18-002638EC In Re: Nancy Oakley vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, December 7, 2018.

Summary: Respondent, a city commissioner, misused her office by having improper and unwanted contact with two city employees at a public meeting of the city commission. She should receive a public censure and reprimand and pay a $5,000 civil penalty.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: NANCY OAKLEY, Case No. 18 - 2638EC

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A final hearing was held in this matter before Robert S.

Cohen, Administrative Law Ju dge with the Division of

Administrative Hearings ( Ð DOAH Ñ ), on September 24, 2018 , in

Clearwater , Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Advocate : Melody A. Hadley, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

For Respondent: Kennan George Dandar, Esquire

Timothy M. Dandar, Esquire

Dandar & Dandar, P.A.

Post Office Box 24597

Tampa, Florida 33623

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The issue s are whether Respondent violated section

112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2018) , by exhibiting inappropriate

behavior toward city staff ; and, if so, what is the appropriate

penalty .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On April 25, 2018 , the Commission on Ethics ( Ð Commission Ñ )

issued an Order Finding Probable Cause to believe that

Respondent violated section 112.313(6) of the Code of Ethics for

Public Officers and Employees. In accordance with Florida

Administrative Code Chapter 28 - 106 , the chairman of the

Commission requested that the public hearing of this complaint

be conducted by DOAH and referred the complaint to DOAH on

May 18, 2018 .

The case was assigned to the undersigned , who entered a

Notice of Hearing scheduling the final hear ing for July 25,

2018 . Advocate filed an agreed - upon motion to continue the

hearing, and the final hearing was rescheduled for July 25

and 26, 201 8 . The final hearing again was rescheduled for

September 24, 2018 . Advocate filed its Motion in Limine to

E xclude Respondent Ó s Documentary Evidence and Motion in Limine

to Exclude and/or Limit the Testimony of Respondent Ó s Witnesses

on September 19, 2018. On September 19, 2018, Advocate Ó s Motion

Requesting Official Recognition was filed. The documents

referen ced in AdvocateÓs Motion Requesting Official Recognition

are listed as Advocate Ó s Exhibits 3 and 5. Respondent did not

file a written response to any of the three motions .

On September 24, 2018, t he hearing commenced as scheduled.

At the hearing, the A dvocate presented the testimony of Cheryl

McGrady Crawford, Dave Marsicano, Travis Palladeno, Francine

Jackson, Tom Verdensky, Joseph Campagnola, Terry Lister , and

Respondent. The parties have agreed to use the September 10,

2018, deposition transcript of Nicole Bredenburg Ó s testimony in

lieu of live testimony. Advocate Ó s Exhibits 3, 5, and 6 we re

admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on h er own behalf

and presented the testimony of Robin Vander Velde, Ron Little,

Linda Hein, Doreen Moore , Jim Mad den, and Elaine Poe.

Respondent Ó s Exhibit 1 w as admitted into evidence.

A two - volume T ranscript of the proceedings was filed on

October 18 , 201 8 . By agreement of the parties, p roposed

r ecommended o rders were initially due on October 26, 2018 . On

October 16, 2018, Advocate for the Commission filed its Agreed

upon Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended

Orders, requesting to extend the filing time until November 9,

2018 . The motion was granted. A Second Agreed Motion to Extend

Time to F ile Proposed Recommended Orders was filed on

November 9, 2018, requesting the time be extended until

November 13, 2018 , due to a family emergency for Respondent Ó s

counsel. The motion was granted . The parties filed their

Proposed Recommended Orders , which have been duly considered in

the preparation of this Recommended Order.

References to statutes are to Florida Statutes (201 8 ) ,

unless otherwise noted.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. Respondent served as a c ity c ommissioner of Madeira

Beach from 2007 through March 2 013 , and was reelected to the

office in March 2017.

2. Shane Crawford served as the c ity m anager of Madeira

Beach from January 2012 through July 2017.

3. C heryl McGrady Crawford served as a full - time employee

of Madeira Beach in different capacities: intern for the

p lanning and z oning coordinator; in the b uilding d epartment; and

c ity c lerk. In addition, she served as the e xecutive a ssistant

to then - City Manager Shane Crawford from September 2012 through

February 2017 , where her job responsibilities i ncluded acting as

deputy clerk when the c ity c lerk was unable to attend a function

or meeting.

