Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Sammie Rayner, Respondent, was employed by the City of Clearwater as a customer service representative in the utility department. On February 11, 1992, Respondent needed to take her daughter to Seminole High School for a test and mentioned this to Joyce Griesel, Senior Customer Service Representative. The only city employees in the customer service section with authority to grant Respondent permission to leave the building on February 11, 1992, were John Scott, Utility Consumer Response Manager and Tim Bissonnette, Customer Service Supervisor. On the afternoon of February 11, 1992, Bissonnette was out of the office attending a conference; however, Scott was available. Bissonnette was Respondent's immediate supervisor, and Scott was over Bissonnette. Prior to October 1991, the Senior Customer Service Representative had authority to allow customer service representatives to leave the building for short periods. However, because of an incident in October 1991, this authority was removed from the Senior Customer Service Representative, and all employees were advised of the changed policy. Although Respondent denies that she was told that only Scott and Bissonnette could grant permission to leave the building, she did ask if Bissonnette was available before she departed the office around 3 p.m., on February 11, 1992. Respondent also contends that she asked Giesel for permission to leave, but Giesel denies that she gave such authorization, knowing full well that she had no such authority. Respondent was not given permission to leave the building on February 11 by Giesel.
Findings Of Fact This application is a request for a consumptive use permit for two wells located in Pasco County, Florida, within the Pithlachascotee Basin. The subject wells are also located in that area wherein the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District declared a water shortage in Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. The application seeks an average daily withdrawal of 95,000 gallons with a maximum daily withdrawal of 360,000 gallons. The use of this water is for public supply involving effluent disposal by on-site percolation and ponding. This-use was existing prior to January 1, 1975 with am average daily withdrawal for 1974 of 74,000 gallons. The testimony presented by staff members of the Southwest Florida Water Management District establishes that the consumptive use for which a permit is sought will not violate any of the criteria set forth in Subsections 163- 2.11(2)(3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code, except that the use may significantly induce salt water encroachment. No evidence was presented showing that the sought for consumptive use will, in fact, significantly induce salt water encroachment. In the twelve month period ending October, 1975, applicant's highest average daily withdrawal was 81,000 gallons. This time frame corresponds to that time frame referred to in paragraph 1 of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. In view of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District, the staff recommends granting of the permit for an average daily withdrawal of 81,000 gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal of four times that figure or 234,000 gallons. The staff further recommends imposition of the following conditions: That the permittee shall install totalizer flow meters of the propeller driven type on all withdrawal points covered by the permit with the exception of those wells which are currently ganged together using a single meter. That the permittee shall submit to the District a record of his pumpage for each meter, said pumpage to be read on a monthly basis and submitted quarterly to the District on April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar quarter. That all individual connections to the system be metered. That the permittee have water samples from all wells permitted analyzed for chloride on a monthly basis and results submitted to the District by April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar year.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frank A. Caluwe, Jr., was employed on a noncontractual basis by Respondent, South Florida Water Management District, during the period from April 8, 1974 through August 4, 1982. From August, 1981 until his termination, Caluwe held the position of water management engineer III. At all times relevant hereto, Richard A. Rogers, director of the Resource Control Department, was overall supervisor or department head. Charles Alan Hall served as his direct, day-to-day supervisor. Petitioner transferred into the Resource Control Department in 1977. He was eventually promoted to a supervising professional engineer I class in 1979 by Rogers and Hall. Caluwe's job evaluations received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 17 reflected outstanding and excellent ratings and included such glowing descriptions of his work performance as "excellent" and "well organized", and as having "a very good handle on all phases of the work". He received an excellent rating from Rogers and Hall as late as November, 1981. Rogers first began experiencing what he described as "difficulties" with Caluwe around 1980 when Caluwe went to lunch with several of his subordinates and did not return to work the rest of the afternoon. He did not take leave for his absence. Although Rogers claimed the employees were on a "drinking spree," this was not confirmed. Caluwe did not receive any disciplinary action for this "incident", although several months later Hall expressed displeasure with his absence. There was no evidence that any of the other employees in the group received any type of oral or written disciplinary action for their absences. Several other "problems" occurred during his employment tenure including unsuccessful attempts in 1980 to utilize law books at the agency's law library for personal use, admonishments for having too many incoming personal calls on his telephone during office hours and discussing nonworking matters with other employees, "negative" comments to two subordinates during a 1981 intra-agency election, and an alleged failure to return a long-distance telephone call to someone seeking information. However, no formal disciplinary action was taken against Petitioner for any of these actions, and his personnel file reflects no written comments. He also sued the agency twice, once in 1977 over an insurance claim, and a second time in 1980 concerning a cash award he claimed was due for making a suggestion. However, this action did not result in any written or oral warnings from his superiors. In May, 1981, Hall, Rogers and Caluwe met to discuss a transfer from a supervisory position (supervisor of water permit section) to a water management engineer III, which was a staff position. Although Caluwe admitted he was "burned out" in his supervisory role, he protested being demoted to a staff position and requested he be given an engineer IV slot. Notwithstanding his request he was demoted to the lower position. On March 17, 1982, an annual agency meeting was held at which time the agency executive director spoke to all employees. Prior to that time an undated memorandum was posted on the agency's bulletin board "urging" all employees to attend. Another memorandum dated March 1, 1982, which rescheduled the meeting to another date, simply advised members of Caluwe's department when the talk was to be held, but made no mention regarding attendance. Caluwe did not attend the meeting because he did not consider it to be mandatory. He based this conclusion upon the fact that the memorandum urged vis a vis required attendance, and because other employees had missed the meeting in prior years. He conceded, however, that it was "implied" from the memorandum that he attend the meeting. Respondent construed the memorandum to mean that attendance was compulsory, and that "everybody (was) expected to attend." Whether this specific meaning was ever conveyed to all employees, including Caluwe, before the meeting was not disclosed. During the annual agency meeting Caluwe remained working in his office. While there, an unidentified member of the public approached a temporary receptionist seeking information concerning a problem. The receptionist in turn went to Caluwe seeking his aid in responding to the inquiry. Caluwe responded, "I don't know. That's not my job. Pat Gleason's group handles that." Out of "curiosity", the receptionist reported his comments to a department head, who in turn told Rogers. Neither the receptionist nor the member of the public were identified, and neither appeared and testified at the final hearing. Whether or not the receptionist suffered "abuse" as a result of this as the agency claims was not confirmed. Rogers, Hall and Caluwe met on March 18 concerning his absence from the annual meeting and the "incident" with the receptionist. On March 22 Caluwe was given a written warning and assigned 25 disciplinary points for being guilty of a Category 2e offense under the agency's Corrective Action-Procedure Index and Corrective Action-Policy. The Index and Policy "defines appropriate corrective actions for resolving performance problems and violations of rules of conduct" by agency employees. In short, it represents the agency's written code of conduct for employees. A 2e offense is defined therein as a "(f)ailure to follow authorized instructions." In conjunction with the written warning, Caluwe was also given a memorandum prepared by Rogers on March 19 which explained in greater detail the conduct that precipitated the disciplinary action. In the memorandum Rogers referred to a number of things which prompted the disciplinary action, including the "incident" with the receptionist, the missed meeting, and Caluwe's apparent use of the telephone for personal use during the meeting as reported by the temporary receptionist. However, since the 25 points were given to Caluwe for failing to follow authorized instructions, it is found that disciplinary action was taken because he failed to attend the annual meeting. On March 29, 1982, Caluwe wrote a fourteen-page letter to Rogers giving his version of what occurred on March 17, and explaining in great detail other "incidents" that had occurred during the preceding eighteen months, Attached to the letter were 23 exhibits. Among other things, Caluwe accused Hall and Rogers of "improper conduct and abuse of authority" in handling the other incidents that had previously arisen. He also criticized their ability to manage and communicate with employees. The letter indicated that copies of the same were being mailed to each member of the agency's governing board, its Executive Director, Deputy Director, and Records Clerk, and an outside attorney. Rogers accepted the letter as merely being a response to his memorandum of March Caluwe was not disciplined for this action. On March 31, 1982 Caluwe wrote a two-page letter to the members of the governing board of the agency and enclosed his March 29 letter and exhibits previously sent to Rogers. In his March 31 letter, Caluwe stated, among other things, that management "occupie(d) a position of trust", that it had "breached this trust", that it "rule(d) by intimidation and fear and not in the spirit of cooperation", and urged the board members to conduct an independent investigation of his "allegations". A copy of this letter was also furnished an outside attorney. On May 13, 1982 Caluwe sent another letter to the members of the governing board in which he inquired as to the status of the investigation he had called for in his letter of March 31. Caluwe also raised allegations concerning the agency's general counsel, and claimed the general counsel had "used sick leave for purposes other than for which it was intended (and) falsified his bi-weekly time reports and received pay and benefits for periods he was absent from work", and that the problem was created because his leave slips had been approved by the agency's deputy executive director. That complaint is now the subject of a Florida Commission on Ethics proceeding. Caluwe had previously brought this subject to Rogers' attention sometime in 1980. There was no evidence his to the reaction, if any, by the members of the governing board to this letter or the one previously sent on March 31. Caluwe did not furnish his supervisors a copy of the letter but did copy the records clerk of the agency. Neither Rogers nor the agency personnel director received copies of the same until late July, 1982. In June, 1982 Caluwe contacted reporter for the Miami Herald to disclose the fact that the chairman of the agency's governing board had been involved in selling insurance to the board. On June 22, 1982 outside counsel for the agency wrote the agency's personnel director telling him, among other things, that it would call the director the next day concerning Caluwe and provide him "with language to be included in a letter of termination." It also referred to a need to review in detail "SFWMD's termination, grievance, and personnel policies to make sure that Caluwe's discharge, and the procedures used to implement the discharge, comport with due process." At this point, then, the agency had decided to terminate Caluwe. On July 21, 1982 Caluwe again wrote a letter to the members of the governing board. The text of the letter is set out below: To members of the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District: You are to be congratulated for your unity in not addressing controversial topics. It's an unfortunate situation when special interests are put ahead of the public trust that has been vested in you. The only reasonable conclusion that I can reach is that you condone poor management and theft. Perhaps some of you have committed acts similar to these and that's why you cannot afford to get involved. Well you are involved! It's satisfying to note the courts have held directors personally liable in civil actions and that penalties are not limited to compensatory damages but that punitive damages can be assessed. It's also interesting