The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Notice to Show Cause; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Notice to Show Cause, Respondents, Julio and Lida Diaz, d/b/a Flor-Lidita Restaurant, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-4636. This license was a 2-COP license which authorized the sale of beer and wine for the premises known as Flor-Lidita Restaurant which is located at 4762 N. W. 183rd Street, Miami, Florida. In July, 1986, the FDLE began an investigation concerning an illegal gambling lottery commonly known as "bolita" which was believed to be operating in connection with the Flor-Lidita Restaurant. The investigation undertaken involved a surveillance of the restaurant together with undercover agents who were used to frequent the restaurant for the purposes of observing activities and placing bets with the restaurant personnel. An individual identified as Rafael Rosquete was determined to be a courier who would enter the restaurant, collect the gambling paraphernalia and returns, and deliver the items to a home located in Broward County. On July 9, 1986, a police officer, Hector Zeno, working undercover in connection with the FDLE, entered the Flor-Lidita Restaurant and observed customers writing numbers on bolita slips. Officer Zeno also observed individuals placing bets with the owner, Julio Diaz. In turn, Zeno filled out a bolita slip and placed a $5.00 bet with the owner Julio Diaz. On July 16, 1986, Joyce Dawley and Jacqueline Sirven entered the Flor- Lidita Restaurant and observed customers placing bolita bets with the Respondents, Lida and Julio Diaz. These agents also observed another employee known to them as "Rolando" (later identified as Rolando Nunez) taking bets. Agents Dawley and Sirven placed $5.00 bets with Julio Diaz on this date and received carbon copies of their bolita slips. On July 22, 1986, Zeno returned to the restaurant for the purpose of observing the customers and again placed a $5.00 bet by completing a bolita slip and tendering money to Julio Diaz. During this visit Zeno observed Nunez and Lida Diaz taking money and bolita slips from other customers within the restaurant. On July 23, 1986, Dawley and Sirven returned to the restaurant and again placed two $5.00 bets with Julio Diaz. During this visit the agents observed other individuals inside the licensed premises place bets with Rolando Nunez and Lida Diaz. On July 24, 1986, Dawley and Sirven returned to the Flor-Lidita Restaurant for the purpose of picking up $70.00 in winnings which Agent Dawley was entitled to as a result of the bet she had placed the previous evening. On July 30, 1986, Dawley and Sirven went to the Flor- Lidita Restaurant and again placed two $5.00 bets. This time Lida Diaz took their money and the original bolita slips and gave them carbon copies of their bets. On July 31, 1986, Sirven entered the Flor-Lidita Restaurant for the purpose of receiving $70.00 in winnings based on the prior day's bolita bet. On August 6, 1986, Dawley entered the Flor-Lidita Restaurant, received a bolita pad from Rolando Nunez and placed a $5.00 bet with Nunez in the present of Julio Diaz. On this visit Nunez showed Dawley a ledger which contained a list of dates together with numbers which indicated the winning numbers for the dates in question. On August 11, 1986, Dawley went to the Flor-Lidita Restaurant and observed Lida and Julio Diaz receiving bolita bets from persons within the restaurant. Dawley also observed Rolando Nunez taking bets. Dawley placed a $5.00 bet with Nunez on this date. After receiving a search warrant for the Flor-Lidita Restaurant, special agents of the FDLE entered the licensed premises on August 12, 1986 and searched the restaurant. During the search, agents took possession of various items of gambling paraphernalia which included bolita betting slips, Puerto Rican lottery tickets, blank bolita pads, currency and ledger books. Over $40,000 worth of U.S. currency and gambling paraphernalia was confiscated in connection with the police raid on the restaurant and the house in Broward County. In connection with the search of the licensed premises, Joseph Ogonowski seized an open bottle of scotch whiskey which was behind the counter at the restaurant. The scotch was not listed on the menu as a designated ingredient for any of the food items available for purchase at the restaurant. During the period of surveillance of the Flor-Lidita Restaurant, Rosquete was repeatedly observed by FDLE agents. Rosquete would routinely visit the restaurant, obtain items of gambling paraphernalia including betting slips and U.S. currency, and deliver the proceeds from the restaurant to a residence located in Broward County. The gambling activities conducted on the licensed premises were open, frequent, and included the active participation of the Respondents, Julio and Lida Diaz.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking license number 23-4636, series 2-COP, held by Respondents, Julio and Lida Diaz, d/b/a Flor-Lidita Restaurant. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 15th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4620 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. With the exception of the last sentence paragraph 3 is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as speculation. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraphs 6-20 are accepted. With the exception of the last sentence in paragraph 21, which is rejected as speculation, paragraph 21 is accepted. Paragraphs 22-23 are accepted. The last two sentences of paragraph 24 are accepted. The first sentence is rejected as argument or a conclusion of law. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1-3 are accepted. Paragraphs 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Mr. Ogonowski was qualified to and did identify the substance seized as scotch whiskey. Paragraph 5 is accepted but is unnecessary to the determinations reached by this Recommended Order. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial and unsupported by the record in this cause having previously ruled the adjudications inadmissible. Paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the record in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Rene Valdes 1830 N. W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Daniel Bosanko, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner and retaliating against him because he complained of racial discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Rogers' claim of racial discrimination in treatment is not supported by the evidence. His claim of a disparity in pay is supported by the fact that the three other shift managers who are not African-Americans earned more than he. In response, however, Calder showed legitimate differences in the qualifications and responsibilities of the shift managers, and that higher compensation for the other three was justified. Circumstantial evidence from which one could draw an inference of retaliatory intent consists of Lang's email and Kaminski's statement that his job was in jeopardy and the email did not help. But Lang's email also addressed legitimate business concerns. In the end, it was his unwillingness to act as a supervisor that caused Rogers to be demoted. (He was fired for insubordination on December 17, 2009, by Otero, the same person who had hired and promoted him.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the charge of discrimination filed by Petitioner in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 23rd day of December, 2010.
The Issue abetting bookmaking on its licensed premises. If so, what disciplinary action
