The Issue Whether respondent's rules of conduct contained in Department of Law Enforcement Directive #200.08 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the ground that they were not promulgated in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1979)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Maggie L. Allen was a Career Service employee (with permanent status) of the Department of Law Enforcement until she was terminated from her position or about June 15, 1981. She has appealed her termination to the Florida Career Service Commission. (Prehearing Stipulation, p. 2; Respondent's Admissions.) The reason given for her termination was, in part, her alleged violation of Department Directive #200.08(5), Rules of Conduct ("Directive") . More specifically, the Department charged her with violating specific rules of conduct contained in the Directive: Rule 10, entitled, "Insubordination"; Rule 22, entitled, "Departmental Reports"; Rule 23, entitled, "Performance of Lawful Duty"; and Rule 34, entitled, "Truthfulness." (Prehearing Stipulation, p. 2; Respondent's Admissions; Exhibit No. 3.) The Directive, effective November 27, 1978, is an official statement of Department policy and is generally applicable to all employees of the Department. Its stated purpose is "to provide each Departmental employee with clear examples of acts which would violate the above personnel rules or statutes." (Emphasis supplied.) (Exhibit No. 1.) Essentially, the Directive defines acceptable conduct for Department employees by specifically enumerating 35 standards of conduct. By its terms, breach of one or more of those standards constitutes employee misconduct and may result in disciplinary action against an employee ranging from oral reprimand to discharge. However, these standards are not intended to be an exclusive, or exhaustive listing of impermissible conduct. (Respondent's Admissions; Exhibit No. 1.) The Directive is part of the Department's Duty Manual, a volume containing directives on personnel, administrative, training, and fiscal matters as well as the operations of the Department's divisions. The stated purpose of the Duty Manual is to "inform and guide . . . [Department] officers and employees in the performance of their official duties." (Exhibit No. 2.) The Duty Manual recites that it is "promulgated" pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, that copies are disseminated to all employees and that employees must obey, comply with, and follow the Manual's directives. The Manual has been incorporated, by reference, in Department Rule 11-1.12, Florida Administrative Code. All formalities concerning publication of Rule 11-1.12 were complied with prior to its publication in the Florida Administrative Code. (Prehearing Stipulation; Exhibit No. 2.) Department Rule 11-1.12, incorporating--by reference--the Duty Manual, was adopted on March 20, 1979, for the purpose of validating those portions (unspecified) of the Manual which constituted "rules" under the APA. At the time, the Department anticipated that adopting the Manual, by rule, would "lead to greater efficiency." (Exhibit No. 2.)
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding was acquired by the Applicant, Bear Run Development, Inc., in August, 1986. After rezoning the property, the Applicant began to develop the property in phases or units as "Bear Run". At issue in this proceedings is Unit 6 of Bear Run. Plat Book 23, page 49 and 50. Unit 6 of Bear Run consists of 100 subdivided lots. A total of 24 lots in Unit 6 have been developed. Six of the 24 developed lots of Unit 6 have been sold and have homes constructed on them. Government Action Relied Upon. By letter dated March 9, 1987, the Clay County Engineering Office notified the Applicant's engineers that the preliminary plans for the development of Unit 6 were conditionally approved. This notification was the equivalent of a "notice to proceed." The plat for the development of Unit 6 was approved by Clay County on or about August 22, 1989. On August 25, 1992, Clay County accepted Unit 6 for maintenance. Prior to accepting Unit 6 for maintenance, and prior to July 1, 1992, Clay County notified the Applicant that an easement which was being used for stormwater ultimate outfall for Unit 6 was a privately owned easement. The Applicant diligently pursued acquisition of title to the easement required for stormwater outfall from Unit 6. The easement problem was resolved to the satisfaction of Clay County in the fall of 1992. But for the easement, the development of Unit 6 would have been completed prior to the effective date of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan. The evidence failed to prove, however, that development would have been complete before the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The Applicant's Detrimental Reliance. In reliance on Clay County's actions in approving the Applicant's preliminary plans on March 9, 1987, approving the plat for Unit 6 on August 22, 1989 and requiring that the Applicant obtain the necessary easement to accept maintenance of Unit 6, the Applicant has expended funds in furtherance of the development of Unit 6. In total, the Applicant has spent less than $246,589.69 in reliance on the actions of Clay County described in findings of fact 5-9. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. The Applicant will, if required to comply with the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan, incur additional expenses to comply with transportation concurrency requirements of the Plan. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended by Clay County Ordinance 92-22 have been met.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes, by voting on September 7, 2000, September 21, 2000, October 19, 2000, November 30, 2000, and December 21, 2000, as a member of the Palm Beach Gardens City Council on certain matters affecting the Mirasol development project when Respondent's homebuilding company was engaged in discussions with the master developer of the project concerning the company's participation in the project, as alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the public hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the extensive factual stipulations set forth in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation5: Each of the "Sabatello companies" referred to in the parties' Stipulation of Fact 3 was wholly owned by Respondent and his brothers Paul, Theodore, and Michael Sabatello, with each of the four brothers owning an equal (25%) share of the company. Of these companies, only one, Sabatello Development Corporation IV (SD IV) was involved in the Mirasol Project. SD IV has been in continuous existence since its formation in or around the 1980's. It is a Subchapter S corporation. As such, its profits are passed through to its four shareholders, Respondent and his three business associate- brothers, in equal amounts. As president of SD IV, Respondent "oversees all [of its] functions." Craig Perna, the Taylor Woodrow "representative" mentioned in the parties' Stipulation of Fact 5, had "overall responsibility for every aspect of the [Mirasol] development" project, including the "selection of builders." The builder selection process started with Mr. Perna getting the names of "prominent builders in the Palm Beach Gardens market" having "excellent reputation[s]" and then contacting them to inquire as to their interest in participating in the Mirasol Project. Respondent was among those Mr. Perna contacted. He was contacted (by telephone) in mid-May of 2000. At that time, he advised Mr. Perna he was "very interested" in having his company considered for selection as a builder in Mirasol. As a member of the Palm Beach Gardens City Council, Respondent had reviewed documents submitted by Taylor Woodrow to obtain PCD approval for the Mirasol Project. As a result, he was familiar with the project and recognized its potential. At the time, residential "golf developments," like the Mirasol Project, sold out quickly and were "very profitable." Builders competed