2-13-23 Handouts - Jim Wheatley s
/3/202
Shepard & Smith, P.A.
Memo
To: Joe Gerrity
From: Cliff Shepard
cc: Brenna Durden, Esq.
Date: August 25, 2017
Re: Report on Potential Charter Violation by Mayor Mitchell Reeves
On August 8, 2017, Interim City Manager Kevin Hogencamp retained me to conduct
a fact finding investigation into whether Mayor Mitch Reeves may have violated
Section 66 of the City of Atlantic Beach's charter. This action was initiated based
on a complaint and request for legal review filed by Mayoral Candidate, Dr. Ellen
Glasser on July 27, 2017.
While a complete copy of Dr. Glasser's complaint is included among the online
repository of documents and taped interviews I reviewed or conducted regarding this
assignment, in summary Dr. Glasser complains that Mayor Reeves "may have
willfully violated the City Charter by having a direct or indirect financial interest
through his company,' G.T. Distributors, which has conducted regular business with
the Atlantic Beach Police Department." See Complaint of Ellen Glasser at p. 2. Dr.
Glasser further requested that "[g]iven the upcoming election, [the City's] prompt
attention to this matter is necessary."
' While I have quoted from Dr. Glasser's complaint verbatim, it is important to note that while G.T.
Distributors is Mayor Reeve's employer, it is not "his company" in that the evidence has shown
conclusively that he has no ownership interest whatsoever in G.T. Distributors. This fact will be
explained in further detail in the body of this report.
Accordingly, and at the request of the City, I have made every effort to determine as
much as can be detennined about the allegations in a short period of time without
sacrificing accuracy so that the City, Mayor Reeves, Dr. Glasser and ultimately the
public can have confidence in the factual findings and conclusions contained herein.
Scope
At the outset it is important to understand that the scope of this inquiry is limited to
a possible violation of Section 66 of the Charter and does not involve any
consideration of possible violations of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, which is the
Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Dr. Glasser has filed a separate
complaint with the Florida Commission on Ethics regarding those issues.
Authority and Methodology
My retention by Mr. Hogencamp for this assignment was through his own authority
as Interim City Manager and not through the authority provided to the City
Commission under Section 64 of the Charter to investigate "any officer ... under
their jurisdiction."' (Emphasis added).
In order to properly conduct this fact-finding investigation I began by reviewing the
complaint and studying the language of Section 66 of the Atlantic Beach Charter.
This was a necessary first step before reviewing any other evidence or taking witness
statements because I needed to know exactly what type of conduct was proscribed
by the Charter and the nature of the allegations against the Mayor. An understanding
of this information is critical to then being able to sort through all of the other
evidence gathered and reviewed so that the relevant information is more readily
apparent when it is discovered. To put it in simple terms, knowing both the elements
of the offense and the allegations of the complaint allows you to more readily "sort
the wheat from the chaff."
Once I understood the proscriptions of Section 66 and the charges being leveled
against the Mayor, I spent the better part of a weekend reviewing approximately one
thousand documents provided to me at my request by the City. The documents
consisted primarily of emails, purchase orders and invoices from G.T. Distributors,
2 Under Section 64, the City Manager also has authority to cause the investigation of "any officer
or employee under [his] Jurisdiction," however the Mayor is not under the jurisdiction of the City
Manager so a Section 64 investigation would have had to have been initiated by the City
Commission.
2
the Mayor's current employer. The documents provided a base of information which
helped to formulate my questions for the witnesses and the Mayor.
Armed with the story seemingly told by the documents 1 engaged in over twenty
interviews, the vast majority of which were recorded. Those that were not recorded,
with the exception of former Chief of Police Michael Deal, provided background
information that, while helpful, was deemed immaterial to the outcome of the
investigation. Chief Deal's information was memorialized in written notes later
verified by Chief Deal as to their accuracy. No witness refused to be recorded.
During the course of the witness interviews, additional documents were identified
and provided, either by the witnesses themselves or those with custody to the
documents. The documents that were voluntarily provided greatly aided in my
reaching the conclusions set forth in this report. As a result of this cooperation,
including by Mayor Reeves himself, I believe this report is an accurate reflection of
the information available to me to help determine whether Mayor Reeves has
violated Section 66 of the Charter of the City of Atlantic Beach, and, if so, whether
such violation was willful.
