The Issue Petitioner seeks to have the title to a specific motor vehicle cancelled and reissued to himself. The title at issue is currently in the name of John W. Klingerman. The central issue before the Hearing Officer is whether the title at issue was "improperly issued" by the Department so as to require cancellation of the certificate of title pursuant to Section 319.25(1), Florida Statutes. It was clear from the nature of the relief sought by the Petitioner that the disposition of this case might adversely affect the substantial interests of John W. Klingerman, the person to whom the disputed certificate of title is presently issued. Accordingly, an order was issued requiring that Mr. Klingerman be notified of the pendency of this case and of his right to file a petition to intervene in this case. Mr. Klingerman was so notified more than two months prior to the final hearing in this case. Mr. Klingerman did not seek to participate in this case. The only witness at the hearing was the Petitioner. Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 were received in evidence by stipulation of the parties. Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 10 were received in evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 9 was received with the caveat that it might later be disregarded by the Hearing Officer if, upon further consideration of the issues, the Hearing Officer determined it was not relevant. The Hearing Officer reserved ruling on the admission into evidence of Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 12. Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 13 were rejected, but Petitioner was permitted to proffer them for inclusion in the record as rejected exhibits. Petitioner's Exhibit 11 was withdrawn by Petitioner. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was received in evidence. Rulings on Petitioner's Exhibits 8, 9 and 12 Upon consideration of all of the legal issues in this case, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law hereinafter, it is clear that Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 12 are irrelevant to the disposition of the issues in this case. Accordingly, the objections to those two exhibits are sustained and both exhibits will be treated as rejected exhibits proffered for inclusion in the record. Upon further consideration, it is also clear that Petitioner's Exhibit 9 is irrelevant to the disposition of the issues in this case. Accordingly, even though Exhibit 9 has been received in evidence, no findings of fact have been based on that exhibit.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony presented at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: During November of 1986, Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service embarked upon the process of enforcing a mechanic's lien on Petitioner's 1963 Ford Stationwagon, vehicle identification number 3T24F155323 (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner's vehicle.") The owner of Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service arranged for the paperwork regarding the mechanic's lien to be handled by an agent, Title Clearing Service. Title Clearing Service is operated by John Boesch and Carol Boesch. On November 21, 1986, John Boesch mailed a document titled Notice of Claim of Lien And Proposed Sale of Vehicle to Petitioner at two different addresses. The documents were sent via certified mail. Both of the documents were returned to John Boesch because they were not delivered to the Petitioner. The documents mailed on November 21, 1986, contain all of the information itemized at Section 713.585(1)(a) through (i), Florida Statutes. On December 17, 1986, a notice of sale was published in the Fort Myers News-Press, a newspaper circulated in Lee County, Florida. The notice published in the newspaper read, in its entirety, as follows: LEGAL NOTICE OF SALE Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service, 5371 McGreagor Blvd., Fort Myers, Florida 33907 will hold a private sale on the following vehicle to satisfy lien pursuant to Chapter 713:585 of Florida Statue (sic) on January 5, 1987, at 8 a.m. 1963 Ford SW VIN #3T24F155323 Amount of Lien $2,027.95 (813) 549-0631 Dec. 17 No. 5247 Thereafter, on January 5, 1987, a private sale was conducted at which time John W. Klingerman purchased Petitioner's vehicle from Chuck's Whiskey Creek Service for $200.00. On January 13, 1987, John W. Klingerman applied to the Respondent for issuance of a certificate of title in his name, based on his purchase at the January 5, 1987, sale. On January 30, 1987, the Respondent issued a certificate of title to Petitioner's vehicle described above to John W. Klingerman of 1824 Coronado Road, Ft. Myers, Florida 323901-7008. Title Number 43916166 issued by the Respondent now shows John W. Klingerman as the owner of the 1963 Ford stationwagon bearing vehicle identification number 3T24F155323. The issuance of the certificate of title to John W. Klingerman was in reliance upon the application for certificate of title filed by John W. Klingerman and various supporting documents. The supporting documents included a copy of the certificate of compliance and the report of sale certified by the clerk of the court. Other supporting documents certified by the clerk of the court included copies of the Affidavit of Publication, the Notice Of Claim Of Lien And Proposed Sale of Vehicle, the vehicle repair order, and envelopes reflecting efforts to mail notices to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's vehicle was previously titled in the state of South Carolina.