as city manager he had differing views of how the city should proceed and how the city manager should function. In early 1990, Malcolm Byrd learned that Bill Andrews had attended a Republican fund-raiser in Orlando, with transportation by chartered jet and limousine provided by a third party. Bill Andrews openly discussed the trip and how lavish it was. Andrews displayed a photograph of himself at the event with President Reagan or other noted Republicans. Malcolm Byrd became aware that Andrews had not reported that trip on his financial disclosure form, and shared that information with Jay Slavin. There was also some talk that Mary McCarty had attended the fund-raiser, as Andrews referred to "we" when discussing the trip. Mary McCarty's financial disclosure form for 1990 did not reflect the alleged gifts related to the trip. Jay Slavin had lunch with Leslie McDermott and urged him to file ethics complaints against both Andrews and McCarty. Ms. Slavin had obtained the requisite forms from the commission. She felt that Leslie McDermott's complaint would have more credibility as she, Slavin, was known to be politically opposed to Andrews and McCarty. Leslie McDermott was reluctant at first to file the complaint against McCarty, as the only basis that Jay Slavin gave him was that Bill Andrews said "we" went on the trip, and everyone knew that Mary McCarty frequently attended fund-raisers and political events. Leslie McDermott drafted the complaint based on information from Jay Slavin, and Ms. Slavin typed it for his signature, as he has a visual handicap. Before sending the complaint, McDermott spoke with Malcolm Byrd, who told him that he did not have the evidence on McCarty that he had on Andrews and that he could not encourage him to file on McCarty. McDermott heard rumors from other people who believed she had attended the function, but no one told him they had personal knowledge of the trip or had actually seen McCarty. At the hearing, and during the investigation by the commission, Leslie McDermott refused to divulge the names of those other persons who told him they believed Mary McCarty took the trip. After sending the complaints, McDermott gave Jay Slavin permission to give them to three newspapers which he specified: the Palm Beach Post, the Sun Times and the Fort Lauderdale Sentinel. He personally called the papers and told them that the matters in the complaints needed to be investigated. He also told the reporters that the complaints had no official connection with the NAACP. He considered the three papers to be responsible, non-sensational publications and he had experience in the past with issuing press releases. On February 6, 1992 the Sun-Sentinel published a story with the headline, "ETHICS COMPLAINTS FILED", stating that an NAACP official filed ethics complaints alleging that Mary McCarty and Bill Andrews attended a $1000 a plate fund-raiser paid for by a group of bond brokers, and failed to disclose the gifts. Mary McCarty contacted the NAACP, and Leslie McDermott was chastised for involving the organization. He did not call the newspaper to demand a corrective article as he did not want to "add fuel to the fire". He avowed distress, however, that people associated the issue with the NAACP. Meanwhile, the Ethics Commission conducted its investigation and found that, indeed, Mary McCarty did not attend the event. That was a conclusion that should have been reached by Mr. McDermott prior to his filing the complaint. Instead, on the complaint form, he signed the following statement under oath: COMPLAINT THAT THE COMMISSIONER NAMED ABOVE, THEN A DELRAY BEACH CITY COMMISSIONER DID VIOLATE FLORIDA STATUTE 112 IN THAT THE COMMISSIONER ACCEPTED GIFTS VALUED IN EXCESS OF $100.00 AND FAILED TO REPORT SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. THE GIFTS WERE PROVIDED BY MEMBERS OF A BOND UNDERWRITING GROUP HEADED BY SMITH BARNEY. THEY INCLUDED: ROUND TRIP TRANSPORTATION ON A CORPORATE JET FROM WEST PALM BEACH TO ORLANDO AND BACK; AND, ROUND TRIP LIMOUSINE SERVICE FROM THE ORLANDO AIRPORT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY CONVENTION AND CIVIC CENTER AND RETURN TO THE AIRPORT; AND, A TICKET TO ATTEND THE $1000 PER PERSON FUND RAISER DINNER BENEFITING GOV. MARTINEZ AND FEATURING PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH. THE FOREGOING GIFTS HAVE AN ESTIMATED VALUE OF $1350 TO 1500 WELL IN EXCESS OF THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. THE COMMISSIONERS FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1990 WHICH COVERS THE DATE OF THE SUBJECT EVENT ON FRIDAY APRIL 20 1990 SHOWS NO GIFTS RECEIVED. IN ADDITION TO COMMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE TRIP, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT ALL EXPENSES HAD BEEN PAID BY THE BOND BROKERS, THE COMMISSIONER WAS OBSERVED AT THE EVENT BY NUMEROUS LOCAL OFFICIALS AND RESIDENTS. (Exhibit 1, Complaint dated February 2, 1992) Leslie McDermott did not ask Bill Andrews or Mary McCarty whether she attended the function. He did not contact anyone, including the sponsor of the event, who would likely have personal knowledge of her attendance. Instead, he relied on rumors and indirect reports, all which he knew were based on these tenuous connections: Bill Andrews used the term "we" in bragging about the trip. Mary McCarty frequently attended political events and was politically active. Mary McCarty and Bill Andrews, both Republicans (but not the only Republicans on the city council), often voted alike. Some unnamed persons overheard conversations which made them believe that Bill Andrews and Mary McCarty were on the trip together. Leslie McDermott's explanation that he released the complaint to the press so that an