The Issue Did Respondent, Randy Scott, willfully violate section 106.07(2)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2018)1, by filing an incomplete campaign financial report 1 All citations to Florida Statutes are to the 2018 codification unless otherwise indicated. and failing to file an addendum completing the report within seven days after receiving notice that the report was incomplete?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Scott ran for election to Seat 4 of the governing board for the Lee Memorial Health System. The election for the seat was to be held during the November 6, 2018, general election, not during the August 28, 2018, primary election. The Lee County Supervisor of Elections (Supervisor) oversees and conducts elections. Candidates running for election in Lee County submit their initial paperwork, qualifying paperwork, and electronic financial reports to the Supervisor's filing officer. Cheryl Futch has been the Supervisor's filing officer for six years. Tammy Lipa assists Ms. Futch. On June 20, 2018, Mr. Scott filed to run for Seat 4. On June 28, 2018, Mr. Scott filed an Active Candidate Acknowledgement designating himself as the campaign treasurer. After that filing, Mr. Scott could accept campaign contributions and make campaign expenditures. He was also required by section 106.07(1) to file regular reports of contributions and expenditures. Mr. Scott opened a campaign bank account with SunTrust Bank with a $160.00 cash contribution. He reported the contribution on his Campaign Treasurer's Report Summary for the period June 23 to July 6, 2018, as a loan from himself. For the period August 4 through August 10, 2018, Mr. Scott filed a Waiver of Report with a notification of no activity during the reporting period. On August 10, 2018, he made a withdrawal from his campaign account at an ATM. The records do not show what time of day he made the withdrawal. This case does not involve a charge related to the August 10, 2018, report. Mr. Scott subsequently filed his campaign treasurer's report for August 11 to August 23, 2018. On that report, Mr. Scott reported an expenditure as a payment to himself of $140.00 on August 11, 2018. He identified the purpose of the expenditure as "website." The $140.00 expenditure appears in Block 7 of the form titled "Expenditures This Report" and on an attached itemized expenditure form. Block 8 of the summary form, titled "Other Distributions" does not contain any amounts. In Block 9, titled "Expenditure Type," the letters "RM" appear. (Comm. Ex. F) The evidence does not prove what those letters represent or who placed them there. Ms. Futch accepted the report conditionally. At the hearing, Commission counsel asked Ms. Futch, "Why was Mr. Scott's original 2018 P7 report incorrect or incomplete?" She replied, "He indicated a reimbursement without a distribution in his expenditures." (Tr. P. 118) The record does not reveal why Ms. Futch concluded that Mr. Scott had indicated a reimbursement. The record is clear that Ms. Futch disagreed with Mr. Scott's characterization of the expenditure and thought that it was incorrect. On August 27, 2018, at 8:04 a.m., Ms. Futch sent Mr. Scott an email stating: "Good morning. Your report has the following errors therefore you will be required to amend this report." An image of a campaign treasurer's report, in a different form than the report filed by Mr. Scott was beneath the text. The words "reimbursements must have a distribution recorded" are enclosed in a text box and an arrow points toward the word "Reimbursements" in another box appearing directly below the words "Exp. Type." The email does not state that Mr. Scott's report is incomplete. Mr. Scott called and spoke to Ms. Futch on August 27, 2018. He advised her that he did not agree with her and did not want to identify the $140.00 expenditure as a reimbursement. At 2:20 p.m., Ms. Futch sent Mr. Scott another email. It stated, "Your amended report has the following errors and therefore will be rejected." It does not state that the report is incomplete. An August 27, 2018, email from Ms. Futch stated, "Mr. Scott your report is still incorrect, please make the proper corrections and resubmit." It does not state that the report is incomplete. On August 28, 2018, Ms. Futch emailed Mr. Scott telling him she noticed he was having difficulty filing an amended report using the Supervisor's online filing system. She noted he had attempted to file five amended reports. She adds, "In addition, the amendment you are attempting is still incorrect. If you would like to make an appointment after the election, I would be glad to walk you through deleting the extra reports and show you how to correct your P7." The email does not state that Mr. Scott's report is incomplete. The disagreement between Mr. Scott and Ms. Futch about how to categorize the $140.00 continued. During their communications, Mr. Scott provided Ms. Futch differing theories about how the expenditure should be classified and why. Eventually the Supervisor issued a "Notification of Incomplete Report