STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
TERRY H. MEEK,
Petitioner,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 01-2088RU
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
A formal hearing was conducted in this case on September 25 and November 9, 2001, before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its Administrative Law Judge, Suzanne F. Hood, in Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Bruce A. Minnick, Esquire
Post Office Box 15588 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5588
For Respondent: Michael Mattimore, Esquire
Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Suite 100
Tallahassee, Florida 32303 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether Respondent's statements as set forth in a letter dated April 30, 2001, are rules as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, which have not been
promulgated as required by Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated April 30, 2001, Respondent Florida Department of Management Services (Respondent) advised Petitioner Terry H. Meek (Petitioner) that he was suspended without pay for 14 days due to conduct unbecoming a public employee. The letter also required Petitioner to participate in supervisor training within 90 days.
On May 25, 2001, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief.
Said petition sought an order rescinding Petitioner's suspension because it was not supported by a rule.
On May 31, 2001, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause. This Order required Petitioner to file a response indicating whether he filed the petition pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, or Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, or both. That same day, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition Challenging Agency Statements Defined or Issued as Rules pursuant to Sections 120.54(1) and 120.56(4), Florida Statutes.
On June 13, 2001, Petitioner filed a Response to Show Cause. Respondent filed a Response to Show Cause and Motion to Dismiss on June 16, 2001. Petitioner filed a response to
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on July 9, 2001. Respondent filed a reply to Petitioner's response on July 23, 2001.
On July 23, 2001, the undersigned issued an Order. The Order reserved ruling on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss pending a formal hearing on the amended petition. A Notice of Hearing dated July 24, 2001, scheduled the hearing for August 9, 2001.
Petitioner filed an unopposed Motion to Continue on August 2, 2001. The undersigned granted this motion and rescheduled the hearing for August 30, 2001.
On August 9, 2001, Respondent filed an Emergency Motion to Disqualify and/or to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum for Depositions and/or for Protective Order and Request for Expedited Hearing.
Petitioner filed a response to this pleading on August 17, 2001. After hearing oral argument, the undersigned issued an Order dated August 20, 2001, denying Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and granting Respondent's Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum for Depositions in part.
On August 22, 2001, Petitioner filed a Request to Depose Witnesses.
On August 27, 2001, Petitioner filed a Consented Motion to Enlarge Time for Final Hearing. The undersigned granted the motion and rescheduled the hearing for September 25, 2001.
On August 29, Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner's Request to Depose Witnesses. On August 31, 2001, the
undersigned granted Petitioner leave to depose Respondent's designated representative.
On September 17, 2001, Petitioner filed a Status Report and Request to Depose Witnesses. Respondent filed a response to this request on September 21, 2001.
On September 25, 2001, Petitioner filed a proposed Stipulated Factual Record with exhibits.
The final hearing commenced as scheduled on September 25, 2001. After hearing oral arguments on pending motions, the undersigned issued an order placing the case in abeyance.
On September 27, 2001, Petitioner filed a copy of the deposition of Thomas Clemons. The deposition was taken on September 11, 2001.
On October 1, 2001, Respondent filed a Supplemental Response to Petitioner's Status Report and Objection to Request to Depose Witnesses.
On October 2, 2001, the court reporter filed a copy of the September 25, 2001, hearing Transcript. That same day, the undersigned issued an Order denying Petitioner's request to depose additional employees and officers of Respondent or to depose employees from the Office of the Governor and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
On October 16, 2001, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, together with Respondent's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment.
A Notice of Hearing dated October 22, 2001, scheduled the formal hearing for November 9, 2001.
On November 1, 2001, Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner's Witness List and Motion for Protective Order.
On November 1, 2001, Petitioner filed a response in opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. Petitioner also filed exhibits in support of its response.
On November 1, 2001, the undersigned issued an Order denying Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice.
During the hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of one witness. Petitioner offered
23 exhibits, which were accepted into evidence.
Respondent did not present the direct testimony of any witnesses. Respondent offered 9 exhibits, which were accepted into evidence.
The court reporter filed the Transcript of the proceeding on November 29, 2001. On December 7, 2001, the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings issued a Notice of Filing Transcript.
On December 7, 2001, Respondent filed a Consented Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Proposed Recommended Orders. An Order dated December 11, 2001, directed the parties to file their proposed final orders on December 17, 2001.
Both parties filed their Proposed Final Orders on December 17, 2001.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida. At all times relevant here, the Florida Capitol Police was a division within Respondent's Facilities Program.
