Report No. 09161, Public Defender 91.61
STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Ihcos I►{ PJG�
•
*** STATE OF FLORIDA ***
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
For the Period
July 1, 1975 to February 28 , 1977
9161
STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Report on Audit
of the Accounts of the
STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
For the Period
July 1 , 1975 to February 28 , 1977
Dated: January 11 , 1978
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Table of Contents
Page
No .
I PERSONNEL 2
II BACKGROUND 2
III SCOPE AND OPINION 2
IV OVERVIEW 3
V FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROL 3
A. Accounting Records 3
B . Lien Collections 5
C . Personnel Records 5
D. Tangible Personal Property 5
E . Insurance 6
F. Budgets 6
VI EXPENDITURES 8
A. Salaries and Wages 8
B . Other Personal Services 11
C . Purchasing 11
D. Lease of Furniture and Equipment 14
E. Lease of Buildings 15
1 . Abacus Investments, Inc . 17
F. Lease of Vehicles 18
G . Travel 20
VII STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL 25
VIII EXHIBITS 26
iii
"Ert4}4.
A/` Ir 4
4�••y STATE OF FLORIDA
`i p
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
°ro... l
ERNEST ELLISON.C.P A. Tallahassee, Florida
AuOItOf GENERAL January 11, 1978
The Legislative Auditing Committee
of the Legislature
and the
Governor of Florida
Sirs:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11.45, Florida
Statutes, I have directed that an audit be made of the accounts and
records of the
STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
For the Period Beginning July 1, 1975,
and Ending February 28, 1977,
Par .
No .
and present this report thereon.
(1) The Sixteenth Judicial Circuit is composed of Monroe County
as provided in Section 26.021 (16) , Florida Statutes.
(2) This audit was requested by the State Attorney of the
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit. I was advised by the State Attorney that
such an audit was essential to his investigation of certain
allegations against the Public Defender .
( 3) Copies of affidavits given by former employees alleging
certain improprieties have been furnished by me to the State Attorney,
together with a copy of this audit report.
(4) Pursuant to law, my audit considered the allegations made
known to me only from the standpoint of what could be found in the
public records.
1
Par .
No .
(5) My audit included the period beginning July 1, 1975, and
ending February 28 , 1977; however , my comments refer to some
transactions prior to July 1 , 1975. The comments are included in this
report because of findings relating to the above-mentioned allegations
and because certain prior year transactions are related to my findings
during the audit period.
• PERSONNEL
(6) Honorable John H. Keane was the Public Defender of the
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit.
BACKGROUND
(7) The Office of the Public Defender was created and operates
under the provisions of Chapter 27, Part II, Florida Statutes. The
law provides that the Public Defender shall represent any person
determined to be insolvent who is under arrest for or is charged with
a felony, and may represent any person determined to be insolvent who
is under arrest for or is charged with a misdemeanor or violation of a
municipal or county ordinance.
(8) The State Legislature made appropriations from the General
Revenue Fund to finance operations of the Office of the Public
Defender . In addition, the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners provided the Public Defender with office space,
custodial services, and utilities as required by Section 27 . 54 ,
Florida Statutes, and paid certain court costs pursuant to Sections
939. 07 and 939. 15, Florida Statutes. State funds were disbursed by
the Department of Banking and Finance based on vouchers submitted by
the Public Defender and processed by the Judicial Administrative
Commission. County funds were disbursed by the Monroe County Board of
County Commissioners based on vouchers submitted by the Public
Defender .
SCOPE AND OPINION
(9) The scope of my audit included an examination of the
financial records applicable to operations of the Office of the Public
Defender of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, available at the Office of
the Public Defender , at the State Judicial Administrative Commission,
and at the office of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
for the period July 1 , 1975, to February 28 , 1977. My examination was
made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and ,
accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such
other auditing procedures as I considered necessary in the
circumstances except as noted in the following paragraph.
2
Par .
No .
(10) The Public Defender did not prepare financial statements
showing the financial position and results of operations of the
office. Accordingly, my examination was not for the purpose of
expressing an opinion on financial position and results of operations.
The accompanying tabulation of appropriations and disbursements listed
on page 26 was prepared by my staff for informational purposes only.
( 11) In my opinion, the aforementioned tabulation of
appropriations and disbursements presents fairly the cash transactions
applicable to these accounts for the period July 1, 1975, to February
28, 1977.
OVERVIEW
( 12) As explained in detail under appropriate headings in this
report, my examination disclosed that:
1 . The Public Defender did not maintain an adequate
accounting and budgetary system that would provide
complete and accurate financial information, as required
by Section 11.46, Florida Statutes. The financial
statements were not prepared as required by Section
216. 102 (1) , Florida Statutes.
2. Records and internal control for payroll , personnel ,
tangible personal property, lien collections, and some
purchasing were inadequate.
3 . Many transactions and payments appeared questionable both
as to public policy and as to compliance with applicable
laws and regulations.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROL
Accounting Records
(13) The financial records of the Public Defender ' s office were
incomplete and inadequate. Adequate accounting ledgers for recording
financial transactions were not maintained. A general ledger
including accounts for all assets (appropriation balances and State-
owned tangible personal property) , liabilities, fund balances,
encumbrances, revenues, and expenditures was not kept. In order to
adequately account for all financial transactions, such a general
ledger is necessary. Subsidiary ledgers should also be kept for
accounts payable in the General Fund from which the operations of the
office were financed with State and county appropriations.
3
Par .
No .
(14) The Public Defender in his written response to the above
paragraph states that, " . individual ledgers are maintained
showing assets (appropriation balances and State owned tangible
personal property) , liabilities, fund balances, encumbrances and
expenditures. " The Public Defender must be referring to records
maintained at the present date, because during my audit, I was not
furnished a general ledger or individual ledgers showing assets,
liabilities, fund balances, or encumbrances. Also , the Public
Defender in his written response refers to a lack of assistance from
"outside agencies" in setting up procedures, records, etc. I
respectfully remind him that Section 43. 16, Florida Statutes,
effective July 1, 1965, created the Judicial Administrative Commission
for the purpose, among others, to assist in or accomplish totally
budgets, voucher schedules, forms, and reports when such assistance is
requested by the Public Defender .
(15) Section 11. 46, Florida Statutes, provides that State
officers and agencies shall at all times maintain proper accounting
systems and procedures consistent with generally accepted accounting
principles and good internal control. Pursuant to Section 43. 16 (5) ,
Florida Statutes, the Judicial Administrative Commission recorded the
State appropriations and disbursements of State funds applicable to
the Office of the Public Defender . Monroe County maintained records
of county funds expended on behalf of the Public Defender . The
records maintained by the State, Monroe County, and the Public
Defender were not sufficient for recording all assets (appropriation
balances and State-owned tangible personal property) , liabilities,
fund balances, encumbrances, revenues, and expenditures applicable to
the Office of the Public Defender . Section 216. 102 (1) , Florida
Statutes, requires the Public Defender to file annually a balance
sheet and statement of operations. Statements showing the Public
Defender ' s financial position and results of operations were not
filed. Such financial statements should be prepared by the officer
from proper and complete records.
( 16) The Public Defender in his written response to the above
paragraph states that a form is mentioned for balance sheets in the
Operating Procedures of the Accounting and Auditing Division of the
Office of the Comptroller and that, "After speaking with numerous
people in the Comptroller ' s Office, the Public Defender ' s secretary
was told that such balance sheets are no longer in use because the
Auditor General did not like that method of submitting balance sheets,
and that this practice of not using forms had been in effect for 'more
than a year ' ." It should be noted that the form referred to by the
Public Defender was designed by the State Comptroller for his use in
compiling a Statewide balance sheet as required by Section 216. 102 (2) ,
Florida Statutes, 1973. Effective July 1, 1974, Section 216. 102,
Florida Statutes, was amended to require State agencies to file with
the State Comptroller and the Auditor General a balance sheet and a
statement of operations, as of June 30 of each year , prepared in
compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. The form
previously furnished by the Comptroller was not in accordance with
4
Par .
No .
these principles and was discontinued by him. The Public Defender
should also note that Rule 3A-10. 70, Rules and Regulations of the
Division of Accounting and Auditing , Office of the Comptroller ,
adopted October 21 , 1975, provides that statements required by Section
216. 012 (1) and (3) , Florida Statutes, are to be filed with the
Comptroller .
Lien Collections
(17) Internal control over lien collections made pursuant to
Section 27. 56, Florida Statutes, was inadequate. Liens for amounts
determined by the Court were not filed or enforced as required by
Section 27. 56 (1) , Florida Statutes. Prenumbered receipts were not
written for collections. Accounting records necessary to document
that all receipts were properly and promptly remitted to the Judicial
Administrative Commission for deposit in the State Treasury were not
kept. Under Section 27. 56, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter
77-264, Laws of Florida, effective October 1, 1977, judgment liens
against defendants for attorney' s fees or costs shall be enforced on
behalf of the county by the Board of County Commissioners.
Personnel Records
(18) Personnel files were maintained for each employee. Some
files did not contain personnel action reports, applications , or
performance evaluations; therefore, the files did not adequately
document the basis for employees' pay.
(19) The Public Defender had no formal written attendance and
leave policies. He stated that time sheets had been used for
investigators since November 1973 and for all employees beginning in
the latter part of 1975; however , audit tests disclosed that time
sheets were not on file for some periods. Leave records consisted of
calendars on which leave taken was posted . Records showing leave
balances and leave earned were not maintained and written leave
request forms were not used. Subsequent to the audit period ,
attendance and leave policies, procedures, and records were
established .
(20) The Public Defender in his written response to the two
preceeding paragraphs states that, " . . we are exempt from these
requirements pursuant to Chapter 110. 051 (j) , Florida Statutes. " See
my comments in paragraph 32 of this report.
