12-003500EC In Re: Malcom Thompson vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, March 6, 2013.

Summary: Clerk of Court did not misuse his official postition in meeting with employees concerning the complaint that he pushed an employee where facts show that he did not threaten or take any action against employees seeking withdrawal of complaint.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: MALCOM THOMPSON , ) Case No. 12 - 3500EC

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held on January 8,

2013, in Kissimme e, Florida , before Thomas P. Crapps, a

designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Advocate: Melody A. Hadley, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol , Pla za Level One

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

For Respondent: Brennan Donnelly, Esquire

P ost O ffice Box 15579

Tallahassee, Florida 32317

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whet her Respondent, Malcom Thompson, as Clerk of the Court

for Osceola County, Florida , violated section 112.313(6), Florida

Statutes (2011), 1 / by using his position to intimidate Osceola

County Clerk of the Court employees in order to enhance his

personal and political power and, if so, the appropriate penalty.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 12, 2012, the Florida Commission on Ethics

(Commission) issued an Order Finding Probable Cause alleging that

Respondent, Malcom Thompson (Mr. Thompson) , violated

s ection 112.313(6) by using this position to intimidate the Clerk

of the Court employees in order to enhance his personal and

political power. As a result of the finding, on October 25,

2012, the Commission transmitted the case to DOAH for a final

hearing.

The hearing was held on January 8, 2013. At the final

hearing , the Advocate presented the testimony of Mr. Thompson,

Kimberlee Zander (Ms. Zander), Latifa Ramdani (Ms. Ramdani),

Peggy Lay (Ms. Lay), Kimberly Hennecy (Ms. Hennecy), Lisa Cubero

(Ms. Cubero ) and Melissa Benoit (Ms. Benoit). Mr. Thompson

testified on his own behalf. The parties did not offer any

exhibits into evidence.

On February 8, 2013, the one - volume transcript was filed

with DOAH. The parties submitted p roposed r ecommended o rders on

February 14, 2013, which the undersigned has considered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times relevant to this case, Mr. Thompson was the

Clerk of the Court for Osceola County, Florida.

2 . On December 29, 2 011, Mr. Thompson was working in his

office with his administrative assistants Ms. Ramdani and

Ms. Lay. It was the day before the New Year's holiday, and

Mr. Thompson directed Ms. Ramdani to remove Christmas cards that

were on display. Ms. Ramdani told Mr. Thompson that she wanted

to keep the Christmas cards up until after the holidays.

Mr. Thompson became agitated with her, and he placed his open

hand on Ms. Ramdani's shoulder and pushed her into a door.

3 . Ms. Ramdani did not receive any physical injury from

Mr. Thompson's action, but she became angry and started

complaining that he had pushed her. In response, Mr. Thompson

said that he did not push her, and that he apologized. After

this exchange, Mr. Thompson decided to leave Ms. Ramdani alon e.

Ms. Lay, who was working in the office, witnessed the incident.

4 . On January 4, 2012, after returning from the New Year's

Day holiday, Ms. Lay told Ms. Hennecy, the Deputy Clerk of the

Court, about Mr. Thompson pushing Ms. Ramdani, and how upset

M s. Ramdani had been about the incident. Ms. Hennecy thought the

allegation was serious and contacted the Clerk's Human Relations

(H.R.) D irector, Ms. Zander.

5 . Based on Ms. Hennecy's report, Ms. Zander began an

investigation. She interviewed Ms. Ram dani and corroborated the

allegation that Mr. Thompson had pushed her. During the

interview, Ms. Ramdani told Ms. Zander that she was afraid of

Mr. Thompson. There is no evidence that Ms. Ramdani filed a

written complaint against Mr. Thompson based on t he December 29,

2011 , incident. However, it was Ms. Zander's opinion that

Ms. Ramdani made a verbal complaint to H.R.

6 . Ms. Zander then interviewed Mr. Thompson, and he stated

that "he did it again." He explained that he had been joking

around with Ms. Ramdani, and that she had gotten mad with him.

Mr. Thompson then told Ms. Zander to interview Ms. Lay, and that

she would corroborate his story.

