The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent should be disciplined, to include a three day suspension without pay, because of the misconduct alleged in the Notification of Suspension issued herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, William T. Mooney, worked as a laboratory technician for the City of Clearwater's Public Works/Water Pollution Control Division. On April 15, 1993, Doreen Spano, the City's utility lab supervisor, held a meeting of her division personnel at which she identified Iracema Drysdale as the lead worker and, in order to clarify any misconceptions among lab workers as to work deadlines, presented a policy letter for the lab, entitled "New Work Schedule". The schedule set guidelines and deadlines for the daily workload. The memorandum contains inconsistent statements, however. For example, while Ms. Spano indicated both in the memo and at hearing that the instructions therein are merely guidelines, she also used such imperatives as "must" and "will" in the memo. Specifically, the memorandum indicates the daily plant BOD must be in the incubator by 12:00 PM, and the daily plant bacteria must be in the incubator by 12:30 PM. Respondent has worked in this City laboratory for approximately 14 years. During this time he has developed a method of accomplishing his tasks which is described by Ms. Drysdale as less than efficient. She indicates he frequently misses his time deadlines and works at his own pace. Respondent, on the other hand, claims he has always completed his tasks according to the Standard Methods Manual, but, due to the time the samples are received in the lab, could not accomplish both the BOD and the bacteria procedures within the guidelines set in that manual and the Environmental Protection Agency standards manual. Either one or both would be late. This controversy, much of which was made by both sides, is, in reality, only peripherally related to the issue in controversy here which is whether Respondent was insubordinate or not on September 9, 1993. Both Ms. Drysdale and the Respondent signed the memorandum in question here indicating their receipt and understanding of the directions contained therein. Thereafter, on September 9, 1993, Ms. Drysdale entered the lab shortly before the lunch period to find the bacteria procedure not done and Respondent working on the BOD procedure. It appears that the bacteria sample was taken at 6:00 AM on this day and, under EPA guidelines, had to be preserved in the incubator within six hours or the results of the procedure would be invalid and not eligible for reporting to the EPA. When Ms. Drysdale asked Respondent why he was doing the BOD when the bacteria procedure had not been accomplished, he indicated that Ms. Spano's memorandum required the BOD to be done by 12:00 noon and the bacteria not until 12:30 PM. He considered this a directive and indicated he would complete his work consistent therewith. Again, there is a contradiction in the testimony as to the nature of the conversation between Ms. Drysdale and the Respondent. Ms. Drysdale asserts that about noon on the day in question, she suggested to Respondent that he start the bacteria procedure first and then do the BOD procedure. Respondent refused because he believed he had to follow the new work schedule prepared by Ms. Spano. Ms. Drysdale then told him to do the bacteria procedure first and she would assume the responsibility. Respondent still refused and, raising his voice to her, completed the BOD procedure. When he finished that, he did the bacteria procedure but by that time, the sample was too old and had to be discarded. Respondent's recounting of the incident is somewhat different. He claims he was approached by Ms. Drysdale who asked him why he did the bacteria procedure after the BOD procedure. When he pointed out the dictates of the memorandum, she claimed to know nothing about it even though her signature, along with that of Respondent and Mr. Olson, appears on the bottom thereof. Nonetheless, according to Respondent, Ms. Drysdale said she would check on it. After lunch, according to Respondent, Ms. Drysdale came back with the Standard Methods book. When he showed her the new work rules, he claims, she admitted she was aware that Ms. Spano had written them. When he asked her what Ms. Spano had said about the situation, she allegedly replied, "Why don't you do it the way I say and if Doreen (Ms. Spano) asks, I'll take the responsibility." Respondent was upset because, he contends, things like this always happen. Respondent, in subsequent testimony, denied ever getting a direct order from Ms. Drysdale or that she indicated she would assume responsibility. On balance, while there is little doubt in Ms. Drysdale's testimony as to what happened, Respondent tells two different stories regarding the conversation. At one point he claims she asked him why he didn't do it her way and that if he did, she'd assume responsibility. At another, he claims she merely asked why he was doing the procedures as he was and made no mention of assuming responsibility. It is clear that Ms. Drysdale wanted the bacteria procedure done first, and while she might not have couched her request in directory language, there can be little doubt she communicated her desires to Respondent, albeit in a perhaps more gentle manner. In any case, she was Respondent's supervisor and he knew it. She wanted the work done as she indicated and her request, made under the authority she had to get the work done as she desired, had the force and effect of a direct order which Respondent disobeyed at his peril. Ms. Spano indicated she discussed not only the appointment of Ms. Drysdale as lead worker at the April 15, 1993 meeting, but also the six hour requirement for specimens. Respondent denies this, but it is found he knew exactly what the requirements were. He claims he has been doing things the way the memorandum calls for ever since it was promulgated and this is not inconsistent with his current position on doing the BOD procedure first. When this incident took place, Mr. Reckenwald, the superintendent of the water and pollution control division, and the overall supervisor of the laboratory operation in question, received a recommendation for discipline, primarily because of Respondent's failure to follow orders. In addition, however, the incident created a problem for the City which has to report to the EPA and other federal agencies. Because of this report requirement, it is imperative the work be done properly. If it is not done properly, the work is worthless and may result in sanction action against the city by federal regulatory agencies. Not the least of concerns, also, is the public health consideration since effluent, the source of samples for both BOD and bacteria procedures, is discharged into the public waterways. On the basis of the above, a recommendations was made that Respondent receive a three day suspension. This is consistent with disciplinary guidelines contained in the City's Guidelines For Disciplinary Action. Respondent appealed the action to the City Manager who reviewed his submittal but nonetheless upheld the disciplinary action proposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the City of Clearwater take final action in this matter to consist of suspension of the Respondent without pay for three days and imposition of 40 disciplinary action points. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles A. Lance, Esquire Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618 William T. Mooney 1433 Laura Street Clearwater, Florida 34615 Michael J. Wright City Manager City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1976, Dennis E. Andrews, trustee of the Fannin Springs Trust (hereinafter "Trust"), applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and for water quality certification under Public Law 92-500, for the construction of a floating barricade across Fannin Springs Run near its entrance to the Suwannee River in Levy County, Florida. Fannin Springs Run extends to Fannin Springs and the outer limits of the springs are about 400 feet from the Suwannee River. The Trust, composed of four trustees, owns the land surrounding the springs and extending to the river. This property is not commercialized, but permission is periodically granted to church and civic groups to use it for social and money- making purposes. In such instances, the particular group operates a soft drink concession stand and charges fifty cents admission to swimmers using the Trust dock and beach area at the springs. However, the Trust insists that any such groups carry liability insurance to indemnify it against any injuries arising from the use of the land and facilities. The property is not open to the general public unless incident to one of the above authorized uses. (Testimony of Usher, Exhibit 6) The proposed floating barrier would be constructed of styrofoam ballast with a wood frame approximately five feet wide and eighteen inches high to be moored on either side of the run by cables secured on the banks. The purpose of the barricade is to prevent boats from proceeding into the springs where a hazard to swimmers has existed for some time. Some of these craft have customarily maneuvered in and around the main swimming area known as the "boil" and utilized the Trust facilities, including dock and beach area, without permission or otherwise paying the concession fee, thus creating hard feelings between the swimming and boating groups. The presence of the boats also causes resentment by those on shore due to the litter composed of beer cans and the like deposited by their occupants. During summer weekends and holidays, the area becomes quite congested with perhaps several hundred individuals enjoying the springs, together with as many as one hundred boats in the area. Incidents have arisen in the past involving reckless boat operation in the springs. Some were reported to the Levy County Sheriff's Office; however, the former sheriff was unable to verify any of the complaints made to his office. It is conceded by all parties to the proceeding, and those members of the public who testified, that a definite safety hazard exists in the area. (Testimony of Usher, Berry, Hartley, Dean, Brown, Judah, Bancroft, Shifflette, A. Andrews, Locke, Exhibits 1, 2, 6) After receiving the permit application, Marcia Elder, an environmental specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulation, inspected the site and concluded that there was a definite need for the barricade, but that the proposed location, approximately 110 feet from the mouth of the "run," would effectively constitute a denial of public access to the springs. She therefore concluded that a diagonal barrier across the springs would serve the same purpose of safety to swimmers, but also provide the necessary access to those arriving by boats. She further determined that such a barrier would create no adverse effects on water quality or plant and animal life and other natural resources to any appreciable extent. (Testimony of Elder, Exhibit 7) Based on Elder's investigation, the Department of Environmental Regulation indicated to the Trust its intent to deny the application. After the parties were unable to resolve the matter informally, the Trust filed a petition for an administrative hearing on September 1, 1976. Formal notification of the Department's intent to deny the application was stated in a letter of December 7, 1976, which advised the Trust that the proposed denial was based on the fact that the barricade would not allow navigation into Fannin Springs, but would create a navigational hazard or a serious impediment to navigation on navigable waters, so as to be contrary to the public interest. (Exhibit 8) The petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer. Subsequent to the filing of the petition in this Division, the parties negotiated further and arrived at a compromise settlement of the matter. It was agreed that if the Trust would place the barrier across the run at a point closer to the springs than previously requested, the necessary permit would be granted. Petitioners Berry and Bancroft, who had previously objected to any barrier at all, were notified by a letter of the Department, dated April 29, 1977, of the Department's intent to issue the modified permit. Thereafter, on May 11, 1977, they petitioned the Department of Environmental Regulation for a hearing, claiming that the proposed barrier would create a navigational hazard, impede navigation and not be in the public interest. The petition further alleged that the contemplated location of the barrier would be in an area where the water would be too deep for children to have access to the shallow water of the swimming area beyond the barrier. At the hearing, however, petitioners acknowledged the existence of a swimming hazard at the springs and Ms. Bancroft agreed that a diagonal barrier as originally proposed by Elder would be unobjectionable. (Testimony of Berry, Bancroft, Petition) If the barrier is placed across the run as agreed to by the Department and the Trust, it would be close to the mouth of the springs in an area of varying depths of 6 to 8 feet and at times 20 feet. The width of the run where the barrier is contemplated is approximately 110 feet. If boats are stopped in that area, congestion would result and boat passengers attempting to swim to the shallow water near the beach or to the land would be endangered by the boat traffic. It is possible, also, that fees would be charged such individuals to exit on the land of the Trust. If the diagonal barrier were permitted, there would be a much larger area for the use of boats, and access to the swimming area would be greatly facilitated. (Testimony of Usher, Berry, Dilger, Seykera, Judy) On July 19, 1977, the Board of County Commissioners of Levy County, Florida, passed a resolution stating that an extremely dangerous situation existed at Fannin Springs because of boaters encroaching upon swimmers. The resolution further stated that application would be made to the Division of Marine Resources of the Department of Natural Resources for the purpose of having Fannin Springs declared a restrictive area pursuant to Section 