Filing," received by Mr. Scott on September 17, 2018. The notification states: The Lee County Supervisor of Elections office has determined that one or more campaign reports are incomplete for the following reasons. The P7 report needs to be amended: expenditure type should be Monetary (not reimbursement). Eventually, Ms. Futch executed and filed a Complaint against Mr. Scott with the Commission. More emails between Mr. Scott, Ms. Futch, and Ms. Lipa followed. On October 9, 2018, Ms. Futch sent an email to Mr. Scott stating: Good Afternoon Mr. Scott, Your P7 and previously filed amendments to that report are incorrect and the explanations why have been relayed to you through multiple emails. Our office can not force you to file your report properly we are just under the obligation to report it when you don't. The email does not state that Mr. Scott's report is incomplete. Mr. Scott's response on October 9, 2018, ended: Since you are asking me to fill out a state form contrary to the facts I can not and will not honor your request. Further your rejection is outside the ministerial duties of your job and find that action unbecoming a public official. [sic] At any time Tommy Doyle [the Supervisor] has the ability to pull back the complaint and based on these facts and the law that is exactly what he should order you to do. For now no further communication is needed on the P7 filing. Mr. Scott disagreed repeatedly, vigorously, and contentiously with Ms. Futch about how to characterize the $140.00. In Ms. Futch's view, Mr. Scott repeatedly characterized the expenditure incorrectly on his report and amended reports. The reports were not incomplete.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Ms. Spence-Jones committed the offenses set forth in the Order of Probable Cause, filed September 1, 2006, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact FEC received a sworn complaint against Ms. Spence-Jones from Mr. Dunn on or about January 20, 2006. Mr. Dunn alleged the following in his sworn complaint: Michelle Spence-Jones violated F.S. 104.271 with false and malicious charges against and about me on November 26, 27, 28, & 29th [sic] with thousands of campaign literature distributed to residents in the City of Miami, District 5. Along with a radio commercial with slander on radio stations . . . in Miami on November 29th election day by her campaign manager/advisor . . . The Michelle Spence-Jones campaign paid for individuals to vote for Michelle Spence-Jones $50 per vote! . . . F.S. 104.061. The City of Miami, Manager . . . violated F.S. 104.31 as documented in the Miami New Times article attached. Affidavits, campaign literature, and photograph were attached to the sworn complaint. Mr. Dunn’s sworn complaint asserted factually specific violations that Ms. Spence-Jones, in her campaign literature that was distributed on dates certain, made false and malicious charges against and about him; that, on election day, radio commercials by her campaign manager/advisor contained slander; that her campaign paid individuals to vote for her; and that the City of Miami’s Manager violated a specified statutory provision as documented in a news article, attached to his sworn complaint. Further, his sworn complaint cited statutorily specific violations for the factually specific violations— Sections 104.271, 104.061, and 104.31, Florida Statutes. An investigator with FEC investigated Mr. Dunn’s sworn complaint. After the investigation, a Staff Recommendation was prepared. The Staff Recommendation was submitted to FEC. The Staff Recommendation recommended that probable cause be found for the following: two counts for violating Sections 106.12(3), Florida Statutes; three counts for violating Section 106.143(1)(a), Florida Statutes; two counts for violating Section 106.1439(1), Florida Statutes; and one count for violating Section 106.19(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Further, the Staff Recommendation recommended that no probable cause be found for the following: violating Sections 104.061(2),104.271(2), and 106.15(3), Florida Statutes. On September 1, 2006, FEC filed an Order of Probable Cause finding probable cause to charge Ms. Spence-Jones with the following: Count 1: On or about November 28, 2005, [she] violated Section 106.12(3), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a person from spending petty cash on unauthorized items, when [she] spent $22,910 to pay campaign workers with cash. Count 2: On or about November 28, 2005, [she] violated Section 106.12(3), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a person from spending petty cash on unauthorized items, when [she] spent $1,090.75 cash for food and other supplies to several vendors. Count 3: Between November 23 and November 29, 2005, [she] violated Section 106.143(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by failing to mark prominently the political advertisement with the correct disclaimer, when she published the ad “Will a man rob God?” on the radio without the proper disclaimer. Count 4: Between November 23 and