Guy W. Norris Virlindia Doss

 

 

Chair Executive Director
Kimberly Bonder Rezanka
Vice Chm-,- C. Christopher Anderson, 111
Jason David Berger . Gwerf? 
Daniel Brady, State of Florida Exam? 1? 
A A COMMISSION ON ETHICS
may! no. Drawer 15709 (850) 488-7864 Phone
0 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 (850) 488-3077 (FAX)
Sh'elds MCManus 
William "Willie" N. 325 Knsox Road
. Building E, uite 200
Garrett Rum? Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Public Of?ce is a Public rust"
December 10, 2018
BARRY RICHARD
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. fd t? 
101 EAST COLLEGE AVENUE  ii  

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301
RE: Complaint No. 17-146, In re ANDREW GILLUM
Dear BARRY RICHARD:

Enclosed is a copy of the Repert of Investigation for the above-referenced complaint, as well as a copy of
the Executive Director?s order to investigate the complaint, which details the allegations that were
investigated. The probable cause hearing in this complaint tentatively is scheduled for Friday, January 25,
2019. The meeting will be held in the Third Floor Courtroom, First District Court of Appeal, 2000 Drayton
Drive, Tallahassee, Florida, beginning at 10:00 AM.

Under Commission Rule 34-5 .006, .A.C., the Respondent has 14 days from the date of this letter within
which to ?le written responses to the Report of Investigation with the Commission. An Assistant Attorney
General has been designated as the Advocate for the Commission and will present a recommendation on
this matter to the Commission. You will be given additional time within which to re3pond to the Advocate?s
Recommendation, a copy of which will be transmitted to you on or before December 21, 2018. Any written
responses that we receive within the above time periods will be considered by the Commission when it
meets to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that any of the ethics laws have been violated,
as alleged in this complaint.

If the Commission ?nds no probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the complaint will be
dismissed and no further action will be taken. If the Commission ?nds probable cause, the Respondent will
have the right to a full, evidentiary hearing before any ?nal determination is made.

If there are any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
7 ?S-i-nqerel-y,

r-  (IL (I ?jt?n it i.

.?aEiilil: W. liuli?or?tl 

Complaint Coordinator

cc: Commission Advocate

 

a 

 



1.5515 1.5515 

REPORT
OF
INVESTIGATION

 

 

 

 

 

Consolidated Complaint Number 17-146

NOTICE CONCERNING CONFIDENTIALITY

This report of investigation concerns an alleged violation of Chapter 112, Part Florida
Statutes, or other breach of public trust under provisions of Article II, Section 8, Florida
Constitution. The Report and any exhibits may be confidential (exempt from the public
records law) pursuant to Section 112.324, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 34?5, F.A.C., the
rules of the Commission on Ethics. Unless the Respondent has waived the confidentiality in
writing, this report will remain confidential until one of the following occurs: (1) the
complaint is dismissed by the Commission; (2) the Commission finds sufficient evidence to
order a public hearing; or (3) the Commission orders a public report as a final disposition of
the matter.

STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS

Post Office Drawer 15709
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5 709

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

TITLE:

COMPLAINT NO:

INVESTIGATED BY:

Distribution:

Releasing Authority:

ANDREW GILLUM
Former Mayor of Tallahassee
Tallahassee, Florida

17-146

dbl/W? 

A. Ke?i??h Powell

Commission on Ethics
Respondent
Advocate

File



Executive Director


til/2%- 3

Date



REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
COMPLAINT NO. 17-146

(1) The complaint and an amendment in this matter were ?led by Dr. Erwin D. Jackson of
Tallahassee, Florida, who alleges that the Respondent, Andrew Gillum, who at the time of the
allegations was the Mayor of Tallahassee, violated the Code of Ethics for Public Of?cers and
Employees. The Respondent's last day as Mayor was November 19, 2018.

(2) The Complainant alleges that the Respondent solicited and/or accepted gifts from one
or more City lobbyists, vendors, or others, regarding a trip to Costa RiCa, including, but not
limited to, lodging in a villa for himself and/or his wife. The Complainant claims that on the
day the Respondent returned from the Costa Rica trip, he agreed to schedule a meeting with
the lobbyist/vendor who organized the trip, and individuals whom he believed at the time
were potential City developers. The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent solicited
and/or accepted gifts regarding a trip to New York City from one or more City lobbyists,
vendors, or others, including, but not limited to, admission to a professional baseball game,
admission to a Broadway show, the cost of a boat tour to see the Statue of Liberty, lodging at
a hotel, transportation costs, and meals. The complaint alleges the gifts may have also
included items for the Respondent's brother, who participated in the trip. The complaint
alleges the Respondent has not reported any gifts he received associated with either the Costa

Rica or New York trips.

(3) The Complainant alleges that the Respondent traveled to Costa Rica in May 2016,
with his wife (R. Jai Gillum), Adam Corey, Sean Pittman, Audra Pittman, Cody Schwarz,
Mary Kucek, Austin Rain, Darcie Momingstar, and possibly others. The Complainant, in
addition to identifying Mr. Corey as not only a lobbyist who regularly lobbied the City of
Tallahassee during that time, but also as the owner of a restaurant (The Edison) leasing its
building from the City, also identi?ed Mr. Pittman as a lobbyist with the Pittman Law Group,
P.L., which lobbies on behalf of the City. He further alleges that Mr. Pittman is a part-owner
of The Edison. Additionally, Mr. Schwarz was identi?ed as a lobbyist employed at the time
by Mr. Corey's lobbying ?rm, Unconventional Strategies, LLC, and Ms. Kucek was identi?ed
as another part?owner of The Edison with Mr. Corey and Mr. Pittman. Upon their return to
Tallahassee following this trip, it is alleged that Mr. Corey introduced the Respondent to
potential City developers Mike Miller, Mike Sweets, and Brian Butler, later reported to be
undercover Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents.

(4) The Complainant next alleges that during August 2016, the Respondent traveled to
New York City with Adam Corey, Mike Miller, Mike Sweets, and the Respondent's brother,
Marcus Gillum. Adam Corey, it is alleged, was a registered City lobbyist at all times
pertinent to the allegations contained in this complaint and, as stated previously, his restaurant
(The Edison) was leasing its building from the City. As was previously reported, Mr. Sweets
and Mr. Miller were apparently undercover FBI Agents posing as a potential developers in
Tallahassee while involved in a ongoing investigation of City government. It is
alleged that the Respondent, along with his brother (Marcus), Mr. Corey, Mr. Sweets, and Mr.
Miller, may have attended a New York Mets baseball game and the Broadway show
Hamilton, and may have taken a boat tour of the Statue of Liberty in New York City. It also

is alleged that Mr. Miller booked a block of rooms at New York's Millennium Hilton Hotel
during this trip for the group. It is suggested that someone other than the Respondent may
have paid for his travel between New York and Tallahassee, and also may have covered the
cost of his meals during the trip.

(5) The Executive Director of the Commission on Ethics noted that based upon the
information provided in the complaint and amendment, the above-referenced allegations were
suf?cient to warrant a preliminary investigation to determine whether the Respondent's
actions violated Section Florida Statutes (Solicitation or Acceptance of Gifts),
Florida Statutes (Unauthorized Compensation), Florida Statutes
(Misuse of Public Position), Florida Statutes (Solicitation of Gifts), 
Florida Statutes (Acceptance of Gifts), and Florida Statutes (Reporting and
Prohibited Receipt of Gifts).

mm

(6) In April 2012, the City of Tallahassee issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) from
interested parties to renovate and lease an historic electric building located in Cascades Park.
The City was seeking a developer who would transform the building into a destination
restaurant. Two proposals were received by the City, but only one was found to be responsive.
In July 2012, the RFP was reissued and again, two proposals were received. Both proposals
sought public assistance to renovate the City-owned building and in October 2012, Proof
Brewing was recommended for the project and negotiations began between the City and
Proof. In July 2013, due to potential renovation costs, Proof assigned its preposal rights to
Cascades Holdings, LLC. The City accepted the assignment in December 2013. Negotiations
with Cascades Holdings resulted in an August 2014, agreement between the City and
Cascades Holdings for a public/private partnership to develop a restaurant in the City's
building. In August 2014, Cascades Holdings signed a 20 year lease with the City on the
building with rental payments due each month payable to the City of Tallahassee.
Records indicate that the City invested approximately $1.3 million dollars in the project and
that the Community Redevelopment Agency, jointly managed by the City and Leon County,
invested over $800,000 in the project. Mr. Ryan Grindler, records show, signed the lease
agreement with the City on behalf of Cascades Holdings. Construction of The Edison
Restaurant was completed in the summer of 2015, and it opened for business in September
2015.

(7) Department of State, Division of Corporations records list Adam Corey and Ryan
Grindler as the corporate of?cers of Cascade Holdings, LLC.

(8) Mr. Sam McKay advised that he formerly served as the Vice President of Operations
for the Tallahassee Hospitality Group, LLC (THG). THG, he advised, formerly owned the
101 Restaurant in Tallahassee and now owns The Edison Restaurant in Tallahassee, through
Cascades Holdings. Adam Corey, he advised, is the principal owner of THG. Mr. Corey and
Ryan Grindler are the majority partners of THG, he advised, and THG owns a number of
other ventures through various corporate entities. He said most of his work for THG was at
The Edison during the time pertinent to the allegations contained in the instant complaint.

(9) Department of State, Division of Corporations records con?rm that Mr. Corey and Mr.
Grindler are the corporate of?cers of THG.

(10) Mr. Nick Lowe, a private consultant working for the Florida Hotel and Lodging
Association, advised that he moved to Tallahassee in 2002. He said he worked as a police
of?cer with the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD) for ?ve years, resigning in December
2015. In January 2016, he said, he became employed as a lobbyist with Unconventional
Strategies, a governmental lobbying ?rm owned by Mr. Corey, who he befriended while
organizing charity golf tournaments for TPD. Mr. Lowe noted that clients came to
Unconventional Strategies seeking assistance in navigating the City?s development and
permitting processes. He stated that he, Mr. Corey, and Mr. Schwarz were registered with the
City as lobbyists during 2016 and 2017. Mr. Corey was the sole owner of Unconventional
Strategies, he said, and he (Lowe) served as a salaried employee. Mr. Lowe acknowledged
that he, Mr. Schwarz, and Mr. Corey lobbied the Respondent on a variety of matters during
2016 and 2017.

(11) Records obtained from the City indicate that Mr. Corey ?rst registered as a lobbyist
with the City on October 13, 2015, through his business, Unconventional Strategies, and that
he also registered as a lobbyist during 2016, and 2017. Both Mr. Lowe and Mr. Schwarz were

registered with the City as lobbyists during 2016 and 2017.

(12) Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations records indicate that Mr. Corey
is the sole: corporate of?cer of Unconventional Strategies, LLC.

(13) Mr. Ryan Grindler, intervieWed in the presence of his attorney, Mark Herron,
continued that he is a part owner of The Edison with Mr. Corey and a group of investors. He
explained that Mr. Corey owns a controlling interest of just under 60%, he owns just under
40%, and a group of investors own the small remaining percentage. He and Mr. Corey
control the day-to?day operations of the restaurant, he advised. Mr. Grindler said The Edison
opened in September 2015, and con?rmed it is a tenant of the City, holding a long term (20
year) lease to occupy the building owned by the City that houses the restaurant.

The Costa Rica Trip

(14) The Complainant alleges that the Respondent and his wife (R. ai Gillum), along with
Adam Corey, Sean Pittman and his wife Audra Pittman, Cody Schwarz, Mary Kucek, Austin
Rain, Darcie Morningstar, and others traveled to Costa Rica together during the ?rst week of
May 2016, staying in a luxury rental property hosted by Mr. Corey. The property, Villa
Paraiso, is a ?ve bedroom villa that allegedly rents for $1,400 a night and overlooks the
Paci?c Ocean. During this trip, it is alleged, Mr. Corey sent an e-mail calendar request on
Thursday, May 5, 2016, inviting the Respondent to meet with him and potential developers of
City property at The Edison on Monday, May 16, 2016. These potential developers were later
reported to be undercover FBI agents posing as developers looking to do business in the City.
The day after the Respondent returned from the Costa Rica trip (Monday, May 9, 2016) he

sent an e-mail from his employer?s People for the American Way (PFAW) e-mail account to
his City assistant con?rming, have agreed to this meeting."

(15) It is alleged that Mr. Gorey arranged the Costa Rica trip through Donielle Fish, Owner
and President of First Class Villas, Costa Rica. Ms. Fish was quoted by the Tallahassee
as saying, "Yes, those guys came to Manuel Antonio, Costa Rica," in May 2016.

(16) An intemet search of the First Class Villas website con?rmed a rental cost of $1,400
per night for the Villa Paraiso, described online as a ?ve-bedroom luxury villa located in
Manuel Antonio, Costa Rica, which can accommodate 10 guests.

(17) The Respondent's City calendar indicates that he was on vacation Wednesday, May 4,
2016, through Sunday, May 8, 2016.

(18) The Respondent, interviewed in the presence of his attorney, Mr. Barry Richard, stated
that he has served as the Mayor of Tallahassee the past four years and has served as a member
of the Tallahassee City Commission for the past 16 years. He said he has known Adam Corey
since his freshman year of college at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
(FAMU), where he was involved in student government. He explained that at that time, Mr.
Corey was involved in student government while attending Florida Gulf Coast University, and
they became friends through their attendance at statewide student government
meetings. Eventually, he said, Mr. Corey transferred to Florida State University (FSU) where
he (Corey) remained involved in student government activities. The Respondent said that after
graduating from FSU, Mr. Corey moved away for a few years, but eventually returned to
Tallahassee to work for the Seminole Boosters, Inc., and they renewed their ?iendship. When
he (Respondent) decided to run for Mayor, approximately four years ago, he said he asked
Mr. Corey to serve as his volumcer campaign treasurer. The Respondent said this was largely
an honorary designation because his campaign actually hired someone to manage the
campaign's ?nances. The Respondent recalled that Mr. Corey at that time was the "face" of a
number of restaurants in Tallahassee, and also a lobbyist or "connector" for a local law ?rm.
He said that over the years he has often socialized with Mr. Corey and, until reports of a
possible FBI investigation were made public, they routinely met a few times each week,
including during the time period covered by these allegations, to exercise with a group of
friends. That group included Mike Miller (now identi?ed as an FBI agent) and Sean Pittman.
Once the FBI investigation came to light, the Respondent said, he severed his relationship
with Mr. Corey.

(19) The Respondent acknowledged having been lobbied by Mr. Corey on various matters
over the years. Speci?cally, he recalled once having been lobbied by Mr. Corey in reference
to Mr. Corey's representation of a local taxi cab company while the City Commission was
considering how Uber would be permitted to operate in the City. The Respondent said he
thinks this happened in 2015; however, Mr. Corey was not registered with the City as a
lobbyist for a taxi company during 2015. Lobbyist registration records indicate that Mr.
Corey represented Yellow Cab during 2017.

(20) The Respondent acknowledged having been invited by Mr. Corey to travel to Costa
Rica with a group of friends May 4 through 8, 2016. He said he and his wife attended as a
celebration of his wife's birthday, which is May 4. He recalled that he and his wife drove to
Jacksonville and ?ew from there to San Juan, Puerto Rico. Then, he said, they boarded a
smaller local plane to reach their ?nal destination in Costa Rica. Although he could not recall
the name of the place where they stayed, he described the property as a home located on an
island. He said he believes Mr. Corey may have won a charity auction bid allowing him the
use of the property for the week, but noted that he and his wife were unable to stay the entire
week. The Respondent recalled that there were ?ve couples who occupied the ?ve bedrooms
of the home and that there may have been additional guests "that were not coupled," that slept
in other areas of the home. He speci?cally recalled that, in addition to himself (Gillum) and
his wife, Mr. Corey and a friend were there, as were Sean and Andra Pittman, Mary Kucek
and her friend, and Cody Schwarz and his girlfriend.

(21) The Respondent said that Mr. Corey informed him while they were in Costa RiCa that
the cost for his and his wife's stay for the four nights was $120 per night ($480 total), which
he maintains he paid directly to Mr. Corey in cash while they were in Costa Rica. He
acknowledged that the group had a chef while staying at the villa who prepared breakfast
every morning and other meals for them. However, he maintains that the $120 per night
amount quoted to him by Mr. Corey for his and his wife's stay included the cost of any meals
the group shared at the villa, as well as the services of the chef. He said that with the cash he
and his wife typically carry with them at all times, plus the cash he withdrew the night prior to
departing, he and his wife had approximately $800 in cash with them on the trip.

(22) The Respondent acknowledged that he knew at the time of this trip that Mr. Corey was
a registered City lobbyist who lobbied the City on a variety of matters. However, he said, he
has no recollection of Mr. Schwarz ever having lobbied him on any City matters. Further, he
maintains that Mr. Pittman had no direct association with the City as a lobbyist. He explained
that the City contracts with Mr. Ron Book to serve as its lobbyist and that Mr. Book has
subcontracted some of his City lobbying work to Mr. Pittman. Mr. Pittman, he maintains, has
never been compensated directly by the City for lobbying and he does not lobby City officials
on any matters.

