Are We Facing Another Ethics Outrage?????

Diane Melendez · #1 02-07-2008, 07:49 PM

YES>>>ANOTHER OUTRAGE!!!

Mayor Peyton
Elaine Brown
Art Shad
Michael Corrigan
Dan Kleiman

All have ethics complaints that have been filed against them at the state level. You all know that the ethics hearing is scheduled for February 29th in Tallahassee.

Now get this information and get ready to make calls and send emails to Tallahassee. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE

The individual who filed the complaint was contacted today by a reporter who wanted them to comment on a six page document from Tallahassee they had managed to get their hands on that was discussing these violations. The only individuals who should have received this information is the respondents. Infact when the individual who filed the complaints called Tallahassee for a copy they refused to give them one. The reporter stated that the document said that "VIOLATIONS DID INDEED OCCUR"!!!!!
BUT GET THIS.... THE ADVOCATE FOR THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENTS SAID THEY SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED.....YES THAT IS RIGHT, THEY DID IT BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED".

:no way:

The reporter did not name who the advocate for them was. I have a pretty good idea but in any case "THE HEARING HAS NOT EVEN BEEN HELD, NO TESTIMONY HEARD....NADA....AND THE ADVOCATE OF THE CASE IS SAYING....DON'T PUNISH THEM!!!!

Excuse me but this is bull.

The citizens need to stand up and "ROAR"!!!!!!

This is yet another attempt to allow violations of ethics go unanswered. We have a voice and the citizens need to let the State know that we expect those who have indeed committed ethics violations are held accountable and made to pay the price under the law.

I will be posting the contacts in Tallahassee. We need to start with Governor Christ and the Ethics Office in Tallahassee.

Officials can not be allowed to keep getting away with these affronts to the citizens and taxpayers of Jacksonville!!!

to the Advocate’s recommendation to my ethics complaint was. I told her I had not seen the recommendation. She apparently has a copy of it – 6 pages- but would not tell me who gave it to her. She said that they found that there were violations but did not recommend any punishment.

Update*******After reading the posts of 2/8 on this thread, you may be further outraged by what you find out. I had mentioned that I would post contacts for you to call, email and write to. They are as follows:

Quote:

Philip Claypool, Executive Director and General Counsel
P. O. Drawer 15709
Tallahassee, FL 32317-5709
or
3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201
Tallahassee, FL 32312
phone: 850/488-7864
fax: 850/488-3077

http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/

Quote:

Contact Information - Governor Charlie Crist

Phone: 850-488-7146
Fax: 850-487-0801
Mailing Address:
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

http://www.flgov.com/gov_contact

Quote:

Open Government Contact Person: JoAnn Carrin
Click here to email the Governor’s Office of Open Government.
Click here to make a public records request.
Call (850) 921-6099
Write:
Office of Open Government
The Executive Office of the Governor
LL08 The Capitol
Tallahassee, Fl 32399

Quote:

On January 3, 2007, Governor Charlie Crist issued Executive Order 07-01, which states in part:

“The Office of Open Government is charged with providing the Office of the Governor and each of the executive agencies under my purview with the guidance and tools to serve Florida with integrity and transparency.

“To that end, the Office’s primary functions will be: (1) to assure full and expeditious compliance with Florida’s open government and public records laws, and (2) to provide training to all executive agencies under my purview on transparency and accountability. The Office will also have primary responsibility for ensuring that the Office of the Governor complies with public records requests in an expeditious manner.

“Each agency secretary is further directed to designate a person at his or her agency who will act as the agency’s public records/open government contact person. That individual will be responsible for complying with public records/open government requests and compliance at their respective agency and will also be the primary liaison between that agency and the Office of Open Government for purposes of training and compliance.”

jbm32206 · #2 02-07-2008, 08:07 PM

If the meeting hasn't been held, then how can there be any recommendations? There also seems to be a problem with how did this reporter (or anyone for that matter) get a copy of the report filed? There's serious ethic violations with just that alone....

rpschutt · #3 02-07-2008, 08:13 PM

The only way a reporter could have gotten a copy would have been for one of the individuals about whom the complaint was filed, or the individual who filed the complaint, to give it to the reporter.

