The Issue Whether or not Respondent properly awarded Image Resources, Inc., the bid for computer graphics equipment as set forth in bid No. 9-428-D.
Findings Of Fact On February 20, 1989, Petitioner's district manager, James W. Mercer, met with USF agents Frank Ribaudo and Renee Clements, for the purpose of discussing the needs of the Learning Resource Center's proposed new graphics work station. On March 6, 1989, Mercer delivered to Ribaudo the Petitioner's hard copy proposal for the graphics work station which was considered by Respondent in preparing its RFP. In May 1989, the University of South Florida (USF) issued a RFP for a computer graphics system for the Learning Resource Center of the Health Sciences Center of the University, proposal No. 9-428-D. On May 26, 1989, Petitioner received a copy of USF's RFP which included, among other things, Appendix A, a verbatim copy of the hard copy proposal as prepared and submitted by Petitioner in early March, 1989. Included with the RFP was also an Appendix B which was prepared by another offerer. Appendix B had the appearance of a "shopping list" for various computer equipment for USF's graphics work station. Petitioner, based on what it construed as an inconsistency between Appendix A and B, called Tom DeBella for clarification and was told that the proposal should be prepared according to the specifications called for in Appendix A which took precedence over Appendix B to the extent there were any inconsistencies between the two appendices. The effect of Petitioner's conversation with DeBella removed all inconsistencies between the appendices. Petitioner delivered its RFP to the purchasing agent at USF on June 9, 1989, in a timely fashion. On June 10, 1989, an addendum no. 1, extending the date to respond to the RFP until June 16, 1989, was prepared by Respondent and delivered to the various offerers. Petitioner notified Respondent on June 16, 1989, that its RFP, as originally submitted on June 9, 1989, should be considered as its final offering. Respondent received proposals from three offerers, Rainbow Graphics Technology, Inc., Image Resources, Inc., and Blumberg Communications, Inc. On June 16, 1989, the bids were tabulated and the documentation of the three offerers were presented to a committee for evaluation. The committee met and on July 5, 1989, drafted a memo which was delivered to the purchasing department stating its recommendation to accept the system offered by Intervenor, Image Resources, Inc. The three offerers submitted responses to the RFP as follows: Image Resources, Inc., submitted a timely response for the sum of $79,860.00; Blumberg Communications, Inc., submitted a timely response for the sum of $94,075.00 and; Rainbow Graphics Technology, Inc., timely submitted its response for the sum of $97,484. In preparing the RFP, Frank Ribaudo attended various seminars where computer graphics equipment was displayed, worked with various vendors and utilized the knowledge gained from the liaison with the vendors, the seminars and his contact person at USF's medical center, Dr. Kaufman. Prior to submitting their proposals, the three vendors responding to the RFP were invited to the University to review the facility and the university's layout to determine exactly what specific graphic system would be needed to best satisfy USF's requirements. Of the three vendors responding to the RFP, Petitioner submitted the highest response. Intervenor, Image Resources, Inc., was the lowest offerer of the three vendors responding to the RFP. All of the responses were evaluated by the Learning Resources Center HFC Committee in accordance with the procedures of Chapter 287.062(1), Florida Statutes. USF, following review by its evaluation committee, accepted the response submitted by Intervenor as the lowest responsive offer. The RFP called for an integrated system capable of industrial quality 3/4" video output. Specifications in the RFP also called for optical storage as being critical to management of TARGA files. The specifications required that hard disk performance of 13 MS and optical storage were critical to the management of TARGA files. Petitioner submitted a proposal providing a hard disk system with a speed of 1 MS which exceeds the specifications called for in the RFP. Petitioner also included a Shinko ChC-345 printer which is not postscript compatible and does not have an internal controller with a microcompressor and 8 MB RAM as specified in Appendix A. Intervenor's proposed printer is postscript compatible with the software package included in its proposal. Specifications in the RFP require a video adapter capable of 32-BIT color or PAL and Intervenor's proposal is capable of handling 32-BIT color. Intervenor is an authorized dealer to handle the Matrix instruments film recorder and has offered to serve and maintain the equipment it proposed for one year, a substantially longer period than the 90 day warranty offered by the manufacturer, Matrix.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, the University of South Florida Purchasing Department, enter a final order upholding the award of the bid proposal for the computer graphics system to Image Resources, Inc., and deny Petitioner's request to resubmit this proposal as an Invitation to Bid under Chapter 287.12(8), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1989.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Respondent, Management & Training Corporation1 (“Respondent”) subjected Petitioner, Songa Y. Clark (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Clark”), to employment discrimination. 1 Management & Training Corporation is the correct name of Petitioner’s former employer. Thus, the case style has been amended accordingly.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to notice, on June 1, 2021, this matter was scheduled for hearing on July 19 and 20, 2021. The hearing was initially scheduled for an in-person proceeding. On July 15, 2021, the undersigned issued an Amended Notice of Hearing, with the hearing to be conducted on the same dates by Zoom teleconference. The Notice of Hearing and Amended Notice of Hearing by Zoom Conference were not only placed on the online docket, but were mailed to Petitioner at her address of record (900 Timberlane Road, Bainbridge, Georgia 39817). Furthermore, the Zoom teleconference information was emailed to the email address for Petitioner provided in her Complaint and Petition. The final hearing began on July 19, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., as scheduled, Petitioner was not present when the hearing convened. Counsel for Respondent was present and prepared to present Respondent’s case. The hearing reconvened at 10:15 a.m., but Petitioner was still not present. During preliminary matters, the undersigned considered Respondent’s two Motions to Dismiss,2 which the undersigned denied. The hearing was again recessed at approximately 10:20 a.m. and reconvened at approximately 10:25 a.m. Petitioner had not appeared at the hearing, or contacted DOAH or Respondent. The hearing was then adjourned without Petitioner making an appearance herself or through representation. The Complaint alleged that Petitioner was the subject of employment discrimination based upon religion. FCHR issued a Notice of Determination of finding: “No Reasonable Cause.” Thus, Petitioner was entitled to an administrative hearing before DOAH regarding whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to unlawful employment action. Petitioner presented no evidence in support of her claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the petition with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Lindsay Dennis Swiger, Esquire Jackson Lewis PC 501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 902 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Christina Pignatelli 500 North Marketplace Drive Centerville, Utah 84014 Songa Y. Clark 900 Timberlane Road Bainbridge, Georgia 39817 Katherine B. Brezinski, Esquire Jackson Lewis P.C. 501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 902 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
Findings Of Fact Petitioner occupies a single family residence at 1048 Carlos Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned RS-50, which is single family. The use of the property and use proposed with the variance requested is consistent with this zoning. RS-50 zoning contemplates houses on small lots with a maximum density of 8.7 dwellings per acre. There is a six-foot wood fence along the majority of the west side of Petitioner's property located on the property line. The pool enclosure (screen room) proposed would be partly behind this fence but extend above the fence and extend slightly to the north of the northernmost end of this fence. The setback on the west side of Petitioner's property is five feet. Petitioner proposes to erect the screen room one foot from the west property line for which a four-foot variance is required. Petitioner desires to screen the pool he has a permit to construct so as to facilitate maintenance by keeping falling leaves out of the pool and to increase ventilation in his house by leaving French doors leading to the pool from his house open. Two other screened pools exist in the immediate neighborhood similar to the enclosure proposed by Petitioner. One is located four houses west of Petitioner and the other is six blocks away. None of Petitioner's neighbors object to the granting of the variance requested. No evidence was submitted that a variance was requested or granted for those two other pool enclosures in the neighborhood. The Board's reason for granting the variance and setback for the pool was the pool was in-ground and would not obstruct a view. The reason for denying the variance for the screen room was that it was above-ground and therefore in view. The size pool intended to be installed by Petitioner is 4 feet by 30 feet, which, with concrete apron, will occupy most of Petitioner's lot between the house and the west property line.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis of Petitioner's age and sex.