WILLIAM SPAUDE
v.
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A public official does not act corruptly under section 112.313(6) unless the Commission establishes by clear and convincing proof that the official acted with wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining a benefit inconsistent with proper performance of public duties.
[1] To establish a violation of section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, based on corruption, the Commission on Ethics must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a public…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining . . . a[] benefit resulting from [the] act . . . which is inconsistent with the proper performance of [Spaude's] public duties”
Definition of acting 'corruptly' under section 112.312(9), Florida Statutes, cited in the dissent
William Spaude, Mayor of the City of Bushnell, was charged by the Commission on Ethics with violating section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. The Commis…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Wrongful Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Spaude, Mayor of the City of Bushnell, appeals the Final Order of the Florida Commission on Ethics which determined that he violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2022). Spaude argues that the Commission failed to establish by clear and convincing proof that he acted corruptly as defined by sections 112.313 and 112.312(9). We agree that neither the facts nor the law support a finding that Spaude acted corruptly as that term is defined.
Accordingly, we reverse and quash the Commission’s final order. Based on this ruling, we do not reach Spaude’s remaining argument regarding the lack of proportionality of the penalty imposed to the violations found.
REVERSED. ORDER QUASHED.
EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur. EISNAUGLE, J., dissents, with opinion. EISNAUGLE, J., dissenting.
Case No. 5D22-322 LT Case Nos. 19-174 21-2145EC 22-001 I respectfully dissent because I conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Mayor Spaude acted “corruptly.” Here, while the benefit obtained was arguably small, a reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Spaude acted “with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining . . . a[] benefit resulting from [the] act . . . which is inconsistent with the proper performance of [Spaude’s] public duties.” § 112.312(9), Fla. Stat. (2022).