05-004462EC In Re: Nevin Zimmerman 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. Because it was not a gift, no report was required.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: NEVIN ZIMMERMAN , )

) Case No. 05 - 4462 EC

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This cause came on for final hearing before Harry L.

Hooper, Administ rative 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 Gener al

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

For Respondent: Albert T. Gimbel, Esq uire

Gary E. Early, Esquire

Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A.

Post Office Box 1876

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 1876

S TATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Nevin Zimmerman 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 Nevin Zimmerman

(Mr. Zimmerman), 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 filed 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 Report of Investigation dated

July 8, 2004, and upon consideration of the Commission's

Advocate, entered an Order Finding Probable Cause that was filed

on September 8, 2004. This Order found probable cause to

believe Mr. Zimmerman violated Section 112.3148(4), Florida

Statutes, by accepting from C orrections Corporation of America

(CCA), a trip to Nashville, Tennessee, and Phoenix, Arizona,

valued in excess of $100 , and by failing to file a CE form 9,

Quarterly Gift Disclosure, based upon gifts received from CCA ,

in violation of Section 112.3148(8) , Florida Statutes . This

latter charge rejected the recommendation of the Advocate that ,

based on the facts elucidated and the applicable law , probable

cause did not exist . The Commission dismissed all other

allegations.

In a letter dated December 8, 200 5, 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 ca ses of Chief

of Emergency Services Robert J. Majka, Jr., and County Manager

Jonathan A. Mantay, also of Bay County, who had Probable Cause

Orders entered for similar alleged offenses. On December 27,

2005, Respondent Majka 's case, Number 05 - 446 1 EC, and Re spondent

Mantay's case, Number 05 - 4463EC, were consolidated with

Mr. Zimmerman 's case. T he parties nevertheless requested that

individual Recommended Orders be issued, which has been done.

At the hearing, the Advocate presented the testimony of two

witnes ses and offered 16 exhibits into evidence. Respondent s

presented the testimony of four witnesses and offered five

exhibits into evidence.

A Transcript was filed on June 30, 2006 . After the

hearing, both Mr. Zimmerman and the Advocate timely filed their

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on July 31,

2006.

References 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 Com mission is empowered

to serve as the guardian of the standards of conduct for 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 Re port

recommending penalties for violations of the Code of Ethics for

Public Officers and Employees (Code of Ethics).

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

Mr. Zimmerman , during times pertinent , as a partner in the law

firm of Burke an d Blue, P.A., was the County Attorney, along

with Les Burke , for Bay County, Florida, and wa s a reporting

individual, as that term is used in the Code of Ethics .

Mr . Zimmerman was required to file annual financial disclosures

with the Bay County Superviso r of Elections, as provided by

Section 112.3145(2)(c). He is currently an attorney in private

practice.

3 . As County Attorney , Mr. Zimmerman was ultimately

responsible for addressing Bay County's legal needs. He had

associates in his firm that helped h im in this regard. He

became the primary contact in the Burke and Blue firm for Bay

C ounty in the middle 1980's.

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

was addressing the problem of inmate overcrowding in its county

correctional facil ities, which were operated by CCA . On or

about that time, the C ounty correctional facility exceeded

capacity by about 352 inmates.

5 . The Bay County Commissioners decided to address the

issue. The Bay County Commission directed County Manager

Jonatha n A. Mantay and his staff to study the problem and to

recommend courses of action. As a result of the study, two

possible courses of action were recommended.

6. One possible 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 possible course of action was to emulate th e

program operated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County,

Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio's program consists of housing inmates

in tents that are sufficiently primitive that inmates, after

having had the tenting experience, avoid repeating it either by

not co mmitting crimes in Maricopa County, or by committing them

elsewhere.

8. In order to 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. Zimmerman, Chief of Emergency Services Majka, and County

Manager Mantay, were among those who were designated to travel

to Nashville and Phoenix. County Manager Mantay specifically

desired th at Mr. Zimmerman participate in the trip.

9. Mr. Zimmerma n believed that if he could convince CCA to

pay travel expenses , he should do it so he could save the

taxpayers ' money. His "marching orders" for many years was that

if there was an opportunity to require a third party to pay an

expense, then the third pa rty should pay rather than Bay County.

That policy is reflected in a variety of Bay County ordinances

including the requirement that developers pay for the cost of

permitting.

10. The third party payor policy was implemented in a 1997

trip where Westin ghouse , a vendor, was required by the C ounty

C ommissioners to 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 another

vendor. In that instance, after researching the law surrounding

the policy, Mr. Zimmerman prepared a written opinion which

stated that it was legally permissible to require Westinghouse

to fund the trip .

11. This policy was set forth in a letter by Mr. 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 further

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 2 . It was Mr. Zimmerman's understanding that the C ounty

C ommissioners desired that CCA pay for the trip. Prior to the

trip Mr. Zimmerman called Brad Wiggins , the Director of Business

Development for CC A, on February 6, 2000, and inquired if CCA

would pay for the airline tickets to Nashville. Mr. Zimmerman

told Mr. Wiggins, that having CCA pay the air fare, ". . . 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."

