STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

VERNON ST. CHARLES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 78-050

) CSC NO. 77-314 DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND )

MOTOR VEHICLES, CAREER SERVICE ) COMMISSION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case was heard in Conference 250, Main Courthouse, 419 Pearce Street, Tampa, Florida at 10:00 a.m. on February 3, 1978, before Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

This case was presented upon the appeal of Vernon St. Charles from his suspension by the Florida Highway Patrol, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The case was referred from the Career Service Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.

The agency presented evidence that St. Charles had spoken with Sergeant G. Ronald Stroud of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department on November 1, 1977, in an inappropriate manner contrary to the manner in which radio teletype operators are expected to respond to the public and members of other law enforcement agencies. St. Charles presented evidence that he lacked the information Sergeant Stroud requested and was under pressure and rushed having received several calls regarding the incident in which Sergeant Stroud was interested. The issue is whether the disciplinary action taken by the agency was for good cause.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Vernon L. St. Charles

1401 North Forbes Road Plant City, Florida 33566

For Respondent: John Whitney, Esquire

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Vernon St. Charles is a radio teletype operator I with the Florida Highway Patrol and is a career service employee with appeal rights with the Career Service Commission.

   
   

2. On or about November 1, 1977, St. Charles was the radio teletype operator on duty at the Florida Highway Patrol Tampa District Office. While he was on duty, an accident occurred involving a young child. St. Charles dispatched a Florida Highway Patrol trooper to the scene of the accident who reported that the child was very seriously injured. The trooper requested a homicide investigator be dispatched which St. Charles did.

   
   

3. G. Ronald Stroud is a sergeant with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department assigned the duty of investigating accidents involving school-age children as a part of the Department's safety program. Sergeant Stroud received notification from the radio dispatcher of the sheriff's department that an accident had occurred near a school involving a child which Florida Highway Patrol Units were investigating. Sergeant Stroud called the Florida Highway Patrol District Office and spoke with St. Charles. Sergeant Stroud identified himself and asked about the accident and how old the child was to determine whether he should follow up the accident for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department.

   
   

4. St. Charles had received calls from the medical examiner's office, the

   U.S. Post Office, whose vehicle was involved in the accident, and Sergeant Stroud from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. At the hearing, St. Charles was uncertain which call had been Stroud's; however, St. Charles explained that he had tried to contact troopers at the scene to get additional information and that they were away from their vehicles. St. Charles did not have the information requested by Sergeant Stroud and therefore referred him to the hospital where they had taken the child. Sergeant Stroud identified Exhibit 2, a complaint letter he had written to Lieutenant Lowman of the Florida Highway Patrol. Stroud stated in the letter that an unknown male dispatcher, later determined to be St. Charles, had told Stroud that "He wasn't really concerned how old the child was and that if I (Stroud) wanted to know I could call the Brandon Hospital." At the hearing, Sergeant Stroud reconfirmed his recollection of St. Charles' comments to him. Without regard to the exact language used by St. Charles, it is clear that St. Charles did not provide Sergeant Stroud with the information which he sought and did not explain the existing situation which prevented him from giving Stroud the information.

   
   

5. The position of radio teletype operator is an important one because the operator is responsible to transmit calls to and from the troopers by radio, perform certain law enforcement checks for the troopers by telephone or teletype, and respond to telephone calls from the public and other law enforcement agencies. The radio teletype operator's duties contribute to the overall enforcement effort of the Florida Highway Patrol and to the relationship of the Florida Highway Patrol with the public and other law enforcement agencies. This requires that the radio teletype operator perform his duty in a professional manner, using good personal judgment and diplomacy.

   
   

6. St. Charles had been counseled previously about the manner in which he conducted his duties which at times bordered upon rudeness. St. Charles explained that he spoke loudly and in short sentences because his mother had been deaf and that in the pressure situations which sometimes developed, his

   manner of speech and abruptness might appear to be discourteous and rude to those with whom he was speaking.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. The rules and regulations of the Florida Highway Patrol and the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the State of Florida provide that an employee may be suspended for conduct unbecoming a state employee.

   
   

8. It is clear that a radio teletype operator has a difficult job which must be handled in a calm, efficient manner even when the operator is under great pressure. St. Charles did not handle the communications by telephone with Sergeant Stroud in an appropriate manner. Not having the information Stroud had requested and knowing that the troopers on the scene were not answering his radio calls to them, St. Charles should have advised Stroud of these facts prior to referring Stroud to the hospital, and if necessary, volunteered to call Stroud back with the information he had requested when contact was established with the troopers.

   
   

9. While there is no evidence that St. Charles was intentionally rude or discourteous to Sergeant Stroud, the evidence does indicate that St. Charles did not conduct his duties in a manner that was becoming to a state employee.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer finds that the agency took the disciplinary action for good cause and therefore should be sustained.

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida.

STEPHEN F. DEAN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1978.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Vernon L. St. Charles 1401 North Forbes Road Plant City, Florida 33566

Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator, CSC

530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Edwin Strickland, Esquire John Whitney, Esquire

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida

Mr. Maurice Helms Personnel Director

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida

Docket for Case No: 78-000050

Orders for Case No: 78-000050