14-001114EC In Re: David Mclean vs. *
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, August 28, 2014.


View Dockets  
Summary: Ethics Commission did not have jurisdiction over count for which it could not be clearly determined that the complainant had sworn to the underlying facts. As to other count, Advocate failed to prove substantial conflict prohibited by 112.313(7)(a).

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8IN RE: DAVID MCLEAN, Case No. 14 - 1114EC

17Respondent.

18_______________________________/

19RECOMMENDED ORDER

21Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

31Administrative Hearings (DOAH), conducted the final hearing on

39July 10, 2014, by video tele conference in Lauderdale Lakes and

50Tallahassee, Florida.

52APPEARANCES

53For Advocate : Diane L. Guillemette, Esquire

60Advocate for the Florida Commission

65on Ethics

67Office of the Attorney General

72The Capitol, PL - 01

77Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

82For Respondent: E. Edward McGee, Esquire

88McGee & Huskey, P.A.

922850 North And rews Avenue

97Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311

101STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

106The issues are whether the Florida Commission on Ethics

115(Ethics Commission) has jurisdiction over Counts I and IV of the

126Advocate's Amended Recommendation, pursuant to

131s ection 122.322(1), Florida Statutes; if jurisdiction exists over

140Count IV, whether Respondent, while a commissioner and vice mayor

150of the City of Margate (City), violated section 112.313(7) ,

159Florida Statutes , by appearing before the City commission on

168beha lf of his employer, which was seeking a beer and wine license

181for consumption on the premises (2COP) ; and whether Respondent is

191entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to

202section 57.105(5) , Florida Statutes .

207PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

209On May 3 and 31, 2012, Michael Casey (Complainant) filed

219with the Ethics Commission a Complaint and Amended Complaint,

228which are detailed below.

232By Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to

240Investigate filed on June 18, 20 1 2, the Executive Directo r of the

254Ethics Commission determined that the Ethics Commission had

262jurisdiction to investigate charges that Respondent misused a

270City credit card, improperly voted against a City commission

279motion to censure him for misuse of a City credit card, and

291impr operly appeared before the City commission to support the

301commission's approval of his employer's application for an

309alcoholic beverage license. However, the Executive Director

316determined that the Ethics Commission lacked jurisdiction to

324investigate a cha rge that Respondent failed to repay a $15,000

336loan from Complainant.

339An undated and unsigned Report of Investigation provides

347additional details for each of the three alleged violations for

357which the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission determined

366that the Ethics Commission had investigative jurisdiction. For

374the improper appearance before the City commission, the report

383notes that Respondent explained that the City was divided into

393five districts and allowed only a certain number of alcoholic

403bev erage establishments in each district. Respondent also

411explained, according to the report, that the City commission was

421on summer break when his employer, known as the Tiki Bar or

433Dave's Tiki Bar, sought a license to operate as a bar, and the

446City commiss ion often conducted special meetings to allow

455businesses to open during periods without regular meetings.

463The report adds that the minutes and audio recording of the

474special meeting of the City commission on August 15, 2011,

484confirm that Respondent advis ed the City commission that he

494worked for the bar, which was then closed, but that he had no

507ownership interest; and the City commissioners asked no questions

516of Respondent before they unanimously voted to approve the

525license. Reportedly, the minutes furt her reflect that Respondent

534abstained from voting and filed, on the same day as the meeting,

546a Memorandum of Voting Conflict (Form 8B). The report adds that,

557on August 24, 2011, Respondent became the principal of the

567corporation owning and operating the b ar.

574The report concludes that the City clerk confirmed that any

584resident may ask for a special meeting of the City commission,

595and the mayor routinely grants such requests to allow businesses

605to open during periods that the City commission has no regular

616m eetings scheduled.

619By Advocate's Recommendation dated December 2012 (the exact

627date is illegible), the Advocate recommended that the Ethics

636Commission find probable cause to determine that Respondent

644misused a City credit card in violation of section 112 .313(6)

655(Count I), probable cause to determine that Respondent improperly

664voted on a motion to censure him in violation of section 112.3143

676(Count II), no probable cause to determine that Respondent

685improperly voted on measures involving the use of City cr edit

696cards in violation of section 112.3143 (Count III), and no

706probable cause to determine that Respondent improperly

713represented his employer before a special meeting of the City

723commission on August 15, 2011, addressing the Tiki Bar's license

733applicatio n in violation of section 112.313(7)(a) (Count IV).

742As for Count IV, the Advocate explained that Respondent

751disclosed at the special meeting that he worked for the bar,

762properly abstained from voting on the request for approval of a

773license for the bar, an d properly filed the voting conflict form.

785The Advocate acknowledged that Respondent subsequently purchased

792the bar.

794The Advocate analyzed the first and second clauses of

803section 112.313(7)(a), which are identified in the Conclusions of

812Law. As noted b elow, each clause may independently support the

823finding of a violation.

827For the first clause, the Advocate considered whether the

836bar was subject to the regulation of the City commission. Here,

847the Advocate noted that the state of Florida regulates alco holic

858beverage licenses, and the City only applies a zoning regulation

868that may be characterized as "incidental or passive," as

877discussed in Commission on Ethics Opinion (CEO) 11 - 06, 1/ which is

890discussed in the Conclusions of Law.

896For the second clause, the Advocate considered whether

904Respondent's employment will create a continuing or frequently

912recurring conflict between his private interests and public

920duties or impede the full and faithful discharge of his public

931duties. In determining that Responden t's employment will not

940create a continuing or frequent conflict or impede the

949performance of his duty, the Advocate emphasized the limited role

959of the City commission in making a zoning - type determination on

971the bar's license application and the absence o f evidence of any

983ongoing regulatory activities by the City, if the bar obtained

993and operated under an alcoholic beverage license.

1000On January 7, 2013, the Advocate issued an Advocate's

1009Amended Recommendation, which recommended that the Ethics

1016Commission fi nd probable cause as to Count IV. The Amended

1027Recommendation does not change the facts, nor does it change the

1038analysis of the first clause of section 112.31 3 (7)(a). The

1049Amended Recommendation concludes, though, that the facts

1056constitute a violation of t he second clause of

1065section 112.31 3 (7)(a).

