ORIGINAL FLORIDA JM 27 208 STATE OF FLORIDA RECEIVED COMMISSION ONETHICS. Inre: Alberto Carvalho, Respondent. : ‘Complaint No, 15-024 ADVE a MATION The undersigned Advocate, after reviewing the Complaint, Report of Investigation, and Response to Report of Investigation filed in this matter, submits this Recammendation in ‘accordance with Rule 34-5.006(3), F.A.C. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Respondent, Alberto Carvalho, serves as the Superintendent of Miami-Dede County Public Schools. Complainant is Al Crespo of Miami, Florida JURISDICTION ‘The Executive Director of the Commission on Ethics determined that the Complaints were legally sufficient and ordered a preliminary investigation for a probable cause Getermination as to whether Respondent violaied Section 112,3148(8), Florida Statutes, The Commission on Ethics has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 112.322, Florida ‘Statutes. ‘The Report of Investigation was released on May 9, 2016,ALLEGATION ONE Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 112.3148(6), Florida Statutes, by ccepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to "A Magical Evening at Vizcaya" and failing to diselose the gifi(s) on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure APPLICABLE LAW Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, provides as follows (8X2) Bech reporting individual or procurement employee shall file a statement with the Commission on Ethics not later than the last day of each calendar quarter, for the previous calendar quarter, containing a list of gifts which he or she believes to be in excess of $100 in value, if any, accepted by him or her, for which compensation was nat provided by the donee to the donar within 90 days of receipt of the gift to reduce the value to $100 or less, ‘except the following: 1, Gifts from relatives, 2. Gifts prohibited by subsection (4) or s. 112.313(4). 4 Gifts otherwise required to be disclosed by this section. Section 112.312(12)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in its relevant part: "GIR" for purposes of ethics in government and financial disclosure required by law, means that which is aovepted by a donee or by another on the donee’s behalf, or that which is paid oF given to another for or on behalf of a donee, directly, indirectly, or in trust for the donee's benefit or by any other means, for which ‘equal or greater consideration is not given within 90 days ANALYSIS: Respondent has served as Superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools (MCPS) since his appointment in September 2008. (ROI 4) Respondent related that his ‘employment as Superintendent is an “on-call 24/7" job that bagins at am. and regularly extends well into the evening. (ROI 7) He stated thathis job requires direet communication with legislators, mayors, community organizations, and for-profit and not-for-profit organizations toadvance and promote the value of public education in Miami-Dade County and said he attended mast of the events in question as part of his work responsibilities. (ROI 7, 8, composite Exhibit A) Respondent maintains that his contract, and the Schoo! Board By-laws and Policy 1030-K, dictate that he work cooperatively with community groups eoncemmed with MDCPS' programs. (ROI 29, composite Exhibit A) Additionally, Respondent submitted to the Commission the following documents as evidence that, as Supesintendent, his duties and responsibilities include the active involvement with the community and community organizations: Employment Agreement; Bylaws and Policies of The School Board; July 13, 2009 Memorandum from Respondent detailing the “Close of the 2008-2009 Schoo! Year: Challenges and Progress"; Memoranda from Respondent to the School Board regarding "Progress within the Strategic Framework"; message from Respondent tiled “The Journey Toward a New Year"; "Top 25 Achievements @MDCPS Since 2008"; and ‘newspaper articles regarding Respondent's accomplishments in building ties between the School Board and the community. (Response to ROT) For all purposes herein, Respondent is a "reporting individual” meaning thet he is required by law, pursuant to Section 8, Art: IL of the State Constitution or Section 112.3145, Florida Statutes, to file full or limited public disclosure of his financial interests. § 12.3148(2)(@), Fla, Stat, A fA" includes, in pertinent part, faod, beverage, entrance fees, admission fees, or tickets to events, performances, or facilities. Rule 34-13.212(8) and (10), Fla. Admin. Code. ‘Ticket or Admissions ‘The Complainant identified five events to which the Respondent allegedly accepted free ‘admission, and seven more were identified in the course of the investigation:52nd Annual Vizcayan Gala, November 22, 2008! ‘A Magical Evening at Vizcaya, November 21, 2005? Moffitt Cance: Center Honors Coach Don Shula, February 5, 2010 Miami Bridge Gala, February 11, 2012 Arsht Center Gala with Kevin Costner and Modem West, April 28, 2012 United Way Charity Cruise Aboard Celebrity Cruises’ "Reflection," December 1-3, 2012 2013 Miami Heart and Stroke Ball, March 2, 2013 "A Siurry Night” Gala, April 13, 2013 Hany Connick, Jr. Dazzles at Arsht Center Gala, April 26, 2013 14th Annual Mayor's Ball, June &, 2013 ‘Women of Tomorrow 13th Annual Gala, March 8, 2014 + Kevin Spacey Headline 2014 Arsit Center Gala, April 5, 2014 (ROI 3) Respondent acknowledged that he attended most of the events identified above, except the "A Stary Night” Gala. (ROI 5) Respondent also alleges that his attendance at the "Moffitt Cancer Center Honors Coach Don Shula” consisted only of being in the pre-reception ares where he met Conch Shula snd Senator Graham, had photos taken, and left. (Response to ROI, p. 1) Photographs taken at the various events reflect that Respondent's wife was present at all of the ‘events in question, with the exception of the 2013 Miami Heart and Stroke Ball. (ROT 6) Respondent explained that he was not given a "ticket" for the events in question, but rather was sent an invitation, via e-mail to his secretary ot one of his assistants, and was admitied to the events because his name was on a list of attendees, (ROI 4) Further, Respondent related ‘that the invitations were sent to his office because of his position as the Superintendent and that hhe and his wife did not pay to attend any of the subject events. (ROI 4) He stated that since he ‘was not sent any etual tickets he does not know whether there was a cost for admission for any of the events in question. (ROI) pat a yore snk te emi Bet Ser me 2 This event occured more than five years before the date the complaint was filed: January 20, 2015, ‘However, the allegation isthat Respondent filed to disclose ths event as ugif, snd the disclosure would not bsve ‘been due until Marck 20, 2010-2 ate within the five year of imiations. (ROL)‘The Florida Commission on Ethics! records reflect that Respondent has not filed eay CE. Form 9s for any of the events in question. (ROI 5) A Magical Evening at Vizeava Respondent and his wife attended the Magical Evening at Vizcays.event which took place on November 21, 2009. (ROL 10) The event served as & fundeaser for the support and preservation of the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens, a facility owned by Miami-Dade County.” (ROI 10, 12, 13) Joel Hoffinan, Executive Director of Vizcaya Museum and Gardens, stated that the event wes managed solely by "The Vizceyans” organization, (RO! 12) Hoffman stated that the purpose ofthe event was to reise funds for'The Vizcayans, which in tum made contributions to, and in support of, the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. (RO! 12) Hioffiman further stated that the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens is an accredited museum ‘with an educational mission thst includes serving MDCPS students through © variety of programs. (RO] 12) All or most of the muscums in the County, including Vizcaya, participate in. the Museum Education Program through which students visit museums on art-telated field trips. (ROT 12) Vizcaya has participated in this program for several decades. (ROI 12) However, the ‘event in question had no direct relationship with the school programs or Respondent, as Superintendent. (ROI 12, 13; Response to ROL, Exhibit 9) Jeffrey Raynor, current President of The Vizeayans, stated that both Respondent and his swifle attended the event and that the cost per person for admission was either $600 or $750, depending upon the location of the table, (ROI 13) He added that the organization's actual cost per guest fo put on the dinner event was $250, and that $350 to $500 served as the charitable 3 The Vizsayens organization serves ns & fundraising arm for the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens property. (RO!)contribution to ‘The Vizcayans.* (ROT 13) ‘According to Raynor, Respondent was invited because he was a key decision maker in which extemal education programs would be continued and Raynor and others wanted t0 demonstrate to Respondent the broad-based private sector support for the educational programs at Vizcaya for public school suidents, (ROI 13) Respondent and his wife were seated at a teble hosted and paid for by Leslie A. Bowe, a member of the Board of Directors of The Vizcayans, and a Miami-Dade School Board employee. (ROI 13) Bowe advised that Respondent and his wife did not give anything in retwm or in exchange for free attendance to the event. (ROI 14) Further, Bowe advised that Respondent did pot give a speech or perform any duties at this event, (ROI 14) However, in a swom declaration submited by Respondent, Bowe siated that during the event Respondent "worked the crowd of onors and potential donors the entire evening to help raise awareness for the educational programs of the Vizeayans and to ossist in fundraising efforts to benefit those (educational studentteacher] programs." (Response to ROI, Exhibit 9) Neither Respondent nor iis wife serves on the Vizcaya Board, (ROI 10) Respondent maintains that be attended the event in his official capacity as Superintendent. (ROL 10) Respondent states that he did not give a speech, but met with potential contributors to the ‘Vizcaya organization to explain why their support for Vizeaya was important in helping MDC?S students and teachers. (ROT 10) Respondent explained that MDCPS has a long history of partnership with Vizeays, and that Vizcaya scrves MDCPS students and teachers in a number of educational programs, such as providing tours to over 4,500 students per year‘to study its history and architecture. (RO] 10) * S4e13$00, F.A.C.