BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
In re LOUISE BLACKBURN,
)
)
Respondent. ) Complaint
Nos. 88-53
) and 88-100
_____________________________)
(Consolidated)
RECOMMENDED PUBLIC REPORT OF HEARING OFFICER
This matter was initiated by the filing of a complaint alleging
that the Respondent, Louise Blackburn, violated the Code of Ethics for Public
Officers and Employees. Following a
preliminary investigation, the Commission on Ethics found probable cause and
ordered a public hearing on the issue of whether the Respondent, while serving
as County Commissioner for Gadsden County, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida
Statutes, by using county employees and equipment to write and type an article
which was used as a campaign advertisement.
A public hearing was held
on Friday, May 26, 1989 in the City of Quincy, Florida, before the undersigned
member of the Commission on Ethics, who served as Hearing Officer for the
Commission. Craig B. Willis, Assistant
Attorney General, appeared as Advocate for the Commission, and Hal Richmond,
Esquire, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
At the hearing the Advocate called the following witnesses: Louise Blackburn, Charles LaCroix, Caroline
Wise, and E. W. Lee. Advocate's Exhibits 1 and 2 were received into
evidence. The Respondent called Don
Vickers and made herself available for questioning by the Hearing Officer. No exhibits were proffered by the
Respondent. By agreement, the parties
did not submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
References to the transcript of the hearing are denoted by the
letter "T", and references to the Advocate's exhibits are denoted by
"AE", followed by the applicable exhibit or page number.
FINDINGS OF FACT
From the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned
Hearing Officer finds as follows:
1. The Respondent, Louise
Blackburn, served as a member of the Gadsden County Board of County
Commissioners at all times material to this complaint. T 14; 16-18.
2. During the time
Respondent was on the County Commission, a dispute arose between the Commission
and the citizens of the County concerning the need for mandatory garbage
pickup. T 14-16; 25; 27.
3. In the past, many
citizens had taken their garbage to centrally located disposal sites, which had
become eyesores. T 26. Also, many citizens had merely dumped
garbage at unauthorized locations in the County. T 75.
4. In response to this
problem, the County Commission adopted an ordinance requiring each county
resident to subscribe to and pay for mandatory garbage pickup. T 15; 25-26.
5. This ordinance was a highly volatile issue in that some citizens
strongly disagreed with the Respondent's support of the ordinance. T 16; 25.
Against this background, the Respondent faced a reelection contest in
which the garbage ordinance was a major issue.
T 14-17.
6. During the campaign, the
Respondent went for assistance to George LaCroix. T 16-18. Mr. LaCroix was
the Director of Planning and Zoning for the County. T 18; 20. While in his
office, the Respondent asked him to prepare a document for her use. T 17; 27.
7. The request was made to
Mr. LaCroix during his working hours and within the scope of his job duties
with the County. He understood the
request to be an official request from a County Commissioner, with which he complied. T 26-29.
8. The nature of the
document and its intended use were in dispute.
Respondent contended that the document she asked LaCroix to prepare was
merely to provide her with information which she could use, as a County Commissioner,
to respond to questions about the garbage issue. T-22. She also appeared
to contend that the article in the newspaper was an attempt to keep the public
informed about a particular issue, rather than a campaign advertisement. T
32-33.
9. With respect to the
article's intended use, the Respondent admitted that subsequent to her original
request for the information, she went back to Mr. LaCroix and asked that he
complete the article because the deadline for advertisements for the paper was
approaching and she wanted to put it in the paper. T 76-78. The Respondent
also admitted that she made political speeches using the material, and then
used it in the newspaper
advertisement. T 71-72.
10. In reference to the
article's nature, the Respondent sought to liken her request to Mr. LaCroix to
the request of a public official or a member of the public who seeks
information from a public agency about a matter of public concern. Since the information in the article was
public, she argues, she did not receive anything that any member of the public
could not receive upon a similar request.
T 40-41.
11. The article which Mr.
LaCroix provided to the Respondent, however, is not merely a compilation of
public information. Rather, it contains
statements of opinion favoring the garbage ordinance. In fact, Mr. LaCroix did not know some of the pertinent
information and left blanks in the article.
For example, a blank was left where the Respondent could fill in the
cost of complying with the Department of Environmental Regulation requirement. AE 1; T 50-51. The Respondent then went to another County employee, Bill Lee,
and got this specific information. T
72-73.
12. The tenor of this
article, which was used virtually verbatim in the newspaper advertisement, was
persuasive rather than simply informational.
It clearly is an attempt to persuade the reader that the decision on the
garbage ordinance was the correct decision.
For example, the last paragraph of the document Mr. LaCroix gave to the
Respondent states:
Good logic and vision in the future on such subjects are not easy,
the way we dealt with garbage 17 to 18 years ago no longer fits today's
conditions. The Board had no choice but
to improve the garbage situation and a big majority of you people are proud of
this improvement.
AE 1.
13. The paper given to the
Respondent by Mr. LaCroix is in the form of a written advertisement or speech
which espoused and forcefully argued in favor of the garbage ordinance,
attempting to explain why it was good for the County. AE 1. It therefore is not
credible that any member of the public could have Mr. LaCroix prepare a similar
article. (See T 51-52). Nor is it credible, in light of the fact that
the article was used for the Respondent's private political campaign, that
preparation of such an article was part of the normal duties of Mr. LaCroix's
position. (See T 43).
