STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: JOE PETE CANNON, )
) CASE NO. 93-3627EC
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Mary Clark, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on February 10-11, 1994, in Branford, Florida.
Advocate: Stuart F. Wilson-Patton, Esquire
Advocate for the Florida
Commission on Ethics
Office of the Attorney General
The Capitol, PL-01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
For Respondent: David A. Glant, Esquire
Post Office Box 2519
High Springs, Florida 32643-2519
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
On June 16, 1993, the Florida Commission on Ethics (EC) issued its order finding probable cause that Respondent, Joe Pete Cannon, as a member and/or president of the Town Council of Branford, Florida, violated section 112.313(6), F.S.,
...by using or attempting to use his
official position or property or resources
within his trust, or by performing his
official duties, to secure a special
privilege, benefit, or exemption for his
friend and/or his friend's daughter in
relation to a traffic citation issued by the
Complainant; or by using or attempting to use
his official position or property or
resources within his trust, or by performing
his official duties, to have the Complainant
fired in retaliation for the issuance of a
traffic citation to the daughter of a friend
of the Respondent or in retaliation for the
citation not being modified or withdrawn,
thereby securing a special privilege,
benefit, or exemption for the Respondent.
... by conferring with other Council members
regarding the Complainant's employment in
violation of the Sunshine Law.
The issues are whether those violations occurred and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
On June 23, 1993, the Executive Director of the Commission on Ethics forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of a public hearing and for a recommended order.
After being initially set for October, the hearing was continued twice for good cause, at the parties' request.
At the hearing the Advocate presented the following witnesses: Fred Brittain, Glen Murray, Linda Harper, Roy Harper, A.L. Purcell, L.T. Chesson, and Joe Pete Cannon. Advocate's exhibits #1-3 and 5-13 were received in evidence. Exhibit #4 was marked for identification, but was not received.
Respondent presented the following witnesses (and no exhibits): Gary Howard, Mike Suggs, Richard Marquette, Roy Bagley, Bert Harrell, Donna Rae Owens, Earl Knight, Calvin Williams, Ernest Kelley, Thomas Lewis and M.O. Clark.
No transcript was prepared or filed, and, after an extension of the deadline, the parties filed written closing arguments and proposed recommended orders on April 15, 1994. These have been carefully considered and specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are included in the attached Appendix.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant to this matter, Joe Pete Cannon was a member of the Town Council of Branford, Suwannee County, Florida, having served in that capacity for approximately twenty years. For approximately seventeen of the twenty years he was president of the five-member council. As president, he chaired the council meetings and assisted the mayor in town administration. Employees of the town were hired and fired by vote of the council; neither the mayor nor council president had that authority alone.
2. Branford, as its letterhead states, is situated "on the banks of the Suwannee River". City limit to city limit, it runs about one-half to three-quarter mile long and has a population of approximately 700.
3. Branford's chief of police, and currently only law enforcement officer is Fred Brittain. Chief Brittain has served in that capacity since 1989; he also served from 1975-1983. Between 1983 and 1989, he served 2 1/2 terms on the town council and resigned from the council in 1989.
4. At various times in the past, Branford has employed three part-time police: Mr. Swafford, Mr. Chancey and, most recently, Roy Harper.
5. Roy Harper was hired by the Town Council in September 1992, at the recommendation and request of Chief Brittain. He had approximately ten years' experience in law enforcement and was working on his two-year degree in criminal justice at the community college.
6. When Harper was hired, Chief Brittain instructed him to conduct general law enforcement patrol work: "Preserve the peace; protect the public; enforce laws." The residential areas were experiencing vandalism, so Harper was told to check suspicious persons. Some burglaries and speeders were also described as problems. No quotas were established for traffic tickets, and no one suggested that traffic tickets should be a good source of revenue for the town.
