The Issue The issue is whether Respondent willfully violated Section 106.07(5), Florida Statutes (2004), by certifying to the correctness of five campaign treasurer's reports (CTRs), which did not disclose payments that Respondent's media consultant made to two television stations on Respondent's behalf.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has jurisdiction to investigate and enforce Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. Respondent was an unsuccessful candidate for the Walton County Commission in 2004. Respondent was defeated in the August 31, 2004, primary election. Respondent is not an experienced politician. The 2004 campaign was his first and only attempt to run for public office. Respondent's campaign was entirely self-funded. Guy Davidson was the political consultant for Respondent's opponent. On or about August 22, 2004, Mr. Davidson filed a sworn complaint with Petitioner against Respondent. The complaint alleged that Respondent was running television ads (requiring cash in advance) although no expenditures to stations for airtime appeared on Respondent's CTRs. On March 10, 2004, Respondent signed a Statement of Candidate form as required by Section 106.023, Florida Statutes (2003). The statement indicates that Respondent had received, read, and understood the requirements of Chapter 106, Florida Statute (2003). On March 10, 2004, Respondent filed his Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Candidates. Respondent appointed his personal and business bookkeeper, Iris Schipper, to serve as his campaign treasurer. Respondent had confidence in Ms. Schipper, who had accounting experience, but no experience with political campaigns. On July 15, 2004, Respondent appointed himself as his deputy campaign treasurer. In the spring of 2004, Respondent hired Steven Petermann, the owner of Petermann Corporation, as his campaign media consultant for the purpose of creating, producing, distributing and disseminating political advertisements for Respondent's campaign. Mr. Petermann was in charge of all media aspects concerning Respondent's campaign. Respondent had known Mr. Petermann for years. Prior to the 2004 campaign, Respondent employed Mr. Petermann for advertising services concerning business ventures unrelated to Respondent's campaign. Mr. Petermann was experienced in providing campaign advertising for local political races. He had done so for approximately 30 campaigns. Mr. Petermann provided Respondent with advertising services which were similar to the services that Mr. Petermann provided to other political candidates. Respondent never specified to Mr. Petermann what advertising to buy or how much to spend. Respondent and Mr. Petermann had no specific payment or billing terms in mind when Mr. Petermann agreed to act as Respondent's media consultant or at anytime during the campaign. Generally, Mr. Petermann did not expect his political clients to pay him until the end of their campaigns. However, Respondent attempted to pay Mr. Petermann in full in accordance with the balance due on Petermann Corporation statements or in advance on those occasions when Respondent knew about projected campaign costs. In other words, Respondent tried to make sure that Mr. Petermann was paid in advance or promptly reimbursed for campaign expenses. In this regard, Respondent acted consistently with his prior private business relationship with Mr. Petermann. With regard to Respondent's campaign advertising budget, Respondent told Mr. Petermann to do "whatever it took to run a successful campaign." Respondent trusted Mr. Petermann's professional judgment as to how much advertising was needed and in which mediums the advertising was to run. Respondent knew Mr. Petermann was making expenditures on behalf of the campaign. Respondent was aware of each and every expenditure his campaign made to Mr. Petermann because he was very involved in his campaign finances. Mr. Petermann wrote the following checks on his business account directly to WJHG-TV and WBBM-TV for advertising time on behalf of Respondent's campaign: Date of Check Check Number Payee Television Station Amount of Petermann Expenditure for Perry 06-11-04 025246 WMBB-TV $442.00 06-14-04 025247 WJHG-TV $450.50 06-29-04 025294 WJHG-TV $450.50 06-29-04 025297 WMBB-TV $446.25 07-26-04 025405 WJHG-TV $743.75 07-26-04 025406 WMBB-TV $956.25 08-12-04 025491 WJHG-TV $743.75 08-12-04 025492 WMBB-TV $956.25 08-30-04 025548 WJHG-TV $331.50 Respondent made no expenditures from his campaign account directly to a television station. Additionally, no expenditures to television stations were listed on Respondent's CTRs. Mr. Petermann purchased all of the television airtime on behalf of Respondent's campaign. Mr. Petermann periodically sent Respondent statements for campaign services and expenses. The statements did not itemize each expenditure for television airtime. The statements did list television advertising and various other advertising purchases in general. Respondent did not list the checks that Mr. Petermann paid directly to WJHG-TV and WMBB-TY for Respondent's television airtime on any CTR during his 2004 campaign. A member of the public could not look at Respondent's CTRs and determine the following: (a) which television stations Respondent paid for campaign advertising; (b) how much Respondent paid for television advertising; and (c) how much Respondent paid for Mr. Petermann's professional services. During the course of the campaign, Respondent reported making several payments to Petermann Advertising or Petermann Corporation. Respondent listed each payment made to Mr. Petermann on his CTRs. Respondent did not break down the expenditures and itemize the components of the expenditures on his CRTs, including how much was paid to Mr. Petermann for his professional services. In a letter dated June 24, 2004, Mr. Beasley, Walton County Supervisor of Elections, advised all candidates, including Respondent, to read an enclosed memorandum from Phyllis Hampton, Chief of the Bureau of Election Records for the Department of State, Division of Elections. Mr. Beasley requested all candidates to sign an enclosed statement and return the statement to his office in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope. Ms. Hampton's memorandum was dated June 17, 2004. It specifically referred to "2004 Campaign Finance Legislative Changes." The memorandum discussed the disclaimer that candidates were required to use on campaign advertising effective July 1, 2004. The last two paragraphs of Ms. Hampton's memorandum stated as follows: Enclosed is a copy of Chapter Law 2004- 252 (CS/SB 2346 &516). Section 5 of this law amends Section 106.143, Florida Statutes. We are also enclosing a handout that contains Section 106.143, Florida Statutes, as amended, as well as examples of political disclaimers under the new law. There are other changes in this law that affect campaign financing for candidates and a summary of those changes is enclosed. The Division of Elections of the Department of State has posted all enacted legislation that affect The Florida Election Code, Chapters 97-106, Florida Statutes, on its web site. That web site is http://election.dos.state. fl.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at 850-245-6240. When Mr. Beasley received Ms. Hampton's memorandum, it included a copy of Public Law 2004-252. Mr. Beasley did not duplicate the law when he sent Ms. Hampton's memorandum to candidates in Walton County. If any candidate had requested a copy of the new law, Mr. Beasley would have obtained a copy for the candidate or referred the candidate to the Internet. Respondent received Ms. Hampton's memorandum regarding the changes in the law, but he did not read it over in detail. Instead, Respondent continued to direct his attention to campaign issues. There is no evidence that Respondent took any affirmative steps to inquire which sections of the law were amended in addition to the requirements for political disclaimers. Respondent did not go to the Department of State, Division of Elections' website to review the law or a copy of the updated candidate's handbook. All Respondent did was to send a copy of the letter to Mr. Petermann. Respondent did not give Ms. Schipper a copy of Ms. Hampton's June 17, 2004, memorandum during the campaign. Ms. Schipper received the memorandum and filed it in one of Respondent's campaign files after the campaign ended. Respondent wrote a personal check dated June 30, 2004, made payable to Peterman Corp. in the amount of $7,500. The check does not state its purpose. Mr. Petermann deposited this check in his business account on July 1, 2004. Respondent wrote the June 30, 2004, personal check to Petermann Corp. because he was in Mr. Petermann's office and wanted to make sure Mr. Petermann was paid promptly for his services and expenses on Respondent's behalf. On June 30, 2004, Respondent had not yet appointed himself as his deputy campaign treasurer and did not have a campaign check signed by Ms. Schipper. Respondent's Q2 CTR, which covered the period from April 1, 2004, to June 30, 2004, was due to be filed on July 12, 2004. The report listed no expenditure to Mr. Petermann. The report did not disclose that Mr. Petermann had spent $1,789.25 on behalf of Respondent's campaign to pay for advertisements on two television stations during the reporting period. On July 24, 2004, Respondent, as deputy campaign treasurer, wrote a check on his campaign account. The check was payable to Petermann Advertising in the amount of $10,000. The check did not state its purpose. On August 5, 2004, Ms. Schipper wrote a check on Respondent's campaign account. The check was payable to Respondent in the amount of $7,500. The purpose of the check was to reimburse Respondent for the amount Respondent paid to Mr. Petermann out of Respondent's personal account on June 30, 2004. On August 6, 2004, Ms. Schipper wrote a check on Respondent's campaign account. The check was payable to Petermann Advertising in the amount of $10,000. The check states that its purpose was advertising. Respondent's F2 CRT, which covered the period from July 24, 2004, through August 6, 2004, was due to be filed on August 13, 2004. The F2 CRT listed the following payments as expenditures: (a) a check dated July 24, 2004, to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $10,000; (b) a check dated August 5, 2004, to Petermann Advertising/mlp (Respondent's initials) for campaign advertising in the amount of $7,500; and (c) a check dated August 6, 2004, to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $10,000. The August 5, 2004, check, listed as payable to Petermann Advertising/mlp, was a reimbursement to Respondent for the personal check he wrote on June 30, 2004. Respondent's F2 CTR did not disclose that Mr. Petermann spent $1,700 on behalf of Respondent's campaign to pay for advertisements on two television stations during the reporting period. Ms. Schipper contacted someone in Mr. Beasley's office in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida, by telephone on August 13, 2004, before she filed Respondent's F2 CRT. Ms. Schipper inquired about the proper method of reporting the August 5, 2004, payment of campaign funds to reimburse Respondent for his personal check dated June 30, 2004, to Mr. Petermann. During the hearing, Ms. Schipper testified as follows: Okay. I called the -- there was a question about this particular expense because the nature of the check that I just explained because I wasn't sure. I knew I had to report it, but I wasn't sure how I should report it. So I called the supervisor of elections office and I told them what had happened, including the fact that Lee Perry was totally self-funding his campaign and that he had a paid check personally that we need to record as an expenditure on the campaign account and I told her that I had to -- to fund the campaign account and then pay it back to Lee and it was just like an in and out transaction, but I had to report it, but it was to Petermann Advertising. We had other checks to Petermann Advertising. It was all the campaign advertising. How did I need to do that. After speaking with an unidentified female in Mr. Beasley's office, Ms. Schipper was not comfortable with the answer to her inquiry. Ms. Schipper decided to list the check as payable to Petermann Advertising/mlp. Ms. Schipper did not call anyone else regarding the proper method of reporting the June 30, 2004, check, which reimbursed Respondent for reimbursing Mr. Petermann for advertising services and advertising expenses paid to television stations. On August 20, 2004, Ms. Schipper wrote a campaign check payable to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $15,000. Respondent's F3 CTR, covering the period from August 7, 2004, through August 26, 2004, was due to be filed on August 27, 2004. Respondent's F3 CTR listed one expenditure to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $15,000. Respondent's F3 CTR did not disclose that Mr. Petermann had spent $1,700 on behalf of Respondent's campaign to pay for advertisements on two television stations during the reporting period. On September 10, 2004, Ms. Schipper wrote a campaign check payable to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $11,422.23. Respondent's G1 CTR, covering the period from August 27, 2004, through September 10, 2004, was due to be filed on September 17, 2004. Respondent's G1 CTR listed a check payable to Petermann Advertising as an expenditure. The check, dated September 10, 2004, was for campaign advertising in the amount of $11,422.23. Respondent's G1 CTR did not disclose that Mr. Petermann spent $331.50 on behalf of Respondent's campaign to pay for advertisements on one television station during the reporting period. On October 19, 2004, Ms. Schipper wrote a campaign check payable to Petermann Advertising for the "Perry Campaign" in the amount of $9,100. After filing Respondent's F3 CTR, Ms. Schipper realized that Mr. Petermann never received the August 20, 2004, campaign check in the amount of $15,000. Therefore, Ms. Schipper cancelled the check and filed an Amended F3 CTR on October 22, 2004. Respondent's Amended F3 CTR indicated that $15,000 was subtracted from Respondent's expenditures. The Amended F3 CTR listed the October 19, 2004, check as an expenditure. The check was payable to Petermann Advertising for campaign advertising in the amount of $9,100. Mr. Beasley has two offices. The main office is located in Defuniak Springs, Florida. The satellite office is located in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Neither office has a written record of inquiries concerning the reporting of expenditures for Respondent's campaign. As a general office practice, Mr. Beasley's staff does not make notes or records of telephone conversation with candidates or other individuals who call regarding campaign issues. Ms. Schipper called Mr. Beasley's office in Santa Rose Beach, Florida, when she had a question about her duties as campaign treasurer. If she could not get an answer to her question, Ms. Schipper called Mr. Beasley's office in Defuniak Springs, Florida. Ms. Schipper's office during the 2004 campaign was in Respondent's residence, which had two telephone lines. During the hearing, Respondent presented telephone