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against Rickey's Restaurant and Bar, Inc., be DISMISSED. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. Caleen, Jr. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Respondent was certified as a law enforcement and correctional officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on June 26, 1979, and Respondent was issued certificate numbers 02-023577 and C-1097. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement and correctional officer and was employed as a deputy sheriff by the Columbia County Sheriff's Department holding the rank of lieutenant. Respondent had been employed by the Columbia County Sheriff's Office since 1975, except for the period from 1979 to 1981. The Respondent appeared and gave sworn testimony before the Grand Jury of the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for, Columbia County, Florida (Grand Jury) on February 15, 1984. On or about May 8, 1984, Respondent was interviewed by Special Agent Harry L. Peel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). Either before or during this interview, Respondent requested a polygraph examination which was administered by Peel. As a result of the polygraph examination, Respondent was told by Peel that he was apparently "forgetting something", and after further discussion with Peel and agents of FDLE, Respondent agreed to voluntarily go back before the Grand Jury and "straighten all this up." On May 9, 1984, Respondent appeared before the Grand Jury for the second time to give sworn testimony. Prior to testifying, Respondent was questioned by Eugene T. Whitworth, Assigned State Attorney, James R. Murray, Assigned Assistant State Attorney and Dan Clark, Assigned Assistant State Attorney as to Respondent's understanding that no "deal" had been made and that no immunity was attached to his testimony. It was then explained to Respondent by Whitworth, Murray and Clark that any determination of perjury charges in regard to Respondent's testimony before the Grand Jury would be "up to" the members of the Grand Jury. A review of Respondent's responses during this dialogue with different members of the Assigned State Attorney's Office shows that Respondent was concerned about his previous testimony before the Grand Jury on February 15, 1984 but that Respondent did not think he had lied during his previous testimony. Respondent felt that he had failed to tell the Grand Jury the "whole truth" in his previous testimony and that there may be inconsistencies between his previous testimony and the testimony he was prepared to give on May 9, 1984. Prior to testifying before the Grand Jury on May 9, 1984, Respondent was advised by Whitworth to call his attorney and discuss the probable consequences of testifying before the Grand Jury on May 9, 1984. After calling his attorney, the Respondent voluntarily testified before the Grand Jury. There was insufficient evidence to prove that Respondent had told Peel that he had lied to the Grand Jury in his previous testimony on February 15, 1984. The Respondent was assigned by Sheriff Spradley to the Wynnemore Farm's horse racing track (Track) after Jack Wynne, owner of the Track, complained about the Sheriff's Auxiliary not properly performing its duty at the Track which was being paid for by Wynne. On February 15, 1984 in response to questions concerning his knowledge of the unlawful gambling activity at the Track, Respondent "had thoughts about it, but could never prove it" and nobody approached him "to make any bets or nothing." Respondent "weren't sure there was anything illegal going on, other than hearing people talk on the streets." On May 9, 1984, in reference to the gambling activity at the track, Respondent testified that he told Sheriff Spradley at about the time he was assigned to the Track that "there may be a little gambling going on out there" and that Sheriff Spradley replied "to just keep the auxiliary up front" and "not to worry about the gambling because it wouldn't be that big or nothing like that." On February 15, 1984, Respondent was not positive that he had discussed the situation at the Track with Sheriff Spradley but, testified that "I might have. I'm not positive. I couldn't swear to that, but it seems that I did, that I might have went to him and told him that I thought there was a little bit of gambling...." And further testified that the Sheriff replied, "I'll get it checked into." However, Respondent did recall speaking to Felix Eades, Chief Investigator for the Sheriff's Office, before the arrests about the possibility of "some gambling going on" and that Eades' response was that he "would check into it, and it didn't sound like much to him neither." On May 9, 1984, while testifying before the Grand Jury, Respondent recalled a conversation with Sheriff Spradley wherein the Sheriff told Respondent that "there may be some gambling going" but for Respondent "to overlook it." On February 15, 1984 Respondent testified that it was not one of his responsibilities to inform Wynne of the presence of any law enforcement officers at the track who may be conducting an investigation. On May 9, 1984 Respondent testified that Wynne asked to be informed if the Respondent saw any investigators at the Track. Respondent did not inquire any further, and Wynne did not explain his reasons for wanting to know about the investigators. On February 15, 1984 Respondent could not recall any discussion with any one, including Wynne, before the arrests were made concerning an ongoing investigation of the activities at the Track. On May 9, 1984 Respondent recalled that he had informed Wynne about a week before the raid took place "that he was fixing to be raided." On February 15, 1984 Respondent could not recall any conversation with any member of the Sheriff's Office, particularly Wade Harris, in regard to being involved in a controlled substance violation such as removing contraband from the evidence room. On May 9, 1984 Respondent recalled a conversation wherein Harris told Respondent that Harris had removed marijuana from the evidence room, hauled it to Sisters Welcome Road and transferred the marijuana to Sheriff Spradley's car. Respondent also recalled a conversation with Harris wherein Harris and someone else raided a house in Ft. White, Florida to steal some marijuana. Although there were some discrepancies in Respondent's February 15, 1984 testimony when compared to his May 9, 1984 testimony, a review of the May 9, 1984 testimony shows that Respondent did not consider his February 9, 1984 testimony to be false but only a failure of "not coming in here the first time and telling everything." Respondent resigned from the Columbia County Sheriff's Office shortly after his appearance before the Grand Jury on May 9, 1984 and subsequently was hired by the Department of Corrections as a correction officer. During Respondent's tenure with the Department of Corrections he was given good performance ratings and promoted from a tower guard to being in charge of a dormitory with 172 inmates. Respondent is presently employed by L. J. Kennedy Trucking Company as shipping manager and has held that position for approximately 1 1/2 years. There is no evidence in the record that Respondent was ever charged with perjury before the Grand Jury. Respondent's testimony at the hearing that he had been truthful on both occasions but "remembered" a number of facts after he testified on February 15, 1984 and that he was "scared to death" was credible and consistent with his testimony before the Grand Jury.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Respectfully submitted and entered this 23rd day of July, 1987. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 23rd day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Smith, Esquire 101 East Madison Street P. O. Box 1792 Lake City, Florida 32056-1792 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulinqs on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2.-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 8.-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 in substance. 13.-14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 15.-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 in substance. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 15 in substance. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rulings on Supplemental Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 2.-3. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 19, otherwise rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 4.-6. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2.-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 10 and 11, otherwise rejected as argument. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 6 and 15, otherwise rejected as argument. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 4, 6, 14, 15 and 19, in part, otherwise rejected as argument or as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as argument. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 4 and 19, otherwise rejected as argument.
