Prins

The State of Florida Commission on Ethics determined in a 4-2 vote there was probable cause to believe Live Oak City Council President Adam Prins misused his position as a council member, according to the COE. A total of nine allegations were brought against Prins, however, eight of them were found to have no probable cause.

“Mr. Prins has the right to a full evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH),” said Kerrie Stillman, COE public information officer. “However, Mr. Prins could choose to try to reach a settlement agreement with the Commission Advocate, in lieu of further proceedings.” 

Stillman said if Prins is found in violation, a range of penalties found in section 112.317 of the Florida Statutes can be applied. 

“The most common penalty recommended by the Commission is a civil penalty of up to $10,000,” Stillman said.

The complaint

On July 19, 2013, the Commission on Ethics received a complaint from Live Oak Mayor Sonny Nobles against Prins, citing he has “been out of control the three years he has served in that position.” 

“Due to his actions, city government in general is in disarray and in turmoil,” Nobles said. “Mr. Prins’ obsession with power and control has clouded his rational being. He is consumed with the desire for power and control.”

In the complaint, Nobles said Prins’ interference with city government had escalated to a point he called a meeting with the city’s department heads, at their request he said, to discuss the matter.

The complaint, which contained multiple allegations, resulted in an investigation by the Commission on Ethics.

Probable cause found in allegation three

According to the COE, probable cause was found to believe that Prins misused his position as a council member to direct the Live Oak fire chief to help at Prins’ sister’s home during the flooding of Tropical Storm Debby. 

On June 26, 2012, during TS Debby, Live Oak Fire Chief Chad Croft and Prins were present in the emergency operations center located at the Live Oak Fire Department. Croft advised that Prins directed him to transport him to the Tara Trace subdivision in a city-owned fire department vehicle. Croft recalled Prins telling him that flooding was reported at the apartment complex. 

Croft advised that upon their arrival, Prins directed him into a particular apartment where he was then directed to assist with moving boxes for approximately 20 minutes. After Croft stopped due to shoulder pain, Prins informed him that they were in an apartment belonging to Deborah Prins, Adam Prins’ sister. 

With this discovery, Croft reportedly advised that he immediately left the apartment and returned to the fire department to continue his participation in the city’s response to the storm. Croft said that he did not provide assistance to any other Tara Trace residents or provide any other emergency services while acting under Prins’ direction.

Prins said on that day, he received a call from his mother informing him of the flooding at Tara Trace and requesting that he help his sister. After informing Croft of the situation, Prins contends that Croft offered to drive his city-owned vehicle. Prins acknowledged that he and Croft moved about seven boxes from a storage area within the home to tables or countertops. Prins contends that due to the nature of the flooding, moving the boxes was appropriate and necessary. Prins stated that “they” knocked” on the doors of other residents at Tara Trace to “warn of the imminent flooding. However, (Prins) acknowledged  that he did not move boxes or similar items for … any other residents.”

Melody Hadley, advocate for the Florida Commission on Ethics, stated there is sufficient evidence to show that Prins did use his position to direct Croft to use city resources for his and his sister’s private benefit.

“(Prins’) actions were inconsistent with the proper performance of his pubic duties,” state Hadley, who recommended that the Commission find probable cause to believe Prins violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. 

No probable cause found

Allegation one – This allegation states that Prins used his position to interfere and/or attempt to interfere with the duties of a Live Oak code enforcement officer.

According to reports, it was alleged Prins interfered with the officer on at least four occasions between Sept. 2011 and March 2012. It was contended that Prins’ interference “was an attempt to garner favor with constituents for future elections. 

Decision:There is no probable cause to believe that Prins violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by using his position to interfere and/or attempt to interfere with the duties of the Live Oak Code Enforcement Officer.

Allegation two – On Nov. 2, 2012, Prins reportedly went to the Live Oak City Clerk’s office to purchase a business tax license for his business, “Painting by Prins.” Prior to the date, Prins paid $75 for a pressure washing business license. An assistant informed Prins the license would be $157. Prins did not proceed to pay. The city clerk later advised the assistant that he allowed Prins to purchase it at $75 since that’s what he informed Prins it would be, failing to see a new component, painting services, which requires a higher price.