records showing seven telephone calls from the residence to Mr. Beasley's main office in Defuniak Springs, Florida, on the following dates: July 1, 2004; July 7, 2004; July 16, 2004; July 17, 2004; August 27, 2004; August 30, 2004; and September 9, 2004. The telephone records do not show any calls made to Mr. Beasley's office in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Ms. Schipper called Mr. Beasley's Santa Rosa Beach office to inquire about reimbursing Respondent for the June 30, 2004, personal payment to Mr. Petermann. However, there is no evidence that Ms. Schipper called either of Mr. Beasley's offices to inquire specifically about the proper method of reporting campaign expenditures, paid directly to Mr. Petermann, part of which included indirect payments or reimbursements for advertising on television stations. Mr. Beasley has no independent recollection of speaking with Ms. Schipper during the campaign. There is no evidence that anyone on Mr. Beasley's staff remembers speaking with Respondent or Ms. Schipper about campaign finance reports during the 2004 campaign. Mr. Beasley's office provided Respondent with a copy of the 2004 Candidate and Campaign Treasurer Handbook (published November 2003)(handbook) and Chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent and Ms. Schipper referred to these resources from time to time during the campaign on an as needed basis. The handbook did not specifically require a candidate to "itemize" expenditures to media consultants. The handbook contains the following statement on the first page: Important Notice The information contained in this publication is intended as a quick reference guide only and is current upon publication. Chapter 97-106, Florida Statutes, the Constitution of the State of Florida, Division of Elections' opinions and rules, Attorney General opinions, county charters, city charters and ordinances, and other sources should be reviewed in their entirety for complete information regarding campaign financing and qualifying. In addition, the following publication produced by the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections should be reviewed for further information regarding candidates and committees: 2004 Federal Qualifying Handbook 2004 Committee and Campaign Treasurer Handbook 2004 Handbook on Filing Campaign Reports 2004 Election Cycle Calendar of Reporting Dates for Candidates, Political Committees and Committees of Continuous Existence 2004 Election Cycle Calendar of Reporting Dates for Political Party Executive Committees. All forms and publications provided by the Division of Elections are available on our web site at http://election.dos.state.fl.us. Please direct any questions to either your county supervisor or elections or the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections at (850) 245-6240. (Emphasis included) Chapter 7 of the handbook states as follows regarding the duties and responsibilities of campaign treasurers: IMPORTANT: No contribution or expenditure, including contributions or expenditures of a candidate or of the candidate's family, shall be directly or indirectly made or received in furtherance of the candidacy of any person for nomination or election to political office in the state except through the duly appointed campaign treasurer of the candidate. (Emphasis included) Chapter 10 of the handbook states as follows regarding campaign expenditures: An expenditure is a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, transfer of funds by a campaign treasurer or deputy campaign treasurer between a primary depository and a separate interest-bearing account or certificate of deposit, or gift of money or anything of value made for the purpose of influencing the results of an election. * * * A candidate shall: 1. Pay all campaign expenditures by a check drawn on the campaign account (except petty cash); (emphasis included) Chapter 14 of the handbook states as follows regarding the filling of campaign reports: Reporting Expenditures Form DS-DE 14, Itemized Expenditures is used to report all expenditures made, regardless of the amount and must contain: Full name an address of each person to whom expenditures have been made along with the amount, date and clear purpose of the expenditure. Name, address and office sought by each candidate on whose behalf such expenditure was made. Full name and address of each person to whom an expenditure for personal services, salary or reimbursed expenses was made along with the amount, date and clear purpose of the expenditure. A candidate or any other individual may be reimbursed for expenses incurred for travel, food and beverage, office supplies, and mementoes expressing gratitude to campaign supporters as provided for in section 106.021(3), F.S. * * * 5. Amount and nature of debts and obligations owed by or to the candidate, which relate to the conduct of any political campaign. (Emphasis included) On July 1, 2004, amendments to Chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2004), became effective, including the addition of Section 106.07(4)(a)13., Florida Statutes (2004), which states as follows: (4)(a) Each report required by this section shall contain: * * * 13. The primary purpose of an expenditure made indirectly through a campaign treasurer for goods and services such as communications media placement or procurement services, campaign signs, insurance, and other expenditures that include multiple components as part of the expenditure. The primary purpose of an expenditure shall be that purpose, including integral and directly related components that comprises 80 percent of such expenditure. After July 1, 2004, the Department of State, Division of Elections, revised and published the 2004 Candidate and Campaign Treasurer Handbook (effective July 2004)(amended handbook). The preface to the amended handbook states as follows: "This publication has been amended in July of 2004 to reflect changes as provided by Chapter Law 2004-252. New language is displayed in red." The notice on the first page of the amended handbook was not revised. Chapter 7 of the amended handbook states as follows regarding the duties and responsibilities of campaign treasurers: IMPORTANT: No contribution or expenditure, including contributions or expenditures of a candidate or of the candidate's family, shall be directly or indirectly made or received in furtherance of the candidacy of any person for nomination or election to political office in the state except through the duly appointed campaign treasurer of the candidate, subject to the following exceptions: * * * Reimbursements to a candidate or any other individual for expenses incurred in connection with the campaign by a check drawn upon the campaign account and reported pursuant to Section 106.07(4), F.S. After July 1, 2004, the full name and address of each person to whom the candidate or other individual made payment for which reimbursement was made by check drawn upon the campaign account shall be reported pursuant to Section 106.07(4), F.S., together with the purpose of such payment; Expenditures made indirectly through a treasurer for goods or services, such as communications media placement or procurement services, campaign signs, insurance or other expenditures that include multiple integral components as part of the expenditure and reported pursuant to Section 106.07(4)(a)13 . . . . (Emphasis included) Chapter 10 of the amended handbook states as follows regarding campaign expenditures: An expenditure is a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, transfer of funds by a campaign treasurer or deputy campaign treasurer between a primary depository and a separate interest-bearing account or certificate of deposit, or gift of money or anything of value made for the purpose of influencing the results of an election or making an electioneering communication. An expenditure for an electioneering communication is made when the earliest of the following occurs:A person executes a contract for applicable goods or services;A person makes payment, in whole or in part, for applicable goods or services ; orThe electioneering communication is publicly disseminated. * * * A candidate or other individual may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with the campaign by a check drawn on the campaign account and reported pursuant to section 106.07(4), F.S. After July 1, 2004, the full name and address of each person to whom the candidate or other individual made payment for which reimbursement was made by check drawn upon the campaign account shall be reported pursuant to Section 106.07(4), F.S., together with the purpose of such payment. * * * A candidate shall: 1. Pay all campaign expenditures by a check drawn on the campaign account (except petty cash); (Emphasis included) Chapter 14 of the amended handbook states as follows regarding the filling of campaign reports: Reporting Expenditures Form DS-DE 14, Itemized Expenditures is used to report all expenditures made, regardless of the amount and must contain: Full name an address of each person to whom expenditures have been made along with the amount, date and clear purpose of the expenditure. Name, address and office sought by each candidate on whose behalf such expenditure was made. Full name and address of each person to whom an expenditure for personal services, salary or reimbursed expenses was made along with the amount, date and clear purpose of the expenditure. A candidate or any other individual may be reimbursed for expenses incurred for travel, food and beverage, office supplies, and mementoes expressing gratitude to campaign supporters as provided for in section 106.021(3), F.S. (Emphasis included) * * * 5. Amount and nature of debts and obligations owed by or to the candidate, which relate to the conduct of any political campaign. * * * 7. The primary purposes of an expenditure made indirectly through a campaign treasurer for goods and services such as communications media placement or procurement services, campaign signs, insurance, and other expenditures that include multiple components as part of the expenditure. The primary purpose of an expenditure shall be that purpose, including integral and directly related components, that comprises 80 percent of such expenditure. (Emphasis included) For the 2004 campaign, reporting forms applicable to candidates did not provide for "itemization" of payments made by media consultants to various component providers of goods and services. In contrast, forms applicable to political parties and committees required and provided a reporting mechanism for itemizing payments made by third party consultants to the providers of the component services. Those forms did not specifically apply to individual candidates. At the time of the hearing, the Department of State, Division of Elections, was in the rulemaking process to develop standards and reporting forms for candidates to use when itemizing component parts of an expenditure made to a campaign consultant or vendor. Respondent and Ms. Schipper never called the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections, to make campaign finance report inquiries. After reviewing the handbook as published in November 2003, Ms. Schipper believed she had a fair understanding of campaign reporting requirements. Ms. Schipper did not review Chapter 106.07(4), Florida Statutes (2004), or the amended handbook. Respondent also reviewed Chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2003), and the handbook as published in November 2003. He did not review Section 106.07(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), but primarily relied on Ms. Schipper to properly report campaign expenditures. All checks written on Respondent's campaign account were reported on Respondent's CTRs. Respondent's CTRs reflect that Respondent's total campaign account receipts equaled his total expenditures. During the hearing, the parties stipulated that Respondent had the ability to pay the maximum fine possible if it was determined that he committed the violations charged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Section 106.07(5), Florida Statutes (2004), as charged in Counts 1-5 of the Order of Probable Cause, dismiss Count 6 of the Order of Probable Cause, and impose a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2006.
Findings Of Fact On January 18, 1984, Ms. Vana Kinchen, Petitioner's inspector, examined Respondent's billboard in question, located somewhat North of 8th Street (Glendale Road) on the northbound side of U.S. Highway 1 in Indian River County, Florida, and discovered that the permit tag which was supposed to be affixed to the billboard was not there. DOT records reflect the permit in force for that billboard at the time was number 3515-10. Ms. Kinchen immediately contacted the Respondent's representative, Mr. Gustinelli, and told him there was a billboard owned by Respondent at that location without a tag. She requested he check it out and get back to her. When he did so the same day, Mr. Gustinelli told her that Respondent's records showed the billboard had been taken down because they had lost the lease on the property where it had been situated. Ms. Kinchen again told him that the billboard was in fact still there and for him to again check and see what was going to be done with it. When Respondent took no action to rectify the situation, Ms. Kinchen wrote a report of violation on this billboard on March 20, 1984, which reflected it was sited 100 feet north of Glendale Road on the northbound side of U.S. 1, and sent it in to her headquarters. On May 14, 19841 she received a notice from DOT headquarters directing her to remove the offending billboard. She immediately contacted Mr. Gustinelli and asked him again to check on the status of the sign. When she again contacted him on May 29, 1984, he again advised her that Respondent's records showed that the sign at the location described by Ms. Kinchen had been taken down previously. On June 18, 1984, Ms. Kinchen was told by Mr. Fred Harper, Petitioner's District Administrator, to give Respondent 30 more days to get the sign down. Upon the expiration of this period, the sign was removed by Ms. Kinchen and a crew from DOT. In early September, 1984, after she had taken the sign down, she discovered that Respondent had erected a new sign within inches of the site of the previous one. When she checked this new sign on October 4, 1984, she discovered that it had no permit tag affixed to it. At the same time, Ms. Kinchen noticed that the sign in question was located 250 feet south of another signboard along the same side of the highway. To get this figure, she measured the distance along the edge of the pavement with a tape-measure. The sign to the north does not face the same way as the sign in issue here, however. Ms. Kinchen admits that prior to the change in the law in July, 1984, the sign in question here, if bearing a proper permit tag, would have been a legal, conforming signboard under the old statute and Respondent could have removed it and replaced it with another as it wished. When Ms. Kinchen wrote the citation for the replacement signboard in October, 1984, she described its location as 25 feet north of 8th Street on the northbound side of U.S. 1 (as opposed to 