to note that you may be found culpably negligent in permitting acts like these to occur. Since you have been unwilling to do your own house cleaning, I have decided to help you in this matter. I think it would be an excellent idea if the citizens of South Florida had an opportunity to see how the South Florida Water Management District has acted in favoring special interests. When this happens you will not honestly be able to say, "we didn't know". One member of the Board responded by letter dated July 23, 1982 that she considered it inappropriate for Caluwe to write directly to board members and instructed him to use channels that were provided for handling complaints. She added that Caluwe's letter struck her as being "offensive". The letter made no direct reference to Rogers and Hall, and they were not furnished a copy. However, on July 26 Rogers was given a copy of the letter. On July 30, 1982 Rogers sent Caluwe a memorandum in which he informed Petitioner that his employment was being terminated at 5:00 p.m. on August 4, 1982, and not to report to work after July 30. In brief, the reasons given for Caluwe's termination were (a) his "uncooperativeness shown a co-worker" on March 19, and his "failure to respond to a request for information from a member of the public", which collectively constituted a 2e offense for which he was previously assigned 25 points on March 19, 1982; (b) his letter to Rogers on March 29, 1982 which alleged poor management, illegal activity and unfair treatment to Caluwe, and which "personally attacked and insulted Charles Hall and (Rogers)"; (c) his letter of July 21 to the board which contained "inflammatory, threatening, and abusive language" and which constituted Category 2h and 3a offenses for which he received 75 points in total, and an additional 25 points which was given for the same letter by virtue of Caluwe's "failure to follow promulgated grievance and complaint procedures'; 3/ (d) the accumulation of a total of 125 points since March 19 which was in violation of Section E.1.d. of the Corrective Action Policy; and (e) "actions" which interfered with Rogers' ability to maintain internal discipline", made it impossible to work with (Caluwe)", made it "impossible to transfer (him) to a different Department", which "interfered with (his) performance of assigned duties", and which showed a "tendency on (his) part to make untrue and misleading statements." A Category 2h offense is defined in the Policy-Index as the "(u)se of abusive language to a co-worker" while a Category 3a offense is defined as the "(u)se of abusive or threatening language to the public, or use of threatening language to a co-worker." Category 2e offenses carry the imposition of 25 points for each violation. Fifty points are assigned for a violation of a Category 3 offense. Section E.1.d, of the Policy-Index provides that "(a) total of 100 points in effect may be cause for termination." The Policy-Index requires that "(c)orrective action shall be taken as soon as possible, but not more than five working days from the time the supervisor becomes aware of the incident." The memorandum of July 30, 1982 was followed by a letter to Caluwe on August 5 from Rogers which confirmed that his employment had been terminated. The letter also instructed Caluwe on the time limitations for filing a request for an administrative hearing. Thereafter, a timely request for a hearing was filed. The agency adopted an "Employee grievance Procedure" on July 15, 1977. Its purpose was to allow all employees the opportunity to quickly and fairly resolve a grievance." The Procedure provides a specified procedure for hearing and resolving various types of complaints from employees, including a hearing by an Employee Relations Committee (ERC), a further review by the unit manager or department director, a second hearing by a Grievance Review Board, and a final decision by the agency's executive director. According to the agency's personnel director, the agency has fired employees in one of two ways in the past: (a) when the employe has accumulated more than 100 disciplinary points under the Policy-Index, and (b) when the employee has committed certain acts, irrespective of the Policy-Index. Thus, it contends the agency may, at its discretion, determine whether to terminate an employee by assessing points under the Policy-Index or by merely giving notice to the employee even though he has accumulated no points under its written code of conduct. Even though an employee has accumulated over 100 points, the agency may not necessarily fire an employee. For example, on one occasion an employee accumulated 135 points but was not fired. In the case at bar, the agency considered Caluwe's 125 points to be incidental to his termination, and viewed his supervisor's inability to work with him, his letter writing activities and prior "incidents" to be the major concern and basis for the termination. Whether the District had a policy of terminating an employee whenever his actions made it impossible to transfer him to another department or whenever a supervisor could not work with an employee was not disclosed. It was also not disclosed whether all employees, including Caluwe, were aware of such policies, and the ramification for violating the same. There was no evidence as to the reason for such policies, the types of proscribed conduct within each policy, and the authority for adopting the same. Caluwe blamed his firing primarily on the fact that he had prompted an investigation of the agency's general counsel, who was a long-time District employee. He acknowledged he failed to use the Employee Grievance Procedure when he wrote directly to the members of the governing board, but claimed the ERC was ineffective in dealing with management problems. Caluwe did not dispute that he missed the annual meeting, and wrote the letters in question; however, he contends they do not justify the disciplinary action imposed by the District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Petitioner be dismissed except for one Category 2e offense for which 25 points should be imposed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be reinstated in the position of water management engineer III retroactive to August 4, 1982 and that he be given full back pay between that date and the date of reinstatement. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 8th day of June, 1983.
The Issue Whether Appellant was wrongfully denied a variance of 21.33 feet to construct a second floor deck at 673 Bay Esplanade, Five Palms Motel Condo, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact John Shaw, a resident of Massachusetts, purchased the condominium for which the variance is here requested in December, 1988 without first visiting the property or inquiring about zoning restrictions. The unit purchased is on the second floor of a two story building earlier converted from a hotel or motel into condominiums. The seller told Shaw he could construct a deck over the existing deck on the ground floor condominium below the unit purchased by Shaw. While the construction of this deck was in progress it was discovered no permit had been pulled for the project and the work was stopped. The subsequent application for a permit was denied because the proposed deck encroached some 21.33 feet into the setback area. The application for a variance was denied by the Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board and this appeal followed. The two buildings comprising this complex were erected many years ago and are non-conforming, i.e., the buildings themselves violate the current Development Code. An existing deck extending into the setback area was constructed on the unit directly below the condominium purchased by Shaw and a similar deck extending to the seawall was constructed on an adjacent building. No permits are on file for those decks. Construction of the proposed deck would improve the livability of the condominium greatly by expanding the area usable for looking seaward. The condominium has been used without this deck for many years. This property is zoned CR-24 and the setback requirement is 25 feet from the water's edge.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are: Whether the City of Altamonte Springs (City) violated Sections 760.10(1)(a), F.S., by discriminating against Albert Robinson (Robinson) on the basis of his race (Black) or his national origin (Jamaican), with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; Whether the City violated Section 760.10(7), F.S., by discriminating against Robinson in retaliation for his opposition to a practice which is an unlawful employment practice under this section or because he assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section; and If such violations did occur, what relief is appropriate pursuant to Section 760.10(13), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Albert H. Robinson is a black male, over 18 years of age, born in Jamaica, West Indies. Respondent, the City of Altamonte Springs, is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Florida, and admits that it is an "employer" for purposes of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, sections 760.01-760.10 F.S. Robinson's account of how he arrived in the United States approximately seven years ago is bizarre, but uncontroverted, and for purposes of this proceeding is deemed true. In Jamaica, Robinson had been affiliated with the ruling People's National Party. He held the government post of Development Director in the "New Development Agency" and was in charge of approximately 300 underprivileged persons. He was also president of a youth organization within the party, and was involved in organizing youth activities and selecting members to visit Cuba as a party representative. At some point he was approached by an American embassy attache from the CIA who recruited him to provide under-cover information on the party. When that involvement became publicly exposed, he was forced to flee the country. Robinson and his family lived for awhile in Panama and other Latin American countries. When they decided to emigrate to the United States, the U.S. Government made arrangements for Mrs. Robinson and the children to enter through Miami and for Mr. Robinson to cross the border "illegally" at Brownsville, Texas. He was given authorization to work and temporary asylum. He is currently awaiting disposition of his petition for a more permanent status. Through other relatives in Florida, Robinson ended up in Altamonte Springs. At the time that he was hired by the City in September 1984, Robinson presented a letter from the INS permitting him to work during the pendency of his asylum petition. The City was thus aware of his national origin and non- citizen status. Robinson was hired as a laborer in the city water distribution division on September 24, 1984. He received two personnel evaluations during his probationary period, both "average," with every factor rated "average," and few comments. On February 7, 1985, he was promoted from laborer to utility serviceworker, a more responsible position. The serviceworker is generally assisted at a job site by the laborer, who does most of the digging. The Dixon Personnel Board hearing In April 1985, Robinson assisted a black coworker, Patrick Dixon, at his hearing before the City Personnel Board. Dixon and another black utilities worker, Carl Wilder, had been accused of making obscene and inappropriate gestures to two white women while the men were on city duty. Wilder was given a one-day suspension. Dixon, who already had a negative performance record, was given a two-day suspension. Dixon appealed the discipline to the Personnel Board. Robinson's involvement at the hearing on April 3rd was to sit behind Dixon and assist with the documents. Robinson, who had no firsthand knowledge of the incidents, did not testify. Carl Wilder did testify on behalf of Dixon. The Personnel Board, in a unanimous decision by all members present, upheld the disciplinary action. Robinson believed that Patrick Dixon had been the victim of a racial vendetta. Dixon testified in this proceeding that he, also, feels that the charge was racially motivated, yet nothing in the written documents related to his appeal supports that contention. The basis for his appeal was the insufficiency of the evidence against him and his contention that he was a bystander while Wilder, the actual perpetrator, received a lesser penalty. Shortly after the hearing Dixon was terminated for absenteeism. He did not file a discrimination complaint nor take any other action against the city. Wilder is still employed by the city, and in 1987, was promoted from laborer to serviceworker. The performance evaluation On May 3, 1985, Robinson received his first performance evaluation as a utility serviceman. His overall rating by his reporting supervisor, George Simpkins, was "average." However, he received "below average" in four categories: "ability to carry out instructions/orders"; "conduct"; "directs the work of subordinates effectively"; and "ability to make decisions within his authority." The comments in explanation of these ratings related to Robinson's failure to follow operating procedures, his temper and conflict with fellow employees, and his dictatorial manner in dealing with subordinates. Robinson was not pleased with the evaluation and wrote a letter to the Assistant Director of Public Works, Ronald Howse, asking to discuss it. Howse suggested that the discussion take place with Larry Alewine and George Simpkins, who were the supervisors responsible for the evaluation. Alewine was Simpkins' immediate supervisor. The discussion took place. Robinson now claims that Larry Alewine asked him why he followed Patrick Dixon to City Hall and claims that Alewine blamed the evaluation on his involvement with Dixon. Alewine denies this and cannot recall any notoriety with regard to Robinson's association with Dixon. Not following procedures and problems with fellow employees Robinson's difficulties in working with others and in following procedures are well-documented throughout his 1985 and 1986 