14. In reference to the
implication that the article placed in the newspaper was to provide information
to the public, rather than merely a campaign advertisement, (See T 32-33) it is
noted that the article requests the reader to "keep Louise Blackburn
working," states that she is a candidate for County Commissioner, and has
a notation that it is a paid political advertisement under the Respondent's
picture. It therefore appears that the
article was a campaign advertisement seeking political support for the
Respondent. AE 2.
Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, states:
MISUSE OF PUBLIC
POSITION.--No public officer or employee of an agency shall 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.
For purposes of this provision, the term "corruptly" is
defined as follows:
'Corruptly' means 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. [Section 112.312(7), Florida
Statutes.]
Based upon the above findings of fact, the Hearing Officer
recommends that the Commission on Ethics make the following conclusions of law:
1. The Respondent, Louise
Blackburn, in that she was a County Commissioner for the Gadsden County, was
subject to the provisions of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and
Employees contained in Part III of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, during the
period relevant to the actions at issue in this proceeding. She therefore is subject to the jurisdiction
of the State of Florida Commission on Ethics.
2. With respect to the
alleged violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, it must be
established by a preponderance of the evidence that:
a. The Respondent must be or
have been a public officer or public employee during the period when the
alleged violation occurred.
b. The Respondent must have
used or attempted to use her official position or property or resources within
her trust, or performed her official duties.
c. The Respondent's actions
in element (b) must have been done with an intent to secure a special benefit,
privilege or exemption for herself or others.
d. The Respondent's action
and intent in elements (b) and (c) must have been done corruptly, i.e.,
i. done with a wrongful
intent
ii. done for the purpose of benefiting from some
act or omission which is inconsistent with the proper performance of public
duties.
3. The Respondent was a
County Commissioner for Gadsden County at the time she asked Mr. LaCroix to
prepare an article for publication in the newspaper. Therefore, the Respondent was a public officer at the time of the
alleged violation, and subject to the provisions of Section 112.313(6), Florida
Statutes.
4. The Respondent used her
official position in requesting that Mr. LaCroix prepare an article for
publication in the paper. She went to
Mr. LaCroix in her capacity as a County Commissioner, and he understood her
request to be made within that capacity.
5. In addition, the
Respondent is deemed to have used resources within her trust as a Commissioner,
in that it is reasonable to assume that she knew and in fact intended that Mr.
LaCroix would use his public working hours as well as public office supplies
and equipment to comply with her request.
6. The completion of the
article for use in the Respondent's campaign constituted a special benefit to
her. The article cannot accurately be
likened to a request of a public official or member of the public who seeks
information from a public agency about a matter of public concern. Rather, this article was full of statements
of opinion favoring the garbage ordinance and had the format of a political
speech.
7. The Respondent argues
that since the information in the article was public, she could not have
received a special benefit from Mr. LaCroix's having provided it to her. If Mr. LaCroix had only provided
information, this might have been true.
For example, if a member of the public had sought information concerning
the amount of fees which had been collected under the ordinance, or the tons of
garbage, or other such information to which Mr. LaCroix had access, then the
provision of such information would not have been a special benefit, and
Respondent would have been free to use it in her campaign, just as her opponent
would have been free to use it in campaigning against her. Despite her protestations to the contrary,
that is not was Respondent sought and that is not what she received. She sought from Mr. LaCroix an article that
she intended to use for political speeches and for a political advertisement in
the newspaper. This was a special
benefit and involved using a County employee's time for a private political
purpose.
8. It is noted that a
Respondent might have requested a public employee to prepare a speech, or
"talking paper" which she intended to use for speeches given within
her official capacity as a County Commissioner. This was not the case with the Respondent's request to Mr.
LaCroix, however, as the evidence establishes that the Respondent requested
that he prepare the article specifically for her use in her private political
campaign.
9. In that the Respondent
asked a County employee to prepare an article which she intended to use for
political speeches and as a campaign advertisement, the Respondent acted in
manner which was inconsistent with her public duties. Her intent to use the article in her campaign was wrongful within
the meaning of Section 112.312(7), Florida Statutes.
10. It is thus concluded
that the Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes.
Having concluded that the elements of the offense have been
proven, it is necessary to consider an appropriate penalty for the offense:
1. The ordinance on garbage
disposal was a hotly contested issue and Respondent sensed that she was in a
battle for political survival which she ultimately lost. Further, it is recognized that she was
convinced that her position was correct and that to allow the past situation to
continue would have resulted in environmental disaster for the County. However, the situation in which she found
herself does not justify the use of County personnel for an overtly political
purpose.
2. It is therefore recommended that a civil penalty be imposed against
the Respondent in the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
the undersigned Hearing Officer recommends that the Commission on Ethics enter
a final order and public report finding that the Respondent, Louise Blackburn,
has violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, and recommending that a
civil penalty be imposed upon the her in the amount of two hundred and fifty
dollars ($250.00).
ENTERED and respectfully submitted this ___ day of August, 1989.
______________________________
Dean Bunch
Hearing Officer and Member
Commission on Ethics
Copies furnished to:
Mr. Hal Richmond, Attorney for the Respondent
Mr. Craig Willis, Advocate for the Commission
Mr. L. L. Shaw, Complainant