The Issue Whether the proposed repeal of Rule 61D-11.027, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the repeal has the effect of creating or implementing a new rule or policy.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Legislature enacted Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, in 1996. The law authorized the establishment of “cardrooms” at licensed pari-mutuel facilities and dictated the parameters by which games may be conducted at such facilities. In essence, the cardrooms conduct games wherein the players compete against one another. The participants do not wager against “the house.” Instead, the house, that is, the pari-mutuel facility, conducts the games in a non-banking manner. This means the house does not have a financial interest in the outcome of the game(s). For purposes of this case, it is determined that the players who win share fractions of the “pot” created by the entry fees paid to participate in the game(s). The Petitioners in this cause are licensed facilities that have operated cardrooms. Each Petitioner holds a pari- mutuel wagering permit and a valid cardroom license. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering Section 849.086, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2003 by Section 4, Chapter 2003-295, Laws of Florida. The 2003 amendment imposed a $2.00 bet limitation, with a maximum of three raises per round of betting. This change to the statute required the Respondent to revisit the rules governing cardrooms and, more specifically, the concept of poker “tournaments” being conducted at pari-mutuel facilities. To that end, and after extensive rule-making proceedings, the Respondent adopted rules that were incorporated in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11. The Respondent intended for the rules to address concerns regarding the $2.00 bet and raise limitations as well as how “re-buys” might affect or potentially allow a violation of such provisions. A “re-buy” describes when a card player is allowed to purchase more chips from the house during a game(s). Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-11.027 was adopted on May 9, 2004. It was then challenged by pari-mutuel facilities who alleged the rule encompassed more than the statute authorized. Such challenge (DOAH Case No. 04-2950RX), was granted. The Final Order found that the rule (Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-11.027(2)(a)) exceeded the Agency’s grant of rulemaking authority, modified the specific law implemented, and was arbitrary. Accordingly, the Final Order (DOAH Case No. 04-2950RX) determined that the rule violated Subsections 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Final Order by a Per Curiam decision issued on October 28, 2005. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded with the emergency repeal of the tournament rule in its entirety and issued an advisory letter to all cardroom license holders. The Respondent represented that it cannot reconcile the holding of the court with the explicit language of Section 849.086(8), Florida Statutes (2005). At the hearing, the Respondent represented that additional rulemaking will be necessary. The Respondent does not dispute that tournaments are permissible under the statute. Moreover, the parties agree that prior to the rule, repeal tournaments were conducted using tokens or chips that did not have value. Tournaments were played at licensed cardroom facilities during the period commencing in May 2004 through November 9, 2005. During that time (the period the rule was in effect) counties, cities, and the state received income from the monies remitted by the cardroom facilities. Additionally, the cardrooms employed persons to work the facilities to conduct the various games. After the repeal of the rule, revenues from the cardrooms decreased substantially. Similarly, the cardrooms did not need the number of employees as games were not being conducted. Tournaments at the St. Petersburg Kennel Club have not been conducted since January 17, 2006. From November 2005 through January 17, 2006, the tournaments at the St. Petersburg Kennel Club were conducted using chips or tokens that had “fractional value.” The “fraction” did not correspond to the entry fee charged for the tournament. It is not known whether or not re-buys during the tournaments were allowed. The Respondent issued a Memorandum to Pari-Mutuel General Managers at Cardroom Facilities and Cardroom Managers on January 12, 2006, that provided in part: In light of the recent ruling by the First District Court of Appeals, the Division’s administrative rules regarding tournaments have been repealed on an emergency basis, and are scheduled to be repealed permanently. The Division distributed a memorandum to all cardroom operators regarding Clarification of Cardroom Tournament Rules and Jackpots on November 9, 2005. The Division has also expressed on numerous occasions a serious concern of cardroom operators issuing chips in a fashion that does not represent an even value exchange for money in an attempt to circumvent the $2 bet and three raise limitation outlined in Chapter 849.086(8)(b), Florida Statutes. [Italics in original.] The November 9, 2005, Memorandum referred to in paragraph 14 above provided, in pertinent part: This memorandum is intended to clarify issues regarding the recent ruling by the First District Court of Appeals which affirmed an earlier ruling of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). The DOAH ruling found that various cardroom rules, which were challenged by Dania Jai Alai and Calder Race Course, are invalid. These rules addressed tournaments, jackpots, the Division’s approval of games, and gifts that enable play in an authorized game. As a result of the ruling, today the Division filed emergency rules to ensure that tournaments are played in compliance with the bet limitation of Section 849.086(8)(b), Florida Statutes. * * * The Final Order that was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeals invalidated the Division’s rules regarding entry fees, re-buys and single table tournaments. The judge held that tournament play is authorized by the cardroom statute. Therefore, cardrooms may set their own entry fees and allow re-buys in tournaments and hold single table tournaments. * * * Unauthorized activity, such as conducting wagering on tournaments that does not conform with the wagering restrictions found in Section 849.086(8)(b), Florida Statutes, or offering of jackpots or gifts that do not comply with the requirements that cardrooms be operated in strict conformity with the statute as required by Section 849.086(3), Florida Statutes, may result in disciplinary action. The memorandums identified above did not change or modify the Respondent’s position regarding whether tournaments are legal or permitted by the statute. To the contrary, the memorandums merely advised the cardroom facilities that they would be held to the statutory standard regarding wagering and that jackpots and gifts would be prohibited. Prior to the appeal of the rule, the Respondent routinely approved tournaments that were based upon the following scheme: A participant paid a $32 buy-in and paid the house $13 for the fee to conduct the tournament. Then the participant received a number of no-value chips that were used to play a multiple number of games of poker. At the end of the designated time, number of games, or whenever the designated end occurred (on the same day of play), winners were announced based upon the number of chips they held. Participants were “ranked” and awarded cash prizes from the pot of entry fees. The $32 entry fee was a mathematical calculation thought to assure that no participant would violate the statute’s bet and raise limitations. Whether or not the “all in” concept violated the statute was not considered as the chips were deemed to have no value in and of themselves. This “no value” chip was a fiction that the Respondent supported as, in theory, the $32 player buy-in comported with a mathematical calculation that was within the statutory guideline. The payouts were determined based upon the number of participants and were set by percentage with the first place person receiving the largest payout. Additionally, participants under the approved scheme were not allowed re-buys. That assured that all participants started with the same number of chips and had the same “betting” potential. Finally, winners were not paid or could not receive prizes outside the “pot” created by the entry fees. A nominal gift (such as a T-shirt) was not considered a violation. Prizes such as giant television sets or vacations were not acceptable. All winnings were to be paid from the buy-in fees and all buy-in fees were to be returned to the players in winnings.
