05-004461EC In Re: Robert J. Majka, Jr. vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, August 17, 2006.

Summary: Respondent`s travel on behalf of Bay County was provided by the county`s vendor. It was not a gift to Respondent.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: ROBERT J. MAJKA, JR. , )

)

Respondent . ) Case No. 05 - 4461EC

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This cause came on for f inal hearing before Harry L.

Hooper, Ad ministrative Law Judge with the Division of

Administrative Hearings, on June 15 , 2006, in Panama City ,

Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Advocate : Linzie F. Bogan, Esquire

Advocate for the Florida

Commission on Ethics

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

For Respondent: Albert T. Gimbel , Esquire

Gary E. Early, Esquire

Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A.

Post Office Box 1876

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 1 876

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Robert J. Majka, Jr., violated the

Florida Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Kenneth J. Kopczynski , of the Florida Police Benevolent

Association, authored a Complaint concerning Robert J. Majka ,

Jr. (Mr. Majka) , of Bay County, Florida, which was signed on

July 14, 2003, more than three years after the events alleged to

be the basis of the Complaint. It was submitted to the

Commission on Ethics (the Commission ) and fil ed on the day it

was signed. The Complaint alleged a possible violation of

Section 112.313(2), (6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1999) . The

events alleged in the Complaint occurred in the year 2000.

The Commission, based on a preliminary investigation, and

upon consideration of the Commission's Advocate, and subsequent

to an Order For Supplemental Investigation of Facts Materially

Related to Complaint filed June 29, 2004, entered a n Order

Finding Probable Cause that was filed on September 8, 2004.

This Ord er found probable cause to believe Mr. Majka violated

Section 112.3148(4), Florida Statutes, by accepting from

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) , a trip to Nashville,

Tennessee , valued in excess of $100 and by accepting a round of

golf from Gary Ake rs, the County's financial advisor, valued in

excess of $100. The Commission dismissed all other allegations.

In a letter dated December 8, 2005, the Commission ' s

Complaint Coordinator notified the Division of Administrative

Hearings that the Chairman of the Commission had requested a

public hearing into the matter. The Commission also forwarded

to the Division of Administrative Hearings , the cases of County

Attorney Nevin Zimmerman and County Manager Jonathan A . Mantay,

also of Bay County, who had Proba ble Cause Orders entered for

similar alleged offenses. On December 27, 2005, Respondent

Zimmerman's case, Number 05 - 4462EC, and Respondent Mantay's

case, Number 05 - 4463EC, were consolidated with Mr. Majka's case.

T he parties nevertheless requested that i ndividual Recommended

Orders be issued , which has been done.

Pursuant to a Consent Motion for Limited Relinquishment of

Jurisdiction, the Count addressing the round of golf accepted

from Gary Akers , was not considered by the Administrative Law

Judge. Thu s the only issue litigated was whether Mr. Majka

knowingly violated Section 112.3148(4), Florida Statutes, by

accepting a gift in the form of CCA's payment for travel

expenses valued at over $100 , or for which he reasonably

believed was valued over $100, r elative to a trip to Nashville ,

Tennessee .

At the hearing, the Advocate presented the testimony of two

witnesses and offered 16 exhibits into evidence. Respondent s

presented the testimony of four witnesses and offered f ive

exhibits into evidence.

A Tran script was filed on June 30, 2006 . After the

hearing, Mr. Majka timely filed his Proposed Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law on July 31, 2006. The Advocate timely

filed his Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on

August 1, 2006 .

Refere nces to statutes are to Florida Statutes ( 1999 )

unless otherwise noted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Pursuant to Article II, Section 8, Florida

Constitution, and Section 112.320, the Commission is empowered

to serve as the guardian of the standards of conduct fo r the

officers and employees of the state. Pursuant to Sections

112.324 and 112.317, the Commission is empowered to conduct

investigations and to issue a Final Order and Public Report

recommending penalties for violations of the Code of Ethics for

Public Officers and Employees (Code of Ethics).

2 . Respondent Majka is subject to the Code of Ethics.

Mr. Majka , during times pertinent , was Chief of Emergency

Services for Bay County, Florida, and is a reporting individual,

as that term is used in the Code of Ethics, and is required to

file annual financial disclosures with the Bay County Supervisor

of Elections , as provided by Section 112.3145(2)(c) . On

February 7, 2006, long after the events involved with this case,

he was promoted to the position of Assista nt County Manager.

3 . As Chief of Emergency Services , Mr. Majka was in charge

of the C ounty's corrections program. During times pertinent he

employed a staff member named Ann Cahall , whose duties included

interacting routinely with the C ounty's privatiz ed corrections

provider, CCA.

4 . On or about August 31, 1999, the Bay County C ommission

was addressing the problem of inmate overcrowding in it s county

correctional facilities, which were operated by CCA. On or

about that time, t he county correctional f acility exceeded

capacity by about 352 inmates.

5 . The Bay County Commissioners decided to address the

issue. The Bay County Commission directed County Manager

Jonathan A. Mantay and his staff to study the problem and to

recommend courses of action. As a result of the study, t wo

possible courses of action were recommended .

6. One p ossible course of action was the adoption of the

"Lifeline" program operated by CCA in Nashville, Tennessee,

which CCA claimed would reduce recidivism by teaching inmates

life skills and addressing drug abuse, among other things .

CCA's corporate headquarters is located in Nashville.

7. The other p ossible course of action was to emulate the

program operated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County,

Arizona. Sheriff Arpa io's program consist s of housing inmates

in tents that are sufficiently primitive that inmates, after

having had the tenting experience, avoid repeating it either by

not committing crimes in Maricopa County, or by committing them

elsewhere.

8. In order t o evaluate the two courses of action , the Bay

County Commission decided that three commissioners and certain

staff should travel to the two sites and evaluate the programs.

Mr. Majka, County Manager Mantay, and County Attorney Zimmerman ,

were among those who were designated to travel to Nashville and

Phoenix.

9. Mr. Majka's role , in giving that plan effect, was to

contact CCA and Maricopa County and determine dates that they

could support a visit from persons from Bay County. He

contacted Brad Wiggins , the Director of Business Development for

CCA , and also talked to the public information officer with the

Maricopa County sheriff's office , in order to determine

convenient dates . This was Mr. Majka's only involvement with

the planning phase of the propos ed trip.

10 . County Attorney Zimmerman called Mr. Wiggins on

February 6, 2000, and inquired if CCA would pay for the airline

tickets to Nashville. Mr. Zimmerman told Mr. Wiggins, when he

asked CCA to pay for the trip, that having CCA pay the airfare,

". . . was the County's preferred way of doing things, and, in

fact, that's when he recounted the story of the County taking

some trips to New York and maybe some other places."

11. Mr. Wiggins was not authorized by CCA to approve the

payment of travel expe nses for customers or others. He

forwarded County Attorney Zimmerman's request to James Ball, his

supervisor. Subsequently, Mr. Wiggins happened upon the CEO of

CCA, a Dr. Crants, while walking about the Nashville

headquarters of CCA. Dr. Crants directe d Mr. Wiggins to fund

the trip.

1 2 . Ultimately, as a result of th e s e conversation s, CCA

paid Trade Winds Travel, Inc. , of Panama City, Florida, for the

cost of the air travel for the entire Bay County contingent to

Nashville, and thence to Phoenix, and ba ck to Panama City. The

evidence is not conclusive as to whether it was the intent of

CCA to fund the trip beyond Nashville , but they paid for the

cost of the airfare for the entire trip .

1 3 . The request for the payment and the request to visit

CCA in Nas hville was driven by Bay County's needs, not by the

needs of CCA. Bay County was one of CCA's most valued

customers , however , and CCA was motivated to respond to their

request . This was especially true because o ne of CCA's first

contracts to provide corr ectional services was with Bay County.

1 4 . County Attorney Zimmerman's "marching orders" for many

years was that if there was an opportunity to require a third

party to pay an expense, then the third party should pay rather

than Bay County. That policy i s reflected in a variety of Bay

County ordinances , including the requirement that developers pay

for the cost of permitting.

