The Issue The nature of the controversy is set forth in the Order Finding Probable Cause issued by the Commission on Ethics (the "Commission") on September 16, 2015, which specifically alleged that Respondent, City Attorney, code enforcement special magistrate, or special or backup counsel for the City of North Port, violated sections 112.313(3), 112.313(6), 112.313(7)(a), and 112.313(16), Florida Statutes: [B]y providing counsel and recommendations to the City Commission regarding the adoption of local Ordinance 2014-29 requiring the appointment of a Zoning Hearing Officer and encouraging the City Commission to amend Part II, Chapter 2, Article IX, of the City Code to replace the Code Enforcement Board with a Code Enforcement Special Magistrate and offering himself for consideration for the position of Zoning Hearing Officer as well as Code Enforcement Special Magistrate. The issue is whether Respondent violated these provisions of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees as alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The City of North Port ("City") is an incorporated municipality, created by the Florida Legislature in 1959, and located in Sarasota County. Its electorate approved a revised charter in 1988. Subsequent amendments to the Charter were approved throughout the years, with the most recent amendment occurring in 2014. Article XIV, concerning the City Attorney, has never been amended. The City's form of government is Commission-Manager. The City Commission consists of five elected City Commissioners. The City Commissioners elect the Mayor, who serves as presiding officer of the City Commission, and who is elected by majority vote of the City Commissioners. The Mayor is "responsible to see that all laws, provisions of [the] Charter and acts of the [City] Commission are faithfully executed; [to] sign on behalf of the City all intergovernmental agreements . . . and any other official documents." The Charter establishes the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the City. The Charter requires the City Commission to appoint the City Manager who serves as the chief administrative officer. The Charter empowers the City Manager to supervise the daily administrative duties and all non-charter employees, make City personnel decisions, represent the City in contract negotiations, sign contracts on behalf of the City, enforce agreements, and perform numerous other duties. The City Commissioners may not interfere with the selection of the personnel of the City Manager's subordinates, nor give orders to City personnel. The Charter establishes the City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney. The Charter specifies that the City Clerk and City Attorney are offices that the City Commission cannot abolish. The Charter provides for the office of City Attorney and assigns various duties to the position. As indicated in section 1.03 of the Charter, "reference to any office or officer includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of such office." The functions of City Attorney include: attending all meetings; advising the City Commission as to its compliance with the Charter and Florida law; being the legal advisor and counselor for all departments; preparing and reviewing contracts, legal and official instruments; and endorsing each legal contract as to form and correctness. The Charter states that "[n]o legal document with [the] Municipality shall take effect until his approval is so endorsed thereon." Respondent provided legal services to the City of North Port from 2001 until August of 2014. From 2001 to 2006, Respondent was a partner in the Bowman, George, Scheb & Robinson law firm which had a contract to provide legal services to the City. The firm was designated the City Attorney for the City. In 2006, simultaneously with the renewal of the Bowman George contract, Respondent moved his practice to the Nelson Hesse law firm, in which he was a partner. From 2006 until August 2012, the Nelson Hesse law firm had a contract to provide legal services to the City. The firm was designated as the City Attorney. In each instance, the City contracted with a law firm, and not a specific individual, to serve as the City Attorney. From 2001 through August 2012, Respondent, as a member of a contracted law firm, performed the duties and responsibilities of the City Attorney as outlined in the City Charter and as provided in the contracts between the City and the Bowman George firm and the Nelson Hesse firm. In 2011, the City Commission began discussing alternatives to the way legal services were provided due to concerns with the City's rising costs for legal fees. In the spring of 2012, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) which sought "proposals from experienced and qualified law firms to provide a full range of municipal legal services serving as the City's legal counsel on a contractual basis." Respondent played no role in developing the RFP or participating in any discussions concerning the RFP because he believed it "would prohibit [his] submission of a proposal to that RFP." Commissioner Linda Yates testified that Respondent said he could not participate in the creation or discussions of the RFP due to ethical issues. Throughout the RFP process, Jonathan R. Lewis served as City Manager. He had been appointed by the City Commission and acts as chief administrative officer. In addition to his various duties, he is responsible for the hiring and firing of City personnel, representing the City in contract negotiations, and signing all contracts, agreements, and applications for the City after approval by the City Commission. Mr. Lewis signed a contract with Suzanne D'Agresta to provide legal advice and counsel to the City Commission during the RFP process since Respondent removed himself from the process as he intended to submit a proposal on behalf of his firm. RFP applicants were advised in writing that "[t]he City Attorney is appointed by the [City] Commission, serves as a Charter officer, and performs duties and responsibilities pursuant to the Charter of the City of North Port section 14.05 and the general law of the State of Florida." Other specialty legal services, such as bond work and pension issues, are outsourced. Minimum qualifications for the position included seven years' experience in Florida municipal law, and licensure by and good standing with The Florida Bar. The Nelson Hesse firm, partnering with the Lewis, Longman & Walker law firm, submitted a response to the RFP. Three other firms submitted responses to the RFP. After an interview process, the Nelson Hesse firm was ranked first by three of five members of the City Commission and the general consensus was that the firm was the most qualified applicant. The City and the Nelson Hesse firm then negotiated the terms of an agreement for legal services that were subsequently presented to the City Commission for approval. On August 15, 2012, the City of North Port approved the Agreement for Legal Services with the Nelson Hesse firm whereby the City employed, engaged, and hired "the Firm to serve as and to perform the duties and responsibilities of City Attorney pursuant to Request for Proposal No. 2012-21." The Agreement stated: The Firm designates and the City accepts Robert K. Robinson as the primary attorney for City legal work. Mr. Robinson may utilize the services of other attorneys and staff in the Firm and [Lewis, Longman and Walker] as he deems appropriate for City legal work. The Agreement, which commenced on September 1, 2012, was for a term of two years and could be renewed for one additional term of one year. The Agreement further provided: The Firm shall serve as the City Attorney who shall act as legal advisor to, and attorney and counselor for, the City and all of its officers in matters relating to their official duties. On September 10, 2012, the City Commission voted four- to-one to approve Nelson Hesse and Respondent to provide legal services to the City Commission. Commissioner Yates was the lone dissenter citing numerous reasons for her "no" vote. Nelson Hesse's compensation was fixed by contract as required by the Charter. A monthly retainer was set at $28,333.33 to cover a maximum of 2,400 hours, and the rate was fixed at $170 for "Hourly Legal Services." Expenses, including travel within the county, were to be billed to the City. The Office of City Attorney was budgeted through "Charter and Executive Services," and in FY 2012 the legal department had a budget of $776,000. Respondent was required to submit his projected budget annually. Respondent had office space for his use at City Hall. Unlike the contract with Ms. D'Agresta, which was signed by City Manager Lewis, Respondent's Agreement was signed by then-City Commission Chair Tom Jones. This indicates that Respondent or his firm was a Charter officer serving under the City Commission, and not a non-charter independent contractor serving under the City Manager on a temporary basis when Respondent and his firm recused themselves from any involvement with the RFP since they intended to submit a proposal. The Agreement reiterated and expanded the duties and powers enumerated in the Charter and provided that Respondent may not assign the Agreement without prior written consent of the City Commission. Respondent, as an individual, believes he was never appointed City Attorney by majority vote of the City Commission nor was he elected to that position. Respondent was also not an employee of the City. His firm, Nelson Hesse, in which he was a partner, served as City Attorney. From the evidence, this appears true even though the Charter refers to the City Attorney as "he or she." Following the November 2012 election of two new commissioners, the City began the process of transitioning from the use of a firm to serve as the City Attorney to the appointment of an individual to serve as the City Attorney. This process, which involved a series of meetings and workshops, included a review of all legal services for the City and eventually led to a decision to retain a consultant to conduct a search for an individual to serve as City Attorney. This process, in turn, led to the appointment of Mark Moriarty as the City Attorney by majority vote of the City Commission. Mr. Moriarty began his employment as the City Attorney on or about September 15, 2014. Well prior to Mr. Moriarty's start as City Attorney, at the June 9, 2014, City Commission meeting, at Vice-Mayor Rhonda DiFranco's request, Respondent, on behalf of his firm, Nelson Hesse, submitted a "Letter of Engagement," that he drafted, to the City Commission for approval. Since the 2012 Agreement with Nelson Hesse was going to expire on August 31, 2014, Respondent sought to provide the City with a "safety net" to ensure it would be covered for legal services until Mr. Moriarty was in place and the City had no need for further services from Nelson Hesse. The Letter of Engagement would allow Respondent, through his firm, to continue to provide advice and representation beginning September 1, 2014, as the backup attorney to the new in-house counsel, Mr. Moriarty. Additionally, the Letter of Engagement specified Respondent would "provide advice and representation to the City on zoning . . . [and as] code enforcement hearing officer." The Letter of Engagement included a higher hourly fee than