(23) The Respondent acknowledged that, while they were together in Costa Rica, Mr.
Corey sent an e?mail to his City e-mail account requesting a meeting with him the following
week. He recalled that while they were vacationing together in Costa Rica, Mr. Corey asked
him if he was available the following week to meet some people. He said he told Mr. Corey
to send a calendar request to his assistant at City Hall. He maintains that was the entirety of
their discussion about this meeting during the trip and he also maintains no City business was
discussed. When he returned, he said he learned that Mr. Corey had requested a dinner
meeting, but he (Gillum) told his City assistant that he was only available to meet for one
hour. He recalled that he met with Mr. Corey at The Edison, along with possibly three men
we hm?as? learned were undercover FBI agents. He said ?thcir?un'eeting lasted"
approximately 45 minutes and consisted of general discussions wherein he "pitched"
Tallahassee to the men, whom he maintains held themselves out to be potential developers of
property in the City. He maintains that "nothing substantive" was discussed during the

meeting, and he denies that any of the men asked him to help them develop the properties
they were interested in developing on Tallahassee?s south side.

(24) Included in information subpoenaed from Mr. Corey in reference to the Costa Rica
trip is an e-mail dated May 23, 2016, from Mr. Corey to Jennie Grant at the Bean Team, Mr.
Corey's accounting ?rm, explaining how to allocate certain credit card charges related to the
Costa Rica trip. One of those charges, listed as a $98.51 charge at the Runaway Grill is dated
May 4, 2016, the day the Respondent arrived in Costa Rica. Mr. Corey identi?ed this charge
for Ms. Grant as "lunch with Mayor Gillum to discuss city issues." Runaway Grill is located
in Quepos, Costa Rica, a 16 minute drive from where the group was staying in Manuel
Antonio.

(25) Also included in the expenses referenced in Mr. Corey's May 23, 2016, e-mail to Ms.
Grant is an $8,868.00 charge listed as "Costa Rica First. In response to Ms. Grant
concerning this charge, Mr. Corey wrote, "We need to break this down further. I?ll chat with
you later.? On June 1, 2016, Mr. Corey's assistant at Unconventional Strategies e-mailed Ms.
Grant saying, "Hey Jennie Adam has worked-up the cost of what the Costa Rica participants
should reimburse us. See attached. Please send them an invoice. Adam has also included a
purpose statement for you." Attached to the e?mail was a document with the heading,
Unconventional Strategies Client Development Retreat fees for
accommodations, food, and transportation." Based on this document, it appears that the total
cost for the trip for all 14 participants was $11,590.24. The cost listed for the Re5pondent's
and his wife's expenses during this trip is $941.94. However, there is a line marked through
the Respondent?s charges with a note stating, ON 

(26) The Respondent provided his credit card receipts, copies of airline tickets, and
pertinent bank statements pertaining to the Costa Rica trip for review. The documents indicate
that the Respondent purchased round-trip airline tickets for himself and his wife, departing
from Jacksonville International Airport. The Respondent stated he used his American
Express Delta Reserve Credit Card to purchase the ?ights and said he assumes he used Delta
Sky Miles to cover a portion of his airfare costs based on a review of the charges. The credit
card receipts, which total $501.20, indicate purchases at restaurants and bars, and charges for
local transportation and equipment rentals. However, none of the charges are for the
Respondent's lodging at the villa or a meal at the Runaway Grill. Finally, the Respondent's
bank statement indicates a $400 withdrawal on May 2, 2016, at approximately 10:00 
prior to his departure for Costa Rica.

bio?ta: Although the Respondent indicated he and his wife utilized local air transportation from
San Juan to the Villa and the return trip to San Juan, there were no charges for local air
transportation included in the trip receipts provided by the Respondent. E?mails between the
Respondent and Mr. Schwarz indicate that the Respondent provided Mr. Schwarz with his
credit card information and that Mr. Schwarz arranged in?country air travel for the
ReSpondent and his wife for $73 per ticket each way.

(27) The investigation determined that Mary Kucek, who traveled with the group to Costa
Rica, was at the time of this trip the Managing Director of the Gulf Coast Region for

Computer Aid, Inc., which provides customized computer programming services to its clients.
Adam Corey and Cody Schwarz of Unconventional Strategies, LLC, were registered with the
City of Tallahassee during 2016 as lobbyists representing Computer Aid, Inc.

(28) Mr. Pittman, at the time of this trip, had been subcontracted by Mr. Ron Book, a
lobbyist retained by the City of Tallahassee, to represent the City before the Federal
government. Mr. Pittman did not have a contract with the City and was not compensated
directly by the City.

(29) Information obtained though the subpoena issued to Mr. Corey indicates he e-mailed
those he invited (including the Respondent) to vacation with him in Costa Rica on March 25,
2016. He wrote, "As discussed, we have a beautiful mansion arranged for our stay in Costa
Rica Villa Paraiso located in Manuel Antonio. I am still working out some of the other
details, such as transportation to and from the airport, dinner reservations, and activities to do
while there, but I will include with the additional details soon." Additionally, Mr. Corey
provided his ?ight schedule to the group and asked the participants to share their ?ight
schedules with his assistant to assist in ?nalizing local transportation.

(30) The information included with Mr. Corey's e?mail to participants reveals there would
be an additional charge for the services of a chef if one was utilized during their stay and this
charge would not include the cost of any foods prepared.

(31) On April 17, 2016, Cody Sch'War'z, on behalf of Mr. Corey, e-mailed the participants,
including the Respondent, with a listing of suggested entertainment activities and asked them
to respond to him to let him know what activities the group was interested in.

(32) On April 26, 2016, the Respondent e-mailed Mr. Schwarz about a change in his arrival
time. He also wrote, should also mention that it will be R. Jai's Birthday on Wednesday
when we arrive. Wondering if you have any idea if/where I could order a cake for the group
to enjoy on Wednesday night In resPonse, Mr. Schwarz said, will ask about
getting a cake for R. Jai, I cannot wait to On April 27, 2016, Mr. Schwarz e-
mailed the Respondent to say, "We are going to get a cake delivered to the house Wednesday
for R. Jai, can you please let me know what message [sic] would like on the cake and what
?avor she likes?" In response, on April 28, 2016, the Respondent wrote, "Thank you re: cake.
You're the best. She likes regular white cake, red velvet cake (or cupcakes), and pound cake."

(33) Also on April 28, 2016, Mr. Schwarz e-mailed Ms. Fish and Mr. Wil Acuna, the
Concierge for Costa Rica First Class Villas to arrange the local ?ights for the Respondent and
his wife from San Jose to Manual Antonio, and to order the cake for the Respondent's wife.

(34) Mr. Corey's attorney, Mr. Christopher Kise, advised that his client has been served
with a Federal Grand Jury subpoena, and, therefore, would not be available for an
investigative interview. However, he agreed to allow Mr. Corey to provide a sworn af?davit
concerning the two trips referenced in the instant complaint, and the affadavit was provided
on December 4, 2018. In response to questions concerning this trip, Mr. Corey advised that
during calendar year 2016, he owned and operated Unconventional Strategies, LLC, a

lobbying and consulting ?rm that was registered to lobby the City of Tallahassee. He
acknowledged traveling to Costa Rica with "friends, UCS clients, and Andrew Gillum" in
May 2016. He stated, "To date, I have never received any cash from or on behalf of Gillum
as payment for any expenses associated with the trip to Costa Rica."

(35) Although the Respondent completed a CB Form 9, Quarterly Gi? Disclosure, for the
quarter ending September 2016, related to tickets he received on September 21, 2016, for a
"Jazz and Blues estival," there is no indication he ever ?led CE Form 9's related to either the
trip to Costa Rica or the below-referenced trip to New York City.

The New York Cig Trig

(36) The Complainant alleges that the Respondent traveled to New York City August 10
through 12, 2016, and attended a New York Mets baseball game and the Broadway show
Hamilton, took a boat tour of the Statue of Liberty, and received hotel accommodations,
transportation costs, and meals courtesy of individuals wholdbbied the City of Tallahassee.
A Google invitation, sent to the Respondent at the City by Mr. Corey, reads, "Gents Here is
the plan from Mike Miller: We are going to do the Mets game Wednesday night. My buddy
arranged another boat deal for us Thursday afternoon. Also, we have booked rooms arranged
for everyone starting Wednesday night at the Millennial Hilton."

(37) A review of Mr. Corey's credit card charges, obtained by subpoena from The Bean
Team, con?rmed a New York City taxi charge posted on August 12, 2.016, in the amount of
$21.96, which Mr. Corey identi?ed for the Bean Team as "taxi to hotel after Hamilton event
with Mike Miller. There was only one other relevant charge, also posted on August 12,
2016, in the amount of $408.28 listed by Mr. Corey as "disputed" from Plunge in New York
City. Plunge, according to its internet website, is a rooftop club located at Gansevoort
Meatpacking in New York City. There were no other charges identi?ed from the records that
appeared to be related to the subject trip.

M: Although the date the two above-referenced charges posted to Mr. Corey's account was
listed as Friday, August 12, 2016, evidence and testimony obtained during the investigation
suggests that these charges were actually made prior to that day, but did not immediately post
to Mr. Corey's credit card account.

(38) Text messages subpoenaed ?om Mr. Corey indicate that on June 29, 2016, Mr. Corey
and Mr. Miller were communicating to plan a trip that would include the Respondent and his
brother, Marcus. On that date, Mr. Corey texted Mr. Miller at 8:16 am meeting with
AG [Andrew Gillum] in the AM to get options. He was all over the place today. Mr. Miller
reSponds two minutes later, just want to make sure it?s a good trip and Sweets and will be
booked on something else if we don't look something down." Mr. Corey responds one minute
later, understand completely. I should have dates to you ?rst thing in the and Mr.
Miller responds, "Sounds good." The following day, June 30, 2016, Mr. Corey texted Mr.
Miller, thinks Vegas in August is an easier option for him. He is double checking
availability with his of?ce now. Stand by. Mr. Miller responds, Later that same
evening, Mr. Miller texted Mr. Corey, "Did you get a date?" Mr. Corey reSponds, "August

10-12 for Hamptons/NYC or September 7?9 for Vegas. Thoughts? Left you a VM as well."
Mr. Miller responds, "Let me see what Sweets and B?s schedule look like."

(39) On July 8, 2017 at 7:39 am, Mr. Miller texted Mr. Corey, ?How many for the NYC
trip?" Mr. Corey responds, believe just 3 of us on my side. Does that work for you?" Mr.
Miller responds, "Yes. 3 rooms?" and Mr. Corey responds, "Yes. That works. Me, AG, and
his bro." Mr. Miller responds, "Got it."

(40) On July 12, 2016, at 8:51 Mr. Miller texted Mr. Corey, have the boat lined up
for the trip in August. I will get the rooms booked." Mr. Corey responds, "Awesome.
Thanks for arranging everything. Let me know if I can help on anything." The following
day, Mr. Miller texted Mr. Corey, "Send me the Mayor and his brother's information and I
will have my girl book their ?ights." Mr. Corey responds, already scheduled his ?ights
since he is coming from another event in NYC already. I?ll get you Marcus?s info On
July 14, 2016, Mr. Corey texted Mr. Miller, "Marcus is trying to ?gure out his travel schedule
now. He is de?nitely in but he may be with AG prior to us getting together. He said he
would get back to me shortly." Mr. Miller responded, "No problem. Just tell them to let me
know what their ?ights cost and I'll cover it."

(41) On July 19, 2016, Mr. Corey texted Mr. Miller, "Hey brother. Let me know what you
are thinking or have lined up for August 10 to 12. Are we heading into the Hamptons or
staying in NYC and what time do we need to be and where? I am working on booking my
?ights today and plan to relay the others as well. Thanks." Mr. Miller responds, was about
to send you this. So I am having the boat docked at North Cove Marina in NYC (Battery
Park). We will stay in the same area. I could not make the Hamptons work for only two
nights. I was planning to do dinner on the 10th and then going out for drinks. If you are
getting in late we can just do drinks. 0n the 11th I was going to have everyone meet at the
marina around 3:30 or 4. We will take the boat out and cruise around. I will have a few other
friends coming. You are welcome to invite people to come out with us. I know you know
people everywhere. After we dock we can see what everyone is up for. We can grab brunch
on the 12th before everyone heads out." Mr. Corey responds, love the plan. Thanks!"
Then, at 8:55 am. that same day, Mr. Miller texted Mr. Corey, wanted to thank AG for his
support last week. Should I call him?" Mr. Corey responds, "Either works. He is usually
pretty responsive." Mr. Miller then responds, don't have his and Mr. Corey replies by
providing Mr. Miller with the Respondent's cell number.

(42) Tallahassee City Commission minutes indicate that on July 13, 2016, the City
Commission voted unanimously, with the Respondent participating in the consent agenda
vote, to approve Resolution No. which approved the expansion of the Greater
Frenchtown/Southside Community Redevelopment Area to include an additional 26 parcels,
including the parcels that Mr. Miller had expressed an interest in developing.

(43) On August 2, 2016, Mr. Miller texted Mr. Corey, "Millennium Hilton 55 Church St."
Mr. Corey responds, "Thanks!" On August 8, 2016, Mr. Miller texted Mr. Corey, "We are
going to do the Mets game Wednesday night [the 10th]. My buddy arranged another boat
deal for us Thursday [the 11th] afternoon." Mr. Corey responds, love it. Thank you!"

However, on August 9, 2016, at 6:32 Mr. Miller texted Mr. Corey, "Looks like weather
might not be great tomorrow. Maybe a show instead? Have you seen Hamilton?" Mr. Corey
responds, "That would be epic! 1! and then immediately follows up with, "Yes. Let's do it."

(44) On August 10, 2016, the ?rst day of the New York City trip, at 9:22 Mr. Corey
texted Mr. Miller and Marcus Gillum in a group text. He wrote, "Good morning gents. My
?ight on delta got cancelled last night. As a result I don't get in until just after 4 pm. today.
Copied on this text is Marcus Gillum and Mike Miller. Ibelieve both of you will be in NYC
much earlier than me so I wanted to connect you via text. Marcus, Mike is a ?end and client
that we spoke about and he has a room reserved for you at the Millennium Hilton. I'll see you
guys soon." Mr. Miller responds to the group text, "We are just getting in. I will check
everyone in. We have Hamilton tickets tonight at Mr. Corey responds, "That is
awesome," and Marcus Gillum responds, "Seeing Hamilton would be so dope."

(45) At 1:05 pm. on August 10, 2016, the Respondent texted Mr. Corey, won't need a
room. Thanks for the offer however. Mr. Corey responds, But you will for tomorrow
night, right?" and the Respondent responds, "Nope." Mr. Corey texted back, "10-4. I'll get us
a meeting point before the show shortly." At 2:16 pm. Mr. Miller texted Marcus Gillum and
Mr. Corey, "Checked in. All you need is your At 3:54 pm. Mr. Corey texted Mr.
Miller, am less than 30 minutes out. The Mayor texted me and said he is covered tonight
on his room. I guess he still has one for his original purpose of being here. I'm not sure if you
can cancel it this late but Ijust found out. Also, when and where should I tell him to meet us
before the concert? Hotel maybe?" At 5:01 pm, the Respondent texted Mr. Corey, was
mistaken, I think I will need a room for tomorrow night. Mr. Corey resPonds, I got
you."

(46) The Respondent recalled that the New York trip began with a discussions between the
men in his exercise group concerning their desire to take a "guy's trip." Because everyone in
the group had busy work schedules, he said it proved dif?cult for them to agree on a date that
was acceptable to all of them. He said he recalled mentioning to Mr. Corey, who was a part
of the exercise group, that he had a business trip planned for New York City during August
2016. He said he traveled there for his job with PFAW, which he described as a "political
non?pro?t" that employed him as National Director for Youth Leadership Programs. The
PFAW trip, he recalled, was scheduled for Tuesday, August 9, 2016, through Friday, August
12, 2016. He said he told Mr. Corey that he would only be available to socialize with the
group during the later portion of that week, and said Mr. Corey arranged for the group to meet
him in New York City. Additional participants in the trip, the Respondent said, were his
brother, Marcus Gillum, who lives in Chicago, and Mike Miller and Mike Sweets, the FBI
agents who, at that time, he believed to be business men seeking to do business in the City of
Tallahassee.

(47) The Respondent said his brother Marcus stayed in a hotel in lower Manhattan (the
Millennium Hilton) where he believes Mr. Corey reserved a block of rooms for the group. He
acknowledged that he was invited to stay in that same hotel, but noted that the bulk of his
work for PF AW was in upper Manhattan so he elected to stay in another hotel, paid for by his
employer (PFAW), until Thursday evening of that week. He said that he then stayed his ?nal

10

night in New York City with his brother in the room in lower Manhattan at the Millennium
Hilton.

(48) On Thursday night of that week (records re?ect it was actually Wednesday), the
Respondent recalled, the group attended Hamilton. He said on Friday (actually Thursday,
based on emails reviewed), the group took a mid?day boat tour of the Statue of Liberty. He
said he told his brother prior to this trip that he was too busy to make any arrangements for his
participation in the activities of the group and his brother agreed to make all necessary
arrangements for him. The Respondent acknowledged that the play Hamilton was at the
height of its popularity at the time, estimating that tickets were approximately $700 each.
Since the Respondent's brother said he would take care of making the entertainment
arrangements during the trip, the Respondent said he believed his brother paid for his ticket.
He recalled that he met the group on the sidewalk near the entrance to Hamilton and his
brother handed him a ticket there. He said he never asked his brother about the cost of the
ticket and never offered to reimburse him for the ticket, explaining that, had he (the
Respondent) made similar arrangements for his brother, he would not have expected his
brother to reimburse him. He said he later learned from his brother that Mr. Corey purchased
the tickets for the group and that his brother and Mr. Corey may have "worked out" the costs
of the Hamilton tickets through a ticket exchange. The Respondent said he understood Mr.
Corey wanted tickets at the time for an upcoming Jay concert and believes his brother
secured tickets for Mr. Corey to attend that event, intending this to serve as reimbursement for
the Hamilton tickets.

