The Issue Whether the Respondents' foster care license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, the Respondents were licensed as a foster home. During the course of such licensure, a minor child, M.A.G., was placed within Respondents' home. It was Respondent, Bertha Sosa's intention to adopt M.A.G. and her minor brother who was also placed with Respondents. Respondents were approved for licensure as foster parents through a private company. Such company was a third party screening agent used by the Department to process foster home applicants. For reasons unknown, such company did not obtain Respondents' signature to or agreement for certain provisions which are required for licensure. For example, all foster home licensees are required to execute service agreements. No such agreement has been located for Respondents. Pertinent to the service agreements are requirements regarding discipline which may be utilized by foster care licensees. In this instance, the discipline policy agreement prohibits: hitting a child with any object; slapping, smacking, whipping, washing mouth out with soap, or any other form of physical discipline; and humiliating or degrading punishment. While the Respondents do not acknowledge that they executed such agreements, it is undisputed that the failure to do so would result in the denial of initial licensure. The only reason Respondents sought initial licensure was to be able to adopt children. They were not then, and were not at the time of the hearing, interested in foster care. The foster care program was the vehicle they chose to be able to adopt. M.A.G. has a history of physical and sexual abuse. It is not uncommon for children with such history to exhibit inappropriate behaviors. Such behavior may include, as described by Mrs. Sosa, "humping." Also, M.A.G. had difficulty with telling lies. Mrs. Sosa admitted that when M.A.G. exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior, she would force the child into a cold shower. Mrs. Sosa admitted that when M.A.G. lied, she would wash her mouth with soap. On or about March 11, 1996, an investigation of abuse allegations began regarding M.A.G. and the Respondent, Juan Sosa. M.A.G. alleged that while Mrs. Sosa was out of the home, Mr. Sosa hit her several times with a broomstick. According to M.A.G., such conduct was the result of M.A.G.'s disobedience and disruptive behavior which culminated in discipline. Bruises consistent with a blunt instrument were observed on M.A.G.'s legs and arm. M.A.G. bragged that she could withstand, or feel no, pain. The bruises were photographed within two days of the alleged incident. Mr. Sosa denied inflicting the injuries sustained by M.A.G.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Families enter a final order affirming the revocation of Respondents' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of February, 1997. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Colleen Farnsworth Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Families 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Lee Marks, Esquire 757 41st Street Miami Beach, Florida 33140 Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Coran General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was terminated from his employment with Respondent because of his race in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Chester R. Cooper, is an African-American male. He was employed by Respondent, Gulf Coast Treatment Center, on May 19, 1998, as a youth care worker at its facility in Fort Walton Beach, Florida (assignment center). Petitioner was terminated on November 5, 1998. During his employment, Petitioner worked the "midnight shift" from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. His supervisor was Ollie Rainwater. Respondent operated its facility under a contract with the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The Fort Walton Beach facility performs behavioral, medical, educational, and psychological assessments and completes a 21-day report to DJJ prior to the assignment of a each youth to a residential commitment facility. The program director of the Center was Mikel Currie. In November 1998, four of the five shift supervisors were African-Americans, and approximately 50 percent of the youth care workers at the Center are African-Americans. Pursuant to the requirements of the DJJ, the Center promulgated and briefed all employees on a Use of Force Policy, which provided in relevant part, that mechanical restraints, such as handcuffs or leg cuffs, may be used upon the youths only to prevent injury or property damage. The policy prohibits the shackling of youths together and the practice of hog-tying. Hog-tying is securing a youth's legs and hands together behind the youth's back. The policy also required that any use of mechanical restraints be reported in writing by the staff member involved within two hours of the incident. All youth care workers are provided with some training in this area. The Employee Conduct Policy expressly prohibits the "shielding" of any employee from the consequences of misconduct and imposes a duty upon all employees to report any misconduct. The language of this policy does not limit these reporting obligations to one's immediate supervisor. Such reports may be made to the program director or any member of the administration. Petitioner was aware of the policy to report misconduct, but believed that he was supposed to report the misconduct to his immediate supervisor, who was the person who was actually perpetrating the misconduct involved in this case. On November 4, 1998, Petitioner was assigned to the Boys' Unit of the Assignment Center. His shift began at 10:00 p.m., on November 4, 1998, and ended at 6:30 a.m., on November 5, 1998. Ollie Rainwater (African-American), shift supervisor, and Jimmy Coleman (African-American), youth care worker, were the only other employees assigned to the Boys' Unit on Petitioner's shift. Jesse Mathews (Caucasian) worked on November 3 and 4, 1998, on the second shift, from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. On November 3, 1998, Annette Whittlesay, a youth care worker on the female side of the facility observed Ollie Rainwater and Jesse Mathews, handcuff two youths together. However, she never reported this information to anyone in the administration. The Boys' Unit is comprised of two residential sides, each of which is approximately 75 to 80 feet long. The residential sides form a hallway divided by double doors. When Petitioner arrived at work on November 4, 1998, he observed Quentin Williams and Ricky Sheets handcuffed together. The handcuffing occurred when Petitioner was at the other end of the hall. The doors were closed and Petitioner did not see the actual handcuffing. The youths told Petitioner that Mr. Rainwater, along with Jimmy Coleman, handcuffed them. It took a while for Petitioner to obtain this