STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
RICHARD GLASS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case
No. 98-2079FE
)
EILEEN MORAN, )
)
Respondent. )
_________________________________)
Pursuant to notice,
the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Administrative
Law Judge, Carolyn S. Holifield, held a formal hearing by videoconference on
October 12 and 13, 1998, between Tallahassee and Miami, Florida. The parties, their counsel, witnesses, and
the court reporter participated from Miami, Florida; the judge presided from
Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For
Petitioner: Charles R. Rowe, Esquire
1310
North Krome Avenue
Homestead,
Florida 33030
For Respondent: Charles G. White, Esquire
2250
Southwest Third Avenue
Suite
150
Miami, Florida 33129
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUES
Whether Petitioner
is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs against Respondent and, if so,
in what amount.
PRELIMINARY
STATEMENT
On or about August
7, 1996, Respondent, Eileen Moran, filed a complaint (Complaint) with the State
of Florida, Commission on Ethics (Ethics Commission) against Petitioner,
Richard Glass. Respondent filed
amendments to the Complaint on November 1, 1996, and on May 19, 1997. The matters alleged in the Complaint and the
amendments thereto were investigated.
On January 27, 1998, the Ethics Commission issued a Public Report which
found no probable cause to believe that Petitioner violated the Code of Ethics
for Public Employees and Officers (Code of Ethics) and dismissed the Complaint
as amended. On February 26, 1998,
Petitioner filed a Petition for Costs and Attorney's Fees.
On or about April
29, 1998, the Ethics Commission forwarded the matter to the Division of
Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to
conduct the hearing and prepare a recommended order. A Notice of Hearing issued
June 12, 1998, set
the final hearing for July 22, 1998.
Subsequently, two unopposed motions by Respondent to continue the
hearing were granted. Thereafter, the
final hearing was conducted as noticed in the Notice of Hearing issued on September 10, 1998.
On September 24,
1998, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss.
At commencement of the final hearing, argument was heard on the Motion
to Dismiss. A ruling on the Motion was
reserved but is addressed below in this recommended order.
Prior to the final
hearing, the parties stipulated to facts which were admitted and required no
proof. At the hearing, Petitioner
called eight witnesses: Respondent,
Eileen Moran; Wayne Maxwell; Leroy Williams, Richard Glass; Jose Abreu; John
Martinez; Paul Palmer; and Gus Pego.
Petitioner had twenty exhibits received into evidence. Respondent testified on her own
behalf and called
two witnesses, Jose Abreu and Maria Lopez.
Respondent had one exhibit received into evidence.
On October 23,
1998, Petitioner, with the agreement of Respondent, requested an extension of
time in which to file proposed recommended orders. The motion was granted and, thereafter, both parties filed
proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. Respondent also submitted written closing argument. The proceeding was recorded and transcript
of the first and second day of the hearing were filed on November 23, 1998, and
December 24, 1998, respectively, after post-hearing submittals were filed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In
July 1995, Petitioner, Richard Glass, resigned as the Right-of-Way
Administrator for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), District VI,
in Miami, Florida. He immediately
opened his own consulting firm called, Glass Land Acquisition Service
Specialists, Inc. (Glass Acquisition, Inc.) and employed his mother, Josephine
Glass, as a principal in the company.
2. In
February or March 1996, FDOT awarded Glass Acquisition, Inc., a professional
services contract (Contract), under which Petitioner's company would provide
services related to the acquisition of property for FDOT. The Contract was executed in June 1996. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, Glass
Acquisition, Inc., would be assigned projects as they became available and at
the discretion of FDOT, and up to a value of $500,000.00 without the necessity
of any further bidding. Among the
unsuccessful competitors for this contract were Kaiser Real Estate Services and
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc.
3.
Bids or proposals submitted by competing consultants for the Contract
were first reviewed by FDOT's technical review committee. Richard Lineberger was a member of that
committee which reviewed the bids or proposals submitted by Glass Acquisition,
Inc., Kaiser Real Estate Services, and Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan,
Inc. At the time that Lineberger served on the technical review committee, he
was living with Martha Budney, but they
were not married.
4. At
the time the aforementioned bids or proposals were being reviewed and
considered by FDOT, Martha Budney was a real estate appraiser who shared office
space with Glass Acquisition, Inc. Ms.
