Live Oak Council President Adam Prins.

An administrative law judge recommends to the Commission on Ethics that former president of the Live Oak City Council Adam Prins be cleared of allegations he violated Florida Statutes by using his position as councilman for the personal gain of his sister.

A panel determined by a 4-2 vote in March that Prins misused his position as a council member by directing the Live Oak fire chief to perform duties at an apartment belonging to Prins’ sister during Tropical Storm Debby in 2012, according to the Commission on Ethics. 

Commission on Ethics’ view

On June 13, 2014, the probable cause panel released their findings stating, during Tropical Storm Debby in 2012, Live Oak Fire Chief Chad Croft and Prins were at the city’s Emergency Operations Center, located at the city fire department. Prins reportedly directed Croft to transport him to the residential area known as Tara Trace in Croft’s city-owned fire department vehicle. Croft recalled Prins telling him that flooding was reported at that apartment complex.

Documents further state that upon their arrival Prins directed Croft into a particular apartment where he was then directed to assist with moving boxes for approximately 20 minutes. After Croft stopped due to reported shoulder pain, Prins informed him they were in an apartment belonging to Deborah Prins, his sister. With this discovery, Croft reportedly immediately left the apartment and returned to the fire department. Croft did not provide assistance to any other Tara Trace residents or provide any other emergency services while acting at Prins’ discretion, according to documents. 

“The City Fire Department policies allow the removal or relocation of private property during emergency response events only when it is necessary to protect the lives and safety of the city residents and visitors,” the document states. “Chief Croft opined that the flooding at Tara Trace Apartments did not pose a threat to the life of Respondent’s (Prins) sister or other residents.”

The recommended order

According to the recommended order dated Aug. 20, 2014, “The totality of the evidence adduced at hearing failed to clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent (Prins) used or attempted to use his position as a member of the City Council to secure a special privilege for himself or others, i.e., his sister, much less that he did so with corrupt intent.”

The judge also ruled there was not enough evidence to prove Prins was verbally abusive toward Croft.

“While Chief Croft asserts that he felt threatened because of the telephone conversation he overheard in the fire station, he acknowledged that Prins was not verbally abusive to him at the fire station and did not make any actual threats against him,” the order stated. “Moreover, Chief Croft’s testimony regarding the events of June 25 and 26 did not produce in the mind of the undersigned a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, that threats or intimidation were used by Prins when they rode in the Chief’s city-owned car to check on Debby Prins and other residents of the Tara Trace neighborhood.”

The judge also ruled that Prins and Croft helping Debby Prins move boxes in her home was “incidental to the main purpose of Prins and Chief Croft’s trip to Tara Trace, i.e., to check on Prins’ sister and other residents in their severely flooded neighborhood.”

“The evidence did not show that Prins acted with reasonable notice that his conduct was inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties,” the order stated. “The conclusion that Prins was not corruptly motivated to take the actions he did is bolstered by the extensive time he spent engaged in other volunteer activities helping many other residents of Live Oak, including working with city officials in addition to Chief Croft, for the days following the events of June 25 and 26, 2012. The undersigned concludes that no violation of 112.313 (6) has been demonstrated.” 

The recommended order will now go before the Commission on Ethics who will enter a final ruling regarding the matter. 

“This has been a long process. The mayor’s complaint was baseless and politically motivated from the beginning,” said Prins. “This was demonstrated when eight of the nine initial charges against me were thrown out at the preliminary hearing. The remaining charge I chose to fight because it was based upon a written statement the fire chief provided the mayor 13 months after it happened when they collaborated against me to trump up ethics charges. This was a gross waste of taxpayer money which, in my opinion, the mayor has been doing for years. I still have to go before the Ethics Commission for final resolution. However, I am grateful the evidence in this case brought the judge to the conclusion that I did not violate any laws. I have every confidence the Ethics Commission will uphold the recommendation of the judge appointed to hear the case.”