4. David Marsicano has been serving as Madeira Beach Ó s

p ublic w orks and m arina d irector for 17 years.

5. Travis Palladeno served as the mayor of Madeira Bea ch

from 2011 through 2017.

6. Terry Lister served as a c ity c ommissioner of Madeira

Beach from 2008 through 2018.

7. Francine Jackson was a Madeira Beach employee for

approximately 11 years. Her last position was as the assistant

to Public Works Di rector Marsicano from 2012 through 2014.

8 . Thomas Verdensky is the president of the Old Salt

Foundation , which is a volunteer organization.

9 . Joseph Campagnola is a retired 13 - year New York City

police officer who has volunteer ed as head of securit y

(coordinates sheriff Ó s department and personal guards) for Old

Salt Foundation events for the past nine years.

10. Nicole Bredenberg was present at the November 3, 2012 ,

Madeira Beach City Commission (ÐCity CommissionÑ) meeting.

11. Respondent is s ubject to the requirements of

c hapter 112, p art III, the Code o f Ethics f or Public Officers

a nd Employees , for her acts and omissions during her tenure as a

c ity c ommissioner of Madeira Beach. See § 112.313(6), Fla.

Stat. and City Charter Section 2 - 31 Dut ies and Responsibilities.

12. As a c ity c ommissioner of Madeira Beach , Respondent

took an oath Ð to faithfully perform the duties of [her] office

and the Constitution of [ sic ] the laws of the State of Florida

and the United States of America. Ñ

13. As a c ity c ommissioner of Madeira Beach, Respondent

was prohibited from interfering with administration as provided :

Ð The Board of Commissioners nor any member thereof shall give

orders to any subordinate or Officer of said City, either

publicly or privately, directly or indirectly. Ñ

14. As a c ity c ommissioner, Respondent Ó s responsibilities

included attending City Commission meetings, regular or special.

At the City Commission meetings, the c ity c lerk is responsible

for taking the meeting minutes. If the c ity c lerk is

unavailable, a substitute is needed or the meeting cannot be

held.

15. Mr. Palladeno told the new Madeira Beach c ity m anager ,

Shane Crawford , that he wanted an outdoor meeting since they are

a beach community. In November 2012, an outdoo r City Commission

meeting was held in conjunction with the King of the Beach

Tournament , a fishing tournament occurring biannually in Madeira

Beach. The meeting was to recognize Bimini, Bahamas , as Madeira

Beach Ó s sister city with a presentation of a key to the city and

a proclamation. The King of the Beach Tournament is organized

by the Old Salt Fishing Foundation.

16. The event was held on a baseball field having field

lights , which turned on as it started to get dark.

17. Respondent was present at this event in her official

capacity to participate in the meeting. She had consumed

alcohol at the all - day fishing tournament .

18. Then - c ity cl erk, Aimee Servedio, could not attend this

meeting , so a substitute was required or the meeting could not

go forward. Ms. McGrady (prior to her becoming Ms. Crawfor d )

had been assigned the role of deputy clerk and was prepared to

take minutes.

19. Respondent dislikes Ms. Crawford because she believed,

without any proof produced at hearing and a firm denia l at

hearing by Ms. Crawford , that she and Shane Crawford were having

an affair at th e time of the meeting at issue, which was prior

to their marriage .

20. The City Commission could not start the meeting the

evening after the tournament because Respondent refused to go on

stage due to Ms. McGrady Ó s role as deputy clerk. There was a

heated discussion between Shane Crawford, Ms. McGrady , and

Respondent. Respondent actually refused to attend the meeting

if Ms. McGrady w as present , and demanded that she be r emoved

from the area.

21. Mr. Palladeno and an official Bimini representative

were in the vicinity of the heated discussion. Referring to

Ms. McGrady, and in her presence, Mr. Palladeno heard Respondent

say, Ð You need to get that f[ *** ]ing b [itch] out of here. Ñ

Mr. Palladeno rushed in to move the Bimini representative away

from the situation.

22. Lynn Rosetti, who at that time was the planning and

zoning director , had to fill in because Respondent refused to

attend the meeting if c ity employee, Ms. McGrady , was allowed to

substitute for the c ity c lerk. Respondent Ó s actions interfered

with Ms. McGrady Ó s job duties.

23. After the meeting was over, Respondent approached

Shane Crawford with Ms. McGrady , David Marsicano and his then -

wife Shelley, and Nicole Bredenberg also in the immediate area.