( 21) Additional comments relating to personnel records appear
under the heading EXPENDITURES, Salaries and Wages, page 8.
Tangible Personal Property
(22) Chapter 273 , Florida Statutes, and the related regulations,
provide for recording , marking , and periodic inventorying of tangible
personal property. Adequate tangible personal property records were
5
Par .
No .
not maintained by the Public Defender . Property acquired from State
funds was not physically identified as belonging to the Office, and
identifying numbers were not assigned to all items. Two cameras
(costing $465 and $278. 40) were not presented to the auditor for
inspection. The Public Defender stated that these cameras were
assigned to two former employees and were not returned when the
employees terminated . This information should be reported to the
State Comptroller who is authorized by Section 17. 04 , Florida
Statutes, to adjust and settle the accounts of the State .
( 23) A complete physical inventory should be made of all State-
owned tangible personal property, including furniture, equipment,
books, etc. , and control and subsidiary accounts should be established
to properly account for fixed assets, as required by Chapter 273,
Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations applicable thereto .
Proper records of such assets are also necessary for the preparation
of the balance sheet at the close of each fiscal year , as required by
Section 216. 102 (1) , Florida Statutes.
Insurance
(24) Fire insurance on tangible personal property was carried
through the Florida Fire Insurance Trust Fund, as required by Section
284. 01, Florida Statutes. Workmen' s compensation and general and
professional liability protection was provided by the Department of
Insurance, Division of Risk Management, as authorized by Section
284. 31, Florida Statutes.
Budgets
(25) Although the Public Defender was responsible for obligating
public funds provided for the operation of the office, he did not
maintain adequate budgetary records for either State or county funds
for the purpose of controlling the obligation of resources. Budgetary
records should include control accounts for each budget category of
both State and county funds (salaries and benefits, other personal
services, expenses, and operating capital outlay) for recording the
authorized budget releases, along with expenditures applicable to each
category, to enable continuous comparison of expenditures and
anticipated obligations with the available or unexpended budget
balances. The Judicial Administrative Commission maintained records
of only the cash disbursements chargeable against the State
appropriations for the Public Defender ; however , it could not record
current obligations (accounts payable) applicable to these funds known
only by the Public Defender or his personnel until invoices were
submitted for payment. As noted elsewhere in this report, the Public
Defender kept no such records; consequently, budget control was
inadequate as indicated by the overexpenditures of budget items ( see
tabulation following page) .
6
Par .
No .
(26) My review of the Public Defender ' s obligations payable from
State funds at June 30, 1976, and February 28 , 1977, disclosed
insufficient balances to pay such obligations in some instances. The
following tabulation compares released State appropriation balances
with obligations payable from those appropriations at June 30, 1976 ,
and February 28, 1977:
Budget Deduct Budget
Releases Disbursements Accounts Difference
Payable
1975-76
Salaries and Benefits $159,955.98 $159,838.19 $ 85.20 $ 32.59
Other Personal Services 4,849.00 4,849.00 2,385.50(1) (2,385.50)
Expenses 23,232.45 22,903.42 2,257.18 (1,928.15)
Operating Capital Outlay 4,289.57 4,289.57 229.00 (229.00)
Total $192,327.00 $191,880.18 $ 4,956.88 $ (4,510.06)
1976-77 to 2-28
Salaries and Benefits $137,275.00 $112,090.35 $ 2,272.75 $ 22,911.90
Other Personal Services 4,015.00 2,532.25 5,408.33(1) (2) (3,925.58)
Expenses 16,910.00 14,695.45 6,604.29 (4,389.74)
Operating Capital Outlay 1,850.00 1,009.95 11,890.15(3) (11,050.10)
Total $160,050.00 $130,328.00 $26,175.52 $ 3,546.48
Notes: (1) Includes $2,075 payable to a law firm for services rendered during
fiscal year 1975-76.
(2) Includes $3,333.33 accrued at February 28, 1977, in accordance with
the assignment agreement for a deputy public defender. Funds were
transferred from the salaries and benefits appropriation category
on March 28, 1977, to pay the liability.
(3) Includes $9,269 for furniture and equipment and $1,900 for carpeting
purchased in December 1976 and January 1977. The Public Defender
stated that, at the time of the purchase of the furniture and
equipment, he orally agreed to pay 50% of the total purchase price
after receiving the items and the remaining 50"%, during fiscal year
1977-78. He further stated, however, that since the 1976-77 budget
did not contain sufficient funds, the entire amount will not be paid
until fiscal year 1977-78. The purchase of the carpeting is
disclosed under the heading EXPENDITURES, Lease of Buildings, and
the carpeting also will probably not be paid for until fiscal year
1977-78.
7
Par .
No .
The June 30, 1976, appropriation balances were not sufficient to pay
obligations (payable from State funds) incurred by the Office of the
Public Defender . Incurring obligations against State funds in excess
of amounts appropriated is in violation of Section 216. 311, Florida
Statutes. It is the responsibility of the State agency to which
appropriations are made (in this case the Office of the Public
Defender) to limit the obligation of funds to the amounts authorized
by law. Section 216.301, Florida Statutes, provides that the balance
of appropriations not disbursed , but expended or contracted to be
expended , shall be certified by the head of the agency to the
Department of Administration. In the event that the aforesaid
certification is not made and the obligation is proven to be legal ,
due , and unpaid , then the same shall be paid and charged to the
appropriation for the current year . The Public Defender should
implement controls to prevent the incurring of obligations in excess
of amounts appropriated and released for spending . See Sections
216. 181 (4) and 216. 311, Florida Statutes.
( 27) The Public Defender in his written response to paragraphs 25
and 26 above stated , "Overexpenditures which did occur were not caused
by a lack of budgetary records, but rather by a failure of the then
Administrative Assistant to advise me of our true financial status,
and in greater part, by the failure of the Florida State Legislature
to properly fund this office." The fact remains that the Public
Defender did not keep adequate records of payables and encumbrances.
Such records should have shown the available uncommitted appropriation
balances.
(28) The Public Defender in his written response mentions that he
obtained approval of this deficit funding from the Governor in October
1977. The Public Defender is apparently referring to a deficiency
appropriation of $74,892 obtained from the Department of
Administration in October 1977.
EXPENDITURES
Salaries and Wages
(29) The Public Defender was paid in accordance with Section
27. 5301 (1) , Florida Statutes. Since written criteria for determining
the compensation of assistant public defenders had not been
established , salary payments were determined by the Public Defender .
Payments were of a fixed monthly amount and were within the limit
established by Section 27. 5301 (2) , Florida Statutes.
( 30) Several of the assistant public defenders conducted the
part-time practice of law in offices leased by the County. Three of
the offices contained private telephones. Although Section 27. 51 (3) ,
Florida Statutes, permits assistant public defenders to engage in the
private practice of raw, such practice for the following reasons
should not be conducted in offices leased by the County:
8
Par .
No .
1. Terms of the leases specifically require the offices to
be used only as offices of the Public Defender .
2. Section 216. 262 (1) (e) , Florida Statutes, requires that
all perquisites be approved by the Department of
Administration, Division of Personnel , and Section
216. 011 (1) (f) , Florida Statutes, defines a perquisite to
include the use of something that gives an employee
additional compensation or which reduces to some extent
the normal personal expenses of the employee. Approval
for perquisites was not obtained from the Department of
Administration.
The Public Defender should discontinue the practice of allowing
assistant public defenders to conduct the part-time practice of law in
offices leased by the County.
( 31) The Public Defender did not comply with the Personnel Rules
and Regulations of the Department of Administration as follows :
1 . Written procedures for evaluating the performance of
employees had not been established and evidence was not
furnished to indicate that employees were evaluated on a
periodic basis as required by Chapter 22A-9, Personnel
Rules and Regulations.
2. Employee anniversary dates were not established and
maintained as required by Section 22A-2. 05, Personnel
Rules and Regulations.
3. Written procedures regarding dual employment of employees
were not on file as required by Section 22A-2 . 16,
Personnel Rules and Regulations.
4 . Two part-time employees were hired at original
appointment rates that exceeded the pro rata minimum
rate for their job classification. The Public Defender
informed me on June 9, 1977, that the Administrative
Assistant must have made an error in computing the full-
time employment equivalent.
5 . Because of the lack of leave policies, balanced leave
records, and some attendance records as noted under the
heading FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROL,
Personnel Records, I was unable to determine that
separation pay for terminated employees was in
accordance with Section 22A-2 . 12, Personnel Rules and
Regulations.
9
Par .
No.
6 . Many of the Public Defender ' s classified personnel were
employed on a part-time (ranging from 40% to 95% of
full-time employment) basis. These employees were paid
regular monthly salaries based on the part-time
equivalent of the full-time monthly rate. Time records
on file indicated that most of these employees actually
worked approximately 40 hours per week (more hours than
required by the part-time equivalent) , and apparently
only two employees accumulated compensatory leave for
hours worked in excess of those required. The Public
Defender ' s practice of paying employees at less than the
full-time rate for essentially full-time work does not
appear to be in accordance with Section 22A-2 .03 ,
Personnel Rules and Regulations, which requires that all
employees be paid in accordance with rates in the
official salary schedule, and the provisions of Section
22A-2.12 , Personnel Rules and Regulations, which
provides for methods of calculating pay for less than
full-time employment.
Subsequent to the audit period , attendance and leave policies,
procedures, and records were established.
(32) The Public Defender in his written response to the preceding
paragraph states that, "Since all employees of the judiciary,
including Public Defenders and Public Defender employees, are exempt
from the provisions of 110 .051 (j) , Florida Statutes , it is my
interpretation of the statute that compliance with any of the points
mentioned in this paragraph is not required. " The above-mentioned
section also provides that the Department of Administration shall set
the salary of these positions , unless otherwise fixed by law.
