1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
2
3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, )
ROTH FARMS, INC., and WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., )
4 -and- )
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., UNITED )
5 STATES SUGAR CORPORATION, and NEW HOPE )
SOUTH, INC., )
6 -and- )
FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION, )
7 LEWIS POPE FARMS, W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, )
INC., and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
8 )
Petitioners, )
9 )
vs. ) DOAH CASE NOS.
10 ) 92-3038
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, ) 92-3039
11 ) 92-3040
Respondent, ) (Consolidated)
12 )
and )
13 )
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS, THE UNITED )
14 STATES OF AMERICA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and FLORIDA )
15 WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION, )
)
16 Intervenors. )
) _____________________________________________
17
18 HEARING BEFORE: HONORABLE J. STEPHEN MENTON
HEARING OFFICER
19
20 DATE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1993
(2:00 P.M. - 2:53 P.M.)
21
LOCATION: HEARING ROOM 3, DESOTO BUILDING
22 1230 APALACHEE PARKWAY
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
23
REPORTED BY: SUE HABERSHAW JOHNSON
24 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER
25 NOTARY PUBLIC
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 Representing Petitioners, Sugar Cane Growers
Cooperative of Florida, Roth Farms, Inc.,
3 and Wedgworth Farms, Inc.: (VIA TELEPHONE)
4 WILLIAM H. GREEN, ESQUIRE
GARY PERKO, ESQUIRE
5 CAROLYN RAEPPLE, ESQUIRE
ROBERT P. SMITH, ESQUIRE
6 Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
123 South Calhoun Street
7 P. O. Box 6526
Tallahassee, Florida 32314
8 (904-222-7500)
9 Representing Petitioners, Florida Sugar Cane
League, Inc., United States Sugar Corporation,
10 and New Hope South, Inc.: (VIA TELEPHONE)
11 WILLIAM L. EARL, ESQUIRE
Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
12 One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
Two South Biscayne Boulevard
13 Miami, Florida 33131
(305-358-3000)
14
-and-
15
WILLIAM L. HYDE, ESQUIRE
16 ROBERT BLANK, ESQUIRE
Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
17 Suite 350
215 South Monroe Street
18 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904-681-1900)
19
Representing Petitioners, Florida Fruit and
20 Vegetable Association, Lewis Pope Farms,
W. E. Schlechter & Sons, Inc., and
21 Hundley Farms, Inc.: (VIA TELEPHONE)
22 TERRY COLE, ESQUIRE
Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A.
23 Suite C
2700 Blair Stone Road
24 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904-877-0099)
25
3
1 APPEARANCES, CONTINUED:
2 Representing Intervenor, The United States
of America: (VIA TELEPHONE)
3
THOMAS A. WATTS FITZGERALD, ESQUIRE
4 Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
5 Suite 627
155 South Miami Avenue
6 Miami, Florida 33130-1693
(305-536-4425)
7
-and-
8
KENNETH A. SAXE, ESQUIRE
9 United States Department of Justice
Environmental and Natural Resources Division
10 General Litigation Section
Room 879, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue (20004)
11 P.O. Box 663
Washington, D.C. 20044
12 (202-272-4016)
13 Representing Intervenor, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation: (VIA TELEPHONE)
14
LEE M. KILLINGER, ESQUIRE
15 Assistant General Counsel
Department of Environmental Regulation
16 Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
17 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
(904-488-9730)
18
Representing Respondent, South Florida Water
19 Management District: (VIA TELEPHONE)
20 PAUL L. NETTLETON, ESQUIRE
Popham, Haik, Schnobrick & Kaufman, Ltd.
21 400 International Place
100 Southeast Second Street
22 Miami, Florida 33131
(305-539-7222)
23
-and-
24
25
4
1 APPEARANCES, CONTINUED:
2 BARBARA MARKHAM, ESQUIRE
Assistant General Counsel
3 South Florida Water Management District
P. O. Box 24680
4 3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
5
Representing Intervenor, Miccosukee Tribe of
6 Indians: (VIA TELEPHONE)
7 DEXTER W. LEHTINEN, ESQUIRE
GENE DUNCAN, ESQUIRE
8 Spencer and Klein, P.A.
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1901
9 Miami, Florida 33131
(305-374-7700)
10
Representing Intervenor, Florida Wildlife
11 Federation: (VIA TELEPHONE)
12 LAURA ERICKSON
111 South Martin Luther King, Jr., Blvd.
13 P.O. Box 1329
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
14 (904-681-0031)
15 ALSO PRESENT:
16 APRIL HERRLE
JOHN VAN DEASON
17 KURT ANDERSON
VICTORIA MINNETTE
18
* * * * *
19
INDEX
20
ITEM PAGE
21
HEARING COMMENCED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
22
HEARING CONCLUDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
23
CERTIFICATE OR REPORTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
24
* * * * *
25
5 1 PROCEEDINGS
2 (WHEREUPON, THE HEARING COMMENCED AT 2:00 P.M., AT
3 WHICH TIME MR. LEHTINEN WAS NOT PRESENT.)
4 HEARING OFFICER: Good afternoon. Hold on a
5 second. Let me see if I can find the volume on the
6 Speakerphone. I've got it, I think.
7 Okay. Let's see if we can take a roll call and
8 figure out who's on. Let's start off with the
9 petitioners, beginning with the League.
10 MR. EARL: This is Bill Earl on behalf of the
11 Florida Sugar Cane League.
12 MR. HYDE: And Bill Hyde in Tallahassee, also
13 on behalf of the League as counsel.
14 HEARING OFFICER: Okay, anybody else for the
15 League? All right, how about for the Cooperative?
16 MR. GREEN: Bill Green, Bob Smith, Carolyn
17 Raepple, and Gary Perko are on this conference call,
18 Mr. Menton.
19 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. How about for the Fruit
20 and Vegetable growers?
21 MR. COLE: Terry Cole.
22 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. For the South Florida
23 Water Management District?
24 FEMALE VOICE: I'm at the District Office. I also
25 have various members of the press here.
6
1 HEARING OFFICER: Who is for the District? I'm
2 sorry.