24. Using her tongue, Respondent licked City Manager Shane

Crawford up the side of his neck and face. This act was

witnessed by Ms. McGrady , Mr. Marsicano, Mr. Bredenberg, and

Mr. Verdensky.

25. Resp ondent then groped City Manager Shane Crawford by

grabbing his penis and buttocks. This act was witnessed by

Ms. McGrady and Mr. Bredenberg.

26. Respondent then threw a punch at Ms. McGrady after she

told Respondent that her actions were inappropriate.

Mr. Marsicano Ó s ex - wife intervened and confronted Respondent.

27. Mr. Verdensky, who testified that he had been licked

by Respondent on a different occasion, called for the head of

security, Joseph Campagnola.

28. Mr. Campagnola arrived between one to two minutes

after the call. By the time he arrived, Respondent was walking

away. However, he found Shane Crawford, Ms. McGrady , and

Ms. Marsicano . He was told by Mr. Crawford that Respondent

licked his face and grabbed him , which was corroborated by

Mr. Ma rsicano and Ms. McGrady .

29. Mr. Marsicano, who testified he had also been licked

by Respondent on a different occasion, has a distinct memory of

Respondent Ó s actions at the November 2012 City Commission

meeting because of the Ð disruptions and she nanigans Ñ that

happened before, during, and after the meeting. He had to lead

his wife away because she was so upset with Respondent.

Mr. Marsicano also testified that he witnessed the face - licking

of Mr. Crawford by Respondent. He subsequently spoke wi th

Francine Jackson about what happened at that meeting.

30. Ms. Jackson was not present for the November 2012 City

Commission meeting. However, that following Monday or Tuesday,

she discussed the weekend with Mr. Marsicano and was informed by

him that Respondent licked Mr. Crawford Ó s face.

31 . Ms. McGrady was placed in a predicament when

Respondent Ó s animosity towards her became overt and physical.

Respondent created a hostile environment and employees were

rightfully fearful of retaliation if they reported Respondent Ó s

actions.

3 2 . Robin Vander Velde is a former c ity c ommissioner of

Madeira Beach and has known Respondent since 2007. Ms. Vander

Velde was outraged about an ethics complaint being filed against

her very good friend of ten years. Pr esent in her capacity as a

city commissioner at the November 2012 meeting, her recollection

of the events was foggy, at best.

3 3 . Ron Little is Respondent Ó s best friend of 20 years and

Ms. Vander Velde Ó s boyfriend. He honestly acknowledged that it

is a given that he would want to help Respondent.

3 4 . Mr. Little was unaware of Respondent Ó s Driving u nder

the Influence ( Ð DUI Ñ ) arrest, petit theft arrest, alleged

participation in a United States Postal Service ( Ð USPS Ñ ) m ail

hoax, and the reasons why she left her City of Clearwater

employment.

3 5 . Elaine Poe is a former c ity c ommissioner of Madeira

Beach. Ms. Poe was unaware of Respondent Ó s petit theft arrest,

alleged participation in a USPS m ail hoax, and why she left her

City of Clearwater employ ment.

3 6 . While Ms. Poe was at the November 2012 meeting, she

did not recall the meeting starting late.

3 7 . Jim Madden is a former c ity m anager of Madeira Beach.

He was also unaware of Respondent Ó s petit theft arrest and

alleged participation in a USPS m ail hoax.

3 8 . Doreen Moore was unaware of Respondent Ó s petit theft

arrest and alleged participation in a USPS m ai l hoax.

3 9 . Linda Hein met Respondent in 2016. She was unaware of

Respondent Ó s petit theft arrest.

40 . Originally, Ms. Hein did not remember attending the

November 2012 meeting until her memory was refreshed;

regardless , she could not provide eyewitness testimony

concerning the alleged licking incident .

41 . Michael Maximo, is the former Madeira Beach c ommunity

s ervices d irector . He testified he had been licked by

Respondent on a different occasion , during the soft opening of a

Bubba Gump Ó s Restaurant in John Ó s Pass Village. He recalled the

details of the specific incident and said Respondent was

inebriated at the time , and she came over to him and licked his

face and neck in the presence of h er husband , who quickly

escorted her from the building. Mr. Maximo refuted the

testimony of Respondent Ó s witnesses as his knowledge of

Respondent Ó s reputation in the community was as a Ð fall down

drunk , Ñ who should not be representing the community. This was

a different picture from the one painted by Respondent Ó s friends

who, while admitting she liked to have a drink or several with

them and others , they could not imagine her lick ing someone in

public.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

4 2 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes.