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles issue a final order in this case cancelling certificate of title number 43916166 issued to John W. Klingerman and that the Department thereafter notify John W. Klingerman of the cancellation of the certificate as provided in Section 319.25(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 22nd day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2613 The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The paragraph numbers below correspond to the paragraph numbers of the parties' proposed findings. Rulings on Petitioners Proposed Findings: Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance with exception of vehicle identification number, which is incomplete. Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Paragraph 6: First sentence rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Second sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7: First sentence rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Second sentence is accepted in substance, i.e., that publication of the notice was less than 20 days prior to scheduled sale and the newspaper publication contained insufficient information. Paragraph 8: First two sentences are rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Last sentence is rejected as irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 9: First two sentences are rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. Last two sentences are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10: Entire paragraph rejected as constituting irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 11: Entire paragraph rejected as primarily constituting argument or conclusions of law rather than findings of fact. To the limited extent this paragraph contains factual matter, it is rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted with exception of proposed purchase date. Greater weight of the evidence shows purchase date as January 5, 1987. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance, but with most details omitted as irrelevant or subordinate. Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraphs 6 and 7: Rejected as constituting irrelevant and subordinate details. Paragraph 8: First sentence rejected as not fully consistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence rejected as argument or conclusions of law, rather than findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard R. Mellon Executive Director Department of Highway and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, Esquire General Counsel Department of Highway and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Mr. Ocie C. Allen, Jr. Post Office Box 10616 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504
Findings Of Fact At or about 5:30 a.m., July 25, 1977, Trooper Vayda, while on radar patrol on the I-95 just north of the Dade County line, observed a car proceeding south at a speed of 85 m.p.h. and gave chase with his identification lights flashing. When the suspect was overtaken by Trooper Vayda suspect swerved towards Vayda causing the latter to move two wheels off the paved surface to avoid collision. The suspect subsequently left the I-95 at the 135th Street exit and while on the ramp with no other vehicles in view Vayda fired one shot which struck suspect's vehicle on the left side just above the bumper. Suspect ran through the stop light at 135th Street and rejoined the I-95 pursued by Vayda. Suspect again exited the I-95 at 125th Street and after turning east on 125th Street Vayda fired a second shot hitting suspect's right tail light. Suspect lost control of his vehicle and struck another car. Vayda stopped his vehicle, got out and told the suspect to get out of his car. Suspect then restarted his car and started eastward with Vayda in pursuit. In the interim Vayda had, via radio, alerted the Highway Patrol office of the chase and requested assistance. With the assistance of other law enforcement officers the suspect was subsequently apprehended on Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida and found to be driving a stolen car. During the chase Vayda had no information to lead him to believe suspect was other than a speeder. As a result of firing the shots Vayda was suspended from duty for a period of eight hours by the Director of the Florida Highway Patrol. Exhibit 5, the disciplinary record of Vayda, shows that Vayda was suspended for eight hours without pay on September 7, 1977 for speeding on the Florida Turnpike on July 22, 1977. Vayda was aware of the contents of General Orders 17, 20 and 43 of the Florida Highway Patrol.
The Issue Whether the disciplinary action taken against Arthur Ray Campbell was for good cause.
