STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
In re GEORGE COSTAGE, )
Respondent. ) Complaint No. 91-37
) Final Order No. COE______
FINAL ORDER AND PUBLIC REPORT
This matter came before the Commission on Ethics on the Recommended Order rendered in this matter on September 24, 1992 by the Division of Administrative Hearings (a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference). The Hearing Officer recommends that the Commission find that the Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, that the Respondent be publicly censured and reprimanded, and that the Respondent be required to pay a civil penalty of $3,000.00. The Respondent filed exceptions.
Having reviewed the Recommended Order, the Respondent's exceptions, and the record (a transcript of the public hearing in this matter not having been filed with or placed before the Commission) of the public hearing of this complaint, and having heard the arguments of counsel for the Respondent and the Commission's Advocate, the Commission makes the following findings, conclusions, rulings and recommendations:
RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS
The Respondent's exceptions, regardless of whether they are designated by the Respondent as addressing findings of fact or conclusions of law by the Hearing Officer, involve evidential/factual matters, and, therefore, the Commission cannot reject or modify any factual findings of the Hearing Officer,regardless of whether or not the same were designated by the Hearing Officer or the Respondent as findings of fact or conclusions of law, without a review of the complete record. A review of the complete record by the Commission in this matter was not possible because a transcript of the public hearing, a part of the record, was not filed with or placed before the Commission. See Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Florida Statutes. Further, it is the responsibility of the Respondent to place the full record, including the transcript of the public hearing, before the Commission. See Florida Department of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and North Dade Security Ltd. Corporation v. Department of State, Division of Licensing, 530 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Therefore, all of the Respondent's exceptions are rejected. In addition, to the extent, if any, that any of the Respondent's exceptions actually address conclusions of law of the Hearing Officer, the same are rejected, and the conclusions of law of the Hearing Officer are found to be correct and proper under the relevant provisions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Findings of Fact set forth in the Recommended Order are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Conclusions of Law set forth in the Recommended Order are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Accordingly, the Commission on Ethics finds that the Respondent, George Costage, as a member of the City Commission of the City of Safety Harbor, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, as described herein.
In consideration of the foregoing, pursuant to Sections 112.317 and 112.324, Florida Statutes, the Commission on Ethics recommends that the Governor publicly censure and reprimand the Respondent, George Costage, and impose a civil penalty upon him in the amount of $3,000.00.
ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in public session on Thursday, December 3, 1992.
Stephen N. Zack
YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED, PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ORDER WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS YOU. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING A NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, AND ARE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. THE NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.
cc: Mr. George A. Routh, Attorney for Respondent
Ms. Virlindia Doss, Commission Advocate
Mr. Art Levine, Complainant
Division of Administrative Hearings