November 29, 2005, [she] violated Section 106.143(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by failing to mark prominently the political advertisement with the correct disclaimer, when she published the ad “Michelle Spence-Jones is a strong black woman...” on the radio without the proper disclaimer. Count 5: On or about November 26, 2005, [she] violated Section 106.143(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by failing to mark prominently the political advertisement with the correct disclaimer, when she published the flyer “Don’t Gamble on Rev. Richard Dunn” without the proper disclaimer. (Exhibit 15 attached to Report of Investigation). Count 6: Between November 23 and November 29, 2005, [she] violated Section 106.1439(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to mark prominently the electioneering communication with the correct disclaimer, when she published the ad stating, “... Again, I’m Michelle Spence- Jones, candidate for City of Miami Commission District Five. Happy Thanksgiving. May God continue to bless you and keep you well...” without any disclaimer. Count 7: Between November 23 and November 29, 2005, [she] violated Section 106.1439(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to mark prominently the electioneering communication with the correct disclaimer, when she published the ad stating, “...I’m Michelle Spence-Jones, candidate for City of Miami Commission District Five. As we recover from this year’s hurricane season, we were encouraged by the kindness of others who have given to their neighbors in their time of need...” without any disclaimer. Count 8: On or about November 28, 2005, [she] violated Section 106.19(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by making or authorizing an expenditure prohibited by Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, when [she] authorized her campaign treasurer to spend $24,000 to pay campaign workers and to purchase food with cash and subsequently ratified those cash expenditures by signing the 2005 termination report. Further, the Order of Probable Cause found no probable cause to charge Ms. Spence-Jones with the following: Section 104.061(2), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a person from giving or promising anything of value to a person intending to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his vote; Section 104.271(2), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a candidate from making false and defamatory factual statements with malice about an opposing candidate; and Section 106.15(3), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a candidate from using the services or any municipal officer or employee during working hours for furthering her candidacy for nomination or election to public office. Ms. Spence-Jones disputed the Order of Probable Cause and requested a hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. On January 16, 2007, Ms. Spence-Jones filed a Motion to Dismiss Proceeding for Lack of Jurisdiction or for Summary Final Order, together with one exhibit. On January 24, 2007, FEC filed a Response in Opposition, together with five exhibits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order dismissing the Order of Probable Cause, Counts one through eight, for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Mr. Lamb, violated Subsection 106.07(1), Florida Statutes (2008), on two occasions.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is the state agency responsible for enforcing the campaign laws of the state. Mr. Lamb was served requests for admissions pursuant to Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. He did not timely respond to the Commission's requests for admissions. In fact, at the time the Second Amended Motion for Summary Final Order was filed, Mr. Lamb still had not responded. It is found that Mr. Lamb is not going to respond. The effect of this failure is to cause the matter elucidated in the following paragraphs to become the facts of this case. On or about August 23, 2007, Florida Homestead Fair Tax.com PAC of Florida Committee (Committee) filed its Statement of Organization of Political Committee. On August 23, 2007, the Committee filed its Florida Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Political Committees and Electioneering Communication Organizations with the Division of Elections designating Kenneth E. Lamb as its chairman and treasurer. On August 23, 2007, the Committee filed its Registered Agent Statement of Appointment with the Division of Elections designating Kenneth E. Lamb as its registered agent. Mr. Lamb received a letter dated August 28, 2007, from Kristi Reid Bronson acknowledging receipt of the statement of Organization and Appointment of Campaign Treasurer for Florida Homestead Fair Tax.com PAC of Florida. Mr. Lamb received a letter dated January 11, 2008, from Ms. Bronson notifying him that he failed to file the Committee's 2007 Q4 Campaign Treasurer's Report due on January 10, 2008. Mr. Lamb received a letter dated January 18, 2008, from Ms. Bronson notifying