Findings Of Fact Arthur Ray Campbell is a Career Service Employee of the State of Florida employed by the Division of Law Enforcement, Department of Natural Resources. He was suspended for a period of eleven (11) working days for using the blue light on a Marine Patrol vehicle to run a red traffic signal in Cross City. Campbell filed a timely appeal of his suspension with the Career Service Commission. On February 10, 1976, the Florida Marine Patrol was ordered by the Office of the Governor of the State of Florida to provide personnel for a special assignment in Pensacola, Florida. These personnel were to assist local law enforcement authorities in controlling a civil disturbance in that city which had resulted from racial tensions in one of the high schools. Pursuant to those orders, Lieutenant Colonel J. J. Brown of the Florida Marine Patrol directed Major Louis Shelfer, the staff officer in charge of the Marine Patrol Emergency Squad, to notify the District Offices of the Florida Marine Patrol to dispatch Marine Patrol Emergency Squad personnel to Pensacola. Major Shelfer was ordered by Colonel Brown to make certain that all supportive personnel understood that in their movement to Pensacola blue lights and sirens would not be used. Colonel Brown further instructed Major Shelfer to advise the various district offices that personnel were to move as quickly as possible to Pensacola and that he wanted the Emergency Squad in Pensacola the morning of February 11, 1976. Just prior to 5:00 p.m. on February 10, 1976 Major Louis Shelfer called each of the district offices from which Emergency Squad personnel were being dispatched to Pensacola and advised the officer in charge or the dispatcher that the personnel on the Emergency Squad, who were already on standby for movement, were to be dispatched to Pensacola. Major Shelfer further directed that these personnel were to move to Pensacola as soon as possible but were not to run blue lights or sirens. He further advised that there was no emergency existing in Pensacola at the time. Major Shelfer did not give a time by which personnel would report in Pensacola. It was, however, the understanding of Colonel Brown and Major Shelfer that all personnel would be in Pensacola by 6:00 a.m. on February 11, 1976. In District 7, Major Shelfer spoke with Mrs. Patricia Morgan, secretary/dispatcher. Mrs. Patricia Morgan, who is also the wife of Captain H. C. Morgan, Jr., the District Supervisor of District Seven, received Major Shelfer's first alert call for the movement of the Emergency Squad personnel of District 7 to Pensacola at 4:45 p.m. on February 10, 1976. Shortly thereafter, she received the second call from Major Shelfer directing that the Emergency Squad personnel would proceed to Pensacola. Upon receiving the second call Mrs. Morgan contacted Officers Malcolm and Johnson on the communications radio and advised them that they were to proceed to Pensacola as quickly as possible but not "1018" by which she meant it was not an emergency. Mrs. Morgan further instructed these Marine Patrol Officers not to run red lights while proceeding to Pensacola. She specifically instructed Officer Malcolm that he would pick up Officer Campbell who would ride with him to Pensacola. While Officer Malcolm remembered Mrs. Morgan's reference to red lights, neither Officer Malcolm nor Officer Schumaker, who monitored their conversations, remembered any information passed on by Mrs. Morgan that the trip was not a "1018" run or not an emergency run. Mrs. Morgan was initially unable to contact Officer Campbell by radio and therefore called Officer Campbell's home and spoke with his wife giving her the information that she had given Officers Malcolm and Johnson. However, while speaking with Officer Campbell's wife, Officer Campbell called District 7 on his radio and asked Mrs. Morgan if she had any information for him. She advised Officer Campbell at that time that he would be going to Pensacola and would ride with Officer Malcolm. Mrs. Morgan did not remember giving Officer Campbell any information on the use of lights during the trip, but said that she did remember telling him it was not a "1018" run. Officer Campbell states that the information he received ordered him to return to his home and get ready to be picked up by Officer Campbell and that the information he needed had been passed on to his wife and Officer Malcolm. At approximately 7:30 p.m. on February 10, 1976, having secured from Water Patrol, gone to his home and packed, picked up Officer Campbell at his home, Officer Malcolm left Daytona for Pensacola. Officer Malcolm drove to Ocala using blue lights, where the men purchased hamburgers for their meal. Officer Malcolm ate while Officer Campbell continued to drive and the two officers changed over when they stopped to get gasoline. Officer Campbell then drove from the vicinity of Ocala to Cross City. As they approached Cross City, Officer Malcolm advised Officer Campbell to turn on the blue light because they were slightly over the local speed limit entering Cross City. As they approached the second traffic light in town which was red, Officer Campbell stopped or came almost to a complete stop at the light. As he started to proceed forward, having made certain the intersection was clear, the traffic light turned green. Malcolm and Campbell continued on through Cross City using the blue light until they reached the open highway on the north side of the city. Officer Malcolm's car does not have a siren but is equipped with blue light only. On the evening of February 10, 1976 Trooper J. R. Touchton was proceeding south on U.S. 19 in Cross City at approximately 9:00 or 9:30 p.m. He observed a northbound automobile, which shortly after he initially saw it, turn on its emergency blue lights. Trooper Touchton, not immediately identifying the type of vehicle he had passed, called his dispatcher to determine if another Florida