the previous Agreement with the City ($275 versus $170). The reason given for the higher hourly fee was that Respondent could not ascertain how many hours, if any, his firm would work under the new arrangement and, therefore, could not offer a volume discount for his time. Nothing in the June 9 Engagement Letter required the City to use Nelson Hesse for any future work. The testimony as to Respondent's motive for placing the June 9 letter before the City Commission was disputed by the parties. Respondent was not representing a private individual or entity before the City Commission at the meeting. If he was representing anyone, he believes he was representing the City. He took no action to impede or frustrate the City Commission's move to an appointed City Attorney. If anything, the evidence suggests Respondent assisted the City in its search for an in- house City Attorney by recommending a search firm, and by speaking positively about the transition to the in-house situation. Because Mr. Moriarty was not going to assume his new position until September 15, 2014, the City Manager was authorized to enter into an interim agreement for legal services with Respondent's firm to cover the two-week period between the expiration of the prior Legal Agreement with Nelson Hesse and Mr. Moriarty's start date. Consistent with that new agreement, Respondent attended and provided legal services to the City Commission at its September 8, 2014, meeting. At this meeting, his firm was no longer the City Attorney, but was a contract attorney providing services during the interim period between City Attorneys. The Advocate's take on the post-City Attorney plans of Respondent was quite different. The argument was made that Respondent's June 9 letter was designed to hire Respondent's firm at an increased rate of $275 per hour, plus to make Respondent the Zoning Hearing Officer and Code Enforcement Special Magistrate. The Charter requires reading of a proposed ordinance at two separate public City Commission meetings at least one week apart. On the second and final reading, the proposed ordinance is offered for adoption. If adopted, it becomes local law on its effective date. Respondent, as City Attorney, supervised the drafting of Ordinance 2014-29 to create the position of Zoning Hearing Officer for zoning appeals and variance matters, effective September 1, 2014. The Zoning Hearing Officer was to be hired and could be terminated by the City Commission, which also would supervise the position. Ordinance 2014-29 was presented to the City Commission for first reading at the July 14, 2014, City Commission meeting. Respondent explained the ordinance to the commissioners and legally advised them on the document. The second reading took place at the City Commission's July 28, 2014, meeting. Again, Respondent offered legal advice to the commissioners about the ordinance's effects. Respondent suggested that an appointment needed to be made that night, effective September 1, 2014, the day after his Legal Agreement expired. He offered his services and responded "yes" to a question from City Commissioner Yates regarding whether a decision should be made that night. Respondent provided no other options other than to appoint him immediately. Other options may have been available since it was "the norm" (Respondent's words) for City Manager Lewis to contract with attorneys from a variety of law firms for services without undertaking the competitive solicitation process when specialty legal services were needed. Respondent himself could have called an experienced attorney to handle the pending petition. Instead, Respondent informed the City Commission it was not his responsibility to provide other options to the City Commission. When asked how he would be ready to go with this on September 1, 2014, Respondent said he would "take off [his] city attorney hat" and on September 1 "put on the zoning officer appeals hat." He made clear to the City Commissioners that he was "uniquely qualified" for the position, therefore no others need be considered in his opinion. With no other options before them and having been advised of the urgency of making the appointment, the City Commission appointed Respondent to serve a four-year term by a four-to-one vote (Commissioner Yates being the lone dissenter). Respondent served in the position of Zoning Hearing Officer from September 1 through September 19, 2014. He earned $1,453.50 for 5.5 hours worked ($264.27 per hour). Respondent's 2012 Agreement did not provide he could serve as Zoning Hearing Officer. Respondent drafted the June 9, 2014, Letter of Engagement allowing him to serve as Zoning Hearing Officer. As Zoning Hearing Officer, Respondent served at the pleasure of the City Commission and could be removed with or without cause by a majority of the City Commissioners. Respondent had the power to take testimony under oath and compel attendance of witnesses. He could not engage in any "ex-parte" communications with City Commissioners while serving as Zoning Hearing Officer because he was serving as a neutral arbitrator in a quasi-judicial position adjudicating controversies between two parties: the City and property owners. Respondent could not serve as backup legal advisor to the City from September 1 through 14, 2014, if at the same time he was serving as Zoning Hearing Officer since he was supposed to be in a neutral and, therefore, independent position. Ordinance 2014-30 amended the City Code to abolish the seven-member Code Enforcement Board and create one Code Enforcement Special Magistrate ("Special Magistrate") position, effective October 1, 2014. The Special Magistrate was to be hired by and could be terminated by the City Commission upon a majority vote. That ordinance was presented to the City Commission for first reading on July 28, 2014. Respondent advised the City Commissioners that the ordinance created a special magistrate position, and informed the City Commissioners he would work on the details for the position in September and October 2014, a period of time covered by the June 9 Letter of Engagement, but not the 2012 Legal Services Agreement. Respondent admitted he drafted the June 9 Letter of Engagement so that he could assume the special magistrate position himself. After advising the City Commission on the effects of the ordinance as their attorney, Respondent offered himself for consideration for the not-yet-existent position and was appointed on a four-to-one vote of the City Commissioners to a two-year term beginning October 1, 2014. Like the Zoning Hearing Officer, the Special Magistrate serves as a neutral arbitrator in a quasi-judicial position that adjudicates controversies between two parties: the City and the property owner or alleged violator. Respondent attended ethics classes taught by Chris Anderson, attorney for the Commission on Ethics. Respondent denied he had a conflict of interest because in his view a violation would occur by "the attorney getting up out of his chair and going down in front of the commission and representing John Q. Public or John Q. Developer with regard to matters that are appearing before the city commission. That was not the case with me." Respondent's term as City Attorney ended on August 31, 2014. On August 28, 2014, City Manager Lewis requested authorization from the City Commission to hire Respondent to provide legal services from September 1 through 15, because the new in-house City Attorney would not begin until September 15, 2014. At the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Commission on September 8, 2014, Ordinance 2014-30 was read a second time and voted for adoption. Respondent attended the meeting as the City Commission's legal advisor. Mayor Blucher introduced him as the "City Attorney" and quickly realized his error and corrected himself to announce Respondent's new title as "attorney for the City." Respondent replied, "Careful." This was apparently the only time Respondent reacted when he was identified as the appointed City Attorney. Although he claims his firm is the entity that contracted with the City to provide legal services, his silence is an admission he considered himself at least to be the de facto City Attorney or appointed public officer. City Commissioner Yates strongly objected every time Respondent's name was presented for the position of interim attorney for the City (for the September 1 through 14 period), Zoning Hearing Officer, or Special Magistrate. In each instance, she asked the City Commission to delay the vote until the new in- house City Attorney came on board so that he could have some input into the decision. She was outvoted four-to-one each time. Municipal governments utilize three typical arrangements for procuring legal services: 1) an in-house attorney who is directly on the government payroll; 2) an attorney in private practice whose firm (or the individual attorney) is retained through a contractual relationship under which the attorney remains employed by his/her firm; and 3) an attorney who practices in a specialized area who is retained on an as-needed basis through contract. Respondent's work for the City fits into the second category of lawyers retained to perform City business. In this matter, Respondent was considered by the City as a Charter Officer holding a public office. According to the RFP, the City sought a City Attorney as contemplated by its Charter when it appointed Respondent for the office. Respondent held himself out as the City Attorney to the Florida Attorney General when requesting legal opinions, to the public on his website, and to the Commission when filing his Form 1, "Statement of Financial Interests" (which also identifies him as an employee of his firm, Nelson Hesse). Respondent has never corrected the suggestion that he is City Attorney. His name appears as the appointed City Attorney on the City's official letterhead, and his picture hangs in City Hall with the other City officers. In City Hall, the name plate below his picture identifies him as the City Attorney and Charter Officer. The official minutes of each City Commission meeting held during his tenure indicate Respondent is the appointed City Attorney. Respondent admitted, when asked at hearing, that the Charter contemplates that a person, not an entity, will be the City Attorney. Respondent denies that he was "appointed" to the position of City Attorney, yet he did not correct Commissioner Blucher when he said during a meeting, "we elected him as a city attorney." City Commissioner Yates, also testifying at the hearing, believes the City Commission approved Respondent as the City Attorney. The City Charter does not require the City Attorney to take an oath of office and, although City Commissioner Yates does not recall whether Respondent did, she testified she expected he would have taken an oath as a matter of course. Respondent's current denial of any violations of chapter 112, Florida Statutes, and insistence that Nelson Hesse is the City Attorney conflicts with previous statements he made. At one point he declared, "Either I am or I am not the City Attorney." Further, when declining to negotiate an assignability clause in his June 9, 2014, Letter of Engagement because, as he explained to the City Commission, "But, the thing you have to understand is, Number 1, is that – is I'm sort of the center of the universe, so wherever I go, that's where it [this contract] goes." Respondent accurately, and appropriately, portrayed himself as the primary attorney for the City, regardless of his firm being named in his 2012 Agreement for Legal Services to the City. Respondent regularly signed official documents as "Robert K. Robinson, City Attorney," not as "Nelson Hesse as City Attorney, by Robert K. Robinson," or some other form of signature where he states his firm is the City Attorney. It is significant that the 2012 Agreement for Legal Services was signed by Tom Jones, then-Chair of the City Commission. The City Manager did not sign the document as he would have if this contract and the legal services rendered thereunder fell into the category of non-charter personnel performing legal (or other) services for the City. Only the City Commission can appropriately sign an agreement or contract designating a Charter Officer such as the City Attorney. Respondent was accountable to the City Commission for work performed under the Agreement. He acknowledged that the Agreement was on a City Commission agenda "at a public hearing where they [the Commissioners] adopted – or they executed the contract."