7. As to speeders, Chief Brittain explained his policy to Harper: up to ten miles per hour (mph) over the speed limit, stop and warn, or don't warn, as long as the person is not driving erratically; if the person is driving erratically or over ten mph over the limit, write a ticket, but use your discretion, as there can always be a good story. No policy was given for voiding tickets and Harper was allowed considerable discretion. Generally, both Chief Brittain and Harper had a policy of voiding tickets they wrote to teens if the parent said they would handle the discipline. As Harper described, he was not trying to cost the parent money, but just wanted to control the problem.
8. After Harper was hired, the number of tickets written in Branford increased. This was as expected, because the more police you have, the more tickets get written. Moreover, both Harper and Chief Brittain were "radar certified" and running radar was a more efficient way to apprehend speeders. In October, November and December 1992, the number of citations were 80, 91 and 100, respectively, up from a high of 71 and an average of 46.5 over the prior twelve months period. Harper wrote tickets, but he also gave a lot of warnings.
9. Around the end of November 1992, Harper had been "running radar" for a week from the ballpark on Governor Street. He had been giving warnings and telling folks that after the week was up he was going to write tickets. He stopped a lot of people and gave this warning. At approximately 7:34 p.m. on November 21, 1992, Howard stopped a young lady heading eastbound on Governor. She was speeding at 42 mph in a 25 mph zone. She said she was a newcomer to the area. When Harper asked where she went to school, she said "Branford". He told her she should be aware of the speed limit, and he issued the citation.
10. Harper talked to Chief Brittain at town hall that evening and asked whether he knew Ms. Kelley, and said he had written her a ticket. Chief Brittain said the Kelleys had lived there all their lives.
11. Jennifer Kelley attends Branford High School. She is a straight-A student, president of the student body, and "Miss BHS". Her father is Ernest Kelley, a life-time resident of Branford. He owns Kelley's Auto Supply, the NAPA store, which has been in the family since 1961, and he runs an investment business.
12. Mr. Kelley found out about the ticket on Sunday night, and the next morning he went to see his insurance man, Tommy Lewis. He was concerned that this was a first offense, that Jennifer was known as a good kid and that maybe the ticket could be mitigated. Kelley insured the whole family on one policy and Kelley's own driving record was not so good. Lewis told him that many times Judge Kennon would waive the points and let them pay a fine. Lewis also told him that 15 mph over the limit was a "major violation", by insurance standards, and that the three options were: a) "local discretion"; b) "the judge's discretion", and c) the guaranteed option of driving school, in lieu of points. Kelley also said he could talk to Cotton State (the insurance company) and tell them this is a good kid.
13. Tommy Lewis, Ernest Kelley and Joe Pete Cannon are golfing buddies; they are three of the twelve or fifteen Branford citizens who are members of the Chiefland County Club.
14. After talking with Tommy Lewis, Ernest Kelley called Joe Pete Cannon and asked him to drop by his office. Cannon did, and Kelley told him about Jennifer's ticket and what Lewis had told him about the options. The driving school option, a sure thing, was not the first choice because of the child's age and the three-time limit over a lifetime. Kelley asked Cannon if he should go talk to "Fred" (Chief Brittain). Cannon said that Fred was over at town hall and offered to go see what local discretion meant.
15. Cannon went over to see Fred, as promised. He asked the chief whether anyone had ever issued a ticket or warning to Jennifer before and he asked whether the ticket could be reduced to a warning in this case. Joe Pete Cannon, according to Chief Brittain, did not use the terms "void the ticket"; Brittain used the terms, and responded that he could not "void" another officer's ticket. Chief Brittain checked to see if the ticket had gone into the court system yet. It had not, and the chief changed the 42 mph to 40 mph and said that was all he could do.
16. Cannon went back to Kelley and told him what happened. Kelley went to the judge, and the ticket was resolved with a $90 fine and waiver of points.
17. If Cannon had not been a political figure, Chief Brittain would not have seen any problem with the approach. The chief had dealt with parents and violators before and he considered voiding a ticket he wrote as part of the discretion an officer should use. The questions, to Chief Brittain's mind, were not improper, except that Cannon was acting on behalf of a friend, instead of himself or a family member. At no time did Chief Brittain suggest to Cannon that Kelley should talk directly to Roy Harper about the ticket.