1 5 . The third party payor policy was also reflected in a

1997 trip where Westinghouse was required by the C ounty

C ommissioners t o pay for the commissioners' and C ounty staff's

trip to Vancouver, B.C. , and Long Island , New York , to evaluate

the transfer of the resource recovery facility to a nother

vendor . This was the trip that County Attorney Zimmerman

discussed with Mr. Wiggins.

1 6 . This policy was set forth in a letter by County

Attorney Zimmerman dated October 30, 1997, which informed the

C ounty C ommissioners that all expenses in connection with their

travel, and with the travel of staff, would be funded by

Westingho use. He fu rther stated that, "[i t ] is our opinion that

the payment of these necessary expenses are not 'gifts,' as that

term is defined in State law."

1 7 . Prior to the trip to Nashville , Mr. Majka was present

during a conversation between the County Manager and Cou nty

Attorney. The discussion concerned whether Bay County or CCA

would fund all or part of the trip. Mr. Majka could not have

learned from this discussion that CCA would fund all or part of

the trip , and nothing occurred which would have required him to

make further inquiry. He specifically heard County Attorney

Zimmerman opine during this conversation, that the trip was

"legal."

1 8 . Subsequently, Mr. Majka was contacted by a Ms. Rogers

in the County Manager's Office. He was directed to go to the

Coun ty Manager's office to obtain an airline ticket for the

trip. He does not recall if he received that information

directly from Ms. Rogers or whether it was relayed to him by

Ms. Cahall, but it was clear to him that the County Manager was

requiring him to participate in the travel. He picked up the

ticket as directed . The ticket did not indicate how payment was

made .

1 9 . On Thursday, February 24, 2000, M e ssrs. Zimmerman,

Majka, and Mantay, traveled with Bay County C ommissioners

Danny Sparks, Richard Ste wart, and Carol Atkinson, and

television reporter Carmen Coursey , by commercial air, to

Nashville, Tennessee. On Saturday, February 26, 2000, t hey

traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, and they returned to Panama City

on Tuesday , February 29, 2000.

20. The trip was authorized by the Bay County Commission

subsequent to several public discussions concerning the need for

an on - site visit to Nashville and Phoenix. There was a

legitimate public purpose for the trip.

2 1 . Channel 13 television news reporter, Carmen Coursey

accompanied the officials. It is clear that there was nothing

about the trip that was accomplished sub rosa .

22 . The airfare was paid by CCA directly to Trade Winds

Travel, Inc. CCA did not ask for or receive reimbursement from

either Bay Count y or the travelers. The cost of Mr. Majka's

airfare for the entire trip was $1,257. Mr. Majka did not learn

that CCA paid for the airfare until three or more years after

the trip was completed. Mr. Majka at the time of the trip had

no reason to contempl ate the cost . After learning that CCA paid

the tariff, he also learned that the cost of the trip exceed ed

$100.

23 . Upon arrival in Nashville , Mr. Majka , and the other

travelers were greeted by Mr. Wiggins , who transported them to

the Downtown Courtyard Marriott Hotel in a van. The cost of the

transportation was paid by CCA , and CCA neither asked for nor

received reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers . The

value was not established. Mr. Majka did not know who paid for

the ground transportation .

24. The travelers ate dinner, February 24, 2000, as a

group that evening. Someone paid for Mr. Majka's dinner , but

the record does not indicate that CCA paid for it .

2 5 . On Friday, February 25, 2000, Mr. Majka and the other

travelers toured the Davi dson County (Tennessee) Correctional

Facility from 9:00 a.m. until noon. They ate lunch at the CCA

corporate headquarters provided by CCA . That afternoon they met

with Mr. Wiggins and other representatives of CCA. They

discussed the possibility of CCA p roviding " Lifeline " and

" Chances " programs operated by CCA , to Bay County.

2 6 . That evening, at CCA's expense, Mr. Majka and the

other travelers were transported by CCA to a dinner that was

paid for by CCA. CCA neither asked for nor received

reimburse ment from Bay County or the travelers. Mr. Majka was

not aware of either the cost of the dinner or who paid for it.

27. Mr. Majka and the other travelers stayed two nights at

the Marriott at a cost of $224.24. The cost of the hotel was

paid by CCA , and CCA neither asked for nor received

reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers. Mr. Majka

learned after checking out from the Marriott, on February 26,

2000, through talking with others, that CCA had paid the hotel

bill, but there is no evidence of re cord that he knew the

amount, or that it was an amount more than $100. No evidence

was adduced proving that Mr. Majka reasonably believed at that

time that it was of a value of more than $100.