Analysis
As set forth above, to understand the evidence in context and determine whether a
charter violation has been committed, you must first understand what Section 66 of
the Charter prohibits. Accordingly, that section is quoted here in its entirety:
Sec. 66. - Personal interest.
No member of the city commission, any officer of the city or
department head shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in any
contract or in the sale to the city or to a contractor supplying the city of
any land or rights or interests in any land, material, supplies or services.
Any willful violation of this section shall constitute malfeasance in
office, and shall be grounds for removal or termination. Any contract
entered into in violation of this section shall be voidable by the city
manager or the city commission.
While, at first blush, this section may seem straight forward, it actually must be
broken down into several sub -parts in order to be understood in context. In essence
this provision prohibits both elected officials and employees of the City from
1
profiting in their private employment or other business relationships by virtue of
their positions and employment with the City.
The first question to be answered under Section 66 is readily apparent and
undisputed: Mayor Reeves is a City Commissioner.
The second question to be answered under the Section 66 is also undisputed: Mayor
Reeves is a salaried employee of G.T. Distributors ("G.T."), a contractor supplying
the City's police department with goods such as vests, guns and ammunition from
May of 2016 until mid-July of 2017.3
But the third, most difficult and pivotal question to answer is whether the Mayor has
a prohibited "financial interest, direct or indirect" arising from his serving as Mayor
to the City while also serving as a salaried employee of G.T.
In a perfect world, the term financial interest would have been defined in either the
charter itself or in the City's municipal code, however no such definition exists in
either of those sources. Accordingly, I was forced to carefully review the exact
language utilized in Section 66, conduct legal research to see if there were any cases
or Florida attorney general opinions that might shed light on the subject and even
look at how other jurisdictions with similar policies have defined the term. In doing
so I found differing interpretations that could support a very broad reading inclusive
of the elected official being a minimum wage employee in a fast-food restaurant
where the City buys food to a more strict definition that would require a direct
compensatory link between the business being transacted with the City and financial
gain to the elected official.' In the end, I determined that the key to a correct
interpretation of the phrase "financial interest, direct or indirect," is whether the
3 The City no longer utilizes G.T. as a vendor for the City's police department or any other City
department.
4 For example, on the state required "Form 1 — Statement of Financial Interests," elected officials
are required to disclose all primary and secondary sources of income. Thus, under that
interpretation Mayor Reeves' employment by G.T. would constitute a "financial interest"
regardless of whether G.T. sold anything to the City. By contrast, the City of Jacksonville's
Procurement Code defines a prohibited financial interest as "any ownership interest of a public
official in any proposer, bidder, contractor, or first tier subcontractor (that is, a person or business
entity under contract to provide or providing capital improvement services, professional design
services, professional services, labor, materials, supplies or equipment directly to the proposer,
bidder, or contractor) whereby the public official knows that he or she has received or will receive
any financial gain resulting from or in connection with the soliciting, procuring, awarding, or
making of a bid or contract ..." See Section 126.110(f), City of Jacksonville Procurement Code.
2
Mayor received any form of compensation, directly or indirectly, as a result of the
relationship between the Atlantic Beach Police Department ("ABPD") and G.T.S
Before analyzing the issue of whether the Mayor had a "financial interest, direct or
indirect" in the business conducted between G.T. and the City, it is important to first
understand the timeline applicable to the relationships between Mayor Reeves, the
City of Atlantic Beach and G.T.
For several years prior to his election as Mayor, Mr. Reeves had been a
commissioned sales representative for "Code 3," another company supplying police
departments with similar goods and products to those provided by G.T. Indeed,
ABPD has been a long time customer of Code 3, and Mr. Reeves was the sales
representative assigned to the account. Accordingly, Mr. Reeves was well
acquainted with ABPD personnel and they were very familiar with him.
It appears that Mayor Reeves' connections to Code 3 and ABPD were also known
to the community at large, at least in so far as a complaint was lodged against him
in 2012 regarding his voluntary service on an advisory committee established to
provide recommendations to the City Commission on the design of the now
completed new police building. While the then City Attorney for Atlantic Beach,
Alan Jensen, opined that there might be an appearance of impropriety because of
Mr. Reeves' relationships within the ABPD, he specifically did not recommend Mr.
Reeves' removal from the advisory committee. And while Mr. Jensen's opinion was
cited to me by various sources during my investigation as evidence of a willful
violation of Section 66, Attorney Jensen's opinion contains no reference to or
analysis of that charter provision.