371.522, Florida Statutes, and having a floating barrier erected at the mouth of the springs to prevent boats from entering the swimming area. (Exhibit 5) On August 22, 1977, the Trust agreed to abide by the provisions of a proposed Department of the Army Corp of Engineers permit to install the barricade at a position across Fannin Springs Run 170 feet from the Suwannee River, subject to providing upland access when the barricade is installed and not charging a fee for the use of the barricade provided upland facilities are not used. (Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a modified permit as set forth above to Fannin Springs Trust to construct a floating barrier in the Fannin Springs area, pursuant to Section 403.813(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4.29(e), Florida Administrative Code. Done and Entered this 29th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William D. Ryals, Esquire Post Office Drawer J Gainesville, Florida 32602 Mrs. Thomas Berry 8375 35th Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Ms. Julia Bancroft 1414 Cleveland Street Apartment No. 1 Clearwater, Florida 33515 Appendix A List of Public Witnesses Name Address Bruce W. Dilger Suwannee River on U.S. 19 Camp Ground Old Town, Florida 32600 Mrs. Carl Shifflette Executive Vice President Suwannee River Citizens Assoc. Bell, Florida Peggy Seykora Route 3, Box 35 Old Town, Florida 32680 A.D. Andrews Post Office Box 1126 Chiefland, Florida 32626 Wayne C. Locke Post Office Box 147 Chiefland, Florida Fred Judy Route 3 Old Town, Florida
The Issue The issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) on February 15, 2013, was timely1/ and, if not, whether the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling would serve to relieve Petitioner of the consequences of having failed to file a petition for hearing within the time allotted by applicable notice provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, is an active Florida, limited- liability corporation, and is the owner of submerged lands and adjacent upland property contiguous to Sarasota Bay. Petitioner is a closely held entity, the only members being Achim and Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt. Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction for permitting Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), including duties as a federally-approved state program for the implementation of the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, pursuant to authority conferred under section 403.0885, Florida Statutes. Respondents, Sarasota County, City of Sarasota, City of Venice, Town of Longboat Key, and Department of Transportation (“DOT”) (collectively the “Applicants”) are responsible for certain existing stormwater point-source discharges to waters of the state from those portions of MS4 facilities owned or operated by one or more of the individual Applicants. The DEP issued a notice of proposed agency action to issue a renewal of an existing MS4 Permit to the Applicants. On January 30, 2013, Sarasota County arranged for the notice to be published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County. The notice provided as follows: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT AND REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING The Department of Environmental Protection gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Sarasota County, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida 34236 within its jurisdiction and including the following co- permittees: Florida Department of Transportation District One, Town of Longboat Key, City of North Port, City of Sarasota, and City of Venice, for renewal of a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System [MS4] permit. Any person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting decision of the Department may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.). The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Department of Environmental Protection, Office of General Counsel, Mail Station 35, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000. Petitions must be filed within fourteen days of publication of this public notice or within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of intent, whichever occurs first. A petitioner must mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above, at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition [or a request for mediation, as discussed below] within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person?s right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to intervene in this proceeding and participate as a party to it. Any subsequent intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28-5.207 of the Florida Administrative Code. A petition must contain the following information: The name, address and telephone number of each petitioner, the Department Permit Number and the county in which the MS4 is located; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Department?s action; A statement of how each petitioner?s substantial interests are affected by the Department?s action; A statement of the material facts disputed by the petitioner, if any; A statement of facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department?s action; A statement of which rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the Department?s action; and A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wants the Department to take. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate final agency action, the filing of a petition means that the final action of the Department may be different from the position taken by it in the notice of intent. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any such final decision of the Department on the permit revision have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. Mediation under Section 120.573, F.S. is not available for this proceeding. The permit application file and supporting data are available for public inspection during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays, at Department of Environmental Protection, NPDES Stormwater Section, 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Room 560, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, phone number (850) 245-8430. Date of pub. January 30, 2013. Because a portion of the Town of Longboat Key extends into Manatee County, the Town of Longboat Key arranged for the notice to be published in the Bradenton Herald, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Manatee County. The notice was published on February 4, 2013. The substance of the notice, except for the date of publication, was identical to that published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Neither Petitioner, nor its representatives, saw either of the published notices prior to the filing of the Petition. On or about February 8, 2012, as a result of the filing of a pre-hearing stipulation in related litigation involving an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”), Petitioner became aware of the existence of the MS4 Permit. Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt obtained a copy of the permit online, and on February 12, 2013, sent an e-mail to employees of the DEP Ft. Myers? office expressing her general concern with water quality from the disputed stormwater outfall. She expressed her belief that Sarasota County was in violation of the existing MS4 permit, and requested that the recipients of her e-mail “[p]lease be so kind as to look into this matter and let us know what could be done to prevent this unacceptable condition to continue unchecked like it did in the past.” The e-mail did not request any information regarding the MS4 Permit renewal application, nor did it request any information regarding notices or deadlines related to the application. On February 13, 2013, Christopher Wright, a consultant for Petitioner, called the DEP to gather information and do some “legwork” related to Petitioner?s challenge to the SWFWMD?s ERP. The purpose of the call was to determine if information submitted to the DEP in conjunction with the MS4 application, particularly drainage basin maps, could have been of use in the SWFWMD litigation. Mr. Wright spoke with DEP employee, Heather Ritchie, regarding the drainage basin maps that had been submitted to the DEP. During the course of their discussion, Ms. Ritchie advised Mr. Wright that a Notice of Intent to issue the MS4 Permit had been issued by the DEP. However, Ms. Ritchie did not know when Sarasota County had published the notice or when the deadline for challenging the proposed agency action was to run. In short, Ms. Ritchie expressed to Mr. Wright that “she didn?t know what the status of things were.” The discussion then went back to the primary substance of the call, which was watersheds and discharge points. Ms. Ritchie agreed to provide Mr. Wright with an electronic copy of a drainage map from the MS4 Permit file. At 12:43 p.m., on February 13, 2013, Ms. Ritchie sent a map to Mr. Wright via e-mail, and indicated that “[i]f you have additional questions or comments, you may call or e-mail me.” Later on the afternoon of February 13, 2013, Mr. Wright decided that he should ask Ms. Ritchie for a copy of the Notice of Intent. At 5:59 p.m., on February 13, 2013, after the close of business for the day, Mr. Wright wrote to Ms. Ritchie thanking her for her “rapid response to my inquiry today,” and providing her with comments on various basin areas and discharge structures. Mr. Wright concluded his e-mail by stating that “at this time I would also like to request a copy of the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit.” The next morning, February 14, 2013, Ms. Ritchie provided Mr. Wright with the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit as requested. Later that morning, Mr. Wright inquired as to the time for filing a challenge to the permit. Ms. Ritchie replied at 2:34 p.m. that afternoon that the MS4 Permit “was publicly noticed by the county on January 30th with a 14 day window. The window closed yesterday.” There is no evidence that Ms. Ritchie had any specific information as to the date of publication or the deadline for filing a challenge prior to that communication with Mr. Wright. Petitioner filed the Petition on February 15, 2013. The disputes identified in the Petition were directed exclusively at a 46-acre drainage basin in downtown Sarasota, and a related discharge structure that discharges stormwater from the basin to Sarasota Bay just south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Fruitville Road. The disputed basin and discharge point are located in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, issue a final order dismissing Petitioner?s Request for Hearing and Amended Petition for FLS000004-004 on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Homeport Homeowners Association, represents the property owners of Homeport Development. Homeport Development is a planned unit development consisting of eighty single family lots. The development is located at Navarre Beach, Florida, on the south shore of Santa Rosa Sound. At least six of the development's lots are located on the water. The area surrounding Homeport development is primarily residential in character, with some condominiums adjoining the residential area and a canal leading to a public boat ramp within several hundred feet of the development. The area is fairly pristine. However, there are several piers of varying lengths located in the surrounding area. At least one of those piers is close to 400 feet in length. None of the piers have posed any significant pollution or water quality problems and have not had an adverse impact on the public as a whole. Nor were any of these piers shown to adversely impact the conservation of fish or wildlife and their habitats, cause harmful erosion or shoaling or pose a navigational hazard to boats using the area. Water depths offshore are shallow and do not get over three to four feet for approximately 650 feet. On May 25, 1989, the applicant submitted an application (permit application No. 17-165358-1) to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a dredge and fill permit to construct a 727 foot by five foot pier with a 100 foot by four foot "T", ten boat slips and a hexagonal gazebo. The pier would be constructed out of wood and rest on wooden pilings. The pilings are spaced so as not to impede the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The wood used to construct the pier would be marine treated lumber. The wood would not be treated using creosote. The evidence did not demonstrate that the marine treated wood the applicant intends to use in the construction of the pier would cause any significant pollution or water quality problems or adversely affect fish or wildlife. The proposed pier would be located on property leased to the the Association as part of Homeport Development. The pier would extend from the road adjacent to the lot on which the pier is located, would cross an area of wetlands which is under the jurisdiction of the department and would cross over the adjoining beach to reach the waters of Santa Rosa Sound. The pier would have a stair ingress and egress to the beach and the public may use these stairs to cross over the pier. The water portion of the dock would cross over a sandy bottom; and therefore, would not adversely affect vegetation. The pier is intended to be a permanent amenity of the development. Construction of other piers by lot owners who have waterfront property is limited and this pier is intended to be a substitute for such private docks. After evaluating the application for consistency with the relevant pollution control standards, the Department determined that the pier, as it was originally proposed, did not meet departmental standards for water quality and the public interest. Specifically, the Department determined that the 727 foot pier would likely pose a hazard to the navigation of small boats in the area and that the gazebo would have an adverse impact on the salt marsh in which it would be located. On August 8, 1989, the Department issued an Intent to Deny based on its assessment