(49) Once reports were published indicating a possible FBI investigation involving
Tallahassee City government, the Respondent said he parted ways with Mr. Miller. He said
this occurred at about the same time that he (the Respondent) of?cially announced his
intention to run for Governor of Florida (March 2017). He recalled asking Mr. Miller if he
could count on his ?nancial support for his campaign and that Mr. Miller said his only interest
was in local Tallahassee government, not the State of Florida. He recalled Mr. Miller said,
"Listen, if I were to get friends to help you, we'd need to know you'd have our backs here in
the City." The Respondent said that Mr. Miller's comment caused him feel uncomfortable so
he "pulled bac from any further dealings with Mr. Miller. Immediately thereafter, he said,
he telephoned Mr. Pittman about his conversation with Mr. Miller. The Respondent said Mr.
Pittman, who is an attorney, telephoned Mr. Miller to let him know he had angered the
Respondent. The Respondent said he never heard from Mr. Miller again, and within a few
months, local media outlets broke the story of an FBI investigation involving the City of
Tallahassee.

(50) Concerning the boat tour to view the Statue of Liberty, the Respondent said the group
agreed to meet at a boat that Mike Miller indicated was owned by one of his friends. Once
they boarded the boat, he said, Mr. Miller asked the group, which included two female friends
of Mr. Miller, if they would like to take a cruise to see the Statue of Liberty. The Respondent

 

7 recalled that the boat?h?ad?two levels TaanWTeres?cnbed?it as not particularly fast or ornatei?"? 

However, he acknowledged that the boat was nicer than a standard ?shing vessel. The
ReSpondent said, take full responsibility for the boat ride, indicating that it never occurred
to him that the voyage might be considered a gi? from a lobbyist or a principal who retained a

ll

lobbyist. He said the trip lasted approximately one hour and he assumed that Mr. Miller, or
the unidenti?ed boat owner, covered the cost of the trip. He said he subsequently researched
the cost of a Statute of Liberty cruise and learned a ticket could be purchased for as little as
$17. However, he acknowledged that rate was for a commercial boat with a large passenger
capacity. He acknowledged that a private cruise for a small group of passengers would be
more expensive. However, although the cruise in question was a more intimate trip for a
smaller number of passengers, the Respondent maintains he does not believe his portion of the
costs associated with the cruise exceeded $100. He said, "In retrospect, I understand the
gravity of this." However, at the time of this cruise, he explained, he thought it was
"nothing," and therefore, he never considered the costs associated with it. The Respondent
con?rmed he knew at the time that Mr. Miller and Mr. Sweets had presented themselves as
potential developers in Tallahassee. However, he said he never viewed them as lobbyists
because he maintains they made no "asks," of him. He opined that he did not view his
conversations with them about potential City business as lobbying because they never
speci?cally asked him to do anything in his of?cial capacity to assist them. The Respondent
said he viewed Mr. Miller's and Mr. Sweets' presence on this trip as "completely social," and
denied that any City business was discussed during the trip.

(51) The Respondent's brother, Marcus Gillum, was interviewed by telephone while he was
traveling in California. He recalled that he and the Respondent, along with Adam Corey and
the two men that he later learned were undercover FBI Agents, met in New York City in
August 2016 to socialize. Marcus Gillum advised that he lives in Chicago, Illinois, but
?'equently visits New York City on business. The Respondent, he said, was scheduled to be
in New York City at the time for work related to his job with PFAW. Marcus Gillum said this
was the ?rst time he ever met the two men (Miller and Sweets) traveling with Mr. Corey. He
recalled that the group of ?ve men were together during the later portion of the week of
August 7 through 13, 2016, for "a couple, probably two days." He only recalls attending three
events together with the group: a private sightseeing cruise of the Statue of Liberty, going for
drinks together "in the old meat-packing district," and attending Hamilton.

(52) Marcus Gillum recalled that the ?ve men met at a boat that either Mr. Corey or Mr.
Miller told them belonged to "a friend." He said the plan was for them to socialize on the
boat, but, aboard, Mr. Corey suggested they take a cruise to see the Statue of Liberty. Mr.
Gillum said he has no idea who actually owned the boat in question or who was responsible
for the costs associated with their cruise around the Statute of Liberty. However, he said he
assumed Mr. Corey or Mr. Miller paid any costs associated with this activity. He said he
could not recall the name of the boat or many details about it, describing it only as, "not a
?shing boat. It was more like a cruiser with two levels."

(53) Statue of Liberty cruise tickets are available for as little as $17 on large capacity
commercial vessels. However, an intemet search of private boat tours for smaller groups
(approximately 6 passengers) revealed that those cruises typically are for two to three hours
and prices vary greatly depending on the vessel and amenities with the average private cruise
costing approximately $600, before taxes.

12

(54) Mr. Corey's subpoenaed cellular telephone records indicate he texted Mr. Miller on
Thursday, August 11, 2016, at 12:29 pm, is en route to the hotel so we should be over
in the next 30 min." Mr. Miller responds, "Great. Weather looks good so we should be able
to go out." At 4:00 pm. and 5:01 pm, that same day, Mr. Corey texted pictures taken during
the group's cruise around the Statue of Liberty to the other participants.

(55) Regarding the group going to a bar/club in New York's "meat-packing district,"
Marcus Gillum said that when they arrived at the bar, he realized he did not have his wallet,
which he had left it in his jacket at the hotel where the group was staying. He said the
Respondent gave him cash for cab fare so he could return to his hotel to retrieve his wallet,
and then he returned to the bar to continue socializing with the group. Mr. Gillum recalled
that everyone paid for their own drinks while socializing at the bar.

(56) The Respondent denied having gone to a club with the group during this trip and said
he has no recollection of having done so. He said, know I didn't go to a club." Evidence
suggests this activity may have occurred on the evening of Thursday, August 2016,
because this was the evening the Respondent and Marcus Gillum both stated the Respondent
stayed at the Millennial Hilton where Mr. Miller made reservations for the group.
Additionally, in a text from the following morning Mr. Corey said he "was trying to piece
together most of the [prior] evening" of August 11, 2016.

(57) Regarding the group's attendance at the play Hamilton, Marcus Gillum acknowledged
that the play at that time was "perpetually sold out" and ticket prices were "extremely high."
However, he said, Mr. Corey mentioned to the group at some point that he could purchase
everyone's tickets using his American Express Black Card, which would be less expensive
than purchasing tickets through the secondary market. Even though the regular box of?ce
rates were also extremely high for the play, Marcus Gillum said, the tickets Mr. Corey was
able to secure were still much less than the cost of tickets available on the secondary market,
which cost over $1,000 each at that time. He said it is his understanding that Mr. Corey
purchased tickets for the group at the regular box of?ce price. Marcus Gillum con?rmed that
he never repaid Mr. Corey for his or the Respondent?s tickets to see Hamilton. Rather, he said
he became aware at some point that Mr. Corey had a desire to see Jay Z?s "Tidal concert in
New York City scheduled for October 16, 2016, so he told Mr. Corey he would purchase
tickets for him (Marcus), the Respondent, and Mr. Corey to attend that concert. Marcus
Gillum said that, to the best of his recollection, he purchased ?ve tickets to the Tidal 
concert for $280 each. He said he purchased one for Mr. Corey, two of Mr. Corey's friends,
one for himself and one for the Respondent. Marcus Gillum advised that he would request a
copy of his credit card receipt for the purchase of the Jay tickets and provide those records.
However, after initially advising this investigator that he had requested the records, he failed
to produce them.

(58) Mr. Corey's subpoenaed cell phone records indicate that on Wednesday, August 10,
texted?the Respondent at noon, "H?ey"brother; ?Just?checking in ?wi?th?you;
Mike Miller and the crew have tickets for us for Hamilton tonight at 8 pm. When we
originally spoke you said you could break free starting tonight at 6 pm but I recall you
mentioning at the Edison that it may not be until Thursday. Let me know if you can join us?

13

I think your brother has already arrived by the way. I get in at 5 pm." The Respondent texted
his response at 12:45 can be free by 6 pm, but have some tomorrow as well.
Awesome news about Hamilton." At 12:49 Mr. Corey texted the Respondent, "Perfect.
I am stoked to see the show as well. Also, I got you a room tonight at the Millennial Hilton.
Let me know if you need me to adjust it."

(59) Current Box Of?ce rates for Hamilton range from a low of $666 to a high of $1,015
per ticket, before taxes. An internet search revealed that box of?ce ticket prices averaged
$750 per ticket in August 2016.

(60) Marcus Gillum said he believes it was Mr. Corey who reserved a block of rooms at the
Millennium Hilton for the group while they socialized together in New York City, and, he
maintains, he reimbursed Mr. Corey for the cost of his room, which he shared with the
Respondent on the Respondent's ?nal night in New York City. The Respondent, he advised,
had a room at another hotel booked through his work with the PFAW during the ?rst part of
the week. Marcus Gillum agreed to provide con?rmation that he reimbursed Mr. Corey for
the hotel room he shared with his brother, the Respondent, during the trip. However, Mr.
Gillum never provided any documentation con?rming that he reimbursed Mr. Corey for the
room.

(61) An internet search of the Millennium Hilton's of?cial website revealed that the
average per night cost of lodging in August 2016, was in excess of $100 per night but less
than $200 per night, befbre taxes. . 

(62) The Respondent provided travel records indicating that he traveled to New York City
on Tuesday, August 9, 2016, departing Tallahassee at 5:30 am, and arriving at 10:00 am. on
Delta Airlines. Records re?ect that on his return trip he departed New York City on Friday,
August 12, 2016, on Delta Airlines at 8:10 arriving in Tallahassee early Saturday
morning, August 13, 2016, at 12:37 am. Records indicate he stayed at the Ameritania Hotel
while in New York City, checking in on August 9, 2016, and checking out on the morning of
August 11, 2016. His roundtrip airfare costs, hotel costs for two nights (August 9 10,
2016), transportation and meals costs associated with this portion of his stay were paid by the
Open Society Foundation, founded by George Soros, which invited the Respondent to serve
as a member of its Leadership in Government Fellowship Selection Committee.

M: The Respondent indicated he actually took an earlier return ?ight to Tallahassee from
New York City on Friday, August 12, 2016. He said he was able to rebook to the earlier
?ight after he and the group ?nished their cruise of the Statue of Liberty on Friday. However,
testimony and cell phone records indicate the cruise took place on Thursday, August 11, 2016.

(63) The Respondent's City of?ce calendar indicates that on Thursday, August 11, 2016,
and on Friday, August 12, 2016, he was working in New York City for the PFAW. No
documents were provided indicating what the Respondent's work schedule was for the PFAW
during these two days and no hotel record was provided indicating that PFAW covered the
cost of the ReSpondent's hotel room on the night of August 11, 2016, his last night in New
York City during this trip.

14

(64) Both the Respondent and the Respondent's brother denied having attended a baseball
game with the group during the New York City trip as is alleged in the complaint.

(65) Information contained in Mr. Corey?s subpoenaed text messages con?rms the group
did not attend a baseball game due to weather and instead attended a showing of Hamilton.

(66) In his af?davit concerning this trip, Mr. Corey stated:

In or about August 2016, I traveled to New York to meet with,
inter alia, a person known to me as Mike Miller ("Miller").
During that trip, Miller paid for and provided to myself and others,
including Gillum, tickets to the Broadway show Hamilton, hotel
accommodations at the Millennium Hilton Hotel NYC, and a boat
tour of New York harbor. At that time, I and to the best of my
knowledge the others, including Gillum, were aware Miller had
paid for and provided the tickets, accommodations and boat tour. .
. . I did not pay for any expenses associated with Hamilton, the
hotel rooms, or the boat tour.

(67) The FBI did not respond to numerous attempts to contact them in reference to matters
related to this investigation.

END OF REPORT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

15

FLORIDA
ON ETHICS

DEC 21 21318

BEFORE THE RECEIVED
STATE OF FLORIDA

COMMISSION ON ETHICS  ?t 

In re: Andrew Gillum,

Respondent. Complaint No. 17-146
I

RECOMMENDATION

The undersigned Advocate, after reviewing the Complaint, Amended Complaint, and
Report of Investigation, ?led in this matter, submits this Recommendation in accordance with Rule
.A.C. -



Respondent, Andrew Gillum, served as the Mayor of the City of Tallahassee. Complainant

is Dr. Erwin D. Jackson, of Tallahassee, Florida.
I 1 JURISDICTION

The Executive Director of the Commission on Ethics determined that the Complaint was
legally suf?cient and ordered a preliminary investigation for a probable cause determination as to
whether Respondent violated Sections 
and 112.3 148(8), Florida Statutes. The Commission on Ethics has jurisdiction over
this matter pursuant to Section 112.322, Florida Statutes.

The Report of Investigation was released on December 7, 2018.

ALLEGATION ONE
Respondent is alleged to have violated Section Florida Statutes, by accepting
a "thing of value" in regard to trips to Costa Rica and New York City based upon an understanding
that his official action or judgment would be influenced.
APPLICABLE LAW
Section Florida Statutes, provides as follows

SOLICITATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS. No public
of?cer, employee of an agency, local government attomey, or
candidate for nomination or election shall solicit or accept anything
of value to the recipient, including a gift, loan, reward, promise of
future employment, favor, or service, based upon any understanding
that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public of?cer,
employee, local govemment attorney, or candidate would be
in?uenced thereby.

In order to establish a violation of Section 112.3 13(2), Florida Statutes, the following
elements must be proved.

1. Respondent must have been either a public of?cer, a public
employee or a candidate for nomination or election.

2. ReSpondent must have solicited or accepted something of
value to him or her, including a gift, loan, reward, promise of future
employment, favor, or service.

3. Such solicitation or acceptance must have been based upon

an understanding that the Respondent's vote, of?cial action or
judgment would be in?uenced thereby.

ANALYSIS
Respondent served as the Mayor of Tallahassee for the past four years and has served as a
member of the Tallahassee City Commission for the past 16 years. (R01 18) His last day in of?ce

was November 19, 2018. (R01 1)

The Complainant alleges that Respondent solicited and/or accepted gifts from one or more
City lobbyists, vendors, or others, regarding the trips to Costa Rica and New York City and that
he failed to report the gifts. (ROI 2)

The participants include:

Mm

Adam Corey was the sole corporate of?cer and owner of Unconventional Strategies, LLC,
a governmental lobbying ?rm whose clients seek assistance in navigating the City's development
and permitting processes. (R01 10, 12, 34) Corey initially registered as a lobbyist with the City on
October 13, 2015 through Unconventional Strategies. (R01 11, 34) He was also a registered
lobbyist during 2016 and 2017, when he regularly lobbied the City of Tallahassee. (R01 10, 34)
He is the majority owner of The Edison Restaurant, which leases its building ?om the City. (ROI
3, 13)

Corey is also the principal owner of Tallahassee Hospitality Group, LLC (THG). (ROI 8,
9) Corey and Ryan Grindler are the majority partners of THG, which owns a number of other
ventures through various corporate entities. (ROI 8)

Respondent has known Corey since his freshman year of college at Florida Agricultural
and Mechanical University (FAMU). (R01 18) They became friends through their attendance at
statewide student government meetings. (R01 18) When Respondent ran for Mayor,
Corey served as his volunteer campaign treasurer, which was largely an honorary designation
because his campaign hired someone to manage the campaign's ?nances. (R01 18) Respondent
o?en socialized with Corey over the years and, until reports of a possible Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) investigation were made public, they routinely met a few times each week,

including during the time period covered by these allegations, to exercise with a group of ?iends.