Decision: There is no probable cause to believe that Prins violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by using his position to pay a lower business tax license fee for his personal business.

Allegation four: Prins also serves on the Live Oak Community Redevelopment Agency board of directors. CRA records show that Prins served as a painting contractor on four projects that received CRA grant funding under the facade program between December 2012 and January 2013. The Live Oak planning director advised the CRA board has no role in review, selection, or approval of individual grant applications or projects. He further advised that the approval of individual projects and the payments for those projects lies in the hands of the CRA’s director.

Prins had no role in the review or approval of the questioned applications.

Decision: There is no probable cause to believe that Prins violated Section 112.313(3), Florida Statutes, by doing business with the City of Live Oak.

Allegation five – The underlying facts and circumstances in this allegation are contained in allegation four. Prins was a public officer who was employed by or in a contractual relationship with a business entity that was doing business with his agency, the CRA. 

Decision: There is no probable cause to believe that Prins violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by having conflicting employment or a contractual relationship.

Allegation six – The underlying facts and circumstances in this allegation are contained in allegation four. The CRA director advised the first documents that the parties submitted towards the program were the applications. By that time, they had already chosen Prins as a painting contractor and were not required to submit proposals or similar documents that would have put Prins or any other painting contractor on notice of an intent to seek painting services. 

Decision: There is no probable cause to believe that Prins violated Section 112.313(8), Florida Statutes, by using information obtained due to his position for a personal gain or benefit.

Allegation seven – The underlying facts and circumstances in this allegation are contained in allegations four and six. It was alleged Prins used his position to benefit his personal business.

Decision: There is no probable cause to believe that Prins violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by using his position to benefit his personal business.

Allegation eight – The underlying facts and circumstances in this allegation are contained in allegation four. Prins did not participate in a vote to approve applications for the CRA grant program for the individuals Prins had a contractual agreement with. 

Decision: There is no probable cause to believe that Prins violated Section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes, by voting on matters which inured to his or his principal’s special private gain.

Allegation nine – The underlying facts and circumstances in this allegation are contained in allegation four and eight. Prins’ position on the CRA board can be considered an appointed position. Florida Statutes states that when a governing body adopts a resolution declaring the need for a CRA, the body shall, by ordinance, appoint a board of commissioners of the CRA. However, as previously mentioned, Prins did not participate in an action for his or his principal’s special private gain.

Decision: There is no probable cause to believe that Prins violated Section 112.3143(4), Florida Statutes, by participating and/or voting on an issue that inured to his or his principal’s special private gain.

The response

Prins said he is innocent of all allegations and refutes the mayor’s arguments.

“The complaint the Mayor filed against me with the Ethics Commission was motivated purely by politics, not a concern over my ethics. Anyone who reads the original complaint he filed is left with a clear picture of an angry politician, against whom I have provided opposition since our campaign in 2010, writing anything that came to his mind hoping that something he could write would be good enough to cause me some personal grief,” Prins wrote by email. “The complaint is difficult to piece together as you read it. If the complaints were legitimate and the evidence clear, then it should have been much easier for a retired educator to articulate his thoughts. Consequently, eight of the nine charges against me have already been thrown out. The charge the Ethics Commission sent through to the next level is still an active matter on which I will not elaborate other than to say that I am 100 percent innocent of the charge. I anxiously await my day in court to clear my name completely.”

Nobles said he did not want to file ethics complaints, however, he believed it was something that needed to be done.

“I did not take pleasure in filing ethics charges against Mr. Prins. I am not a vindictive, hateful or mean person but something had to happen at City Hall. The city was in disarray and on the verge of a complete meltdown,” Nobles said. “The city had gotten to be a hostile and unpleasant workplace and the citizens were the ones suffering. Some were of the opinion they could do and say whatever they wanted without impunity. It was never my intention to have Mr. Prins punished. There were irregularities in some of the things going on and the Ethics Commission was the proper place to have these irregularities addressed and investigated. Things have gotten better in the city since the investigation. That was my desire.”