In August of 2015, Mr. Reeves was elected Mayor of Atlantic Beach. Because his
status as a Code 3 sales representative to the City was well known to City leaders it
was understood that he could no longer continue in that capacity for Code 3 once he
took office. Accordingly Mr. Reeves and Code 3 implemented what attorneys
5 Interestingly, I did find a case in which nearly identical language to that contained in Section 66
was interpreted. In Coral Gables v. Weksler, the third D.C.A. reinstated a contract between Coral
Gables and a golf course management company finding no conflict of interest where a city
employee was paid to manage the municipally owned golf course was also permitted to lease the
entire course and facilities in exchange for paying the city a monthly rental fee plus a percentage
of the gross receipts. In Weksler, Section 103 of the Coral Gables charter practically mirrors the
language of Section 66. Coral Gables v. Weksler, 164 So. 2d 260, 261 (fn. 1) (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
5
sometimes refer to as a "Chinese wall"' to avoid conflicts of interest by separating
Mr. Reeves from all sales contacts or compensation based on future sales to the City
by Code 3. A letter- from Code 3 to then Police Chief Michael Deal and an email
from Mr. Reeves to the City's purchasing agent dated September 10, 2015, appear
to document this understanding.
Notwithstanding this action by Code 3 and Mayor Reeves, city leaders including the
then City Manager, Nelson Van Liere, Chief Deal, Commander Victor Gualillo and
the City purchasing agent, Patty Drake determined that it would be best to cease all
purchases from Code 3 to avoid any appearance of a conflict or impropriety. This
decision appears to have been implemented prior to Mayor Reeves being sworn into
office.
Shortly after taking office in November 2015, Mayor Reeves was separated from
Code 3 as an employee. Thereafter, other than his job as Mayor he remained
unemployed for almost nine months.
During this time and for a period beginning in 2002, the ABPD had also purchased
uniforms and other police supplies from DGG, a company with whom Mayor Reeves
had no affiliation. Indeed the ABPD purchasing clerk, Linda Lenhart, was on a first
name basis with the inside sales staff at DGG and there was an established rapport
between them.
In May of 2016, G.T. purchased the division of DGG's business that sold police
supplies such as vests, ammunition and other police items. DGG retained its uniform
sales business, which is not connected to G.T., and ABPD still purchases uniforms
from DGG today.
In the purchase transaction, certain existing DGG employees were also transitioned
to G.T., including those DGG employees with whom ABPD has an existing
relationship. As a result, ABPD became a customer of G.T. by default as opposed
to any intentional action on the part of the City. No apparent connection between
G.T.'s purchase of the DGG division and Mayor Reeves was discovered and I do
not believe one exists. By all accounts, the transition from DGG to G.T. as a vendor
was smooth and continued as it had before the sale.
6 The term "Chinese wall' refers to procedures taken by a firm to prevent information obtained
while representing a client from being disclosed to employees in the same firm who represent
other clients that may profit from the information.
L•�
In July of 2016 Mayor Reeves learned of a job posting for a sales representative for
G.T. and reached out to the company. At that time he did not know that G.T. was
then servicing, inter alfa, ABPD. The job discussions between Mayor Reeves and
G.T.'s owner, Jim Orr, progressed and Mayor Reeves accepted a position as Senior
Sales Advisor for G.T. which he began on August 1, 2016. As described by both the
email offer of employment to Mr. Reeves from Mr. Orr and confirmed by the
subsequent description of compensation and benefits provided to me by DeeDee Orr,
G.T.'s Controller (whose duties include HR and payroll), Mayor Reeves was to be a
salaried employee of G.T. where no portion of his compensation was affected in any
way by sales to ABPD.'
This arrangement was agreed to in part to prevent any opportunity for Mayor Reeves
to obtain any form of compensation (commissions, bonuses, salary increases, job
promotions, ownership interest in the company, increases in benefits, etcetera) based
in any way on sales to ABPD. This was important to both G.T. and the Mayor
because before Mayor Reeves accepted the job, both parties understood that Reeves
was the Mayor of the City and that ABPD was an existing customer of G.T.
In his position as Senior Sales Advisor for G.T., Mayor Reeves, his direct supervisor
Clint Welch and Mr. Orr described his duties as primarily related to the training of
outside sales representatives for G.T., providing customer service to accounts other
than ABPD in the absence of the assigned sales representative due to illness,
vacations and the like, and keeping abreast of customer relations for customers other
than ABPD. Importantly, Mayor Reeves was to receive no compensation or
commissions based upon G.T. sales to any G.T. accounts, not just sales to ABPD.
