The Issue Whether the Petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that she is of good moral character so as to receive an exemption from disqualification from employment with adults who are severely developmentally disabled, under Section 393.0655, Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact In January 1990, Petitioner was arrested, tried and convicted of "trafficking in cocaine", a first degree felony, and was sentenced to fifteen years in the custody of the Department of Corrections. In September 1994, due to good behavior, Petitioner became eligible for placement in a work release program. She was assigned to the Pine Hills Community Correctional Center and was closely monitored for nearly one year. She performed the duties of a driver which required her to transport inmates on the work release program to and from their jobs. During her assignment at Pine Hills Center, Petitioner successfully completed numerous courses in various areas, including Diversified Cooperative Training, effective parenting, nutritional management, physical management and blood borne pathogens. During this same period, Petitioner received several certificates of merit from her instructors and staff. During her assignment to the Center, Petitioner has not posed a threat to the security of the facility or the community. She has not received any disciplinary action and has maintained high ratings. She has received several recommendations from members of the staff, including the Superintendent. In August 1995, Petitioner was approved to participate in the work release program as a Residential Training Instructor (RTI) with Quest, Inc. at the Laurel Hill Cluster. She was responsible for the daily care and training for eight profoundly developmentally disabled persons with complex medical conditions. Petitioner performed her duties as an RTI in an excellent manner for over five months. She developed close interpersonal relationships with her clients and gave them quality care when on duty. Petitioner worked well with the staff at Laurel Hill Cluster. The staff are aware of her criminal record and, nevertheless, she received very high recommendations. She would be eligible for immediate rehire when an exemption is granted. Since her disqualification from employment in a position of special trust, Petitioner has been employed as a maid in a motel in Orlando and has received high recommendations from her employer. Petitioner was scheduled for release from the custody of the Department of Corrections on June 20, 1996. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged her prior felonious conduct. She expressed remorse and a desire the change her behavior in the future. She was sincere in her desire to work with the disabled adults, and showed every indication that she wished to re-enter society as a law-abiding citizen.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification for employment with developmentally disabled adults be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 August, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Nury Rivas 7504 Laurel Hill Road Orlando, Florida 32818 Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204-X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by the Pinellas County School Board in August 1973 as a plant operator, and received evaluations on his job performance approximately on an annual basis through December, 1986. In the evaluation dated May 17, 1977 in the category of attitude, Respondent received a comment that he was "slow to cooperate, occasionally disagreed with others, objects to some jobs." Respondent received "Needs Improvement" ratings in attitude, and relations with others on his evaluation dated January 10, 1983. In the evaluation dated December 17, 1984, Respondent received a "Needs to Improve" in the category of relations with others. On October 5, 1979, while a night plant operator at Clearwater High School, Respondent was placed on a 90 day probationary period after using profanity and being insubordinate to his immediate supervisor. On January 11, 1980, the principal of Clearwater High School requested that the Superintendent of the Pinellas County school system initiate the termination of Respondent for failing to cooperate with fellow workers, and reporting that work was done when in fact it had not been done. Prior to any action being taken to terminate Respondent in 1980, Dr. Ronald F. Stone interceded with the Superintendent on Respondent's behalf. It was Dr. Stone's opinion that Respondent's difficulties in cooperating with his fellow workers were due to the larger and more complex nature of the plant operator work at a high school, and Stone arranged to have him transferred to an elementary school where he has been subsequently employed. Respondent's employment was covered by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers (IBFO) and the Petitioner for the years 1985 through 1988. The IBFO agreement states, in Article 11 that: . . . except as expressly provided in this agreement, the determination and administration of school policy, the operation and management of the schools and the direction of employees are vested exclusively in the Board. The IBFO agreement does not set forth any definition of the grounds for which the Petitioner may discharge IBFO employees, including plant operators. However, the practice of "progressive" discipline is specifically recognized at Article 29, Section G(2). On January 22, 1987, the Office of the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit for the State of Florida, in and for Pinellas County Florida, filed an Information in Circuit Criminal Case