Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Attn: Ronda L. Bryan, Agency Clerk, 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 92, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 and a second copy, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Florida Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Certified U.S. Mail to Oasis Cafe at Key Biscayne, c/o Carlos Flores, 19 Harbor Drive, Miami, Florida 33149; by regular U.S. Mail to the Honorable Darren A. Schwartz, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 3060; and by hand delivery to Marc Drexler, Chief Attorney, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulations, 1940 North Monroe Styeet, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202, this |@¥day of Yezember , 2013. msn For the Division of Hotels and Restaurants 7196 4008 G11) 4516 1240 | SENDERS, RECORD
The Issue Whether petitioner should be removed from the Florida Retirement System, as of July 1, 1979, on grounds of ineligibility.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a licensed attorney, practices law in Clewiston, Hendry County, Florida. Since at least September 1, 1970, he has continuously engaged in the private practice of law in Clewiston. On September 1, 1970, the Glades County School Board ("School Board" or "Board") hired him as the School Board attorney, a position which he continues to hold. This is a part-time position, since the Board has no need for a full-time attorney. The School Board is headquartered at Moore Haven, 16 miles northwest of Clewiston, in neighboring Glades County. The terms and conditions of petitioner's employment with the School Board have remained virtually unchanged since he was originally hired. Each year, the School Board sets his salary consisting of a monthly retainer or salary, plus a fixed amount per hour for any additional professional services or litigation required by the School Board. For the 1979-80 school year, the Board set his salary or retainer--terms which the School Board used interchangeably-- as shown by the Minutes of the July 11, 1979, meeting: 3. SALARY/SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY - 1979-80 Chairman Hilliard opened the floor for discussion on the salary for the school board attorney for the 1979-80 school year. After some discussion between the board and Mr. Potter, the board proposed a retainer of $750.00 per month. (annual salary of $9,000.00) plus $50.00 per hour for additional pro fessional services or litigation required by the board. ON MOTION by Sapp, seconded by Johnson, the board approved this pro- posal for school board attorney for the 1979-80 school year. (Vote: Arnold, yes; Johnson, yes; Taylor, yes; Sapp, yes; Hilliard, yes.) His salary is paid from the School Board's regular employee salary account. But as the School Board's attorney, unlike other School Board employees, he does not accrue annual leave, sick leave, or pay during vacations, holidays or illness, though when he is sick or on vacation, there is no adjustment to his salary. He is reimbursed for work-related travel and meals at the rates provided by Section 112.061, Florida Statutes (1983), and is covered by the School Board's group health and life insurance, and Workers' Compensation. Since 1970, the Board has withheld his Social Security contributions from his fixed monthly salary payments; has paid the employer's Social Security contributions on his salary payments; and has annually reported his monthly salary payments on Internal Revenue Service Form W-2. To this extent, the School Board considered him an employee and treated him the same as it treated its other employees. The legal services which he furnished the School Board are described in his employment agreement and the School Board's job description for the position: TYPICAL DUTIES: Attend all regular Board meetings and such special meetings as deemed advisable by Board Chairman or Superintendent. Be available for routine telephone or personal consultations with Board Chairman, Superintendent and Staff members. Perform legal research. Prepare or approve leases or agreements prior to execution by Board. Prepare and prosecute law suits in behalf of Board and defend law suits against Board, including any actions against Superintendent, Staff or other school district employees allegedly arising etc., unless special counsel is deemed necessary by Board Attorney with Board's concurrence. Attend the quarterly seminars/meetings of Florida School Board Attorneys Association; and any other approved by Board. Represent Board and/or Superintendent in personnel matters where appropriate, as well as student discipline matters. School Board meetings, held monthly, last approximately one and one-half hours. Litigation, although described as a typical duty, is considered extra work, and an hourly rate is charged over and above the monthly salary. Petitioner agrees that he would not knowingly accept any new clients which would cause a conflict of interest with his School Board employment. Although he has been free to turn down work assigned by the School Board, he never has--at least through 1976. As explained by Mr. Strope, Superintendent of Schools from 1968 to 1976, although petitioner was free to turn down work, he "shouldn't have." Petitioner is not required to maintain any set office hours, and his monthly salary does not vary with the number of hours' work. He is not furnished office space by the School Board. The majority of his legal work for the Board is performed at his private law office, in Clewiston. The cost of operating his law office is not a budget item in the School Board's budget. Under his employment arrangement with the School Board, he furnishes all personnel, equipment, and facilities needed to perform his services. He is responsible for supervising the secretaries who work in his private office. Occasionally, when he is at School Board headquarters in Moore Haven he will ask a School Board employee to type a document. At his request, however, the School Board will furnish him pencils, legal pads, legal periodicals and stationery. It also pays for his travel; for per diem expenses incurred while attending legal seminars or meetings; and for long distance telephone calls made in connection with his School Board employment. He is neither responsible for, nor supervises, any employee of the School Board. The School Board does not furnish him any legal secretaries or part-time attorney assistants. He has not shown what percentage, or amount, of his working hours are devoted to performing legal services for the School Board, as opposed to legal services which he performs for his other clients. Other than assigning specific legal tasks, the School Board exercises no more control over the means, methods, and manner by which petitioner performs the legal work given him than is ordinarily exercised by any client over an attorney. Because of ethical constraints and the nature of legal work, petitioner must exercise independent professional judgment. Since September 1, 1970 2/, petitioner has been enrolled in the FRS. This was accomplished by his filling out a prescribed form which the School Board then filed with the Division. The Board then began reporting him on its employee rolls. There is no evidence that the initial FRS entry form, filed with the Division, described petitioner's work duties or the nature of his employment with the School Board. Both the Board and the Division enrolled him in the FRS, believing that he was eligible for membership. The Division did not question or investigate the nature of his employment relationship with the Board until 1983. From his initial enrollment until January 1, 1975, when FRS became a non-contributory system, petitioner contributed one-half of the the required FRS contribution, while the School Board contributed the other half. Since January 1, 1975, the School Board has contributed 100 percent of his contributions to FRS. During the 1970s petitioner's membership in the FRS prevented him from participating in any other tax sheltered retirement plan. 3/ Since July 1, 1979, the Division has, by rule, given notice that consultants and other professional persons contracting with public employers are, ordinarily, ineligible for membership in the FRS. All public employers, including the School Board, have been asked to remove such persons from their retirement payrolls. Since at least July 8, 1981, petitioner was on notice that his status as an employee, and his eligibility for continued membership in the FRS, were in question. Both the parties stipulate that part-time electricians, plumbers, painters, combustion engine mechanics, air conditioning mechanics, janitors or sewage plant operators (and even other occupations) employed in 1983 by the Glades County School Board on a year-round salary basis (i.e., at least 10 consecutive months), and paid out of the School Board's regular salary and wage account, would be mandatory members of FRS by statute. (Prehearing Stip., para. E. 6)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter an order removing petitioner from membership in the Florida Retirement System, as of July 1, 1979; and That the Division return to petitioner and the School Board their respective FRS contributions, mistakenly made to his account. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 14th day of February, 1984.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate the employment of Respondent for misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact Respondent graduated in 1963 with a degree in accounting. He earned his juris doctor degree in 1967. He has practiced public accounting and also been employed by W. R. Grace & Company and Getty Oil Company. For most of the 1970s, Respondent was employed as head of construction for the City of Baltimore. In this capacity, he assumed significant responsibilities in the construction of a major convention center and aquarium, as well as over 50 schools. For most of the 1980s, Respondent ran a construction management company. From 1988-92, Respondent developed residential homes. From 1992-96, Respondent was the executive director of the Port of Bridgeport. From March 1996 to January 2000, Respondent was employed as the executive director of the Port of Palm Beach. While so employed, Respondent directed a $100 million redevelopment project for the Port. Following the conclusion of his employment with the Port of Palm Beach, Respondent was employed for a short period in Tampa. Wanting to return to West Palm Beach, Respondent applied for the position of Respondent's Chief Operating Officer. Then-Superintendent Ben Marlin hired Respondent in July 2000. Superintendent Marlin was implementing a School Board plan that divided the District into academic and business sections. As Chief Operating Officer, Respondent headed the business section. As Chief Academic Officer, Dr. Arthur Johnson headed the academic section during the last six months of Superintendent Marlin's tenure, which ended in February 2001. Dr. Johnson succeeded Dr. Marlin as the new superintendent and was a member of the School Board when it adopted the plan dividing the District into academic and business sections. The creation of a separate business section within the District facilitated the implementation of efficient business and management practices. The School Board designed the new organizational plan to obtain greater productivity from the business side of the District and to maximize the academic benefit from available revenues. Currently the 14th largest school district in the United States, the Palm Beach County School District administers a $2 billion annual budget in the service of 157,000 students in 150 schools. Half of this $2 billion outlay is devoted to operational expenses; most of the remainder is devoted to capital expenditures and debt service. The District operates the largest food service and bus company in Palm Beach County. At the time of the hearing, the District was constructing three high schools, three middle schools, and ten elementary