At about the same time Mayor Reeves was hired, G.T. also hired a commissioned
sales representative named Russ Adler. Mr. Adler's territory was to include ABPD
and he was to be trained by Mr. Reeves. Unfortunately, Mr. Adler's tenure with
G.T. lasted for only approximately two months, and by the end of September he no
In an email dated August 19, 2017, Ms. Orr provided the following information as to Mayor
Reeves employment by G.T.:
Hire Date 8-1-2017 - Salary 70,000.00. No increase since 8-1-2017.
Health Insurance - GT pays 75% of employee premium (432.21 a month)
Dental Insurance - GT pays 100% of employee premium (33.51 a month)
Group Life Insurance - GT pays 100% of employee premium (4.50 a month — policy
amount 30,000)
401k enrollment- eligible 1-1-2018
1 week paid vacation 151 year, 2 weeks paid vacation 2nd year and 5 days PTO each year
GT provides a Company owned car, laptop and phone for [Reeves] as all outside sales
are provided.
7
longer worked for G.T. This left a vacant sales position for G.T. which went unfilled
until January of 2017. In the interim, both G.T.'s inside Account Manager and
Mayor Reeves filled the void and serviced all G.T. customer's in Mr. Adler's former
territory. However, and specifically regarding the ABPD account, Mr. Reeves did
not provide customer service in adherence to the separation mandated by the
"Chinese Wall" concept previously discussed. Instead, during this period calls for
service by ABPD were performed directly by the manufacturers of the items with
which ABPD required assistance.
This stop gap arrangement continued through the hiring of Mr. Adler's replacement,
Rick Bell, in early January of 2017. The available evidence demonstrates that from
the date of his hiring through January 2017 and up until the City made the decision
to cease doing business with G.T. in July 2017, Mayor Reeves remained on straight
salary and received no salary reviews or increases. That fact remains true today and
is confirmed by several recent pay stubs provided to me by the Mayor and included
in the online repository.
Notwithstanding this established method of compensation between G.T. and Mayor
Reeves, during his interview the Mayor voluntarily disclosed that he had also
received what he described as an unexpected bonus in December of 2016 for helping
fill the void created by Mr. Adler's unfilled sales position during that period up to
and including December 16, 2016, the date the bonus payment was made. It is this
bonus that has accordingly become the focus of the "financial interest" analysis as
described above.
According to Mayor Reeves, he was first alerted to his receipt of a bonus by his wife
when it unexpectedly appeared in their checking account. Mr. Reeves' regular
paychecks were received via direct deposit and the bonus payment was made in
similar fashion. He had not been told about it in advance by either Mr. Welch or
Mr. Orr and it was a complete surprise. When he inquired about it with Mr. Orr he
was told it was in appreciation for the extra work he had done in filling in for Mr.
Adler, but he was never told that it was in any way a commission based payment.
Upon learning of this payment I requested a copy of the bonus pay stub from Mr.
Reeves which he promised to and did provide a few days later.
The pay stub for the bonus, which Mayor Reeves subsequently provided, clearly sets
forth a payment of $4540.44 (gross) and the word "Commission" under the `Rate'
column of the document. This obviously created an immediate concern requiring
additional follow-up and questioning of Mr. Reeves, Mr. Orr and Mr. Welch, which
1 conducted.
Mayor Reeves reasserted that he was completely unaware that he had ever received
any commission -based compensation while employed by G.T. He further stated that
he was unaware that the bonus stub contained the description "Commission" until
he requested a copy for me from the company. Mr. Reeves even questioned whether
the description might have been entered in error and not an accurate reflection of
what the payment represented. Because all of this information including the copy
of the bonus pay stub was provided to me by Mayor Reeves voluntarily and is
consistent with what I subsequently learned from the other witnesses I have no basis
to contradict what the Mayor may have understood about the origin or basis of the
"bonus" payment. However that fact alone docs not end the inquiry.