Budney was not associated with Glass Acquisition, Inc. However, Ms. Budney owned her own company
and Richard Glass was a vice-president of Ms. Budney's company.
5.
When the final decision at FDOT on the Contract award was made, Gus Pego
was employed by FDOT as Director of Operations.
6.
When the FDOT was reviewing bids or proposals relevant to the Contract,
Gus Pego's brother was married to Richard Glass' sister.
7.
During the first half of 1996, Richard Glass was hired by the Turnberry
Group to represent them in negotiations with FDOT for the acquisition of
certain properties. These negotiations
required the services of an appraiser.
Martha Budney was the appraiser selected or hired to represent the
property owners. For providing these
appraisal services, Ms. Budney was
paid by FDOT. During these
negotiations, Ms. Budney and
Petitioner shared office space. Richard
Lineberger represented FDOT in the negotiations between the Turnberry Group and
FDOT. While these negotiations were
taking place, Ms. Budney and Mr. Lineberger were living together.
8.
In light of Petitioner's recent employment with the FDOT, the
professional relationship of Petitioner and Ms. Budney, the personal
relationship of Ms. Budney and Mr. Lineberger, and the "in-law" relationship
between Gus Pego and Petitioner, some former and current FDOT employees were
concerned that the Contract award to Glass Acquisition, Inc., was
improper. They believed that these
various relationships created a conflict of interest.
9.
In July 1996, after the Contract was awarded to Glass Acquisition, Inc.,
Jackie Yanks Gonzalez, a former FDOT employee and an employee of Kaiser Real
Estate Services, contacted Maria Lopez, an acquisitions agent for FDOT who was
working on the Turnberry Group Project.
Ms. Gonzalez told Ms. Lopez that her employer was concerned because of
the appearance of nepotism in the award of the $500,000.00 Contract to Glass
Acquisition, Inc.
10. Moreover, after the Contract was awarded, an
anonymous telephone call was made to FDOT to complain about the Contract
award. An inquiry into the matter by
the FDOT in Tallahassee, Florida concluded that there was no impropriety in the
awarding of the Contract to Glass Acquisition, Inc.
11. Notwithstanding the finding of the FDOT that
there was no impropriety in the awarding of the Contract to Glass Acquisition,
Inc., several individuals, both former and current FDOT employees (the Group)
remained concerned that the award of the Contract was improper. Although some of these individuals, particularly current FDOT employees,
believed or suspected that there was some impropriety in the Contract award,
they declined to press forward with the matter for fear of retaliation.
12. One member of the Group, Maria Lopez,
eventually became acquainted with Respondent, Eileen Moran. At that time and at all times relevant to
this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an investigator with the Real
Estate Section of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation
(DBPR). Prior to Respondent's
employment with DBPR, she had been employed by the FDOT. Respondent's employment with the FDOT
terminated in March 1992, after she was fired.
Subsequently, Respondent filed a civil action in federal court against
FDOT. Respondent prevailed in that
matter.
13. Ms. Lopez and other members of the Group
approached Respondent for assistance in filing complaints with the Ethics
Commission against several former and current FDOT employees. Ms. Lopez provided Respondent with information
Lopez thought was relevant to the Group's belief that the Contract award to
Glass Acquisition, Inc., was improper.
At the time Ms. Lopez provided this information to Respondent, Ms. Lopez
believed it was true, either based on her personal knowledge of its truth or on
her belief that she obtained the information from reliable sources. That information included:
(a) That Richard Lineberger was living with
Martha Budney.
(b) That Martha Budney was sharing office space
with Richard Glass.
(c) That Petitioner was an officer in Martha
Budney's corporation.
(d) That Petitioner had hired Martha Budney to do
appraisal work with the Turnberry Group.
(e) That Richard Lineberger was representing FDOT
in the Turnberry Group negotiation process.
(f) That Gus Pego was an "in-law" of
Richard Glass.
(g) That Gus Pego's "in-law"
relationship with Petitioner made Petitioner's mother, Josephine Glass, Gus
Pego's mother-in-law. (Respondent
interpreted the "in-law"
relationship between Gus Pego and Petitioner as meaning Gus Pego was married to
Glass' sister.)
