From The News Service of Florida: An appeals court Wednesday rejected a decision by the Florida Commission on Ethics in a case involving a former Escambia County commissioner and suggested an “abuse of authority” by the ethics commission.
- A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal backed former Escambia County Commissioner Douglas Underhill, including overturning the ethics commission’s decision that Underhill should face a $35,000 fine.
BACKGROUND: The case stemmed from three complaints filed against Underhill, with the ethics commission finding probable cause that he violated seven parts of state law, according to Wednesday’s opinion. The commission sent the case to an administrative law judge for a hearing.
- The judge issued a recommended order that Underhill had committed three violations and should pay a $5,000 fine. The case went back to the ethics commission, which rejected parts of the judge’s recommended order and said Underhill should pay a $35,000 fine.
The case then went to the appeals court, focusing on two issues: whether Underhill had violated a state law by releasing transcripts of a closed-door legal meeting to another person and whether he had improperly solicited gifts by setting up a GoFundMe page to help pay personal legal expenses. The appeals court rejected the ethics commission’s conclusions on both issues.
For example, it disputed that Underhill had improperly solicited money on the GoFundMe page. “A GoFundMe page is not a mass send out to thousands of recipients or even to one specific recipient,” said the opinion shared by Judges Brad Thomas, M. Kemmerly Thomas and Adam Tanenbaum.
“There was no evidence presented that Underhill sent it directly to anyone. In fact, the (ethics) commission’s interpretation of ‘soliciting’ would have the effect of prohibiting any public officer or employee from posting a passive GoFundMe page.”
The appeals court also said the ethics commission “abused its discretion” in imposing the $35,000 penalty.
“In fact, when all the commission’s errors … are taken together and considered alongside the record of the final proceeding before it, we are left with the abiding impression that the final order on review is the product of the commission’s abuse of authority,” the opinion said. “Judicial review is available to correct just such abuse.” The appeals court ordered the commission to adopt the administrative law judge’s recommendations.