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent, Robert K. Robinson, violated sections 112.313(6) and 112.313(16)(c), Florida Statutes, and ordering him to pay a penalty of $5,000 per violation ($10,000 total). DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth A. Miller, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Plaza Level 01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Mark Herron, Esquire Messer Caparello, P.A. Post Office Box 15579 2618 Centennial Place Tallahassee, Florida 32317 (eServed) Brennan Donnelly, Esquire Messer Caparello, P.A. 2618 Centennial Place Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Millie Wells Fulford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 (eServed) C. Christopher Anderson, III, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 (eServed) Virlindia Doss, Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a woman who suffered an aneurysm in 1987 which resulted in paralysis. Subsequently, she regained full use of her body except for her left hand. She possesses gross motor skills in her left hand but lacks fine motor skills. Respondent is a retail furniture store, which at times pertinent did about three million dollars in business annually. Respondent at times pertinent employed 23 to 26 full-time employees. Respondent went out of business on September 24, 2001. Petitioner interviewed with Doris Hudson and Cindy Gentry about three weeks prior to June 8, 2000. Petitioner was informed that she was hired and could begin work on June 8, 2000. The position she was hired for was accounts payable clerk. During the interview, the matter of the facility of Petitioner's left hand was not noted or discussed. Petitioner believed that the job consisted of mostly working on a keypad with numbers, in the accounts payable section of the bookkeeping office. Petitioner reported for work on June 8, 2000. Doris Hudson, Respondent's Comptroller, an employee of Respondent for over 41 years, provided her with a tour of the premises. Petitioner's first assignment was to type checks. She did this slowly because she could type only with her right hand. Typing checks is an important function of the accounts payable clerk. Most vendors were paid by checks which were prepared by data processing equipment but it was necessary to prepare many checks for local vendors on a typewriter. During the hour and a-half Petitioner worked at the typewriter, she correctly prepared three checks. Ms. Hudson expected an accounts payable clerk to prepare 25 to 35 checks in an hour and a-half. An accounts payable clerk, according to Ms. Hudson, should be able to type 55 words per minute; Petitioner could type only 30 words per minute on a good day. An accounts payable clerk's daily activities included kneeling on the floor and opening a large safe; swinging open a heavy door which has to be unlocked with two keys simultaneously; counting 30 to 50 checks per day and counting currency and coins; and printing out reports which were inserted in a large binder. A substantial part of the duties of the accounts payable clerk required excellent typing and data input skills. The accounts payable clerk was required to reload the printers and this required the coordination of two hands. The accounts payable clerk was required to prepare deposits which required that the employee flip each individual check with one hand and operate a calculator with the other. Ms. Hudson did not discover the deficiencies with regard to Petitioner's left hand until she made inquiry after noting the small number of checks which Petitioner prepared. Ms. Hudson could not use an employee who could not do the activities described in paragraph eight and nine, above. Ms. Hudson could not call others in the office away from their jobs to help a person who had limited use of one hand. She did not have enough employees. When Ms. Hudson's office was fully staffed there were many times when it was difficult to accomplish all necessary duties in an eight-hour day. It was Ms. Hudson's opinion that Petitioner could not perform the duties of accounts payable clerk and that it was impossible to accommodate her deficiencies without disrupting the orderly functioning of her office. After considering Petitioner's capabilities and the requirements of the accounts payable clerk, Ms. Hudson decided that Petitioner was not suitable for employment as an accounts payable clerk and as a result, discharged her. Petitioner was paid $22.61 for 2.66 hours of work. This reflected an hourly wage of $8.50. Petitioner worked as an administrative assistant at Century Boats in Panama City prior to obtaining the job with Respondent. She lost that job in February of 2000, due to a reduction in workforce. After Petitioner left Respondent's place of business she went to work at a clinic run by Bay Medical. She began working there on August 28, 2000, as an insurance coder and biller and was paid $8.00 per hour. She lost that job on February 28, 2001, when the facility closed. She was offered a job in the radiology section but it paid less so she elected to remain essentially unemployed for a year. She did work a one- week job with Cardiology Associates and worked for C-1 Medical Clinic for a month and a-half during that period. Petitioner, at the time of the hearing, was employed by Nextel Communications as a customer care representative and was paid $9.50 per hour. She started February 18, 2002. Petitioner has a hard time buttoning clothes but she can drive an automobile. She testified she could do, ". . . everything pretty much what everybody does." She can't throw a ball up with her left hand or play tennis anymore. She can lift heavy objects up to at least 75 pounds. She has no medical restrictions placed on the use of her left hand.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Human Relations Commission enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Amended Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 11th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Chesser 6802 Penny Road Panama City, Florida 32404 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4019 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This case is presented for consideration based upon a claim by the Petitioner, E. R. Brannon, Sr. against the Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, contending that the Respondent, by its employment practices, has unlawfully discriminated against the petitioner Brannon related to an alleged handicap, in violation of Subsection 23.167(1)(a), Florida Statutes. In view of this purported violation, Petitioner Brannon requests money damages in the way of back salary payments and benefits, together with attorney's fees, in keeping with Subsection 23.167(13), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner Brannon declines the opportunity for any reinstatement in his former employment with the Brevard Sheriff's Office. In defending against these accusations, the Respondent has plead certain affirmative defenses and contends that its action dismissing the Petitioner Brannon was lawful in view of the provision, Subsection 23.167(8)(a), Florida Statutes, specifically related to the portion of that provision dealing with taking action based upon the need for an absence of a particular handicap as related to a "bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary for the performance of the particular employment to which such action or inaction is related."
Findings Of Fact Case History On April 2, 1979, the Petitioner, F. R. Brannon, Sr., executed a form complaint of discrimination with the Petitioner, Florida Commission on Human elations, which challenged his dismissal by the Brevard County Sheriff's Department, which occurred on January 5, 1979. After reviewing the complaint, the Petitioner Commission, by action of September 11, 1980, as filed on September 16, 1980, made its determination of case, i.e., reasonable cause to believe an unlawful employment practice had occurred reference the Brevard County Sheriff's Department's dismissal of the Petitioner Brannon. A separate notice of the determination of cause was forwarded to the complainant Brannon and the Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, on September 16, 1980. Efforts were then made to reach conciliation between the contesting parties and these efforts were unsuccessful and notification of this failure of conciliation was forwarded by the Commission on October 21, 1980. On November 21, 1980, counsel for the Petitioner Brannon made known his appearance before the Commission through written Notice of Appearance and filed a Petition for Relief on the subject of the aforementioned claim brought by the Petitioner Brannon. By document dated November 25, 1990, and placed on file November 26, 1980, the Commissioners of the Florida Commission on Human Relations were notified of the filing of Brannon's Petition for Relief from alleged unlawful employment practice. Subsequent to that notification, Brannon's Petition was transmitted to the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration of the claim. This transmittal was made on November 26, 1980, and received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 1, 1980. On December 1, 1980, counsel for the Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, filed its answer to the Petition and statement of affirmative defenses. The Respondent also, by motion of that date, moved to dismiss the Petition. The Motion to Dismiss was denied on December 12, 1980. On December 31 1980, the Respondent, in the person of its former counsel, Charles F. Broome, Esquire, wrote to the Hearing Officer to advise that there had been a change in administration in the Brevard County Sheriff's Office and that the newly elected sheriff wished to have a substitution of counsel. There ensued a series of contacts on the part of this Hearing Officer to establish a hearing date which would accommodate the change in administration and substitution of counsel. After consultation with the parties, the month of March, 1981, was tentatively selected as a time for hearing. This determination was made upon consultation with counsel for the parties, to