3 MS. CLEMENTS: Ruth Clements.
4 HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
5 MS. CLEMENTS: And Paul Nettleton should also be
6 on the line. Is he?
7 MR. NETTLETON: Yes, I also made by appearance,
8 but maybe somebody talked over.
9 MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. Barbara Markham for the
10 District.
11 MS. QUINCEY: And Irene Quincey in Tallahassee.
12 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. You need to speak up,
13 because we have a court reporter in my office in
14 Tallahassee.
15 For the Department of Environmental Protection?
16 April Herrle is here in the hearing room at the
17 Division of Administrative Hearings. Is there anybody
18 else from the Department of Environmental Protection?
19 MR. KILLINGER: Mr. Lee Killinger. I'm at
20 Oertel, Hoffman, and I believe that Donna La Plante and
21 perhaps Susan Schwartz are also on the line.
22 HEARING OFFICER: Is that correct?
23 MS. LA PLANTE: Donna La Plante is here, in
24 Lee's office.
25 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. And for the federal
7
1 government?
2 MR. FITZGERALD: For the Untied States, Tom
3 Fitzgerald and for the Department of Justice Keith Saxe.
4 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. For the Miccosukee
5 Indians?
6 MR. DUNCAN: Gene Duncan.
7 HEARING OFFICER: All right. For the
8 conservation intervenors?
9 MS. ERICKSON: Laura Erickson with the Sierra
10 Club Legal Defense Fund in Tallahassee.
11 okay. Anybody else that
12 needs to make an appearance?
13 I have in my office John Van Deason and
14 Kurt Anderson in Tallahassee, sitting in the hearing
15 room with me.
16 No other appearances needed? All right. Let's
17 get started.
18 As you know, this hearing was scheduled today to
19 coincide with the expiration of the 90-day period that
20 I had given the parties to finalize the settlement
21 agreement based on the Statement of Principles that
22 was announced during the summer.
23 That 90-day expired yesterday, and I guess the
24 most important thing to do is find out where we stand.
25 I think the appropriate part to begin would be
8
1 the South Florida Water Management District, since
2 they are the ones who have proposed the SWIM plan.
3 MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Hearing Officer, this is Tom
4 Fitzgerald. By prior consultation with the
5 Water Management District we had agreed if it's
6 acceptable to you for the United States to proceed
7 first.
8 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. That's fine.
9 MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Hearing Officer, the United
10 States moves ore tenus at this time for an extension
11 of the stay through November 17th.
12 Where we stand at this juncture is essentially
13 a number of the parties through intense efforts have
14 reached substantial agreement on some of the major
15 issues that were left unaddressed or to be addressed
16 by the Statement of Principles.
17 We have been working very hard over a number of
18 weeks, and we feel that at this juncture while there
19 are other issues remaining to be resolved we now have
20 a genuine prospect for closure on this issue if we can
21 proceed as we have been.
22 For example, we have made major strides on the
23 security of funding for a restoration plan. We have
24 been able to establish a firm date of the year 2003
25 for actions necessary to achieve state water quality
9
1 standards, and we have even reached in concept as well
2 the establishment of an industry funded trust to protect
3 against catastrophic hardship in the EAA that would
4 otherwise affect funding.
5 While there are still some very difficult issues
6 left, we believe that the level of progress we have
7 made more than justifies the continuance.
8 To some extent the ate that I've suggested in my
9 motion is driven by the need to have a document in
10 relatively final form available to be presented to the
11 Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management
12 District at their regularly scheduled Governing Board
13 meeting on November 10th.
14 In all sincerity, working as hard as we can, the
15 attorneys and the principals don't believe we can put
16 everything together in a form that could adequately
17 be considered by the Board at the public meeting much
18 before that.
19 Additionally that would provide the Board the
20 opportunity to review the draft in that public forum,
21 and we would hope exercise their voting authority
22 and adopt that draft settlement agreement on
23 November 17th, the specially set Board meeting.
24 We would request that you continue the stay under
25 the current terms through November 17th, 1993.
10
1 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. You said a number of
2 parties have reached substantial agreement. I'm not
3 quite sure what you mean by that. Who are the parties
4 that have reached substantial agreement, and who are
5 the parties who have not?
6 MR. FITZGERALD: The parties who have been
7 participating in this process as, they are all or some of
8 the sessions or indirectly, are the United States,
9 DEP, the Water Management District, the Florida Sugar
10 Cane League. I hope I haven't forgotten anybody.
11 the Sugar Cane League has been here, but as they
12 will probably point out U.S. Sugar and Flosun have
13 each been directly represented as well.
14 The environmental interests have provided input
15 for various points. Effort has been made to address
16 concerns that have been identified at various times
17 by parties I have not specifically mentioned.
18 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. You say the environmental
19 groups have had input. Does that mean they are not in
20 substantial agreement, as you had indicated earlier?
21 MS. ERICKSON: Mr. Hearing Officer, this is Laura
22 Erickson. We are in agreement with the government.
23 We feel that sufficient progress has been made on
24 some of the issues in order to justify an additional
25 30-day stay just to see if we can make progress on the
11
1 other issues remaining.
2 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Let me ask you this,
3 Mr. Fitzgerald. What are you now projecting to be
4 the outcome of this process on November 17th in terms
5 of the SWIM plan? Are we looking at a revised plan,
6 and are we looking at the need to have a hearing with
7 certain parties who may not be in agreement? What do
8 you anticipate in terms of this administrative
9 proceeding?
10 We have talked about this before. We haven't
11 finalized some of the legal issues, but I'm just trying
12 to get a grasp on where this case is going.
13 MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Hearing Officer, the current
14 draft of the overall agreement does not really address
15 the process mechanism that would get us to the end of
16 the case. We anticipate as far as the effort over the
17 next two to three weeks that we'll have to flush that
18 out more adequately.
19 There is in the draft now but it's a read line
20 topic the notion that the SWIM plan will require amendment
21 and modification through one fashion or another.
22 The mechanism has not been worked out completely.
23 It was the same problem we faced last time on the
24 sixth when I think everyone was reluctant to try and
25 predict the precise legal path we would have to follow.
12
1 I think that's probably still the case. In large
2 measure that will depend on the action of the Board,
3 which is a proponent legally of the plan.