vigorously for the relatively limited opportunities that were available to build in these developments. Having the upper hand over builders because of this competitive landscape, Taylor Woodrow, as the master developer of the Mirasol Project, did not have to engage in "give [and] take with any builder" concerning contractual matters. As Mr. Perna put it in his deposition testimony, "You either wanted to participate or you didn't under my terms, period, the end." Respondent's company, SD IV, was one of at least ten or builders vying to be selected to participate in the Mirasol Project. Over a period of approximately eight months (from mid- May 2000, to mid-January 2001), Taylor Woodrow requested and obtained from SD IV and from the other would-be participants in the project (Other Builders) information and documents in order to evaluate these builders' qualifications for selection. The requests directed to SD IV were extensive and concerned such matters as the company's financials, products, pricing, form contracts, sales operations, customer service department, past accomplishments, current capacity, and "appetite for future work." Taylor Woodrow also wanted to see floor plans and architectural drawings. These requests were made both in writing and verbally. Wanting to maximize its chances of being selected, SD IV provided Taylor Woodrow with "whatever [was] ask[ed] for." Initially, Respondent was SD IV's "sole contact person" in its dealings with Taylor Woodrow. In this capacity, he engaged in "numerous discussions" with Taylor Woodrow representatives regarding SD IV's possible participation in the Mirasol Project. On or about May 17, 2000, Taylor Woodrow sent to Respondent and the Other Builders copies of "artist's drawings of potential elevations of homes that would be built in Mirasol," accompanied by a cover letter requesting feedback from the would-be project participants in the form of "more specific" drawings, consistent with the renderings, showing what they would build if selected. These "more specific" drawings were to be reviewed by the Mirasol Architectural Review Committee to determine whether or not they were acceptable. In a conversation that Respondent had with Mr. Perna following his receipt of this May 17, 2000, correspondence, Respondent stated, in reference to the elevations depicted in the "artist's drawings" Taylor Woodrow had provided, that "they were within the basic parameters" of what SD IV intended to build if selected. SD IV subsequently prepared and submitted to Taylor Woodrow the "more specific" drawings that had been requested. "[M]ost of the drawings" were "very similar" to drawings that SD IV had used in other developments. The first vote that Respondent allegedly unlawfully cast was on Resolution 71, 2000 at the Palm Beach Gardens City Council September 7, 2000, meeting. As the summary statement on its first page reflects, Resolution 71, 2000 was: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for approval of a site plan of development for Parcels 1 through 5 with a total of 114 zero lot line single-family home lots and 85 single-family custom home lots within the Golf Digest (Mirasol) PCD, located along PGA Boulevard and as more particularly described herein; providing for five waivers to allow for reductions in the side interior setback, an increase in lot coverage, the placement of pools, screen enclosures and accessory structures within the side interior and rear setbacks, and a reduction in the minimum lot width requirement; providing for conditions of approval; and providing for an effective date. The minutes of the September 7, 2000, Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting reflect that Respondent and City Attorney Rubin, among others, were present and that, with respect to Resolution 71, 2000, in pertinent part, the following occurred: Resolution 71, 2000- Principal Planner Jim Norquest presented the project. The City Council was assured by the petitioner [Taylor Woodrow] that an architectural committee with proper requirements had been established. Ann Booth, Urban Design Studio, agent for the petitioner, described the project. Landscaping themes for different parcels were described by the landscape architect. Councilman Clark made a motion to approve Resolution 71, 2000. Vice Mayor Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. The next allegedly unlawful votes that Respondent cast were on Resolutions 72, 2000 and 73, 2000 at the Palm Beach Gardens City Council September 21, 2000, meeting. As the summary statement on its first page reflects, Resolution 72, 2000 was: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for approval of a site plan of development for Parcels E, F and G with 35, 39, and 67 zero lot line single-family home lots within the Golf Digest (Mirasol) PCD, located along PGA Boulevard and as more particularly described herein; providing for five waivers to allow for reductions in the side interior setback, an increase in lot coverage, the placement of pools, screen enclosures and accessory structures within the side interior and rear setbacks, and a reduction in the minimum lot width requirement; providing for conditions of approval; and providing for an effective date. As the summary statement on its first page reflects, Resolution 73, 2000 was: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for approval of a site plan of development for Parcels H and I with 56 single-family custom home lots and 79 zero lot line single-family home lots within the Golf Digest (Mirasol) PCD, located along PGA Boulevard and as more particularly described herein; providing for six waivers to allow for reductions in the side interior setback, street side setback, an increase in lot coverage, a reduction of lot width, and the placement of pools, screen enclosures, and accessory structures within the side interior and rear setbacks; providing for conditions of approval; and providing for an effective date. The minutes of the September 21, 2000, Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting reflect that Respondent, among others, was present and that, with respect to Resolution 72, 2000 and Resolution 73, 2000, in pertinent part, the following occurred: Resolution 72, 2000- Principal Planner Jim Norquest presented the project. Ann Booth, Urban Design Studio, agent for the petitioner [Taylor Woodrow], described recreational open space proposed by the petitioner. Petitioner was requested to include in the design a tot lot, pool, two tennis courts, and a building, for which staff was directed to draft language for a condition of approval. The language was read into the record during consideration of Resolution 73, 2000: The recreation center south of parcel F shall include a swimming pool, two tennis courts, a tot lot, and a recreation building unless different amenities are approved by City Council at site plan review. Councilman Clark made a motion to approve Resolution 72, 2000 with the additional condition as read into the record by petitioner. Vice Mayor Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. Resolution 73, 2000- Principal Planner Jim Norquest presented the project. Ann Booth, Urban Design Studio, agent for the petitioner [Taylor Woodrow], described the proposed homes and landscaping. Petitioner agreed to provide a gazebo or tot lot on Parcel H, and to allow continued access to the open space at the entrances by residents on both sides of the road. Petitioner and staff agreed to the following condition of approval, which was read into the record by petitioner: The recreation center south of parcel F shall include a swimming pool, two tennis courts, a tot lot, and a recreation building unless different amenities are approved by City Council at site plan review. Councilman Clark made a motion to approve Resolution 73, 2000 with the additional condition as read into the record by petitioner and with the understanding placed on the record by petitioner regarding the open space at the entrances to parcels H and I. Vice Mayor Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. The "waivers" that were granted by Resolutions 71, 2000, 72, 2000, and 73, 2000 were from the requirements of the Palm Beach Gardens Code that Taylor Woodrow, or whichever builder(s) it subsequently selected to build on the affected parcels, would otherwise have to meet. The next vote of Respondent's that has been called into question is his vote at the October 19, 2000, Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting on Resolution 92, 2000. As the summary statement on its first page reflects, Resolution 92, 2000 was: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for approval of a site plan for a[n] 8,046 square foot fire rescue and police substation within the Golf Digest (Mirasol) PCD, located 1/4 mile north of PGA Boulevard on the east side of Jog Road and as more particularly described herein; providing for waivers; providing for conditions of approval; and providing for an effective date. This "site [had to] be completed and dedicated prior to the issuance of [any] certificate of occupancy for any dwelling units in the Golf Digest [Mirasol] PCD" or the "opening of a golf course" in the PCD. The minutes of the October 19, 2000, Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting reflect that Respondent, among others, was present and that, with respect to Resolution 92, 2000, in pertinent part, the following occurred: Resolution 92, 2000- . . . . Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the petition. A representative of Gee & Jenson answered questions regarding the project and Ann Booth, Urban Design Studio, spoke on behalf of the petitioner [Taylor Woodrow]. Councilman Clark made a motion to approve Resolution 92, 2000. Vice Mayor Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 3-0 vote. On November 3, 2000, Elaine Appleyard, a legal assistant with Taylor Woodrow, sent the following e-mail to Taylor Woodrow's Aaron Chorost, who was the chief financial officer for the Mirasol Project: Good morning Aaron - we're finalizing a redline on the Builder Agreement and need two items clarified: Is the intention to have just one closing on all of the lots? Will this particular builder be building anywhere else on the property other than Parcel 4? Mr. Chorost responded within the half hour by sending Ms. Appleyard the following e-mail: I cannot guarantee that Sabatello will purchase beyond parcel 4. It is likely that he will look to do all the 60' wide lots which means he could also purchase parcels 7 and 16 in the future. Likewise for Kenco, buying parcel 5 plus in the future could be doing parcel 12 also. Kenco may also be a builder in the custom builder program but not Sabatello. Yes, there will be only one closing for each parcel containing all the lots in the parcel. These were "completely internal" e-mail communications to which no one outside of Taylor Woodrow, including Respondent and the Other Builders, were privy. No decision had yet been made as to who would be building on Mirasol Parcel 4.6 Taylor Woodrow was even seriously considering keeping the parcel so that it could build on the property itself. At the November 30, 2000, Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting, Respondent and the other four members of the City Council present voted in favor of Resolution 115, 2000, a consent agenda item which "approv[ed] the Golf Digest-Jog Road (AKA Mirasol Plat One) Plat." The land that was the subject of this resolution had to be platted and dedicated to Palm Beach County before any building permits could be issued for residential construction in Mirasol. On December 4, 2000, Mr. Perna sent Respondent a memorandum requesting certain information that would be needed in the event SD IV was selected to build on Mirasol Parcel 4. The memorandum read as follows: Please forward the list of your Officers and Directors for your parcel immediately. Sabatello - Parcel 4 ("Paradisio") We will be preparing the documents this week for your review. Respondent subsequently provided the requested information. The December 5, 2000, memorandum authored by City Attorney Rubin, which is referenced in the parties' Stipulation of Fact 10, was provided to all members of the Palm Beach Gardens City Council, including Respondent, as well as to the Interim City Manager. The memorandum read as follows: You have indicated that the Sabatello Companies, of which you are a principal, is currently in negotiations with the developers of the Mirasol Planned Community District ("PCD") to become a builder of homes within that community.[7] Your activities as a builder would be limited to specific parcels or pods within the PCD. You asked this office to provide a legal opinion as to your obligation to abstain from voting in your official capacity on matters relating to Mirasol that come before the City Council. Voting conflicts for members of the City Council are governed by section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Subsection (3)(a) provides that a municipal officer shall not vote in an official capacity on any measure that "would inure to the special gain" of the officer, a principal by whom the officer is retained, or a relative or business associate of the officer. According to the state Ethics Commission, the determination of whether the officer receives a special private gain is based upon the size of the class of persons affected by the vote at issue. The Mirasol PCD encompasses a variety of residential, commercial, recreational and community uses. The residential uses range from low density single family homes to high density multi-family apartments. It is anticipated that your company's activities will be limited to the construction of single family dwellings within a specific, identifiable parcel for which a site plan has already been approved. Because of this limited involvement, there does not appear to be any requirement that you abstain from every vote relating to the approval of plats, parcels and site plans within the entire Mirasol PCD. See CEO 85-62 (city council member not prohibited from voting on rezoning of property within a large redevelopment area where member's corporation owns a parcel of land within the same area). By way of example, the City Council's approval of the site plan for the fire station or the plat for Jog Road in no way inures to your or your company's special private gain. You would, however, be required to abstain from any additional votes relating to the specific parcels or pods within the community in which your company possesses or acquires an interest by virtue of a contractual relationship with the master developer. Where a conflict of interest exists, you are required to state the nature of your interest prior to the vote and file a voting conflict memorandum with the City Clerk, within 15 days. The existence of a voting conflict does not necessarily require you to abstain from all discussion relating to the matter (although you are free to do so). If you plan to participate in discussion of a matter in which you know you have a conflict, you must file a written conflict memorandum before the public meeting. You have also expressed concern that upon learning that your company will be building homes within Mirasol, members of the public may perceive a conflict of interest in all matters relating to Mirasol. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, it would be appropriate to make the following disclos[ure] prior to any vote: "While it is anticipated that the Sabatello Companies will be building homes within Mirasol, the matter before the City Council does not concern the areas in which such construction will take place and is wholly unrelated to any interest held by me or my corporations." Should you have any questions or be in need of additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. In a December 8, 2000, letter to Respondent's brother and business associate, Paul Sabatello, Taylor Woodrow's James Harvey, the Mirasol Architectural Review Committee project development manager, wrote: Please accept this letter as our approval of the following items that will require administrative modification of the City of Palm Beach Gardens Parcel Four site plan: We have no objection to modifying the side yard setbacks to 3'1" and 6'11" with a minimum of 10' separation between buildings. All other approved setbacks must be met. We have no objection to moving the zero side of the lot (now 3'1" per your request) on lots 10 thru 38 to the opposite lot line. We have no objection to building the models on lots #40, #39, #7, #8, and #9. We have no objection to modifying the roof tile, body and trim, and paver colors to those submitted with your A.R.C. submission dated November 22, 2000. In addition, the Rafael, Michelangelo, Dante and Be[rn]in[i] models have been reviewed and meet the Design Guidelines established for this parcel.