include Catherine Riley, Esquire, the substituted counsel for the Brevard County Sheriff's Office. The case was subsequently scheduled for hearing on March 9, 1981. Prior to the time for hearing, a letter was written by counsel for the Respondent on January 16, 1981, to advise that one of her witnesses was unable to attend the hearing until after March 30, 1981. By correspondence dated January 22, 1981, in response to the letter of January 16, 1981, which had been addressed to counsel for the Petitioner, counsel for the Petitioner acquiesced in the continuance of the hearing and asked that the matter be set at the first available date beyond March 29, 1981. The correspondence was treated as a motion to continue the case on behalf of the Brevard County Sheriff's office, and the matter was reset for hearing on April 9, 1981. The Respondent, Brevard County Sheriff's Department, had also moved to file an additional affirmative defense, and this motion was granted on February 2, 1981. The initial session of the hearing was held on April 9, 1981, and continued until May 29, 1981, allow the hearing to be concluded. The hearing was concluded on May 29, 1981, and this Recommended Order is being entered after such hearing. In the way of argument, the parties have submitted written memoranda through counsel and have suggested proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended disposition in this matter. To the extent that those proposals, conclusions and recommendations are consistent with the Recommended Order, they have been utilized. To the extent that the proposals, conclusions and recommendations are inconsistent with this Recommended Order, they are hereby rejected. Material Facts The Petitioner, E. R. Brannon, Sr., is an individual who was forty- three (43) years of age at the time of the formal hearing. In the course of his adult life he has worked primarily in law enforcement for a period of sixteen (16) to seventeen (17) years, to include service to the Lake City, Florida, police Department; Eau Gallie, Florida, Police Department: Melbourne, Florida, Police Department; two periods of service with the Brevard County, Florida, Sheriff's Office; the Orange County, Florida, Sheriff's Office and the Marion County, Florida, Sheriff's Office. On July 4, 1974, while working for the Marion County Sheriff's Office as a line deputy, the Petitioner Brannon was shot in his left side and left hand in an attempt to apprehend a felon. He was given a period of convalescence by his employer and then returned as an investigator for the Marion County Sheriff's Office. In September, 1976, after being returned to duty, the condition in his left hand was exacerbated by another job related injury, leading to the eventual amputation of his left hand on November 9, 1980, after the hand had become gangrenous. This final treatment intervention followed a series of approximately twenty (20) operations over the period of time following the initial gunshot wound. The Petitioner Brannon left his employment with Marion County and in January of 1977, took employment with the Brevard County Sheriff's Office where he was hired as a Lieutenant in charge of the division dealing with communications and vehicle maintenance. At all pertinent times to this inquiry, his employer, the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, was an employer with fifteen (15) or more persons working for that entity, for a period of twenty (20) weeks or more during the year. While Brannon was working for the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, he was placed in the position of Captain, awaiting pay adjustment to that grade. At the time of his dismissal from the Brevard County Sheriff's Office on January 5, 1979, he was receiving a salary of approximately $1,260.00 per month, with an additional $175.77 per month contributed for the benefit of his retirement. While serving as the Division Commander of the Communications and Maintenance Unit of the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, Brannon had as many as thirty (30) persons under his supervision. Brannon bad been hired by Sheriff Ronald W. Zimmerman and worked for that individual until September, 1978, when Zimmerman was suspended. Following Zimmerman's suspension from September, 1978, until January 5, 1979, the date of his discharge, Brannon worked for Sheriff David U. Strawn. During the course of Brannon's service under the command of Sheriff Strawn, the problem with Brannon's hand caused him mild to severe pain and led to frequent usage of Demerol and Vistaril to accommodate this problem. Although the visits were not made during working hours per se, Brannon made numerous visits to a local hospital during the September, 1978, to January 5, 1979, time frame, for purposes of treatment. The degree of his discomfort and the effect on Brannon was such that by January 30, 1979, his treating physician, Dr. Maurice Hodge, was of the opinion that Brannon was "totally disabled because he is unable [sic] to use his hand for any gainful purpose. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence and attachment identified as Respondent's No. 1. Notwithstanding the physical discomfort, Brannon attempted to perform his role as Deputy Sheriff and supervisor; however, there were numerous absences from duty during the time of the Strawn administration, to include a period December 18, 1978, through December 30, 1978. All of these absences were accounted for as authorized holidays, annual leave or sick leave. James H. Garvin, presently a Captain in the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, in the position of Jail Supervisor, was emoloyed with that Sheriff's Office during Sheriff Strawn's tenure. At that time, his office in the Sheriff's complex building was located adjacent to that of Brannon and to the extent that the two officers had contact, Garvin did not have difficulty with work coordination involving Brannon. Other officers who had association with Brannon during the time of Strawn's service as Sheriff, included Johnny L. Manis, who was a Captain in 1978, in the Brevard County Sheriff's Office. The communication section was included in his area of responsibility and upon Brannon's dismissal, Manis took over the responsibilities which Brannon had fulfilled in the communications section. Upon taking over, Captain, now Lieutenant, Manis, found the morale in that section to be less than acceptable and the turnover rate to be, in his estimation, excessive. Captain Charles Tenvooren who served as a Major in the Strawn administration, had supervisory responsibility for Brannon in that time period and recalls that Brannon was in the hospital at times. Tenvooren knew that Brannon was being treated for the condition related to his arm and hand and observed impairment in Brannon's job function. As supervisor, he spoke with Sheriff Strawn about the medication that Brannon was taking. Tenvooren also spoke with Brannon about the problem of impairment related to the injury to the arm, as described by the witness Tenvooren. Brannon, in talking with Tenvooren, mentioned the pain which he was experiencing. Lieutenant Harmon B. Wisby testified in the course of the hearing. When Strawn was Sheriff, Lieutenant Wisby was the coordinator of the reserve auxiliary group of the Sheriff's Department. During that time sequence, Wisby was aware of the fact that Brannon was under medication, information he gained from conversations he had with Brannon. Brannon indicated ythat he was having pain and that he was to go back to the hospital. Brannon also indicated to Wisby that he had been given medication to assist him in coping with the pain. Wisby recalls several times when Brannon did not seem aware of his surroundings while he was in the office building, in that Brannon would not respond to him when spoken to in the form of a greeting. Alice Alderman who is a Communications Officer with the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, who worked in the communications section while Brannon was supervisor during the Strawn administration, testified at the hearing. She admits that she had a personality conflict with Brannon. Nonetheless, she testified that during this time sequence he seemed to be "distant." Another employee within the communications section who testified at the hearing was Debbie Walden who was a Communications Dispatcher in the Brevard Sheriff's Office at the time that Strawn was Sheriff. Brannon was her shift supervisor and she recalls numerous absences by Brannon, who from her recollection worked on the same shift on which she was employed. She also indicated that morale was a problem at the time that Brannon was in charge of the section. On January 5, 1979, through correspondence, Sheriff Strawn dismissed Brannon. A copy of the dismissal may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence. In the course of the hearing, Strawn indicated that his decision to dismiss no basis for the correspondence was premised on evidence gained from other personnel in the Sheriff's Office; the medical reports pertaining to the Petitioner's physical condition related to his hand; the prognosis on that condition; the uses of pain medication; a few personal observations of the Petitioner in which Strawn felt the Petitioner to be "spacey"; the belief that the Petitioner was not capable of line duty, i.e., responsibilities as an armed deputy; the problem which Brannon appeared to have approaching his job with a "clear head"; the high turnover in the communications section, indicating a problem with management by Brannon; a property control problem related to equipment which Brannon had in his charge and Brannon's lack of ability as an administrator and supervisor. All of Strawn's background reasons and observations were an accurate depiction of the circumstance with the exception that there was insufficient proof in the course of the hearing to demonstrate that Brannon had acted inappropriately on the subject of property control of equipment in the communications section. Likewise, reported observations by coworkers are correct. In particular, the use of pain medication for the handicap related to the injured arm and hand was such that Brannon was incapable of performing the duty of a line officer charged with the direct protection of the public and the possibility of use of force to effect that purpose. This medication also compounded Brannon's problems as an administrator. When the dismissal letter was drafted, the prime focus of that letter was to the effect that the Sheriff's Office was concerned about Brannon's return to employment duties because of the belief by the Department that there would be exposure for liability in terms of workmen's Compensation claims by Brannon, in that the Sheriff's office believed that they would be entirely liable for physical disability if Brannon suffered an "industrial accident" while acting in the scope and capacity of his position within the Department. In further explanation, it was stated that the Department believed the health circumstance of Brannon was intense in view of the pain and associated use of special medications. For these reasons, Strawn was concerned that any negligent act by Brannon could result in liability for the Department, apparently from claims by third parties. The letter of dismissal went on to say that his duties were not being