BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON
ETHICS
In re WALTER STOTESBURY, )
)
Respondent. ) Complaint
No. 89-160
)
______________________________)
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 as a member of the Gainesville-Alachua
County Regional Airport Authority he violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida
Statutes, by having or holding a contractual relationship with Kenn Air
Aviation Corporation, a business entity doing business with, and subject to the
regulation of, his public agency--the Gainesville-Alachua County Regional
Airport Authority, and by having or holding a contractual relationship with Kenneth
Brown, sole owner of Kenn Air Aviation Corporation, by virtue of his provision
of investment services.
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.
The Conclusions of Law set forth in the Recommended Public Report are
approved, adopted, and incorporated herein.
The Respondent takes exception to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact
numbered "17," "18," and "19," in the Recommended
Public Report, arguing that those factual findings are not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, that those findings are refuted by the
Respondent's Exhibit "3," that there is no testimony to corroborate
Mr. Brown's assertion that Brown was solicited or pressed, that the Respondent
denied the solicitation, and thus the Advocate has not borne his burden of
proof in regard to the facts found in those three paragraphs of the Recommended
Public Report. However, the standard
applicable to the Commission in taking its final action is whether the facts
found by the Hearing Officer are based upon competent substantial evidence, not
whether they are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The factual findings to which the Respondent
takes exception are based upon competent substantial evidence and the
proceedings upon which those findings were based did comply with essential
requirements of law. Therefore, the
Commission denies this exception of the Respondent.
The Respondent takes exception to the findings of fact of the Hearing
Officer numbered "18," and "19," in the Recommended Public
Report, arguing that those findings are not supported by a preponderance of
evidence in the record, and arguing that those findings are refuted by the
findings of fact numbered "8," in the Recommended Public Report. However, as with the previous exception, the
standard for final action of the Commission is whether the findings are based
upon competent substantial evidence, not whether they are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. Further,
the findings numbered "8" in the Recommended Public Report do not
necessarily contradict those findings numbered "18," and
"19." The findings numbered
"18" and "19" in the Recommended Public Report are based
upon competent substantial evidence and the proceedings on which the findings
were based did comply with essential requirements of law. Therefore, the Commission denies this
exception of the Respondent.
The Respondent's exceptions to the conclusions of law contained in the
Recommended Public Report are denied, as there is competent substantial
evidence to support the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, as the Hearing
Officer's conclusions of law are consistent with Sections 112.313(7)(a),
112.313(7)(b), and 112.316, Florida Statutes, and as the facts found by the
Hearing Officer do support a finding of two violations of Section
112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes.
Having found that the Respondent committed two violations of Section
112.313(7)(a), 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 the Governor impose a civil
penalty against the Respondent in the amount of $2,500 for each violation, for
a total of $5,000.
ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in public
session on June 7, 1991.
_______________________________
Date Rendered
_______________________________
Scott G. Williams
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. David D. Fuller, Jr., Attorney for
Respondent
Ms. Virlindia Doss, Commission Advocate
Mr. Kenneth P. Brown, Complainant