03-000199EC In Re: Julianne Holt vs. *
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, October 30, 2003.


View Dockets  
Summary: The Advocate proved two of the alleged violations (using public resources to type private letters and prepare teaching materials). The RO discusses appropriate "non-business" letters and activities, and the allegations of misuse of public resources.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8IN RE: JULIANNE HOLT. ) Case Nos. 03 - 0122EC

18) 03 - 0199EC

22) 03 - 0200EC

26)

27RECOMMENDED ORDER

29Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative

36H earings, by its duly - designated Administrative Law Judge,

46Stephen F. Dean, held a formal hearing in the above - styled case

59May 27 through June 13, 2003, in Tampa, Florida.

68APPEARANCES

69For Advocate: James H. Peterson, III, Esquire

76Assistant Attorney General

79Attorney General’s Office

82Plaza Level One, The Capitol

87Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

92For Respondent: Gregory W. Kehoe, Esquire

98Kathleen Clark Ford, Esquire

102James, Hoyer, Newcomer

105& Smiljanich, P.A.

1084830 West Kennedy Boulevard

112Tampa, Florida 33609

115STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

119The issues for det ermination are:

125I. Whether Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida

132Statutes, by directing Public Defender's Office employees to

140work on Respondent's re - election campaign during their public

150working hours;

152II. Whether Respondent violated Section 112.313(6),

158Florida Statutes, by directing Public Defender's Office

165employees, during public working hours and using public

173resources, to prepare and deliver materials for courses that

182Respondent was teaching;

185III. Whether Respondent violated Section 112 .313(6),

192Florida Statutes, by directing a Public Defender's Office

200employee to take Respondent's personal automobile in for repairs

209during public work hours;

213IV. Whether Respondent violated Section 112.313(6),

219Florida Statutes, by directing a Public Defen der's Office

228employee to make personal bank deposits for Respondent and her

238mother during public work hours; and

244V. Whether Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida

251Statutes, by directing Public Defender Office employees to type

260personal letters fo r Respondent during public work hours.

269PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

271On July 30, 2002, the Florida Commission on Ethics issued

281an order finding probable cause to believe that Respondent,

290Julianne Holt, while serving as the Public Defender for the

300Thirteenth Judic ial Circuit, violated Section 112.313(6),

307Florida Statutes, as outlined under the Statement of Issues,

316above. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative

326Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge on or

336about January 13, 2003.

340Pri or to the final hearing, the parties submitted a Joint

351Prehearing Stipulation containing a number of stipulations of

359fact and law. References to these stipulations will be as

369“Stip - ” followed by the appropriate paragraph number as set

380forth under the admi tted facts section of the Joint Prehearing

391Stipulation.

392At the final hearing, the Advocate called six witnesses:

401Sharon Slater, Melissa Dearing, Wanda Moore, Christine Sleater,

409Vicky Butts and Respondent. The Advocate also called Nicole

418Hanscom for her t estimony regarding school work Ms. Hanscom had

429allegedly performed for Respondent after the finding of probable

438cause in this case, but objections to questions regarding that

448work were sustained on the grounds of relevance.

456The Advocate offered 16 pre - ma rked exhibits, numbers 1

467through 9, all of which were composites. Of those, the

477following were received into evidence: Advocate’s Exhibit 1L;

485Advocate’s Exhibits 2A through 2BB; Advocate’s Exhibits 3A, 3B,

4943F and 3G; Advocate’s Exhibit 5, consisting of an electronic

504disk ("Sharon Slater’s" Disk #1), a file list of documents found

516on that disk, and selected printed hard copies with alphabetical

526file name identifiers in the lower right hand corner of each

537beginning with ELLER.MID through USAIR.LET, all of wh ich were

547received with the exception of one identified as ETHICADD.WPD,

556which was not received; Advocate’s Exhibit 6, consisting of an

566electronic disk (“Sharon Slater’s" Disk No. 2), a file list of

577documents found on that disk, and selected printed hard c opies

588with alphabetical file name identifiers in the lower right hand

598corner of each beginning with EVERIDGE.LET through WOOD.LET, all

607of which were received with the exception of those identified as

618INVENTOR.WPD and LANE.LET, which were not received; Advo cate’s

627Exhibit 7, consisting of an electronic disk, a file list of

638documents found on that disk, and selected printed hard copies

648with alphabetical file name identifiers in the lower right hand

658corner of each beginning with ADVERTIS.LIS and ending with

667YA RD.SIG, 1/ all of which were received, 2/ with the exception of

680one identified as STORE.SIG, which was not received; Advocate’s

689Exhibits 8B through 8N, 3/ with the exception of 8F, which was not

702moved; Advocate’s Exhibits 9A through 9II, with the exception of

7129P, 9Q and 9Z, which were not received; and Advocate’s Exhibits

72310, 12, 4/ 13, & 14. The Advocate also offered Exhibits 17 and

73619, which were received into evidence. 5/ All of the Advocate’s

747Exhibits that were received retained their original exhibit

755desi gnations. Although Advocate’s Exhibits 9JJ and 9KK were not

765received, they were proffered on the record. Reference to

774Advocates’s Exhibits will be made as “A - ” followed by the

786appropriate exhibit number and letter or file name designation.

795Respondent te stified on her own behalf and called 14

805witnesses: Jeanine Cohen, Samantha Ward, Lynn Perez, Marco

813LaMonte, Walter Elly, Doug Roberts, Nichole Hanscom, former

821Judge Frank Dennis Alvarez, Yolanda Olivo, Judge Gregory Paul

830Holder, Wanda Campbell, Jorge Loren zo, Judge Manuel Lopez, and

840Judge Raymond O. Gross. 6/

845Respondent offered 52 exhibits, all of which, with the

854exception of Respondent’s Exhibits 13, 14 and 23, were received

864into evidence as marked by the Respondent. The Administrative

873Law Judge reserved r uling on Respondent’s Exhibit 23. Although

883Respondent’s Exhibit 23 was eventually rejected at hearing, it

892was proffered on the record. References to Respondent’s

900exhibits received into evidence will be made as “R - ” followed by

913the corresponding exhibit l etter.

918A transcript of the hearing was ordered by Respondent.

927References to the Transcript will be made as “T - ” followed by

940the appropriate page number, with the witness identified in

949brackets. References to Judge Gross’s deposition testimony will

957be mad e by “T2 - ” with the page number.

968The parties submitted proposed recommended orders which

975have been read and considered in preparing this recommended

984order. All citations are to Florida Statutes (2002) unless

993otherwise indicated.

995FINDINGS OF FACT

998THE RE SPONDENT

10011. Respondent currently serves as the Public Defender for

1010the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Tampa, Florida, and has

1019served in that capacity since taking office after her election

1029in 1992.

10312. Respondent is subject to the requirements of Part III,

1041Chapter 112, the Code of Ethics for public officers and

1051employees, by virtue of the fact that Respondent serves as

1061Public Defender.

10633. Respondent is a public official within the meaning of

1073Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, by virtue of

1082Respon dent’s position as Public Defender, and is subject to the

1093provisions of Section 112.313(6).

10974. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Public Defender

1104Employee Manual, revised February 1, 1996, sets forth the Public

1114Defender Office’s policies and standards appli cable during the

11231996 campaign.