7 . Ms. Zander interviewed Ms. Lay, who corroborated that

Mr. Thompson had pushed Ms. Ramdani, but disput ed that it had

been unintentional or a joke. It was Ms. Lay's impression that

Mr. Thompson had pushed Ms. Ramdani in anger. Ms. Zander, in a

lack of candor, told Mr. Thompson that Ms. Lay had confirmed

aspects of his story, neglecting to tell him the key difference.

8 . Based on H.R.'s standard practice of separating

employees who may have a conflict, Ms. Zander determined that it

was best to move Ms. Ramdani's work space from Mr. Thompson's

office on the sixth floor of the courthouse to the H.R.

departme nt located on the second floor. Ms. Zander made this

recommendation to Ms. Hennecy and Mr. Thompson on January 4,

2012. Mr. Thompson agreed that Ms. Ramdani could be moved if it

was her choice.

9 . Initially, on January 4, Ms. Ramdani informed

Ms. Zande r that she did not want to relocate her office.

However, the next day Ms. Zander informed Ms. Ramdani that her

work space was being moved to the second floor from Mr.

Thompson's office based on safety concerns.

10 . On January 5, 2012, Mr. Thompson lear ned that

Ms. Ramdani was being relocated to the second floor. He told

Ms. Zander and Ms. Hennecy that Ms. Ramdani was to be treated

like any other employee, and not given any privileges.

Apparently, Mr. Thompson allowed Ms. Ramdani more leeway in his

of fice suite than other employees, such as telephone privileges,

extended breaks, religious holidays, and leaving work early, if

she worked through lunch. Further, Ms. Ramdani was to be under

Ms. Zander's supervision, and written up if she did not follow

th e rules. Mr. Thompson restated his position to Ms. Zander that

the whole incident was being blown out of proportion.

11 . Generally, whenever there is an allegation of a

conflict between employees, Ms. Zander, as H.R. director, would

conduct an investig ation and offer a resolution to the conflict.

However, Ms. Zander credibly testified that she did not feel

comfortable with investigating the allegation that Mr. Thompson

had pushed Ms. Ramdani because he was "my boss."

12 . Some time during the beginni ng of her investigation,

Ms. Zander decided to speak with Captain Toomey, an Osecola

County Sheriff's officer, who worked in the courthouse.

Ms. Zander asked Captain Toomey whether she had a duty to report

the incident. Captain Toomey asked for more de tails and

initially said that the victim , Ms. Ramdani, had to come forward.

Later, Captain Toomey called and indicated that he had a

responsibility to report the incident.

13 . Mr. Thompson went on scheduled annual leave for the

week of January 9 through 13, 2012.

14 . Some time on January 9, 2012, the Florida Department of

Law Enforcement (FDLE) sent an officer to investigate the

allegation that Mr. Thompson had pushed Ms. Ramdani. The officer

interviewed Ms. Ramdani and other Clerk of the Court employ ees

concerning the incident and informed them that the on - going

investigation was confidential and that the employees were not to

discuss the matter. Ms. Zander shared with Ms. Hennecy that the

FDLE investigation was on - going, and that it was confidential .

15 . Ms. Ramdani told the FDLE officer what happened and

stated that she did not want to pursue any criminal charges

against Mr. Thompson. Ms. Ramdani credibly testified that she

did not want to pursue any action for religious reasons, and

based on her fear of embarrassment to her family and being in the

news.

16 . The FDLE officer informed Ms. Zander that Ms. Ramdani

did not want to pursue any criminal charges against Mr. Thompson.

17 . On January 9, 2012, at the end of the day, Ms. Hennecy

called Mr . Thompson to give him an update on the office. One

item of interest reported concerned a call Ms. Hennecy had

received from Gary Ketchum, the spouse of one of Mr. Thompson's

political opponents. Mr. Ketchum had called to confirm an

allegation that Mr. T hompson has pushed an employee and had used

a derogatory slur against the employee. Mr. Thompson became very

upset when he heard about Ketchum's call.