I next spoke to Mr. Welch about the bonus issue. Mr. Welch said he was only aware
of Mr. Reeves being a salaried employee whose compensation was unrelated to sales
to ABPD or any other G.T. customer. When I revealed to him the bonus payment
that had been made to Mayor Reeves in December 2016 he seemed genuinely
unaware and surprised. When I further explained to him both the unusual amount
($4540.44 as opposed to a round number) and the "commission" description on the
pay stub he explained that if the payment was in fact a commission of some sort,
there should be a commission report or reports that demonstrate the sales upon which
any commission had been paid. So began the search for the commission reports!
Upon concluding my conversation with Mr. Welch I spoke to Mr. Orr about a
number of issues but for the purposes of this report the most important questions
surrounded the bonus payment made to Mr. Reeves in December. Regarding that
payment Mr. Orr explained that the idea originated based upon a request from
Jocelyn Fultz for additional compensation in return for her extra work in filling in
on Mr. Adler's accounts. Ms. Fultz confirmed this fact in my interview with her.
Moreover, she was unaware until we spoke that Mr. Reeves had also received
additional compensation. While Ms. Fultz is and has been a commissioned
employee, she was unaware of how Mr. Reeves was compensated.
8 While I received reports for the months of August — October 2016, 1 have not yet received reports
for November or December. Moreover, the reports themselves have been designated as "trade
secrets" by G.T. under Florida law because they contain information concerning cost of goods
and profit margins and are therefore exempt from disclosure under Chapter 119. Accordingly
they have not been included in the online documents repository being set up regarding this
investigation.
D
Mr. Orr further explained that what he had decided to do was to split the commission
that would have been paid to Mr. Adler during the relevant time period between Ms.
Fultz and Mr. Reeves, but that he had never communicated that fact to Mr. Reeves.
Obviously this information was important to the investigation but still did not
completely answer the question as to whether any of the "bonus" payment to Mayor
Reeves included amounts based upon sales to ABPD.
Unfortunately, later on the same day on which I interviewed Mr. Orr, his father
passed away after spending time in hospice. Thereafter, Mr. Orr and his wife have
rightly attempted to focus their attentions on family matters. Accordingly, my ability
to completely `run to ground' the contents of Mayor Reeves' bonus check and
whether or not the payment definitively contained amounts attributable to ABPD
sales in time to fully develop conclusions about a Section 66 violation before the
upcoming election have been hampered — not by bad intentions but by unavoidable
life events.
What is apparent from both the reports I have reviewed and the invoices processed
by the City during the relevant time period of August — December of 2016, is that
ABPD made purchases from G.T. What is also apparent is that the amount of any
projected improper commission' the Mayor may have received should not exceed
$20.10 However Section 66 does not, as some have suggested, contain a de minimus
exception that would excuse even a minor "financial interest" as I understand that
term in the context of this charter provision.
Even though the key principles with G.T. (Mr. and Ms. Orr and Mr. Welch) are
currently tied up with the funeral and arrangements for Mr. Orr's father, I received
an email yesterday from Mr. Welch in response to my inquiry into how much of the
December "bonus" check to Mr. Reeves was based upon sales to Atlantic Beach.
That email unequivocally states "[a]s far as the bonus given to Mr. Reeves is
concerned $0.00 was generated for sales and business with Atlantic Beach." This
seems inconsistent with the information previously provided by Mr. Orr and
discussed above so I immediately requested clarification. However as of this writing
9 The projected commission amount is based upon gross G.T. sales to the City as provided by
Mr. Hogencamp of $2025.66 for the months of August — December 2016, my review of the
commission reports I did receive and the typical commission percentage paid an outside sales
representative as provided to me by Mayor Reeves.
10 The precise number of my own calculation would actually put the ABPD attributable commission
number at no more than $17.60 but I have rounded up to account for any anomalies I may not
have been aware of.
10
I have not heard back from either Mr. Welch or Mr. Orr, who was copied on the
email.
Based upon all of the above I cannot unequivocally state today whether in fact Mayor
Reeves had a "financial interest, direct or indirect" in a "contract or in the sale to the
city or to a contractor supplying the city of any land or rights or interests in any land,
material, supplies or services." If he indeed received some form of compensation as
outlined above based upon G.T.'s sales to the ABPD, then a violation exists.
However until and unless I receive the clarification I have requested on this issue
from someone in authority at G.T., I cannot answer this critical question.
Notwithstanding this uncertainty I can conclude that any violation of Section 66 was
not willful by the Mayor based upon the uncontested facts (at least as I have been
able to develop them) that he did not know that the "bonus" check he received in
December from G.T. was comprised of any commission -based elements. Moreover,
the disclosure of the bonus itself, the bonus stub, and his overall demeanor
throughout this process convinces me that he did not have any knowledge that a
violation may have occurred.