information because the two youths were fighting each other while cuffed. During this time Petitioner sat down. Petitioner then went to find the key to the cuffs to uncuff the boys. Upon the program director's arrival at the Center, around 5:00 a.m., on November 5, 1998, one of the youths, Quentin Williams, reported to him that he had been handcuffed together with another youth, Ricky Sheets, by Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman. Quentin Williams reported that one of his wrists and one of his ankles had been shackled to the wrist and the ankle of Ricky Sheets, and that they had fought with each other while shackled together. During this struggle, Quentin Williams had been bitten on his finger by Sheets. Quentin Williams also told Mikel Currie that Petitioner had sat in a chair and laughed at them while they struggled. Mikel Currie sent Quentin Williams to the nurse for treatment of his finger and immediately commenced an investigation of the matter. Mikel Currie determined that no report of any use of mechanical restraints had been made by anyone from the night shift. Mikel Currie directed each of the youths who had been shackled or had witnessed the shackling or hog-tying to prepare a written statement in their own words. In order to avoid any collusion, the youths were separated from each other as they prepared their written statements. After the youths completed their written statements, each one was interviewed separately by Mikel Currie and Keith Williams (African-American), the first shift supervisor. Quentin Williams told Mikel Currie and Keith Williams that he had been shackled to Ricky Sheets by Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman on two consecutive nights. He also told them that "Mr. Cooper was sitting in a chair laughing" while he and Sheets were fighting. The youth did not state that any other employee was involved in the incident. Ricky Sheets' report was consistent with that of Quentin Williams. He identified Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman as the two staff members who had shackled him to Quentin Williams and did not state that any other employee was involved in the shackling. Youth, Frederick Alls, confirmed that Jimmy Coleman and Ollie Rainwater had shackled Quentin Williams and Ricky Sheets together on two nights and that Ollie Rainwater had hog- tied Alls with a set of leg cuffs earlier that morning. Alls did not state that any other employee was involved in the shackling or hog-tying. Youth, Brandon Mason, told Mikel Currie and Quentin Williams that two youths had been shackled together by Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman. He also told Mikel Currie and Keith Williams that Petitioner sat in a chair watching while Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman shackled Quentin Williams and Ricky Sheets together. Mason identified Ollie Rainwater, Jimmy Coleman, and Petitioner as the only employees involved in the shackling incidents. Two other youths, Edward Roberson and John Croshat, were interviewed and identified Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman as the staff members who shackled the two youths together. During the investigation, none of the six youths who were interviewed ever told Mikel Currie or Keith Williams that Jessie Mathews, a white youth care worker assigned to the evening shift (2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) had participated in any mechanical restraints or misconduct of any nature. From the youths, Mikel Currie determined that the shackling incidents occurred around 1:00 a.m., several hours after Jessie Mathews had left the Center. Neither Mikel Currie nor Keith Williams had any reason to suspect Jesse Mathews was involved. Mikel Currie and Keith Williams interviewed Ollie Rainwater on the afternoon of November 5, 1998. Ollie Rainwater admitted his involvement in the shackling and hog-tying incidents of November 4 and 5, 1998. He was terminated for violations of the Center's Use of Force and Employee Conduct policies. Ollie Rainwater never claimed that Jessie Mathews, or any other white employee, had been involved in misconduct. Mikel Currie and Keith Williams also interviewed Jimmy Coleman that same afternoon. Jimmy Coleman admitted that he was involved in the incidents on November 4 and 5, 1998. His role had been to bring the restraints to Ollie Rainwater when he ordered him to do so. Jimmy Coleman was terminated from employment. At hearing Jimmy Coleman testified he told Mikel Currie and Keith Williams that Jesse Mathews had participated in a similar incident the day before. However, the assertion is not credible because Mikel Currie and Keith Williams both testified unequivocally that Jimmy Coleman never mentioned that Jesse Mathews, or any other white employee, had been involved. This testimony is bolstered by the interviews given by the various youths. Mikel Currie attempted to reach Petitioner several times by telephone on November 5, 1998, but was unsuccessful. Keith Williams reached Petitioner by telephone around 1:00 p.m. on that date, as detailed in his contemporaneous memorandum of this conversation. Keith Williams asked Petitioner if he was aware of the shackling incidents and Petitioner denied any knowledge. Petitioner repeated several times that he knew nothing about the incidents. He made that statement because he did not directly see the handcuffing of the youths. He did not reveal his knowledge regarding events after the act of handcuffing. Mikel Currie and Keith Williams did not believe Petitioner's claims that he knew nothing about the incident because the Boys' Unit is a relatively small area (150 feet in length), Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman admitted their involvement and several of the youths had stated that Petitioner had observed the shackling incident. Accordingly, Mikel Currie and Keith Williams decided to terminate Petitioner for knowingly attempting to mislead Keith Williams during the course of the investigation, failure to report the improper restraint of the youths, and humiliating the youths by laughing at them while they were shackled. Petitioner was terminated on November 7, 1998. Contrary to his testimony, Petitioner never advised Mikel Currie, Keith Williams, or any other member of management that Jessie Mathews had any alleged involvement in the improper use of restraints. In his "Letter of Rebuttal" submitted to the Center four and one-half months after his termination, Petitioner never mentioned any involvement on the part of Jessie Mathews. He did, however, admit in this letter that he did observe the two youths shackled together while they fought. Since Respondent did not know of Jessie Mathews' similar behavior, Jessie Mathews was not terminated or otherwise disqualified. Later, however, Jessie Mathews, the white employee involved in the November 3, 1998, handcuffing was involved in an argument with another