BEFORE THE

STATE OF FLORIDA

COMMISSION ON ETHICS

 

 

 

In re WALTER STOTESBURY,      )

                              )

     Respondent.              )                           Complaint No. 89-160

                              )

______________________________)

 

 

 

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 exceptions to the Recommended Public Report, which recommends that the Commission find that as a member of the Gainesville-Alachua County Regional Airport Authority he violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by having or holding a contractual relationship with Kenn Air Aviation Corporation, a business entity doing business with, and subject to the regulation of, his public agency--the Gainesville-Alachua County Regional Airport Authority, and by having or holding a contractual relationship with Kenneth Brown, sole owner of Kenn Air Aviation Corporation, by virtue of his provision of investment services.


Having reviewed the Recommended Public Report, 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 of the Commission's Advocate, the Commission makes the following findings, conclusions, rulings, and recommendation:

 

Findings of Fact

 

     The findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Public Report are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein.

 

Conclusions of Law

 

     The Conclusions of Law set forth in the Recommended Public Report are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein.

 

Rulings on Respondent's Exceptions

 


     The Respondent takes exception to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact numbered "17," "18," and "19," in the Recommended Public Report, arguing that those factual findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that those findings are refuted by the Respondent's Exhibit "3," that there is no testimony to corroborate Mr. Brown's assertion that Brown was solicited or pressed, that the Respondent denied the solicitation, and thus the Advocate has not borne his burden of proof in regard to the facts found in those three paragraphs of the Recommended Public Report.  However, the standard applicable to the Commission in taking its final action is whether the facts found by the Hearing Officer are based upon competent substantial evidence, not whether they are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The factual findings to which the Respondent takes exception are based upon competent substantial evidence and the proceedings upon which those findings were based did comply with essential requirements of law.  Therefore, the Commission denies this exception of the Respondent. 

     The Respondent takes exception to the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer numbered "18," and "19," in the Recommended Public Report, arguing that those findings are not supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record, and arguing that those findings are refuted by the findings of fact numbered "8," in the Recommended Public Report.  However, as with the previous exception, the standard for final action of the Commission is whether the findings are based upon competent substantial evidence, not whether they are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  Further, the findings numbered "8" in the Recommended Public Report do not necessarily contradict those findings numbered "18," and "19."  The findings numbered "18" and "19" in the Recommended Public Report are based upon competent substantial evidence and the proceedings on which the findings were based did comply with essential requirements of law.  Therefore, the Commission denies this exception of the Respondent. 


     The Respondent's exceptions to the conclusions of law contained in the Recommended Public Report are denied, as there is competent substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, as the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law are consistent with Sections 112.313(7)(a), 112.313(7)(b), and 112.316, Florida Statutes, and as the facts found by the Hearing Officer do support a finding of two violations of Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes.

 

Recommended Penalty

 

     Having found that the Respondent committed two violations of Section 112.313(7)(a), 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 the Governor impose a civil penalty against the Respondent in the amount of $2,500 for each violation, for a total of $5,000.

 

     ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in public session on June 7, 1991.

 

 

_______________________________

Date Rendered

 

 


_______________________________

Scott G. Williams

Chairman

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:

 

Mr. David D. Fuller, Jr., Attorney for Respondent

Ms. Virlindia Doss, Commission Advocate

Mr. Kenneth P. Brown, Complainant