employment with the city. In June 1985, he received a notice of remedial action after placing a water meter in a location where the customer wanted it, rather than where he had been directed to place it. The customer was happy, but under the city's procedures, the serviceman does not have the authority on his own to change the supervisor's direction. On November 4, 1985, Robinson had an altercation with his supervisor, Larry Alewine, regarding a meeting that Robinson wanted with Chris Hill, the recently-appointed director of the city's water distribution division. Alewine attempted to convey Hill's directive that Robinson put his request in writing, but Robinson became loud, yelled at Alewine and started to leave. When Alewine attempted to call Robinson back to discuss the matter, Robinson retorted that he (Alewine) wasn't his daddy. Right after the incident Robinson apologized for getting loud and Alewine explained that he would still have to "write him up," because he had refused to come back in the building and was hollering. Robinson claims that the incident occurred prior to 7:30 A.M., when he was still on his own time, but this claim is unsupported by Alewine or any of the other several witnesses. On November 26, 1985, Robinson and Carl Wilder were at a job site trying to locate a buried water meter. Wilder, as the laborer, was doing the digging. Robinson, his superior, insisted that Wilder keep digging in a place where Wilder did not believe the meter was located. Both men's tempers flared and Wilder called the supervisor to the site to prevent further argument. Because it was near the end of the day, Robinson was excused and Wilder was taken back to the city garage. Chris Hill spoke with both Robinson and Wilder and determined that no disciplinary action was warranted. He told Wilder that if he had any complaints or grievances about Robinson, he would have to put them in writing. Chris Hill asked other employees if they had problems working with Robinson; he did not, as alleged by Robinson, solicit written statements against Robinson from other employees in the division. Chris Hill Most of Robinson's claims of discrimination by the city are directed toward Chris Hill, who, in October 1985, was placed in charge of the city's water distribution division. The City Manager, Philip Penland, was concerned about the management of the division. The Dixon/Wilder incident was an example. Larry Alewine and George Simpkins, both white Americans, were considered to be weak leaders. Robinson and Carl Wilder were identified as employees with whom there had been problems. Chris Hill started working for the City of Altamonte Springs in 1977 as temporary summer help and laborer. He gradually worked his way up through various levels of management and was highly regarded by his supervisors and by Philip Penland as a competent and capable employee, with a positive, "can-do" attitude. He was regarded as a tough manager who could obtain top performance from his employees. In addition to his duties at Altamonte Springs, he also is in charge of water plant operations in the neighboring towns of Eatonville and Maitland. Lack of tact and finesse in dealing with people, including subordinates, have been considered Hill's weak points. Hard times in the Water Distribution Division These characteristics and Hill's direction to shape up the division led to some tense months in the division. Larry Alewine, whose management style was certainly more relaxed, openly referred to Hill as "God" and "asshole." Alewine's position had been downgraded as a result of the reorganization, and he eventually left the city in 1987 after his position was eliminated from the budget. George Simpkins left a bitter resignation notice when he resigned in October, shortly after Chris Hill's appointment. In February 1986, Larry Alewine prepared an evaluation of Robinson which was reviewed, consistent with procedures, by Chris Hill. Hill did not believe the evaluation was strong enough, in light of his knowledge of the incident with Wilder and other minor problems with fellow employees. Both Hill and Scott Gilbertson, the Assistant Director of Public Works, met with Alewine and suggested that the evaluation should be changed. When Alewine declined, Chris Hill changed the evaluation. The evaluation, dated 3/6/86, rates Robinson overall as "Employee needs improvement." The written comments are very similar to those made by George Simpkins on the May 1985 evaluation; that is, the quality of his work was deemed generally good, but his conduct, ability to follow instructions, and ability to get along with fellow employees was noted as the real problems. While it is not apparent from the evaluation itself and the testimony in this proceeding how much of the evaluation was completed by Larry Alewine, it is clear that at least some of the negative written comments were made by him. (Respondent's exhibit #2.) The meeting with management officials and its aftermath Robinson wrote a protest of his evaluation which precipitated a meeting with himself, Chris Hill, Scott Gilbertson, Philip Penland, and the City Personnel Director, Sam Frazee. The evaluation was discussed; Robinson was told that his signing the evaluation only acknowledged its receipt and that he could provide his written notations on the back of the evaluation regarding portions with which he disagreed. The group also discussed an appointment Robinson had made with the city's worker's compensation physician. He had attempted to arrange his own follow-up visit for treatment of a work-related injury. The city's policy required that the appointments with the city's physician be made after notification to the supervisor. While explaining his actions, Robinson gave contradictory versions of what he had been told by the nurse in the doctor's office regarding the procedures. His testimony at hearing was also confused and inconsistent on this point. On direct, he testified that he had been told that authorization from the city is not necessary for follow-up visits. On rebuttal, however, he stated that the nurse had told him that the city personnel department would have to be notified, but not his foreman. (TR, Vol I, p. 77, Vol IV, p. 324-325). In the course of the same meeting, Robinson made allegations of wrongdoing by Larry Alewine, stating that Alewine had a meeting with his employees and encouraged them to write grievances against Chris Hill and had called Hill an "asshole" and "God." The City Manager considered these allegations to be serious and promised Robinson that an investigation would be made. The meeting then broke up. Ed Haven, an officer with the Professional Standards Bureau of the City Police Department was assigned to investigate the allegations of misconduct. This bureau normally conducts personnel-related internal affairs investigations and considers them administrative, not criminal. The investigation was initially inhibited by Robinson's refusal to answer Officer Haven's questions unless the investigation was expanded to include Chris Hill as well. Robinson was then ordered by the City Manager to participate. The inquiry sustained the allegations that Alewine had called Hill "asshole" and "God." This investigation spawned a second investigation as to whether Robinson had ever told another employee that he lied about Alewine in order to get an investigation against Chris Hill. The issue was never resolved, but Officer Haven found that a "preponderance of evidence indicates Robinson was untruthful during this investigation...," that Robinson did have a conversation with an employee, Barry Beavers, but denied it. (Petitioner's composite exhibit #1, Memorandum of Internal Inquiry #86-9998-03, April 15, 1986). The lead Utility serviceworker positions In Spring 1986, the city created two supervisor positions in the Water Distribution Division, titled "lead utility serviceworker," to supervise and oversee the work of the utility workers and their laborers. All three utility serviceworkers applied for the jobs: Robinson, Ronnie Oliver (Black American) and Barry Beavers (White American). Robinson was never considered a viable candidate and was interviewed as a matter of courtesy. Oliver and Beavers were chosen. Robinson concedes that Beavers was qualified and properly promoted, but he disputes Ronnie Oliver's qualifications. Ronnie Oliver began work one month after Robinson, in October 1984. He worked under Robinson as a laborer for some time and he freely acknowledges that Robinson taught him a lot. Oliver also had considerable personal initiative and taught himself with the use of materials he acquired from Larry Alewine. Oliver's performance evaluations were substantially better than Robinson's; by May 1986, the time of the promotion, he was evaluated as an "Outstanding" employee. Robinson had, in fact, been on the job less than Oliver, as he had sustained a work-related injury in December 1985, and was out for weeks at a time. He had not been cleared for full-time duty when he was interviewed and was absent from work when the positions were filled. Light duty Robinson alleges that he was given "make-work" light duty when he was returned to work after his injury, and was later denied light duty. The city furnishes injured employees with light duty on a case-by-case basis, depending on the capabilities and physical condition of the individual and the needs of the employer. Robinson was first assigned floor sweeping duties in June after his recurring back problems. Later he was given the task of painting an area near Hill's office. An assistant was assigned to paint the high and low portions of the wall. He was also given a chair to sit on and rest his back. This was the lightest duty available at the city at time. Other employees including a black who had cancer, were also given routine maintenance chores. While painting, Robinson injured his neck, shoulder and hands. He never returned to work after this injury in June 1986. The city informed him in July and August that it did not have light duty available. In September 1987, the City agreed to pay Robinson $47,000.00 (including $7,000.00 to his attorney), to settle his worker's compensation claim of permanent back injury. He has since applied for reemployment. As of the hearing in this proceeding, the city was reviewing his request for reemployment. This request is not at issue here. Various grievances In Spring 1986, as the result of some publicity about the arrest of illegal aliens, the city reviewed the work authorization status of its employees. Since Robinson had initially given the city a letter from INS stating that he was eligible to work pending an application for political asylum, he was asked again for authorization. He refused at first, and claimed this was harassment. He also claimed that he was subject to derision for being a CIA spy. He had told some fellow employees about his past and the news circulated. The employees mostly did not take the matter seriously, but in an employee meeting, someone asked Chris Hill whether it was true that Albert was a CIA spy. He replied that this was what Robinson claimed. At the same employees' meeting, Hill also stated that he did not think that Robinson was going to be around much longer. He made this remark based on his knowledge of Robinson's disciplinary problems. Hill was strongly reprimanded for this remark. He did not have the authority to terminate Robinson, and management had not taken steps to terminate him. Robinson has attributed various derogatory statements and epithets to Chris Hill. He claims that Hill said that no one would take the word of a "nigger" against him and that he didn't want Americans to take orders from a Jamaican. Hill vigorously denies these statements and no credible evidence was produced to support Robinson's claims. Nor was credible evidence presented of Robinson's claim that on July 3, 1986, Hill lost his temper and spat in his face. At hearing on November 2, 1987, Robinson, through his attorney, withdrew his allegation that he was defrauded of sick leave through a forged signature. (TR Vol IV, p. 293-294.) Summary of Findings Beyond his own unsubstantiated claim that Alewine told him so, there is no evidence that Robinson's problems with the city were the result of his rather inconspicuous involvement at the Patrick Dixon hearing. His problems clearly began when he was promoted to a position of some authority over others and his temper, loud mannerisms and difficulty working with others became an issue. Beginning with his response to his first slightly negative personnel evaluation, Robinson's reaction to every event in his employment, major and minor, was lengthy, rambling, confused and confusing written grievances, memoranda and letters. Robinson also carried a tape recorder to memorialize his encounters and (in his words) "...to intimidate people from molesting me..." (TR, Vol I, p. 243). Robinson's inconsistent accounting and mixing of facts in his scenario of alleged discrimination fail to make sense. Pressure was applied to blacks and whites, alike; of the four employees targeted as "problems," the two whites are gone (Alewine and Simpkins) and one black (Wilder) has been promoted. Evidence is clear that there were serious management problems in the city's Water Distribution Division in 1985, and the atmosphere which prevailed with reorganization of the division and Hill's arrival could very well have fueled Robinson's paranoia. His vehement protestations and repetitious and rambling litany of wrongs are either a sincere confused perception, or a deliberate attempt to manipulate a situation, which because of justifiable criticism of his job performance, was becoming increasingly uncomfortable. Nevertheless, his myriad allegations of discriminatory harassment, retaliation and of unlawful failure to promote, are unsupported by competent evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Albert Robinson's charges that the City of Altamonte Springs violated subsections 760.10(1)(a) and (7), F.S., by harassment failure to promote, and retaliation, be DISMISSED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2482 The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Addressed in summary form in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 4. and 5. Addressed in paragraph 5. Adopted in part in paragraph 8. The account of discussion with Alewine is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Adopted in part in paragraphs 6.-8., otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 6.-15. Addressed in paragraph 12. The characterization of Simpkins' motives and the mandate to fire the four employees are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Addressed in paragraphs 15. and 16. Adopted in part in paragraph 18., otherwise rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence or immaterial. 14-16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, except for the comment about Robinson being terminated. See paragraph 34. Rejected as cumulative, unnecessary and argumentative (rather than factual). Addressed in paragraph 14.; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in paragraph 13., otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Addressed in paragraph 21. Addressed in paragraph 22. Addressed in paragraph 25; otherwise rejected as unnecessary and unsupported by the competent evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in paragraphs 33 and 34, otherwise rejected as contrary to the evidence. Addressed in paragraphs 26. through 28. Addressed in paragraphs 29. through 30. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in paragraph 31. 34-35. Rejected as irrelevant. The "fraud" charge was withdrawn. See paragraph 36. 36-37. Rejected as irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. 6-12. Adopted in paragraphs 6. through 8. 13-15. Rejected as cumulative. 16-22. Addressed in paragraphs 15. and 16., otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 23. Adopted in paragraph 13. 24-27. Addressed in paragraph 14. 28-34. Addressed in paragraph 19. 35-38. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. 39-40. Adopted in paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 22. Adopted in paragraph 23. 44-49. Adopted in paragraphs 24. and 25. in substance. 50-60. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 61-66. Addressed in paragraph 32. 67-69. Addressed in paragraph 33. 70-72. Addressed in paragraph 34. 73-89. Addressed in paragraphs 26.-28.; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. 93-94. Adopted in substance in paragraph 29. 95-96. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 30. 99-102. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. 103-110. Rejected as irrelevant. The "fraud" charge was withdrawn at hearing. See paragraph 36. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev & Siwica, P. A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 David V. Kornreich, Esquire Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell, Casey, Crossland, & Bramnick, P. A. Suite 1525, Firstate Tower 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact In May, 1986, Radar Corporation, owned by Ronald Ross, bought the assets of United Water Consultants, Inc., and continued the business of selling water purifiers under the fictitious name, United Water Consultants. As part of the agreement to purchase the United Water Consultants' assets, Ross, who had no experience in the business, insisted that the seller arrange to have an experienced manager agree to stay on and work for Radar at least until either Ross was able to learn the business adequately or could hire another suitable manager. The seller recommended, and Radar hired as manager, a man named Robert Gillette, who had about 30 years experience in the business. One of the first orders of business for Radar and Gillette was to hire staff, including telephone solicitors, the heart of the business. Among-those Gillette hired were the petitioners--Leisha F. Fickes, Petitioner in Case No. 87-2605, hired in early June, 1986; Marian C. Norz, Petitioner in Case No. 86- 2606, hired in late May, 1986; and Eileen A. Warner, Petitioner in Case No. 86- 2607, hired approximately May 20, 1986. Fickes, Norz and Warner (like all other United Water Consultants personnel) signed agreements shortly after they began work stating that they were independent contractors. But the main purpose of those agreements, as Gillette explained to them, was to help justify Radar's failure to take federal income tax withholding and social security out of their pay checks. Functionally, the petitioners had the attributes of employees. They were under the close supervision, direction and control of Gillette in the day-to-day details of their work. They were paid a salary based on an hourly wage, plus commissions on telephone solicitations that resulted in sales. Soon after the petitioners began work, Gillette began making advances towards them. At first, Gillette was not too bold and some of his advances were innocent enough to be in public. He would do things like come up behind one of them and gently massage her shoulders and neck. This type touching was not entirely unwelcome, especially to someone who had been sitting in one place making telephone calls for some length of time. But very quickly, Gillette began to subject the petitioners to coarse and unwelcomed sexual advances in private. On one occasion, Gillette came in the room where Fickes was working and, after massaging her shoulders, began to try to kiss her neck. On another occasion, Gillette loaned Fickes $20 and implied she could pay him back with sexual favors. Later, he began to take opportunities to drop pens and similar articles down her blouse and offer to retrieve them himself. One day Gillette came up behind Warner after posting recent sales and began to rub her breasts, saying "see what I got for you?" Warner pushed him away, and he angrily stormed out of the office. On one Friday, Gillette offered Warner $20 for oral sex and asked her to think about it. On Monday, Gillette followed up his offer and, when Warner declined the offer, said he thought she probably did it for her husband for free. Later, to punish Warner for her refusal to give him sexual favors, Gillette began to give her customer lists for solicitation bearing the names of people who recently had declined to buy a water purifier, and Warner's commissions dropped. When Warner complained, Gillette hold her, "you do for me, and I'll do for you." When Norz asked Gillette for higher commissions, Gillette also told her that he would get her more money in return for sexual favors. He also told her, when she refused his requests that they go out socially together, that he did not know why she was married to an "old man." As Gillette's conduct worsened, all three of the petitioners separately went directly to Ross to complain. Ross said he would look into the allegations and "take care of it." In fact, Ross did nothing. Although most of Gillette's coarser sexual advances were made in private, Norz once observed Gillette rubbing Warner's shoulders as he closed the door of the room they were in, and Warner once observed Gillette drop an article down Fickes' blouse. As they talked with one another, the petitioners began to realize the extent of Gillette's conduct and decided to approach Ross together to see if they could be more persuasive. On July 11, 1986, the petitioners met Ross in the parking lot as he came in to work and demanded to speak to him. They reiterated the facts and demanded that Ross fire Gillette or move him out of the telephone room or they would quit. Ross asked them to come back after lunch. Meanwhile, Ross confronted Gillette for the first time, and Gillette denied the allegations. Gillette demanded a direct confrontation with the petitioners, thinking they would back down. At the meeting after lunch, the petitioners re-asserted their allegations, and Gillette angrily stormed out of the room, expressing an ultimatum that it looked like it would have to be him or them. Ross, whose business would be seriously adversely affected by the departure of Gillette, his manager, told the petitioners that he would have to discuss the situation with his "colleagues" and would get back with them. They told him that they were anxious to hear from him because they (especially Warner and Fickes) needed the work but that they would no longer work under Gillette. When the petitioners did not hear from Ross, Fickes telephoned him and was told that they all had been fired, allegedly because a customer list had turned up missing. (If true, the petitioners had nothing to do with it.) Later, Ross would maintain that the petitioners voluntarily quit on July 11, 1986. Fickes and Warner earned approximately $220 per week and Norz earned approximately $195 per week at United Water Consultants. Norz made no real effort to mitigate damages by seeking other employment after July 11, 1986. Warner and Fickes, both of whom were pregnant, were unable to find other employment before the birth of their babies in August and November, 1986, respectively. Warner took about six weeks off after childbirth and worked three different jobs from late October, 1986, through July, 1987, each of which paid her approximately $140 per week. Fickes did not return to work until March, 1987, when she began earning approximately $170 per week at a restaurant. /1 At least from the time Radar took over the United Water Consultants business through at least December, 1986, at least five employees worked for the business each and every week. Radar operates the United Water Consultants business out of an address located in Largo, a municipality in Pinellas County other than the City of Clearwater.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Community Relations Board of the City of Clearwater, acting as the Commission that administers Pinellas County Ordinance 84-10, codified under Chapter 17.5 of the Pinellas County Code, enter a final order: Holding the respondents, Radar Corporation and United Water Consultants, guilty of having violated Section 2-17.5-3, Pinellas County Code, by discriminating against the petitioners, Leisha F. Fickes, Marian C. Norz and Eileen A. Warner, in employment on the basis of sex; and Ordering the respondents, Radar Corporation and United Water Consultants, jointly and severally, to pay to Leisha F. Fickes $7,740 and to Eileen A. Warner $5,880 as actual damages RECOMMENDED this 6th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 1987.
The Issue Did Respondents violate the provisions of Rules 62-550.518(3), 62-555.320(4)(8), 62-560.410(2)(c), 62555.350(2), and 62-555.345, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, Case Nos. 96-653PW2442B and 96- 653PW2442C dated June 9, 1997?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department, through the Polk County Health Department, under the authority of an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection, was the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for inspecting and clearing Public Water Systems in Polk County Florida under Section 403.121, Florida Statutes. SDS Properties Investors Group, Inc. (SDS) is a Florida corporation authorized to do business as Budget Motel. SDS is owned by Shaikh. Sanitary surveys are conducted by the Department every three years and include the inspection of Public Water Systems (PWS) . On January 26, 1996, the Department conducted a routine sanitary survey of Budget Motel (Budget) located at 1418 Highway 17 South, Lake Wales, Florida, which should have included Budget's public water system, PWS 6532442. However, Polk County's inspector, Henry Tagioff, was shown a well, by a Budget employee, that was located on the adjacent property owned by Smokey's Mobile Home Park (Smokey's) and not a part of Budget's water system. Tagioff was not aware that the well he inspected was owned by Smokey's and not on Budget's property. During the inspection, Tagioff noted several violations and advised the Budget employee that Tagioff needed to discuss these violations with Shaikh. On January 29, 1996, Tagioff and Lee Forgey, another Polk County employee, met with Shaikh to discuss the violations noted by Tagioff on January 26, 1996. During this meeting, Shaikh, Tagioff, and Forgey discussed the violations previously found by Tagioff on January 26, 1996, concerning the well on Smokey's property. At no time during this meeting did Shaikh advise Tagioff or Forgey that neither he nor Budget own the well under discussion. The record is not clear, but sometime between January and May 1996, Budget's well had collapsed and was not useable. Subsequent to Budget's well collapsing, Shaikh contracted with George Dunham, after obtaining Smokey's permission, to connect Budget's water system (PWS6532442) to Smokey's well. At the time of connecting Budget's water system to Smokey's well, Dunham advised Shaikh that this was only a temporary solution and gave Shaikh a proposal for a new well since Budget's old well could not be repaired. On May 2, 1996, Tagioff made a reinspection of Budget's water system and found that Budget's well had collapsed and was inoperable, and that Budget had connected to Smokey's well to furnish water to the motel and its guests. Tagioff advised Shaikh that Budget would need a new well since its old well was inoperable and the connection to Smokey's well was only temporary. On May 21, 1996, Mark Fallah, a Polk County employee, conducted a site inspection and prepared a report for use in connection with Budget's application with Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) for a new well permit. In connection with Fallah's site inspection and report, the Department advised Shaikh by letter dated May 21, 1996, of certain things concerning the new well that had to be completed prior to placing the well into public use. The letter provides in pertinent part as follows: Upon completion of the drilling and the verification of the grouting procedure by the Water Management District, the following items, as required by Chapters 62-555 and 62550 of the Florida Administrative Code, are to be completed prior to this water system being placed into public use. * * * 2. A continuous chlorination unit that is electrically interlocked with the well