shift supervisor. Mr. Mathews used profanity and acted unprofessionally. He was suspended and demoted as a result of his misconduct. During the two months following the termination of Ollie Rainwater, Jeremy Coleman, and Petitioner, a majority of the individuals hired as youth care workers at the Center were minority group members (7 African-Americans and 1 Hispanic out of 15 hirees). Robert Cannon, a white youth care worker, was terminated by Mikel Currie on October 16, 1998, for suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol and refusing to take a drug/alcohol test. Neither Mikel Currie nor Keith Williams had any knowledge of any prior misconduct of this nature on the part of Robert Cannon. Tammy Curry, a white female youth care worker, was subject to an assault by a female youth on December 13, 1998. Mikel Currie placed Tammy Curry on leave while he investigated the incident. Based upon his investigation, Mikel Currie reinstated Tammy Curry because he determined that she had been punched in the face and pulled down the hallway by her hair by a youth in an unprovoked attack. Mikel Currie concluded that she had acted properly in self-defense. The youth was charged with battery and Tammy Curry was reinstated. Additionally, the Inspector General at the Department of Children and Family Services conducted its own investigation and cleared Tammy Curry of any wrongdoing. The Robert Canon and Tammy Curry incidents are not similar to Petitioner's circumstances. Respondent, including the unit presently known as the Okaloosa Youth Academy, actively pursues a policy of affirmative action designed to recruit minorities. As of the spring of 2000, the Center employed 138 individuals, the majority of whom (72 employees ) were African-American. After Petitioner's termination from the Center, Petitioner sought employment to replace the income he lost from this employment. On February 21, 2000, Petitioner began working for Correctional Services Corporation as an on-call youth worker. His earnings through the date of the hearing are $8,013.56. He earns $8.30 per hour. He averages approximately 24 hours per week.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 28th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry, P.L. 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501-3308 Kevin L. O'Dea, Esquire McGlinchey Stafford 643 Magazine Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Azizi Coleman, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact In March of 1987, the Petitioner, Mitchell M. Green, was employed with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a child support enforcement investigator. He had been employed by the Department since 1982. On March 17, 18 and 19, 1987, the Petitioner did not report for work, and did not call in to any of the persons who supervised him to explain his absence. Previously, the Petitioner had not requested leave for March 17-19, and leave had not been authorized. On March 20, 1987, the Department notified the Petitioner that his failure to report for work on March 17, 18 and 19 when he was scheduled to work, without contacting his supervisor, and without authorized leave, constituted abandonment and resignation from the position under Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code, and that his employment was terminated. The Petitioner was aware of the abandonment provision in the Department's rules. He had acknowledged receipt of a copy of the Department handbook containing these rules on July 8, 1986. The testimony of the Petitioner, his father, and his mother established that the Department had given the Petitioner an "Exceeds Performance Standards" rating on his last evaluation, that the Petitioner had been diagnosed as having cancer in February of 1985, that the Petitioner had requested leave in January, 1987, but was refused because he had no more leave, and that the Petitioner was upset about conditions at work. These factors are irrelevant, however, because they do not excuse or justify a failure to report to work without obtaining authorized leave or notification that assigned work will not be performed because of absence.
The Issue The matter for consideration in this case concerns Petitioner's challenge to the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services', award of a contract for services to provide treatment of youth in the Juvenile Alternative Services Projects (JASP) for Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. In particular, Petitioner contends that it did not receive due and fair consideration in accord with the criteria established by law. Petitioner stipulated, during the hearing, that it was not challenging the sufficiency of the Request for Proposal (RFP) pursuant to which bids were submitted nor the sufficiency or propriety of the criteria contained within the RFP. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS Petitioner presented as witnesses Dr. Peter Parrado, Executive Director of Juvenile Services Program, Inc.; Mr. Jack F. Wood, Program Supervisor, Children, Youth & Families (HRS); Mr. Patrick Keefe, District VI Intake Supervisor for HRS; Judge James P. Calhoun, Circuit Judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; Mr. John Benito, Assistant Public Defender for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; and Mr. Andrew Alexandre, District VI Intake Supervisor for Respondent (HRS). By stipulation of counsel, the direct testimony of Mr. Benito and Mr. Alexandre were presented by deposition and counsel for Respondent had the opportunity to cross examine those two (2) witnesses during the hearing. Respondent called as its witnesses Mr. Larry Lumpee, an employee of Respondent and Mr. William F. Bowman, Director of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. The parties presented twelve (12) joint exhibits. Joint Exhibit I was the Request for Proposal for the Manatee County JASP and Joint Exhibit 2 was the Request for Proposal for the Hillsborough County JASP. Joint Composite Exhibits 3 and 4 were the proposals or bids of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., for Manatee and Hillsborough Counties respectively. Joint Composite Exhibit 5 was the proposal or bid of Boy's Club of Manatee County, Inc., for the Manatee County JASP. Joint Composite Exhibits 6' and 7 were the proposals or bids of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., for Manatee County and Hillsborough County respectively. Joint Composite Exhibit 8 was the rating sheets of the selection committee for Hillsborough County and Joint Composite Exhibit 9 was the rating sheets for the selection committee for Manatee County. Joint Exhibits 10, 11 and 12 were the letters of notification of action dated May 28, 1982, from the Respondent to Boy's Club of Manatee County, Inc., Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., respectively. Those exhibits were admitted. Petitioner also offered the