HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 03 14 Regular C Business Card Use
.
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM C
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing
Regular X
March * 200 I
Meeting
~w
Mgr. / Dept.
Authorization
PURPOSE: The City Attorney wishes to inform the Commission about his research into the
matter of business card use, and asks for the Commission's direction in requesting a formal
. opinion on the matter from the Commission on Ethics.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Mayor and City Commissioners have expressed a desire to use city business cards
for identification purposes during the course of handling their private business and
personal affairs.
Research by the City Attorney has revealed that no legal authority or opinion exists
expressly addresses this issue.
To acquire such a formal opinion, the City Commission must determine whether they
want to formally request one from the Commission on Ethics, and to authorize the City
Attorney to do so.
FUNDING REQUIRED: Time and expense costs to be incurred by the City Attorney,
which is undetermined at this time.
.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Commission formally vote on
requesting a formal opinion from the Commission on Ethics
regarding the use of city business cards for personal and
private affairs.
.
.
.
March 12, 2001
City Commission Regular Agenda
Item "C"
A TT ACHMENTS:
Letter, dated February 27, 2001, from City Attorney Anthony Garganese to
CityManager Ronald McLemore
Letter and legal citations, dated February 5, 2001, from City Attorney
Anthony Garganese to Chris Anderson, Esq., State Commission on Ethics
COMMISSION ACTION:
,
.
BROWN, WARD, SALZMAN & WEISS, P.A.
\.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Usher L. Brown ·
John H. Ward ·
Gary S. Salzmano
Jeffrey S. Weiss
Suzanne D' Agresta
Anthony A. GarganeseO
Scott D. Danahy
James G. Vickaryous
Allison Carmine McDonald
Alfred Truesdell
Althur R. "Randy" Brown, Jr.
Brett A. Marlowe
Jeffrey P. Buak
Kristine R. Kutz
) ) ) North Orange Ave., Suite 875
Post Office Box 2873
Orlando, FL 32802-2873
(407) 425-9566
(407) 425-9596 FAX
Website: www.orlandolaw.net
e-mail:agarganese@orlandolaw.net
· Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer
o Board Certified Business Litigation Lawyer
o Board Certified City, County & Loeal Government Law
.
February 27, 200]
Mr. Ronald McLemore, City Manager
City of Winter Springs
] ] 26 East S. R. 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Re: Business Card Issue
Dear Ron:
.
In your absence at the February ] 2, 200 I City Commission meeting, I advised the City
Commission that the staff attorneys of the Commission on Ethics were unable to render an informal
opinion regarding the appropriate use of City business cards. The staff attorneys felt there is
insufficient legal precedent in which to render an informal opinion. Therefore, in order for the City
Commission to receive an 'ethics opinion regarding this issue, the City Commission will have to
request a formal opinion from the Commission on Ethics. A formal opinion requires that the issue
be presented to the full Commission on Ethics, who will conduct an appropriate public hearing
before issuing a formal written opinion. The City Commission has asked that this item be placed
on an upcoming City Commission agenda so that they can determine whether they want to request
a formal opinion.
~
. Mr. Ronald McLemore, City Manager
City of Winter Springs
February 27,2001
Page 2
Enclosed for the City Commission's consideration is the February 5, 2001 letter that I
prepared for purposes of requesting an informal opinion. I have also included with that letter a copy
of a previous ethics complaint that was filed In re John Reed Buckley which was provided by the
staff attorneys. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the Commission on Ethics opinions 77-175,
75-45, and 91-38 and Gordon v. State of Florida Commission on Ethics, 609 So.2d 125 (Fla. App.
4 Dist. 1992), which were also cited in my February 5 letter.
.
In re John Reed Buckley it was alleged in an ethics complaint that Mr. Buckley was misusing
his position on the Airport Authority by using his Authority business cards, which were paid for with
public funds, to promote the candidacy of persons seeking seats on the Authority. Mr. Buckley
apparently wrote the names, of preferred candidates on the cards and handed them out at gatherings.
The Commission on Ethics found that the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to support
a finding that Mr. Buckley misused his public position in violation of S 112.313(6), Florida Statutes.
The Commission on Ethics noted that the complaint contained insufficient facts to indicate that Mr.