1125BACKGROUND OF COMPLAINT TO ETHICS COMMISSION

11315. This complaint arose from allegations made by Scott

1140Moore and others, including members of Scott Moore's family to

1150the newspapers, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and

1159the Ethics Commission. 7/

11636. Joe Moore, the patriarch of the family, was an old and

1175close friend of the Respondent. Their relationship was

1183described as being as close as brother and sister, and this

1194closeness extended to Joe's children: Scott, Mike and Melissa

1203Moore Dearing. In addition, Scott Moore married Wanda Granado,

1212who was secretary to the Respondent during a portion of time

1223covered by these charges.

12277. The Moore family assisted the Respondent at home and at

1238the office in a familial manner, painting, running errands, and

1248looking after one another. This was mutual, and the Respondent

1258tendered regular employment to three members of the family, and

1268part - time employment to Melissa when she was home on Christmas

1280and summer breaks from school.

12858 . Scott Moore was employed by Respondent in various

1295capacities. Scott Moore was, like all of the employees of the

1306office, an at - will employee serving at the pleasure of the

1318Respondent.

13199. There had been a history of problems with Scott Moore

1330arising fro m his failure to accept supervision from the

1340management staff of Respondent's office. Scott Moore

1347consistently went to his father, Joe Moore, who in turn went to

1359the Respondent in an effort to circumvent supervision. This

1368resulted in staff dissention to the extent that the Respondent

1378found it necessary to have a meeting with the Moores and their

1390supervisors to address this issue in 1999.

139710. At this meeting, the Respondent told the assembled

1406Moores that, notwithstanding their personal friendship, they

1413we re subject to the direction of their supervisors at work.

1424This was sufficiently disturbing to Scott Moore that he stood up

1435with such force at the meeting, that his chair rolled back into

1447the wall and knocked two pictures off the wall. He resigned,

1458and wa lked out of the meeting.

146511. His belongings were packed up by a secretary, but

1475Scott Moore returned, apologized to the Respondent, and asked to

1485come back to work. The Respondent permitted him to do so.

1496Scott Moore worked for the Public Defender's offic e until May 4,

15082000, at which time he was the network administrator for the

1519computer system of the Public Defender's office.

152612. After an investigation of an incident in which a

1536document was copied from a file, printed out, and left

1546anonymously in an em ployee's office, it was determined that

1556Scott Moore had improperly accessed the files of other employees

1566and inappropriately copied multiple materials from their files.

1574When confronted with the materials he had copied from files in

1585the office, he refused to explain his conduct. He was

1595discharged by Respondent on May 4, 2000, for accessing and

1605disseminating confidential documents, accessing employees’

1610computer accounts, and general dereliction of duties. Scott

1618Moore's malfeasance included not backing up f iles as required

1628and not establishing firewalls between files as appropriate.

163613. When discharged, Scott Moore stated to the Respondent

1645that he would get even with her. Scott Moore made allegations

1656of misconduct by the Respondent to the local newspaper , the

1666Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), and the Florida

1675Ethics Commission.

167714. Because of the situation, the Respondent eventually

1685found it necessary to discharge Joe Moore, Scott's father. Mike

1695Moore, Scott's brother, and Wanda Granado Moo re, Scott's wife,

1705resigned their employment. In sum, the firings of Scott and Joe

1716did not favorably dispose the members of the family towards the

1727Respondent. Their animus is recognized in considering their

1735testimony.

173615. In addition, Scott Moore contacte d many former

1745employees of the Respondent's office and encouraged them to come

1755forward with any allegations of wrong - doing with which they were

1767familiar. As a result of this, allegations of wrong - doing going

1779back many years were presented to the Ethics Co mmission. Some

1790of the allegations were subject to the statute of limitations,

1800and this limited the testimony of some witnesses about their

1810actions and observations.

181316. One of the employees to come forward was Sharon

1823Slater, who was the Respondent's secr etary/assistant from 1993

1832until 1997 when she asked to be moved to a new social services

1845section in Respondent's office. Slater worked in social

1853services for over a year, but because of complaints and Slater's

1864failure to complete certain educational requi rements, she was

1873moved to a secretarial position in the office in October of

18841998. Slater tendered her resignation in April 1999, to be

1894effective at the end of that month; however, before the end of

1906the month, she became upset about the way an investigati on of

1918allegations she had made about Mike Moore's diverting mail

1927belonging to her was handled, most particularly about her

1936husband being contacted, and she resigned, effective

1943immediately.

194417. Slater was the source of much of testimony which was

1955introdu ced in support of the allegations that she and others did

1967personal and campaign - related work during working hours at the

1978direction of the Respondent. The "hard" evidence of this work

1988was taken from computer disks which Slater stated she copied in

19991999 fro m the hard disk of Respondent's secretary long after

2010Slater had left that position. The admissibility and

2018credibility of these records are at issue in these proceedings

2028as electronic records and as the printouts of those electronic

2038records.

203918. Although Slater testified that she copied all the

2048records on the disk, only portions of these records were being

2059introduced by the Advocate because other portions of the records

2069downloaded by Slater related to confidential client files.

2077Slater was able to remember some of the records/documents which

2087she had typed. Of the documents she identified, at least one

2098she remembered typing at her home. Some of the other

2108records/documents bore her initials as typist.

211419. Evidence was received from Melissa Moore Dearing that

2123she typed letters on the same computer as Slater, and letters

2134which she typed would have been saved upon the same directory

2145that Slater copied. However, Ms. Dearing could not

2153independently identify any of the letters which she typed.

2162Ms. Dearing als o stated that frequently when typing form letters

2173bearing the initials of Slater as the typist, that she forgot to

2185change them to reflect she had typed them.

219320. Nicole Hanscom, a person knowledgeable in the

2201operation of computers and the electronic files , testified. In

2210sum, she testified that the "last modified date" is the date

2221upon which the document was last saved. An existing document

2231can be accessed, modified, printed out, but not saved and it

2242will continue to reflect the date upon which it was pre viously

2254saved notwithstanding that it was the source of a hard - copy

2266piece of mail. Conversely, a document can be called up,

2276no changes made to it, and be saved, whereupon the file will

2288reflect the last date it was saved as being the date upon which

2301it was modified. These results are possible without any

2310intentional "tinkering" with the files by knowledgeable persons.

231821. Because of the ability to alter and manipulate files

2328as described above, these documents and records would have been

2338inadmissib le but for the Respondent agreeing to their

2347admissibility. Very little credence is placed in the disks, the

2357directories of the disks, and the materials printed from those

2367disks, notwithstanding their having been received.

2373CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES

237522. Resp ondent ran for re - election as Public Defender in

23871996. Many of the activities for that campaign occurred in 1995

2398and 1996. A number of Public Defender Office employees were

2408involved in Respondent’s 1996 re - election campaign activities.

241723. Ms. Slater worked on Respondent’s 1996 re - election

2427campaign. This campaign work was voluntary and performed on

2436Ms. Slater’s own time. Ms. Slater’s volunteer activity for

2445Respondent’s 1996 re - election campaign included holding signs,

2454displaying a yard sign, working a campaign golf tournament, and

2464appearing at several campaign functions with other office staff.