schools-- with a total construction value of over $250 million. Striving to meet the needs of a large, but still fast-growing community, the District will open twelve schools in August 2002. Just over half of the District's 17,000 employees are noninstructional. Hired shortly before Respondent, on June 1, 2000, William Malone became Chief of Facilities Management Services. Mr. Malone graduated with a degree in civil engineering in 1971. His prior experience consisted of 21 years with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and 13 years with the South Florida Water Management District. For the last five and one- half years with the South Florida Water Management District, Mr. Malone oversaw the district's construction projects. He left the district shortly after trying unsuccessfully in 1999 to be appointed as the executive director of the South Florida Water Management District. Upon assuming the duties of the Chief Operating Officer, Respondent analyzed all of the divisions reporting to him. An immediate problem was maintenance. The District had just fired Service Master, and the maintenance department was leaderless and in some disarray. Respondent decided to split off maintenance from Mr. Malone's responsibilities. Respondent contacted three Port employees who had worked under him when he was Executive Director of the Port of Palm Beach: Martin Mets, Michael Scheiner, and Lauriann Basel. On July 17, 2000, Respondent hired Mr. Mets as the Director of Maintenance and Plant Operations. At about the same time, Respondent hired Mr. Scheiner as a business manager and Ms. Basel as the liaison between the maintenance department and the schools. As evidenced in part from the fact that he continues to serve as Director of Maintenance and Plant Operations, Mr. Mets has done a good job for the District. He previously handled similar duties for 19 years at the Port of Palm Beach. Among Mr. Met's responsibilities as Director of Maintenance and Plant Operations is the duty of approving all invoices to be paid by the District. Mr. Scheiner continues to serve as a business manager for the District, although, at the time of the hearing, he testified that his contract might not be renewed. After serving as capital projects coordinator with the Port of Palm Beach, Mr. Scheiner, who has a degree in accounting, implemented the orders of Mr. Mets and Respondent to document all maintenance invoices before submitting them to accounting for payment. To perform this task, Mr. Scheiner had to design and implement internal controls to ensure, among other things, that vendors were doing the work in a satisfactory manner for which they were to be paid. One of Mr. Scheiner's first discoveries were that the District did not maintain the records he needed to ensure that the District had received the goods and services for which it was being invoiced. Prominent among the missing information were purchase orders showing that the District ordered goods or services and identifying the specific goods and services. Also prominent among the missing information was documentation showing that someone from Maintenance and Plant Operations physically visited the site that had purportedly received the goods and services to confirm that the goods and services were supplied and they were satisfactory. At the same time that Mr. Scheiner was undertaking the substantial task of designing and implementing much-needed internal controls to cover future operations, he also had to address the deficiencies that had arisen during past operations. Noticing a number of invoices for the installation of vinyl flooring in which the vendor had agreed to reductions in the amount due, Mr. Scheiner suggested to Mr. Mets that he ask Lung Chiu, the District Internal Auditor, to conduct an audit of these vendors. In August 2000, Mr. Mets submitted a request to Mr. Chiu that he conduct an audit of the District's two vinyl flooring installers. Mr. Chiu has served as the District Internal Auditor for eight years. He has a master's degree in accounting, and he is a certified public accountant and a certified internal auditor. Typically, Mr. Chiu reports to the School Board through the Audit Committee. His method of reporting is through the presentation of a final audit to the Audit Committee. Pursuant to Mr. Mets' request, Mr. Chiu conducted an audit of the two vinyl flooring installers from August to October 2000. Having completed his field work, in October 2000, Mr. Chiu prepared a draft audit report and submitted it for comment to Mr. Mets, as head of the maintenance department, and his counterpart in charge of the purchasing department. The draft audit report is dated November 17, 2000, and addressed to the School Board, Superintendent Marlin, and the Audit Committee because, if finalized in time, Mr. Chiu intended to present the final report to the Audit Committee at its next meeting, which was November 17, 2000. On November 6, 2000, Mr. Chiu reported by memorandum to Mr. Mets that he had found an error in the earlier version of the draft audit report dated November 17, 2000. After the correction, the draft audit report, as revised through November 1, 2000, found vendor overbillings (and, presumably, District overpayments) by the two vinyl flooring installers. According to the draft audit report, Buy the Square Yard, Inc. (Square Yard), overbilled the District $2.29 million, and Padron Brothers overbilled the District $2000. The earlier draft audit report had found that Square Yard had overbilled the District by $2.932 million. The tentative findings in the draft audit report caused District administrators to ask District legal counsel to consider various legal questions concerning the possible recovery of these apparent overpayments. In a nine-page legal memorandum dated November 10, 2000, to Interim Chief Counsel Bruce Harris marked "UNFINISHED PRELIMINARY AND TENTATIVE DRAFT FOR INITIAL DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY," Randall Burks discussed without resolution several legal issues concerning such a potential claim. At this point, Mr. Chiu referred the matter to the District police department for the purpose of a criminal investigation into the overbillings. In the spring of 2001, the District police department concluded that insufficient evidence existed to pursue criminal charges. In the meantime, in December 2000, Mr. Chiu considered the accounting error that had necessitated the amendment of the draft audit report. After more work, he concluded that his audit conclusion for 1995-99 was "questionable" due to incomplete billing and accounting records. This conclusion had a major impact on his earlier audit conclusions concerning Square Yard, which had tentatively found overbillings of $1.719 million in 1995-99. In May 2001, after the police investigation had concluded, Mr. Chiu resumed the audit work. He reduced the overbillings by Square Yard by removing the 1995-99 data and making another, much less important change. In May 2001, Mr. Chiu finalized the draft. As revised through June 8, 2001, the draft audit report found overbillings by Square Yard of about $387,000. According to a memorandum dated November 5, 2001, from Mr. Chiu to the Audit Committee, in May and June 2001, he "briefed" the committee members about ongoing projects, including the audit of the vinyl flooring vendors. District policy requires Mr. Chiu to update the Audit Committee about his audits, but Mr. Chiu ordinarily does not share with the committee any of the details of any audits, unless he has already submitted to the Audit Committee a finalized draft report. The District Internal Audit Charter outlines the responsibilities of the Audit Committee and District Auditor, although the charter, as contained in this record, does not address confidentiality. However, the premature release of a draft audit would impair the ability of the District Auditor to conduct effective audits. Given his background and service as a member of the Audit Committee, Respondent clearly understood the importance of confidentiality to the integrity of an ongoing audit. In early July 2001, Mr. Chiu shared his updated findings with the maintenance department and purchasing department, again for the purpose of obtaining their responses to the proposed audit findings and possibly incorporating these responses into the draft audit report. On August 2, 2001, Mr. Chiu received the responses of the maintenance department, by way of Mr. Mets' memorandum of the same date. This memorandum largely restates his response several months earlier to an earlier draft of the audit report. Mr. Mets' counterpart in charge of the purchasing department submitted her response in September 2001, and Mr. Chiu submitted the final draft of the audit report to the Audit Committee in November 2001. On August 3, 2001, Respondent attended a breakfast meeting at a motel restaurant with Henry Harper, Sr., the principal of Square Yard, and Isaac Robinson, the President of the City Commission of West Palm Beach. Commissioner Robinson had arranged the meeting so Respondent and Mr. Harper could try to resolve the problems that Mr. Harper felt that he was having with Respondent. Respondent's relationship with Superintendent Johnson was not as good as Respondent's relationship had been with Superintendent Marlin, who had announced his resignation in January 2001. In April 2001, Dr. Johnson switched Respondent and Mr. Malone's jobs. Superintendent Johnson claims to have been concerned about Respondent's interpersonal skills, but evidence of shortcomings in this area are anecdotal and unpersuasive. Superintendent Johnson also claims to have been concerned about Respondent's performance when he failed to produce a requested $50 million reduction from the business side. However, the record fails to establish sufficient details concerning this matter, which Superintendent Johnson did not pursue with Respondent at the time. Mr. Malone had unsuccessfully applied for the Chief Operating Officer position when Superintendent Marlin had selected Respondent. It appears that Respondent and Mr. Malone enjoyed different sources of support, and the replacement of Superintendent Marlin with Superintendent Johnson was an adverse development for Respondent and a favorable development for Mr. Malone. Also, at this time, a member of the School Board, who had strongly supported Mr. Malone's application for the Chief Operating Officer position, had been exploring the possibility of obtaining a position as the administrative assistant to the Chief Operating Officer and preferred to work under Mr. Malone, rather than Respondent. At some point, this factor was mooted when the School Board member secured a position as the director of a newly formed education commission in West Palm Beach. When switching the jobs of the two men, Superintendent Johnson also transferred to Mr. Malone's new position the responsibility for construction that he had previously borne as Chief of Facilities Management Services. At minimum, Superintendent Johnson preferred that this important responsibility remain in a person with whom he was more comfortable. However, Superintendent Johnson was not trying to rid the District of Respondent, as evidenced by his renewal of Respondent's one-year employment contract on June 30, 2001. Sometime after switching jobs with Mr. Malone, Respondent decided to run for the Commission of the Port of Palm Beach. The election is in November 2002, and, although most of the vote campaigning takes place within two weeks of the election, candidates often file early so that they can open campaign accounts and line up support. Campaign expenditures for each seat, which are all at-large, typically range from $30,000 to $40,000. On July 3, 2001, Respondent filed the paperwork to become a candidate for a seat on the Port Commission and advised Mr. Malone of his candidacy for public office. A few days later, Respondent briefly met with Mr. Mets, Mr. Scheiner, and Ms. Basel and informed them of his filing and warned them that they were not to involve themselves with his candidacy while on