18 . Not surprisingly, Mr. Thompson cut his vacation short

and returned to the office bright and early t he next day,

January 10, 2012. It was Mr. Thompson's intention to meet with

Ms. Ramdani and "smooth things over." As Ms. Ramdani was parking

her car, Mr. Thompson called her cell phone and said that he

wanted to speak with her. Ms. Ramdani told Mr. Tho mpson that she

did not want to speak with him, and then she noticed his car

pulling into the courthouse parking lot. Ms. Ramdani was

surprised and worried to see Mr. Thompson driving into the

parking lot because he was supposed to be on vacation.

Ms. Ra mdani parked her car and proceeded into the courthouse.

Mr. Thompson parked his car and entered the building in a side

entrance.

19 . That morning, Ms. Cubero was the first person to arrive

for work in the H.R. department. As she opened the door and

turn ed on the lights, she was startled to see Mr. Thompson

standing in the office. She was surprised because Mr. Thompson

was supposed to have been on vacation. Mr. Thompson asked to see

Ms. Zander, but was told that she had not yet arrived. Within a

minute or so, Ms. Ramdani arrived at the second floor office.

Mr. Thompson, again, asked Ms. Ramdani to come upstairs and speak

with him. Ms. Ramdani initially declined his invitation, but

then changed her mind after Mr. Thompson gave assurances that

everythin g would be fine.

20 . While Mr. Thompson and Ms. Ramdani left the second

floor, Ms. Cubero sent Ms. Zander a text message that

Mr. Thompson was looking for her and that he had taken

Ms. Ramdani upstairs for a meeting. Ms. Zander, who had just

pulled int o the parking lot, decided she needed to interrupt the

meeting between Mr. Thompson and Ms. Ramdani. Ms. Zander

credibly testified that she was worried about Ms. Ramdani's

safety. At first, Ms. Zander attempted to find a male employee

or Captain Toomey t o accompany her to the meeting on the sixth

floor because she was afraid. Ms. Zander explained that she

wanted to find a male to go with her because Mr. Thompson had a

"temper" and that he was a large man. Because Ms. Zander was

unable to find the male e mployee , and Captain Toomey would not go

with her, Ms. Zander took two H.R. employees with her to the

meeting, Ms. Cubero and Ms. Benoit.

21 . Ms. Ramdani and Mr. Thompson rode separate elevators up

to the sixth floor. On entering the office suite, Ms. Ramdani

told Mr. Thompson that she did not want to meet with him in his

conference room, so they sat in Ms. Lay's work area. Ms. Lay was

already working at her desk.

22 . Ms. Lay credibly testified that Mr. Thompson was

agitated, appeared angry, and ind icated that he was going to "get

to the bottom of things," and going to identify who "leaked" the

December 29, 2011, incident to the public.

23 . Ms. Lay was fearful that Mr. Thompson thought that she

was the "leak." Consequently, Ms. Lay told Mr. Thompso n about

the FDLE investigation.

24 . Ms. Lay's information about the FDLE investigation

thunderstruck Mr. Thompson, and he became extremely angry. He

immediately grabbed the phone and began attempting to call his

lawyer. Ms. Lay and Ms. Ramdani attempte d to calm him. However,

Mr. Thompson was extremely angry because he felt betrayed that

his Deputy, Ms. Hennecy , and his employees had not told him about

the FDLE investigation, and he believed the whole thing was being

blown out of proportion.

25 . Ms. Za nder, Ms. Benoit, and Ms Cubero entered the sixth

floor office. Ms. Zander began telling Mr. Thompson that he

could not conduct this meeting with Ms. Ramdani. Mr. Thompson,

in a highly agitated state, told Ms. Zander and the other

employees "young ladies , grab a chair and sit down."

Consequently, Ms. Zander, Ms. Cubero , and Ms. Benoit joined

Mr. Thompson, Ms. Ramdani, and Ms. Lay for this impromptu

meeting.

26 . Mr. Thompson then began to loudly and angrily question

Ms. Zander, "What have you done? Who gave you the right to

contact FDLE?" Ms. Zander started to answer and moved in her

chair, and Mr. Thompson sprung from his chair and stood over

Ms. Zander angrily shaking his finger in her face and yelling at

her : "don't jump up on me" ; "don't raise yo ur voice to me" ; and

"shut up little girl." All of the participants at the meeting

credibly testified that Mr. Thompson was red in the face, visibly

angry , and that they felt afraid. Sensibly, Ms. Ramdani told

Mr. Thompson to sit back down, and put his hands in his pocket s .