Buckley violated S 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. The Commission on Ethics also specifically noted
that the complaint contained no allegations demonstrating how Mr. Buckley's conduct would be
considered "corrupt" for purposes of the Code of Ethics. As such, the dismissal of the complaint
made against Mr. Buckley may have been more because of an inadequately drafted complaint and
insufficient allegations, rather than Mr. Buckley not violating S 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. I
would, therefore, caution the Commission from reading too much into the dismissal of the complaint
against Mr. Buckley.
Furthermore, as I indicated at the February 12th City Commission meeting, whenever the
misuse of a public position is considered under S 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, a violation of that
section only occurs when it can be demonstrated that the public official acted "corruptly". Corruptly
has been defined to mean something done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining
or receiving compensation for any benefit resulting from some act or omission of a public servant
which is inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties. Because there is an issue
of intent in proving a violation of S 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, the Commission on Ethics has been
reluctant in the past to issue opinions regarding misuse of public position because no final
conclusion can be drawn whether a violation exists under this provision without a determination of
intent which can only be made through an investigation and hearing. As such, an advisory opinion
from the Commission on Ethics on this issue may be of little assistance in addressing the issue that
I presented to the Commission on Ethics in my February 5, 2001 letter.
.
If the City Commission desires an opinion from the Commission on Ethics, we need to advise
the Commission on Ethics staff so that the issue presented by the City Commission can be submitted
to the Commission on Ethics sometime in the very near future. The Commission on Ethics meets
once a month and their agenda is set approximately several weeks in advance, so there can be a 60
'"
. Mr. Ronald McLemore, City Manager
City of Winter Springs
February 27,2001
Page 3
.
.
to 90-day time period between the date that the City requests an ethics opinion and the date that an
opinion is actually rendered.
item.
I will be happy to answer any questions when the City Commission considers this agenda
AAG:kj
Enclosures
F:\DOCS\City of Winter Springs\General\Ethics\MeLemoreOO l,kj
Anthony A. Garganes
City Attorney
..
~(Q)~~
.
BROWN, WARD, SALZMAN & WEISS, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Usher 1. Brown ·
John H. Ward ·
Gary S. Saizmano'
Jeffrey S. Weiss
Suzanne D' Agresta
Anthony A. GarganeseO
Scott D. Danahy
James G. Vickaryous
Allison Camtine McDonald
Alfred Truesdell
. Arthur R. "Randy" Brown, Jr.
Brett A. Marlowe
Jeffrey P. Buak:
III North Orange Ave., Suite 875
Post Office Box 2873 .
, Orlando, FL 32802-2873
(407) 425-9566
(407) 425-9596 FAX
Email: firm@orlandolaw.net
Web~ite: www.orlandolaw.net
agarganese@orlandolaw.net
· Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer
o Board Certified Business Litigation Lawyer
o Board Certified City, County & Loeal Government Law.
February 5,2001
-.
Via Facsimile -- 850 488 3077 .
Via u.s. Mail
Chris Anderson, Esq.
Commission on Ethics
State of Florida
2822 Remington Green Circle - Suite 1
P 0 Drawer 157
Tallahassee, FL 32317-5709
Dear Mr. Anderson:
The undersigned represents the City of Winter Springs as City Attorney. On behalf of the
City Commission of Winter Springs, I am requesting an informal opinion regarding the issue set
forth and explained below.
FACTS
.
At the City's nominal expense, the City provides each City Commissioner and the Mayor
with city business cards. The city business cards are ordinary and simple, and sim~lar to the typical'.
business cards carried daily by millions of people. In this case, the city business cards contain
general information !egardmg the City, including a copy of the City seal and the City's name, address
and telephone and fax numbers. In addition, the city business cards are personalized for each
Commissioner and the Mayor by including their respective name, city title and e-mail address. The
\
;; .
. Chris Anderson, Esq.
Commission on Ethics
State of Florida
February 5,.2001
Page 2
Commissioners and the Mayor regularly carry the city busIness cards on their person and they ,
distribute them in many situations to identify themselves and to provide contact information.
THE BUSINESS CARD
.-.
