Whether the Department of Corrections' proposed awards of food service management contracts to ARAMARK Correctional Services, Inc., and Compass Group USA, Inc., are contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the specifications contained in the invitation to bid issued by the Department on April 30, 1998, ITB 98-DC-7154, as revised with addenda?BIDs by two successful bidders to an Invitation to BID (ITB) for four correctional facilities were unresponsive for failure to provide information required by the ITB; mathematical errors, however, in the BIDs were minor irregularities.

Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?Nurse guilty of falsifying records as part of scheme to misappropriate and divert drugs for her own use; license suspension recommended.

The issue is whether Ms. Battaglia is guilty of violations of the Nursing Practice Act by being unable to account for controlled substances at the close of her shift at a nursing home and by being under the influence of controlled substances during her shift.Licensed Practical Nurse removed Xanax and Valium from med cart during shift at nursing home. Suspended pending completion of impaired nurses program and fined $250.00.

By Administrative Complaint signed on March 17, 1986, the Respondent has been charged with violations of Sections 464.018(1)(d) and (f), Florida Statutes, on the basis of several incidents of conduct which are alleged with specificity in the Administrative Complaint. During the course of the hearing, by agreement of all parties, the Administrative Complaint was amended in the following manner. Paragraph 6 of the Administrative Complaint was amended by inserting the words "her unit within" immediately following the word "left" at the first line of Paragraph 6. Paragraph 8 of the Administrative Complaint was deleted in its entirety. Following the hearing the Petitioner elected to obtain a transcript of the hearing and the parties were granted 10 days from the date of the filing of the transcript within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The transcript was never filed, and on March 2, 1987, an order was issued changing the deadline for the filing of proposed recommended orders. The new deadline was March 17, 1987. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent did not. The Petitioner's proposed recommended order has been carefully considered in the preparation of this recommended order. The substance of all findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner is included in the findings of fact which follow.Evidence sufficient to establish violations charged; appropriate penalty is reprimand and required continuing education courses.