The Florida Capitol Police is an accredited law enforcement agency. Its purpose is to provide building security and other law enforcement services.
The State of Florida employs individuals in one of four distinct, statutorily defined services: Senior Management Service, Selected Exempt Service, Career Service, or Other Personal Services. At all times relevant here, the Director of Florida Capitol Police was an employment position that was classified within the Senior Management Service.
Petitioner is a sworn law enforcement officer. On February 24, 1998, Respondent offered Petitioner an appointment to the position of Director of Florida Capitol Police. At that time, Petitioner understood that the appointment was to a position classified within the Senior Management Service.
To the extent possible, Petitioner negotiated the terms of his employment. However, he understood that his position as Director of Florida Capitol Police included all of the benefits and all of the terms of employment of a position established within the Senior Management Service. He knew that he would serve at the pleasure of Respondent's Secretary, as the agency head, if he accepted the job.
On February 25, 1998, Petitioner accepted the appointment to Director of Florida Capitol Police. He executed a document acknowledging that he was relinquishing his career service rights. From that time forward, Petitioner was compensated and evaluated as a Senior Management Service employee. He enjoyed all the benefits of his new position.
Petitioner was the highest-ranking sworn law enforcement officer in the Florida Capitol Police, holding the "rank" of colonel. He did not report to any higher sworn law enforcement officer.
As Director of Florida Capitol Police, Petitioner was responsible for leading and directing the operation of a statewide law enforcement organization, including the administration and oversight of a $6.2 million-dollar budget. Part of Petitioner's duties required him to maintain appropriate relationships with the Sheriff of Leon County and the Chief of the Tallahassee Police Department for support in joint
operations when necessary. Petitioner was a member of the Florida Police Chiefs' Association, the State Law Enforcement Chiefs' Association, and the National Police Chiefs' Association.
In 1999, a former employee of the Florida Capitol Police commenced a legal action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida against Respondent. The former employee alleged sex discrimination and sexual harassment by the Florida Capitol Police, specifically by Petitioner.
A trial was conducted in the lawsuit, Goldwich v.
Department of Management Services, USDC ND Fla., Case No. 99-CV-512 (1999) in early February 2001. Petitioner
testified as a defense witness at the trial. Several other Florida Capitol Police officers were interviewed as potential witnesses or called to testify at the trial. Respondent prevailed in the district court action.
On February 2, 2001, Respondent's Secretary transferred the internal affairs investigation function of the Florida Capitol Police from the Florida Capitol Police to Respondent's Office of Inspector General. Thereafter, the Chief Investigator, Captain Joe Wallace, worked out of the Inspector General's office.
On February 15, 2001, Petitioner and Respondent's Inspector General entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the "credentialing" of Chief Investigator Wallace. The purpose of the memorandum was to formulate and establish a commitment between the Office of the Inspector General and the Florida Capitol Police to support the training and educational requirements for sworn law enforcement personnel assigned to each entity.
On March 2, 2001, Respondent's Office of the Inspector General received an internal complaint from Sergeant Edwin Maxwell, a subordinate officer of the Florida Capitol Police. Said complaint alleged that Petitioner had retaliated against Sergeant Maxwell for testifying at the Goldwich trial. Sergeant Maxwell's allegations also implicated Petitioner's subordinate, Major Robert G. Tippett, as having participated in the alleged retaliation.
On or about March 7, 2001, Respondent's Inspector General instructed Petitioner to report to the Florida Capitol Building, specifically to the offices of the Governor's Chief Inspector General. Respondent's Inspector General, Chief Investigator Wallace, and an Assistant Florida Inspector General from the Governor's Office of Inspector General were present when Petitioner arrived at the Capitol. At that time,
Petitioner was presented with a memorandum advising that he was the subject of a formal investigation.
The March 7, 2001, memorandum stated that Respondent's Inspector General initiated the investigation pursuant to a complaint. According to the memorandum, the principal allegation that formed the basis of the investigation was that Petitioner had engaged in one or more of the following: retaliation, conduct unbecoming, and/or violation of law. Sergeant Maxwell's complaint and a copy of Section 112.532, Florida Statutes, was attached to the memorandum.
During the March 7, 2001, meeting at the Capitol, Respondent's Inspector General advised Petitioner that he had a right to representation by counsel. After a brief discussion, Petitioner elected to seek private counsel.
Later on March 7, 2001, Petitioner and his attorney returned to the Governor's suite at the Capitol. Upon their arrival, Petitioner was advised again of his rights under the law enforcement officers' and correctional officers' rights, which are codified at Section 112.532, Florida Statutes. Respondent's Inspector General and Chief Investigator Wallace then proceeded to interview Petitioner.