performed as well as expected because of Brannon's physical condition and the necessity for taking drugs to cope with those problems and further concern for fellow officers and members of the public. This statement can be related to Brannon's potential abilities as a lane officer and his primary function as supervisor of the communications and maintenance section. (Notwithstanding the fact that Brannon was not serving on a day-to-day capacity as a line officer, as a Deputy Sheriff he could reasonably be expected to be pressed into service in the eventuality of some emergency which called upon all appointees within the Sheriff's Office who are deputies to serve in that capacity, and as Brannon himself stated at the hearing, Sheriff's deputies are technically on duty twenty-four (24) hours a day.) Finally, the impression was created in the hearing process that the Strawn administration had been concerned about Brannon's absenteeism and morale in his section. Although this is not expressly stated in the letter of dismissal, the facts presented in evidence bear out the contention that Brannon was absent an inordinate number of times, notwithstanding the fact that the absences were taken under legitimate leave principles, and there were problems related to morale in the communications section. In addressing Strawn's worries, there was no procedure undertaken for formal evaluation of Brannon's performance. Sheriff Strawn did discuss Brannon's physical condition with him and what the Sheriff perceived to be a problem with the communications equipment inventory control system. On January 8, 1979, Brannon began to look for alternative employment and gained such employment with the Brevard County Public Safety Division, within the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on march 26, 1979, and was employed by them until January 14, 1981. During the course of his employment, he received $16,812.40 in gross earnings, and was provided life insurance commensurate with his annual salary, as well as health insurance. In addition, this employer "paid-in" at the rate of 9.1 percent of annual salary, into a retirement system. This payment to the retirement system was not made during leave without pay between July 1, 1980, and August, 1980. Following his employment with the Brevard Counts' Public Safety Division, Brannon worked for the Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, eighteen (18) to twenty (20) days, a month maximum. Following Brannon's dismissal from the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, he also requested social security disability benefits in the summer of 1980, and that claim is now pending.
The Issue The questions posed by this dispute involve the assertion by Petitioner that she is entitled to be credited with retirement benefits as an employee who is certified as "high hazard" for the period July 1, 1965, through November 30, 1970. See Section 122.34, Florida Statutes. Further, Petitioner claims entitlement to credit while employed in an alleged capacity as "special risk" member of the Florida Retirement System for the period December 1, 1970, through March 31, 1980. See Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. Respondent does not believe Petitioner is entitled to recognition in the "high hazard" and "special risk" categories for the referenced periods. Thus, the need for the formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing.
Findings Of Fact On July 1, 1965, Petitioner, Judy Wyllie, whose name at that time was Judy L. Benton, made application for employment with the Volusia County, Florida, Sheriff's Office. On that date, Petitioner was 18 years of age, having been born on May 3, 1947. Petitioner has also been referred to as Judy L. Weir. The specific position being applied for on July 1, 1965, was related to secretarial work. She was hired on July 1, 1965, as a civil clerk in the sheriff's office, not as a law enforcement officer. On December 15, 1969, the Petitioner resigned her position with the sheriff's office. She returned in January 1970 and has continued her employment. Upon her resignation she was refunded the amount paid into her retirement account and has yet to repay the reimbursed amount into the Florida Retirement System and cannot claim credit for service from July 1, 1965, until the date of resignation on December 15, 1969. Between 1969 and 1912, Petitioner was assigned the position of Clerk IV, a designation within the personnel system of Volusia County, Florida. That system establishes job positions and specifications for the Volusia County Sheriff's Office at present and at relevant times contemplated by this inquiry beginning in 1971. The Clerk IV position involved the supervision of clerical work done-within the Civil Division of the sheriff's office by clerks who maintain records and reports. Petitioner answered public questions and maintained a payroll. Budget matters, including purchasing, were a part of her responsibility. She maintained liaison between the courts and attorneys of Volusia County in civil court matters. The Civil Division of the sheriff's office included a position known as Civil Deputy. This position of Civil Deputy was a recognized position within the Volusia County Personnel System. Those employees who were Civil Deputies worked in public safety, serving civil court papers to people who were expected to appear in court as defendants or witnesses. In pursuing their duties related to civil law, these employees would serve writs of possession, writs of replevin, writs of attachment and writs of execution. Petitioner, in her position as Clerk IV, supervised the Civil Deputies. On March 13, 1970, Petitioner was designated the rank of Lieutenant within the Volusia County Sheriff's Office. This designation was made by Sheriff Edwin Howland Duff II. It was not a designation which had been accepted by the Volusia County Personnel System. In effect, this designation of Lieutenant was an in-house arrangement by which Sheriff Duff attempted to promote the acceptance of Petitioner's supervisory decisions and her authority to carry out her functions within the Civil Section of the sheriff's office. This arrangement ceased in 1977. Over time the sheriff sought to have Petitioner's position upgraded, and on November 11, 1975, Petitioner was promoted to the position of Civi1 Court Records Supervisor. This is a designation by the Volusia County Personnel System, and the position is described as being one involving technical, clerical and supervisory work of some complexity involving the coordination and supervision of civil court records within the sheriff's office. This designation gave illustrations of the duties, to include review, control and writing of refund checks to attorneys and the general public related to overpayment of fees, etc. It involved maintaining liaison between the Civil Division of the sheriff's office and the courts and attorneys within the county. It also involved assistance in the preparation of the budget for that division. The position specifications further describe the involvement with certain writs such as replevin and habeas corpus. In her new position, Petitioner continued to be the supervisor of the Civil Deputies. During the pendency of Petitioner's service within the Civil Division of the sheriff's office, in the capacity described, and while other personnel known as Civil Deputies were performing their function, there was another personnel position within Volusia County which was known as Deputy Sheriff. The Deputy Sheriff position involved work of a general public safety nature with the primary emphasis being related to protection of life and property and the routine enforcement of laws and regulations. Among the duties of those persons serving as Deputy Sheriffs was the patrolling of parks, building, installations and property in areas where the deputies were on foot or operating out of police vehicles. The task of these law enforcement officers was to preserve law and order and to prevent damage to property via fire, theft or vandalism. They were to respond to calls and complaints involving automobile accidents, domestic disturbances and misdemeanors or felonies. They were entitled to serve writs, warrants, summons and civil papers. In addition to enforcing traffic laws and regulations, the deputies were to conduct preliminary investigations involving crime or accident, to obtain witnesses and evidence and to make arrests and transport or escort prisoners to and from confinement areas. They were also to testify in court related to arrests that had been made. While employed with the Civil Division of the sheriff's office in Volusia County, Petitioner was required to participate in a study involving the examination of the duties of Civil Court Records Supervisor. This study took place in 1978. In this study there are identified duties which are synonymous with the job description for Civil Court Records Supervisor as previously described. The study also sets forth that ten per cent of the job function involved keeping up with civil laws by reading statute books, sheriff's manuals and sheriffs association literature; attending civil seminars a couple of times a year for schooling; and by assisting in difficult levies where inventorying was required or involving sheriff's sales and taking up money and writing receipts. Nowhere does this study, the official description of her employment as Clerk IV or Civil Court Records Supervisor, suggest that any significant amount of time was devoted to duties which are traditionally related to law enforcement, as described in Chapter 121 and 122, Florida Statutes, Chapter 22-B, Florida Administrative code, and the description of law enforcement activities related to Deputy Sheriffs within the Volusia County Personnel System. Effective April 1, 1980, Petitioner was serving and continues to serve as a supervisor of a new position within the Volusia County Personnel System known as Judicial Support Officer. The individuals who serve in that capacity had been recognized as "special risk'' members of the Florida Retirement System, as envisioned by Section 121.515, Florida Statutes, commencing April 1, l980. Those persons are required to be certified in compliance with Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, pertaining to police minimum standards of the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission for police officers, in that it is necessary for those persons in the position of Judicial Support Officer to obtain certification within the year of appointment to that position. The Judicial Support Officers function as bailiffs for the circuit court; guard prisoners on the way to and from courtrooms; call defendants, plaintiffs and witnesses before the judge; escort prisoners who have been convicted to the court cashier and verify payments of fines before prisoners are released; transport prisoners from one destination to another to guard against escape; return prisoners by the extradition process from other states, serve warrants, subpoenas or other court documents as required; and perform other related duties. The duties of the Judicial Support Officer contemplate involvement with criminal law matters as well as civil law proceedings. These functions are akin to those activities set out in Section 121.0515, Florida Statutes, pertaining to criteria for