The Issue The factual issues in this unadopted-rule challenge relate to whether Respondent, in connection with the administration of the state’s gaming laws, has formulated statements of general applicability that have the effect of giving each slot machine licensee the rights (i) to maintain and operate an outdoor live gaming facility for the conduct of pari-mutuel wagering activities, wherein slot machine gaming areas could not lawfully be located, so long as its slot machines are housed elsewhere, in an enclosed building; and (ii) to locate slot machine gaming areas in a separate, stand-alone building having no integral systems, structures, or elements, provided the building is located on the same parcel, and on the same side of the street, river, or similar obstacle, as the live gaming facility. If Respondent has developed such a statement or statements, then the ultimate issue is whether such statements meet the statutory definition of an unadopted rule.
Findings Of Fact PARTIES SCF is a Florida corporation whose principal place of business is located in Marion County. SCF has been in the business of breeding thoroughbred racehorses since 1996. The company also owns racehorses and, as an owner of racing animals, holds a Pari-Mutuel Wagering Business Occupational License, #PBU476648, from the Division. See § 550.105(2), Fla. Stat. As a licensed business owning racing animals, SCF is under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Division. In the three years preceding this action, SCF’s horses won approximately $120 thousand in purses from performing in race meets held at Florida pari-mutuel facilities.1 1 Although SCF is a licensed owner of racing animals, it is not a member of the Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc. (the “FHBPA”), a nonprofit corporation that advocates in support of Florida’s thoroughbred racing industry and represents the interests of the licensed owners and trainers who comprise its membership. This fact is relevant only to the question of whether SCF is precluded from maintaining this action, under the doctrine of administrative finality, by the Final Order entered in a case brought by the FHBPA in 2018 to challenge agency statements, similar to those at issue here, which the association alleged—but ultimately failed to establish—were unadopted Continued on next page... The Division is the state agency responsible for implementing and enforcing Florida’s gaming laws. It licenses and regulates pari-mutuel and slot machine gaming activities in Florida, as well as the professionals and businesses, such as SCF, that supply necessary goods and services to the gaming economy. The only places in Florida, in fact, where SCF’s thoroughbreds can legally perform in races upon which bets may be made are the several permitted pari-mutuel facilities, which are also subject to the Division’s regulatory jurisdiction; such tracks comprise the exclusive medium for live gaming activities. Calder is the holder of a pari-mutuel wagering permit and, in that capacity, owns a track called Calder Race Course, also known as Gulfstream Park West. As a permitholder, Calder must apply for an annual license to conduct pari-mutuel operations. See § 550.0115, Fla. Stat. This annual license gives the permitholder authority to conduct the pari-mutuel wagering activity authorized under its permit on the dates identified in the license. At all times relevant to this case, Calder has held a license to conduct thoroughbred horseracing performances, and SCF-owned horses have raced at Calder Race Course. In addition to its license to conduct pari-mutuel operations, Calder has held, at all times relevant hereto, a license to conduct slot machine gaming. SLOT MACHINE GAMING In 2004, voters approved an amendment to the Florida Constitution, which opened the door to the installation of slot machines at licensed pari- mutuel facilities in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. See Art. X, § 23, Fla. Const. During its next regular session, the legislature enacted chapter 551 to implement the constitutional amendment. Under the original definition of rules. For reasons discussed much later in this Final Order, the undersigned concludes that the previous Final Order, while favorable to the Division on similar issues, is not a bar to SCF’s claims in this proceeding, because SCF was neither a party to the FHBPA case, nor in privity with the FHBPA. “eligible facility” set forth in section 551.102(4), seven pari-mutuel permitholders potentially qualified for slot machine licensure; a later statutory amendment increased that number to eight. A slot machine license may be issued only to a permitted pari-mutuel facility. That is, to become and remain a slot machine licensee, an eligible facility must operate a pari-mutuel facility in accordance with the provisions of chapter 550, Florida Statutes. So, as a condition of initial slot-machine licensure, a permitholder must demonstrate its compliance with chapters 551 and, as applicable, chapter 550. § 551.104(4), Fla. Stat. To renew, which must be done annually, a slot machine licensee must “[c]ontinue to be in compliance with” chapter 551; “[c]ontinue to be in compliance with chapter 550, where applicable[;] and maintain [its] pari-mutuel permit and license in good standing pursuant to the provisions of chapter 550.” Id. In short, slot machine gaming is secondary to pari-mutuel wagering operations because it cannot exist, lawfully, in the absence of such operations. This means, among other things, that an applicant for a slot machine license is required to have a “current live gaming facility,” in which pari- mutuel wagering occurs in the physical presence of real-time races or games, and that a live gaming facility (“LGF”) must be maintained at the permitholder’s pari-mutuel facility during the life of the slot machine license, if issued. See § 551.114(4), Fla. Stat. In 2005, when chapter 551 was enacted, all seven of the facilities initially eligible for slot machine licensure had large existing grandstands or other buildings that created indoor, conditioned spaces; these “conditioned environments,” in other words, were separated from the outdoor elements and conditions (wind, rain, heat, cold, etc.) by sheltering walls and roofs. Simply put, each of these facilities had a building envelope or exterior shell and, thus, each such facility fell within the definition of a “building” under the common usage of that term. It is reasonable to infer, if not presume, that when section 551.114(4) was being written, the legislature, or at least the drafters of the legislation who coined the term “live gaming facility,” had in mind the buildings then currently in use as “live gaming facilities” at the relatively few eligible facilities that would be subject to the law. At the time chapter 551 took effect, moreover, the Division, in fact, considered these buildings to be the permitholders’ LGFs. A slot machine licensee must have a designated slot machine gaming area (“SMGA”) where “slot machine gaming may be conducted in accordance with the provisions of” chapter 551. §§ 551.102(2), 551.114, Fla. Stat. Section 551.114(4) specifies where the licensee is allowed to locate its SMGA: Designated slot machine gaming areas may be located within the current live gaming facility or in an existing building that must be contiguous and connected to the live gaming facility. If a designated slot machine gaming area is to be located in a building that is to be constructed, that new building must be contiguous and connected to the live gaming facility. For ease of reference, the term “slot machine building,” or “SMB,” will be used herein to refer to any building besides the LGF in which a licensee optionally locates its SMGA. As the statute makes clear, every SMB, whether previously existing, newly constructed, upgraded, refurbished, retrofitted, or freshly painted, must be “contiguous and connected to” the LGF. This will be called the “CCT Requirement.” THE DIVISION’S INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE Over time as it implemented section 551.114(4), the Division interpreted the text in ways which SCF alleges constitute unadopted rules. The circumstances surrounding the development of these interpretations are interesting, and a good deal of evidence was adduced in this proceeding establishing them, but it is not necessary, for present