He then complied with Ms. Ramdani's instruction.

27 . Because Ms. Cubero began crying at the meeting,

Mr. Thompson asked her what was wrong, and whether she was afraid

of him. Ms. Cubero stated that she was afraid of him.

Mr. Tho mpson then asked each of the women at this meeting if they

were afraid of him. All of the women stated that they were

afraid of him. Although the employees were fearful, Mr. Thompson

did not verbally threaten or touch anyone during this meeting.

Rather, the employees' fear appeared to be caused by

Mr. Thompson's explosive anger and his loud and aggressive

manner. Mr. Thompson , in a complete lack of self - awareness ,

testified that he did not understand why the meeting participants

said that they were afr aid of him.

28 . During the meeting, Mr. Thompson said several times

that he did not think there was a case against him because

without a "complainant there is no complaint." It was

Mr. Thompson's impression that Ms. Ramdani had not filed a formal

compla int against him. There was no evidence that Mr. Thompson

directed anyone at the meeting to dismiss the H.R. complaint or

change their story, or that he sought to discredit Ms. Ramdani.

29 . The length of this meeting was approximately two and a

half hou rs. It is undisputed that the portion of the meeting

where Mr. Thompson stood over Ms. Zander lasted just a few

moments. Near the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Ramdani

expressed the concern that Mr. Thompson would terminate the

employment of her and the others at the meeting. Mr. Thompson

told them that as long as he was Clerk of the Court they would

not lose their jobs. Ms. Ramdani then asked for Mr. Thompson to

give this promise in writing. Oddly, Mr. Thompson wrote his

promise on a "post - it" note, but refused to sign it. This "post -

it" note was not offered into evidence.

30 . At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Thompson was of

the impression that it had been a productive meeting and ended

pleasantly. However, Ms. Zander, felt differently and e ventually

filed a criminal assault charge and the ethics charge against

Mr. Thompson for his behavior during the meeting.

31 . The day after the January 10, 2012, meeting,

Ms. Ramdani decided to move back to her office in Mr. Thompson's

office suite on t he sixth floor. Ms. Ramdani credibly testified

that she decided to move back to the sixth floor because she

could not get any work done in the second floor office. Further ,

she credibly testified that she did not want to pursue the

criminal action agains t Mr. Thompson, or the ethics charge

against Mr. Thompson. Further, Ms. Ramdani agreed with the

description of Mr. Thompson as a "good boss."

32 . On January 20, 2012, Mr. Thompson had another meeting

with Ms. Zander with his general counsel present. Mr. Thompson

asked her "what was her end - game" and "what would it take to make

this go away." Ms. Zander indicated that she did not have a plan

on how to resolve the issue concerning Ms. Ramdani's allegation,

and that Mr. Thompson would have to resolve the i ssue with

Ms. Ramdani. Mr. Thompson is credited in his testimony that his

meaning of "end - game" referred to him asking how Ms. Zander

planned to resolve the allegations, not as showing any wrongful

intent.

33 . There was no evidence that Mr. Thompson t ook any

employment or retaliatory action against the employees that

attended the January 10, 2012 , meeting.

34 . A jury acquitted Mr. Thompson on the charge that

committed a battery of Ms. Ramdani. Further, in a separate case,

the trial judge entered a judgment of acquittal on Ms. Zander's

claim that Mr. Thompson assaulted her during the January 10,

2012 , meeting.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

35 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and subject

matter of this proceeding. § § 120.57(1) and 1 20.569, Fla. Stat.

36 . The Commission is authorized to conduct investigations

and make public reports on complaints concerning violations of

the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, part III,

chapter 112, Florida Statu t es. See § 112.322, Fla. Stat., and

Fla. Admin. Code R . 34 - 5.0015. Mr. Thompson, as the Clerk of the

Court for Osceola County, is subject to the Code of Ethics for

Public Officers and Employees.

37 . The Advocate bears the burden of showing by clear and

convincing evidence that Mr. Thompson v iolated section

112.313(6). See Latham v. Fla. Comm'n on Ethics , 694 So. 2d 83

(Fla. 1st DCA 1997). 2 /

38 . The Commission's Order Finding Probable Cause states

"that there is probable cause to believe that Respondent, as

Clerk of the Court for Osceola Cou nty, Florida , violated

s ection 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by using his position to

intimidate Osceola County Clerk of the Court employees in order

to enhance his personal and political power."