4 HEARING OFFICER: All right. Are there any parties
5 who are not in agreement with the ore tenus motion
6 that's been made by the federal government?
7 MR. GREEN: Yes, Your Honor. This is Bill Green
8 for the Cooperative, Roth Farms, and Wedgeworth Farms.
9 Mr. Menton, at the outset it irritates us a
10 little bit that the state agencies aren't telling us
11 what their position is on proceedings which involve
12 their actions, but as an aside I would just make
13 that comment.
14 Our entities have not been invited to participate
15 in any mediation session, now have we been transmitted
16 copies of any potential settlement documents directly
17 from parties to the Statement of Principles that you
18 heard about earlier, since we last had a case
19 management hearing.
20 The concerns of the Cooperative have not been
21 addressed in the mediation process since the last
22 case management conference.
23 We have no reason to believe that they will,
24 therefore.
25 We have not seen a complete document showing or a
13
1 red line document that was referred to by Mr.
2 Fitzgerald showing the positions of those parties who
3 have been invited to go to Washington to decide what the
4 law of Florida is going to be.
5 However, even if we had, we would note that
6 the signatories to the Statement of Principles by our
7 account really don't total than more than about 50
8 per cent of the acreage in the EAA, and I think it's
9 significant that the other approximately 50 per cent
10 haven't told you today, and I would not presume to
11 represent them, but at least our part of that 50
12 per cent we don't believe that our case is going to
13 settle in light of these developments.
14 Now with regard to an extension of 30 days, I
15 think our position is really similar to the position
16 that we have had all along. We have three concerns.
17 If you decide, Your Honor, to grand an additional
18 stay, we would like some assurance on three counts.
19 Number one, that the additional 30 days does not come
20 out of our hide with regard to discovery and hearing
21 preparation time, and by our count that would mean
22 that the hearing would need to come no earlier than
23 about mid-March, if we're able to keep the same
24 compressed discovery schedule we had in the past, which
25 is very tight, as everyone knows.
14
1 We would hope, Your Honor, that you would
2 reflect upon that first point with us.
3 The second point and more immediate, we have
4 prefiled today but it should not be a surprise out
5 request for entry into the Everglades nutrient
6 removal project to allow testing on methyl mercury.
7 Your Honor construed it as a motion the first
8 time around, and we essentially ask and our understanding
9 of how you left the issue, Mr. Menton, was we could
10 refile upon the expiration of mediation.
11 What we're asking today is that you direct the
12 recipient party, Water Management District, and any
13 others who might be co-aligned to respond to this
14 request within one week from today, by October 26th.
15 We think that's fair, because our request has
16 been outstanding for more than a month, and we
17 corresponded during mediation about this issue, so
18 there's no surprise.
19 We think it's necessary to go forward with this,
20 because otherwise we're not obtaining information that
21 is critical to our position in this case and may be
22 critical to the State of Florida.
23 There is no reason to delay it. We think it
24 would be consistent with the Marjory Stoneman Douglas
25 Act to allow it.
15
1 And the third and final point, Your Honor,
2 again you raised the issue and we agree with you, and
3 we'd like to hear the Water Management District answer
4 it rather than the federal government, how does the
5 District intend to handle this case if they have an
6 agreement with the United States and two sugar entities
7 in 30 days?
8 We are concerned, because as we read Section
9 120.57(1)(b)(3), Florida Statues, the Water Management
10 District and the Department of Environmental Protection
11 cannot take formal action on the SWIM plan or related
12 permits while the Division of Administrative Hearings
13 has jurisdiction over this case.
14 We would like to in order to protect our clients'
15 interests have a full understanding of what is going
16 to be transpiring in the next 30 days under the scenario
17 outlined by Mr. Fitzgerald.
18 HEARING OFFICER: Well, Mr. Green, I guess along
19 this line let me ask you this question.
20 I recognize the provision of the statute you
21 cited in terms of the agency taking any final action
22 with respect to the SWIM plan while the case is pending
23 over here at the Division of Administrative Hearings,
24 but that does not preclude the District from meeting
25 and reaching a consensus as to what is the plan with
16
1 respect to the litigation. Aren't they entitled to go
2 forward indeed and vote and direct their attorney
3 as to how to proceed with the litigation?
4 That's what, I would think that's what they are
5 doing.
6 MR. GREEN: Well, Your Honor, that's what I'm
7 not sure. of. What I have heard discussed is a little
8 different than that.
9 I think they certainly have the authority to
10 participate as a party litigant and within the scope
11 of that develop their strategies and litigation
12 obviously, as any party might.
13 On the other hand I read the statute to say they
14 can take no further action with respect to the formal
15 proceeding, so if they re going to vote on an
16 alternate SWIM plan my question is how can they do
17 that as long as this case is lodged in DOAH?
18 I think that's what I heard described. That's why
19 I asked the question. Maybe the District can clarify
20 that.
21 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Well, you have raised
22 several points, and I'd like to address each of
23 them, but before I do let me see if there are any other
24 parties that want to state in opposition to the U. S.
25 Government's request for a 30-day extension of the
17
1 abeyance period.
2 I know the Miccosukee Indians in the past have
3 expressed opposition. Are they going to take a position
4 today?
5 MR. DUNCAN: My name is Gene Duncan, and I'm
6 Water Manager for the Tribe, and I was hoping that
7 Dexter would be on the telephone. I'm not an attorney.
8 But we have not been invited to participate in the last
9 30 days of negotiations.
10 We have gone to the place where we thought the
11 meetings were going to be only to find out they had been
12 canceled, and we have not been provided any copies
13 of any tentative settlements.
14 So apparently we have been excluded in the last
15 30 days, and of course we would continue to object
16 to any further stay.
17 MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Hearing Officer, this is
18 Tom Fitzgerald. I need to respond to something both
19 Mr. Green and Mr. Duncan just said. I spoke to
20 Mr. Lehtinen about 30 minutes ago, and...
21 MR. DUNCAN: Can you hold the line for Dexter
22 Lehtinen, please?
23 MR. GREEN: Good timing.
24 MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Hearing Officer, this is
25 Tom Fitzgerald. We had attempted to send a copy of the
18 1 red line document I mentioned earlier to both
2 Mr. Green and to the Miccosukee Tribe through
3 Mr. Lehtinen and only found out when I spoke to
4 Mr. Lehtinen about half an hour ago that he hadn't
5 received his.