247324. Notwithstanding Ms. Slater's testimony to the

2480contrary, it appears from the campaign rosters she signed and

2490the testimony of others that she was a acti ve participant in the

2503Respondent's campaign who did what she could to further the

2513Respondent's re - election. This is consistent with Slater's

2522perception of her own self interest about which she clearly was

2533concerned. As an at - will employee and secretary/a ssistant to

2544the Public Defender, it was highly unlikely she would be

2554retained by anyone who defeated the Respondent for the office.

256425. In addition, Ms. Slater also did other campaign work

2574for Respondent’s 1996 re - election campaign including typing

2583cam paign thank - you letters and keeping current a yard - sign list

2597for Ms. Holt’s review.

260126. Many of the campaign thank - you letters typed by

2612Ms. Slater were prepared on Public Defender office computers.

2621Some were prepared on a Public Defender laptop at Ms. S later’s

2633home; however, many were prepared on a Public Defender computer

2643during public work hours.

264727. Ms. Slater volunteered to maintain and update a typed

2657list of sign locations and people who volunteered to display

2667campaign signs for Respondent’s re - el ection campaign.

2676Information regarding signs came to Ms. Slater in writing and

2686verbally from a variety of persons. The Respondent frequently

2695provided information to Slater in the form of sticky notes,

2705which included information on persons volunteering to put a sign

2715up at their business or home.

272128. A folder was maintained on Slater's desk into which

2731notes about thank - you letters and sign information were placed

2742by the Respondent or other office staff. Ms. Slater would also

2753get information for the sign placements from telephone calls

2762made to the office and from other employees.

277029. Although Sharon Slater occasionally updated the sign

2778lists on a Public Defender Office computer at her home, some of

2790the updates were done during public work hours.

279830. As pointed out in Respondent's proposed findings, the

2807modified dates when compared with the Respondent's calendar

2815reveal that many of the documents were prepared when the

2825Respondent was out of the office. Clearly, the Respondent was

2835unaware of what Slater di d at Slater's home. Although Slater's

2846testimony establishes that she prepared campaign letters and

2854maintained the sign list at work and on equipment belonging to

2865the Public Defender's office, she did so outside the presence of

2876the Respondent and without R espondent's knowledge.

288331. Credible evidence was received from many witnesses

2891that Slater and all the other employees of the Respondent's

2901office were instructed that they should not and could not engage

2912in campaign activities at the office.

291832. The R espondent provided a campaign office down the

2928street from her office where volunteers could work. It was

2938announced to the employees that they should do campaign work

2948there or at home and not on state time.

295733. The Respondent was not constrained by law fr om putting

2968notes about signs or other campaign work she wanted accomplished

2978in Ms. Slater's campaign work folder. It was understood that

2988this work was not to be performed in the office.

299834. Evidence was received that employees were counseled

3006about fail ing to obey the directive not to do campaign work on

3019the job. As stated above regarding the thank - you letters, the

3031fact that much of the work alleged to have been done by Slater

3044at work was done when the Respondent was not in the office

3056substantiates that when work was done at the office by Slater it

3068was in contravention of the policy.

307435. Melissa Moore Dearing, 8/ who worked as an OPS employee

3085for the Public Defender’s Office on and off for years, also

3096prepared campaign thank - you letters for the campaign. She

3106obtained her work assignments from Slater's desk, and received

3115her instruction in the same manner as Slater, by writings on

3126legal paper or sticky - notes. It appeared that, except when

3137pursuing a particular project for the Respondent, Dearing

3145received her work assignments from Slater.

315136. Dearing testified that she did not remember receiving

3160any instructions on what she could and could not do for the

3172campaign during office hours. It was clear from her testimony

3182as a whole, that Dearing appreciated the job opportunities

3191inherent in her OPS work for the Respondent, and was willing to

3203do any work she was given to do. Although a member of the bar

3217at this time and more knowledgeable of the restrictions imposed

3227upon officers and employees, at the time t hese events occurred,

3238Dearing did not consider her actions illegal or inappropriate.

324737. Christine Sleater worked at the Public Defender’s

3255Office from January 1993 until 1998.

326138. While an employee of the Public Defender’s Office,

3270Ms. Sleater worked a s an administrative assistant; was promoted

3280to computer trainer during the beginning of 1996; and,

3289thereafter was promoted to director of automated systems, which

3298position she held until leaving in 1998. From 1994 until the

3309early part of 1996, Ms. Sleater did work as an administrative

3320assistant for the Respondent as a back - up to Ms. Slater.

333239. Ms. Sleater prepared at her home thousands of thank -

3343you letters for the Respondent’s campaign.

334940. After completing the campaign letters, Ms. Sleater put

3358th em in an interoffice envelope and either gave them to Sharon

3370Slater or placed them in the Respondent’s in - box.

338041. The Respondent directed Ms. Sleater to tell the head

3390of the Public Defender’s Office technology department, Mike

3398Effner, to let her take a computer home so that she could do the

3412thank - you letters. Mr. Effner was in charge of the computers at

3425the Public Defender's office and for the campaign and was

3435Ms. Sleater’s boss at the time.

344142. The Respondent testified that Mike Effner advised her

3450that he had several of his own computers which were available to

3462people working in the campaign. Her testimony was confirmed by

3472others.

347343. It is alleged that computer Ms. Sleater used was one

3484belonging to the Public Defender's office. Even if Mr. Eff ner

3495did provide Ms. Sleater a Public Defender’s Office personal

3504computer and printer, the Respondent did not know that

3513Ms. Sleater was using Public Defender Office equipment to

3522prepare thank - you letters for Respondent’s 1996 campaign.

353144. Ms. Vicky Butts served as the Respondent’s Budget

3540Director for the Public Defender’s Office from March 1994 until

3550March 1999, and was in charge of the Public Defender’s Office

3561computer inventory. Ms. Butts testified that Christine Sleater

3569had Public Defender Office equi pment at home to work on the

3581Respondent’s 1996 re - election campaign. She based her

3590recollection upon a diary entry made in October 1996, regarding

3600an office collection that was taken up for Ms. Sleater’s

3610birthday gift. While Butt's recollection may have been jogged

3619by this unrelated diary entry, it certainly does not buttress

3629her testimony. Neither her testimony nor that of Sleater

3638demonstrates that the Respondent knew that Effner had provided

3647Sleater a Public Defender office machine as opposed to comput er

3658owned by Effner which was the Respondent's intent.

366645. Although Sleater testified she got an office machine,

3675the Respondent testified that Sleater did not sign out for one

3686according to internal equipment inventories. Butts testified

3693Sleater did sign o ut for a Public Defender computer. The

3704inventories were not introduced by either the Advocate or the

3714Respondent. The testimony is conflicting.

371946. The fact that most of the Respondent’s requests for

3729the preparation of campaign thank - you letters were m ade on notes

3742written by Respondent and placed in Sharon Slater’s in - basket

3753during office hours does not establish that the Respondent knew

3763or should have been on notice that campaign thank - you letters

3775were being prepared in the office on Public Defender’s Office

3785Equipment during public work hours.

379047. The procedure was for those personnel who were typing

3800letters to pick up letters to be typed from the folder on

3812Slater's desk; to type them at home or at the campaign office;

3824print them out at the campaign office; and return them to the

3836Respondent for signature. The Respondent verified that the

3844campaign letters were delivered to her at the Public Defender’s

3854Office during public work hours. These were placed in an old

3865brief case reserved for campaign relate d materials and picked up

3876and delivered to the Respondent at various places.