(h) That Petitioner was asked by Jose Abreu to
resign from FDOT because of his actions in spreading a rumor about an alleged
affair between Mr. Abreu and Ms.
Lopez.
14. Relying upon the above information provided
by Maria Lopez and others, Respondent drafted and sent a letter to Bonnie
Williams, the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission, requesting an
investigation into these alleged conflicts of interest and nepotism. In the process, she repeated the above
representations of fact made by Maria Lopez and others in the Group.
15. In the letter dated July 31, 1996, to Ms.
Williams, Respondent specifically requested that the Ethics Commission investigate
the Contract award by FDOT to Glass Acquisition, Inc. Respondent noted that Richard Glass was formerly employed by FDOT
as District Right-of-Way Administrator, but had been asked to resign from that
position in July 1995. Respondent's
letter stated that she was a former FDOT employee, having left FDOT in March
1992. According to Respondent's letter,
"It is my understanding from individuals who were also employed by FDOT at
the time that Petitioner was asked to resign due to malfeasance." Moreover,
in the letter, Respondent stated that she believed the Contract was wrongfully
awarded to Richard Glass and such award was in violation of Sections 112.3135,
112.3185(6), Florida Statutes.
16. Section 112.3135, Florida Statutes, addresses
the employment of relatives by public agencies; Section 112.3185(6), Florida
Statutes, prohibits agency employees from procuring contractual services for
his agency from any business entity of which a relative is an officer, partner,
director or proprietor or in which such officer or employee or his or her
spouse or child, or any combination of them, has a material interest.
17. Respondent's letter to the Ethics Commission
stated that her allegation that the Contract had been wrongfully awarded to
Glass was based on the following facts:
(a) The principals of Glass Land Acquisition
Service Specialist, Inc., include Richard Glass and his mother Josephine
Glass. They employ Martha Budney, who
was also formerly employed by FDOT at District VI in Miami.
(b) Richard Lineberger, who was employed by FDOT
as Deputy Right-of-Way Administrator, sat on the Selection Committee which
evaluated on which submitted bids on this contract. Mr. Lineberger has been romantically involved with Martha Budney
for quite some time.
(c) Gustavo Pego, who is currently employed by
FDOT as Director of Operations, awarded this contract to Glass Land Acquisition
Service Specialist, Inc. Mr. Pego is
married to Richard Glass' sister.
Richard Glass is his brother-in-law and Josephine Glass is his mother-in-law.
18. Respondent sent copies of the original
Complaint regarding Richard Glass to Kaiser Real Estate Services; Post,
Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.; and, Sandra Gonzalez Levy, an Ethics
Commissioner. The reason Eileen Moran
provided copies to the aforementioned firms was that she considered them
"interested parties." At the
time Respondent sent the letters to Kaiser Real Estate Services and Post,
Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., she was unaware that the Complaint was
confidential.
19. After receiving Respondent's letter, the
Ethics Commission propounded seven written questions to Eileen Moran requesting
more details about the various allegations involving Petitioner. Respondent answered each question as best
she knew and based on information provided to her by Maria Lopez and others in
the Group.
20. Three of the seven questions propounded to
Respondent by the Ethics Commission involved the issue of nepotism. These questions asked whether any of Richard
Glass' relatives had been appointed, hired, promoted, and advanced at FDOT
during the time Petitioner worked there; if such appointments, hires,
promotions or advancements occurred, whether Petitioner had the authority to
make such hires or promotions and whether Glass actually appointed, hired,
promoted or advanced his relatives; and, if Glass had no such authority, did he
have the authority to recommend such appointment, hiring, promotion, or
advancement of his relatives and, if so, did he exercise the "recommending
authority" in regard to his relatives.
21. In a letter to the Ethics Commission dated
October 21, 1996, Respondent answered the questions described in paragraph 20
above. In her response, Respondent
indicated that both Linda Glass, Richard's sister, and Jean Polacek, Richard's
mother-in-law, were promoted during his tenure at FDOT and that Richard Glass
did not have the direct authority to promote these relatives, but was in a
position to recommend that these relatives be promoted. Respondent wrote that, "The individual
providing this information believes that [Petitioner] recommended these
promotions, but did not observe him making said recommendation."