6 I had not had time to call Mr. Green.
7 I would not characterize that as a tentative
8 settlement. It's a draft from a certain prospective,
9 but it is an attempted draft in comparison to the
10 earlier draft.
11 MR. COLE: I think that...
12 HEARING OFFICER: Excuse me. Who's talking?
13 MR. COLE: This is Terry Cole. I apologize.
14 For the Fruit and Vegetable. I think that we got one
15 to Mr. Green. Did you get yours, Mr. Green?
16 MR. GREEN: I got a copy of something that has
17 no red on it about 20 minutes ago, Terry, and I don't
18 know who it came from.
19 MR. COLE: That came from me, and I was asked to
20 give that to you by DEP and the Water Management
21 District.
22 MR. FITZGERALD: In any event, certainly we will
23 ensure the version that was current as of the end of
24 last week gets out. I'm sorry if through some
25 administrative snafu everyone didn't get it.
19
1 MR. GREEN: Is that the one that's dated
2 october 14th at 1:00 p.m., just for clarification?
3 That's what mine says, which was about a week ago.
4 MR. FITZGERALD: I think that's about right, plus
5 or minus a few hours. I don't have a copy in front of
6 me.
7 MR. GREEN: I would just note for the record the
8 Federal Express has one-day delivery
9 (WHEREUPON, MR. LEHTINEN JOINTED THE ATTENDEES OF
10 THE TELEPHONIC HEARINGS.)
11 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Mr. Lehtinen, are you
12 on the phone yet?
13 MR. LEHTINEN: Yes.
14 HEARING OFFICER: Okay, what is the position of the
15 Indians in terms of the request for an additional
16 30-day period?
17 MR. LEHTINEN: I haven't had an opportunity to
18 review whatever document, I'm sure, it was just handed
19 to me, six pages, single spaced.
20 you know, our position has been that I suppose
21 this is the same thing as the Statement of Principles
22 that 90 days ago was allegedly agreed upon.
23 We have not been in any meetings since the last
24 hearing. There have been no meetings that I'm aware
25 of that the Tribe has been invited to, unless there was
20
1 one right afterwards. I don't recall.
2 But essentially all meetings have been canceled
3 that I'm aware of, so the Tribe has not been at any
4 meetings.
5 So our position would have to be the same as it
6 was last time. We haven't heard anything or seen
7 anything or been in any meetings or been advised of
8 anything, so we just object to more stays.
9 I'm also concerned that the only, that whatever
10 I have in front of me, this six pages, single spaced,
11 is really only by part of the parties.
12 I wasn't here for the beginning of this
13 conversation, but I'm not aware whether the Coop is
14 part of this document. The Tribe isn't. So I don't
15 think it represents a document that is close to
16 settling the issues for all the parties.
17 Has there been any comment, if I might ask, about
18 what status this document would become, as settlement
19 agreement or a contract or exactly what it would be if
20 certain partial parties decided to agree on it?
21 HEARING OFFICER: Well, Mr. Lehtinen, this is
22 Steve Menton.
23 As I understand it it's going to take another
24 30 days before some of those issues are finally resolved
25 in terms of exactly what the nature of the agreement
21
1 would be and how it would propose to be implemented,
2 so I guess the answer to your question at least as I
3 understand it, and I stand to be corrected if I'm
4 wrong, is that at this point we don't know.
5 MR. LEHTINEN: What I would say, and I know that
6 I'm sure people have been working in good faith, but
7 they never should have asked for a stay for 90 days
8 90 days ago if they didn't know the nature of the
9 agreement and what it was going to be.
10 The Tribe's concern simply is that the same
11 fundamental, basic questions that are a threshold type
12 question were not answered then, and 90 days later
13 they are still not answered.
14 We have a conceptual difficulty, because we don't
15 even know what it will be. Will the state purport to
16 sign a contract, settle an agreement, start with
17 another SWIM document?
18 And also are they, they said it wouldn't settle
19 the disputes among all the parties, but other than the
20 fact that I didn't hear the beginning of the hearing
21 the Coop has always indicated that it was not part of
22 this, and my understanding is through hearsay that the
23 Coop has not been involved any more than the
24 Miccosukee Tribe has, so it just seems to me that
25 it's incumbent without accusing the agreeing parties or
22
1 the working parties of anything wrong, it just, they
2 should continue this on their own time, so to speak,
3 not on government time.
4 If they can come up with something that
5 they propose to you, that would be an appropriate time
6 to consider it, but for 90 days they've been making
7 promises of something, and they're not sure yet what
8 the nature of their document would be.
9 That's, all the position of the Tribe would have
10 would be that that is too think a threshold.
11 It doesn't bring into question their good faith or
12 their ability to meet like this, but it's just not a
13 threshold for overcoming the requirement of state law
14 that it then be expedited.
15 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Mr. Cole, I'm not sure
16 if I got the position of Fruit and Vegetables.
17 MR. COLE: We would not oppose an extension of the
18 stay for another 30 days. In fact, I think probably
19 30 days is going to be inadequate to deal with all
20 these issues.
21 HEARING OFFICER: I going to be inadequate, did
22 you say?
23 MR. COLE: Be inadequate to deal with it. We do
24 not oppose doing it. In fact, we would suggest maybe
25 a, and I haven't discussed this with any of the parties,
23
1 but possible another report to you in 30 days, but
2 I'm not sure that we're going to have all of the issues
3 resolved by that time.
4 We have been participating in these discussions.
5 However, the primary emphasis has been on trying to
6 resolve a lot of the issues surrounding the sugar
7 industry without an opportunity to fully get into
8 vegetables, not because no one wants to do it, but
9 because there's only so many hours in the day.
10 And I believe it's going to take longer than that,
11 but we certainly do not oppose it.