388448. After the Respondent signed the letters on campaign

3893stationary, the Respondent put them back in Sharon Slater’s in -

3904box at the Public Defender’s office, and Sharon Slater ha d them

3916mailed out, using postage that was paid for by Respondent’s 1996

3927re - election campaign.

393149. Sharon Slater's testimony that she complied with

3939Respondent’s requests because she was afraid if she complained

3948she would lose her job is not credible. He r testimony that she

3961was afraid she would lose her job if she did not work to get the

3976Respondent re - elected is credible because as an at - will

3988employee, she very likely would have been replaced by a new

3999incumbent.

400050. Melissa Moore Dearing complied with the Respondent’s

4008requests because the Respondent provided her with employment

4016during school breaks at Christmas and summers. She recognized

4025that she was extremely fortunate to have such a benefactor in

4036the Respondent's position.

403951. All employees of th e Public Defender's Office were “at

4050will” employees. The Public Defender Employee Manual effective

4058during the 1996 campaign explains:

4063All employment and compensation with the

4069Public Defender’s office is “at will” in

4076that any employee can be terminated wit h or

4085without cause, and with or without notice,

4092at any time, at the option of either the

4101Public Defender or yourself, except as

4107otherwise provided by law. All employees

4113are exempt from the State of Florida Career

4121Service System and serve at the pleasure o f

4130the Public Defender.

413352. Sharon Slater did feel uncomfortable about working on

4142the Respondent’s campaign during public work hours on Public

4151Defender’s Office equipment. The record in this case indicates

4160that she engaged in these activities when the Respondent was out

4171of the office.

417453. The extra copies of the campaign materials which Slater

4184stated she printed out and retained on the day that they were

4196prepared were received into evidence; however, having had access

4205to the disks, she could have printed them out at any time, and,

4218as long as she did not execute a save on the document, it would

4232have retained its original "modified" date. The campaign letters

4241would have gone out on campaign letter head which was blue and

4253yellow. Clearly the copies introduced may have been drafts, but

4263they were not unsigned copies of final documents.

427154. The Respondent was aware that it was improper for

4281office staff to work on the Respondent’s campaign during office

4291hours. The Respondent testified that the typin g of campaign

4301letters on Public Defender’s Office equipment and during office

4310time was not appropriate. These prohibitions were emphasized

4318with all personnel from her office who were working on the

4329campaign.

433055. The Respondent’s manual for Public Defen der Employees

4339which was in use during the 1996 campaign states: “Employees will

4350not engage in political activity during working hours.” The

4359manual also stated that office equipment was to be used

4369exclusively for Public Defender business purposes.

437556. The re is no evidence that the Respondent knew that

4386personnel were typing campaign letters on office equipment.

4394Slater and Dearing testified they "concluded" that the Respondent

4403knew, but their conclusions were conjectural.

440957. The allegation that the Res pondent "directed" both

4418Sharon Slater and Melissa Dearing to type campaign - related

4428documents during public campaign work hours is based upon the

4438assumption that placing the campaign work into a folder on

4448Slater's desk during the day constituted a clear cou ntermand of

4459the instructions not to use Public Defender’s Office equipment

4468and not to work on public time.

447558. The facts show that campaign materials were kept

4484separate in the office; that employees received appropriate

4492instructions regarding what they could and could not do; and that

4503Slater's work on campaign materials occurred when the Respondent

4512was out of the office.

451759. There is no evidence that the Respondent ever

"4526directed" Slater or Dearing to do campaign work at the office on

4538office equipment , and there is no evidence that the Respondent

4548knew that Public Defender equipment was used for campaign

4557purposes.

4558PREPARATION AND DELIVERY OF COURSE MATERIAL

456460. After becoming Public Defender, the Respondent began

4572teaching as an adjunct professor a t local colleges and

4582universities. Prior to this time, other than substitute

4590teaching in law school, the Respondent had never taught. The

4600first institution where the Respondent taught was Hillsborough

4608Community College in 1995. She has since taught cour ses at the

4620University of Tampa, the University of South Florida, and the

4630University of Phoenix.

463361. The Respondent taught a course in American Government

4642at Hillsborough Community College in the Spring and Fall

4651semesters of 1995. The Respondent was pai d $1,500 per semester

4663for teaching American Government at Hillsborough Community

4670College.

467162. After that, the Respondent taught one semester, at the

4681University of Tampa in 1998 or 1999 and was paid $1,000 for her

4695teaching.

469663. The Respondent taught one semester at University of

4705South Florida (USF) in 1997, and then taught at USF the spring

4717and fall semesters of 1998, the spring and fall semesters in

47281999, and one semester in 2000. The Respondent was paid $2,500

4740for each semester she taught a t USF.

474864. The Respondent has taught at the University of Phoenix

4758since 1998. The University of Phoenix is a private university.

4768Respondent receives between $1,300 and $1,600 for each 6 week

4780term of classes, consisting of one 4 - hour class each week, that

4793she taught at the University of Phoenix.

480065. Throughout her tenure as an adjunct professor, the

4809Respondent has used Public Defender office staff and resources

4818during public work hours to prepare course materials for her

4828students. She has used her secretary/assistants to type lesson

4837plans, type syllabi, type and edit examinations, deliver

4845materials, and proctor make - up examinations for the courses that

4856Respondent was teaching. In one instance, Melissa Dearing

4864proctored one or more examinations for the Respondent at night,

4874but purely on a voluntary basis. 10/

488166. While most of the documents typed by staff in support

4892of this activity were between one and three pages, the total,

4903over time, cannot be considered de minimus . Neither can the

4914income be called de minimis from teaching these courses, which

4924for a portion of the time ran between $2,500 and roughly $7,500

4938annually.

493967. Slater and Melissa Moore Dearing readily assented to

4948doing this work, and Dearing volunteered to proctor the

4957examinatio ns at night. Wanda Granado Moore assented to the

4967preparation of these materials, and records indicate that she

4976was paid between $5,000 and $6,000 in overtime. The Respondent

4988did not feel that these activities at work were wrong; she

4999considered that the w ork was within the range of work which

5011could be assigned to these personnel; but she did not consider

5022it contrary to their duties or to her duties.

503168. The Respondent asserts that her actions were justified

5040because there was an overriding public purpo se to her teaching.

505169. In support of her argument that her teaching served a

5062public purpose, the Respondent offered the testimony of several

5071judges and retired judges.

507570. The reason that a judge's teaching serves a public

5085purpose is that the Code of Professional Responsibility

5093encourages judicial officers to educate bench, bar, and the

5102public about the law. The de minimis use of public office

5113resources to assist in teaching courses is not inconsistent with

5123a judge's public duties. All of the jud ges who testified

5134indicated that the use of public resources should be de minimis

5145in light of the requirements that it not interfere with the

5156performance of the judge's judicial duties.

516271. Although a public purpose is served by education, and

5172teaching is not antithetical to the duties of the Public

5182Defender, unlike judges, education is not part of the

5191Respondent's public duties. Therefore, her teaching does not

5199further the aims and goals of her office. Although the

5209Respondent contends that she really does not teach for the pay

5220and that her outside teaching activities are a form of

5230“community service,” as stated above, her compensation was more

5240than de minimis and must be considered as personally benefiting

5250the Respondent.