pump circuit. * * * A flow measuring device is required on all Non-Community Water Systems. A copy of the well completion report must be furnished to this office by the well driller within thirty (30) days after the well installation. Bacteriological clearance of the well must be performed by submitting twenty (20) consecutive water samples for analysis to an HRS certified laboratory. A maximum of two (2) samples per day taken at least six hours apart may be collected. Additional samples may be required until twenty (20) consecutive satisfactory samples are received. * * * After the well and plant construction is completed, contact our office for an inspection so that written clearance can be issued. It is prohibited for any Public water system to be placed into use without clearance being issued from this department. (Emphasis Furnished). SWFWMD approved Budget's new well application and issued Budget Permit No. 579811.01 for drilling a new well. However, upon completion of the new well, there were certain conditions that had to be met as indicated in the letter from the Department dated May 21, 1996. On May 31, 1996, and July 10, 1996, Fallah inspected Budget's new water system for compliance and, on both occasions, found that Budget had failed to install the chlorination unit, the flow meter, and had not submitted a well completion report or bacteriological samples. On July 15, 1996, the Department issued a Warning Notice to Shaikh advising him that the system could not be used until approved by the Department. For enforcement purposes, the file was transferred to Lewis Taylor, enforcement officer for drinking water systems for Polk County. On November 14, 1996, Taylor conducted an inspection of Budget's water system and reported that: (1) Budget's well had been placed into service without approval from the Department; (2) there was no chlorinator in operation; (3) there was no flow meter; (4) the Department had not received any bacteriological samples since November 1995; (5) there was no certified operator servicing the motel's water system; and (6) Budget had not provided public notice to its customers of its failure to monitor its drinking water. A second Warning Notice was issued by the Department and furnished to Shaikh on November 22, 19-96, which in substance advised Shaikh that Budget was in violation of Rules 62-550 and 62- 555, Florida Administrative Code, for its: (1) failure to obtain the Department's clearance before placing its new well in service; (2) failure to provide quarterly bacteriological samples; (3) failure to maintain proper chlorine residual in the water system; failure to provide a flow meter in the water system; (5) failure to provide public notification to its customers that its water system had failed to comply with Rule 62-550, Florida Administrative Code; and (6) failure to provide the Department with verification of Budget retaining a certified operator to oversee the operation and maintenance of its water system. On March 3, 1997, Tagioff and John GoPaul, US Environmental Agency, inspected Budget's water system and found that: (1) there was no chlorine residual in the system; (2) the chlorination unit located at the motel was not in use; (3) there was no flow meter within the system; (4) no quarterly bacteriological samples had been furnished to the Department; and the well had not been cleared for use by the Department. Based on the testimony of Lewis Taylor which I find credible, the Department has expended the following in the inspection of Budget's water system: (1) 20.25 hours of professional time at a rate of $30.00 per hour for a total of $607.50; (2) three hours of clerical time at a rate of $15.00 per hour for a total of $45.00; and (3) $27.00 in travel costs and postage. The total amount expended in the inspection of this water system by the Department was $679.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of the violations as charged and requiring Respondents to comply with the Orders for Corrective Action as set out in the Notice of Violation and Orders of Corrective Action in Case Nos. 96-653PW2442B and 96-653PW2442C. It is further recommended that Respondents be required to pay the costs and expenses of investigating the violations and prosecuting this matter in the amount of $679.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, 4th Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740 Habib U. Shaikh 4014 Billingsgate Road Orlando, Florida 32839-7515 SDS Properties Investors Group, Inc. d/b/a Budget Motel 1418 Highway 17 South Lake Wales, Florida 33853
Findings Of Fact In a case before the Seventh Judicial Circuit, St. Johns County, Florida, Case No. 2154, the 16 Mile Creek Water Control District, a drainage district, was incorporated pursuant to provisions in Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. Subsequently, in Special Act 87-502, the Florida legislature changed the name of 16 Mile Creek Water Control District to Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District. This special act became law without the governor's approval. On December 3, 1990, the District employed Ms. Underwood. From that date until September 1, 1994, Ms. Underwood was employed as a part-time administrative secretary and at times served as secretary to the District governing board. At various intervals Ms. Underwood's work performance was reviewed. The more recent evaluations were made on April 1, 1993 and October 20, 1993, in which the District through its supervisor found that Ms. Underwood met performance expectations in fulfilling her job. On April 7, 1994, Horace Freeman, Sr. was placed on the District's Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors was ultimately responsible for Ms. Underwood's employment with the District. Freeman's principal concerns when taking office were related to procedures followed in the District's administrative office, accountability for equipment and proper utilization of manpower in the District. At that time, Messrs. Martin and Cox were the other Board members. Mr. Martin was the Board President. Mr. Freeman also believed that Chapter 298 required that the minutes be kept appropriately together with other important documents concerning the District's operations. On June 18, 1994, Bobby Stewart was elected to the Board of Supervisors. He took Mr. Martin's position on the Board. Immediately following those events Mr. Freeman was elected Board President. Mr. Stewart became Secretary to the Board. Mr. Cox's service on the Board included dates through September 15, 1994. He was replaced on an interim basis by Mr. Rousseau. In June, 1995, Mr. Rousseau was elected to fill the position that Mr. Cox had filled. Upon taking office as Board President, Mr. Freeman placed Mr. Stewart in charge of the Board's administrative functions. Mr. Freeman, as President was responsible for the overall District operations. In that capacity he instructed Mr. Stewart and Ms. Underwood to update the Board minutes. Mr. Freeman was interested in establishing definite policies and procedures to be followed by the District. He believed that the policies and procedures that existed when he took office were not adequate. When Mr. Freeman took office there was a personnel manual in effect that contained a limited number of instructions as to rights and opportunities for all citizens to be employed with the District; working hours; pay periods; holidays; paid leave; responsibilities of the foreman of the District, who is the day-to-day supervisor at the District; evaluation of employees, and the basis for modification of the personnel manual. The manual made the foreman of the District responsible for interviewing, hiring, and terminating employees with the consent and approval of the Board of Supervisors. The foreman was expected to evaluate each employee of the District once every six months. These evaluations were to be presented to the Board of Supervisors on October 1 and April 1 of each year. The expectation was that the evaluations would be discussed with the employee before presentation to the Board and would be used as a tool to improve employee performance. Before Mr. Freeman and Mr. Stewart took office as Board members, the April 1, 1994 evaluation for Ms. Underwood had not been conducted. In the personnel manual under the heading "Modification of Personnel Manual", the Board reserved the right to make changes to the personnel manual by additions, deletions, or other modifications and to set forth supplemental regulations related to personnel and personnel policy. Under the terms of the personnel manual in effect when Mr. Freeman and Mr. Stewart took office, the District working hours were 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday. District employees were given 1/2 hour for lunch period and a 15 minute break in the morning and a 15 minute break in the afternoon. Concerning paid leave, employees who were employed for a period of six months accrued 40 hours of annual leave and 20 hours of sick leave. Beyond that initial six months period the employee would earn leave at the rate of 80 hours per year annual and sick leave at 40 hours per year, with sick leave not to exceed a maximum of 200 hours. Ms. Underwood was an employee subject to the terms of the personnel manual that have been discussed. In addition to the personnel manual, the District had a set of statements referred to as the "standardized employee requirements and expectations." This document was modified by Mr. Freeman. In pertinent part this set of requirements and expectations indicates that "excessive tardiness will not be tolerated." That document intimated that prior approval from the Board of Supervisors would be necessary if the employee intended to be late for work. In March 1993 Ms. Underwood had been made aware of the provision concerning tardiness. On June 20, 1994, a meeting was held between Mr. Freeman, Mr. Stewart and Ms. Underwood. At that meeting Mr. Freeman told Ms. Underwood that Mr. Stewart was assuming administrative duties for the Board. At times in the past Ms. Underwood had performed those duties as Board secretary. Under those past arrangements Ms. Underwood as Board secretary reported directly to the Board of Supervisors. Under the arrangements imposed by Mr. Freeman, Ms. Underwood would report to Mr. Stewart who in turn reported to the full Board. In effect, Ms. Underwood was the secretary to Mr. Stewart who was the secretary to the Board. When Mr. Stewart assumed his duties as Board Secretary, Ms. Underwood was not working in that capacity. At that time Ms. Underwood was the administrative secretary in the District office. At the June 20, 1994 meeting Mr. Freeman offered the opportunity for Ms. Underwood to become a full-time employee working 40 hours a week. Mr. Freeman also offered the opportunity to go from the District office to the City of Hastings for her lunch period, assuming her willingness to accept a one hour lunch period, given that the trip to Hastings and back to the District could not be made in 30 minutes. Mr. Freeman specifically told Ms. Underwood that she could not go to Hastings, get her lunch and come back to the District and eat her lunch. Ms. Underwood was left to consider the options to become a full-time employee and expand her lunch period. Ms. Underwood was given a week to decide how much time she wished to work and what lunch hour she wished to use. At the time the discussion was made concerning hours of work, Ms. Underwood was working four days, 32 hours a week. By accepting the 40 hour work week she would be entitled to the benefits of a full time employee. When the question of her work hours was brought to Ms. Underwood's attention again one week beyond the June 20, 1994 conversation, Ms. Underwood was not interested in changing her hours of employment or lunch period. Ms. Underwood was reminded that she would not be allowed to go to Hastings to get lunch and then drive back and still operate under the 30-minute lunch period. In summary, Ms. Underwood continued in her work day of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday with 30 minutes for lunch. On June 20, 1994, Mr. Freeman explained to Ms. Underwood that Mr. Stewart would be working and training in the District office on a daily basis. Ms. Underwood was told to show Mr. Stewart all the daily functions of the office, having in mind that Mr. Stewart would make a presentation to the full Board concerning any changes that were needed in the office operations. In the June 20, 1994 meeting Mr. Freeman mentioned the need to update the District Book of Records. Mr. Freeman also mentioned the need to replace the cover to the Book of Records in that the old Book of Records referred to 16 Mile Creek instead of Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District. It was Mr. Freeman's intention to purchase a new binder with a correct title. In particular, Mr. Freeman discussed the need to organize the documents necessary to compile the Book of Records for the District. Ms. Underwood never started this task. Mr. Freeman reminded Ms. Underwood once a week to accomplish the organization of documents for compiling the Book of Records. In the beginning, during the weekly discussions, Ms. Underwood would tell Mr. Freeman that the project to organize documents necessary for the book of records had begun. Then Ms. Underwood told Mr. Freeman that the work had been completed. These remarks to Mr. Freeman concerning the completion of that task were made at a Board meeting in August, 1994. In this conversation Mr. Stewart was there to observe and not comment. On the June 20, 1994 date, a written document was produced and discussed. It was directed to Ms. Underwood and read to her. Ms. Underwood protested that this arrangement in which Mr. Stewart sat there while Mr. Freeman read the document was in violation of her rights. Ms. Underwood stated that Mr. Freeman had no right talking to her as an employee with another supervisor in the office. Mr. Freeman stated that Mr. Stewart was not there to make comments, rather Mr. Stewart has been brought into the room so that he would be aware of what Mr. Freeman was presenting