BEFORE
THE
STATE
OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION
ON ETHICS
In re T. BUTLER WALKER, )
)
Respondent. )
Complaint No. 92-30
)
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 January 19, 1994 by
the Division of Administrative Hearings' Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer recommends that the
Commission issue its public report and final order finding that Respondent
violated Sections 112.313(7)(a) and 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes. She also recommends a civil penalty of
$2,000. Respondent filed his exceptions
to the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law and Recommended Penalty.
Having reviewed the Recommended Order, the
Respondent's Exceptions, and the record of the public hearing of this
complaint, and having heard arguments of counsel for the Respondent and the
Commission's Advocate, the Commission makes the following findings,
conclusions, rulings, and recommendations:
STANDARDS FOR
REVIEW
Under Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Florida
Statutes, an agency may reject or modify the conclusions of law and
interpretations of administrative rules contained in the recommended
order. However, the agency may not
reject or modify findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer unless a review
of the entire record demonstrates that the findings were not based on
competent, substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings
were based did not comply with the essential requirements of law. See, e.g., Freeze v. Dept. of Business
Regulation, 556 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); and Florida Department
of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Competent, substantial evidence has been
defined by the Florida Supreme Court as such evidence as is "sufficiently
relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to
support the conclusions reached." DeGroot
v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957).
The agency may not reweigh the
evidence, resolve conflicts therein, or judge the credibility of witnesses,
because those are matters within the sole province of the hearing officer. Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation,
475 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Consequently, if the record of the DOAH proceedings discloses any
competent, substantial evidence to support a finding of fact made by the
Hearing Officer, the Commission is bound by that finding.
RULING ON RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent filed a general exception to the
Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law.
Because we conclude that the Hearing Officer's application of Sections
112.313(7)(a) and 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes, to the facts stipulated to by
the parties and found by the Hearing Officer is correct, Respondent's exception
is rejected.
Upon review of the record before us, we
conclude that the findings of the Hearing Officer are based upon competent
substantial evidence or evidence stipulated to by the Respondent and the
Advocate and that the D.O.A.H. proceedings complied with the essential
requirements of law. Therefore, the
Findings of Fact set forth in the Recommended Order are approved, adopted, and
incorporated herein by reference.
The conclusions of law are approved,
adopted, and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the Commission on Ethics finds
that the Respondent violated Sections 112.313(7)(a) and 112.3143, Florida
Statutes.
Based upon the recommendation of the
Advocate that a $500 civil penalty be imposed for Respondent's violation of
Sections 112.313(7)(a) and $1500 for his violation of Section 112.3143(3), the
Hearing Officer recommended that Respondent be required to pay a civil penalty
of $2,000. Contrary to Respondent's
claim that the recommended penalty is inconsistent with similar previous cases,
we find her recommendation to be appropriate.
Having found that the Respondent, T. Butler
Walker, as a member of the Jefferson County Commission, violated Sections
112.313(7)(a) and 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes, it is the recommendation of
the Commission on Ethics that a civil penalty of $2,000 be imposed upon the
Respondent.
ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission
on Ethics meeting in public session on June 2, 1994.
____________________________
Date
Rendered
_______________________________
Joel
K. Gustafson
Chairman
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, 2822 REMINGTON GREEN CIRCLE, SUITE 101, P.O. DRAWER 15709, TALLAHASSEE,
FLORIDA 32317-5709; 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.
cc: Mr. Mark S. Levine, Attorney for Respondent
Mr. Stuart Wilson-Patton, Commission
Advocate
Mr. David Mignano, Complainant
Honorable Susan B. Kirkland, Hearing
Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings