FOR SALE:
BREVARD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE?!
By Dana Loyd
The updated financial reports for the Brevard County Sheriff hopefuls were released yesterday, in the lead? Wayne Ivey raising over $100,000.00 in a little over two months. Wow! I am curious to know why there have been so many big money contributors, some from businesses that are not from Brevard, some from Businesses that are not even from Florida. I wonder why car dealerships throughout the county are throwing money into the ring. I have learned that most people don't do something unless they are getting something, and I just can not shake the feeling that there is something weird going on! First, let's recap Ivey's announcement for Sheriff:
FDLE agent running for Brevard County sheriff
Wayne Ivey
By Greg Pallone, Reporter
Last Updated: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:45 PM
VIERA --
A third candidate is getting into the race to be the next sheriff of Brevard County.
Florida Department of Law Enforcement Resident Agent-In-Charge Wayne Ivey officially signed election paperwork at the government center in Viera Tuesday morning, and was greeted by more than 200 supporters.
Ivey has been in law enforcement for three decades.
He said, if elected, he wants to tackle violent crime and identity theft, especially against senior citizens, and is aware of budget issues plaguing all law enforcement agencies.
“Historically when we've had a crime trend, we would throw money at it,” Ivey said. “That was the fix. We don't have that luxury anymore. So we're going to have to fix these problems through innovation, common sense, and through partnerships with public and private industries to be able to do what we want to do.”
Republicans Gary Harrell and Cliff Webster have already announced they're in the race as well.
Current Sheriff Jack Parker revealed last week he will not run for a third term.
I have hi-lighted the areas that I want you to focus on:
Referring back to the information that was printed last edition in reference to the Hatch Act (has been on America's books since 1939). According to the law, Mr. Ivey, began violating the Hatch Act on the day he announced his bid for Sheriff. Mr. Ivey officially resigned from the FDLE on the 22 of September 2011. Mr Ivey announced he was running for Sheriff on Tuesday, August 2, 2011.
From VolusiaExposed.Com
FLORIDA STATUTE 110.233(4)
110.233 Political activities and unlawful acts prohibited:
(4) As an individual, each employee retains all rights and obligations of citizenship provided in the Constitution and laws of the state and the Constitution and laws of the United States. However, no employee in the career service shall:
(a) Hold, or be a candidate for, public office while in the employment of the state or take any active part in a political campaign while on duty or within any period of time during which the employee is expected to perform services for which he or she receives compensation from the state. However, when authorized by his or her agency head and approved by the department as involving no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes with his or her state employment, an employee in the career service may be a candidate for or hold local public office. The department shall prepare and make available to all affected personnel who make such request a definite set of rules and procedures consistent with the provisions herein.
The above Florida Statute does approve, upon authorization of both the employee's agency head and the Florida Department of Management Services, the candidacy of a Florida career service employee.
Florida Administrative Code 60L-36.002 further defines and clarifies that approval to be a political candidate shall only be granted, if there are no conflicts of interest between the employee's state employment and the political position sought. FAC 60L also clarifies that no approval shall be given to any employee that would be in violation of the Federal Hatch Act.
FLORIDA ADMNISTRATIVE CODE 60L-36.022
60L-36.002 Political Activities.
(1) Section 110.233(4)(a) of the Florida Statutes, prohibits a career service employee from holding, or being a candidate for, public office while in the employment of the state or taking any active part in a political campaign while on duty or within the period of time during which the employee is expected to perform services for which he or she receives compensation from the state. However, a career service employee may be a candidate for or hold public office when authorized by the agency head and approved by the Department as involving no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes with his or her state employment. The following procedures shall apply to requests for that authorization and approval.
(a) An employee seeking authorization shall submit to the employing agency head a written request before engaging in any campaign related activity, including fundraising, and at least forty-five days before the deadline for qualifying for the office. The request shall identify the public office sought and summarize the duties, the hours of work involved in holding the office, what effects, if any, office or campaign duties will have on the employee's regular duties with the State, and the amount of remuneration, if any, which the employee would receive if elected.