[8] If you should need any further information feel free to give me a call. Those of the Other Builders "being considered for [Mirasol] Parcel 4" were sent similar letters advising them of the Mirasol Architectural Review Committee's action on the plans and drawings that they had submitted. On December 11, 2000, Ms. Appleyard sent the following e-mail to Mr. Perna: Attached are redlined and clean copies of the most recent versions of the Parcel Builder Agr. and Brokerage Agr. Marc asks that you stamp these draft before sending to Carl. [T]hanks. Although it was Mr. Perna's intention that copies of these "draft" agreements be sent to all those "in the mix to become a builder" in Mirasol, including Respondent's company, for their review and comments, Respondent never received any agreement marked "draft" from Taylor Woodrow. Respondent, however, did receive the following letter, dated December 18, 2000, from Mr. Perna: Please find attached the matrix regarding your price lot in Paradisio[9] with corresponding square footage. You can see that it will be necessary to reduce your 2 story to 4,000 square feet in order to fit into the overall structure. You can split up your premiums but standard options and upgrades must stay within the box. Please do not hesitate to give me a call if you have any questions. The "Mirasol Housing Price Matrix," a copy of which was enclosed with the letter, provided that the "base lot price charged to [the selected] builder" for the 46 lots in Mirasol Parcel 4 would be $139,000 per lot. "That would be the deal" for whoever was selected to build on that parcel. There was no room for negotiation. Copies of the "Mirasol Housing Price Matrix" were also sent to the Other Builders. Taylor Woodrow advised SD IV, as well as the Other Builders, that, if selected, they would be expected to start construction of their model homes as soon as possible so that the homes could be completed before the last day of March when the "season" ended. It therefore encouraged them to take such preliminary steps as might be necessary for them to "be ready to pull a building permit" upon the conclusion of the builder selection process.10 This included filing paperwork to obtain City of Palm Beach Gardens administrative (staff) approval of site plan modifications endorsed by the Mirasol Architectural Review Committee.11 Any builder wanting to file such pre- selection paperwork had the permission of Taylor Woodrow (the property owner) to do so (as Taylor Woodrow's agent). SD IV, through Paul Sabatello, filed such paperwork, along with a $150.00 check (for the filing fee),12 with the Palm Beach Gardens Planning and Zoning Division on December 18, 2000. In doing so, SD IV was seeking approval of the modifications to the Mirasol Parcel 4 site plan referenced in Mr. Harvey's December 8, 2000, letter to Paul Sabatello. SD IV's submission was accompanied by a cover letter, dated December 18, 2000, from Paul Sabatello to Steve Cramer, the Palm Beach Gardens' Interim Growth Management Director, which read as follows: Please find enclosed architectural drawings, exterior colors and site plans for your review and approval for Parcel 4 (Paradisio) Mirasol. The floor plan and building colors vary slightly from the prototypical plans previously submitted. We are requesting at this time an approval for the ability to use 3'-1" + 6'11" side yard set backs instead of the usual 0 + 10'. These set back conditions provide the required 10' building separation while according to Table 600 of the Standard Building Code allowing us to include some glass on what would be the zero side. The enclosed site plans show this clearly for the proposed models on specific lots. This set-back condition would apply to all lots in Parcel 4. One additional request for approval. The original site plan indicated zero side of lots with the "zero flip" occurring on lots 9, 10 and 38, 39. [T]his is not possible with the new set back[] conditions. Therefore, we are requesting that the zero side 3'-1" set back side be as follows: Lots 1-23 "Zero" on Right Lots 24-46 "Zero" on Left The enclosed site plan indicates the change that we are requesting. Also enclosed please find the letter of approval from the Mirasol Architectural Review Committee for the above-mentioned request.[13] Should you have any questions do not hesitate to call. Thank you. The "architectural drawings" that were submitted showed the Da Vinci model (on lot 9), the Raphael model (on lot 10), the Bernini model (on lot 11), the Dante model (on lot 39), and the Michelangelo model (on lot 40). On the forms that were part of the filing, the representation was made that SD IV owned Mirasol Parcel 4. In fact, Taylor Woodrow was the owner of the property, and it had merely given SD IV permission to make the filing on its behalf. It had not, at the time of the submission, entered into any agreement with SD IV regarding ownership of the property. Among the other things that SD IV did around this time to be "ready to go" if and when selected by Taylor Woodrow to build on Mirasol Parcel 4 was to assemble materials it would need to submit to the Palm Beach Gardens Building Department to obtain building permits to construct model homes on the parcel. As part of this process, Respondent signed and dated building permit application forms. He did so as early as December 20, 2000, the same date that a list of subcontractors (to accompany the permit applications) was prepared.14 Respondent recognized that it was a "gamble" to do the things that SD IV was doing to ready itself to begin building in Mirasol because there was the chance that the company would not be chosen to participate in the project and that all its preparation would be for naught. Nonetheless, he considered it to be a "gamble" worth taking and made good business sense. Such pre-selection risk-taking was not uncommon among builders doing business in Palm Beach Gardens.15 The most recent of Respondent's allegedly unlawful votes were cast at the Palm Beach Gardens City Council December 21, 2000, meeting. These votes were in favor of approving six items on the consent agenda (Resolutions 127, 2000; 128, 2000; 129, 2000; 130, 2000; 131, 2000; and 132, 2000) involving the platting of parcels that were part of the Mirasol Project, including Mirasol Parcel 4, as more particularly described in the parties' Stipulation of Fact 11. These plats had to be approved before any building permits could issue. By the time of the December 21, 2000, votes, Respondent was aware that Mirasol Parcel 4 was where SD IV would be building (at least at the outset) if selected to participate in the Mirasol Project. He was hopeful that his company would get the opportunity to build there, but it was a matter over which he had no control. It was in the hands of Taylor Woodrow. As of December 21, 2000, Taylor Woodrow had not extended SD IV an offer to participate in the Mirasol Project, nor had it given SD IV any assurances that such an offer would be forthcoming. There was uncertainty as to whether SD IV would be selected. It was not until the following month that this uncertainty was eliminated when Taylor Woodrow finally made its decision to allow SD IV to become a builder in Mirasol, specifically on Mirasol Parcel 4. In voting on these and prior resolutions affecting the Mirasol Project, Respondent was acting in a