Originally Posted - January 25, 2007

return home

PINELLAS COUNTY---Former Pinellas County Sheriff Everett Rice (left), two officers of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department including one who acts as a bailiff in the court of probate court Judge George W. Greer (right), and an assistant public defender in the Pinellas-Pasco Public Defender's office are the subjects of a probable cause hearing being conducted Friday, Jan. 26, by Florida's Commission on Ethics in Tallahassee.

Since September, the four public officers have been the subject of an ethics investigation for their roles in a political commercial filmed in a Pinellas County Courthouse as part of the 2004 political campaign of Judge Greer who was seeking reelection to another six-year term.

The sole purpose of the probable cause hearing is to evaluate the results of the agency's preliminary investigation which was conducted by a staff investigator last fall.

Raising an unprecedented amount of money for a Florida judicial campaign, Greer, the death judge in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case, expended thousands of dollars on political advertising, including the filming of a political commercial on July 2, 2004, which was aired during August, 2004, prior to the Aug. 31, 2004 primary.

The 30-second commercial showed Greer in judicial robes, in a courtroom, on the bench with his nameplate, leading the public to believe it was the Pinellas County Courthouse. Appearing in the ad with Greer were individuals that were presumably circuit court employees, including sheriff's deputy Alek Melnick, assigned to court security as a bailiff in Greer's courtroom.Judge George Greer's Television Ad (need Real Player to view)

On Friday, July 2, 2004, a political commercial for television was filmed primarily in the Pinellas County Courthouse for Greer who being challenged by attorney Jan Govan in a hotly contested race. Among those appearing in the commercial was William Cunningham, a uniformed Pinellas County sheriff's deputy with a Pinellas County sheriff's patrol car, obviously county owned property.

According to a written statement submitted by Marianne Pasha, public information officer for the sheriff's department, former Sheriff Rice was fully aware of this use of taxpayer funds, use of governmental property for political activity.

Included in the commercial endorsing Greer were Jim Hellickson of the state attorney's office of Pinellas County state attorney Bernie McCabe; Paula Shea, assistant public defender for Pinellas and Pasco Counties, and Deputy Alek Melnick.

Hellickson and Shea were identified by their name and titles appearing on the screen, giving the appearance that the Pinellas County State Attorney's office and public defender's office, as well as the sheriff's department, were endorsing Greer.

The interpretation of the state statutes would be that the use of governmental buildings and property for political purposes is prohibited. The statutes would also be interpreted that no candidate, not even George Greer, can use the service of any state, county, municipal or district officer or employee during working hours. Payroll records indicate that Deputies Cunningham and Melnick were paid to appear in the ad during work hours on a work day, Friday, and that Rice was aware and approved the use of tax money and county property in Greer's campaign.

The legislative intent of Florida Statutes is to prohibit the political activity of municipal officers and employees for the purpose of influencing an election. By Hellickson and Shea appearing in the commercial along with the uniformed deputy, it appears that Bernie McCabe, public defender Bob Dillinger and Rice illegally used their positions and governmental resources to allegedly attempt to influence the election of Greer in violation of FS 106.15(2). FS 104.31(1(a) clearly states that no officer or employee of the state or of any county or municipality shall use his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or nomination of an officer or coercing or influencing another person's vote or affecting the result of that election. And FS 104.31(2) specifically says no municipal employee can engage in political activity while on duty as Cunningham.

Cunningham has claimed that he wasn't on duty although he appeared in uniform in the commercial, raising the question if he can wear his uniform and operate a county owned patrol car during his off-duty hours. His payroll records indicate that he had requested approval for "comp" time during the work day for which he was paid.

According to records obtained by The North Country Gazette from the Florida Election Commission, Greer's political consultant, Wayne Garcia, has confirmed that Cunningham was filmed with the patrol car in the courthouse parking lot at about 8 a.m. on July 2, 2004, during working hours. His comp time was from 7 to 8 a.m. that day.