18. Kelley had a chance to talk with Harper a few days later when Kelley was at the auto store after closing time. Harper stopped at the store for a routine check. The men introduced themselves and had a cordial chat. Kelley said that he had no doubt that his daughter was speeding but he wanted to make sure she was not causing trouble. Kelley told Harper he had gone to the judge and the points would be withheld when the fine was paid. Harper said that was the thing to do. Kelley was not angry with Harper.
19. Over the next month things got stirred up in Branford about ticket writing and the unwritten policies about who got warnings and who didn't.
20. Mike Suggs has lived in the Branford area all his life. On Christmas day 1992, his 16 year old son, Wade, was ticketed by Roy Harper as the boy was heading home out of town. The ticket reflects he was going 48 mph in a 30 mph zone. Mike Suggs talked to Cannon a few days later and said he didn't think it was fair, as he heard others had been stopped, but didn't get a ticket. He did not ask Cannon to throw it out and he did not go to Chief Brittain or Harper to complain. Gary Howard, a member of the town council complained to Chief Brittain until he heard that the youth was doing 18 mph over the speed limit, not 5 mph as his mother had said.
21. Christine Langford, now married to Gary Howard, was clocked on Roy Harper's radar doing 54 mph in a 30 mph zone, going north on state road 129. She got a ticket and her husband felt she deserved it.
22. Shane Harris was stopped and ticketed by Roy Harper on January 2, 1993, for doing 48 mph in a 30 mph zone. The ticket was voided when Shane's dad came and talked to Harper. The boy was in the military service; his dad is a law enforcement officer in Lafayette County.
23. Bobby Avery was stopped by Roy Harper in December 1992 for speeding on the Lake City highway in his pick-up truck. Avery had been drinking and was a little belligerent. When he identified himself as an inspection officer from DOT, Harper called Chief Brittain to come identify him. Chief Brittain went out to the scene and did verify who Avery was, but did not mention that he, himself, had stopped Avery before. Avery's attitude was sarcastic and there was alcohol on his breath, but he was not drunk or impaired. Roy Harper let him go with a warning, primarily because he did not want the bad attitude to cause him to write the ticket. Harper found out later that Avery had been stopped before by Chief Brittain.
24. Ms. Mullins was another speeder who just got a warning from Roy Harper. Her speed was just over the limit and she told him she "never speeds in Branford", but was on her way to the doctor's office. He told her to go and call him from the doctor's office and he would check with Fred Brittain, but if she did not call, he would send her the ticket in the mail. She called, and did not get the ticket, because Chief Brittain confirmed that he never had a problem with her.
25. The Holzclaw boy was another case involving Roy Harper. There had been some vandalism or other criminal activity in one of the neighborhoods. Harper saw the boy in a vehicle around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. He watched him and followed him out of town and across the Suwannee River bridge where he stopped him. After questioning the boy about some guns and equipment he had in the truck for hog-hunting, Harper let him go. The boy's father felt he had been harassed and complained to Joe Pete Cannon and to the sheriff.
26. Nell's Restaurant in downtown Branford is the hub of social intercourse in the community. Folks gather there at lunch and on Saturdays and share news and views. At Nell's, the Branford police department was a hot issue. Richard Marquette, fourteen years in Branford, manager of a gas company and former vice-president of the Chamber of Commerce, heard that Chief Brittain was told he could have as many deputies as he wanted, as long as they wrote enough tickets to pay their salaries. He didn't know whether this was true and he went to see Joe Pete Cannon about it. He heard that Harper was hiding with his radar up at the school by the football field. He heard customers say they would rather go to High Springs because Branford was a speed trap.
27. Tommy Lewis, in his usual course of business, gets calls from people wanting to know what a ticket will do to their insurance. He got a lot more calls when Roy Harper was a Branford police officer. He, and others, including M.O. Clark, another insurance agent in Branford, were concerned how negative publicity would affect business from people outside the town.