According to state law, the individual who files the report can discuss it with someone. However, the individuals about whom the report was filed are forbidden by state law from disclosing the name of the individual who filed the report. If they did, I would assume there would be penalties, assuming it could be proven.

rpschutt · #4 02-07-2008, 08:15 PM

Trying to understand the whole picture here...

Who did the individual contact in Tallahassee to ask for a copy of the report? I think that's something that should be known. If the reporter has a copy of the report, are they willing to disclose how they received it? (I'm guessing not)

So, if the reporter has a copy, but the complaintant is being denied one, it would seem that there is grounds to file another complaint alleging violation of the ethics complaints rules.

But, we should know who denied them a copy...

spidey · #5 02-07-2008, 08:35 PM

According to the Ethics Commission's website-

the advocate is an assistant attorney general or other attorney representing the commission in a prosecutorial function. The reporter most likely has a probable cause determination issued by the advocate. The commission's confidentiality rules are pretty specific. You can see all of this (I tried to post it here, but the way it is set up, it only posted code) on the ethics commission website: http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/ Scroll down the left hand side of the page and click on Rules.

Diane Melendez · #6 02-07-2008, 08:49 PM

The document the reporter has was only sent to the respondents and not the person who filed the original ethics complaint. So it would have had to be one of the respondents, perhaps trying to make a case for themselves by showing that the advocate said they shouldn't be punished, or it was secured from someone who leaked it in Tallahassee or even someone one of the respondents shared the report with, which would likely be someone in the General Councils office, council, a spouse or close friend.

The reporter is not going to reveal the source. Not a chance. The person who filed the complaint did get a copy of the original complaint but was denied a copy of the advocates report.

Joan brings up a valid point though. If there has been no formal meeting and interview, how did any advocate come to a finding, unless someone already wrote to the ethics office ahead of the formal meeting. The whole situation raises red flags.

The bottom line is that the public has got to let the Ethics commission know they are aware that the inside information is now public and that the people demand that those who are guilty of violations receive proper punishment.

spidey · #7 02-07-2008, 08:51 PM

Take a few moments and read the commission's rules

...the advocate issues the report and recommendations prior to the hearing. And the respondents can waive their confidentiality, as well, although I'm not certain that is what happened in this case.

EDIT: Oh BTW, I'm positive that it was purposely leaked, exactly because of the advocate's recommendations. They need to turn the heat down......and this is one way they can do it.

Diane Melendez · #8 02-07-2008, 08:56 PM

That answers the question about the Advocates recommendation, but it is still odd that they would make a recommendation before a formal hearing and testimony.

The report was leaked on purpose for that very reason. They can do what they like but the heat from the public is going to rise very rapidly, they can be assured of that. Wrongdoing on the part of our public officials has got to stop and one of the only ways to affect them at all is to hit them with a penalty, the highest allowed by law. Some money out of their pockets for a change as well as some degree of justice for the citizens.

spidey · #9 02-07-2008, 09:02 PM

Ok...I found the rules I was talking about on another site that I can cut and paste here:

Quote:

34-5.0045 Counsel.

(2) Advocate. The Advocate presenting the matter before the Commission shall be an Assistant Attorney General or another attorney designated by the Commission as Advocate. The Advocate represents the Commission in its prosecutorial function.

Quote:

34-5.006 Probable Cause Determination.

