The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the license of Respondent Willie J. Whittington should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined for the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed May 19, 1982. At the final hearing, Cathi Cox and Dr. Carol E. McWilliams testified for the Petitioner. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-8 were offered and admitted into evidence. The Respondent testified on his own behalf and Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 was admitted into evidence. Following the final hearing, the Respondent furnished the Hearing Officer with written estimates of the cost of the added work performed at the construction site. These estimates have been marked and are admitted as Respondent's Exhibits 2-7. Additionally, official recognition was taken of Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board Specialty Contractor Standards. Proposed Recommended Orders have been submitted by the parties. To the extent that the proposed findings submitted by the parties are not reflected in this order, they are rejected as being either not supported by the weight of credible evidence or as being irrelevant to the issues determined here.
Findings Of Fact At the final hearing, the parties orally stipulated to the following facts contained in paragraphs 1-6: The Respondent Willie J. Whittington is a certified general contractor having been issued license number CC 006966. The last known address of the Respondent is Whittington & Sons Builders, Inc., 7660 North State Road 7, Pompano Beach, Florida 33067. The Respondent Whittington is the qualifying agent for Whittington & Sons Builders, Inc. On July 28, 1980, Whittington & Sons Builders, Inc., entered into a contract with Carol E. McWilliams to remodel a veterinary office located at 2775 South State Road 7, West Palm Beach, Florida, for the sum of $30,000. Two separate contracts were executed by the parties for the job; the first one in the amount of $30,000 while the second was for $35,000. The $35,000 contract was a falsification and was executed in order to aid Dr. McWilliams in obtaining a larger loan from her bank. To date, the Respondent Whittington has received approximately $30,668.70 from Dr. McWilliams. Although the Respondent did not provide a $2,000 well and septic tank as specified in the contract, he substituted a drain field and pump with a combined value of $1,589.00. Additionally, the Respondent provided extras on the job totaling approximately $2,500, including stucco, plumbing fixtures, tile, locks, a rear door and extra window. Dr. McWilliams was required to expend $536.92 for lighting fixtures when the existing fixtures were stolen from the job site. The Respondent was to have reinstalled the existing fixtures in the remodeled building. The fixtures were stored on Dr. McWilliams' property behind a locked chain link fence. Pursuant to the construction contract, however, the Respondent was not responsible for furnishing electrical or plumbing fixtures. During the course of this project, numerous changes were made in the original agreement. It is uncertain from the testimony how the changes came about; it is undisputed however, that numerous items not contemplated by the agreement were furnished by the Respondent and accepted by Dr. McWilliams. The Respondent obtained a permit to install an air conditioning unit from the county. The unit was installed by the Respondent and his son-in-law, neither of whom are licensed as air conditioning contractors. The Respondent replaced an existing unit which had been stolen and did not perform any duct work in connection with such installation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent Willie J. Whittington be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and be issued a reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 17th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Willie J Whittington 7660 North State Road 7 Pompano Beach, Florida 33067 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Delbert W. Ogden holds license number CR 0051562 as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida. He held this registration at all times material to this action. Mr. Ogden was the qualifying agent for Sealtite Roofing and Waterproofing, Inc. from December 15, 1986 through May 30, 1987. The Watkins Contract On April 1, 1987, Sealtite Roofing and Waterproofing entered into a contract with Pauline Watkins (Ms. Watkins' name is now Pauline Watkins- Biddulph), to replace the roof on her home. The work included both a cement tile roof and a flat gravel roof. In her dealings with Sealtite Ms. Watkins dealt with a salesman, Tom Pagano. She never dealt with Mr. Ogden. Sealtite Roofing agreed to provide a written warranty on the roofing work for a period of 10 years. It delivered the Warranty when the work was completed. Ms. Watkins made a deposit with Sealtite at the time the contract was signed. A further amount was paid to Sealtite when the work has halfway finished, on April 27, 1987, and the final payment was made when the work was completed on May 1, 1987. At the time the house was reroofed, the weather was dry. After rain which occurred in late June, 1987, (almost two months after the work had been completed) Ms. Watkins had a number of leaks, the most serious being a leak in the kitchen. Ms. Watkins notified Mr. Pagano of the problem on June 30; the next day an inspector from Sealtite came to the house. Ms. Watkins then spoke with the office manager of Sealtite who informed her that the roofing would be removed and all water damage would be repaired, that new material to replace the roof had been ordered, and the new roofing material should arrive so that the corrective work could be done during the week of July 6, 1987. No one came in early July to repair the damage, so Ms. Watkins contacted the engineering department of the building division of the Village of North Palm Beach. Nothing came of that contact. Ms. Watkins again called the building inspector for the Village of North Palm Beach on July 22 and was advised to contact the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board, because by that time Sealtite's phone had been disconnected. On July 23, 1987, a Mr. Slee, the owner of Sealtite, informed Ms. Watkins that her roof would be inspected again the next day. On July 24, two men appeared at Ms. Watkins' home, inspected the roof and left without speaking with Ms. Watkins. Ultimately, by August 13, 1987, Ms. Watkins complained to investigators with the Florida Department of Professional Regulation about the roofing company's failure to honor its warranty. On August 14, 1987 she was contacted by a Mr. Greg Martin, who claimed to be the qualifier for Sealtite at that time, and Mr. Slee. They were to arrange for repair of the roof by August 31, 1987, but they never did so. Mr. Ogden Delbert Ogden had disagreements with Mr. Slee, the owner of Sealtite Roofing, which caused him to resign as the qualifier for Sealtite with the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board. His letter of resignation was mailed to the Palm Beach County Board on April 27, 1987. He followed this action with a latter to the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, resigning as the qualifier for Sealtite with the State on May 14, 1987. As a result of his letter to the State, he received a receipt from the Jacksonville office of the Construction Industry Licensing Board on May 30, 1987, acknowledging that his license was placed on an inactive status. Mr. Ogden's first contact with Ms. Watkins was on November 6, 1987. He suggested that Ms. Watkins retain a lawyer to sue Mr. Slee and Sealtite. Ms. Watkins declined, maintaining that the dispute was between Mr. Ogden as the qualifier and Mr. Slee as the owner of the corporation which Mr. Ogden had qualified. Necessary Repairs Due to the inadequate work that was done on Ms. Watkins' roof by Sealtite, the roof had to be repaired. She paid $2,572.50 to remove and replace the roof Sealtite had installed, and also paid B & N Building Services $950.25 to repair the kitchen and porch ceilings and to replace a beam. She also paid 375 for new drywall, a repair to another damaged ceiling and other work done by another repair firm. Mr. Ogden's Past History with the Board On two occasions complaints had been made about Mr. Ogden's work to the Construction Industry Licensing Board. On September 9, 1987, the Board chairman signed a closing order finding there was probable cause to believe that Mr. Ogden did not obtain a permit in a timely manner, and on January 7, 1988, the chairman signed a closing order finding probable cause that Mr. Ogden had failed to honor a guarantee for work on a residential room addition. In both cases, Ogden was sent a letter of guidance. It appears that as the result of receiving the letter of guidance, Mr. Ogden was never provided an opportunity to formally dispute either of the complaints made against him. The mere fact that the Board found probable cause to believe Mr. Ogden may have violated Chapter 489 on prior occasions in no way proves that Mr. Ogden was actually guilty of misconduct on either occasion. There is no factual basis in the record for concluding that Mr. Ogden has been guilty of misconduct on prior occasions.