him that he failed to file the Committee's 2007 Q4 Campaign Treasurer's Report due on January 10, 2008. Mr. Lamb received a letter dated July 11, 2008, from Ms. Bronson notifying him that he failed to file the Committee's 2007 Q4 Campaign Treasurer's Report due on January 10, 2008. Mr. Lamb received a letter dated April 11, 2008, from Ms. Bronson notifying him that he failed to file the Committee's 2008 Q1 Campaign Treasurer's Report due on April 10, 2008. Mr. Lamb received a letter dated April 25, 2008, from Ms. Bronson notifying him that he failed to file the Committee's 2008 Q1 Campaign Treasurer's Report due on April 10, 2008. Mr. Lamb received a letter dated July 11, 2008, from Ms. Bronson notifying him that he failed to file the Committee's 2008 Q1 Campaign Treasurer's Report due on April 10, 2008. Mr. Lamb's failure to file the Committee's 2007 Q4 Campaign Treasurer's Reports was willful. Mr. Lamb's failure to file the Committee's 2008 Q1 Campaign Treasurer's Reports was willful. As of May 18, 2009, Mr. Lamb has not filed the Committee's 2007 Q4 Report. As of May 18, 2009, Mr. Lamb has not filed the Committee's 2008 Q1 Report. Mr. Lamb's willful failure to file the Committee's 2007 Q4 Campaign Treasurer's Report is a violation of Subsection 106.07(1), Florida Statutes. Mr. Lamb's willful failure to file the Committee's 2008 Q1 Campaign Treasurer's Report is a violation of Subsection 106.07(1), Florida Statutes.
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.
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.
The Issue Whether petitioner should revoke respondent's teaching certificate or take other disciplinary action for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent David Mario Hernandez currently holds teacher's certificate No. 627596 authorizing him to teach photography. As an employee of the Leon County School Board, he taught photography at Lively Vo-Tech Center during the school year 1988-89, but his contract was not renewed; and he has not taught since, as far as the evidence shows. Incomplete Application Granted On January 20, 1988, he executed an application for teacher's certificate, certifying before a notary public that "all information pertaining to this application is true, correct and complete." Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1. On the application, submitted to petitioner on February 11, 1988, respondent checked a box next to the word "YES," in response to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Id. Immediately after this question, the form instructed applicants, "If yes, you must give complete details for each charge," id., and set out four columns headed "Where Arrested" "Date(s)," "Nature of Charge(s)" and "Disposition(s)." Id. In the appropriate columns, respondent wrote, "Tallahassee Aug 85 Obs. Phone Calls (2nd misd.) Jud. (guilty) probation (satisfactory completion)." Id. Respondent made no disclosure on his application with regard to State of Florida v. David Hernandez, No. 81-MM-2153 (Fla. Leon Cty.; May 15, 1981) or with regard to State of Florida v. David Mario Hernandez, No. 5999 (Fla. 2d Cir.; June 16, 1970). After respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in the former case, to an information charging "a scheme constituting a systematic, ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud more than one person," Petitioner's Exhibit Number 2, Judge McClamma placed him on six months' probation. The case arose out of respondent's failure to deliver promised photographs. In the latter case, respondent pleaded guilty to four felony counts of "[f]orgery & [u]ttering [checks]." Judge McCord sentenced him to three months in jail, concurrently on each of the first two counts, followed by four years' probation, currently on counts three and four. Even though petitioner's personnel learned of his prior convictions and willful untruthfulness in filling out his application, petitioner granted the application and issued a teacher's certificate to respondent on December 22, 1988. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Mr. Hernandez told petitioner's Katherine Birdsong that he had not listed his first felony convictions and the scheme to defraud charges because he was "embarrassed." T.35. He classified his two more recent convictions as "basically a domestic dispute." Not asked specifically about witnesses or other charges, he did not disclose that the state had listed three women (two ex-wives and a former girlfriend) as witnesses in the obscene telephone call prosecutions; or that a policeman had accused him on October 23, 1987, of making still other obscene telephone calls. Allegations concerning obscene telephone calls were the occasion for respondent's arrest in early 1989. After defense counsel deposed the state's witnesses, criminal charges were dropped; but the same allegation eventually led to the present proceedings. False Application While working as a photographer at Florida State University, a position he had held since September of 1985, respondent made application to the Leon County School Board for employment as a photography instructor. On an application form dated December 17, 1987, in answer to the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony or first degree misdemeanor?" he checked a box next to the word "No." Petitioner's Exhibit Number 4. Based on the falsity of this answer "and the allegations . . . regarding the obscene phone calls and his criminal record . . . Respondent has lost effectiveness," (T.198) or so "believe[s]" id. David D. Giordano, Leon County Schools' Director of Personnel Services, who testified the Leon School District would not re"employ respondent.