No. 87-695CFANO, alleging the Respondent had committed the felony of handling and fondling a child under the age of 16 in a lewd manner. The child involved is currently six years old. On May 27, 1987, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the lesser included charge of simple battery in Case No. 87-695CFANO, the Court accepted said plea, found him guilty of the lesser included charge of simple battery, withheld adjudication of guilt, and placed him on probation for one year. The Superintendent of the Pinellas County School System has recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated based upon his plea to this charge, and the accumulated effect of his poor performance in this job. There are no plant operator jobs in small, noncomplex facilities, within the Pinellas County school system that would not bring the employee into contact with children. Even working on night shifts in an elementary school, Respondent would be coming into contact with children who are students of the Pinellas County school system. It is the opinion of Dr. Ronald Stone, Executive Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and Ms. Nancy Zambito, Director of Personnel Service, that the employees of the Pinellas County school system must maintain a public image of respect for school age children, and that the commission of, or entry of a plea of guilty to the charge of any battery on a school age child is inconsistent with said public image and is, therefore, detrimental to the Pinellas County school system. According to his brother, Arthur T. Greer, a lieutenant in the Akron Police Department, Respondent has a learning disability which makes it very difficult for him to communicate. He discussed the entry of a plea of guilty to a simple battery with Respondent before it was entered, and he feels that Respondent entered this plea to avoid a very traumatic experience of testifying in court. However, Respondent has consistently denied improperly touching, fondling or committing a battery on the child. Respondent's immediate supervisor, William J. Johnson, who has supervised him for 5 years, testified that he was a very good, loyal and dependable worker. This testimony was supported by Robert Russell, Plant Operations Supervisor. Johnson also confirmed that Respondent has consistently denied the charges involving the child. In accordance with Article 29 of the IBFO agreement, disciplinary action taken more than two years previous to a current charge cannot be considered by an employee's immediate supervisor in assessing disciplinary action on a current charge. This provision, however, does not limit consideration by the Superintendent or School Board of all prior charges and disciplinary actions when imposing discipline on a current charge. Respondent is under contract for the 1987-1988 school year, but is in the status of suspended without pay, pending a final determination in this cause. He has been suspended without pay since January, 1987 when the information against him was filed in Case No. 87-695CFANO.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order approving the Superintendent's recommendation that disciplinary action be taken against Respondent. However, it is recommended that such action be based solely upon the finding that he is guilty of a simple battery against a child under 16 years of age. Accordingly, it is recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay from January, 1987 until the entry of the Final Order herein at which time it is further recommended that Respondent be reinstated to his former position as plant operator. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4131 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 3-5 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 10-11 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 12 Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 13-14 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 17-18 Rejected as unnecessary due to Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 22-23 Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative due to Finding of Fact 9. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as simply a statement about evidence which was not presented; and therefore as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2-5, 13 and 14. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688 James R. Stearns, Esquire 1370 Pinehurst Road Dunedin, Florida 34698 Scott N. Rose, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688 =================================================================
The Issue This is a rule challenge proceeding in which the Petitioner originally sought a determination pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, that Rule 33-6.006, Florida Administrative Code, was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. This case began with the filing of a Petition For Administrative Determination on December 23, 1986. On March 26, 1987, this Hearing Officer issued a Final Order of Dismissal which granted the Department's motion to dismiss. The Final Order Of Dismissal concluded that the Petitioner had failed to allege standing to challenge Subsections (2) through (9) of Rule 33-6.006, because his allegations were insufficient to show that his substantial interests were affected by those subsections of the rule. The Final Order Of Dismissal went on to conclude that the Petitioner had sufficiently alleged standing to challenge Subsection (1) of the challenged rule, but also concluded that the Petitioner had failed to sufficiently allege facts sufficient to show the invalidity of the rule. In this regard the Final Order