District time. Shortly after these conversations, Respondent went on a two-week vacation, from which he returned on July 24. Within a few days after returning to work, Respondent presented to Mr. Mets, Mr. Scheiner, and Ms. Basel three identical letters, all dated July 5, 2001. These letters reiterated Respondent's direction not to conduct any campaign business on District time. Each letter had a place for each of the three employees to sign and add the date. As instructed by Respondent, each employee signed his or her name and wrote in the date of July 5, 2001. The evidence does not establish that, in backdating the letters, any of these employees felt intimidated or coerced by Respondent or felt that they were doing anything wrong. None complained about the request at the time. In an abundance of caution, not inconsistent with feelings of blamelessness, Mr. Mets and Ms. Basel later memorialized the backdating of their letters. More likely than not Respondent had these employees backdate the "July 5" letters in late July. Although there is a conflict in the evidence whether the date on which Mr. Mets and Ms. Basel signed their letters was in late July or late August, it appears more likely that Respondent, in acceding to his wife's wishes to get these letters signed, did not delay in performing this task. It also appears less likely, for reasons discussed below, that Ms. Basel would have backdated such a letter in late August after Respondent's difficulties had surfaced. Mr. Scheiner did not testify to any discomfort in backdating the letter, but Mr. Mets and Ms. Basel testified that they felt discomfort at signing their letters. The most obvious objective distinction between Mr. Scheiner, on the one hand, and Mr. Mets and Ms. Basel, on the other hand, is that Mr. Scheiner believes that his continued employment with the District is already in doubt. This distinction is important in evaluating the testimony of Mr. Mets on this point and Ms. Basel on this and other points. Respondent had been the sponsor of all three of these employees, and they may reasonably have felt that their future with the District was tied to Respondent. Mr. Mets is near retirement. He is also understandably irritated at Respondent because Mr. Mets left his former, higher-paying job at the Port in reliance upon Respondent's unfulfilled promise to raise his pay with the District within a reasonable time after the commencement of his employment. Although Mr. Mets proved a credible witness in many regards, his testimony concerning discomfort at backdating the letter was unpersuasive. Ms. Basel suffers obvious anxiety concerning her continued employment with the District. She eagerly treated her obligation to testify as an opportunity to display her fealty to the District, which had already conducted an unsuccessful investigation against her for improperly requesting leave. Ms. Basel never harmonized her decision to join Respondent at the District with her portrayal of him as an easily angered supervisor. It is impossible to credit her proffered justification that Respondent had told her that he had changed; it is unlikely that she would ever work again with the overbearing man whom she describes. Ms. Basel's claims that Respondent intimidated her at work is also impossible to harmonize with her close relationship with Respondent and his wife and Ms. Basel's frequent expressions of loyalty toward Respondent--prior, of course, to his current difficulties with the District. Ms. Basel's lack of credibility undermines her testimony of intimidation, as well as her unsupported testimony concerning a couple of occasions on which Respondent, in her opinion, asked her to do campaign tasks on District time and property. One of her two recollections of conducting political business on District time and property involved her playing back a message from a District telephone answering machine and finding that someone had called Respondent to confirm a meeting and that a check--presumably a campaign contribution--was in the mail. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that Respondent conducted political business in connection with the call--only that someone, presumably a campaign supporter, had called Respondent at work. From the lack of evidence concerning other such recorded messages, this would appear to have been an isolated incident over which Respondent had no control. In any event, Ms. Basel's testimony on this matter does not suggest that Respondent conducted political business on District time or property. The other incident lacks detail. Ms. Basel testified that Respondent directed Ms. Basel to call a union president to get the union's support and 20 minutes later asked her if she had done so. Ms. Basel's evident desire to assist Petitioner's case inspires no confidence in the existence or details of the brief statements from Respondent or the duration of the interval between the two statements, so as to preclude the possibility of an intervening break, during which Ms. Basel would not be on District time. However, the Administrative Law Judge credits Ms. Basel's emphatic denial that she ever did any political work for Respondent on District time or property. But her testimony fails to establish that Respondent conducted political business on District time or property. To the contrary, given Ms. Basel's obvious motivation to protect her job and her close proximity to Respondent, the absence of testimony from Ms. Basel concerning any substantiated incidents or even more unsubstantiated incidents suggest that Respondent did not conduct political business on District time or property. Respondent's purpose in attending the August 3 breakfast meeting is difficult to characterize, but the meeting did not take place on District time or property. Respondent claims that he viewed Mr. Harper merely as a disgruntled vendor, but this claim accounts for only a small part of Respondent's motivation in meeting with Mr. Harper. Respondent testified that he knew that Mr. Harper was trying to prevent other persons from supporting Respondent's bid for a seat on the Port Commission, so the possibility of a political purpose exists. However, Respondent also testified that he returned from vacation to find that Mr. Malone had settled the District's disputes with Square Yard at a meeting in July during which the District agreed to pay Square Yard about $43,000 on unpaid invoices and to try to give half of all future vinyl flooring work to Square Yard. As noted below, the omission of any mention of the $387,000 in overpayments is probably due to the fact that the District had already decided, or was in the process of deciding, not to pursue any overpayments. In fact, as Mr. Malone testified, he had negotiated this settlement at the direction of Superintendent Johnson, who misrecalled that Superintendent Marlin had decided to pay Square Yard $43,000 (a decision that, if Superintendent Johnson's recollection were accurate, would have inexplicably gone unimplemented until five months into Superintendent Johnson's tenure). Given these circumstances, Respondent, in an abundance of caution, might want to appease a person who had such apparent influence with Mr. Malone and Superintendent Johnson, just in case Respondent were not successful in his Port Commission election. Commissioner Robinson facilitated the August 3 breakfast meeting. He asked Mr. Harper to state his concerns. Mr. Harper blamed Respondent for certain problems of Square Yard with the Port of Palm Beach and the District. Respondent explained what he was doing at the Port and that, while with the District, he was merely following orders. Clearly addressing District business, Respondent also emphasized the internal controls that the District had recently implemented and underscored the importance of vendor compliance with these controls. None of the three men discussed Respondent's political campaign. While dealing with Mr. Harper's concerns about the District, Respondent showed him copies of a draft audit, as revised through October 25, 2000, and June 8, 2001, with Mr. Mets' response dated August 2, 2001. Commissioner Robinson asked Respondent if this was public record, and Respondent replied that it was because it had been brought to the attention of the District. Mr. Harper asked for a copy of these documents, and Respondent gave him one. Respondent did not give Mr. Harper copies of other documents, such as the November 10, 2000, unfinished legal memorandum. Mr. Harper likely obtained a copy of this document at the breakfast meeting from Respondent's files, perhaps due to the inadvertent shuffling of papers in the large stack that Respondent had brought with him to the meeting. The key question in this case is whether Respondent improperly supplied Mr. Harper with copies of the draft audits. Respondent testified that he believed that the audit had been completed because Mr. Malone had settled all pending disputes while Respondent had been on vacation. Respondent testified that he knew that the formal audit had been delayed from last fall, but Respondent testified that he thought that the delay was occasioned by the District's investigation during the first half of 2001 of Mr. Chiu for the possible conducting of a lichee nut business for his brother while on District time. Mr. Mets testified that Mr. Chiu told him on August 2, 2001, that Mr. Chiu had discussed the June 8 draft audit with some, but not all, members of the School Board. Evidently based on this discussion, the School Board had decided, according to Mr. Mets' testimony of his conversation with Mr. Chiu, not to pursue the overpayments to Square Yard. This testimony is largely credited. If the School Board could agree not to pursue the overpayments, the discussion with Mr. Chiu must have been more detailed than a mere briefing or updating. On the same day, after his conversation with Mr. Chiu, Mr. Mets told Respondent that Mr. Chiu had explained that the District was not able to pursue any 1995-99 overpayments because of the District's failures in documentation and internal controls and that Mr. Chiu wanted to close the matter promptly. Mr. Mets also told Respondent that Mr. Chiu had told Mr. Mets that Mr. Chiu had discussed the audit in detail with four members of the School Board and intended to discuss the audit in detail with the other three members by the end of the week. Mr. Mets added that the four members had agreed the District could not pursue any overpayments. Two District attorneys have consistently opined that otherwise-confidential audit materials lose their confidential status when distributed to members of the School Board or Audit Committee. One of the attorneys had concluded on June 19, 2001, not to pursue any overpayments for the reasons stated above and had instructed Mr. Chiu to bring the matter to a conclusion. Immediately after obtaining the documents from Respondent, Mr. Harper gave them to his attorney, who promptly returned them to Mr. Harris due to his concern that the release of the documents had been improper. In his cover letter, Mr. Harper's attorney strongly suggested that Respondent's delivery of the materials to Mr. Harper was improper and if the current administration (apparently of Superintendent Johnson) intended to correct the mistakes of the preceding administration, it had better do so quickly, or else its successor would correct those mistakes. On August 15, 2001, Mr. Malone summoned Respondent, falsely telling him that they needed to discuss a school maintenance matter. Mr. Malone prepared the ruse so that Respondent could not prepare untrue responses to the questions that Mr. Malone intended to ask Respondent. At the meeting, when shown some of the documents that Mr. Harper's attorney had sent to the District, Respondent told Mr. Malone that he had met with Mr. Harper, but the meeting had not been political in nature, and that he had given Mr. Harper some of the documents, but not all of them. A later disagreement arose between Mr. Harper and Respondent concerning what Respondent said at the August 15 meeting, but the