~ Gift Valuation. (8) The valueof s gif of en admiselon ticket shall not inclu tha portion of the cost which represents a charitable ‘contribution ifthe gif is provided by the charitable organization benefiting from the coutribaton, 6Free edmission to the Magical Evening at Vizcaya event qualifies as a gift valued et $250 per person for Respondent and his wife. Since this event was a gift for Respondent and his wife, it must next be detecmined Whethee the gift valued et over $100 per person could be eecepted and should have been reported on CE Form 9. Respondent, as a reporting individual, is probibited from accepting a gift valued in excess of $100 from a lobbyist who lobbies the reporting individual's agency or from the principal of such e lobbyist. § 112.3148(4), Fla. Stat. (2009) Since it is not evident whether Leslie Bowe wes a lobbyist or principal of a lobbyist who labbies the schoo! system on. behalf of The Vizcayans, there appears to be no prohibition against ecepting free sdmission for himself and bis wife to the eveat, Respondent wes required to disclose receipt of the gifts of admission for himself and his wife, § 112.3148(8), Fla. Stat. Therefore, based upon the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the ‘Commission find probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes. ALLEGATION TWO Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by secepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to "Moffitt Cancer Center Honors ‘Coach Don Shula” which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. APPLICABLE LAW Section 112.3148(6), Florida Statutes, is set forth in Allegation One above. ANALYSIS Moffitt Cancer Center Honors Coach Don Shula Respondent ard his wife attended the "Moffitt Cancer Center Honors Coach Don Shulafor Leadership end Philanthropy" event which took place on February 5, 2010, (ROI 15) Documents provided by Respondent reflect that this event was an aviard ceremony and dinner which included a sllent auction, held at The Ritz-Carlton in Miami's South Beach, and which raised finds for cancer research, and that the beneficiary of these funds was the Moffitt (Cancer Center.5 (ROI 16) Cole Peterson, General Counsel for the Maffin Cancer Center, stated thet this event, which included food and deiok, had an actual cost tothe orgenization of $293.26 per guest, but that attendance was priced at $1,000 per person and that $706.74 of the cost to attend served as a charitable contribution. (ROI 17) Peterson confirmed that this event had nothing to do with the MDCPS. (ROL 18) Respondent sisted that there was “really ne efisial invitation” for this event, and that the event had no conection to MDCPS. (ROI 15) Respondent stated that possibly Senstor Bob Gzaham invited him to attend, though he was not certain, (ROI 15) He axivised hat he did not ‘atend the event iteelf, but rather went to the presreception area, where he believes he congreslated Coach Shula, and may have taken a picture with him, and took 2 separate picture ‘with Senator Graham, aad then le. (ROI 15) He related that be did not enter the area where the event took place and never sat down at a table and did not say there longer than half an how. (ROIS) ‘Admission to the "Moffitt Cencor Center Honors Coach Don Shula" or even public exposure atthe event qualifies asa gift for Respondent and his wife. The Commission has opined that receipt of "free exposure and publicity” isa gif. See CEO 05-11 Regardless of the length of time in attendance, Respondent and his wift were able to enter the event without paying the The Mofiia Cancer Center is listed as = $01(c)(3) chaviable ergsalzation in the Intemat Revenve Service website. (ROI 16)$1,000 per person admission fee. It does not appear that the gift was from a lobbyist or principal of a lobbyist who lobbies the school system. Accordingly, there is no prohibition against accepting free aémission for ‘himself and his wife to the event. Respondent was required to disclose receipt of these gifts valued at $239.26 per person tegandless of the length of his stay. §112.3148(8), Fla. Stat. “Therefore, based upon the: evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the Commission find probable cause to- believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes. ALLEGATION THREE Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 1123148(8), Florida Statetes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his sponse 10 "Miami Bridge" Gala which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to. disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. APPLICABLELAW Section 112.3148(6), Florida Statues, is set forth in Allegation One shove ANALYSIS "Miami Bridge” Gala and "A Stacy Night” Gala ‘Respondent stated that his wife attended the "A Starry Night” Gala which took place on April 13, 2013, but he did not attend. (ROI 19) Respondent clarified that he attended the event the previous year, on Febroary 11, 2012, which was called the "Miami Bridge” Gale (ROL 19, Exhibit B) He alleged that he attended in his offictal capacity as Superintendent, and that he gave 410 to 15 minute “oral presentation,” praising: the work that the Miami Bridge does and its‘significance to the Miami-Dade Schools to inspire donors.’ (ROI 19) Respondent maintains thet bbe does not know whether e ticket was required for the event, and/or how much a ticket or the price of admission, if there was one, would have cost. (ROI 19) Natasha Munills, Board Member of the Miami Bridge Youth & Family Services, stated that Respondent's wife has been a board member of Miami Bridge since at least 2012, and that all board members and their spouses attend the gales for free. (ROI 21, 22) Respondent stated thet neither he nor his wife paid to attend the event in question. (ROIS) Chair of the Gala Committee, Marlene Quintana, stated that the actual ticket price for ‘attendance was $200, but that $150 represented the contibution to the charity and that the event -was hosted by the Miami Bridge Youth and Family Services organization as a fundraiser to further its purpose of providing services to abused, neglected, and ebandoned youth. (ROI 22) ‘The general invitation to the Febroary 11, 2012 Gala states thatthe fair market value of the event is $50 per person and that the event is a cocktail party with food stations. (ROI 22, Exhibit ©) Respondent's wife, who is a “norreporting individual,” was a board member of the ‘Miami Bridge Youth & Family Services. (ROI 21) Respondent's wife's sitendance at "A Starry Night” Gala does not violate the Code of Ethics, Respondents free admission to the “Miami Bridge” Gala was a gift because he attended in his official capacity. Because the "Miami Bridge” Gala ticket price was not in excess of $100, an analysis of the gift law and whether the admission value qualifies es consideration for Respondent's short oral presentation and, thus, an honorarium, is not necessary. “The Miami Bridge Youth & Family Services webuits (worw.mlamibridge.org), liste MDCPS st one of i “partners Tee Miami Bridge Youth and Family Services is listed ss» $01(6X3) organization in the Inieral Revesue Service website. (RO! 20) 10‘Therefore, based upon the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the ‘Commission find no probable cause to believe that Respondent vielated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes. ALLEGATION FOUR Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 1123148(6), Florida Statutes, by eceepting tickets or admission for himself andor his spouse to “Arshi Center Gala with Kevin Costner and Modern West" which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. APPLICABLE LAW ‘Section 112.3148(6), Florida Sistutes, s set forth in Allegation One above. ANALYSIS Respondent and his wife attended the Arsht Center Gala with Kevin Costner and his band, “Modern West,” which took place on April 28, 2012. (ROI 23) Respondent stated that his office was sent an invitation by the Executive Director of the "Adrienne Arsbt Center for the Performing Arts." (ROL 23, Exhibit D) Respondent ereated the MDCPS "Cultural Passport” initietive so that students who would otherwise not have access to the Arsht Center could attend ccaltural events. (RO! 23) Respondent maintains that the Arsbt Center is a long-standing partner of MDCPS in these events, which are fundraisers, and stated that he attends es a show of goodwill. (ROI 23) Respandent advised that he attended the other two events which were also hosted at the Arsht Center (Hazy Connick, Jr. Dazzles on April 26, 2013, and Kevin Spaccy Headlines on April 5, 2014) for the same reason. (RO! 23) Respondent did not give a speech st ‘the events but was recognized by the Master of Ceremonies at the beginsing of cach event. (ROL W23) Respondent related that he attended these three events with his wife and she did not serve any formal role other than to secompany him, (ROI 23) President and CEO of the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, John Richard, ‘stated that Respondent was invited in his official eapacity as Superintendent to be recognized and acknowledged for the partnership that the Arsht Center has with MDCPS. (ROI 24) Richard explained that these events raise flands to support arts education and the beneficiaries of these events are the students of MDCPS. (ROI 24) Richard related that these three events were benefit concerts, and thot the everege ticket price charged per person was $2,500, (ROI 24) The actual cost per person minus the chariteble contribution wes $1,000, which included food, beverage, and entertainment, (ROI 24) Richard stated that for the Kevin Costner and Modem West event on April 28, 2012, the table where Respondent end his wife sat was sponsored by The Law Fiza of Colson Hicks Eidson;” for the Harry Connick, Jr. Dazeles event on April 26, 2013, the table was sponsored by ‘Moe Nadar; and for the Kevin Spacey Headlines on April $, 2014, the table was sponsored by Adrienne Azsht. (ROI 25) Respondent maintains that he did not know that the tables where he sat with his wife were sponsored tables. (ROI 27) Respondent stated that MDCPS and the Arsht Center collaborate in applying for grants, and ask the County goverment: for investment to be able to provide cultural and educational programs to the MDCPS students. (ROI 28) There is no indication that the sponsors of the tables ‘where Respondent and his wife sat each of the three times - The Law Firm of Colson Hicks Eidson, Moe Nadar, or Ad:ienne Arsht or the Arsht Center - are lobbyists or principals of lobbyists who lobby the school system, thus, precluding Respondent from accepting a gift valued 7 School Board Anarmey Walter Hareey sisted that The Law Firm of Colon Hicks Eldson did not provide any [egal tervicesto the Miami-Dade School Board between 2011 and2015.