100 feet north of Glendale Road on the northbound side of U.S. 1). This is different from the location listed on the earlier citation which was given to Mr. Gustinelli. Though Ms. Kinchen insists the original sign which she cut down and its replacement were in the same place, and that the two citations refer to the same sign, the information provided to Respondent was different. There was no explanation by either party as to how close these described locations actually were though there is no doubt the citations do refer to the same sign. This lack of certainty may have been confusing to Respondent and have contributed to its failure to take appropriate corrective action. In fact, Mr. Richard Solamine, Respondent's District Manager, so contends, indicating that when given the first location by Ms. Kinchen, they determined they had no sign at that location and so decided to do nothing about it. This does not, however, excuse their failure to insure that the new sign, which they erected on the site of the old one, had a proper permit tag affixed. The fact remains that they knew it did not, (they applied for a replacement in July, 1984), but did not follow up to insure that the replacement was issued and affixed to the new sign. When the "take down" notice for the sign covered by permit 3515.10 was issued by DOT, that permit was canceled and Respondent has not been billed for it since then in the annual bill DOT sends out. Once the sign is removed, and a certificate to that effect is received from the field, the permit number for that sign is removed from the inventory of the local district and sent to DOT headquarters with the certificate of removal. This effectively cancels the permit and it is no longer billed to the permittee. Even though this was done here, Respondent re-erected the sign. Mr. Harper admits that under the law which existed prior to July, 1984, DOT may not have had the authority to extinguish Respondent's permit. If Respondent had voluntarily taken the sign down at that time, while the permit was valid, and had continued to pay the yearly renewal fee for the permit, it would still be good even if the sign were not replaced. Also, if the permit was valid when the sign was taken down, and was renewed each year, a new sign could still be erected legally using that permit. Any permit issued prior to July, 1984 which was legal and conforming, remained legal and conforming if renewed. Respondent has not been billed for permit 3515.10 since 1984. Respondent showed that it applied for replacement for a lost tag on July 31, 1984, forwarding a check for the $3.00 replacement fee. Respondent could not show, however, that a replacement was issued at that time or that it had paid renewal fees in 1985 or 1986. The evidence offered by Respondent to establish this was rejected as incompetent. It is found, therefore, that Respondent has not renewed permit number 3515.10 and did not affix a permit tag to the reconstructed offending sign subsequent to July, 1984. Though the citation issued by Ms. Kinchen on October 4, 1984 show improper citations of statute and rule in some instances, the lists of violations are properly described in words and Respondent could not have been misled thereby.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order in this case directing that the sign in question herein be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of December, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 11th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-4171T 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. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Incorporated in Findings of Fact 1, 3, and 4. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 8-10. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1 & 2. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Accepted but not incorporated due to irrelevance except for the fact that Ms. Kinchen issued the notice of violation which is incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 2. 5-7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. 8. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4. 9. Accepted. 10. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 11. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4 except for the second sentence which is misleading. 12. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Proposed Finding of Fact implies the removed signboard was conforming. It was not since the permit tag was missing. 13. Not a Finding of Fact, but a recitation of the testimony of a witness. 14. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. 15. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151
The Issue Whether Petitioner violated the Florida Election Code as alleged in the Order of Probable Cause entered November 25, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Chapters 97 through 106 comprise the Florida Election Code (Code). Pursuant to the Code, the Commission is specifically empowered to enforce the provisions of Chapters 104 and 106, Florida Statutes. Mr. Smith is a principal in Smith Brothers Paint and Body Shop and runs the daily operations of the business. In addition to painting and repairing motor vehicles, he has a wrecker service. He ran for county commission in Escambia County in 1996 but was not elected. He ran again in 2000 and was successful. Allegations of impropriety surrounding the 2000 race caused the Commission to conduct an investigation into Mr. Smith's campaign practices. When Mr. Smith ran for the position of county commissioner in 1996, his campaign treasurer was Lance Simmons. Mr. Simmons was a certified public accountant and Mr. Smith's friend. Mr. Simmons provided this service at no charge. The campaign financing reports prepared by Mr. Simmons were correct and professional. Lynn Kowalchyk, Assistant Supervisor of Elections in Escambia County, who has worked for the Supervisor of Elections in Escambia County for 25 years, opined that the submissions for that campaign were some of the best the Supervisor of Elections has received. Because Mr. Smith lost the election, he felt too embarrassed to ask Mr. Simmons to serve as his campaign treasurer for the 2000 race. He decided that he would serve as his own treasurer. Mr. Smith ran for county commissioner in District 5, which is the largest district in Escambia County, Florida. The district comprised the northern part of the county, which is more sparsely settled than the other districts in the county. In fact, District 5 comprises about 70 percent of the landmass of Escambia County. A great distance must be traveled to get from Mr. Smith's business to most places in the district and from place to place in the district. Mr. Smith decided that it was more important to engage in person-to-person campaigning in his large district than to spend time doing the detailed work of learning the complexities of the election laws, complying with the laws, and submitting correct reports. Mr. Smith received the 2000 edition of the "Candidate Handbook on Campaign Financing," which was published by the Florida Department of State. He had previously received the 1996 handbook. He signed statements in 1995 and 1999 certifying that he had read and that he understood the material presented in the handbooks. His testimony that he did not read either of them is accepted as fact. Mr. Smith had worked on one of his own campaigns and on other campaigns and felt as though he already knew all he needed to know about election laws. He concluded that if he needed additional information, he could get it from staff in the Supervisor of Elections Office. Mr. Smith first filed as a candidate for the 2000 election on October 20, 1999. Subsequent to filing he received at least ten notices from the Supervisor of Elections Office that members of the office staff were available to advise him with regard to the rules governing elections. Mr. Smith's routine during the campaign was to work at his place of business in the morning and then to go to his district and conduct his campaign. He gave documentation recording contributions and expenditures to his elderly mother, a widow of 65 years. His mother kept notes on a legal pad and organized the documents so that they could be reported. Mr. Smith's mother had cancer, heart problems, and arthritis and this may have affected her accuracy in preparing reports. Mr. Smith was unaware of the serious nature of her illnesses during the time she was working on the campaign. Mr. Smith's mother died December 11, 2002. Mr. Smith's brother also helped with the campaign records. He was a schoolteacher, and each evening during the campaign he would help Mr. Smith. His brother died one week after Mr. Smith's electoral victory. Counts 1-4. Allegations involving Section 106.021(3) prohibiting expenditures from other than the campaign treasury (Counts 1-4). (Count 1). On October 10, 2000, Mr. Smith purchased stamps from the U. S. Post Office. A check in the amount of $495 was presented in payment. The check was drawn on the checking account of a company titled Environmentally Friendly Chemicals (EFC), of which Mr. Smith is a part owner. This occurred because Mr. Smith inadvertently picked up the EFC checkbook instead of the campaign checkbook. Mr. Smith's inattention was the cause of the error. The campaign subsequently reimbursed EFC. (Count 2). Campaign check 2088 was written to Frankie Peters in the amount of $50 to reimburse Ms. Peters who had paid for a sign at the Tate High School ballpark. Mr. Smith permitted this because the sign could not have been timely purchased if it had been paid with a check from the campaign treasury. (Count 3). Someone named Nacie Smith paid for postage in the amount of $150 on behalf of the campaign during October 2000. Campaign check number 2115 was used to reimburse Ms. Smith, and Mr. Smith signed this check. (Count 4). Mr. Smith had printing done for the campaign by a firm named Pengraphix pursuant to an order placed October 31, 2000. This order was placed immediately prior to the election. Part of the order was paid from the campaign account in the amount of $852.97. The balance was in dispute but was eventually compromised in the amount of $1,884.92. This amount was paid not from the campaign account, but rather, directly to Pengraphix by a friend named Donald "Mike" Murphy. The payment by Mr. Murphy was effected after the campaign had concluded. Mr. Murphy was a person to whom Mr. Smith had provided a loan several years prior to 2000. These four transactions are expenditures that were not paid from the campaign treasury. However, as will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law in more detail below, the accidental use of the EFC checkbook in Count 1, did not demonstrate willfulness. Count 5. Allegation involving Section 106.021(3) prohibiting a candidate from receiving contributions except through the campaign treasurer. This allegation is supported by the evidence recited above regarding Mr. Murphy, if one concludes that the money provided to Pengraphix represented a contribution as that term is defined in Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. Whether or not the facts support a finding that the cited statute prohibited this transaction is discussed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Counts 6-29. Allegations involving Section 106.05 requiring funds received to be deposited within five days of receipt. Mr. Smith reported 20 contributions on his Campaign Treasurer's Report (CTR), which covered the period October 20, 1999 through December 31, 1999. One of the contributions described by Mr. Smith as being a $500 check, was later reported, in an amended CTR, to be five separate $100 cash contributions. The campaign bank account was not opened until January 7, 2000, and the last contribution reported on the CTR was November 29, 1999. Therefore, 24 contributions were received but not deposited in the campaign account until more than five days subsequent to receipt. Mr. Smith was unaware of the statutory requirement that contributions must be deposited in the campaign treasury within five days of receipt. However, his willful ignorance of the requirement translates into willful violations. Counts 30-79. Allegations involving Section 106.07(5) prohibiting a candidate from certifying to the correctness of a campaign treasurer's report that is incorrect, false, or incomplete. Mr. Smith filed original CTRs for the following periods: (Count 30) October 20, 2000 to December 31, 1999. (Count 31) January 1, 2000 to March 31, 2000. (Count 32) April 1, 2000 to June 30, 2000. d. (Count 33) July 1, 2000 to July 31, 2000. (Count 34) July 29, 2000 to August 11, 2000. (Count 35) August 12, 2000 to August 31, 2000. (Count 36) September 1, 2000 to September 8, 2000. (Count 37) September 9, 2000 to September 28, 2000. (Count 38) September 29, 2000 to October 13, 2000. (Count 39) October 14, 2000 to November 2, 2000. (Count 40) November 2, 2000 to December 31, 2000. He filed amended CTR's on January 12, 2000 (Count 41), April 19, 2000 (Count 42), and August 16, 2000 (Count 43). When a complaint that Mr. Smith had violated the laws governing campaign financing was filed against him in September 2001, he became motivated to try to correct CTR's that he had filed. He filed amended CTRs on September 24, 2001, October 18, 2001, April 2, 2002, April 24, 2002, and June 5, 2002 (Counts 44-79). He filed a total of 11 CTRs and 39 amendments. The parties stipulated, and it is found as a fact, that all of the original CTRs he filed, and all of the amendments he filed, were incomplete or incorrect. Mr. Smith worked diligently with Ms. Kowalchyk to correct the reports, once he discovered in September 2001, that he had been accused of wrongdoing. Ms. Kowalchyk worked on Mr. Smith's CTRs on her own time. Even Bonnie Jones, the Supervisor of Elections, attempted to correct his CTRs, but all were frustrated in the attempt. His reports were in complete disarray. Ms. Jones suggested in a letter dated October 8, 2001, that Mr. Smith refer this matter to his accountant, believing that an accountant might bring order to the chaotic records. He did not act on this advice. As noted above, Mr. Smith relied on his mother and his brother, and perhaps other family members to prepare accurate reports. Nevertheless, he was the campaign treasurer and he personally signed each CTR beneath bold face type which recited, "It is a first degree misdemeanor for any person to falsify a public record (ss.839.13 F.S.)" and despite the words over the signature line, where he placed his signature, which stated, "I certify that I have examined this report and it is true, correct and complete." It is specifically found that Mr. Smith's submission of incorrect CTRs was not motivated by an intention to hide any wrongdoing. His dereliction was due, rather, to a cavalier attitude with regard to complying with the technical aspects of the laws addressing campaign financing. This attitude continued until a complaint was filed. For reasons more fully explained in the Conclusions of Law, it is found as a fact that Mr. Smith is guilty of Counts 30-43, and not guilty of Counts 44-79. Counts 80-81. Allegations involving Section 106.11(3) prohibiting a candidate from incurring an expense for the