depositions of Mr. John Benito and Mr. Andrew Alexandre and with agreement of counsel for Respondent, these were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2. Petitioner had marked for identification its letter of protest dated June 10, 1982. This was not admitted as an exhibit. Respondent offered no exhibits other than the Joint Exhibits listed above. Counsel for both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such findings of fact are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has, since 1979, operated the Juvenile Alternative Services Project. The program provides diversion and treatment for first-time less serious juvenile offenders prior to an adjudication of delinquency by the courts. The JASP program came into existence in 1979, through a pilot program in HRS Districts V, VI and VII. The pilot program in District VI was operated by Youth Program Services, Inc., based in Orlando, Florida. The JASP pilot program in District V was operated by Juvenile Services Program, Inc., the Petitioner in this case. The contract for District VI, which consists of Manatee and Hillsborough Counties, was re-bid annually. The Requests for Proposal used in the years 1980, 1981, and 1982, except for very minor changes, were virtually identical. The contracts which are the subject of this case were let for bid pursuant to two (2) Requests for Proposals (hereafter RFP) dated April 23, 1982. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2) These two (2) RFPs advertised for two (2) separate contracts for the Manatee County JASP and Hillsborough County JASP. Proposals under both RFPs were required to be submitted no later than May 14, 1982, at 5:00 P.M. The Boys' Clubs of Manatee County, Inc.; Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., submitted timely proposals for the Manatee County program. (Joint Exhibits 3, 5 and 6) Timely proposals for the Hillsborough County program were received from Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. (Joint Exhibits 4 and 7) The proposals were evaluated by selection committees for each county. Members of the selection committee for Hillsborough County were Judge James Calhoun, Marcia Leonard Bailey, John Benito, Jack Wood, Patricia Moran, Andrew Alexandre and Patrick Keefe. These persons included a Circuit Judge, Assistant State Attorney, Assistant Public Defender, a citizen at large, and three (3) HRS employees. A similar committee performed the evaluation for Manatee County. In addition to reviewing the written proposals, the committees heard oral presentations from those parties which had submitted written proposals. Following the oral presentations, the committee members rated the various proposals by filling out rating sheets containing the various criteria contained in the RFP and used by the selection committee in arriving at a recommendation. (Joint Exhibits 8 and 9) The criteria were: A programmatic expertise; Prior experience--personnel history; Organization abilities; Qualifications of personnel--abilities to hire qualified personnel; Budget in cost effectiveness program; and Overall adequacy of personnel. The committee for Hillsborough County rated the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., very closely, with Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., receiving 677 total points and Juvenile Services Program, Inc., receiving 668 points. Following their evaluations, the committees recommended Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., as the entity to provide JASP programs for both Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. Thereafter, Juvenile Services Program, Inc., timely and properly filed its protests and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 120.57(1). Both Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., were qualified to perform the services requested by the RFPs. No evidence was presented relating to the selection process in Manatee County and there was no evidence that the Petitioner did not receive a full, fair, and proper evaluation of all criteria in the RFP for the Manatee County program. All five (5) committee members from the Hillsborough County selection committee who were called as witnesses testified that both the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., were well qualified. The major contention of the Petitioner focused on the fact that Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., was a new corporation and would not be able to perform the administrative and financial functions of the JASP programs as well as Juvenile Services Program, Inc., which had been in existence since 1976. There was no evidence presented which showed that the selection committees failed to evaluate each and every criterion established by the RFP. This was borne out by the rating sheets as well as the five (5) committee members called as witnesses by Petitioner. Dr. Peter Parrado, Executive Director of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., also testified about the inquiry by the committee into the various criteria during the oral presentations. Both the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services were evaluated by the committee in all criteria areas. The committee specifically inquired into the fact that Bay Area was a new organization, incorporated in April, 1982, and was satisfied that that would not interfere with the proper performance of the services requested by the RFP. Mr. William F. Bowman, Director of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., and one (1) of the members of its Board of Directors appeared before the selection committee. The entire existing District VI staff of Youth Programs, Inc., was to continue in place with Bay Area Youth Services. Both Dr. Parrado and Mr. Bowman had been involved in the JASP program since its inception in 1979. Dr. Parrado was executive director of the Petitioner which had had the JASP contract for District V since the pilot program in 1979. Mr. Bowman, as a former employee of Youth Program Services, Inc., was the program director for the JASP program in District VI and had performed that function since the pilot program in 1979. Both men were well qualified to supervise the JASP programs for District VI. There was a specific requirement that the providers submitting proposals be able to have the projects operational by July 1, 1982. The committee was concerned with the ability of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., to step inland take over a program with which it was not familiar. The JASP program in District VI operated differently than the program in District V where Juvenile Services Program was already operating JASP. Mr. Bowman and the staff of Bay Area Youth Services were the same staff that had previously operated the JASP program in District VI for Youth Programs, Inc. Mr. Bowman and his staff were thoroughly familiar with the operation and procedures of the