(RO126) 12in exeess of $100. Respondent's admission to the: Kevin Costner and Modern West event valued at $1,000, along with the value of his wife's admission ticket, should have been disclosed as gifts. Therefore, based upon the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the Commission find probable cause to believe tht Respondent viclated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes. ALLEGATION FIVE Respondent is alleged to have viclated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Suatmes, by -zccepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to "Arsht Center Gale with Hemy ‘Connick, Jr. Dazzles" which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. APPLICABLE LAW Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, is set forth in Allegation One above, ANALYSIS ‘Avsht Center Gala with Harry Connick. Jr. Dazzles Jn addition to the facts set forth above under Allegation One pertaining to the Arsht Center, Respondent and his wife accepted free admission valued st $1,000 per person to attend the Harry Connick, Jr. Dazzles event on April26, 2013. (ROI 23) Therefore, bused upon the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the ‘Commission find probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Starates. 3ALLEGATION SIX Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to the "Arsht Center Gala with Kevin Spacey Headline” which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. APPLICABLE LAW Section 112.3148(8), Florida Stanites, is set forth in Allegation One above. ANALYSIS Arsht Center Gala with Kevin Spacey Headline In addition to the facts set forth shove under Allegation One pertaining to the Arsht Center, Respondent and his wife accepted ftee admission valued at $1,000 per person to attend the Kevin Spacey Headline event on April 5, 2014. (ROI 23) This event is enalyzed differently from the two earlier galas held atthe Arsht Center because of a significant change in the law. Effective May 1, 2013, the legislature amended the gifts and honoraria law to provide a definition of "vecdor” and prohibiting @ reporting individual from knowingly accepting, directly ‘or indirectly, a gift from a vendor doing business with the reporting individual's agency if he reasonably believes that the gift has a value in excess of $100. § 112.3148(4), Fla. Sta! Vendor" means a "business entity doing business directly with an agency, such as renting, leasing, or selling eny realty, goods, or services.” § 112.3148@M(0, Fla. Stat ‘As previously stated, Respondent identified the Adrienne Arsht Center a8 a long-standing partner of MDCPS. (ROI 23) The three subject events at the Arsbt Center generated unrestricted funds "to further the mission of The Vizesyans to preserve, support, and advance the Vizeaya Ch. 201336, Laws of Florida 14‘Museum and Gardens." (ROI 12, 14) Its educational mission includes serving the MDCPS through a variety of programs. (ROI 12) According to Leslie Bowe, Respondent is “a key decision maker in which extemal education programs would be continued er discontinued. Our purpose in inviting [Respondent] to this event was to demonstrate to him the broad-based private seetor support for the educational programs....” (ROI 13) In sum, the Arsht Center is a "vendor" of MDCPS and since May 1, 2013, itis @ probibited donor if the "gift" has a value in excess of ‘$100, § 112.3148(4), Fla. Stax. Therefore, based upon the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the ‘Commission find no probable: cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112,3148(8), Florida Statutes, by accepting a gift for himself and his wife from a prohibited donor. ALLEGATION SEVEN Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 112.3148(6), Florida Sututes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to "United Way Chasity Cruise Aboard Celebrity Cruises’ ‘Reflection which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them ona CE Form 9-Quartetly Gift Disclosure, APPLICABLE LAW Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, is set forth in Allegation One above. ANALYSIS ‘United Way Charity Cruise Aboard Celebrity Cruises’ "Reflection" ‘Additional facts are set forth above under Allegation One, Respondent and his wife attended the two=nighi? "United Way Chasity Cruise Aboard Celebrity Cruises’ ‘Reflection™ event which took place on December { ~3, 2012. (ROI 30) Respondent stated that be has been a Respondent's recollection is tha the cruise lasted only one night, but be advised threugh counsel that he does not pute the United Way's records indicating that it was a two- nightcraise. (ROI 30,33) 15member of the United Way Executive Board since 2008, and that he attended this event in his capacity as a United Way of Miami-Dade Board Member and as Superintendent. (ROI 30, 34) Respondent maintains that, during the cruise, he left the genera group area and as a Bord ‘Member met with the Chair of the United Way, the President of the: eruise line, and sn elite group of contributors to the United Way. (ROI 30) He added that at some point there was a dinner, that he perticipated as celebrity card dealer for a fndraising activity, and thet be also interacted with other donors. (RO! 30) President and CEO of United Way of Miami-Dade, Harve Mogul, stated thet the purpose of this event wes to reise funds for United Way and spend time engaging with the community, ‘and he eonsidered Respondent to be working while at this event. (ROL 31) Sealer Vice President of Extemal Affairs for United Way of Mimmi-Dade, Tamara Klingle, stated that the United Way of Miami works closely with MDCPS, and describes the relationship between the two a3 ¢ “collaboration, not a legal parmership" though she conceded ‘that there are some contracts between the two organizations. (ROI 34) She stated that both organizations collaborate constantly with each other on educstional initiatives fom early education through high school graduation, are supportive of each other's public policy priorities, sad provide training 1o early educators working in the public school system. (ROI 34) Klingler indicated that since 1974, the School Board of Miami-Dade County bas had « rule spproving the annual United Way of Miami-Dade County charitable campaign for school personnel, in which MDCPS employees are asked to contribute to the United Way. (ROI34) Respondent attended this event as a United Way Board Member and, accerding to Mogul, it was a working event for all board members. (ROI 32) As such, Respondent may have provided equal or greater value of time and service to the United Way as.a board member when 16heattended this event, The Commission has concluded that "[w]here the recipient provides equal oor greater consideration than thal which is given by the donor, it does not constitute a gif." Se (CEO 91-45 (Mayor's receipt of travel expenses from the League of Cities was not a gift since the mayor provided equal or greater consideration to the League as a director when she attended its ‘board meetings.) In CEO 95-21, the Commission opined that the stipend a state senator received ‘for serving on the board of directors of an insurance company Wes not a gift since the other directors received the same remuneration. However, the Commission has opined that the spouse does not provide equal or greater consideration by accompanying the public officenfreporting individual traveling or by appearing st the events, thus, the public officereporting individual receives an “indirect gift” for the spouse's paid expenses. See CEO 06-27, also see Rule 34-15.310(6), Fla. Admin. Code. Respondent was required to disclose the indicect gift he received for his wife's attendance on the mise. ‘Hulda Msjnster, Executive Assistant to the CEO of United Way Miami-Dade, advised that the actual cost per person to their organization for this event was S800, and that the ticket ‘price the organization changed in order to raise money was $1,000, meaning that $200 served as charitable contribution. (ROI 33) ‘Therefore, bused upon the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the Commission find probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes. ALLEGATION EIGHT Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to the "2013 Miami Heart and 7Stroke Ball” which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9- Quarterly Gift Disclosure, APPLICABLE LAW Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, is set forth in Allegation One above, ANALYSIS (2013 Miami Heart and Stroke Ball Additional facts are set forth under Allegation One above. Respondent attended the 2013 Miami Heart and Stroke Ball that took place on March 2, 2013."