Respondent's Inspector General inquired into the complaint against Major Tippett, performed an investigation, and issued an Executive Summary of the investigation dated March 22,
2001. This report concluded that Major Tippett's alleged violations related to conduct unbecoming, retaliation, and violation of law were unfounded.
Respondent's Inspector General inquired into the complaint against Petitioner, performed an investigation, and prepared a draft report of the investigation. After consulting with the Chief Inspector General in the Office of the Governor, Respondent's Inspector General issued an Executive Summary of the investigation dated March 26, 2001. This report concluded that Petitioner had engaged in conduct unbecoming. The report also concluded that other alleged violations by Petitioner, including retaliation and violation of law, were unfounded.
According to the March 26, 2001, Executive Summary, Respondent's Inspector General recommended that Petitioner be removed from his position as Director of Florida Capitol Police. The report states as follows in relevant part:
This recommendation is made after carefully considering the following factors and informed by the fact that the Director serves entirely at the discretion of the secretary:
The previous OIG report related to Capitol Police and the issues raised therein. (See attached)
The finding of the jury in the US District Court case, filed by Officer Lisa Goldwich, that her working conditions were made so intolerable, by the defendant, that she was forced to resign. (See attached)
The finding of "conduct unbecoming an employee/officer" contained in the report above.
The likelihood that future retaliation will be attempted against those individuals who participated in the Goldwich trial and against those who testified in the OIG investigation reported above.
The ongoing morale problem within the Florida Capitol Police.
Subsequently, Respondent's Inspector General prepared a Memorandum of Investigation dated April 2, 2001. This memorandum states again that allegations against Petitioner relative to retaliation and violation of law were unfounded but that allegations relative to conduct unbecoming were founded. The April 2, 2001, memorandum cites Respondent's Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 3.27, Discipline of Career Service Employees, as it relates to conduct unbecoming a public employee. It also cites to Section 110.403(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for the proposition that Respondent's Secretary had discretion to discipline Senior Management Service employees.
On or about April 3, 2001, Petitioner and Major Tippett filed a civil suit in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, Case
No. 01-821. This suit included an Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. It alleged violations of Sections 112.532, 112.533, and 112.534, Florida
Statutes. Petitioner subsequently voluntarily dismissed this civil action.
On or about April 3, 2001, the General Counsel in the Office of the Governor, requested the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to review and complete Respondent's internal investigation. Thereafter, FDLE's Inspector General performed an investigation into the complaint against Petitioner and Major Tippett.
FDLE's Inspector General eventually prepared an undated report of its review and investigation. The FDLE report states as follows in relevant part:
As mentioned previously, the OIG report concludes that the alleged violations against Major Tippett were all unfounded. The alleged violations against Colonel Meek for (1) Retaliation and (2) Violation of Law were unfounded. The violation against Colonel Meek for Conduct Unbecoming was founded. Conduct Unbecoming a public employee is a violation of DMS Policy, Section 3.27(C)(2)(e). There is no definition of "Conduct Unbecoming" in DMS' policies or administrative rules. Based upon the interview of the subordinate supervisors regarding the statements made by Colonel Meek, the conclusions rendered by OIG are reasonable.
Near the completion of the OIG investigation, IG Varnado prepared a draft report and discussed it with the Chief Inspector General, Marcia Cooke. The draft report did not contain any recommendation regarding a recommended action for the founded violation of Conduct Unbecoming.
CIG Cooke instructed IG Varnado to include
such a recommendation. IG Varnado recommended that Colonel Meek be removed from his position and discussed the recommendation with Secretary Cynthia Henderson. This RECOMMENDATION was included in the INVESTIGATIVE REPORT dated April 2, 2001.
The RECOMMENDATION contained five cited reasons to support Colonel Meek's removal. The OIG investigative report does not specifically support reasons (1), (4), and (5). However, based upon the below recommendation, further discussion of these items is rendered moot.
Generally, an investigation regarding possible administrative misconduct is handled independently from the determination to impose action following a sustained finding of a violation. IG Varnado acknowledged that he does not routinely recommend action following an administrative violation. However, according to IG Varnado, the rank of the person involved led him to seek assistance from the Chief Inspector General's Office.
It is recommended that the RECOMMENDATION regarding the proposed administrative action be removed from the investigative report.
The determination of any action resulting from the OIG investigation should be left solely to the discretion of the Secretary for the Department of Management Services.