to Ms. Underwood. If Ms. Underwood questioned Mr. Freeman concerning the discussion, then Mr. Stewart would be aware of those topics. When the June 20, 1994 document was presented to Ms. Underwood she did not question its substance. In the June 20, 1994 document presented to Ms. Underwood, Ms. Underwood was told that she was to report directly to the Secretary of the Board, Mr. Stewart. She was told that she was responsible for the daily secretarial duties associated with the administrative affairs of the District Office and matters directed by the Board of Supervisors. Her working hours and lunch period were not filled in pending her decision. Those working hours and lunch period, once the decision was made, would be complied with unless the President or Secretary of the Board instructed Ms. Underwood otherwise. The written document told Ms. Underwood that Mr. Stewart would be working/training in the Office on a daily basis and that she should show Mr. Stewart all functions and daily procedures. Those procedures were to be recorded by Mr. Stewart and that information would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for review and establishment of new written procedures to be used by the District. Through discussion and through the document presented to Ms. Underwood, Ms. Underwood was made aware that accounts payable would be placed in chronological order. Ms. Underwood was told through the written document that all forms being used by the District would be reviewed for update and change by July 7, 1994. Moreover, the book of records would be updated and assembled to meet the guidelines in Chapter 298 and the Florida Administrative Code by July 7, 1994. On the week following June 20, 1994, Mr. Freeman reminded Ms. Underwood that the verbatim tapes of meetings and workshops conducted by the Board had not been removed from the floor and placed in the fireproof cabinet as he had told Ms. Underwood to do on June 20, 1994. When Mr. Freeman made his comments on the week following June 20, 1994, Ms. Underwood said that there was no room in the fireproof cabinet. She wanted to know what she was supposed to do to deal with the lack of space in the cabinet. Mr. Freeman told her to keep documents in the fireproof cabinet going back about 5 years and remove the documents older than 5 years and put them in regular cabinets that were not fireproof. Mr. Freeman explained that the tapes of the meetings were more important than some of the documents that were in the file cabinet. These tapes were official records of the District and needed to be protected against destruction. The tapes were in a box sitting on the floor. The dates of the tapes went back several years. In the discussion which Mr. Freeman had with Ms. Underwood about a week after the June 20, 1994 meeting, Mr. Freeman also told Ms. Underwood that she needed to take some of the old records out of the fireproof cabinet, because those records in the cabinet needed to be "straightened out", as well as providing space to protect the tapes. On July 7, 1994, at a Board meeting, Mr. Freeman discussed the employee work assignments for the District, to include Ms. Underwood. At that meeting the employees were presented with a memo concerning work assignments. In addition rules and directives were discussed and a document prepared and provided to the employees concerning rules and directives for employees. The document concerning rules and directives reminded the employees that the administrative office was the responsibility of Mr. Stewart as Board Secretary and Ms. Underwood as secretary to Mr. Stewart. The administrative office, in accordance with this memorandum, was responsible for, among other things, legal records, contracts, bids, materials requested, warrants, and the Book of Records. The rules and directives which pertain to Ms. Underwood and other employees, and about which Ms. Underwood was made aware, indicated that District employees would not leave the District grounds during work hours without the knowledge and approval of the Board or its designee. Employees were made aware that violation of rules and standards set forth by the District Board would result in disciplinary action, including the possibility of termination. The employees did not question the contents in the July 7, 1994 memorandum concerning rules and directives while in attendance at the July 7, 1994 meeting. Mr. Freeman gave verbal instructions to Ms. Underwood about compiling the minutes of the District commencing in 1971 and continuing into the future. Mr. Freeman told Ms. Underwood once a week for several weeks and at Board meetings that the minutes needed to be compiled. This work was not done until January 15, 1995, following Ms. Underwood's departure from the District. In particular, Ms. Underwood was expected to compile the original minutes and place them in a book that was already in existence. Ms. Underwood did not do this. The minutes were to have been copied between June 20 and July 7, 1994 and the originals placed in the fireproof cabinet. Copies were for purposes of public access. The minutes were not copied. Mr. Freeman told Ms. Underwood on a weekly basis, commencing June 20, 1994, to make copies of the original minutes and then place the originals in a fireproof cabinet. When Ms. Underwood would tell Mr. Freeman that there was not room in the cabinet to place the minutes, that is when Mr. Freeman told her to remove some of the older files and put them in another cabinet. Later when room was made to place the original minutes in the fireproof cabinet, it took approximately 5 to 10 minutes to remove other items to make room. Although Mr. Freeman told Ms. Underwood on June 20, 1994 and once a week beyond that date to make copies of the original minutes for public inspection, Ms. Underwood did not do this. The reasons which Ms. Underwood gave for not accomplishing this task that she did not have time or it would just take a little while. At one Board meeting Ms. Underwood told Mr. Freeman that the minutes had been copied and were up to date, when in fact they had not been. This occurred on the first Board meeting in August, 1994. Ms. Underwood did not update the overall office files as required by instructions given on June 20, 1994. Mr. Freeman recounts that Ms. Underwood had been told to update the District files concerning warrants, bills, and information about venders with whom the district did business. The District files had not been in order in the past. Ms. Underwood was instructed to get them in order and the Board allowed Ms. Underwood to use a previous color-code system for updating files, a numbering system or an alphabetical system. Mr. Freeman expected Ms. Underwood to update the files as to vender accounts, warrants and bills, within 30 days from June 20, 1994. Other files that needed to be updated, unassociated with vendor accounts, were to be concluded within a "short time" based upon a representation from Ms. Underwood to Mr. Freeman as to time needed to accomplish the task. Mr. Freeman told Ms. Underwood that in cleaning out the fireproof cabinet that she could make room by taking out vendor information prior to the 1990's. As described Mr. Freeman, commencing June 20, 1994, he instructed Ms. Underwood to put verbatim tapes of Board meetings in the fireproof cabinet. Mr. Freeman reminded Ms. Underwood to do this on a weekly basis. Ms. Underwood never moved the tapes from where they were located and into the fireproof cabinet. Mr. Freeman observed Ms. Underwood entering the Lil' Champ in Hastings, Florida, to get her lunch. He made this observation on two occasions. On one occasion the observation was made at 1:10 p.m. Mr. Freeman consulted with Mr. Stewart and was told that Mr. Stewart had not given permission for Ms. Underwood to go to Hastings at lunch. For the two occasions upon which Mr. Freeman saw Ms. Underwood in Hastings getting lunch, Ms. Underwood made no adjustment to her time records to reflect that she took longer than 30 minutes for her lunch period. Ms. Underwood was obligated to make that adjustment to the time records. Concerning the two occasions upon which Mr. Freeman had seen Ms. Underwood getting lunch at Hastings, this was subsequent to June 20, 1994, when Ms. Underwood had been told that she could not go to lunch and bring the lunch back and eat at the District. Ms. Underwood had not started the project of copying the original minutes for public inspection, replacing the original minutes in the fireproof cabinet, updating District files and making room in the fireproof cabinet for the verbatim tapes of Board meetings and workshops when Ms. Underwood was suspended on September 1, 1994. On June 21, 1994, Mr. Stewart met Ms. Underwood. He told Ms. Underwood to make copies of the minutes and place the originals in the fireproof cabinet. He also told Ms. Underwood to take the verbatim tapes of Board meetings from the floor and put them in the fireproof cabinet. At that point, Ms. Underwood made no comment about the instruction concerning placing the tapes in the fireproof cabinet. As Mr. Stewart clarified in his testimony the original minutes were in the fireproof cabinet and were to be returned to that cabinet once copies were made. The copies of the minutes were to be used to serve the public and need not be placed in the fireproof cabinet. On June 21, 1994, Mr. Stewart told Ms. Underwood to update District files for the last five years and put earlier files in storage by placing the earlier files in a box and putting them upstairs after labeling the earlier files. This referred to placing the earlier files in an upstairs area to the District offices. Later on, Ms. Underwood stated that there was not room in the fireproof cabinet. Mr. Stewart reminded Ms. Underwood that if the files for the work period earlier than the last five years were removed, then there would be room in the fireproof cabinet for the tapes. On June 21, 1994, Mr. Stewart told Ms. Underwood that he wanted Ms. Underwood to compile the records to be placed in the Book of Records and to make copies of those original documents for a duplicate book of records. In compiling the Book of Records, Ms. Underwood was to take into account the records of the supervisors who ran the District's daily operations. The Book of Records includes transactions of the Board of Supervisors, minutes, legal documents, publications, and the accountant's report, together with any other record of the official business of the Board. Following the June 21, 1994 conversation, Mr. Stewart came to the District office approximately every day. On these visits, Mr. Stewart would remind Ms. Underwood concerning the need to make the copies that were referred to on June 21, 1994. From July 19 through July 29, 1994, Ms. Underwood missed work due to illness. After Ms. Underwood's return to work from her illness, Mr. Stewart made mention about making the copies that were discussed with her on other occasions. Ms. Underwood never began the project for organizing the Book of Records and making copies for a duplicate Book of Records. This failure was discussed with Ms. Underwood on several occasions, to include the date upon which Mr. Stewart decided to recommend to the Board that Ms. Underwood be suspended. Ms. Underwood did not make any progress in updating the files, as required by Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart examined the files and could not ascertain that the files had even been moved following his instructions to Ms. Underwood. What Mr. Stewart had in mind was that Ms. Underwood should remove from the fireproof cabinet miscellaneous items that did not need to be kept in the fireproof cabinet further back than five years. Ms. Underwood did not remove the miscellaneous documents from the fireproof cabinet and put them in storage, as instructed. Mr. Stewart told Ms. Underwood many times that Ms. Underwood should update the files. On one occasion when Mr. Stewart discussed the need to update the files, Ms. Underwood commented that she had to start updating the files. From Mr. Stewart's observation, which is accepted, Ms. Underwood had adequate time to attend her other duties and perform the tasks that he had assigned. In April of 1994, the District made application to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to replace culverts within the District's jurisdictional boundaries. In fact, what the District really intended was to take the culverts from one location and put them in another location without replacing them in the initial location. Contrary to requirements set forth by the DEP, the District failed to publish the proposed conditions for the permit issued by the DEP. Ms. Underwood was responsible to make the publication in accordance with requirements established by the DEP. Ms. Underwood failed to make the publication through oversight. The failure to publish was not reported to DEP. Consequently, DEP contacted the District around July 1, 1994. Someone employed by the DEP spoke to Mr. Stewart and instructed Mr. Stewart to publish the permit terms in a newspaper which was well circulated in Flagler County, Florida. After that publication was made, the DEP employee told Mr. Stewart to take a copy of that publication out of the newspaper and attach it to a letter and send it to the DEP employee. After receiving that information, the DEP would close its file, thus, avoiding a possible $500.00 fine for noncompliance with the publication requirement. The DEP employee did not request Mr. Stewart to provide an affidavit of proof of publication from the newspaper in concluding the matter, which was the ordinary manner in which publication was proven. In turn, Mr. Stewart had the permit notice published in the July 7, 1994 edition of a local newspaper. Mr. Stewart took the copy of that notice of publication and gave it to Ms. Underwood to put with a letter to be mailed to the DEP employee. Later Mr. Stewart observed the copy of the notice of publication on a pink pad located on Ms. Underwood's desk. Following his instructions to Ms. Underwood nothing had transpired for 26 days, when Mr. Stewart sent a copy of the publication of notice to the