5252DIRECTING PUBLIC EMPLOYEE TO TAKE

5257RESPONDENT’S PERSONAL AUTOMOBILE IN FOR REPAIRS

526372. It is alleged that on more than five occasions while

5274Sharon Slater was employed as Respondent’s secretary with the

5283Public Defender’s Office, Respondent had Ms. Slater take or

5292retrieve Respondent ’s Mercedes from the repair shop during

5301public work hours. At least some of these occurrences were

5311after August of 1995 and in 1996. Other Public Defender’s

5321Office employees also took Respondent’s car to the shop. On at

5332least some of these occasions, an other Public Defender Office

5342employee was also required for the pick - up or delivery of the

5355vehicle.

535673. One of the repair shops where Ms. Slater dropped off

5367or picked - up the Respondent’s car was located approximately 10

5378to 15 minutes from the Public De fender’s Office. One of the

5390shops she used was immediately across the street from the

5400Respondent's office.

540274. One of the problems with these allegations and the

5412evidence presented in support of them is that they are vague

5423with regard to when, where, w hy and how the event(s) occurred.

5435If two employees were involved, and if it was during work hours,

5447and if the garage to which the car was delivered was the one

5460further away, then the pick - up or delivery of the Respondent’s

5472automobile might require approxi mately one hour of Public

5481Defender Office staff time, and if it was after October of 1995,

5493it would not be barred by the statute of limitations.

550375. If the accusation is that the Respondent directed

5512Slater to pick up or take her car to the garage, the e vidence

5526adduced from several members of the staff and the Respondent was

5537that Sharon Slater volunteered to take Respondent’s car to and

5547from the repair shop. Sharon Slater's testimony is not credible

5557that she did not volunteer. Slater may have felt this was

5568demeaning, but her public demeanor and overt conduct was one of

5579helpful collegiality, and there was specific testimony stating

5587she volunteered to pick up the Respondent's car during at least

5598one staff conference. In addition to the conference mentione d

5608above, other instances in which staff picked up or took the

5619Respondent's car included when the Respondent was in trial.

562876. The judicial district the Respondent is in covers a

5638large geographic area. Her car is a tool in her management of

5650her office. Sharon Slater's was more than a secretary for the

5661Respondent; she also assisted her in non - clerical duties. While

5672taking or picking up the Respondent’s automobile benefited the

5681Respondent personally, if it permitted the Respondent to stay in

5691a staff meet ing rather than leaving to pick up the car before

5704the garage closed, it directly supported and assisted the Public

5714Defender in conduct of her office. The "service" was for more

5725than the Respondent's benefit.

572977. In sum, Slater's allegations and the evidence

5737presented in support of them are vague as to time, number and

5749circumstances, to include whether Slater made up the lost time.

5759They are vague about how many occurred with the period for which

5771Respondent can be prosecuted.

577578. The long delay be tween the events complained of and

5786the prosecution of this case prevent either side from presenting

5796the detail necessary to determine this issue. The Advocate's

5805original allegations went to the Respondent's "requiring" Slater

5813to pick up the car; however, the evidence showed categorically

5823that this was not the case. The Advocate failed, as stated

5834above, to show how many times this happened; when it happened;

5845the circumstances under which it happened; and whether Slater

5854failed to make up the time if she vol unteered to pick up the

5868car. These details are necessary to determine whether there is

5878no benefit to the state and a violation, and to determine if it

5891is not barred by the statute of limitation.

5899DIRECTING A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE TO MAKE BANK DEPOSITS

5907FOR RESP ONDENT AND HER MOTHER DURING PUBLIC WORK HOURS

591779. Throughout the Respondent’s tenure as Public Defender,

5925Joseph Moore, while employed as an investigator for the Public

5935Defender’s Office, made bank deposits for the Respondent and her

5945mother dur ing public work hours.

595180. The overwhelming evidence is that all of these

5960deposits were made by Moore voluntarily, frequently in

5968conjunction with the deposit of his own check, and while in the

5980direct pursuit of other office business in such manner tha t the

5992loss of time was negligible.

599781. As stated above regarding the pick up of the car, when

6009the errand is undertaken voluntarily, and the public is better

6019served by having the subordinate take care of a personal task

6030for an official, it serves a publi c purpose. If it is not

6043voluntary, it opens the door to abuse. In this case, there is

6055no question that it was voluntary, and the public was not ill -

6068served by Moore's actions.

6072DIRECTING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO TYPE

6077PERSONAL LETTERS DURING PUBLIC WORK H OURS

608482. The evidence shows that Sharon Slater typed up a

6094number of documents unrelated specifically to Public Defender

6102business during public work hours on Public Defender Office

6111equipment while Ms. Slater was employed as the Respondent’s

6120assistant.

61218 3. Campaign letters are discussed above. The Respondent

6130admits that Slater typed other non - legal materials for her.

6141These documents include thank - you letters, business letters, and

6151other type - written materials not related to the Public

6161Defender's office or campaign.

616584. The Respondent gave the thank - you and business letters

6176to Slater to be typed as part of her general work. An example

6189of this type of correspondence is Advocate's Exhibit 6 Slater -

6200S \\ McDowell.let, which is a letter thanking Mr. McDowel l for

6212inviting her to an event welcoming an Olympic Gold Medalist.

6222While this is not legal in nature, it clearly is not a campaign

6235letter, but one of the type of letters that elected officials

6246write to constituents thanking them, congratulating them, and

6254recognizing them. This type of correspondence is not

"6262personal," and it generally furthers the work of the office.

627285. Other letters which the Respondent had Slater type

6281were business letters not related to the Public Defender's

6290office. They include , but are not limited to, letters about a

6301leasehold interest, a letter tendering payment of a credit card

6311bill, and a release of liability for a pet grooming business in

6323which the Respondent had an interest. See Slater_S \\ Hobbs.let;

6333Slater_S \\ Julpet.WPD; Sl ater_S \\ RCI.let; Slater_S \\ USAIR.Let.

634386. According to the Respondent, Ms. Slater always

6351volunteered to type up the private business documents because

6360she was the Respondent’s friend. Ms. Slater, however, testified

6369that she typed up the documents because the Respondent directed

6379her to do so. It is more consistent with Slater's general

6390conduct that she volunteered to type these documents.

639887. The evidence clearly showed Slater typed the personal

6407documents for the Respondent on the Public Defender Offic e

6417computer and on public time.

642288. The Respondent contends that occasional use or

6430“incidental abuse” of Public Defender Office equipment for

6438personal letters, on a minimal basis, was permitted. The

6447Respondent was not the only person to take advantage of this

6458opportunity, and the files presented included a letter Slater

6467had written in her own behalf, and a letter she had written in

6480Scott Moore's behalf.

648389. Ms. Slater served as the Respondent's assistant for

6492four full years. In mitigation, the person al business letters

6502typed for Respondent presented at the hearing given the time

6512covered are not numerous.

6516CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

651990. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

6526jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

6536proceeding. Secti on 120.57(1).

654091. Section 112.322 and Rule 34 - 5.0015, Florida

6549Administrative Code, authorize the Commission on Ethics to

6557conduct investigations and to make public reports on complaints

6566concerning violations of Part III, Chapter 112 (the Code of

6576Ethics for Public Officers and Employees).

