There are seven alleged violations at issue, six of which are related to alleged financial disclosure violations. As stipulated by the parties, at issue is whether Respondent violated: Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes,1/ by requesting and/or accepting State reimbursement for travel expenses that were paid by campaign accounts and/or State office expense accounts; Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to or not properly reporting income; and/or stocks and bonds; and/or secondary source income on his 2005 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest; Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to or not properly reporting income; and/or stocks and bonds; and/or bank accounts; and/or real property; and/or secondary source income on his 2006 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest; Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to or not properly reporting income; and/or stocks and bonds; and/or bank accounts; and/or real property; and/or secondary source income on his 2007 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest; Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to or not properly reporting income; and/or stocks and bonds; and/or bank accounts; and/or real property; and/or secondary source income on his 2008 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest; Article II, section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to or not properly reporting income; and/or stocks and bonds; and/or bank accounts; and/or real property; and/or secondary source income on his 2009 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interest; and Section 112.3144, Florida Statutes, by failing to file a CE Form 6F “Final Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests” within 60 days of leaving his position with the Florida House of Representatives.Respondent, a former state representative, was guilty of violating sections 112.313(6) and 112.3144, Florida Statutes, as well as Article II, Section 8 of the Florida Constitution.

The ultimate issue in this case is whether Respondents' proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.030, which would establish procedures and standards governing the submission, review, and approval (or disapproval) of each school district's instructional personnel and school administrator evaluation systems, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Respondents' proposed rule, which governs school district's teacher evaluation systems, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because Respondents failed materially to follow the rulemaking procedures.

The issues in this case are whether Mickey Rosado violated Subsection 112.313(8), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if so, what recommendation should be made for discipline.Member of City Council disclosed and used information given to him as a council member to his personal benefit.

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Community Health Charities of Florida (CHC), is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs as a "prevailing small business party" pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2008), by being a prevailing small business party in the underlying case of Community Health Charities of Florida, et. al v. Florida Department of Management Services, DOAH Case No. 07-3547, Recommended Order February 29, 2008; Final Order May 29, 2008. Also, at issue is whether the Respondent Agency's actions, with regard to the underlying case, were substantially justified or whether special circumstances exist which would render an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust.Petitioner failed to prove it was a prevailing small business party for attorney fee claim. In the underlying case, the parties awarded benefits (Charities) who brought the attorney fee claim. Thus, it did not prevail in lower proceeding.

The issue in this limited proceeding is whether the issuance of the Order Finding Probable Cause against Respondent affects his substantial interests and was based on an unadopted rule,1 as contemplated in Subsection 120.57(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2006).2

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether an application to construct and operate an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system (OSTDS), within the Suwannee River flood plain, meets the requirements of Section 381.0065(4)(t), Florida Statutes (2007), and relevant Department of Health (Department) rules, and whether the department applied an un-adopted rule in denying the permit application.Petitioner failed to prove that innovative on-site sewage disposal system would not be subject to flooding. The statute has flood elevation standard, not an avenue to allow for a system which purports to prevent flooding by use of air pressure.

The issue in this case is whether the application filed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for abandonment of a segment of Mission Road, from the Ocala Drive intersection to a point east of Yonview Drive, should be granted; and, if so, what conditions should be placed on the abandonment.The applicant proved in City`s quasi-judicial proceeding, if still available, that it is in the public`s interest to abandon portion of Mission Road to protect pedestrians and for other reasons.

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from sales and use tax as a religious or charitable organization.Church not entitled to exemption from sales-use tax due to absence of established physical place for worship.

The issue presented is whether the Department's audit assessment against Petitioner for additional insurance premium tax for the tax years 1989 and 1990 is proper.Medical malpractice self-insurance fund can credit against premium tax its payments made for corporate income and intangible taxes; rule held invalid.

The issue presented is whether the Department's Rule 12B-8.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Medical malpractice self-insurance fund can credit against premium tax its payments made for corporate income and intangible taxes; rule held invalid.