39 . In order to conclude that Mr. Thompson violated

sec tion 112.313(6) the Advocate must prove that Mr. Thompson, as

a public officer: (1) used or attempted to use his official

position ; (2) "to secure a special privilege, benefit or

exemption" for himself or another ; and (3) acted "corruptly" in

doing so, th at is, with wrongful intent and for the purpose of

benefiting himself or another person from some act or omission,

which is inconsistent with the proper performance of his public

duties. 3 / In order to satisfy this statutory element, proof must

be adduced that Mr. Thompson acted "with reasonable notice that

[his or] her conduct was inconsistent with the proper performance

of [his or] her public duties and would be a violation of the law

or code of ethics . . . ." Blackburn v. Comm'n on Ethics , 589

So. 2d 4 31, 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ; Bennett v. Comm'n on Ethics ,

871 So. 2d 924, 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

40 . Turning to the facts here, the undersigned finds that

the Advocate failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence

that Mr. Thompson violated section 112.313(6).

41 . T here is no dispute that Mr. Thompson was a public

officer and that in conducting the January 10, 2012, meeting with

his employees he used his official position. Therefore, the

Advocate established the first element of section 112.313(6).

42 . The Advocate argues that Mr. Thompson used his position

as the Clerk with the corrupt intent to secure the benefit of

having Ms. Ramdani withdraw her allegation against him, or in the

alternative to discredit her, through intimidation. The facts

he re do not show by clear and convincing evidence that

Mr. Thompson corruptly intended to secure any benefit or

privilege for himself from the January 10, 2012, meeting.

43 . The question of whether or not M r . Thompson's words and

actions created an atmosph ere of intimidation at the January 10,

2012, meeting is a close call. One cannot ignore the facts of

Mr. Thompson's imposing physical presence , 4/ his known temper, and

the fact that he could terminate the employment of Ms. Ramdani

and the others at will , as lending support for the argument that

an atmosphere of intimidation existed at the January 10, 2012 ,

meeting. However, the evidence clearly shows that Mr. Thompson

did not threaten Ms. Ramdani, or the other employees at the

meeting. He did not ask for or direct that the H.R. complaint be

dropped or changed, he did not promise any benefits or

retribution, and did not ask them to lie about the incident.

Moreover, Mr. Thompson did not make any statement threatening the

meeting participants' employment. The evidence showed that in

response to a question from Ms. Ramdani, Mr. Thompson assured the

employees that they had jobs as long as he remained the Clerk of

the Court. In fact, there was no evidence that Mr. Thompson took

any adverse employment action a gainst the employees that attended

the January 10, 2012, meeting.

44 . Finally, both Mr. Thompson and Ms. Zander believed that

Ms. Ramdani's complaint based on the December 29, 2011, incident

was not withdrawn after the January 10, 2012, meeting. This

co nclusion is supported by the fact that Mr. Thompson and

Ms. Zander had a short discussion on January 20, 2012, about what

was her plan, or "end - game," on how to resolve the issue.

Ms. Zander told Mr. Thompson that she did not have plan at that

time. Ba sed on this conversation, neither Mr. Thompson nor

Ms. Zander believed that the H.R. complaint had been withdrawn or

discredited. Obviously, Mr. Thompson and Ms. Zander would not be

discussing the incident had the H.R. complaint been withdrawn or

discred ited. Therefore, it follows that Mr. Thompson did not

secure the benefit alleged by the Advocate.

45 . The facts in this case do not show any direct or

indirect threats or actions by Mr. Thompson. Therefore, this

case is factually different from past cases where a public

official has been found guilty of violating section 112.313(6).