28. Cannon, at some point after the Jennifer Kelley incident, talked to Chief Brittain about the complaints he was getting and the rumors he was hearing about some people getting warnings and others getting tickets. The chief assured him that Harper was doing his job and the police were being fair.
29. By early January, and after the Holtzclaw complaint, Joe Pete Cannon was exasperated and approached the chief one last time:
...But anyway, I came down on Monday morning,
January 4, and I asked Chief Brittan about
the ticket, you know, as far as the warning.
I said , "One person---" Because I didn't
know who it was. The man said he would
rather not tell me, you know, as far as---
I said, "What's this about one person, you
know, as far as not one warning, but got two
warnings and still hadn't got a ticket?" So
he lied to me. He said, "That ain't happened."
And I told him, I said, "Fred, don't you tell
me a lie." Then he gave me a name. He gave
me the name of who it was. So I told him, I
said, "Fred, I have come to you---" That
would be as far as about the third or so
time. I said, "I've talked with you, you
know, as far as these different---" And I
said, "I'm fed up with it." I said, "On
these complaints.", and I said, "I'm telling
you right now, where it won't be no surprise
or no secret. At the next council meeting---"
Which would be eight days off the 12th of
January. "---I'm going to recommend to the
Council and tell them, if I can get a move
and a second, I will vote with them to
terminate our part time policeman's
I never talked with Fred Brittan, Chief
Brittan, again. And I told him, I said, "I
don't want it to be no surprise or no
secret." That's what I told him then. I
walked out and never communicated with Chief
Brittan again until I came into that Council
meeting there. And did just exactly what I
said I was going to do. I brought it up,
explained it, and so that's where we stand
(Advocate's Exhibit #12,
deposition of Joe Pete
Cannon, pp 41-42)
30. By the time of the council meeting on January 12th, the news of Harper's employment jeopardy was all over town. Chief Brittain felt Harper was doing his job, and after the conversation with Cannon on the 4th, the chief went around talking to the town council members and others. Cannon told Ernest Kelley and Tommy Lewis on the golf course, and when Kelley asked if it was a secret, Cannon replied that it wasn't, as he had already told Chief Brittain.
31. Harper's employment contract with the Town of Branford is a form contract used for other part-time police. It provides that the employee serves at the pleasure of the town council and is under the supervision of the Chief of Police. It also provides:
The policeman is further to be answerable to
the Town Council for the conduct of duties of
such office and shall be subject to
suspension or removal by the Town Council,
for cause, at will or at pleasure of the
(Advocate's exhibit #8)
32. The Harper issue was not specifically on the agenda for the January 12th meeting. The agenda is generally prepared on the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. Cannon did not have the clerk put it on the agenda because the "police report" was already on the agenda, as it always is. In fact, when Harper was hired by the council, it was in the "police report" portion of the agenda.
33. The minutes of the meeting accurately and succinctly describe the vote of the council:
Chief Brittain gave the police report at
Council President Joe Cannon brought to the
attention of the Council that he has had
numerous complaints about the part-time
policeman. Cannon said that he had talked
with the Police Chief about the high number
of speeding tickets and complaints. He felt
that the problem had not been resolved and
that we did not need the part-time policeman
any longer. MOTION MADE BY GARY HOWARD TO
TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF ROY HARPER,
PART-TIME POLICEMAN. SECONDED BY ROY BAGLEY.
VOTE: IN FAVOR: HOWARD, BAGLEY, AND
CANNON. AGAINST: MURRAY AND PURCELL.
MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY. A couple of
local businessmen were present to state
they felt the high number of speeding
tickets would run-off business.
(Advocate's exhibit #7)
34. Roy Harper and some others feel that the vote taken at the meeting was a foregone conclusion and that Joe Pete Cannon had already discussed the issue with other council members. Harper's wife, Linda Harper, was doing an internship in Branford for her criminal justice degree program. She was in Chief Brittain's office in December 1992, while he was on vacation, as she was working on something to do with paperwork procedures, making data entries and reorganizing the evidence room. She saw Joe Pete Cannon and Gary Howard alone in Town Clerk Donna Owen's office with the door closed. She did not overhear any of the conversation and has never personally witnessed any two elected officials discussing the matter.