Salaries of many of the Public Defender ' s employees were not fixed by
law and, therefore , are set by the Department of Administration.
Certain sections of the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the
Department of Administration govern the setting of the employees
salaries; therefore, the Public Defender would be subject to these
sections. The Department of Administration in a letter to me dated
March 8, 1972 , and in a letter to the Chief Judge, District Court of
Appeal , Second District , dated September 27 , 1973 , has advised that
employees of the Judicial Branch of State Government are subject only
to Chapters 22A-1 , 22A-2 , and 22A-9 of the Personnel Rules and
Regulations of the Department of Administration. If the Public
Defender feels that he is not subject to these sections, then he
should seek appropriate legal clarification as to what law and/or
rules govern the salaries of his employees.
(33) On March 1 , 1975, an employee terminated her employment with
the Public Defender ' s office and , on May 27 , 1975, was paid separation
pay of $1 ,063.53. A personnel action request on file indicated that
this was for accrued annual leave of 30 days. I requested but was not
furnished records to' substantiate this accrued leave balance.
10
Par .
No.
(34) The Public Defender employed a part-time investigator on
November 3, 1976 , at a salary of $600 per month. The employee
terminated on December 31 , 1976 , and was paid a total of $1 ,145.46 in
March 1977 for the period November 3, 1976 , to December 31 , 1976 , the
date of his termination. The employee filled a position for which the
Public Defender had requested on November 29 , 1976 , a reclassification
from an assistant public defender position. This request was not
approved by the Department of Administration, Division of Personnel,
until December 22, 1976 . Section 22A-1 .03 , Personnel Rules and
Regulations, requires approval by the Division of the reclassification
before a reclassified position is filled by an agency, unless this
authority has been delegated by the State Personnel Director to the
agency head. I was shown no evidence that the Public Defender had
been delegated this authority. Time records for this employee were
not on file; however , two of the Public Defender 's other investigators
certified that the investigator worked with them during the period.
(35) In his written response to the above paragraph, the Public
Defender states that, ' . . it is my contention that this criticism
is unnecessary, pursuant to the exemption of this office from the
provisions of Chapter 110 , Florida Statutes. " See my comments in
paragraph 32 of this report.
Other Personal Services
(36) Expenditures from State appropriations for other personal
services included payments for contractual services of two
investigators, two temporary secretaries, and one law firm.
(37) Payments to the investigators totaled $750 and were
supported by agreements and invoices. One agreement was approved
after the services were performed , and the other agreement and invoice
did not show dates of services.
(38) During fiscal year 1976-77 , the Public Defender executed an
assignment agreement with the Federal Agency for International
Development, Washington, D.C. This agreement provided for an employee
of the agency to be assigned to the Public Defender ' s office as deputy
public defender for the period January 2 , 1977 , to December 31 , 1978 .
The agreement further provides for the Federal Agency to continue to
pay the individual' s full salary of $39 ,419 with the State reimbursing
the Agency on a quarterly basis at $20 ,000 per year .
Purchasing
(39) Jffice furniture and equipment costing $9 ,269 and carpeting
costing $1 ,900 were purchased without obtaining competitive bids. The
available records did not indicate that purchasing agreements,
contracts, or maximum price regulations executed by the Department of
General Services, Division of Purchasing, were utilized. I recommend ,
in the Public interest, that the Public Defender obtain competitive
bids, and use purchasing agreements, contracts, or maximum price
11
Par .
No .
regulations executed by the Department of General Services, Division
of Purchasing . Additional comments regarding these purchases are
under the subheading , Lease of Buildings, (page 15) and under the
heading FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROL, Budgets (page 6) .
(40) During the fiscal year 1974-75, the Public Defender
purchased an International Business Machines (IBM) memory typewriter
in accordance with an installment payment agreement. The agreement
provided for a purchase price of $5,400, with a down payment of $810,
and monthly payments for four years with interest totaling $663. 36
(annual rate of 7. 3%) . The $5,400 purchase price was consistent with
a Department of General Services, Division of Purchasing , agreement.
The State, through November 1975, paid a total of $2 , 257. 80 (the $810
down payment and 12 monthly payments of $120. 65 each) for the
typewriter .
(41) The Public Defender determined that his budget did not
contain sufficient funds to continue making the monthly payments and
he stated that he made an oral agreement with a local attorney whereby
the attorney agreed to continue making the payments, take possession
of, and eventually purchase the typewriter . The Public Defender
stated that the law firm was referred to him as a possible purchaser
by IBM. On January 23, 1976 , according to a receipt on file , the law
firm took possession of the typewriter and agreed to " . . . continue
the present payments for title of machine. " A memorandum from the
Public Defender' s former administrative assistant to "IBM file"
states, "On February 27, 1976, I received a call from Lenora Harman
(Assistant Executive Director of the Judicial Administrative
Commission) stating that since the agreement was a rental agreement
with IBM until such time as the machine was paid off, that it was the
same as dropping rental of any machine and nothing else and that no
formal authorization was necessary to turn the machine and payments
over to whoever we wished. " Another memorandum dated April 12, 1976 ,
from the former administrative assistant to the Public Defender ,
states that the law firm H . . intended to pay off the IBM contract
completely in our name and then we could transfer the title of the
machine to them. "
(42) Under the express provisions of the installment payment
agreement, it is provided that the title to the typewriter "shall
remain in IBM and assigns until the Total Time Sale Price is fully
paid" , and , further , that "This Installment Payment Agreement is not
assignable by the Purchaser ; none of the machines may be leased ,
assigned , or transferred by the Purchaser ." The agreement also
provides that "if the Purchaser assigns or disposes of any legal or
equitable right, interest, property or special property right in the
machines, or any of them, this Agreement will have been breached and
12
Par .
No .
IBM will : (1) retain all monies paid by Purchaser , which will be
considered as partial compensation for machines use; (2) take the
machines from Purchaser ' s premises (and the machines may be sold with
or without notice at private sale or at public sale, with or without
having the machines at the sale, at which sale IBM or assigns may
purchase) ; and (3) pursue any other remedy permitted by law. "
( 43) On May 4, 1976 , the Public Defender received a check from
the attorney payable to International Business Machines (IBM) for
$3,527. 34, along with a letter which stated , "It is my understanding
that as soon as this account is paid in full and you have received
title that you will be able to deed the said typewriter to me and it
is with this understanding that I am paying the machine off. " The
letter further stated , "Thank you for the opportunity to purchase this
machine at this cost." This check was forwarded to International
Business Machines (IBM) . The Public Defender then received a bill of
sale dated June 1, 1976 , transferring title from International
Business Machines (IBM) to "State of Florida, Office of Public
Defender ." On April 29, 1977, a member of my staff inquired as to how
title was transferred from the State to the law firm, and on May 19 ,
1977, was furnished a bill of sale. This bill of sale shows the
private law firm as the purchaser and provides that the Office of the
Public Defender , " . . . in consideration of the payment of the sum of
one dollar and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of
which is acknowledged , sells and transfers . " the memory
typewriter on June 1, 1976. The bill of sale also contains a warranty
of title that the Public Defender " . . was the lawful owner of the
equipment listed above and that same had a good and lawful right to
sell the same and that the title to same was free from any charge or
encumbrance whatsoever ."
(44) The Public Defender had made payments of over $2, 000 from
the public funds of his office under the agreement with IBM for the
typewriter (including the $810 initial payment) at the time the Public
Defender agreed to permit the private law firm to pay the remaining
amount necessary to constitute a purchase under the agreement. By
permitting the private law firm to pay the remaining amount but taking
title in the State and thereafter transferring title to the private
law firm, the Public Defender effectuated an unusual transaction not
in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 273, Florida Statutes,
relating to the procedures for disposition of State tangible personal
property; also , from the Public Defender ' s records, I could not
determine whether or not sales tax was paid , as would have been
required under circumstances where the purchase was in fact a purchase
by the private law firm from IBM.
( 45) Section 43. 16 (5) (b) , Florida Statutes, provides that the
Public Defender will forward vouchers to the Judicial Administrative
Commission for recording and submission to the proper State agency.
Many instances were noted in which the Public Defender did not timely
submit invoices to the Judicial Administrative Commission for
processing and forwarding to the State Comptroller . Section
13
Par .
No .
215. 422 (1) , Florida Statutes, provides that "The voucher authorizing
payment of an invoice submitted to an agency of the state , required by
law to be filed with the Comptroller , shall be filed with the
Comptroller not later than 15 days after receipt of the invoice and
receipt, inspection, and approval of the goods and services . . . .
( 46) The Public Defender made purchases from several local firms
who billed for the same in the name of "Public Defender" or "Public
Defenders State of Florida" ; the purchases included both official and
personal items. Upon receiving the statements, the Public Defender ' s
practice was to personally pay for personal items and submit the other
invoices to the State for payment. This practice could result in
purchases of a personal nature being submitted to the State for
payment and , in two instances, the applicable sales tax on personal
items was not paid . Items of a personal nature should not be charged
to the office accounts.
Lease of Furniture and Equipment
(47) Expenditures from State appropriations included $200 per
month to Abacus Investments, Inc . (Abacus) , for the rental of office
furniture and equipment. Payments for periods ending December 31 ,
1976 , were supported by quarterly billings from Abacus. The Public
Defender stated that these payments were based on a four-year lease
effective January 1, 1973. A copy of this lease which was supposedly
the same as the original was furnished to my staff. Another written
lease was on file for the four-year period beginning January 1, 1977.
The lease provides for payments of $600 ($200 per month) to be made on
the first day of each three-month period beginning February 1, 1977.