4 3 . Section 112.322 and Fl orida Administrative Code

Rule 34 - 5.0015 authorize the Commission to conduct

investigations and to make public reports on complaints

concerning violations of p art III, c hapter 112 (the Code of

Ethics for Public Officers and Employees).

4 4 . The burden of p roof, absent a statutory directive to

the contrary, is on the Commission , the party asserting the

affirmative of the issue of these proceedings. Dep Ó t of Transp .

v. J.W.C. Co. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Balino v.

Dep Ó t of HRS , 348 So. 2d 349 (Fl a. 1st DCA 1977). In this

proceeding, it is the Commission, through its Advocate, that is

asserting the affirmative: that Respondent violated section

112.313(6). Commission proceedings , which seek recommended

penalties against a public officer or employ ee , require proof of

the alleged violation(s) by clear and convincing evidence. See

Latham v. Fla . Comm Ó n on Ethics , 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA

1997). Therefore, the burden of establishing by clear and

convincing evidence the elements of Respondent Ó s vi olation is on

the Commission.

4 5 . As noted by the Supreme Court of Florida :

[C]lear and convincing evidence requires

that the evidence must be found to be

credible; the facts to which the witnesses

testify must be distinctly remembered; the

testimony must be precise and explicit and

the witnesses must be lacking in confusion

as to the facts in issue. The evidence must

be of such weight that it produces in the

mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established.

In re: Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994) ( quoting

Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ) .

The Supreme Court of Florida also explained, however, that,

although the Ð clear and convincing Ñ standard requires more than

a Ð preponderance of the evidence, Ñ it does not require proof

Ð beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. Ñ Id .

4 6 . Section 112.313(6), the statute under which Respondent

is charged, provides in part :

MISUSE OF PUBLIC P OSITION. Ï No public

officer, employee of an agency, or local

government attorney shall corruptly use or

attempt to use his or her official position

or any property or resource which may be

within his or her trust, or perform his or

her official duties, t o secure a special

privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself,

herself, or others. This section shall not

be construed to conflict with s. 104.31.

4 7 . Section 112.313(6) may be broken down into the

following elements:

a. Respondent must have been a p ublic

officer or employee.

b. Respondent must have:

1 ) used or attempted to use his or her

official position or any property or

resources within his or her trust, or

2 ) performed his or her official duties.

c. Respondent Ó s actions must have been taken

to secure a special privilege, benefit or

exemption for him - or herself or others.

d. Respondent must have acted corruptly,

that is, with wrongful intent and for the

purpose of benefiting him - or herself or

another person from some act or omission

which was inconsistent with the proper

performance of public duties.

4 8 . In section 112.312(9), t he term ÐÒ [ c ] orruptly Ó means

done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining, or

compensating or receiving compensation for, any benefit resulti ng

from some act or omission of a public servant which is

inconsistent with the proper performance of his or her public

duties. Ñ

4 9 . The Latham court found that s ection 112.313(6) includes

within its proscriptions sexual harassment of an employee or an

at tempt to obtain sexual favors from a subordinated employee.

See also Garner v. Fla. Com m Ó n on Ethics , 415 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1982); Comm Ó n on Ethics v. Lancaster , 421 So. 2d 711 (Fla.

1st DCA 1982); and Bruner v. State Comm Ó n on Ethics , 384 So. 2d

13 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

50 . Ð In addition, the statute [ s

specifically require that as a result of a pubic officer Ó s

efforts to obtain a benefit from an employee, that employee will

necessarily be impacted in any particular way. Ñ Garner v. Comm Ó n

on Ethics , 439 So. 2d 894, 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

51 . Ð It is possible for the corrupt intent required by the

statute to be formed instantaneously, and a premeditated plan for

securing a special benefit is not required by the statute. Even

a reflexive reaction may rise to the level of corrupt intent,

depending on the circumstances . Ñ In Re: Fred Peel , 15 F .A.L.R.

1187 (Comm Ó n on Ethics, 1992).