12 I would also add I don't disagree with Mr. Green
13 that if you are going to extend it that adequate time
14 be allowed for the parties to prepare for the next
15 hearing, so that folks are not crowded, because I'm
16 sympathetic with the point that he raised.
17 We would concur with the extension, but we would
18 suggest a report to you rather than coming down every,
19 periodically with everything ending and recognizing
20 it's very complicated and takes a lot of time to
21 resolve.
22 HEARING OFFICER: Are the fruit and vegetable
23 growers one of the parties that are in, quote,
24 substantial agreement?
25 MR. COLE: I would say that we are, I would think
24
1 that's a correct characterization. We I would think
2 are slightly behind, simply because a priority has
3 been given to resolving a lot of the issues where
4 you have to deal directly with sugar, but we feel
5 we have been included in it, and we see the means for
6 reaching an agreement, and I think we and the government
7 all recognize that after we get to a certain level of
8 confidence on the sugar issues that we then have to
9 make things more specific in terms of vegetables
10 because of the crops and the BMPs and the nature of
11 how the vegetable crop is grown down there.
12 So I believe your characterization would be
13 correct that we are in substantial agreement at this
14 time, but we have yet a ways to go before we work out
15 all the specifics.
16 HEARING OFFICER: All right. I'd like to hear
17 from the District and get their response to some of
18 these issues that were raised by Mr. Green, and let's
19 start with the easiest one first, and I think that's
20 probably the request for entry and the Everglades
21 nutrient project.
22 I have not received Mr. Green's request for entry
23 at this point. It may be in my mailbox, and it hasn't
24 made its way to me.
25 This is an issue that he had raised before in a
25
1 motion I guess for relief rom the stay.
2 What is the problem with allowing them to go forward
3 at this point? I guess the concern I have is that
4 sounds to me and it has sounded to me very often during
5 that last several hearings that we have had that
6 irrespective of the results of the negotiations that
7 may take place that there are several parties who are
8 unlikely to be on board on any settlement agreement
9 that may result.
10 Consequently we may very well be facing the need
11 for a hearing, and as everybody is well aware
12 the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Act directs that this case
13 be expedited.
14 It's been pending now for over I guess a year and
15 a half, and we still don't even have a firm hearing
16 date.
17 That is beginning to concern me. We need to
18 get this case in a posture where we can resolve it
19 once and for all.
20 I mean, I understand that there are a lot of
21 complex issues involved, and I know that everybody has
22 been working very hard in trying to resolve that,
23 but at some point we just need to speed it up and
24 everybody take their best shot, and let's move it
25 from the administrative litigation forum into the
26
1 policymaking forum, if that's where it needs to be.
2 So having said that I'd like to hear from the
3 District as to what their position is on the request
4 for entry into the Everglades nutrient project and also
5 their response to Mr. Green's question regarding their
6 intent as to what, how to handle the case if the Coop
7 doesn't ultimately agree.
8 MR. NETTLETON: Mr. Hearing Officer, this is
9 Paul Nettleton.
10 First of all, on the E&R entry request I would
11 have to say I'm a little caught offguard. I didn't
12 realize that was going to be raised today, so I have
13 not even discussed this with my client, so I feel
14 a bit reluctant to discuss whether we might be able
15 to reach some accommodation.
16 Just to preserve the rights of my client I would
17 have to object to Mr. Green's request. It again may
18 be no surprise that he's intending to pursue this,
19 because he filed it back during the stay. However,
20 it will be our position that that request during the
21 stay in itself was violative of the stay and should not
22 have been allowed, and that if we come out of the
23 stay at that point and we continue in the litigation
24 that it would be appropriate at that time to respond to
25 it from the legal standpoint.
27
1 HEARING OFFICER: The stay was over yesterday, so,
2 I mean, technically the stay is off, and I don't think
3 that there's any question as to whether it's
4 appropriate or not if it was filed today, but go ahead.
5 MR. NETTLETON: Well, I'm just saying I didn't
6 realize it would come up today, even if it was filed
7 today and that is appropriate, because the stay has
8 expired as of yesterday.
9 We would have whatever time would exist under the
10 rule to respond to that, and I just have not discussed
11 it with my client. I'm not sure how we want to
12 proceed on that.
13 It may be we can work out some accommodation.
14 I just don't know the position we want to take on
15 that.
16 I can certainly agree to speak with Mr. Green
17 about it later if this continues. However, we think
18 as we did previously that if this, the Hearing Officer
19 is inclined to continue the stay, permit the mediation
20 to proceed towards a possible settlement, that it
21 would be counterproductive for us to be engaged in
22 discovery, which is all this is dealing with.
23 I think I can address the second issue a little
24 easier at this point, and that is contrary to
25 what Mr. Lehtinen has said I don't think and what Mr.
28
1 Green has also said I don't think there's any intent
2 at this stage to be presenting any kind of revised
3 SWIM plan to the Board for voting in November. We're
4 talking bout here a settlement agreement between
5 parties or some of the parties to this litigation.
6 We have taken into account Mr. Green's
7 clients' positions as well as Mr. Lehtinen's, and to
8 some extent we certainly hope Mr. Lehtinen's clients
9 will be happy with where we're going.
10 Just because they haven't been participating
11 doesn't mean we aren't aware of what their concerns
12 are. They have been voiced very strenuously over the
13 last 90 days, and we know what their positions are.
14 In the event that a settlement is not reached
15 with all of the parties, such as the Coop as they
16 have indicated, I disagree with Mr. Green that we
17 do not have jurisdiction under 120.57 to proceed in
18 the way we have suggested, which is to first of all
19 vote on the settlement agreement itself and enter in a
20 settlement agreement with some of the parties.
21 Secondly, I would disagree even further that
22 as far as implementation of that settlement agreement
23 if it involves any type of substantial amendments
24 or revisions to the SWIM plan or to the pending permit
25 notice of intent by the Department of Environmental
29
1 Protection, I would also disagree that we do not have
2 jurisdiction to do that as we have spent a substantial
3 amount of time since our lat hearing looking into this
4 issue, and we are fairly confident there's no
5 jurisdictional problem.