(R01 18) The exercise group included Mike Miller (now identi?ed as an FBI agent) and Sean
Pittman. (R01 13) Respondent referred to Corey as the one-time "face" of a number of restaurants
in Tallahassee and also a lobbyist or "connector" for a local law ?rm. (R01 18)

Corey introduced ReSpondent to potential City developers Mike Miller, Mike Sweets, and
Brian Butler, later reported to be undercover FBI agents. (ROI 3) Once the FBI investigation came
to light, Respondent severed his relationship with Corey. (R01 18)

Corey's attorney advised the Commission's investigator that his client has been served with
a Federal Grand Jury subpoena, and, therefore, would not be available for an investigative
interview. (R01 34) However, he agreed to allow Corey to provide a sworn af?davit concerning
the two trips referenced in the instant complaint, and the af?davit was provided on December 4,
2018. (R0134)
Cascades Holding, LLC and lhe Edison Restaurant

Adam Corey and Ryan Grindler are the corporate officers of Cascades Holdings, LLC.
(ROI 7, 13) As the result of a Request for Proposals, in August 2014, the City of Tallahassee (City)
and Ryan Grindler on behalf of Cascades Holdings, LLC, signed a 20-year lease agreement for a
public/private partnership to renovate and develop a destination restaurant in the City-owned
historic electric building. (R01 6) Corey owns a controlling interest of ust under 60%. (R01 13)
Grindler owns just under 40%, and a group of investors owns the small remaining percentage.
(R01 13)

The Edison Restaurant is a tenant of the City and it makes rental payments payable
to the City. (ROI 6) The City invested approximately $1.3 million dollars in the project and the

Community Redevelopment Agency, jointly managed by the City and Leon County, invested over

$800,000 in the project. (ROI 6) Construction of The Edison Restaurant was completed in the
summer of 201 5, and it opened for business in September 2015. (R01 6)
Sean Pittman

Sean Pittman is a lobbyist with the Pittman Law Gr0up, P.L., who allegedly lobbies on
behalf of the City. (ROI 3) It was undisputed that Pittman is part-owner of The Edison Restaurant.
(R01 3) At the time of the Costa Rica trip, Pittman had a subcontract with City lobbyist Ron Book
to represent the City before the federal government. (ROI 3 8) Pittman did not have a contract with
the City and was not compensated directly by the City. (R01 28)
Cody Schwarz

Cody Schwarz is identi?ed as a lobbyist employed at the time by Corey's lobbying ?rm,
Unconventional Strategies. (ROI 3, 10) Schwarz was registered with the City as a lobbyist during
2016 and 2017. (R01 11)
MW

Mary Kucek was identi?ed as a part-owner of The Edison Restaurant with Corey and
Pittman. (R01 27) At the time of the Costa Rica trip, Kucek was the Managing Director of the Gulf
Coast Region for Computer Aid, Inc., which provides customized computer programming services
to its clients. Corey and Schwarz of Unconventional Strategies were registered with the City during
2016 as lobbyists representing Computer Aid, Inc. (R01 27)
Mike Miller. Mike Sweets. and Brian Butler

It is reported that Mike Miller, Mike Sweets, and Brian Butler are undercover FBI agents

who were posing as potential developers looking to do business in the City. (ROI 3, l4)

Austin Rain

Austin Rain was identi?ed as a member of the group that went to Costa Rica for- a week
(R013, 14)
Darcie 

Darcie Morningstar was identi?ed as a member of the group that went to Costa Rica for a
week. (ROI 3, 14)
Nick Lowe

Nick Lowe is currently a private consultant working for the Florida Hotel and Lodging
Association. (R01 10) In January 2016, he became a salaried employee and lobbyist with
Unconventional Strategies. (R01 10) Lowe stated that clients came to Unconventional Strategies
seeking assistance in navigating the City's development and permitting prooesses. (R01 10) Lowe
was registered with the City as a lobbyist during 2016 and 2017. (R01 10, 11) He continued that
he, Corey, and Schwarz all lobbied Respondent on a variety of matters during 2016 and 2017.
(R01 10)
Villa Paraisn

Corey arranged a Costa Rican trip through Donielle Fish, Owner and President of First
Class Villas, Costa Rica. (R01 15) First Class Villas' website describes Villa Paraiso as a ?ve-
bedroom luxury villa located in Manuel Antonio, Costa Rica, which can accommodate 10 guests.
(R01 14, 16) A villa rents for $1,400 per night and overlooks the Paci?c Ocean. (R01 14, 16) Fish
was quoted by the Tallahassee Democrat as saying, "Yes, those guys came to Manuel Antonio,

Costa Rica," in May 2016. (R01 15)

COSTA RICAN TRIP

In May 2016, Corey hosted a trip to Costa Rica for a group of friends.] (ROI 3, 14, 20)
Information obtained from Corey though a subpoena indicates that he e-mailed those he invited
(including Respondent) to vacation with him in Costa Rica on March 25, 2016. (R01 29) He wrote,
"As discussed, we have a beautiful mansion arranged for our stay in Costa Rica - Villa Paraiso
located in Manuel Antonio. 1 am still working out some of the other details, such as tranSportation
to and from the airport, dinner reservations, and activities to do while there, but I will include with
the additional details soon." (ROI 29) Corey informed the participants that there would be an
additional charge for the services of a chef if one was utilized during their stay and this charge
would not include the cost of any foods prepared. (R0130) Corey also provided his ?ight schedule
to the group and asked the participants to share their ?ight schedules with his assistant to help in
?nalizing local transportation. (R01 29) Respondent and his Wife, R. Jai Gillurn, accepted Corey's
invitation to vacation in Costa Rica. (R01 20)

On April 17, 2016, Schwarz, on behalf of Corey, e-mailed the participants, including
Respondent, with a listing of suggested entertainment activities and asked them to respond to him
to let him know which activities interested the group. (R01 31)

On April 26, 2016, Respondent e-mailed Schwarz about a change in his arrival time. (R01
32) On April 28, 2016, Schwarz e-mailed Ms. Fish and Mr. Wil Acuna, the Concierge for Costa
Rica First Class Villas, to arrange the local ?ights for Respondent and his wife from "San .Iose"2

to Manual Antonio, and to order a cake for Respondent's wife's birthday. (R01 33)

 

Respondent recalled that there were ?ve couples and there may have been additional guests. (ROI 20) There were
14 participants. (R01 25)
2 This is probably a scrivener's error and should read ?San Juan." (R01 20, 33)

7

According to Respondent, he and his wife drove to Jacksonville and ?ew from there to San
Juan, Puerto Rico. (R01 20) Then they boarded a smaller local plane to reach their ?nal destination
in Costa Rica. (R01 20) Respondent and his wife were only able to stay from May 4 to May 8,
2016. (R01 20)

Respondent said that Corey informed him while they were in Costa Rica the cost for his
and his wife?s stay for the four nights was $120 per night ($480 total), which ResPondent maintains
he paid directly to Corey in cash while they were in Costa Rica. (R01 21)

The group had a chef while staying at the villa who prepared breakfast every moming and
other meals for them. (R01 21) Respondent maintains that room, meals at the villa, and the services
of the chef were included in the $120 per night amount quoted to him by Corey. (R01 21)

Respondent said that with the cash he and his wife typically carry with them at all times,
plus the cash he withdrew the night prior to departing, he and his wife had approximately $800 in
cash with them on the trip. (R01 

Respondent acknowledged that he knew at the time of this trip that Corey was a registered
City lobbyist who lobbied the City on a variety of matters. (R01 22) He has no recollection of
Schwarz ever having lobbied him on any City matters and he maintains that Pittman had no direct
association with the City as a lobbyist. (R01 22) He explained that the City contracts with Ron
Book to serve as its lobbyist and that Book has subcontracted some of his City lobbying work to
Pittman, who has never been compensated directly by the City for lobbying and does not lobby
City of?cials on any matters. (R01 22)

Respondent recalled that while they were vacationing together in Costa Rica, Corey asked
him if he was available the following week to meet some people. (R01 23) Respondent told Corey

to send a calendar request to his assistant at City Hall. (ROI 23) Corey sent an e-mail calendar

request on Thursday, May 5, 2016, inviting Respondent to meet with him and potential developers3
of City property at The Edison Restaurant on Monday, May 16, 2016. (R01 14) The day after
Respondent returned home from the Costa Rica trip (Monday, May 9, 2016) he sent an e-mail from
his employer's People for the American Way (PFAW) e?mail account to his assistant at the City
con?rming, "l have agreed to this meeting." (R01 14) Respondent maintains that was the entirety
of their discussion about this meeting during the trip. (R01 23)

Upon their return from Costa Rica, Respondent met with Corey at The Edison Restaurant,
along with possibly three men that he now has learned were undercover FBI agents. (R01 23)
Respondent said their meeting lasted approximately 45 minutes and consisted of general
discussions wherein he "pitched" Tallahassee to the men, whom he maintains held themselves out
to be potential developers of property in the City. (R0145) He maintains that "nothing substantive"
was discussed during the meeting, and he denies that any of the men asked him to help them
develop the properties they were interested in developing on Tallahassee's south side. (R01 23)
PAYMENT FOR THE COSTA RICAN TRIP

Records were subpoenaed from Corey in reference to the Costa Rica trip. (R01 24)
Included in the information is an e?mail dated May 23, 2016 from Corey to Jennie Grant at the
Bean Team, Corey's accounting ?rm, explaining how to allocate certain credit card charges related
to the Costa Rica nip. (R01 24) One of those charges was $98.51 at the Runaway Grill, dated May
4, 2016, the day Respondent arrived in Costa Rica. (R01 24) Corey identi?ed this charge for Grant
as "lunch with Mayor Gillum to discuss city issues." (R01 24) Runaway Grill is located in Quepos,
Costa Rica, which is a 16-minute drive from where the group was staying in Manuel Antonio.

(R01 24)

 

3 These potential developers were later reported to be undercover FBI agents posing as developers looking to do
business in the City. (ROI 14)

Also included in the expenses referenced in Corey's May 23, 2016 e-mail to Grant is an
$8,868.00 charge listed as "Costa Rica First." (R01 25) In response to Grant concerning this
charge, Corey wrote, "We need to break this down further. I'll chat with you later." (R01 25) On
June 1, 2016, Corey?s assistant at Unconventional Strategies e-mailed Grant saying:

"Hey Jennie-Adam [Corey] has worked-up the cost of what the Costa Rica

participants should reimburse us. See attached. Please send them an invoice. Adam

[Corey] has also included a purpose statement for you." (R01 25)
Attached to the e-mail was a document with the heading, Unconventional Strategies
Client Development Retreat fees for accommodations, food, and transportation." (R01 25) Based
on this document, it appears that the total cost for the trip for all 14 participants was $11,590.24.
(R01 25) The cost listed for Respondent and his wife's expenses during this trip is $941.94. (R01
25) However, there is a line marked through the Respondent?s charges with a note stating in capital
letters, ON (R0125)

Respondent provided his credit card receipts, copies of airline tickets, and pertinent bank
statements pertaining to the Costa Rica trip for review. (R01 26) The documents indicate that
Respondent purchased round-trip airline tickets for himself and his wife, departing from
Jacksonville International Airport. (R01 26) ReSpondent stated he used his American Express
Delta Reserve credit card to purchase the ?ights and said he assumes he used Delta Sky Miles to
cover a portion of his airfare costs based on a review of the charges. (R01 26) The credit card
receipts, which totaled $501.20, indicate purchases at restaurants and bars, and charges for local
transportation and equipment rentals. (R01 26) However, none of the charges are for the
Respondent's lodging at the villa or the meal on May 4, 2016 at the Runaway Grill. (ROI 24, 26)

Respondent's bank statement indicates a $400 withdrawal on May 2, 2016, at

approximately 10:00 pm, prior to his departure for Costa Rica. (R01 26) Although Respondent

10

said that he and his wife utilized local air transportation from San Juan to the villa and the return
trip to San Juan, there were no charges for local air transportation included in the trip receipts
provided by Respondent. (R01 26) E-mails between Respondent and Schwarz indicate that
Respondent provided Schwarz with his credit card information and that Schwarz arranged in-
country air travel for Respondent and his wife for $73 per ticket each way. (R01 26)

In response to questions concerning Respondent's payment for this trip, Corey wrote in his
af?davit, "To date, I have never received any cash from or on behalf of Gillum as payment for any
expenses associated with the trip to Costa Rica." (ROI 34)



Respondent traveled to New York City August 10 through 12, 2016. (R01 36) He met
Adam Corey, Mike Miller, Mike Sweets, and his brother from Chicago, Marcus Gillum in New
York City. (ROI 4)

A Google invitation was sent to Respondent at the City by Corey which reads, "Gents -
Here is the plan from Mike Miller: We are going to do the Mets game Wednesday night. My buddy
arranged another boat deal for us Thursday afternoon. Also, we have booked rooms arranged for
everyone starting Wednesday night at the Millennial Hilton. (R01 36)

Respondent recalled that the New York trip began with discussions between the men in his
exercise group concerning their desire to take a ?guy's trip." (R01 46) Because everyone in the
group had busy work schedules, he said it proved dif?cult for them to agree on a date that was
acceptable to all of them. (R01 46) Respondent said he recalled mentioning to Corey, who was a
part of his exercise group, that he had a business trip planned for New York City during August
2016. (R01 46) He said he traveled there for his job with PFAW, which he described as a "political

non-pro?t" that employs him as National Director for Youth Leadership Programs. (R01 46) The

ll

PFAW trip, he recalled, was scheduled for August 9 through August 12, 2016. (R01 46) He said
he told Corey that he would only be available to socialize with the group during the later portion
of that week and Corey arranged for the group to meet him in New York City. (R01 46) At that
time, Respondent believed FBI agents, Mike Miller and Mike Sweets, to be businessmen seeking
to do business in the City of Tallahassee. (R01 46)

Text messages subpoenaed ?'om Corey indicate that on June 29, 2016, Corey and Miller
were communicating to plan a trip that would include Respondent and his brother, Marcus Gillum.
(R01 38) These text conversations follow:

June 29, 2016 

Corey to Miller: "1 am meeting with AG [Andrew Gillum] in the AM to get options. He
was all over the place today."

Miller: just want to make sure it?s a good trip and Sweets and will be booked on
something else if we don?t lock something down."

Corey: understand completely. I should have dates to you ?rst thing in the 
Miller: "Sounds good."
June 30, 2016 

Corey to Miller: thinks Vegas in August is an easier option for him. He is double
checking availability with his of?ce now. Stand by."

Miller: 
Miller to Corey, "Did you get a date?"

Corey: "August 10-12 for or September 7-9 for Vegas. Thoughts? Left
you a VM as well."

Miller: "Let me see what Sweets and B's schedule look like."
July 8, 2017 

Miller to Corey: "How many for the NYC trip?"

12

Corey: believe just 3 of us on my side. Does that work for you?"
Miller: "Yes. 3 rooms?"
Corey: "Yes. That works. Me, AG, and his bro."

Miller: "Got it."
(R01 39)

July 12, 2016 

Miller to Corey: have the boat lined up for the hip in August. I will get the rooms
booked."

Corey: "Awesome. Thanks for arranging everything. Let me know if I can help on


July 13, 20164 

Miller to Corey: -"Send me the Mayor and his brother?s information and I will have my girl
book their ?ights."

Corey: already scheduled his ?ights since he is coming from another event in NYC
already. I'll get you Marcus's info 

July 14, 2016 

Corey to Miller: "Marcus is trying to ?gure out his travel schedule now. He is de?nitely in
but he may be with AG prior to us getting together. He said he would get back to me
shortly."

Miller: "No problem. Just tell them to let me know what their ?ights cost and I'll cover it."
(R01 40)

July 19, 2016 

Corey to Miller: "Hey brother. Let me know what you are thinking or have lined up for
August 10 to 12. Are we heading into the Hamptons or staying in NYC and what time do
we need to be and where? I am working on booking my ?ights today and plan to relay the
others as well. Thanks."

 

4 On July 13, 2016, Tallahassee City Commission minutes indicate that the City Commission voted unanimously, with
Respondent participating in the consent agenda vote, to approve Resolution No. 16-R-29, which approved the

?dexpansion?ofth?e'?reater Frenchto to-include 
including the parcels that Miller had expressed an interest in developing. (R01 42)

13

Miller: was about to send you this. So I am having the boat docked at North Cove Marina
in NYC (Battery Park). We will stay in the same area. 1 could not make the Hamptons work
for only two nights. I was planning to do dinner on the 10th and then going out for drinks.
If you are getting in late we can just do drinks. 0n the 11th I was going to have everyone
meet at the marina around 3:30 or 4. We will take the boat out and cruise around. I will
have a few other friends coming. You are welcome to invite peeple to come outwith us. I
know you know people everywhere. After we dock we can see what everyone is up for.
We can grab brunch on the 12th before everyone heads out."

Corey: love the plan. Thanks!"

Miller: wanted to thank AG for his support last week. Should I call him?"
Corey: "Either works. He is usually pretty responsive.?

Miller: don't have his#."

Corey replied by providing Miller with the Re5pondent's cell number.
(ROI 41)

August 2, 2016 
Miller to Corey: "Millennium Hilton 55 Church St."
Corey: "Thanks!"
August 8, 2016 

Miller to Corey: ?We are going to do the Mets game Wednesday night [the 10th]. My
buddy arranged another boat deal for us Thursday [the 11th] afternoon."

Corey: "1 love it. Thank you!"

August 9, 2016 Respondent traveled to New York City on Tuesday, August 9, 2016,
departing Tallahassee at 5:30 am, and arriving at 10:00 am. on Delta Airlines. He stayed
at the Ameritania Hotel from August 9 11, 2016.5 (R01 62)

Miller to Corey: "Looks like weather might not be great tomorrow. Maybe a show instead?
Have you seen Hamilton?"

Corey: ?That would be epic! 1 1"
"Yes. Let's do it."

 

5 His roundtrip airfare costs, hotel costs for two nights (August 9 - 10, 2016), transportation and meals costs associated
with this portion of his stay were paid by the Open Society Foundation, founded by George Soros, which invited the
Respondent to serve as a member of its Leadership in Government Fellowship Selection Committee. (R01 62)

14

(R0143, 62)
August 10, 2016 the ?rst day of the New York City trip 
Corey to Respondent: ?Hey brother. Just checking in with you. Mike Miller and the crew
have tickets for us for Hamilton tonight at 8 pm. When we originally spoke you said you
could break free starting tonight at 6 pm but I recall you mentioning at the Edison that it
may not be until Thursday. Let me know if you can join us? I think your brother has already
anived by the way. I get in at 5 pm."

Respondent to Corey: can be free by 6 pm, but have seme tomorrow as well.
Awesome news about Hamilton."

Corey to Respondent: "Perfect. 1 am stoked to see the show as well. Also, I got you a room
tonight at the Millennial Hilton. Let me know if you need me to adjust it."

Corey to Miller and Marcus Gillum: "Good morning gents. My ?ight on delta got cancelled
last night. As a result I don't get in until just after 4 pm. today. Copied on this text is Marcus
Gillum and Mike Miller. I believe both of you will be in NYC much earlier than me so I
wanted to connect you via text. Marcus, Mike is a friend and client that we spoke about
and he has a room reserved for you at the Millennium Hilton. I'll see you guys soon."