Highway Patrol vehicle was operating in the area because the car which he had passed was a marked state law enforcement car similar to those of the Florida Highway Patrol. Touchton thought that the car which he had passed was in the process of stopping a truck immediately ahead of him. Touchton executed a "U" turn and proceeded north but shortly after Touchton turned, the truck which Touchton had thought the other patrol car was stopping turned left off the highway and the patrol car in front of him proceeded north out of Cross City still using its blue lights. Touchton saw the patrol vehicle ahead of him slow down or stop at the second traffic light but did not observe whether the second traffic light was red or green when the vehicle proceeded through it. In response to Officer Touchton's call the Highway Patrol Dispatcher advised Touchton that the vehicle which he had observed was probably a Marine Patrol vehicle being dispatched to Pensacola. Sergeant J. D. Peacock was following Officer Touchton south on U.S. 19 in Cross City and first observed that later he identified as a Marine Patrol vehicle approaching the second traffic light in Cross City. At that time the Marine Patrol had its blue lights and emergency flashers on; however, it did not have its siren on. Sergeant Peacock observed the Marine Patrol vehicle slow or stop at the traffic light and then proceed through the traffic light headed north on U.S. 19. Both Highway Patrol Officers indicated that the Marine Patrol vehicle was driving within the posted speed limit. On March 5, 1976 personnel in the Cross City, Florida Marine Patrol Office brought to Colonel J. J. Brown's attention the fact that a Marine Patrol car had passed through Cross City on February 10, 1976 using blue lights. This had been brought to the attention of the Cross City Marine Patrol by the Florida Highway Patrol Supervisor in that area, Sergeant J. D. Peacock. Colonel Brown directed Major Shelfer to conduct an investigation into the matter. Major Shelfer contacted all of the district supervisors who had sent personnel to Pensacola and requested that they provide him with the times and routes of travel of personnel which had been sent to Pensacola. From an analysis of this data, Major Shelfer determined that only personnel sent from District 7 in Daytona to Pensacola would have passed through Cross City enroute to Pensacola at the hour in question. Having determined this Major Shelfer directed Captain Morgan, Supervisor of District 7, to have the personnel from District 7 who were sent to Pensacola prepare written reports on their trips to Pensacola. Officers Campbell and Malcolm prepared and submitted written reports to Captain Morgan which were received into evidence at the formal hearing as Exhibits 5 and 6 respectively. Based upon the investigation conducted by Major Shelfer, Officer Campbell was suspended. Employee evaluations were introduced that indicate that Officer Campbell's efficiency for the period of time involved here was downgraded as a result of the conduct for which he was suspended.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer finds that substantial and competent evidence does not exist to show that the agency had good cause to suspend Officer Arthur Ray Campbell for insubordination. The Hearing Officer recommends that the suspension be set aside and further, that the Career Service Commission consider whether remedial action is necessary to clear his employee evaluation for the period in question. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of February, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Kent A. Zaiser, Esquire Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Department of Natural Resources Appeals Coordinator 202 Blount Street Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Melvin R. Horne, Esquire 800 Barnett Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent, Frank Moore, violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2008), by misusing his position and/or resources within his trust to help Lonnie Evans in his 2008 re-election campaign for Mayor of Coleman; whether Respondent violated section 112.313(6) by engaging in a traffic stop of Timothy Brunson to discuss a pending ethics complaint; and if either or both violations are proven, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Frank Moore was an officer with the City of Coleman Police Department prior to Lonnie Evans' first election as Mayor, and became the Coleman Chief of Police at some point after Evans' first election as mayor. Chief Moore retired in 2010, but remains employed by the City of Coleman as a reserve officer. Lonnie Evans served as mayor of the City of Coleman for twelve years. Prior to his service as mayor, he was on the City Council for 24 years. Respondents Moore and Evans were, at all times relevant to this proceeding, subject to the requirements of chapter 112, part III, Florida Statutes, otherwise known as the Code of Ethics for public officers and employees. Lonnie Evans ran for re-election as mayor in 2008, and was defeated by Eve Carruthers. The election was held on December 8, 2008. Coleman is a small town in Sumter County, Florida, with approximately 600 residents and 200 registered voters. Because of the size of the community and the nature of their jobs, Frank Moore and Lonnie Evans know each other fairly well, and are, in turn, well-known in the community. At