purchase of goods or services without sufficient funds on deposit in the primary campaign depository. Although the Order of Probable Cause indicates that Mr. Smith was charged under Section 106.11(4), he should have been charged under Section 106.11(3) the Code in effect during the alleged misconduct. The wording of Section 106.11(4), Florida Statutes (2002), is identical to that found in Section 106.11(3). Because all parties understood the nature of the charge, the citation to a later version of the Florida Statutes does not mean that Mr. Smith may not be found to be in violation of it. Reference to the Statement of Findings reveals that the two counts alleged refer to services provided by Pengraphix, which is a printing house. The CTR for the period November 2, 2000 to December 31, 2000, reported two expenditures made to Pengraphix. One was for $864.49 and the other was for $1844.19, and both were reported on the CTR to have been made December 1, 2000. Subsequently, an amended CTR was filed September 24, 2001, which reported only an expenditure of $864.49 to Pengraphix. On June 5, 2002, in the fifth amendment to the termination CTR, Mr. Smith reported an expenditure on December 1, 2000, of an additional $1844.19, to Pengraphix. It is concluded from these reports that two obligations of $864.49 and $1844.19, for a total of $2708.68, were incurred in favor of Pengraphix. Because the bank records of the campaign account subsequent to December 1, 2000, reflect no expenditure in either individual amount, or in the aggregate amount, it may be concluded that the debt was not paid from the campaign account at all. The bank statement for the campaign treasury for the months of December 2000 and January 2001 never had a balance greater than $613.97 in it, so there was no money available from that source to pay the two expenditures. Mr. Smith addressed the foregoing by stating that there was a disputed bill from Pengraphix in the amount of about $2,600, and that he spent almost three months attempting to reach a settlement. The amount was compromised at $1,850. Mr. Smith further stated that when the printing was ordered the cost was not revealed. It must be concluded that until the amount was liquidated, Mr. Smith could not pay the bill. However, Mr. Smith must have known by December 1, 2000, that the liquidated amounts for the two jobs were $864.49 and $1844.19. At the time the jobs were ordered, which cannot be determined from the evidence, funds sufficient to pay the invoices may have been available. The evidence was insufficient to demonstrate with any certainty that the funds were not available. Accordingly, is not found by clear and convincing evidence that the money due and owing Pengraphix was not available in the campaign treasury at the time the debt was incurred. Accordingly, Mr. Smith is not guilty of Counts 80 and 81. Counts 82-83. Allegations involving Section 106.11(3), requiring a candidate to pay for previously incurred expenses for the purchase of goods and services upon delivery and acceptance of the goods and services. Reference to the Statement of Findings reveals that these two counts address the two orders for printed matter placed at Pengraphix. It is clear that these purchases were not paid at the time of delivery and acceptance. However, the proof adduced at the hearing failed to demonstrate when the amounts were liquidated. It is clear, however, that at some point prior to December 1, 2000, the amounts were known, or at least discoverable, and therefore payable. It is found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Smith violated the charged portion of Section 106.11(3). Accordingly, he is guilty of Counts 82-83. Count 84. Allegation involving Section 106.141(1) condemning the failure of a candidate to properly dispose of surplus campaign funds subsequent to being elected. The general election that resulted in Mr. White's victory was held November 7, 2000. The ending balance shown on the campaign treasury bank statement on November 30, 2000, was $613.97. The ending balance shown on the campaign treasury bank statement on December 29, 2000, was $597.97. The ending balance shown on the campaign treasury bank statement on January 31, 2001, was $4.78. The imposition of bank fees on February 9, 2001, resulted in a zero balance in the account that was reflected on the February 2001 statement. The ninetieth day following Mr. Smith's election was February 5, 2001. Though de minimis, a violation of the statute occurred, and he is guilty of Count 84. Counts 85-87. Allegations involving Section 106.141(1) prohibiting a candidate from accepting a contribution subsequent to being elected. Bank records of the campaign treasury indicate that a deposit to the account was made on January 2, 2001, in the amount of $187, and on January 3, 2001, in the amount of $100, almost two months after the election. An amendment to the CTR for the period November 2, 2000 to December 31, 2000, which was filed April 24, 2002, indicates that the candidate loaned the campaign $287. Mr. Smith explained that the two deposits were made so that a campaign debt could be paid. The sum of the two contributions plus the amount remaining in the account, $597.97, totaled $884.97 that was sufficient to cover a check for $864.19, which was, in Mr. Smith's words, ". . .payment of the substantial debt, $864.19." To what substantial debt he refers cannot be determined from the evidence of record but it is within 30 cents of the amount of the smaller of the two Pengraphix amounts reported as expenditures on December 1, 2000. In January 2001, a sum of money remained to be paid to Pengraphix. As noted above, this debt was compromised in the amount of $1,850. Mr. Smith did not have personal funds available to pay that amount, or money in the campaign treasury sufficient to pay that amount, so he prevailed upon his friend, Mr. Murphy, to pay the amount for him, and promised to repay Mr. Murphy with interest. Mr. Murphy did in fact pay Pengraphix $1884.92 to settle the debt owed by Mr. Smith. The difference between $1850 and the $1884.92 actually paid, most likely represents accrued interest. This payment was made, according to the Stipulation, on January 11, 2001. Mr. Smith repaid Mr. Murphy, by check in February 2002 in the amount of $1990. The exact day in February was not written on the date line on the check, but it cleared the bank on February 25, 2002. Whether or not these allegations of Counts 85-87 are supported by the cited statute, will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Count 88. Allegation involving Section 106.19(1)(a), prohibiting a candidate from accepting a contribution in excess of $500. This count addresses the payment by Mr. Murphy to Pengraphix discussed above. Whether or not the cited statute supports these allegations will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Count 89. Allegation involving Section 106.19(1)(b), condemning the failure of a candidate to report a contribution. This count addresses the payment by Mr. Murphy to Pengraphix discussed above. The transaction was not reported on any CTR with Mr. Murphy's name connected to it. Whether or not the cited statute supports these allegations will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Count 90. Allegation involving Section 106.19(1)(c), condemning the failure of a candidate to report a contribution. This count addresses the payment by Mr. Murphy to Pengraphix discussed above. The transaction was not reported on any CTR. Whether or not these allegations are supported by the cited statute will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Counts 91-94. Allegations involving Section 106.19(1)(d), prohibiting a candidate from making an expenditure prohibited by Chapter 106. These counts address the same facts pertinent to the events discussed in paragraphs 11-15, above. These facts support three violations of Section 106.021(3), as well as the three violations of Section 106.19(1)(d), as alleged. They are, however, multiplicious with three of the allegations recited as Counts 2-4. Mr. Smith's assets. Mr. Smith reported a net worth of $707,609, on his "Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests 1999." He testified that as a result of criminal charges and the current litigation, his net worth has decreased since 1999. He currently owns two parcels of real property worth more than $200,000 that is subject to mortgages in an unknown amount. He owns several vehicles including a 1995 Chevrolet Tahoe that he drives, and a new Chevrolet Yukon that his wife drives. He also owns a tow truck that is used in his business. His net worth cannot be determined by the evidence before the Administrative Law Judge. However, it is determined that he is not impecunious.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds that Mr. Smith committed 44 of the violations alleged in the Order of Probable Cause and that he should be assessed a civil penalty of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert R. Kimmel, Esquire Kimmel & Batson Post Office Box 12266 Pensacola, Florida 32581-2266 Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street The Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street The Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Ruching, Clerk Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns a series of light poles that were erected at Respondent's expense at various locations within the city limits of the City of West Miami (the "City") pursuant to a written contract between Respondent and the City (the "contract"). Signs were affixed to eight light poles with the permission of the City pursuant to the contract. Respondent paid for the cost of construction and installation of the light poles. Respondent also pays operating costs for the light poles, including utility and insurance costs. The sign on each light pole is self illuminating. Respondent pays the City a percentage of advertising revenues derived from signs placed on the light poles. Revenue from advertising is derived from signs attached to eight of the light poles erected by Respondent. 1/ Advertising revenues from signs to be affixed on all of the light poles erected by Respondent were projected by Respondent and the City in an amount sufficient to pay for the capital and operating costs of the light poles and provide both the City and Respondent with additional revenue. The five signs at issue in this proceeding are not permanent. Each sign consists of a metal frame approximately three feet high and two feet wide. Each metal frame is attached to the light pole by bolts and clamps. Advertising is provided on heavy duty paper covered with a clear, mylar plastic panel. Advertising can be easily changed by sliding out an old advertising panel and inserting a new advertising panel. The metal frame can be detached from the light pole in a matter of minutes by removing the bolts and clamps. The five signs at issue in this proceeding are attached to light poles erected on State Road 90 which is also U.S. 41, the Tamiami Trail, and Calle Ocho (the "Tamiami Trail"). 2/ The signs are located within 660 feet of the Tamiami Trail where it intersects Southwest 67th Avenue and Ludlam Road and where it intersects Southwest 57th Avenue and Red Road. The portion of the Tamiami Trail on which the five signs are located is designated by Petitioner as part of the federal-aid primary highway system. Some of the eight signs erected by Respondent are within a thousand feet of other permitted signs. The five signs at issue in this proceeding were erected without first obtaining permits from Petitioner. Each sign and sign message is visible from Tamiami Trail. Each sign advertises business activities conducted at locations other than those where the signs are located. None of the five signs at issue in this proceeding are official road signs or traffic control devices. The signs do not: indicate points of historical interest; advertise the sale or lease of the property upon which they are located; advertise only the name or nature of the business being conducted, or products, goods, or services that are sold, supplied, or distributed upon or in the premises upon which the signs are located. The signs were not in place prior to July 3, 1986. The signs are not otherwise within an area where signs are permitted by law. Approximately three or four years ago, Eric Nadel, Respondent's president and founder, conferred on a number of occasions with Mr. William Kenney who is the Outdoor Advertising Coordinator for Petitioner's District 6. Mr. Nadel advised Mr. Kenney of the plan to put signs on light poles. Mr. Kenney told Mr. Nadel " . . . over and over again . . . " which locations on state roads in Dade County would require sign permits and which locations would not require sign permits. Mr. Kenney provided Mr. Nadel with Petitioner's log of the state highway system in District 6, including Dade and Monroe counties. The log identified those roads designated by Petitioner as interstate highways ("FAI"), federal-aid urban highways ("FAU"), and federal-aid primary highways ("FAP"). Mr. Kenney also provided Mr. Nadel with copies of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. 3/ The light poles and five signs at issue in this proceeding were erected and installed by Respondent subsequent to the time Mr. Nadel conferred with Mr. Kenney. Mr. Nadel was personally responsible for the erection of the light poles and signs. The signs do not carry sign permits and were erected without first obtaining sign permits. After the lights and signs were installed, Mr. Nadel received a Notice to Show Cause for each of the five signs at issue in this proceeding. After a formal hearing was requested in this proceeding, Mr. Nadel met with representatives of the Petitioner including, George Fisher, Enforcement Supervisor, Stanley M. Cann, Director of Operations, and Barbara Hobbs, attorney. Mr. Nadel was accompanied by Mr. Alex Chavez, a commissioner for the City during the period when the contract was negotiated and executed between the City and Respondent. Discussions at the meeting between the parties included the potential violation of Chapter 86-308, Laws of Florida, which designates Calle Ocho as an historic roadway (the "Calle Ocho Statute"). 