of the proposed project. The Intent to Deny provided that the project could be permitted if the gazebo were moved to an upland location not within the jurisdiction of the Department and the pier shortened to approximately 400 feet to remove the hazard to navigation posed by the 727 foot pier. The applicant took the Department's advice and modified its application. Specifically, the applicant modified the project to relocate the gazebo to an upland site and shorten the pier to 400 feet. The applicant also eliminated the ten boat slips. All other specifics of the original application remained the same. On August 9, 1990, the Department issued an Intent to Issue with a draft permit authorizing the construction of a 400 foot pier subject to several permit conditions. The modifications of the application along with the permit conditions provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards as provided in 403.918, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the historical evidence the Department has gained through observing the impact of other piers in a similar environment on water quality provides strong support for the above conclusion and in itself is a reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be adversely impacted by the construction of this pier. For similar reasons, the evidence demonstrated that the proposed pier would not be contrary to the public interest. In essence, the better evidence demonstrated that the pier would not adversely impact the public health, safety, welfare or property of others, the current condition or relative value of the area surrounding the proposed project, the conservation of fish or wildlife and their habitats, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, or involve historical or archaeological resources. The evidence demonstrated that some temporary impact on the vegetation of the wetlands would occur in the immediate path of construction of the pier. However, the evidence also demonstrated that the impact would not be significant and would repair itself within a reasonable period of time. The length of the pier does not pose a hazard to navigation of either small or large boats, or motorized or non-mechanized craft. However, the permit does not require the pier to be lighted during periods of darkness or adverse conditions. Given the fact that the location of the proposed pier does not appear to be in a well lit area, and because of the pier's proximity to a canal leading to a public boat ramp that is subject to periodic high use, the pier would likely pose a hazard to navigation should adequate lighting not be required. Therefore, a condition that the pier be constructed with lights sufficient to illuminate it to a person in the water during periods of darkness or poor viewing conditions should be added to the draft permit attached to the Department's Intent to Issue. Subject to the addition of the above condition, permit application NO. 17-165358-1 sought by Homeport Homeowners Association, for a permit to construct a 400 foot pier should be issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing a permit to construct a 400 foot pier as sought by Homeport Homeowners Association in permit application NO. 17-165358-1 and subject to the additional permit condition that lighting be added to the pier. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-6184 The facts contained in the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in the first two sentences of paragraph one were not shown by the evidence and are not appropriate facts for official recognition. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 11, 13, 14 and 19 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 15, 17 and 18 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 5, 12 and 16 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are irrelevant or immaterial. The facts contained in the first paragraph of finding number 4 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the second paragraph of finding 4 are adopted. Paragraph 2 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are legal argument. The facts contained in paragraph 7 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate except for the fact referencing the a navigational hazard which fact was not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the first sentence of paragraph 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in the second sentence of paragraph 8 were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the second, third and fifth sentences of paragraph 10 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in the first and fourth sentences of paragraph 10 were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraph 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except for the fact relating a navigation hazard which was not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Callaway P.O. Box 36097 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Bruce A. McDonald 700 South Palafox Street Suite 3C Pensacola, Florida 32501 Michael P. Donaldson Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-2400 Barbara Ownes 113 Riverdale Covington, Louisiana 70433 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Jaime Fernandez was transferred in 1977 to Clearwater Traffic Engineering Department as an electrician's helper from the Clearwater Pollution Control Department. Prior to coming to Water Pollution Control, Respondent had been a CETA employee in the Parks Department from which he was fired for incompetence (Respondent's testimony). Although the exact situation was not made clear to the Hearing Officer, it appeared that Respondent appealed his firing from the Parks Department alleging some type of discrimination, and, following a hearing, the City was required to reemploy him. At all times here relevant, Respondent was an employee in the Classified Civil Service of Clearwater. Respondent testified that the evaluations he received at Water Pollution Control were satisfactory overall, and the request for a transfer was initiated by him. As an electrician's helper, Respondent was one of six or seven electrician's helpers. When he was subsequently transferred to the position of ET helper, he was the only ET helper in the Traffic Engineering Department. With a larger number of electrician's helpers it was easier to assign trench digging, painting and other similar menial jobs to Respondent without detracting from the overall efficiency of the Department than it was when Respondent became the only ET helper in a group with two ET's. Respondent served as an electrician's helper in the Traffic Engineering Department for approximately two years before he was transferred to the position of ET helper. During these two years as an electrician's helper, Respondent failed to get a satisfactory overall evaluation and never received a merit pay increase. He was transferred to the electronics shop as an ET helper in late 1979. In the six months follow-up review of Respondent's unsatisfactory evaluation report dated 2-9-80, the Director of the Traffic Engineering Department recommended Fernandez