Administrative Law Judge G. W. Chisenhall has recommended that the Florida Commission on Ethics issue a final order imposing the following penalties on Escambia County Commissioner Doug Underhill: a public censure, reprimand, and a $5,000 fine.
Judge Chisenhall ruled that Commissioner Underhill’s release of the shade transcripts – which the judge described as “the most serious charge”- was reckless and ill-advised. However, the evidence did not establish that his action was corrupt within the meaning of section 112.313(6) of the Florida Statutes.
The judge turned down the Advocate’s proposed recommended order that Underhill should be removed from office. Instead, he accepted the order recommended by Underhill’s attorney that the penalty be limited to public censure and reprimand. Underhill has already agreed to these penalties.
The fine is due to Commissioner Underhill’s failure to report the nonpayment of legal services to Clark Partington, which was exacerbated by the fact that he paid nothing toward that debt in 2018 and 2019, and ultimately paid after his nonpayment was the subject of an ethics complaint.
I think all parties involved who seemed to have their feathers ruffled lets move on We already know Commissioner Doug Underhill will crowing as loud as a Rooster over the ruling. To those who like going to the meeting having fencing matches with Doug you over two months. I just wish we could respect at the BOCC meeting.
OK, so now I understand it’s a recommendation by the judge to the ethics committee, not a final order. It is not in the authority of the local board. Thanks for clearing that up Melissa and it is in the article Rick. My mistake on the process.
I actually agree with the judge’s ruling on the shade transcripts, Rick. Because while it was wrong–and he made that clear–it is very difficult to show how that inured to his benefit, and the benefit of Jonathan Owens. Of course it did, as it was the middle of an election cycle. But it’s difficult to demonstrate the material damage of Doug running his mouth ad nauseum.
It was also satisfying that the judge included language that showed just how bad Doug not reporting that gifted legal was. Not only was it putting him at possible conflict of interest, but as the judge pointed out it was made even worse by the fact that he never paid the bill until AFTER there was an ethics complaint in on it.
What’s important for people to understand also is that this isn’t a ruling–it’s a recommendation. Now it goes back to the Ethics Committee, who can either accept or vacate the the recommendation.
The AG was correct in calling for his removal, and he bragged about the shade transcripts, said that he would do it again, and then tried to play off his other violations as if they were “scrivener’s errors.” He showed no remorse whatsoever, as she pointed out. And if I know Doug, there is ZERO way that he hasn’t committed another ethics violation in the time since the first one went in. It will be very interesting to see how the Ethics Commission determines in this matter.
I wonder if the BCC will follow through tonight or continue to just let him run amuck and hope ignoring the problem makes it go away.
Maybe it will be added on and the other media will pick up on it.