( 48) In his written response to the above paragraph, the Public
Defender stated that the original lease would have been obtained for
the auditor' s inspection if he had so requested and that the wording
" supposedly the same as the original" was entirely unnecessary and in
poor taste. The auditor did request the original lease agreement;
however , the original was not supplied. Instead , the Public
Defender ' s Office typed up and signed a lease, telling the auditor it
was the same as the original . Since the original had not been located
and was not used to type from, we had no way of verifying that the
"copy" presented to us was indeed the same as the original .
( 49) State funds of $205. 20 were also paid for service agreements
covering fiscal years 1975-76 and 1976-77 on two typewriters included
in the above-mentioned Abacus leases. Inasmuch as the typewriters
were not owned by the State and the leases did not provide for
payments for service agreements, the records do not indicate whether
or not the payments for the service agreements serve a public purpose .
One of these typewriters was not located by the auditor . The Public
Defender stated that this typewriter was not being used by office
14
Par .
No .
personnel and had been physically removed from the office sometime in
1974. Two bookcases included in the lease were also not located . An
investigator stated that the bookcases had been previously disposed of
because of poor condition. Neither the leases nor the monthly rental had
been adjusted for furniture and equipment deletions.
( 50) Based on the provisions of the two above-mentioned lease
agreements, a total of $10,000 had been paid at February 28, 1977
(January 1 , 1973, to February 28, 1977) for the rental of this
furniture and equipment and the State will have paid an additional
$9,200 by the time the current lease expires on December 31, 1980. In
other words, the State taxpayers will have paid $19 , 200 total rent by
1980 for furniture and equipment valued initially at approximately
$7, 500. Furthermore, this rental is being paid for furniture and
equipment that constantly depreciates in value .
( 51) The Public Defender in his written response to the findings
included under this subheading states that the savings to the State
are obvious. I fail to see how the State realizes a savings by paying
rent of $19 , 200 for equipment originally valued at approximately
$7,500. The fact still remains that the Public Defender will have
paid rental payments of $11,700 in excess of the original estimated
value of the equipment.
Lease of Buildings
(52) Offices were rented by the Board of County Commissioners for
use by the Public Defender and his staff as follows :
Key West
411 Whitehead Street $350 Per Month
423 Whitehead Street:
From January 1, 1977 350 Per Month
511 1/2 Eaton Street 250 Per Month
Marathon
Two Suites in Town Square Office Building :
To July 31 , 1976 475 Per Month
From August 1, 1976 380 Per Month
Islamorada
Room I , 82685 U. S. Highway No . 1 400 Per Month
15
Par .
No.
(53) My review of rental payments for the Marathon office
disclosed that, based on invoices approved by the Public Defender ,
overpayments totaling $1 ,045 had been made by the County. These
resulted from two duplicate payments and one payment of a higher
monthly rate when a lower rate was effective. After these
overpayments were brought to their attention by the auditor , Board of
County Commissioners' personnel stated that the overpayments would be
applied against subsequent months ' billings.
( 54) The Public Defender in his written response to the above
paragraph states that, "It is my understanding that any duplicate
payments which were made by Monroe County for the lease of office
space were the result of invoices having been submitted directly to
the county for payment, by the lessor , not as a result of the Public
Defender submitting and approving double payments. " I noted that
payments for two months were made based on a voucher prepared on
stationery of the Office of the Public Defender and signed by the
Public Defender . The other payments for the same months were made on
an invoice with the caption "notice of rent due" for the same two
months addressed to Monroe County Public Defender and one of the
invoices had a date received by the Office of the Public Defender .
The payments were made on invoices prepared by the Public Defender and
on invoices addressed to his Office. I found nothing of record to
indicate that the County received the invoices from anyone other than
the Public Defender .
(55) A written lease for the office space at 411 Whitehead Street
was on file for the period ending September 30 , 1976 . This building
was rented on a month-to-month basis beginning October 1 , 1976 .
(56) On December 14 , 1976, the Board of County Commissioners
authorized the Public Defender to negotiate a lease for additional
office space and present it to the Board of County Commissioners for
approval . Although the Public Defender stated that a lease was
negotiated for the building located at 423 Whitehead Street shortly
thereafter , the lease was not presented to the Board of County
Commissioners until April 5, 1977 , when retroactive approval was
granted for the four-month period January 1, 1977 , to April 30 , 1977.
On April 26 , 1977 , the Board of County Commissioners extended the
rental on a month-to-month basis. In December 1976 , the Public
Defender began renovating this building . State funds of approximately
$1 ,700 were expended for paint, lumber , plumbing and electrical work ,
other materials, and labor . In addition, carpet (approximately 92
square yards according to the Public Defender) was installed in
December 1976 or January 1977 at a cost of $1 ,900 ($20.65 per square
yard) . The Public Defender stated that, prior to ordering the carpet,
the owner of the building had orally agreed to pay $1 ,400 towards its
purchase and that the State would have to pay only the remaining $500 .
16
Par.
No.
I was shown no evidence that the owner has paid or agreed to pay the
$1 ,400 and the Public Defender was billed for the entire $1 ,900 on
April 19, 1977 . The Public Defender should not have incurred
obligations for these renovations and carpeting before receiving
approval from the Board of County Commissioners to rent the building.
(57) The Public Defender in his written response to the above
paragraph states that, "Evidence of the agreement of the owner of the
building to pay $1 ,400 toward renovations is contained in the written
lease and was shown to the auditor . That clause was struck from the
lease by the County Attorney on his own authority and without my
knowledge or approval . " It should be noted that a copy of the lease
furnished me had the clause deleted; however , the lease was never
signed by either the Public Defender or a representative of the
County. The deleted clause was initialed by the lessor only. The
records did not show who deleted the clause and , since the lease was
not signed by a representative of the lessee, I question the validity
of such an agreement.
(58) The office space at 511-1/2 Eaton Street was leased from
Abacus Investments, Inc. (Abacus) in January 1973. A lease was on
file for the fiscal year ended September 30 , 1975. Although a lease
for fiscal year 1975-76 was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on September 23, 1975 , it was never signed by an
official of Abacus. On February 17 , 1976 , the Board of County
Commissioners authorized this rental on a month-to-month basis and
instructed the County Attorney on April 5, 1977 , to terminate the
rental effective April 30 , 1977 .
(59) The only description available for the office was "511-1/2
Eaton Street. " The lease apparently included two offices, a hallway,
and a bathroom in a house located at 511 Eaton Street. The Public
Defender used the remainder of the house as his personal living
quarters. Payments made from the State during the 1975-76 fiscal year
relating to this property included $200 to an individual to change two
closets in the hallway into shelf space , $267 for vinyl most of which
was installed in the hallway which was used for access to both the
office and personal living quarters , $232.86 for electrical repairs
and maintenance , $100 to an individual to paint the inside walls,
$311.56 for 14 gallons of paint and other supplies (The Public
Defender stated that the paint was also used at the 411 Whitehead
Street office) , and $672 for two carpets . Also, the State paid $75 to
steam clean two personal air conditioners located at 511 Eaton Street.
In June 1977 , the Public Defender received a refund for the $75 and
the amount was transmitted to the State Treasurer on June 24 , 1977.
(60) Abacus Investments , Inc. On December 30 , 1976 , the Public
Defender , acting in his official capacity entered into a renewal
agreement with Abacus Investments, Inc. , (Abacus) for the lease of
office furniture. During the term of this agreement (on March 11 ,
1977) , the Public Defender , acting in a private capacity, acquired a
controlling interest in Abacus. In view of the provisions of the Code
1'7
Par .
No.
of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees relating to doing business
with one 's agency, I recommend that the Public Defender submit in
writing the facts of the situation to the Florida Commission on Ethics
with a request for an advisory opinion concerning the same, under the
provisions of Section 112.322 (2) (a) , Florida Statutes.
(61) The Public Defender in his written response to the preceding
paragraph advises that he has discussed the legal issues raised by his
involvement with Abacus with two Assistant Attorneys General , and has
received from them informal oral opinions as to the applicability of
the Code of Ethics to the facts presented herein. I am aware,
however , that the Attorney General in a formal written opinion has
advised , . that as of July 1 , 1974 , a substantially revised
Standards of Conduct Law is effective , and that public officials who
have questions about the Law' s application to themselves should direct
such questions to the Ethics Commission. " (1974 AGO 320 , No. 074-195;
emphasis added) Therefore, I continue to recommend that the Public
Defender request an advisory opinion from the Commission on Ethics.
(62) Section 112.313 (9) (a) , Florida Statutes, requires a public
officer acquiring a material interest in any business entity operating
in the State to file a statement disclosing this no later than 45 days
after the acquisition. The Public Defender had not filed the required
statement disclosing his ownership of Abacus as of May 17 , 1977 (more
than 45 days after acquisition on March 11 , 1977) .
Lease of Vehicles
(63) The Public Defender leased a 1974 Ford station wagon from a
local automobile dealer for the 24-month period beginning May 15 ,
1974 . The lease agreement provided for a $200 deposit and monthly
rental payments of $178.13. The lease required the lessor (the local
dealer) , upon the expiration of the lease , to promptly sell the
vehicle and further provided that if the proceeds of the sale, less
reasonable costs of sale, reconditioning , and relocating the vehicle ,
exceeded the residual value specified in the lease ($1 ,450) , the
difference was to be refunded to the lessee (State) as a refund of
rentals. When the lease ended in May 1976 , the Public Defender
apparently continued to drive the vehicle and did not return it to the
dealer . He stated that the vehicle was not put up for sale by the
dealer . He further stated that he asked the dealer for the price for
which the vehicle could be purchased and was told that it could be
purchased by the State for $1 ,855.52. According to an invoice from
the dealer dated May 13 , 1977 , this amount was arrived at as follows:
18
Par .