35. Chief Brittain believes that Cannon must have discussed Harper with other council members before the meeting because he remembers that at some point prior to the meeting, Cannon told him he had the votes to fire Harper. Cannon denies telling the chief he had the votes, but rather says he only said that if he had the votes he was going to fire Harper. Not even Chief Brittain's version of the conversation would support a finding that Cannon had spoken with his fellow council members about their votes.
36. No one testified that "out of the Sunshine" discussions actually took place between Cannon and any other council members. No one actually overheard such discussions. There were, of course, very vigorous discussions of the issue in the town - discussions inspired by the complaints being made, by local businessmen worried that Branford would become another "Ludowici, Georgia", and by Chief Brittain's own advocacy on Harper's behalf.
37. Some days after the meeting, back at Nell's Restaurant, Joe Pete Cannon told L. T. Chesson, Chief Brittain's father-in-law, that Fred let him down, that he wasn't happy with the way Fred was acting and that he (Fred) could be brought before the town council.
38. Cannon was upset with Chief Brittain but not because he didn't take care of Jennifer Kelley's ticket. Cannon felt he presented some town concerns to the chief and Brittain was not responsive. These were some good faith concerns that the unwritten policies of the Branford police were not being even-handedly applied. Avery got two warnings; a young woman who was a model teen and who, understandably, was described as mortified by the entire turn of events and notoriety, got no warning.
39. In summary, the abundant evidence in this proceeding fails to support a finding that Joe Pete Cannon misused his position with regard to the Jennifer Kelley ticket or the termination of Roy Harper. Rather, in response to several complaints, he approached first the police chief, then his fellow elected officials, in the appropriate forum, on an issue which he perceived to be a threat to the small town's harmony and weal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
40. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to section 120.57(1), F.S.
41. The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to the contrary, is on the party asserting the affirmative of the issue of the proceeding. Antel v. Department of Professional Regulation, 522 So2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In this proceeding, it is the Commission, through the Advocate, that is asserting the affirmative: that Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), F.S. Therefore, the burden of proving the elements of Respondent's alleged violations is on the Advocate.
42. The standard of proof applied in cases before the Ethics Commission is that charges must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Michael Langton, 14 F.A.L.R. 4175 (Ethics 1992). See also In re Leo C. Nichols, 11 F.A.L.R. 5234 (Ethics 1989).
43. Section 112.313(6), F.S., provides as follows:
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 perform his official duties, to
secure a special privilege, benefit, or
exemption for himself or others. This
section shall not be construed to conflict
with s. 104.31.
"Corruptly" is defined in section 112.312(7), F.S. as:
...done with a wrongful intent and for the
purpose of obtaining, or compensating or
receiving compensation for, any benefit
resulting from some act or omission of a
public servant which is inconsistent with
the proper performance of his public duties.
44. It is uncontroverted that Respondent, as member and president of the town council, was a public officer subject to the standards of conduct in section 112.313, F.S.
45. There is no credible evidence that Respondent acted corruptly in approaching the police chief about Jennifer Kelley's ticket. As Chief Brittain testified, there was nothing inherently wrong with the query about mitigation. Others had sought and obtained similar consideration. There is no evidence that the approach was motivated by Respondent's political cupidity or other wrongful intent. Although Respondent and Ernest Kelley were social friends it is likely that Respondent, a long-term council member, knows most of Branford's small population, and is a friend of many.