Of Dismissal specifically stated at paragraph 12: In order to sufficiently allege the invalidity of an existing rule, a rule challenge petition must assert, at a minimum, that the challenged rule is in some specified way a departure from statutory authority granted to the rule enacting agency by the Legislature. Where, as here, the rule is nothing more than a repetition of the statutory provision, the rule may be unnecessary, but it is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it does not in any way depart from the statutory mandate. Because of the identical provisions of the subject rule language and the applicable statute, the Petitioner has not, and cannot, allege any facts sufficient to show that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because he has not, and cannot, allege any differences between the statutory mandate and the rule mandate. The Petitioner sought appellate review of the Final Order Of Dismissal. In Diaz v. Florida Department of Corrections, 519 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), appeal dismissed, 525 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1988), the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion which primarily addressed the constitutionality of the statutory authority for the challenged rule. In that opinion the court concluded as follows: Accordingly, we declare section 945.10(2) Florida Statutes (1985), to be unconstitutional. The case is remanded to the DOAH hearing officer for further proceedings to determine the validity of Rule 33-6.006(1) in light of this opinion. On March 21, 1988, the appellate court issued its mandate and the case was once again before the Hearing Officer for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. The appellate court decision left undisturbed the conclusion that the Petitioner lacks standing to challenge Subsections (2) through (9) of Rule 33-6.006. Accordingly, the issue on remand is limited to a determination of the validity of Subsection (1) of Rule 33-6.006, Florida Administrative Code. As discussed in the conclusions of law, that determination involves a consideration of statutory amendments which took effect after the appellate court decision and were, therefore, not considered by the appellate court. At the final hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and the Petitioner also offered several exhibits. During the course of the hearing the Petitioner was granted leave to file two late exhibits consisting of selected portions of the Department's Policy and Procedure Directives and selected portions of the Florida State Prison Institutional Operating Procedures. The Respondent was granted leave to file post-hearing objections to any late-filed exhibits. The late-filed exhibits were submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent promptly filed objections to same. Upon consideration, the objections to the exhibits are overruled and the late-filed exhibits are received as part of the record in this case. Following the hearing, a transcript of tide proceedings at hearing was also filed. Thereafter, both parties filed timely proposed final orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties' proposed final orders have been carefully considered during the preparation of this final order. Specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated herein.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings stipulated by the parties Florida Administrative Code Chapters 1S, 22I, 28, and 33, as found in the Florida Administrative Code Annotated, through the April 1988 supplement, are true and correct copies of those rule chapters. The Petitioner's current address is: Enrique J. Diaz Inmate Number 065599 Florida State Prison Post Office Box 747 Starke, Florida 32091 The Respondent's name and address is: Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Department rule on which an administrative determination is sought is Rule 33-6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, which states: No inmate of any institution, facility, or program shall have access to any information contained in the files of the Department. The statutory provisions on which the subject Department rule is based are Sections 944.09 and 945.10, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's interests are substantially affected by Rule 33- 6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, in that: He is a convicted felon, lawfully confined in the custody of the Department. He wishes to obtain from the Department, for the lawful cost of copying, documents he was once given by the Department, but which he no longer has in his possession, including, but not limited to: Institutional grievances filed by him. Grievance appeals filed by him. Disciplinary Reports issued against him. Disciplinary Report Worksheets issued against him. He wishes to obtain from the Department, for the lawful cost of copying, documents which are public records and which can be obtained by anyone from sources outside the Department, including, but not limited to: His Judgment and Sentence forms. His Uniform Commitment to Custody form. He wishes to obtain from the Department documents which are public records and which are normally provided to any member of the public requesting same, including, but not limited to: The Department's annual report. Ordinary records kept in the normal course of business, such as might be kept by any state agency. He had been refused any and all documents from the Department because of Rule 33-6.006(1), Florida Administrative Code. FINDINGS BASED ON EVIDENCE AT HEARING Inmates are given copies of any disciplinary reports they receive