1 3 . Mr. Wiggins was not authorized by CCA to approve the

payment of travel expenses for customers or others. He

forwarded Mr. Zimmerman's request to James Ball, his supervis or.

Subsequently, Mr. Wiggins happened upon the CEO of CCA, a

Dr. Crants, while walking about the Nashville headquarters of

CCA. Dr. Crants directed Mr. Wiggins to fund the trip.

1 4 . Ultimately, as a result of these conversations, CCA

paid Trade Winds T ravel, 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 back 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. Mr. Zimmerman did not

learn that the airfare for the Phoenix trip was funded by CCA

until the inception of the Commission's investigation.

15 . The request for the payment an d the request to visit

CCA in Nashville 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 one of CCA' s first

contracts to provide correctional services was with Bay County.

16. The Burke and Blue law firm made arrangements for the

trip. Mr. Zimmerman did not involve himself in the detailed

planning. His firm does not customarily use Trade Winds Travel,

Inc., which indicates that the tickets were acquired directly by

CCA. Someone from the Burke and Blue firm made hotel

reservations in Phoenix. Their firm name appears on the San

Carlos Hotel receipt, although the expense was charged directly

to Bay Coun ty . Mr. Zimmerman was indubitably aware that CCA was

paying for all of the expenses in connection with the Nashville

leg of the trip.

17. On Thursday, February 24, 2000, Messrs. Zimmerman,

Majka, and Mantay, traveled with Bay County Commissioners Danny

Sparks, Richard Stewart, and Carol Atkinson, and television

reporter Carmen Coursey, by commercial air, to Nashville,

Tennessee. On Saturday, February 26, 2000, they traveled to

Phoenix, Arizona, and they returned to Panama City on Tuesday,

February 29, 2 000.

18 . 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.

19 . As noted above, Channel 1 3 television news reporter,

Carmen Coursey accompanied the officials. It is clear that

there was nothing about the trip that was accomplished sub rosa .

2 0 . The airfare was paid by CCA directly to Trade Winds

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

either Bay County or the travelers. The cost of Mr. Zimmerman 's

airfare for the entire trip was $1,257. I t was reasonable for

Mr. Zimmerman to believe that a commercial air trip of that

distance would exceed $100.

2 1 . Upon arrival in Nashville, Mr. Zimmerman , 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 fro m Bay County or the travelers.

The value was not established. Mr. Zimmerman did not know who

paid for the ground transportation.

2 2 . The travelers ate dinner, February 24, 2000, as a

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

but the record does not indicate that CCA paid for it.

2 3 . On Friday, February 25, 2000, Mr. Zimmerman and the

other travelers toured the Davidson County (Tennessee)

Correctional Facility from 9:00 a.m. until noon. They ate lunch

provided by CCA, at the CCA co rporate headquarters. That

afternoon they met with Mr. Wiggins and other representatives of

CCA. They discussed the possibility of CCA providing "Lifeline"

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

2 4 . That evening, at CCA's expense, Mr. Zimmerman and the

other travelers were transported by CCA to a dinner that was

paid for by CCA. CCA neither asked for , nor received

reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers. Mr. Zimmerman

was aware that CCA paid for the food consumed that day.

2 5 . Mr. Zimmerman 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. Zimmerman

learned from Mr. Wiggins that CCA had paid the hotel bill, but

there is no evidence of record that he knew the amount, or that

it was an amount more than $100 . However, it is found that

Mr. Zimmerman reasonably believed that the aggregate cost of the

flights, food, and lo dging exceeded $100.

2 6 . On Saturday, February 26, 2000, Mr. Zimmerman and the

other 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 Mr. Zimmerman, stayed at the San Carlos Hotel . On Tuesday ,

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

2 7 . Bay County originally contracted with CCA to operate

their detention facilities on September 3, 1985. This contr act

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 operate the 'Lifeline Program' through

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

to September 30, 2006.

2 8 . Mr. Zimmerman 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 , b ecause

Bay County would have reimbursed his expenses if CCA had not

paid . At no time has he attempted to reimburse CCA for the cost

of the trip. Mr. Zimmerman did not receive per diem or any

amount in excess o f th e actual cost of the trip. The entity

re ceiving a benefit from the trip was Bay County.

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

Nashville and back to Panama City, and the cost of the food,

transportation, and hotel in Nashville, totaled more than $100

and Mr. Zimmerman reasonab ly believed that the cost, when

aggregated, was more than $100. Mr. Zimmerman did not file a CE

form 9, Quarterly Gift Disclosure in conjunction with this trip.

3 0 . It was not uncommon for Mr. Wiggins and other CCA

officials to appear before the Bay Coun ty Commissioners on

behalf of CCA, or to otherwise interact with representatives of

CCA. Brad Wiggins was a lobbyist, as that term is defined 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 1 . 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 2 . 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 3 . Because of the penalties provided by Section 112.317,

the Advocate must prove its case by clear and conv incing

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

(Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

3 4 . It is found as a fact that the cost of the travel to

Nashville , Phoenix, and back to Panama City, and the cost of the

hotel in Nashville totaled more than $10 0 , and Mr. Zimmerman

reasonably believed that the cost, when a ggregated, was more

than $100, at the time the travel was undertaken.