investigation could be conducted is simply not persuasive. He is an educated, articulate and experienced individual. He knew or should have known that public exposure of his complaint would injure the reputation of Ms. McCarty. Despite his own initial misgivings, Mr. McDermott allowed himself to be used by individuals who could only benefit from that injury. His failure, due to hubris or extraordinarily bad judgment, to make a reasonable attempt to check the veracity of the rumors, constitutes the reckless disregard by which malicious intent may be proven. In defending against the complaint and in pursuing relief in this proceeding, Mary McCarty has incurred costs and attorneys fees in the total amount of $12,876.55. Exhibit #4a), b), and c) appropriately itemizes the 50.9 hours and $2696.55 costs incurred. The hourly rate of $200.00 was stipulated as reasonable. Leslie McDermott contests the reasonableness of any time spent and costs incurred after the commission's order finding no probable cause was issued. Based upon the unrefuted testimony of Robert V. Romani, Esquire, an experienced litigator, past-president of the Palm Beach County Bar Association and member of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar; and after considering relevant case law discussed below, I find that the hours and costs both before and after dismissal of the complaint are reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Commission on Ethics issue its final order awarding fees and costs in the total amount $12,876.55 to Mary McCarty from Leslie McDermott. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5168EC The findings of fact proposed by both parties are substantially adopted here, with the exception of the following findings proposed by Leslie McDermott. Paragraph 13. The "reasonable" appearance or belief as to Ms. McCarty's guilt is rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Paragraph 15. The reason Mr. McDermott presents for signing the complaint is rejected as not credible, in the face of his inconsistent action in presenting the complaint to the press. Paragraphs 16-18 are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Kenneth D. Stern, Esquire Post Office Box 3878 Boca Raton, Florida 33427-3878 James K. Green, Esquire One Clearlake Centre 250 South Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 2013, the undersigned entered an Order on Remand requiring Petitioner to submit any documentation, including supporting affidavits, within 20 days of said Order setting forth the amount of attorney’s fees Petitioner seeks in DCA Case No. 1D12-3557. Petitioner filed two Motions for Extension of Time in which to comply with the Order on Remand. The Motions were granted and on June 12, 2013, Petitioner filed Petitioner’s Request for Appellate Attorney’s Fees and Costs with the Division. The Order on Remand required Respondent to file its response to Petitioner’s Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs within 20 days of Petitioner’s filing. To date, Respondent has not filed any response and has not requested an extension of time in which to file a response. The parties were further ordered to state whether or not either party believed that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. Petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing only in the event that the undersigned was inclined to reduce or deny Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees or costs. Accordingly, no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Attorney's Fees and Costs Petitioner/Appellee requests attorney’s fees in the total amount of $47,170. This total includes attorney’s fees in the amount of $42,760 attributable to Proctor Appellate Law, PA, and attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,410 attributable to Avera & Smith, LLP. The hourly rate for Sharon H. Proctor of Proctor Appellate Law, PA, is $400 per hour; the hourly rate for Jennifer C. Biewend of Avera & Smith, LLP, is $350 per hour. Detailed billing records are attached to the attorneys’ affidavits as exhibits to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Ms. Proctor, who was retained to represent Petitioner/Appellee in the appeal of this case, served as primary counsel in all matters pertaining to the appeal and incurred 106.9 attorney hours. Ms. Biewend served as counsel of record in the underlying merits case and as co-counsel of record before the First District Court of Appeal and incurred 12.6 attorney hours on the appeal. Petitioner submitted the affidavit of attorney Paul Donnelly, Esquire, as an expert in support of Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. The undersigned has read Mr. Donnelly’s affidavit and finds that it supports the number of hours expended and hourly rates charged. The undersigned reviewed the affidavits of the attorneys of record and the billing records, and finds Petitioner/Appellee's requests for attorney's fees to be reasonable. Petitioner requests appellate costs in the amount of $764.36. The undersigned reviewed the cost ledger submitted by Petitioner’s counsel. The appellate costs reflect travel expenses of counsel to attend the oral argument. The amount of costs is reasonable.