JASP program in District VI. The Committee was also concerned with continuity of the existing JASP operations in District VI and Dr. Parrado had not given assurance as to what, if any, of the existing staff would be retained if Juvenile Services Program, Inc., was awarded the contract. Bay Area Youth Services already had its staff and physical operation in place and would be less disruptive of the program'5 continuity if awarded the contract. The key individuals in the supervision and operation of JASP in District VI by the two (2) bidders would have been Dr. Parrado and Mr. Bowman. JASP in District VI would be the only program operated by Bay Area Youth Services and Mr. Bowman would be giving one hundred percent (100 percent) of his time to that program. On the other hand, Dr. Parrado's organization would have been operating JASP in three (3) other districts as well as several other youth programs in other counties. The budget submitted by Juvenile Services Program reflected that Dr. Parrado would spend fifteen percent (15 percent) of his time supervising the District VI JASP. Dr. Parrado testified that he would give as much time to District VI required but gave the committee no firm estimate as to how much of his time he would be able to be personally involved in District VI. The witnesses rated the performance of Mr. Bowman and his staff as excellent for the previous years they had operated JASP in District VI. Some administrative problems had developed while Youth Programs, Inc., provided JASP services in District VI. These were in the nature of late payrolls and delays in paying bills. The problems emanated from the Orlando office and were not attributable to Mr. Bowman and the staff in District VI. Because of the problems which had occurred with the large organization of Youth Programs, Inc., the committee was concerned that the same types of problems might arise with Juvenile Services Program, Inc., which is also a large organization. To aid in handling the administrative details of JASP, Bay Area Youth Services had retained an outside firm to do the payroll and tax and other payroll-related functions. A local accounting firm had been retained to monitor and take care of accounting and bookkeeping functions. The committee was satisfied that Mr. Bowman's organization would be able to adequately handle the administrative details of JASP in District VI. Although much of the administrative and personnel matters under Youth Programs, Inc., were handled out of the Orlando Central Office, Mr. Bowman had for three (3) years been responsible for all hiring, firing, and supervision of personnel in the District VI JASP. He also did all local buying of supplies and related items. He also was responsible for locating and obtaining office space and equipment. The director of the program in District VI performs a liaison function between the provider and those entities using the services such as the State Attorney's office, Public Defender's office, and the Circuit Judges responsible for juvenile matters. Mr. Bowman had developed good rapport and credibility with each of these entities as well as HRS counselors in District VI and had done an excellent job in selling the JASP program to these agencies.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board (Petitioner or School Board), has just cause to discipline the employment of Rebecca Sorensen (Respondent or Ms. Sorensen) based on the conduct alleged in the “Petition.” Also at issue is the appropriate penalty, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent has been an employee of the Petitioner since 1987. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an assistant principal employed by Petitioner at Hagen Road, which is a public elementary school in Palm Beach County, Florida. Petitioner’s Policy No. 5.30 requires that, “(a) District employees who know or have reasonable cause to suspect, that a child is an abused, abandoned, or neglected child shall immediately report such knowledge or suspicion to the Department of Children and Families’ [sic] Florida Abuse Hotline (1-800- 96ABUSE, 24 hours a day)." Section 39.201(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, as follows: (1)(a) Any person who knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that a child is abused, abandoned, or neglected by a parent, legal custodian, caregiver, or other person responsible for the child's welfare,[1] as defined in this chapter, or that a child is in need of supervision and care and has no parent, legal custodian, or responsible adult relative immediately known and available to provide supervision and care shall report such knowledge or suspicion to the department in the manner prescribed in subsection (2). (b) Reporters in the following occupation categories are required to provide their name to the hotline staff: * * * School teacher or other school official or personnel; Respondent’s position as an Assistant Principal at Hagen Road is included within the definitions of school personnel for purposes of Section 39.201(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The requirement to report suspected child abuse was reiterated in the Faculty Handbook for Hagen Road for the 2008- 09 school year. Cheri Rosen is the assistant director of Hagen Road’s after school care program. Ms. Rosen’s son and Student J. were in the fifth grade during the 2008-09 school year and have been friends since their first grade year. Labor Day fell on September 1 in 2008. On August 28, 2008, the Thursday prior to Labor Day, Student J. spent the night at Ms. Rosen’s house because his grandfather was hospitalized for medical tests. Student J. told Ms. Rosen’s daughter of an incident that occurred in December 2007, while Student J. was being baby-sat at his grandfather’s house, by the male counselor from the Hagen Road after school care program. Ms. Rosen’s daughter immediately told her father (Mr. Rosen) who instructed his daughter to tell her mother (Mrs. Rosen). Immediately after her daughter talked to her, Ms. Rosen asked that Student J. come tell her firsthand what had happened. Student J. told Ms. Rosen that while he was being baby- sat by the male counselor at his grandfather’s house in December 2007, just before winter break, the male counselor had taken a live snake and wrapped it around his (the male counselor’s) penis and told Student J. to look. Student J. told Ms. Rosen that he looked and then looked away. Student J. related that the male counselor told Student J. “now its your turn.” Student J. told Ms. Rosen that he said no and walked out of the room. Ms. Rosen told Student J. that she was going to have to tell his grandfather about the incident, and that she was also going to report this to Ms. Lamb, who was Ms. Rosen’s supervisor at the after school care program. Ms. Rosen spoke to Ms. Lamb shortly after her conversation with Student J. Ms. Lamb advised Ms. Rosen that she should tell the