be terminated for incompetence. This recommendation was rejected by the Personnel Department because of insufficient documentation of the events giving rise to the recommendation. On August 25, 1978, Respondent was given a letter of reprimand following an accident involving a truck, driven by Respondent, and a building in which Respondent's inattention contributed to the accident (Exhibit 6). On April 14, 1980, Respondent was suspended from duty without pay for three days on charges of incompetence and inefficiency in his work product, errors in daily time cards and other reports, and continuous performance evaluations indicating improvement needed. On the instant charges the evidence was unrebutted that during the period August 1, 1980, through March 15, 1981, 19 errors were made by Respondent on the time sheets he submitted. Twenty-seven other employees in the same Department fill out time sheets and, during the same period, the next highest number of errors was eight. Most of the employees made only one or two errors in completing their time sheets. During the period February 2, 1981 to February 5, 1981, Respondent was given a work order to construct and install back boards in two transit controllers (Exhibit 1). Included in the work order was a drawing showing how the panel was to be connected and detailed instructions on how the work was to be performed. Despite close supervision, Respondent failed to follow the instructions, cut the wires longer than the maximum three feet lengths as shown on the work order, installed grounding bar in the wrong location, and did not properly lace the harness. This work order was within the capability of a reasonably qualified ET helper to complete in twenty hours. Respondent took forty-seven hours to accomplish this work and made numerous errors which had to be corrected by others. During a period in mid-February; 1981, Respondent was assigned a detector to repair. Repair of this equipment was also within the capability of a reasonably qualified ET helper in about four hours. After working on this detector for twenty-one hours, Respondent was still unable to repair it. It was given to an electronics technician who repaired the detector in approximately one hour. Respondent, in work order 136, was given an LT 169 load pack to repair. Test equipment is set up in the petitioner's shop for trouble shooting this equipment. After testing this load pack, Respondent replaced the part he thought defective but, when tested by someone else, the equipment was still inoperative. The part replaced by Respondent was the part most frequently found defective in this load pack. In this instance, this part was not the cause of the equipment being in operative. This was a routine work order that a reasonably qualified ET helper should have been able to complete. Respondent has been counselled and evaluated numerous times by different supervisors in the Traffic Engineering Department for the past three years and has yet to be assigned a satisfactory evaluation. No other employee has been retained in a position with the City of Clearwater for such an extended period with unsatisfactory evaluations. Respondent testified that he has completed a two-year course in electronics at Pinellas County Vocational School and has one year of college. Accordingly, he deemed himself better qualified as an ET helper than as an electrician's helper. He felt he should have been disciplined for incompetency as an electrician's helper during the two years he worked in that Division, rather than as an ET helper in which position he has worked for approximately one year. Respondent's testimony, that he was denied earned leave or pay for this leave when he was dismissed, was not rebutted. However, the City of Clearwater's regulations relating to leave were not presented to the Hearing Officer, and without access to these regulations, Respondent's claim cannot be resolved.
The Issue The issues to be decided in this case are whether Respondent is liable for the violations charged in the NOV, whether Respondent should pay the penalties assessed in the NOV, and whether Respondent should be required to take the corrective actions demanded in the NOV.
Findings Of Fact On August 7, 2014, Petitioner issued the NOV, charging Respondent with failure to maintain its stormwater facility in compliance with its permit and state law. Respondent filed an answer and request for a hearing. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Petitioner Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) is the state agency having powers and duties related to the regulation of stormwater facilities. Respondent Classic Homebuilders Incorporated is a Florida corporation and holds a General Stormwater Permit issued by the Department for the construction and operation of a stormwater facility at 5100 Terra Lake Circle, Pensacola, Florida. On April 9, 2013, Department staff inspected Respondent’s stormwater facility and determined that the ponds do not percolate within 72 hours as required by the permit. On July 23, 2014, Department staff inspected the facility again and determined that the percolation problem had not been corrected. Debris and silt were observed in the stormwater facility. Respondent has not submitted an “as-built” certification. The Department incurred $500 in expenses associated with its investigation of this matter. That is a reasonable amount.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an individual who owns or operates a water system that provides piped water for human consumption to the Hardy House Diner in Washington county, Florida. The water system serves at least 35 persons daily at least 60 days out of the year. Respondent has owned or operated the water system since at least October 28, 1976. Respondent does not continually apply effective disinfectant measure to the water distributed to the customer of the Hardy House Diner, nor is Respondent's water system equipped with any disinfection equipment. Respondent's water system has a daily flow greater than 2,500 gallons per day, but less than 100,000 gallons per day. The operation, maintenance and supervision of the water system is not performed by a person who has passed an examination that entitles such a person to be a certified operator. Neither the Department nor the Washington County, Florida Health Department has received from Respondent reports which contained information about the operation and maintenance of the Respondent's water system. The water system's lack of disinfectant equipment and the absence of a certified operator for the system and Respondent's failure to file operation reports have existed continuously since "October, 1976. Representatives of the Department conducted a public water systems inspection of Respondent's water system on October 26, 1976. At that time, the system was found to be unsatisfactory in several categories, including general plant condition, existence of safety hazards, lack of chlorination, failure to submit regular reports, failure to submit monthly bacteriological samples, failure to perform chemical analysis of drinking water and failure to install a raw water tap between the pump and point of chlorination. A second inspection was performed on April 7, 1977, in which it was determined that Respondent still had not installed a chlorinations system, had failed to submit monthly operating reports had failed to employ a certified operator, had failed to submit monthly bacteriological samples, and had failed to perform annual chemical analysis of water disposed from the system. On December 7, 1977, a representative of the Department whose job responsibilities included inspecting public water systems was refused permission to enter and inspect the water system serving the Hardy house diner and its customer. The Department representative was refused entry after he had identified himself and made his purpose known to Respondent. The Department has incurred expenses of $117.58, including personnel time and travel expense, in the course of investigating Respondent's alleged violations.