Marked my words.... date/time: 8/22 @ 0953hrs
Chris Knight is in the process of being hired by the SSO. Can you say corruption? Nepitism? Hmmm...
IF Bill Balkwill hires Chris Knight, then it would help Tom Knight to get around the anti-nepotism law that is on the statute books, but that's assuming that Tom Knight has a chance to win the sheriffs election, which he won't. ;)
IF Balkwill hires Chris Knight, then what the hell is the new sheriff going to do with him, once the new sheriff is sworn into office?
IF Balkwill hires Chris Knight, then it's proof positive of a connection between:
- Charlie Wells
- Sarasota Republican party big shots
- Bill Balkwill
- Tom Knight
- nd all the other big city Republican lapdogs.
The local voters aren't going to vote into office big shots like John Swift, who believe that they can "buy" a sheriffs election.
The big shot big city Republican lapdogs have GOT to go!!! The "locals" will drop the hammer on election day: August 26!!!! Woohoo!!!!
[quote="The Dark Night":39gogztg]Marked my words.... date/time: 8/22 @ 0953hrs
Chris Knight is in the process of being hired by the SSO. Can you say corruption? Nepitism? Hmmm...
IF Bill Balkwill hires Chris Knight, then it would help Tom Knight to get around the anti-nepotism law that is on the statute books, but that's assuming that Tom Knight has a chance to win the sheriffs election, which he won't. ;)
IF Balkwill hires Chris Knight, then what the hell is the new sheriff going to do with him, once the new sheriff is sworn into office?
IF Balkwill hires Chris Knight, then it's proof positive of a connection between:
- Charlie Wells
- Sarasota Republican party big shots
- Bill Balkwill
- Tom Knight
- nd all the other big city Republican lapdogs.
The local voters aren't going to vote into office big shots like John Swift, who believe that they can "buy" a sheriffs election.
The big shot big city Republican lapdogs have GOT to go!!! The "locals" will drop the hammer on election day: August 26!!!! Woohoo!!!![/quote:39gogztg]
I think I've seen it all. You yahoos continue to keep coming up with crap just to try and knock the only qulaified candidate down. Do any of you realize that Chris Knight just recently moved from Tallahassee to Jacksonville to take a much more lucrative position then working at the SSO? Big bucks in comparison and he has absolutely no desire to come back to Sarasota regardless of what you cronies think. Wells remains a family friend of both Knights and will continue in that capacity.
Why don't you quit wasting your time on this board posting non-sense and fiction. Tom Knight will not be hiring his brother and neither will Balkwill. However, Tom will be our next Sheriff! Dunkley and Gustafson need to accept it.
They will either lie or circumvent the intent of the law to remain in power. Look for Chris Knight to be hired since no one has wanted to touch him with a ten foot pole. He's working for a traffic school now. Is that your idea of a well-paying, prestigious job?
They're up to the same crap again.
They learned it from the Wells clan in Manatee.
CEO 02-11 -- April 30, 2002
ANTI-NEPOTISM
HIGHWAY PATROL DIRECTOR'S BROTHER
PROMOTED TO MAJOR (TROOP COMMANDER)
To: (Name withheld at person's request)
SUMMARY:
The State's anti-nepotism law (Section 112.3135, Florida Statutes) would not be violated were the brother of the Director of the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP), a Division of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, to be promoted to the position of Major (Troop Commander). Under the circumstances of this opinion, the Department's Executive Director (and not the brother/Director) is the Apublic official@ vested with the authority to make the appointment, and the brother/Director will not advocate promotion of his brother. CEO 93-16 and CEO 96-13 are referenced and CEO 98-7 is receded from.
QUESTION:
Would the State's anti-nepotism law (Section 112.3135, Florida Statutes) be violated were the brother of the Director of the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) to be promoted to the position of Major (Troop Commander) within FHP?
Under the particular circumstances of this opinion, your question is answered in the negative.
By your letter of inquiry, a booklet/manual accompanying the letter, telephone conversations between our staff and counsel for the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV or Department), and additional written information provided by Department counsel in response to questions from our staff, we are advised that Christopher A. Knight (Colonel or Director) serves as Director of the Florida Highway Patrol (Patrol or FHP), a Division of the Department, having been appointed in July 2001. In addition, we are advised that Thomas M. Knight (Captain), the Director's brother, has served as a member of FHP since March 1988, having progressed to his current rank (Captain/District Commander), a position he has held since January 2000.
Further, we are advised that the Captain is first on the promotion list for appointment to a Troop Commander (rank of Major) position [a selected exempt service (SES) position] for one of the ten field troops within the Patrol. The promotion process for Troop Commander positions, you advise, has various components, utilizes candidate assessors from outside FHP, operates on an equal, competitive, and objective basis, and has served the Patrol well in recent years in identifying future law enforcement managerial candidates. You emphasize that the Captain has been first on the promotion list for a Troop Commander position since completing examination in June 2001 (a top-of-the-list ranking which predates the Colonel's appointment as head of the Patrol and which is valid through June 30, 2002). [1] In addition, we are advised that the Director of the Patrol (the position currently occupied by the Colonel) neither administers nor oversees the promotion process; and that with the arrival of the Governor's Service First Initiative [2] (which transferred career service positions to selected exempt positions), appointments to Troop Commander (Major) positions are now made by the Department's Executive Director, [3] Aupon recommendation of the Patrol.@ [4]
Thus, in view of the foregoing, you question whether Section 112.3135 would bar the promotion of the Captain (a person whom you describe as a career law enforcement officer who has displayed competence and integrity in his quest to become a higher level manager within the Patrol). [5]
Within the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, the anti-nepotism law (Section 112.3135, Florida Statutes) provides:
(1) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) 'Agency' means:
1. A state agency, except an institution under the jurisdiction of the Division of Universities of the Department of Education;
2. An office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch;
3. An office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch;
4. A county;
5. A city; and
6. Any other political subdivision of the state, except a district school board or community college district.
(b) 'Collegial body' means a governmental entity marked by power or authority vested equally in each of a number of colleagues.