Miller: "W'e?are just getting in. I will check everyone in. We have Hamilton tickets tonight
at 

Corey: "That is awesome."
Marcus Gillum: "Seeing Hamilton would be so dope."

Respondent to Corey: won't need a room. Thanks for the offer however."

Corey: But you will for tomorrow night, right?"

Respondent: "Nope."

Corey: "10-4. I'll get us a meeting point before the show shortly."

Miller to Marcus Gillum and Corey: "Checked in. All you need is your 

Corey to Miller: am less than 30 minutes out. The Mayor texted me and said he is covered
tonight on his room. I guess he still has one for his original purpose of being here. I'm not
sure if you can cancel it this late but I just found out. Also, when and where should 1 tell
him to meet us before the concert? Hotel maybe??

Respondent to was mistaken, I think I will need a room for tomorrow night.

Corey: I got you."

15

(R0144, 45, 58)

August 12, 2016 Respondent departed New York City at 8:10 arriving in
Tallahassee early Saturday morning, August 13, 2016, at 12:37 am.6 (R0162)

HOTEL 8: ACTIVITY ARRANGEMENTS

Respondent said his brother Marcus stayed in a hotel in lower Manhattan (the Millennium,
Hilton) where he believes Corey reserved a block of rooms for the group. (R01 47) He
acknowledged that he was invited to stay in that same hotel but noted that the bulk of his work for
PFAW was in upper Manhattan, so he elected to stay in another hotel, paid for by his employer
(PF AW), until Thursday evening of that week. (ROI 47) He said that he then stayed his ?nal night
in New York City with his brother in the room in lower Manhattan at the Millennium Hilton. (R01
47)

Respondent said that the group attended the Broadway show "Hamilton" on Thursday night
of that week (records re?ect it was actually Wednesday) and he estimated that tickets were
approximately $700 each. (R0148) Respondent said on Friday (actually Thursday) the group took
a mid?day boat tour to the Statue of Liberty. (R01 48) He said he told his brother prior to this trip
that he was too busy to make any arrangements for his participation in the activities of the group
and his brother agreed to make all necessary arrangements for him. (ROI 48) Since Respondent's
brother said he would take care of making the entertainment arrangements during the trip,
Respondent said he believed his brother paid for his (Respondent's) ticket. (R01 48) He recalled

that he met the group on the sidewalk near the entrance to "Hamilton" and his brother handed him

 

Respondent said he actually took an earlier return ?ight to Tallahassee from New York City on Friday, August 12,
2016. He said he was able to rebook to the earlier ?ight after he and the group ?nished their cruise to the Statue of
Liberty on Friday. However. testimony and cell phone records indicate the cruise took place on Thursday, August 1 I,
2016. 62)

a ticket there. (R01 48) He said he never asked his brother about the cost of the ticket and never
offered to reimburse him for the ticket. (R01 48) He said he later learned from his brother that
Corey purchased the tickets for the group and that his brother and Corey may have "worked out"
the costs of the "Hamilton" tickets through a ticket exchange. (R01 48) Respondent said he
understood that Corey wanted tickets at the time for an upcoming Jay concert and believes his
brother secured tickets for Corey to attend that event and intended this to serve as reimbursement
for the "Hamilton" tickets. (R0149)

PAYMENT FOR THE NEW YORK CITY TRJP

Corey?s credit card charges were obtained by subpoena from his accountant, The Bean
Team. (R01 37) A New York City taxi charge posted on August 12, 2016,7 in the amount of
$21.96, which Corey identi?ed for The Bean Team as "taxi to hotel after Hamilton event with
Mike Miller." (R01 37) There was only one other relevant charge, also posted on August 12, 2016,
in the amount of $408.28 listed by Corey as "disputed" from Plunge in New York City. (R01 37)
Plunge, according to its intemet website, is a rooftop club located at Gansevoort Meatpacking in
New York City. (R01 37) There were no other charges identi?ed from the records that appeared
to be related to the subject trip. (R01 37)

Re3pondent said, take full responsibility for the boat ride [to the Statue of Liberty],"
indicating that it never occurred to him that the boat ride might be considered a gift from a lobbyist
or a principal who retained a lobbyist. (ROI 50) He said the trip lasted approximately one hour and
he assumed that Miller, or the unidenti?ed boat owner, covered the cost of the trip. (ROI 50) He

said he subsequently researched the cost of a Statute of Liberty cruise and learned that a ticket

 

7 Evidence and testimony obtained during the investigation suggests that these charges were actually made prior to
that day but did not immediately post to Corey?s credit card account. (R01 37)

1?7

could be purchased for as little as $17 for a commercial boat with a large passenger capacity. (ROI
50) He acknowledged that a private cruise for a small group of passengers would be more
expensive. (R01 50) Respondent maintains he does not believe his portion of the costs associated
with the cruise exceeded $100. (R0150) He said, "In retrospect, I understand the gravity of this;"
however, at the time of this cruise, he thought it was "nothing" and he never considered the costs
associated with it. (R01 50)

Respondent said he viewed Miller's and Sweets' presence on this trip as "completely
social," and denied that any City business was discussed during the trip. (ROI 50)

Respondent's brother, Marcus Gillum, recalled that he and Respondent, along with Corey
and the two men that he later learned were undercover FBI Agents, met in New York City in
August 2016 to socialize. (R01 51) He recalled that the group of ?ve men were together during
the later portion of the week of August 7 through 13, 2016 for ?a couple, probably two days." (R01
51) He only recalls attending three events together with the group: a private sightseeing cruise of
the Statue of Liberty, going for drinks together "in the old meat-packing district," and attending
"Hamilton." (ROI He assumed Corey or Miller paid costs associated with the boat cruise. (ROI
5 1)

The boat was described as having two levels and not particularly fast or ornate, "not a
?shing boat. It was more like a cruiser with two levels" (R01 50, 52) On August 11, 2016, Corey
texted pictures taken during the group's cruise around the Statue of Liberty to the other participants.
(R01 54) An intemet search of private boat tours for smaller groups (approximately 6 passengers)
revealed that those cruises typically are for two to three hours and prices vary greatly depending
on the vessel and amenities with the average private cruise costing approximately $600, before

taxes. (R01 53)

18

Marcus Gillum stated that everyone paid for their own drinks while socializing at the
bar/ club in New York's "meat-packing district." (R01 55) Respondent has no recollection of going
to the bar/club and stated, know I didn't go to a club." (R01 56) However, Marcus Gillum said
that he had left his wallet in his jacket at the hotel and Respondent gave him cash for cab fare so
he could return to the hotel to retrieve his wallet. (R01 55) He then returned to the bar to continue
socializing with the group. (R01 55)

Evidence suggests this activity may have occurred on the evening of Thursday, August 11,
2016, because this was the evening Respondent and Marcus Gillum both stated that Respondent
stayed at the Millennial Hilton where Miller had made reservations for the group. (R01 56)

Marcus Gillum acknowledged that the Broadway show "Hamilton" was "perpetually sold
out" at the time and ticket prices were "extremely high." (R01 57) He said Corey mentioned to the
group that he could purchase everyone's tickets using his American Express 'Black Card, which
would be less expensive than purchasing tickets through the secondary market. (R01 57) Even
though the regular box of?ce rates were also extremely high, Marcus Gillum said the tickets Corey
was able to secure were still much less than the cost of tickets available on the secondary market,
which cost over $1,000 each at that time. (R01 57) It was his understanding that Corey purchased
tickets for the group at the regular box of?ce price. (R01 57) Marcus Gillum con?rmed that he
never repaid Corey for his or Respondent's tickets. (R01 57) Rather, he said he became aware at
some point that Corey had a desire to see Jay Z's "Tidal concert in New York City scheduled
for October 16, 2016, so he told Corey he would purchase tickets for himself, Respondent, and
Corey to attend that concert. (R01 57) Marcus Gillum said that, to the best of his recollection, he
purchased ?veitickets toithe concert for $280 each. (R01 57) He said he purchased one

for Corey, two of Corey's friends, one for himself, and one for Respondent. (R01 57) Marcus

19

Gillum advised that he would request a copy of his credit card receipt for the purchase of the Jay
2 tickets and provide those records, but he failed to produce them. (R01 57)

Current box of?ce rates for "Hamilton" range frOm a low of $666 to a high of $1 ,015 per
ticket, before taxes. (R01 59) An intemet search revealed that box of?ce ticket prices averaged
$750 per ticket in August 2016. (R01 59)

Marcus Gillum believes it was Corey who reserved a block of rooms at the Millennium
Hilton for the group while they socialized together in New York City, and he maintains that he
reimbursed COrey for the cost of his room, which he shared with Respondent on Respondent's ?nal
night (August 12, 2016) in New York City. (R01 60) Marcus Gillum agreed to provide
con?rmation that he reimbursed Corey for the hotel room he shared with Respondent during the
trip; however, again he failed to produce it. (R01 60)

An internet search of the Millennium Hilton's of?cial website revealed that the average per
night cost of lodging in August 2016 was in excess of $100 per night but less than $200 per night,
before taxes. (R01 61)

Respondent?s City of?ce calendar indicates that on Thursday, August 11 through 12, 2016,
he was working in New York City for the PFAW. (R01 63) No docwnents were provided
indicating what his work schedule was for the PFAW during these two days and no hotel record
was provided indicating that PFAW covered the cost of his hotel room on the night of August 11,
2016, his last night in New York City during this trip. (ROI 63)

Information contained in Corey's text messages con?rms that the group did not attend a
baseball game, as alleged by Complainant, due to the weather and instead attended a showing of

"Hamilton." (R01 65)

20

In his af?davit concerning the New York City trip, Corey stated:

In or about August 2016, I traveled to New York to meet with, inter alia, a person

known to me as Mike Miller ("Miller"). During that trip, Miller paid for and

provided to myself and others, including Gillum, tickets to the Broadway show

Hamilton, hotel accommodations at the Millennium Hilton Hotel NYC, and a boat

tour of New York harbor. At that time, I and to the best of my knowledge the others,

including Gillum, were aware Miller had paid for and provided the tickets,

accommodations and boat tour .. . . I did not pay for any expenses associated with

Hamilton, the hotel rooms, or the boat tour.

(R01 66)

The Commission's investigator made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact the FBI
in reference to matters related to this investigation. (R01 67)

At all relevant times, Respondent was a public of?cer who accepted something of value to
him, to wit: at a minimum, transportation, services of a chef, and accommodations in Costa Rica,
tickets to the Broadway show "Hamilton," and a private boat cruise in New York City. Thus, the
?rst and second elements of a violation have been met.

The third element requires proof that "acceptance must have been based upon an
understanding that ReSpondent's vote, of?cial action or judgment would be in?uenced."

In CEO 75-21, the Commission opined that the term "in?uence" referred to an alteration
of an of?cial's independence and impartiality of judgment. In CEO 30-27, the Commission adOpted
the following de?nition of the word "in?uence": "To affect, modify, or act upon by physical,
mental or moral power, especially in some gentle, subtle and gradual way."

The Commission has found that the providing of a trip by one who stands to gain from the

actions of the recipient evidences an intent to in?uence. In CEO 75-22 the Commission advised a

 

city director of Housing and Urban Development not to accept a trip sponsored by General Electric
Corporation stating, "logical analysis would lead one to accept the premise that General Electric,

to warrant the expenditure of corporate ?inds, would do so only on the basis that bene?cial results

2]

would accrue to the company. And this cannot be compatible with a complete absence of intent to
in?uence."

Respondent and Corey may have a friendship but these two trips centered around their
professional relationship lobbyist and public of?cial. As evidence, Corey's purpose in extending
an invitation to Re5pondent for the Costa Rican trip was clearly delineated to his accountant:
Unconventional Strategies Client Development Retreat fees for accommodations,
food, and transportation." (R01 25) Corey indicated that the purpose of the New York City trip
was to meet Miller and apparently have Miller entertain and socialize with Respondent and his
brother. (R01 50, 51, 66) Quite possibly, Miller wanted to show his appreciation for Respondent's
"support last week." (R0141) This quote is in reference to a July 13, 2016 City Commission vote
in which ReSpondent voted to approve the expansion of the Greater Frenchtown/Southside
Community Redevelopment Area to include parcels that Miller had exPressed an interest in
developing. (R01 42)

Corey, as Miller's and SWeet's lobbyist, certainly intended to promote the interests of his
clients via in?uencing a public of?cial - ReSpondent. See, In Re: Winston W. "Bud" Gardner, Case
No. 92-4946EC (Fla. DOAH Apr. 7, 1993) Final Order and Public Report: June 11, 1993
("Lobbyists promote the interests of their in?uencing legislators [public of?cials] is at
the core of the lobbyists vocation") Respondent was in a position to help or harm the interests of
Corey's clients. By "gifting" the two trips, Corey and Miller created an impression of currying
favor and partiality by Respondent toward their interests and issues. In fact, both trips effectiver

gained undivided access to Respondent. Thus, the third element has been met.

22

Therefore, based on the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the
Commission ?nd probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section Florida
Statutes.

ALLEGATION TWO

Respondent is alleged to have violated Section Florida Statutes, by accepting
"things of value" regarding trips to Costa Rica and New York City when he knew or should have
known that they were given to in?uence action in which he was expected to participate in his
of?cial capacity.

APPLICABLE LAW
Section Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

UNAUTHORIZED COMPENSATION. -No public of?cer,
employee of an agency, or local government attorney or his or her
spouse or minor child shall, at any time, accept any compensation,
payment, or thing of value when such public of?cer, employee, or
local government attorney knows, or, with the exercise of
reasonable care, should know, that it was given to in?uence a vote
Or other action in which the of?cer, employee, or local government
attorney was expected to participate in his or her of?cial capacity.

In order to establish a violation of Section Florida Statutes, the following
elements must be proved:

1. Respondent must have been a public of?cer or employee.

2. Respondent or Respondent's spouse or minor child must
have accepted some compensation, payment or thing of value.

3. When such compensation, payment or thing of value was
accepted:

a) Respondent knew that it was given to in?uence a vote or
other action in which Respondent was expected to participate in an
of?cial capacity;

or

23

b) Respondent, with the exercise of reasonable care, should
have known that it was given to in?uence a vote or other action in
which Respondent was expected to participate in an of?cial

capacity.
ANALYSIS

Most of the facts are set forth above under Allegation One. Respondent was a public of?cer
at all relevant times. Respondent and his wife, R. Jai Gillum, accepted a "thing of value" gifts)
when they received transportation, accommodations, services of a chef, and meals in regard to the
Costa Rican trip with a value of $941 .94. Respondent received a "thing of value" when he received
a ticket to the Broadway show "Hamilton" and a Statue of Liberty private cruise (at a minimum)
during the New York City trip with an estimated value of over $751).8 Thus, elements one and two
of a violation have been met.

Section 1 Florida Statutes, does not require that there be an actual agreement that
the intended purpose of the gifts be achieved. In re Bernard Hart, 14 .A.L.R. 1054, 1076 (1991),
aft?d, Fourth District Court of Appeal, August 12, 1992. Corey and Miller had the requisite intent
to gain access, familiarity, in?uence, and possibly indebtedness with Respondent when they
provided gifts to him, his wife, and his brother.

Respondent or his relatives were the recipients of those gifts while Respondent
simultaneously participated as a voting member on an entity that was approving issues that could
bene?t or harm the donors. Thus, Respondent either knew or should have known that the gifts
were being provided to garner favor because Respondent was in an of?cial position to make
decisions in matters directly involving Corey?s clients, Miller and Sweets. Further, Respondent
would continue to have the responsibility to participate in decisions concerning Corey's clients.

Thus, the third element has been met.

 

3 $750 per ticket to "Hamilton" plus an undetermined amount for the cruise. (R01 59, 53)

24

Therefore, based on the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the
Commission ?nd probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section Florida
Statutes.

ALLEGATION THREE

Respondent is alleged to have violated Section Florida Statutes, by accepting
gifts in his of?cial capacity regarding trips to Costa Rica and New York City for himself and others
in return for access and in?uence.

APPLICABLE LAW

Section 112.3 13(6), Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION. No public of?cer, employee of
an agency, or local government attorney shall corruptly use or
attempt to use his or her omeial posi?on or any preperty or resource
which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her of?cial
duties, to secure a special privilege, bene?t, or exemption for
himself, herself, or others. This section shall not be construed to
con?ict with s. 104.31.

The term "corruptly" is de?ned by Section Florida Statutes, as follows:

"Corruptly" means done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose
of obtaining, or compensating or receiving compensation for, any
bene?t resulting from some act or omission of a public servant
which is inconsistent with the proper performance of his or her
public duties.

In order to establish a violation of Section Florida Statutes, the following

elements must be proved:

1. Respondent must have been a public of?cer or employee.
2. Respondent must have:
a) used or attempted to use his or her of?cial position
or any property or resources within his or her trust,
or

b) performed his or her of?cial du?es.

25

3. Respondent's actions must have been taken to secure a
special privilege, bene?t or exemption for him - or herself or others.

4. Respondent must have acted corruptly, that is, with wrongful
intent and for the purpose of bene?ting him- or herself or another
person from some act or omission which was inconsistent with the
proper performance of public duties.