658292. The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to

6592the contrary, is on the party asserting the affirmative of the

6603issue of the proceedings. Department of Transportation v.

6611J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Balino v.

6624Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services , 348 So. 2d 349

6634(Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In this proceeding, it is the Commission,

6645through its Advocate, that is asserting that Respondent violated

6654Section 112.313(6). Therefore, the b urden of establishing by

6663clear and convincing evidence the elements of Respondent’s

6671violations is on the Commission.

667693. The Supreme Court of Florida in In Re Davey , 645 So.

66882d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994), quoting Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d

6700797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), stated:

6707[C]lear and convincing evidence requires

6712that the evidence must be found to be

6720credible; the facts to which the witnesses

6727testify must be distinctly remembered; the

6733testimony must be precise and explicit and

6740the witnesses must be lac king in confusion

6748as the to facts in issue. The evidence must

6757be of such weight that it produces in the

6766mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

6776conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

6782truth of the allegations sought to be

6789established.

679094. The Supreme Court of Florida also explained that

6799although the “clear and convincing” standard requires more than

6808a “preponderance of the evidence,” it does not require proof

6819“beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.” Id.

682995. Section 112.313( 6) provides:

6834MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION. No public

6840officer, employee of an agency, or local

6847government attorney shall corruptly use or

6853attempt to use his or her official position

6861or any property or resource which may be

6869within his or her trust, or perfor m his or

6879her official duties, to secure a special

6886privilege, benefit, or exemption for

6891himself, herself, or others. This section

6897shall not be construed to conflict with

6904s. 104.31.

690696. The term "corruptly" is defined by Section 112.312(9)

6915as follows:

6917'Corruptly' means done with a wrongful

6923intent and for the purpose of obtaining, or

6931compensating or receiving compensation for,

6936any benefit resulting from some act or

6943omission of a public servant which is

6950inconsistent with the proper performance of

6956his or her public duties.

696197. The issues for determination are:

6967I. Whether the Respondent violated Section 112.313(6),

6974Florida Statutes, by directing Public Defender's Office

6981employees to work on the Responden t's re - election campaign

6992during their public working hours;

6997II. Whether the Respondent violated Section 112.313(6),

7004Florida Statutes, by directing Public Defender's Office

7011employees, during public working hours and using public

7019resources, to prepare and de liver materials for courses that the

7030Respondent was teaching;

7033III. Whether the Respondent violated Section 112.313(6) by

7041directing a Public Defender's Office employee to take

7049Respondent's personal automobile in for repairs during public

7057work hours;

7059IV. Wh ether the Respondent violated Section 112.313(6) by

7068directing a Public Defender's Office employee to make personal

7077bank deposits for the Respondent and her mother during public

7087work hours; and

7090V. Whether the Respondent violated Section 112.313(6) by

7098direc ting Public Defender Office employees to type personal

7107letters for the Respondent during public work hours.

7115First Issue

711798. Regarding the first allegation that the Respondent

7125directed Public Defender's Office employees to work on

7133Respondent's campaign du ring public working hours, the evidence

7142does not support a finding that the Respondent did this. This

7153allegation is built upon the testimony of Ms. Slater and Mrs.

7164Dearing that the Respondent "directed" them do to campaign work

7174on the job. Their testimon y taken at its broadest was that the

7187Respondent placed campaign - related work into a folder on

7197Slater's desk with sticky notes or other written directions as

7207to what should be done.

721299. Slater's testimony that she did campaign work in the

7222office is credibl e; however, she did this because she believed

7233that her continued employment was tied to the Respondent's

7242winning re - election, and it was easier for her to do this work

7256at her own desk, on the Public Defender's equipment, during

7266working hours than it was fo r her to go the campaign office over

7280lunch or after work. However, there is no evidence that the

7291Respondent knew this or condoned it. In fact, if one compares

7302the dates much of the work was done with the Respondent's

7313calendar, one finds that Slater did m uch of the campaign work

7325while the Respondent was out of the office.

7333100. Mrs. Dearing, who has some animus towards the

7342Respondent, testified that the Respondent never told her to do

7352anything, but that she got her work assignments from notes stuck

7363to docu ments and telephone messages. She did not remember being

7374told not to do campaign work during the campaign; however, she

7385indicated that her failure to remember did not mean she did not

7397receive the instructions, just that she did not remember it.

7407The evide nce does not show the Respondent directed Dearing to do

7419campaign work at the office.

7424101. While there is no specific allegation regarding the

7433use of Public Defender office equipment in the campaign, the

7443Advocate did not prove that the Respondent improperl y directed

7453or permitted the use of Public Defender office equipment in the

7464campaign. Again the issue is whether the Respondent was aware

7474of the usage.

7477102. The testimony of Ms. Sleater was offered to show that

7488the Respondent "ordered" Mike Effner to le t Sleater take a

7499computer home to do campaign work. Effner, who was in charge of

7511computers at the office and for the campaign, had computers

7521available that were not office computers for campaign workers.

7530The Respondent's intent was that Sleater get a camp aign

7540computer.

7541103. Sleater testified she had an office computer which

7550she kept until she left the office and typed office work on it

7563long after the campaign was over. It is conceivable that

7573Sleater was given an office computer by Effner; however, the

7583issue ultimately is whether the Respondent was aware that Effner

7593gave Sleater a Public Defender computer for campaign work. The

7603evidence is not clear and convincing on this point.

7612Third Issue

7614104. Passing over the second issue, the third issue was

7624the al legation that the Respondent directed employees to take

7634her personal automobile in for repairs during working hours.

7643This allegation was based primarily upon the testimony of

7652Slater, who testified that she took the car to and from the shop

7665for the Respond ent because she feared for her job. The

7676testimony of Slater that she feared for her job was not

7687credible.

7688105. Credible evidence was received that Slater

7695volunteered to pick up and take the Respondent's car to the

7706garage. Slater's volunteering was not u nusual because she was

7716always friendly, helpful and collegial towards the Respondent

7724and others in the office. There was evidence that professional

7734staff frequently helped the Respondent in getting her car to the

7745shop, and that she reciprocated in assisti ng them. Credible

7755evidence was received that Slater's offers were generally in the

7765context of helping the Respondent when there was a conflict

7775between picking the car up and conducting Public Defender office

7785business. It was not proven that the Responden t directed Slater

7796to take the Respondent's car to the shop, or that the functions

7808of the office were not facilitated by permitting Slater to do

7819this on public time. Further the indefiniteness as to dates

7829raises issues about which, if any, of the incidents occurred

7839within the period not barred by the statute of limitations.

7849Fourth Issue

7851106. The fourth allegation is that the Respondent directed

7860Joe Moore and others to take bank deposits to the bank for her

7873and her mother. The facts showed that Joe Moore took back

7884deposits to the bank for the Respondent and her mother. This

7895was part of a multitude of things which Moore did for the

7907Respondent voluntarily before and after coming to work for the

7917Public Defender's office. Joe Moore did not testify; however,

7926credible evidence was received that he voluntarily did these

7935errands in the context of making his own deposits and doing his

7947own work in such a way that the loss of time from his job was

7962non - existent. There was no credible evidence about "other"

7972people t aking bank deposits. The allegation that the Respondent

7982directed personnel to make bank deposits for her was not proven.