6 Now what effect that would have on the pending
7 DOAh proceedings is another issue. Quite frankly, there
8 are a number to ways to go with that, and I think
9 at this point it's premature to discuss that. I have
10 not discussed it fully with my client yet. I would
11 in fact like to discuss it not only with my client but
12 also with Mr. Green in the event he does not sign the
13 agreement, and maybe we can work out and stipulate
14 among the parties if there is no settlement agreement
15 the best way to proceed with the current litigation.
16 But again I think it's a little premature at this
17 point, but I don't think there's any jurisdictional
18 barrier to where we're going.
19 HEARING OFFICER: Well, what about Mr. Green's
20 suggestion that we're looking at a mid-March hearing
21 date at the earliest?
22 MR. NETTLETON: Mr. Hearing Officer, I had not
23 considered that. I think again once we, if a
24 settlement agreement is entered into and the proceedings
25 go forward I just don't know if practically that's a
30
1 reality if that's going to occur or not.
2 Whether something it may be mooted or withdrawn
3 or revised action is going to be taken which would
4 make that an impracticality, I don't know.
5 If we continue on on the current course and we
6 come out of mediation and we go forward with the
7 litigation I would suggest that of course we would
8 discuss with the other parties in the litigation
9 what is needed to get this case to trial, and I would
10 assume that all parties would take their positions
11 of inadequate time to complete discovery.
12 I don't know if March is the date or not. I haven't
13 sat down with a calendar and figured it out.
14 HEARING OFFICER: Well, given the nature of the
15 discussions that are taking place you must have some
16 general feeling for the settlement agreement that will
17 be presented to the Board.
18 Is it your belief that that agreement will
19 reduce the amount of discovery that will be necessary
20 prior to the time of scheduling a final hearing?
21 Obviously if some of the parties are no longer
22 litigating the issues that may have some effect, but
23 do you think it's going to narrow the scope of the
24 issues at all?
25 MR. NETTLETON: I can't say that it will necessarily
31
1 narrow the scope of the issues. I mean, that would
2 be more in the hands of the petitioners who essentially
3 create the issues when they look at the SWIM plan.
4 But I think the elimination of certain parties
5 and certain challenges will certainly help expedite
6 the proceedings beyond what they are now.
7 HEARING OFFICER: Is there a chance it's going to
8 expand the issues?
9 MR. NETTLETON: I don't see it necessarily
10 expanding the issues.
11 I don't know, I don't think, as Mr. Fitzgerald said
12 earlier, that there has been specific discussion at
13 this point beyond getting to actually a settlement
14 agreement between certain of the parties in the
15 litigation, as opposed to how that will be physically
16 implemented in terms of what needs to be put into a
17 revised SWIM plan or what needs to be put into a permit
18 application and so forth, as opposed to just a
19 commitment on certain things. That is something that's
20 still to be developed I think in the next couple of
21 weeks.
22 Obviously if they don't become part of the SWIM
23 plan or something they won't necessarily expand the
24 issues in this proceeding.
25 That's not to say they won't be subject to challenge
32
1 in some other proceeding.
2 HEARING OFFICER: Wait. Wait. Wait. You lost me
3 on that one. I'm not sure I'm following your thought.
4 MR. NETTLETON: Well, for instance, Mr. Hearing
5 Officer, one of the major issues being discussed in
6 the settlement that has taken a substantial amount
7 of time in these negotiations has been the funding
8 aspects of the plan.
9 HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
10 MR. NETTLETON: And funding aspects of that are
11 not part of the current SWIM plan, so in that sense
12 if that were to become part of the SWIM plan then that
13 could possible increase the issues.
14 However, if it does not become part of the SWIM
15 plan, we don't believe it's necessary to become part
16 of the SWIM plan, those would be issues that would
17 still be out there as available points of entry on what
18 action was taken according to the statute, but it
19 wouldn't necessarily be increasing the issues in
20 this particular litigation.
21 HEARING OFFICER: Well, you're opening a whole
22 new can of worm here. I'm not sure that we really need
23 to get into that today, because I'm not sure what you
24 mean by a new point of entry, where that would be
25 created, and under what authority.
33
1 I think that those are issues that we really
2 don't need to get into today.
3 MR. GREEN: Just to interject...
4 HEARING OFFICER: Go ahead, Mr. Green.
5 MR. GREEN: ...just on two points. On the entry
6 we think it's a very sensitive issue, and we're not
7 talking about depositions or anything like that.
8 What we filed is a request that the District
9 serve an expedited response no later than October 26th
10 to our request, and I think that would give Mr. Nettleton
11 plenty of time to firm up his client's position.
12 I just have to comment that I don't think there's
13 much chance that the mediated plan if it goes forward
14 and is settled among some of the parties would narrow
15 the issues. In fact, if anything it ought to broaden
16 them, and as I understand it, and I could be corrected,
17 Mr. Nettleton, if this is incorrect,
18 tens of thousands of more acres of land are now involved
19 in the mediated plan than in the plan that's before
20 Your Honor.
21 It has a larger geographical scope. Third parties
22 that haven't weighted in yet may be happy with it, but
23 if they're not then there are more parties, and if
24 anything I think it would expand the schedule.
25 I can understand what Mr. Nettleton basically is
34
1 saying, "Let's keep the ball in the air on when the
2 hearing will be until more things happen," and that's
3 the very thing that causes me queasy feelings and
4 discomfort, because as this goes on what that really
5 days to me is someone is gong to come back and try to
6 take what would now be a 90-day hiatus and not take it
7 on to the end and take it out of our hide, and I
8 don't know, Mr. Menton, if you feel you have heard
9 enough to make a ruling on this one way or the other
10 today, but we're very concerned about it, and I just
11 don't think that there's a high probability that the
12 issues will narrow, or the number of parties.
13 MR. NETTLETON: May I just say, Mr. Hearing
14 Officer, that was not my intention.
15 MR. KILLINGER: Mr. Hearing Officer, this is
16 Lee Killinger.
17 If I could say briefly on the issue of
18 Mr. Green's request for entry, you haven't seen it
19 yet, but it does recount in there that he sent a
20 letter to the District, and I believe I have a copy
21 of it as well, requesting the entry again and giving
22 a bit more detail than in the prior request about what
23 he intends to do, what data he intends to seeks, and
24 what he intends to do with it after he gets it.