4/ An agreement of the parties was reached as a result of the meeting between Mr. Nadel and representatives of the Respondent. The agreement was memorialized in a letter dated March 13, 1990, from Mr. Fisher to Mr. Nadel. Petitioner agreed to stay further removal action against existing unpermitted signs for 90 days from March 13, 1990. Respondent agreed not to install any additional signs until proper permits are issued for the existing unpermitted signs. Petitioner agreed to "process" Respondent's applications for sign permits if Respondent secured approval from the Division of Archives for all signs in the area covered by the Calle Ocho Statute. Approval of any applications for sign permits was expressly conditioned upon Respondent's compliance with the current provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. In the event Respondent was unable to secure approval from the Division of Archives for all signs in the area covered by the Calle Ocho Statute "and" comply with Petitioner's requirements for obtaining valid permits, Petitioner would remove the signs and bill Respondent for the costs incurred. The agreement of the parties expressly provided that the terms of the agreement did not waive any legal rights of the parties. The Division of Archives determined that it had no jurisdiction over any of the signs at issue in this proceeding. After several preliminary letters, the Division of Archives notified Mr. Nadel of its determination by letter dated April 25, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's notices of violation be upheld, and the five signs at issue in this proceeding be removed in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of March, 1991. DANIEL MANRY 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 25th day of March, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and the Florida Elections Commission are responsible for enforcing Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. In 1993, Respondent qualified as a candidate for re- election to Seat Five of the Tallahassee City Commission. She was defeated for this office in the general election on February 22, 1994. On December 27, 1993, Respondent signed a Statement of Candidate indicating that she had received, read and understood the requirements of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, as required by Section 106.023, Florida Statutes. Respondent has run for public office on four different occasions. Respondent's 1994 campaign staff was made up of volunteers. Some of these volunteers were supporters who had worked in her prior campaigns. Others were supporters who were participating in a political campaign for the first time. In the early days of the campaign, Respondent met with her supporters at weekly campaign committee meetings. As time went on, Respondent's employment and campaign schedule prevented her from attending these meetings. She also found it increasingly difficult to spend much time at her campaign headquarters. In 1994, Respondent used the same system she had used in prior campaigns for registering the names, addresses and telephone numbers of supporters for purposes of organizing the campaign. These cards included a check-list of jobs for which a campaign worker could volunteer. The cards also had a signature line for volunteers who were willing to publicly support Respondent. The cards did not contain a place to indicate the date of the signature. Respondent's campaign headquarters was initially staffed entirely by part-time volunteers including, but not limited to, Vivian Pelham. As a result, the card filing system became disorganized. In many instances, there were duplicate cards for campaign supporters. Some of the cards were misplaced or lost as they were in constant use for campaign work in the neighborhood. In mid-January, Chuck Cyrus began working at Respondent's campaign headquarters on a full-time basis. He unsuccessfully attempted to organize the card filing system. At the conclusion of the campaign, all of the cards that could be located were stored along with other campaign records. On or before January 6, 1994, Respondent's staff decided to prepare a flyer for circulation at a Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA) meeting. Respondent's husband, Jim Crews, instructed Vivian Pelham and other part-time workers to make telephone calls to people to verify approval of the use of their names on the flyer prior to its distribution. Ms. Pelham did not search for signature cards before she called people because she did not think about it. In retrospect, Ms. Pelham knew it was necessary to have signatures of people willing to publicly support Respondent. However, Ms. Pelham did not know that endorsers had to sign cards at any particular time. She was not aware of a difference between "written" and "verbal" approval before a candidate may use a person's name in a campaign advertisement. Rather, Ms. Pelham thought specific "verbal" approval was better than "written" approval as long as an endorser signed a card at some point in time. One of the people Respondent's staff contacted by phone was Dennis Murphy. Mr. Murphy refused to allow the use of his name on the flyer. Consequently, Respondent's staff did not include him as an endorser on the campaign advertisement. The flyer ultimately contained the names of twenty-two "neighborhood leaders" who endorsed Respondent's candidacy. The flyer listed the neighborhood of each person under their name. The following disclaimer was located at the bottom of the flyer: The above individuals are current or past officers in their neighborhood associations. This document does not represent an endorsement by the Council of Neighborhood Associations nor any individual neighborhood group. This is a paid political advertisement paid for by the campaign treasurer. There is no competent persuasive evidence that the flyer, read in its entirety, misrepresented the personal endorsement of the people named therein as an endorsement by a particular neighborhood group. The only names included on the flyer which are at issue here are Sterling and Rosemarie Bryant and Dorothy Rose. Mr. and Mrs. Bryant were long- time supporters of Respondent. They worked in Respondent's 1994 and previous campaigns. Ms. Rose supported Respondent in 1994 but was not actively involved in the campaign. At the time Respondent circulated the subject flyer, neither the Bryants nor Ms. Rose had signed a 1994 campaign card stating that they were willing to publicly endorse Respondent. Mr. Bryant did not remember receiving a call about the flyer prior to January 6, 1995. However, Ms. Rose did receive such a call. On the evening of January 6, 1994, Respondent arrived at the CONA meeting just before it convened where she reviewed the flyer for the first time. Respondent recognized the name of each person listed on the flyer as a past and/or current supporter. She had no reason to doubt whether the people listed had signed a 1994 campaign card prior to her staff's preparation of the flyer. The document was circulated at the meeting to about thirty-five (35) people, many of whom were listed on the campaign advertisement. Dennis Murphy was present at the January 6, 1994, CONA meeting. He did not see the flyer at that time. Days later Mr. Murphy became aware of the flyer. He went to Respondent's campaign headquarters and got a copy of it. On January 14, 1995, Mr. Murphy filed a sworn complaint with Petitioner alleging that Respondent had violated Section 106.143(3), Florida Statutes. He filed the complaint because he thought Respondent failed to get proper authorization to use the names of the people listed on the flyer. Soon thereafter, Respondent's staff learned about the complaint informally. Jim Crews instructed Vivian Pelham and other campaign workers to locate signature cards for each person listed on the flyer. If a card could not be located, the workers were to call the people and get a duplicate. No one on Respondent's staff advised her about the rumored complaint. Several campaign workers began looking for signature cards. Vivian Pelham could not find a card for Sterling Bryant and called him. Because the Bryants were elderly, Ms. Pelham went to their home where Mr. and Mrs. Bryant signed a card. Ms. Pelham's testimony that she specifically requested the Bryants' signature relative to the flyer and not a subsequent newspaper advertisement is more persuasive than Mr. Bryant's testimony to the contrary. The subsequent newspaper advertisement, published on January 27, 1994, included a picture of Respondent with several neighborhood leaders, including the Bryants. Petitioner sent a letter dated January 19, 1994, to Mr. Murphy informing him that it had initiated an investigation of his complaint. Petitioner's letter to Mr. Murphy also requested information concerning the issue of "willfulness." That same day, Petitioner sent Respondent a letter, by regular United States Mail, enclosing a copy of the complaint. This letter gave Respondent the opportunity to submit a response in the form of a sworn statement. Respondent's staff received the letter on her behalf but did not bring it to her attention or respond to it in any way because they thought cards were available for each of the people listed on the flyer. Petitioner sent Respondent a second letter dated February 21, 1994. This letter was sent certified mail, return receipt requested. Respondent was in her headquarters when the letter arrived on February 23, 1994. She learned about the complaint for the first time when she signed for the letter. Respondent immediately located Petitioner's first letter and initiated a search of her records for the cards in question. Respondent was able to locate a card for everyone listed on the flyer except Dorothy Rose. Consequently, Respondent called Ms. Rose and went to her home where she obtained Ms. Rose's signature on a card. Respondent thought she was obtaining a duplicate card for Ms. Rose. During her 1994 campaign, Respondent continued to work as Mayor and City Commissioner of Tallahassee, Florida. She also worked full-time for Florida State University School in various administrative positions. Because of the demands of her schedule, she relied on her family, friends and volunteers to run her campaign. On the day before the primary, Respondent became ill and was hospitalized due to the intense stress of the campaign and pressure associated with her employment. In a letter to Petitioner dated February 24, 1995, Respondent denied the allegations in the complaint and enclosed copies of signature cards for the people listed in the flyer. The cards did not have dates to indicate when Respondent's supporters signed them. By letter dated June 28, 1994, Petitioner requested Respondent to furnish dates for the signatures and the names of the campaign workers who solicited the signatures. Respondent was unable to furnish this information because it was unavailable. With the exception of Ms. Rose's signature card, Respondent did not know when the cards were signed or which of the cards in her possession might have been duplicates of lost or misplaced cards. She was still under the impression that Ms. Rose's card was a duplicate. C. L. Ivey investigated the complaint for Petitioner. He randomly selected approximately twelve (12) people from the list of names on the flyer and contacted as many of them as he could reach. Most of them could not remember when they signed the cards. No one expressed an objection to Respondent's use of their name. Mr. Ivey subsequently deposed several of Respondent's supporters including Sterling Bryant and Dorothy Rose. The only cards they remembered signing in 1994 were executed after January 6, 1994. Mr. Bryant had not seen the subject flyer before Petitioner deposed him. He would have preferred to see a stronger disclaimer than the one at the bottom of the flyer. In 1994, Mr. Bryant was president of his neighborhood association and did not want to give the impression that the association endorsed a particular candidate. However, he did not object to Respondent publicly representing that he personally endorsed her candidacy. Respondent did not willfully violate Section 106.143(3), Florida Statutes. Neither she nor her campaign staff were aware that the Bryants and Ms. Rose had not signed a card prior to distribution of the flyer. To the contrary, Respondent and her staff knew that each of the people listed on the flyer were Respondent's past and/or current supporters. Their failure to ensure that they had a signature card on file for each person was at most simple negligence. The actions of Respondent and her staff after they learned about the complaint were not motivated by a desire to circumvent the election code. At all times, Respondent and her staff attempted to conduct themselves within the letter of the law. After the election, it was not reasonable to expect Respondent to know when the endorsers signed the cards because they were not dated. There is no competent persuasive evidence that Respondent received an unfair advantage by publishing the flyer without the prior written approval of the Bryants and Ms. Rose. Moreover, there is no competent persuasive evidence that distribution of the flyer resulted in harm to any person. The Bryants and Ms. Rose continue to espouse their friendship and support for Respondent. It did not become clear that the Bryants and Ms. Rose had not timely signed a signature card until after Petitioner completed its investigation. By then, Respondent had no effective means to remedy the situation.
Recommendation Based on the above referenced findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the Florida Elections Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent did not willfully violate Section 106.143(3), Florida Statutes and dismissing the charges against her. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes the undersigned's specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Findings of Facts (FOF) number 1. Accepted in FOF number 2. Accepted in FOF number 13. Accepted in FOF numbers 12-13. Accepted in FOF numbers 10 and 14 as modified therein. Accepted in FOF numbers 17-18. Accepted in FOF numbers 5 and 21. Accepted in FOF number 22. Accepted in FOF numbers 23-24. Accepted as modified in FOF 6 & 15. Accepted in FOF numbers 12, 16, and 24-25. Rejected. See FOF numbers 16 and 25. Accepted as modified in FOF numbers 12 and 19. Accepted in FOF 3-4. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent did not number her proposed findings of facts. They are included in her proposed recommended order on page 1 through the first whole paragraph of page 6. The undersigned accepts all of Respondent's proposed findings of facts in substance as modified in FOF numbers 1-29 of this Recommended Order except: Mr. Murphy's political opposition to Respondent is not relevant; (2) Reference to any conversation between Mr. Murphy and a Mr. Fulford is uncorroborated hearsay; (3) Mr. Murphy's reason for not reporting the alleged violation to the Leon County Supervisor of Elections is not relevant; and (4) Reference to any newspaper articles that Petitioner's investigator relied upon is not relevant and uncorroborated hearsay. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Westcott, Esq. The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Robert Augustus Harper, Esq. P. O. Box 10132 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2132 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Don Bell, Esq. Dept. of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent, James Jennings, violated Subsections 106.021(3), 106.07(5), or 106.