~e business card, as is true in every area where business cards are used, serves to.identify
the name and status of the person presenting the card. The business card also has the desired effect
of being a convenient means of introduction and eliminating coIifusion in identifying and
, communicating with individ~als. For the most part, the use of business cards is a matter of personal
taste and local custom. But, one could reasonably argue that th~re is an implied notion in our society
that a business card is part of an individual's persona and that there is an expectation that it will be
used in a variety of personal and business situations. Moreover, there is an expectation that elected'
officials will use their business cards as an efficient and: cost-effective means of introducing
themselves to constituents, community leaders, developers, arid others in a variety of sitUations to
promote the community that has elected them to public office.
THE CITY COlVlMISSION'S INQUIRY
In this context, members of the city commission. and the Mayor predominantly use city
bu~iness cards for identification purposes while performing official duties and attending government
related functions. On occasion, however, the Commissioners and the Mayor would like to use the
city business cards as a means of introducing and identifying themselves when engaged in other
affairs, including personal aff<:rirs. For example, in the course of conducting their private business
affairs, a Commissioner and/or the Mayor may also identify an opportunity to promote the City.
During the course of this dual private/public situation, a city business card may be presented, in
person or correspondence, to an individual for identification. and information purposes and as a
gesture of good will.
--
Therefore, the issue presented is:
During the course of handling their private business and personal affairs, may
the . <:ity Commissioners and/or the l\tIayor occasionally provide, upon or
without request, city business cards to individuals in person or with
correspondence?
.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
In summary, my legal research revealed no legal authority or opinion of the, Commission on
Ethics expressly limiting the use of city busi.ness cards. However, a previous opinion of the'
Commission on Ethics stated it was proper for a state representative to enclose a business card in
.. .
~ .
. Chris Anderson, Esq.
Commission on Ethics
State of Florida
February 5,2001
Page 3
corresponqence to constituents. But unlike the issue presented here, the representative printed the
cards athis own expense. Further, there is a line oflegal authority restricting the use of government
stationery when such use has no public purpose, which, at first blush, seems somewhat related to the
issue presented. Notwithstanding, it is my view the opinions regarding stationery should not be
broadly construed to apply to the use of business cards because the personal nature of using a
business card is clearly distinguishable from the nature of using government stationery, which is
clearly intended to manifest an official act. Furthermore, from a public policy perspective, the
impositio'n of significant restrictions on the use of.city business cards could lead to confusion and
absurd legal results which the Florida Code of Ethics is not intended to cause. Accordingly, as
explained below, it is my opinion that during the course of handling their private business and
personal affairs, it would not be per se improper for a City Commissioner and/or the Mayor to
distribute, upon or without request, a city business, card to an individual in person or with
, ,
correspondence.
-.
Section 112.313(6), F10ljda Statutes, appears to be the provision of the Code of Ethics most
applicable to the City Commission's inquiry. It provides:
MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION. No public officer. or employee of an
agency shall corruptly use or attempt to use his official position or any property or
resource which may be within his trust, or perfQQl1 .his official duties, to secure a
special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself or others. This section shall not
be construed to conflict with Section 104.31.
The term "corruptly" is defined as follows:
"Corruptly" means done with 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 with the proper
performance of his or her public duties.
--
Section 112.312(9), Florida Statutes.
.
The Commission on Ethics has opined that Section 112.313(6) prohibits public officials,
from using their official positions to secure special privileges or benefits for themselves or another,
where the official's actions are taken with wrongful intent to obtain said privilege or benefit and are
inconsistent with the proper perfonnance of the official?s public duties. See CEO, 99-8.
With respect to the use of government stationery, the Commission of Ethics took a rather
expansive approach to interpreting Section, 1 12.313(6), Florida Statutes:
v..
. Chris Anderson, Esq.
Commission on Ethics
State of Florida
February 5,2001
Page 4
..
.
We are of the opinion that whether a corrupt misuse of official position has occurred
in a given situation depends on how and for what purpose the stationery will be used,
rather than upon the filct of its use. In terms of whether the council member's letter
would be a corrupt mIsuse of position, we see no difference between her using the
proposed stationery and. her using plain stationery for a letter in which she refers to
herself as a Council member. Either way, the recipient of the letter is informed of the
Council member's public position. This may be appropriate in the political contexts
noted above, or it may be inappropriate, for example, if the letter were being sent to
settle a strictly private dispute with a debtor or creditor.