While there are many additional facts and practices that I uncovered during my
interviews and document review that will be the subject of an upcoming "after
action" analysis, the pertinent facts needed to reach the conclusions that can be reach
at this moment regarding a potential Section 66 Charter violation are contained in
this report.
If any additional information is provided to me that will allow me to reach a
definitive conclusion regarding a Section 66 violation, I will certainly supplement
this report as needed so that is as accurate as I can make it.
11
3
..h Ci FE
19 NOV 27 AM 9: 25
vii is Li FLORIDA
StEt^YTIONS COMMISSION
STATE OF FLORIDA
FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION
In Re: Ellen Glasser Case No.: FEC 18-097
/ F.O. No.: FOFEC d q .-3 `(p u)
CONSENT FINAL ORDER
Respondent, Ellen Glasser, and the Florida Elections Commission (Commission) agree
that this Consent Order resolves all of the issues between the parties in this case. The parties
jointly stipulate to the following facts, conclusions of law, and order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On March 27, 2018, a sworn complaint was filed with the Commission alleging
that Respondent violated Florida's election laws.
2. Respondent has expressed a desire to enter into negotiations directed toward
reaching a consent agreement.
3. Respondent and the staff stipulate to the following facts:
t
a. Respondent was a 2017 candidate for Mayor of the City of Atlantic Beach.
b. The campaign's 2017 M3, 2017 M4, 2017 M5, 2017 P 1, 2017 P2, 2017
P3, 2017 P4, 2017 P5, 2017 P6, 2017 P7, and 2017 P -TR reports were not complete when
filed.
C. The campaign's 2017 M3 and 2017 M5 reports did not contain all
contributions required to be reported by Chapter 106, Florida Statutes.
d. Respondent retained a certified public accountant to audit the campaign's
reports and filed amended reports to correct the incomplete information.
Pre PC CO
FEC Case # 18-047
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. The Commission has jurisdiction over the parries to and subject matter of this
cause, pursuant to Section 106.26, Florida Statutes.
5. Section 106.25(4)(1)3., Florida Statutes, allows the Commission to approve a
consent agreement with a Respondent prior to the Commission finding probable cause that a
violation of the election laws occurred. The consent agreement has the same force and effect as
a consent agreement reached after the Commission fmds probable cause.
6. The Commission staff and Respondent stipulate that staff could prove all the facts
in paragraph three above by clear and convincing evidence and to the Commission's ability to
impose a civil penalty in the case.
ORDER
7. Respondent and the staff of the Commission have entered into this Consent Order
freely and voluntarily and upon advice of counsel.
8. The Respondent shall bear her own attorney's fees and costs that are in any way
associated with this case.
9. The Commission will consider this Consent Order at its next available meeting.
10. The Respondent voluntarily waives confidentiality upon approval of the
Consent Order by the Commission, the right to any further proceedings under Chapters 104, 106,
and 120, Florida Statutes, and the right to appeal this Consent Order.
11. This Consent Order is enforceable under Sections 106.265 and 120.69, Florida
Statutes. Respondent expressly waives any venue privileges and agrees that if enforcement of
this Consent Order is necessary, venue shall be in Leon County, Florida, and Respondent shall
pay all fees and costs associated with enforcement.
Pre PC CO
FEC Case # 18-097
12. Payment of the civil penalty by cashier's check, money order good for at Ieast
120 days, or attorney trust account check is a condition precedent to the Commission's
consideration of this Consent Order.
PENALTY
WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, the Commission
finds that the Respondent violated Sections 106.07(5), and 106.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and
imposes a civil penalty in the amount of $300.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Respondent shall remit to the Commission a civil penalty in the
amount of $300, inclusive of fees and costs. The civil penalty shall be paid by cashier's check,
money order good for at least 120 days, or attorney trust account check. The civil penalty should
be made payable to the Florida Elections Commission and sent to 107 West Gaines Street,
Collins Building, Suite 224, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-1050.