° (ROI 37) Respondent stated that he was invited in his official capacity as Superintendent to accept the Dr. Sanford L, and Beatrice Ziff Big Heart Humanitarian Award in recognition of the work he and the Miami-Dade County Public School Board did.on poliey, nutrition, and well-being to promote a heart healthy lifestyle for students end staff. (ROI 37, Exhibit B). Respondent related that he arrived toward the end of the event, was presented a plaque (award), took a picture, and left, (ROI 37) He added that he was certain that he did not partake in the activities or dinner and gave no speech. (ROL +37) He stated that his wife did not attend this event. (ROL37) Jessica Cerda-Antomarchi, the former Director of the American Heart Society,"' stated that to the best of her recollection, the actual cost per ticket to the organization for this event was ‘S175, and that the ticket price was $500, meaning that $325 served as a charitable contribution. (ROT 38) She added that Respondent did not pay to attend since he was an honoree at the event. (RO1 38) The Miami Heart and Stroke Bul is hosted by the American Heart Associaton and the American Stoke Association, (ROI37) the Amercnn Hea Assooiaton ts listed as a SO1(¢XS) la the Internal Revenue Service website. (ROI 38) 18The award Respondent received is excluded from the definition of gift. 112.312(12\b}4., Fla. Stat. However, the admission "would not be excluded from the definition of ‘gif’ es “honoraria' or ‘expenses relsted to honorarium events’ because an honorerium is predicated on 2 ‘written or oral presentation” and Respondent did not make such a presentation. See CEO 91-68. Respondent was required to disclose as.a gift the free admission valued at $175 as a gift ‘Therefore, based upon the evidence before the Commission, 1 recommend that the Commission find probeble cause to believe that Respondect violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes. ALLEGATION NINE Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 1123148(8), Florida Statutes, by ‘accepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to the "Women of Tomorrow 13* Annual Gala" which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9- Quarterly Gift Disclosure. APPLICABLE LAW Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, is sct forth in Allegation One above. ANALYSIS ‘Women of Tomorrow 13" Annual Gala Additional facts are set forth above under Allegations One and Six. Respondent and kis wife attended the Women of Tomorrow Mentor & Scholarship Program 13" Annual Gala which took place on March 8, 2014. (ROI 42) Respondent maintains that he attended this event in his official capacity as Superintendent. (ROI 42) He explained that this event raises funds thathave a direct benefit to the MDCPS by sllowing, in partnership with MDCPS, the mentoring of young ‘women to improve theit grades and graduation rates. (ROI 42) He added that there is a 19Memorandum of Understanding between the scholarship program and the School Board of Miami-Dade County which outlines the mentor and scholarship program. (ROI 42, composite Exhibit G) Respondent stated that it is his professional responsibility to support this program that generates funds for scholarships and ongoing mentoring to at-risk youth in MDCPS, (ROI 42) He further added that he was a Board Member of the United Way of Miami-Dade which is a direct supporter of the Women of Tomorrow Program. (ROI 42) Jennifer Valoppi, Founder and President of the Women of Tomorrow Program," stated thet Respondent met donors at this event, and showed his support for the program, which she believes motivated people to donate funds to the program. (ROI 43) She explained that this program helps mentor 1,100 to 2,000 girls in MDCPS, and also provides scholarships. (ROI 43) ‘Valoppi related that the actual event cost per ticket to the Woman of Tomomew organization, which included food and drink, was $180, but that the price they charged in order ‘to attend was $350 to $2,500, depending on the donor level. (ROI 43) Valoppi stated that Respondent and his wife would have been atthe $350 menor level. (ROI 43) ‘Asin Allegation Six above, the Women of Tomorrow Program appears to be a vendor of the MDCSP since it is a “business entity doing business directly with an agency” (MDCPS] by providing services. § 112.3148(2\(, Fla. Stat. Thus, Respondent was prohibited from knowingly accepting 2 gift of free admission for himself and his wife ffom the Women of Tomorrow Program if he knew or reasonably believed that the admission had a value in excess of $100. § 112.3148(4), Fla. Stat. '2 The Wemea of Tomoarow organization is listed as « $01(eX3) in the Internal Revenue Service website (ROI 43) 20‘Therefore, based upon the evidence before the Commission, 1 recommend that the Commistion find no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112:3148(8), Florida Statutes. ALLEGATION TEN Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 112.3148(8), Florids Stamtes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to the "14" Annual Mayor's Ball” Which exceeded the value of $100 and filed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. APPLICABLE LAW Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, is set forth in Allegation One sbove. ANALYSIS 14° Annual Mevor's Ball: Additional facts ere set forth above under Allegation Ore, Respondent and his wife attended the "14th Annual Mayor's Ball” hosted by the United Wey on June 8, 2013. (ROI 39) Respondent advised that he was invited because he was a board member and he reiterated that the United Way is a parmer of the MDCPS, and that this event raises flinds that benefit the ‘MDCPS community, children, and teachers. (ROI 39, Exhibit F) Respondent explained that he ‘ook part in greeting and speaking to major donors, which, he states, is what he was expected to do at this event as a member of the United Way Board. (ROI 39) Respondent stated that the event included a dinner, a silent auction, and entertainment. (ROI 39) ‘Mogul explained that this was «. "working event for all board members, and that each were assigned to cultivate and thank key donors and volunteers in attendance, make introductions to businesses and sponsors in attendance, and tell the United Way story to aeveryone they interacted with that evening.” (ROI 40) Hulda Majnster, Executive Assistant to the CEO of United Way Miami-Dade, ‘confirmed that the actual cost per ticket to the organization for this event was $240, and that the ‘ticket price charged in omer to raise money was $500, meaning that $260 served as the charitable contribution. (ROT 41) ‘Therefore, based upon the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the Commission find probeble cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Stamtes. ALLEGATION ELEVEN Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statues, by accepting @ necktie(s) for himself which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure APPLICABLE LAW ‘Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, is set forth in Allegation One above. ANALYSIS: Neckties Complainant alleges that Respondent accepted neckties valued at more than $100 as gifts from Miumi-Dade County School Board Chair Perla Tabares Hantman and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9, Quarterly Gift Disclosure, (ROI 46) Respondent stated in an article in the September/October 2014 issue of Indulge magazine published by the Miami-Herald Media Company that: "So I have 15 ot 20 ties, but I abuse cbout five of them. And most of them are gifts. I's become 2 tradition that for the holidays or my birthday the chair of the school board gives me a tie. A tie I probably wouldn't go out and buy for myself, one that definitely stretches my buying potestial -sometimes i's a Hermes or Ferragamo." (ROL47) Respondent stated that by "tradition" he meant if something happens more then once from somebody that is meaningful to him. (ROI 48) He added that as a tradition he is usually givena necktie 0s a gift by his wift and his brother. (ROI 48) Perla Tebares Hantman has served as Chair of the Miami-Dade School Board since 2010 and to the best of her recollection she has given two neckties to Respondent - once when the Respondent: won the award for the 2014 Netional Supecintendent of the Year, and the other on his birthday sometime within the lest five years. (ROI 48) Hantman added that she believes both times she gave Respondent a "Hermes" brand necktie, but never a "Ferragamo" brand. (ROT 49) Hantman maintains that she cannot remember whether she paid more than S100 for each necktie and she did not keep a receipt for the gifts. (ROI 50) She confirmed that Respondent did not compensate her for the gifts, (ROT 50) She added that she does not know if Respondent knew the value of the ties at the time she gave them to him. (ROI 50) The Heres brand neckties average $180, with the lowest priced necktie at $140, (ROL 52) Respondent stated that he has been friends with Hantman for 20 years. (ROI 52) Respondent stated he was certain that on one occasion he received a Hermes brand necktie and ‘he maintains thet he did not know the value of the neckties when they were given to him or whether they cost more than $100, (ROI 52) Respondent stated that he interpreted the gifts 0s being associated with his employment and therefore not required to be reported according ta the instructions on the CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure, (ROI $2) He clarified that at the time he received the gifts he thought they were non-reportable but did not read the Form 9 instructions ‘or seek advice on whether he was correct. (ROI 52) He added that he understood when he accepted the ties that they were paid for by Hantman and that no School District funds were usedfor the purchase of these ties. (ROL 52) School Board Anomey Walter Harvey stated that Respondent did not ask bim any questions sbout the necktie gifts given to him by Hantman and he stated that he advises School ‘Board Members and the Superintendent that his offfce should be contacted if they have questions regarding what is required to be reported ase gift. (ROI 54) ‘The gifts Respondent received were two neckties, the value of each exceeded $100, The sift statute does not apply to gifis accepted by a reporting individual from relatives or immediate family. §§ 112.3148(1), (2X) and 112.3148(8)(e)|., Fla. Stet. The donar of the two neckties is ‘not Respondent's relative or immediate family. (ROL 52) In CEO 89-50, the Commission opined that the mayor must disclose as & gift the restoration of his pickup truck provided as a birthday ‘and retirement gift by his fiends. Respondent was required to disclose the receipt of the gifts of neckties, valued at over $100 each, from his fiend and employer on CE Form 9. Therefore, based upon the evidence before the Commission, T recommend that the