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original Notice of Appeal with the agency Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent is and has been eligible for licensure and licensed as a life insurance agent, a an ordinary life including health insurance agent, as a general lines insurance agent, and as a health insurance agent. On July 25, 1986, Respondent pled guilty and was found guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, a felony. He was sentenced to serve one year and one day in a penal institution and was fined $50. On September 10, 1986, Respondent pled guilty and was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to import marijuana, a felony. He was given a five year sentence to run concurrent with his other sentence, with the requirement that six months be served in a jail-type institution, and with the execution of the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment being suspended. Additionally, Respondent was placed on probation for a period of five years to commence upon his release from confinement, was assessed a fine of $50, and was required to perform 250 hours of community service work during his first year of probation, 200 hours of community service work during his second year of probation, and 100 hours of community service work during his third year of probation. Other charges involving either the sale or possession of machine guns were dismissed. No underlying facts regarding the marijuana conviction were offered in evidence. Respondent and a companion negotiated with federal undercover agents for the sale of approximately 4700 automatic weapons (machine guns). Those discussions ultimately lead into negotiations for the sale of 15 kilos of cocaine. The final agreement was that the first transaction would involve 10 kilos of cocaine. On July 10, 1985, Respondent and two companions sold to the undercover agents 2 kilos of cocaine, Respondent explaining to the undercover agents that there would be a delay in him supplying the additional 8 kilos. The actual sale took place at Respondent's insurance office, as had many of the telephone contacts between Respondent and the federal agents. Respondent and his companions were arrested at Respondent's insurance office immediately following Respondent's sale of the 2 kilos of cocaine to the federal agents. Three firearms were seized from Respondent and his companions at the time of their arrests. No evidence was offered to show that Respondent has completed serving his probation or that his civil rights have been restored. Respondent has been licensed by Petitioner since 975. None of his insurance licenses have been previously revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the factual allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint filed herein, revoking Respondent's licenses, and revoking Respondent's eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent in this state. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH Case No. 88-1374 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, and 4-6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 3 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 7 and 8 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Leslie L. Florez, Esquire Ocean Bank Building, Suite 604 780 N.W. LeJune Road Miami, Florida 33126 Don Dowdell, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters herein, the Respondent, Department of Insurance, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the insurance profession and the licensing of insurance agents in this state. Petitioner, Dale J. Dyer, was licensed as a health insurance agent in this state but his license had been suspended by the Department as the result of a disciplinary action in November, 1991, and was, at the time of the alleged misconduct, in a suspended status. The suspension period for Petitioner's license expired in May, 1992 and he thereafter applied for reinstatement of his license. The Department denied his application for reinstatement in July, 1992 because on or about June 19, 1991, a check for $13,971.00, made payable to Transport Life Insurance Company by Thiel Liukens, as payment for a nursing home policy to be issued, was deposited by Paula Dyer, Petitioner's wife and herself a general agent for Transport, to an agency bank account controlled by Ms. Dyer and upon which Petitioner was an authorized signatory. This check was neither transmitted to the insurance company nor returned to Mr. Liukens, nor was the coverage for which it was issued ever initiated. Petitioner met Mr. Liukens in late 1990 when he tried to sell him a Medicare supplement policy. He was not the one who sold him the policy in issue in June, 1991, however, nor did he either solicit or receive a check from him. In fact, there is no evidence he knew he had taken out this policy or paid by check. He had nothing to do with this policy, check or payment. Petitioner's wife, Paula, owns and operates the Paula A. Dyer & Associates agency. At the time in issue, he claims, he had nothing to do with the agency. He claims he did not help run it, didn't supervise any of the employees, and was neither an officer nor director. However, he was, with his wife, a signatory on the firm's checking account and several other accounts as well. He has drawn funds from the company account, as well as the others, for personal or business expenses and to facilitate the conduct of business in his wife's absence. Mr. Dyer asserts that premium deposits from Dyer and Associates agents were not to be deposited to that account. He did not know if they were, however. In any case, he denies ever consciously disbursing funds belonging to any insurance company from that account. To his knowledge, he never disbursed or took any funds from the Liukens payment to Transport Life Insurance Company nor, during 1991, did he have any relationship with that company. This was verified by Mrs. Dyer. Paula A. Dyer & Associates had netting authority with Transport which authorized it to deposit checks made payable to Transport to the agency account and thereafter remit to Transport the net premium portion due the company, retaining the balance as commission. There was no limitation on how the agency portion was