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, finding the Respondent to be in violation of the above-referenced statutes and regulations, and requiring Respondent to pay the state its reasonable costs and expenses, in the amount of $117.58 incurred in investigating and prosecuting this administrative proceeding. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of February, 1979, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 2230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Eugene Hardy 1005 Highway 90 West Chipley, Florida 32428 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1209 DER Case No. WC-10-78 EUGENE HARDY, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment with the City of Clearwater (City) for violating City policies as alleged in the City's Termination and Dismissal Notice (Notice) dated July 16, 2015.
Findings Of Fact On February 2, 2009, Mr. Bennett was hired by the Clearwater public utilities department as a water distribution technician I. In April 2015, Mr. Bennett was promoted to a public utilities technician II (Tech II). As a Tech II, Mr. Bennett’s job description included: repairing water leaks, testing backflows, keeping water flowing, and providing services to customers. Additionally, as a Tech II, Mr. Bennett could be called upon by the public water department to respond to after- hours emergency calls, including nights and weekends. On Sunday, April 26, 2015, Mr. Bennett was on-call for the public water department. A city customer called and reported a water leak at his residence. Mr. Bennett was dispatched to the customer’s residence. Mr. Bennett met the customer and cleared the area around the water meter. Mr. Bennett located the water leak outside the water meter box. Mr. Bennett told the customer that a plumber would charge anywhere from $100 to $1,000 to repair the leak because the service call was on a weekend. Mr. Bennett told the customer he would repair the leak for $300. Further, Mr. Bennett provided the customer with a cell phone number so that if the repair was not satisfactory or there was more work to be done, the customer could contact Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett repaired the leak using plumbing supplies from the public utility department truck. After the work was completed, the customer gave Mr. Bennett a personal check for $300. There is no dispute that Mr. Bennett cashed the check on April 27, 2015. After several days the customer texted Mr. Bennett that the cost for the repair was too high. Mr. Bennett did not respond to the text. Mr. Bennett completed a “City of Clearwater Water Leak Service Order” on the repair. The work order reflected that Mr. Bennett received the service call at 7:25 p.m., and he returned home at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Bennett recorded that he found a water leak "in box @ customer's side, repaired leak." Several weeks later, when the customer received his next city water bill, he called the city customer service center to complain. The customer expressed that, after checking with friends and looking at the cost of plumbing parts, the $300 he paid Mr. Bennett was too high for the repair. The customer provided a copy of his cancelled check to the service center. The Clearwater public utilities department does not charge customers for repairs. There is a city policy that the city will repair water leaks within the meter box, but that water leaks outside the meter box are the responsibility of the customer. Following the complaint, the city conducted an investigation into the customer’s water leak repair. Glenn Daniel, Mr. Bennett's supervisor, went to the customer’s residence to examine the area around the water meter. Mr. Daniel observed several new plumbing parts installed outside the meter box. Based on the type and condition of the newly installed pipes, Mr. Daniels determined that the new pipes were from the City's inventory. Mr. Bennett admitted that he made the repair to the water pipe. He proceeded to testify that he felt “funny” about taking and cashing the $300 check. Mr. Bennett claimed he returned the $300, in cash at 2 a.m. the next morning, by placing the cash under the customer’s doormat. Mr. Bennett failed to contact the customer to tell him the money was there. When the customer was asked to look for the money, it was not under the doormat. Mr. Bennett's testimony lacks candor and is not credible. Mr. Bennett also claimed that the telephone number the customer used to text him was not his telephone number. Sergeant Ramon Cosme, of the Clearwater police department, conducted an investigation of the alleged theft of city property. In the course of his investigation, Sergeant Cosme identified the telephone number as being associated to Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett was paid by the City for the overtime he worked on Sunday, April 26, 2015. The City has adopted a Performance and Behavior Management Program (PBMP) manual that applies to all employees and contains Citywide, Integrity, and Departmental standards of conduct. Also, pursuant to the Code of Ordinances (Code), the Civil Service Board has adopted a set of rules and regulations that apply to all positions in civil service, including Mr. Bennett's position. Among other things, those regulations set forth additional grounds for disciplining an employee. Each employee is required to review the policies and procedures documents and to acknowledge the understanding of those policies. Mr. Bennett acknowledged being advised about those policies during his employment with the City. Civil Service Board regulations allow an employee to present the circumstances which led to his discipline and other mitigating evidence. See Ch. 13, § 8, Rules and Regs. Pursuant to that regulation, Mr. Bennett requested a disciplinary determination meeting with the Department of Human Resources, which was conducted on July 10, 2015. Mr. Bennett attended the meeting with his union representative. After considering Mr. Bennett's explanation, David Porter,2/ on behalf of the Public Utilities Department, recommended that Mr. Bennett’s employment be terminated. On July 16, 2015, the City Manager notified Mr. Bennett that his employment was being terminated effective the following day, July 17, 2015. The evidence shows that Mr. Bennett repaired a water meter leak on the customer’s side of the meter by using city property, and he accepted $300 for the repair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the City of Clearwater enter a final order terminating Mr. Bennett’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2016.