the time relevant to this case, the police department in the City of Coleman consisted of three officers: the police chief, one additional full-time patrol officer, and one reserve officer. During at least part of the time relevant to these proceedings, the full-time patrol officer was James Dingle. Mr. Dingle was hired in December of 2007. He was interviewed by Chief Moore and Mayor Evans, and Mayor Evans hired him on a conditional basis until his employment could be approved by the City Council, consistent with the town's charter. Mr. Dingle was on probationary status for the first year of his employment. In October 2008, Frank Moore and Lonnie Evans determined that his probation should be extended, and in December 2008, his employment was terminated by vote of the City Council. At the heart of Mr. Dingle's termination was his handling of traffic tickets and refusal to change the manner in which he handled them, after counseling by Chief Moore, and his unwillingness to follow orders given to him by his superiors. Mr. Dingle would routinely write tickets indicating that the offending driver was going less than his or her actual speed. The actual speed would be listed under "comments," whereas the speed Mr. Dingle fabricated would be listed on the ticket as the speed the offender was driving. Mr. Dingle felt it was a matter of officer discretion, and that it was "unethical" not to give drivers a break. Frank Moore, on the other hand, directed Mr. Dingle to use the actual speed when writing tickets, leaving the discretion up to the judge. After counseling by Chief Moore, Mr. Dingle continued to write tickets for the lower speed. Because he felt Chief Moore's direction to use the actual speed was unethical, he did not feel he needed to follow it. On July 24, 2009, some seven months after Mr. Dingle was fired and eight months after the mayoral election, the Florida Commission on Ethics received a complaint by Mr. Dingle against Frank Moore, alleging that Moore was campaigning for Lonnie Evans while on duty (COE Case No. 09-100). No corresponding complaint was received from Mr. Dingle with respect to Mr. Evans. Specifically, the complaint stated: On November 18, 2008, at or about 9:00 A.M. Chief Frank Moore failed to show for traffic court which he was subpoena to appear. . . . After I (James Dingle) completed traffic court, I went to the Coleman Police Department and observed Frank Moore and the current mayor Lonnie G. Evans inside the Chief's office with several copies of campaign (flyers) laying on his desk, I also observed a voters list of the residence of Coleman who were registered to vote in the city election and phone numbers. On two separate occasions, when I walked into the police station I overheard the Mayor talking to an unknown person asking them to vote for him. Note: that the Mayor Evans and Chief Moore were inside the City of Coleman Police Station and using the City office supplies for Mayor Evens' campaign. On one occasion I observed the Mayor hang the phone up in the middle of his conversation when I walked back into Chief Moore's office. Since Chief Moore is hard of hearing, I heard Chief Moore say to Mayor Evans "who else we can call." Note: that Chief Moore was on full uniform and on duty. I made contact with two of Coleman residences who advised me that Chief Moore was driving the Mayor around in the City's vehicle asking residences to vote for him. The following residences are willing to speak to any investigator in this matter: (1) Lucy Burnette . . . . (2) Ronnie Owens . . . At hearing, Mr. Dingle acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge regarding the allegation that Chief Moore and Mayor Evans were campaigning in a city-owned vehicle, and had never witnessed them doing so. Mr. Dingle's Coleman Police Department Daily Activity/Log Report for November 18, 2008, indicates that Mr. Dingle started his work shift at 12:30 p.m. and was in traffic court from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. He claimed that he had stated the wrong time for the events because there were other days that week where he had appeared in traffic court in the morning. The time records do not support this statement. Mr. Dingle testified that on November 18, 2008, he entered the police station three times. The first time, he did not observe or hear anything unusual. The second time he entered, however, he claims that he heard Mayor Evans tell Chief Moore to "hush" or "be quiet." He also testified that he saw campaign flyers, envelopes and stamps on Chief Moore's desk. In addition, he saw a list that he believed to be a voter registration list on the desk. The third time he entered the police station, Mr. Dingle stated that he heard Chief Moore ask Mayor Evans "who else can you call to help him." He also claimed that the mayor again told the chief to be quiet because someone else was in the building. Contrary to his written complaint, Mr. Dingle did not testify that he saw Mayor Evans use the police station telephone and did not testify that he heard anyone asking for a vote. Mayor Evans owns and uses a cell phone. There is no clear and convincing evidence that any conversation that Mr. Dingle overheard took place using a city telephone. Mr. Evans' testimony that he did not use a city phone to campaign is credible and accepted. The door of the police station locks when it is shut, and must be opened either with a key from