at the time they receive the disciplinary report, plus the results of any subsequent disciplinary hearing. These copies are carbon copies rather than photocopies. Inmates are given answers to inmate requests, institutional grievances, and grievance appeals they file. These answers are given to the inmate with a copy of his original filing. The act of giving an inmate another, identical, copy of any disciplinary report, disciplinary worksheet, inmate request, institutional grievance, or grievance appeal he had previously been given does not create a security problem. The act of giving an inmate another, identical, copy of his Judgment and Sentence forms, which are public documents contained in the files and records of the appropriate Clerks of Court, does not create a security problcm. Copies of the above documents are routinely made for attorneys and the news media. The actual cost of providing these copies is charged. The Department would not provide copies of the above documents if it were known the copies would be given to an inmate. The Department's Administrative Gain Time Manual is made available to the news media, the public, and attorneys. The Department refuses to make this manual available to inmates. The Florida State Prison Institutional Operating Procedures (IOPs) are public records, but the Department refuses to make copies of them for individual inmates because of Rule 33- 6.006(1), even though some of the IOPs are in the prison law library. The Department's Policy and Procedure Directives are freely available to the public, but the Department refuse to make them available to inmates. Florida State Prison, where the Petitioner is incarcerated, has approximately 1164 inmates. In accordance with state statute, the institution keeps a file on each inmate. Each file consists of from two to eighteen legal size folders of documents. The files include such material as investigation reports, disciplinary reports, special review information, presentence reports, psychological and medical reports, detainers, gain time, and other information. There are three people in the Florida State Prison records department responsible for inmate files. It takes the FSP record department three or four hours daily to file newly received documents. The FSP records department also has other duties, such as posting gain time, cell changes, and disciplinary reports. The FSP records department has received few, if any, requests for information from the public or the news media. Most of their requests come from attorneys. The attorneys' requests for information place additional burdens on the small FSP records department staff. By way of example, it took approximately two hours to "screen" the Petitioner's file at FSP and his file is smaller than that of 75 or 80 per cent of the inmates. Florida State Prison has only three photocopy machines for the entire institution. The machines are used extensively and are subject to frequent malfunctions. The Admissions and Release office maintains the official file on each inmate at the central office. Currently, there are 33,000 inmates in custody. The primary reason that the Admissions and Release office does not want inmates to have hands-on access to their central office files is to maintain the integrity of the record. The Department has had to use the files in court to defend and substantiate the calculations for release dates. The Admissions and Release office has denied all inmate requests for copies of information from its files. The Admissions and Release office is currently shorthanded. Whenever there is a new court decision affecting inmate rights or sentences, the office is flooded with correspondence and requests from inmates. The office has already received some grievances and requests from inmates concerning the appellate court decision in this case. The office expects a flood of requests if inmates are given access to Department records. During the past four years the Admissions and Release office has had very few requests for access to its files from the news media or the general public. The Department's central files contain access codes for the Department's computers. If inmates could obtain the access codes, it would compromise the integrity of the Department's computer records. Before release of any information from the Department's central office files, the information is screened for confidential information. Even documents which appear to be facially innocent have to be read to determine whether they contain information about informants or victims. The Department is concerned that if inmates are allowed broad access to Department files, such access will create security problems. But the Department is even more concerned about the sheer volume of requests that would result from allowing broad access and the impact the expected volume of requests would have on Department staff and copying equipment. The Department is also generally of the view that it is virtually impossible to write a rule which would describe which documents should be available for inmate access and which should not. Rather, the Department is of the view that decisions regarding release of documents to inmates must be made on a case by case basis after review of each document in each file.