1069The Advocate explained that, in CEO 11 - 06, the Ethics

1080Commission had determined that a public officer's representation

1088of "clients" before his public board poses a "substantial

1097conflict" (i.e., a "continuing or frequently recurring conflict")

1106or impedes the performance of his public duty. The Advocate

1116reasoned:

1117Since Respondent is employed by Dave's Tiki

1124Bar, and Respondent represented Dave's Tiki

1130Bar before the City Commission he is in

1138violation of the second [clause] of the

1145statute. In other words, Respondent would

1151have had an interest in whether his employer

1159could use the liquor license; consequently ,

1165he had employment that created a continuing

1172or frequently recurring conflict between

1177Respondent's private in terests and his public

1184duties, or impeded the full and faithful

1191discharge of his duties as a City

1198Commissioner.

1199By Order Finding Probable Cause filed on January 13, 2013,

1209the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission found probable

1218cause for Counts I, I I, and IV, but not for Count III. On

1232March 14, 2014, 2/ the Ethics Commission transmitted to DOAH the

1243file, which consisted of the allegations contained in Counts I,

1253II, and IV.

1256The parties called no witnesses and offered no exhibits at

1266the hearing, dur ing which the Administrative Law Judge issued

1276preliminary evidentiary rulings, and the Advocate and Respondent

1284conducted off - the - record negotiations. The negotiations produced

1294a partial settlement and eliminated the necessity of an

1303evidentiary hearing.

1305The Advocate and Respondent agreed that, if the Ethics

1314Commission has jurisdiction over Count I, Respondent admits the

1323violation alleged in Count I, and the Ethics Commission will

1333impose an administrative fine of $3000, censure, and a public

1343reprimand for this violation.

1347The Advocate and Respondent agreed to the dismissal of

1356Count II. As noted above, Count III was dropped before the

1367Ethics Commission transmitted the file to DOAH.

1374The Advocate and Respondent agreed that, if the Ethics

1383Commission has juri sdiction over Count IV, the Administrative Law

1393Judge will apply a factual stipulation to be filed by the parties

1405to determine whether Respondent committed the violation alleged

1413in Count IV. The Advocate and Respondent further agreed that, if

1424the Advocate prevails on Count IV, the Ethics Commission will

1434impose no additional penalty in addition to the above - described

1445penalties imposed for the violation stated in Count I. In other

1456words, if Respondent is guilty of Count I, Count IV, or Counts I

1469and IV, the p enalty is $3000, censure, and a reprimand.

1480The parties filed a joint factual stipulation on July 18,

14902014. The joint factual stipulation is brief. 3/ The Findings of

1501Fact are drawn from the stipulation, except for findings

1510concerning the Complaint and Ame nded Complaint, including

1518attachments. Post - hearing, on his own initiative, the

1527Administrative Law Judge has admitted the Complaint and Amended

1536Complaint, not for the truth of the matters contained in these

1547documents, but solely for the purpose of establi shing the

1557contents of these documents to resolve the jurisdictional

1565issues. 4/

1567Neither party ordered a transcript of the final hearing. As

1577agreed by the parties, the Advocate filed a proposed recommended

1587order on July 25, 2014; Respondent filed a proposed recommended

1597order on July 31, 2014; and the Advocate filed a proposed

1608supplemental recommended order on August 8, 2014.

1615FINDING S OF FACT

16191. The Complaint is on a Ethics Commission form (Form 50)

1630that asks the complainant for a full explanation of the

1640comp laint. The complaint form refers twice to documents. The

1650complaint form asks the complainant not to attach copies of

1660lengthy documents; the form assures that, "if they are relevant,

1670your description of them will suffice." The oath printed on the

1681complai nt form states: "I . . . do depose on oath or affirmation

1695. . . that the facts set forth in the foregoing complaint and

1708attachments thereto are true and correct to the best of my

1719knowledge and belief."

17222. The Complaint, which is signed and notarized, c ontains

1732no explanation or narrative, but Complainant attached 11 pages of

1742copies of documents, which are marked as pages 3 through 13.

17533. Page three of the Complaint is an article dated March 8,

17652012, and posted on MargateNews.net. 5/ This article r eports that,

1776by a 3 - 2 vote, the City commission reprimanded Respondent for

1788abusing City credit card privileges, even though Respondent

1796claimed to have repaid any unauthorized charges. The article

1805reports that one commissioner expressed a belief that Respo ndent

1815misused a City credit card and committed a "few other abuses."

18264. At page four of the Complaint is a copy of the City

1839credit card agreement signed by Respondent. Handwritten

1846notations add: "This (i.e., the credit card agreement) states

1855that he ( Respondent) cannot use card for personal use in which he

1868did[.] [H]e bought beer and wine for his bar with cash advance.

1880Says he paid it back in cash be has no repcit (sic) for it." All

1895handwritten notes on documents attached to the Complaint and

1904Amende d Complaint were made by Complainant. 6/

19125. At page five, a MargateNews.net article dated August 16,

19222010, reports alleged tax and purchasing violations by McLean's

1931Bar & Grill, which was located at 2160 Mears Parkway. This

1942article mentions other matters , including Respondent's voting a

1950pay raise for City commissioners and a property - tax hike,

1961Respondent's "history of financial instability . . . and

1970fiduciary irresponsibility," and Respondent's two residential

1976evictions from 1996 - 2006 for lease defaults.

19846. At page six is an unsigned, typewritten letter about

1994Respondent. This letter twice charges that Respondent misused a

2003City credit card and also alleges that he failed to repay $15,000

2016from "a Margate taxpayer" -- Complainant -- and violated unspecified

2026tax and purchasing laws as to alcoholic beverages. A handwritten

2036note adds: "I read this at the commissioner meeting." Below

2046this note is printed Complainant's name.

20527. At pages seven and eight, a MargateNews.net article

2061dated October 30, 2011, states tha t Complainant had lent

2071Respondent $15,000 for a kitchen addition at McLean's Bar &

2082Grill, but Respondent had failed to repay the loan after the

2093business closed. This article alludes to some bad debts and

2103judgments against Respondent or his businesses, but portions of

2112the article are illegible, and the meaning of these portions of

2123the article is unclear.