to be used. The agency's checking account to which the Liukens check was deposited was with the Barnett Bank. As was stated above, both Dyers were cosignatories on the agency account because, though Petitioner was neither an officer, stockholder, director, nor employee of the agency, he had loaned his wife the money to open it and she wanted him to be able to get money if she were not available. The agency books were kept by a bookkeeper. The policy in issue here was solicited by Pedro Rodrigues, an agency employee, who received the instant check as a premium payment. The check, dated July 2, 1992, was thereafter deposited in July, 1991 to the agency account. Of the total amount of this check, slightly over $7,000.00 was the agency commission which was available for unrestricted use, including the personal use of Ms. Dyer or the Petitioner. Clearly a check written in July, 1992 could not be deposited in July, 1991, a year before being written. Consequently, it is found that the check was dated in error by the drafter. This is not the only error in dates in this matter, however. Mr. Stewart's July 21, 1992 letter of denial to Petitioner reflects the Liukens check was written on or about June 19, 1991. This is clearly not so. Records of the Barnett Bank for the time in issue reflect an account in the name of Paula A. Dyer & Associates, Inc., (Account No. 1263515600), on which the authorized signatories were Paula A. Dyer or Dale J. Dyer. Another account, in the name of Senior Trust of Florida, Inc., (Account No. 1263288130), showed David B. Judy as President, Paula A. Dyer as Secretary/Treasurer, and Dale J. Dyer as shareholder. All were signatories on this account. A third account, (Account No. 1264759744) was a joint account of Dale J. Dyer and Paula A. Dyer. The Liukens check was deposited to the Paula A. Dyer & Associates account and, after endorsement by Mrs. Dyer, cleared. Thereafter, numerous checks were written on that account. During the period June 28, 1991 to July 28, 1991, 11 deposits, totalling almost $66,500.00 were made to it and at the end of the period, the account had a balance of slightly over $21,000.00. From July to August, 1991, 14 deposits to the account totalled in excess of $65,600.00 and the ending balance for the period was $15,561.07. From August 30 to September 30, 1991, ten deposits totalled $18,590.29 and the ending balance for the period was $2,206.97, Among the checks written on the company account during the period were: $10,000 to Paula A. Dyer, deposited to the joint personal account. $8,000 to Senior Trust. $700 to Dale J. Dyer. $12,000 by Dale Dyer to Senior Trust. $945 by Dale Dyer to Willis Kelsey. $2,000 by Dale Dyer to Princess Casino (resort). $1,475 by Paula Dyer to Paula Dyer and deposited to the joint personal account. $600 by Paula Dyer to Senior Trust $2,000 by Paula Dyer to the joint personal account. $1,600 by Paula Dyer to Paula Dyer and deposited to joint personal account. In August, 1991, Transport Life Insurance Company was contacted by an attorney for Mr. Liukens about the check he had written to it for an insurance policy. When the company responded it had no knowledge of the check and had received no funds on his behalf, it was sent a copy of the check endorsed by Ms. Dyer and negotiated by her. A company representative then contacted Ms. Dyer about the check she had received. She acknowledged she had deposited it to her agency account and submitted a check for $971.00 in partial restitution. None of the balance has ever been repaid by Ms. Dyer, the agency, or anyone else, and in September, 1991, Transport Life terminated its agency agreement with Paula A. Dyer & Associates, Inc. It also repaid Mr. Liukens in full. According to Transport Life's representative, Mr. Shellhase, the company has no indication Petitioner had anything to do with this transaction nor any information he conspired with anyone to defraud Transport or Mr. Liukens. By Final Order dated May 3, 1990, the Florida Insurance Commissioner took disciplinary action against Petitioner's license as an insurance agent in Florida for several violations of Section 626.11, Florida Statutes, and several other violations of Section 626.9541, Florida Statutes. The specific violations found were not established at the instant hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that Petitioner's application for reinstatement of his health license be approved. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 1st day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-5094 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Petitioner's counsel's proposed findings of fact were not specifically numbered. However, for the purposes of this Recommended Order they will be considered as numbered starting with the third paragraph on page 2 of the Proposed Recommended Order and continuing through the fifth paragraph on page 4. 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence not proven. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. However, evidence was introduced that during the period in question, Petitioner wrote checks totalling $14,945.00, a sum exceeding the amount represented by the Liukens check. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. (misnumbered 11 in PFOF). Accepted and incorporated herein. (misnumbered 12 in PFOF). Accepted and incorporated herein. (misnumbered 13 in PFOF). Accepted that the accounts were closed as indicated, but there is no evidence as to what was done with the funds therein. (misnumbered 14 in PFOF). Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Maloney, Esquire 5335 66th Street N., Suite 4 St. Petersburg, Florida 33709 James A. Bossart, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