discrepancies are not material. One week after the meeting, Mr. Malone recommended that the District Department of Professional Standards investigate the entire matter. Mr. Malone suggested that the investigators take testimony under oath because some of the apparent violations were criminal. The Director of the District Department of Professional Standards referred the entire matter to the District police department for investigation. Two District police department detectives interviewed witnesses, including Respondent on August 30, 2001. During his interview, despite being under oath, Respondent three times denied that he had asked Mr. Mets, Mr. Scheiner, and Ms. Basel to backdate their "July 5" letters. Immediately after the conclusion of the interview, Respondent told his attorney, who had accompanied him at the interview, of the misstatements and that he wanted to correct the record immediately. A short delay ensued because Respondent and his attorney had been instructed to go elsewhere immediately after the interview and did so. However, within 20 minutes after the conclusion of the interview, Respondent and his attorney caused the detectives to reconvene the interview, so that Respondent could correct his misstatement about backdating the "July 5" letters. At the reconvened interview, Respondent admitted to asking the three employees to backdate their letters. No evidence suggests that Respondent's 20-minute delay in admitting to the backdating request materially delayed Petitioner's investigation. After examining the facts of the case, the School Board voted on November 20, 2001, to terminate Respondent's contract, effective 15 days later, rather than not renew it when it expired on June 30, 2002. The charges that engendered this case are that Respondent disclosed confidential materials to Mr. Harper and that he did so for personal gain. Respondent gave Mr. Harper copies of two draft audit reports, but they were no longer confidential because Mr. Chiu had already discussed in detail the findings of his audit with a majority of the members of the School Board. The evidence suggests that Mr. Chiu did so to obtain the approval of the School Board to resolve its long- pending overpayment issue with Square Yard. The evidence fails to establish that Respondent gave Mr. Harper a copy of the other materials. As for the November 10, 2000, unfinished legal memorandum, this document was no longer confidential because, in June or no later than July 2001, the District had decided not to pursue possible overpayments to Square Yard. If the materials were no longer confidential, the motivation of Respondent in delivering them, during a breakfast meeting not on District time or property, loses its importance. Undoubtedly, Respondent was dealing with a disgruntled vendor, as Respondent claims. Undoubtedly, Respondent's underlying motivation was a mixture of concern for his political campaign and for his present job situation; mollifying Mr. Harper could help Respondent in both regards. Nor has Petitioner proved misconduct impairing Respondent's effectiveness in his handling of the three "July 5" letters. The record does not sustain the allegation that Respondent coerced or intimidated any of the three employees into backdating these letters. The letters themselves are not legally required documents, nor are they even significant documents. These letters are self-, or, if Respondent's testimony were credited, ally-serving documents whose effectiveness is undermined by their transparency. They have the force and effect of birthday cards. Backdating these ineffective documents inspires little confidence in Respondent's mental acuity or at least in his assessment of the mental acuity of those around him. At best, undisclosed backdating is a precarious practice, and Respondent's claim that backdating is prevalent in the District is beside the point. However, the insubstantiality of the letters themselves reduces their backdating to a meaningless self-indulgence. The closest issue in the case is Respondent's dishonest denial, under oath, that he had the three employees backdate the "July 5" letters. The insubstantiality of the letters themselves is irrelevant to this issue, which raises the question of Respondent's honesty. Respondent knew that he had asked the employees to backdate these letters, and he denied under oath doing so. The proper characterization of this incident does not permit consideration of Respondent's intention to protect his employees or Petitioner's failure to advise Respondent that he was under criminal investigation; these factors are entirely irrelevant. However, the proper characterization of this incident requires consideration of Respondent's near-immediate correction of his misstatement. The 20-minute delay arose due to logistics, not any delay on Respondent's part after the conclusion of the interview. Respondent had not expected questions concerning the "July 5" letters, nor, in retrospect, should he reasonably have expected such questions. When asked about the letters, Respondent panicked and denied three times that he had asked the employees to backdate them. The fairer characterization of this incident is that Respondent immediately corrected his admittedly intentional misstatements, rather than made the misstatements and later recanted. Not Respondent's most shining moment, his lapse from honesty, which obviously never impaired Petitioner's investigation, was short-lived to the point of being momentary, was not so serious as to impair Respondent's effectiveness in the school system, and factually did not rise to the level of misconduct constituting just cause for his termination. These findings do not imply acceptance of Respondent's assertion, in his proposed recommended order, that the "only plausible explanation" for Respondent's termination was Superintendent Johnson's desire to remove Respondent. This is a oversimplification and distortion of the facts of this case. Superintendent Johnson renewed Respondent's contract hardly one month prior to the August 3 breakfast meeting. Although Superintendent Johnson clearly wanted Respondent out of the position of Chief Operating Officer, he displayed no desire to terminate Respondent's employment with the District. From Superintendent Johnson's perspective, Respondent's August 3 meeting with Mr. Harper was ill-timed. The District had just worked out the long-pending dispute between it and Square Yard by paying $43,000 to the company and promising it more business. Superintendent Johnson's misrecollection--corrected by Mr. Malone--that Superintendent Marlin had decided on the $43,000 payment suggests the sensitivity of this matter. For nearly nine months, many persons within the District, and probably a number of persons outside of the District, had credited Mr. Chiu's preliminary findings that Square Yard owed the District over $2 million in overpayments-- an attractive receivable in times of tight revenues. This dramatic preliminary finding left a more lasting impression than the more thorough findings that the overpayments were less than $400,000, poor District recordkeeping during the earlier period in question precluded reliable findings of any additional overpayments, and poor District recordkeeping concerning even the $400,000 in claimed overpayments probably precluded their proof in a civil action for damages. The letter from Mr. Harper's attorney exacerbated the situation for Superintendent Johnson, who testified that the matter was serious because the attorney took it seriously and, if the District took no action after receiving such notification from an officer of the court, the District would leave itself vulnerable to later recriminations. The subsequent discovery of Respondent's requests for his employees to backdate the "July 5" letters and, worse, his momentary lying under oath, even though concerning tangential matters, made it much more difficult for Superintendent Johnson to coordinate public perceptions with the reality of the Square Yard matter. On this record, the reality of the Square Yard matter is that poor District recordkeeping and internal controls--since corrected--meant that the Square Yard might have been entitled to $43,000 on past-due invoices and future District business, rather than that the District was owed hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in overpayments.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent and awarding him back pay for the period from the date on which he was suspended without pay through the end of the term of his present contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ____ ROBERT E. MEALE 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 5th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Arthur C. Johnson, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard, C316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Alan M. Aronson, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Elaine Johnson James, Esquire Edwards & Angell, LLP 1 North Clematis Street, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 31301 Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. 215 West Verne Street, Suite D Tampa, Florida 33606 Scott N. Richardson, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Richardson, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue This matter was referred by the Public Employees Relations Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing to determine: Whether the Respondent, Seminole County, is a Public Employer within the meaning of Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. Whether the Petitioner, Union, is an employee organization within the meaning of Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. Whether there has been a sufficient showing of interest has required for the filing of a representation election petition under Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. Whether the employer organization is a properly registered organization with the Public Employees Relations Commission. What is the appropriate unit of public employees within the Public Employer? PRE-HEARING MATTERS Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Respondent filed the following motions with the Hearing Officer who made the indicated disposition of the motion: Motion for Discovery; denied on the basis of prior PERC rulings. Motion to Transfer Jurisdiction to Local PERC; denied because the local ordinance had not been approved by the Public Employees Relations Commission. Motion for Oral Argument on Motion to Transfer Jurisdiction; denied, see Petitioner's Motion to Amend, below. Motion to Dismiss Based on Employer Not Having Denied Recognition; denied. Motion to Dismiss or Limit Hearing on the Basis that Local PERC Ordinate Controls; denied. Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Inappropriateness of Units Sought; denied. Motion to Quash Hearing on Basis that Acting Chairman Lacked Authority to Notice Hearing; denied. Motion to Dismiss on Basis of Lack of Due Process and Lack of Authority; denied. The Petitioner moved orally in response to the suggestion that paragraph 11 of the Petition indicated concurrence in local PERC authority to amend paragraph 11 to "no". Motion was granted by the Hearing Officer. After having presented its motions the Respondent thereafter filed its Answer, asserting therein certain affirmative defenses. Succinctly stated the position of the Respondent was that the county had defined the appropriate units within the Public Employer by local ordinances as professional, supervisory and blue collar, and that the unit sought by the Petitioner did not conform to the units the County had defined by ordinance. The Petitioner sought all employees of the Road and Arthopod Divisions of Seminole County excluding officers, clericals, supervisory and guard employees.