21278. The same article reports that Respondent was now

2136operating Dave's Tiki Bar, which was located at 238 North State

2147Road 7. Part of this portion of the article is also illegible,

2159but seems to report that Jean LeBlanc, a co - owner with Respondent

2172of a "former Tiki Bar," cancelled the bar's 2COP beer and wine

2184license, effectively closing the bar. To reopen the Tiki Bar,

2194according to the article, Respondent convinced his fellow City

2203commissioners to hold a special meeting of the City commission in

2214August 2011 to grant a 2COP license to "Tiki bar petitioner,

2225Kenneth Suhandron," whom the article describes as Respondent's

"2233partner." The article notes that Resp ondent abstained from

2242voting due to a conflict of interest. The article states that

2253Respondent acquired the corporate owner of the bar days after the

2264special meeting, so Respondent now holds the temporary 2COP

2273license, even though he had not paid for it. An online update

2285indicates that Respondent paid for the 2COP license on

2294November 1, 2011.

22979. At page nine, a MargateNews.net article dated August 20,

23072011, describes a special meeting of the City commission on

2317August 15. This article states that Respon dent had been managing

2328the Tiki Bar when a disagreement between him and his partner,

2339Mr. LeBlanc, resulted in the cancellation of the bar's 2COP beer

2350and wine license. According to the article, Respondent found a

2360new investor, Mr. Suhandron, to apply for a new 2COP license and

2372called for a special meeting of the City commission to provide

2383the necessary City approval for the applicant to obtain a 2COP

2394license. The article notes that Respondent appeared at the

2403meeting to represent the listed applicant, Mr. Suhandron, but

2412abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest.

242110. At pages 10 through 12 are a final summary judgment

2432against Respondent and McLean's Bar & Grill, Inc., for $29,638.60

2443and a final judgment against Respondent for $20,073.63. At pa ge

245513 is an email from Complainant that pertains to the charge of

2467Respondent's misuse of a City credit card. Redacted from the

2477email is reportedly an email that another City commissioner had

2487sent to Complainant, who added a handwritten note to this effect .

249911. The Amended Complaint is on the same form as the

2510Complaint and is also notarized. 7/ Like the Complaint, the

2520Amended Complaint contains no explanation or narration of the

2529charges, but it contains 41 pages of copies of documents, which

2540are attached a s pages A - 3 through A - 43.

255212. At pages A - 3 through A - 4, a letter dated May 16, 2012,

2568from the Ethics Commission to Complainant focuses on Respondent's

2577alleged failure to repay the $15,000 loan from Complainant and

2588Respondent's misuse of a City credit ca rd. To this letter,

2599Complainant added a handwritten note stating:

2605I cannot prove he use[d] [a City credit card

2614for cash advances] for alcohol. . . for bar

2623but just the cash advance alone is breaking

2631the law over [sentence abruptly ends]. Just

2638last week he got fined again for selling

2646illigiel [sic] beer that he bought from a gas

2655station in his bar[.] It will be in margate

2664news.net next week[. I]f you want I can

2672email you a copy. This man is a con artist.

268213. Pages A - 5 through A - 8 comprise a promisso ry note

2696evidencing the $15,000 loan from Complainant. Complainant

2704handwrote on the note: "He never gave me 1 payment or any

2716interest payments."

271814. Pages A - 9 through A - 14 are the minutes of a meeting of

2734the City commission on March 7, 2012. The sole ha ndwritten

2745addition to these minutes is at the top of the first page: "Each

2758one of the following [commissioners?] has info on it[. A]ll are

2770highlighted or outlined for your use."

277615. According to the minutes, one commissioner stated that

2785she believed t hat Respondent had misused a City credit card and

2797wanted him to resign, but he refused to respond to her statement

2809or, clearly, to resign. This commissioner asked the City

2818attorney to identify the options available to the City

2827commission. The City attorn ey informed the commission that there

2837had not been a determination that Respondent had violated the

2847standards of conduct or code of ethics in his use of a City

2860credit card and advised that the City commission could order an

2871investigation, prospectively cla rify the restrictions on the use

2880of City credit cards and provide for forfeiture of office for a

2892violation of these restrictions, publicly censure or reprimand a

2901City commissioner, or prohibit a City commissioner from using a

2911City credit card.

291416. Accor ding to the minutes, another commissioner -- the

2924mayor -- then stated that what Respondent had done was wrong. The

2936commissioner who had called for Respondent's resignation then

2944asked for an investigation to be conducted by the county Board of

2956Ethics or the Et hics Commission. The mayor responded that either

2967this commissioner or a resident would need to file such a request

2979because the City commission was not in a position to do so

2991itself.

299217. A motion to censure Respondent, revoke his City credit

3002card, and o rder an investigation then failed for the lack of a

3015second. A motion followed to censure Respondent and revoke his

3025City credit card. This motion was amended to add a directive to

3037the City attorney to add restrictions to the use of City credit

3049cards and p rovide for forfeiture of office for their violation.

3060Prior to a vote on this amended motion, someone made a motion to

3073table the amended motion, but the motion to table failed by a 2 - 3

3088vote. The commission then considered the amended motion, which

3097passed 3 - 2. Respondent voted to table the amended motion and

3109against the amended motion.

311318. At pages A - 15 through A - 21, the minutes of a meeting of

3129the City commission on March 21, 2012, state that Respondent

3139asked the City manager to cancel his City credit ca rd "in light

3152of the recent inquiries on his use of the card." (It appears,

3164though, that the adoption of the March 7 amended motion should

3175already have resulted in the cancellation of Respondent's City

3184credit card.) According to the minutes, Respondent th en

"3193apologized for the mistrust the matter had caused" and added

3203that "he did not intentionally misuse his position to mistrust

3213anyone." Reverting to more conventional syntax, Respondent

3220concluded: "He could not change what happened, but he had made

3231it r ight and said it would not happen again." Complainant drew a

3244box around this paragraph of the minutes, and he drew an arrow

3256pointing to a corner of the box.

