BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
In re FREDDIE LEE CRAWFORD, )
)
Respondent. ) Complaint
No. 90-12
) Final
Order No. COE ____
)
_____________________________)
FINAL ORDER AND PUBLIC REPORT
This matter came before the Commission on Ethics on the
Recommended Order rendered in this matter on September 11, 1992, by the
Division of Administrative Hearings (a copy of which is attached and
incorporated herein by reference). The
Hearing Officer recommends that the Commission find that Respondent violated
Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes.
Respondent filed exceptions.
Having reviewed the Recommended Order, 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 the Commission's
Advocate, the Commission makes the following findings, conclusions, rulings and
recommendations:
Rulings on Respondent's Exceptions
To Findings of Fact
1. Respondent excepts to the
Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact in paragraph 29 of the Recommended
Order. Respondent argues that BABCCAZ
stands for the Black Arts Board of the "Caleb" Cultural Arts Zone. The Commission Advocate agrees with the
Respondent's exception. Respondent's
exception, therefore, is accepted. See
Tr. pp. 162 and 187.
2. Respondent also excepts
to paragraphs 33, 41, 44, 45, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 57 of the Hearing
Officer's Recommended Order. For the
reasons stated in the Response To The Respondent's Exceptions prepared by the
Advocate for the Commission (a copy of which is attached and incorporated by
reference), which the Commission adopts herein, the Commission rejects the
Respondent's exceptions.
Rulings on Respondent's Exceptions
To Conclusions of Law
3. Respondent excepts to
that portion of the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law entitled
"Jurisdiction and Burden of Proof." Respondent asserts that by applying the "preponderance of
evidence" standard in this proceeding, the Hearing Officer applied the
wrong standard of proof. Respondent
contends that the Hearing Officer was required by Section 120.57(10), Florida
Statutes, to apply a "substantial, competent evidence standard." Respondent's exception is rejected. The Hearing Officer applied the correct
standard of proof.
4. Respondent takes
exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that he violated Section
112.313(6), Florida Statutes, arguing essentially that the Findings of Fact and
the Hearing Officer's analysis do not form a sufficient basis from which to
reach the conclusion that he acted "corruptly" or in a manner that
was inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties. However, we find that the facts as found by
the Hearing Officer support the conclusions reached by him, and his analysis of
the issues was correct.
The Findings of Fact set forth in the Recommended Order are
approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference.
The Conclusions of Law as set forth in the Recommended Order are
approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the Commission on Ethics finds that the Respondent,
violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes.
The Hearing Officer recommended that the the Respondent be
required to make restitution of the $5,856.00 of services the Corporation was
provided. However, we find that because
the services also benefitted the Caleb Center which continues to benefit from
those services, we find that Mr. Crawford should be required to make
restitution of one-half of the value of the services provided, or $2,928.00.
ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in
public session on Thursday, December 3, 1992.
____________________________
Date
_______________________________
Stephen N. Zack
Chairman
YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED, PURSUANT TO SECTION
120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ORDER WHICH ADVERSELY
AFFECTS YOU. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE
COMMENCED BY FILING A NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL WITH THE APPROPRIATE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, AND ARE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA
RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. THE
NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF
THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.
cc: Ms. Margaret A. McCall,
Attorney for Respondent
Ms. Virlindia Doss,
Commission Advocate
Ms. Gertrude M.
Novicki, Complainant
Division of
Administrative Hearings