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Lutye T. Willis. She is white and over 40 years of age. She was employed by Respondent from July 21, 1987, until December 30, 1988. Respondent in this matter is Crystal Brands, Inc., successor-in- interest to Hunter Haig, Inc., a subsidiary of Palm Beach Incorporated. Respondent operated a number of retail clothing outlets throughout the country at all times pertinent to these proceedings. Respondent opened a new Evan Picone Factory Outlet store in the vicinity of Lake City, Florida, in July of 1988. In conjunction with opening the new store, Herman Davis, Jack Williams and Steve Anderson, representatives of Respondent and acting as a group, conducted interviews of applicants for the position of store manager. Petitioner was hired as the manager of the new store, effective July 21, 1988. Petitioner had approximately four years of experience in retail sales, although she had little experience in management or supervision. She was hired in the store manager position at a salary rate of $8.71 per hour for a 40 hour week. Four days later, following conduct of other interviews with prospective applicants, a process in which Petitioner participated along with Davis, Williams and Anderson, an assistant manager for the new store was hired. Williams suggested that Petitioner might want to hire a male to assist in the sale of menswear. Petitioner was happy with the choice of Trevor Hickman for the position. She knew the 22 year old white male and, many years earlier, had been his cub scout teacher. Her testimony to the effect that she was forced to hire a male assistant manageris not credited. In the first few days following their hiring, Hickman and Petitioner were trained jointly by Jack Williams in the store's operations. Williams was not confident that Petitioner possessed adequate abilities and skills with regard to bookkeeping and cash register operation when he left the store three weeks later. He apprised home office personnel that Petitioner might require further assistance in these areas of the store's operation. Subsequent to Williams' departure from the store, Petitioner received additional training and assistance from Tabitha Smith, the female manager of another store owned by Respondent. Smith, manager of Respondent's store located in the neighboring vicinity of Valdosta, Georgia, was also consulted about once a week by Trevor Hickman, regarding reports and other store operations, during the period of Petitioner's employment. While good with customers, Petitioner was not so adept at the administrative tasks of management. She generally delegated the preparation of reports to Hickman, although the reports were the responsibility of the manager and were normally signed by her. However, monthly balance reports, required to be completed by the manager, were not assigned to, or prepared by, Hickman. Those reports were delinquent at the time of Petitioner's termination and were subsequently completed by Hickman. In October of 1988, Dan Hardin became the regional manager for Respondent. His regional supervisory role made him the immediate supervisor of Petitioner. He conducted a review ofthe store managed by Petitioner on October 31 and November 1, 1988. Hardin was disappointed with Petitioner's performance with regard to preparation of monthly balance reports and maintenance of the store's bank deposit log. Petitioner received a "poor" rating from Hardin with regard to these tasks in the review. Hardin explained to Petitioner the importance of telephoning the home office on a daily basis with information concerning the amount of funds deposited by her in the bank each day. In her role as the store manager, Petitioner established the work schedules for herself and Hickman. Sometime in late 1988, she arranged the schedules so that Hickman worked five days in a row from December 22 through December 28, in order that Petitioner might travel to Boston, Massachusetts to spend the Christmas holidays. Hickman was scheduled by Petitioner to be off several days around New Years' weekend and the week before Christmas. Petitioner asked Hickman to cover for her in the event that anyone from the corporate offices inquired about her during her absence. Under the arrangement, Hickman was to telephone Petitioner in Boston, Massachusetts, regarding inquiries from the corporate office. However, Hickman was not to tell superiors that Petitioner was in Boston. Hickman was discomfited by Petitioner's arrangements. He knew that Petitioner's plans were contrary tocompany policy and he feared he might be fired if he were viewed as collaborating with Petitioner's scheme. Under Respondent's vacation policy, no employees were permitted a vacation until they completed at least six months of employment. In addition, company policy required approval of managerial vacation by the employee's immediate supervisor and the corporate president, John Lane. Petitioner had not complied with either provision of this policy regarding her planned absence. Hardin normally communicated by telephone on a weekly basis with the store managed by Petitioner. Hardin spoke with Hickman by telephone in the early part of December and learned of the arrangement between Hickman and Petitioner to take time off during the holiday period. Hardin subsequently telephoned the store again and spoke with Petitioner. He asked Petitioner to perform certain tasks during the time period that he now knew she planned to be absent from the store. At that point in the conversation, Petitioner informed Hardin of her intention to go to Boston during the December 22-28 time period. Hardin attempted to dissuade Petitioner from carrying out her plans, pointing out the company vacation policy to Petitioner and the need for John Lane's approval of Petitioner's proposed absence. Hardin further told Petitioner that he could not personally approve Petitioner's request as her supervisor, that he did not believe John Lane would approve such an absence, that shecould not be away from the store that long, and that the period for the proposed absence was one of the busiest times of the year for retail merchandising. Petitioner told Hardin that she still intended to follow through with her holiday travel plans. Following the telephone conversation with Petitioner, Hardin informed Jim Shanis, Respondent's director of stores, of Petitioner's action. Subsequently, after telephoning the store during the period of December 22-28, 1988, and verifying that Petitioner was absent from the store, Hardin decided to terminate Petitioner's employment. Hardin's discharge of Petitioner took place on Friday, December 30, 1988. At that time, he informed Petitioner that her discharge was the result of the unauthorized vacation and her unsatisfactory performance. Hardin's discharge of Petitioner was consistent with Respondent's disciplinary policy which provided for immediate discharge for deliberate disregard of company policy or insubordination. Respondent does not have a work practice prohibiting employment of females in managerial positions. Further, the proof establishes that Respondent had all female management teams at ten of it's 39 stores during the period of Petitioner's employment, as well as individuals in some managerial positions who were over 40 years of age. After terminating Petitioner's employment, Hardin called Hickman to the store and promoted him to the store managerposition with a salary rate of $8.17 per hour, an amount less than that paid to Petitioner. On or about January 20, 1989, Petitioner wrote a letter to the company president, John Lane, complaining that she had not received severance pay. Petitioner did not include within her complaint any allegation that her termination resulted from discrimination on the basis of age or sex.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1990 APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings with regard to proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-3. Rejected, conclusions of law unsupported by weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. First part of this proposed finding is rejected as unnecessary with regard to Petitioner's background. Remainder rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, unsupported by the evidence. Rejected, unnecessary. 9.-15. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevancy. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, although a male assistant was suggested to Petitioner because of fitting of male apparel, the weight of the evidence does not support that Petitioner was forced to hire Hickman or that she opposed his hiring. Rejected, hearsay. While Petitioner was granted leave to file the deposition of Herman Davis as a posthearing exhibit, no authority was provided to quote documents not in evidence as a basis for a finding of fact. 20.-21. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. 22. Adopted by reference. 23.-25. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 26. Rejected as argumentative. Although Hardin remained in the hearing room as Respondent's agency representative, Petitioner was not unfairly prejudiced as a result. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-5. Adopted in substance. 6.-10. Adopted by reference. 11.-21. Adopted in substance. 22.-24. Adopted by reference. 25.-41. Adopted in substance. 42. Adopted by reference. 43.-44. Adopted in substance. 45.-49. Rejected, unnecessary to result. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esq. Acting Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Lutye Willis P.O. Box 646 Brownsville, Vermont 05037 Edwin J. Turanchik, Esq. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1206 Tampa, Florida 33602 Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner, E. L. Cole Photography, Inc., was properly denied award of Bid Number 97-DC-7059, to provide photographic film to the Department.