the outside, or by someone opening it from the inside. In addition, there is a pass-through window in Chief Moore's office through which he can observe people coming in and out of the police station. While Chief Moore is hard of hearing, he is not deaf, and he would have been able to see and hear people entering the building. His testimony that Evans at no time asked him to be quiet is credited. Moreover, overhearing the comment "who else can you call" and concluding that the comment was campaign-related requires a leap that the undersigned is unwilling to take. There are a variety of city-related tasks and events that could require the mayor and the chief of police to work together that have nothing to do with campaigning for office. This comment, standing alone or in connection with the other observations Mr. Dingle recounted, is not clear and convincing evidence of campaigning using city resources or during work hours. At some point, Mr. Dingle saw fit to remove a page from the typewritten list, along with a campaign flyer, from his supervisor's desk, presumably after Chief Moore left for the day. He did so at after his probation had been extended by Evans and Moore, and after he had received one if not two memos criticizing his performance. The list consists of a list of names and the designation "Coleman" under a column titled "City_Name." There is no title or heading on the document. There are no addresses, telephone numbers, or voter registration numbers on the list. There is no clear and convincing evidence indicating the nature of the list or whether it actually depicted registered voters.1/ Moreover, even if Mr. Dingle's testimony is credited, the presence of campaign flyers in the police station, standing alone, is not clear and convincing evidence of using city resources to campaign. The flyer was the same type of flyer posted in places all over town. Mrs. Moore testified that she had volunteered to stuff envelopes and print flyers for Mr. Evans, and did so at home over a period of several days. Mayor Evans supplied the stamps and envelopes. She then gave the envelopes and a box of flyers to her husband so that he could deliver the flyers to Mr. Evans and mail the envelopes from the post office adjacent to the police station. The Advocate offered no evidence to rebut this testimony. Moreover, as confirmed by the city clerk, the computer and printer in Chief Moore's office did not belong to the City of Coleman, but instead belonged to Chief Moore. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, clear and convincing evidence did not establish that Chief Moore and Lonnie Evans were engaged in campaign activities in the police station on November 18, 2008. On December 9, 2009, an Order Finding Probable Cause in COE Case No. 09-100, which forms the basis for DOAH Case No. 10- 1284, was filed by the Commission on Ethics. The finding was reported in a local newspaper in January of 2010. Cynthia Martin, a City of Coleman Council member, showed the newspaper article to Timothy Bronson. Ms. Martin had run against Lonnie Evans in a previous election for mayor, and lost. As a result of Ms. Martin's encouragement, both Timothy Bronson and his mother, Gloria Bronson, filed complaints with the Commission against Chief Moore on January 22, 2010, nearly fourteen months after the last election in which Mr. Evans was a candidate (COE Complaint No. 10-016). Both complaints stated that the mayor and the chief of police had, for each election, come to their house and asked them to vote for Mayor Evans. Both indicated that Chief Moore had stated that if Evans was not elected, then he would lose his job. The mayor of Coleman does not have the authority to hire or fire the police chief. Only the city council can take that action. Frank Moore continued to serve as police chief for the City of Coleman for well over a year after the election, until sometime in 2010, when he retired. Cynthia Martin visited the Bronson's in their home and brought a notary with her so that the Bronsons could complete the complaints against Moore and Evans. The Bronsons claimed that Chief Moore would drive by their home and pull into their driveway. They would come out to the fence and speak to him. From their position on the other side of the fence from the car, they claimed that they could see campaign signs for Lonnie Evans in the back floorboard of the patrol car. Timothy Bronson also testified that on one occasion, Lonnie Evans was in the patrol car with Chief Moore, and asked his mother to vote for him. Mrs. Bronson did not testify to any such request by Lonnie Evans, and testified that when Frank Moore came to the house, Lonnie Evans was not with him. Timothy claimed in his taped interview that Chief Moore was driving a white unmarked car, but at hearing insisted that the car Chief Moore drove on these occasions was gray. Mrs. Bronson, testified that the car was either white or "brownish." Chief Moore acknowledges that he sometimes drove by the Bronson home, usually in response to a complaint by Mrs. Bronson, such as people speeding on her street. He agrees that he sometimes stopped and spoke to her and her son, but denies talking about the mayoral race. He also flatly denies ever having Lonnie Evans in his patrol car at the Bronson home. The patrol cars have dark tinted windows in the back, and the view is obstructed by both the tint and the barrier separating the front and