Ethic complaints filed against Cape officials dismissed
Commission on Ethics finds complaints filed by city resident 'legally insufficient'
The Florida Commission on Ethics reviewed 36 complaints for legal sufficiency at its July meeting, including a number filed against a variety of Cape Coral city officials by a city resident.
All of the complaints filed against Cape Coral officials, including City Manager Michael Ilczyszyn; Mayor John Gunter and council members Robert Welsh, William Steinke, Dan Shepard, Tom Hayden, Jessica Cosden, and Keith Long; as well as City Attorney Aleksandr Boksner were dismissed as “legally insufficient” and were so closed without further action to be taken the commission.
“When a sworn complaint is received in the Commission office, the Executive Director determines whether it is legally sufficient, that is, whether the allegations, if proven to be true, would violate any law over which the Commission has jurisdiction,” said Commission spokesperson Lynn Blais via email in response to The Breeze. “If found to be legally sufficient, the complaint is assigned to a staff investigator, who undertakes a preliminary investigation. If found legally insufficient, it is submitted for consideration by the full Commission which, if it agrees with the Executive Director’s analysis, issues a final report dismissing the complaint without investigation.”
The bulk of the complaints alleged improprieties related to the approval of three consent-agenda resolutions, including one implementing stipends for the mayor and council members.
Cited statutes state that there is no prohibition against a public officer voting on a matter affecting his or her compensation. Statutes also provide that the governing body of the municipality can declare itself to be the community redevelopment agency upon adoption of a resolution.
The complaint also “substantively fails” to indicate a possible violation of state law pertaining to any misuse of a public position.
“To indicate a possible violation of the statute, a complaint must allege, in a factual, substantive, nonconclusory manner, that a respondent corruptly used or attempted to use his public position or resources within his public trust, or that he corruptly performed his official duties, in order to specially benefit himself or another; it is not enough that a detriment to a complainant or another is alleged,” the Commission findings state.