ANALYSIS

The facts are set forth above under Allegation One. Respondent was a public of?cer at all
relevant times. Therefore, the ?rst element of a violation of Section Florida Statutes,
has been met. Respondent secured privileges or bene?ts for himself, his wife, and his brother as
discussed previously. Corey extended an invitation to Respondent to travel to Costa Rica and New
York City with lobbyists, clients of Unconventional Strategies, and potential developers seeking
to do business with the City. (R01 27, 34) It was because of Respondent's official position and the
in?uence he could command, and through contacts he acquired in his of?cial position, that he was
invited to take these ?-ee trips. These gifts were special to Respondent because apparently no other
public of?cials or their relatives were offered the same. Thus, the second element of a violation
has been met.

Respondent stated that he paid Corey cash for his and his wife's expenses while they were
in Costa Rica. (R01 21) ReSpondent and his wife did not have enough cash with them
(approximately $800) to pay Corey the $941.94 owed. (R01 21, 25) Respondent's statement is
controverted by a June 1, 2016 e?mail to Corey's accountant that lists Respondent's fmancial
obligation stricken through with a notation ON Additionally, Corey
contradicted Respondent's assertion that he made a reimbursement in cash: "To date, I have never

received any cash from or on behalf of Gillum as payment for any expenses associated with the

trip to Costa Rica. (R01 34) Nor do Respondent's trip receipts or credit card receipts indicate that

26

he paid for local air transportation, accommodations at the villa, or meal(s) at the Runaway Grill.
(R0126)

Respondent also stated that he did not discuss City business with Corey in Costa Rica.
Although this matter is irrelevant for a misuse of public position violation, Corey identi?ed for his
accountant a $98.51 charge at the Runaway Grill as ?lunch with Mayor Gillum to discuss city
issues" and identi?ed the purpose of the entire Costa Rican trip as a "client development retreat."
(R01 24, 25) This indicates a business trip rather than a personal vacation and is further evidence
that Respondent was invited due to his of?cial position as Mayor. Based on who participated in
the trip, it is not credible that no business was discussed during the trip.

Additionally, when Corey asked Respondent if he was available the following week to
meet some people, Respondent told Corey to send a calendar request to his assistant at City Hall.
(R0123) This action invoked the use of Respondent's public position and public resources.

In regard to reimbursement for the New York City trip, Corey wrote in his af?davit that
Respondent was aware that Miller "paid for and provided the tickets, accommodations and boat
tour" for Respondent and his brother during the trip. (R01 66) Respondent's brother alleged that
he secured Jay concert tickets for Corey as reimbursement for the "Hamilton" tickets. Not only
did he fail to provide proof after he said he would, Miller - not Corey - was the person who should
have been reimbursed.

Respondent had three lawful options with regard to these gifts: 1) timely reimburse a
substantial portion of the gifts to reduce the value to $100 or less9 so that the gi?s did not have to

be publicly disclosed on a CB Form 9, "Quarterly Gift Disclosure"; 2) not accept gi?s over $100

 

9 Compensation provided by the donee to the donor within 90 days of receiving the gift shall be deducted from the
value ofthe gift in determining the value ofthe gift. ?l 12.3] 48(8), Fla. Stat.

27

from lobbyists or their principals (prohibited donors); or 3) disclose all of the gifts over $100 on a
CB Form 9.

Respondent, nor Respondent's brother, provided any proof of reimbursement and he was
aware that he was legally required to publicly disclose certain gifts in the calendar quarter in which
the gifts were received. ?112.3148, Fla. Stat. This is evident by the fact ReSpondent disclosed free
tickets received as gifts valued in excess of $100 to a "Jazz and Blues Festival" in September 2016.
(R01 35) Interestingly, Respondent disclosed these tickets but chose not to report free
transportation, services of a chef, meals, accommodations in a "beautiful mansion,"l0 Broadway
tickets,ll and a private boat cruise he accepted a month earlier and disclosable on the same form
as the "Jazz and Blues Festival" tickets. This omission is an obvious attempt to either conceal the
gifts from the public or hide the fact that he accepted gifts ?om a lobbyist and principals of a
lobbyist - both prohibited donors. ?112.3148, Fla. Stat. Accepting gifts, concealing their
acceptance, or alleging without substantiation that he or his brother reimbursed their hosts
demonstrates a wrongful intent and actions inconsistent with the proper performance of his public
duties. The third and fourth elements of a violation have been met.

Therefore, based on the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the
Commission ?nd probable cause to believe that Re3pondent violated Section Florida
Statutes.

ALLEGATION FOUR
Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 112.3 148(3), Florida Statutes, by soliciting

a gift(s) from a lobbyist doing business with the City of Tallahassee.

 

?0 Corey stated in a March 25, 2016 e-mail, "As discussed, we have a beautiful mansion arranged for our stay in Costa
Rica Villa Paraiso located in Manuel Antonio." (R01 29)
Respondent estimated the tickets were $700 each. (R01 48)

28

APPLICABLE LAW
Section 112.3 148(3), Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

A reporting individual or procurement employee is prohibited from
soliciting any gift from a vendor doing business with the reporting
individual's or procurement employee's agency, a political
committee as de?ned in s. 106.011 or a lobbyist who lobbies the
reporting individual's or procurement employee's agency, or the
partner, ?rm, employer, or principal of such lobbyist, where such
gift is for the personal bene?t of the reporting individual or
procurement employee, another reporting individual or procurement
employee, or any member of the immediate family of a reporting
individual or procurement employee.

In order to establish a violation of Section Florida Statutes, the following

elements must be proved:

1. Respondent must have been a reporting individual or
procurement employee.

2. Respondent must have solicited a gift, food or beverage.

3. The gift must have been solicited from a vendor doing

business with Respondent's agency, political committee or

committee of continuous existence or a lobbyist who lobbies the

Respondent or his agency or the partner, ?rm, employer, or principal

of such a lobbyist.

4. The gift must be for the personal bene?t of the reporting

individual or procurement employee, another reporting individual or

procurement employee, or any member of the immediate family of

a reporting individual or procurement employee.

ANALYSIS
Most of the facts are set forth above under Allegation One. In addition, on April 26, 2016,

Respondent e?mailed Schwarz, a registered lobbyist, with this request, should also mention that
it will be R. Jai's Birthday on Wednesday when we arrive. Wondering if you have any idea if/where

I could order a cake for the group to enjoy on Wednesday night Schwarz responded,

will ask about getting a cake for R. Jai, I cannot wait to celebrate! (R01 10, 11, 32)

29

The next day, Schwarz e-mailed Respondent and stated, "We are going to get a cake
delivered to the house Wednesday for R. Jai, can you please let me know what message [sic] would
like on the cake and what ?avor she likes?" (ROI 32) On April 28, 2016, Respondent wrote,
"Thank you re: cake. You?re the best. She likes regular white cake, red velvet cake (or cupcakes),
and pound cake." (R01 32)

This is the only known incident that may be considered a solicitation of a gift. Respondent
is a "reporting individual" meaning that he must ?le either a CE Form 1 or CE Form 6.
Fla. Stat. Thus, element one is met. There is no evidence that Respondent
reimbursed Schwarz for the cost of the cake, thus, he may have received a gift from a lobbyist.
However, Respondent's request for information about purchasing a cake may not qualify as a
solicitation.

Therefore, based on the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the
Commission ?nd no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 
Florida Statutes.

ALLEGATION FIVE

ReSpondent is alleged to have violated Section Florida Statutes, by receiving
gift(s) from a lobbyist of the City of Tallahassee and principals of a lobbyist when Respondent
knew or reasonably believed that the gifts had a value in excess of $100.

APPLICABLE LAW
Section Florida Statutes, provides as follows:
REPORTING AND PROHIBITED RECEIPT OF GIFTS BY
INDIVIDUALS FILING FULL OR LIMITED PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND BY
PROCUREMENT EMPLOYEES. A reporting individual or

procurement employee or any other person on his or her behalf is
prohibited from knowineg accepting, directly or indirectly, a gift

30

from a political committee or committee of continuous existence, as
de?ned in s. 106.011, or from a lobbyist who lobbies the reporting
individual's or procurement employee's agency, or directly or
indirectly on behalf of the partner, ?rm, employer, or principal of a
lobbyist, if he or she knows or reasonably believes that the gift has
a value in excess of $100; however, such a gift may be accepted by
such person on behalf of a governmental entity or a charitable
organization. If the gift is accepted on behalf of a governmental
entity or charitable organization, the person receiving the gift shall
not maintain custody of the gift for any period of time beyond that
reasonably necessary to arrange for the transfer of custody and
ownership of the gift.

In order to establish a violation of Section Florida Statutes, the following

elements must be proved:

1. Respondent must have been a reporting individual or
procurement employee.

2. Respondent must have knowingly accepted a gift.

3. The donor of the gift must have been a vendor doing

business with Respondent's agency, a political committee, or
lobbyist who lobbies the Respondent or his agency.

4. Respondent knew or reasonably believed that the gift had a
value of more than $100.

ANALYSIS

Most of the facts are set forth above under Allegation One. Respondent is a "reporting
individual" meaning that he must ?le either a CE Form 1 or CE Form 6. Fla.
Stat. Respondent knowingly accepted gifts from Corey, who was known to Respondent as a
lobbyist who lobbies his agency, and Miller and Sweets, who were known to Respondent as
Corey's clients or principals. These are prohibited donors. Thus, elements one, two, and three have
been met.

Respondent knew that the Costa Rican accommodations, chef, meals, etc. were over $100

because Corey told him. (R01 21) Since ResPondent knew that the tickets to ajazz festival were

3]

over $100 he had to reasonably believe that tickets to the hit Broadway show "Hamilton" were
over $100. If he did not know the value, he apparently did nothing af?rmatively to ascertain the
cost of the tickets or the private cruise. Thus, element four is met.

Therefore, based on the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the
Commission ?nd probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 1 Florida
Statutes.

ALLEGATION SIX

Respondent is alleged to have violated Section Florida Statutes, by failing to
?le a timely CE Form 9, "Quarterly Gift Disclosure," for gifts received related to trips to Costa
Rica and New York City.

APPLICABLE LAW
Section Florida Statutes, provides as follows
Each reporting individual or procurement employee shall ?le
a statement with the Commission on Ethics on the last day of each
calendar quarter, for the previous calendar quarter, containing a list
of gifts which he or she believes to be in excess of $100 in value, if
any, accepted by him or her, for which compensation was not

provided by the donee to the donor within 90 days of receipt of the
gift to reduce the value to $100 or less, except the following:

1. Gifts from relatives.
2. Gifts prohibited by subsection (4) or s. 
3. Gifts otherwise required to be disclosed by this section.

Section Florida Statutes, provides in its relevant part:

"Gift" for purposes of ethics in government and ?nancial disclosure
required by law, means that which is accepted by a donee or by
another on the donee's behalf, or that which is paid or given to
another for or on behalf of a donee, directly, indirectly, or in trust
for the donee's bene?t or by any other means, for which equal or
greater consideration is not given within 90 days. . . .

32

ANALYSIS

Most of the facts are set forth above under Allegation One. An individual who is required
to ?le a CB Form 6 (except Judges?Reporting Individual" and required to
?le a CE Form 9, "Quarterly Gift Disclosure," on the last day of the calendar quarter (March 31,
June 30, September 30, or December 31) for gifts received during the previous calendar quarter
and valued in excess of $100. If no reportable gifts are received, no form needs to be ?led. The
information required includes a description of the gift, monetary value of the gift, the name and
address of the person making the gift and the date(s) the gift was received. If any of this
information is unknown, other than the description, the reporting individual should so state on the
form. See, Instructions for CE?Form 9.

If ReSpondent reasonably believed that the gifts were valued in excess of $100 and that the
donor(s) was a lobbyist who lobbies his agency or a principal(s) of a lobbyist, then he should not
have accepted them pursuant to Section 112.3148, Florida Statutes. He did.

If Respondent reasonably believed that the gifts were under $100 and that the donor(s) was
a lobbyist-who lobbies his agency or a principal(s) of a lobbyist, then he should have timely
disclosed them on a CB Form 9. He did not. (R01 35)

Therefore, based on the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the
Commission ?nd probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 1 Florida
Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

It is my recommendation that:

1. There is probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 

?CFlorida?Statutes?fb'y accepti?g?aftlii??g?of y?alu?e"?it?ffegard?to trips to Costa Rica?and New York 

City based upon an understanding that his of?cial action or judgment would be in?uenced.

33

2. There is probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 
Florida Statutes, by accepting "things of value" regarding trips to Costa Rica and New York City
when he knew or should have known that they were given to in?uence action in which he was
expected to participate in his of?cial capacity.

3. There is probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 
Florida Statutes, by accepting gifts in his of?cial capacity regarding trips to Costa Rica and New
York City for himself and others in return for access and in?uence.

4. There is no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section

Florida Statutes, by soliciting a gift(s) from a lobbyist doing business with the City
of Tallahassee.

5. There is probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 
Florida Statutes, by receiving gift(s) from a lobbyist of the City of Tallahassee and principals of a
lobbyist when Respondent knew or reasonably believed that the gifts had a value in excess of 1 00.

6. There is probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 
Florida Statutes, by failing to ?le a timely CE Form 9, "Quarterly Gift Disclosure," for gifts
received related to trips to Costa Rica and New York City.

Respectfully submitted this   Fi? day of December, 2018

~21" iiruil'ltti it". . _l .il' ?ll, it 
A. MILLER: 
Advocate for the Florida Commission

on Ethics
Florida Bar No. 578411
Of?ce of the Attorney General
The Capitol, 
Tallahassee, FL 32399?1050
(850) 414?3300, Ext. 3702

34

CEO 75-21 -- February 14, 1975 Page 1 of 2

CEO 75-21 February 14, 1975
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

ACCEPTANCE BY STATE BOARD OF TRIP SPONSORED BY
PRIVATE CORPORATION REGULATED BY THE BOARD

To: Peter P. Baljer, Executive Director, Department of Pollution Control, Tallahassee
Prepared by: Gene L. "Hal Johnson
SUMMARY:

Section F. S., as amended by Ch. 74-177, Laws of Florida, prohibits
of?cers or employees from accepting gifts, favors, or services of value to the recipient
that would in?uence a reasonably prudent person in the discharge of of?cial duties. In
this instance, the Florida Power and Light Company offered to ?nance a trip for
members and staff of the Pollution Control Board to three nuclear and fossil 
burning power plants. The trip is of obvious value to the board since FPLC ?nancing is
necessary for the excursions and the board is enriched to the extent of the expense
amounts paid. Secondly, construing "in?uence" to mean alteration of an of?cer's
independence and impartiality of judgment, the FPLC-sponsored trip could create an
impression upon board members distinguishable ?'om that created by a neutral party
not providing such services. Therefore, in order to retain an ethical relationship
between the Pollution Control Board and the entities it regulates, the invitation from
FPLC should be denied by the board.

QUESTION:

Does acceptance by the Florida Pollution Control Board of an invitation from the
Florida Power and Light Company (FPLC) to visit FPLC's nuclear power plants in
Florida at FPLC's expense in order to educate the board in the Operation and
environmental effects of such plants, violate the Code of Ethics, Part Ch. 112, F.
S., as amended by Ch. 74-177, Laws of Florida?

Your question is answered in the affirmative.

As indicated in your letter of inquiry, the Florida Power and Light Company (hereinafter
referred to as FPLC) has extended an invitation to the Florida Pollution Control Board and key staff
members to visit its nuclear power plants at Turkey Point and in St. Lucie County. The purpose of this
invitation is to give the Pollution Control Board better insight into the operation of these plants and in
the manner in which FPLC is attempting to effectuate optimum environmental practices.

The reason for seeking an advisory opinion from the Ethics Commission rests in the fact that
since the Department of Pollution Control is charged with the task of certi?cation of power plant sites
and operatid??,?th?r? is a reasonable question of propriety in undertaking?ich?a??ip at the expensaif
a private entity which is subject to the board's regulation.

For the reasons stated below, we conclude that acceptance of such an offer would constitute a
con?ict of interest.

The section of the Code of Ethics applicable in such a situation states:

.htrn 12/21/2018

CEO 75-21 February 14, 1975 Page 2 of2

No of?cer or employee of a state agency . . . shall accept any
gift, favor, or service of value to the recipient, that would cause a
reasonably prudent person to be in?uenced in the discharge of o?icial
duties. [Section F. S., as amended by Ch. 74-177, supra;
emphasis supplied]

As we perceive this prohibition, two criteria must exist: First, the gift, favor, or service must be of
value to the recipient and, second, the value must be of such a nature that it would cause a reasonably
prudent person to be in?uenced in the discharge of his of?cial duties. Application of the Code of
Ethics to the situation you have presented will therefore be made with these two criteria in mind.

The FPLC has offered to ?nance, voluntarily, a trip for the members of the Pollution Control
Board and key staff members to visit its nuclear and fossil fuel-buming power plants at 
Springs, St. Lucie County, and Turkey Point in south Florida. The company will pay the cost of
transportation to and from the power plant sites and will also provide the board and staff members
with meals and lodging. Is the Pollution Control Board then the recipient of something of value? We
must answer this question in the affirmative.

First of all, the expenses have ?nancial value and, by permitting these expenses to be paid on
their behalf, the board is enriched to the extent of the amount paid. In addition, we believe the trip
itself will be of value to the board in its regulatory functions. The fact that the trip could not have
been made without the ?nancing offered by FPLC is further evidence that a bene?t is being conferred
upon the agency.

