BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
In re MICHAEL W. KENTON, )
)
Respondent. ) Complaint No. 87-41
)
)
_______________________________)
FINAL ORDER AND PUBLIC REPORT
This
matter came before the Commission on Ethics for final action on review of the
Recommended Public Report of the Hearing Officer (a copy of which is attached
and incorporated by reference). The
Respondent filed exceptions to the Recommended Public Report, which recommends
that the Commission find that he violated Sections 112.313(6), 112.313(7), and
112.313(8), Florida Statutes.
Having reviewed the Recommended Public Report, the Respondent's
exceptions, and the record of the public hearing of this complaint, and having
heard the arguments of counsel for the Respondent and of the Commission's
Advocate, the Commission makes the following findings, conclusions, rulings,
and recommendation:
The
findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Public Report are approved,
adopted, and incorporated herein, with the following two exceptions.
The
third sentence of paragraph 60 of the Hearing Officer's findings of fact
states: "It seems reasonable to
conclude that it was not likely that they could get financing until the time
came to arrange for the closing on the property." Based on a review of Advocate's Exhibit 29,
the word "financing" relates to an anticipated acquisition and
development loan, so the finding of fact is modified to read: "It seems reasonable to conclude that
itwas not likely that they could get acquisition and development financing
until the time came to arrange for the closing on the property."
The
third sentence of paragraph 64 of the Hearing Officer's findings of fact states
that the Semblers' attorneys advised the Respondent that he was an equitable
owner of the property. However, the
record indicates that only one of the Semblers' attorneys gave this
advice. Therefore, that sentence is
modified to read: "At that
meeting, the Semblers' attorney advised the Respondent that he was an equitable
owner of the property."
The
Conclusions of Law set forth in the Recommended Public Report are approved,
adopted, and incorporated herein.
The
Respondent's exception (number 7) to paragraph 60 of the findings of fact
contained in the Recommended Public Report is adopted to the extent it relates
to "financing," as noted above.
The Respondent's exception (number 8) to paragraph 64 of the findings of
fact is adopted to the extent it relates to whether it was one or more of the
Semblers' attorneys who advised the Respondent, as noted above.
The
remainder of the Respondent's exceptions to the Hearing Officer's findings of
fact are denied for the following reasons.
Exception 1 is rejected as it does not contend that any finding of fact
is not supported by competent, substantial evidence and as it fails to refer to
any particular finding. Exception 2 is
denied as it does not disagree with the facts found, but rather asks that
additional facts be found, and as it is not relevant. Exception 3 is rejected as there is competent, substantial
evidence in the record to support the findings referenced therein. Exception 4 is rejected for the same reasons
and because it is not a proper exception.
Exception 5 is rejected, as there is competent, substantial evidence in
the record to support the challenged findings.
Exception 6 is rejected, as Hearing Officer's finding 58 is not
necessarily inconsistent with finding 66.
Exception 7 is rejected, except to the extent noted above, as not
stating a proper ground for an exception.
Except to the extent noted above, exception 8 is rejected as not stating
a proper ground for an exception.
Exception 9 is rejected, as there is competent, substantial evidence to
support the Hearing Officer's findings.
Exception 10 is rejected, as it does not point out anything that is not
supported by the record.
The
Respondent's exceptions to the conclusions of law recommended by the Hearing
Officer are rejected, as are the Respondent's exceptions to the penalties
recommended by the Hearing Officer.
Having found that the Respondent, Michael W. Kenton, as Assistant
Director of Planning and Urban Development/Environmental Management for the
City of Clearwater, violated Sections 112.313(6), 112.313(7), and 112.313(8),
Florida Statutes, as described in the Recommended Public Report, pursuant to
Sections 112.317(1) and 112.324(4), Florida Statutes, it is the recommendation
of the Commission on Ethics that a civil penalty be imposed upon him in the
amount of $5,000.00 per violation, for a total of $15,000.00, and that he be
ordered to pay a restitution penalty in the amount of $199,985.00 to the State
of Florida.
ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in public
session on October 26, 1989.
_______________________________
Date Rendered
_______________________________
Karen M. Margulies
Vice Chairman
Commission
on Ethics
THIS ORDER CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION. ANY PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS
ORDER HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA
STATUTES, BY FILING A NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PURSUANT TO RULE 9.110,
FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, WITH THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION ON
ETHICS, 2107 THE CAPITOL, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
32399-1450; AND BY FILING A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL ACCOMPANIED BY
THE APPLICABLE FILING FEES WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. THE NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL MUST BE
FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS ORDER IS RENDERED.
Copies furnished to:
Mr.
Kenneth L. Connor and Ms. Debra A. Zappi,
Attorneys for Respondent
Mr.
Craig B. Willis, Commission Advocate
Mr.
Harrison C. Thompson, Attorney for Complainant