No .
Lease End Balance (Residual Value) $1 , 450. 00
Less, Deposit (200. 00)
Add , Amounts Due to Dealer :
29th Payment 178. 13 (1)
Late Charges 196. 90 (2)
Repairs Accumulated Since 8-1-74 230. 49 (3)
Total $1,855. 52
Notes: (1) Records show that all 24 payments were
made by the State .
(2) These were calculated by the dealer
and were based on delinquent balances
for 22 of the 24 months of the lease.
Late charges were assessed because the
Public Defender did not promptly submit
invoices for payment. It should
also be noted that payment for late
charges would have not been authorized
payments by the State , because of being a
prohibited penalty. (See 1959 Biennial
Report of the Attorney General , page 718,
No . 060-169; 1961 Biennial Report of the
Attorney General , page 633, No . 062-161) .
( 3) Not supported by detailed invoices.
The Public Defender stated that he contacted the Executive Director of
the Judicial Administrative Commission to determine if the office
budget could be increased in order to purchase the vehicle, but was
told that this was not possible. He further stated that the dealer
then told him that he could purchase the vehicle personally for the
amount of $1 ,855. 52 and that he did purchase the vehicle for this
amount. An administrative assistant informed me that the odometer
reading at the termination of the lease was 33,286 miles. The State
received no refunds as a result of this transaction. Based on the
provisions of the lease and assuming that the selling price
represented the market value of the vehicle, I recommend that the
Public Defender :
1. Obtain detailed invoices to support the $230. 49 charge
for repairs and determine that the charges are
appropriate charges.
2 . Obtain a refund for the State in the amount of the
difference ($405. 52) between the sale price and residual
value plus the $200 deposit, less the amount of repair
charges that are determined to be proper and legal .
19
Par .
No .
(64) A second lease entered into between the Public Defender and
the local dealer during fiscal year 1976-77 provided for the rental of
a 1976 Ford station wagon for 24 months at a monthly rate of $239. 49.
The lease agreement was not dated but was apparently effective October
28, 1976.
(65) Gasoline purchased from a local service station was
apparently used in the rental cars. Vehicle logs or other appropriate
records were not kept to document the purposes for which these
vehicles were used or to show that leasing vehicles was the most
economical method of travel . In the absence of adequate records and
supporting documentation, I was unable to determine whether leased
vehicles were used for official business or whether they were the most
economical method of travel . Sections 112. 061 (3) (a) and
112. 061 (7) (a) , Florida Statutes, require that the agency head limit
traveling expenses to those necessarily incurred in the performance of
a public purpose and that the most economical method of travel be
designated for each trip. Vehicle logs and sufficient documentation
should be maintained on all State-owned or leased vehicles to show
purposes, as well as the economy, of their use .
Travel
(66) Travel expenditures were, in many instances, not adequately
supported and some were improper as noted in the following paragraphs.
( 67) Travel vouchers were submitted by the Public Defender to the
Judicial Administrative Commission for processing to the Department of
Banking and Finance for payment. Commission and Department personnel
made numerous adjustments to the travel vouchers. The many
adjustments and other exceptions noted below indicate that travel
vouchers were not properly preaudited by personnel of the Public
Defender for compliance with Section 112. 061, Florida Statutes.
( 68) Section 112. 061 (12) (a) , Florida Statutes, requires that a
travel authorization form be used by all State officers and employees
when requesting approval for travel to a conference or convention and
that a copy of the program or agenda be attached to and filed with the
travel authorization form required to be on file with the agency. I
requested from the Public Defender but was not furnished some travel
authorization forms and programs and agendas for conference and
convention travel made by the Public Defender and his employees.
( 69) Payments to common carriers were not adequately supported .
The State Comptroller , in the general instructions for the travel
expense reimbursement form prescribed in accordance with Section
112. 061 (10) (a) , Florida Statutes, provides, "Copies of tickets or
other evidence of travel in the traveler ' s possession should be turned
in to the accounting department of the traveler ' s agency to be used in
the audit of the bill from the Common Carrier" , and Section 3A-
40. 19 (4) , Rules of the Department of Banking and Finance, requires
each State agency to submit, along with the billings from the common
20
Par .
No .
carrier , copies of the airline tickets and related travel vouchers.
Also , the travel reimbursement form provides for a separate section to
be completed when travel is performed by common carrier . Most air
travel payments were not supported by copies of the tickets (usually
the credit card charge form was used as support) and the travel
vouchers on file usually either did not contain the information as to
travel performed by common carrier or the information included was
inaccurate . Travel vouchers were not on file for the following air
travel payments:
Judicial Administrative Date pouting Amount
(omission Voucher Ticket
Date Number Issued
8- 8-75 1 5-18-75 Miami to Key West $ 25.37(1)(2)
8- 8-75 1 5-23-75 Key West to Tallahassee to Key West 141.48(2)
8- 8-75 1 6-26-75 Miami to Sarasota 35.37(2)
9- 9-75 1 6-27-75 Key West to Sarasota 58.11(2)
9- 9-75 1 6-30-75 Key West to Miami 42.74(2)
1-15-76 4 9-22-75 Miami to Key West 114.96(3) (4)
4- 7-76 5 11- -75 Miami to Sarasota to Miami 70.74(5)
4- 7-76 5 12-24-75 Key West to Tampa to Key West 70.74(2)
5-13-76 65 3-26-76 Miami to Atlanta 88.74(2)
6-17-76 8 5-28-76 Tallahassee to Sarasota 32.37(5)
7- 7-76 4-15-76 Key West to Tallahassee to Miami 144.74(2)
7- 7-76 4-15-76 Tallahassee to Key West to Tallahassee 289.48(3)46)
7- 7-76 4-22-76 Key West to Tallahassee to Key West 168.0012)
7- 7-76 4-27-76 Key West to Tallahassee to Key West 144.00(21
7- 7-76 5- 6-76 Miami to Sarasota 59.00(2)
7- 7-76 5- 6-76 Sarasota to Tampa to Tallahassee 53.00(2)
7- 7-76 5-20-76 Key West to Tallahassee to Key West 168.74(2)
7- 7-76 5-22-76 Tallahassee to Miami to Key West 61.00(5)
7- 7-76 5-26-76 Key West to Miami to Tallahassee 76.37(21
7- 7-76 5-28-76 Sarasota to Miami to Key West 50.00(2)
7- 7-76 6-11-76 Key West to Tampa to Key West 112.00(2)
1-24-77 4 8-14-76 Key West to Miami 24.00(2)
Notes: (1) The Public Defender stated that this travel was
included ona previously submitted
travel voucher (voucher No. 1 dated July 10. 1975) with an ect date.
(2) On June 16, 1977. the Public Defender stated that this travel was n the
performance of his official duties. He further stated that the normal travel
reimbursement form was not completed for the travel because of a shortage of funds
and that he had not submitted a reimbursement request to the State. On June 16.
1977, he furnished my staff a travel voucher that supported this travel.
(3) Amount per charge form appears to be the cost of two round trip tickets. No copy
of the ticket Was
on file.
14) The Public Defender stated that he and a staff assistant went to Miami. but that
he did not include this trip in the travel voucher mentioned in note (2) above
because of the uncertainty
ertainty of the exact dates.
15) No explanation was furnished by the Public Defender.
(6) The Public Defender stated that travel by staff members was for legislative
sessionwork. Travel vouchers werenot furnished. No reason was given for the
travel originating originating and terminating in Tallahassee.
21
Par .
No .
In one instance, a payment for a rental car billing was not supported
by a travel voucher . All payments to common carriers should be
supported by properly completed travel vouchers and copies of airline
tickets when commercial airlines are used.
( 70) The Public Defender used first-class accommodations for air
travel , in apparent violation of Section 112. 061 (7) (c) , Florida
Statutes, which contemplates travel by the most economical method . In
a letter to the Judicial Administrative Commission dated March 19,
1977 , the Public Defender stated that he had previously been
authorized by the Judicial Administrative Commission to use first-
class accommodations because of an old injury.
(71) My review of travel payments disclosed several instances in
which dates or places as shown on the travel vouchers appeared
inconsistent with actual dates of conferences or with information
shown on air fare and car rental billings. These included the
following :
1. A travel voucher dated April 21, 1976 , included a trip by
the Public Defender from Key West to Tallahassee on
April 6 , 1976, and return from Tallahassee to Key West
on April 9 , 1976. The purpose of the trip, as stated on
the voucher , was "Senate and House Committee Meetings
Re : HJR 2698 ." A review of the related airline
billings disclosed payments for plane trips from Key
West to Tampa on April 6 , 1976, Tallahassee to Tampa on
April 8 , 1976 , and Tampa to Key West on April 9 , 1976.
There was no indication on the travel voucher as to how
or when travel from Tampa to Tallahassee was
accomplished and the voucher did not show the purposes
or reasons for the stays in Tampa. The airline billings
also disclosed a payment for a trip from Tallahassee to
Tampa on April 8 , 1976 , for a Mr . DeFoor . A travel
voucher for this individual was not on file. The Public
Defender , on June 9 , 1977, stated that transportation
from Tampa to Tallahassee was provided by private
aircraft and the stays in Tampa were in connection with
a meeting with Mr. DeFoor (a law student who assisted him
at the committee hearings) regarding the legislative
session.
2. The travel voucher dated April 21, 1976 , included a trip
identified as Key West to Tallahassee on March 30, 1976 ,
and return from Tallahassee on April 2, 1976. The
purpose of the trip, as stated on the voucher , was "FPDA
Executive Committee Meeting and P. D. Coordination
Office Business." A review of rental car payments
disclosed a billing for a rental car that was apparently
rented by the Public Defender in Sarasota and returned
in Tampa on March 31, 1976 .