(1) Notification of Completion of Investigation. When the investigator’s report is completed, the Executive Director shall notify the respondent that the report is completed and shall send to the respondent a copy of the investigator’s report and a copy of the Executive Director’s order to investigate. The investigatory file and main complaint file shall be open for inspection by the respondent and the respondent’s counsel at that time, and copies may be obtained at no more than cost.
(2) Time to Review Report. The respondent shall be given not less than 14 days from the date of mailing of the investigator’s report, within which time to file with the Commission a written response to the investigator’s report. This time period may be shortened with the consent of the respondent, or without the consent of the respondent when the passage of time could reasonably be expected to render moot the ultimate disposition of the matter by the Commission so long as reasonable notice under the circumstances is given.
(3) Advocate’s Recommendation. The Advocate shall review the investigator’s report and shall make a written recommendation to the Commission for the disposition of the complaint. If the Advocate recommends that a public hearing be held, the recommendation shall include a statement of what charges shall be at issue at the hearing. A copy of the recommendation shall be furnished to the respondent. The respondent shall be given not less than 7 days from the date of mailing of the Advocate’s recommendation, within which time to file with the Commission a written response to the recommendation. This time period may be shortened with the consent of the respondent, or without the consent of the respondent when the passage of time could reasonably be expected to render moot the ultimate disposition of the matter by the Commission, so long as the recommendation is furnished to the respondent within a reasonable period of time under the circumstances.
(4) Notice of Hearing and Right to Attend. The respondent, the complainant(s), their counsel, and the Advocate shall be permitted to attend the hearing at which the probable cause determination is made. Notice of the hearing shall be sent to the respondent, complainant(s), and Advocate at least 14 days before the hearing. This time period may be shortened with the consent of the respondent, or without the consent of the respondent when the passage of time could reasonably be expected to render moot the ultimate disposition of the matter by the Commission, so long as the notice is furnished within a reasonable period of time under the circumstances.
(5) Scope of Probable Cause Determination. The probable cause determination is the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. The respondent and the Advocate shall be permitted to make brief oral statements in the nature of oral argument to the Commission, based on the investigator’s report, before the probable cause determination. The Commission’s determination shall be based upon the investigator’s report, the Advocate’s recommendation, the complaint, and staff recommendations, as well as any written statements submitted by the respondent and any oral statements made at the hearing. No testimony or other evidence will be accepted at the hearing.
(6) Probable Cause Determination. At its meeting to determine probable cause, the Commission may continue its determination to allow further investigation; may order the issuance of a public report of its investigation if it finds no probable cause to believe that a violation of the Code of Ethics or other breach of public trust has occurred, concluding the matter before it; may order a final, public hearing of the complaint if it finds probable cause to believe that a violation of the Code of Ethics or other breach of public trust has occurred; or may take such other action as it deems necessary to resolve the complaint, consistent with due process of law. In making its determination, the Commission may consider:
(a) The sufficiency of the evidence against the respondent, as contained in the investigator’s report;
(b) The admissions and other stipulations of the respondent, if any;
(c) The nature and circumstances of the respondent’s actions;
(d) The expense of further proceedings; and
(e) Such other factors as it deems material to its decision. If the Commission orders a public hearing of the complaint, the Commission shall determine what charges shall be at issue for the hearing.

Quote:

34-5.008 Confidentiality.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the complaint and all staff and Commission activities, proceedings, and documents relating to the complaint shall be confidential until either:
(a) Confidentiality is waived in writing by the respondent; or
(b) The Commission orders the complaint dismissed, as provided in Rule 34-5.002, F.A.C.; or
(c) The Commission orders a public report, or a public hearing, as provided in Rule 34-5.006, F.AC. When confidentiality is waived, the Commission orders the complaint dismissed, or the Commission orders a public report or a public hearing, all materials relating to the complaint shall become public records available to the public as provided in Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, except to the extent the materials are otherwise exempted from disclosure under the public records law.
(2) For the purposes of this rule, the Commission shall be deemed to have ordered a dismissal of the complaint, a public report, or a public hearing at the time the written order or document evidencing that action is filed with the Commission Clerk, rather than at the time the Commission has so voted.
(3) The confidentiality provided by this rule shall not prohibit the Commission or its staff from advising the respondent or the complainant about the status of the complaint proceeding.

https://www.flrules.org/gateway/Chap...p?Chapter=34-5

Diane Melendez · #10 02-07-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

This time period may be shortened with the consent of the respondent, or without the consent of the respondent when the passage of time could reasonably be expected to render moot the ultimate disposition of the matter by the Commission so long as reasonable notice under the circumstances is given.

This portion jumps out as a potential opening for the document to get out early, however the reporter wanted to protect the source so that sounds like it was leaked.

Quote:

The Advocate shall review the investigator’s report and shall make a written recommendation to the Commission for the disposition of the complaint. If the Advocate recommends that a public hearing be held, the recommendation shall include a statement of what charges shall be at issue at the hearing.

This portion seems to show that the advocate did indeed find cause for a hearing and their are charges to be heard.