The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by misusing her position as a Town Councilperson to obtain a personal benefit, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.Town councilwoman made a suggestion for rezoning her property through a method which was unavailable to other citizens.

The issues for determination are: Whether Respondent, as the Division Chief of the Emergency Medical Services Division for the Miami Dade Fire and Rescue Department, violated Subsections 112.3135(2)(a) and 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by advocating for the appointment, employment, promotion or advancement, of his brother within that Department, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.Respondent accused of violating anti-nepotism statute and misuse of public position.

The issue for determination is whether Respondent, while a member of the Quincy City Commission, violated Subsection 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by corruptly using, or attempting to use his official position as a Quincy City Commissioner in private meetings with Quincy City officials for the purpose of improperly influencing decisions at the Quincy Police Department to secure a special benefit for himself or others; and if so, what is the appropriate penalty. Respondent did not improperly use his position as a city commissioner to influence personnel decisions of the Quincy Police Department.

The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent, David M. Whitehead, a member of Escambia County Commission, violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by having or holding an employment or contractual relationship with B & W Productions of Pensacola, Inc. (B & W Productions) which created a continuing or frequently recurring conflict between his private interests and the performance of his public duties or which impeded the full and faithful discharge of his public duties; whether Respondent violated Section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, by voting on measures that came before the Escambia County Commission regarding Carlan Killam Consulting Group, Inc. (Carlan Killam Consulting or Carlan Killam), Baskerville-Donovan, Inc. (Baskerville-Donovan), DelGallo-Morette Construction Company (DelGallo-Morette), and/or Champion International Corporation (Champion), all of whom were sponsors of a television show hosted by Respondent; and (3) if so, what penalty is appropriate.Respondent`s relationship with his production company created a continuing conflict where Respondent personally solicited sponsorships from firms that regularly appeared before or did business with the Escambia County Commission on which he served.

The issue for resolution is which of two competing certificate of need applications should be approved for nursing home beds in District 6, Subdistrict 2, Manatee County, Florida. Other ancillary issues are whether Mediplex timely filed a letter of intent to apply for a certificate of need, whether Mediplex impermissibly amended its application at hearing and whether Beverly impermissibly is proposing two projects (delicensure and creation of beds in addition to those in the fixed need pool).2 applicants compete for 63 Nursing Home beds--both are good, but on balance the less costly, more unique proposal prevails.

Petitioner, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (BCBS), has challenged the Agency for Health Care Administration's (AHCA) proposed award of contract pursuant to Request for Proposals No. SHP 95-002 to Unisys Corporation (Unisys). The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether that proposed award is fraudulent, dishonest, arbitrary or illegal. In their pleadings and presentations the parties have framed these subsidiary issues: Whether the Unisys bid was responsive to and met the mandatory requirements of the RFP; Whether the allocation of scoring weights was arbitrary and capricious and likely to result in the state's expenditure of excessive funds for health care in favor of much smaller savings in administrative costs; Whether the scores assigned by the proposals' evaluators were unreliable and biased; Whether the evaluation of proposals illegally failed to apply "present- value methodology" required by section 287.0572, Florida Statutes; and Whether the award is illegal because AHCA is unconstitutionally structured in violation of Article IV, Section 6, Florida Constitution. Although all parties concede that determination of the constitutional issue is beyond the jurisdiction of the hearing officer, BCBS claims that the issue is "preserved" for judicial determination and AHCA and Unisys argue the issue has been waived.Bid award not illegal, etc. and agency's preparation of Request For Proposal, interpretation, weighing, and scoring not arbitrary. Statistical bias does not prove prejudice.

Whether Principal Nursing Services, Inc. meets the statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of a certificate of need to operate a home health agency in Dade County, Florida, Agency For Health Care Administration District 11.Unreliable pro forma and audited financial statements not prepared according to generally accepted accounting procedures; result in lack of financial feasibility of home health agency.