In prior cases, the facts have generally shown a threat or

comments made by the public official seeking to secure the

special privilege, benefit , or exemption. See In re : Coretta

Udell - For d , 2009 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear LEXIS 1431, Fla. DOAH 08 -

2725EC , Jan. 29, 2009 (city commissioner violated

section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2006), when she improperly

invoked her position as a member of the city commission during a

con frontation with a police officer concerning a traffic stop,

and demanded that the chief of police terminate the officer, and

encouraged citizens to attend a public meeting to intimidate the

police officer); COE 09 - 042, Mar. 11, 2009; In re: Lisa Marie

Phil lips , 2005 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 1434, DOAH Case No. 05 -

1607, Dec. 23, 2005 (city commissioner violated

section 112.313(6), Fla. Stat. (2004), when she stated that she

"owned" or controlled the police during a traffic confrontation

with another motor ist, and the statement intimidated and

dissuaded the motorist from calling the police); COE Final Order

06 - 026, Apr . 26, 2006; In re: Charles Dean , 2008 Fla. Div. Adm.

Hear. LEXIS 43, DOAH Case No. 07 - 0646 EC (city commissioner

violated section 112.313(6) w hen he threatened chief of police by

stating, "I am coming for your job, and I am going to work hard

to get rid of you"); COE Final Order 08 - 79, April 23, 2008; and

In re: Jimmy Whaley , 1997 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 5438, DOAH

Case No. 97 - 143EC, May 6, 1 997), paragraph 9, (city commissioner

violated 112.313(6) when he attempted to have local police reduce

his son's speeding ticket to a warning, and he made it clear that

he was not happy with the officer who issued the ticket or the

police department in ge neral; used a "choice of words and tone of

voice during his conversation with Chief Sword, [so that] the

police chief believed that Respondent's official actions or

judgment with regard to the Springfield Police Department would

be influenced and adversely affected by Officer Rowswell's

refusal to reduce the ticket to a warning"); COE 97 - 18, Sept. 9,

1997.

46 . On the whole, Mr. Thompson's actions show that he does

not control his temper and often speaks loudly , but his actions

here do not show that he i ntended to intimidate his employees to

secure a benefit. Mr. Thompson , as the head of the Clerk's

office , has the ultimate responsibility to assure that the

organization runs without problems. Mr. Thompson did nothing

wrong wanting to meet with Ms. Ramda ni in an attempt to resolve

the personnel issue. In fact, Ms. Zander admitted that she did

not initially have a plan on how to resolve the issue, and that

ultimately Mr. Thompson would have to resolve the problem with

Ms. Ramdani. Ideally, it would have been better for Mr. Thompson

to allow Ms. Zander an opportunity to initiate a resolution, and

it would have been better for him to exercise control over his

anger. However, the failure to meet those ideals does not equate

to Mr. Thompson acting corruptly.

47 . Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the

Advocate failed to meet its evidentiary burden of showing by

clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Thompson violated

section 112.313(6).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of F act and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics find

that Mr. Thompson did not violate section 112.313(6), Florida

Statutes.

DONE AND ENTERED this 6 th day of March , 2013 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

THOMAS P. CRAPPS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with t he Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 6 th day of March , 2013 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ References to Florida Statutes shall be the 2011 version

unless otherwise indicated.

2/ Clear and convincing evidence requires that:

The evidence must be fo und to be credible;

the facts to which the witnesses testify must

be distinctly remembered; the testimony must

be precise and explicit, and witnesses must

be lacking in confusion as to facts in issue.

The evidence must be of such weight that it

produces i n the mind of the trier of fact a

firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy,

as to the truth of the allegations sought to

be established.

In re: Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005)(quoting Slomowitz

v. Walker , 492 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983 ) ) .

3/ "Corruptly" is statutorily defined as being "done with a

wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining, or compensating

or receiving compensation for, any benefit resulting from some

act or omission of a public servant which is inconsistent wi th

the proper performance of his or her public duties."

§ 112.312(9), Fla. Stat. (2011).

4/ Mr. Thompson is a large man, standing almost six f ee t four

inches tall.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Melody A. Hadley, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol , Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Mark Herron, Esquire

Messer, Caparello and Self, P.A.

2618 Centennial Place

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

Kaye B. Starling , Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Ethics

Suite 201 (32312)

3600 Maclay Boulevard, Sout h

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

Virlindia Doss, Executive Director

Florida Commission on Ethics

Suite 201 (32312)

3600 Maclay Boulevard, South

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

C. Christopher Anderson, III, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.