326319. Later in the meeting, the City commission unanimously

3272agreed to advertise an ordinance restri cting the use of City

3283credit cards and providing for the dismissal of any employee

3293violating these restrictions. A handwritten note states that

3301Respondent should nonetheless be removed from office for his

3310misuse of a City credit card because "[h]e used ca rd for cash

3323advances and said he paid city back in cash, but no one has a

3337record of him doing that."

334220. Pages A - 22 through A - 37 are the minutes of a meeting of

3358the City commission on April 18, 2012, and four executed

3368memoranda of voting conflict that a ppear to have been attached to

3380the minutes. These minutes describe City commission votes on

3389alcoholic beverage licenses as to which Respondent abstained from

3398voting due to his employment, but the establishments seeking City

3408commission approvals appear to have been unrelated to Respondent.

341721. As indicated in the joint factual stipulation, at all

3427material times, Respondent served as a commissioner and vice

3436mayor of the City commission, and, as such, Respondent was

3446subject to part III, chapter 112, Florid a Statutes.

345522. As indicated in the joint factual stipulation,

3463Respondent misused a City credit card.

346923. As indicated in the joint factual stipulation, while

3478serving as a commissioner and vice mayor of the City, Respondent

3489represented his employer befor e the City commission in the

3499employer's application for a license from the City commission.

3508Respondent timely disclosed his employment relationship to the

3516City commission, abstained from voting on the issue, and timely

3526filed a Memorandum of Voting Conflic t.

353324. Under the circumstances, the appearance of Respondent,

3541as an employee of the Tiki Bar, at the August 15, 2011, special

3554meeting of the City commission did not constitute, or serve as a

3566precursor to, a continuing or frequently recurring conflict

3574betw een Respondent's private interests and public duties, nor did

3584this appearance impede the full and faithful discharge of

3593Respondent's public duties. The key facts are the lack of

3603significant regulatory jurisdiction of the City commission over

3611the issuance and use of 2COP licenses, the one - time nature of the

3625Tiki Bar's need for City commission approval for its request for

3636a 2COP license, the employment relationship that existed between

3645Respondent and the Tiki Bar, and the absence of any

3655responsibilities impo sed on Respondent due to his employment with

3665the Tiki Bar to represent other parties in requests before the

3676City commission.

3678CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

368125. The subject matter jurisdiction of DOAH under

3689sections 120.569 and 120.57(1) , Florida Statutes, and Flor ida

3698Administrative Code Rule 34 - 5.010 is dependent on whether the

3709Ethics Commission has investigatory jurisdiction under section

3716112.322(1). Section 112.322(1) authorizes the Ethics Commission

3723to investigate "sworn complaints" of ethics violations and

3731bre aches of the public trust. Section 112.322(1) extends the

3741Ethics Commission's investigative authority to "all facts and

3749parties materially related to the complaint at issue." 8/

375826. Section 112.324(1)(a) authorizes the use of the

3766complaint form that Co mplainant used in this case. Florida

3776Administrative Code Rule 34 - 5.002(1) provides that a complaint

3786need not be as precise as would be required by the Florida Rules

3799of Civil Procedure and "shall be deemed sufficient if the

3809complainant under oath upon know ledge or belief alleges matters

3819which, if true, may constitute a breach of public trust."

3829Rule 34 - 5.002(1) adds that a complaint shall not be insufficient

3841because it is based on hearsay that would not be admissible in

3853court.

385427. The sole jurisdictional questions are whether

3861Complainant swore or affirmed to the facts constituting Counts I

3871and IV. These questions arise because Complainant never complied

3880with the form's request for an explanation of his complaints, but

3891instead signed, under oath, two comp laint forms, to which

3901Complainant attached a total of 14 documents. One of these

3911documents consists of a typewritten letter by Complainant that,

3920although not addressed to the Ethics Commission, serves as an

3930explanation of the complaints stated in the lett er. Several of

3941these documents contain Complainant's handwritten notes, which

3948include various complaints against Respondent.

395328. In addressing these jurisdictional issues, the Advocate

3961misses the point in its supplemental proposed recommended order

3970when it argues that Complainant is not required to base his

3981complaint on matters within his personal knowledge, or that the

3991Ethics Commission may consider matters materially related to the

4000complaint at issue. Resolution of the jurisdictional questions

4008in this case does not turn on the quality of Complainant's

4019knowledge of the facts, or whether the facts reported by

4029Complainant are hearsay or are materially related to the subject

4039complaint. The jurisdictional questions are whether Complain ant

4047has filed a sworn complaint as to the matters contained in

4058Counts I and IV or to anything else to which the subjects of

4071Counts I and IV are materially related. The jurisdictional

4080statute does not require much, but it requires that a complainant

4091be willing to, and in fact, swear or affirm to the facts

4103underlying her complaint.

410629. Complainant clearly explained -- and thus swor e to -- the

4118charges set forth in Count I. Complainant stated that Respondent

4128misused a City credit card in the handwritten notes on the

4139following docume nts: the City credit card agreement, the Ethics

4149Commission letter dated May 16, 2012, and the minutes of the

4160meeting of the City commission on March 21, 2012. Also,

4170Complainant's typewritten letter at page six of the Complaint

4179twice charges Respondent wi th misusing a City credit card.

418930. Complainant has not so clearly explained -- and thus

4199sworn to -- the charges set forth in Count IV. No handwritten

4211notation touches on Respondent's appearance at the August 15,

42202011, special meeting of the City commissio n for the Tiki Bar,

4232nor is this matter mentioned in the typewritten letter on page

4243six of the Complaint.

424731. Respondent's appearance at the August 15, 2011, special

4256meeting of the City commission is mentioned in only two

4266documents -- both online articles in the MargateNews.net. Signing

4275the complaint form verifies that "the facts set forth in the

4286complaint and attachments thereto are true and correct." This

4295means either that the complainant is verifying the facts

4304explained in the complaint and contained i n the attachments, or

4315the complainant is verifying the facts explained in the complaint

4325and verifying that the attached documents are true copies of the

4336originals. In other words, the form leaves unanswered the

4345question of whether the language, "the facts set forth in the,"

4356modifies "complaint" or "complaint" and "attachments."