5 2 . Section 112.311(6) also provides:

It is declared to be the policy of the state

that p ublic officers and employees, state and

local, are agents of the people and hold

their positions for the benefit of the

public. They are bound to uphold the

Constitution of the United States and the

State Constitution and to perform efficiently

and faithf ully their duties under the laws of

the federal, state, and local governments.

Such officers and employees are bound to

observe, in their official acts, the highest

standards of ethics consistent with this code

and the advisory opinions rendered with

resp ect hereto regardless of personal

considerations, recognizing that promoting

the public interest and maintaining the

respect of the people in their government

must be of foremost concern.

5 3 . Ð Maintaining the respect of the people Ñ is a level of

conduct for which a public official should strive. It is what

the public should be able to expect from its officials. A public

official Ó s conduct is exhibited through her words and actions.

5 4 . The first element from section 112.313(6) concerning

misuse of a pu blic position was proven. During the relevant time

period, Respondent served as a c ity c ommissioner of M adeira Beach

and was acting in her official capacity , at a meeting of the C ity

C ommission, when the violation occurred .

5 5 . The second, third, and fou rth elements were proven as

well. Clear and convincing evidence was presented that

Respondent disregarded her responsibilities as a c ity

c ommissioner. Respondent first held the November 2012 C ity

C ommission meeting hostage until c ity employee, Cheryl McG rady

Crawford (Cheryl McGrady at the time) , was removed from her sight

and not allowed to take the minutes of the meeting, the reason

she was attending in the first place . Respondent allowed her

hatred of Ms. McGrady to cause her to rebuke her oath of off ice

and not perform the duties of her office. Additionally,

Respondent committed an assault and battery of Mr. Crawford, a

c ity employee, at the same meeting . The testimony , which is

credited, proved she also committed additional assaults and

batter ies o n two other c ity employees , Mr. Marsicano and

Mr. Maximo , and the head of the Old S alt Foundation,

Mr. Verdensky , on previous occasions .

5 6 . The facts that are consistent from the testimony of the

witnesses called by the Advocate are : 1) that Respondent delayed

the start of the City Commission meeting by refusing to allow

Ms. McGrady to participate in her official capacity ; 2) she

cursed Ms. McGrady, a c ity employee; 3) she committed a battery

against the c ity m anager by licking his neck and face and grop ing

him; and 4) she assaulted Ms. McGrady by throwing a punch at her.

The fact that the credible witnesses are not retelling the exact

same version of the events, word for word , after six years, is

evidence that they did not collaborate on the facts of

Re spondent Ó s violation in order to Ð get the story straight. Ñ Any

discrepancies in their testimony, especially concerning the exact

location ( whether on stage where the meeting was taking place, in

front of the stage, or a short distance from the stage ) of w here

the actions complained of took place, are insignificant and do

not mitigate the bizarre behavior of Respondent.

5 7 . While a Ð motive Ñ generally does not matter, a

fabrication of facts would. In this case, no evidence was

presented to show an ulterior motive in filing the complaint. It

is generally established that the courts will not inquire into

motives which actuate plaintiff s in bringing lawsuits.

Ð Character evidence is only admissible if the party places its

character in evidence , and even then, it is only admissible by

way of reputation evidence. Ñ Midtown Enters. v. Local

Contr actors , Inc. , 785 So. 2d 578, 580 - 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

5 8 . No credible evidence was presented to demonstrate why

seven witnesses would fabricate facts of this nature. A

fabricated story would be well - rehearsed and allege facts more

mainstream, such as an unwanted kiss, or unwanted hug - Î not

licking someone Ó s face. The fact that Respondent had engaged in

similar behavior in the past, in public settings and involving

per sons with employment or service to the c ity , makes the

testimony , and her actions directed at Mr. Crawford, that much

more believable. The act of licking a person on the face and

neck is too unusual to be contrived by multiple witnesses and

multiple victi ms. No credible evidence was presented to support

some conspiracy or plan by the witnesses and victims against

Respondent.

5 9 . In its case - in - chief, Respondent called six witnesses

who testified as character witnesses. However, Respondent did

not pres ent their testimony as evidence of her truthfulness in

the community and, in fact, none of the witnesses discussed

Respondent Ó s truthfulness or reputation for honesty or truth in

the community. Accordingly, Respondent introduced their

testimony to show th at they believed licking Shane Crawford Ó s

face on November 3, 2012 , was not in conformity with her

reputation in the community, which is impermissible. None of

them testified they witnessed the events resulting in the charges

being brought against Respond ent.

