14-3399 Soph oom STATE OF FLORIDA wo. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Aug 2 tee Fe pgkliys, MM: IN THE MATTER OF: Wy ele, A Civil Penalty Against Wellington Academy, Inc. LEE COUNTY . aya ge yy ‘i er ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT JUL 1.6 2002 Nature of the Case DCF Devarinient Clerk 1. This case arises from the Child Care Facility’s failure to comply with Chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes, and Rule 65C-22, Child Care Standards 2. This is an administrative action for imposition of civil penalties per known incidents of occurrence as authorized in Chapter 402.310, Florida Statutes. 3. The State of Florida, Department of Children and Families is the administrative agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to enforce and administer the provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes. 4. On May 9, 2001, Faye O. Jones, identifying herself as the owner of Wellington Academy, Inc., made application to operate a child care facility known as Wellington Academy, Inc., 4412 SE 15" Avenue, Cape Coral, Florida 33904. 5. On June 30, 2001, the department issued an annual license, #088503, effective June 30, 2001 to June 30, 2002. 6. During a routine inspection on January 9, 2002, it was noted that two employees, Margaret Boutiron and Marjorie Kendall, did not have their fingerprint card submitted in a timely manner. Ms. Boutiron was hired on May 29, 2001 and there was no hire date for Ms. Kendall. 7. On January 9, 2001, the facility was sent an administrative warning letter advising any further violations with regards to background screening would result in administrative action. 8. On May 29, 2002, an agent from the Department conducted a routine inspection and found three (3) employees, Megan Lynch, Jennifer Santiago and Kelly Wemple, had not been properly screened in a timely manner. 9. Megan Lynch was hired March 5, 2002, and the required screening materials should have been submitted on or before March 19, 2002. Ms. Lynch’s screening materials were not submitted to Florida Department of Law Enforcement until May 7, 2002. Thereby, the facility was out of compliance for 34 working days. 10. Jennifer Santiago was hired March 4, 2002, and the required screening materials should have been submitted on or before March 18, 2002. Ms. Santiago's screening materials were not submitted to Florida Department of Law Enforcement until May 15, 2002. Thereby, the facility was out of compliance for 41 working days. 11. Kelly Wemple was hired March 11, 2002, and the screening materials should have been submitted on or before March 22, 2002. Ms. Wemple’s screening materials were not submitted to Florida Department of Law Enforcement until April 22, 2002. Thereby, the facility was out of compliance for 21 working days. 42. The acts and practices described in paragraphs 9-through 11 are violations of Sections 402.305(2)(a), 402.3055, Chapter 435.04, 435.05 and Rule 65C-22.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that all child care personne! meet the background screening requirements and that child care personnel fingerprints be submitted to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement within 10 working days from the date of hire for any employee hired. The Department is also imposing a $50.00 fine per day per employee for a total of 96 days of non-compliance with screening requirements for a total fine of $4,800.00. TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE FINE IS $4,800.00 NOTIFICATION OF RIGHTS Should you wish to appeal this action, you may request a hearing by making a written request pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. This request must comply with Rule 28-106.201 or Rule 28-160.301, Florida Administrative Code, or else it will be dismissed. The request for an administrative hearing must be made in writing and received no later than 21 days from the date you receive this notice. Failure to timely request an administrative hearing shall constitute a complete waiver of any right you may have to challenge the department's decision. ; To request a hearing, please forward requests to: Department of Children and Families Consumer Protection and Licensing Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Attn: Nancy Starr STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (\— oSy JV) Mary Allyn Madore, Supervisor Consumer Protection and Licensing ugenie Rehak Bar #25 BH # OFOSESEF District Legal Counsel P. O. Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Certificate of Service ! HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Regular Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Certificate # 7000153000! 273fb218 this _1§* day of rts 2002 to Faye O. Jones, Registered Agent for Wellington Agademy, Inc., 5244 Ramsey Way, Fort Myers, Florida 33907. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Michelle Molloy " Consumer Protection and Licensing P, O. Box 60085 _ Fort Myers, Florida 33906 (941) 338-1341 fy Mey Fp / jg Pm WELLINGTON ACADEMY yy, = 12734 KENWOOD LN #39 aol SF Ahi 9, FORT MYERS, FL. 33907 Hesigee 239-274-0555 ANgs. August 14, 2002 Agency Clerk DCF | Department of Children and Families ws 1317 Winewood Blvd., Bldg. 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, FL. 32399-0700 I am in receipt of your letter dated July17 and received July 25, 2002 in reference to the proper information required for submitting a request for an administrative hearing. Enclosed is the information required to set up an appointment for a hearing date. 1. The name and address of each agency affected and each agency’s file or identification number if known: Department of Children and Families District Eight P.O. Box 60085 Fort Myers, Fl. 33906-0085 Michelle Molloy, Licensing Counselor 2. The name, address and telephone number of the person who is asking for the hearing (the petitioner): Faye O. Jones, President Wellington Academy, Inc. 12734 Kenwood Lane, #39 Fort Myers, Fl. 33907 239-274-0555 3. The name, address and telephone number of the petitioner’s representative, if any: No Petitioner Representative Wellington Academy’s legal advisor is: Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker Garey F. Butler Fort Myers, FL. 239-334-7892 4. A explanation of how the petitioner’s substantial interests are or will be affected by the agency decision: The agency’s decision could affect the petitioner’s enrollment status since childcare records are public information and perspective clients are encouraged to review these records. Wellington Academy, Inc. has been in operation for seventeen years in Lee and Brevard counties and has never experienced an administrative warning let alone an action of such magnitude. Wellington Academy is also in the process of being nationally accredited and this would greatly affect this process. The Academy is a quality childcare center that takes pride in providing benefits and competitive wages to its employees. The suggested fine of $4,800 would greatly hinder the company in continuing with these benefits. The fine quoted is more than the annual tuition of one child. . A statement of when and how the petitioner received notice of the agency decision. The first time the petitioner received any notice of a violation was June 20, 2002. The petitioner never received a warning or any communication on any deficiencies with regards to background screening. e Warning notice was sent to 4412 SE 15" Ave. Cape Coral, FI. ¢ Violation certified letter was sent to 5244 Ramsey Way, Fort Myers, FI. 33907 e Florida Statutes and hearing notification procedures were sent to 12734 Kenwood Ln. #39, Fort Myers, Fl. 33907 When the warning letter was sent to the school location the Director did not interpret it to be a warning because she had submitted to Ms. Molloy, Licensing Counselor via mail her corrections relating to non-compliance concerns prior to receiving the letter. During the on sight inspection the Director had stated to Ms. Molloy that one of the teachers in question was a transfer from another childcare center so Ms. Molloy said she would obtain the required papers for our files. The Director and employee were not having any luck obtaining the employment papers from the previous childcare employer. The letter sent to the school was addressed to Ms. McGuire and stated that if the non-compliance concerns were not corrected it could not would lead to a violations fine. May I point out that Ms. McGuire is not the registered agent of Wellington Academy nor is the school address the address of the owner or registered agent. I don’t feel you can warn one person and fine another. I also believe to mail a warning to one address and the violation to another proves the failure of DCF to provide proper notice to the petitioner. Consistency is always a trait we long for in the inspection of our childcare centers. A statement either that the petitioner does not dispute the facts upon which the district relied in making its decision OR a statement that the petitioner does dispute those facts along with a list of the facts in dispute: ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT NATURE OF THE CASE This case arises from the Child Care Facility’s failure to comply with Chapters 402 and 435, Florida Statutes, and Rule 65C-22, Child Care Standards. Petitioner agrees. This is an administrative action for imposition of civil penalties per known incidents of occurrence as authorized in Chaper 402-310, Florida Statutes. Petitioner agrees. On May 9, 2001, Faye O. Jones, identifying herself as the owner of Wellington Academy, Inc., made application to operate a childcare facility known as Wellington Academy, Inc. 4412 SE 15" Avenue, Cape Coral, Florida 33904. Petitioner agrees. On June 30, 2001, the department issued an annual license, #088503, effective June 30, 2001 to June 30, 2002. Petitioner agrees. During a routine inspection on January 9, 2002, it was noted that two employees, Margaret Boutiron and Marjorie Kendall, did not have their fingerprint card submitted in a timely manner. Ms. Boutiron was hired on May 29, 2001 and there was no hire date for Ms. Kendall. Petitioner statement is: District 8 counselor, Michelle Molloy inspected the school on September 4, 2001 and per her records no documentation was written up that Margaret Boutiron was in violation of any screening regulations. Petitioner does agree that Margaret Boutiron was hired on May 29, 2001 and since the Academy has not experienced any screening violations in the history of its operation (over 10 years) and the inspector did not note any failure of compliance on this employee, I do not feel violation fines should be enforced. Ms. Boutiorn was terminated on February 22, 2002. Marjorie Kendall was hired on December 10, 2001 and terminated on January 7, 2002. This time period of employment was during the holidays in which Wellington was closed on the major holidays plus partial opening on Christmas Eve and New Year Eve. Please note that Cape Coral Police Department no longer will do fingerprints. Cape Coral is where the Academy is located. On January 9, 2001, the facility was sent an administrative warning letter advising any further violations with regards to background screening would result in administrative action. Petitioner strongly disagrees with this statement. It is not factual. Check your dates. The Administrative Complaint states the year is 2001. On May 29, 2002, an agent from the Department conducted a routine inspection and found three (3) employees, Megan Lynch, Jennifer Santiago and Kelly Wemple, had not been properly screened in a timely manner. Petitioner agrees that the dates documented were not submitted in a timely manner, however the Director statement was that she had submitted them earlier. The Director stated to me and to the counselor that she had experienced problems with the mail service. Ms. Molloy must have also experienced delay in mail services because 21 days after the expiration of our childcare license we had not received the renewal license (this was another Wellington location). DCF failed to provide the register agent of Wellington Academy a license to operate a childcare center in a timely manner. This caused the corporation to be out of compliance. When Ms. Molloy was notified by a Wellington representative that we had not received our license, it still took her over 10 days to provide us with the document. The acts and practices described in paragraphs 9 through 11 are violations of Sections 402.305(2)(a), 402.3055, Chapter 435.04, 435.05 and Rule 65C-22.