Student J.’s grandfather that he should contact the police. She further told Ms. Rosen, incorrectly, that she did not have to go through the school because the alleged incident occurred at the residence of Student J.’s grandfather, and because Student J. reported the incident at her home. Two days after Ms. Rosen’s conversation with Student J., his grandfather returned home from the hospital. Ms. Rosen and her husband visited with the grandfather and related to him the incident as Student J. had related it to them. The grandfather, who tried to remain calm because he has a heart condition, asked what he should do next. Ms. Rosen told him he had to go to the police. When Ms. Lamb returned to school on September 2, 2008, she had a voice mail from Student J.’s grandfather. She tried to return the call, but she could not reach him. On Thursday, September 4, 2008, Respondent was paged by a Ms. Ciavolino, the school treasurer and bookkeeper. Ms. Ciavolino related that Student J.’s grandfather had just called, told her about the incident, and said that he wanted advice from Respondent. Shortly thereafter on September 4, 2008, Student J.’s grandfather called Respondent to talk with her about the incident. The grandfather was hesitant, so Respondent told him what Ms. Ciavolino had told him, and Respondent also told him that she knew he wanted advice. After the grandfather confirmed what Ms. Ciavolino had related to her, Respondent advised the grandfather that the incident needed to be reported right away. She asked the grandfather where he lived in an attempt to determine whether the Delray Beach Police Department (DBPD) or the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office would have jurisdiction. She also told him that it would need to be reported to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Although he remained hesitant, the grandfather told Respondent that he would report the incident. On September 4, 2008, Respondent instructed Ms. Lamb to keep the male counselor away from Student J. and all other students. At that time, the male counselor was preparing to leave in a week or two to join the military. In the interim, he had been assigned to train new counselors, which did not require that he have direct contact with children. The male counselor remained on Hagen Road campus until he was removed as a result of the police investigation that ensued. Other than her instructions to Ms. Lamb, Respondent took no further action to ensure that the male counselor would have no contact with children. Respondent did not report the allegation of abuse to her principal (Mr. Hughes), to any law enforcement agency, or to the DCFS. Further, she did not instruct Ms. Rosen, Ms. Lamb, or Ms. Ciavolino to file any type of written report.2 Respondent testified that she did not feel she had to file a report because Student J.’s grandfather agreed to file a report. Respondent further testified that she did not feel she had to file a report because she heard of the allegations from the grandfather and not the student. On September 9, 2008, Student J.’s grandfather reported the incident to the DBPD which immediately began an investigation in conjunction with a DCFS investigator. As a result of the DBPD/DCFS investigation, Mr. Hughes learned of the allegations and immediately barred the male counselor from the school campus. Thereafter, Petitioner’s Police Department began its own investigation of Respondent based on her conduct and failure to act as described in this Recommended Order. All relevant procedural steps were taken by Petitioner in bringing these charges against Respondent. Part of the procedure requires a pre-disciplinary meeting at which the subject of an investigation is given the opportunity to give his or her version of the events. Respondent declined to attend the pre-disciplinary meeting on advice of counsel because at the time of the meeting a criminal investigation was being conducted.3 After the pre-disciplinary meeting, the matter was referred to Petitioner’s Employee Investigatory Committee (EIC),4 who recommended that the subject charges be brought against Respondent with the recommended disposition of a ten-day suspension of employment without pay. That recommendation was forwarded to Dr. Johnson in his capacity of Superintendent of Schools, who agreed with the recommendations of the EIC and submitted the recommendation to the School Board. On April 8, 2009, the School Board voted to accept the recommendation, subject to Respondent’s rights pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent had a reasonable basis to believe that Student J. had been subjected to sexual abuse and that she did not report that abuse to her principal, the FDCS hotline, or law enforcement. The greater weight of the credible evidence also established that Respondent took insufficient steps to protect Student J. from the male counselor after she learned of the allegations of abuse. In reaching this finding, the undersigned has considered that Principal Hughes barred the male counselor from school premises as soon as he learned of the allegations. Respondent did not bar the male counselor from the school premises, but merely instructed Ms. Lamb to make sure that the male counselor “. . . would not be with children until this was resolved.”5 Respondent’s employment has not previously been disciplined. Other than the facts set forth above, Respondent has been, in the words of Principal Hughes, a fantastic assistant principal who has performed above expectations.6
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order suspends Respondent’s employment without pay for a period of ten days. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 18th day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Fischer is a child under commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service who on May 24, 1978, was granted the privilege of transferring to a community placement under the direct supervision and authority of the Bureau of Fields Services, Division of Youth Services. The transfer was the subject of a furlough agreement entered into by Fischer with HRS on the same date. On May 31, 1978, Fischer was furloughed from the Alyce D. McPherson School, Ocala, Florida, and released to the custody of Mr. Rolf Fischer, the brother of Fischer's natural father who had raised her since she was sixteen (16) months old. On June 6, 1978, Fischer was placed on a contract with her counselor, Francine Nelms, for the week of June 6, 1978, to June 13, 1978. The contract provided that Fischer could not leave her residence without her stepfather being with her, that she was to do all her chores and that she was to maintain an attitude of respect toward her stepfather. Fischer did not sign the contract although she read it and indicated that she understood it. On June 7, 1978, Fischer left her stepfather's place of residence without permission and travelled around the State of Florida by hitchhiking and riding the bus. She was apprehended in Venice, Florida, by the Venice Police Department. Pursuant to a hearing conducted by Mr. Arrie Owens, Youth Services Program Specialist of HRS, on June 21, 1978, Fischer had her furlough revoked because she failed to abide by her furlough agreement by virtue of her leaving her place of residence without permission. Fischer subsequently commenced this appeal.