Conclusions This matter, having come before the Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board, sitting as a quasi-judicial body, and the Board having reviewed the Administrative Law Judge’s July 21, 2014 Order Closing File And Relinquishing Jurisdiction, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. The Board, by a unanimous vote of five (5) members finds that Respondent Adrian Nenu engaged in prohibited conduct in that Respondent violated Petitioner’s General Order 3-1.1, Rule and Regulation 5.4, (Duties and Responsibilities) and General Order 3-1.3, Rule and Regulation 3.36 (Omission of Information). 2. The seven day suspension of Respondent’s employment with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office is upheld. 3. The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Final Order to the Second District Court of Appeal by filing notice of intent to do so upon the Clerk of Court and the Pinellas County Sheriffs Civil Service Board within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. DONE AND ORDERED this /@ zyw_ day of September, 2014. Page | of 2 Lt. Col. (R) Neal A. White, Chairman Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above Final Order has been furnished by email to Adrian Nenu at anenu@pcsonet.com and Regular U.S. Mail to Paul G. Rozelle, Esq. at Pinellas County Sheriffs Office 10750 Ulmerton Road Largo, FL 33778 this (2 th day of September, 2014. Carole Sanzeri Senior Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street, 6" Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 Phone: 727-464-3354/Fax: 727-464-4147 Attorney for Sheriffs Civil Service Board Copy to: Members of the Sheriff’s Civil Service Board Vicki Troesch HAUSERS\ATYKBO07\Carole\Sheriff's Civil Services Board\Nenu\Final Order Draft Nenu.docx Page 2 of 2
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are inmates presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution, Polk City, Florida. Polk Correctional Institution is a prison facility maintained by the Florida Department of Corrections. The superintendent of Polk Correctional Institution issued a directive, which is dated February 18, 1982, and entitled "Interoffice Memorandum". The memorandum is directed to all inmates and relates to visiting procedures. It provides: Effective Saturday, March 6, 1982, inmates will no longer be permitted to receive visitors on both Saturday and Sunday of the same week. Visiting policy in the past has permitted inmates to receive visits on both Saturday and Sunday of the same week, but not from the same visitor. This change means that you must receive all your visitors on either Saturday or Sunday. If your (sic) receive a visit on Saturday, you will not be permitted to receive another visit on Sunday. This change in visiting procedure will help alleviate the overcrowded situation in the visitor's park and allow you and your family to visit together more comfortably. The memorandum applies only within Polk Correctional Institution. It was issued by the superintendent without any effort being made to promulgate it as a rule. No effort was made to publish notice, to give affected persons an opportunity to be heard, nor to conduct hearings and allow input from members of the public. The superintendent did not construe the memorandum as being a rule. He considered it authorized under the provisions of Section 945.21, Florida Statutes; Department of Corrections Rule 33-5.01, Florida Administrative Code; and Department of Corrections "Policy and Procedure Directive" Number 3.04.12, which was issued April 8, 1981. Rule 33-5.01 provides: The Secretary shall authorize each Superintendent to adopt policies stating the conditions and circumstances under which visits may be conducted including: the regular visiting hours of the insti- tution; the items which visitors may take in or out of an institution, and what items are contraband; what persons or groups may visit, and in what numbers; and the specific standards of conduct which shall prevail during such visits. All visiting policies promulgated by the Superintendents shall be subject to approval by the Secretary. Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 3.04.12 provides at Paragraph V.A. 1: Visiting days shall normally be designated as Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Where unusual circum- stances occur, additional days may be designated for visiting. Institutions are authorized to restrict visiting to one of these days; or when facilities permit, visiting may be permitted more than one day. The directive provides at Paragraph V.B.: There is no limit on the number of individuals that may visit an inmate on any particular visiting day other than those restrictions imposed regarding limited space at each institution. Each institution is authorized to place a limitation when physical facilities are restrictive. However, reasonableness should be exercised when possible in regard to the number of visitors that would be permitted. Those institutions restricting visits to either Saturday or Sunday, but not both, may permit special exception in the case of those individuals that have traveled a significant dis- tance, especially when such visits are on an infrequent basis. This policy directive has not been promulgated as a rule. It is not published in the Florida Administrative Code, does not bear a numerical designation that accords with rules of the Department of State, and appears to have been adopted on authority of Department of Corrections Rules 33-4.02(), 33-3.06, and 33-5, Florida Administrative Code. None of these rules sets out visiting conditions with the specificity found in the policy and procedure directive. Prior to the March 6, 1982 effective date of the Superintendent's memorandum, which is the basis for this proceeding, inmates at Polk Correctional Institution were allowed to receive visitors on both Saturday and Sunday. This prior policy was based upon memoranda that had been issued by the superintendent in the same manner as the February 18, 1982 memorandum.