DEP on August 14, 1994. The newspaper publication which Mr. Stewart sent was a separate copy from the copy which he observed on Ms. Underwood's desk. Before mailing a copy of the newspaper publication on August 14, 1994, Mr. Stewart observed that the copy of the publication that had been on Ms. Underwood's desk still remained there. When Mr. Stewart initially discussed the newspaper publication with Ms. Underwood, Ms. Underwood remarked that it did not have an affidavit from the newspaper concerning proof of publication and that the affidavit would not be available until the publication notice had been paid for. Nonetheless, Mr. Stewart explained to Ms. Underwood that the arrangement was one in which a copy of the notice of publication would be forwarded without an affidavit from the newspaper concerning proof of publication. On August 22, 1994, in a conversation between Mr. Stewart and Ms. Underwood, Ms. Underwood stated that she had sent the notice of publication to the DEP. Ms. Underwood did not say when she had forwarded the proof of publication. On August 29, 1994, Mr. Stewart notified Ms. Underwood that she was suspended. The grounds for the proposed suspension that Mr. Stewart intended to present to the Board of Supervisors included: Failure to produce assigned work on time. Failure to maintain files and important records. Failure to respond to important agencies as requested. Failure to maintain paperwork. Failure to maintain accurate time records. Reporting for work late. Misleading information to Supervisors. Failure to comply with assigned duties from the Board. Negligence of duties. Ms. Underwood was not presented with this list of alleged misconduct until a Board meeting on September 1, 1994, without discussion. At the meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on September 1, 1994, Mr. Stewart moved and was seconded by Mr. Freeman to suspend Ms. Underwood until further discussion on September 15, 1994. At the meeting the Ms. Underwood asked that she be paid her vacation pay that had accrued. Mr. Stewart moved and Mr. Freeman seconded a motion to suspend Ms. Underwood without pay; however, a decision was made to pay Ms. Underwood one week of accrued vacation pay and that motion for vacation pay carried. Ms. Underwood had worked for the district until the morning of August 29, 1994, when Mr. Stewart informed Ms. Underwood that she was suspended. On September 9, 1994, Ms. Underwood's attorney, Geoffrey B. Dobson, wrote to Mr. Stewart asking that any hearing concerning the charges against the Ms. Underwood be postponed until the specifics of those charges against Ms. Underwood were provided in writing by the Board. The correspondence went on to specify the information which Ms. Underwood wished to obtain. The requests parallel the allegations that had been provided to Ms. Underwood on September 1, 1994. On September 14, 1994, Mr. Stewart responded to Mr. Dobson's request by correspondence in which it was stated: Pursuant to your request for specific written statement, I would like to respond as follows using numbers which correspond to your letter: On June 21, 1994, Mrs. Underwood was given five (5) tasks that pertained to her job duties and the safety and care of records of Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District. These duties were to commence immediately. These duties were: Make copies of all original minutes and file them in the fire proof cabinet. Make copies of copies for public information. As of August 22, 1994 this was never started. On June 21, 1994, Mrs. Underwood was to update files, since files dated back ten (10) years and there was not room for recent files. As of August 22, 1994 this was never started. Mrs. Underwood was to notify the Department of Environmental Regulations of an April publication oversight. On August 22, 1994, this was achieved twenty-six (26) days later. Mrs. Underwood was instructed to maintain the fire proof cabinet so room could be made for meeting tapes that are on the office floor. On August 22, 1994 this was never started. Mrs. Underwood was instructed to start organizing the documents and records needed to compile the Book of Records of the Supervisors for the Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District. On August 22, 1994 this was never started. See paragraph 1(b) above. See paragraph 1(c) above. See paragraph 1(a) above. Mrs. Underwood has often left her job early for lunch, which she gets ten miles away from her job or returns late from lunch. On a thirty minute lunch break she has often been late for work, but her time records show she has been on time. See paragraph 5 above. See paragraph 1(c) above. See paragraph 1(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) above. See paragraph 1(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) above. In response to Mr. Dobson's request, the September 14, 1994, correspondence from Mr. Stewart also indicated that any documents to be used in the Board's action against Ms. Underwood together with an employee handbook would be provided at the regular meeting to be conducted on September 15, 1994. In addition, the June 20, 1994, memorandum which had been provided to Ms. Underwood from Mr. Freeman was attached to the September 14, 1994, correspondence from Mr. Stewart. That letter from Mr. Stewart stated that the request by Ms. Underwood to postpone the hearing would be brought before the Board at the September 15, 1994, hearing. Finally, Mr. Stewart in his correspondence indicated in response to Mr. Dobson's request, that the Board of Supervisors who had any involvement with the allegations against Ms. Underwood be recused from considering the case on its merit, would be addressed at the September 15, 1994, meeting. Reference in the September 14, 1994, correspondence from Mr. Stewart to Ms. Underwood's failure to achieve certain tasks by August 22, 1994, is a mistake. The date should be August 29, 1994. Consequently, Mr. Stewart's position expressed in the September 14, 1994, correspondence wherein he described certain responsibilities by Ms. Underwood not being accomplished by August 22, 1994, should read August 29, 1994. With that correction Mr. Stewart's observation that the tasks had not been achieved is accepted. Mr. Stewart established that the reference in the charges concerning documents needed to compile the Book of Records for limited purpose of copying those records commenced with the year 1971 forward. There was no necessity to organize the preexisting Book of Records, the records before Freeman and Stewart took office. Mr. Stewart placed no time limit on Ms. Underwood concerning the making of copies, but no effort was made by Ms. Underwood to make the copies before August 29, 1994, when Ms. Underwood was suspended. Mr. Stewart observed that at times Ms. Underwood would leave for her lunch earlier than permissible or later than permissible and would not document those occasions. A reference by Mr. Stewart to Ms. Underwood taking forty-five (45) minutes of undocumented time is related to being late for work, not related to the lunch period. Instead the forty-five (45) minutes for being late was when Ms. Underwood registered her child for school and did not reflect that she was missing forty-five (45) minutes from her work. On one Thursday morning Mr. Stewart asked Ms. Underwood why she was late for work and she explained that she had been to pick up the payroll. It was not Ms. Underwood's obligation to pick up the payroll and Mr. Stewart had not been told that Ms. Underwood was picking up the payroll. Concerning Ms. Underwood being twenty-five (25) minutes late when she picked up the payroll, the problem was not that Ms. Underwood picked the payroll up. The problem was that Ms. Underwood did not make Mr. Stewart aware that she was going to be late that morning. Prior to this occasion Mr. Stewart had not mentioned Ms. Underwood's activity concerning picking up the payroll. After this occasion Mr. Stewart said that he would bring the payroll to the District office. Although Ms. Underwood was not obligated to pick up the payroll, before Mr. Freeman and Mr. Stewart took office as members of the Board of Supervisors, Ms. Underwood had customarily picked up the payroll and brought it to the District office. Prior to Mr. Freeman and Mr. Stewart becoming members of the Board of Supervisors it had been the policy for Ms. Underwood to make bank deposits during business hours. When Mr. Stewart discovered that Ms. Underwood had made a bank deposit during business hours, Mr. Stewart told Ms. Underwood that he would make the deposits from that point forward. Although Ms. Underwood had been told that Mr. Stewart would make the deposits beyond that point, Ms. Underwood continued to make bank deposits during business hours. By his remarks Mr. Stewart made it evident that he would make bank deposits and Ms. Underwood would not be allowed to make those deposits and there would be no necessity to determine the amounts of deposits as a means of deciding whether to spend the time to travel to Hastings to make the bank deposits. A one-way trip from the District office to the bank in Hastings takes a minimum of eighteen (18) minutes based on Mr. Stewart's observations. It is not clear whether the instances in which the Ms. Underwood would leave early for lunch or arrive late from lunch were occasions upon which she was making the bank deposits before Mr. Stewart had told Ms. Underwood that she was not responsible for making those deposits. On September 15, 1994, the Board considered Ms. Underwood's suspension. In that meeting the Board was represented by John Michael Traynor, Esquire. Ms. Underwood was represented by Ronald W. Brown, Esquire. At the September 15, 1994, meeting, arrangements were made to allow counsel for Ms. Underwood to inspect any documents that might be relied upon by the District in a future meeting that was convened to consider the allegations against Ms. Underwood. The meeting to consider those allegations would be convened upon thirty (30) days notice from the Board to Ms. Underwood. No further action was taken concerning the suspension. On October 31, 1994, attorney, Linda S. Calvert Hanson, who had become the District's counsel, wrote to Mr. Dobson, Ms. Underwood's attorney. In that correspondence Ms. Hanson makes reference to the September 9, 1994, letter from Mr. Dobson that has been discussed and disposition of Ms. Underwood's petition for hearing. That petition had requested that the hearing be conducted in accordance with Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. On November 3, 1994, Mr. Dobson replied to the Hanson correspondence dated October 31, 1994. Dobson's correspondence questioned the validity of the Board of Supervisors' action to suspend Ms. Underwood. It also referred to the belief that the statutory time limits for referring the Ms. Underwood's case to the Division of Administrative Hearings had expired. The correspondence referred to the belief that Ms. Underwood had been denied rights to procedural due process. The letter described the Ms. Underwood's status as being one of termination. The correspondence referred to perceived prejudice against Ms. Underwood by Messrs. Freeman and Stewart. Finally, the correspondence requested an amicable solution to Ms. Underwood's case before the Board. The November 3, 1994, correspondence for Mr. Dobson was responded to by Ms. Hanson on November 8, 1994; in that letter Ms. Hanson took issue with the characterization of Ms. Underwood's status as being terminated. Ms. Hanson was persuaded that Ms. Underwood's status was one of suspension. The letter refers to Ms. Hanson's belief that some informal negotiations had been pursued between the District and Ms. Underwood. Ms. Hanson referred to the impression that the suspension hearing would not proceed until Mr. Traynor, the former Board attorney, had instructed the Board to set the matter. The correspondence refers to the belief that Mr. Traynor had never given that instruction. In summary, Ms. Hanson expressed the belief that the time for affording a hearing consistent with Section 120.57, Florida Statutes had not expired, given the attempts at informal resolution. The November 8, 1994, correspondence also stated that the Board held the opinion that it could consider the case in lieu of appointment of a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings. Finally, the correspondence invited Mr. Dobson to consult with his client concerning the matters and to contact Ms. Hanson following that consultation. On January 5, 1995, a report by the District's attorney was made concerning Ms. Underwood's status. It stated: Inasmuch as there has been no response to my letter to Brown of November 8, regarding Ms. Underwood's suspension and the fact that she appears to be employed elsewhere, I recommend that the Board terminate her employment. Attached is a draft letter of termination to be sent to Mr. Brown, her attorney for your approval and signatures. Consistent with the attorney's report, Mr. Stewart, upon motion seconded by Mr. Rosseau, moved to terminate Ms. Underwood's employment with the District. The motion carried. Ms. Underwood was not notified of the meeting on January 5, 1995, in which the decision was made to terminate her employment with the District. On January 13, 1995, Ms. Hanson sent a charge letter to Mr. Brown setting forth the basis for the termination: Please be advised that at the January 5, 1995 meeting of the Board of Supervisors a resolution was passed to terminate Ms. Underwood's employment effective immediately for the following reasons: Failure to properly perform her duties of safety and care for the records of Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District including but not limited to: Failure to make copies of all original minutes and file them in a fire proof cabinet as required by instructions of June 21, 1994. Failure to make copies of the minutes for public inspection as required by instructions of June 21, 1994. Failure to update files as required by instructions of June 21, 1994. Failure to make room in the fireproof safe for tape recordings of district board