7993Issue Five

7995107. The fifth allegation is that the Respondent directed

8004employees to type personal letters during public work hours.

8013The letters which were introduced in support of this allegation

8023were letters which were down - loaded by Slater after she was the

8036Respondent's secretary/assistant. Slater testified that she

8042went into Holt's file folder and downloaded the files that were

8053t here indiscriminately. Slater was unable to identify many of

8063the documents that were on these disks. Some of the documents

8074on these disks were identified by others as having been typed by

8086them, and being related to work within the office. Further,

8096becau se they contained confidential files relating to litigation

8105that is on - going in the Public Defender's office, the disks

8117themselves could not be introduced. What was tendered were

8126selected documents extracted from these disks. This evidence

8134generally does not meet the standards of reliability such that

8144it would be used to determine critical issues. It would not be

8156considered in this case if many of these documents had not been

8168identified by the Respondent, and she had not admitted that

8178Slater typed them. However, the Respondent also testified that

8187Slater voluntarily typed these letters for her, and her

8196testimony is credible. Unfortunately, it is immaterial whether

8204Slater did this voluntarily or was directed to type the letters.

8215In either case, the typin g of certain of the letters was

8227improper.

8228108. These letters fall into three categories: campaign

8236related; letters of thank - you, congratulation, or regret from

8246Respondent as the Public Defender; and the Respondent's non -

8256Public Defender business. The c ampaign letters are discussed

8265above, and were not the responsibility of the Respondent.

8274109. The letters identified in the findings as being those

8284of thank - you, regret and congratulation from the Public Defender

8295are expected from public officials, and w ere properly typed by

8306official staff.

8308110. This leaves the Respondent's non - public defender,

8317business letters typed for the Respondent.

8323111. While the number of these letters are few in relation

8334to time, they are a violation of the provisions of Se ction

8346112.313(6).

8347112. The penalty suggested by the Advocate is totally

8356inappropriate in terms of the value of the letters typed. The

8367penalty imposed should consider the costs of a business letter

8377and the number of letters written over the seven - year p eriod.

8390Issue Two

8392113. The penalty for the violations is within the

8401discretion of the Commission, but should consider the nature and

8411extent of the violation.

8415114. The second issue is that the Respondent directed

8424employees of the office to prep are and deliver materials for

8435courses the Respondent was teaching.

8440115. There is no question that the Respondent asked

8449Slater, Dearing and others to prepare various materials to

8458include lesson outlines, rosters, syllabi, and grade reports in

8467support of her teaching courses between 1995 and 2000. These

8477were generally less than three pages in length and would have

8488taken no more than three to five minutes to prepare.

8498116. The Respondent does not deny doing this. Her defense

8508is that there was no intent t o violate the law and she was not

8523on notice that this was wrong. In support of this argument, the

8535Respondent points to various judicial officers who taught for

8544compensation and used de minimis amounts of staff time in

8554support of their activities. The con duct of the judges is not

8566in question, and this is not a comment on the appropriateness of

8578their conduct because they are regulated by a different set of

8589rules.

8590117. Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct encourages

8600judges "to speak, write, lecture, teac h and participate in other

8611quasi - judicial activities concerning the law, the legal system,

8621the administration of justice, and the roles of the judiciary

8631. . . subject to the requirements of this Code." The Code

8643provides that these other duties shall not interfere with the

8653proper performance of judicial duties.

8658118. The judges who testified uniformly stated that they

8667felt that minimal use of staff to support their teaching was not

8679precluded, but that they minimized staff involvement so that it

8689would no t interfere with the proper performance of judicial

8699duties.

8700119. The majority of the staff usage by the Respondent was

8711limited to items of only a few pages. This typing did not

8723interfere with the performance of Respondent's duties; however,

8731the Responden t is not governed by the Judicial Canons.

8741120. The Respondent is governed by another set of rules

8751which provides that "[N]o public officer . . .shall corruptly

8761use . . . her official position or any property or resource

8773which may be within . . . her trust . . . to secure a special

8789privilege, benefit, or exemption for . . . herself or others."

8800121. The statute defines "corruptly" to mean "done with a

8810wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining . . . or

8822receiving compensation for . . . some act or omis sion of a

8835public servant which is inconsistent with the proper performance

8844of . . . her public duties."

8851122. The issue of wrongful intent is a matter for the

8862trier of fact to determine. Dobry v. State , 211 So. 2d 127

8874(Fla. 3d DCA 1968). The court in Bl ackburn v. State , 589 So. 2d

8888431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) stated regarding "wrongful intent" that

"8898[A]n essential element of the charged offense under section

8907112.313(6) is the statutory requirement that appellant acted

8915with wrongful intent, that is, that she a cted with reasonable

8926notice that her conduct was inconsistent with the proper

8935performance of her public duties and would be a violation of the

8947law of code of ethics[.]"

8952123. Unlike a judge, the Public Defender is not

"8961encouraged to speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in

8970other quasi - judicial activities[.]" There is no duality of

8980function to warrant the expenditure of staff time to support the

8991Respondent's activity in this regard. However, for the most

9000part, this use of staff was de minimis except for the outline

9012prepared by Dearing. Regarding the outline of the book prepared

9022by Dearing, it appeared that this was "make work" for Dearing

9033during one of Dearing's periods of employment. It was a major

9044part of Dearing's effort and was not in support o f the office's

9057mission. However, this was one occurrence of limited scope.

9066124. In considering whether a violation occurred, the dual

9075scope of the violation must be considered. There was a long -

9087term, on - going misuse of staff about which there could be s ome

9101confusion, and there was a short - term, major misuse of Dearing's

9113time about which little confusion could have existed. However,

9122this latter violation had more to do with misuse of position by

9134hiring a friend's daughter for a "make work" job than with

9145teaching.

9146125. The Respondent's de minimis use of staff was a

9156violation because she is presumed to know the nature and scope

9167of her duties. I do not find that this should be severely

9179penalized; first, because this is a case of first impression,

9189and, se cond, because it was de minimis use of staff. Regarding

9201the misuse of Dearing, I find that this clearly violated this

9212provision; however, this misuse was of limited duration and

9221really unrelated to teaching.

9225126. Based upon these considerations, a pena lty in the

9235range proposed by the Advocate, an amount equal to or greater to

9247the Respondent's total income for teaching during the period,

9256seems unduly large. 11/

9260127. Requiring the Respondent to repay Dearing's salary

9268for the period she was engaged in th is activity plus the amount

9281the Commission would assess for both types of violation of the

9292statute would be sufficient penalty.

9297RECOMMENDATION

9298Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

9307of Law, it is

9311RECOMMENDED that:

93131. Count 1 be di smissed regarding the Respondent's

9322directing employees to work on the re - election campaign;

93322. Count 3 be dismissed regarding the Respondent's

9340directing an employee to take her personal automobile in for

9350repairs;

93513. Count 4 be dismissed regarding the Re spondent's

9360directing an employee to make bank deposits for her and her

9371mother;

93724. A civil penalty of $1,500 be imposed because the

9383Respondent violated Section 112.313(6) by having personal

9390letters typed by public employees during public working hours;

9399an d

94015. Restitution in the amount of $2,000, and a civil

9412penalty of $2,000 be imposed because the Respondent violated

9422Section 112.313(6) by having school materials prepared by public

9431employees during public work hours.