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in the Amended Order of Probable Cause dated February 20, 2004, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Respondent has taught in the public schools of Lee County, Florida, for 31 years. He has a bachelor of science degree. Respondent was a first-time candidate for public office, although he had limited political experience as a precinct committeeman and president of the Sanibel-Captiva Republican Club. He had not been actively engaged in any previous campaign as a campaign treasurer or deputy. Incidental to becoming a candidate he met with appropriate municipal and county election officials and received a campaign handbook which included the following: A Compilation of The Election Laws of the State of Florida (2001), published by the Department of State; 2002 Handbook for Candidates, published by the Department of State; 2002 Handbook for Treasurers, published by the Department of State; Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, published by the Department of State; various Sanibel municipal ordinances related to city elections; a calendar listing important dates for filing campaign documents. Respondent signed a Statement of Candidate which advised that he had received a copy of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, and that he had read and understood same. It is apparent that Respondent did not understand the Florida Election Law as embodied in Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. Respondent designated a campaign treasurer and a deputy campaign treasurer. Notwithstanding the fact that Subsection 106.021(3), Florida Statutes (2002), clearly states that no campaign expenditure shall be made except through the duly- appointed campaign treasurer, Respondent personally signed 30 campaign checks. In fact, he signed all campaign checks with the exception of one check. On that particular check he directed his wife, the deputy campaign treasurer, who was statutorily authorized to sign the campaign check as deputy campaign treasurer, to sign his name. Inexplicably, Respondent believed that he, personally, was obligated to sign all campaign checks because he was the candidate. Respondent prepared his own Campaign Treasurer's Reports. It is suggested that he received some limited assistance from his wife. On February 28, 2003, Respondent was required to file a Campaign Treasurer's Report for the reporting period of February 8, 2003, through February 27, 2003. Two previous Campaign Treasurer's Reports for periods January 1, 2003, through January 24, 2003, and January 25, 2003, through February 7, 2003, had reporting dates which were seven days after the reporting period ended (January 31, 2003, and February 14, 2003). Respondent believed that the Campaign Treasurer's Report due on February 28, 2003, covered the period from February 8, 2003, through February 21, 2003. The campaign calendar presented by a city elections official clearly indicated the accurate reporting period. On February 28, 2003, immediately prior to filing the subject Campaign Treasurer's Report, Respondent discovered that the report should have included activity through February 27, 2003. He did not include appropriate information for February 21, 2003, through February 27, 2003, because he did not have time to return to his home, obtain the additional information, make appropriate inclusions, and file the report before 5:00 p.m. at the Sanibel City Hall. He merely changed the end of the reporting period on the Campaign Treasurer's Report from February 21, 2003, to February 27, 2003, knowing that it was inaccurate. The Campaign Treasurer's Report failed to include 24 contributions that should have been reported. During the telephone conversation in which he discovered the actual reporting period, he testified that he was advised by a Lee County elections official to file the report even though it was inaccurate, and then immediately file an accurate amended report. This is not credible. February 28, 2003, was a Friday. Respondent filed an Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report on Wednesday, March 5, 2003. The election was on Tuesday, March 4, 2003. Unfortunately, the Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report was not accurate. On June 2, 2003, Respondent filed a Second Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report, which included seven previously unreported contributions. This particular inaccuracy was attributed to the fact that two pages in the spiral notebook used to record contributions had stuck together for some unknown reason concealing these seven contributions. Petitioner failed to present evidence in testimony or stipulated facts as to the amount of unreported contributions. Respondent acknowledged his failure to report 24 contributions, but not the amount of each contribution or of a total amount of unreported contributions. While the orders of probable cause contain specific reference to the amount of each unreported contribution, this is not evidence. It may be possible to sift through the Campaign Treasurer's Reports and estimate the unreported amounts by comparing each report. An examination of the various Campaign Treasurer's Reports suggests that obtaining an accurate figure would be problematic and not exact. I find that there is no basis for an administrative fine predicated on the amount of unreported contributions. Respondent's attempts at campaign bookkeeping mirrored his understanding of the election laws. He, at first, attempted to keep contributions and expenditures in a checkbook register. When this proved inadequate, he started recording contributions and expenditures in a spiral notebook and on lined paper. These records were received into evidence. After a cursory examination of these documents, it is easy to understand why there was confusion. Respondent's campaign bookkeeping lacked basic organization. There does not appear to be any ulterior motive for Respondent's glaring errors, in particular his lack of basic understanding as to who should sign campaign checks. No one was deceived by the candidate's signing his name to the campaign checks. Equally as baffling and disappointing is his failure to understand the reporting periods and his response to his discovery of the error in the time covered by the reporting period in question. While it is argued that the voting public is deceived by Respondent's failure to disclose contributions, it is unlikely that any voters were waiting to examine the Campaign Treasurer's Report on the Monday before a Tuesday election. Clearly, Respondent did not comply with Subsection 106.021(3), Florida Statutes (2002), when he signed 30 campaign checks. This failure is obviated by granting the motion to dismiss the counts related to this violation. He also certified the correctness of the Campaign Treasurer's Report for the February 8, 2003, through February 27, 2003, reporting period knowing that the report was inaccurate and did not accurately reflect contributions. The March 5, 2003, Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report was similarly inaccurate. The real issue regarding Respondent's filing inaccurate Campaign Treasurer's Reports is whether or not these activities were "willful" as defined by Section 106.37, Florida Statutes (2002). Notwithstanding his written assertion that he understood the Florida Election Law, he did not. This is demonstrated by the fact that he clearly did not understand the law regarding who could sign campaign checks. The fact that he directed his wife to sign his name to a campaign check when she was a deputy campaign treasurer and an statutorily authorized signer, demonstrates that he just did not understand the law. Signing a Campaign Treasurer's Report, knowing it did not accurately reflect required reportable activity, clearly violates the law, and cannot be attributed to misunderstanding the law. Even if it is believed that he was advised to file an inaccurate report and file an immediate amended report, which is not credible, Respondent knowingly violated the law. He filed an inaccurate report and certified that it was true and correct when it was not. He should have waited until the following Monday, filed an accurate report, and suffered the fine and potential attendant political repercussions. The Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report filed March 5, 2003, failed to report seven campaign contributions that were ultimately reported on the Second Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report filed on June 2, 2003; this inaccuracy was not done knowingly; however, it does reflect reckless disregard for the law. Respondent's excuse that the pages were stuck together by fruit juice is unacceptable. Respondent did an inexcusably sophomoric job in his campaign record keeping; this failure as a record keeper rises to the level of recklessly filing an inaccurate Campaign Treasurer's Report. Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests (CE Form 1) for the 2002 calendar year reflects an annual income of $51,279, from the Lee County School Board, joint-residential home ownership, modest tax sheltered annuities, and typical debt. This is the only financial information presented. In addition, Respondent has no previous history of involvement with Petitioner and was fully cooperative with the investigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found to have violated Subsections 106.07(5) and 106.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), and fined $3,900. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 24th day of September, 2004.
The Issue Whether Petitioners violated provisions of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Order of Probable Cause filed August 23, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Chapters 97 through 106, Florida Statutes, comprise the Florida Election Code (Code). Pursuant to the Code, the Commission is empowered specifically to enforce the provisions of Chapters 104 and 106, Florida Statutes. Mary McCarty was elected to the City Commission of Delray Beach, Florida in 1987. She was elected to the Palm Beach County Commission in 1990. She has been returned to that office in each subsequent election and she is currently a member of the Palm Beach County Commission. In November of 2002, she was elected to her fourth term as Chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Executive Committee. The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary was an unincorporated entity. It was a de facto committee, which, for reasons addressed herein, did not ever become a "political committee" as defined in Section 106.011(1), Florida Statutes. Ms. McCarty has run for public office six times and was successful on each occasion. Prior to each election she received from the Florida Secretary of State a handbook addressing campaign financing. She is familiar with the statutes and rules with regard to financing an individual campaign. Sometime before the Thanksgiving Holiday in 2000, Ms. McCarty received a telephone call from Roger Stone of Washington, D.C. Ms. McCarty knew Mr. Stone, who at various times had been a campaign operative for Senator Arlen Specter, had been involved in opposing the sugar tax amendment in Florida, and had been a consultant to Donald Trump, during his short-lived presidential campaign. Ms. McCarty was aware that Mr. Stone and Craig Snyder were principals of IKON Public Affairs, a business entity with offices in Washington, D.C., and Miami Beach, Florida. Roger Stone informed Ms. McCarty that he was forming a committee to raise funds for the purpose of taking action against the Florida Supreme Court. Mr. Stone stated that he had formed The Committee and that he wished for her to be the chairperson. She did not initially commit to undertake this responsibility. A few days after the conversation with Mr. Stone, Ms. McCarty received a facsimile draft of a fundraising letter that The Committee proposed to post. The facsimile was sent by Roger Stone from Washington. She made some suggested changes and returned it to the address in Washington from whence it came. Subsequently, she had a telephone conversation with Lora Lynn Jones of Unique Graphics and Design in Alexandria, Virginia. Ms. Jones was in the business of making mass mailings. Ms. McCarty told Ms. Jones that her name could be used on the fundraising letter although Ms. McCarty did not sign the fundraising letter. Nevertheless, the document was mailed to a large number of people and it bore the printed name, "Mary McCarty, Palm Beach County Commissioner." The first time Ms. McCarty saw The Committee's finished product it was in the form of a "Telepost, high priority communication." She first saw the "Telepost" when it arrived in her mailbox in early December 2000. The wording of the letter was different from the draft Ms. McCarty had seen earlier. Unlike the draft, it targeted specific justices on the Florida Supreme Court. It cannot be determined from the evidence the date the December "Telepost" was posted, but it was posted before Ms. McCarty determined that she had become Chairperson of The Committee. The "Telepost," dated December 2000, solicited funds so that The Committee could, ". . . send a clear message to the Florida Supreme Court that we will not tolerate their efforts to highjack the Presidential election for Al Gore." Later in December 2000, Mr. Stone called Ms. McCarthy and told her that she should be the chairman of The Committee. She agreed. Ms. McCarty signed a "Statement of Organization of Political Committee," which was dated December 19, 2000. This is a form provided by the Division of Elections, which, if properly completed and filed, officially establishes a political committee. She also signed a form entitled "Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Political Committee." Mr. Stone, or his operatives, provided these forms to Ms. McCarty. She signed them and mailed them to Mr. Stone's address in Washington, D.C., which was the headquarters of the IKON Public Affairs Group. The "Statement of Organization of Political Committee," dated December 19, 2000, was received by the Division of Elections on December 26, 2000. It listed Amber McWhorter as Treasurer. Inez Williams, who works in the document section of the Division of Elections, processed the form. When Ms. Williams received it, she recognized that the form was incomplete because on the face of it the reader could not determine if the committee was an "issue" committee, or a "candidate" committee. Ms. Williams noted that the mailing address on the form dated December 19, 2000, was "c/o VisionMedia," 1680 Michigan Avenue, Suite 900, Miami Beach, Florida. Ms. Williams found a telephone number for that business and dialed it, on December 27, 2000. No one answered so she left a message on VisionMedia's answering machine. In addition to the telephone call, Ms. Williams prepared a letter with the address of, "Mary McCarty, Chairperson, The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary, 1348 Washington Avenue, Suite 177, Miami Beach, Florida." This letter was dated December 27, 2000, and was signed by Connie A. Evans, Chief, Bureau of Election Records. This is the address found on the "Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Political Committee," which had also been received by the Division of Elections on December 26, 2000. The letter signed by Ms. Evans on December 27, 2001, informed Ms. McCarty that items 3 and 7 needed to be "rephrased." It further informed Ms. McCarty, that upon receipt of the requested information the committee would be included on the "active" list. The message recorded on The Committee answering machine on December 27, 2001, generated a response from a person who identified himself as Mr. Snyder, on January 2, 2002. Mr. Snyder engaged in a telephone conversation with Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams explained to