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that all child care personnel meet the background screening requirements and that child care personnel fingerprints be submitted to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement with 10 working days from the date of hire for any employee hired. The Department is also imposing a $50.00 fine per employee for a total of 96 days of non-compliance with screening requirements for a total fine of $4,800. Petitioner’s statement: It would be a tremendous burden to pay a $4,800 fine. This amount is more than an annual tuition for a child enrolled at the Academy. Teachers and Administrators would not receive their annual increases. To prevent this kind of non-compliance from ever occurring again, I have personally initiated new policies and actions outlining the compliance of all Florida Statues. The Corporate Officers of Wellington Academy are now taking responsibility for the reviewing and submitting of employee’s records weekly. The Director of the Academy has been given an employment probation warning. The Director of the Academy has been a valued employee of Wellington since 1993 and is very remorseful concerning this situation. She fully understands that this type of management is not acceptable and if Florida Statutes are not adhered to, her professional relationship with Wellington Academy will no longer be a mutual rewarding situation. If facts are in dispute, a statement of the facts as the petitioner perceives them to be: Refer to petitioner’s comments in section number 6. 8. A statement of the specific rules or statutes that the petitioner believes require the agency to reverse or modify its decision: T am not a legal expert and not familiar with all the statutes so I will state my issues instead of the rules. Discrimination - There are other childcare centers that have openly admitted to me their failure to submit fingerprints in a timely manner. As the owner of four childcare centers in the state of Florida I have personally witnessed the inconsistency of inspections. Example: employees have applied for teaching positions at Wellington and have worked at other local childcare centers for many months. When we tell them that they have to get their fingerprint papers from their previous employer or be reprinted, they have no idea what we are talking about. Intent To Impose An Administrative Action. The letter of January 9, 2002 was not submitted on the DCF form, which states it is an INTENT TO IMPOSE AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. This form also explains in detail the definitions of the different class actions, gives examples, and fine ranges. As the owner of Wellington Academy I have never received any detailed information about Class Actions. To support my case the DCF administration in Tallahassee had to send me detailed information on how to appeal this case. When I called the local DCF office they gave me the wrong information. My point is, if you are going to govern the operations of child care centers you have to provide accurate information to the caregivers and use correct forms. Fine - If the concern of the violations were of the magnitude to fine a school $4,800, then why did DCF not question the non-compliance issues before renewal of the license. DCF - Why can Wellington be fined when the counselor took 21 days to provide Wellington Academy, at another location their renewed childcare license? Timely manner should apply to all parties. Operating with an outdated license is more serious than screening violations. DCF can’t be the maker of rules, the judge, the enforcer and the Jury unless everyone abides by the same rules. Record Keeping - Per the computer generated reports given to the childcare centers by the counselors, personnel records is under the heading RECORD KEEPING (65C-22.006). Record keeping is a Class III violation and is the least serious in nature. A statement saying what action the petitioner wants the agency to take in the matter I am requesting the agency to dismiss the charges against Wellington Academy, Inc. because it would be devastating to the standards the childcare center has established and lived by for seventeen years. It would affect the future growth of Wellington in the Lee county area because childcare records are public information and this fine would not look good to investors or bankers. The Director of the Academy managing the school that received these infractions is a long term Administrator and professionally has paid the price for her failures as a representative of Wellington Academy. She is very dishearten that she has caused the company to receive this kind of negative mark New corporate procedures have been implemented to assure this does not happen again. I believe in this Administrator and will stand beside and behind her. Since Wellington Academy, Inc. is a corporation of many childcare centers the violations of one centers affects all the Academies. All I am asking is that Wellington Academy be evaluated the same as all other childcare centers in Lee County and if other centers have failed to submit screening forms they too should be fined. May I also add that approximately one year ago Ms. Molloy brought the local news paper reporters to Wellington unannounced to do a walk through with her because the newspaper was doing an article on what childcare inspectors do when they inspect a center. When I met with the representatives at DCF about this visit, because it really put us on the spot, I was told by Ms. Molloy that Wellington was chosen because we have fewer deficiencies than any school in the area. Wellington Academy is a childcare center that has an excellent reputation and received the “Blue Chip” award for being one of the most outstanding businesses in Lee County and the State Of Florida. Thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter. If I can assist you with any additional information please feel free to contact me at 239-274-0555.

Docket for Case No: 02-003399