Respondent hereby agrees and consents to the terms of this Consent Order on
)
EugeneN c Is
Nichols an ma, LLLP
300 West s Street, Suite 130
Jacksonvil . FL 32202
PM PC Co
FEC Case # IU97
t
Ellen Glasser
2060 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Commission staff hereby agrees and consents to the terms of this Consent Order on
04b,erItIwM
StephaA J. Cunn ham
Assistant General Counsel
Florida Elections Commission
107 West Gaines Street
The Collins Building, Suite 224
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Approved by the Florida Elections Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting held
on I(- (q- (q , in Tallahassee, Florida.
0��D O'-"'e6j;S-
Cha'
Flo t
Elections Commission
Copies furnished to:
Stephanie J. Cunningham, Assistant General Counsel
Eugene B. Nichols, Attorney for Respondent
Richard J. Redick, Complainant
Pre PC Co
PEC Case # 18-097
NICHO
300 WEST ADAMS STREET • Sum- 130 • JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202 • 904.353.3300 • FAX 904.353.3315
EUGENE B. NICHOLS, ESQ.
THEODORE S. PINA, JR. ESO.
ROBERT C. NICHOLS, ESQ.
October 30, 2019
Stephanie Cunningham, Esquire
Florida Elections Commission
107 West Gaines Street
The Collins Building, Suite 224
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
RE: Ellen Glasser — FEC18-oo
Dear Ms. Cunningham:
Enclosed please find the original Consent Final Order and our firm trust check
#3440 in the amount of $3oo.00. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Should you need anything
kind regards, I remain
EBN/sms
Enclosures
c: Ellen Glasser
Late to contact me. With
WWW.NICHOLSANDPINA.COM
NICHOLS & PINA LLLP M compass 3440
IOTA TRUST ACCOUNT
300 WEST ADAMS STREET, STE. 130 63-]392/630
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 t7 30 119
PH. (964) 353-3300 `� -1
ORDER
i10 �iC1�. ��fGOi1� C m i S5 (or $
ORDER OF
i V1VC.Z TTC.� ✓[(� ��llc�u \ ----- _--- A, DOLLARS
�G
F Frc
nn> MoC7`°mss` N
7:14 ^ •
o brittanynorris.com
PAST CLIENTS & PROJECTS
Hea and
('vfrme(ri4. pyr7jn el)
Frus
Habdax
z"A bitat
Humanity'
A
WHALEBONE
hueman
ow ��,00d
=M$T COAST
a
Y
ICEMULE'
Learn how your transactions will work:
EVERYDAY ..D PURCHASES'
STEP Is there enough money available in your checking account?
1 YES NO
Transaction Authorized and Paid Proceed to Step 2
STEP OVERDRAFT PROTECTION
2 Is enough money available in your checking account plus your linked Overdraft Protection
backup account?
YES NO (or you do NOT have a backup account)
Transaction Authorized and Paid Proceed to Step 3
The exact amount needed to cover the
transaction will be transferred.
STEP CHASE DEBIT CARD COVERAGE
3 Did you opt in to Chase Debit Card Coverage?
XNO (DEFAULT CHOICE)
Transaction Declined
Transaction does NOT go through and you are
NOT charged an Insufficient Funds Fee.
O YES
• Transaction Authorized and Paid or Declined
We may authorize and pay your transaction at our
discretion based on your account history, the deposits
you make and the transaction amount. If authorized and
paid, you will be charged a $34 Insufficient Funds Fee per
transaction (max 3 fees per business day, up to $102).
If declined, transaction does NOT go through and you are
NOT charged an Insufficient Funds Fee.
STEP Is there enough money available in your checking account?
1 YES NO
Transaction Authorized and Paid Proceed to Step 2
STEP OVERDRAFT PROTECTION
2 Is enough money available in your checking account plus your linked Overdraft Protection
backup account?
YES NO (or you do NOT have a backup account)
Transaction Authorized and Paid Proceed to Step 3
The exact amount needed to cover the
transaction will be transferred.
STEP STANDARD OVODRAFT PRACTICE NOW APPLIES
3 Transaction authorized and paid or returned/declined at our discretion based on your account
history, the deposits you make and the transaction amount.
AUTHORIZED AND PAID X RETURNED/DECLINED
If authorized and paid, you will be charged a If a transaction is returned unpaid or declined, you are NOT
'* $34 Insufficient Funds Fee per transaction charged a fee.
;(max 3 fees per business day, up to $102).
1 Everyday debit card purchases are one-time purchases or payments, such as groceries, gasoline or dining out.
2 Recurring debit card purchases include transactions such as movie subscriptions or gym memberships.
Page 19 of 21
Effective 10/16/2022