manner consistent with the verbal advice he had solicited from the City Attorney before each vote, as well as the advice contained in City Attorney Rubin's December 5, 2000, memorandum (which is set forth above). At the time of each of these votes, Respondent's company did not have "an interest by virtue of a contractual relationship with the master developer" in any property in Mirasol. Therefore, according to what he had been advised by City Attorney Rubin, he was not required to abstain from voting. On December 28, 2000, the City of Palm Beach Gardens Planning and Zoning Division granted its approval of the modifications SD IV had sought (through its December 18, 2000, filing) to the Mirasol Parcel 4 site plan. Respondent first learned that his company had been selected to build on Mirasol Parcel 4 when he received from Taylor Woodrow a letter dated January 22, 2001, so advising him, along with a Parcel Builder Agreement and Exclusive Agency Brokerage Agreement for Mirasol Parcel 4. These agreements were fully executed in February of 2001. SD IV paid $139,000 per lot for the lots that it purchased in Mirasol Parcel 4 (consistent with the pre-selection pronouncement that had been made in the 'Mirasol Housing Price Matrix" that Taylor Woodrow had distributed). SD IV was one of first builders to start construction in Mirasol. SD IV successfully built out Mirasol Parcel 4. It sold all of the 46 homes it built.16 A total of 12 builders, including SD IV, participated "in the whole [Mirasol] [P]roject." Not all of the Other Builders were selected to participate in the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a public report finding the evidence presented at the public hearing in this case insufficient to clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent violated Section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes, by voting at the September 7, 2000, September 21, 2000, October 19, 2000, November 30, 2000, and December 21, 2000, Palm Beach Gardens City Council meetings on matters affecting the Mirasol Project and dismissing the complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 4th day of March, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Based on an Administrative Complaint filed on July 6, 1979, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (herein sometimes referred to as the Petitioner or the Board) seeks to take disciplinary action against Licensee Richard E. Ulbricht, d/b/a Ulbricht Construction, Inc., and to impose an administrative fine or $500.00. Respondent is a registered contractor who holds the following licenses: RG 0011921 - Registered General/Active/Issued RGA 0011921 - Registered General/Active/Issued RG OB 11921 - Registered General/Delinquent RM 0014920 - Registered Mechanical/Active/Issued RM 0017586 - Registered Mechanical/Delinquent RS 0019201 - Registered Sheet Metal/Active/Issued RC 0019264 - Registered Roofing/Active/Issued Respondent was first licensed by the Petitioner during February, 1972. On June 14, 1977, Respondent qualified Ulbricht Construction, Inc., as the business entity through which he would conduct his contracting business. The construction activities involved herein took place in the City of Palm Bay, Florida. Palm Bay has no local licensing board. On June 12, 1978, Respondent entered into a contract with Michael D. and Karen K. McCammack to construct a residence for the sum of $39,900.00. Respondent received the full contracted price and the transaction closed on January 4, 1979. Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company closed the transaction for Respondent and the McCammacks on January 4, 1979. Camille Guilbeau is the manager for the Palm Bay branch of Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company. Ms. Guilbeau is in charge of all closing and as such ensures that all outstanding obligations of record are paid. In keeping with Chelsea's policy of protecting itself in the event of outstanding unrecorded claims of liens, Chelsea has a policy of requiring contractors and builders such as Respondent to declare in an affidavit that there is no outstanding work which has been performed, or labor or materials for which a lien could be filed on property in which Chelsea is closing the mortgage transaction. Respondent executed such an affidavit relative to the McCammacks' property, which Chelsea relied on to close the transaction on January 4, 1979 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On January 4, 1979, Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company paid Rinker Materials Corporation of Melbourne, Florida, $1,201.02 based on a claim of liens filed December 15, 1978, for materials consisting of concrete block, steel and miscellaneous items which were used on the McCammack property (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Subsequent to the date of closing, January 4, 1979, liens amounting to approximately $2,761.62 have been filed against the McCammack property based on Respondent's failure to pay bills for labor and/or materials used in connection with the construction of the McCammacks' residence. These lien claims were filed against the McCammacks' property for a drilled well, installation of a pump and tank by Perry and Leighty, Inc., of Melbourne, Florida; two septic tanks, drains and sand supplied by Pence South Brevard Sewer and Septic Tank of Melbourne, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 8 and 9). On December 22, 1978, Respondent entered into a contract with Robert J. Greene to construct a residence for $30,500.00 in Palm Bay, Florida. Respondent filed an affidavit of no liens relative to the Greene property on January 10, 1979. Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company relied on this affidavit to close the Greene property transaction on January 10, 1979 (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). Respondent was paid thee entire contract price. On February 12, 1979, Pence South Brevard Sewer and Septic Tank filed a claim of lien in the amount of $1,015.36 for two septic tanks, drains and sand which had been furnished the Respondent for the property of Robert J. and Alice Greene of Palm Bay, Florida, on December 15, 1978 (Petitioner's Exhibits 10 and 11). Approximately $3,496.40 was retained by Chelsea Title and Guaranty Company to satisfy outstanding recorded obligations on the date the Greene transaction closed (Petitioner's Exhibit 13). On February 21, 1979, Respondent caused to be filed in the United States District Court of the Middle District of Florida, a Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy for Ulbricht Construction, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2 Composite).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's contractors licenses set forth hereinabove be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 6th day of May, 1980.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether petitioner, Department of Community Affairs, has standing to maintain this action, and whether the respondent's, Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council's, proposed amendments to Rule 29E-11.001, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state land planning agency under the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, [the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act" (LGCPA)]. As the state land planning agency for the LGCPA, the Department is charged by law with the duty to provide technical assistance to local governments in preparing comprehensive plans and with the duty to ascertain whether local comprehensive plans are in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Inherent in the Department's determination of compliance is a finding that the local government comprehensive plan elements are consistent with the state comprehensive plan and the appropriate regional policy plan. Where, as here, a comprehensive regional policy plan is inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan, the performance of the Department's mandated duty is stymied absent the ability to challenge the