recognition as special risk's members within the Florida Retirement System. It is for this reason that the Judicial Support Officers and the Petitioner, as supervisor to those persons who serve as Judicial Support Officers, were recognized by Respondent as "special risk" members of the retirement system effective April 1, 1980. With the advent of the Judicial Support Officer position in the Volusia County Civil Service, the Civil Deputy positions were phased out. By application made to the State of Florida, Florida Retirement System, Petitioner sought recognition and credit for service as a "high hazard" employee as contemplated by Section 122.34, Florida Statutes, in the period July 1, 1965, through November 30, 1970. Additionally, she has sought recognition and credit as a "special risk" member of the retirement system for the period December 1, 1970, through March 31, 1980, as contemplated by Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. Various documents have been submitted in support of her claim to entitlement to an accelerated accumulation of retirement credits gained by persons who are recognized in the "high hazard" and "special risk" categories. Those documents were examined and commented on by officials within the Respondent agency, and the State Retirement Director, A. J. McMullian III, concluded that the request for recognition should not be granted and made known this position in correspondence of June 28, 1985, directed to the Petitioner. This intent to deny a claim for credits in the subject categories led the Petitioner to request a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. This request for hearing was made, on July 11, 1985. It was followed by the formal petition seeking relief and recognition of the credit for service in the disputed categories. The formal petition is dated September 5, 1985. Following the referral of this action to the Division of Administrative Hearings, a formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing was held on the dates reflected in this recommended order. In advancing her claims for further credit in the "special risk" category and in an attempt to be recognized in the "high hazard" category, Petitioner points out the fact that she has been provided a badge from the sheriff's office, a badge holder, uniforms and other accouterments which law enforcement officers display. She occasionally wears a uniform which indicates affiliation with the sheriff's office of Volusia County. She has a pistol and has participated in proficiency training for the use of that pistol. Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Chapter 943, Florida Statutes, pertaining to the recognition by the police standards certifying agency. This recognition was pursuant to "grandfathering" at the request of former Sheriff Rodney B. Thursby, who was the sheriff in Volusia County from January 1, 1957, up to January 1, 1969. As a member of the sheriff's office, Petitioner has been bonded. Petitioner, during the course of her employment with the Civil Division of the sheriff's office, has had occasion to act as a matron of female prisoners, has transported prisoners in her custody, has made arrests, and has been involved with the transportation of incompetent persons and since 1969 has been involved with field work in which she has assisted in carrying out writs or orders of court involving arrest, execution and replevin. In her duties, she has detained individuals in a detention facility. Typically, this activity occurs when females or children are involved or families are to be evicted from their residence. In carrying out her function related to civil proceedings, it could be expected that in some instances people would react violently and at times must be taken into custody. Examples of Petitioner's civil arrests were presented in the hearing. This arrest function and other functions described in the preceding paragraph are rare and certainly can not be described as routine. In performing these duties, Petitioner has carried her badge and gun. Although Petitioner seeks recognition for service under the "high hazard" category, the Volusia County Sheriff's Office has never submitted her name for certification as a person who performed duties according to rule, order or established custom as a full-time criminal law enforcement officer, nor has this certification been made by anyone within the general government of Volusia County. For the period December 1, 1970, to October 1, 1978, Petitioner's employer has not sought recognition of her service as a "special risk.' member of the retirement system. Finally, there has been no demonstration of any payment of additional funds into the State and County Retirement System to defray the expense of membership in the "high hazard" category. During the period of time that remains in dispute, July 1, 1965, through March 31, 1980, as stated, Petitioner was seldom involved in arresting persons either in her individual capacity or in assisting or supervising others. Petitioner, in that time frame, cannot be considered to have as her primary and duties and responsibilities the apprehension of law violators or suspected law violators, either in the sense of the job specifications pertaining to her clerical and supervisory functions within the Civil Division of the sheriff's office or actual day to day activities in those roles. Nor can it be found that her primary duties or responsibilities were that of maintaining physical custody of prisoners within a prison or any other form of detention facility or accompanying prisoners in transport of those prisoners or other persons held in custody. Petitioner's occasional acquaintanceship with law enforcement duties is similar to persons who are recognized under Section 122.34, Florida Statutes, as "high hazard" and Section 121.0515, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 22-B, Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to "special risk." Nonetheless, Petitioner's primary duties have never related to those traditional law enforcement practices of pursuit, apprehension or arrest of law violators or suspected law violators. Her primary obligation is that of administrative support involving accounting, purchasing, legal and personnel matters. Her law enforcement function is incidental as would be incumbent upon all sworn officers. This role as law enforcement officer in the time frame was not an essential part of her job. The Civil Deputies whom the Petitioner supervised, in furtherance of the job description, wore uniforms and related to civil matters, made arrests of persons who did not pay child support and transported those individuals to jail. The Civil Deputies also detained persons who were in their custody and transported prisoners and mental incompetents to receiving facilities. The Civil Deputies were involved with the civil process service, not criminal process service. The Civil Deputies bore firearms during the relevant period. Typically, the Civil Deputies would make one or two arrests per month, and on occasion as many as three or four arrests. As described by the Civil Deputies who testified in the course of the hearing, very little time was spent by the Petitioner in supervising arrest functions in the field by Civil Deputies. The traditional law enforcement functions of the Civil Deputies in the relevant period before April 1, 1980, were incidental to their job position. In trying to make a retrospective examination of the entitlement of the Petitioner or others in similar circumstance who have sought recognition as "special risk" members who are employed in law enforcement, for the period December 1, 1970, to October 1, 1978, Respondent has a policy of referring to the then-existing provision of Rule 22B-1.05, Florida Administrative Code, and its amendments made in that time period. This choice is made in an effort to have available the same criteria that were utilized in assessing those applicants for "special risk" membership while the rules were operative, to insure equal treatment of the applicants, such as Petitioner, who make application following the repeal of those intervening rule provisions. This policy choice is administratively sound and affords due process.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447. Whether the Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447. Whether there is a sufficient showing of interest as required for the filing of a representation election petition under Florida Statutes, Chapter 447. Whether the employee organization is a properly registered organization with the Public Employees Relations Commission. What is the appropriate unit of public employees in the cause before the Public Employees Relations Commission. HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT The five issues were discussed at the hearing with the following results: It was agreed that the City of Rockledge is a public employer. It was agreed that the Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447. It was agreed that there is a sufficient showing of interest as required for the filing of a presentation election petition under Florida Statutes, Chapter 147. It was agreed that the employee Organization is a properly registered organization with the public Employees Relations Commission. The appropriate unit of public employees in the cause was in dispute. The Petitioner stated that the Association wanted to represent the dispatchers, patrolmen, sergeants, lieutenants and the detectives. The Public Employer requested that only patrolmen and detectives should make up the unit.
Findings Of Fact The Petition, styled Brevard County P.B.A, Petitioner, and City of Rockledge, Public Employer, seeks a certificate of representation as the exclusive bargaining agent for Officers of the City of Rockledge, Florida, including patrolmen, sergeants, dispatchers lieutenants and detectives. Excluded are captains and the chief of police. The city Counsel of the city of Rockledge, Florida, in the minutes dated April 2, 1975, agreed to follow guidelines under "Section 300" (8H300) of the Florida Administrative Code. See "Exhibit (1)". An envelope furnished by PERC containing authorization cards for the Brevard County P.B.A., alphabetized list of employees provided by the employers, notice of appearance forms for the attorneys, request to appear forms by the public, registration file (original) for the Brevard County P.B.A, original petition file including Petition, affidavit of registration, affidavit for 30 per cent showing interest, was circulated and without objection entered into evidence. See "Exhibit (2)". There are eighteen (18) men in the proposed bargaining unit: nine (9) patrolmen, two (2) detectives, three (3) dispatchers, three (3) lieutenants and one sergeant. A copy of the official job description of the City of Rockledge Police Department effective prior to the instigation of these proceedings was requested to be examined by both parties and submitted to the Hearing Officer and was submitted and marked as Supplement to the Record" and is made a part of this file. The major functions of personnel as delineated in the job descriptions submitted are as follows: Lieutenant: This is supervisory work in coordinating police activities on an assigned shift or specialized division of the department. The employee is responsible for the overall