60 . Section 90.404, Florida Statutes, concerns character

evidence primarily when offered as a basis of inferring that,

because the person has a particular disposition or reputation,

she acted in conformity with that reputation on the occasion in

ques tion. This testimony is said to be offered to prove a

person Ó s propensity. This section generally limits the

admissibility of character evidence offered for this purpose to a

few enumerated situations in criminal cases. See Ehrhardt ,

Florida Evidence , 2 014 Edition, section 404.1 . As such, it is

not applicable in the instant case. See Bulkmatic Transport

Co. v. Taylor , 860 So. 2d 436, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (E vidence

of a defendant Ó s driving history was inadmissible to prove th at

he acted in conformity with this history on the day an accident

occurred . ).

61 . Each of Respondent Ó s witnesses testified that

Respondent does not have a reputation for Ð licking the faces of

people, Ñ or they had never heard anyone say that Respondent licks

the faces of men and women, or other testimony similar in nature.

The unusual and unwanted act of licking someone Ó s face in public

is not the type of behavior generally considered when talking

about someone Ó s reputation in the community. If someone Ó s

reputation was as a seri al face - licker, most likely that person

would have suffered some consequences for such repeated unwanted

contact . The issue here is not whether Respondent Ð does this all

the time, Ñ but whether she publicly licked the face of four

testifying witnesses, one of whom was attacked in the highly

public setting of the C ity C ommission meeting.

6 2 . The following matters , all of which were testified

about at hearing, tend to adversely affect or at least negatively

reflect upon a person Ó s , in this case Respondent Ó s, Ð good Ñ

character: arrest for DUI , arrest for petit theft, disciplinary

employment action, forced resignation from employment, and

perpetrating a USPS mail hoax.

6 3 . The six witnesses called by Respondent were each

friends of hers who have seen her drink ing on numerous occasions,

many of those occasions being with them. Four of them were not

even aware of the admitted interaction between Respondent and

Ms. McGrady which delayed the meeting, even though Respondent

admitted to that portion of the allegatio ns. None of the se

witnesses used the words Ð alcoholic Ñ or Ð alcohol abuser, Ñ but

they were forthcoming in their testimony that Respondent had

consumed several drinks on multiple occasions either in their

presence , or while they were partaking of alcohol th emselves. A

finding cannot be made in this matter that R espondent is, in

fact, an alcoholic, but the testimony of her witnesses, her prior

DUI, the t hree cases of licking a man Ó s face in public prior to

the C ity C ommission meeting, and the incident s occur ring at the

meeting, all point to someone who may have an alcohol problem.

Counseling or treatment, while not being ordered by the

undersigned, might be a worthwhile road to travel for Respondent .

6 4 . Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and

conclus ions of law, t he clear and convincing evidence presented

at the final hearing established that Respondent violated s ection

112.313(6) , and should receive discipline from the Commission .

6 5 . The penalties available for a public officer who

violate s the C ode of Ethics include: impeachment, removal from

office, suspension from office, public censure and reprimand,

forfeiture of no more than one - third of his or her salary per

month for no t more than 12 months, a civil penalty not to exceed

$10,000, and rest itution of any pecuniary benefit received

because of the violation committed. See § 112.317(1)(a), Fla.

Stat. While the charges brought against Respondent are serious,

the undersigned finds that suspension or removal from office is

not appropriate in thi s case . A public censure and reprimand,

along with less than the maximum civil penalty will send the

message to Respondent that her actions were unwarranted and,

hopefully, will serve as a wake - up call to her to voluntarily

seek appropriate counseling and /or treatment for her behavior.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics

enter a final order finding that Respondent, Nancy Oakley,

violated section 112.313(6) , Florida Statutes, and imposing a

public censure and reprimand and a civil penalty of $5,000.

DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December , 2018 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

ROBERT S. COHEN

Administrative Law J udge

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 7th day of December , 2018 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Kennan George Dandar, Esquire

Dandar & Dandar, P.A.

Post Office Box 24597

Tampa, Florida 33623

(eServed)

Melody A. Hadley, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 3 2399 - 1050

(eServed)

Elizabeth A. Miller, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

Plaza Level 01, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Millie Fulford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 323 17 - 5709

(eServed)

C. Christopher Anderson, III, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

(eServed)

Virlindia Doss, Executive Director

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tall ahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with t he agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.