back seats. It is unlikely that either of the Bronsons would be able to see signs in the floorboard of the backseat from a location on the other side of the fence from the car. Mrs. Bronson admitted at hearing that she suffers from short term memory loss as a result of a medical event. Timothy Bronson filed a second complaint alleging the same thing on March 3, 2010, against Lonnie Evans (COE Case No. 10-043). He and his mother also filed amendments to their first complaint on March 17, 2010. Timothy Bronson alleged that Respondent pulled him over in order to talk to him about his complaint. Mrs. Bronson claimed that he followed her closely for a mile or so, and it intimidated her.2/ Clear and convincing evidence did not support Timothy Bronson's allegation. On April 14, 2010, Lucy Burnette also filed a complaint with the Commission on Ethics, against Lonnie Evans. In her complaint (Ethics Complaint 10-074), she claimed that Mayor Evans came with Chief Moore to the local fruit stand, in the police car while Chief Moore was in uniform, asking her to vote for him. Ms. Burnette did not file a complaint against Chief Moore. The complaint was written out by Cynthia Martin, while Ms. Burnette volunteered at the fruit stand. She acknowledged at hearing that some of the statements contained in the written statement were not true, and she wished that she had read the statement more closely before she signed it. For example, the statement in her complaint that "the former mayor asked me to vote for him while he was with the chief of police, in uniform" was not true. According to Ms. Burnette, Mr. Evans did not get out of the car and did not speak to her. Ms. Burnette testified that Chief Moore and Mayor Evans came to the fruit stand in a gray city police car. Mayor Evans was in the passenger seat. Chief Moore got out of the car, according to Ms. Burnette, and told her she needed to talk to Mayor Evans about what she wanted and she could possibly get it. The only indication as to when this incident supposedly occurred was that it happened just before the 2008 election. Ms. Burnette had an ongoing issue with the City of Coleman over her attempts to run a deli or barbeque on her property. At one point, while she claimed she was not a resident of Coleman, Chief Moore had been directed to "shut her down." She claimed that she wanted, but did not need, a license to operate, and that Chief Moore told her to talk to the mayor and he could help her get the license she sought. Although the record is unclear, it appears that her licensure problem exists because her property is not zoned for commercial use, and that in order for her to get a license, she would have to seek a variance from the city council. In any event, Mayor Evans does not issue licenses or direct them to be issued. While he may have had some influence on the decision- making process, the comment made by Chief Moore, if in fact he made it, made no reference to the election or voting for Mayor Evans. Ms. Burnette simply made the assumption that Chief Moore was implying that a vote for Mayor Evans would help Ms. Burnette's efforts to receive a license. She even referred to Chief Moore's statement as some sort of bribe by Mayor Evans, delivered through Chief Moore. Chief Moore often stopped by the fruit stand on his way home from work to buy some fruit. Lucy Burnette often complained to him about her problems related to getting a license when he stopped by. He testified that he told her, on more than one occasion, that she should talk to Mayor Evans or members of the city council about her problem, but did not talk to her about the election or ask her for votes. His testimony is credited. Lucy Burnette's written complaint indicates that there were witnesses to Chief Moore and Mayor Evans coming to the fruit stand in the police car. Investigator Maolli from the Commission on Ethics was unable to locate any witnesses to corroborate her account. On April 14, 2010, Ronnie Owens filed complaints with the Commission on Ethics against both Chief Moore and Mayor Evans (COE Complaint Nos. 10-075 and 10-076). Cynthia Martin approached Mr. Owens and told him about "the election thing," and asked him if he saw Chief Moore and Lonnie Evans in the car together. She asked him to file complaints with the Commission on Ethics, and actually wrote out the complaints for him to sign. Prior to Ms. Martin approaching him, Mr. Owens was not aware that there was any problem with the mayor and the police chief campaigning while on duty. He admitted that he filed the complaint after he had a "run-in" with Chief Moore over an incident that took place at a local store. The City of Coleman is bisected by a railroad track. Residents living in the neighborhood on the west side of the track are predominately African-American. This area of the town is sometimes referred to as "the quarters." It is not unusual for some residents of the quarters to sit at a table in a lot on the corner, or on someone's front porch, and play cards or dominos. Mr. Owens claims that prior to the election, he and some other men were sitting at Mr. Robert T's house playing dominos. Mayor Evans and Chief Moore drove up in the gray Crown Vic and walked over to the men, and Chief Moore asked them to support Lonnie Evans in his election. One of the men asked Evans for a campaign sign, and Evans indicated he did not have any with him, but would bring one back. Mr. Owens