Mr. Snyder that items 3, 5, 7, and 8, would have to be completed properly as a condition of The Committee's being recognized. A letter dated January 4, 2001, bearing the letterhead of "The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary," and signed by Amber Allman McWhorter, was faxed to the Division of Elections on January 4, 2001, and received that date. This letter referenced the telephone call between Ms. Williams and Craig Snyder, who was further identified as The Committee's attorney. The letter stated that a corrected Statement of Organization of Political Committee, and a designation of treasurer, would be forwarded to the Division of Elections within the next 72 hours. On January 8, 2001, a filing was received by the Division of Elections that was deemed by the Division to be complete. Subsequently, in a letter dated January 10, 2001, and signed by Connie Evans, informed Ms. McCarty and The Committee that the Statement of Organization and the Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for The Committee complied with the Division of Elections' requirements. The Committee was provided with Identification No. 34261. Posted with the letter was a copy of the "2000 Handbook for Committees," which is published by the Division of Elections. The letter and the handbook were sent to The Committee operation in Miami, not Ms. McCarty, and no one in the Miami Beach operation ever forwarded it to her. Connie Evans, Bureau Chief of Election Records, the entity that supervises the filing of the forms mentioned above, believes that due to a court ruling in Florida Right to Life v. Mortham, Case No. 98-770-Civ-Orl-19A, the language in Section 106.011, Florida Statutes, which defines a "political committee," has been found to be unconstitutional. She believes that a political committee is not required to register with the Division of Elections but that if a committee does register, it must abide by the statutes regulating political committees. Ms. Evans has informed numerous entities of this interpretation of the law in letters. The efficacy of that case, and Ms. Evans' interpretation of it, will be discussed further in the Conclusions of Law, below. Ms. McCarty signed a "Campaign Treasurer's Report Summary"(CTR-Q1) which was filed with the Division of Elections on April 10, 2001. This addressed the period January 1, 2001 until March 31, 2001. Under the certification section of the CTR-Q1 are the words, "It is a first degree misdemeanor for any person to falsify a public record (ss. 839.13, F.S.)." Immediately above her signature are the words, "I certify that I have examined this report and it is true, correct, and complete." The box found immediately above and to the right of her signature, was checked to signify that Ms. McCarty was the chairperson of The Committee. According to Ms. Evans, The Division of Elections regulates several kinds of committees. There are "issues" committees, "candidate" committees," "party executive" committees, and "committees of continuing existence." Depending on the nature of the committee, different rules apply. The Committee was a "candidate" committee so the contribution regulations of a political candidate applied to the committee. That meant that the maximum contribution per person was $500. The CTR-Q1 indicated in the "Itemized Contributions Section" that seven people contributed $1,000 and one person contributed $2,000. Walter Hunter, Neda Korich, Arthur Allen, William Shutze, Caroline Ireland, Henry Allen, and Honore Wansler, contributed $1,000, each. Robert Morgan contributed $2,000. The amounts in excess of $500 were eventually returned to the $1,000 contributors, except that in the case of Henry Allen, the refund was made to Allen Investment corporation. The sum of $1,500 was returned to Robert Morgan, the $2,000 contributor, but the CTR-Q1 listed only a $500 repayment. Therefore, the CTR-Q1 in its expenditures section was incorrect with regard to Mr. Morgan. The CTR-Q1 also listed in the "Itemized Contributions Section" the receipt, on January 2, 2001, of $150,000 for "LOA/INK extension of credit for direct mail services." These words may be interpreted to mean that a loan in the form of an "in kind" service had been provided. This was reported under the name of Creative Marketing, 2760 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 250, Alexandria, Virginia. The Committee had a bank account at CityBank of Miami, Florida. The sole authorized signatory on the account was Diane Thorne. The Account No. was 3200015694. There was no entry in the bank account of the receipt of $150,000. This indicates that the item was not processed through the bank and it would not have been processed through the bank if it were really an "in kind" contribution. Because the beginning balance was zero on February 8, 2001, it is concluded that the inception date of Account No. 3200015694 was February 8, 2001. Lora Lynn Jones, is the principal of Unique Graphics and Design, which is located in Suite 253, at an address in Alexandria, Virginia, which is not further identified in the evidence of record. Ms. Jones prepared and posted the fundraising letter of December 2000, at the direction of Mr. Stone. Ms. Jones talked on the telephone with Ms. McCarty prior to mailing the fundraising letter and determined that the language in the letter was agreeable to Ms. McCarty. At the direction of Mr. Stone, Ms. Jones requested payment and received payment for her work, but from whom she cannot remember, except that she is sure that Creative Marketing did not pay it. The money for this production was paid in advance by wire transfer. There is no evidence in the record that this was paid from the account of The Committee. In fact, because the payment was made sometime in early December 2000, it could not have been paid from the account because it had not been opened. Ms. Jones is aware of an entity by the name of Creative Marketing Company and she believes it may be located in Northern Virginia, but she is not involved with it. It is found by clear and convincing evidence that the fundraising letter was not paid for by Creative Marketing, 2760 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 250, Alexandria, Virginia. The bank records of The Committee reflect a $50,000 expenditure made to Unique Graphics and Design, paid with a check dated May 9, 2001. This represents a payment for something other than the fundraising letter dated December 2000. The $50,000 item was reported as an expenditure on the CTR-Q1 that was reported to have been made on March 12, 2001. It was reported as having been made to Creative Marketing as payee. The only check in the amount of $50,000, reflected in The Committee checking account for the period February 8, 2001, to June 30, 2001, was payable to Unique Graphics and Design and was dated May 9, 2001. Therefore, it is found that the CTR-Q1 is incorrect when it was reported as having been made on March 12, 2001, to Creative Marketing. Ms. Jones believes there is a company by the name of Creative Marketing Company, which she believes may be located in Northern Virginia, but she is not involved with it. Contributions remitted in response to the fundraising letter were forwarded to one of Mr. Stone's two addresses. Because the address of 1348 Washington Avenue, Suite 177, in Miami Beach, Florida, is the address listed on the fundraising letter, it is likely that contributions in response to the fundraising letter went to Mr. Stone's Miami Beach operation. In any event, it is found as a fact that Ms. McCarty did not personally receive or have any contact with any of the contributions remitted to The Committee. The people handling the receipt of funds and the deposits were Roger Stone and people paid by his organization, including Diane Thorne, the secretary; Amber McWhorter, the treasurer; and Craig Snyder. Just as Ms. McCarty was not involved in the receipt of income to The Committee, she was also not involved in the disbursement of funds. The CTR-Q1 was completed by The Committee's staff in either Miami Beach or Washington, D.C., but Ms. McCarty had no input into its preparation. When Ms. McCarty signed the CTR-Q1 she was without knowledge as to whether the report was truthful, correct, or complete. It is further found that she made no effort to ascertain whether the report was truthful, correct, or complete. She believed it to be true and correct because she trusted Mr. Stone's operatives to accurately prepare the report. Ms. McCarty, excepting the current litigation, has never been the subject of a Commission action. Ms. McCarty has an income of approximately $80,000. She owns a residence jointly with her husband which is valued at approximately $300,000 and which is subject to a mortgage of approximately $200,000. She owns a vacation home in Maine jointly with her husband that is valued at approximately $25,000. She and her husband own three automobiles. She owns stocks, annuities, mutual funds or certificates of deposit of an indeterminate value.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Orders of Probable Cause entered in the case of both Mary McCarty and The Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kendall Coffey, Esquire Coffey & Wright, LLP 2665 South Bayshore Drive Grand Bay Plaza, Penthouse 2B Miami, Florida 33133 J. Reeve Bright, Esquire Bright & Chimera 135 Southeast 5th Avenue, Suite 2 Delray Beach, Florida 33483-5256 Mark Herron, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Ruching, Clerk Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue Should certain outdoor advertising signs owned by Respondent, Lamar East Florida (Lamar) be removed as a result of notices of violations brought by Petitioner, Department of Transportation (the Department) against Lamar?
Findings Of Fact Lamar is licensed pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, to conduct the business of outdoor advertising. The Department regulates the outdoor advertising business in accordance with that law. In 1964, outdoor advertising signs that are the subject of the proceeding were constructed along US Highway 1 in Volusia County, Florida. Subsequently, in 1971, outdoor advertising signs which are the subject of the proceeding were constructed along Interstate 95 in Volusia County, Florida. The signs in both places are subject to permits issued by the Department to Lamar. The signs were legally erected but became nonconforming based upon their spacing in relation to other permitted outdoor advertising signs. The Lamar signs and their spacing are described as follows: Permit No. BN674-55, East of Interstate 95, 3.183 miles north of NEB790079 Hull Road is 881 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BJ689-55, East of Interstate 95, 2.588 miles north of NEB790079 Hull Road is 343 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BN681-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.088 miles north of Pine Tree Drive is 216 feet from a sign under Permit No. BU855. Permit No. BN682-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.027 miles north of Hull Road is within 332 feet of a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BV232-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.0129 miles north of Pine Tree Drive is 216 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Each of the Lamar signs is within 660 feet of the first named highway or interstate, within Volusia County, Florida. Lamar owns and maintains the outdoor advertising signs that have been identified. On June 19, 1998, under dry weather conditions, a series of lightening strikes started a wildfire in a remote swampy area. Before the fire ended in July of 1998 its dimensions were extensive. The wildfire burned in Volusia and Flagler counties, Florida, west of Daytona Beach and Ormond Beach, Florida, and extending into the city of Ormond Beach. Eventually, it consumed the Lamar signs that have been described to the extent that the up-right wooden supports of each of the signs were substantially burned. This destruction took place on July 1, 1998. The degree of destruction was within the definition of "destroyed" set out in Rule 14- 10.007(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Before their destruction the signs had been lawfully permitted by the Department. Interstate 95 and US Highway 1 had been closed to the public before the Lamar signs were "destroyed." The attempt by Lamar to gain access to the outdoor advertising signs was not successful because of the road closures by government authorities. Following their destruction, Lamar re-erected the structures by reinstalling the signs at the same locations using substantially the same type of materials as had been previously found in the structures being replaced. None of the materials used to re-erect the signs were part of the sign structures immediately before the destruction of the original signs by the wildfire. When re-erected the signs were the same size, shape, and height of the destroyed signs. Lamar does not own the property where the signs are located. Lamar operates pursuant to agreements with property owners by which Lamar has the right to maintain the signs. Upon the expiration or termination of the agreements with the property owners, Lamar may remove all of its sign materials from the properties and absent an agreement no longer maintain the signs. Lamar has no other business interest in the properties where the signs are located. The purpose of the outdoor advertising signs is to lease advertising space to third parties for advertising purposes which generates income to Lamar. Each outdoor advertising sign in question provides that income. The suppression effort directed to the fire was limited due to the remoteness of the swampy area in which the fire originated and a paucity of manpower and equipment. As a consequence, the firefighting effort did not begin in earnest until June 20 or 21, 1998. The fire was combated through efforts of the Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry and other national, state, and local firefighting organizations. The fuel for the fire, that is, bushes and trees, was dry. The weather conditions were highlighted by low relative humidity and a very high dispersion index. The smoke from the fire rose in the atmosphere and carried its embers from the west to the east. The fire came out of the Hull Cypress Swamp and the embers picked up by the wind crossed fire control lines and continued to spread to the east. Eventually, the two main fingers of the fire burned together on July 2, 1998. Before it was suppressed the fire, known as the Rodeo Road Fire, would consume 61,500 acres. The progress of the fire is depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, a map of the area in question, to include the area in which the subject signs were located. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 portrays the location of the signs more precisely. More specifically, the conditions in the swamp were extremely dry at the time the fire commenced as evidenced by the available dry fuel load in the swamp, which fuel load would normally be wet. Under wet conditions the fire would either not have burned or would have meandered. Given the dry conditions in the swamp in June 1998, there was a lot more fuel available to burn. East of the swamp the land that was burned was constituted of pastures, range land, and forest lands. Some areas had been subjected to prescribed burning to control available fuel loads in an incidence of wildfire but other areas had not been subjected to prescribed burning before the wildfire. Had property owners in the area affected by the wildfire conducted prescribed burning before that event it would have reduced the fuel load available for incineration. In some places in the advance of the wildfire the fuel loads were heavy, in other places less so, in that the property was constituted of pastures. In addressing the fire, the firefighters' priorities, in turn, included their safety; the safety of the public; the protection of property, to include structures; and finally the protection of resources such as timberland. By their efforts in addressing this incident the firefighters managed to save homes and businesses by creating defensible space around those structures against the on-set of the fire. The area of defensible space necessary is at least 30 feet, which reduces the chance of direct flame impact on the structure. Another technique that was employed to address the consequences of the wildfire was backfiring or imposition of the "black line concept." This is a nationally recognized firefighting technique. It is used when a fire is burning in an area that is inaccessible or has a potential to overrun a fire control line in a setting in which unburned fuel exists between the main fire and the control line. The unburned material is then deliberately burned before the main fire reaches that area to protect the control line from the main fire. The backfire is best employed when the weather conditions are conducive to its use, including wind direction and levels of humidity. During the time that the Rodeo Road Fire took place the use of backfires was not especially successful due to the dryness of the fuels. In the course of the Rodeo Road Fire, Georgia Pacific now known as the Timber Company, used a backfire to protect its property against the northward and eastward progress of the wildfire. The backfire was lit on June 28, 1999. The backfire by the Timber Company did not control the wildfire. It was successful on the west flank of the wildfire but unavailing on the east flank where the backfire by the Timber Company intersected the wildfire and the wildfire continued its eastward progress which had already begun. The setting of the backfire by the Temper Company was an appropriate tactic. Its outcome was inconsequential when considering the progress of the wildfire and its eventual destruction of the signs. Nor is the decision of a California fire crew to use a backfire to protect itself and its equipment found to have meaningful significance in promoting the forward progress of the wildfire to the east where the wildfire would destroy the signs. The backfire lit by the fire crew occurred on July 1, 1998. Backfiring to secure safety is an approved tactic for firefighters in making an independent judgment to protect their lives.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which revokes the sign permits that have been described and requires the removal of those signs within 30 days of the entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 21st day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Burdick, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Aileen M. Reilly, Esquire Livingston & Reilly, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attention: James C. Myers, Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner, James P. Appleman, "willfully" violated Subsections 106.021(3), 106.07(5), and Section 106.1405, Florida Statutes, as alleged by Respondent, Florida Elections Commission, in its Order of Probable Cause; and whether or not Petitioner, James P. Appleman, "knowingly and willfully" violated Subsections 106.19(1)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes, as alleged by Respondent, Florida Elections Commission, in its Order of Probable Cause.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, documentary evidence, record of proceedings, and the facts agreed to by the parties in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the following Findings of Fact are made: In 2000, Petitioner was reelected to the office of State Attorney, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit. Prior to his reelection in 2000, Petitioner had been elected to the same office in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996. Petitioner, on February 1, 1999, signed a Statement of Candidate indicating that he had received, read, and understood Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. During the 2000 campaign, Petitioner made the following purchases using his personal funds in the form of cash, check or charge upon his personal credit card: a. Purchase 1: 7/12/99 Down payment/purchase of vehicle- $525.00 b. Purchase 2: 7/12/99 Purchase of vehicle/tax and title-$602.85 c. Purchase 3: 1/07/00 Bay Pointe Properties-$100.35 d. Purchase 4: 1/13/00 Delchamps Liquors-$58.50 e. Purchase 5: 1/22/00 Delchamps Liquors-$135.10 f. Purchase 6: 1/22/00 Cafe? Thirty A-$144.11 g. Purchase 7: 1/30/00 Pineapple Willy's-$17.45 h. Purchase 8: 5/05/00 Skirt/Jones of New York-$104.00- blouse/Jones of New York-$63.00 i. Purchase 9: 5/09/00 Tie/Dillards-$30.00-tie/Dillards- $40.00-misc. Big & Tall/Dillards- $8.75 j. Purchase 10: 5/23/00 Blazer/Polo Store-$199.99-short sleeve shirt/Polo Store-$39.99- short sleeve shirt/Polo Store- $39.99-short sleeve shirt/Polo Store-$39.99-shorts/Polo Store- $29.99 k. Purchase 11: 5/05/00 Casual bottoms/Brooks Brothers- $34.90-casual bottoms/Brooks Brothers-$34.90 casual bottoms/Brooks Brothers-$34.90 l. Purchase 12: 5/05/00 Shorts/Geoffrey Beene-$24.99- shorts/Geoffrey Beene-$24.99 m. Purchase 13: 5/05/00 Sport coat/Dillards-$195.00 n. Purchase 14: Telephone expense-$23.49 o. Purchase 15: 8/11/00 Tie down/Wal-Mart-$19.96-security chain/Wal-Mart-$19.26 p. Purchase 16: 8/11/00 Trailer hitch ball-$16.99 q. Purchase 17: 8/12/00 Event admission-$60.00 r. Purchase 18: 8/23/00 Liquor purchase/Delchamps-$37.41 s. Purchase 19: 8/30/00 Gas purchase/Shop a Snack-$20.00 t. Purchase 20: 8/30/00 Event admission-$40.00 u. Purchase 21: 8/30/00 Event admission/DEC-$15.00 v. Purchase 22: 8/26/00 Sign charge-$20.64 w. Purchase 23: 8/30/00 Auto insurance charge-$100.00 x. Purchase 24: 9/02/00 Gas purchase/Happy Stores-$34.00 y. Purchase 25: 9/02/00 Campaign staff/meal/food-$140.00 z. Purchase 26: 9/04/00 Ice purchase/Winn Dixie-$6.36 aa. Purchase 27: 9/05/00 Gas purchase/Swifty Store-$25.00 bb. Purchase 28: 9/06/00 Meal purchase/ St. Andrews Seafood House-$27.52 cc. Purchase 29: 9/08/00 Posthole digger-$42.90 dd. Purchase 30: 9/08/00 Lunch for sign crew-$20.14 None of these purchases were individually listed on Petitioner's Campaign Treasurer's Reports. Petitioner was reimbursed for each of the above- referenced expenditures by a check written on the campaign account, which was listed as an expenditure on Petitioner's Campaign Treasurer's Reports filed with the Division of Elections as follows: Date Name and Address of Person Receiving Reimbursement Purpose Amount 07-17-99 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 02-11-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 Reimb. Cmpgn. Vehicle Expenses Reimb. Cmpgn. Expenses $1,127.85 $830.81 06-10-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 08-07-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 Reimb. Cmpgn. Expenses Reimburse vehicle & Phone exp. $1,000.00 $400.00 08-30-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 09-08-00 Appleman, Jim PO Box 28116 Panama City, FL 32411 Reimbursement/ Campaign Expense Reimbursement Camp. Expense $670.51 $295.92 On July 18, 2000, a campaign check for $140.99 was written to Winn Dixie. This check was reported on Petitioner's Campaign Treasurer's Report with the purpose listed as being "Campaign Social Supplies." The Winn Dixie purchase included the following items: A cat pan liner. 4 cans of cat food. A box of dryer sheets. A package of kitty litter. f. A jug of laundry detergent. The total cost of these items was $33.88. Petitioner signed all of his Campaign Treasurer's Reports, certifying as to their accuracy. The July 18, 2000, purchases at Winn Dixie were made by Mrs. Appleman, Petitioner's wife, and were a result of an inadvertent error. Immediately realizing that she had purchased personal items with campaign funds, she brought the matter to Petitioner's attention. Petitioner took possession of the Winn Dixie cash register receipt for the purchases; on the receipt he circled the inappropriate purchases with a pen, noted the total amount of inappropriate purchases on the receipt adding his initials, submitted the cash register receipt to his campaign treasurer, and several days later wrote a check reimbursing the campaign for the inappropriate purchases. During the campaign, Petitioner made 30 purchases listed in paragraph 3, supra, with personal funds, i.e., cash, personal check, or personal credit card, for which he provided receipts, and sought and received reimbursement from campaign funds by campaign check. These 30 purchases were not individually reported as expenditures on Campaign Treasurer's Reports during the reporting periods during which the purchases were made, but were reported as reimbursements as reflected in paragraph 4, supra. No evidence was presented that suggested that Purchases 3-7, Purchase 14, Purchases 17-22, or Purchases 24-30 listed in paragraph 3, supra, were not for campaign-related purposes. During the April 1 through June 30, 2000, campaign reporting period, Petitioner purchased 16 items of clothing (listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchases 8-13) for which he received reimbursement from campaign funds by campaign check. Petitioner and his wife testified that these items of clothing were used exclusively for campaign functions and purposes. Admittedly, each of the items of clothing could be used for non- campaign functions and purposes. However, the Campaign Treasurer's Reports reflect that in excess of $1,100 of "campaign shirts" were purchased during the campaign, supporting Petitioner's contention that he, his wife and campaign workers were all attired, while campaigning, in a color-coordinated "uniform of the day": red shirts, and tan/khaki trousers or walking shorts. This is further supported by photographs admitted into evidence. I find credible and accept the testimony of Petitioner and his wife that the items of clothing in the questioned purchases were used exclusively for campaign functions and purposes and not to "defray normal living expenses." During the August 12 through August 31, 2000, campaign reporting period, Petitioner purchased the following items for which he received reimbursement from campaign funds by campaign check: trailer hitch ball, trailer security chain, and sign tie-downs (listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchases 15 and 16). These three items were clearly used for campaign purposes and not to "defray normal living expenses." On August 30, 2001, Petitioner received a campaign check from the campaign treasurer reimbursing him for several campaign expenses he had paid. Among these campaign expenses, Petitioner sought reimbursement for $100 for "auto insurance" (listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchase 23). From the onset of his campaign, Petitioner had consistently either paid his automobile liability insurer, United Services Automobile Association, directly with a campaign check or sought reimbursement for payments he personally made for liability insurance on his personal vehicle or the "campaign Jeep" for automobile liability insurance cost attributable to the use of the motor vehicles in the campaign. Automobile liability insurance expense is a legitimate campaign expense and can reasonably be considered an actual transportation expense exempt from the statutory prohibition against payments made to "defray normal living expenses." On July 12, 1999, Petitioner purchased a 1997 Jeep to be used as a campaign vehicle (the down payment, tax and tag are listed in paragraph 3, supra, as Purchases 1 and 2); thereafter, loan payments to Tyndall Federal Credit Union and automobile liability insurance payments to United Services Automobile Association for the campaign vehicle were paid by the campaign treasury. On December 7, 1999, the 1997 Jeep was sold/traded to a third party for a 1999 Honda which was not used as a campaign vehicle. The Tyndall Federal Credit Union lien was transferred to the 1999 Honda. After December 7, 1999, the 1999 Honda was driven by Petitioner's adult stepdaughter. At the time of the transfer of the vehicles, Petitioner and his wife agreed that she would reimburse the campaign $800 which was determined to be the value lost by the campaign when the 1997 Jeep was traded. Petitioner later determined that he should reimburse the campaign an additional $525, the amount of the down payment paid when the 1997 Jeep was purchased in July 1999. On June 2, 2000, Petitioner's wife tendered a personal check drawn on her personal account to the campaign account for $800, which was reported under an entry date of June 5, 2000, on the Campaign Treasurer's Report for the period ending June 30, 2000, as a "REF" made by Petitioner. On March 14, 2001, Petitioner tendered a personal check to the campaign account for $617. This included $525 for the 1999 Jeep down payment reimbursement and an automobile liability insurance refund. Prior to the June 5, 2000, "REF" entry on the Campaign Treasurer's Report, there had been no report reflecting the sale of the campaign vehicle. The sale of the 1999 Jeep should have been reported on the Campaign Treasurer's Report for the period ending December 31, 1999; it was not. Petitioner certified that he had examined the subject Campaign Treasurer's Report and that it was "true, correct and complete" when, in fact, it was not as it did not reflect the sale of the campaign vehicle or the failure of Petitioner to pay the campaign treasury either $800 or $1,325, the amount Petitioner ultimately determined the campaign treasury should have been reimbursed as reflected by his late reimbursements.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order finding that Petitioner, James P. Appleman, violated Subsection 106.07(5), Florida Statutes, on one occasion and Subsection 106.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes, on one occasion and assess a civil penalty of $1,000 for the violation of Subsection 106.07(5), Florida Statutes, and a civil penalty of $2,400 for violation of Subsection 106.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and dismissing the remaining alleged violations of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, against him as asserted in the Order of Probable Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David F. Chester, Esquire Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Collins Building, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Mark Herron, Esquire Messer, Caparello and Self, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Rushing, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