According to the payroll records, Melnick was paid eight hours for that the day the commercial was filmed and his time records show no leave time indicating that he appeared in the commercial during work hours and county taxpayers paid him to engage in the political activity.

Florida Statutes state that it is illegal to misuse one's public position. No public officer, employee of an agency or local government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his or her official position or any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her officials duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself or others.

In order to violate this standard, the public official must not only have acted to secure a special benefit but must have acted "corruptly", according to the ethics commission.

The state Legislature has defined corruptly as "done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining, or compensating or receiving compensation for, any benefit resulting from some act or omission of a public servant which is inconsistent with the proper performance of his or her duties.

As sheriff of Pinellas County, Rice had presumably taken an oath to uphold the laws and should have been familiar with the laws which prohibit the use of governmental property such as the sheriff's uniforms and patrol car to be used for political purposes on county owned property during a workday by officers who were on the work schedule for that day. Someone in the sheriff's office had to approve Melnick's and Cunningham's time cards and ultimately the responsibility would seem to be that of Rice as the elected sheriff.

In terms of Melnick and Shea, in an affidavit signed by them, apparently prepared for them by Greer and/or his representatives, both stated under oath that they appeared in the commercial on their "own time". There is evidence that the commercial was filmed on Friday, July 2, 2004, during working hours. According to pay sheets for Melnick and Shea, neither took leave that day during regular working hours and both were paid for the full day which would seem to indicate that they appeared in the ad "on company time", paid by the taxpayers to engage in political activity.

Although Hellickson appears in the commercial and it appears that he took leave time to do so albeit was paid, he is not scheduled to be part of the probable cause hearing.

Hellickson was identified by name on the screen with the title of prosecutor. According to ethics opinions, it is not ethically proper and a violation of Canon 7 and Florida Statutes to use the title of prosecutor as only the state prosecutor may use the title of prosecutor. Hellickson is an assistant state attorney.

Hellickson had also told the FEC that he was "on his own time". His payroll records indicate that he reported for work on July 2, 2004, in the state attorney's office at 8 a.m. His time sheets indicate that he left the office between 10:30 a.m. and 1 p.m., apparently to appear in the ad, and was compensated for it by the taxpayers as "vacation time".

Paula Shea's payroll records indicate that she was paid in full for July 2, 2004, and shows no leave time for that day.

In a statement given by Greer, he says that Hellickson volunteered to appear in the commercial but according to FEC records, Hellickson told that agency that Greer had asked him to appear in the ad. Under Canon 7, a candidate, including an incumbent judge for a judicial office that is filled by a public election between competing candidates cannot personally solicit campaign funds or solicit attorneys for publicly stated support.

Despite Hellickson's admission and a sworn affidavit submitted by Kristi Reid-Bronson, chief of the Bureau of Election Records that attests that Greer did not filed the required Statement of Candidate form in order to qualify for election, the Judicial Qualifications Commission said they found no misconduct by Greer.

Although Melnick's sworn statement of March 16, 2006, states that he was on authorized leave, his payroll records indicate otherwise and indicate that he may have filed a false written statement with a state agency. Greer also admits to having asked Melnick to appear in the ad.

The rules, procedures and members of the Commission on Ethics can be found at http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/

After the initial complaint has been reviewed and found to be in proper form, the complaint shall be reviewed by the Executive Director in order to determine whether the Commission has jurisdiction over the complaint; that is, whether the complaint is one concerning a breach of public trust. Complaints need not be as precise as would be required by the rules of civil procedure in a court of law and shall be deemed sufficient if the complainant under oath upon knowledge or belief alleges matters which, if true, may constitute a breach of public trust. A complaint shall not be insufficient because it is based upon evidence which would be hearsay evidence in a court of law. In order to make this determination, the Executive Director may request additional information from the complainant and may obtain information from public records.

If the Executive Director finds that the complaint is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission, the Executive Director orders an investigation of the complaint.