CEO, 91-38.
Further, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Commission of Ethics' conclusion
that a city commissioner violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes when the commissioner used
city stationery to promote a symposium for which he received compensation. See Gordon v. State
of Florida, 609 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). However, it is significant to note that this case
consisted of egregious facts; the commissioner was using the stationery on behalf ofN ova University
for whom he was doing consulting w9rk. See In re James K. Gordon, Commission on Ethics Final
Order and Public Report Upon Mandate of the District Court of Appeal (March 11, 1993). In other
words, the commissioner was using city stationery to ben~fit a private entity that was employing him
for compensation.
Other opinions of the Commission on Ethics provide some guidance on an elected official's
ability to distribute information with his, or her name on it. In CEO 77-175, the Commission on
Ethics opined that it would not be a violation of Section 112.313(6) if a state senator distributed a
brochure entitled "The Florida Senate" with his name stamped inside to school and civic groups
upon their request. Further, in CEO 77-45, the Commission on Ethics also opined that a member
of the Florida House of Representatives could enclose a business card (paid for at his expense)
containing his picture, name, public office, political paity, S!,ate district, and telephone number in
correspondence to his constituents.' -
Inherent in the many duties of all elected officials. is the duty to meet and comnmnicate with
the official's constituents in a variety of personal, business, and government environments and
situations. As individuals elected by the community to public office, these .individuals carry with
them their public title and persona in all of these environments and situations. As such, the
distribution of city business cards by elected officials in any of these environments or situations is
consistent with the official's proper performance of his or her official duties because the business
cards serve as a means of identifying the name and.' status of the elected official, regardless of
whomever the card is presented to or wherever it is presented. Therefore, the distribution of city
business cards in non-governmental environme!lts or situations, in my opinion, is not a per se corrupt
use of the official' s position or of government property or resources under Section 112.313 (6),
, .
.
-.
.
Chris Anderson, Esq.
Commission on Ethics
State of Florida
February 5, 2001
Page 5
Florida Statutes,. even if the business cards were obtained by the elected official at city expense.
CEO 77-45 is consistent with this conclusion.
Furthermore, business cards are very personal in nature in that they are not transferable from
one person to another for use unless the persons share the same name, official title, and other
information that is printed on the card. That, obviously, is an extremely unlikely event. Thus, city
business cards, like any business cards, are personal to the individual for whom the card is printed,
regardless of whether the elected official pays for the business cards himself or herself, or whether
city funds are expended to pay for the cards.
Since business cards are personal in nature, they differ greatly from business or government
stationery. Business or government stationery is used to convey an official message or position of
the particular business or governmental entity. Business cards, on the other hand, do not ordinarily
convey any message or position; rather, business cards m,erely contain identifying information about
a particular individual who represents the particular entity in some capacity. Therefore, the legal
authority regarding the use of government stationery is inapplicable to the issue of the propriety of. .
distributing city business cards and should not be considered.
It is possible to conjure up a scenario in which the distribution of a city business card,
coupled with some other act or omission on the part of th_e ~l~cted official distributing the business
card, may be corrupt under Section 112.313(6), Florida StatUtes, and therefore subject to analysis
under the Florida Ethics Code. It is my opinion, however, that the Code would be trivialized and
inappropriately applied if such analysis were automatically required in order to address the simple
act of distributing a city business card for purposes of introduction, identification, and information
in non-governmental. environments or situations. It seems a great disservice would be done if elected
city officials were,put in a position of being afraid to reveal their identities and the fact that they are
elected city officials simply because the ,situation in which they are involved is not entirely
government related. It seems, rather, that elected city officials should have the discretion to
determine when opportunities to promote the city present themselves, regardless of whether the
environment in which such opportunities arise is private or public in nature.
Your guidance and opinion regarding this issue ~ll be greatly appreciated.
AAG:kj
F:\DOCS\City of Winter Springs\Generai\Ethies\business eards.kj
,
Received: 2/12/01 11 :28AM;
850 488 3077 -> Brown, Ward,Sa~zman & Weiss P.A.; Page 2
TEL: 850 4~ .3077
fEB. -12.' 01 (MON) 12: 26
FL COMM: IN ETHIC
.lU1 14 1991
BI!lPOU THE
STA~& OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
COMr~~Ott ot~ ETl';1CS
In (e JOHN REED BUCKLEY,
Respondent.