436232. The Advocate would argue that "complaint" and

"4370attachments" are modified by "the facts set forth in the." But

4381case law does not favor a liberal interpretation of this

4391jurisdic tional statute in support of jurisdiction. Compare

4399Kinzel v. City of N. Miami , 212 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)

4413(failure to timely file a verified complaint within statutory

4422timeframe to challenge an election not excused due to the

"4432general proposition t hat when a statutory action is availed

4442of[,] the provisions for its exercise must be strictly

4452followed").

445433. In an older, but more extensive, opinion, Edgerton v.

4464Int ernationa l Co. , 89 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1956), the Florida Hotel

4477and Restaurant Commission er commenced a proceeding to suspend or

4487revoke a hotel and coffee shop license, and the licensee filed a

4499petition for a writ of prohibition. A statute required the

4509commissioner to commence any suspension and revocation proceeding

4517within 60 days of the all eged offense. No statute defined when a

4530proceeding was commenced, but one statute provided that a

4539proceeding "shall be by" serving a copy of the notice on the

4551licensee, and another statute provided that all notices to be

4561served shall be "delivered persona lly . . . or by registered

4573letter." The commissioner mailed the notice on the 59th day, and

4584it was delivered on the 61st day.

459134. The court rejected the argument that commencement

4599occurred when the commissioner mailed the notice. Citing several

4608opinio ns, the court noted that administrative authorities are

4617creatures of statute and have only such powers that statutes

4627confer on them, and the court is required to prohibit any

4638exercise of power if there is "reasonable doubt" as to its

"4649lawful existence" (ci tation omitted). Id. at 489 - 90.

465935. Reasonable doubt exists as to whether Complainant swore

4668or affirmed to Respondent's appearance on August 15, 2011, at the

4679special meeting of the City commission. To resolve this doubt in

4690favor of jurisdiction is unsu pported by the case law and risks

4702ignoring the statutory requirement of a sworn complaint. If a

4712complainant is not required to identify his complaints in a clear

4723manner, but is allowed merely to attach a thick pile of news

4735articles lobbing a variety of ch arges at public officials and

4746meeting minutes covering a myriad of statements by the public and

4757commission members, 9/ the sworn complaint form is a mere conduit

4768of the unsworn complaints of the publisher and commission.

477736. As for Count IV, the Ethics C ommission lacks

4787investigative jurisdiction, under section 112.322(1) , Florida

4793Statutes , and thus lacks the jurisdiction, under

4800section 112.322(2)(b) , Florida Statutes , to issue a public report

4809finding that Respondent committed the violation alleged in Cou nt

4819IV. For these reasons, DOAH lacks subject matter jurisdiction

4828over Count IV.

483137. In the alternative, 10/ even if the Ethics Commission has

4842jurisdiction, the Advocate has failed to prove a violation of

4852section 112.313(7)(a). This section provides:

4857No public officer or employee of an agency

4865shall have or hold any employment or

4872contractual relationship with any business

4877entity or any agency which is subject to the

4886regulation of, or is doing business with, an

4894agency of which he or she is an officer or

4904emp loyee, excluding those organizations and

4910their officers who, when acting in their

4917official capacity, enter into or negotiate a

4924collective bargaining contract with the state

4930or any municipality, county, or other

4936political subdivision of the state; nor shall

4943an officer or employee of an agency have or

4952hold any employment or contractual

4957relationship that will create a continuing or

4964frequently recurring conflict between his or

4970her private interests and the performance of

4977his or her public duties or that would i mpede

4987the full and faithful discharge of his or her

4996public duties.

499838 . The Advocate bears the burden of proving the material

5009allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Latham v. Fla.

5018C om m Ó n on Ethics , 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

503339 . In its pr oposed recommended order, the Advocate

5043concedes, as it did in the Recommendation and Amended

5052Recommendation, that the first clause of section 112.313(7)(a)

5060does not apply to this case. The regulatory authority for the

5071sale of alcoholic beverages rests wit h the state of Florida,

5082although local governments may exercise a zoning - type authority

5092as a pre - condition for an applicant to obtain the necessary state

5105license. See generally JPM Inv . Grp . v. Brevard C n ty. , 818 So.

51202d 595, 597 - 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

512940 . As may be inferred from the Advocate's conflicting

5139recommendations in the Recommendation and Amended Recommendation,

5146the closer question is whether Respondent's employment with the

5155Tiki Bar will violate the second clause of section 112.313(7)(a)

5165by creating a "continuing or frequently recurring conflict"

5173between his private interests and the performance of his public

5183duties or "imped[ing] the full and faithful discharge of his

5193public duties."

519541 . The Advocate's Recommendation reasons that Responden t's

5204appearance at the August 15, 2011, special meeting of the City

5215commission did not violate the second clause of

5223section 112.313(7)(a) because the Tiki Bar sought the City to

5233exercise only a zoning - type function on what appeared to be a

5246one - time basis.

525042 . The Advocate's Amended Recommendation reasons that

5258Respondent's appearance violated both prongs of the second

5266clause -- continuing or frequently recurring conflict and impedance

5275of full discharge of public duties. The analysis contained in

5285the second recommendation diverges from the first recommendation

5293by noting that, in CEO 11 - 06, the Ethics Commission found a

5306violation of the second clause when a public officer "represented

5316clients before the officer's public board."

532243 . Discarding its earlier rea soning that the City

5332commission was performing only a zoning - type function on what

5343appeared to be a one - time basis, the Advocate in the Amended

5356Recommendation reasoned as follows:

5360Since Respondent is employed by Dave's Tiki

5367Bar, and Respondent represented Dave's Tiki

5373Bar before the City Commission he is in

5381violation of the second part of the statute.

5389In other words, Respondent would have had an

5397interest in whether his employer could use

5404the liquor license; consequently, he had

5410employment that created a con tinuing or

5417frequently recurring conflict between

5421Respondent's private interests and his public

5427duties, or impeded the full and faithful

5434discharge of his duties as a City

5441Commissioner.