46. There is no credible evidence that Respondent acted corruptly in voting to terminate Roy Harper. By January, and perhaps as a result of the talk about Jennifer Kelley's ticket, Respondent perceived that too many tickets were being written and that there were some inconsistencies in the way traffic violations were being handled. This perception was shared by others who were concerned about the effect on the business community. Whether these concerns or perceptions were well-founded is not the subject of this proceeding. It is enough here to determine that, to Respondent, the concerns were valid, and as an elected official he needed to address them in the appropriate forum: the town council. In this regard, Respondent's actions were not even as culpable as those of the Respondent in Blackburn v. State, Comm. on Ethics, 589 So2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) who had both a personal political and legitimate governmental purpose for action deemed by the appellate court to be an insufficient basis for violation of section 112.313(6), F.S. In Blackburn, the council member directed public employees to compile a report that she used in her re-election campaign but which report also appropriately informed the public on a vital issue.
47. There is no competent evidence that Respondent violated section 112.313(6), F.S. by meeting "outside the sunshine". Section 286.011, F.S. provides that all meetings of boards, commissions, councils and the like, are public meetings, and any member who attends a non-public meeting is subject to a fine or prosecution for a misdemeanor.
48. The Advocate's case rests on testimony that Respondent and another council member spent some time together in an office in the town hall, and that even though the item was not specifically on the meeting agenda, some council members and town citizens seemed to know the Harper matter was going to be a big issue at the January 12th meeting. This frail circumstantial evidence is hardly sufficient to establish a violation when the pre-meeting notoriety is equally attributable to vigorous lobbying efforts conducted by Chief Brittain on behalf of his assistant.
49. The advocate has failed to meet his burden of proof as to any alleged violation of section 112.313(6), F.S. by Respondent Cannon.
Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby,
That the Commission on Ethics issue its final order and public report finding no violation of section 112.313(6), F.S. by Joe Pete Cannon, and dismissing the complaint.
DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 6th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Filed with the Clerk of the
Division of Administrative Hearings
this 6th day of July, 1994.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3627EC
The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to section 120.59(2), F.S., on the findings of fact proposed by each party.
The Advocate's Proposed Findings
1.-2. Adopted in paragraph 1.
3.-4. Adopted in paragraph 9.
5. Adopted in paragraph 12.
6.-7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12.
8. Rejected as unnecessary.
9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13.
10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 1.
11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14.
12. Adopted in part in paragraph 17; otherwise rejected as unnecessary.
13. Adopted in part in paragraph 15; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence.
14. Adopted in part in paragraph 18; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence.
15. Adopted in part in paragraph 16; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence.
16. Adopted in paragraph 6.
17. Adopted in paragraph 25.
18. Adopted in paragraphs 20 and 21.
19. Adopted in paragraph 23.
20. Adopted in part in paragraphs 28 and 29; otherwise rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence.
21. Adopted in part in paragraph 31; otherwise rejected as unnecessary.
22. Rejected as unnecessary.
23. Adopted in part in paragraph 34; otherwise rejected as unsupported by the evidence.
24. Adopted in part in paragraph 29; otherwise rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Cannon's version of the conversation is adopted as credible and consistent.
25. Adopted in part in paragraph 33; otherwise rejected as unnecessary.
26. Adopted in part in paragraph 36; otherwise rejected as unnecessary or contrary to the weight of evidence.
27. Adopted in part in paragraph 33; otherwise rejected as unnecessary.
28. Adopted in part in paragraph 37; otherwise rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence.
29. Rejected as utterly without credible supporting evidence.
30.-31. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence.
Respondent's Proposed Findings
A.-B. Adopted in paragraph 1.
C. Adopted in paragraph 9.
D. Adopted in part in paragraph 34; otherwise rejected as unnecessary.
E. Adopted in part in paragraph 35; otherwise rejected as unnecessary.
F.-P. These paragraphs are substantially argument, comment on the evidence and some legal authority. The findings of fact therein are substantially adopted.
Stuart F. Wilson-Patton, Esquire
Advocate for the Florida
Commission on Ethics
Office of the Attorney General
The Capitol, PL-01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
David A. Glant, Esquire
Post Office Box 2519
High Springs, Florida 32643-2519
Bonnie Williams, Executive Director
Post Office Drawer 15709
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Phil Claypool, General Counsel
Post Office Drawer 15709
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.