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.
Stephen N. Zack
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