The more difficult question which we must answer is whether the value of the gifts and
services offered by FPLC is such as would cause a reasonably prudent person to be in?uenced in the
discharge of his of?cial duties? We cannot say that such in?uence would not, in fact, exist.

To assess whether a reasonably prudent person in the position of a member of the Pollution
Control Board would be in?uenced by the services rendered by the FPLC, we must consider the
meaning of the term "in?uence." In its statement of legislative intent and declaration of policy, the
Code of Ethics provides that is essential to the proper conduct and operation of government that
public of?cials be independent and impartial . . . Section 112.3110), F. S. With this in view we
believe the term "influence" must be read to mean the alteration of an of?cial's independence and
impartiality of judgment.

In the situation which you have presented, we cannot say that a reasonably prudent person
would not lose a degree of his impartiality and might therefore be in?uenced in the discharge of his
duties. By sponsoring the proposed trip, the FPLC will be creating an impression upon the board
members distinguishable ?'om that of a neutral party not providing such gifts or services. Whether this
impression is favorable or unfavorable is irrelevant for purposes of our consideration. What must be
emphasized is that, due to this gift and its value, the board members would formulate an impression of
PLC that would unconsciously or consciously be assessed in any consideration of a matter brought
before the Pollution Control Board by FPLC. Such an additional factor would not be present in
consideration of a matter before the board where the party has remained neutral.

In summary, we believe that the spirit as well as the letter of the law would be violated by the
acceptance of the gifts or services at issue. The relationship between the Pollution Control Board and
the entities it regulates must be zealoust guarded to retain independence and impartiality and the
appearance of neutrality. Such a posture will best be preserved by a denial of the proposed invitation.

12/21/2018

CEO 80-27 -- April 17, 1980 Page 1 of 3

CEO 80-27 -- April 17, 1980
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATOR RECEIVING FREE MEALS FROM FOOD SERVICE
COMPANY CONTRACTING WITH UNIVERSITY

To: (Name withheld at the person's request.)
Prepared by: Phil Claypool
SUMMARY:

Section F. S., prohibits a public officer or employee, or his Spouse or
minor child, from accepting anything of value when he knows, or with the exercise of
reasonable care should know, that it was given to in?uence any of?cial action in which
he was expected to participate. This provisiOn of the Code of Ethics places the burden
upon a public of?cer or employee to exercise reasonable care in determining whether a
particular payment or thing of value has been given with the intent to in?uence his
of?cial action. When the donor is in a position to be bene?ted by the of?cer's or
employee's action, the of?cer or employee should weigh the value of the thing received
against the ostensible purpose for its being given.

When a state university administrator is offered a "gift card" by the food service
company contracting with the university, which card entitles its holder to an unlimited
number of free meals at any one of the company's eating establishments, the ostensible
purpose of the cards, review of the company?s service, should clearly negate the
possibility that they have been given to in?uence decisions of the administrators. This
does not appear to be the case. Rather, it appears that even the ostensible purpose
would in?uence the course of future contract reviews or negotiations. Under these
circumstances, a prohibited con?ict of interest would be created were such
administrators to receive free meals by use of the "gift card" from a food service
company which has contracted with the university.

QUESTION:

Would a prohibited con?ict of interest be created were I, a university administrator, to
receive free meals from a food service company which has contracted with the
university?

Your question is answered in the af?rmative.

In your letter of inquiry and in a telephone conversation with our staff, you advise that, as
Vice President for Administrative Affairs of Florida International University, you have indirect
responsibility?for overseeing thefood?service contract between the university and the corporation"
which has been awarded the contract. More speci?cally, your authority extends over the director of
auxiliaries and the head of the university's purchasing department, and both people oversee the day-
to-day administration of that contract. You also advise that recently six top administrators of the
university, including yourself, received "gift cards" from the food service corporation; each card

8 .htm 12/21/2018

CEO 80-27 April 17, 1980 Page 2 of 3

allows its holder to eat without charge at any one of the corporation's establishments. In addition, you
advise that, when you were given your card, the company's representative stated that these cards had
been given to administrators at other universities serviced by the company and that the cards were
being given in order to encourage top university management to eat at the company's facilities and to
review its service. As part of this review, the company has asked that each cardholder participate in
one yearly written survey.

Of the six persons receiving these cards, you advise, only three have any responsibility over
the awarding of the contract or the performance of the contract: you, the president of the university,
and the director of auxiliaries. In this respect, you advise that the director of auxiliaries is responsible
for the day-to-day administration of the contract and that he and a committee composed of faculty,
staff, and student representatives review food service contract proposals and make a recommendation
to the president. It is the president who authorizes the contract and who, in this case, authorized you to
sign the contract with the food service corporation. Finally, you advise that it is the opinion of the
administrators that these cards would in no way in?uence their of?cial actions or judgment and that,
since the cards would not be used frequently, they would result in little ?nancial bene?t.

The Code of Ethics for Public Of?cers and Employees provides in relevant part:

SOLICITATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS. -- No public
of?cer or employee of an agency or candidate for nomination or
election shall solicit or accept anything of value to the recipient,
including a gift, loan, reward, promise of future employment, favor, or
service:

That is based upon any understanding that the vote, of?cial
action, or judgment of the public of?cer, employee, or candidate would
be in?uenced thereby. [Section 112.31 F. 

This provision prohibits a public employee from accepting any gift, such as a free meal, which is
based upon the understanding that his of?cial action or judgment would be in?uenced. On the basis of
the facts you have presented, it does not appear that there is any understanding between you and the
food service corporation to the effect that your judgment would be in?uenced by virtue of the "gift
card." Therefore, this provision of the Code of Ethics would not prohibit your receipt or use of the
card.

The Code of Ethics also provides as follows:

UNAUTHORIZED COMPENSATION. No public of?cer or
employee of an agency or his spouse or minor child shall, at any time,
accept any compensation, payment, or thing of value when such public
of?cer or employee knows, or, with the exercise of reasonable care,
should know, that it was given to influence a vote or other action in
which the of?cer or employee was expected to participate in his of?cial
capacity. [Section F. 

Under this provision, we must determine whether you know, or with the exercise of reasonable care
should know, that the gift card was given to in?uence some action in which you are expected to
participate in your official capacity. We note that you have given no indication that you know that the
gift card was given to in?uence your of?cial action. Therefore, we must determine whether, with the
exercise of reasonable care, you should know that the gift card was given to in?uence some of?cial
action in which you are expected to participate.

12/21/2018

CEO 80-27 -- April 17, 1980 Page 3 of 3

The word "in?uence" has been de?ned as: "To affect, modify or act upon by physical, mental
or moral power, especially in some gentle, subtle, and gradual way." [Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed.,
1979).]

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1971) de?nes the word as meaning "to affect
or alter by indirect or intangible means: sway." Thus, something of value given with the intent to
in?uence one's of?cial action would include things given in order to directly and obviously affect an
of?cial action as well as those things given with the intent to affect of?cial decisionmalcing in a more
subtle manner.

Section quoted above, places the burden upon a public of?cer or employee to
exercise reasonable care in determining whether a particular payment or thing of value has been given
with the intent to in?uence his of?cial action. Assuming the donor is in a position to be bene?ted by
the of?cer?s or employee's action, the of?cer or employee should weigh the value of the thing
received against the ostensible purpose for its being given. The larger its value, the more dif?cult it
should be to justify its being given for any reason except to in?uence.

Here, the gift card is of potentially great value, entitling the bearer to an apparently unlimited
number of free meals. Accordingly, the ostensible purpose of the cards should clearly negate the
possibility that the cards have been given to in?uence the decisions of the administrators receiving
them. It does not appear to us that this is the case. Instead, it appears that even the ostensible purpose
of the cards would in?uence the course of future contract reviews or negotiations. Written review of
food services by administrators who receive free meals, in our view, would in?uence the of?cial
responsibilities of the administrators. Certainly, if the food services were to be rated highly by top
administrators, it would be more dif?cult for lower administrators to objectively review the
company's work. In addition, we note that three of the administrators receiving the cards are
themselves directly or indirectly involved in awarding and reviewing the contract.

Accordingly, under the circumstances you have presented, we ?nd that a prohibited con?ict of
interest would be created were you to receive free meals by use of a "gift card" from a food service
company which has contracted with the university.

12/21/2018

CEO 75-22 February 14, 1975 Page 1 of 2

CEO 75-22 -- February 14, 1975
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

PROPRIETY OF PUBLIC OFFICER PARTICIPATING IN TRIP TO LONDON
SPONSORED BY CORPORATION WHICH MAY BID FOR CITY CONTRACT
ADMINISTERED BY SUCH PUBLIC OFFICER

To: John Van Ness, Director, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Jacksonville
Prepared by: Gene L. "Hal" Johnson
SUMMARY:

Reference is made to CEO 75-21. Under the Code of Ethics set forth in part 111, Ch.
112, F. S., as amended by Ch. 74-177, Laws of Florida, a public of?cer is prohibited
from accepting gifts or services of value to the recipient which would in?uence a
reasonably prudent person in the discharge of his or her duties. In this instance, Mr.
Van Ness has been invited to participate at his own expense in an overseas trip
sponsored by General Electric Corporation. General Electric may in the future deal
with Mr. Van Ness?s agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development of
the City of Jacksonville. Applying the standards set forth in 3. 112.3130), supra, Mr.
Van Ness would ?nd the trip "of value" and expenditure of corporate ?lnds by G.E. in
this instance implies a bene?t incompatible with a complete absence of intent to
in?uence. Therefore, acceptance of the trip is prohibited by the Code of Ethics.

QUESTION:

Will the acceptance by my wife and me of a l-week trip to London, Sponsored by
General Electric Corporation but paid for by me personally, create a con?ict of interest
due to possible future dealings with General Electric in my of?cial capacity as Director
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development of the City of Jacksonville?

Your question is answered in the af?rmative.

As set forth in your letter of inquiry, you are currently the Director of the Department of
Housing Urban Deve10pment for the City of Jacksonville, an agency which is responsible for the
development and management of low-rent public housing. This position necessarily involves
purchases of appliances, and we do not presuppose that making the trip under the circumstances
alleged will in fact destroy any of your of?cial objectivity and loyalty to the public interest. However,
the ethical standard involved, which we would apply to any person so circumstanced, requires a
decision that you should not place yourself in this position. .

The applicable section of the Code of Ethics in the present situation states:

No of?cer or employee of a state agency, or of a county, city or
other political subdivision of the state, or any legislator, or legislative
employee shall accept any gift, favor, or service, of value to the
recipient, that would cause a reasonably prudent person to be in?uenced

12/21/2018

CEO 75-22 -- February 14, 1975 Page 2 of 2

in the discharge of official duties. [Section F. S., as
amended by Ch. 74-177, Laws of Florida.]

We have adopted the view that as a condition precedent to the implementation of this prohibitory
language two requirements should exist: The gift, favor, or service must be of value to the recipient
and it must be of such value as would cause a reasonably prudent person to be in?uenced in the
discharge of his of?cial duties. It seems clear as to the ?rst requirement that this trip will prove of
measurable value to you. While the second requirement is a subjective one, we would conclude that
logical analysis would lead one to accept the premise that General Electric, to warrant the expenditure
of corporate funds, would do so only on the basis that bene?cial results would accrue to the company.
And this cannot be compatible with a complete absence of intent to in?uence.

We have stated in an earlier opinion, CEO 75-21, a copy of which is enclosed, that the term
"in?uence" in the above-quoted provision refers to the modi?cation of a public of?cer's independence
and impartiality. We feel that acceptance of the trip is prohibited by the Code of Ethics, 3. 112.3 13(1),
F. S.

12/21/2018

BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS

In re ANDREW GILLUM,
Complaint No. 17-146
Respondent.


 

RESPONSE TO
RECOMMENDATION

The allegations against Respondent hang on a very slender thread. They rest
on (1) an af?davit of dubious credibility signed by Adam Corey, who refused to
submit to an interview by the Commission?s Investigator or to be deposed, and (2) a
handful of documents that are more favorable than unfavorable to Respondent. The
allegations are discussed in detail below.

The Costa Rica Trip

In 2016, Mr. Corey invited Respondent and his wife, R. Jai, to join him and
12 other friends of Mr. Corey for a week stay at a house in Costa Rica. The Gillums
joined the group for only four days from May 4, 2016, to May 8, 2016.

The Advocate states that Respondent and his wife received gifts of a value in
excess of $100 from Mr. Corey, who was registered as a lobbyist before the
Tallahassee City Commission. The Advocate states that the gifts consisted of
?transportation, accommodations, services of a chef, and meals in regard to the Costa

Rican trip with a value of $941 25, Advocate?s Recommendation 

p. 24] The evidence shows that respondent and his wife did not, in fact, receive any
gifts from Mr. Corey or any other lobbyist during the Costa Rican trip.

Documents cOmpiled by the Investigator establish that Respondent personally
paid for airline tickets to and from Costa Rica and within Costa Rica for himself and
his Wife, and for restaurants, bars, and equipment rental while in Costa Rica.
26] Respondent testi?ed that Mr. Corey informed him prior to the trip that the
share of the cost of the rooms for Respondent and his wife would be $120 per night.
21, Ex. Respondent testifies that he paid Mr. Corey $480 in cash on the
evening of his arrival, and left another $150 in cash upon leaving to cover tips for
the cleaning and cooking staff. 21, Ex. A, The advocate references an
internal document produced by Mr. Corey that shows the value of the G-illum?s room
as $941.94. The document was never sent to Respondent and not seen by him prior
to this matter. 25, Ex. Section 112.3148 prohibits a public of?cial from
?knowingly? accepting a gift that the of?cial ?knows or reasonably believes? to have
a value in excess of $100. Here, the only sworn evidence is that ReSpondent
reasonably believed the room value to be what he paid: $480 dollars. In any case,
the method for valuing a gift is set forth in the gift statutes. Section 
provides that ?Lodging in a private residence shall be valued at the per diem rate
provided in s. 1. . The referenced section, in turn, provides for a per

diem rate of $80, in this case $380. If the house is considered commercial lodging,

the cost is ?the actual cost to the donor, less taxes and gratuities.? 
Mr. Corey claimed to have acquired use of the house in a charity auction 
Ex. and the actual cost to him is unknown.

The only persons present when Respondent paid the room cost to Mr. Corey
were Respondent and Mr. Corey. However, his testimony is indirectly corroborated
by two others. R. ai Gillum testi?es that she had a discussion with Respondent upon
their arrival in which they expresSed conCern about carrying a large amount of cash
while in Costa Rica and agreed that ReSpondent would pay Mr. Corey their room
cost with cash that evening. [Ex. A, Sean Pittman, who also joined the group with
his wife, testi?es that he and Respondent had a discussion just prior to leaving on
May 8 in which Respondent expressed concern that the amount paid for the room
was insuf?cient to cover tips for the cleaning and cooking staff, and so they each
left another $150 cash. Respondent further testi?es that he never received any
communication from Mr. Corey or anyone else informing him that he had not paid
his share of the room cost or that the amount he had paid was insuf?cient, and no
such communication has been produced by Mr. Corey. [Ex. A, Respondent, R. Jai
Gillum, and Sean Pittman testify that meal charges were based upon the number of

persons present at each meal and that those present shared the cost of the meals.

[Ex. A, B, 

The foregoing testimony is undisputed with the exception of a self-serving
statement by Adam Corey in an af?davit ?led with the Commission. In the af?davit,
Mr. Corey states, ?to date, I have never received any cash from or on behalf of
Gillum as payment for any expenses associated with the trip to Costa Rica . . 
34] For the reasons explained below, the statement lacks credibility and should
be disregarded.

In a reference that sheds signi?cant light on Mr. Corey?s motivation, the
Advocate states:

Records were subpoenaed from Corey in reference to the Costa Rica

trip. (R01 24) Included in the information is an e-mail dated May 23,

2016, from Corey to Jennie Grant at the Bean Team, Corey?s

accounting ?rm, explaining how to allocate certain credit card charges

relating to the Costa Rica trip. (R01 24) One of those charges was
$98.51 at the Runaway Grill, dated May 4, 2016, the day Respondent

arrived in Costa Rica. (R01 24).

p. 9] The statement by Mr. Corey regarding the Runaway Grill is demonstrably
false. Respondent and his wife both testify that they arrived at the Costa Rica house
in late afternoon on May 4. R. Jai Gillum testi?es that the Gillums ?ew from San
Jose to the town in which the house was located by plane that left San Jose shortly
after 25-minute flight. Attached to her af?davit and
authenticated by her testimony are photos of the Gillums standing by the plane

before takeoff and sitting on the plane after takeoff. The photos are time?stamped at

3:05 pm. and 3:09 pm. respectively. The Gillums testify that after arrival at the

house, they remained at the house until bedtime. Mr. Gillum could not have had
lunch at the Runaway Grill in Costa Rica that day. It is apparent that Mr. Corey was
writing off $98.25 spent at the Runaway Grill as a business expense for his
corporation by claiming to have had a non-existent lunch with the Respondent to
talk about city business.