22. Wayne Maxwell was authorized to investigate
the allegations in the Complaint on behalf of the Ethics Commission. Mr. Maxwell considered the issue relating to
the conditions of Richard Glass' termination from FDOT to be irrelevant to his
inquiry and made no inquiries on this issue.
23. During the course of the Ethics Commission
investigation, Wayne Maxwell determined that it was Gus Pego's brother, not Gus
Pego, who was married to Richard Glass' sister.
24. Wayne Maxwell was told by FDOT management
that the $500,000.00 Contract had not been in existence at the time that
Richard Glass was the Right-of-Way Administrator at FDOT, District VI. Moreover, it was found that Mr. Glass had
not been involved in the development of the Contract during his employment with
FDOT.
25. Wayne Maxwell found no conflict of interest
or violations of the anti-nepotism law
because none of the relationships between Gus Pego, Richard Glass, Richard
Lineberger, and Martha Budney qualified as "relatives" under Section
112.3135, Florida Statutes.
26. Wayne Maxwell incorporated his factual
findings in a report, which was forwarded to the Advocate. Based on these findings, the Commission's
Advocate recommended that there was no probable cause to support any of the
allegations brought by Respondent. This
recommendation was accepted by the Ethics Commission.
27. The Ethics Commission did not find conflicts
of interest between Richard Glass, Gus Pego, Richard Lineberger, and Martha
Budney in the award of the $500,000.00 Contract or the negotiations with the
Turnberry Group.
28. Mr. Glass contends that Respondent's
Complaint contained the following four false statements: (1) Mr. Glass had been asked to resign for
malfeasance; (2) Mr. Glass promoted or aided in the promotion of his sister,
Susan Glass; (3) Mr. Glass' sister was
married to Gus Pego, an FDOT employee; and, (4) Josephine Glass, Richard Glass'
mother, was the mother-in-law of Gus Pego.
Petitioner does not challenge the Respondent's statement that Gus Pego
awarded this Contract to Glass Acquisition, Inc.
29. All of the statements in paragraph (28) above,
alleged to be false, were, in fact, found to be incorrect. With regard to the circumstances of
Petitioner's leaving his employment with FDOT, there is no evidence that
Petitioner was forced to resign for malfeasance. Rather, Petitioner's official personnel file reflects a positive
employment record and excellent ratings during his twelve-year tenure with
FDOT. Neither Ms. Lopez nor Respondent
ever reviewed Mr. Glass' personnel file.
However, based on Ms. Lopez's personal conversations with FDOT, Mr.
Abreu and others, and a confidential memo written to Ms. Lopez, she believed
that Petitioner had been forced to resign because of malfeasance. Ms. Lopez conveyed this belief to
Respondent, who in turn, included this information in her letter to the Ethics
Commission. However, in reporting this
information in her Complaint, Respondent stated that she was not employed at
FDOT when Petitioner resigned and that she obtained this information from other
individuals.
30. Next, although it was established that Mr.
Glass' sister was employed by FDOT, it was determined that her name was Linda
Glass, not Susan Glass as Respondent had stated in her Complaint. More significantly, the investigation
revealed that while Linda Glass had been promoted while at FDOT, Richard Glass
had not advocated her for such promotions.
31. The other statements in Respondent's
Complaint, alleged to be false relate to the in-law relationship between
Petitioner and Gus Pego. In the
Complaint, it was alleged that Josephine Glass was Gus Pego's mother-in-law by
virtue of his being married to Richard Glass' sister. The Ethics Commission's investigation revealed that this was not
the case. Instead it was Gus Pego's
brother who was married to Richard Glass' sister. Thus, Josephine Glass was not Gus Pego's mother-in-law. Nonetheless, there was, in fact, a remote
"in-law" relationship between the individuals.
32. Respondent believed that the existence of any
familial relationship created a potential conflict of interest in the awarding
of the Contract. On the contrary, the
investigator for the Ethics Commission viewed these relationships as too remote
to consider them relatives under the applicable law.
33. While each of the statements in paragraph 28
above and contained in Respondent's Complaint were determined to be incorrect,
the statements were not known to be incorrect or false when made by
Respondent. Rather, the statements were
made in reliance on information conveyed to Respondent by Ms. Lopez and others
whom Respondent deemed to be reliable.