22
Par .
No..
3. The travel voucher dated April 21, 1976, included a trip
by the Public Defender from Tampa to Atlanta on December
13, 1975, and return from Atlanta to Key West on
December 18 , 1975. The stated purpose of this trip was
"NC of CDL and PD conference." An invoice from the
National College of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Public
Defenders (NC of CDL and PD) indicated that the dates of
the conference were from December 11, 1975, to December
19, 1975. The travel voucher did not show the purpose
of the travel for the four days subsequent to the end of
the conference. Incidental expenses reimbursed in
connection with this trip, however , included a car
rental invoice of $90. 05 that indicated that a vehicle
was apparently rented in St . Louis, Missouri , by the
Public Defender on December 16, 1975, and returned on
December 17, 1975, in St . Louis, Missouri , after having
been driven 529 miles. The invoice did not indicate
that gasoline was furnished by the rental agency and I
found no record that gasoline was charged to the State .
On June 9 , 1977, the Public Defender stated that he had
traveled to St. Louis, Missouri, during this period for
the purpose of personal and confidential investigations
regarding a Public Defender case and requested
reimbursement only for the car rental .
4 . A travel voucher dated December 9 , 1976, included a trip
by the Public Defender from Key West to Philadelphia on
October 15, 1976 , and return from Philadelphia to Key
West on October 18, 1976. The purpose of the trip as
shown on the voucher was "National Legal Aid and
Defender ' s Association Annual Conference." The agenda
for this conference indicated that the conference dates
were from October 13, 1976 , to October 15, 1976. The
travel voucher did not show the purpose of the travel
subsequent to the end of the conference. The Public
Defender , on June 9 , 1977 , stated that the purpose of
the travel included meetings with an officer of the
Association and with a prospective employee in
Washington, D.C.
5. On a travel voucher dated November 8 , 1976, an employee
was reimbursed $68. 75 for a trip to Tampa from October
28, 1976, to October 30, 1976 . The purpose of the trip
as shown on the voucher was "Conference on Abolition of
Municipal Courts" and a memorandum attached to the
voucher indicated that this conference was sponsored by
the Supreme Court but was held on July 29 , 1976 , and
July 30, 1976. After inquiry by the auditor , the
employee submitted a statement to explain that the
travel was actually made on the July dates and that the
dates on the voucher were in error .
23
Par .
No .
(72) Travel expenditures included a payment of $251. 60 on June
17, 1976, to an individual who became an employee of the Public
Defender on July 1, 1976. According to the travel voucher , this was a
reimbursement for three trips made by the individual from Key West to
Miami (from May 7, 1976 , to May 9, 1976; from May 21, 1976, to May 24,
1976; and from June 4, 1976 , to June 7 , 1976) . The purpose of each,
as listed on the voucher , was "investigation on case no. 75-644-CF-A-
31. " Two former employees of the Public Defender , in sworn
statements, stated they had knowledge that these three trips had not
been made. A review of the appropriate case files disclosed no
written reports or any mention of these trips. The individual stated
that he had been asked by the Public Defender to verify some
investigative work that had been done by two other employees and that
no notes or written reports were prepared regarding these trips.
( 73) My review of travel expenses disclosed six instances in
which the Public Defender and an employee were reimbursed twice for
the same trip as follows :
Dates of Travel Amount Overpaid
7-18 to 21-74 $105. 75
8- 6 to 10-74 87. 31
8-22 to 23-74 35.00
9-18 to 21-74 87. 50
7-18 to 21-74 96. 25
8- 6 to 10-74 100. 00
The travel reimbursement requests for the duplicate payments were
dated May 16, 1975. The Public Defender was also overpaid $52. 98 on
voucher No . 71 dated May 24, 1976. On June 17, 1977, the Public
Defender indicated that these overpayments were offset by the
following and other expenses he personally incurred for the office and
for which he did not request reimbursement from the State :
1 . The travel payment to the employee which included the
duplicate payment was for a total of $239. This warrant
was dated June 2, 1975, and was held by the Public
Defender until March 5, 1976, when , instead of returning
it to the State , he deposited it in a private bank
account. The Public Defender stated that the warrant
was held for over nine months because the employee
terminated and was not in town to endorse it. On March
5 , 1976 , the Public Defender wrote a personal check for
$239 to an employee as a reimbursement for moving
expenses. Approval to pay moving expenses incurred by
this employee in April 1975 was requested by the Public
Defender on September 24, 1975, and was given by the
Department of Administration, Division of Personnel , on
October 2, 1975. In a memorandum dated March 5, 1976 ,
the Public befender indicated that the overpayment was
handled in this manner for budget purposes.
24
Par .
No.
2 . The Public Defender stated that the per diem and meals
totaling $280 shown on the travel voucher which was
prepared to support the air travel payments (as
mentioned in note 2 in the tabulation on page 21 of this
report) would be applied toward these overpayments.
The Attorney General in opinion No. 056-63 has ruled that under
Section 17 .04 , Florida Statutes, the State Comptroller (Department of
Banking and Finance) is required to examine, audit , adjust, and settle
the accounts of all of the officers of the State. Therefore, I
recommend that the Public Defender submit an appropriate claim for the
unclaimed travel and request the approval from the Department of
Banking and Finance for any expenses that are claimed to offset the
above-mentioned travel overpayments.
( 74) Gasoline purchased from a local service station was
apparently used, in some cases , in the personal vehicles of the Public
Defender and his employees. Tickets for gasoline purchases were on
file and some tickets included charges for items such as oil , labor ,
and wash and wax. Section 112.061 (7) , Florida Statutes, provides
that, other than by use of common carrier , travelers are entitled only
to a reimbursement allowance at a fixed rate not to exceed 14 cents
per mile for transportation expenses on official business. I
recommend that reimbursements for all travel be made by travel
vouchers containing such information as dates, places, purposes, and
miles traveled.
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
( 75) In accordance with the provisions of Section 11 . 45 (6) (d) ,
Florida Statutes , a list of audit findings was furnished to the Office
of the Public Defender , Sixteenth Judicial Circuit. The Public
Defender ' s response to the findings included in this report is shown
on exhibit B.
25
EXHIBITS
The following exhibits are attached to and form a part of
this report:
EXHIBIT - A Tabulation of Appropriations and Disbursements.
EXHIBIT - B Statement from Audited Official .
Respectfully submitted ,
(Signed) Ernest Ellison, C. P.A.
Auditor General
Audit supervised by:
(Signed) Willard G. Hale
Audit made by:
(Signed) John A. Auner
26
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER EXHIBIT - A
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
TABULATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND DISBURSEMENTS
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Total State County
1975-76
Appropriations:
State General Revenue Fund (1) $192,891.31 $192,891.31 $
Provided by Monroe County 55,425.22 55,425.22
Total Appropriations $248,316.53 $192,891.31 $55,425.22
Disbursements:
Salaries and Wages $139,186.26 $139,186.26 $
Other Personal Services 30,029.07 4,849.00 25,180.07
Retirement and Social Security
Matching 19,800.49 19,800.49
Insurance Matching 851.44 851.44
Communications 8,015. 10 240.63 7,774.47
Printing and Reproductive Services 1,498.40 723.30 775.10
Repairs and Maintenance 1,604.58 1,604.58
Travel 5,172.57 5,172.57
Utilities 1,865.92 1,865.92
Other Contractual Services 363.62 363.62
Maintenance and Heating Supplies 157.30 157.30
Motor Fuels 685.17 685. 17
Office Materials and Supplies 2,053.91 2,053.91
Other Materials and Supplies 34.00 34.00
Insurance 846.01 846.01
Pensions and Benefits 1,887.17 1,887. 17
Rental of Buildings 18,925.00 18,925.00
Rental of Equipment 6,196.06 6,196.06
Other Current Charges 3,843.76 2,939.10 904.66
Operating Capital Outlay 4,853.88 _ 4,853.88
Total Disbursements $247,869.71 $192,444.49 $55,425.22
Excess of Appropriations Over
Disbursements $ 446.82 $ 446.82 $ - -
Note: (1) Includes $564. 31 of 1974-75 appropriations certified forward at
July 1, 1975, for disbursement in fiscal year 1975-76.
27
EXHIBIT - A OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
(Continued) SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
TABULATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND DISBURSEMENTS
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Total State County
1976-77 to 2-28
Appropriations:
State General Revenue Fund (1) $160,771.00 $160,771.00 $
Provided by Monroe County 47,239.79 47,239.79
Total Appropriations $208,010.79 $160,771.00 $47,239.79
Disbursements:
Salaries and Wages $ 97,661.90 $ 97,661.90 $
Other Personal Services 26,472.84 2,532.25 23,940.59
Retirement and Social Security
Matching 13,701.28 13,701.28
Insurance Matching 727.17 727.17
Communications 7,478.35 215.22 7,263. 13
Printing and Reproductive Services 526.00 347.80 178.20
Repairs and Maintenance 799.50 799.50
Travel 3,486.91 3,486.91
Utilities 1,538.15 1,538.15
Other Contractual Services 133.90 133.90
Building and Construction Supplies 427.69 427.69
Maintenance and Heating Supplies 431.13 431. 13
Motor Fuels 538.53 538.53
Office Materials and Supplies 1,686.79 1,686.79
Other Materials and Supplies 21. 13 21. 13
Insurance 264.00 264.00
Pensions and Benefits 625.87 625.87
Rental of Buildings 13,180.00 13,180.00
Rental of Equipment 4,201.14 4,201.14
Other Current Charges 3,376.56 2,236.84 1,139.72
Operating Capital Outlay 1,009.95 1,009.95
Total Disbursements $178,288.79 $131,049.00 $47,239.79
Excess of Appropriations Over
Disbursements $ 29,722.00 $ 29,722.00 $ - -
Note: (1) Includes $721 of 1975-76 appropriations certified forward at
July 1, 1976, for disbursement in fiscal year 1976-77.