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Delbert W. Ogden be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 5th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitute my rulings on proposed findings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Findings Proposed by Department Covered in paragraph 1. Covered in paragraph 1. Covered in paragraph 2. Covered in paragraph 2. Covered in paragraph 4 Covered in paragraph 4. Covered in paragraph 4. Covered in paragraph 4. Covered in paragraph 4. Covered in paragraph 7. Subsidiary to the first clause in paragraph 7. To the extent relative, covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 1. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected for the reasons stated In finding of fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Delbert W. Ogden 360 Selve Terrace West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Drawer 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Louis C. Eder (hereafter Respondent) is a registered building contractor holding license number RB 0010762. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was the qualifying agent for Lujack Construction Company. On September 11, 1979, Dennis Ecks, a complainant in this proceeding, entered into a written contract with Abco Contracting and Construction Company, through its agent Jack Greenblatt, for remodeling his residence for the sum of $5,200. The permit for the Ecks job was pulled by the Respondent in the name of Lujack Construction Company. Ecks paid $4,900 to Abco for the job. He withheld $300 to compensate for the failure of Abco to install a screen door. Ecks paid the $4,900 directly to Abco and never met or spoke to the Respondent during the time the contract was being negotiated and executed. After the job was started, the Respondent sent letters to Ecks rescinding the permit for the job and orally communicated his concern that Ecks should exercise caution in his business dealings with Abco. The Respondent received no monies from either Ecks or Abco for the Ecks' job. On January 21, 1980, Dominic Sicilian, the other complainant in this proceeding, entered into a written contract with Abco General Contracting and Construction Company, through its agent, Jack Greenblatt, to enclose a carport for $11,675. The permit for the Sicilian job was pulled by the Respondent in the name of Lujack Construction Company. Sicilian paid $9,000 of the contract sum directly to Abco. This job was abandoned after approximately fifty percent of the construction work was completed, Sicilian, like Ecks, had no discussions with the Respondent before the contract was executed. Approximately one year after the contract was executed, Sicilian spoke to the Respondent concerning his problems with Abco. At that time the Respondent offered to finish the job for the remainder of the contract price. Additionally, shortly after Abco started the job, the Respondent informed Sicilian, both orally and in writing, that he would not be working on the job because he had not been paid by Abco and Sicilian should exercise caution in his business dealings with Abco. Both Ecks and Sicilian believed that they were dealing with Abco and neither had any knowledge of Lujack Construction or its relationship to Abco. The Respondent did not enter into construction contracts with either Ecks or Sicilian. The Respondent began working for Abco in the capacity of foreman. Shortly after commencing employment with Abco, the Respondent was requested by Abco to obtain permits for pending jobs due to a problem Abco encountered in obtaining permits. The problem resulted from Abco maintaining a business in an area zoned noncommercial. Approximately two weeks after commencing employment with Abco, the Respondent's relationship with Abco changed and he became the contractor on the job under the name Lujack Construction Company, a name which the Respondent had used for many years. Shortly after commencing work at Lujack Construction, the Respondent quit when he was not paid from the first draw. The Respondent terminated his relationship with Abco and notified Ecks and Sicilian that he was no longer working on the job due to non-payment and was rescinding the permits which he had pulled. The Respondent attempted without success to as certain the proper procedure to terminate the permits by directing inquiries to the Cooper City Building Department, Broward County Building Department, Palm Beach County Building Department and the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondent has been a licensed general contractor for fourteen years. During that period of time, he has built hundreds of homes in the Palm Beach area. Other than the complaints filed in the instant case, the Respondent has not been the subject of any previous complaint or disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Construction Industry Licensing Board dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Louis C. Eder. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 15th day of March, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent’s employment with Petitioner as a high school principal should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in 2011, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as the principal of Spanish River High School (“SRHS”). As the principal of SRHS, Respondent was required to “perform such duties as may be assigned by the district school superintendent pursuant to the rules of the school board, [including] rules relating to administrative responsibility, instructional leadership in implementing the Sunshine State Standards and the overall educational program of the school to which the principal is assigned.” § 1012.28(5), Fla. Stat.; Palm Beach Sch. Bd. Policy 1.014. The educational program which principals are charged with implementing is defined by Florida law. Section 1003.42(1), Florida Statutes, requires school boards to provide “all courses required for middle school promotion, high school graduation, and appropriate instruction designed to meet State Board of Education adopted standards [in the subject areas of reading and other language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign languages, health and physical education, and the arts].” Additionally, the State of Florida requires “members of the instructional staff of the public schools” to teach certain specified subjects “using books and materials that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historical accuracy.” § 1003.42, Fla. Stat. These specifically required teachings, which are defined and described in varying degrees of detail, include: the “history of the state”; “conservation of natural resources”; “the elementary principles of agriculture”; “flag education, including proper flag display and flag salute”; the “study” of Hispanic and women’s contributions to society; kindness to animals; the “history and content of the Declaration of Independence, including national sovereignty … and how [these concepts] form the philosophical foundation of our government”; the “history, meaning, significance and effect of the provisions” of the United States Constitution; the “arguments in support of adopting our republican form of government, as they are embodied in the most important of the Federalist Papers”; and “the nature and importance of free enterprise to the United States economy.” Section 1003.42(2)(f) requires the teaching of the history of the United States, including the period of discovery, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement to the present, and includes the following direction: American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Section 1003.42(2)(h), which requires Florida educators to teach the “history of African-Americans,” specifically requires instruction on: The history of African Americans, including the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and contributions of African Americans to society. Instructional materials shall include the contributions of African Americans to American society. The teaching of the history of the Holocaust is mandated by section 1003.42(2)(g), which provides: (2) Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historical accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following: * * * (g) The history of the Holocaust (1933-1945), the systematic, planned annihilation of European Jews and other groups by Nazi Germany, a watershed event in the history of humanity, to be taught in a manner that leads to an investigation of human behavior, an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping, and an examination of what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purposes of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions. The curriculum for teaching the Holocaust at SRHS included an assembly which all tenth-grade students were required to attend. Schools have discretion in constructing a curriculum. The school’s principal is responsible for determining the contents of the curriculum. A school is not required to have a Holocaust assembly as part of its curriculum, but if an assembly is part of the curriculum, the assembly must be mandatory. A Holocaust assembly was “part of [SRHS’s] mandatory curriculum for tenth- graders.” On April 13, 2018, the mother of a rising SRHS tenth-grader wrote to Dr. Latson “to discuss the Florida Mandate to include Holocaust Education each year in the student’s curriculum” and specifically to ask “in what ways/classes is Holocaust education provided to all of the students.” Dr. Latson answered the parent in an email which included these statements: [A]s far as [H]olocaust studies and the curriculum it can be dealt with in a variety of ways. The curriculum is to be introduced but not forced upon individuals as we all have the same rights but not all the same beliefs. Each year we do a Holocaust assembly and we target the 10th graders so every year that group will get a day[‘]s work with the [H]olocaust. We advertise it to the tenth grade parents as [there] are some who do not want their children to participate and we have to allow them the ability to decline. The parent replied to Dr. Latson in another email: Please clarify your statement: “The curriculum is to be introduced but not forced upon individuals as we all have the same rights but not all the same beliefs.” The Holocaust is a factual, historical event. It is not a right or a belief. Dr. Latson responded with the following statements: The clarification is that not everyone believes the Holocaust happened and you have your thoughts but we are a public school and not all of our parents have the same beliefs so they will react differently, my thoughts or beliefs have nothing to do with this because I am a public servant. I have the role to be politically neutral but support all groups in the school. I work to expose students to certain things but not all parents want their students exposed so they will not be and I can’t force the issue … . I can’t say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a school district employee. I do allow information about the Holocaust to be presented and allow students and parents to make decisions about it accordingly. I do the same with information about slavery, I don’t take a position but allow for the information to be presented and parents to be parents and educate their students accordingly. I am not looking for a situation to divide but just to let all know I don’t have a position on the topic, as an educator. My personal beliefs are separate and will always have no place in my profession. This is a very touchy subject, one I have had conversation with Rabbi Levin about. I am simply letting you know all we can do as a public school within our ability. Dr. Glenda Sheffield, who currently is Petitioner’s chief academic officer, was, at all times relevant to this matter, the instructional superintendent for Petitioner’s south region, which included SRHS. In that earlier position, Sheffield was the immediate supervisor of the principals of more than 20 middle and high schools located in the south region, including Dr. Latson. Sheffield reported to Dr. Ian Saltzman who was the regional superintendent for the south region. Saltzman reported to Mr. Keith Oswald. Oswald, at all times relevant to this matter, was Petitioner’s deputy superintendent of schools. Oswald’s duties included supervision of the regional and instructional superintendents who supervise the schools. Oswald was made aware of the email exchange between Dr. Latson and the SRHS parent by Dianna Fedderman, Petitioner’s assistant superintendent for curriculum, who had been told of it by Maureen Carter, Petitioner’s Holocaust program planner, to whom the parent had forwarded the emails. Carter and Fedderman expressed concern about the content of the emails, which Oswald shared. He forwarded the email chain to Saltzman and Sheffield to take action. Oswald directed Saltzman and Sheffield to keep him informed about the counseling they were giving to Dr. Latson, to address the Holocaust studies at the school to strengthen them, and to meet with the parent and address her concern. The Palm Beach County School District (“District”) did not publicize Dr. Latson’s emails, deciding the matter would be handled at the regional level. Dr. Latson was not disciplined for his statements to the parent. He was, however, counseled. Dr. Latson’s counsel described the coaching as advising Dr. Latson of the need for “more circumspect e-mail, e-mail composition to parents.” Dr. Latson testified that the “only criticism” he received was that he “could have worded a better email.” Sheffield did not feel the need to address the teaching of the Holocaust at SRHS because she knew from her own experience that the subject was, in fact, infused in the school’s curriculum. She, therefore, focused her work with Dr. Latson on what she considered to be his poor choice of words. Sheffield did work with the parent for “quite some time.” Between April of 2018 and July of 2019, there were numerous meetings and interactions among and between Sheffield, Saltzman, Carter, Fedderman, and the parent. Dr. Latson had no doubt that the District was supportive of him during this time and, again, the “only criticism” he received was that he “could have worded a better email.” Dr. Latson’s perception was that his emails to the parent were “not clear [and as I read them] some of the things weren’t clear and some of it, in retrospect I could have just left out.” Dr. Latson felt that his words to the parent “obviously gave her the belief that [he] did not believe in the Holocaust, [and he] was just saying [he] wasn’t going to affirm or deny it.” “[S]he kept bringing it back up, so that gave [him] the opinion that she didn’t understand what that meant, even after it was clarified.” When Sheffield was coaching Dr. Latson, she was not aware that he was allowing students to opt out of the Holocaust assembly because the students’ parents did not want the students to be exposed to the contents of the assembly. There is some confusion on this point because Dr. Latson says he never said directly that a student might “opt out” of an assembly with his blessing, but that parents were always free to keep their children home from school for any reason (including not wanting them exposed to the serious nature of the assembly), subject only to District attendance requirements. There is no District or SRHS provision authorizing a parent to opt out of instruction on the Holocaust. If a principal were to allow that practice, she believed he would not be enforcing the mandatory curriculum for the Holocaust. Oswald, who was to be kept informed of the efforts of Saltzman and the others, was told that Dr. Latson had acknowledged that his words were inappropriate. Like Sheffield, Oswald was not aware that Dr. Latson was allowing parents who wished to avoid the Holocaust assembly to “opt out” of it. On May 9, 2019, the same parent sent an email to Saltzman and copied Superintendent Fennoy, Oswald, and Sheffield about a meeting held on May 6, 2019, attended by the complaining parent and School District personnel. The email included the following statement referring specifically to Dr. Latson’s statements in his April 2018 emails: There is one major issue that was not resolved at the meeting, and we do not think there is any resolution other than to remove Mr. Latson as principal from [SRHS]. Mr. Latson made his thoughts very clear at the meeting. When he tried to explain that he thinks his statements in his offensive and erroneous emails last year were misunderstood, he ended up reiterating his offensive and erroneous views. Saltzman informed Oswald that the way the parent characterized the meeting of May 6, 2019, was not accurate. The District, therefore, gave no consideration to the parent’s call for Dr. Latson’s removal from his position at SRHS and took no action in response to the parent’s email. On July 5, 2019, the Palm Beach Post (“Post”) published an article headlined, “Spanish River High’s principal refused to call the Holocaust a fact: A mother pushed for a year to address what she described as a school leader’s failure to separate truth from myth.” Petitioner was aware before its publication that the article was being written. Oswald made a statement to the reporter writing the story. Oswald’s comments were reported in the article: Oswald, who oversees all the county’s principals, said he agreed with the mother that Latson’s email messages were inappropriate but were not reflective of who he was as an educator. Latson, he said, is a popular school leader whose school does more Holocaust education than most campuses and has led the school successfully for years. He should not be judged, he said, solely by a pair of email messages. “It was a hastily, poorly written email that he apologized for,” Oswald said. “That’s some of the challenge that we face when we email back and forth instead of picking up the phone.” Dr. Latson was also aware that the article was being written. The District’s communications director, Claudia Shea, worked with him to prepare a statement to be given to the writer. That statement was reported in the article: In a statement to The Post, Latson apologized for the way he expressed himself in his emails, saying it was not indicative of his actual beliefs or regard for historical fact. “I regret that the verbiage that I used when responding to an email message from a parent, one year ago, did not accurately reflect my professional and personal commitment to educating all students about the atrocities of the Holocaust,” Latson wrote. “It is critical that, as a society, we hold dear the memory of the victims and hold fast to our commitment to counter anti-Semitism,” he continued. He pointed out that [SRHS’s] educational offerings on the Holocaust exceed the state’s requirements. The Holocaust is taught, he said, in ninth- and 10th-grade English classes, as an elective course and in an annual assembly featuring a keynote speaker. The reaction to the publication of the article on July 5, 2019, was “complete outrage, chaos.” Oswald testified to the article’s impact: Q. Can you tell us how it was expressed? A. It was expressed … phone calls, e-mails, meeting with State representatives, locally to the White House. It was completely consuming of all my time on the following days. Q. The following day being the 6th? A. There and forward. The public reaction to the publication of the article and its impact on the District is not disputed. Dr. Latson himself acknowledged it in an email he sent to Oswald and others in the District at 3:36 p.m. on Saturday, July 6, 2019: The release of this article is having the effect the parent who wants to discredit me desired. It is causing a rift in the community, students and parents are attempting to defend me to those in the community who do not know me. I am not the public relations expert but I am wondering if something should come out from me to clear this up. Me not saying anything is fueling questions in the community. I am getting this daily from parents. My parent groups are trying to stop the negativity but they are asking if a statement can come out from me addressing this issue. They state that I have always been vocal and got ahead of things so it is the parents[‘] expectation to hear from me and not doing so is causing questions. Your thoughts? In response to Dr. Latson’s email, Oswald telephoned, telling him “not to make any statements and to not say anything and that we are working internally with the communications department about this.” Oswald specifically directed Dr. Latson not to make any further contact at that time. Oswald told Dr. Latson that they would talk on Monday, July 8, 2019. Dr. Latson testified that Oswald emailed his response to Dr. Latson’s July 6, 2019, email. No such email from Oswald was produced, but Dr. Latson’s telephone records indicate that he received a telephone call from Oswald on July 6, 2019, at 4:56 p.m., which lasted eight minutes. Dr. Latson acknowledged that this telephone call could have been Oswald’s response to his email. In any event, he did confirm being told that “we weren’t going to respond” to the article. The District continued to support Dr. Latson after the article was published. Before he left for vacation, he received a phone call from Sheffield, who told Dr. Latson that she was supporting him. Sheffield, having taken her current position as chief academic officer, was not Dr. Latson’s supervisor on July 6, 2019. She learned of the article’s publication while traveling back from her vacation. She nevertheless called Dr. Latson to ask how he was faring and to tell him to “hold [his] head high” and “[w]e’re going to get through this working together.” In the telephone conversation, Dr. Latson expressed the hope that “this doesn’t ruin [his] reputation.” He also spoke with Dr. Arthur Johnson, the representative of the principal’s association and his friend and former superintendent. Johnson told Dr. Latson to “hold on and let’s see what’s happening.” On Monday, July 8, 2019, Oswald called Dr. Latson at 7:36 a.m., and they spoke for five minutes. Oswald told Dr. Latson that the “Post article was starting to cause somewhat of a problem for [Oswald] and the District and [Oswald] wanted me to take a voluntary reassignment.” Dr. Latson told Oswald that he “needed to discuss [the reassignment] with [his] family” because he believed that his voluntary acceptance of a reassignment meant that the District could place him where they wanted and that might affect his compensation, and he “had an issue with that.” There is some variance between Dr. Latson’s testimony that he informed Oswald he would “try to get back” to him by noon, and Oswald’s testimony that Dr. Latson “stated he would get back to him that morning.” Dr. Latson admits “that Oswald requested a call back by noon.” Dr. Latson testified that, because he was on vacation, he was not obligated to call Oswald back before noon and, also, testified that, if he had been told to contact Oswald, that would be a directive he had to obey. It is, however, undisputed that Dr. Latson at least told Oswald he would “try” to get back to him by noon and undisputed that, even though he spoke with “individuals” about the reassignment, he made no effort to communicate with Oswald before noon of July 8, 2019. After speaking with Dr. Latson at 7:36 a.m., Oswald attempted to communicate with him no fewer than six times before noon on July 8, 2019, because of the urgency of the worsening situation. Oswald called Dr. Latson at 8:21 a.m., 9:35 a.m., 10:32 a.m., and 10:42 a.m., and texted him at 8:22 a.m. and 10:32 a.m. When Dr. Latson did not answer the telephone calls, Oswald left voicemails, increasing with urgency, saying the situation was escalating and asking him to return his call. In response to an automated text sent from Dr. Latson’s phone-- indicting he was driving and could not receive notifications, but informing the caller to “reply urgent” to send a notification with the original message-- Oswald texted him the word “urgent” twice at or around 10:32 a.m. Oswald received no response from Dr. Latson. Between 7:36 a.m. and noon on July 8, 2019, Dr. Latson placed nine and received four telephone calls to and from friends, family members, colleagues, and Johnson. Apparently, his cellular phone was functioning during this time. At approximately 12:33 p.m., not having heard back from Dr. Latson, Oswald sent Dr. Latson a text and an email informing him that Oswald was reassigning him to the District Office. Dr. Gonzalo La Cava, Petitioner’s chief of human resources, also left Dr. Latson a voicemail about the reassignment. Oswald’s text to Dr. Latson was as follows: “I have left you numerous messages to contact me. I am reassigning you to the district office. Please call me ASAP.” Dr. Latson’s argument, as opposed to his testimony, explaining his failure to respond to Oswald on July 8, 2019, is inconsistent. Dr. Latson initially justified his lack of a response to Oswald by arguing that the text he received from Oswald about being removed as principal of SRHS “did not seem to invite a response.” In fact, that text closed with the words, “Please call me ASAP.” In his Answer, Dr. Latson alleged that after he received the message about the re-assignment, he “attempted to email Oswald, but the message did not go through.” At hearing, Dr. Latson testified that he tried to text Oswald around 12:30 p.m., but the text did not go through. He also testified that he attempted to email Oswald at 9:30 p.m. from Jamaica. Dr. Latson explains his lack of response to Oswald by saying he was already on the phone whenever Oswald was trying to call and the calls could not have