testified that Lonnie Evans later returned, in his truck, and gave a campaign sign to one of the men. Mr. Owens stated that there were five men present when Mayor Evans and Chief Moore came by the quarters. None of the other men testified at hearing, and Investigator Maolli was unable to find any who could corroborate that Evans and Moore came to the quarters in the police car while Moore was in uniform. Each incident reported by the Bronsons, Ms. Burnette, and Mr. Owens involved the use of a city-owned police car while campaigning. The City of Coleman owns three police cars: a marked patrol car, a white Crown Victoria, and a gray Crown Victoria. The passenger compartment of the police cars contains a computer, printer, video system, radar unit, and other equipment. By necessity, this equipment takes up space not normally filled in a regular vehicle. The City Council had approved Chief Moore's use of a car as a "take home" vehicle, and he used the white Crown Victoria almost exclusively. He drove the white police car back and forth to work from his home in Cedar Hill. He testified credibly that he was allowed to make stops in the city car, for example to pick up a grocery item, on his way to and from work. It was not permissible to use the car for personal entertainment or trips. Chief Moore also drove his personal car, a Buick Lucerne. Lonnie Evans stopped driving, at the urging of his wife and son, by either September or early October of 2008 because of his declining eyesight. As a consequence, he did not drive during the 2008 campaign. He was driven to campaign by his wife, Carolyn, in their red Jeep SUV, by a member of the City Council and former postmistress Vergie Everett (who passed away in February of 2010) in her Cadillac, or on one occasion, by Chief Moore in his privately-owned Buick. Both men testified credibly that when Chief Moore drove Mr. Evans, it was on a weekend and Chief Moore was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt. Both men also testified that there was one occasion when Lonnie Evans rode in the front seat of the white police car while it was driven by Chief Moore. A benefit was held to help Cleveland Williams, a former member of the city council, who had become disabled. After the benefit, the proceeds were counted at City Hall and placed in an envelope for delivery. Mayor Evans accompanied Chief Moore to deliver the funds raised at the benefit. The two men rode past the location in the quarters where the men played dominos on their way to Mr. Williams' home, but did not stop. Because of the amount of equipment and the "accumulated mess" in the police car, Mayor Evans found it exceedingly uncomfortable and was emphatic that he would not repeat the experience. With the exception of one of the men in the quarters requesting a sign, there is no claim that at any time signs or flyers or campaign literature of any kind was distributed. There was one occasion when, according to Chief Moore, campaign signs for both candidates were placed in a patrol car. On the one occasion when this occurred, teenagers had vandalized some campaign signs for both candidates. They were transported in the white police car to where the kids were congregated, and then placed in the marked patrol car and taken to the police station where the parents of the suspected were contacted and shown the signs. His testimony is credited. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Mayor Evans or Chief Moore ever used a city vehicle to campaign during the December 2008 election, and there is not clear and convincing evidence that Chief Moore campaigned on Lonnie Evans' behalf while on duty. Bob and Carolyn Bolesta also testified to a conversation with Chief Moore that they believed occurred shortly before the 2008 election. Both denied ever seeing Chief Moore and Mayor Evans riding in a police car together. However, they both testified that, on occasion, Chief Moore would come by their home to check on them, as Mr. Bolesta had suffered from some significant heath issues. On one occasion, the Bolestas testified that Bob Bolesta and Chief Moore discussed the election and Mr. Bolesta (who supported Eve Carruthers) expressed the view to Chief Moore that Mayor Evans "was in trouble." He stated that Chief Moore then said he would have to go see some people about the votes, and believed that Chief Moore initiated the conversation. Frank Moore acknowledged going out to the Bolestas to check on them, and enjoyed speaking with them. He denied, however, asking them to support Lonnie Evans for mayor. Chief Moore did admit politics may have been discussed with Mr. Bolesta, as Mr. Bolesta liked to talk about Coleman and what was going on in the town. Chief Moore denied initiated the discussion regarding the election and denied asking for votes. The Bolestas were also often visited by James Dingle when he was with the police department. Mr. Bolesta often attended city council meetings, and was disturbed about James Dingle's termination from the police department. The more credible evidence demonstrates that the Bolestas and Chief Moore did discuss politics as part of a general discussion, but that the discussion did not rise to the level of campaigning for Mayor Evans.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report finding that no violation of section 112.313(6) has been demonstrated. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 2011.