If the Executive Director finds that the complaint is not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission, the complaint shall be brought before the Commission in executive session with the recommendations of the Executive Director. The Commission may find the complaint to be sufficient and order an investigation; may find the complaint to be insufficient, dismiss it, and notify the complainant that no investigation will be made; or may take such other action as may be appropriate. In any case where a complaint is found legally insufficient and dismissed, a summary of the reasons for dismissing the complaint together with the complaint itself and all documents related thereto shall become a public record and constitute a public report.

The complaint against the four Pinellas County officers has been found to be legally sufficient and moved on to investigation.

Upon the completion of the preliminary investigation, the investigator prepares a report to the Commission. The report contains a narrative account of all pertinent information obtained through interviews of witnesses, documentary evidence, or other sources and shall include a discussion of any conflicts in the evidence. The report shall not contain any determination or speculation with respect to whether the evidence indicates a breach of public trust. The report makes no recommendations.

When the investigator's report is completed, the Executive Director notifies the respondent that the report is completed and sends to each respondent a copy of the investigator's report and a copy of the Executive Director's order to investigate. The investigatory file and main complaint file shall be open for inspection by the respondent and the respondent's counsel at that time, and copies may be obtained at no more than cost.

The respondents are given not less than 14 days from the date of mailing of the investigator's report, within which time to file with the Commission a written response to the investigator's report. This time period may be shortened with the consent of the respondent, or without the consent of the respondent when the passage of time could reasonably be expected to render moot the ultimate disposition of the matter by the Commission so long as reasonable notice under the circumstances is given.

An Advocate reviews the investigator's report and makes a written recommendation to the Commission for the disposition of the complaint. If the Advocate recommends that a public hearing be held, the recommendation shall include a statement of what charges shall be at issue at the hearing. A copy of the recommendation is furnished to the respondent. The respondent shall be given not less than 7 days from the date of mailing of the Advocate's recommendation, within which time to file with the Commission a written response to the recommendation. This time period may be shortened with the consent of the respondent, or without the consent of the respondent when the passage of time could reasonably be expected to render moot the ultimate disposition of the matter by the Commission, so long as the recommendation is furnished to the respondent within a reasonable period of time under the circumstances.

The respondents, the complainant(s), their counsel, and the Advocate shall be permitted to attend the hearing at which the probable cause determination is made. Notice of the hearing shall be sent to the respondent, complainant(s), and Advocate at least 14 days before the hearing. This time period may be shortened with the consent of the respondents, or without the consent of the respondents when the passage of time could reasonably be expected to render moot the ultimate disposition of the matter by the Commission, so long as the notice is furnished within a reasonable period of time under the circumstances.

The probable cause determination is the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. The respondents and the Advocate shall be permitted to make brief oral statements in the nature of oral argument to the Commission, based on the investigator's report, before the probable cause determination. The Commission's determination shall be based upon the investigator's report, the Advocate's recommendation, the complaint, and staff recommendations, as well as any written statements submitted by the respondent and any oral statements made at the hearing. No testimony or other evidence will be accepted at the hearing.

At its meeting to determine probable cause, the Commission may continue its determination to allow further investigation; may order the issuance of a public report of its investigation if it finds no probable cause to believe that a violation of the Code of Ethics or other breach of public trust has occurred, concluding the matter before it; may order a final, public hearing of the complaint if it finds probable cause to believe that a violation of the Code of Ethics or other breach of public trust has occurred; or may take such other action as it deems necessary to resolve the complaint, consistent with due process of law. In making its determination, the Commission may consider:

the sufficiency of the evidence against the respondent, as contained in the investigator's report;

the admissions and other stipulations of the respondents, if any;

the nature and circumstances of the respondent's actions;

the expense of further proceedings; and

such other factors as it deems material to its decision. If the Commission orders a public hearing of the complaint, the Commission shall determine what charges shall be at issue for the hearing. 1-25-07

© 2007 North Country Gazette