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Department of Corrections, was an agency of the State of Florida, with authority to procure goods, supplies, and services from vendors through the process of competitive bidding. Sometime prior to February 14, 1997, the Department sent out Invitations to Bid soliciting bids for the providing of photographic film. Both Kodak 135 mm color-and black-and-white film and five different types of Polaroid instant camera film were needed for use by the agency, state-wide. Bids were to be submitted in time for the scheduled bid opening on February 25, 1997. This was a procurement reserved for minority bidders. The bids were opened, as scheduled, on February 25, 1997. Petitioner was one of seven bidders. The low bidder, Laube Photo, was disqualified because it was not a certified minority business. Of the remaining six bidders, Ace Office Supply submitted a bid of $3,151.00 on Item 1, the Kodak film; and a bid of $175,250 on Item 2, the Polaroid film. Ace’s total bid was $178,601.00. Petitioner’s bid was $3,793.20 on the Kodak film; and $181,425.00 on the Polaroid film, for a total of $185,218.20. All the bids from the other bidders were higher than that of Petitioner. Based on the figures submitted, Ace Office Supply was the low responsive bidder. It’s certification as a minority bidder was confirmed by the agency’s minority office. In its protest submitted on March 6, 1997, Petitioner addressed the warranty which pertains to the film to be supplied. Petitioner questioned whether that warranty would cover film proposed to be furnished by Ace, which Petitioner contends would be gray market product. Special Condition 16 of the Invitation to Bid provides in pertinent part: A warranty is required on all items purchased against defective materials, workmanship and failure to perform in accordance with required industry performance criteria, for a period of not less than ninety (90) days from date of acceptance by the purchaser. Any deviation from this criteria must be documented in the vendor's bid response or the above statement shall prevail. Neither Ace nor the Petitioner indicated any deviation from the warranty requirements. Therefore, the warranty stated applies to product supplied by either bidder. Petitioner also challenged the difference between the bids as relates to the description of the commodity to be provided. Though not required to do so by the Invitation to Bid, Petitioner listed the catalogue number of each item and enclosed with the bid pertinent pages from the manufacturers' catalogues reflecting the commodity and the catalogue number. Ace listed only the commodity and the product number as opposed to the catalogue number. Both methods are acceptable, however. The use of the product description by Ace was no more than a minor irregularity which did not affect the price, nor did its use give Ace an unfair advantage. By the same token, Petitioner's use of the incorrect catalogue number in one instance was also an irregularity, but it, too, was considered minor. From both submittals, it was clear that the product offered was the product sought, and the price for each item was clearly stated. The specifications contained in the bid solicitation in issue were not prioritized in importance. Price, quality, and warranty were all important. The warranty requirement was inserted to ensure against the provision of substandard product. Both Ace and Petitioner provided the requisite warranty, and Ms. Holcomb presumed both bidders would have honored it. The only area of difference between the bids was in price. Both Petitioner and Ace have provided products to the Department in the past. There have been no complaints regarding either the product provided or the service provided by either supplier. "Gray market” products are those made outside the United States by or under license of a manufacturer, which bear the brand name of the manufacturer, but which are not intended for sale in this country through the manufacturer's authorized distributors. They may or may not carry a full manufacturer's warranty. There is no reference to gray market goods in the Invitation to Bid, and Ms. Holcomb did not consider the possibility of gray market goods being furnished until Petitioner raised the issue in its letter of March 6, 1997. When Ms. Holcomb received this letter, she checked with the minority certification office which indicated it would not certify anyone who supplied gray market goods. Thereafter, Ms. Holcomb referred the matter to the Department's legal staff, and she is not aware of what that office did regarding the gray market issue. The evidence regarding the position of the minority certification office regarding gray market goods is hearsay evidence and may not be dispositive of that issue. Mr. Cole, Petitioner's owner and a long-time photographer, raised the issue of gray market product because it has been his experience that when vendors bid inside of their commodities specialty field, a gray market product can be sold at a lower price resulting in a competitive disadvantage to other responsive bidders. Though cheaper in price, a gray market product may not carry the same manufacturer's warranty as does product sold on the authorized market. In addition, many gray market products do not meet the same quality standards of manufacture as authorized products. Mr. Cole claims Ace would provide a gray market product based on the fact that the prices quoted by Ace are below the prices quoted by Petitioner. Cole submitted the manufacturers' price lists with his bid in the hope that all vendors would be bidding on the same product. Referencing the prices submitted by Ace in its bid, Mr. Cole concludes that the film to be supplied by Ace is not an authorized product. His experience indicates that gray market dealers' prices are similar to those quoted by Ace. Mr. Cole admits there is nothing in Ace's bid to indicate it would not honor the ninety-day warranty called for in the Invitation for Bid. He also admits that gray market products could meet the warranty requirement, and there is nothing in the IFB which prohibits gray market film, notwithstanding the other evidence of record that the minority certification office would not certify providers who offered gray market goods. It also must be noted that on at least two items called for in the IFB, Petitioner underbid Ace. This happened because Petitioner elected to take a loss on those items, but, Cole contends, Ace's use of gray market prices allowed it to underbid him overall. There is no independent evidence that the product to be submitted by Ace would be gray market product. In any case, the evidence shows that Petitioner substantially underbid four other responsive bidders in this procurement. Mr. Cole does not see that as a problem, since the price differential between Petitioner's bid and the next lowest bidder is not, in his opinion, disqualifying. This argument is not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order in this case awarding procurement 97-DC-7059, to provide photographic film to the Department, to Ace Office Supply. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew M. Carter, II, Esquire 610 North Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Scott E. Clodfelter, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have qualified Petitioner's proposed television production for Florida's 2005/2006 Entertainment Industry Financial Incentive pursuant to the requirements of Section 288.1254, Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact In 2003, the Legislature created Respondent within the Office of the Governor, Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development (OTTED). Since that time, Respondent has administered an entertainment industry financial incentive program (the incentive program) subject to specific appropriation. The purpose of the program in part is to encourage the use of Florida as a site for filming and providing production services for motion pictures, made-for-television movies, commercials, and television programs. For fiscal year 2004/2005, the Legislature appropriated $2.45 million for the incentive program. The Legislature set aside $10 million for the incentive program in fiscal year 2005/2006. Petitioner is a Delaware corporation, which is based in Weddington, North Carolina. The corporation has no assets. Ban Mandell is Petitioner's president and only identified corporate officer. Mr. Mandell does not know if the corporation has issued any shares of stock. Since 1996, Petitioner has been the production company for the "The New Home Show" (show/series), which has aired several series on the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) through its sponsor television station, PBS Station WTVI, in Charlotte, North Carolina. The concept of the show is to begin with a vacant lot, to film the construction of a house by licensed builders and tradesmen, and to complete the project with a fully furnished home. In addition to Station WTVI, other sponsors have provided products to Petitioner to use in the construction of houses for prior shows. For example, Owens Corning underwrote a series in Tennessee for an 8,000 square-foot Owens Corning Systems Thinking Home. Additionally PBS underwriters have provided funds to produce shows in the past. Each show or series is a unique production. The filming does not take place on a traditional set, studio, or backlot. Instead, Petitioner films all scenes on location at the construction site. If the project demonstrates how to tile a bathroom, filming takes place during the actual performance of the work by tradesmen, providing the viewer with an understanding of the whole process. It takes longer to film a series than traditional television programs. Filming cannot take place every day because it is ongoing throughout the construction process. It took Petitioner 18 months to film its most recent project. Petitioner's first show was in 1996. The show consisted of 18 episodes about the construction of one home, the "Wedge Plantation," in North Carolina. Mr. Mandell personally advanced some of the money to finance the construction of the house. He and his family now live in the home. In 1997, Petitioner filmed eight episodes in Tennessee about the construction of a home for Owens Corning. This house was sold after its completion. In 1999 and 2000, Petitioner videotaped the construction of two houses in Lake Park, North Carolina. Petitioner filmed 18 episodes about a Victorian home called South Port, and eight episodes about a home called the Empty Nester. In 2004 and 2005, Petitioner filmed eight episodes about the construction of a golf course house in North Carolina. The series about the