gone through. His telephone records, however, showed that other calls he was making during this time were interrupted and he was able to connect with the incoming caller. It is undisputed that Dr. Latson received Oswald’s communication telling him that he was being reassigned to the District Office. He admits he told Oswald he would “try” to get back to him specifically to tell Oswald whether he would accept the voluntary assignment. Dr. Latson’s failure to respond to Oswald’s several attempts to speak with him is consistent with a decision not to accept the voluntary reassignment. Contradicting testimony was given at hearing regarding whether Dr. Latson’s request to travel to Jamaica in July had even been approved or known about by Petitioner. A District spreadsheet showing a week-long leave beginning July 8, 2019, was offered into evidence and removed any doubt as to whether Dr. Latson was on recognized or approved leave. The public reaction that followed publication of the July 5, 2019, article was somewhat lessened by news of Dr. Latson’s reassignment, and, “after he was reassigned, there was some calming in the District.” The reassignment was widely publicized. The New York Times published an article datelined July 8, 2019, under the headline, “Principal Who Tried to Stay Politically Neutral About Holocaust Is Removed.” Although he did not respond to Oswald, Dr. Latson did email the faculty and staff at SRHS. The email was obtained by the author of the July 5, 2019, article. His email opened with the paragraph: I have been reassigned to the district office due to a statement that was not accurately relayed to the newspaper by one of our parents. It is unfortunate that someone can make a false statement and do so anonymously and it holds credibility but that is the world we live in. Dr. Latson describes his email as “a necessary and righteous denial of a false allegation.” He describes the “false statement”--the statement that was “not accurately relayed to the newspaper by a parent”--to be that “I was hesitant and I wouldn’t--I avoided confrontation with Holocaust deniers [and] that was not true [and] it also stated that, you know, I denied that the Holocaust occurred [and] that’s not true.” “She can fear my reluctance, but I had no reluctance, so that would be an incorrect statement.” However, in explaining his reasoning, Dr. Latson admits that the statements of the parent contained in the article were reported as the parent’s opinion and that, although she did not doubt that he knew the Holocaust was real, she “feared” that his reluctance to say so stemmed from a desire to “avoid confronting parents who deny the Holocaust reality.” He also made clear that the “statement” that was “relayed” by the parent to which he referred in his email to staff were, in fact, the statements that he had written in April of 2018. Dr. Latson believes that as an educator mandated by law to teach the history of the Holocaust, he is required--by the very statute which imposes that duty, to be tolerant of those who would deny that the Holocaust is historical fact, to the point of allowing some to avoid attending Holocaust remembrance assemblies required of all students. In his email to the complaining parent, Dr. Latson wrote that he could not, as a school district employee, say “the Holocaust is a factual, historical event.” At hearing, he testified that, although he could as a District employee state whether he believes the Holocaust to be a fact, he had the “option to be politically neutral.” In his email to the parent, Dr. Latson wrote that he advertised the tenth-grade Holocaust assembly “as there are some who do not want their children to participate and we have to allow them the ability to decline.” At hearing, Dr. Latson testified that he advertised the assembly so parents would know, in case a teacher marked a child who was attending the assembly absent. He testified that some parents do not want their children to attend the Holocaust assembly because of the graphic nature of the teaching materials used, and he is not “going to force a child to sit in a room where their parents don’t want them to be.” The District’s absence policy can be used to allow students to stay home from school during the Holocaust remembrance assembly, if the parents so desire. He believes that the statute mandating the teaching of the Holocaust as history requires that he be tolerant of those who do not want their children to be shown the graphic images of the atrocities, but that they could still learn from the required teachings through other means. Dr. Latson sent an email to faculty and staff at SRHS on the afternoon of July 8, 2019. Oswald, Fennoy, and the District did not learn of Dr. Latson’s statement concerning the complaining parent in this email until late that evening. Dr. Latson testified it was a common practice for principals leaving a school to inform the staff of their departure so they can prepare themselves for a change in administration, which generally means that an entering principal might do things a bit differently. He believed it was important to deliver the message of his leaving as early as possible. He admitted he wrote the email to staff quickly and did not take the time to fully consider the repercussions of his words regarding the complaining parent. He was frustrated that he had lost the support of the District at the time he wrote the email, after having received their support prior to that time. He admitted he did not do a good job of expressing his frustration, but he never believed the email would be seen by anyone but the faculty and staff at SRHS. While news of Dr. Latson’s reassignment had dampened the public reaction which the District was dealing with after publication of the July 5, 2019, article, Dr. Latson’s statement in the email re-energized the public. Instead of reconciliation over his poorly worded April 2018 emails, Dr. Latson’s placement of blame on the parent undermined the apology and made matters worse. There was “complete outrage [by District personnel] that he would do that to a parent.” An article which appeared in the Post on July 9, 2019, was headlined, “More calls for Spanish River High principal’s firing after he blames parent.” The article included the sub-heading, “Principal William Latson’s farewell message prompted an anti-hate group and two Boca-area legislators to join calls for his termination.” On July 10, 2019, the Post published an article headlined, “In defiant farewell, ousted principal blames parent.” Dr. Latson does not dispute that the public reaction to his email was negative, which he learned of while he was still in Jamaica. The personal impact of Dr. Latson’s statement in the July 8, 2019, email was demonstrated by those who testified on behalf of him. Dr. Latson conceded that he did not know the reasons for his reassignment at the time he wrote the email to SRHS faculty and staff. He wrote to his staff that he was reassigned because of a statement inaccurately relayed to the newspaper. He believes the statement to be that he did not want to confront Holocaust deniers. In fact, in the predetermination hearing, Dr. Latson’s representative began the defense with the statement that the District “cannot remove a principal or adversely transfer him for not being zealous enough in a parent’s personal crusade against anti-Semitism.” That is not how Dr. Latson’s supporters saw it. The record makes clear that the controversy was about Dr. Latson’s earlier words, specifically, that, as a public educator who was mandated to teach the history of the Holocaust, he thought it would be improper for him to state that the Holocaust was a fact since he would not be acting in a neutral manner as an educator. Shari Fox, the Magnet Academy coordinator at SRHS, testified that she specifically asked Dr. Latson, “What is controversial about the Holocaust?” His response was that he did not think it was controversial in the beginning, but it has more recently come to his attention that Holocaust deniers exist, which makes its existence controversial. Mr. Aaron Ryan Wells, a SRHS teacher and debate coach, described a news article that “was essentially fabricated in the sense that it didn’t give all the facts, basically creates the disaster that removes a man of three decades from his post.” Because of Dr. Latson’s treatment, Wells “treads lightly even when teaching geography.” He has had inquiries regarding whether the Holocaust is even an appropriate subject for high school students. This incident detracts from the power of the course that introduces the skill that is supposed to be introduced with these types of students, namely tolerance and respect for others who may be different from you. He took from Dr. Latson’s reassignment the lesson that