2 8 . On Saturday, February 26, 2000, Mr. Majka and the

othe r travelers departed for Phoenix by air and observed Sheriff

Arpaio's program the following Monday morning. They also toured

the Phoenix Fire Department. The travelers, with the exception

of County Attorney Zimmerman, stayed at the San Carlos Hotel.

Mr. Majka's hotel bill in Phoenix was paid with a credit card

issued to County Manager Mantay by Bay County . On Tuesday

February 29, 2000, they all returned to Panama City.

2 9 . Bay County originally contracted with CCA to operate

their detention faciliti es on September 3, 1985. This contract

had a term of 20 years ; however, it was amended on September 16,

1996, to reflect an expiration date of September 24, 1999.

Other extensions followed. An amendment dated June 18, 2000,

provided that "CCA shall oper ate the ' Lifeline Program ' through

September 1, 2001." On May 15, 2001, the contract was extended

to September 30, 2006.

30 . Mr. Majka did not derive any person financial benefit

as a result of CCA paying the lodging expenses in Nashville or

as a result of CCA paying for his airfare. At no time has he

attempted to reimburse CCA for the cost of the trip. Mr. Majka

did not receive per diem or any amount in excess o f the actual

cost of the trip. The entity receiving a benefit from the trip

was Bay County.

3 1 . Mr. Majka had a C ounty credit card in his possession

but by C ounty policy he was not allowed to charge meals on it.

His usual practice , when traveling on behalf of the C ounty , is

to obtain receipts and file an expense report at the conclusion

of the trip . H e would thereafter be reimbursed for his travel

expenses. He did not file an expense report subsequent to this

travel.

32 . It is found as a fact that the cost of the travel to

Nashville and back to Panama City, and the cost of the hotel in

Nashv ille , totaled more than $100 and Mr. Majka ultimately knew

that the cost, when aggregated, was more than $100. Mr. Majka

could not have acquired this belief, however, until more than

three years after the trip because that is when he learned that

CCA had paid for the airfare.

3 3 . It was not uncommon for Mr. Wiggins and other CCA

officials to appear before the Bay County Commissioners on

behalf of CCA , or to otherwise interact with representatives of

CCA . Brad Wiggins was a lobbyist, as that term is defin ed in

Section 112.3148(1)(b)1 . , and others interacted with Bay County

on behalf of CCA and they were lobbyists also . During times

relevant , Bay County did not maintain a lobbyist registration

system.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3 4 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. § § 120.57(1) and 112.324(3), Fla. Stat (2005) .

3 5 . The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to

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

issue of the proceedings. Department of Transportation v.

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

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

(Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Therefore, the Advocate has the burden of

proof.

3 6 . Because of the penalties provided by Section 112.317,

the Advocate must prove its case by clear and convincing

evidence. Latham v. Florida Commission on Ethics , 694 So. 2d 83

(Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

3 7 . The issue in this case is narrowly drawn by the Order

Finding Probable Cause, which refers specifically to, " . . .

accepting payment for expenses valued at over $100 relative to

his trip to Nashville." Thus events that occurred in Arizona

will not be considered in this Recommended Order.

3 8 . It is found as a fact that the cost of the travel to

Nashville and back to Panama City, and the cost of the hotel in

Nashville totaled more than $100 and Mr. Majka knew that the

cost when aggregated, was more than $100. Mr. Majka could not

have acquired this belief, however, until more than three years

after the trip because that is when he learned that CCA had paid

for the airfare.

3 9 . The pertinent subsections of Section 112.3148 , are set

forth below :

112.3148. Reporting and prohibited

receipt of gif ts by individuals filing full

or limited public disclosure of financial

interests and by procurement employees

* * *

(2) As used in this section:

* * *

(b)1. "Lobbyist" means any natural person

who, for compensation, seeks, or sought

during the pre ceding 12 months, to influence

the governmental decisionmaking of a

reporting individual or procurement employee

or his or her agency or seeks, or sought

during the preceding 12 months, to encourage

the passage, defeat, or modification of any

proposal or r ecommendation by the reporting

individual or procurement employee or his or

her agency.