purposes, to make detailed findings concerning these historical facts. Readers who would like to know more about the events leading to this rule challenge may read the Recommended Order (“Calder RO”) that the undersigned issued in The Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association, Inc. v. Calder Race Course, Inc., et al., DOAH Case No. 18-4997, 2019 Fla. Div. Admin. Hear. LEXIS 283 (Fla. DOAH May 24, 2019) (the “License Challenge”). If the undersigned were to make extensive findings of historical fact in this Final Order, such findings would be substantially the same as, if not identical to, the findings set forth in the Calder RO. The primary relevance, to the instant case, of the historical facts relating to the Division’s approvals of SMBs at Calder and another track (Pompano Park/Isle of Capri), respectively, would be to show that, despite the absence of rulemaking or other written evidence of its statutory interpretations, the agency has formulated (but not formally adopted) governing principles for making regulatory decisions—”nonrule policies,” in other words—whose existence and contents can be deduced from the agency’s actions, namely the issuance of slot machine licenses or renewals manifesting underlying determinations that this SMB or that one is compliant, as a matter of ultimate fact, with the provisions of chapter 551, including the CCT Requirement. Recently, however, on February 3, 2020, the Division issued the Calder FO, wherein the agency expressed very clearly not only its understanding of what the relevant words of section 551.114(4) mean (the semantic content), but also what law is made thereby (the legal content). It is, therefore, no longer necessary to deduce the Division’s statutory interpretations from its actions; that these statements exist, and have specific linguistic content, are matters now beyond genuine dispute, the statements having been communicated in writing by the agency itself.2 2 This is what the undersigned meant when he wrote in the Order Regarding Official Recognition that, based on the Calder FO, the Division’s interpretive statements relating to section 551.114(4) “appear to be not genuinely disputable.” In other words, to be clear, the existence and contents of the Division’s interpretive statements are now beyond reasonable Continued on next page... From the Calder FO, the Division’s interpretive statements can be fairly, accurately, and concisely described.3 The first statement of interest dispute, although there might be some relatively insignificant disagreements at the margins regarding the meaning of the agency statements. Independent of all that, the question of whether the Division’s interpretation of section 551.114(4) is the best interpretation, or even a reasonable one, is sharply disputed. While the correctness of the Division’s interpretive statements is a matter of continued conflict, that particular dispute need not be decided in this proceeding, whose focus, instead, is on whether the statements meet the definition of a rule, a question that has little to do with whether the statements reflect the best, or correct, reading of the statutory text. (A statement that expresses nothing but a literal comprehension of the statutory text, reflecting only such meaning as is readily apparent without reading between or beyond the lines of the codified language, is not a rule by definition; nor, however, is it an “interpretation,” strictly speaking. Such a literal paraphrase could be called “correct,” though, and so, to the extent a decision is required regarding whether a statement adds legal content to the underlying statute’s straightforward semantic content, some consideration must be given to the correctness, in this narrow sense, of the statement at issue.) 3 So that no one can misinterpret what the undersigned is doing here, let it be clear. First, the undersigned is not implying that the Calder FO is itself an unadopted rule. The Calder FO is, of course, an order, which determines the substantial interests of specifically named parties, subject to judicial review. The undersigned is saying, however, because it is indisputably true, that the Calder FO contains statements that communicate—expressly, unambiguously, and in specific language (not by implication or through interpretation)— the Division’s interpretation of section 551.114(4). In fact, the Calder FO includes a section titled “Interpretation of Section 551.114(4), F.S.” Thus, while the Calder FO is not, per se, an unadopted rule, it is evidence of the Division’s interpretation of a section 551.114(4); indeed, it is convincing evidence thereof. (The agency’s interpretive statements are not hearsay because what makes them relevant is their existence and contents, not the “truth” of the matters asserted. See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla Stat.) Further, the Division’s interpretation of the statute is, obviously, highly relevant because agency statements that interpret law fall within the definition of a rule when, as SCF alleges here, they do so in ways which give the law meaning not readily apparent from the raw semantic content of the statutory text being implemented. It should also be noted that it makes no difference where or how an agency communicates a statement of general applicability that meets the definition of a rule. There is no “final order immunity” that somehow shields statements contained in a final order from examination in a section 120.56(4) proceeding. We are concerned here with three basic questions: (i) does the statement exist; (ii) if so, what is the content of the statement; and (iii) does the statement’s content meet the definition of a rule? The Calder FO persuasively proves both the existence of the statements at issue and the contents of the statements issue. Second, in describing the Division’s interpretive statements, the undersigned is not attempting to summarize the entire Calder FO. Nor is he purposefully adding to, or subtracting from, the agency’s statements. This is not an exercise in straw-man argumentation. To the extent possible, the undersigned is using the agency’s exact words; his intent, again, is to express the Division’s statutory interpretation accurately and fairly. The Calder FO is available for anyone to read, and the undersigned invites everyone who is interested to do just that and decide for him or herself whether the descriptions herein of the Continued on next page... concerns the CCT Requirement. As the undersigned reads the Calder FO, the Division has interpreted the statute to mean that a licensee’s SMB is “contiguous and connected to” its LGF if the SMB and LGF: (i) “share a common boundary,” for which simply “being located on the same piece of property” is sufficient; (ii) are no more than a “short distance” from one another; (iii) are not on opposite sides of “a public roadway, waterway, or any [similar] barrier”; and (iv) are “connected” by a walkway between the two, for which an outdoor sidewalk is sufficient. In its Response in Opposition to the Order Regarding Official Recognition, however, the Division stated that and (iv) “may not be required” in every instance and, thus, are not necessary conditions. In other words, the SMB and LGF might be farther than a “short distance” from each other and still be “contiguous”; and the two structures, if respectively self-contained, might be “connected” other than by a “walkway” between them. Making this correction, the agency statement becomes: A licensee’s SMB is “contiguous and connected to” the LGF if the SMB and LGF: (i) “share a common boundary,” for which “being located on Division’s interpretive statements are accurate and fair. (The Division expressed some minor disagreements with the undersigned’s original descriptions of the agency interpretations at issue, and these disagreements will be addressed in the text above.) Third, relatedly, the undersigned emphatically disclaims any intention of using unfair descriptions of the Calder FO to turn “narrow issues” into “more general” statements having a “broader scope of applicability” than the agency intends. The fact is, however, that there is nothing “fact-specific” about the Division’s interpretation of section 551.114(4), and the Division’s insisting otherwise will not make it so. This point will be discussed further above, but let it be emphasized in this footnote that a statement’s relative applicability is determined based upon the level of generality expressed by the