offensive parts of the regional policy plan, and thereby bring the planning process into harmony. Accordingly, as the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of implementing the LGCPA, the Department has a real and immediate interest in assuring consistency between the state comprehensive plan and the various regional policy plans. Respondent, Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council (Council), is a regional planning council established pursuant to Section 186.504, Florida Statutes, and consists of the Counties of Citrus, Hernando, Levy, Marion, and Sumter. Rule 29E-1.001, Florida Administrative Code. As a regional planning council, the Council is charged by law with the duty to develop a comprehensive regional policy plan that is consistent with, and which furthers, the goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan. Section 186.507(1), Florida Statutes. The existent comprehensive regional policy plan and the proposed amendments The Council has, consistent with the requirement of Section 186.507(1), Florida Statutes, adopted its comprehensive regional policy plan by rule. That rule, codified as Rule 29E- 11.001, Florida Administrative Code, adopts and incorporates by reference the Council's comprehensive regional policy plan, with an effective date of April 13, 1989. On June 9, 1989, the Council duly noticed its intent to amend Rule 29E- 11.001, Florida Administrative Code, and published notice thereof in volume 15, number 23, of the Florida Administrative Weekly. Pertinent to this case, the proposed amendments would alter the policies of the Council's comprehensive plan as they relate to resource extraction (mining) in environmentally sensitive areas. On June 30, 1989, the Department filed a timely petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, contending that the proposed amendments to Rule 29E-11.001, Florida Administrative Code, were an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The gravamen of the Department's challenge to the validity of the proposed rule amendments is its contention that the amendments are not consistent with the state comprehensive plan policies as they relate to mining in environmentally sensitive areas, and that the amendments fail to establish adequate standards for the Commission's decisions or vest unbridled discretion in the Commission. The policies of the state comprehensive plan pertinent to this case, as set forth in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, are as follows: (10) NATURAL SYSTEMS AND RECREATIONAL LANDS * * * (b) Policies - 1. Conserve forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife to maintain their environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values. * * * 3. Prohibit the destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats. * * * 7. Protect and restore the ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic, and recreational value. * * * (14) Mining - (b) Policies - * * * 5. Prohibit resource extraction which will result in an adverse effect on environmentally sensitive areas of the state which cannot be restored. (Emphasis added) The Council's proposed amendments to Rule 29E-11.001, Florida Administrative Code (the comprehensive regional policy plan), are hereinafter set forth, with the proposed amendments in clear text and the existing language of the rule that is to be amended lined through. In such format, the proposed amendments to the existing rule that are under challenge in this proceeding provide as follows: 14.3.1.1. Regional Policy: Resource extraction which will result in an adverse effect on environmentally sensitive areas that cannot be reclaimed or restored to beneficial use shall be prohibited. Examples of such environmentally sensitive areas are: wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, springs, coastal floodplains, endangered species habitat, prime agricultural lands, prime groundwater recharge areas, and historically significant sites. (Emphasis added) Wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, springs, coastal, floodplains, endangered species' habitat, prime agricultural lands, prime groundwater recharge areas, and historically significant sites shall be identified and protected by a prohibition on mining activities within those areas and the establishment of buffer zones around them. Additionally, the Council proposes to amend its implementation strategy as to Regional Policies 14.3.1.1, 14.3.1.2, and 14.3.1.3, as follows: GROWTH MANAGEMENT Local governments with assistance from other agencies should inventory their wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, springs, coastal floodplains, endangered species' habitat, prime agricultural lands, prime groundwater recharge areas, historically significant sites, and important mineral reserves. Local governments should adopt comprehensive plan amendments and ordinances that 1) prohibit mining activities in environmentally sensitive areas if they cannot be reclaimed or restored to beneficial use; define buffer zones around the areas and resources identified above and restrict mining activities to land outside those buffers, 2) require identification and protection of archaeological properties on sites proposed for mining; 3) restrict the use of land that contains economically recoverable mineral deposits and lies outside environmentally sensitive areas to activities that will not preclude later extraction of those minerals. (Emphases added) INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION (1) DNR, GFC, FWS, SCS, DER and WMDs, within their respective areas of expertise, should help local governments to identify and map the above areas and resources and to define appropriate buffer widths. Contrary to the provisions of the state comprehensive plan which prohibit resource extraction that will adversely effect environmentally sensitive areas unless they can be "restored," the proposed amendments would only prohibit such activities if the environmentally sensitive areas could not be "reclaimed or restored to beneficial use." The terms "restored" and "reclaimed," although not defined by the proposed amendments, have commonly accepted meanings. To restore a site means to put back the same thing that had previously existed, i.e.: restore the type, nature, and function of the ecosystem to the condition in existence prior to mining. To reclaim a site is to alter its character such that beneficial use can be made of it, even though the character or function of the site may be entirely different from that which previously existed. To "restore to beneficial use" is a phrase consistent with the definition of "reclamation," and not consistent with the definition of "restoration" as that term is commonly defined. Accordingly, it is found that the proposed amendments to Rule 29E-11.011, Florida Administrative Code, are patently inconsistent with the policies of the state comprehensive plan that relate to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and, more particularly, the policy of the state comprehensive plan that prohibits resource extraction in such areas unless they can be restored. Notwithstanding the patent inconsistency between the proposed amendments and the state comprehensive plan, the Council argued that it "intends" to interpret the proposed amendment consistent with the state plan. To this end, the Council offered the testimony of its chairman, Nick Bryant, who testified that he would interpret the proposed amendment to require that the post-mining beneficial use be the same beneficial use that existed prior to mining. The Council's vice chairman, Ralph Shepard, testified, however, that he would not interpret the proposed amendment to require that the property be returned to the same character it enjoyed prior to mining, but only that it be reclaimed to the extent necessary to provide a beneficial use. Under such interpretation, the proposed amendment would allow, for example, the total destruction of a wetland by mining even if the net result would be a borrow pit in which people could swim and water