CONFIDENTIAL
Complaint No. 90-249
RECOMMENDATION OF LEGAL INSUPPICIENCY
UPON REVIEW of this complaint, I find as follows;
1. This complaint, which includ@s several attachments, was
filed under oath and I" proper form by James W. Kissick and Dean
~ebrecht, Vice Chairman and Secretary, respec:ively, of the
Manasota
Aviation Action Council Investigative Conuniuee. of
Bradenton. Florida.
2. The Respondent; John Reed BuCkler,_ allegedly serves as
Secretary-Treasurer of the Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority and
allegedly served as Chairman of that,Authority.
3. The complaint alleges that the Respondent used his'
Authority business cards, which were paid for with public funds, to
promote the candidacy of persons seeking seats on the Authority, by
vriting the names of preferred candidates on the cards and handing
the cards out at'gatherinqs.
4. Section 112.313(6), l'lorida Statutes, provides as folloys:
MISUS! O~ PUBLIC POSITtON.~-No public officer
or employee of an agency shall corruptly use or
attempt to US~. his. official position o~ any
property or ~r.'.ourc. whIch may' be vithln his
trust, or p.d'O~': .hls . official dudes, to
secure a .pecf~~ ~rivil.ge, benefit, or
exemption tor hi...!f or others, This 'section
'-, . ".. ,~..;~:. ..:! .~. '.~':';"~~"~~~~~.'~" ~....'.~- .
'"
P. 002
, '
..
\~ Received: 2/12/01 11 :2BAM;
B50 4BB 3077 -> Brown, Ward,Salzman & Weiss P.A.; Page 3
PEB. -12' 01 (MON) 12:26
FL COMl jN ETHIC
.
TEL: 850 41" 3077
.
shall not be construed to conflict with s.
104.31.
For purposes of this provision, the term .corruptly. 1s defined as
follo."s:
'Corruptly' ~e8ns done vlth a wrongful intent
and for the purpose of obtaining. or
compensating.or receiving compensation for, Any
benefit reeultlng from some act or omission of
a public servant which i8 inconaistent vith the
proper performance of his public duties.
[Section 112.312(7), Florida Statutes.]
S. Allegations nearly identical to those stated )~bove vere
made against the Respondent in Complaint NO. 90-229, In re John
R@@d Buckley, and were dismissed by the commission on ~thics as
being legally insufficient. In this complaint, as in Complaint No.
90-229. the above allegations do not contain sufficient facts to
indicate that the Respondent violated Section 112.313(6). It is
not alleged hov the Respondent's conduct yould be conside~ed
.corrupt. for purposes of the Code of Ethics.
There are no
allegations that the Respondent ected with a vron9ful intent, nor
that his actions were undertaken for the purpose of obtaining any
benefit resulting from some act Yhich would be inconsistent vith
the proper performance of his public duties. Thus, the allegations
above a~e insufficient to charge a violation of Section 112,313(6),
Florida- Statutes. In two other recent cases, Complaint No. 89-45.
In re John Curlee (state trooper appearing i~ uniform in-a campaign
ad for a State Senate candidate), and Compl~int ~o. 90-71. In re
Ilene ~iebermen (mayor endorsing seve.al candidote$ for the town
council on letterhead that appeared to be similar to that of the
tovn's but vas not paid for with public funds', the commisaion
determined that the Code ot Bthlcs vas not violated.
6. Secondly, the complaint alleges that the Respondent lent
his name and official Authority title for use in nevspaper
ejvertlsements promo~~n~, the candidacy of I person seeking a seat
.~:.. "
on the Authority. ~inc. the Respondent's name is his own and does
not belong to tbe Authority, it 1s not public property Or a public
-2-
. ."
.' t. ~".' :,,::,,~':":"~""i/7'r.
. I..... _''''LO I' ... .~~). ~-r, I"
'..! ;.,.... .. ~........~.,,;...:..;o\I.~... ':a...
" .,..c
"~".' . ..j....... .
"~""."""'...;~-':..".~.:',.i:"",."';"
.. : ::;>;, ~'~~i: ~ .: ,.