statement’s language, that is, by the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of the semantic content of the text. The more inclusive the statement, the more generally applicable it is. A statement of general applicability, so framed, is not rendered “fact-specific” simply because it has been applied to the facts of a specific case in determining the substantial interests of a particular party. the same piece of property” is sufficient;4 and (ii) are not on opposite sides of “a public roadway, waterway, or any [similar] barrier.”5 What cannot be disputed, bottom line, is that the Division, in its own words, interprets “the plain statutory language” of section 551.114(4) as “contemplat[ing]” that the SMB may be “a stand-alone separate building” from the LGF. See Calder FO at 42. From this interpretation, it follows logically that having structural elements in common with the LGF, or sharing integrated systems therewith (e.g., exterior envelope, HVAC, electric, and plumbing), is not a necessary condition of an SMB’s satisfying the CCT Requirement; that is, even without such integration, the SMB and LGF may be deemed statutorily “contiguous and connected to” each other, according to the Division. The undersigned will call this the “nonintegration principle.” The nonintegration principle is the Division’s seminal insight regarding the meaning of section 551.114(4); if the nonintegration principle were deemed false (incorrect), such determination would guarantee the falsity (incorrectness) of the Division’s statement that “the plain statutory language” of section 551.114(4) “contemplate[s]” that the SMB may be “a stand-alone separate building” from the LGF. This is because, to state the obvious, “a stand-alone separate building” is, by that description, a self- 4 Because it is necessary that all of the permitholder’s pari-mutuel facilities be located on the property “specified in the permit,” see section 550.0115, Florida Statutes, and because slot machines must be located “within the property of the [permitholder’s] facilities,” see sections 551.101 and 551.114(1), part (i) of the agency statement makes “shar[ing] a common boundary” practically a given, and certainly a gimme. 5 It is usually unhelpful to define anything by describing what the thing being defined is not, which entails a process of elimination. Saying that being “contiguous and connected” means being not separated by a public roadway, etc., tells us nothing that we didn’t already know; it is the answer to a question that no one would ask, akin to saying that the CCT Requirement prohibits a permitholder from locating its SMB in a different city or state from the LGF. Like part (i) of the agency statement, part (ii) imposes a “requirement” that is a gimme, if not a given. Taken together, the two parts, (i) and (ii), comprising the agency statement under consideration, come very close to eliminating the CCT Requirement altogether, reducing it to the ineffectual status of “requirement in name only.” As the Division sees it, the CCT Requirement has little practical effect, if any, other than ensuring that the SMB and LGF have the same address, which is already assured. contained structure that is not integrated with another structure. So, the Division’s statement that the statute allows the use of a nonintegrated SMB is true only if SMB/LGF integration is not a necessary condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement. In its Response in Opposition to the Order Regarding Official Recognition, the Division states that the Calder FO “does not comment on whether it is ever necessary, to satisfy the [CCT] requirement, that the SMB and LGF ‘have any common structural elements or integrated systems, e.g., exterior envelope, HVAC, lighting, etc.’“ This is trivially true inasmuch as the Calder FO does not specifically describe the nonintegration principle as such. But the point is irrelevant because, as just explained, if section 551.114(4) permits locating an SMGA in a separate, stand-alone building, as the Division maintains, then the nonintegration principle must exist, and it must be true, regardless of whether the Division actually utters the words that communicate the concept. If the Division meant to say more, i.e., to imply that there might be an as-yet unrevealed exception or exceptions to the nonintegration principle, this possibility, whatever else might be said about it,6 does not negate the nonintegration principle itself. This is because the principle does not hold that nonintegration is a necessary condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement; that is, integration does not guarantee failure. Nor does it hold 6 One thing that can be said if there exists an exception to the nonintegration principle is that an SMB’s “being located on the same piece of property” as the LGF would not be a sufficient condition for finding that the two “share a common boundary,” contrary to what the Division has said elsewhere. If there were an exception, then sometimes (when the exception applies) integration would be required in order for the two structures to share a common boundary and be deemed contiguous to one another. To explain, locating a self- contained SMB on the same piece of property as the LGF guarantees compliance with the “common boundary” requirement—i.e., is a sufficient condition therefor—only if the nonintegration principle has no exceptions. (The undersigned takes for granted that integration would never be required to meet the only other identified requirement, namely that the SMB and LGF not be separated by a public roadway, waterway, or similar barrier, because that condition would be so easily met by putting the two structures on the same side of the street or river.) that nonintegration is a sufficient condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement; that is, nonintegration does not guarantee success. Rather, the nonintegration principle holds that integration is not a necessary condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement; or, put another way, that nonintegration is statutorily permissible. Why is this significant? Because if section 551.114(4) literally requires an integrated SMB/LGF in all cases where the SMGA is located outside the current LGF, then the Division’s interpretation of the CCT Requirement is not readily apparent from what is actually stated in the statutory text, even if it might conform to the legislature’s communicative intent,7 which would mean that the agency has declared what the law shall be (a legislative power), as opposed to applying the law as it is (an executive power). And, as we know, an agency is authorized to exercise delegated legislative authority only through formal rulemaking. The second statement concerns the meaning of the term LGF, which the Division defines as being any area, including an “open-aired, unenclosed place” or “space,” from which patrons can “view … and/or [be] within the physical presence of” contests occurring in real time, and at which they may engage in pari-mutuel betting on such contests using equipment designed to facilitate these “live gaming activities.” In its Response in Opposition to the Order Regarding Official Recognition, the Division asserts that the foregoing description of its definition of the term LGF is too narrow, because the Division defines LGF to include the racetrack as well. The undersigned accepts this assertion to be true, and revises his original description accordingly. 