golf course house is complete except for editing. Excluding the series about the golf course house, Station WTVI has aired the first three series of completed projects. PBS makes each completed series available for distribution nationally by other PBS-member stations that want to include the shows in their programming. Pursuant to a contract between Station WTVI and Petitioner, Station WTVI must be identified as a co-producer on all shows that it sponsors. Station WTVI also requires that all monies from any source that are used to pay for the projects be paid directly to the station. Station WTVI receives and disperses all funds and ensures that all contributors receive the appropriate acknowledgement. Sometime in early June 2005, Respondent notified interested filmmakers regarding policies and procedures that OTTED adopted for the 2005/2006 incentive program. A letter dated June 1, 2005, stated as follows in relevant part: . . . Before you submit the appropriate application, . . . there are a few important things about the process that you must be aware of. The policies and procedures in the following document are the only official policies adopted by the State of Florida pertaining to the Entertainment Industry Financial Incentive Program. There are NO other persons, agents, organizations, financial institutions or businesses who in any way represent the policies of the State of Florida regarding the details of the Entertainment Industry Financial Incentive Program. In an effort to adhere to the new laws pertaining to this incentive and application process, we will only accept completed applications via Federal Express or U.S. Certified Mail. Any other form of delivery will not be accepted and your application will be returned. No applications will be accepted if they are postmarked before June 13, 2005. Applications received before this time and date will be returned. * * * 5. These policies and procedures, along with the application process, are contingent upon House Bill 1129 being signed into law by the Governor. Respondent's 2005 policies and procedures include the following pertinent provisions: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Definitions: * * * Principal Photography--The phase in production in which all of the moving images are photographed and recorded according to the instructions of the screenplay in preparation for later editorial cutting and assembly. Production Costs--The costs of real, tangible, and intangible property used and services performed in the production, including preproduction and postproduction, of qualified filmed entertainment. Production costs generally include, but are not limited to: Wages, salaries, or other compensation for technical and production crews, directors, producers, and performers who are residents of this state. Expenditures for sound stages, backlots, production editing, digital effects, sound recordings, sets, and set construction. Expenditures for rental equipment, including, but not limited to, cameras and grip or electrical equipment. Expenditures for meals, travel, accommodations, and goods used in producing filmed entertainment that is located and doing business in this state. Qualified Expenditures--Production costs for goods purchased or leased or services purchased, leased, or employed from a resident of this state or a vendor or supplier who is located and doing business in this state, but excluding wages, salaries, or other compensation paid to the two highest-paid employees. Qualified Production--. . . [A] production is not a qualified production if it is determined that the first day of principal photography in this state occurred prior to certification by the Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development (OTTED). * * * The Application Procedure: Qualified Production: Any company engaged in this state in producing filmed entertainment may submit an application to the OFE for the purpose of determining qualification for receipt of reimbursement. The Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development (OTTED) shall make the final determination for actual reimbursement through a certification process. Applications received between June 13, 2005, and June 24, 2005 (the "Principal Photography Application Period"), will be placed into one of two queues (defined below), according to principal photography start date. If more than one project in a queue has the same principal photography start date, those projects with the same principal photography start date will also be placed in the queue on a first-come, first-served basis. Applications received between June 27, 2005, and January 31, 2006, will be placed into one of the two queues on a first-come, first-served basis. On February 1, 2006, the remaining funds within both queues will be combined into a single queue and distributed based on a project's principal photography start date. * * * The Decision-Making Process: The decision-making process for designating filmed entertainment as a qualified production will follow the following sequential steps. Completed General Project Overview and Application is received in the OFE and reviewed to ensure all necessary documentation is attached. If the application is not complete, or documents are missing, the OFE will fax a letter to the production company listing the missing information and documents and the application will not be considered for qualification. Project review by the OFE to determine if the production is a qualified production . . . . After the production has been qualified by the OFE, the OFE will notify the OTTED of the applicant's qualification and the amount of reimbursement. After the OTTED has certified the amount of funds for the production, the OFE will notify the applicant of its determination . . . Expenditures made prior to certification by the OTTED will not be considered for reimbursement. A written contract between the production company and the State of Florida will be drafted and fully executed. * * * OFE Evaluation of the General Project Overview and Application: For a qualified production, the OFE will consider the following questions, among others, when making a determination if the production is qualified: a. The Application: Is it completely filled out, signed and dated? Are there further questions that must be asked and answered? Are all of the necessary documents included? * * * c. The Budget: Does the production have the necessary financing in place to begin production on the designated start date? Will the production spend a minimum of $850,000 on qualified expenditures in this state? * * * e. A Completion Bond: i. Will there be a completion bond in place with an industry recognized completion bond company before principal photography begins? If not, does the production company have the necessary financing in place to complete the shooting? * * * Availability of Funds: Annual funding for the Entertainment Industry Financial Incentive Program is subject to legislative appropriation. The State of Florida's performance and obligation to pay under the contract is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the legislature. If and when, the legislature makes funds available, the OFE will consider each project until all of the funds are committed, or June 20, 2006, whichever comes first. If an application is received and is qualified, but no funds are available, the OFE will notify the company in writing within five days. If the qualified company wishes to remain in the queue in the event funds become available in that fiscal year, it must inform the OFE in writing within five days. Disqualification: A qualified production will cease to be qualified if the OFE determines: The principal photography start date: Occurred before funds had been certified by the OTTED to the production company; or Does not start on the day indicated in the Project Overview on applications received between June 13, 2005, and June 24, 2005, for any reason other than an act of God . . . . Mr. Mandell became interested in producing a series of the show in Florida a few years ago. He particularly was interested in telling the story of the vacation home concept as it has been developing in central Florida. Vacation homes are well-known among European tourists who visit central Florida. The concept is not well-known to many Americans. There are approximately 50,000 vacation homes available in the vicinity of Orlando, Florida. Tourists rent the homes on a weekly basis. Instead of staying in one or two hotel rooms, a family can stay in a vacation home with multiple bedrooms, baths, pool, and other amenities. The vacation homes generate tax revenue for Florida because they are subject to hotel tax. In anticipation of potentially coming to Florida, Mr. Mandell signed up for Respondent's periodic e-mail service. Through these e-mails, Mr. Mandell learned about the financial incentive program. He understood from the beginning that there was some uncertainty as to whether the program would go forward. On or about June 8, 2005, Petitioner applied for a Florida sales tax exemption for the entertainment industry. The sales tax exemption application erroneously stated that PBS Station WTVI was its parent company. Asserting that its first day of principal photography would be August 1, 2005, Petitioner asserted that it intended to build four or five homes in Lake County, Florida, for a PBS do-it-yourself show. The sales tax exemption was valid for only 90 days. However, Mr. Mandell believed that building more than one home at a time would make the filming go faster, speeding up the production process by shooting more than once or twice a week. Following Petitioner's submission of the application for the 90-day sales tax exemption, a member of Respondent's staff, Niki Welge, advised Mr. Mandell that the incentive program was going forward. Ms. Welge referred Mr. Mandell to Respondent's website for details. Ms. Welge also informed Mr. Mandell that Respondent would rank applications received during the "Principal Photography Application Period" (between June 13, 2005, and June 24, 2005) based on the "Principal Photography" start date. Based on Mr. Mandell's conversation with Ms. Welge and existing contacts for Florida crew members, Mr. Mandell