34. Petitioner consulted with Charles Rowe, an
attorney, at his office shortly after receiving the Complaint and the
amendments thereto. During this
consultation, Mr. Rowe recommended that Respondent represent himself. Petitioner took Mr. Rowe's advice and during
all proceedings before the Ethics Commission, Petitioner appeared pro se. No attorney filed an appearance to defend
Petitioner nor did any attorney contact Wayne Maxwell or any other member of the
staff of the Ethics Commission involved in the investigation in order to
discuss testimony, evidence, witnesses or legal issues raised during the
investigation.
35. However, Petitioner and Mr. Rowe
collaborated on a letter that Petitioner planned to send to Kaiser Real Estate Services
and Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., regarding Respondent's July 31,
1996, letter to the Ethics Commission.
Petitioner later decided not to send the letter. Moreover, although Petitioner was
representing himself in this matter, he consulted with Mr. Rowe before each
meeting with Wayne Maxwell and in regard to the hearing in Tallahassee,
Florida, before the Ethics Commission.
36. Sometime after the determination by the
Ethics Commission that no probable cause existed based upon its investigation
of Eileen Moran's complaints, Mr. Rowe presented Petitioner with a bill for
$700.00 for legal services rendered.
Richard Glass has never paid this bill.
37. Richard Glass attended the January 22, 1998,
Ethics Commission meeting in Tallahassee, Florida, which considered the
Advocate's recommendation of no probable cause. Although he had been invited to attend prior to going to the
meeting, Petitioner knew that a no probable cause recommendation would be made
before the Ethics Commission.
38. Nonetheless, Petitioner attended the meeting
and in doing so, incurred the following costs:
$240.00 for an airline ticket to Tallahassee; $12.50 for parking; $38.68
for a rental car; and, $10.49 for lunch.
39. Mr. Glass testified that he had expended
sixty-five hours of his own time to
defend this matter and stated that he is entitled to be paid $83.07 per hour,
his current hourly rate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
40. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
41. Pertinent to this proceeding are Section
112.317(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 34-5.0291, Florida Administrative
Code. Section 112.317(8), Florida
Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
In any case in
which the commission determines that a person has filed a complaint against a
public officer or employee with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of
such officer or employee by filing the complaint with knowledge that the
complaint contains one or more false allegations or with reckless disregard for
whether the complaint contains false allegations of fact material to a
violation of this part, the complainant shall be liable for costs plus
reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the defense of the person complained
against, including the costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in proving
entitlement to and the amount of costs and fees. . . .
42. Rule 34-5.0291(1), Florida Administrative
Code, provides:
(1) If the Commission determines that a person
has filed a complaint against a public officer or employee with a malicious
intent to injure the reputation of such officer or employee by filing the
complaint with knowledge that the complaint contains one or more false
allegations or with reckless disregard for whether the complaint contains false
allegations of fact material to a violation of the Code of Ethics, the complainant
shall be liable for costs plus reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the
defense of the person complained against.
43. According to Section 112.317(8), Florida
Statutes, and Rule 34-5.0291, Florida Administrative Code, the award of
attorney's fees requires that the Petitioner show that the Complaint was filed
with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of such officers or employees
with knowledge that the Complaint contains one or more false allegations or
with reckless disregard for whether the Complaint contains false allegations of
fact material to a violation of the Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes
(Code of Ethics).
44. In this proceeding, Petitioner has the
burden of proving the grounds for an award of costs and attorney's fees by a preponderance
of the evidence presented at hearing.
Rule 34-5.0291(4), Florida
Administrative Code.
45. Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of
proof in the case.
46. Notwithstanding Petitioner's assertions to the
contrary, the evidence did not establish that Respondent filed the Complaint
against Petitioner to injure his reputation by filing the Complaint with
knowledge that the Complaint contained one or more false allegations or with
reckless disregard for whether the Complaint contained false allegations
material to a violation of the Code of Ethics.
47. Here, Respondent filed the Complaint based on
perceptions or appearances of impropriety in the award of the Contract to Glass
Acquisition, Inc. The allegations
contained in the Complaint were conveyed to Respondent by individuals employed
at FDOT who believed that the award was improper and in violation of anti-nepotism
laws.
