BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
In re WALLACE RICH, )
)
Respondent. ) Complaint
No. 89-32
) Final
Order No.COE_____
_____________________________)
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 an exception to the Recommended Public Report.
Having reviewed the Recommended Public Report, the Respondent's
exception, 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. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that, as Chief of the
Bureau of Fairs and Expositions, Florida Department of Agriculture, the
Respondent:
1. Did not violate
Section 112.313(4), Florida Statutes, by receiving complimentary electricity
and parking sites forhis motor home at fairgrounds while on State business, as
alleged.
2. Did not violate
Section 112.313(4), Florida Statutes, by accepting sexual favors provided by
fair company owners, as alleged.
3. Did not violate
Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by justifying an unnecessary out-of-state
business trip to engage in a sexual liaison, as alleged.
4. Did not violate
Section 112.313(4), Florida Statutes, by accepting $5,000 for gambling from a
fair company owner, as alleged.
5. Violated Section
112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, but did not violate Sections 112.313(4) and
112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by soliciting a $3,000 loan from a fair company
owner.
6. Did not violate
Section 112.313(4), Florida Statutes, by accepting $100 for gambling from a
fair company owner, as alleged.
7. Did not violate
Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by inspecting amusement rides at a church
carnival that was outside Department of Agriculture jurisdiction as a favor to
an amusement company owner and receiving $100 for the inspection.
8. Did not violate
Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by inspecting amusement rides at a
private carnival that was outside Department of Agriculture jurisdiction and
receiving a fee of $400 for the inspection.
9. Did not violate
Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by accepting $800 after assisting with
the 1977 Broward County Youth Fair.
10. Did not violate
Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by approving amusement rides which did
not meet standards or without thorough inspection for companies which he
favored and disapproving competitors' equipment in equal or better condition,
as alleged.
11. Did not violate
Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by lobbying the Midway Selection
Committee of the State Fair Board in favor of awarding a contract to a
particular company with which he had business and other ties, as alleged.
12. Did not violate
Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by making false statements that a company
was under investigation by the Department in order to obstruct the company's
efforts to secure a contract through the State Fair Board, as alleged.
13. Did not violate
Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by participating in a partnership to
purchase a farm in Gadsden County, Florida, with owners of fair companies.
14. Violated Section
112.3145(3)(c), Florida Statutes, by failing to report his interest in a
Gadsden County, Florida farm he held jointly with persons regulated by the
Department.
15. Violated Section
112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by entering into a contractual relationship
with Artel Shows, a business entity subject to the regulation of the
Department, to inspect amusement rides at a church carnival.
The Respondent takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion
in Issue 15 that his contractual relationship with a ride company subject to
the regulation of his agency violated the Code of Ethics for Public Officers
and Employees, arguing that he received only $100 for this work and that the
exemption provided in Section 112.313(12)(f), Florida Statutes, is
applicable. The Commission rejects this
exception, agreeing with the Hearing Officer that the exemption is not
applicable under the circumstances presented.
Having found that the Respondent violated Sections 112.313(7)(a)
and 112.3145, 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
the Respondent in the amount of $1,400.00 and that he be ordered to pay to the
State of Florida a restitution penalty in the amount of $100.00.
ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in
public session on July 19, 1991.
____________________________
Date
Rendered
____________________________
Dean Bunch
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:
Ms. Martha W. Barnett and Mr. Scott
Makar,
Attorneys for Respondent
Mr. Craig B. Willis, Commission Advocate
Mr. Norman Ostrau, Complainant