a single parent can question how you teach a subject, which could potentially result in your reassignment or termination as an educator should you fail to bend to the parent’s wishes. The lesson and perception that Wells and others took from Dr. Latson’s removal was that you should not teach controversial subjects. In fact, and as a matter of law, the State of Florida does not consider the occurrence of the Holocaust to be controversial. It does not and cannot prevent any student or parent from holding the absurd “belief” that the Holocaust did not happen. It can and does mandate that the student will be taught that history is not opinion or belief and that the Holocaust did occur. Through his actions, Dr. Latson caused a great number of people to doubt the commitment of the District to honor that mandate. His unilateral attribution of the reasons for his termination caused further disruption in the SRHS community. Many SRHS faculty and staff were left with the idea that Dr. Latson was reassigned because of the April 2018 emails, and were left with a sense of “injustice” and “unfairness.” The Community, the faculty, and the staff were angry, and some of that anger was directed at the complaining parent and her student. Dr. Latson’s allocation of blame to the parent and pointing out a “false statement” also sowed discontent among the faculty and staff, directed towards the District. Because Dr. Latson’s email stating the reasons for his reassignment were the April 2018 emails and, what he considered to be, a false statement from a parent, the faculty and staff felt that the District did not support the staff. Prior to learning of Dr. Latson’s July 8, 2019, email, the District had not taken any action to terminate him. Dr. Latson believes he was terminated because of outside pressure, to satisfy the not insignificant group of public officials and members of the public who called for his resignation. But those calls were made some time before he was terminated. Despite those calls, the District took Dr. Latson at his word, that he had been misunderstood, that his emails could be worded better, and that he understood the parents’ perception of his views. After the newspaper article of July 5, 2019, was published, when Oswald faced the reaction of the public and public officials, the District stood by Dr. Latson. The article itself contained Oswald’s defense of Dr. Latson, that he had written a poorly worded email. Even after Dr. Latson made no effort to contact Oswald before noon on July 8, 2019, the District did not move to terminate him. He was reassigned. Not until Dr. Latson made clear that he had not been misinterpreted in his “neutrality” statements to the complaining parent and it was clear to the District personnel involved that he was not walking back these statements, did Fennoy conclude that Dr. Latson’s employment was incompatible with the District’s commitment to teach the Holocaust. At some level, Dr. Latson believed that parents who do not want their children to be taught the Holocaust should be allowed to keep their children out of school on that day. He believed that he had a professional obligation to be neutral on matters of historical fact, even as espoused by members of, for example, the Flat Earth Society. Further, he believed that a statute that mandated the teaching of the Holocaust in a way that promoted tolerance required the teacher to be tolerant of those who said the history to be taught was, in fact, not history. Johnson, a long-serving principal, former Palm Beach County school superintendent, and now a consultant to principals, testified that no progressive discipline was imposed on Dr. Latson. Respondent admitted into evidence a document entitled “The Discipline Process, A Guide for Principals and Department Heads.” He testified the manual is still in existence and used by the District. Describing the process, Johnson discussed how, typically, “we start from the bottom and move to the top,” beginning with a verbal reprimand, followed by a written reprimand, then a short-term suspension, followed by a longer-term suspension, and, ultimately, a termination. He noted that there are occasional instances where discipline can go from “zero to one hundred, all the way to termination,” but these must involve “very serious offenses” that “put the District at risk.” He testified that the initial problem here was “an overly zealous parent’s intolerance of Dr. Latson’s tolerance.” He believes that an educator’s role is to be neutral and provide both sides of an issue. “You stick with the facts.” “You present both sides of the story. And you as a teacher or administrator may have to become very neutral, meaning you can’t advocate.” “We are definitely not in a position to proselytize or to indoctrinate young people,” he testified. He did admit that Dr. Latson could have used better language to communicate his thoughts on neutrality and to communicate with faculty and staff via email. Dr. Ben Marlin, another former Palm Beach County school superintendent, concurred with Johnson’s analysis and the appropriateness of exercising progressive discipline in this case. He likened the process to a ladder, with the penalty growing more severe the higher you climb. He testified that he would not have terminated Dr. Latson under the circumstances of this case. He would have resolved the matter through a meeting with a possible verbal reprimand. If the behavior occurred again, he would consider a written reprimand. Subsequent violations would result in more severe penalties. The testimony of the two former superintendents was not challenged or rebutted by Petitioner. No witnesses were called to state that progressive discipline was not applicable to this matter. Fox testified “we have to stay neutral in all of these topics [including the Holocaust] and just explain the facts to the students and guide the information and the discussion.” Fox specifically testified she does not believe Dr. Latson is Anti-Semitic. According to SRHS history teacher, Ms. Rachel Ostrow, the teacher’s role is “to present the facts, to guide the discussion amongst the students. But I lay out the facts from every point of view and then we discuss the content.” Ostrow specifically testified she does not believe Dr. Latson is Anti- Semitic. On July 17, 2019, Dr. Latson received notice that an administrative investigation had been opened by the Department of Employee and Labor Relations related to Ethical Misconduct. An investigative report was authored by Ms. Vicki Evans-Paré on August 23, 2019. On September 26, 2019, Dr. Latson received a copy of the investigative file, including the written investigative report. On October 7, 2019, a predetermination meeting was held to allow Dr. Latson to respond to the allegations, produce any documents that he believed would be supportive of his position, or rebut information in the investigation materials he was provided. He submitted a written response to the potential charges and his representatives, Dr. Thomas E. Elfers and Johnson provided oral presentations. Dr. Latson’s response at the predetermination meeting again compared the Holocaust to a belief, claiming that “constitutional liberty interests are involved: an interest in not being forced to reveal information about personal beliefs and an interest in being forced to make statements about one’s views.” The response preached neutrality in the presentation of “various hot buttons or touchy subjects.” Dr. Latson believed his body of work as an educator should have been taken into account and should not have resulted in a termination of his employment. He had never been disciplined previously by the District or the Educational Practice Commission in 26 years as an educator. He had received a “highly effective evaluation” for each of his eight years as the principal of SRHS, and the highest possible evaluation for 25 of his 26 years as an educator. Under his leadership, Dr. Latson oversaw the raising of SRHS from a “B” to an “A” rating in 2012, which was maintained throughout his tenure as principal. He achieved many successes as principal, such as significantly raising the school’s national academic ranking, being recognized by the District as the highest performing Palm Beach County school in advanced academic studies, and creating a school environment described by teacher Wells as “phenomenal,” and engendering an atmosphere of trust among the teachers, as stated by Fox and Ostrow at hearing. When asked by his counsel at hearing, Dr. Latson unequivocally stated that he is not Anti-Semitic. This statement was unrebutted by Petitioner. On October 11, 2019, however, based upon the information presented to him from the investigation and the predetermination meeting, Fennoy informed Dr. Latson that there was just cause, which can be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, to warrant his termination from his position as a principal, and that Fennoy would recommend Dr. Latson’s suspension without pay and termination of employment at the October 30, 2019, School Board meeting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order rescinding the suspension and termination of Dr. Latson; awarding him his lost wages for the period beginning with his suspension without pay; and transferring him to a position within the District, as determined by the superintendent, commensurate with his qualifications. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2020, 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 13th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Elfers, Esquire Law Office of Thomas Elfers 14036 Southwest 148th Lane Miami, Florida 33186 (eServed) Thomas Martin Gonzalez, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2700 Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Craig J. Freger, Esquire 16247 Northwest 15th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33028-1223 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Donald E. Fennoy II, Ed.D., Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact The Respondent. The Respondent, Charles Polk, served as the President of Daytona Beach Community College from 1974 to 1990. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk resigned as President of Daytona Beach Community College in 1990. Mr. Polk's Purchase of Real Estate from Anargyros N. Xepapas. In November, 1985, Mr. Polk and his wife purchased a life estate and one-half interest in a condominium unit from Anargyros N. Xepapas. Mr. Xepapas owned the other one-half interest in the condominium unit. [Stipulated Fact.] The purchase price of the life estate and one-half interest in the condominium unit was $150,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this price was not the fair market value or that the transaction was not an arms-length transaction. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Polk and his wife were required to pay $30,000.00 immediately. They subsequently executed and delivered to Mr. Xepapas a note and mortgage for the remaining $120,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk was a mortgagor and Mr. Xepapas was a mortgagee. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Polk was required to pay maintenance fees of approximately $5,000.00 per year, taxes, insurance and all other expenses of the unit, which totaled approximately $14,000.00 per year. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas agreed to maintain the payments on the first mortgage. [Stipulated Fact.] Following the closing, Mr. Polk paid Mr. Xepapas an additional $60,000.00 on the mortgage, reducing the principal balance to $60,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] A warranty deed was provided to Mr. Polk for the purchase of the property. [Stipulated Fact.] Neither the deed nor the mortgage were recorded. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk and his wife used the condominium as their residence. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas action in selling the condominium to Mr. Polk and his wife was a business transaction. Mr. Xepapas. Mr. Xepapas is an architect and developer who designs, builds, and sells property in the Daytona Beach area. [Stipulated Fact.] At the time Mr. Polk purchased the one-half interest in the condominium unit from Mr. Xepapas, Mr. Xepapas was the owner of the condominium building in which the unit was located. [Stipulated Fact.] In addition to being the owner of the condominium building at issue, Mr. Xepapas was the architect, developer and contractor for the condominium and for other condominium buildings in the areas. Mr. Xepapas was trying to sell the condominium units as part of his business because of cash-flow problems. [Stipulated Fact.] The condominium sales market was "soft" and Mr. Xepapas was trying to eliminate the carrying costs for unsold units. Mr. Xepapas sold a total of four condominium units pursuant to an arrangement similar to the arrangement by which he sold the condominium unit to Mr. Polk. Mr. Xepapas had made offers to sell one-half interests in condominium units to various other persons besides Mr. Polk. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas was a sole proprietor. He entered into his relationship with Mr. Polk in his capacity as a sole proprietor. Mr. Xepapas has known Mr. Polk for ten to fifteen years and considers himself a friend of Mr. Polk. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas' Business with Daytona Beach Community College. In 1987, the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College decided to expand the College's educational facilities by obtaining a new center in the Deltona area. [Stipulated Fact.] In September, 1987, the Board of Trustees instructed staff to develop a request for proposal for the design and construction of the facility which would be leased to the College. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk was involved to some extent in the decision as to whether the new center should be purchased or constructed, and whether it should be acquired through a long-term lease/purchase agreement. In response to the advertisement of the request for proposal in September, 1988, Mr. Xepapas submitted a proposal. [Stipulated Fact.] There were a total of nine persons or businesses that responded to the request for proposal for the Deltona facility. Mr. Polk knew that Mr. Xepapas had picked up a bid proposal package and, therefore, believed that Mr. Xepapas would submit a proposal. Mr. Polk appointed the committee which reviewed the proposals. This committee ultimately narrowed the acceptable proposals to two, including Mr. Xepapas, and directed that those two proposers submit final proposals. In January, 1989, Mr. Xepapas, in his capacity as a sole proprietor, was the successful bidder on the contract; however, there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Polk abused his position in order to ensure this result. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas and Mr. and Mrs. Polk were co-owners of the condominium prior to and at the time that Mr. Xepapas was awarded the Daytona Beach Community College contract. Ultimately, Mr. Xepapas was not able to fulfill his obligations under the contract with Daytona Beach Community College. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polk asserted any influence over the decision to award the contract to Mr. Xepapas, Mr. Polk was involved to some small degree in the award of the contract to Mr. Xepapas. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polk disclosed his co-ownership of the condominium with Mr. Xepapas to the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College, that he refused to participate in any way in the bidding process or that he attempted to take the more drastic step of severing his relationship with Mr. Xepapas while the bidding process was going on. In May, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Polk ultimately quit claim deeded the property to Mr. Xepapas. The evidence failed to prove why. They, therefore, lost their investment in the property. Mr. Polk also resigned as President of Daytona Beach Community College as a result of the allegations concerning his relationship with Mr. Xepapas.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report finding that the Respondent, Charles Polk, violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Complaint No. 89-80. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Polk be subjected to public censure and reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 13th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3-11. 3 13. 4 14-16. 5 16 and 18. 6 4, 12 and 19-20. 7 Hereby accepted. 8 3, 21, 27-28 and 30. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 2 13. 3 3, 11 and 14. 4 20. 5 16. 6 4 and 17-18. 7 5 and 8-9. 8 6-7. 9 21. 10 22. 11 24. 12 26 and hereby accepted. See 23, 27 and 30. 13 27 and 30. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 David A. Monaco, Esquire Post Office Box 15200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Bonnie J. Williams Executive Director Commission on Ethics The Capitol, Room 2105 Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