3 5 . 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 s ought

during the preceding 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 recommendation 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, fid uciaries, corporations, 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 fu ll 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 committee of

continuous existence, as defined in s

106. 011 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 lobbyi st, if he or she knows

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 governme ntal 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.

* * *

(8)(a) Each repo rting individual or

procurement employee shall file a statement

with the Secretary of State on the last day

of each calendar quarter, for the previous

calendar quarter, containing a list of gifts

which he or she believes to be in excess of

$100 in value, i f any, accepted by him or

her, except the following:

1. Gifts from relatives.

2. Gifts prohibited by subsection (4) or s.

112.313(4).

3. Gifts otherwise required to be disclosed

by this section.

(b) The statement shall include:

1. A descr iption of the gift, the

monetary value of the gift, the name and

address of the person making the gift, and

the dates thereof. If any of these facts,

other than the gift description, are unknown

or not applicable, the report shall so

state.

2. A cop y of any receipt for such gift

provided to the reporting individual or

procurement employee by the donor.

(c) The statement may include an

explanation of any differences between the

reporting individual's or procurement

employee's statement and the re ceipt

provided by the donor.

(d) The reporting individual's or

procurement employee's statement shall be

sworn to by such person as being a true,

accurate, and total listing of all such

gifts.

(e) If a reporting individual or

procurement employee has not received any

gifts described in paragraph (a) during a

calendar quarter, he or she is not required

to file a statement under this subsection

for that calendar quarter.

3 6 . If Mr. Zimmerman is to be found to have violated

Section 112.3148(4), the Advocate must prove that:

a . Mr. Zimmerman 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 partner,

firm, employer, or prin cipal of a lobbyist ;

e. and he knew or reasonably believe d that

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

3 7 . 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.

3 8 . It is undisputed that Mr. Zimmerman is a r eporting

individual, and that he was transported by commercial air from

Panama City to Nashville and Phoenix and ultimately back to

Panama City , on a tariff that was paid by CCA, the principal of

a lobbyist, Mr. Wiggins.

39 . What remains to be decided, is whether Mr. Zimmerman

knowingly accepted a gift, in the form of transportation and

accommodations in Nashville and Phoenix .

4 0 . The definition of a "gift" for purposes of

the Code of Ethics 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 accepted 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 given

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 . Salary, 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 1 . Construing this statute in the most simplistic wa y,

one could conclude that transportation is automatically a gift.

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

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

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

Legisl ature 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 2 . The word "donee" is not spec ifically 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 give air

transportation and lodging to Bay County.

4 3. As noted in paragraph 12 , above, CCA and Mr. Zimmerman

did not discuss giving anything to Mr. Majka , Mr. Mantay, or to

himself . Mr. Zimmerman prevailed upon Mr. Wiggins to fund

travel on behalf of Bay County. The donee contemplated by CCA's

lobbyist was Bay County. Therefore, Zimmerman was not a donee,

was not one to whom a gift was made, and therefore could not

have accepted a gift as defined by Section 112.312(12)(a).

Because there was not g ift, there was nothing for him to

knowingly accept.

4 4 . The Code of Ethics recognizes that Mr. Zimmerman 's

situation did not involve a gift to him by noting in Section

112.312(12)(b)1, that "gift" does not include, ". . . expenses

associated primarily wi th the donee's employment . . . . " The

travel was clearly part of his employment.

4 5 . 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), wh ich states,

". . . 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

charitable organization, the person receiving the gift sh all 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. "

4 6 . In this case, the "gift," if one concludes a gift was

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

simultaneously transferred back to the county .

47 . Commission on Ethics Opinion 91 - 71 involved a

Charlotte County Commissioner who accepted free legal

representation in the successful defense of a recall petition.

The partne r 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 Ethics

Commission conclud ed that the donee was Charlotte County and

that 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.

48 . Inte restingly, 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 bu siness 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 Administrativ e Law Judge, or the Commission,

as the Commission noted.

49 . A consideration of Committee on Ethics Opinion 91 - 21

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

Elections inquired if she might travel to California to inspect

voting mach ines and accept travel expenses from 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 third part ies 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. Zimmerman

money for travel.

5 0 . Because there was no gift, there is no requirement for

Mr. Zimmerman to make a report pursuant to Section 1 12.3148(8).

If it were found that Mr. Zimmerman received a gift under

section 112.3148(4), he would not b e required to file a report.

See § 112.3148(8)(a)2.

RECOMMENDATION

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 Nevin Zimmerman did not

violat e Section 112. 3148(4) or (8) , Florida Statutes, and

dismissing 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 Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative H earings

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

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 Direc tor

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 32319 - 5709

Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 32319 - 5709

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

Al l parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.