The Issue This case arises out of the denial by the Department of Environmental Regulation of an application by the Petitioner to construct a 24-slip marina on Bayou Chico in Pensacola, Florida. At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified on his on behalf and offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. The Respondent called as its only witness, Jeremy Craft, and offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. Counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact On March 18, 1982, Petitioner applied for a permit to dredge approximately 78,480 cubic yards from Bayou Chico and an unnamed embayment adjacent to the Bayou. The proposed project site is located in Pensacola, Florida, Bayou Chico in Section 59, Township 2 South, Range 30 West. Specifically, the project site is located on the south side of Bayou Chico just north of the Barrancas Avenue Bridge. On April 15, 1982, the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, sent a completeness summary to the Petitioner requesting additional information before the application or permit could be processed. Over a period of approximately a year and a half, Department of Environmental Regulation conferred with Petitioner concerning the proposed project and a number of different plans were discussed. In July of 1983, Petitioner submitted the July 11, 1983 plan, with modifications, and withdrew all prior plans. It is this plan which is the subject of this hearing. A field appraisal of the proposed site was made by Department of Environmental Regulation on December 25, 1982. On August 31, 1983, Department of Environmental Regulation issued an Intent to Deny the Petitioner's permit application. The Intent to Deny encompassed all plans and revisions submitted by the Petitioner, Department of Environmental Regulation based its denial on Petitioner's failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated by his project. The Department's denial also asserted that the project would also result in matters adverse to the public interest. The final proposal submitted by the Petitioner sought a permit to dredge a strip 100 feet wide by 450 feet long to a depth of 6 feet. This strip is adjacent to a spit or strip of land which separates Chico Bayou from the emboyment. This plan was subsequently modified to include dredging an additional 100 to 150 feet along the full length of the strip. This additional dredging would take the dredged area out to the deep water of Chico Bayou and was intended to eliminate a channeling effect. The purpose of the dredging is to enable the Petitioner to construct a marina or docking facility along the split. The marina would include 24 slips. The proposed dredge area gradually slopes from the shoreline to five and six foot depths 200 to 250 feet from the spit. The water in the embayment is highly polluted and at one time was used as a holding pond for mahogany logs because the wood-boring worms could not survive in the water. Bayou Chico is also very polluted and fails to meet the water quality standards found in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, for the parameters lead, cadmium, copper, and aluminum among others. The bayou has for many years been used for boat and barge traffic. Jeremy Craft testified on behalf of DER and his opinions as to the impact of the project on water quality and marine life were uncontroverted. In Mr. Craft's opinion, the dredging proposed by the Petitioner would result in further degradation of the water quality in Bayou Chico by eliminating important shallow areas and underwater grasses. The deepening of the dredged area would limit the amount of oxygen available to the water in the bayou thereby harming the aquatic life by freeing many of the heavy metals which are presently bound in the sediments in the bayou. The shallow areas are the most important areas in cleansing the water. With increased oxidation, the biota survive better and the water is better cleansed. Freeing the heavy metals would allow their introduction into the food chain and accumulation in living organisms. The Petitioner has not informed DER of his specific dock specifications, stormwater plans, upland development plans, or dredge disposal plans. The type of dock will determine the type of boating traffic and this will indicate the amount and content of stormwater discharge. Because of the contaminated nature of the spoil, the Petitioner must provide reasonable assurances that the spoil and spoil water will be properly retained. Petitioner testified on his own behalf but did not present any evidence relating to the impact the proposed prod act would have on water quality.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for a permit as set forth in the Intent to Deny previously issued by the Department. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of May 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Thulman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Joe Pair 1200 Mahogany Mill Road Pensacola, Florida 32907 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Sammie Rayner, Respondent, was employed by the City of Clearwater as a customer service representative in the utility department. On February 11, 1992, Respondent needed to take her daughter to Seminole High School for a test and mentioned this to Joyce Griesel, Senior Customer Service Representative. The only city employees in the customer service section with authority to grant Respondent permission to leave the building on February 11, 1992, were John Scott, Utility Consumer Response Manager and Tim Bissonnette, Customer Service Supervisor. On the afternoon of February 11, 1992, Bissonnette was out of the office attending a conference; however, Scott was available. Bissonnette was Respondent's immediate supervisor, and Scott was over Bissonnette. Prior to October 1991, the Senior Customer Service Representative had authority to allow customer service representatives to leave the building for short periods. However, because of an incident in October 1991, this authority was removed from the Senior Customer Service Representative, and all employees were advised of the changed policy. Although Respondent denies that she was told that only Scott and Bissonnette could grant permission to leave the building, she did ask if Bissonnette was available before she departed the office around 3 p.m., on February 11, 1992. Respondent also contends that she asked Giesel for permission to leave, but Giesel denies that she gave such authorization, knowing full well that she had no such authority. Respondent was not given permission to leave the building on February 11 by Giesel.