decided to move Petitioner's "Principal Photography" start date from August 1, 2005, to July 1, 2005. Mr. Mandell also decided to go forward with a much larger project than originally planned. Mr. Mandell decided to build a neighborhood consisting of 395 or 396 vacation homes in Lake County, Florida, with Platinum Properties of Central Florida, Inc. (Platinum Properties), Clermont, Florida, as the builder/developer. The 395 homes were in addition to the four homes in Lake County, Florida, that Petitioner intended to build with Better Built Homes, Inc., Melbourne, Florida, as the contractor. Prior to submission of Petitioner's application, Mr. Mandell reviewed Respondent's Policies and Procedures and Section 288.1254, Florida Statutes (2004), the version of the statute that was available on MyFlorida.com. Mr. Mandell then filled out the application on June 9 and 10, 2005. Petitioner's application indicates that Petitioner intends to film at least 13 episodes in Florida for The New Home Show (500 Series). The application also indicates that Petitioner has already begun preproduction at vacation homes in Polk County, Florida. According to the application, Petitioner intends to film for approximately 52 days, between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, in three Florida counties: Lake, Polk, and Orange. Paragraph 9 of the application requires the applicant to describe its Florida qualified expenditures and to include a total production budget with a breakout of the estimated Florida expenditures. Paragraph 9 of Petitioner's application states as follows in relevant part: Estimated total expenditure on Florida resident wages (excluding the salaries for the two highest paid Florida resident employers): $500,000 Estimated expenditures on Florida lodging: $20,000 Name of hotel(s): Private Vacation Homes Total number of room nights: 200 [the application skips subsection c] Estimated expenditures on Florida set construction: $10,500,000 Estimated expenditures on purchase or rent for real and personal property: $17,000,000 Estimated expenditures on other services rendered by Florida companies: $100,000 Please list the other services: Misc. Construction Services * * * h) Total estimated qualified Florida expenditures: $28,120,000 According to the application, Petitioner intended to spend $500,000 on Florida resident wages. Mr. Mandell based this figure on building just 50 homes and spending at least $10,000 in labor for each home. Petitioner projected that it would spend $20,000 on Florida lodging. This figure covered 200 nights in hotels and vacation homes. Petitioner anticipates spending $10,500,000 on set construction. Mr. Mandell based this figure on the cost of constructing 50 houses. A set is traditionally a temporary structure. Petitioner will not have a set. Instead, Petitioner is proposing to build over 300 homes to be sold as permanent, fixed structures. Petitioner estimates that it will spend $17,000,000 for the purchase or rent of real or personal property. According to Mr. Mandell, this figure represents the cost of the acreage at the "Platinum" site, plus the cost of the infrastructure. However, the purchase of real estate and the construction of infrastructure are not related to the television episodes that Petitioner proposes to film. In any event, all of the lots are already sold and the buyers have contracted for the construction of homes. The last estimate was $100,000 for other services rendered by Florida companies. However, Mr. Mandell did not have anything specific in mind. The general project overview and application included the following admonition: IMPORTANT NOTE: If the following documents are not submitted with your application your application will not be considered complete: Script Budget Production/Shooting Schedule Proof of Financing Your application will not be considered for qualification and will be returned if the requested documents are not attached. Mr. Mandell attached a proposed budget to Petitioner's application. The proposed budget was written in narrative form and states as follows in pertinent part: The New Home Show will be responsible for over $20,000,000 in expenditures within in Florida from July 01, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Construction of homes and neighborhoods is always our biggest expense representing over 80% of the total expenditures. . . . We will start with four homes built by Better Built Homes, Inc. The budget for these four homes will be over $1,000,000. The homes will be built in an established neighborhood that the producer has located four vacant lots in. These homes will be finished during December 2005. In September 2005, we will start working with our 2nd builder/developer, which is Platinum Properties, Inc. We are in the process of contracting for several homes with Platinum. The expenditures for these homes will be over $15,000,000. * * * In the past, our funding comes from five different areas for these projects. Those areas are: Producer's advance PBS underwriters Builder Developer State Incentives The PBS Underwriter funds and the State Incentive are important funds for The New Home Show because they do not require re- payment. All of the other categories are loans that are repaid from the proceeds from the sale of the homes that we build. Our PBS presenting station is WTVI in Charlotte. All funds for underwriters as well as state incentives must be paid to PBS station WTVI. The producer cannot receive these funds. WTVI is the co-producer of The New Home Show on PBS and approves all budgets and disburses all funds regulated by PBS. PBS has very strict rules and regulations regarding the funding of all PBS shows including The New Home Show and we adhere to those rules and regulations. In addition to the budget, Mr. Mandell prepared a production/shooting schedule to be attached to the application, along with the following: (a) an undated letter from the Director of PBS PLUS and PBS SELECT describing PBS's distribution process and the importance of PBS's underwriting guidelines in very general terms; (b) an undated letter from an advertising agency; (c) a copy of a script from a prior show; and (d) seven pages of PBS's promotional material for the show's 2005 project about the golf course home. In the very early morning hours of June 10, 2005, Mr. Mandell realized that the package of material was in excess of 13 ounces, and that it would not fit in a regular envelope. He decided to send it to Respondent by U.S. Certified Mail, no return receipt requested, in a heavy-duty priority mail envelope. Mr. Mandell uses an Internet postage service, which is the equivalent of having a postage meter. At 3:31 a.m. on June 10, 2005, Mr. Mandel purchased on-line postage in the amount of $6.15 for priority mail, flat-rate delivery, certified, with a ship date of June 13, 2005, on the shipping label. He did not request or pay an additional fee for a "green card" return receipt. The Internet postage service provided Mr. Mandell with a Customer Online Label Record, showing that the label was printed on June 10, 2005, with a June 13, 2005, ship date. The instructions from the Internet postage service contain the following request, "Please use this shipping label on the 'ship date.'" During the hearing, Mr. Mandell stated that he could have printed the shipping label with any date between June 10, 2005, and June 17, 2005. Respondent's policies and procedures clearly require Respondent's staff to determine whether an applicant has the necessary financing in place to begin production on the designated start date and to complete shooting. The policies and procedures do not explain what documents will meet the "proof of financing" requirement. To answer his questions in this regard, Mr. Mandell called Ms. Welge. On June 10, 2005, Mr. Mandell advised Ms. Welge that the show would be financed through construction loans. He explained that Petitioner could not provide Respondent with a bank statement showing a sum of money in a bank account because construction loans do not operate in that manner. A borrower does not retrieve construction loan funds from the lender until the builder needs them. Financial institutions loaning construction funds do not escrow the entire sum, but provide funds on a drawdown basis, based on percentage of completion. After speaking to Ms. Welge, Mr. Mandell sent her an e-mail on Friday, June 10, 2005, at 4:06 p.m. The e-mail inquired whether a letter from the real estate company that was financing the show would satisfy the "proof of financing" requirement. Petitioner's June 10, 2005, e-mail included a draft of a letter allegedly from Platinum Properties, identified only as a Florida real estate developer. The proposed letter stated as follows in relevant part: . . . Subject to timing and construction issues, we look forward to working with The New Home Show on this project. The New Homes Show's project is the creation of an entire vacation home neighborhood in central Florida. If we are able to go forward with The New Home Show on this project, it will be funded with a combination of bank and trade lines, which Platinum Properties utilizes on a regular basis. We have assured the producers of The New Home Show that we have adequate credit lines to cover any and all construction on this project. We expect the cost of this project will be $ of which $ is expected to be spent between 07/01/05 and 06/30/06. Upon receiving Mr. Mandell's e-mail, Ms. Welge shared the proposed letter with others on Respondent's staff. First, she sent it to Scott Fennell, OTTED's Deputy Director, who was providing administrative leadership to Respondent's staff during a vacancy in the position of Film Commissioner. Ms. Welge sent the e-mail to Mr. Fennell on Friday, June 10, 2005, at 4:11 p.m. Mr. Fennell did not immediately respond to Ms. Welge's inquiry about the proposed "proof of financing" letter. On June 10, 2005, Ms. Welge also discussed Petitioner's proposed letter regarding "proof of financing" from Platinum Properties with Susan Simms, Respondent's Los Angeles Liaison. Ms. Welge then contacted Mr. Mandell, advising him that the proposed letter was not sufficient because it contained contingencies. Later in the evening on June 10, 