7 The legislature might have intended, for example, to communicate meaning beyond the plain semantic content of the statutory text, whose full linguistic content thus could not be understood without an appreciation of pragmatic considerations, such as programmatic goals, arguably better known to the agency than to the citizenry. If so, the necessary and proper, lawful agency response would be to take quasi legislative action and adopt a rule. The track, of course, is the “field of play” for live horse racing performances, analogous to the three-walled court (or cancha) on which jai alai players perform. Clearly, there can be no LGF without a track or cancha; this practically goes without saying. Including the live performance site, definitionally, as an element of the LGF, however, is inconsequential to this case because neither a track nor a cancha, by itself, could constitute an LGF; there must be something to accommodate patrons, who obviously cannot watch, or place wagers on, live contests while sitting or standing upon the track or jai alai court. The relevant question in this case is whether the statute literally requires that something to entail conditioned space within an enclosed building shell.8 Reduced to its undisputed essentials, the Division’s position is that while an LGF may be an enclosed building, it needn’t necessarily be. An open- air, unenclosed place or space will suffice, if properly equipped to facilitate wagering. It is this “open-air option” to which SCF objects as the instantiation of a policy that exceeds the raw semantic meaning of the term LGF and thus constitutes an unadopted rule. SCF alleges that the Division has formulated a third unadopted rule, extrinsic to the Calder FO, which is not interpretive in nature but rather is a prescriptive statement to the effect that certain ultimate facts are conclusively determinable as a matter of law if the basic facts are undisputed. To the point, SCF contends that the Division has decided that, if a hearing is requested to determine whether an SMB satisfies the CCT Requirement, the proceeding will be governed by section 120.57(2) unless the objective facts on 8 At times, the Division appears to imply that the LGF comprises entire pari-mutuel complex, so desirous is the agency to get across the idea that the term LGF must be read expansively. While warning of the dangers of defining LGF too narrowly, the Division seems unconcerned about the opposite problem, namely reading LGF so broadly that the term ceases to have relevant meaning. If the LGF is everything on the permitted premises, then it is nothing specifically identifiable. For the LGF to have discernible boundaries—a necessary condition of contiguity with another structure, by the way—there must be a limiting principle or Continued on next page... the ground are genuinely disputed. SCF contends that the Division is using this “gatekeeper mechanism” to deny SCF (and another party) the formal hearings they have requested, pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), to challenge the renewal of Calder’s slot machine license, based on allegations that Calder does not have a statutorily compliant LGF and that its SMB fails to meet the CCT Requirement. The Division has not published a notice of rulemaking under section 120.54(3)(a) relating either to the open-air option, the nonintegration principle, or the gatekeeper mechanism. Nor has the Division presented evidence or argument on the feasibility or practicability of adopting any of these alleged statements of general applicability as a de jure rule. THE DIVISION’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALLEGED UNADOPTED RULES As mentioned above, the historical facts giving rise to the agency interpretations at issue are not only, for the most part, undisputed, but also, more importantly, largely irrelevant for purposes of determining the merits of this action under section 120.56(4). The Division’s implementation of the alleged unadopted rules does have some bearing, however, on the question of SCF’s standing, which is a hotly contested issue in this case. Therefore, an abridged history follows. Of the eight pari-mutuel facilities eligible for slot machine licensure, only Pompano Park/Isle of Capri (“PPI”) and Calder have chosen the option contained in section 551.114(4) to erect a new building in which to locate their respective SMGAs. All of the other eligible permitholders opted to locate their SMGAs within their current LGFs; these were buildings, enclosing conditioned environments, not open-air places exposed to the elements. Because Broward County satisfied the local referendum requirement before Miami-Dade County did, PPI’s application for slot machine licensure was the principles to delimit the definitional scope. The Division has been reluctant to commit to such limiting principles. first to require the Division’s decision as to whether an SMB that was to be constructed would meet the CCT Requirement. The physical configuration of PPI’s SMB, as planned and built, was not “contiguous” to its existing LGF under any ordinary understanding of the word “contiguous,” which denotes actual contact along a common boundary; the buildings were in “reasonably” close proximity, but they did not communicate in the sense of opening into each other. Nor was PPI’s SMB “connected to” its LGF in accord with the image that readily comes to mind when thinking about how two contiguous structures would be connected to each other. The two separate, stand-alone buildings were “connected,” not physically, through any sort of direct contact, but figuratively, by basic transport infrastructure—i.e., a covered walkway between them.9 This apparent departure from the plain meaning of section 551.114(4) resulted from the Division’s desire to give the eligible permitholders some “leeway” in satisfying the strict statutory requirement that an SMB be “contiguous and connected to” the current LGF, according to David Roberts, who headed the Division from 2001 through 2009, and who was involved in making the decision.10 After Miami-Dade County satisfied the local referendum requirement in 2009, Calder applied for its initial slot machine license. Because Calder, 9 They were connected, that is to say, in the same way Tallahassee is connected to Jacksonville via Interstate 10. 10 On October 17, 2019, the agency head of DOAH began systematically reviewing every final order and recommended order prior to, and as a prerequisite of, its issuance. Pursuant to this review, the director makes written “comments and suggested edits” on some, but not all, orders. Although the presiding officer is not required to accept the director’s suggested edits, he is not given the option of declining the director’s review. As a result, the undersigned received two comments, one on the paragraph above and the other on paragraph 30 of this Final Order, which are, at least arguably, “relative to the merits,” and hence which are, or might be, ex parte communications prohibited by section 120.66(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (no “ex parte communication relative to the merits” shall be made to the presiding officer by “[a]n agency head,” among others). Erring on the side of caution and disclosure, the undersigned hereby places on the record the director’s comment concerning paragraph 24: “This is the crux of Continued on next page... like PPI, intended to place its SMGA in a self-contained casino, which would be newly constructed, Calder sought and received the Division’s permission to build a separate, stand-alone SMB pursuant to the same informal policy that had relaxed the strict CCT Requirement for PPI. The Division’s issuance to Calder of its initial slot machine license manifested the Division’s determination that Calder’s SMB and LGF, as initially configured after construction of the new SMB, were compliant with all of the statutory requirements for slot machine gaming licensure, including the CCT Requirement. In 2016, Calder demolished its grandstand building; as of this hearing, Calder has not replaced its former LGF with a new building of any kind. The demolition of the grandstand was one of several actions taken in furtherance of a business decision by Calder to distance itself from live racing activities at Calder Race Course. Other actions included slashing the number of annual performances during the race meet, from an average of 250 performances per year to 40 performances per year; the entry into a contract with Gulfstream Park to operate and manage Calder’s abbreviated race meet; and a reduction in the number of stalls available for the stabling and training of racehorses. There is an ongoing dispute as to whether Calder, without an enclosed building for live gaming, has a legally sufficient LGF. See License Challenge. What is not disputed is that Calder lacks an LGF capable of housing an SMGA in compliance with chapter 551, because an SMGA must be housed in a building. Calder’s “LGF,” such as it is, currently consists of open-air viewing areas where patrons can watch, and place wagers on, live races. The primary viewing area is located in front of the final stretch of the racetrack, at a spot called the “apron.” There are some outdoor seats and tiki huts on the apron, and, during the race meet, Calder erects a collapsible canopy tent, your most defensible finding.” Any party desiring to rebut this communication shall be allowed to do so in accordance with section 120.66(2). which, despite the absence of