(c) 'Public official' means an officer, including a member of the Legislature, the Governor, and a member of the Cabinet, or an employee of an agency in whom is vested the authority by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom the authority has been delegated, to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals or to recommend individuals for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement in connection with employment in an agency, including the authority as a member of a collegial body to vote on the appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement of individuals.
(d) 'Relative,' for purposes of this section only, with respect to a public official, means an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.
(2)(a) A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, or advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a position in the agency in which the official is serving or over which the official exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual or if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement is made by a collegial body of which a relative of the individual is a member. However, this subsection shall not apply to appointments to boards other than those with land-planning or zoning responsibilities in those municipalities with less than 35,000 population. This subsection does not apply to persons serving in a volunteer capacity who provide emergency medical, firefighting, or police services. Such persons may receive, without losing their volunteer status, reimbursements for the costs of any training they get relating to the provision of volunteer emergency medical, firefighting, or police services and payment for any incidental expenses relating to those services that they provide.
(b) Mere approval of budgets shall not be sufficient to constitute 'jurisdiction or control' for the purposes of this section.
(3) An agency may prescribe regulations authorizing the temporary employment, in the event of an emergency as defined in s. 252.34(3), of individuals whose employment would be otherwise prohibited by this section.
(4) Legislators' relatives may be employed as pages or messengers during legislative sessions.
The law prohibits a Apublic official@ from (1)appointing, employing, promoting, or advancing his Arelative@ (defined to include one's brother) and (2)advocating the appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement of his relative.
Under the first (Apromotion@) prong of the prohibition, we find that the law would not be violated under the scenario described. Clearly, the Executive Director of the Department (and not the brother/FHP Director) is the person vested [6] with the authority to promote persons into Troop Commander positions (including the position sought by the Captain). [7]
Under the second (Aadvocacy@ or Arecommendation@) prong of the prohibition, we also find that the law would not be violated under the scenario described. It is represented to us that neither the Director of the Patrol (the Colonel) nor his command staff will make a recommendation to the Executive Director regarding candidates for the Troop Commander position sought by the Captain; therefore, the advocacy (overt actions) by a public official/relative required for a violation of the law will not be present. See City of Miami Beach v. Galbut, 626 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1993), in which the Florida Supreme Court, in construing language of the anti-nepotism law identical to that relevant to your inquiry, stated:
The plain language of the statute at issue indicates that only overt actions by a public official resulting in the appointment of that official's relative are prohibited.
Galbut, at 193 and 194. Clearly, the scenario before us does not indicate any advocacy (overt actions) on the part of the Colonel regarding his brother. In finding that the law would not be violated were the Captain to be promoted under the scenario described, we are not unaware of the argument that the anti-nepotism law should be broadly or liberally interpreted for the public benefit and thus that it should be applied to preclude a promotion of the Captain, thereby arguably fostering public confidence in the employment practices of the Department. [8] However, relative to this argument our Supreme Court also has definitively spoken as follows:
. . . the . . . position that Florida's anti-nepotism statute should be liberally interpreted for the public benefit, in accordance with past Attorney General and Ethics Commission opinions on this issue, is clearly misplaced.
Galbut, at 194. In viewing Galbut as a correct interpretation of the anti-nepotism law, especially regarding the advocacy issue, we have not overlooked our decisions (CEO 93-16 and CEO 98-7) which arguably embody a different interpretation. However, upon examination of these opinions, we are of the view that the facts present in them are distinguishable from the instant scenario or that, in any event, the Galbut Court's view of the statute is applicable to your inquiry. [9] In addition, very recently, in Commission on Ethics Complaint No. 99-083, In re Donald James (Commission Final Order And Public Report rendered January 29, 2002), we determined that a division chief of the Emergency Medical Services Division for the Miami-Dade Fire and Rescue Department violated the anti-nepotism law by advocating the appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement of his brother in or to a position in the Miami-Dade Fire and Rescue Department. In the James matter, the respondent clearly engaged in overt actions in advocating promotion of his brother, and the clear implication of our decision in the James matter is that the anti-nepotism law is not violated where the relative of a Apublic official@ who possesses only recommending/advocacy (not hiring/placement) authority is promoted, absent actual advocacy or recommendation by the public official of his or her relative.
Accordingly, under the particular facts of your inquiry (in which the Colonel institutionally is not the Apublic official@ who would promote his brother and in which he will not advocate promotion of his brother), we find that the anti-nepotism law (a penal statute which, according to the Florida Supreme Court, must be narrowly construed) [10] would not be violated were the Captain to be promoted to the rank of Major (Troop Commander).
ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in public session on April 25, 2002 and RENDERED this 30th day of April, 2002.
___________________________
Ronald S. Spencer, Jr., Chairman
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.