2005, Mr. Mandell contacted Danial Lambdin from Better Built Homes, Inc. During a telephone conversation, Mr. Mandell and Mr. Lambdin, drafted the unsigned, undated "proof of financing" letter that Petitioner ultimately submitted with its application. The letter states as follows in pertinent part: This letter confirms that you have contracted for the construction of four (4) single family vacation homes in Lake County, Florida. I am pleased to be involved with The New Home Show and am excited about working with you. I can confirm that I have an adequate line of credit to complete these homes for you. My Bank is Riverside National Bank at 417 First Ave., Indialantic, FL 32903. My primary contact is Monica Silveria. Their phone number is 321-725-7200. Mr. Mandell typed the letter addressed to himself in Weddington, North Carolina, with the address of Better Built Homes, Inc., Melbourne, Florida, as the letterhead. Very late on Friday, June 10, 2005, or very early on Saturday, June 11, 2005, Mr. Mandell completed the application form and the preparation of all attachments. He placed all of the documents in the priority mail envelope and attached the prepaid certified mail shipping label with the predated ship date. Mr. Mandell then dropped the envelop in an outgoing "mail tote" at his home. Mr. Mandell does not know when the U.S. Post Office received the application and its attachments. Someone at his home takes the mail tote to the post office in Charlotte, North Carolina, every day. The U.S. Post Office delivered the application and its attachments to the state's off-site mail-screening facility on Monday, June 13, 2005, at 3:43 a.m. On Monday, June 13, 2005, at 6:18 a.m., Mr. Fennell answered Ms. Welge's inquiry about the sufficiency of Petitioner's proposed letter regarding "proof of financing" from Platinum Properties. Mr. Fennell responded that "[t]his seems a bit light, but I don't know what typically passes for 'proof of financing' in the film world." On Monday, June 13, 2005, at 9:43 a.m., Ms. Simms responded by e-mail to Mr. Fennell regarding Petitioner's proposed letter regarding "proof of financing" from Platinum Properties. Ms. Simms stated that the contingencies in the proposed letter were potential deal-killers, and that Ms. Welge was able to let Petitioner know on Friday that this was not acceptable as proof of financing. Respondent received the application on Monday, June 13, 2005, at 3:29 p.m. Later that day at 6:21 p.m., Respondent faxed Petitioner a letter, notifying Mr. Mandell that Petitioner did not qualify for the incentive program for the following two reasons: (a) The application was postmarked on June 11, 2005; and (b) The application did not contain any documents containing proof of financing. Respondent sent this letter without contacting Better Built Homes, Inc., or its financial institution. Following receipt of Respondent's June 13, 2005, denial letter, Mr. Mandell contacted Raquel Cisneros, another member of Respondent's staff. Ms. Cisneros and Ms. Welge were the only staff members involved in reviewing Petitioner's application on June 13, 2005. Mr. Fennell signed the June 13, 2005, denial letter but did not review the application. Mr. Mandell explained to Ms. Cisneros that the application was not postmarked on June 11, 2005. Ms. Cisneros admitted during the hearing that the denial letter did not have a postmark of June 11, 2005. Mr. Mandell also inquired of Ms. Cisneros why the June 13, 2005, denial letter stated that the application contained no documents to demonstrate "proof of financing," when the Better Built Homes, Inc., letter had been attached to the application. Ms. Cisneros advised Mr. Mandell that the Better Built Homes, Inc. letter was deficient because it did not contain an amount of financing. Mr. Mandell was unable to obtain an extension of time for Petitioner to serve an "election of rights." Therefore, Mr. Mandell filed an "election of rights" form with Respondent on June 16, 2005. Respondent's June 13, 2005, denial letter provided Petitioner with the opportunity to provide Respondent with additional documents. On June 17, 2005, Petitioner took advantage of that opportunity by submitting a letter dated June 17, 2005, from Platinum Properties. The letter states as follows in pertinent part: We are looking forward to this venture of together building 395 Vacation homes in Lake County with the support, cooperation and abilities that "The New Home Show" brings to the project. Attached you will find the Lender Commitment to get started on the Millbrook Manor Project from AmBanc Commercial Lending Services. Lawrence M. Maloney signed the June 17, 2005, "proof of financing" letter as president of Platinum Properties. Attached to Mr. Maloney's letter was the first page of a Conditional Commitment from AmBanc Commercial Lending Services (AmBanc), Saint Charles, Missouri. The AmBanc Conditional Commitment states that Millbrook Manor/Larry Maloney (Borrower) has executed the document and requested financing in connection with a project described therein. The Conditional Commitment also states that the project has been conditionally approved to receive financing in the maximum principal amount of $15,000,000. The single-page Conditional Commitment does not contain a description of Millbrook Manor. Petitioner did not hear further from Respondent until Petitioner received a second denial letter on June 24, 2005, the last day of the initial two-week window for applications. Respondent based its second denial of Petitioner's application on the following reasons: The submitted budget does not distinguish the production costs as defined in Section 288.1254(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes. The submitted budget does not contain an adequate breakout of the estimated Florida expenditures as opposed to overall project expenditures as described on page five of the General Project Overview and Application. Designated recipients of state incentives must be party to the application and subsequent contractual agreements. Your application states, 'All funds for underwriters as well as state incentives must be paid to PBS station WTVI. The producer cannot receive these funds.' There is inadequate evidence that the application was sent via FedEX or U.S. Certified mail as required on page one (1) of the Entertainment Industry Financial Incentive Policies and Procedures. 'Any other form of delivery will not be accepted and your application will be returned.' On June 27, 2005, Petitioner submitted its second "election of rights" form. Petitioner also provided Respondent with its second statement of disputed facts. Respondent anticipated that it would receive some applications on June 13, 2005, by Federal Express or Certified U.S. Mail by overnight or same-day delivery service. Respondent's staff included the requirements that no applications would be accepted if they were postmarked before June 13, 2005, and only then if they were sent by Federal Express or U.S. Certified Mail in an effort to ensure a fairer process for evaluating the applications received during the critical first two-week principal photography application period. However, the policies and procedures do not require that the applications be mailed on or after June 13, 2005. In the instant application process, Respondent approved at least one other application that Respondent received on June 13, 2005. As to the requirement for "proof of financing," at least one other approved applicant (Britt Allcroft Productions/Britt Allcroft) contained an unsigned letter from a third party, which contained a contingent intent to "assist" in obtaining financing for the production if it was able to obtain $2 million from the incentive program. For this application, Respondent's staff engaged in a telephone conference call with the applicant, obtaining verbal assurances that the letter from the third party constituted a promise to provide financing for the remainder of the production not covered by the other more specific non-contingent promises of financing and licensing agreements. Additionally, the Britt Allcroft application indicated that a completion bond was in place to cover any shortfall in financing, guaranteeing that the production would be completed. Petitioner's application did not contain a completion bond. Another approved applicant (Rolling Films Company) provided Respondent with two contingent letters from third parties, indicating their intent to provide partial financing for the production only if the remaining funds were obtained by a date certain. That application also included a letter from the applicant, indicating the applicant's intent to finance the production for any amount not covered by the third parties. Petitioner's application refers to the funding of prior shows as including producer's advance and PBS underwriters. It does not state that Petitioner agreed in this case to fund the show over and above the amount to be financed by Better Built Homes, Inc., in the amount of $1,000,000 for four homes or the $15,000,000 that Platinum Properties promised to provide for the construction of 395 homes. Additionally, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Mandell gave Respondent verbal assurances that Petitioner or PBS intended to fund any shortfall in funds to complete the show, which has projected total production costs in excess of $28,000,000. The letter from PBS Plus & PBS Select agrees to assist in Petitioner's effort to fund the show but does not say how much funding Petitioner could anticipate from PBS underwriters. It is obvious that Respondent's staff is confused about the "proof of financing" requirement. For example, Ms. Cisneros testified in deposition that an applicant only needed to show financing in place for one-half of its total production costs. During the hearing, Ms. Cisneros testified that an application had to show "proof of financing" all of its production costs. Ms. Welge testified in deposition that an applicant had to demonstrate "proof of financing" for its Florida expenditures. Ms. Simms testified that an applicant had to establish "proof of financing" for the entire production budget. Mr. Fennell freely admits that he does not know what constitutes "proof of financing" for an entertainment production.