The FDLE report also addresses Respondent's violations of Sections 112.532(1)(b), 112.532(1)(g), and 112.533, Florida Statutes, which were the subject of the civil suit filed by Petitioner and Major Tippett. The report concludes that these statutory provisions were applicable to Major Tippet but that the question whether they were applicable to Petitioner, as the
head of the Florida Capitol Police, was also the subject of the civil suit.
By letter dated April 30, 2001, Respondent's Secretary advised Petitioner that the investigation of Sergeant Maxwell's complaint was complete. The letter states as follows in relevant part:
[B]ased on the investigation conducted by the DMS Inspector General, as reviewed and completed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Inspector General, it has been determined that allegations against you relating to retaliation and violation of law are unfounded, and that allegations against you relating to conduct unbecoming a public employee are founded. Attached hereto for your reference is a copy of the pertinent report of the FDLE Inspector General's Office.
As set forth in the attached report (page three), the basis for the conclusions that you are guilty of conduct unbecoming a public employee is that you made statements in the days or weeks following the trial of the civil suit filed by former officer Lisa Goldwich to subordinate officers regarding the removal of duties involving Sgt.
Maxwell--who testified for the plaintiff at the trial--and possible adverse action for him and others who testified.
Because of this conduct unbecoming a public employee, you are hereby suspended without pay for a period of fourteen (14) days, after which you will return to your post.
You are also hereby required to participate in supervisor training with (sic) ninety
(90) days.
Respondent's agency head, in the exercise of her discretion, made the ultimate decision to suspend Petitioner. In taking the disciplinary action, the agency head did not reference or assert any reliance on career service rules to support Petitioner's discipline. The April 30, 2001, letter was
not disseminated to other agencies or to other Senior Management Service employees.
The agency head's April 30, 2001, letter was an action taken exclusively regarding Petitioner. It did not affect or impact any other agency, employee, or class of employee. The administration of personnel matters regarding Respondent's Senior Management Service employees did not change following Petitioner's April 30, 2001, discipline. Respondent has not promulgated rules regarding the discipline, suspension, or termination of Senior Management Service employees because such rules are not required.
Petitioner resigned his appointment as Director of Florida Capitol Police on July 31, 2001. He is no longer employed by the State of Florida.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, which states as follows:
CHALLENGING AGENCY STATEMENTS DEFINED AS RULES; SPECIAL PROVISIONS.--
Any person substantially affected by an agency statement may seek an administrative determination that the statement violates s. 120.54(1)(a). The petition shall include the text of the statement or a description of the statement and shall state with particularity facts sufficient to show that the statement constitutes a rule under s.
120.52 and that the agency has not adopted the statement by the rulemaking procedure provided by s. 120.54.
Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, states as follows:
(15) "Rule" means each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. The term also includes the amendment or repeal of a rule. . . .
Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides as follows in relevant part:
GENERAL PROVISION APPLICABLE TO ALL RULES OTHER THAN EMERGENCY RULES.--
Rulemaking is not a matter of agency discretion. Each agency statement defined as a rule by s. 120.52 shall be adopted by the rulemaking procedure provided by this section as soon as feasible and practicable.
Section 110.402, Florida Statutes, provides as follows:
The Senior Management Service is created as a separate system of personnel administration for positions in the executive branch the duties and responsibilities of which are primarily and essentially policymaking or managerial in nature.
The Senior Management Service shall be limited to those positions which are exempt from the Career Service System by s. 110.205(2) and for which the salaries and benefits are set by the department in accordance with the rules of the Senior Management Service.
Section 110.403(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides as follows in pertinent part:
In order to implement the purposes of [Chapter 110, Part III, Florida Statutes,] the Department of Management Services, after approval by the Administration Commission, shall adopt and amend rules providing for:
A system for employing, promoting, or reassigning managers that is responsive to organizational needs . . . Employees in the Senior Management Service shall serve at the pleasure of the agency head and shall be subject to suspension, dismissal, reduction in pay, demotion, transfer, or other personnel action at the discretion of the agency head. Such personnel actions are exempt for the provisions of chapter 120.