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a request by Petitioner, Karyn Gallwitz, for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust. If the request is approved, Petitioner intends to work as a "therapeutic" foster parent. Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of approving or denying such requests. In a preliminary decision entered on January 4, 1999, a DCFS committee denied the request on the ground that Petitioner had not sufficiently rehabilitated herself since she was arrested for a disqualifying offense in 1985. Petitioner is now barred from working in a position of special trust because of a disqualifying offense which occurred in 1985. On an undisclosed date during that year, Petitioner acknowledges that she and four girlfriends were arrested and each was charged with possession of a controlled substance (cocaine). According to Petitioner, she pled guilty to the charge and adjudication of guilt was withheld by the court. She was not incarcerated. A copy of the pertinent court records was not made a part of this record, and thus the specific statute she is charged with violating is unknown. In 1989, Petitioner was divorced. Her daughter, J. S., lived with the ex-husband until late 1994, when she returned to live with Petitioner at her former residence in Broward County. J. S. remained there until December 1997, when Petitioner sent her to live with the child's paternal grandparents, who also lived in Broward County. Petitioner is now remarried, lives in Marion County, and has another child who is five and one-half years of age. For the last seven years or so, Petitioner has been a homemaker. Recently, in response to an advertisement in a local newspaper, she became interested in becoming a therapeutic foster parent. To this end, she successfully completed a 10-week training course by an organization which contracts with DCFS to provide this service. That organization has also found her to be qualified to be licensed as a therapeutic foster parent. However, a background screening by DCFS revealed Petitioner's disqualifying offense in 1985, and without an exemption, Petitioner cannot serve in that position. This prompted Petitioner to initiate this proceeding. Petitioner is a full-time homemaker and is active in her church, including the teaching of children's classes. Except for the single occasion on which she used a drug in 1985, she has never consumed any drugs. No alcoholic beverages are allowed in her household. There is no evidence that she has been charged with any offense since the disqualifying offense some fourteen years ago. The testimony of a church member establishes that Petitioner is a "very caring" and stable person with "high morals." Letters received in evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 corroborate this testimony. Petitioner also expressed a sincere desire to work with children who need special attention, such as therapeutic foster children. As clarified by DCFS at hearing, Petitioner's arrest dates back fourteen years, and by itself, would not ordinarily prevent Petitioner from obtaining an exemption for working in a day care center or other similar employment. Therapeutic foster parenting, however, involves a much more "intense" level of care, and requires that the parent, or her husband, be present in the home twenty-four hours per day. This is because a therapeutic foster child is emotionally disturbed and beset with the most serious mental health and behavioral problems. Moreover, it is not uncommon for such children to have once been patients in a psychiatric facility. Given these considerations, the most important criterion is that the child be placed in a highly stable environment. The DCFS takes the position that because Petitioner has acknowledged that she could not "control" her own daughter in 1997, which resulted in the child being sent to the grandparents, Petitioner cannot provide a stable environment for an emotionally fragile child. In addition, it contends that an abuse report discussed below demonstrates that Petitioner is not sufficiently rehabilitated since the disqualifying offense. As noted above, Petitioner's daughter, J. S., lived with her for a three-year period ending in December 1997. At that time, Petitioner admits she could no longer control J. S. and sent her to live with her paternal grandparents. Without advising Petitioner, the grandparents in turn immediately allowed the child to move in with their son, the ex-husband. In July 1998, a report of abuse was lodged against the ex-husband. The substance of the charges is found in abuse report no. 98-081187, which has been received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Although the report was closed with no indicators of abuse, during the course of that investigation, an allegation was made that Petitioner allowed J. S. to stay in the home of her ex-husband even though she knew that he was a heavy drinker and may have inappropriately touched the daughter. Petitioner denied this allegation, and the agency's determination in the report that there were no indicators of abuse bears out this assertion. Therefore, the abuse report does not detract from Petitioner's evidence that she is sufficiently rehabilitated since her arrest in 1985, and that she would not present a danger to foster children if the exemption were granted. At hearing, Petitioner conceded that she finally sent her daughter to the paternal grandparents in December 1997 because the daughter would not obey her, and she found it difficult to control the child. While this issue may arguably bear on Petitioner's fitness to be licensed as a foster parent, it has no nexus to Petitioner's request for an exemption. Given the time period since the disqualifying incident, Petitioner's unblemished record since that time, and the evidence that she has high morals and stability in her life, it is found that Petitioner has demonstrated that she is sufficiently rehabilitated since her arrest some fourteen years ago and she would not present a danger if employment is allowed. Her request should accordingly be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 18th day of March, 1999. Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Karen Gallwitz Post Office Box 827 Orange Lake, Florida 32681 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158