Findings Of Fact The Hearing Officer directed the Employer to go forward and present its evidence in support of its definition of the units. The Employer sought to call Pat Hill and Jack McLean, both previously subpoenaed by the Employer. Neither of the individuals were present in the hearing room. The Hearing Officer, noting that the time had not expired to oppose the subpoenas but that no opposition had been filed, allowed the Employer to proffer the testimony these witnesses would have given if present. The Hearing Officer notes that subsequently these subpoenas were quashed. Therefore, the proffered testimony will not be considered by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer would, in light of the fact that the Commission's file was not present at the hearing, direct the Commission's attention to the proffer as it relates to the Commission's file for resolution of any matters appropriately raised. The Employer then called Carl Crosslin who was present but whose subpoena had been timely opposed by his Counsel. The subpoena having been issued by the Acting Chairman, the Hearing Officer deferred to the Acting Chairman for his ruling on the subpoena in question. The Hearing Officer allowed the Employer to proffer the testimony which would have been presented by Carl Crosslin and Commissioner Paul Parker. Thereafter, the Employer moved for a continuance which motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. The Employer then made a demand for presentation of the authorization cards, which were not present at the hearing. The Employer then sought to introduce the affidavit of Chris Haughee which was rejected by the Hearing Officer. The Employer then filed its motion for Determination of Managerial and Confidential Employees. This motion is preserved for consideration by the Commission. It is appropriate to note at this point that upon the conclusion of the taking of testimony the Petitioner amended its petition to seek a unit composed of non-exempt employees of the Road Construction and Maintenance Division, the Heavy Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance Division, and Arthopod Division of the Public Works Department of the County of Seminole, or in the alternative, all non-exempt employees of the Public Works Division and as a final alternative, a unit of all blue collar workers of the Public Employer who are in construction, maintenance and trades, but excludes clerical, secretarial and similar positions. The parties also stipulated to the managerial status of division directors within the Administrative Services Department and their secretaries. However, in light of the fact that not all division directors within the employ of the Public Employer were not included within the stipulation, and further, because the Employer has filed a motion for Determination of Managerial and Confidential Status and because the stipulation between the parties would not be binding upon others who might have an interest, the facts relating to the duties and functions of division directors and similar positions are set forth so that the Public Employees Relations Commission may resolve the status of these employees as it relates to the motion filed by the Public Employer. The general organization of the Public Employer is indicated on Exhibit 6. The Board of County Commissioners, as the elected representatives of the citizens of Seminole County, head the Public Employer. An executive assistant manages the office and staff of the Board of County Commissioners and functions as general coordinator for the other department heads of the county government. Each of the several departments of government is headed by a department head. Each department head is directly responsible for the management of his department to the Board of County Commissioners. Although the executive assistant, as a coordinator, would have some coordinating function with the department heads, the department heads are the first level of management below the Board of County Commissioners. The department heads prepare the budgets for their department, manage and direct their personal staffs and their division heads, make policy within their department, and participate in the resolution of grievances. They have the authority to hire and fire all employees making less than $10,000 per year and they participate in evaluations of all employees. Department heads have the ability to effectively recommend the employment and discharge of division heads and employees making more than $10,000 per year. All of the department heads meet on Mondays to discuss their joint duties and coordinate their activities. The division heads or directors have the authority to effectively recommend hiring and firing of personnel. The division heads assign work and determine the manner in which work shall be done by their subordinates. The division heads have the authority to discipline their personnel or effectively recommend disciplinary measures dependent upon the action taken. Division directors prepare and submit budget data to the department heads upon which the departmental budget is based. The division heads constitute the second level of supervision or management in county employment. Among their other functions they make determinations regarding the manner in which programs will be accomplished and participate in the resolution of grievances. In all but the smallest divisions and in all of the departments, the department heads and division directors have secretaries assigned to them to handle their personal correspondence, In the larger divisions and in the majority of the departments there are additional clerical personnel assigned to handle general typing and filing and to maintain fiscal records. The parties with regard to the RC petition in question have stipulated that the secretaries to the department heads and division directors should be excluded as confidential. There are divisions within the county government whose function is primarily administrative and whose employees perform administrative duties. These divisions or activities would include the Personnel Division, Microfilm Division, Division of Manpower Planning, Purchasing Division, Office of Management and Evaluation, Veterans' Service Officer, Division of Social Services and Seminole County Industrial Development Authority. In the aforelisted activities, all of the personnel are involved in totally administrative functions. In addition to these totally administrative divisions or activities, there are additional divisions in which there are mixed administrative and other functions. The administrative employees of these divisions would include Switchboard Operators and the Mail Clerk in Support Services Division; the Biologists in Operations Division of the Department of Environmental Services; the Operator Inspector, Pollution Control Technician, Account Clerk in the Division of Environmental Control of the Department of Environmental Services; Cashiers within the Division of Motor Vehicles of the Department of Public Safety; the Deputy Civil Defense Director in the Division of Civil Defense, Department of Public Safety; Permit Clerks and a Secretary II of the Building Division of the Department of County Development; two Secretaries and a Site Planner within the Office of the Land Development Administrator, Division of Land Development, Department of County Development; a Secretary, two Draftsmen, two Planners, Drafting Technician II, Planner (current plans), Senior Planner, Principal Planner and County Planner within the Planning Division of the Department of County Development. The following personnel hold positions within the county government below that of division director and perform functions which are not clerical or administrative in nature. These remaining personnel will be discussed by division. Within the Building Maintenance Division there is a Supervisor of Custodial Services, Supervisor of Courthouse Custodians, and Building Custodian Supervisor, all of whom report to the Director of Building Maintenance. The Supervisor of Courthouse Custodians directly supervises the fifteen custodians assigned to the Seminole County Courthouse. The Supervisor of Custodial Services supervises the custodians assigned to the maintenance of the other county buildings. The Building Custodian Supervisor supervises the electrical, carpentry, plumbing and air conditioning foremen under whose direction maintenance workers perform such maintenance as is required upon the various county buildings. These three supervisors have the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and disciplinary action and assign specific work to those employees under their direction. These supervisors constitute the first level of direct supervision over the county employees for although there are trades foremen designated they function as lead workers. Within the Support Services Division there are three Night Watchmen who are responsible for security of the County Courthouse and one Senior Night Watchman who assigns the work shifts of the Watchman. The testimony would indicate that the Senior Night Watchman functions in the role of a lead worker. It should be noted that this Division does not have a division director but is under the control of the acting executive assistant. Within the Division of Human Services is the Office of Animal Control which is headed by the Animal Control Officer. The Animal Control Officer is responsible for the operation of the County Pound and the supervision of the work of the four Animal Control Officers. He is assisted in his functions by the Animal Control Supervisor who is specifically charged with maintenance of the County Pound. The Animal Control Officer has authority to recommend hiring, firing and discipline of these employees who he evaluates. Within the Operations Division of the Department of Environmental Services there is a Chief Operator and three Operator Trainees who are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the county's water and sewage treatment facilities. The Operator Trainees are under the direct supervision of the Chief Operator whose responsibility is to train then to operate the system and to assign their duties. The Operator Trainees perform maintenance, read meters, and perform such other duties as the Chief Operator assigns necessary to the operation of these facilities. Within the Office of the Director of Public Safety and under the Director's control is Fire Prevention and Arson Investigator, a Training Officer, and two Mechanics. The Investigator and the Training Officer are trained firefighters. The two Mechanics are physically located at Station 14 and are responsible for the maintenance of the County Fire Department's Vehicles. The Fire Department is divided into three shifts or platoons. Each shift or platoon being supervised by a Sector Fire Coordinator. The Sector Fire Coordinator prepares the budget for his shift, establishes field operating procedures, and directs fire fighting, and has access to the personnel files of the employees. Also within the Department of Public Safety is the Communications Division which at present relates primarily to the Fire Department but which will in the future also encompass the 911 telephone number. The Communications' personnel are under the supervision of the Communications supervisor. The Communications' personnel are generally not firefighters, but receive emergency calls and dispatch equipment. Within the Motor Vehicle Inspection Division of the Department of Public Safety there are three Inspection Stations located within the county. The Motor Vehicles Inspection function is under the supervision of the Motor Vehicles Inspection Supervisor who acts as a division director and effectively recommends hiring and firing and discipline of employees and who helps prepare the budget for the Motor Vehicles Inspection activities. He is also responsible for work assignments and development of work procedures. Each Inspection Station is under the direction of a Chief Inspector who is responsible for assigning work at each station and responsible for the function thereof. There are four Motor Vehicle Inspectors at each Inspection Station and one Cashier. Within the Division of Parks and Recreation of the Department of County Development there is a Parks