Florida Commission on Ethics rescinds $1,500 disclosure fine for former Palm Beach County employee

The Florida Commission on Ethics voted unanimously to rescind a default order and waive a $1,500 fine imposed for a late 2021 Form 1 filing, the commission chair announced at a special meeting called after the First District Court of Appeal granted the panel 30 days of concurrent jurisdiction.

The action centers on a former Palm Beach County water resources coordinator who left county employment in March 2022 and, according to commission staff, did not receive notices the office sent to his former work address. Assistant General Counsel Braden Schaefer told commissioners the appellant had filed Form 1 for prior years but failed to file the 2021 form by the July 1, 2022 due date; the 60‑day penalty‑free grace period ended Sept. 1, 2022, after which a $25‑per‑day statutory penalty accrued up to the statutory maximum of $1,500.

"The background on this appeal is somewhat unique," Schaefer said. "It's traveled kind of an unusual road to get before you all today, but the good news is the legal analysis here, I think, is fairly straightforward." He described three notices sent before the grace period expired — an initial notice from the Palm Beach County supervisor of elections, a certified‑mail notice, and a postcard from the commission — all sent to the appellant's county office at 301 North Olive Avenue in West Palm Beach.

After the grace period expired, the commission sent a notice of assessment of automatic fine that included appellate rights; the appellant did not file within the 30‑day window and the commission entered a default order earlier this year. When the default order reached the county building, a county employee forwarded it to the ex‑employee, and he filed two appeals almost simultaneously: an appeal to the First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee and an internal disclosure appeal with the commission asking rescission of the default order and waiver of the fine.

Schaf er told commissioners that staff and the appellant filed a joint motion asking the First District to relinquish jurisdiction temporarily so the commission could process the administrative appeal; the court issued an order allowing the commission 30 days of concurrent jurisdiction, a window Schaefer said runs to July 16.

On the timeliness question, Schaefer recommended commissioners "treat this appeal as if it were timely" because there is no indication the appellant received the notice of appellate rights at his personal address. Schaefer also recommended finding "unusual circumstances" under the statute that would justify waiving the fine. He noted that the commission recently waived a fine in June under similar circumstances where notices were sent to an old office address and the filer had not received them.

Commissioners debated whether the commission has statutory authority to treat an untimely appeal as timely. Several commissioners argued that accepting an untimely appeal raises jurisdictional concerns under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; others said due‑process concerns supported hearing the appeal on its merits and that the commission has previously granted waivers in identical factual scenarios. Commissioners referenced statutory provisions cited by staff (discussion below) and case law principles such as equitable tolling during the debate.

After discussion, the commission chair moved to adopt staff's recommended draft order to rescind the default order and waive the $1,500 fine. The motion was seconded and approved; the chair said the motion "passes unanimously." Staff said it will move to dismiss the court appeal if the commission rescinds the default order.

The vote resolves the commission's internal administrative appeal. Staff and commissioners said the case underscores an operational tension between the commission's goal of securing filings for public transparency and limits of notice delivery in a largely paper‑based system that is transitioning to electronic filing.

Commission staff and the executive director told commissioners the agency depends on local agency coordinators and supervisors of elections to supply addresses for local filers and that electronic filing should reduce these delivery problems over time by prompting filers to update contact information when they log in.

The commission's action leaves open potential legislative fixes discussed by commissioners, who suggested clarifying statutory expectations for annual notice and the respective responsibilities of filers and agency coordinators.

The commission's staff materials said the appellant served as Palm Beach County's water resources coordinator from September 2018 to March 2022, did not timely file his 2021 Form 1 by the July 1, 2022 due date, and accrued statutory fines that reached the $1,500 statutory cap. The First District Court of Appeal granted the commission concurrent jurisdiction for 30 days to consider the internal administrative appeal; staff recommended rescission and waiver and the commission accepted that recommendation.

The commission did not discuss increasing or adjusting the statutory penalty; the order adopted by the commission rescinded the default order and waived the fine as recommended by staff. The appellant remains identified in meeting materials as "the appellant" and was present in the virtual gallery during the discussion, staff said.

The commission moved next to an unrelated agenda item on remote attendance for in‑person meetings.