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, recommended that petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3662 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, the first sentence of No. 18, Nos. 27, 28, the last sentence of No. 30, No. 32, the last clause of the last sentence of No. 33, Nos. 34, 36 and 37 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 4, the application was submitted some time after it was executed. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17, since petitioner did not allege that respondent obtained his license fraudulently, the substance of these conversations, which took place before licensure, is immaterial. The form itself indicated obscene phone calls, not a one-time incident. Respondent was not asked if a policeman had accused him of anything. With respect to the second clause of the second sentence of petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 18, and proposed findings of fact Nos. 19 through 26, 29, the first sentence of No. 30, No. 31 the first sentence and first clause of the second sentence of No. 33 and No. 35, the evidence in support consisted of hearsay inadmissible over objection in civil proceedings, which cannot form the basis for findings of fact, under Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). E.G., Johnson v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 546 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Harris v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 495 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 38, the statutory standard is "effectiveness as an employee of the school board." With respect to the first sentence of petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 39, respondent's reputation for truth and integrity is a subordinate matter; whether a fellow photographer thinks he is a thief was not put in issue by the pleadings. COPIES FURNISHED: David Hernandez 1508 Viscount Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32302 Carolyn LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks & LeBoeuf 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Grant Maloy, willfully violated Subsection 106.143(4)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Grant Maloy, is a Seminole County Commissioner. In September 2000, as an incumbent Republican, he won the Republican primary for his commission district which, in Seminole County, is tantamount to election. In November 2000, he was reelected in the general election. In the same September 2000, primary election, Bob West ("West") was the top vote-getter in a three-way primary for Commission District 5 which included incumbent Commissioner Daryl McLain, who finished second. West did not have a majority of the votes; consequently, he and Daryl McLain were in an October second primary. West sought Petitioner's endorsement and, as a result, Petitioner authored a letter endorsing West over the incumbent Commissioner Daryl McLain, seeking campaign contributions for West. Petitioner's endorsement letter stated, in part, "Enclosed is a letter from Bob [West] and a return envelope for your contribution." The endorsement letter was typed by Petitioner's wife, Althea Maloy, on a personal computer. She created a letterhead similar to the Maloy campaign letterhead and, with the permission of Petitioner, signed "Grant" to the endorsement letter. The endorsement letter also contained the following political disclaimer: "PD POL ADV PAID FOR AND APPROVED BY THE GRANT MALOY CAMPAIGN FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY COMMISSION DIST 1, REPUBLICAN." West paid for all paper, envelopes and postage for the endorsement letter mailing. Althea Maloy and other campaign volunteers "stuffed" the endorsement letter and an undated letter from West into the envelopes provided by West. Petitioner's wife, Althea Maloy, was acting as a West campaign volunteer as it relates to her activities regarding the endorsement letter. The undated letter sent by West stated, in part, " . . . Commissioner Grant Maloy would like to join together with me to ask for your financial support in my bid to defeat Daryl McLain." This letter also contained the following political disclaimer: "Pd. pol. adv. approved by Bob West, Paid for by the campaign account of Bob West for County Commissioner, Dist 5, Rep." During the investigation, Respondent requested the envelope in which the endorsement letter and West's undated letter were mailed. The