544244 . Absent any supporting analysis, the causal links,

"5451since" and "con sequently," strain under the load that the

5461Advocate has placed upon them. The facts of Count IV are

5472undisputed and uncomplicated, so the Recommendation of no

5480probable cause could not have been based on a misapprehension of

5491the facts. Yet, the Advocate of fers no analysis to support its

5503reversal of a position that it had staked out only a couple of

5516weeks earlier.

551845 . The Tiki Bar required a one - time approval -- and, from

5532all indications, a perfunctory one at that -- from the City

5543commission to obtain a 2COP license from the state of Florida.

5554Absolutely nothing in the record supports an inference that the

5564appearance at the August 15, 2011, special meeting was anything

5574other than a one - and - done matter by Respondent -- for the Tiki Bar

5590and for any other resident or business within the jurisdiction of

5601the City.

560346 . As noted above, the Advocate's Amended Recommendation

5612relies on CEO 11 - 06 for the application of the second clause of

5626section 112.313(7)(a) when a public officer represents "clients"

5634before the offi cer's board or commission. The plural use of

"5645client" is significant.

564847 . CEO 11 - 06 answers questions asked by a person who was

5662recently appointed to a local government planning and zoning

5671board, which voted on project site plans, conditional use

5680request s for various land uses, special exception requests for

5690relief from parking requirements, and proposed amendments to the

5699city's land development regulations and comprehensive plan. The

5707appointee is a planner and landscape architect in a multi -

5718disciplinary firm that provides professional development

5724services, including landscape architecture, planning, civil

5730engineering, land surveying, and environmental design and

5737permitting, and legislative services, such as obtaining rezonings

5745and amendments to local ord inances, including comprehensive

5753plans.

575448 . The first question in CEO 11 - 06 is whether the

5767appointee would create a prohibited conflict of interest if he or

5778his firm were to work for a client on a matter that might come

5792before the planning and zoning bo ard. The Ethics Commission

5802answered this question in the negative. CEO 11 - 06 considers the

5814two clauses of section 112.313(7)(a) and notes that, for a

5824prohibited conflict to exist under either clause, "there must be

5834an adequate intersection of the private interests of the officer

5844and the functions, duties, or subject matter of his public

5854agency."

585549 . In determining that an adequate intersection of the

5865private interest and public duties did not exist in working for a

5877client on a matter that might come be fore the planning and zoning

5890board, the Ethics Commission cited CEO 81 - 84, 11/ in which the

5903Ethics Commission declined to find a prohibited conflict in the

5913service on a planning commission by persons employed in real

5923estate sales, land development, or contr acting. CEO 81 - 84

5934reasons: "It is only in situations where the member's private

5944interests are substantial and would be substantially affected by

5953the commission' s work, that he should not be permitted to serve

5965on the planning commission."

596950 . The second question in CEO 11 - 06 asks when would the

5983firm's work for a client intersect with the functions of the

5994planning and zoning board so as to create a prohibited conflict

6005of interest. Opining that the second clause of

6013section 112.313(7)(a) is violated if a public officer represents

6022clients before his board, the Ethics Commission cited three

6031opinions involving professionals who might represent clients with

6039some frequency before the board: an architect (CEO 77 - 126), 12/ a

6052land - use planning and development cons ultant (CEO 78 - 86), 13/ and

6066an attorney (CEO 88 - 40). 14/ These professionals encountered

6076prohibited conflicts of interests due to their professional

6084obligations, which likely extended to representing multiple

6091clients on multiple occasions before their respe ctive boards and

6101commissions.

610251 . A third question in CEO 11 - 06 asks whether the person

6116requesting the opinion would suffer a prohibited conflict of

6125interest if he, as a developer and not as a member of his firm,

6139or his firm, as a developer, were to see k site plan approval from

6153t he planning and zoning board. Relying on the second clause of

6165section 112.313(7)(a), t he Ethics Commission answers this

6173question in the affirmative without much discussion, stressing

6181the commercial nature of development. It see ms, though, that the

6192facts supporting this answer include the facts considered in the

6202first and second questions -- i.e., the person requesting the

6212opinion is a member of a multi - disciplinary planning and

6223engineering firm that represents clients needing vari ous

6231approvals from the planning and zoning board.

623852 . Many of the same considerations inform CEO 77 - 126,

6250which answers a question posed by an architect who has been

6261appointed to the planning board. The architect represented his

6270clients before the board " on a number of occasions." In

6280particular, the architect had attended 26 of the 27 planning

6290board meetings that had taken place while he was on the board,

6302and he abstained from voting on 11 of 26 issues that were

6314presented to the board. The Ethics Commiss ion notes that the

6325planning board's regulation of the architect's clients was

"6333incidental . . . and passive," so there was no problem under the

6346first clause of section 112.3 13 (7)(a). But the Ethics Commission

6357concludes that "represent[ing] a client before a board of which

6367one is a member necessarily interferes with the full and faithful

6378discharge of one's public duties and, particularly in the instant

6388case where such representations are frequent, presents a

6396continuing or frequently recurring conflict in vi olation of the

6406second clause of s. 112.313(7)(a)." Accord CEO 78 - 86 (prohibited

6417conflict from "more occasional representations" than in CEO 77 -

6427126 ) ; 15/ CEO 88 - 40 (prohibited conflict when an attorney's law

6440firm "occasionally" represents clients before cit y council

6448regarding zoning and variances).

645253 . None of these opinions supports the Amended

6461Recommendation as to Count IV. Where there is some language in

6472certain opinions that seems to predicate a prohibited conflict on

6482a single representation of a sin gle client, the holdings of the

6494opinions are not so broad. And, of course, the ultimate issue is

6506whether the facts in Count IV fall within the reach of the second

6519clause of section 112.313(7)(a), not published opinions of the

6528Ethics Commission. 16/

653154 . Th e Advocate thus has failed to prove by clear and

6544convincing evidence that Respondent's appearance at the

6551August 15, 2011, special meeting of the City commission violated

6561the second clause of section 112.313(7)(a).