* * *

(c) "Person" includes individuals,

firms, associations, joint ventures,

partnerships, estates, trusts, business

trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries,

corporation s, and all other groups or

combinations.

(d) "Reporting individual" means any

individual, including a candidate upon

qualifying, who is required by law, pursuant

to s. 8, Art. II of the State Constitution

or s. 112.3145 , to file full or limited

public disclosure of his or her financial

interests .

* * *

(4) A reporting individual or procurement

employee or any other person on his or her

behalf is prohibited from knowingly

accepting, directly or indirectly, a gift

from a political committee or committ ee of

continuous existence, as defined in s

106. 0 11 or from a lobbyist who lobbies the

reporting individual's or procurement

employee's agency, or directly or indirectly

on behalf of the partner, firm, employer, or

principal of a lobbyist, if he or she kno ws

or reasonably believes that the gift has a

value in excess of $100; however, such a

gift may be accepted by such person on

behalf of a governmental entity or a

charitable organization. If the gift is

accepted on behalf of a governmental entity

or chari table organization, the person

receiving the gift shall not maintain

custody of the gift for any period of time

beyond that reasonably necessary to arrange

for the transfer of custody and ownership of

the gift.

40 . If Mr. Majka is to be found to have vio lated Section

112.3148(4), t he Advocate must prove that:

a. Mr. Majka is a reporting individual;

b. who knowingly;

c. accepted a gift;

d. from a lobbyist who lobbies the

reporting individual's agency, or directly

or indirectly on behalf of the partn er,

firm, employer, or principal of a lobbyist ;

e. and he knew or reasonably believe d that

the gift ha d a value in excess of $100 .

41 . If the facts demonstrate that a gift was accepted by a

reporting individual on behalf of a governmental entity , it is a

complete defense to the offense alleged , if the person receiving

the gift did not maintain custody of the gift for any period of

time beyond that reasonably necessary to arrange for the

transfer of custody and ownership of the gift.

42 . It is undispute d that Mr. Majka is a reporting

individual, and that he was transported by commercial air from

Panama City to Nashville and ultimately back to Panama City on a

tariff that was paid by CCA, the principal of a lobbyist,

Mr. Wiggins .

43 . What remains to be decided, is whether Mr. Majka

knowingly accepted a gift , in the form of transportation and

accommodations in Nashville.

4 4 . The definition of a "gift" for purposes of

the Code of E thics is provided in Section 112.312.

112.312. Definitions

As used in this part and for purposes of the

provisions of s. 8, Art. II of the State

Constitution , unless the context otherwise

requires:

* * *

(12)(a) "Gift," for purposes of ethics in

government and financial disclosure required

by law, means that which is acc epted by a

donee or by another on the donee's behalf,

or that which is paid or given to another

for or on behalf of a donee, directly,

indirectly, or in trust for the donee's

benefit or by any other means, for which

equal or greater consideration is not gi ven

within 90 days, including:

* * *

7. Transportation, other than that provided

to a public officer or employee by an agency

in relation to officially approved

governmental business, lodging, or parking.

* * *

( b ) "Gift" does not include:

1 . Sal ary, benefits, services, fees,

commissions, gifts or expenses associated

primarily with the donee's employment,

business, or service as an officer or

director of a corporation or organization.

4 5 . Construing this statute in the most simplistic way,

one could conclude that transportation is automatically a gift.

If one does that, however, then lodging, using the same logic,

can not be a gift since it is not enumerated in Section

112.312(12)(a)1 - 14 . It is apparent , therefore, that the Florida

Legislature meant to include lodging under the general

definition at Section 112.312(12), and intended to also provide

in definite terms that transportation was something that could ,

depending on the facts elucidated, be a gift.

4 6 . The word "donee" is not specifical ly defined by

Section 112.312 , or elsewhere in the Code of Ethics . According

to Black's Law Dictionary , a "donee" is, ". . . one to whom a

gift is made." Black ' s Law Dictionary , 4th Ed. Rev. 1975. The

record is clear that it was the intent of CCA to giv e air

transportation and lodging to Bay County .