25 I spoke with Mr. Green about this yesterday and
35
1 told him I simply had not had an opportunity to review
2 it or talk to my in-house technical people about it
3 to get him a response.
4 I think that we will do that. I told Mr. Green
5 I would try to get back to him yesterday. I was unable
6 to do so.
7 I 've just got a little of a problem in raising
8 a letter requesting something to a level of having a
9 mandated, required response during a period when there
10 is a stay in litigation, even if it's not considered
11 discovery and even if it's not actually being considered
12 today.
13 If you mandate an immediate response in seven days
14 and we turn around and say no, what's Mr. Green's
15 next move.
16 Does he make another motion? What happens then?
17 Because once you make an order on it we have then
18 to proceed on his request.
19 HEARING OFFICER: Well, let me just say as I
20 understand his request from the last time that he
21 filed it, it's the type of discovery that would really
22 involve more technical people than lawyers, and I think
23 the main concern about entering the stay to begin with
24 was to give the lawyers an opportunity to focus on
25 negotiating a settlement agreement rather than on
36
1 litigating.
2 So it would seem to me that given the nature of
3 his request and the need to expedite this proceeding
4 that there should be some way that an agreement could
5 be worked out to provide his client with the access or
6 entry necessary for the technical people to conduct
7 whatever tests they need to do.
8 I'm not at this point ruling on the request,
9 because I haven't seen it nor have the parties had
10 an opportunity to resolve it, but I'm giving you
11 an indication as to what my initial impression is.
12 I think we need to get this case in a posture to
13 move beyond the administrative forum and to whatever
14 the next step is going to be.
15 I am concerned with the suggestion that
16 Mr. Green has made that he believes the earliest we could
17 schedule a hearing is mid-March. That is later than
18 I want this hearing to go if we have to have one.
19 Again I'm not ruling at this point on his position
20 as to what he needs to do to complete discovery and
21 adequately prepare for the hearing, and I think
22 that will depend upon what happens over the course of
23 the next couple of weeks.
24 I am going to extend the stay for an additional
25 30 days. I think the complexity of the matters that
37
1 are involved here an the number of parties that are
2 involved obviously make this an extremely complicated
3 matter to try to put together, but in doing so I want
4 everybody to very clearly understand that we are not
5 gong to continue to extend abeyances for another
6 30 days, another 30 days, another 30 days, or another
7 90 days.
8 This case needs to get in a posture where all
9 parties know what the final SWIM plan is, what the
10 Water Management District's final position is, and
11 take their best shot at presenting their challenges
12 to it, whether it's in this administrative forum or
13 in a court of appeal or whatever forum it needs to be.
14 But we can't continue the negotiations and
15 discussions back and forth forever. It needs to get
16 in a posture where the SWIM plan is crystallized and
17 the final position of the Water Management District
18 and the federal government are firmly announced to all
19 parties, so they know what they're shooting at.
20 In that regard I will extend it for another 30
21 days, and I'm going to reserve a conclusion as to
22 when an appropriate hearing date will be until after
23 I hear the results of the next 30-day period, but I do
24 not necessarily believe that we have to put it off
25 until mid-March, and I'm going to have to be convinced
38
1 that that's necessary before I will agree to extend that
2 far.
3 As I indicated before, I will not schedule the
4 final hearing until sometime after the first of the year,
5 it will not be scheduled to begin until sometime after
6 the first of the year, but I do intend at our next
7 meeting on November 17th I think was the date
8 requested, I do intend to listen to everybody's position
9 with respect to scheduling the final hearing.
10 I want everyone to come prepared at that hearing
11 to give me their best estimate as to whether the hearing
12 is necessary, and if so how long it's going to take to
13 prepare it, and why, and it had better be very well
14 prepared, the documented need to extend the hearing
15 date much beyond the beginning of 1994.
16 So I think that summarizes what my thoughts are
17 at this point. I'm a little bit concerned that the
18 discussions that I heard today with respect to the
19 status of the negotiations are no different than
20 what I heard over the last 90 days. Again I understand
21 everybody has been working very hard, but we need to
22 get this thing in a posture where it's finalized one
23 way or the other, and it just needs to be moving
24 beyond this forum.
25 MR. GREEN: Mr. Menton, if you will indulge me.
39
1 one last time. Bill Green.
2 I'd just like to mention where I got the March
3 date and urge you to keep this on the floor when you
4 consider this matter.
5 If we go through another month with no discovery
6 it will be November, mid-November. We have 90 days worth
7 of depositions scheduled, going three, four, five a
8 day that haven't been done yet, and at that last status
9 call they said there were 120 depositions to go.
10 I haven't independently checked that, but we get
11 a very high number as well.
12 If we just have 90 days worth of depositions
13 beginning in mid-November and six weeks of trial
14 preparation after that and motions, we're talking
15 about March, and if there's any significant possibility
16 that 90 days would be compressed into six weeks it
17 might be, or two months, then we're severely prejudiced
18 in our case preparation, because as I mentioned at
19 the last conference call we have not gotten to the
20 meat of the government's case yet.
21 They have managed to keep their key witnesses
22 in our view of what their key witnesses are largely
23 undiscovered as yet, and so it's a very critical issue
24 with us, and I understand your ruling, but that's why
25 we're concerned about this issue.
40
1 HEARING OFFICER: Well, Mr. Green, I'll keep an
2 open mind, and I will listen to your position at the
3 next hearing that we have.
4 My thoughts are that I understand that there were
5 100-plus depositions that had been scheduled prior to
6 the time that we first entered this stay 90 days ago.
7 number one, I wonder whether all those depositions
8 were necessary. As I have indicated in prior hearings,
9 I don't think that every possible witness or every
10 person who contributed to the drafting of the SWIM
11 plan necessarily has to be deposed.
12 Number two, given the way the discussions and
13 negotiations have been going, it sounds to me like
14 some of the parties may well be dropping out of this
15 litigation, and that may include or reduce the number
16 of witnesses who will have to be deposed, because
17 some of those 100 depositions may well have been
18 depositions for parties who will no longer be
19 litigants.