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamella Dana, Director Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development The Capitol, Suite 1902 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Susan Albershardt, Commissioner Office of Film and Entertainment The Capitol, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 S. Elysha Luken, Esquire Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tom Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Ted Bonanno, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 2001 401 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue was whether Dr. Camejo should be disciplined for violation of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes, by aiding an unlicensed person to practice medicine, and by delegating professional responsibilities to a person Dr. Camejo knew was not qualified by training, experience or licensure to perform.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Camejo is licensed as a physician holding license ME0036005. In 1985 Dr. Camejo practiced medicine at the Seaport Medical Center at 218 Northeast 5th Street, Miami, Florida. The center was operated by a corporation, Seaport Medical Center, Inc. Dr. Camejo and Francisco Orlando Vega were equal shareholders in the corporation. Dr. Camejo sold the Seaport Medical Center. He then worked part time at the Land and Sea Medical Center, Inc. at 1199 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. Land and Sea Medical Center was also a corporation. Dr. Camejo had no equity in the Land and Sea Medical Center, Inc. It was owned by Francisco Orlando Vega and Margarita Sarria. Vega acted as administrator of the clinic, and handled paperwork for reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid and insurers. Francisco O. Vega is not licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. He received a doctoral degree in Biological Sciences from Central University of Las Villas, Cuba in 1964. This degree is not, however, the equivalent of a doctoral degree in the American university system. His Cuban degree would qualify him to be addressed with the honorific Doctor in Latin culture. Based upon his background, Mr. Vega obtained a license in Florida as a laboratory technician which qualifies him to work in a laboratory and to draw blood for testing. Vega never attended or graduated from any medical school and does not hold a degree as a doctor of medicine. The Department introduced a plethora of evidence that Vega has held himself out, in various circumstances, as a medical doctor. For example, Vega was listed in the white pages of the telephone directory as Francisco O. Vega, M.D. Vega's application for a mortgage loan had attached to it tax returns for 1981 and 1982 in which he listed his occupation as medical doctor. Vega applied to take the examination given by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates as Dr. Francisco Orlando Vega Cintra in 1983. In 1985 or 1986 Vega applied for licensure as a medical doctor and represented that he had an M.D. degree. Vega's credit cards and motor vehicle registration listed him as an M.D. Although Vega has, at times in the past, used Camejo's address as his mailing address, it has not been shown that Camejo knew that Vega was misrepresenting himself as an M.D. In investigating a complaint about Vega pretending to be a medical doctor, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, Carlos Ramirez, went to the address listed for Francisco O. Vega, M.D., in the phone book. This was the Seaport Medical Center. When Ramirez went there, the building had been vandalized. It was not then being operated as a clinic. Ramirez then went to the Land and Sea Medical Center on June 17, 1985. While there at about 11:00 a.m., three individuals who appeared to be Haitian entered the office and remained inside for about 15 to 20 minutes. At about noon, Ramirez found Vega there alone. Ramirez asked for Dr. Camejo and was told that Camejo was not there but that Vega was a doctor. Vega asked if he could help Ramirez. Ramirez said that he was interested in either buying or leasing the vacant (vandalized) offices of the Seaport Medical Center. Vega said the location was vacant but "they" did not own that building; it was owned by the bank which was turning the area into a parking lot because an elevated public transportation system had been built over the property. While with Vega on that occasion, Ramirez did not attempt to have Vega practice medicine because of the lack of any police backup. After leaving the Land and Sea Medical Center, Ramirez contacted officers at the Dade County State Attorney's Office to assist in the investigation. That office agreed to place a body transmitter on Ramirez to monitor a visit to the Land and Sea Medical Center and to provide backup. Ramirez also conducted surveillance on the Land and Sea Medical Center to determine its hours of operation and found that it appeared to open at about 11:00 a.m. Dr. Camejo only entered the clinic once during the six or seven times that Ramirez watched it for brief periods. On September 23, 1985, Ramirez saw Dr. Camejo enter the clinic. Vega then came in and thereafter Dr. Camejo left. At that time Ramirez sought the assistance of the State Attorney's Office. A body transmitter was placed on Ramirez and officers accompanied him to the Land and Sea Medical Center, Inc. Ramirez first went to a waiting area and spoke to a woman who was functioning as a receptionist, Maria Vargas. Vargas was also a patient of Dr. Camejo who occasionally worked at the center cleaning because she was unable to pay for medical services. Ramirez asked to see "the doctor." He was then invited into offices off a central hallway in the interior of the building and was met in the examining room by Vega. Ramirez told Vega that he had a sore throat and a cough and had been taking Vicks 44 and Nyquil. Vega asked Ramirez where the pain was in his throat, when it had begun and whether Ramirez had lost weight. When asked if he was a doctor, Vega gave the oblique but misleading reply, "Well, I am one of them." After listening to the tape of the meeting in the Land and Sea Medical Center between Vega and Investigator Ramirez, it is difficult to believe that Ramirez thought Vega gave him a genuine medical evaluation due to the hyperbole in Vega's comments, such as that Ramirez' throat looked "really bad" and suggesting that Ramirez had AIDS and joking about it with Vargas. While Ramirez was in the room, Vega drew an injection of Penicillin with Procaine and asked if Raminez was allergic to Penicillin. At that point, based on a code that had been worked out with the State Attorney's Office, the agents for the State's attorney entered and arrested Vega for practicing medicine without a license. Vega had actually been drawing the Penicillin on Dr. Camejo's order for Vargas. Camejo was to administer the injection when he returned to the clinic. While Vega was being arrested, a lady entered the clinic with two children and asked for Dr. Vega. The "receptionist" Vargas motioned to then to be silent and pointed to Investigator Ramirez. The lady then said that she had really come to see Dr. Camejo and left. One of the children with the lady said the person who was treating "them" was "Dr. Vega." After Vega was taken from the Land and Sea Medical Center, Maria Vargas provided from the Center's records documents which appeared to be records of Francisco Orlando Vega Cintra from the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo. Vega asked Vargas to contact Dr. Camejo about the arrest. While Ramirez was at the Land and Sea Medical Center, Inc., Dr. Camejo was not there. As Vega requested, Ms. Vargas did contact Dr. Camejo's answering service to tell him that Vega had been arrested. Vega ultimately pled nolo contendere to charges of practicing medicine without a license. Financial records of the Seaport Medical Center (the facility in which Camejo and Vega had joint interests) showed checks drawn on its account were signed by Jose Pio Camejo, M.D. and by Vega as "Dr. Francisco O. Vega." While there is convincing evidence that Francisco Vega is a person who wishes to impress mortgage bankers and perhaps waiters to whom he gives credit cards with the pretense of being a medical doctor, there is no direct evidence that Dr. Camejo knew about Vega's misrepresentations. More importantly, the general evidence of misrepresentations presented was from contexts in which misrepresentations were irrelevant, for they did not involve the practice of medicine. Vega's actions with Ramirez occurred because Vega recognized him from the prior meeting when Ramirez had asked about renting the Seaport Medical Center property, hence the exaggerated reaction to Ramirez' nonexistent medical symptoms and the bogus AIDS diagnosis, accompanied by Vega's joking with the receptionist about it in the presence of Ramirez. Inspector Ramirez should have known, by that point, that Vega had turned the tables on him because Vega knew that Ramirez was snooping around for some reason, not looking for medical assistance. The joke was ultimately on Vega who has been prosecuted for his actions, but this in no way implicates Dr. Camejo. The record does not establish, at the level of clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Camejo knew about the unauthorized practice of medicine by Francisco Vega.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint against Dr. Jose Pio Camejo be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative bearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0845 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 2. There is no proof that Dr. Camejo purchased, or ever had any ownership, in the Land and Sea Medical Center, Inc. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 5. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 6. Some of the proposed facts are rejected as cumulative to the finding that the building had been vandalized. Generally rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 9. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 11. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 12. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Covered in Finding of Fact 14. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 14. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as cumulative to the findings made in Finding of Fact 5. Covered in Finding of Fact 15. Covered in Finding of Fact 15. Covered in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Rejected for the reasons stated in Finding of Fact 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 17. 33(a). Rejected as conclusions, not findings of fact. 33(b). Rejected for the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law. 33(c). Rejected because this is not an action for perjury against Dr. Camejo and is therefore irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Sentence 1 covered in Finding of Fact 1. The remainder rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as a repetition of the pleadings, not a finding of fact. Sentences 1 and 2 covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 8. The remainder covered in Findings of Fact 11-15. Sentence 1 covered in Finding of Fact 2. Sentence 2 covered in Finding of Fact 2. Sentence 3 rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Manuel Gonzalez, Jr., Esquire Ocean Bank Building, Suite 604 780 Northwest 42 Avenue Miami, Florida 33126 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by the Honorable Robert S. Cohen, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and Relinquish Jurisdiction, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Sky Powersports North Orlando, LLC to sell Slingshot Motorcycles manufactured by Polaris Industries, Inc. (SLNG) at 855 North US Highway 17-92, Longwood (Seminole Count), Florida 32750. Filed February 13, 2015 4:10 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this (3 County, Florida. Filed in the official records of the Division of Motorist Services this 13 _ day of February, 2015. Moke: Ur Nalini Vinayak, Dealer License Administrator Copies furnished to: Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section Nicholas A. Bader, Esquire Bass Sox Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Michael W. Malone Polaris Sales and Service, Inc. 2100 Highway 55 Medina, Minnesota 55340 Robert S. Cohen Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon Cobuv Julie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 e Charles R. Northey Sky Powersports North Orlando, LLC 246 McLean Point Winter Haven, Florida 33884 Nathan D. Stickney Sky Powersports North Orlando, LLC 709 Elkhorn Fern Lane Deland, Florida 32720 Jonathan Breenen Butler, Esquire Akerman, LLP 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 1100, West Tower West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CYCLE SPORT CENTER, INC., d/b/a CYCLE SPORTS CENTER, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 14-6038 POLARIS SALES AND SERVICE, INC., AND SKY POWERSPORTS NORTH ORLANDO, LLC, Respondents. ORDER CLOSING FILE AND RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION This cause having come before the undersigned on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and to Relinquish Jurisdiction, filed on January 23, 2015, and Petitioner’s Notice of No Objection to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on February 5, 2015, and the undersigned being fully advised in the premises, it is, therefore, ORDERED that: 1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and to Relinquish Jurisdiction is granted. 2. The final hearing scheduled for September 8 through 11, 2015, is canceled. 3. The file of the Division of Administrative Hearings is closed. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Motor Vehicles. DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 6th day of February, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, MS 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) William Edward Van Cott Government Operations Consultant Office of the General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A-430 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Nicholas A. Bader, Esquire Bass Sox Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Michael W. Malone Polaris Sales and Service, Inc. 2100 Highway 55 Medina, Minnesota 55340-9770 Charles R. Northey Sky Powersports North Orlando, LLC 246 McLean Point Winter Haven, Florida 33884 Nathan D. Stickney Sky Powersports North Orlando, LLC 709 Elkhorn Fern Lane Deland, Florida 32720 Jonathan Brennen Butler, Esquire Akerman, LLP Suite 1100 West Tower 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CYCLE SPORT CENTER, INC., d/b/a CYCLE SPORT CENTER, CASE NO.: 14-6038 Petitioner, vs. POLARIS SALES AND SERVICE, INC., AND BROWARD SKY POWERSPORTS NORTH ORLANDO, LLC, Respondents, / RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO DICTION Respondent, POLARIS SALES AND SERVICE, INC. ("Polaris"), by and through their undersigned counsel and pursuant to Sections 120.569, 320.642 and 320.642, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.204, respectfully move for entry of an Order dismissing the Petition initiating this proceeding and relinquishing the Division of Administrative Hearings' jurisdiction over this proceeding. As grounds, Polaris states as follows. 1 This proceeding was initiated by the Petition Protesting Establishment of Dealership Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 320.642 ("the Petition") filed by Petitioner CYCLE SPORT CENTER, INC., d/b/a CYCLE SPORT CENTER (‘Cycle Sport"). In relevant part, Cycle Sport is protesting Polaris’ Notice of Intent to establish Sky Powersports North Orlando, LLC ("Sky") as an additional dealer for the sale of Polaris' line of Slingshot motorcycles at 855 North U.S. Highway 17-92, Longwood, Florida ("the Notice of Intent"). 2. On January 15, 2015, however, Polaris filed formal notice of withdraw of the Notice of Intent with the Florida Division of Motor Vehicles, whereby Polaris withdrew its request that Sky be authorized as an additional dealer of the Slingshot line. A copy of Polaris Notice of Withdraw is attached as Exhibit A. 3. As a consequence of Polaris' withdraw of its Notice of Intent, there is no longer any basis or need for an administrative hearing on Cycle Sport's Petition protesting the Notice of Intent, Rather, Cycle Sport's Petition is now moot as there are no substantial interests or rights of the parties to be adjudicated nor any disputed facts to be determined. 4. Polaris accordingly requests that the Division of Administrative Hearings dismiss this proceeding and relinquish jurisdiction of this matter to the Division of Motor Vehicles. Respectfully submitted, !s/ Jonathan B. Butler Jonathan B. Butler, Esq. Florida Bar No. 56197 Akerman LLP 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Office: (561) 671-3642 Fax: (561) 659-6313 E-mail: jonathan. butler@akerman.com Secondary e-mail: luke.bovat@akerman.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 23, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Division of Administrative Hearings via eALJ, and served the foregoing documents via U.S. Mail and email on Robert C. Byerts, Esq. and Nicholas Bader, Esq., Bass, Sox and Mercer, 2822 Remington Green Cir, Tallahassee, FL 32308. /s/ Jonathan B. Butler Jonathan B. Butler, Esq. Florida Bar No. 56197 G— PSLaARIs “~~ SALES inc. Polaris Sales Inc, 2100 Highway 55 Medina, MN 55340-9770 763-542-0500 763-847-8149 fax January 15, 2015 Nalini Vinayak, Administrator Dealer License Section Division of Motor Vehicles 2800 Apalachee Parkway Room A-312, MS-65 ; Tallahassee, FL 32399-0635 Dear Nalini Vinayak, On October 30, 2014, Polaris Sales Inc. provided the Florida Division of Motor Vehicles with notice that It intended to authorized Sky Powersports North Orlando, LLC., d/b/a Sky Powersports North Orlando as a dealership for the sale of Slingshot at 855 North Highway 17-92, Longwood, FL, 32750. Polaris hereby formally withdraws that notice of intent to authorize. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and notice of withdrawal, Should you require any additional Information, please contact Peggy Payne at 763-847-8403. Sincerely, % ee ¥ UMICHAUL ULE bus Michael W. Malone ~ { VP Finance, CFO
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the sign involved herein located, on the west side of State Road 9336, 2 miles south of Palm Drive (S.W. 344 Street) in Florida City, has a state sign permit and has been maintained in an unsightly and insecure condition.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. John Hudson is the owner of Everglades Tours. The sign in question is located on the west side of State Road 9336, 2 miles south of Palm Drive (S.W. 344 Street) in Florida City. Mr. Hudson erected the sign in question after checking with an independent advertising sign company and determined that the cost for contracting to have the sign erected was cost prohibitive. The sign in question bears the following legend: Alligator in the Wild - Wowee! Airboat, with an arrow showing the direction of Everglades Tours. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7 and 8) The sign in question is located 30 feet south of the intersection of State Road 9336 and 192 Avenue. The zoned right of way at this location is 125 feet. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) The location of the sign was inventoried and its location measured by Petitioner's Outdoor Advertising Manager, William C. Kenney, III. There is no sign permit for this sign. The sign is not permanently attached to the ground and is not securely mounted on what appears to be a rusty swing set. The location of the sign is within an area zoned GU. The erection of commercial signs in an area zoned GU is Prohibited. (Testimony of William C. Kenney, III) Respondent was served a copy of the Notice of Violation for the subject sign on June 7, 1983. Respondent does not dispute the factual allegations set forth in the Notice of Violation. Respondent's position is simply that he contacted an independent advertising agency who advised that a temporary sign, as Respondent contends that this is, would have been permitted by an independent advertising agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, issue a Final Order ordering the removal of the sign involved herein. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1984.