supervision of the subordinate personnel (patrolmen, dispatchers, etc.) engaged in police activities on an assigned shift or a specialized division. Part of the duties are to assign, direct and supervise the work of subordinate personnel engaged in routine police activities or criminal investigations. This employee reviews and makes recommendations for disciplinary action of subordinate personnel of the department. Sergeants: This is supervisory and specialized police work in the field and in police headquarters. An employee in this classification may also assume the total responsibilities as assigned to a regular shift commander. An employee in this classification may also be assigned the duty of coordinating the communication operators (dispatchers). When working as a shift commander the duties are the sane as listed for a lieutenant's duties. Patrolmen: This is general duty police work in enforcing laws and ordinances of the federal, state and local governments. Specific assignments are received from superior officers and carried out in accordance with the established rules and procedures. Personnel must be able to act without direct supervision in emergencies. Primary duties are to enforce the laws and ordinances and investigate and see whether these laws and ordinances are being violated. Detectives: The major functions of the detective is specialized police work but also includes enforcing the laws and ordinances of the federal, state and local governments. Major duties include the conducting of surveillance assignments to help detect crime and general investigative work. Communication operator or dispatcher: This is specialized work receiving, screening and dispatching messages of police communication systems. His duty largely is the operation of the radio transmitter for the purpose of dispatching patrol and detective units and receiving messages. In accordance with Chapter 447, Florida Statutes, no recommendations are submitted. August 8, 1975. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Williams, Vice President Brevard County P.B.A. 978 Beacon Road Rockledge, Florida 32955 Vernon Weekly, Past President Brevard County P.B.A. 700 Sandgate Street Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Dale Dixon, President Brevard County P.B.A. 2460 North Coutenay parkway Suite 216 Merritt Island, Florida 32952 John A. Hipp, City Manager City of Rockledge Post office Box 488 Rockledge, Florida 32955 Jim Gilliard 993 Pinson Boulevard Rockledge, Florida Ronald F. Ray Post office Box 206 Rockledge, Florida Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 105 2005 Apalachee parkway Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The question presented here concerns the entitlement of the Petitioner, Theodore D. Walker to be approved to serve as Chief of Security, Palm Beach Jai Alai, Palm Beach County, Florida, in the face of the Director, Division of Pari- Mutuel Wagering's disapproval of that request.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this cause, Theodore D. Walker, has made application to serve as Chief of Security for the Fronton, Inc., in its fronton known as Palm Beach Jai Alai, Palm Beach County, Florida, for the seasons 1980-81. This request has been denied by the Respondent in the person of the Director of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering. The justification for this denial is premised upon the alleged conflict of interest between the employment responsibilities of the Petitioner in his part- time employment as Chief of Security at the Palm Beach Fronton and his primary duty responsibilities as Lead Investigator in the State Attorney's office, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, which is the State Attorney's office with jurisdiction over the County in which the Palm Beach Jai Alai is located. As authority for his denial, the Director has referred to Rule Subsections, 7E-3.03(11) and (12), Florida Administrative Code. 1/ The Petitioner has held seasonal employment as a security officer with the Fronton, Inc. in its West Palm Beach facility from 1965 until the Director's denial of approval which occurred on August 26, 1988. Beginning in 1972, Petitioner had been approved as Chief of Security at the aforementioned fronton. Walker has worked as an investigator in the State Attorney's office, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, continuously beginning in 1973, and at the time he was hired in his primary employment as investigator, he held the secondary employment as Chief of Security with the Palm Beach Fronton. The Honorable David Bludworth, State Attorney, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, knew of Mr. Walker's secondary employment as Chief of Security for the fronton when Walker was hired. Over the years, Walker has been promoted from the position of investigator to the position of Lead investigator. Presently his duties for the State Attorney's office involve assisting the attorneys in that office in the preparation of their cases for trial; original investigations that do not have their origins with other law enforcement agencies, in particular "white collar" crime, including public officials and law enforcement personnel and the primary responsibility to head up the "organized" crime unit of that State Attorney's office. In connection with his duties, the Petitioner is granted arrest powers and carries a weapon. As a full-time employee of the State, Walker is paid by the State of Florida. His salary is approximately $23,888 per year in contrast to his salary as a Chief of Security which has been in the amount of $14,888 for tax year, constituted of two meetings (seasons) at the fronton. (Pending the outcome of these matters, the Respondent's secondary employment with the Palm Beach Fronton, is that of floor supervisor at an undisclosed amount of compensation.) Walker's responsibilities as Chief of Security for the fronton include the hiring and supervising of security officers; the security of the physical plant at the fronton, to include the ejection of unruly patrons with the assistance of local law enforcement; initial contact with individuals over betting disputes which are ultimately referred to the Respondent; initial investigation of irregularities involving the computer system utilized by the fronton in running its facility; supervision of watchmen; initial investigation of matters involving betting on credit; investigation of shortages of money involving employees of the Fronton end prohibiting prostitutes and "book makers" from plying their trades on the fronton premises. In connection with his duties as Chief of Security, the Petitioner has no special expertise in the field of computers. When the Director of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering disapproved the Respondent's request to serve as Chief of Security for the Fronton, Inc., he contended and continues to hold that belief, that the Petitioner's dual employment as Investigator for the State Attorney's office and as Chief of Security for the fronton, would serve to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the sport of jai alai and, therefore, was not in the best interest of the pari-mutuel industry. Consequently there was ample cause to reject Walker's request, according to the Director. In elaborating on his position, the Director expressed the opinion that law enforcement type officials should not be allowed to hold secondary employment in a fronton in a capacity as security official within the same geographical area in which the individual applicant has law enforcement responsibilities. To that end, six to eight other individuals, excluding the Petitioner, have also been disapproved as security officials at pari-mutuel wagering establishments, following the Walker disapproval. Gary Rutledge, Director of the Division of Pari- Mutuel Wagering in stating the reasons for denying Walker's request, goes on to say that the Chief of Security is a primary person responsible for detecting violations of law at the fronton and Rutledge has a concern that those matters might not be investigated by the Chief of Security or that the appearance might be created that the matters might not be investigated. Moreover, the Director worries about the potential flow of information from the State Attorney's office to the fronton, in particular, when there is, in his mind, the aura of "organized crime" which surrounds the pari- mutuel wagering industry. In response to concerns referred to above, neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent has shown any acts of impropriety on the part of Walker in serving in the capacity as Investigator for the State Attorney's office or in his part-time employment as Chief of Security for the Fronton, Inc., or do they have any reason to suspect that Walker is less than a man of utmost integrity in his profession and in his private life. There was, however, one instance in 1978, in which a fire occurred at the Palm Beach Fronton and State Attorney Bludworth made the judgment not to allow Walker to serve as State Attorney Investigator on that case, in which arson was suspected. This decision on Bludworth's part was made to protect against the appearance that might be created that as investigator to the prosecutor, some special knowledge and advantage could possibly be afforded to Walker in his role as Chief of Security for the fronton. Although Walker was above reproach in this matter, the State Attorney lost the advantage of his services as investigator in a circumstance wherein other law enforcement officials felt that it would have been extremely helpful to have Walker serving in his primary duty as State Attorney Investigator in attempting to solve the arson case. This instance points up the viability of the Director's argument on the issue of public confidence in the industry, in particular, in avoiding the appearance of fraud or dishonesty in that industry, and it is no less valid in the face of Walker's insistence that he would step down in future cases such as the 1978 incident and the State Attorney's indication that he would give serious consideration to the role that Walker would play in investigations involving incidences at the fronton in West Palm Beach. As stated before, criminal acts have occurred at the fronton and it is a reasonable expectation those events shall take place in the future. Alleged conflict of interest is the only ground upon which the Petitioner has been denied his request to act as Chief of Security at the Palm Beach Fronton. There has been some suggestion concerning a rumor that the Director had denied the application based upon a lack of good moral character on the part of the Petitioner and the ensuing effect that this has had on the community, and in particular, the black community in Palm Beach County of which the Petitioner is a member; however, Director Rutledge has never offered lack of good moral character as a reason for denying the permit application, and his decision to deny Walker's application was not racially motivated.