(b) Within ten days after receiving the request, the agency head shall decide in writing whether the request is authorized. The decision shall specify reasons and shall include a determination whether the candidacy or duties of the local public office involve an interest that conflicts or an activity that interferes with the employee's state employment. If the agency head approves the request, the agency shall forward copies of the request and the decision to the Department.
(c) Within ten days after receiving the request and agency decision, the Department shall decide in writing whether the request is approved, and so advise the agency and the employee.
(d) Copies of the employee's request, the agency head's decision, and the Department's decision shall be retained in the employee's personnel file.
(2) Candidacy for or holding a local public office shall be presumed to involve an interest that conflicts with an employee's state employment when the campaign or the office, if elected, is likely to give rise to a situation in which regard for a private or local interest tends to lead to a disregard of the employee's duty as a state employee.
(3) Candidacy for or holding local public office shall be presumed to involve activities that interfere with an employee's state employment in the following instances:
(a) Campaign or, if elected, office activities are performed during the employee's assigned working hours with the state.
(b) Campaign or, if elected, office activities will involve the use of state space, personnel, time, equipment, or supplies.
(c) The employee solicits or accepts campaign contributions from persons or entities that are regulated by, or otherwise do business with, the employee's department or agency.
(4) Employees whose positions are subject to the Federal Hatch Act may not become candidates in any partisan election. Each agency head shall determine which of that agency's employees are subject to the Hatch Act.
(5) An employee who has been granted approval to become a candidate for local public office pursuant to this Rule 60L-36.002, F.A.C., may, at the discretion of the employee's agency head in accordance with Chapter 60L-34, F.A.C., Attendance and Leave, be granted a leave of absence without pay to campaign for the office, or may be allowed to use accrued annual or compensatory leave credits.
(6) This Rule 60L-36.002, F.A.C., shall apply when an employee already holds a local public office at the time of employment in the career service, or when the employee seeks re-election to the same office while an employee in the career service. This Rule 60L-36.002, F.A.C., applies to appointments as well as elections.
Specific Authority 110.1055, 110.201(1), 110.233(4)(a) FS. Law Implemented 110.233(4)(a) FS. History - New 1-22-02, Amended 5-16-04.
VolusiaExposed.Com believes that Agent Ivey's employment as FDLE's Resident Agent In-Charge of Brevard and Volusia counties opens all sorts of conflicts of interests with his candidacy for Brevard County Sheriff. A quick example of such a conflict of interest is the fact that the FDLE is responsible to conduct the investigations into all officer involved shootings. Since Agent Ivey is the Resident Agent In-Charge within Brevard County he would be attached, in a supervisory status, to any such officer involved shooting investigations. Currently, there are three other candidates running against Agent Ivey for the Brevard County Sheriff position, two of these three other candidates are law enforcement members of the Brevard County Sheriff Department. What if one of these other candidates had to be investigated regarding an officer involved shooting? Agent Ivey would find himself in charge of an investigation against one of his political rivals. Even if Agent Ivey was able to separate himself from the investigation, rumors and allegations could easily arise that his (Ivey) staff's investigation was influence by the politics attached to Ivey's candidacy for sheriff.
VolusiaExposed.Com is left wondering why in 2008 another FDLE agent (Mike Taylor) had to resign his position with FDLE in order to run for Clay County Sheriff, due to Florida State laws, but Agent Ivey is apparently exempt from these same laws.
VolusiaExposed.Com has done a great deal of research involing Wayne Ivey and his “apparent” Hatch Act Violation, and I concur with their findings. (Click here to see the letter to VolusiaExposed.com from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.)
Between August 2, 2011, and September 22, 2011, Wayne Ivey brought in over $65,000. In my opinion, during this time, he was breaking the law. In my opinion, the $65,000.00 plus should be returned to those who donated, along with an explanation of the violation, and those who donated be given the choice if they wish to re-contribute.
If we are entrusting Law Enforcement officers, and Sheriff appointed officials to uphold the law, should we not expect them to follow it? Why do we have a law, that really has no consequences? According the Office of Special Council out of Washington, there really is no punishment for a Hatch Act Violation.
In the meantime, our taxes continue to rise, our Country continues to go into further and further debt. It appears to me, that all though we no longer have segregation based on the color of our skin, we have it based on the amount of money we have in the bank. Think about it.