4 7 . As noted in paragraph 1 0 , above, CCA and Mr. Zimmerman

did not discuss giving anything to Mr. Majka . Mr. Zimmerman

prevailed upon Mr. Wiggins to fund travel on behalf of Bay

County. The donee contemp lated by CCA's lobbyist was Bay

County. Therefore, Mr. Majka was not a donee, was not one to

whom a gift was made, and therefore could not have accepted a

gif t as defined by Section 112.312 (12)(a) .

4 8 . The Code of Ethics recognizes that Mr. Majka did no t

receive a gift, by noting in Section 112.312(12)(b)1 , that

" g ift" does not include, ". . . expenses associated primarily

with the donee's employment . . . ." The travel was clearly

part of his employment.

4 9 . The Code of Ethics also recognizes that an employee

may receive a gift on behalf of a governmental agency as noted

in the last two sentences of Section 112.3148( 4 ), which states,

". . . however, such a gift may be accepted by such person on

behalf of a governmental entity or a charitable organizat ion.

If the gift is accepted on behalf of a governmental entity or

charitable organization, the person receiving the gift shall not

maintain custody of the gift for any period of time beyond that

reasonably necessary to arrange for the transfer of custody and

ownership of the gift. "

50 . In this case, the "gift," if one concludes a gift was

given to Mr. Majka on behalf of Bay County, was received and

simultaneously transfer red back to the county in the case of the

hotel bill in Nashville. With regard to the air transportation,

since Mr. Majka did not learn that CCA paid for it until more

than three years after the flights, if one follows this thread

to its logical conclusion, the gift was knowingly accepted on

behalf of Bay County sometime in 2003 and sim ultaneously turned

over to Bay County.

51 . Commi ssion on Ethics Opinion 91 - 71 involved a

Charlotte County Commissioner who accepted free legal

representation in the successful defense of a recall petition.

The partner of the attorney providing the legal representation

occasionally lobbied the County Commission. If the attorney

providing the representation had not donated it to the county,

the county would be legally required to pay him. The Commission

concluded that the donee was Charlotte County and t hat

therefore, the Charlotte County Commissioner had not run afoul

of Section 112.3148(4). The facts in the case at bar are

essentially congruent with the holding in Committee on Ethics

Opinion 91 - 71.

52 . Interestingly, Committee on Ethics Opinion 91 - 71

stated in part, "We are reluctant to get involved in matters

regarding the procedures to be used by a county commission in

conducting its business." It may be tempting to note in this

case that it may be bad business for a county to prevail upon a

vendor , or an entity desiring to be a vendor, to provide travel

and lodging to a county commissioner or person on a county

staff . However, determining the wisdom of that policy is not

the province of the Administrative Law Judge , or the Commission

on Ethics, as the Commission noted.

53 . A consideration of Committee on Ethics Opinion 91 - 2 1

is also helpful. In that case the Okaloosa County Supervisor of

Elections inquired if she might travel to California to inspect

voting machines and accept travel expenses fr om the voting

machine manufacturer. The Commission held that it was

permissible under Section 112.3148(4) for the manufacturer to

reimburse Okaloosa County for the travel, but impermissible for

the manufacturer to provide the expense money directly to the

Supervisor . In this case the vendor paid a third party for

travel for the benefit of Bay County. There may be a

distinction between the that case and the case at bar, but there

is no difference because no one directly gave Mr. Majka money

for travel .

RE COMMENDATION

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it

is

RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics issue a Final

Order and Public Report finding that Robert J. Majka, Jr. did

not violate Section 112. 3148(4), Florida Statutes, and

dismi ssing the complaint filed against him.

DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August 2006, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

HARRY L. HOOPER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Bui lding

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 17th day of August , 2006 .

COPIES FURNISHED :

Linzie F. Bogan, Esquire

Advocate for the Florida

Commission on Ethics

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

Albert T. Gimbel, Esquire

Gary E. Early, Esquire

Mark Herron, Esquire

Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A.

Post Office Box 1876

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 1876

Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director

Florida Commission on Ethics

Pos t Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 3231 7 - 5709

Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 3231 7 - 5709

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit wr itten exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.