656755 . Lastly, Respondent's request for a ttorneys' fees and

6577costs under section 57.105(5) is denied. As reflected in

6586paragraph 15 of Respondent's p roposed r ecommended o rder , his

6597request for fees is predicated on the premise that the Advocate

6608has prosecuted a case over which the Ethics Commission entirely

6618lacked investigative jurisdiction. As noted above, the Ethics

6626Commission has jurisdiction over Count I.

663256 . Alternatively, Respondent is not the "prevailing party"

6641under section 57.105(5). The Advocate has prevailed as to

6650Count I, but Respond ent has prevailed as to Count IV. However,

6662the parties' settlement agreement subordinated Count IV to

6670Count I in terms of relief, so Respondent has not prevailed.

6681RECOMMENDATION

6682It is

6684RECOMMENDED that the Ethics Commission enter a final order

6693dismissing C ounts II and IV, determining that Respondent violated

6703section 112.313( 6 ) as alleged in Count I, and imposing an

6715administrative fine of $3000, censure, and a reprimand against

6724Respondent.

6725DONE AND ENTERED this 2 8 th day of August , 2014 , in

6737Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

6741S

6742ROBERT E. MEALE

6745Administrative Law Judge

6748Division of Administrative Hearings

6752The DeSoto Building

67551230 Apalachee Parkway

6758Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

6763(850) 488 - 9675

6767Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

6773www.doah .state.fl.us

6775Filed with the Clerk of the

6781Division of Administrative Hearings

6785this 2 8 th day of August , 2014 .

6794ENDNOTE S

67961 / Available at

6800http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/opinions/11/CEO%2011 - 006.html

68032 / Actually, on March 26, 2013, the Ethics Commission tr ansmitted

6815this file to DOAH, where it was assigned Case 13 - 1099EC. However,

6828on September 27, 2013, the Advocate filed a Motion to Relinquish

6839on the ground that Respondent had just been convicted of two

6850counts of bribery in federal court, and, if the convi ction

6861withstood post - trial review, the Advocate intended to ask the

6872Ethics Commission to dismiss the pending charges on the ground

6882that the public interest had been fully served by the convictions.

6893The Administrative Law Judge granted the motion on the sa me date.

69053 / The relevant facts in the joint factual stipulation are that

6917Respondent was a commissioner and vice mayor of the City at all

6929material times and, as such, he was subject to chapter 112,

6940part III, Florida Statutes; Respondent was the subject o f a sworn

6952complaint filed on May 3, 2012, and an amended sworn complaint

6963filed on May 31, 2012; Respondent used a City credit card for

6975personal use; Respondent represented his employer when it applied

6984for a license from the City commission; Respondent disc losed his

6995employment to the City commission; Respondent abstained from

7003voting on the issue; and Respondent filed a Memorandum of Voting

7014Conflict (Form 8B) for the abstention. Based on the post - hearing

7026filings, especially Respondent's proposed recommended order, the

7033Administrative Law Judge has imputed additional facts to the joint

7043factual stipulation, as indicated in the endnotes four, six, and

7053seven.

70544/ As the text accompanying this endnote states, the facts

7064contained in the Complaint, Amended Complaint , and attached

7072documents have not been established for their truth. The

7081r ecommended o rder considers these documents strictly for the

7091purpose of analyzing the jurisdictional issues.

7097Even though the joint factual stipulation identifies the Complaint

7106and Amended Complaint, the parties did not stipulate into evidence

7116the Complaint and Amended Complaint, nor did the Advocate offer

7126these documents into evidence. If uncorrected, these omissions

7134cast the jurisdictional issue into a different light unanticipate d

7144by both parties, as the evidentiary record would lack a sworn

7155complaint of any sort, thus requiring a determination of no

7165investigative jurisdiction over Count I or IV.

7172Based on the discussions of counsel at the abbreviated hearing and

7183after reading the joint factual stipulation, the Administrative

7191Law Judge has concluded that the Advocate's failure to admit into

7202evidence the Complaint and Amended Complaint was inadvertent.

7210Consistent with the identification of the Complaint and Amended

7219Complaint in the joint factual stipulation, Respondent argues

7227essentially that the Ethics Commission lacks investigative

7234jurisdiction, not because it lacks a sworn complaint of any sort,

7245but because, in the two filed sworn complaints, Complainant fails

7255to state a complain t against Respondent. See Respondent's

7264p roposed r ecommended o rder , paragraphs four, five, eight, and

7275nine.

7276Under the circumstances, the administration of justice would be

7285poorly served by basing jurisdictional determinations on this

7293inadvertent omission . The Administrative Law Judge could reopen

7302the record to allow the Advocate to admit into evidence the

7313Complaint and Amended Complaint, at least as conditioned in the

7323text accompanying this endnote. But this would necessitate

7331further delay in a case tha t, by DOAH standards, is already no

7344youngster. The Administrative Law Judge has instead chosen to

7353remedy the problem, consistent with the apparent intent of both

7363parties, by imputing the admission of the Complaint and Amended

7373Complaint, but not for the tr uth of their contents, to the joint

7386factual stipulation.

73885 / MargateNews.net appears to be an online newspaper focusing on

7399City news. According to the printed articles, the online

7408newspaper has published since 2009 and employs "staff writers,"

7417although t he names of the writers of the articles attached to the

7430Complaint and Amended Complaint seem to have been redacted.

74396/ It is impossible to infer by clear and convincing evidence

7450that all of the handwritten notes were prepared by Complainant.

7460However, Re spondent has not raised this issue in his Proposed

7471Recommended Order , but instead assumes that Complainant made these

7480notes. See Respondent's proposed recommended order, paragraphs

7487four, five, and eight. The Administrative Law Judge has therefore

7497imputed to the joint factual stipulation the fact that the

7507Complainant wrote all of the handwritten comments, as well as the

7518typewritten letter at page six of the Complaint.

75267 / The signature, however, bears hardly any resemblance to the

7537signature on the Complai nt. It is not inconsistent with the

7548casual approach that Complainant took with respect to stating his

7558complaints to the Ethics Commission that he elected not to sign

7569the Amended Complaint, but merely to add his initials, although

7579even the second initial d oes not appear to be in the same

7592handwriting as that of the second name on the Complaint. Again,

7603though, Respondent has not raised this issue, so the

7612Administrative Law Judge has imputed to the joint factual

7621stipulation that both complaint forms were duly signed by

7630Complainant.