Petitioner admits that he cannot challenge his suspension under Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The only relief available to Petitioner in this proceeding is limited to a determination whether Respondent's April 30, 2001, letter suspending Petitioner constitutes an
unpromulgated rule. Petitioner cannot litigate the validity of his suspension in this proceeding. See Hasper v. Department of
Administration, 459 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
In the Amended Petition, Petitioner asserts that Respondent's April 30, 2001, letter is the result of certain conclusions and determinations made by Respondent, which establish the following unpromulgated rules: (a) in paragraph 18, Respondent's Secretary took 60 days to determine that Petitioner was guilty of conduct unbecoming a public employee and to impose discipline; (b) in paragraph 21, Respondent concluded that Petitioner's conduct as a sworn law enforcement officer may be evaluated, investigated, and disciplined in the same manner as public and Career Service employees; (c) in paragraph 22, Respondent concluded that Petitioner's conduct as a sworn law enforcement officer may be evaluated, investigated, and disciplined in the same manner as public employees assigned to Senior Management Service pay grades; and (d) in paragraph 23, Respondent determined that Petitioner's conduct as a sworn law enforcement officer is
subject to the provisions of Section 3.27 of Respondent's Policy and Procedure Manual.
The essence of Petitioner's claims is that Respondent has established unpromulgated policies and procedures which permit discipline of Senior Management Service employees who are
also sworn law enforcement officers as if they were Career Service employees without appeal rights and without regard for the rights afforded law enforcement officers pursuant to Section 112.532, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's claims are without merit because Respondent's Secretary made the ultimate decision to suspend Petitioner as a Senior Management Service Employee pursuant to Section 110.403(1), Florida Statutes.
By enacting Section 110.403(1), Florida Statutes, the Legislature delineated the administrative rules that Respondent was required to adopt with respect to Senior Management Service employment matters. The Legislature did not direct Respondent to adopt rules for the suspension of Senior Management Service employees; instead, it chose to delegate authority to the agency head, in his or her sound discretion, to decide such matters on a case-by-case basis. As a result, Respondent has not promulgated any rules, written or unwritten, regarding the discipline of Senior Management Service employees. Unlike employees in the Career Service, Senior Management Service employees clearly hold their positions at-will.
In this case, the decision to discipline Petitioner has no impact on the agency head's discretion to discipline or terminate other Senior Management Service employees. Respondent's discipline applied solely to him based on his specific conduct, which Respondent's Secretary found to be
unacceptable. Under these circumstances, the investigation of Respondent's Inspector General and the decision of Respondent's Secretary did not affect any other similarly situated employees. In fact, there is no evidence that Respondent employed any Senior Management Service personnel who were also sworn law enforcement officers except for the Director of Florida Capitol Police.
Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, details the conditions under which a law enforcement officer is to be interrogated during an internal investigation. According to the FDLE Inspector General's report, Respondent may not have complied with the requirements of Sections 112.532(1)(b), 112.532(1)(g), and 112.533(2)(a), Florida Statutes, relative to the place of interrogation, to the audio tape recording of the interrogation, and to the review of the complaint and all statements by the complainant and witnesses prior to the investigative interview respectively. According to Petitioner, Respondent did not comply with the requirements of Section 112.533(2)(b), Florida Statutes, relative to the length of the investigation in which no findings were made. Nevertheless, Respondent's investigation of Petitioner did not establish an unpromulgated rule that Senior Management Service employees who are also sworn law enforcement officers are not entitled to the protections of the rights of law enforcement officers while under investigation
pursuant to Sections 112.532 and 112.533, Florida Statutes. Section 112.534, Florida Statutes, provides that the remedy for failure to comply with the law enforcement officers' "Bill of Rights" is to seek an injunction in circuit court. Even if Petitioner was entitled to such protections, his claims based on alleged violations of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, cannot be maintained in this administrative action.
Respondent's April 30, 2001, letter was notice of a single disciplinary action taken against an individual Senior Management Service employee. As such, it is not a statement of general applicability.
As part of Respondent's Proposed Final Order, without citation to authority, Respondent states that it "should be attorneys' fees and costs." That request is denied.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
ORDERED:
That the Amended Petition is dismissed.
DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Suite 100
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
SUZANNE F. HOOD
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2002.
Bruce A. Minnick, Esquire Post Office Box 15588
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5588
Cynthia Henderson, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Monesia Taylor Brown, Deputy General Counsel Department of Management Services
4050 Esplanade Way
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Carroll Webb, Executive Director
Joint Administrative Procedures Committee
120 Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
Liz Cloud, Chief
Bureau of Administrative Code The Elliott Building, Room 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 09, 2002 | DOAH Final Order | Letter suspending Petitioner from his Senior Management Service position as Director of Capitol police was not an umpromulgated rule. |
AMEIA PARKS vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 01-002088RU (2001)
C. DEAN HOFMEISTER vs DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, 01-002088RU (2001)
WILLIAM H. MATHIAS vs. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 01-002088RU (2001)
MARIE-MICHELLE EDOUARD vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 01-002088RU (2001)