walls, provides a bit of shelter for wagering machines, video screens, and, of course, patrons, for whom additional outdoor seating is provided. The casino is at least 100 yards from the temporary “big tent.” It is possible to walk from the casino to the big tent, and return, on a concrete walkway, but the walkway is only partially covered, which means, when it rains, that patrons cannot go back and forth between the SMB and the “LGF” without getting wet. The walls of the SMB do not touch or abut the areas where patrons can view the live horse races and place bets. Indeed, a patron can walk into the main entrance of the casino, play the slot machines, and then leave, without once seeing, or being within a football field’s length of, an area that allows the viewing of live horse racing. At the time of the hearing, Gulfstream Park’s general manager was William Badgett. (Gulfstream Park, recall, operates Calder’s race meet pursuant to contract.) Mr. Badgett testified as follows regarding the decline in attendance and wagering after the demolition of Calder’s grandstand: [W]hat I’ve seen is—it’s, pretty much, in black and white. The numbers over the year—year to year to year[—]have declined mostly because this is the best that we can offer at the facility without building a permanent structure. … When it rains the water comes down the hill and people just leave. And what I’ve seen from the owners is they’ll come to watch a race. After the race they’ll leave. … [I]t has declined year to year to year in the handle and the amount of people that we see there. When asked whether, based upon his many years of experience in the horseracing industry as a trainer and as a track manager, he believed that the lack of a grandstand and of any protection from the elements has negatively affected the amount of live handle at the race meets at Calder Race Course, Mr. Badgett answered, “Yes, absolutely.” Describing the experience of watching a race at ground level on the apron, Mr. Badgett testified: What we do is we put televisions in the tent because it’s not as—You, more or less, have to walk down the apron if you want to see it live. There’s a structure in the middle of the—of the in-field, which is the tote board, which doesn’t work anymore. So, it’s a little bit of an obstruction. You can see [the race], but you’re better off watching it on television. The undersigned credits Mr. Badgett’s testimony on these points. DETERMINATIONS OF ULTIMATE FACT It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that both the open-air option and the nonintegration principle have the effect of law because the Division, if unchecked, intends consistently to follow them in carrying out its responsibilities to administer chapters 550 and 551 generally, and section 551.114(4) specifically. Each statement creates rights (in the form of expanded locational options for SMBs and architectural options for LGFs) that are exercisable by slot machine licensees.11 While directly regulating the physical plant of a permitted pari-mutuel facility, these statements collaterally regulate live gaming licensees, including businesses owing racing animals such as SCF, whose licensed occupations require access to, and the use of, the permitholders’ LGFs and other pari-mutuel facilities. From the perspective of a licensed racehorse owner, the LGF (which it neither owns nor controls) is the environment for its audience, the spectators whose money (wagered on races) helps fund the purses and awards that compensate the licensee for its services. A law that allows an LGF to be an open-air place as opposed to a climate controlled 11 The undersigned hereby places on the record the director’s comment regarding paragraph 30: “Finding the agency’s future intent as a matter of fact is troubling.” Any party desiring to rebut this communication shall be allowed to do so in accordance with section 120.66(2). Continued on next page... building is detrimental to the interests of a business licensee whose success in a pari-mutuel occupation depends upon the continued presence of a large, paying audience, for the obvious reasons that an open-air place is unlikely to be as comfortable, or as amenity-rich, as a building; and, taken together, less comfort and fewer amenities, relatively speaking, are more likely to discourage potential customers from showing up.12 Similarly, the nonintegration principle negatively affects the interests of live gaming licensees such as SCF because it allows the permitholder literally to draw patrons away from the live gaming activities upon which the live gaming licensees depend, to a “nearby,” but physically separate and independent, SMB. The relative draw of the SMB, moreover, which must be an enclosed building, is enhanced if the LGF, pursuant to the open-air option, does not afford patrons a conditioned environment. That is, when the nonintegration principle works in tandem with the open-air option at the same pari-mutuel facility, the result is even more disadvantageous to live gaming licensees, because the disequilibrium in patron comfort, as between slot machine players and live game spectators, ratchets up as the LGF becomes more stripped-down. The bottom line is that the nonintegration principle and the open-air option are unadopted rules because, in the Division’s hands, they create legally protected opportunities for permitholders to design, configure, and construct their physical plants, in ways that predictably and substantially affect live gaming licensees. 12 The undersigned regards this as self-evident. Common, everyday experience informs the undersigned—who doubts that any reasonable person can genuinely deny—that an enclosed, dry, heated or cooled environment, separated from the outdoors, where a spectator can sit and watch a race without being exposed to direct sunlight, wind, or insects, is more attractive to potential customers, in the main, than an open-air place where the spectator might be uncomfortably hot or cold, windswept, and bitten by mosquitoes; thus, a building is a relatively stronger draw. Continued on next page... The gatekeeper mechanism, in contrast, while perhaps having some of the characteristics of a general principle, is primarily a quasi-judicial ruling, operative only in the context of a quasi-judicial administrative proceeding, and lacking any broad regulatory effect. While such a ruling plainly affects the interests of the party or parties to the particular proceeding, it is judicially reviewable without the mediation of yet another administrative proceeding (unlike an intended regulatory decision, which becomes final unless a hearing is requested).13 To be sure, the question of whether an agency statement to the effect that “formal hearings shall not be granted if the historical facts are undisputed, leaving for determination only the ultimate fact of compliance” (whose level of generality is somewhat higher than the gatekeeper mechanism at issue) could be deemed an unadopted rule is fairly debatable. Yet, even that apparently rule-like statement, which arguably “describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency,”14 would be actionable only as an interlocutory order in a quasi-judicial proceeding, because only such a proceeding would give the agency an opportunity to use the statement. It is hard, therefore, to distinguish between 13 In other words, if a party disagrees with the agency’s decision under section 120.569(2)(a) to deny the party’s request for a formal hearing, that party does not need to request another administrative hearing to contest the decision. The agency’s decision to deny a formal hearing and proceed under section 120.57(2) is a nonfinal order, which may be immediately appealed under section 120.68(1)(b), see United States Service Industries-Florida v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 383 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), or reviewed on plenary appeal from an adverse final order, see Spuza v. Department of Health, 838 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). If the agency refuses to discharge its duty under section 120.569(2)(a), mandamus will lie. See Cmty. Health Charities v. Dep’t of Mgmt. Servs., 961 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). 14 See § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. (definition of “rule”). “policy” and “reversible error” in this instance.15 Ultimately, the undersigned determines that the gatekeeper mechanism is not a rule by definition.