Coordinator/Designer who can effectively recommend hiring and firing and disciplinary action of personnel within the Division. The Parks Coordinator/Designer is also responsible for the direct or specific supervision of work. He functions as an assistant division director. The Parks Supervisor is also able to effectively recommend hiring, firing and disciplinary action. The Parks Supervisor provides direct supervision of the five Maintenance Workers, the Equipment Operator II, and three Trades Workers assigned to the Parks and Recreation Division. In addition to the positions enumerated above there are an additional twenty-nine CETA Workers assigned to Parks and Recreation primarily in the grades of Maintenance Worker and Equipment Operator. Within the Building Division of the Department of County Development the construction inspection function within the county is the responsibility of the Building Official who functions as the division director of the Building Division. He is assisted in his duties by the Plans Examiner who functions as the Deputy Building Official. Both employees have the authority to effectively recommend the hiring, firing and discipline of their subordinate employees. The actual inspection of construction is carried out by one of ten inspectors. There are three Chief Building Inspectors; one assigned to general construction, one to electrical, and one to plumbing, There are six Inspectors who work under the three Chief Inspectors and one Trailer or Mobile Home Inspector who reports directly to the Building Official. Within the Land Development Division of the Department of County Development is the Zoning Department. The Land Development Administrator functions as the division director. He is assisted in his Duties by the Zoning Administrator who acts as the Assistant Division Director. Both employees have the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and disciplinary actions. There are three Inspectors assigned to the Land Development Division. One inspects for compliance with the County Tree Ordinance, one inspects with regard to commitments made to the county by developers and the third inspects for violations of the county zoning code. The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works is responsible for three basic functions: Traffic engineering, design and survey, and survey and inspection. The Traffic Engineer is responsible for the traffic engineering activity and supervises the other employees directly. Signs are prepared in the County Sign Shop which is under the supervision of the Sign Shop Foreman. An Electrician is also assigned to this activity together with an Electronics Technician. They are responsible for the installation and maintenance of traffic signals. A Radio Technician is also assigned to the Traffic Engineer activity. The Radio Technician is responsible for the repair of all county radios. The Design and Survey activity consists of a Design Engineer and a Design Technician who design and draft plans for county construction projects. The Assistant County Engineer heads up the survey and inspection type activity for the Engineering Division. He is responsible for the county's two survey crews which are made up of a Party Chief and three to four crew members. The Assistant County Engineer is responsible for directing the work functions and activities of his subordinates and has the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and discipline. The Assistant Road Superintendent is in charge of the Road Construction and Maintenance Division of the Department of Public Works. He is assisted in the performance of his duties by two foremen and three to four crew leaders. The Road Maintenance function contains three supervisors, two of which supervise a foreman and two crew leaders and the third supervisor who supervises a crew leader. Under each crew leader there are from four to six maintenance workers or equipment operators. The Assistant Road Superintendent and the three supervisors in maintenance all function in assigning work to crews and individuals and supervising the work activity. In addition, the Assistant Road Superintendent acts as the assistant to the Road Superintendent who functions as the division director. Both men would have authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing, and disciplinary action together with the three supervisors, The Division of Heavy Equipment Maintenance is under the supervision of the Shop Foreman who functions as a division director, He is assisted by the Parts Manager who acts as the assistant division director. The position of Chief Mechanic is currently vacant and the duties are being performed by the Assistant Chief Mechanic. The primary function of the Parts Manager is the purchasing and stockage of spare parts. The Shop Foreman, Parts Manager and Assistant Chief Mechanic all have the authority to effectively hire, fire and recommend discipline. These three individuals would also provide evaluations of the mechanics, mechanic helpers and equipment servicemen assigned to the Heavy Equipment Maintenance Division. The Arthropod Division of Seminole County is responsible for refuse disposal. The division director is the Refuse Superintendent. Working under him are the Refuse Supervisor and a Landfill Foreman. The Landfill Foreman is responsible for supervision of the actual landfill operations and directly is responsible for three Equipment Operator III's and an Equipment Operator IV. The Landfill Foreman is also responsible for supervision of truck drivers while they are at the landfill area. The Landfill Foreman, Refuse Supervisor and Refuse Superintendent (division director) all have the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and discipline and to make work assignments and to evaluate performance. There were approximately twenty-eight employees within the Arthropod Division at the time of hearing. With regard to the employees of the county generally the testimony indicates that all employees of the county are entitled to the same vacation, retirement, and insurance benefits and that their salaries are established within the framework of the pay classification plan. The Petitioner has argued that each division is a totally independent unit, therefore, a unit composed of employees of the Arthropod and Road Construction and Maintenance Divisions of the Department of Public Works would be appropriate. The Employer has urged that the employees of the county be divided into three units: (1) all professional employees (2) all supervisory employees and (3) all employees not contained in the first two units. The Employer's proposal would appear to lump all the clerical employees, all custodial and maintenance employees, and certain highly skilled or specially trained employees in the same unit. The record does not support the Petitioner's contention that the divisions of Seminole County government are independent. The record clearly indicates that divisions are subordinate to the departments of which they are a part. The record further indicates that even departments are not totally independent or autonomous since the department heads are responsible to the County Commission which in turn establishes the salaries and other benefits of employment for all employees of the county. The record clearly indicates that a unit limited to the Arthropod and Road Divisions or even to the Public Works Department would not encompass many employees with essentially the same job functions and in some instances the same job titles and pay classifications. There are maintenance workers, equipment operators and certain custodial personnel and mechanics located in other divisions of county government. The position of the Employer fails to recognize the disparity of interest between the employees which would be "left over" and compose the third unit it has proposed. The record indicates that there are essentially three types of employees below the grade or position of division director as follows: (1) Clerical, (2) Maintenance/Custodial, and (3) Highly skilled. A large portion of the total number of county employees would fall into the clerical category to include secretaries, clerk typists, filing clerks, and fiscal assistants. The maintenance/custodial category would appear to be the next largest grouping of employees and would include custodial and maintenance workers, vehicle operators, watchmen, and mechanics. The highly or specially skilled category would include various planners, biologists, draftsmen, personnel specialists, zoning and building inspectors, and the highest level of skilled trades workers and sanitariums. Based upon the foregoing categorization of county employees, the unit composed of maintenance/custodial employees would encompass all of the job titles and job classifications sought by the Petitioner within the Department of Public Works and consolidate a substantial portion of the total number of county employees who share similar duties and work environments. A unit composed of this category would be almost identical to the last alternative unit sought by Petitioner. At the same time it would prevent fractionalization within county government and better meet the criteria stated in Section 447.009(4), Florida Statutes. This report is respectfully submitted this 11th day of April, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Pilacek, Esquire Bowels & Pilacek 131 Hark Lake Street Orlando, Florida 32803 David Richeson, Esquire Alley, Alley & Blue 205 Brush Avenue Tampa, Florida Henry Swann, Esquire Alley, Alley & Blue 205 Brush Avenue Tampa, Florida Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300, 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts relevant to the issues presented for determination are found: Quality of Service The prime concern and complaint of the customers who testified at the hearing was the quality of water they receive in their homes. The water was described as containing high levels of chlorine, to the extent that it smells of chlorine and, on occasion, fades or bleaches colored clothing when washed. At times, the water is cloudy or rusty in appearance and contains debris, such as sand, dirt or pebbles. One witness testified that clothing had been stained by rust in the wash water. Samples of water received into evidence illustrate the muddy appearance of the water, with debris visible. At times, the water is colored with algae, resulting in greenish-colored ice cubes. Broken appliances are attributed by several customers to have resulted from the debris contained in the water. Customers have experienced low water pressure in their homes and water outages for up to ten hours without prior notice from the petitioner. It was not established whether such water outages were the result of routine maintenance or emergency repairs. Several witnesses found it difficult to contact petitioner regarding billing errors and that slow or no responses to their inquiries were received. The billing errors included mailing the bill to the wrong address and the amounts of the bill. One such latter complaint is presently before the consumer affairs division of the Public Service Commission. The only complaints regarding sewer service were that there is often an unacceptable odor and that "there was sewage boiling out on my street two days in a row." (T.51) Notice of the hearing in this cause was mailed to all customers on February 25, 1981. The rate case documents were delivered by an employee of petitioner to the Clerk's office of the Lake County County Commission in the Lake County Courthouse on February 17, 1981. Water samples are taken on a monthly basis from each of the petitioner's plants. These samples are then analyzed for water quality in a state-controlled laboratory and the results are then sent to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the local Health Department. Personnel from these regulatory bodies occasionally visit the plants and make independent tests. None of the petitioner's water systems or its sewer system are presently under citation from any regulatory body. A