28
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER EXHIBIT - B
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
ti
s
OFFICE OF
PUBLIC DEFENDER
•IIDEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT or ROIIDA
403 Caroline Street
KEY WEST. FLORIDA 39040
JOHN H. KEANE TELEPHONE
Purt¢ DEFENDER 305.294.2501
Oecertber 28, 1977
Ernest Ellison
Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
Tallahassee, Florida
Dear Mr. Ellison:
The list of preliminary and tentative adverse audit findings
presented me on Eecember 8, 1977, has been reviewed. Before responding
to the items included in that list, I would like to express my sincere
appreciation for the valuable assistance and guidance furnished by your
staff duing the actual audit process.
When I took office in January, 1973, my staff consisted of three
part-time employees. Our budget reflected the inadequate stun of $54,000,
and our caseload, twelve open cases. Obviously, it was possible for me
to give all my personal attention to all phases of Public Defender
operations without benefit of excessive paperwork. As all aspects of
the office increased overwhelmingly, we continued to rely on many of the
procedures set by ay predecessor. The process of augmenting and upgrading
these procedures unfortunately has not kept pace with the growth of the
office. It has been my feeling since attaining office that my responsibility
is first to the indigent accused and my efforts have been aimed unstintingly
to that purpose, not only in Monroe County but for the State of Florida
Public Defender system. I am indeed proud of our judicial actoq lishnents
locally aid statewide. However, my expertise in the area of state
administrative requirements had, until lately, been limited. The learning
experience has-been a painful one. As a result of this audit, and the
suggestions made by your staff, I am confident that State administrative
procedures now being used will be considered proper and efficient.
You will rote that our responses to the preliminary findings follow
the general outline and topic headings that were used in the report furnished
to no. The page numbers in the upper right-hand corner correspond to the
page mmbers in the aforementioned list of preliminary and adverse audit
findings.
Pursuant to Section 11.45(6) (d), Florida Statutes, the following written
explanations and responses are made:
29
EXHIBIT - B OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
(Continued) SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit FINANCIAL, MANrcu4 IIT AND INITITIAL C (IFMJL
Report
Paragraph Accounting Records
Number
03-14) It is the sincere desire of the Public Defender to be able to maintain
"proper accounting systems and procedures consistent with generally accepted
accounting principles and good internal control." Fhile a single, general
ledger has not been kept, individual ledgers are maintained stowing assets
(appropriation balances and State owned tangible personal property),
liabilities, fund balances, encurbrances, and expenditures. Up to this
point in tine, assistance in setting up procedures.from any outside agency,
i.e., the Auditor General, the Comptroller, et al., has been unavailable.
It appears unseemly that this office should be criticized for its failure
to comply with "proper accourting systems and procedures" when no unifom
spans to implement such systems and pi edures exist.
The Florida State legislature has recognized that this is a problem
affecting agencies in every branch of State goverment. It is anticipated
that this situation will change, due to the provisions of Section 216.141,
Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 77-10, Hone Dill Nudxr 790,
effective July 1, 1977, providing for the establishment of uniform accounting
systems through the implementation of the State of Florida Accounting
System (Departmental Accounting System) .
(15-16) When this deficiency was pointed out during the audit, an attempt
was made by the Public Defender to obtain information pertinent to the
filing of an annual report as is provided for in Section 216.102 (1) , Florida
Statutes. Since mention is made of a form for balance sheets in the
Operating f..-3ures of the Accounting and Auditing Division of the Office
of the Comptroller, it was felt that procurement of such a four would be
a good starting point. After speaking with numerous people in the
30
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER EXHIBIT - B
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (Continued)
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph
Number
Comptroller's Office, the Public Defender's secretary was told that such
balance sheets are ro longer in use because the Auditor General did not
like that method of submitting balance sheets, and that this practice of
not using forms had been in effect for "rare than a year". The implementation
of the aforementioned U.A.S. should enable compliance by this office.
Lien Collections
(17) Budgetary limitations prevented continued filing and collection of
said liens. The cost of hiring sufficient personnel to implement this
statute was far in excess of actual collections, thereby negating any
possible benefit to the State. This problem was recognized by the
legislature and the Public Defenders have been relieved of the responsibility
for future collection of liens by statute, as is pointed out in the
preliminary and tentative findings of the Auditor General.
31
EXHIBIT - B OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
(Continued) SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph
Number Personnel Records
(18-21) As has been mentioned in the preliminary and tentative findings of
the Auditor Cenral, all necessary steps have been taken to rectify the
incompleteness of the personnel records, even though we are exempt from
these requirerrents pursuant to Qhapter 110.051(j) , Florida Statutes.
Tangible Personal Property
(22-23) Wring the course of the audit a complete inventory and physical
marking of tangible personal property was completed and reconciled with
the records of the Judicial Administrative Commission.
It should be pointed out that the circumstances surrounding the two
cameras that were not presented to the auditor for inspection are not as
reported by the auditor in the preliminary and tentative findings. These
changes were pointed out at the time of the audit exit conference, held in
Key West on December 8, 1977, but perhaps further clarification is necessary.
One of the two cameras was assigned to, and in the possession of,
an investigator who died from draorang while employed by the Public Defender.
This camera was never recovered.
The other camera disapp aiei at the sane time that a former employee
was terminated. A complaint was made to the Office of the State Attorney
at the tine of the disappearance of the camera. However, the Public Defender
was inforrred by the State Attorney that nothing could be done to recover the
camera, nor could charges be brought against the former employee, since other
employees also had access to the locked cabinet in which the camera was stored.
These items have been removed from the inventory.
32
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER EXHIBIT - B
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (Continued)
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph budgets
Number
(25-28) Overexpenditures Which did occur were not caused by a lack of
adequate budgetary records, but rather by a failure of the then Administrative
Assistant to advise ne of our true financial status, and in greater part,
by the failure of the Florida State Legislature to properly fund this office.
It should be pointed out that this office was so severely underfunded
for so many years, that it was necessary to obtain deficit funding.
Approval of this deficit funding by the Governor was obtained in October, 1977.
It is anticipated that with these additional funds, and with the additional
internal controls now being maintained, including an up-to-date aLi runts
payable ledger, such problems will not occur in the future. All outstanding
obligations noted in the preliminary and tentative findings have been paid
as a result of the receipt of said deficit funding.
33
EXHIBIT - B OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
(Continued) SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit EXITNDI'tliPIS
Report
Paragraph Salaries and Wages
Number
(30) At my direction, all assistant public defenders have either
discontinued the private practice of law, or have resigned. Therefore,
there is no private practice of law by assistant public defenders.
(31-32) Since all employees of the judiciary, including Public Defenders
and Public Defender employees, are exenpt fram the provisions of
110.051(j) , Florida Statutes, it is my interpretation of the statute that
compliance with any of the points mentioned in this paragraph is not
required.
Fk,aever, as to items 1, 2, 3, and 5, they have now been complied
with, as is pointed out in the preliminary and tentative findings. As
to item 4, this was, indeed, human error. As to item 6, the budget now
allows all personnel to be increased to one hundred percent, and this has
been accomplished for all positions affected.
(33) It should be pointed out that the employee who was paid 30 days
accrued annual leave had requested, and was granted, leave without pay
effective November 30, 1974. However, between the dates of November 30, 1974
arcd March 1, 1975, the employee continued to perform the duties of her
position. A calendar record was kept showing dates marked. The then
Administrative Assistant (who was later fired for cause), did not file
the calendar or transfer dates worked to a permanent part of the employee's
personnel record. It would seem that this should more appropriately have
been submitted as time worked, rather than accrued leave. However, I
confess to having known little at that time about the mechanics of the
administrative vagaries of State office and relied on the then Administrative
Assistant to take appropriate action.
34
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER EXHIBIT - B
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (Continued)
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph
Number
(34-35) The untioly reclassification of the part-time investigator was
due to the inefficiency of the then Administrative Assistant who had been
instructed to process the necessary paperwork long before she did so.
Here again, it is my contention that this criticism is unnecessary,
pursuant to the exemption of this office from the provisions of
Chapter 110, Florida Statutes.
35
EXHIBIT - B OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
(Continued) SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFLCIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph
Number Purchasing
(39). Even though formal ccmpetitive bids were not obtained for the
purchase of office furniture and carpeting, price comparisons were made
at the time. The oast of these items, as purchased by the Public Defender,
was well in line, and even below, the normal (east in the marketplace at
that tine.
(40-44) The nature of the criticism regarding the ISM Memory Typewriter is
not clear. I was informed by IW4 that if they took the typewriter back
they would still look to the State for payment of the contract in full.
The noted method of disposing of the equipment seemed test to protect this
office and the State of Florida from future legal action.
(45) Since the dismissal of the then Administrative Assistant and receipt •
of deficit funding, invoicea are being submitted for payment within 15 days,
as required by statute.
(46) Even though the Public Defender did not make a "practice" of having
personal items billed to the office account, there were occasions when this
did occur. Repeated attempts have been made by the Public Defender and
his staff to assure that personal items are billed to the Public Defender's
personal account. Haaver, in a town the size of Key West, where everyone
knows everyone else, it is often difficult to maintain a separate public
and private life. All local firms Where both an official office account
and a personal account are maintained, have been repeatedly contacted about
this matter. If they make an occasional mistake, it is only that, a mistake.
All invoices are new being competently pre-audited so that if such a mistake
is made by a local merchant, no possibility exists that it will be
erroneously paid by the State or the County.