complainant faxed the envelope to the Respondent. The facsimile of the envelope received by Respondent did not contain a political disclaimer. West is a computer software consultant. He testified that every envelope used in his campaign was programmed to have an appropriate political disclaimer on its face; he testified that the envelope used for the endorsement mailing was a oversized envelope. He opined that the facsimile copy of the envelope received by Respondent was too large for the fax machine and, therefore, the political disclaimer did not copy or was turned under to allow transmission and, as a result, was not copied. This testimony is accepted as credible. Mrs. Phyllis Hampton, General Counsel, Florida Elections Commission, was qualified as an expert witness on Florida elections law. Mrs. Hampton opined that Subsection 106.143(4)(a), Florida Statutes, would be satisfied if either the envelope in which the letters were sent contained the appropriate political disclaimer or the September 11, 2000, endorsement letter was sent with another letter which contained the appropriate political disclaimer. Her testimony is accepted as credible. Other than his support, as reflected in the endorsement letter, Petitioner contributed nothing of value to the West campaign. On April 28, 1999, Petitioner signed a Statement Of Candidate indicating that he had received, read, and understood Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. Petitioner knew his endorsement letter would be mailed with a West letter as reflected by the reference to the West letter in the endorsement letter and, therefore, believed that the sponsor of the letter would be clear to the recipient. Petitioner believed that West would ensure compliance with in Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, and had a "good faith" belief that Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, had been complied with.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Grant Maloy, did not violate Subsection 106.143(4)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged and dismissing the Order of Probable Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Frederick Nelson, Esquire The Law Offices of Frederick H. Nelson 1110 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1002 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Rushing, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has alleged that the Respondent in Administering grants under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) failed to comply with the applicable rules and regulations. As a result thereof, a total of $6,503 was spent in violation of applicable rules and regulations. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Hearing Officer as set out in the Recommended Order are hereby accepted and adopted, except that the undersigned rejects the hearing officer's conclusion of law at paragraph two on page five of the recommended order. The undersigned concludes that according to applicable law the amount of $4,824 charged to the contract on account of the ineligible participant is not an allowable expenditure, and that Respondent is liable for the payment of that sum. It is further found that Respondent did not present adequate evidence to refute the findings of its failure to comply with applicable regulations. WHEREFORE, it is Ordered: That Respondent immediately repay $6,503 spent in violation of applicable regulations. In the event either party disagrees with this determination, an appeal can be filed with Mr. Lawrence Weatherford, Regional Administrator, United States Department of Labor, 1371 Peachtree street, N.W., Room 405, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. The provisions pertaining to the appeal process, 20 C.F.R. 676.88 et. seq., are attached hereto. Dated this 27th day of, 1982 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES R. RUSSELL, Director Division of Employment and Training COPIES FURNISHED: Frances Jackson Box 70 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Chad Motes Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry Warren Internal Audit Division of Employment and Training Atkins Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald R. Alexander Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY AMENDED FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-882 SUWANNEE RIVER ECONOMIC COUNCIL, INC. Respondent. /
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent repay $1,654 in questioned costs under Contract No. 80ET-86-03-71-17-021. The questioned costs pertaining to Contract No. 79MP- 2U-03-44-17 should be allowed. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 25th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Chad J. Motes, Esquire Suite 131-Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frances Jackson Post Office Box 70 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Wallace E. Orr, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkley Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-882 SUWANNEE RIVER ECONOMIC COUNCIL, INC. Respondent. /