9436DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of Oct ober, 2003, in

9447Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

9451S

9452___________________________________

9453STEPHEN F. DEAN

9456Administrative Law Judge

9459Division of Administrative Hearings

9463The DeSoto Building

94661230 Apalachee Parkway

9469Tallahassee, Flori da 32399 - 3060

9475(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

9483Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

9489www.doah.state.fl.us

9490Filed with the Clerk of the

9496Division of Administrative Hearings

9500this 30th day of October, 2003.

9506ENDNOTES

95071/ Advoca te’s Exhibit 6 SHOP was received as Holt’s Exhibit 6

9519Shopanscript of Final Hearing, p. 667.

95252/ Of those, Advocate’s Exhibits 7 CULBREAT.OAK, SAM.DOR and

9534TPD.LET were received as Holt Exhibits 7 as opposed to

9544Advocate’s Exhibits 7, with the same desig nations. See

9553Transcript of Final Hearing, pp. 670, 685, 690.

95613/ Advocate’s Exhibit 8I was received as Holt’s 8Ianscript

9570of Final Hearing, p. 690.

95754/ During the final hearing, the full transcript of Respondent’s

9585Sworn Statement given to the Ethi cs Investigator was substituted

9595for the partial transcript originally offered as part of

9604Advocate’s Exhibit “12.” The full transcript was admitted into

9613evidence as a substitute for Advocate’s Exhibit 12. See

9622Transcript of Final Hearing, p. 1143.

96285/ Ad vocate’s Exhibit 17 is a composite of phone messages from

9640Joseph Moore regarding bank depositsanscript of Final

9647Hearing, pp.1096, 1000 [identified and received]. Advocate’s

9654Exhibit 19 is a composite of arrangement, by date, of the file

9666lists on Sharon Slater Disks #’s 1, 2 & 3. See Transcript of

9679Final Hearing, pp. 1947, 1964 [identified and received].

96876/ The testimony of Judge Gross was taken by deposition on

9698July 31, 2003.

97017/ The FDLE investigated and determined there were not crimes

9711committed .

97138/ Melissa Moore Dearing’s last name was Moore prior to her

9724marriage. Ms. Dearing is the daughter of Joseph Moore, one of

9735those who filed a complaint with the Ethics Commission against

9745Respond ent. (T - 250; R - 49)

97539/ The course that she taught in the Spring of 1995 occurred

9765prior to the reach of the statute of limitations and has not

9777been considered in this case.

978210/ Dearing and others proctored examinations and taught courses

9791for the Respondent during this period. Dearing clearly

9799volunteered to do this as did the other personnel, who were

9810mostly professional staff. This was not a violation the law

9820because it was not done on public time and was voluntary.

983111/ The Respondent was compensated between $1,000 and $2,500 per

9843course for teaching thes e courses. The Respondent taught three

9853different classes during the years 1998 and 1999, and two

9863different courses in 2000. She made approximately $6,600 from

9873teaching in 1998 and 1999, and $4,100 for teaching in 2000.

9885COPIES FURNISHED :

9888Gregory W. Keh oe, Esquire

9893James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A.

9899Post Office Box 1259

9903St. Petersburg, Florida 33731

9907James H. Peterson, III, Esquire

9912Office of the Attorney General

9917The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

9922Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

9927Kaye Starling, Agency Cl erk

9932Commission on Ethics

99352822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101

9941Post Office Box 15709

9945Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

9950Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel

9955Commission on Ethics

99582822 Remingt on Green Circle, Suite 101

9965Post Office Box 15709

9969Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

9974Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director

9979Commission on Ethics

99822822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101

9988Post Office Box 15709

9992Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

9997NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

10003All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

1001315 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to

10025this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will

10036issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 01/28/2004
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/27/2004
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 01/27/2004
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 11/24/2003
Proceedings: Response to Advocate`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed by Respondent.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2003
Proceedings: Respondent`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2003
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2003
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held May 27 through June 13, 2003). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2003
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Amended References to Exhibit A-12 (filed by Advocate via facsimile).
Date: 10/13/2003
Proceedings: Transcript (Sworn Statement of Julianne Holt) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Filing, Transcript of Julianne Holt`s Sworn Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/17/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority filed by Respondent.
PDF:
Date: 09/11/2003
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order (with disk) filed by G. Kehoe.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2003
Proceedings: Advocate`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2003
Proceedings: Deposition (of Honorable Raymond O. Gross, Circuit Court Judge) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2003
Proceedings: Respondent`s Notice of Filing Deposition of Honorable Raymond O. Gross, Circuit Court Judge filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2003
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Dean from D. Einsmann enclosing the original notebook of Ms. Holt`s exhibits filed.
Date: 08/11/2003
Proceedings: Condensed Transcript of Proceedings (Volumes IA, IB, II-A, II-B, III-A, III-B, IV-A, IV-B, V, VI-A, VI-B, V-II, V-III, IX, X, XI-A, XI-B, XII) filed.
Date: 08/11/2003
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (Volumes I-A, I-B, II-A, II-B, III-A, III-B, IV-A, IV-B, V, VI-A, VI-B, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI-A, XI-B, XII filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Filing, Advocate`s Exhibit "12" filed by J. Peterson.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition, Honorable R. Gross filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/11/2003
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Dean from J. Peterson enclosing 1 box of Advocate`s exhibits filed.
Date: 06/10/2003
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
Date: 06/02/2003
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to
Date: 05/27/2003
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2003
Proceedings: Advocate`s Request to Take Judicial Notice (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2003
Proceedings: Joint Prehearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/22/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (filed by B. New via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/22/2003
Proceedings: Motion for Exemption from Rule of Sequestration (filed by J. Peterson via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/22/2003
Proceedings: Subpoena ad Testificandum (2), R. Gross, G. Greer filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 05/22/2003
Proceedings: Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena or for a Protective Order and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof (filed by B. New via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2003
Proceedings: Advocate`s Second Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/14/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum J. Holt (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 04/08/2003
Proceedings: Advocate`s Response to Respondent`s Request for Production of Documents to the Advocate filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/08/2003
Proceedings: Certificate of Service of Advocate`s Answers to Interrogatories to Advocate filed by J. Peterson.
PDF:
Date: 04/01/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum, J. Holt (filed by J. Peterson, III via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 03/05/2003
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing issued (hearing set for May 27 through 30, 2003; 9:00 a.m.; Tampa, FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/03/2003
Proceedings: Respondent`s Unopposed Motion to Continue Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Advocate`s First Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2003
Proceedings: Advocate`s First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2003
Proceedings: Advocate`s First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2003
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2003
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for April 14 through 18, 2003; 9:00 a.m.; Tampa, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/30/2003
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation issued. (consolidated cases are: 03-000122EC, 03-000199EC, 03-000200EC)
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2003
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2003
Proceedings: Order Finding Probable Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2003
Proceedings: Advocates Recommendation filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2003
Proceedings: Report of Investigation filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2003
Proceedings: Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2003
Proceedings: Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2003
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
STEPHEN F. DEAN
Date Filed:
01/13/2003
Date Assignment:
06/11/2003
Last Docket Entry:
01/28/2004
Location:
Tampa, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
Suffix:
EC
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):