76318/ Rule 34 - 5.0043(1) and (2) adds:

7639The Commission has the duty to investigate all

7647facts and parties materially related to the

7654complaint at issue.

7657(1 ) Facts materially related to the complaint

7665include facts which tend to show:

7671( a ) A separate violation of Art. II, Sec. 8,

7682Fla. Const. or the Code of Ethics by the

7691respondent other than as alleged in the

7698complaint and consisting of separate instances

7704of the same or similar conduct by respondent

7712as alleged in the complaint; or

7718( b) A separate violation of Art. II, Sec. 8,

7728Fla. Const. or the Code of Ethics by the

7737respondent from that alleged in the complaint

7744which arises out of or in connection with the

7753allegations of the complaint.

7757(2) Where facts materially related to the

7764complain t are discovered by the investigator

7771during the course of the investigation, the

7778Executive Director shall order an

7783investigation of them and the investigator

7789shall include them in the investigative

7795report. The Advocate may recommend and the

7802Commission may order a public hearing as to

7810those violations of the Code of Ethics which

7818are indicated by such facts. From that point

7826in the proceedings until final disposition of

7833the complaint, such facts shall be treated as

7841if they were initially alleged in the

7848compl aint at issue.

78529 / Attachments that bear no handwritten notation or mention in

7863Complainant's typewritten letter paint vignettes of Respondent

7870voting for a pay raise and property tax hike, voting on the

7882personal use of City credit cards by him and by City employees in

7895general, voting and abstaining from voting on applications for

7904license approvals of other bars in the City, demonstrating

7913financial instability and fiduciary irresponsibility, and

7919suffering bad debts, unpaid judgments and a couple of residenti al

7930evictions. Obviously, the burden imposed upon Complainant in

7938selecting from these matters, even if by nothing more than

7948circling them and indicating his assent, is slight, although

7957nothing compels the Legislature to limit itself to easily

7966satisfied bur dens when setting the requirements for administrative

7975jurisdiction.

79761 0/ The Administrative Law Judge recognizes that this legal

7986conclusion may be within the substantive jurisdiction of the

7995Ethics Commission, under section 120.57(1)(l), and the Ethics

8003Com mission may adopt a more liberal view of the jurisdictional

8014requirement that a complainant swear to or affirm his complaint.

8024Thus, even though the parties' agreement contemplated that the

8033Administrative Law Judge would not consider Count IV on the

8043merits, if he concluded that the Ethics Commission lacked

8052investigative jurisdiction over this count, in an abundance of

8061caution, the Administrative Law Judge has considered whether the

8070Advocate has proved the material allegations of Count IV.

80791 1/ Available at

8083http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/opinions/81/CEO%2081 - 084.htm

80861 2/ Available at

8090http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/opinions/77/CEO%2077 - 126.htm

80931 3/ Available at

8097http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/opinions/78/CEO%2078 - 086.htm

81001 4/ Available at

8104http://www.ethics.stat e.fl.us/opinions/88/CEO%2088 - 040.htm

81081 5/ In CEO 77 - 126, the Ethics Commission declares in dictum that

"8122any representation of a client for compensation before a board of

8133which one is a member impedes the full and faithful discharge of

8145one's public duties, " but seems to condition this statement on its

8156later statement that the conflict occurs "when, as a part of his

8168profession or occupation, an individual undertakes to represent

8176another person's interests before his own board."

81831 6/ F lorida A dministrative C ode R ule 34 - 6.008 provides that an

8199ethics opinion binds only the person seeking the opinion or the

8210person with reference to whom the opinion was sought.

8219COPIES FURNISHED:

8221Kaye B. Starling , Agency Clerk

8226Florida Commission on Ethics

8230Post Office Drawer 157 09

8235Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

8240Diane L. Guillemette, Esquire

8244Office of the Attorney General

8249The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

8254Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

8259David McLean

82614926 South Hemingway Circle

8265Margate, Florida 33063

8268C. Edward McGee, Esquire

8272M cGee and Huskey, P.A.

82772850 North Andrews Avenue

8281Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311

8285Virlindia Doss, Executive Director

8289Florida Commission on Ethics

8293Post Office Drawer 15709

8297Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

8302C. Christopher Anderson, III, General Counsel

8308Flori da Commission on Ethics

8313Post Office Drawer 15709

8317Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

8322NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

8328All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

833815 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

8349to thi s Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

8361will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2015
Proceedings: Final Order and Public Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2014
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2014
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding Advocates Proposed Exhibits, to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held July 10, 2014). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Commission on Ethics Opinions Cited filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2014
Proceedings: Joint Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Memorandum of Law and Fact in Support of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Objection to Jurisdiction filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Objection to Proceedings Due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Notice of Appearance Preserving Said Objection filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/11/2014
Proceedings: Order on Post-hearing Activities.
Date: 07/10/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion to Continue filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (C. Edward McGee) filed.
Date: 07/03/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 07/03/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Advocate's Proposed Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/20/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Response to Respondent's Objection to Proceedings Due to Lack of Jurisdiction filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/10/2014
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Deposition (of Leslie W. May) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for July 10, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Lauderdale Lakes, FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of David McLean) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Leslie W. May) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Kenneth Suhandron) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Eugene Steinfeld) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Frank Porcella) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Continue filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/04/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for May 13, 2014; 10:30 a.m.; Lauderdale Lakes and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2014
Proceedings: Unilateral Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2014
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Notice of Service of Advocate's Discovery Requests filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Order of Finding Probable Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Amended Recommendation (as to Allegation Four) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Recommendation filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Report of Investigation filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Complaint Amendment filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
ROBERT E. MEALE
Date Filed:
03/14/2014
Date Assignment:
03/17/2014
Last Docket Entry:
02/24/2015
Location:
Lauderdale Lakes, Florida
District:
Southern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
Suffix:
EC
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (10):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):