BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON
ETHICS
In
re ROBERT HILL, )
)
Respondent. ) Complaint No. 90-32
)
______________________________)
RECOMMENDED PUBLIC
REPORT OF HEARING OFFICER
INTRODUCTION
This matter was
initiated upon the filing of a complaint by Laban Bontrager, who alleged that
the Respondent, Robert Hill, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, of
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 following issue:
Whether
the Respondent corruptly misused his official position by having his
sister-in-law hired as a teacher of Business Education knowing that she was not
qualified.
A public hearing
was held on Wednesday, October 31, 1990, in Tallahassee, 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; the
Respondent was represented by Kenneth L. Hosford, Esquire, and Charles T.
"Chip" Collette, Esquire.
At the public
hearing the Advocate called the following witnesses: Shirley Bateman, Sheila Shelton, Judy Franklin, Richard Stallworth,
Laban Bontrager, Linda Sue Bontrager, Johnette Wahlquist, Herbert Whitaker, and
Tommy Dugger. The Respondentcalled the
following witnesses: Robert Hill,
Winifred Brown, Yvonne Watson, Anthony Anderson, Joe Combs, Michael Wahlquist,
and Janna Hill. Lamar Ford also offered
sworn testimony, solicited by the Hearing Officer. Various exhibits presented by the parties were received in
evidence.
The Advocate and
the Respondent both waived the filing of proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. References to the
transcript of the hearing are denoted by the letter "T", followed by
the page number; references to the Advocate's and the Respondent's exhibits are
made as "AE" and "RE" respectively, followed by the exhibit
number and page number, if applicable.
From the evidence
presented at the hearing, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds as follows:
1. The Respondent, Robert Hill, took office as
Superintendent of Schools for Liberty County in January, 1989, and presently
serves in that capacity. T 35.
2. During the period May 22 through June 2, 1989,
the Liberty County School District sought applications for the position of
Business Education Teacher for Liberty County High School. According to the Job Offering Announcement,
applicants must have a four year degree with certification in the area of
business education, and provide three written references. AE1.
3. There were three applicants for the
position. One of the applicants was
Johnette Wahlquist, the Respondent's sister-in-law, his wife's sister. The other two applicants were Traycee Cherry
and Twila Sanders. T209.
4. The Respondent consulted the High School
Principal, who in turn had consulted the retiring business education teacher,
prior to recommending to the School Board that they offer the position to
Johnette Wahlquist. T210-212,238.
5. The School Board voted unanimously on June 13,
1989, to accept the Respondent's nomination of Johnette Wahlquist for the
position. AE2.
6. There was considerable testimony concerning
the Department of Education's certification process for Florida teachers. There are two types of certification
possible. A person with a college
degree may obtain a general teaching certificate in a specific area. A person who does not have a college degree
but who has applicable work experience which can be documented, may obtain a
vocational certificate which permits them to teach in that particular area. Generally, an individual with a four year
degree would not apply for a vocational certificate because of the extensive
documentation involved and the requirement that the individual obtain
additional training to work with students.
T47,62,66,75-76.
7. Although the Job Offering announcement stated
that a four year degree was required with certification in the area of business
education, a person without a degree possessing a vocational certification
would be eligible to teach business education under Department of Education
guidelines. T67. The only way the School District could have
filled the position with an individual not having a four year degree would have
been if none of the applicants had had four year degrees. T49,67,178-179. Both Twila Sanders and Traycee Cherry had four year degrees. AE4 and AE5.
8. Whether or not Johnette Wahlquist had a four
year degree was a topic of conversation among several employees in the School
District office. Several employees
testified that after seeing Johnette Wahlquist's name on a Department of
Education computer printout as having made application for a vocational
certificate, they discussed the matter among themselves. T74-75.
None of the employees who testified on this issue discussed the matter
or its significance with the Respondent, or brought it to his attention in any
way. T44,65,87,94-95.
9. On July 19, 1989, a letter signed by a
"Johnathon French" appeared in the local newspaper, a weekly paper
known as the "Weekly Journal."
The letter criticized the Respondent for certain actions taken as
Superintendent of Schools, including but not limited to the hiring of
unqualified relatives for teaching positions in Liberty County. AE7.
10. School District employee Sheila Shelton saw
Laban Bontrager at a wedding on July 22, 1989, and engaged in a casual
conversation with him about the topics raised in the "Johnathon
French" letter. She informed him
that she had seen Johnette Wahlquist's name on a Department of Education
computer printout as having applied for a vocational certificate, and that she had
concluded that Johnette Wahlquist must not have a four year degree. T71,78.
11. After the letter appeared in the Weekly
Journal, the Respondent discovered that the true author of the letter was Laban
Bontrager. On July 23, 1989, the Respondent
and his wife, Janna, called upon Laban
Bontrager and his wife, Linda, at the Bontrager residence. Upon being confronted, Laban Bontrager
admitted that he had written the letter in the Weekly Journal. In the discussion which followed, Laban Bontrager
indicated that his letter was referring to the hiring of Respondent's
sister-in-law, Johnette Wahlquist.
T99-100. There was conflicting
testimony about whether the Respondent advised Laban Bontrager that Johnette
Wahlquist had applied for vocational certification or general teacher
certification from the Department of Education. T100,107,113,128,135.
Based upon the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, I find that
the Respondent did not tell Laban Bontrager that Johnette Wahlquist had applied
for a vocational certificate, but that he did indicate that Johnette Wahlquist
had a four year degree in business education from Florida A. & M.
University. T143.
12. Convinced that he had erred concerning Johnette
Wahlquist's qualifications, Laban Bontrager offered to write a letter of
retraction for the newspaper. He also
telephoned Johnette Wahlquist following the meeting and apologized to her
personally. T103-104.
13. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent had occasion
to talk with Johnette Wahlquist, and questioned her as to whether she had a
degree from Florida A. & M. University.
She responded that she did.
T165. Thereafter Johnette
Wahlquist forged a diploma and transcript using those of Vanessa Ford as a
basis, unbeknownst to Vanessa Ford.
T166-169.
14. After fabricating the documents, Johnette
Wahlquist left copies of the documents on the Respondent's desk in his
office. T169. He was not present when she left them there, but later noticed
them. They confirmed what the
Respondent believed: that Johnette Wahlquist had a degree from Florida A. &
M. University. The Respondent also was
impressed by Johnette Wahlquist's supposed grade point average of 3.54. T218.
15. Armed with this evidence of Johnette
Wahlquist's qualifications, the Respondent hastened to show it to Laban
Bontrager. T218. He left copies of the documents at Laban
Bontrager's office on July 26, 1989.
T119. After a cursory
examination, Laban Bontrager undertook a more extensive investigation of the
documents. T104-106. He placed telephone calls to the registrars
at Chipola Junior College and Florida A. & M. University. He later travelled to Tallahassee to meet
with the registrar at Florida A. & M.
He became convinced that the documents were forgeries, and thereupon met
with the State Attorney on July 28, 1989.
T121-124.
16. As a part of the State Attorney's investigation
into the matter, Laban Bontrager agreed to assist the investigator by
permitting a secret video tape to be made of his meeting with the Respondent on
August 10, 1989. T128. At that time, Laban Bontrager confronted the
Respondent with the fact that the documents were forgeries. The Respondent's reaction and ensuing
behavior were consistent with that of a person who had just received devastating
information.
17. There was substantial evidence that Johnette
Wahlquist had taken considerable measures to convince her family that she was
enrolled in college, then in an internship at a Tallahassee high school, and,
finally, had graduated from college.
All of the family members who testified as witnesses, including her
husband, were convinced that she had
graduated until they learned otherwise as a result of the investigation by the
State Attorney's Office.
18. There was conflicting testimony about whether
Johnette Wahlquist's diploma was shown to School Board members prior to their
vote to hire Johnette Wahlquist on June 13, 1989. Considering the demeanor of the witnesses and the totality of the
evidence, however, I find that the document was not forged until sometime after
she was hired, and thus did not exist at the time the School Board voted to
hire her on June 13, 1989.
19. Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for
the Respondent to believe that Johnette Wahlquist had a degree in business
education. The Respondent properly
processed her application and did not take part in or know about her fraudulent
activities until after she was hired by the School Board.
PRIMARY
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Section 112.313(6),
Florida Statutes, provides:
MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION.--No public
officer or employee of an agency shall corruptly 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 statute, the term "corruptly" is defined by Section 112.312(7),
Florida Statutes, 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.
Based on the
foregoing findings of fact, the undersigned Hearing Officer recommends that the
Commission on Ethics make the following conclusions of law:
1. The Respondent, Robert Hill, as the
Superintendent of Schools for Liberty County at all times material to this
complaint was a public officer subject to the provisions of the Code of Ethics
for Public Officers and Employees contained in Part III, Chapter 112, Florida
Statutes. The Respondent is subject to
the continuing jurisdiction of the State of Florida Commission on Ethics.
2. With respect to an alleged violation of
Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, the Advocate must establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that:
a. The Respondent was either a public officer or
a public employee;
b. The Respondent used or attempted to use his
official position or property or resources within his trust, or performed his
official duties.
c. The Respondent's actions were done with an
intent to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself or
others; and
d. The Respondent's actions were done
"corruptly," that is,
(1) done with a wrongful intent, and
(2) done for the purpose of benefiting himself
or another from some act or omission which was inconsistent with the proper
performance of public duties.
3. As Superintendent of Schools, the Respondent
used his public position and performed his official duties when he recommended
that the School Board hire Johnette Wahlquist.
4. Through being hired into a position for which
she was not qualified, Johnette Wahlquist received a special privilege or
benefit, that is, one to which she was not entitled.
5. However, in order to prove that the Respondent
acted corruptly, it would have to be established by a preponderance of the
evidence that, at the time the Respondent recommended to the School Board that
Johnette Wahlquist be hired as the Business Education teacher, he knew she did
not have the necessary qualifications.
Without knowledge of her lack of qualifications, it cannot be shown that
the Respondent intended to secure a special privilege or benefit for her or
that he acted for the purpose of benefiting her.
6. The evidence clearly established that the
Respondent did not know that his sister-in-law, Johnette Wahlquist, did not
possess the necessary qualifications to hold the position of Business Education
Teacher in the Liberty County schools.
Without this knowledge, there is no way to find that the Respondent
acted corruptly in recommending to the School Board that she be hired for the
position.
7. Accordingly, the Respondent did not violate
Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by corruptly using his official position
as Superintendent of Schools for Liberty County to hire his sister-in-law,
Johnette Wahlquist, for the position of Business Education Teacher, knowing
that she was unqualified to hold the position.
Based on 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, Robert Hill, did not violate Section
112.313(6), Florida Statutes, through using his official position as
Superintendent of Schools for Liberty County to recommend the hiring of his
sister-in-law, Johnette Wahlquist, for the position of Business Education
Teacher, knowing that she was unqualified to hold the position as alleged.
ENTERED and
respectfully submitted this 7th day of January, 1991.
__________________________
Stephen N. Zack
Hearing Officer and
Member
Commission on
Ethics
Copies furnished
to:
Mr. Kenneth L.
Hosford, Attorney for Respondent
Mr. Charles T.
"Chip" Collette, Attorney for Respondent
Mr. Craig B.
Willis, Commission Advocate