36
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER EXHIBIT - B
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (Continued)
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph taste of Furniture and Irpnp ent
Number
(47-48) Literally hundreds of copies of documents were furnished to the
auditors. they were true and accurate copies of the original documents.
To refer to the lease with Abacus Investments, Inc. for the rental of
office furniture and equipTent as being "supposedly the sane as the
original" is entirely unnecessary and in poor taste. It is, indeed, a copy
of the original, and the original would have been obtained for the auditor's
inspection if he had so requested.
(47-48) Since the funds were not available at the time, nor are they currently
(50-51)
available, to purchase the office furniture and equipment that is necessary
to maintain the Office of the Public Defender, a leasing arrangement seamed
the only viable solution to the problem. Although competitive bids were not
obtained, price comparisons were made and the minima comparable lease
payment for the enumerated equipment was $408.00 per month °papered to the
$200.00 payment per month made to Abacus Investments, Inc. The savings
to the State are obvious.
(49) The lease will be modified to delineate the responsibility for the
service agreement on the typewriter. The typewriter that is re longer in
use has been removed from the inventory, and the bookcases (removed from
the office without my authorization), have been returned to the office.
(47-48) As noted in the audit conference, other items of furniture and
(50-51)
equipment were also leased since funds were not available to purchase them.
For example, the cost of our copying machines, two of which are the most
inexpensive available, if extended for the sane period of time, would
cost the State approximately $29,000.00.
37
EXHIBIT - B OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DF.FRNOUR
(Continued) SIXTEENTH JUIIICIAl. CIRCUIT
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July I, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph Lease of Buildings
Number
(53-54) It is my understanding that any duplicate payments which were made
by Monroe County for the lease of office space were the result of invoices
having been submitted directly to the county for payment, by the lessor,
not as a result of the Public Defender submitting and approving double
payments.
(56-57) According to local county practice, it is the responsibility of the
County Attorney to prepare building leases and to present them to the Board
of County Calmissioners for approval. The Catmission did authorize tie
to secure additional office space at the present rental amount on December 14, 1977.
I believe this was sufficient authorization to begin renovations nec.:wsary
to house the additional staff required in order to amply with the require-
ments of the new court structure under Article V effective January 3, 1977.
All necessary information concerning the lease was given to the County
Attorney who did not effectuate final approval until April 5, 1977.
Evidence of the agreetent of the °doer of the building to pay $1,400
toward renovations is contained in the written lease and was shown to the
auditor. That clause was struck from the lease by the County Attorney on
his ndn authority and without my knowledge or approval.
38
UFFICG nF THE I'I16If PNFP:NPFp EXIHRIT - IV
5I X'I'F b:N'1'll .I111)!CIAI. CIIICIIIT (Continued)
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph Abacus Investment., Inc._
Number
(60-61) Prior to acquiring a controlling interest in Abacus investments, Inc.
(on or about March 15, 1977) , and subsequent to that time, I have on two
separate occasions discussed the acquisition of the corporation and possible
ensuing conflicts of interest with legal staff members of the Attorney
General's Office. Basal on the facts as determined by the Auditor General's
Office, and presented to the two Assistant Attorney Generals, it was
determined in infornnl, oral opinions that, in accordance with
FSA 112.313(3) (a), no conflict of interest existed either prior to or
after the date of acquisition.
(62) The provisions of FSA 112.313(9) (a) have been c np11ed with.
39
EXHIBIT - N OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
(Continued) SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATEMENT FROM AUDITEII OFFICIAL.
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph Lease of Vehicles
Number
(63-64) The local Ford dealer found evidence that the 24th payment was
made. We are arranging For the $200 deposit to be returned to the Slate.
Neither the late charges nor the repairs were paid by the State. It is
felt that the dealer was within his rights, auurding to the lease, to add
these amounts to the sales price and that these funds need not be returned.
It should also be pointed out that this lease was approved by
General Services. In view of the fact that the amounts of the lease
payment were within General Services' standards, I feel it inappropriate
for the auditor to eminent on my later purchase of this vehicle.
(65) In the absence of funds with which to purchase an official car, and
keeping in mind the geographical features of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit,
a leased vehicle, and the payment for gasoline with which to operate it,
is not onl.y the rust economical form of travel, it is the only practical
one.
40
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER EXHIBIT - B
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (Continued)
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph
Number Travel
(66-73) The following response is in answer to findings on pages 14 through 20.
The then Administrative Assistant was instructed as to proper travel.
record keeping procedures. however, she seems to have been particularly
inert in this area. In many cases she failed to include details of
itineraries when nnre than one stop was made, and instead noted only origin
and destination. I must, of course, accept responsibility for signing these
1 incorrect vouchers without checking for errors. Ilarsver, due to the lack of
funding, the vouchers were usually prepared well after the fact and often
I di.d not myself remember specific details of the travel, and I assumed
she recorded details of the travel as they occurred, as I had instructed.
(69) We have spent much Lime and effort in reconstructing the travel
performed, in approximately 50 instances spread over a 2 1/2 year period,
and will continue to try to establish supporting ,#,time ntaflans for the
travel in ,Nestion. In an attumpt to clarify note 5, page 16, of the
preliminary and tentative findings, be advised that a response was made to
the auditor indicating that the specific details of these few travel
instances were unaval table at that tire, but that the travel was for
official State business and was so certified.
(66-73) Since the dismissal of the then Administrative Assistant, our
travel records have been kept accurately and completely. To ensure
correctness of records, two staff members keep dtplicate calendars.
Authorizations and vouchers are prepared by one staff member and audited
by another before being submitted for payment. Complete and accurate
files of travel authorizations, agendas, tickets and vouchers are now
being maintained.
41
EXHIBIT - B OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
(Continued) SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph
Number
(70) The approval for the Public Defender to travel on first-class
accrnDdations when necessary was tacit. The Judicial Administrative
Commission had inforflhl the Public Defender that a letter explaining
the reason for first-class travel should accompany travel vouchers.
This was done until the then Administrative Assistant was replaced by
one who neglected that requirement, and who was later dismissed for
cause.
(72) The investigator who was reimbursed in the amount of $251.60
on June 17, 1976, worked for a tine prior to his arployment without pay.
He performed local and out-of-t .,n travel during this period at his own
expense. In an effort to reimburse him to same extent, I instructed
the then Administrative Assistant to submit travel vouchers for some
out-of-town travel, to the extent that motes were available. I assured
that the then Administrative Assistant had calendared his trips according
to our standard office procedure or, in the alternative, had discussed
the specifics of this travel with the investigator before preparation of
the voucher in question. Therefore, I did not question the dates shown
on the voucher.
In light of the subsequent circumstances, it would appear that
the then Administrative Assistant had personal knowledge that the dates
were incorrect at the tine she prepa.ed the voucher. This seems to be
borne out by her subsequent actions of either turning over, or allowing
to be turned over, this voucher to the newspapers and other governmental
agencies, rather than bringing it to my attention for whatever corrective
action may have been necessary. As indicated in your report, the three
trips in question were made by the investigator at my direction as
attested to in his sworn statement which is attached hereto and nude a
part hereof. Appropriate action will be initiated against any individual
42
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER EXHIBIT - B
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (Continued)
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
Audit
Report
Paragraph
Number
making false or perjured statements relative to this matter.
(73) An appropriate claim will be made for further unreimhursed travel
and submitted for approval to offset the duplicate payment.
(65)(74) Reimbursement for travel in personal autonobiles of Public Defender
employees is now being rude, and no gasoline purchases, other than for the
official leased automobile used for official office business, are being
charged to the State.
Very truly yours,
Public Defender
43
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER EXHIBIT - B
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (Continued)
STATEMENT FROM AUDITED OFFICIAL
July 1, 1975 to February 28, 1977
STATE Of' INDRIDA)
COUNTY OF MONROE)
Before ne this day personally appears Frank A. Doolittle, and after
first being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am presently employed by the Office of the Public Defender in
the capacity of Chief Investigator.
2. I was employed as a full-time investigator on July 1, 1976.
3. Prior to July 1, 1976, I contracted with the Office of the Public
Defender to perform the services of an investigator during the
month of April for which I was paid $250.00 from OP5 funds.
4. During the months of May and June I volunteered my services to
the Office of the Public Defender as an investigator, for which
. no conpensation was expected or received.
5. During the period of contracted and voluntary services, I made
numerous trips to Miami. on various Public Defender case investigations.
6. At least three of these trips were made in reference to case
number 75-644-CF-A-31 and case number 75-964-CF-A-31.
7. The confidential nature of the investigation on the noted cases
was to verify information previously sulmitted by office employees
assigned to the noted cases. Therefore, this was done by oral
reports to the Public Defender and no written memoranda were
placed in the files.
8. It was my understanding that I would not be reimbursed for the
incurred travel expenses and therefore kept no personal record
of specific dates of travel.
9. Sme time in early June, 1976, the then Administrative Assistant
infotucd it that I would be reimbursed for 3 trips. She presented
a prepared travel voucher for me for my signature, which I signed
in her presence, the specifics of which she had not discussed with me.
10. The travel voucher which I signed included dates and case numbers
and I assunmd the Administrative Assistant had been keeping a r curd
of the travel that I actually performed, or had discussed the
details of the voucher with Mr. Keane,:1tTy had authorized-Yhese7tlrips.
/
Further afflent sayeth not. J,
Sworn to and subscribed before rue this . r day of Decemdr-r, 1977.
Notary Public
• State of Florida at large
I::rai P.y'. $Dole of Pardo al large
fk, for.ir.ien Empires June 15. 19B1
""a,L.o.m,m 6.v.nrr,[o.wm.
44