Commission find probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes CONCLUSION Section 112,313(4), Florida Statutes," prohibits a public officer from accepting anything. ‘under circumstances where he knew or should have known that it wns being given in an effort to influence him. As a defense for accepting event tickets and free admissions, Respondent alleges: that his "duties and responsibilities require him to be actively involved in the community and ‘with community organizations, including attending events, such as the ones in question." Response to ROL, p. 1, Exhibits 2, 3, 4, $, 6 8) Respondent's "Employment Agreement" ‘confirms that the School Bosrd recognizes additional functions may involve unreimbursed This section isnot at sue 24expenses for attendance at meetings, conferences, tickets, meals, etc, thus, the Board. compensates Respondent for the additional expenses. Pursuant to the employment agreement, Respondent receives an unrestricted monthly supplemeat of $900, 2 credit card, and authorization for the issuance of checks for expense reimbursements so that Respondent may: {fulfil these obligations. (Response to ROI, Exhibit 2) Although Respondent alleges that he attended all the events in his capacity as Superintendent, be provided no proof that he paid for any of the subject events or compenseted the donor within 90 days of receipt of the gift to reduce the value to a non-reportable value of $100 or less in accordance with Section 112.5148(8)(2), Florida Statute Section 112.3148 allows the reporting individual to accept gifts given to his agency and, thus, not report it oa CE Form 9. Respondent suggests the Commission should conclude that these gifts were not reporisble under Section 112.3148 because each event served a "public purpose." The Contmission has specifically rejected this argument and declined to create an exemption to the definition of "gift" for items that serve a "publi purpose” because it could cesily envision circumstances in which such a brosd exception could be abused. See CEO 13-3 Tn GEO 13-3, the mayor of the Consolidated City of Jacksonville received invitations and travel expenses to events to advocate for the city, give speeches, and market the city at a destination. The mayor was specifically invited due to the position he held. Many of the expenses were underwritten by private individuals or entities. The mayor treated the trips and expenses as gifts to the city rather than to him personally or as bonoririum-event releted expenses paid to him for speaking opportunities. The Commission acknowledged that a put purpose was served through the mayor's travel, but articulated its view that "disclosure should be the goal for every reporting individual who received any of the items listed in the statutorydefinition of ‘gif,’ and that this approach was in accord with the legislative intent articulated through the enactment of Chapter 90-502, Laws of Florida." Following the Commission's thorough, detailed analysis, it concluded that the mayor's travel constituted gifts to him personally, in accordance with legislative intent and the Commission's precedent, ‘The Commission opined earlier thet ¢ legislator’s advocacy at an event for the purpose of encouraging businesses to relocate to his district was not consideration equal to or greater than the value of the gift of free admission to the event which would take the free admission out from under the definition of a gift because the Icgislator’s advocacy was rendered as part of his public service rather than purely his private expacity. See CEO 91-68. Under the circumstances presented herein, the events, meals, etc, paid directly by others to Respondent and his wife were for his personal enjoyment are considered gifts to Respondent ‘under the law, Respondent stated thet he believes he has a "fairly solid familiecity" with the gift disclosure laws through reeding, and attending the regularly scheduled ethics training provided by the School Board Association. (ROI 44) Respondent related that he has been aware: since before he became Superintendent in 2008 that be is responsible for filing a CE Form 9-for gifts ‘Yalued over $100, but contends that the events in question were not gifts because he was acting in his officiel cepecity as Superintendent, and in ¢ number of events, secving dual capacity as a United Way Board Member and as Superintendent. (ROT 44) He maintins that “the vast majority of these events, if not all of them, with the exception of the Don Shula event,” are hosted by entities that the MDCPS has perinerships with and that generate finds to support ‘educeional programs to Miami-Dade children and edueators. (ROI 44) Respondent added that the MDCSP's attorney did not interpret these events as gifts. (ROI 44) 26Schoo! Board Attorney Harvey stated that there have been general statements made about gift reporting, but added thet Respondent has never asked him whether he needed to report as a gift his attendance at any specific event. (ROI 45) RECOMMENDATION Itis my recommendation that, 1, There is probable cause to believe that Respondent viotsted Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to "A Magical Evening at Vizcaya" and feiling to disclose the gifi{s) on & CE Form 9-Quarteriy Gift Disclosure, 2. There is probable cause to believe that Respoadent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to "Moffitt Cancer Center Honors Coach Don Shula” which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. 3. ‘There is no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by acccpting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to "Miami Bridge” Gala which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. 4, There is probable cause to believe thot Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to "Arsht Center Gala with Kevin Costner and Modem West" which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. 5S. There is probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to "Arsht Center Gala with Harry Comnick, Jr. Dazzles" which exceeded the value af $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. 6. There is no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to ‘the "Arsht Center Gala with Kevin Spacey Headline” which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form $-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. 7. There is probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Seetion 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by secepting tickets or admission for himself and/or his spouse to "United Wey Charity Cruise Aboard Celebrity Cruises’ Reflection” which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. 08, There is probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself endfor his spouse to the "2013 Minmi Heart and Stroke Ball” which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a (CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure, 9, There is probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112,3148(8), Florida Stanites, accepting tickets or admaission for himself and/or his spouse to the "Women of ‘Tomorrow 13" Annual Gala” which exceeded the value of $100 and failed to disclose them on a ‘CE Form $-Quarterly Gift Disclosure, 10. There is probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by accepting tickets or admission for himself and/o: his spouse to the "id= Annual Mayor's Ball" which exceeded the value of $100 and fatled to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. 11, There is probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, by accepting @ nécktie(s) for himself which exceeded the value of S1O0 end failed to disclose them on a CE Form 9-Quarterly Gift Disclosure. Respectfully submitted this 2'THbyday of June, 2016. on Ethics Florida Bar No, $78411 Office ofthe Atomey General ‘The Capitol, PL-OL ‘Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (850) 414-3300, Ext, 3702 2BComplaint Na, 13-024 Done |Reltonp 42013 “A Starry Night” Gala wala Wife Resp. Wife Alleg. | Bvent/Apency Donoris? Coxi® Acceptable ee to MDCPS- a ; : aaa Ae Press | Rete. | parmenhip | 4250p. | atbbipit which eusinows) | YES Oe - Defense: Respondent did not catend the event itself, went t a: mera peace cemealles me ‘engreieted Conch Shula end 2 lees eeerk ee atte win None ‘wok pleture with him, and YES Shol Center ‘took @ picture with Sen. ‘Graham, and left. He did not esa ea down ata table and did not aaee ae ee oe a Wife Wikis | SPP | i0te 1S minute “oral <$100 ie ee ‘51,000 pp. No yes No | Amit Center ala ee ‘thievin Commer | Edlaon Law Lae medModem West | Fin T7013 Hay Connie, J en hee 3 | Derzles at Anke Moc Neder | wife Parmerihip | $8000n5. | YES ae Center Gals seer [ise [eee [me on tea specny - ' a oe eel ae a SUO00 PE. | donot (char ef Tew: S/H3) | = Cente Gals eee raa012 Unlied Way Chay Conmactr prereore 7 Gooey Grae Be | Resp.e Board | S20 PR | Excluded git or Respondect | YES 2a | Mosier sade (12.3122) YS_ maven ae tan nsee slain pice is 2 amen Defrme: Respondent arrived A ca | P| ee oe round the endef theever, | YES ‘Soke Ball Saas ee frespreucda pl, ooke tre, and ef. sane = 9 | Wena of Tenomo tp lpumentip | sito 130ml Gala Commer cans ler ih Aco Mayor's a 10 | pat United Way kop Romy [DORR a foci Boast |e ioe eee can co Necktes Empioyer Defense: Respondent sad ey alee Employer [RP | Eployce werea gif fom hisemployer, | YES the Scboo| Board Chair.Complaint No. 15-024 '34-13.200, F.A.C. "Deaor” and "Donee™ Defined. ) Sener ei pees ity wn nen pays 0, whites recy cx indirectly. Gestion 112.3148(4) probibits a reporting individeal from secepting, direcdy or indirectly, a git from a lobbyist.) (dt is not evident whether there are multiple donors, or co-donors, far any of the subject events.) (2) A" dance” is the person who receives the gif, or on whose behalf the gift is made ag © 34-13,500, FAC. Gift Valuation. (9) The value of a gift of an admission ticket shall not include that portion of the cost which represents @ charitable contribution, if the gift is provided by the charitable organization benefiting from the contribution. See also §112.3148(7)(K), Fla. Stat. Section 112.3148(f) became effective May 1,2013. "Vendor" moans a business entity doing business directly with an agency, such as renting, leasing, or selling any realty, goods, or services. 