The Issue Whether Respondent, YouthFit by BodyZone Fitness, conducts activities that constitute "child care," so that it must obtain a child care facility license in order to conduct these activities.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner DCF is the state agency responsible, pursuant to chapter 402, Florida Statutes, for regulating providers of "child care," as that term is defined in section 402.302(1). Respondent YouthFit is a Florida limited liability company. It is located at, and its business address is, 2827 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, Florida. YouthFit is owned and managed by Calvin Paquette. Paquette also owns BodyZone Fitness, LLC ("BodyZone"), a Florida limited liability company that operates a fitness facility located at 2740 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, contiguous to YouthFit. Information Submitted in Questionnaire On July 13, 2018, Paquette submitted a Child Care Licensure Questionnaire ("Questionnaire") to DCF on behalf of YouthFit, requesting a determination whether YouthFit conducts "child care." The Questionnaire was admitted into evidence at the final hearing. The Questionnaire provided information regarding the nature and location of YouthFit's operation; the types of activities that YouthFit provides to children; the ages of the children participating in YouthFit's activities; the type of supervision that YouthFit provides to participants; and the payment/fee arrangements to participate in YouthFit's activities. According to the Questionnaire, YouthFit is a youth fitness program consisting of instructor-led classes offered to children ranging in age from preschool to high school. The classes identified in the Questionnaire were tumbling classes; strength, conditioning, and flexibility classes; and ninja classes. A YouthFit Class Pricing Schedule attached to the Questionnaire showed that, at the time the Questionnaire was submitted, YouthFit also offered "open gym" and "parents' night out" activities. Both of these activities entailed parents dropping children off at, and picking them up from, YouthFit. The Questionnaire stated that YouthFit offered classes from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. Per the Questionnaire, participation in these classes is limited to one to two hours of class per day for each child. Attendance is not required, and the same children do not necessarily attend YouthFit's classes on a regular basis. The Questionnaire stated that parents are not required to remain on the YouthFit premises at all times, although they are permitted to do so. Parents may drop children off at the YouthFit facility to participate in classes and are expected to pick them up after class is over. The Questionnaire stated that children are not permitted to enter and leave the YouthFit classes or premises unless they have permission pursuant to prior arrangement or have adult supervision. Parents are required to sign their children in and out of the YouthFit classes and premises. According to the Questionnaire YouthFit supervises all children who are participating in its classes, including the children whose parents remain on the premises. Prepackaged snacks and drinks are offered to the participants of each of YouthFit's classes. Payment for participation in YouthFit's activities is made two ways: payment through adult membership at BodyZone Fitness, and payment of a drop-in fee for persons who are not members of BodyZone Fitness. YouthFit is not operated by a public or nonpublic school and is not located on a school site. YouthFit is not affiliated with a national non-profit organization created for the purpose of providing youth service and youth development. Based on the foregoing information, DCF determined that YouthFit provides "child care," as defined in section 402.302(1); therefore, it is required to be licensed as a "child care facility" pursuant to section 402.305, unless it falls within a statutory or rule exemption from the licensure requirement. Based on its review of the Questionnaire, DCF also determined that YouthFit did not qualify for any statutory or rule exemption from licensure as a child care facility. Accordingly, DCF notified Paquette of its decision that YouthFit was required to obtain a child care facility license in order to provide its youth fitness program activities. Facts Stated in YouthFit's Request for Hearing As noted above, Paquette timely requested a hearing challenging DCF's decision that YouthFit must obtain a child care facility license. In the letter requesting a hearing, Paquette provided additional information regarding the YouthFit fitness program. This letter was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit C. According to the letter, YouthFit classes will be offered in BodyZone's expanded premises, which accommodate both YouthFit classes and adult fitness activities. Per the letter, children ages two through 18 may take the YouthFit classes. The letter clarified that a parent must be present at all times for children ages four and under, and YouthFit may require a parent to be present for children up to age five. The letter also clarified that each child would be limited to one class per day, which may range from 45 minutes to two hours in duration. The letter stated that YouthFit would not offer "child care" services, but, instead, would "operate no different [sic] than a local gymnastics center (or martial-arts dojo) offering tumbling classes (or ju-jitsu classes)." The letter explained that the "intent is fitness activities, not child care services." Other Evidence Presented at the Final Hearing DCF presented evidence at the final hearing that included screenshots of YouthFit's website, Facebook page, and Twitter account. At the time the screenshots were taken, YouthFit's Facebook page and Twitter account advertised a range of YouthFit classes and activities, including tumbling, Zumba kids, yoga kids, ninja class, boot camp, open gym, parents' night out, and day camps. Paquette testified that the hours associated with YouthFit's program recently have changed, so that classes and activities are now offered from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Additionally, YouthFit no longer offers parents' night out, open gym, or day camps. Paquette also testified that YouthFit no longer advertises its activities on Facebook and Twitter. However, at the time of the final hearing, he had not been able to access these accounts, so the advertisements had not been removed from the internet. Paquette testified that the sole means by which information on YouthFit's classes and activities is disseminated is by "word-of-mouth."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Children and Families, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Youthfit by BodyZone Fitness, LLC, currently provides a program of classes and activities that constitute "child care," so that it is required to obtain a "child care facility" license to provide this program. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 March, 2019.