Findings Of Fact Prior to April 21, 1976, Gordon C. Barton had been employed by the City of Eustis Police Department for approximately six (6) years. At the time of his discharge in May, 1976, he had attained the rank of sergeant. As a sergeant, he was responsible for one of three patrol shifts, each consisting of three patrolmen. The City of Eustis Police Department consists of twenty-one (21) certified law enforcement officers and other support personnel. Authority over the department rests in the city manager under the city charter, while administration of the police department is the responsibility of the chief of police. The procedures governing, the employment relationship between and employee of the city and the city are set forth in the city charter (Respondent's Exhibit 14), the rules and regulations governing conduct, duties and procedures of Eustis Police Department (Respondent's Exhibit 13), and city ordinance 409 (Union's Exhibit 2). In February, after some discussion with his patrol sergeants, the chief of police had adopted a modification of the department's radio procedures. In early March, 1976, after some experience with the new procedures, Sergeant Barton discussed the subject of problems arising out of the change in radio procedures with Assistant Chief Horner. Horner suggested that Barton reduce his comments to writing because the chief was out of town and that Horner would present the matter to the chief upon his return. Barton authored the memorandum to the chief on March 3, 1976. The memorandum expressed concern with the safety and efficiency of the modified radio procedures. On the date the memorandum was prepared, Barton showed the memorandum to the sergeant relieving him who expressed to Barton the fact that he concurred in Barton's observations and wished to co-sign the memorandum. Barton assented to this and eventually the signatures of thirteen (13) additional police officers were placed on the back of the memorandum. On March 12, 1976, Sergeant Barton was called into Chief Burrows' office. Burrows asked Barton to express his views concerning the modified communications procedure. Sergeant Barton explained the problems that he and other were having with it. The chief criticized Barton for having publicized the contents of the memorandum by making it available to other officers for their signature. The chief's criticism of Barton for having allowed others to sign the memorandum caused an emotional exchange between the men. In late March, the chief learned from other police officers in the department that Sergeant Barton had solicited fellow police officers who were on duty in behalf of the West Central Florida Police Benevolent Association. In late March, the chief advised the city manager and city attorney that he desired to discharge Barton. He was requested by the city manager and city attorney to provide them with information on Barton's conduct upon which the termination was to be based. The chief prepared a memorandum to the city manager (General Counsel's Exhibit 3), and several meetings were held between the chief, city manager, and city attorney. Their evaluation of the grounds asserted by the chief for Barton's discharge resulted in a letter of discharge dated April 20, 1976, which was signed and delivered to Barton by the chief of police, prepared by the city attorney, and approved by the city manager. This letter was delivered to Barton on April 21, 1976, while Barton was waiting to go on duty at 3:00 P.M. When asked for some justification of his termination, Barton was told by Burrows that if Barton requested in writing the grounds for the discharge that Burrows would look it over. Notations on the memorandum prepared by the chief and submitted to the city manager and city attorney and the testimony of the city manager indicate that four of the paragraphs in the letter of discharge relate to the memorandum authored by Barton and signed by his fellow officers. Police Chief Burrows freely admitted that the preparation and submission of the memorandum signed by the police officers was one of she reasons for the termination of Barton. The City of Eustis is a public employer as defined by Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. The Charging Party, West Central Florida Police Benevolent Association, is a labor organization as defined under the act. The Charging Party was not the "organization", however, with which the public employer interfered. The organization which was interfered with was the group which signed the memorandum. It was not the group which was interfered with which brought the unfair labor practice charge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Public Employees Relations Commission enter its order directing the following: That the City of Eustis offer Gordon C. Barton immediate and full reinstatement to his former position of employment, or if such employment no longer exists, to reemploy Barton in a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or rights or privileges, and to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. Such back pay shall include interest at a rate of 6 percent per annum and computed quarterly and in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1949); Pasco Classroom Teacher's Association, PERC Case No. 8H-CA-754-1037 (Order No. 76U-875) (April 1, 1976); and Post at its facilities, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are usually posted, on forms to be provided by PERC, a notice stating that all public employees have the right to form, join, and participate in, or to refrain from forming, joining, or participating in any employer organization of their own choosing and may not be discharged or otherwise discriminated against because of their exercise of these rights. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: C. Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300, 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman F. Burke, Esquire Van Den Berg, Gay & Burke, P.A. 16 South Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 793 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire 1215 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue This is a rule challenge proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, in which the Petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 22A- 13.002(2), (3), and (4), Florida Administrative Code, as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The final hearing in this case was consolidated, for purposes of hearing only, with the final hearing in two related cases; namely, Case Nos. 87-5321 and 87-5437. At the final hearing all parties presented testimony and the Petitioner also offered six exhibits, all of which were received without objection. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties agreed to a ten-day deadline for the filing of proposed orders. All parties have filed proposed orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties' proposed orders have been carefully considered during the preparation of this final order and specific rulings on all proposed findings are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this final order.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Mr. Parsons, is employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS") as an "Assistant Mental Health Hospital Administrator." He is a career Service employee of the State of Florida. By memorandum dated October 23, 1987, Mr. Parsons submitted a "Notice Of Intent To Run For Local Political Office." The memorandum was directed to Mr. Parsons' supervisor, Mr. Britton D. Dennis. The memorandum sought approval from DHRS and from the Department of Administration ("DOA"), described the nature of the political office Petitioner is seeking, and described the working hours of the position and the salary. In the memorandum, Mr. Parsons stated that he would not campaign on job time, and would not make use of any of the state's facilities in regard to campaign activities. He also stated his intention to request a leave of absence and that he would resign from his current position with DHRS, if elected. The District Administrator of DHRS denied Mr. Parson's request for approval to become a candidate by letter dated October 30, 1987. The Administrator stated that the request was being denied "... because your candidacy would be in violation of Chapter 22A-13.002, Personnel Rules and Regulations, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 110.233(4), Florida Statutes." On October 30, 1987, Mr. Parsons' supervisor, Mr. Britton D. Dennis, indicated that he would deny the request for leave of absence because he felt that the position held by Mr. Parsons could not be vacant for an extended period of time. Mr. Parsons responded that he nonetheless desired to be a candidate for the local political office, and that he would not campaign on the job, nor use state facilities for campaign purposes. By letter dated November 5, 1987, the Secretary of DOA stated that she was unable to approve Mr. Parsons' request because it had been denied by DHRS, and because, if elected, the duties would be performed during assigned working hours. The Secretary of DOA cited DOA Rule 22A-13.002(4)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. This proceeding ensued. Mr. Parsons filed a petition challenging the denial of his request by DHRS, a petition challenging the denial of his request by DOA, and a petition challenging the validity of the DOA rules that had been cited in support of the denials. Mr. Parsons is seeking to stand for election to the position of County Judge in Gadsden County, Florida. The position of County Judge is a full-time position. If elected, Mr. Parsons could not continue in his employment with DHRS. He has clearly stated that if elected he would resign from his employment with DHRS. The challenged rule provisions read as follows: 22A-13.002 Statements of Policy Section 110.233(4)(a) further provides that no employee shall hold or be a candidate for public or political office while in the employment of the state unless: The employee is seeking or holding a local public office and; Such candidacy and office is authorized by the employee's agency head and approved by the Department of Administration as involving no interest which conflicts or activity which interferes with his/her state employment. Candidacy for or holding a local public office shall be presumed to involve an interest which conflicts with an employee's state employment when the campaign or the office, if elected, is likely to give rise to a situation in which regard for a private or local interest tends to lead to a disregard of the employee's duty as a state employee. Candidacy for or holding local public office shall be presumed to involve activities which interfere with an employee's state employment in the following instances: The office is a full-time office. Campaign or, if elected, office activities are performed during the employee's assigned working hours with the State. Campaign or, if elected, office activities will involve the use of State space, personnel, time, equipment, or supplies. In its application of the challenged rule provisions, DOA reads those provisions in conjunction with Rule 22A-13.0031, Florida Administrative Code, regarding procedures. DOA has interpreted and applied the presumptions in the challenged rule provisions as rebuttable presumptions, rather than as conclusive presumptions. On at least one prior occasion since the challenged rule provisions went into effect, the DOA and the DHRS granted approval for an employee of DHRS to become a candidate for the office of County Judge without requiring resignation from state employment.