ski. The Council's contention that it would interpret the proposed amendment consistent with the state plan is not only irrelevant in view of the patent inconsistency which exists between the proposed amendments and the state plan, but is also not credible. Rather, the clear impact of the rule and the Council's "intent" may be readily gleamed from its notice of proposed rulemaking, federal comparison statement, and economic impact statement. As stated in the Council's notice of proposed rule making: PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The rule is being amended for the purpose of replacing the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (CRPP) previously adopted by reference, with a new version in which a policy in the mining chapter and its associated implementation strategies have been changed. The effect of the amendment will be to remove a prohibition on mining in areas that are environmentally sensitive or historically significant. * * * SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT: Opportunities for economic benefit from resource extraction will be afforded land owners and the mining industry in environmentally sensitive areas... Costs will be borne by the general public as a result of lost environmental functions and values.... (Emphasis added) As stated in the Council's federal comparison statement: The revised policy is less restrictive than the current federal wetlands policy of avoiding impacts where there are alternatives, and requiring that unavoidable impacts be fully offset in order to achieve a goal of no net loss as defined by acreage and function. And, as stated in the council's economic impact statement: A potential for economic benefit from resource extract ions will be created in environmentally sensitive areas where the CRPP restricts other development activities. Costs will occur in the form of lower water quality and the loss of wildlife habitat and other functions presently provided by the sites where mining will be allowed. * * * Expectation of benefits and costs to affected parties is based on the assumption that at least some local governments in the region will choose not to be more stringent than the CRPP, and will therefore permit mining where consistency with the Regional Plan would previously have required its prohibition. While not conceding that any inconsistency exists between the proposed amendments and the state comprehensive plan, the Council suggests that, if any inconsistency exists, other existing policies within its plan obviate any inconsistency. In support of its argument, the Council points primarily to policies 14.1.1.1, 14.1.1.3, and 14.3.1.6. An examination of such policies, as well as the Council's entire comprehensive plan, demonstrates, however, that no other policy or policies cure the inconsistency that exists between the proposed amendments and the state comprehensive plan.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as a personal view of the subject premises by the undersigned, the following relevant facts are found: By an application submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation in January of 1976, Florida Power Corporation seeks a permit to construct and maintain three electrical power poles, two on Banana Island and one on Parker Island in the King's Bay area of Crystal River. Two spans of wire are to exist between the three poles. The minimum clearance of the bottom wire of the lines spanning between Parker and Banana Islands will be forty-four (44) feet. The wires crossing Banana Island will be some 29 feet in height. The wires will be stretched in a vertical fashion with three wires spaced one above the other, and will carry 12,470 volts of power. Because a mean high water survey was not performed, it is not known whether the three poles will be located on privately or sovereignty-owned land. Inasmuch as Florida Power Corporation has applied for the applicable permits from both the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Department of Natural Resources (See Case No. 77-960), a finding on this issue is not necessary. Darrell F. Howton, a field inspector with the Department of Environmental Regulation, conducted two on-site visits and an appraisal of the permit application. He recommended approval of the project. Finding that the "short-term or immediate impact of the project will deal almost strictly with the transportation of equipment to and from the site," the only recommendation he made was that, in order to minimize the crushing of vegetation, a direct route to the sites be taken with little moving around in the area with vehicles or equipment. Mr. Howton considered potential impediments to navigation resulting from the overhead wires, but found none due to their proposed heights. The dredge and fill section of the Department of Environmental Regulation gave notice of its intent to issue the permit applied for by the Florida Power Corporation. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed a request for a hearing on the permit application, the Department of Environmental Regulation transferred the petitions to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing, Central Development Company as the owners of Parker and Banana Islands intervened as a party-respondent, and the undersigned Hearing Officer was duly designated to conduct the hearing. This matter was consolidated for hearing purposes with Case Nos. 76-1102, 77-849, 77-850 and 77-960, for which separate recommended orders are being entered. The majority of testimony presented by the petitioners related to the issue of whether or not the proposed power lines would create a hazard or a serious impediment to navigation in the area between Parker and Banana Islands. As noted above, the minimum clearance of the wires extending between these islands is 44 feet. The depth of this area at high tide is between four and five feet. The greater weight of the evidence was to the effect that sailboats with masts higher than 35 to 40 feet were too large to use this particular channel because their draft would be too great for the depth of the channel. Deeper navigable waters exist on the west side of Banana Island, and it would not be prudent for a large sailboat owner to risk the expenses and dangers of becoming grounded in the more shallow waters. It was the testimony of the distribution engineering supervisor for Florida Power Corporation that if the power lines created any problems after their installation with respect to sailboat masts, Florida Power would correct the situation by raising the lines to accommodate local traffic. Seaplanes (five or six per year) occasionally utilize the air space between Banana and Parker Islands, depending upon the prevailing wind direction. There would be no harmful or adverse effect upon the manatee by the existence of the power poles or lines. Several waterfront property owners testified that they felt their view of the waters would be obstructed by the existence of the proposed power lines.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that Department of Environmental Regulation issue to the Florida Power Corporation a permit authorizing and allowing the installation and maintenance of the power poles and lines contained in its application. This permit should not be issued unless and until the applicant receives and exhibits the necessary form of consent from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 253.77 (1976). Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire Post Office Box 1872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Baya Harrison, III, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David Gluckman, Esquire 3348 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. H. A. Evertz, III Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Kent A. Zaiser, Esquire Assistant Department Attorney Department of Natural Resources Crown Building 202 Blount Street Tallahassee, Florida ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION CRYSTAL RIVER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1103 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION and CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in her employment based on her gender or race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Janet Cartwright is a white female who formerly worked at the Department of Revenue (DOR or the Department) as a tax auditor. Ms. Cartwright began employment with the Department of Revenue May 1, 2000, as a tax auditor at the Atlanta Service Center. During her employment with DOR, she had four supervisors: Emmanuel Minta, Ron Lee-Owen, Glynn Walters and Evonne Jones Schultz. The function of a tax auditor is to audit all pertinent books and records of taxpayers assigned to them. Auditors are required to maintain a working knowledge of the taxes within their area of responsibility; to travel to the site of the taxpayer's books to perform their audit duties; to review all records during an audit for potential non-compliance with Florida tax statutes; to gather pertinent tax records to support their findings; and to prepare supporting work papers. Ms. Cartwright went on medical leave in September 2003 and did not return to work. On January 2, 2004, she notified her supervisor that she would be applying for early retirement based on a disability, and requested that her medical leave without pay status be extended until her retirement date was established. On or about March 29, 2004, her request for disability retirement benefits was denied. On April 19, 2004, a recommendation was made to terminate her employment based on Petitioner's inability to perform her duties. On July 13, 2004, Petitioner was advised by certified letter that the Department was proposing to terminate her from the position as Tax Auditor II, effective August 31, 2004. Ms. Cartwright acknowledged receiving the July 13, 2004, letter. The July 13, 2004, letter stated: You began employment with the Department of Revenue effective May 1, 2000, as a Tax Auditor I, and on July 12, 2000, you were promoted to a TA II position. You are currently a TA II, which is a field audit position that requires the auditor to independently travel to the taxpayer's location to audit the company's information for Florida taxes. You have been on Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status since September 18, 2003. Further, in a letter dated September 29, 2003, from your physician, Dr. Daniel Goodman, M.D., he indicates that due to your medical condition of narcolepsy, cataplexy and sleep apnea, you are chronically exhausted and always at a risk of falling asleep at any time and have difficulty operating a car at all times. Additionally, Dr. Goodman recommended that you look into getting long-term disability. On January 2, 2004, you provided a letter to your supervisor, Eve Jones, Process Group Manager, requesting that your LWOP status be extended until your retirement benefits are established. However, on March 29, 2004, you were denied disability benefits. The July 13, 2004 letter identified the disciplinary standard upon which the Department relied and the documents considered by the Department in making its decision. It concluded: Your continuing inability to perform your duties has caused not only a concern for your well being, but has also imposed a hardship on the other staff that have had to handle your job duties and responsibilities in addition to their regular duties. Your Program Director and I agree that because of your continuing inability to perform the duties of your position, with no indication of when you might be able to begin performing your normal work duties, dismissal for inability to perform assigned job duties [is] the only appropriate action in your case. No evidence was presented that Ms. Cartwright's termination was based upon her race or gender. The letter contained a notification of Petitioner's right to appeal the action to the Public Employees Relations Commission or to file a grievance pursuant to Section 447.401, Florida Statutes. Ms. Cartwright did not pursue either remedy. Instead she continued to pursue approval of her request for disability retirement, which was successful. On August 30, 2004, the day before her termination would be effective, she faxed to the Department a letter which stated: Last week I received the "Order of Remand," the final document necessary to process my disability retirement effective September 1, 2004. Therefore, after what was an extraordinary amount of time to apply for, and be approved for, disability retirement, I will be terminating employment as a Tax Auditor II effective August 31, 2004. I thank the Department for allowing me to remain on a leave of absence without pay during this process. On August 30, 2005, she filed a complaint against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging racial and gender discrimination. Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was denied training essential to her position; that she was denied a flex schedule; that she was asked to perform clerical and janitorial duties not required of her male counterparts; and that she was not allowed to drive her own car to field audit locations. The more credible evidence indicates that Ms. Cartwright received formal training in Tallahassee a few months after she was hired, received computer based training and on-the-job training. No credible evidence was received that other similarly situated employees received training denied to Ms. Cartwright. Her claim that she was denied training involved events occurring before she began medical leave without pay, well over a year before she filed her complaint with the Commission. Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was denied a flex time schedule. To the contrary, while there was a delay in approval of flex time during part of her tenure, Ms. Cartwright was approved for flex time schedules on May 2, 2000 (the day after beginning work with the Department) and on August 13, 2002. Ms. Cartwright admitted that the issue regarding flex time was resolved over three years before she filed her complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Cartwright, along with other members of the staff, was asked to perform clerical duties when the office was short- handed. Ms. Cartwright did not identify any person on the staff who was not asked to perform such functions. Likewise, members of the staff were asked to take shifts on a volunteer basis with respect to "coffee duty." Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was asked to clean out the refrigerator, but did not testify when this request was made. As she did not return to work after September 18, 2003, it would have been well over a year before she filed her complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations August 30, 2005. Finally, Ms. Cartwright claimed that she was not allowed to drive her own car to field audits. The more credible evidence indicates that Ms. Cartwright was never prohibited from driving her own car, but that office policy provided that when more than one auditor went to an audit location, only the senior auditor would be paid for mileage when using a personally owned vehicle. Ms. Cartwright did not identify any other employee who was not a senior auditor who was paid mileage when accompanying a senior auditor in the field. Moreover, the trips for which mileage was not approved occurred during the period covering September through December 2002. These trips occurred well over two years before Ms. Cartwright filed her complaint with the Commission on Human Relations. The issues raised in her complaint, i.e., lack of training, denial of flex schedule, performance of clerical or janitorial duties and not being compensated for driving her own car, are separate incidents and do not constitute a continuing violation tied to her proposed termination. All of the incidents identified in her complaint, including the proposed termination, occurred more than 365 days before Petitioner filed her complaint with the Commission on Human Relations.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 2nd day of January, 2007.