citation existing prior to the petitioner's acquisition of the Palms Mobile Home Park water system has been removed. Prior to the hearing, Petitioner's vice-president of operations, Charles Sweat, had not received any complaints from customers regarding the level of water pressure in their homes. With regard to notification of customers of water outages, it is the petitioner's policy to give a twenty-four hour written notice to all customers for planned, scheduled maintenance which would require the water to be off for any length of time. When accidents or emergencies occur, petitioner devotes its concentration to the restoration of service and advance notice is not possible. The Department of Environmental Regulation has minimum requirements relating to the amount of chlorine which must be added to a water system. There are no maximum requirements. One of the Fern Terrace water samples received into evidence at the hearing was very brown in appearance. On the day upon which that sample was taken, the system had experienced a malfunction of the air compressor, causing all the water to go out of the system. The brown-colored water was the result of debris and rust that had built up in the bottom of the tank. The inside of the tanks are cleaned on a periodic basis, and that particular tank had been cleaned approximately six months ago. Petitioner does have a main flushing program, and each system is flushed on a regular basis, the frequency of which is dependent upon the type of pipeline used and the quality of the water in the system. A flushing report is maintained to record the appearance of the water at the beginning and at the end of the flushing, the chlorine residual in the water, the amount of time taken and the estimated gallons flushed out of the line. No explanation was provided for another muddy water sample received into evidence. Rate Setting for the Morningview Sewer System The Morningview sewer system is capable of supporting a maximum of forty-two (42) residential connections. At the end of the 1979 test year, the system had only twenty-six (26) connections. The respondent, Public Service Commission seeks to impute sewer revenues from the unsold lots in the Morningview subdivision so as to recognize the plant capacity of 42 connections. It was undisputed that the sewer plant was 100 percent used and useful and no adjustment was made to this figure. Since petitioner's acquisition of the Morningview sewer system, it has experienced an average annual growth rate of 13.16 percent. During the last year and one-quarter, the growth rate has been approximately 25 percent. The number of connections has increased from 19 in 1976 to the present 30. Eleven connections have been added in a little over four years. The revenues from the imputed connections were obviously not collected during the test year, nor were they collected in 1980. It would take approximately three years to collect the imputed revenues at the current rate of growth. The Public Service Commission has not adopted a rule allowing this imputation method of ratesetting. The pro forma approach has been used in setting rates for a new utility or development, and has been described as an "innovative" method of adjusting used and useful plant. Expenses in addition to increased costs for electrical power and chlorine necessitated by the increased number of connections were not considered by the Public Service Commission to be material. Additional connections to the sewer system would involve some additional billing and service costs, though the difference in fixed costs for serving 42 connections and 26 connections is minimal.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that no adverse consequences be imposed upon the petitioner in its application for rate increases as a result of the quality of water and sewer service provided to its customers in Lake County, Florida. It is further RECOMMENDED that revenues not be imputed for 42 connections to the Morningview sewer system. Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 24th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards Suite 103, 1020 Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Robert Christ Legal Department Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Room 4 - Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe Cresse, Chairman Public Service Commission The Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Anna Marie Norman 1219 LaSalida Way Leesburg, Florida 32748 Marilyn Smith 2924 North Porto Bello Avenue Leesburg, Florida 32748 Patti L. Wolf 2922 Alta Street Leesburg, Florida 32748 Anna P. Cowin 2913 North Porto Bello Avenue Leesburg, Florida 32748 Pam Angelillo 2922 Cocovia Way Leesburg, Florida 32748
The Issue The issue in this case is the amount of attorney's fees and costs Petitioner, Florida Cities Water Company, should be awarded pursuant to Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Florida Cities Water Company (hereinafter referred to as "Florida Cities"), is a utility providing water and wastewater service to two communities in Florida. Respondent, the Florida Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "PSC"), has exclusive jurisdiction over water and wastewater service utility providers in Florida, including the determination of rates that utility providers may charge for their services. Section 367.011, Florida Statutes (1995). Florida Cities' 1992 Approved Rate. In arriving at an allowable rate which a water and wastewater service utility may charge, the PSC must determine, among other things, the amount of a utility's plant that is considered "used and useful." Section 367.081(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). In determining the amount of Florida Cities' plant that was considered "used and useful" in 1992, the PSC determined the amount of investment costs in its North Fort Myers, Florida, plant which was potentially recoverable. Recoverable costs are limited to those expenditures which are considered to be for the public benefit. Florida Cities' recoverable costs as of 1992 were determined to total $6,343,868.00. The amount of Florida Cities' recoverable costs was then multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which was the average daily flow of the plant (calculated on a peak month basis) and the denominator of which was the capacity of the plant (this fraction is hereinafter referred to as the "Capacity Ratio"). In 1992, the average daily flow of the plant on a peak month basis was determined to be in excess of 1.0 million gallons per day (hereinafter referred to as "MGD"), and the capacity of the plant was determined to be 1.0 MGD. Therefore, the Capacity Ratio was determined to be 100 percent and Florida Cities' recoverable costs of $6,343,868.00 was determined to be 100 percent "used and useful." Florida Cities' "rate base" for 1992 was, therefore, determined to be $6,343,868.00. Florida Cities' 1995 Application for Rate Increase and the PSC's Reduction of Rate Base. Subsequent to the determination of Florida Cities' rate base and its approved utility rates in 1992, Florida Cities was required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (then known as the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation)(hereinafter referred to as "DEP"), to expand its North Fort Myers plant. As a result of DEP's action, Florida Cities incurred additional plant costs of approximately 1.6 million dollars. As a consequence of having incurred additional plant costs, Florida Cities requested that the PSC treat the additional costs, plus other costs incurred by Florida Cities since 1992, as recoverable costs and as an addition to its rate base. Florida Cities' application was filed in 1995. After consideration of Florida Cities' application for rate increase, the PSC issued a Notice of Proposed Agency Action Order Granting Final Rates and Charges on November 2, 1995. In this order the PSC essentially determined that all additional plant expansion costs incurred by Florida Cities constituted recoverable costs. The PSC also determined that Florida Cities' Capacity Ratio was 100 percent and, therefore, all of its recoverable costs was treated as "used and useful." The decision of the PSC resulted in an increase of Florida Cities' utility rate of approximately 17.89 percent. The proposed decision of the PSC was, however, challenged and proceeded to hearing before the PSC. On September 10, 1996, the PSC entered a Final Order Denying Application for Increased Wastewater Rates, Reducing Rates, Requiring Refund and Requiring Reports (hereinafter referred to as the "PSC Final Order"). In the PSC Final Order, the PSC treated all of the 1.6 million dollars in costs associated with the expansion of the plant required by the DEP as recoverable costs. The PSC, however, reduced the Capacity Formula to 65.9 percent. This resulted in a reduction in Florida Cities' rate base of approximately 2.4 million dollars. The reduction in the Capacity Formula to 65.9 percent was caused, in part, by the manner in which the PSC determined the numerator of the Capacity Formula. The PSC modified the manner in which it calculated the numerator of the Capacity Formula: Instead of using the average daily flow calculated on a peak month basis, it used the average daily flow calculted on an annual basis (to which it added a "reserve" of 4.58 percent) . . . . The reduction in the Capacity Formula from 1992 to 1995 was also caused by the plant capacity figure used by the PSC. The PSC used a permitted capacity of 1.5 MGD instead of the actually designed and built capacity of 1.25 MGD. Florida Cities had urged use of the 1.25 MGD actual capacity figure. As a result of the PSC's conclusion that only 65.9 percent of the amount of recoverable costs was used and useful, Florida Cities' rate base was reduced to $5,525,915.00, a decrease of Florida Cities' used and useful plant as determined in 1992 of over $800,000.00. Although the PSC included the additional costs incurred by Florida Cities in order to comply with DEP regulations, the PSC's use of a Capacity Ratio of 65.9 percent to determine the amount of the recoverable costs considered used and useful had a net effect of disallowing approximately 2.4 million dollars in proposed rate base (1.6 million dollars incurred to meet DEP regulations plus the $800,000.00 reduction of 1992 rate base). Florida Cities' Appeal of the PSC's Final Order. Florida Cities appealed the PSC Final Order to the District Court of Appeal, First District (hereinafter referred to as the "First District Court"). Florida Cities Water Company v. Florida Public Service Commission, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D238 (Fla. 1st DCA January 12, 1998). On appeal, Florida Cities raised two grounds for reversal of the PSC's Final Order: The Capacity Ratio used by the PSC to determine the amount of its recoverable costs which was considered used and useful was flawed. Florida Cities urged the First District Court to increase its Capacity Ratio to 100 percent; and The PSC should have included all costs Florida Cities had incurred in order to comply with DEP regulations as part of its rate base without regard to the Capacity Ratio. Florida Cities argued that the 1.6 million dollars it had incurred to comply with DEP regulations should be included as part of its rate base without regard to what the Capacity Ratio was determined to be. Florida Cities' challenge to the Capacity Ratio used by the PSC was based upon two alleged errors: The PSC's use of permitted capacity of 1.5 MGD was improper. Florida Cities argued that the PSC should have used actual plant capacity of 1.25 MGD; and The method elected by the PSC to determine the average daily flow of the plant was a novel and unexplained deviation from past PSC policies. Florida Cities argued that the PSC should have continued to determine average daily flows based upon a peak month basis rather than an annual basis. As to the 1.6 million dollars in costs Florida Cities sought to have included in its rate base, Florida Cities' two arguments were alternative theories advanced