Findings Of Fact The record presented consists of a transcript of the proceedings before the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board considering allegations against Ronald Pintacuda and a portion of the exhibits presented to that Board during the proceedings. The record does not contain the Administrative Complaint or other charging documents upon which the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board proceeded against Ronald Pintacuda. The allegations against Pintacuda are summed up in a statement by Mr. Flynn, prosecuting attorney for the Board on page 6 of the transcript. The prime contention of the prosecution and the proceeding before the local board was that Pintacuda was guilty of aiding and abetting an unlicensed company to avoid the provisions of the building code by virtue of a specific agreement referred to throughout the transcript but which was not made a part of the evidentiary record presented to the Hearing Officer. Mr. Ciklin, counsel for Mr. Pintacuda, refers on page 5 to three charges outstanding against Pintacuda before the local board, and in his summation at page 38 outlines these as follows: Willful and deliberate disregard of the applicable building codes or law; Combining or conspiring with an uncertified or unregistered person (by allowing one's certificate or registration to be used by any uncertified or unregistered person with the intent to evade the provisions of this part); and Acting in the capacity of a contractor under someone else's certificate except for the name of the certificate holder. In the absence of a charging document or a statement of charges having been read into the record, Mr. Ciklin's outline of the charges considered by the local board against Ronald Pintacuda are taken as true and accurate. The critical element in consideration of this case is the time sequence of the events. The sequence of events between Ronald Pintacuda and Ralph Howell began in 1974, when Howell approached Pintacuda about forming a construction business. C Pinta & Howell, Inc., was created in a corporate reorganization from an inactive corporation, Martin & Pinta, Inc., in January, 1975. Martin & Pinta, Inc., was a corporation formed by John Martin and Ronald Pintacuda in which John Martin was president and Ronald Pintacuda vice-president. John Martin, a Canadian, ceased participation in the business upon his return to Canada, and the corporation went into an inactive status. In January, 1975, Ralph Howell approached Ronald Pintacuda about forming a construction corporation. This resulted in the formation of Pinta & Howell, Inc. Because of domestic problems, Ralph Howell's father, Alexander Howell, served as president of Pinta and Howell, Inc. Ralph Howell was construction superintendent of this corporation and was the primary manager of the Howell interests in the corporation. Pintacuda participated actively in the business affairs of Pinta & Howell, Inc., from January, 1975, until December, 1975. Although it is not explicitly stated in the transcript, it is apparent that Pintacuda decided to cease his active role in Pinta & Howell, Inc., in December, 1975. At that time Pintacuda entered an agreement with Alexander Howell which was the basis of an allegation of combining or conspiring with an uncertified or unregistered person by allowing one's certificate or registration to be used by any uncertified or unregistered person with intent to evade the provisions of the law. Although this agreement is not a part of the exhibits presented to the Hearing Officer, a portion of that agreement was read into the record by Mr. Pintacuda at page 29 of the transcript. That portion of the agreement provided as follows: Agreement between Ronald Pintacuda and Alexander Howell--That Ronald Pintacuda and Alexander Howell, officers of Howell & Pinta, Inc. stipulate that Howell & Pinta, Inc. shall not conduct any business unless both parties agree in writing to such business. This includes, but is not limited to, the signing of any contracts or financial obligations. The basis of the complaints upon which the prosecution of Pintacuda was based, arose in early 1970, when Ralph and Gerald Howell accepted contracts in behalf of Tri-County Marine Construction, Inc., and pulled permits from local authorities in the name of Pinta & Howell, Inc. In addition, Ronald Pintacuda is charged with obtaining four building permits in the name of Pinta & Howell, Inc., for construction contracts taken by Tri-County Marine Construction, Inc. (Tri-County Marine). After the formation of Pinta & Howell, Inc., Ralph Howell who was an officer in Tri-County Marine suggested to Pintacuda that Tri-County Marine be made, an affiliate or subsidiary of Pinta & Howell, Inc. Pintacuda concurred in this, and Howell had the advertising, letterhead, contracts, and yellow page advertisement for Tri-County Marine altered to reflect that Tri-County Marine was an affiliate or subsidiary of Pinta & Howell, Inc. Documentary evidence concerning the corporate status of Pinta & Howell, Inc., and Tri-County Marine which was presented to the local board was not made a part of the exhibits presented to the Hearing Officer. However, testimony of witnesses at the proceeding based upon those exhibits indicate that there was no record in the Secretary of State's office of any corporate interrelationship between Pinta & Howell, Inc., and Tri-County Marine, Inc. The testimony of Pintacuda and the contracts presented in support of the Board's case do show that Tri-County Marine represented itself to the public and functioned as an affiliate or subsidiary of Pinta & Howell, Inc. This affiliation was even recognized by the Board's prosecuting attorney, Mr. Flynn, at page 6 when he stated ". . . Tri- County Marine Construction, Inc. is an affiliate of Pinta & Howell, Inc." Initially, efforts in January, 1976, to contact Pintacuda by local Board authorities and investigators of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board were unsuccessful. From the testimony of Mr. Verner, investigator for the Construction Industry Licensing Board, many telephone and personal messages left with Mr. Ralph Howell and his secretary were not passed on to Mr. Pintacuda. When Mr. Pintacuda was eventually contacted by Mr. Verner, Mr. Pintacuda was cooperative, forthright, and took immediate steps to deregister as qualifier for Pinta & Howell, Inc., in an effort to prevent further abuses by Ralph and Gerald Howell. The Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board did not find Ronald Pintacuda guilty of any of the three allegations charged. The action to revoke the license of Ronald Pintacuda was on a motion by Mr. Barrett at page 41 of the transcript which does not recite a finding regarding Pintacuda's guilt of any of the allegations against him. It was this motion which was seconded and passed by the Board. The local board therefore revoked the license of Ronald Pintacuda without a finding of guilt on any of the complaints against him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and review of the proceedings before the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board against the license of Ronald Pintacuda. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Alan J. Ciklin, Esquire Post Office Box 3704 Professional Plaza West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-785 RONALD PINTACUDA dba TRI-COUNTY MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., CG C005834, 6561 Katherine Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406, Respondent. /
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030 (b) (1) (C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA10-GM-115 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished as indicated to each of the persons listed below on this DW say of , 2010. aula Ford Agency Clerk By U.S. Mail Amy Taylor Petrick, Assistant County Attorney Palm Beach County 300 North Dixie Highway, Suite 359 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel.: (561) 355-2529 Fax.: (561) 255-4324 Email: apetrick@co.palm-beach.fl.us William L. Hyde, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 618 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: (850) 521-1980 Facsimile: (850) 576-0902 Email: whyde@gunster.com James M. Crowley, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. 450 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 713-6416 Facsimile: (954) 523-1722 Email: jcrowley@gunster.com FINAL ORDER NO. DCA10-GM-115 Claudia McKenna, City Attorney City of West Palm Beach 401 Clematis Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 882-1350 Facsimile: (561) 822-1373 Email: cmckenna@wpb.org Keith W. Davis, Esquire Trela White, Esquire Attorney for Village of Royal Palm Beach Corbett & White, P.A. 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 Lantana, FL 33462 Phone: (561) 586-7116 Facsimile: (561) 586-9611 Email: keith@corbettandwhite.com; trela@corbettandwhite.com By Hand Delivery Richard E. Shine Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs By Interoffice Mail The Honorable Donald R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675