P. 003
(:-
Received:
2/12/0111:29AMj
850 488 3077 -> Brown, Ward.Sa1zman & Weiss P.A.;
Page 4
FL COM~ ON ETHIC
.
,FEB. -1,2' 01 (MaN) 12:26
TEL:850 ~~~ 3077
.
P. 004
resource within his trust, the misuse of which would cnnstitute a
possible violation of Section 112.313(6). rurthe~, since the
Respondent's Authority title is a part of his persona or identity
as an individual, the use of.such on behalf of candidates does not
violate Section 112.313(6). 5ee Complaint No. 89-45" In rEi Jolln
Curlee. In addition, allegations nearly identical to those stated
in this paragraph were found by the Commission to be legally
insufficient in Complaint No. 90-229, In re John Reed Buc~ley.
Thus, the allegations referenced in this paragraph are insufficient
to charge a violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida StatuteR.
7. The complaint further alleges that the Respondent placed
campaign materials of a candidate tor the Authority in tile
Authority's ~staff area,- This allegation in and of itself,
without further allegation of, for e~ample, the coercion of staff
by the Respondent to vote fo~ the candidate. fails to charge a
possible violation of Section 112.313(6).
6. r t also is alleged that. the - Respondent made monetary
contributions to two ~andid8t.es for the Authority, that the
Respondent is listed 8S a retiree on the candidates'. contribution
reports. and that the Respondent is -dependent" on one of the
candidates "for an unusual f&quest to De retro~ctively reinstated
(for severtl years) on the Airport Authority's Employee Insurance
Program." Allegations of campaign contributions, standing alone,
do not charge a possible violation of the COde or Ethics for Public
Of~icers and Employees. Likevise, allegations of inac=urate
occupat.ior.al designations on campaign contribution reports ~o no~
charge a possible violation. The portion of thig fourth Allegation
of ehe complaint concerning lnsu~once loCks sufficient facts,
detail, and clarity to charge & possible violation of the Code of
Et~ics. and further does not indicate that ehe Respondent used or
Attempted to u~e his official position.
-)-
''l~,,: .~
....,-.., ,
"Received: 2/12/01 11 : 29AM;
850 488 3077 -> Brown. Ward.salzman & Weiss P.A.; Page 5
~ .
'pEB. - 1.2' 0 I (MON I 12; 27
FL COM~. ON ETHIC
TEL:8S0 ~c; 3077
9. The complaint also alleqes that a candidate for the
~uthority received a campaign contribution from a cont~dctor vho
vas selected by the Authority to provide ~ flight information and
baggage display system and that the Respondent "championed as an
agenda item~ said selection. Further, the complaint alleges that
th~ same candidate received another campaign contributio~ {rom an
out-of-state business.
Inasmuch as there are many legitiffi~te
reasons and motives for a public officer ndvancing or promoting the
selection of a particular contractor to perform services f.or his
governmental entity, and $ince the complaint does not allege. for
example, that the Respondent received unauthorized ~i(ts or
compensation in exchange for his alleged promotion of the selection
of the contractor, this allegation fails to charge a possible
violation of the Code of !~hlcs.
In addition, a campaign
contribution alone does not indicate a possible violation of the
Code of Ethics.
10. Additionally, it is' alleged that a noise abatement
contract ~as 4Y5rded by the Authority. to "a mOre e~pensive
competitor~ and that such avard vas made .under the sponsorship of-
the Respondent. Again, as there are many legitimate reasons for
s~1ectin9 a particular contractor Or business to supply services or
goods to a pUblic officer's governmental enti,ty, the allegation of
such an avard. standing alone, does not charge a possible violation
of the Code Of ~thics.
11. The complaint further alleges that the Respondent
commented -to the Treasurer that her employment contract is to"be
unapproved (held hostage) including its financial obligation until
such time as pay raises for three select staff employ~es were
rellized.- This allegation does not state sufficient facts to
indicate a possible violation ef the Code of Ethics. as there is no
indication how the Respondent's alleged action vas inconsistent
with the proper performance of his public duties, bero~d th~
-,,-
P. 005
..'~
Received:
, .