to support the same end: 100 percent inclusion of the 1.6 million dollars it had incurred as a result of meeting DEP regulations. While the two arguments were interrelated with regard to the starting point (it had spent 1.6 million dollars on plant) and the result Florida Cities was attempting to achieve (inclusion of 1.6 million dollars in rate base), the two arguments involved different methods of reaching the desired result: (a) direct inclusion; or (b) inclusion through an increase in the Capacity Ratio. As to the remaining $800,000.00 reduction in Florida Cities' rate base, only one of the arguments raised by Florida Cities applied to this amount: the argument that the Capacity Ratio utilized by the PSC was flawed. The First District Court's Decision. The First District Court agreed with Florida Cities' contention that the Capacity Ratio used by the PSC was flawed. The First District Court found that both the calculation of the numerator and the denominator of the Capacity Ratio by the PSC was in error. With regard to the numerator, the First District Court concluded that the PSC's determination of average daily flows by using annual flows constituted a shift in agency policy which was "'unsupported by expert testimony, documentary opinion, or other evidence appropriate to the nature of the issue involved.'" The First District Court remanded the matter to the PSC to "give a reasonable explanation, if it can, supported by record evidence (which all parties must have an opportunity to address) as to why average daily flow in the peak month was ignored." With regard to the denominator, the First District Court opined that "no competent evidence of any substance supports the PSC's determination" of plant capacity. The First District Court concluded that the denominator should be 1.25 MGD. The First District Court rejected Florida Cities' contention that amounts it had expended to comply with DEP regulations should be included in its rate base without regard to the Capacity Ratio. The First District Court concluded that the 1.6 million dollars spent to comply with DEP regulations could be included in rate base "only to the extent the improvements they effect or the facilities to which they relate are 'used and useful in the public service.'" The ultimate impact of the First District Court's decision depends upon what action the PSC takes on remand with regard to determine the appropriate numerator for the Capacity Formula. The PSC issued an Order of Remand on April 14, 1998. In the Order of Remand, the PSC indicated its position that the decision of the First District Court regarding flows was "an invitation" to take additional testimony and evidence on the issue. The PSC, therefore, reopened the record and scheduled a second evidentiary hearing to determine how average daily flows should be calculated. Florida Cities filed a Motion to Stay the PSC's second evidentiary hearing, pending resolution of an appeal of the PSC Order of Remand. Until a final determination is made concerning the intent of the First District Court in remanding the matter to the PSC, it cannot be absolutely concluded what the "result obtained" in this case will be. The parties have, however, assumed for purposes of the matter that the Capacity Ratio should be approximately 98.6 percent. That is the best "result" which can be obtained by Florida Cities in this matter. Florida Cities' Motion for Attorney's Fees. As part of its appeal, Florida Cities also filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees. Florida Cities sought an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). In particular, Florida Cities requested that the First District Court: Grant attorneys [sic] fees to Appellant for this appeal; Remand this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings to determine attorneys fees; and Grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The First District Court entered the following order on Florida Cities' Motion for Attorney's Fees: The motion by appellant for attorney's fee is granted. If the parties are unable to agree on an amount of attorney's fees, the question should be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Parties' Effort to Agree. Florida Cities submitted copies of invoices to the PSC documenting the attorney's fees and costs incurred by it in connection with the appeal of the PSC's Final Order. Florida Cities proposed several findings of fact, which are hereby accepted by reference, relating to the manner in which it determined attorney's fees and costs. Those findings of fact include paragraphs 27 through and including 32. The PSC reviewed the invoice copies submitted by Florida Cities and stipulated and agreed that the number of hours and the hourly rates attributable to the appeal of the PSC Final Order were reasonable. The parties stipulated that the total amount of attorney's fees and costs incurred by Florida Cities on the appeal of the PSC Final Order amounted to $74,648.14. On March 18, 1998, the PSC and Florida Cities filed a Joint Petition for Resolution of Attorney's Fees with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties stipulated in the joint petition that they had negotiated in good faith but were unable to agree on the amount of attorney's fees which should be paid to Florida Cities. The parties stipulated and agreed that $74,648.14 is the appropriate lodestar figure. The parties were unable to agree, however, whether the lodestar figure should be adjusted in light of the "results obtained" by Florida Cities on appeal. Therefore, consistent with the order of remand from the First District Court, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the limited purpose of determining whether the agreed upon lodestar figure of $74,648.14 should be reduced based upon the "results obtained" by Florida Cities on appeal. The "Result Obtained" on Appeal. On appeal, Florida Cities argued that it was entitled to a total increase in its rate base of approximately 2.4 million dollars: (a) the 1.6 million dollars it expended to comply with DEP regulations; and (b) the $800,000.00 reduction in rate base which resulted from the PSC's modification of the Capacity Ratio. In effect, Florida Cities argued that it should be allowed to treat 100 percent of its recoverable costs as its rate base. As a result of the First District Court's decision and assuming a Capacity Ratio of 98.6 percent will be achieved, Florida Cities was successful on appeal in increasing its rate base by approximately 2.2 million dollars. Of this amount, approximately $879,000.00 was attributable to the First District Court's conclusion that the PSC had used the incorrect plant capacity. The remaining 1.3 million dollars was attributable to the First District Court's conclusion that the methodology used by the PSC to determine average annual daily flows was a policy change which was unsupported by the record. Had Florida Cities succeeded on both issues it raised on appeal, it would not have resulted in any appreciable increase in Florida Cities' rate base over the increase in rate base allowed by the First District Court. A utility plant cannot be treated as used and useful in excess of 100 percent of its costs. The two issues Florida Cities raised on appeal, at least as to the 1.6 million dollars it was required to expend to meet DEP regulations, were alternative theories for achieving the same result: total inclusion of the 1.6 million dollars in its rate base. Florida Cities contended that the 1.6 million dollars should have been included directly in its rate base because it was required to make the expenditure by a government agency. In the alternative, it argued that the Capacity Ratio used to determine the amount of recoverable costs considered used and useful should have been increased to 100 percent. This alternative argument would also have resulted in inclusion of the 1.6 million dollars in its rate base. Regardless of which argument was accepted by the First District Court or whether the First District Court had accepted both arguments, Florida Cities could not have achieved any substantially greater result than it did. As to the remaining $800,000.00 reduction in 1992 rate base, Florida Cities' argument concerning the direct inclusion of amounts required to be expended to comply with DEP regulations did not relate to this amount. Only Florida Cities' two-pronged argument concerning the Capacity Ratio supported Florida Cities' argument that its rate base should be increased by this amount. Florida Cities' arguments concerning this amount was successful. I. The Consequences of Florida Cities' Failure to Prevail on All Issues. Had Florida Cities prevailed in its contention that costs incurred as the result of meeting government requirements should be included directly in rate base, such a decision would have had significant consequences to most, if not all, utilities in Florida. Such a decision would also have probably had an impact on future rates approved for Florida Cities. Having failed to prevail on this issue, however, prevented the application of this theory by other utilities in Florida to the determination of their rate bases and to the determination of the appropriate rate base for Florida Cities in the future. The loss of the benefit to other utilities and Florida Cities in future rate cases, which would have occurred had Florida Cities prevailed, did not have any impact on the "results obtained" by Florida Cities in the immediate proceedings. While the failure of the argument and the avoidance of the impact on rate-making, which would have resulted had Florida Cities prevailed, was of great consequence to the PSC, the rejection of the argument by the First District Court did not reduce the result Florida Cities hoped to have obtained on appeal. J. Attorney's Fees and Costs of Proceedings Before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Florida Cities incurred attorney's fees and costs in the instant proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Florida Cities has sought recovery of those fees and costs. The parties have not agreed upon the appropriateness of the inclusion of such fees and costs. Mr. Schiefelbein acted as lead counsel during the attorney's fees phase of this matter. As of April 23, 1998, four days before the hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Cities had incurred the following attorney's fees during the attorney's fees phase of this matter: Attorney Hourly Rate Total Fees Mr. Schiefelbein $150.00 $6,135.00 Mr. Gatlin $175.00 490.00 Ms. Cowdery $150.00 37.50 Total $6,662.50 It was estimated that an additional 22 hours of Mr. Shiefelbein's time would result in an additional $3,300.00 of fees attributable to completion of the attorney's fees phase of this proceeding "through a Final Order of the Administrative Law Judge." This estimate was based upon 4 hours for witness preparation, 4 hours for other hearing preparation, 4 hours to attend the hearing, and 10 hours for review of the hearing transcript and submittal of a proposed order. The hourly rate charged by counsel for Florida Cities for the attorney's fees phase of this proceeding was reasonable and a combined total of 66 hours to complete this phase of the proceeding was a reasonable number of hours to pursue this matter. Mr. Melson, an expert witness for Florida Cities in this proceeding, charged $220.00 per hour for his preparation for and attendance at the hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Melson spent 2.6 hours preparing for the hearing and 2.5 hours attending the hearing. Mr. Melson's fee amounted to $1,122.00. Mr. Seidman, another expert witness for Florida Cities, charged an hourly rate of $90.00 and spent 20.75 hours in preparing for and attending the hearing. It was stipulated that Mr. Seidman's total fee of $1,867.50 was reasonable. Although Florida Cities did not argue that all fees and costs incurred by it during the attorney's fees phase of this proceeding should be recovered, it did seek recovery of the foregoing fees and costs. Those fees and costs totaled $12,952.00.