20 In addition, hopefully the length of the depositions
21 may be shortened if there are fewer parties who are
22 involved.
23 But it's too premature at this point to resolve
24 all those issues.
25 As I have indicated several times in the past,
41
1 I do not believe that due process necessarily requires
2 that every witness be deposed prior to the hearing,
3 but I do recognize that you need to be afforded a
4 full opportunity to understand what the SWIM plan
5 proposes and what the Water Management District's
6 position is and to prepare for a hearing, so I will
7 keep an open mind on that issue, but there has been
8 extensive discovery that's already been conducted in
9 this case. There has been extensive testing that's
10 already been conducted.
11 As I indicated earlier, I would like the parties
12 to try to work out this request for entry into the
13 Everglades nutrient project if possible, even during
14 this next 30 days, since I do not believe that will
15 require an extensive distracting from the process of
16 finalizing the settlement agreement.
17 So I will listen to your presentation at the next
18 hearing, but I think that everybody needs to be getting
19 themselves lined up to let me know next time exactly
20 when we're ready to go to hearing and why, and I will
21 want to set that hearing as quickly as I believe due
22 process will require.
23 Okay. Is there anything else we need to discuss
24 today?
25 MR. LEHTINEN: I have one question. This is Dexter
42
1 Lehtinen. Would that hearing, do you consider
2 these to be consolidated with the challenges to the
3 District's permit requests?
4 HEARING OFFICER: Well, that's an issue that has
5 come up at some of the other status conferences, and I
6 still haven't got a clear answer as to what the position
7 would be.
8 As I understand it, if the SWIM plan is
9 significantly modified that may also require a
10 modification to the permits.
11 There has never been a formal order entered at
12 this point consolidating the permitting cases with the
13 SWIM plan challenges, although I think that based upon
14 the discussion we have had, everybody has been working
15 under the general understanding that that is likely to
16 occur.
17 So I guess, Mr. Lehtinen, the response to your
18 question and maybe the Water Management District
19 or the federal government can clarify it is until we
20 know exactly how the SWIM plan is going to be
21 modified, it's not clear to what extent the permits
22 will also have to be modified.
23 MR. LEHTINEN: I see.
24 MR. NETTLETON: Mr. Hearing Officer, this is
25 Paul Nettleton.
43
1 I think that's correct, and just to supplement
2 that we had previously indicated we had no opposition
3 to the consolidation of them. I agree, I don't think
4 an order has ever been entered on that.
5 The results of any settlement that might be
6 entered of course might affect that, depending on what
7 occurs with each of those, and they could end up on
8 different time tracks.
9 That's again something that's a little premature
10 until the settlement agreement is entered.
11 I would also ask, Mr. Hearing Officer, you
12 mentioned the next hearing date as the 17th, and if
13 I'm correct, and I can stand corrected, I thought
14 that was the specially set Board meeting to hopefully
15 vote on the settlement agreement.
16 HEARING OFFICER: I thought that was the 10th.
17 MR. LEHTINEN: I'm sorry?
18 HEARING OFFICER: I thought someone said that
19 was the 10th.
20 MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Hearing Officer, the 10th is
21 the regularly scheduled meeting, at which the draft
22 final settlement agreement would be presented to the
23 Board, but because of the public process it was not
24 appropriate to present it to them and expect them to
25 vote on it the same day.
44
1 They will need some time to assimilate it and
2 indicate acceptance or nonacceptance of the provisions
3 of whatnot, and they have scheduled a special
4 session on the 17th, at which tim ewe hope they
5 will be in a position to vote on it, which is why I
6 had originally asked it be through the 18th, the stay.
7 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. All right. I misunderstood
8 you. I thought you said through the 17th. What
9 date is the 18th?
10 MR. NETTLETON: A Thursday, Mr. Hearing Officer.
11 MR. FITZGERALD: And we could have the conference
12 for that date?
13 HEARING OFFICER: The 18th?
14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, sir.
15 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Let's set it for the 18th.
16 All right.
17 Let me just reiterate once again, if I haven't made
18 it clear before, I don't want to come to the status
19 conference on the 18th and be told that we still
20 haven't finalized the agreement, and you need another
21 30 days or another 60 days or whatever.
22 It's been 90 days, and I know people have been
23 working hard on it, but we need to get some closure
24 on it, and I'm going to expect to have some clearer
25 answers on November 18th than I've gotten today.
45
1 We'll have to take it up then. But I do expect
2 to get some better answers on the 18th.
3 MR. GREEN: Mr. Menton, Bill Green again. A lawyer
4 should never say, "Last time," but will you rule on
5 our motion for entry on the 18th of November, if not
6 sooner?
7 HEARING OFFICER: Again, I haven't seen your
8 request.
9 I think that, I would hope that you'd be able to
10 work that out without a need for a ruling and get
11 that under way even before the 18th, but if you can't
12 reach some resolution of that, then I will take that
13 up on the 18th.
14 MR. GREEN: Thank you.
15 HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Any other issues? Okay.
16 Thank you very much.
17 (WHEREUPON, THE HEARING WAS CONCLUDED AT 2:53 P.M)
18 * * * * *
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER _______________________
2 STATE OF FLORIDA )
SS
3 COUNTY OF LEON )
4 I, SUE HABERSHAW JOHNSON, Certified Court Reporter,
5 Registered Professional Reporter, and Notary Public in and for
6 the State of Florida at Large:
7 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing hearing was
8 taken before me at the time and place therein designated; that
9 my shorthand notes were thereafter reduced to typewriting
10 under my supervision; and the foregoing pages, numbered page 1
11 through page 45, are a true and correct record of the
12 proceedings.
13 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative,
14 employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor
15 relative or employee of such attorney or counsel.
16 CERTIFIED THIS 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER, A.D. 1993, IN
17 THE CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, COUNTY OF LEON, STATE OF FLORIDA.
18 STATE OF FLORIDA )
SS
19 STATE OF LEON )
20
The aforesaid instrument was acknowledged
21
before me this 22nd day of October, 1993, by SUE HABERSHAW
22
JOHNSON, who is personally known to me.
23
24 CHRISTINE WHEELER
Notary #AA711091
25