3413310, A.C. Prohibitions Ageins: Accepting and Giving Gifts. (1) A reporting individual... is probibited from knowingly accepting, directly or indirestly, a gift from a ... veraior doing business withthe individual's or employee's agency, if he knows orressonably believes that the gift bas value in excess of $100. (2) A vendor ... is prohibited from giving, either directly or indirectly, a gift that has a value in excess of $100 to the reporting individual ....ei (CEDEE EN Oeicbr 28, 108 (CEO 89-50 —- October 26, 1989 GIFT DISCLOSURE (CITY MAYOR RECEIVING RESTORATION OF PICKUP TRUCK To: John J. Oates, Mayor, City of Rockledge SUMMARY: Section 112.3148(2)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that a city mayor disclose the restoration of his pickup truck provided as a birthday gift by ‘tiends, where the value of the restoration exceeds $100. Although the mayor received only the restored truck and did not receive any of the over 100 donations which paid for its restoration, the stature requires the disclosure of persons who make coatributions to the public officer or to any other person on his bebalf Therefore, the names and addresses of those persons who contributed more than $100 should be disclosed. If the mayor does not know who provided more: than $100, it is suggested that he disclose the names of all known donors and explain that not all of the persons listed provided over $100, QUESTION: Does the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees require you, a city mayor, to disclose the restoration of your pickup truck provided as a birthday giftby friends? Your question is answered in the affirmative. In your letier of inquiry you advise that you are Mayor of the City of Rockledge. Over 100 people donated money in amounts ranging fom $5.00 to $200.00 for the purpose of restoring your pickup truck as a ‘gift to you on the occasioa of your 65th birthday and retirement from your private employment. The funds were ‘eollected, the repairs performed, and then the restored trick was presented to you along with a birthday card listing the names of persons who contributed to the restoretion. You inquire how this gift should be reported for purposes of financial disclosure, ‘Section 1123148(2Xe), Floride Stamutes, as created by Chapter 89-380, Laws of Florida, provides in relevant part: Each elected public officer... shall file a statement containing a list of all contributions received by hint or on his behalf, if any, and expendimuzes from, or disposition made of, such contributions by such afficer which are not otherwise required to be reported by chapter 105, with the names ead addresses of persons making such contributions or receiving payment or distribution from such contributions end the dates thereof, For purposes of this disclosure requirement, which previously wes contained in Section 111.011, Florida Statutes, the term “contribution” is defined to mean “any gift, donation, or payment of money the value of which is in exeess of $100 to any public officer ot to any other person on his betalf* Section 1123148(1)(), Florida ‘Statutes. Contributions or gifts received during 1989 should be reported on Commission on Ethics Form 7, Gifts and Other Non-Campaign Contributions, which should be filed ‘together with the annual financial disclosure statement due on July 1, 1990. Here, the “contribution” or “gift” you received is the restoration of your trick. As its value clearly exceeds $100, you must disclose the restoration as a "contribution." The only question remaining, therefore, is whose names and addresses must be disclosed as being the persons who made the contribution. Tn addressing this question, we note initially thatthe statute requires the disclosure of persons who make hpataun tice tee fmDoreertaiOpecraiSGCEO NACA ORDH rr)earns (CED GES ~ Cetsbr 28,1680 contributions to the public officer or to any other person on his behelf. Because of this language in the law, it is ‘apparent that the names of persons who make donations exceeding $100 to another on behalf of an official should be disclosed, even if the donations are pooled in onfer to provide 2 gift to the official. Therefore, even though you received only the restored truck and did not receive any of the donations which paid for its restoration, you should disclose each individual who contributed more than $100 to the fund which was then used to restore the truck, ‘We recognize that there may be situations where an official may not be able to accurately determine exactly who provided donations in excess of $100 to a find which was used to purchase a gift for him, For example, a truly anonymous donation exceeding $100 could be made. In other situations, such as where contributions are collected from employees for a gift for their employer, asking who contributed and in what ‘amounts could ereste problems with employee relations or employee morale. In such cases, the name of the group, organization, er persons who were responsible for eoordinating the collection of money and the purchase ofthe gift should be disclosed. Ta the situation here, it appears that you know the identity of persons wha contributed to the restoration ‘of your truck and that some of these persons did provide more than $100. Therefore, if you know the identity of those persons who contributed mere than $100, their names and addresses should be disclosed. If you do not iknow who contributed more than $100 to the fund, we suggest that you disclose the names of all known donors ‘with an explanatory note indicating that not every person may have contributed in excess of $100. Accordingly, we find that the restoration of your truck should be disclosed under Section 112.3148, Florida Statutes, and that you should disclose the names and addresses of those persons who contributed more than $100, If you do not knew who provided more then $100, we suggest that you disclose the names of all known donors and explain that not all ofthe persons listed provided over $100,enwane CED 1a Search ra 203 (CEO 13-3 — March 13, 2013 GIFT ACCEPTANCE AND DISCLOSURE MAYOR'S TRAVEL EXPENSES UNDERWRITTEN BY OTHER ENTITIES To: Cindy A. Laguidara, General Counsel, Consolidated City of Jacksonville SUMMARY: 's travel to conferences and events paid for by others would not be considered “gifts to " Consistent with the legislative intent of Sections 112.3148 and 112.3149, Florida ‘Statutes, and the Commission's precedent, the mayer's travel constituted gifts to him personally. Only where a public official's travel is paid for by his own agency, and where his agency then receives reimbursement from a third party would the reimbursemeat received by the agency be considered a “gift to the agency.” Funds received by the city from third parties and deposited into 2 public fund which are then used to pay for official travel by city officials could also be considered “gift to the agency.” CEO $1-21, CEO $1-37, CEO 91-87, CEO 92-12, CEO 98-8, and CEO 7-3 are cited. QUESTION 1: ‘Would expenses of the Mayor's travel to conferences and events paid directly by others be considered gifts to the City, or gifts or honorarium event-related expenses given to him personally? Under the circumstances presented, the Mayor's travel was a gift or honorarium event-related expenses given to him personally and subject to the acceptance and disclosure provisions in Sections 112.3148 and 112.3149, Florida Statutes. Through your letter of inquiry and additional correspondence with our staff, we are advised that as the General Counsel for the Consolidated City of Jacksonville, you seek this opinion on behalf of Jacksonville Mayor Alvin Brown. You ask whether contributions of trips and expenses far the Mayor to travel on behalf of the City, paid cither directly to him or on his behalf, constitute gifts to him personally for purposes of the “gift” Iaw (Section 112.3148, Florida Statutcs), or the “honoraria” Iw (Section 112.3149, Florida Statutes). ‘You explain that since his clection, the Mayor hss bad the opportunity to travel out of town on a number of occasions, advocating for the City and marketing Jacksonville as a destination. Some of these trips also involved speaking opportunities. In many instances, the expenses for these trips were underwritten by private individuals or entities, but instead of treating the trips as gifts to the Mayor or, when he was invited to speak, as ‘the receipt of honorarium-eveat related expenses by him, they were considered to be “gifts to the City.” In this, ‘way, you explain, his travel costs did not have a negative impact on the City's budget but, instead, blended public and private resources for the betterment of the City. You question whether this approach comports with Sections 112.3148 and 112.3149, Florida Statutes. We do not belicve that it docs. Section 112.3148(4), Florida Statutes, provides: A reporting individual or procurement employee or any other person oa his or her behalf is prohibited from knowingly accepting, directly or indirectly, a gift from a political committee or committee of continuous existence, as defined in s. 106.011, or from a lobbyist who lobbies the reporting individual's or procurement employee's agency, or directly or indirectly on behalf of the partner, fim, employer, or principal of a lobbyist, if he or she knows or reasonably belioves thet i leg posh cteplatettrecealichidstintcoe -ome (BD 19-8- March 3, 2013 the gift has a value in excess of $100; however, such a gift may be accepted by such person on behalf ofa govemmental entity or a charitable organization. Ifthe sift is eccepted on bebalf of a governmental entity or charitable organization, the person receiving the gift shall not maintain custody of the gift for any period of time beyond that reasonably necessary to arrange for the transfer of custody and ownership of the gift. ‘The definition of “gift” in Section 112.312(12), Florida Statutes, includes ‘Transportation, other than that provided to a public afficer or employee By an ‘agency in relation to officially approved governmental business, lodging. or parking. Section 112.3149(6), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: A reposting individual or procurement employee who rectives payment ar provision of exponses related to eny honorarium event from a person who is prohibited by subsection (4) from paying an honorarium to a reporting individual Of procurement employee shall publicly disclose on an annual siatement the name, sddress, and affiliation of the person paying or providing the experses; the amount of the honorarium expenses; the date of the honorarium event; a description of the expenses paid or provided on each day of the honorarium event; and the total value of the expenses provided to the reporting individual or procurement employee in connection with the honorérium event. The anmal statement of honorarium expenses shall be filed by July 1 of each year for those expenses received during the previous calendar year. Since the gift law was first enscted in 1990, we bave never concluded that e public officer bad not received a gift when he traveled at the expense of someone other than his gency. In CEO 91-57, we were confronted with a situation where 2 state senator traveled to Europé to participate in a NATO conference and to Brazil as part of a trade mission, and in both cases, we concluded thst he had received a reportable gift. Although there was no question thst a public purpose was served through kis travel in both ceses, we articulated our view that diselosure should be the goal for every reporting individual who received any of the items listed in the statutory definition of “gift,” and that this approach was in accord with the legislative intent articulated through the enactment of Chapter 90-502, Laws of Florida. ‘Conceming gifts to agencies, this precise issue was litigated in a series of complaints involving officials from Bay County who traveled at the expense of a corrections company to view some of their jail facilities. In \Cormplaint No. 03-081, COE Final Order No, 06-315 (2006), we found: 8. To summarize and to clarify our view of the gift law in this area, when an individual is wansported or provided lodging and it is paid for or provided by smother, 20 long as that individual did not provide equal or greater consideration to the payor or provider for that transportation or lodging, the individual received “gift” as that term is defined in Section 112.312(12), unless the circumstances are specifically excluded by a paragraph within Section 112.312(12). To the extent that out opinion CEO 91-71, which concemed legal services, would imply otherwise, that opinion is revoked. 9. We find this view of the law more reasonable than that proposed by the ALJ, because it does not require that any legal fictions be created, such as a hypothetical 2003 “wansfec" to the County of transportation that wes provided to the Respondent in 2000 or an [sic] “simultaneous” transfer of lodging provided to og gecisinycrTntoncltoekrmdetadLrabcetkcoe seure CED 3-Maer 203 the Respondent when the hotel bill was paid. Nor does it require that the cexployee's agency be considered to have received “lodging” or “transportation,” ‘when an agency cannot be transported or lodged. 10, This view of the law also is more consistent with opinions, rendered by the House General Counsel during the first year after the law was enacted, ebout travel that was taken in an official capacity, For example, in HCO 91-29 the ‘Member was appointed by the Speaker as Florida's representative for a Council of State Governments Environmental Mission to Japan. As part of that representstion, he wes invited to an educational briefing in Washington to assist Bim in fulfilling his obligations os a representative. Because of State budget shorefalls, the Council agreed to pay his expenses to Wathington, which expenses would normally be paid by the State of Florida, The opinion concluded this would bs areportable gift om the Council, regardless of the fact that it could be argued that the payment of such expenses was a gift to the State rather than to the Member, as his expenses would otherwise be reimbursable by the State. The Council's payment of a portion of the travel expenses to Japan were also a “gif,” notwithstanding that the House paid for some of the travel and the travel was related to fulfilling official duties as a Member of the House. HCO 91-44. See also, HOO 91-09 (the payment or waiver of parking charges would constitutc a ‘gift, “notwithstanding that the ultimate beneficiary is the State of Florida, which ‘would be required to reimburse you for the reasonable expenses incurred by you ‘when parking at the airport for state business.”); HOO 91-07 (‘linkage” institutes operated within the Department of Education providing travel and other expenses for legislators and other public officials when traveling to the foreign linkage partners would constitute 2 “gifi"); and HCO 91-13 (an individual citizen may charter a plane for the purpose of flying the St. Johns County Legislative Delegation round trip between their districts and Tallahassee to address the Governor and Cabinet, but it would constitute a “gift."), Clearly, if the Legislature intended that transportation in one’s official capacity for a matter involving = public purposc is not a “gift,” these opinions would have reached completely different resul LI, In addition, if it is not a “gift” as defined by the Legislature whenever a public officer or employee travels in an official eapecity on public business at the expense of a person or entity other than his or her public agency, we would be forced to ignore the language of two very specific provisions of the gift law. Subparagraphs 112.312(12)(a)7 and (6)7 exclude from the definition of » “gift” transportation “provided to a public officer or employee by sn agency in relation to officially approved governmental business.” As this language only addresses ‘transportation provided “by en agency,” it clearly means that transportation ‘provided by privaic persons end entities are not excluded from being a “gift,” even if the travel bas some official purpose. Also, subsection 112.3148(6) allows the gift, but requizes a very specific disclosure, when certain governmental agencies give a gift worth over $100 “if'a public purpose can be shown for the gift,” even though those agencies may employ lobbyists to influence the recipient's public agency. Again, if it were not a “git” when what is being provided or paid for ultimately saves money for one’s public agency, we would have to ignore this part ofthe gift law... More recently, in CEO 017.3, we acknowledged that Section 112.3148, Florida Statutes, did not prohibit gifts to agencies or require their reporting; but In that opinion, we were considering a discounted conference registration rate offered to the Office of Financial Regulation, not to individual employees. There, it was up to the agency to designate who would attend the conference, not the individual employees, with the agency paying other expenses related to their attendance. We do not view the Mayor's travel in the same way. In this case, the Mayor has received invitations und travel expenses to events precisely because he holds office as Mayor of the mea Bo. portion oleate et O=tCOe =ewan CED IS a-mareh 18 2019 Consolidated City of Jacksonville. For this reason, we continue to believe that Sections 112.3148(4) and 112.3149(6), Florida Statutes, govern the Mayor's scceptance of travel, Trips from non-prohibited donors may ‘he accepted and then reported pursuant to Section 112.3148(8), Florida Statutes, oa a CE Form 9, Quarterly Gift Disclosure, if the value of the trip exceeded $100. In the same way, honorarium-event related expenses may be accepted but, if puid for by a prohibited donor, disclosed pursuznt to Section 1123149(6), Florida Statutes, on the CE Form 10, Annual Disclosure of Gifts from Governmental Entities and Direct-Support Organizations and. Honorarium Event Related Expenses. ‘The City's desire to reduce the fiscal impact of travel expenses on the City budget by allowing travel costs to be underwritten by others is an understandable goal in these times of economic hardship, and we have consistently construed Section 112.3148, Florida Statutes, as allowing public officers to travel at their agency's expense and then have their agency obtain reimbursement from the donor for their travel without it being considered a reportable or probibited gift to the public official, In CEO 91-21, a supervisor of elections traveled to view a voting machine manufacturer's factory, and we found reimbursement from the manufacturer to the county was a “gif to the agency” which was neither prohibited nor reportable by Section 112.3148, Florida Statutes. In CEO 92-12, a PSC cmployee traveled at agency expense to conduct an audit of utility and the Utility then reimbursed the agency for the employee's expense, and we found that the employes bad not received fa gift. This is not = question of form over substance, or of allowing indirectly that whieh could not be done directly: an ageney's “up-front” peyment of an official's travel expenses ensures that the agency has made a decision, in advance, that the travel is necessary, takes advantage of the agency's transparent processes for ‘approving official travel in advance, and ensures that the traveler is reimbursed at the government rate, In ‘way, the agency can offset the expense to its taxpayers of necessary official travel, while the public is protected ‘against the potential for abuse which could arise if all travel for which any nominal public purpose could be identified were to be considered a gift to the agency. This approach, in our view, achieves the goals of the gifts ‘and honoraria laws, and is consistent with our precedent. ‘Question 1 is answered accordingly. QUESTION 1. ‘Whether monetary donations to a City-maintained fund that would be used to pay for official travel by the Mayor and other City officials would be considered “gifts to the city?” Under the circumstances presented, Question 2 is answered in the affirmative. ‘You have asked the Commission to opine on the City's proposal to accept monetary donations from third parties ond deposit them into a public account on éa ongoing basis, where the funds would thea be used to pay for the Mayor's travel, as