48. The Ethics Commission determined the Complaint
to be legally sufficient and assigned an investigator. Following the investigation, the Ethics
Commission concluded that there was no probable cause found that Petitioner had
violated the Code of Ethics. However,
that finding in and of itself does not demonstrate that the Complaint was filed
with knowledge that the allegations were false or with reckless disregard for
whether the Complaint contained false allegations of material fact to a
violation of the Code of Ethics.
49. In the instant case, it is significant that
the allegations in the Complaint were based on information Respondent received
from individuals she thought to be reliable.
Most of these individuals were current FDOT employees who feared
retaliation if they actually filed a complaint with the Ethics Commission.
50. One statement in the Complaint found to be
inaccurate was that Petitioner had been asked to resign from FDOT for
malfeasance. However, the statement
regarding the circumstances under which Petitioner left FDOT were deemed by the
investigator to be irrelevant to the Complaint. Furthermore, even if relevant, the evidence does not establish
that Respondent made these statements with the knowledge that they were false
or with reckless disregard for whether they were false. Again, in making this statement, Respondent
relied on information conveyed to her by others and indicated such reliance in
her letter of complaint.
51. The evidence established that the Ethics
Commission determined that certain factual allegations, alleged herein to be
false, were inaccurate. For example,
while there was an "in-law" relationship between Gus Pego and Richard
Glass, the investigator found that it was Gus Pego's brother, not Gus Pego, who
was married to Richard Glass' sister.
Thus, Josephine Glass, Petitioner's mother, was not Gus Pego's mother-in-law.
52. Although the investigation found no conflict
of interest or violation of the anti-nepotism law, Petitioner failed to
establish that much of the information conveyed to Respondent was inaccurate.
53. For example, it was found that Martha Budney
lived with and was the girlfriend of Richard Lineberger; that Petitioner and
Martha Budney shared office space; and, that Petitioner was an officer in Ms.
Budney's company. Moreover, it was
undisputed that Richard Lineberger was on a committee that considered
Petitioner's bid and that Gus Pego was involved in awarding the Contract. Finally, the investigator determined that
there was a family relationship between Gus Pego and Petitioner, though not the
precise one articulated in the Complaint.
54. Based on the facts as they understood and
thought them to be, Respondent and others reasonably believed that a conflict
of interest may have existed and that the Contract award to Glass Acquisition,
Inc., was improper.
55. In the instant case, Petitioner has failed to
establish that the Complaint was filed against him with a malicious intent to
injure his reputation by filing the Complaint with knowledge that the Complaint
contained one of more false allegations or with reckless disregard for whether
the Complaint contained false allegations of fact material to a violation of
the Code of Ethics. Thus, Petitioner is
not entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs in this case.
56. Petitioner has not met the threshold
requirements for an award of attorney's fees and costs. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address
the array of issues raised by Petitioner
regarding his entitlement to fees and costs for work he personally did
on the case, as well as attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of
Petitioner's consulting with an attorney who never represented him in defense
of the underlying Complaint.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the
foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that a
Final Order be entered finding that Respondent, Eileen Moran, is not liable for
attorney's fees and costs and dismissing the Petition for Attorney's Fees.
DONE AND ENTERED
this 4th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
___________________________________
CAROLYN S.
HOLIFIELD
Administrative Law
Judge
Division of
Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee
Parkway
Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850)
921-6847
www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the
Clerk of the
Division of
Administrative Hearings
this 4th day of
January, 1999.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Charles R. Rowe,
Esquire
1310 North Krome
Avenue
Homestead, Florida 33030
Charles G. White,
Esquire
2250 Southwest
Third Avenue
Suite 150
Miami, Florida 33129
Eric Scott, Esquire
Office of the
Attorney General
The Capitol, Plaza
Level 01
Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-1050
Phil Claypool,
General Counsel
Commission on
Ethics
2822 Remington
Green Circle
Post Office Drawer
15709
Tallahassee,
Florida 32317-5709
Kerrie Stillman,
Complaint Coordinator
Commission on
Ethics
2822 Remington
Green Circle, Suite 101
Post Office Box 15709
Tallahassee,
Florida 32317-5709
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO
SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have
the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this
Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should
be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.