2/1 2/01 1 1 : 29AM;
850 488 ~077 -> Brown, Ward,Salzman & Weiss P.A.;
Page 6
,PEB. -1,2' 01 (MON) 12:27
PL COM~I. ON ETH I C
TEL:8S0 4~J 3077
general allegation that his role should. he policy-making, rather
than administrative.
12. The complaint all~ges th~t the Respondent exhibits
tardiness in submitting claims to the Authority for
travel
reimbursement, in violation of the rules of the Authority. .Section
112.313(6), Set out above, is the only provision of the Code of
Ethics arguably !pplicable to this allegation. While an allegation
of makin9 false application for reimbursement or claiming exp~ns~s
not actually incurred would charge a possible violation.of Section
112.313(6). mere late filing for ~eimbursement for actual and
proper expenses does not charge such a violation because expenses
actually and prcperly incurred do not amount to a
speCial
privilege, benefit, or exemption within the meaning of that
section. A similar allegation vas made ,against the Respondent in
Complaint Ne. 66-61, In Z'e John Reed Buckley. That Complaint. ..,as
dismissed oy the Commission with a finding of no probable cause.
13.
In addition, the complaint
other
lTlakes
various
accusations which
may allege viol8tions of open government or
election lays b~t which do not charge possible violations of the
Code of Ethics.
Several other allegations are made vhich 1ac~
sufficient detail, facts, or clarity to charge possible violations
of the Code of Ethics.
WHEREFORE, I recommend thet this compl6int be found legally'
insvfficient and dismissed without investigation.
~ ~~~ /,y, /q&f /
te ,-
~~"'-j~'7"~~~L,,"~
Bonnie J. wi iams
Executive 'Di~ector
BJW/cca
--;-
P. 006
(-,'
Received:
2/1 2/01 1 1 : 30AM ;
850 488 3077 -> Brown, Ward,Salzman & Weiss P.A.;
Page 7
P L COMi... ON ETH I C
TEL:8S0 4, 3077
FEB. -12' 01 (MON) 12:27
P.007
.
.'
DATE FILED
'.u. M 1991
BEFORE TH&
STATE OF FLORIDA-
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
CQI6lIlS!OC ON mecs
In re JOHN REED BUCKLEY,
Respondent.
Complaint No, 90-249
PUBLIC REPORT AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
On frida~, July 19, 1991, the Commission on Ethics met in
executive session and considered this
complaint
for
1 eya 1
sufficiency pursuant to Commission Rule 34-5.002, r.^.c. The
Commission's reviev vas limited to questions of jurlsdi~tion of the
Commission and of the adequacy of the details of the COmplaint to
allege a violation of the Code of Ethics for puhlic Officers a~d
Employees,
No factual -in~esti9ation preceded the reviev, and
therefore the Commission's conclusions do not reflect on the
accuracy of the allegations of the complaini.
The Commission voted to adopt the legal sufficiency analysis of
its ~xecutive Director, a copy of vhlch is attached.
Accordingly,
thi~ complaint is diSmissed for failure to constitute a legally
st.ffic:ier;t complaint ..,ith the issu6nce oC this public repon, 'w'hich
shall incluop the compla1nt and all documents related to the
comr1i'lint.
ORDERED by the State of Florioa Commission on Ethics meeting In
executive session on July 19, 1991.
~ .:!AI, 1'111
De .
~8~
Dean Bunch
Chatman
ec: Mr. John Reed Buckley, Re.pO~dent
Mr. Jemes ~. Kissick and Hr. Dean Hebreeht, Complaina~to
Received:
2/ 1 2/01 1 1 : 30AM;
8Sq 488 3077 ~> Brown, Ward,Salzman & Weiss P.A.;
Page 8
PEB. ~!2' 01 (MaN) 12:27
PL COMI.;.' ON ETH I C
TEL:850 '.'
3077
P. 008
Received:
2/12/01 11 :31AM;
850 488 3077 -> Brown, Ward,Salzman & Weiss P.A.;
Page 9
PEB. -12' 01 (MON) 12:28
FL COM~.. ON ETH I C
TEL:850
3077
P. 009
Received:
2/12/01 11: 32AM;
850 488 3077 -> Brown, Ward,Sa~zman & Weiss P.A.;
Page 10
,FEB.-12'Ol(MON) 12:29
FL COM~; ON ETHIC
TEL:850 ~_J 3077
P..O 1 0