well that of other officials who have need to travel on City business, You refer to this ‘proposel os the “direct payment” method which could protest taxpayer dollars while at the seme time fund agency-approved, business-related travel. Tn CEO 98-8, we opined that pursuant to Section 1123148(3), Floride Statutes, a state legislator could not solicit donations for his legal defense fund from lobbyists or from the partners, firms, employers, or principals of lobbyists who lobbied the Legislature, and that he could not accept contributions greater than S100 from these entities. without violating Section 112.3148(4), Florida Statutes. We said that gifts from non- prohibited donors could be accepted but would have to be reported on a CE Form 9 if they were greater then $100, In CEO 91.37, we opined that a city commissioner could not solicit funds for a newsieter from lobbyists or from the partners, firms, employers or principals of lobbyists who lobbied the city, and that likewise, he could ‘not ascept contributions from those same entities that exceeded $100. We view both of these opinions as distinguishable from the City’s proposal because, in both cases, it was the public official who maintained contro! fend access to the donated funds, mot» governmental entity. Therefore, where the City recsives gratuitous donations from the private sector snd then uses the donations to pay for official travel by the Mayor and other officials, we would view those donations as gifts to the City which are neither probibited nor reportable. This presupposes thet the City’s pracess for funding travel costs for its officials through this account is otherwise ‘appropriate, open, transparent, and consistent with law, Question 2 is answered accordingly. psu geese Menenpine wos retrace 6eons (GEO 183 March £4, 2035 ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in public session on March 8, 2013 and RENDERED this 13th day of March, 2013. Susan Horovitz Maurer, Chair apa sag geste ee Pneepleteektceeshenbkdoten oe,exirons CEO GER — December 1221 (CEO 91-68 -- December 6, 1991 GIFT ACCEPTANCE / DISCLOSURE. STATE REPRESENTATIVE RECEIVING ADMISSION TO AUTOMOBILE RACES FOR PURPOSE ‘OF MEETING LEADERS OF BUSINESSES AND PROMOTING THEIR RELOCATION TO HIS DISTRICT To: ‘The Honorable Dick Graham, State Representative, District 28 (DeLand) SUMMARY: A State Representative is not probibited under the gift law from accepting admissions to automobile races where the speedway's owner is a principal or employer of a lobbyist, provided. the value of all admissions accepted for a particular race does not exceed $100. Under Section 112.3148, Florida Statutes, the admissions are not tickets having a face value, and thus their value is to be detennined through prorstion of costs among persons invited to particular races. CEO's 91.39 and S1-d$ are referenced. QUESTION: ‘Are you, a State Representative, prokibited by the gift law from attending races at the Daytona International Speedway for the purpose of encouraging the relocation of businesses to Volusia County? Your question is answered in the negative, subject to the condition noted below. In your letter of inquiry, in telephone conversation between your legislative assistant and our staf, and in communication arranged by your legislative assistant between our staff and representatives of the entities described herein, we are advised that you serve as a member of the Florida House of Representatives. We are advised further that you periodicelly are requested by the Volusia County Business Development Corporation (VCBDC) to attend faces at the Daytons Intemational Speedway for the purpose of meeting with representatives ‘of businesses and promoting relocation of those businesses to Volusia County. The rest of the Volusia County legislative delegation, along with members of local governmental bodies in the County, also are invited to attend races for the same purpose, The business prospects are brought to the races: by VCBDC, ‘The most expensive ticket toa race run in June costs $55. ‘The most expensive ticket to the Daytona 500, which is nin in February, costs $100 ot more. Those invited to a race by VCBDC are provided a pass which admits them to a suite at the racetrack, ‘The passes have no face valve, cannet be purchased by the general ‘public, and can be used only by an invited official aad persons accompanying him. Usually, an official is given ‘Two passes to a race: one for himself and one for his companion. The suite does not offer the best seating at the racetrack for viewing races, Food and drink, catered at the expense of VCBDC, are provided inthe suite. There is no paid parking at the speedvray. The business contact in the suite involves informal conversation between those Viewing the race there. VCBDC "leases" the suite from the speedway's owncr, International Speedway Corporation, for a token consideration of one dollar, The lease term is one year, and renewal is possible upon the agreement of both parties. Under the lease, VCBDC is to use the suite to promote the attraction of businesses to the County. YCBDC can use the suite during rces and at other times. Specifically, the corporation (as do lessees of compamble suites) gets 75 edmission passes to the suite which are good for 11 event days in a calendar year. The actual cost that the speedway's owner charges for leasing suites comparsble to the corporation's suite is $40,000 per year. ‘A document submitted with your opinion request, eatitled "RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR DAYTONA INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAY, SUITE "P’ provides in part that "The Volusia County Business Development Corporation (VCBDC) and the Daytona International Speedway are proud to have you as their tire nt. uae rari pln AVCEORAON-08 Mrs “eam (CEOS'-68-=Decomba 6,108 guest for this special racing event. We are formnate to have this beautiful, new Suite to use during these events to promote business and industry in Volusin County." A letter to you from the executive director of the corporation commenting on the document provides in part, "These rules and regulations are established by the Volusia County Business Development Corporation and only pertain to our suite. The other suites have the opportunity to set their own guidelines for their guests." ‘VCBDC is a nonprofit organization concemed with attracting businesses to Volusia County. It has eight board members, none of whom is afillisted with the speedway. Any person. can. become a member of the ‘corporation by paying dues, It is your present understanding that the corporation does not employ a legislative lobbyist and has not done so for at least the past year, and itis not a member of any associations which employ or so employed a lobbyist. The corporation is not a political committee or a committee of continuous existence, ‘The corporation came into existence in 1984 and is 2 not-for-profit, tax-exempt entity under the Internal Revenue Code. All of the corporation's funds arc spent on its programs, which include the production of a ‘County deta profile, the production and dissemination of brochures and information about the County and its business amenities, advertising the County as a desirable location for business, entertaining prospects who might locate businesses in the County, and making or promoting 2 video about the County. ‘The corporation bas eight directors and three ex officio directors, all of whom are business people. There is no overlap between the comoration’s directors and the speedway's owner's directors, there are no ‘overlapping employees, and the only business between the speedway and the conporation is the lease of the suite, The majority (approximately 70%) of the corporation's funding comes from Volusia County and the cities within the County. The balance of the corporation's funding is from yearly membership dues. There are two types of membership. “Ambassador” membership, similarto e chamber of commerce membership, costs $1,000 per year. General membership costs $250 per yeat. There are approximatcly 55 ambassadors and epproximatcly 45 general members. Membership is generally open to ell persons or business entities. The speedway's owner is an ambassador member of the corporation, without paying $1,000 annually because the value of the speedway suite provided to the corporation is reckoned by the corporation to: be worth af least $1,000 annually. The speedway's owner does employ legislative lobbyists. Section 112.3148(4), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part: ‘A reporting individual or procurement employee or any other person on his bebalfis prohibited from knowingly accepting, directly or indirectly, a gift from = political committee or committee of continuous existence, ss defined in s 106.011, oF from a lobbyist who lobbies the reporting individual's or procurement employee's agency, or dirccily or indireetly on behalf of the pariner, firm, employes, or principal of a lobbyist, if he knows or reasonably believes that the gift has 2 value in excess of $100; however, such a gift may be accepted by such person on bebalf of a governmental entity or a charitable organization. Ifthe gift ‘sccepted on behalf of a governmental entity or charitable organization, the person recelving the gift shall not maintain custody of the gift for any period of time beyond that reasonably necessary to arrange for the transfer of eustody and ‘ownership of the gift Section 112.312(5), Florida Statutes, defines "gift" and provides exclusions from the definition, ‘That section provides in relevant part: (2) ‘Gift! for purposes of ethics in government and financial disclosure ‘required by lav, means that which is aceepted by a donee or by another on the donce’s bebalf, or that which is paid or given to another for or on behalf of = donee, directly, indirectly, or in trust for his benefit or by any other means, for which equal or greater consideration is not given, including: 1. Real property. 2. The use of reel property. 3. Tangible or intangible personal property. 4 The use of tangible or intangible personal property. S. A preferential rate or terms on @ debt, loan, goods, or services, which tng ic tals UCEOMIE BM =