Documentation cited in the Report of Investigation and referenced in the
Advocate?s recommendation shows that the false Runaway Grill entry was only a
small part of Mr. Corey?s false claim that the entire trip was a business expense of
his corporation: The Advocate states:

Also included in the expenses referenced in Corey?s May 23, 2016

email to Grant is an $8,868.00 charge listed as ?Costa Rica irst.? (R01

25) In Response to Grant concerning this charge, Corey wrote, ?We

need to break this down further. I?ll chat with you later.? (ROI 25) On

June 1, 2016, Corey?s assistant at Unconventional Strategies, emailed

Grant saying:

Hey, Jennie?Adam [Corey] has worked up the cost of
what the Costa Rica participants should reimburse us. See
attached. Please send them an invoice. Adam [Corey] has
also included a purpose statement for you. (R01 25)

Attached to the email was a document with the heading, 

Unconventional Strategies Client Development Retreat fees for

accommodations, food, and transportation. (R01 25)

p. 10] Mr. Corey?s accounting ofthc Costa Rica trip has a ?Client Development

Retreat? is completely fictional. The undisputed testimony of the Gillums and Mr.

Pittman is that there was never any discussion of any business by the group while in

Costa Rica. All of Mr. Corey?s communications to members of the group con?rm
that it was strictly a social gathering of a disparate group of Mr. Corey?s friends.
Nowhere is there any mention of any business connection or any intention to discuss
business. Given this context, it is apparent that Mr. Corey, despite having been
reimbursed for the Gillum?s room, claimed the room cost as a business expense, just
as he did the Runaway Grill charge, and is now denying having received
reimbursement from the in order to cover his tracks.
The New York Trip

In August 2016, Adam Corey invited Respondent and his brother, Marcus
Gillum, to join Mr. Corey and Mike Miller on a social trip to New York. Most of the
exchange of messages regarding arrangements for the trip are among Corey, Miller,
and Marcus Gillum, Respondent was not copied. 38, Ex. 

Respondent was in New York over the same time period on business in
connection with a foundation that employed him. 62] Mr. Gillum stayed in the
hotel paid for by his employer all but the last night he was in New York, when he
stayed in his brother?s room because it was geographically more convenient. [Ex. A,
Marcus Gillum testi?ed that he paid for his own hotel room [Ex. but it is a
non-issue in any case. The Commission Investigator found that Marcus Gillum?s
hotel room at the time cost less than $200, which would bring ReSpondent?s share

for the night to below the $100 threshold. The Investigator found that records

indicated that Respondent?s other costs associated with the trip, including airfare,
hotel costs prior to the ?nal night, transportation in New York, and meal costs were
paid by the foundation for which Respondent had traveled to New York. 

There are two other eXpenses referenced by the Advocate as gifts to
Respondent. The ?rst is a ticket to the Broadway Show Hamilton. The only
communication to which Respondent was a party was an August 10, 2016, text
message from Mr. Corey to Respondent in which he states in part, ?Hey brother. Just
checking in with you. Mike Miller and the crew have tickets for us for Hamilton
tonight at 8:00 pm.? 58] Neither the memorandum, nor any other
memorandum among the parties indicates that Miller intended to gift the tickets to
the others or that he did so. Marcus Gillum testi?es that he was given two tickets by
Mr. Corey and assumed that Mr. Corey had paid for them. 62] This would have
been consistent with the common practice of the group. Respondent and his brother,
Marcus Gillum, have been friends with Adam Corey since they were in college
together. 18, Ex. Over the years, they have attended shows and concerts
together and occasionally taken trips together. On such occasions, it was their
practice for one person to front the cost of tickets and the others to reimburse him.
[Ex. A, 

It is undisputed that Respondent met the group in front of the theater where

his brother, Marcus, was holding two tickets and gave him one. He testi?es that he

assumed Marcus had paid for them and that the ?rst time he has seen anything to the
contrary was in the af?davit of Mr. Corey ?led with the Commission. [Ex. A, 
In his af?davit, Mr. Corey states that Miller paid for the tickets and that ?to the best
of my knowledge the others, including Gillum, were aware Miller had paid for and
previded the (emphasis added) Mr. Corey does not provide any insight as
to how he gained such knowledge and none of'the well-documented communications
among the group to which Respondent was a party suggest any reason why
Respondent would have had such knowledge.

On August 11, 2016, Respondent, Mr. Corey, Marcus Corey, Mike Miller,
and a Mr. Sweets took a boat ride to the Statue of Liberty and back. Marcus Gillum
testi?es that the boat ride took less than an hour. [Ex. In a text message from Mr.
Miller to Mr. Corey, Mr. Miller states that ?my buddy arranged another boat deal for
us Thursday [the 11th] afternoon.? 36] (It is undisputed that the group only
took one boat ride, so the reference to ?another? boat deal presumably means that an
original arrangement did not occur.) There is nothing in the record to suggest that
anyone paid money for use of the boat. The Report of Investigation indicates that a
boat ride to the Statue of Liberty could cost anywhere from $17 for a commercial
boat with a large passenger capacity to $600 for a small private boat tour, ?the price
quote varying greatly? depending on the vessel and amenities. 53]

The evidence indicates that the boat was owned by some third party ?buddy? of Mr.

Miller, and there is no suggestion that Miller paid his buddy for use of the boat. In
consequence, if the use of the boat was a gift, the gift was from the third party, and
there is nothing in the record to indicate that the person was a vendor or lobbyist to
the Tallahassee City Commission. Furthermore, section provides
that ?transportation provided in a private conveyance shall be given the same value
as transportation provided in a 00mparable commercial conveyance,? not the highest
price on the market. If the ride is not considered ?transportation? for purposes of the
gift laws, then the value is the cost to the donor. So far as record is concerned, that
could have been zero.
Compliance with Gift Reporting Laws

The Advocate reCOmmends a ?nding of probably cause that Respondent failed
to report gifts in excess of $100. For the reasons discussed above, the
recommendation should be rejected.

Conclusion

The Complainant made no allegations on personal knowledge and the only
evidence to contradict the sworn testimony in the record was the af?davit of Adam
Corey. That af?davit is inconsistent with documentary evidence produced by Mr.
Corey himself in response to the Commission?s subpoena and is subject to serious
credibility questions discussed above. The Commission has not been able to test the

veracity of Mr. Corey?s af?davit because Mr. Corey has refused to submit to an

interview by the Commission Investigator, and ReSpo'n'd-ent has been denied his due
process right to ce?fnont  Corey ib?eqauseLhe has refused to submit to a deposition,

No person should be subject to; a probable cause ?nding based on such a.r.ecord.,

Barry i hard

Florida I- 1' No. 0105599
Greenberg Trau'r'ig, P.A.
101 East College Avenue
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Telephone (850-) 222?6891
richardb@gt1aw.c.orn
trammelle@gtlaw.oom
Attorney for Respondent

Date January 4, 2.019;.

 

10

EXHIBIT A

BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
In re ANDREW GILLUM,
Complaint No. 17-146
Respondent.


SWORN DECLARATION OF ANDREW GILLUM

My name is Andrew Gillum and I make this statement under penalties of per-
jury pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes.

My brother is Marcus Gillum. Marcus and I have been friends with Adam
Corey since college. Over the years, the three of us have attended shows and concerts
together, sometimes with other persOns. On such occasions, it was the practice for
one of the group to front the cost of tickets and others to reimburse that person.
However, my brother Marcus and I frequently buy tickets for each other to shows or
concerts and we do not expect reimbursement.

In August 2016, I was in New York on business for a foundation that then
employed me. The foundation paid for my air transportation to and from New York
and for a room through August 10, 2016. Marcus made arrangements with Adam to
meet Adam, Mike Miller and a Mr. Sweets in New York during the same period. I
was not involved in the New York arrangements and was not a party to the text

messages between Marcus, Adam and Mr. Miller regarding the arrangements.

lof4

On August 10, 2016, Adam texted me that ?Mike Miller and the crew? had
tickets to the show Hamilton. He did not say that Miller was treating anyone to the
show and, in keeping with our consistent practice, I assumed we would each pay for
our tickets. I met the group in front of the theater just prior to showtime. Marcus
was holding two tickets and gave me one. We did not discuss anything about the
tickets and I assumed that Marcus had paid for them. The only information I have
ever seen indicating that Mr. Miller paid for the tickets is in the report of investiga?
tion filed in this matter, which quotes an af?davit submitted to the Commission by
Mr. Corey.

My hotel was located in upper Manhattan and Marcus was staying in a hotel
in lower Manhattan, closer to the Richard Rodgers Theater where Hamilton was
playing. Consequently, I stayed in Marcus? room the night of the show. I assumed
he had paid for the room. Other than the room that night, either the foundation I was
in New York for or I personally paid for all of my transportation and other expenses
relating to the New York trip.

The New York trip was planned as a social excursion and no business was
discussed at any time while I was with the group.

In March or April 2016, Adam Corey informed me that he had submitted a
winning bid at a charity auction for use of a ?ve-bedroom house in Costa Rica for

one week. He said he was planning to haVe a group of friends join him at the house.

20f4

The gathering was to be strictly social and persons were invited to bring their spouses
or guests. I brought my wife, R. ai., thinking it would be a nice way to celebrate her
May 4 birthday.

R. Jai and I joined the group for a portion of the trip, arriving at the house
between 3:30 and 4:00 pm. on May 4, 2016 and leaving on May 8, 2016. When we
arrived on the a?ernoon of May 4, the grOUp was out on excursions. We relaxed at
the house and joined the group for dinner. We remained at the house on May 4 until
bedtime. I did not meet with Adam at the Runaway Grill did
accompany the entire group to the Runaway Grill on May 6, at which time I "paid for
all expenses for the two of us and no business was discussed.

It was understood that all of the participants would pay their own expenses
and their share of the house, but I received nothing prior to my arrival informing me
of the total amount of my share. Prior to the trip, I asked Adam how much my room
share was and he casually stated it would cost ?about $120? per night. On the ?rst
evening of the trip, as everyone was headed to bed, I pulled out cash and gave Adam
the amount of $480. I paid the cost of plane fare for my wife and myself with a credit
card and paid for all expenses while in Costa Rica with either cash or credit card. I
never received any communication from Adam or anyone else informing me that I
hag ingotipaid mishare forrthe room cost or that the amount I had paid was insuf??

cient.

3of4

The use of the house included cooks and cleaning staff, but the group was
required to pay for the food at each of the meals. The cost of each meal depended on
the number of persons eating and the group shared the meal costs. Over the four days
we were at the house, the amount we contributed to meal costs fully covered the cost
of R.Jai and my meals. On, May 8, 2016, prior to our departure, I left an additional
$150 in cash on a table to cover my share of tips for the cooks and cleaning staff.

It is my recollection that there were 12-14 persons staying at the house on any
night. I did not have a personal relationship with everyone participating. To my
knowledge, there was no common business or political interest among the group. At
some point during the trip, Adam informed me that he would like to schedule a meet-
ing with me when we were back in Tallahassee. I told him to contact my scheduling
assistant, Angie. There was no further discussion regarding the meeting and there
were no other discussions of business or politics while I was present.

Except for text exchanges with me personally, I never received or saw any of
the documents produced by Adam in this matter prior to such production.

DECLARATION

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document

and that the facts stated in it are true.

Signed this day of January, 2019.

ANDREW GILLUM

4of4

EXHIBIT 

BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS

In re ANDREW GILLUM,

Complaint No. 17-146
Respondent.
I

 

SWORN DECLARATION OF R. JAI GILLUM

My name is R. ai Gillum and I make this statement under penalties of perjury
pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes.

I am the wife Andrew Gillum. In 2016, I accompanied Andrew on a trip to
Costa Rica to join a group organized by Adam Corey. Andrew and I arrived late in
the afternoon on May 4, 2016, which was my birthday. The group was staying in a
house that was operated like a hotel. Each person or couple was expected to pay for
their shares of the room cost based upon the number of nights that they stayed. It
was my understanding that Adam had use of the house for a week, but Andrew and
I only stayed for four nights.

Andrew and I flew from San Jose, Costa Rica to Quepos, Costa Rica on May
4, 2016. Our plane left San Jose shortly after 3 pm. Flight time was 25 minutes and
we drove from the airport in Quepos to the house, arriving in the late afternoon. The
attached photos were taken just before boarding the plane and minutes before takeoff
and are accurately time-stamped. On the afternoon that we arrived, most ofthe group

was gone. Andrew and I relaxed at the pool and joined the group for dinner that
1 of 3

evening. We remained at the house until bedtime. I do not recall any time that
Andrew was with Adam Corey or other members of the group that I was not with
him.

The trip was strictly social and there was no time that Andrew and I were
present during which there was any discussion of business or politics. Different
members of the group went on different excursions. Andrew and I joined the group
for a hike to a waterfall on May 5 and on zipline tour on May 6. Everyone paid
individually for the cost of such excursions.

Meals were provided at the house by a cooking staff. The cost of each meal
depended upon the number of persons attending. The persons attending each meal
shared the cost of the meals. Andrew and I brought about $800 in cash between us.
We brought that much cash because we had to pay Adam for our share of the room
cost and because we were not sure that credit cards would be accepted every place
we might go in Costa Rica. The afternoon that we arrived, Andrew mentioned to me
that he intended to pay Adam that evening for our share of the room so that we would
not have to carry so much cash for the rest of the trip.

Whenever we socialize with other persons, Andrew is meticulous about
paying our full share of any costs incurred. On the Costa Rica trip, we used credit
cards for most of our expenses other than the room cost and meals provided at the

house and cash for any other expenses.

2of3

DECLARATION

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document

and that the facts stated in it are true.

Signed this If] ?fk-dny of January, 2019.

 

R. I ILLUM

3of3

.nllVerizon 2:2016

3:if?) 

.ur Verizon 4? 2:2016 .
3:09 PM Ed't

   

5% mig?hmEXHIBIT 

BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
In re ANDREW GILLUM,
Complaint No. 17-146
Respondent.


 

SWORN DECLARATION OF MARCUS GILLUM

My name is Marcus Gillum and I make this statement under penalties of
perjury pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes.

I am the brother of Andrew Gillum. Andrew and I have been friends with
Adam Corey since college. Andrew, Adam, and I and sometimes other persons have
attended shows and concerts together from time to time. Generally, one of us makes
arrangements and pays the cost of tickets and the others reimburse the person. I do
not remember an occasion on which Adam paid for tickets and was not reimbursed
either in cash or in kind.

In August 2016, I met Adam in New York to socialize. Adam introduced me
to friends of his, Mike Miller and Mike Sweets. Either Adam or Mike Miller
arranged for hotel rooms and I paid my share of the cost.

Andrew was in New York over the same period on business relating to an
organization he worked for. Andrew paid his own transportation costs and stayed in

a separate hotel except for the last night when he stayed in my hotel room with me.

lof3

It was my understanding that Mike Miller obtained the tickets to Hamilton,
but two tickets were given to me by Adam Corey and I assumed that he paid for
them. I offered to reimburse him at the time, but he said we could settle up later. I
later reciprocated by paying for tickets to a Jay ?Title concert in New York. I
purchased tickets for Adam and two of his friends for a cost of $280 each.

1 arranged for Andrew to meet the group in front of the theater. When he
arrived, I was holding two tickets and handed him one. We never discussed who paid
for the ticket. The circumstances are such that he would have assumed that I had
paid for them. Andrew and I have often treated each other to concerts and shows and
we never expect reimbursement.

One of the persons in the group, I believe Mike Miller, told me that he had a
friend who owned the boat that was docked in New York City and arrangements
were made for us to take a short boat trip to the Statue of Liberty and back. Andrew
joined us for the boat ride. We did not stop and the trip took less than an hour.
Nobody mentioned cost and it never occurred to me to pay anybody for the trip.

Andrew also joined the group for a short while for drinks one evening and did
not otherwise participate with the group. Andrew paid for his own drinks.

The New York trip was planned as a social occasion. No business was ever

discussed during the trip while I was present.

20f3

 

 

 

DECLARATION
Under penalties of perjury, lI de?larefthat I'hav'e read the foregoing document
and that the facts stated. in-iit are true.
Signed this 321, day :of Emma 20:1 

?A?fl

WREUS GILLUM

 

3of3

EXHIBIT 

BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS

In re ANDREW GILLUM,
Complaint No. 17-146
Respondent.



 

SWORN DECLARATION OF SEAN PITTMAN

My name is Sean Pittman and I make this statement under penalties of per-
jury pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes.

In 2016, Adam Corey informed me that he had use of a ?ve?bedroom house
in Costa Rica for one week in May 2016. I accepted his invitation to join a group
of his friends at the house with my wife, Audra. My recollection is that there were
10 to 12 persons in the house during the period that I was there. Andrew Gillum
and his wife, R. Jai, were also there. The Gillum and Audra and I only joined the
group for a portion of the trip.

The gathering was strictly social. Most persons brought their wives or per-
sonal partners. There was no common business interest among the group and no
business was discussed at any time while I was present.

I assumed that I was expected to pay my share of the house expenses, but
was not told the amount prior to my arrival. I paid for all of my expenses other

than my share of the house cost while I was in Costa Rica. After I returned to Tal-

1 of2

lahassee, I received a statement for $941.95 from Adam?s of?ce for my share of
the house cost and paid the amount by check.

While we were at the house, cooks were provided to cook breakfast and
lunch each day. I was informed that the service was provided as part of the house
cost, but that we had to pay for the food. We rotated responsibility for the food so
that each individual or couple paid for a meal for the entire group. Andrew and I
shared the cost of the meals on one of the days. The food cost was inexpensive in
US. dollars and each persons contribution was less than $100.

The Gillum and Audra and I left on May 8, 2016. Prior to our departure,
Andrew and I had a discussion about whether tips for the cleaning and cooking
staff were included in the room cost. Adam wasn?t present and Andrew and I de-

cided to leave tips. Each of us left $150 in cash on the table.

DECLARATION
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document

and that the facts stated in it are true.

Signed this  day oidmumf 201 

  
 



7J5



20f2