meetings as instructed on June 21, 1994. Failure to organize the documents needed to compile the Book of Records as instructed on June 21, 1994. Repeated instances of leaving work early for lunch and returning late for work after lunch. There were other instances of her reporting late for work. This delinquency is compounded by her failure to correct her time records to properly reflect her compensable time. Failure to timely report to the Department of Environmental Regulation that there was an April publication oversight. In view of the above circumstances, it is the decision of the board that Ms. Underwood has failed to satisfactorily perform her duties and should be terminated from employment for the Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District. Pursuant to the District Rules of Procedure, Ms. Underwood has twenty-one (21) days in which to request a hearing on her termination before the Board of Supervisors for Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District. This letter is sent directly to you as her representative, based upon your letter dated September 9, 1994 giving notice of representation. Although you have not responded to my correspondence of November 9, 1994 concerning the status of Ms. Underwood, I have no notice that your representation has terminated. I trust you will convey the contents of this letter to Ms. Underwood. If you are no longer representing Ms. Underwood, please advise so that I may contact her directly. On January 18, 1995, Mr. Dobson responded to the charge letter by petitioning for a hearing. In that petition he claimed that Ms. Underwood's procedural and substantive due process rights had been violated by the District through a suspension without hearing, termination without hearing, and action taken by persons not disinterested and unbiased. Mr. Dobson asked that the Ms. Underwood be provided a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes hearing as a person affected by the District's proposed action. Further, Ms. Underwood asked that the case be held before a disinterested hearing officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings, and that through this process Ms. Underwood be reinstated with back pay and granted reasonable attorney's fees. On January 27, 1995, Ms. Hanson requested the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a hearing officer to conduct a formal hearing. That request was granted. On September 9, 1994, Michele Henson was hired as a temporary secretary to fulfill the duties that Ms. Underwood had performed in the past. Ms. Henson's position as district secretary was made permanent on December 15, 1994. In the permanent position Ms. Henson is entitled to medical benefits and to retirement benefits after three (3) years of service. Ms. Henson presently works an eight (8) hour day, Monday through Thursday each week. Ms. Henson spent four (4) days copying the originals minutes. The minutes were copied from 1971 into 1995. Ms. Henson made copies of the documents in the Book of Records and placed them in a book separate from the book containing the originals. It took Ms. Henson four (4) days to copy the originals in the Book of Records. Ms. Henson's efforts produced copies from the Books of Records from 1971 into 1995. Ms. Underwood admits that she did not make room in the fireproof cabinet to place the verbatim tapes as Mr. Stewart requested. Ms. Underwood indicates that she sent a copy of the newspaper publication concerning the District's request for permit from the DEP, however, Ms. Underwood indicated the newspaper publication sat on her desk for probably around three weeks or so before she dispatched the newspaper publication. Ms. Underwood testified that she sent the newspaper publication with a letter. Her testimony concerning the letter and the newspaper publication is unrefuted and is accepted. Ms. Underwood was not aware that the District might be assessed a fine for failure to publish notice attending a permit request. Ms. Underwood admits that she did not make copies of the original minutes. Ms. Underwood states that she did not organize documents necessary to compile the Book of Records. Her reason was that no one told her what they wanted done. Ms. Underwood states that she had asked on several different occasions to discuss the matter with Mr. Stewart. Her claim that no one had explained the manner in which she was to address to the Book of Records is rejected. Ms. Underwood's assertion that she was never given guidance concerning what was to be removed from the fireproof filing cabinet to make room for the verbatim tapes is rejected. Ms. Underwood admits that she was asked to make copies of original documents so that the originals themselves would be protected. Ms. Underwood acknowledges that she did not start making copies of the Book of Records. The reason given for not doing so was because she was not sure what she was supposed to do. Ms. Underwood's claim that she had not been instructed concerning that issue is rejected. Ms. Underwood's assertion that she had been told to make copies of the minutes from June 1994 forward is rejected. In any event, Ms. Underwood had not made copies of the minutes from June, 1994 forward either. Ms. Underwood indicated that she would be late 10 to 15 minutes on Thursdays when she picked up checks for the District. Ms. Underwood's testimony that she had permission to be late for work when she registered her child is accepted. That permission was given by Mr. Stewart. Ms. Underwood recognized the necessity to advise the supervisor when she was going to be late. Her testimony that she would call a supervisor and get permission when she was late is accepted only as found in Paragraph 132, above. Ms. Underwood acknowledges that her lunch hour for the time period in question was one-half hour. In Ms. Underwood's experience, it took twenty to thirty minutes for a one-way trip to Hastings. Ms. Underwood acknowledged that she would go to lunch in Hastings after Mr. Stewart and Mr. Freeman came on the Board. Those lunch trips were when Ms. Underwood would make a bank deposit or would mail something that she felt needed to be mailed. These trips were normally made on Thursday following Board meetings. Ms. Underwood went to Hastings for lunch after Board meetings on Thursday twice a month. On Thursdays when Ms. Underwood would go and get lunch she would bring her lunch back to the District. As Ms. Underwood describes, at times she would go late to lunch when waiting on a District customer. In these instances, Ms. Underwood did not claim extra time for her employment. Ms. Underwood acknowledges that she participated in a meeting with Mr. Freeman on June 20, 1994. Moreover, she acknowledges that working hours were a matter of concern by the Board and that the employees had been instructed not to leave the District during working hours. Her response to those instructions as they would pertain to trips to Hastings to make bank deposits or for mailing, was that this was something she had always done and she just carried it over. Ms. Underwood also acknowledges the guidelines that were provided on July 7, 1994, concerning her employment. Nonetheless, Ms. Underwood believes that when she made a bank deposit or mailings she was right to do that on District time. Her perception concerning the opportunity to continue the practice of making bank deposits and mailings on District time is contrary to District policy and unacceptable. On October 20, 1994, Ms. Underwood began work with the Association for Retarded Citizens of Putnam County at the rate of $6.50 per hour. She worked 24 hours a week through May of 1995. After that time she has worked 32 hours a week. This is in contrast to the 30 hours per week with the District, where she had sick pay, vacation pay, and the right to voluntary participation in a retirement plan through an IRA. Her work with Association for Retarded Citizens of Putnam County allows sick pay and vacation pay but no retirement. Ms. Underwood received a gross salary of $190.80 a week for 30 hours, EIC and insurance when employed with the District. Other than in instances described Ms. Underwood had performed her duties with the District in an acceptable manner.
Recommendation The District has meet it's burden based upon the facts found as they relate to the allegations set forth in the charge letter, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered terminating Ms. Underwood's employment with the District without further benefits. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning Ms. Underwood's proposed fact finding: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 13 is rejected in the suggestion that the practice of picking up the payroll was condoned. Paragraph 14 is rejected in its suggestion that the practice of making bank deposits and mailing in Hastings was condoned. Paragraph 15 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 16 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence and first phrase to the second sentence. Otherwise, it is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 17 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Calvert Hanson, Esquire Suite A 24 N.W. 33rd Court Gainesville, FL 32607 J. Michael Davis, Esquire Suite A 24 Northwest 33rd Court Gainesville, FL 32607 Geoffrey B. Dobson, Esquire Law Offices of Dobson and Brown, P.A. 66 Cuna Street St. Augustine, FL 32084 Horace A. Freeman, Sr. Board of Supervisors Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District c/o Linda Calvert Hanson, Esquire Suite A 24 N.W. 33rd Court Gainesville, FL 32607
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about August 1, 1978, respondent Pilot Properties, Inc. filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation for the issuance of a construction permit to expand and enlarge a wastewater treatment facility from 18,000 gallons per day to 150,000 gallons per day. The DER issued its notice of intent to issue the permit on November 13, 1978, and the Perdido Key Development Association, Inc. timely requested a hearing on said notice. Over the objection of respondent Pilot Properties, Southwest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc. was joined as a party petitioner. The Perdido Key Development Association, Inc. subsequently withdrew as a petitioner. The remaining petitioner, Southwest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc. is comprised of members who reside on, own property on or have a business interest in Perdido Key. Among its purpose are the improvement of the Perdido Key community and the protection of the environment. The members of the Association utilize Old River for recreational and commercial purposes. The proposed expanded facility is designed to serve cluster homes and condominium complexes on Perdido Key, for a total of approximately 428 units. It will utilize a contact stabilization process whereby raw sewage enters the plant from the individual units, receives treatment and then the effluent is discharged evenly through a spreader or equalizer into two percolation ponds continuing approximately 54,000 square feet. The facility is designed to remove 95 percent of B. O. D. and suspended solids. The plant is not designed to remove nutrients. The percolation ponds serve as a disposal device, and not a treatment device. The ponds are to be constructed at an elevation of six feet. Considering fluctuation, the percolation pond bottoms will be separated from the groundwater by three feet. It is an accepted DER guideline to require a three foot separation between the groundwater and a percolation pond. The conditions of the proposed permit require that a three foot buffer zone be maintained between the bottom of the ponds and the maximum groundwater elevation. The nearest edge of the percolation pond will be located approximately 105 to 110 feet from the water line of Old River. The effluent will be discharged from the plant to the percolation pond and then to the groundwater, which ultimately flows in the direction of Old River. Groundwater monitoring wells are provided to measure the level of nitrogen. The soil on Perdido Key is course-type sand, with little clay or silt. It has a very rapid vertical percolation rate. According to the respondent's witness who qualified as an expert in ecology and botany, the process of adsorption, precipitation and denitrification which occurs as groundwater moves horizontally will prevent the degradation of Old River. This witness observed no suspicious levels of phosphate in samples from Old River. This witness observed no suspicious levels of phosphate in samples from Old River. He found the phosphate nitrate and fecal chloroform level of Old River comparable to that found in other clean water bodies. The petitioner's witness who qualified as an expert in aquatic ecology took samples of groundwater and sand from various areas on Perdido Key to analyze their nitrate and phosphate content. It was his conclusion that phosphate was not attenuated by the sands and that nutrients, particularly phosphate, are being discharged into Old River from sewage treatment facilities existing on Perdido Key. He observed a shifting of the composition of flora in Old River near the site of another existing sewage treatment facility which was not designed to remove nitrates or phosphates. However, the other existing facility was not shown to be comparable in the size of its percolation ponds, the pond elevation from the groundwater or in the manner of discharge form the plant to the percolation pond. This witness did agree that the spreading or equalizing method of discharging effluent from the plant to the 54,000 square feet of percolation ponds could delay the entrance of nutrients to Old River by as much as five months. The petitioner produced a witness who was skilled in the operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment plants similar in design to that proposed by respondent Pilot Properties. This witness testified that this type of facility required greater operating time due to difficulties encountered by hydraulic imbalances on clarifiers and the upward flow of discharge. The witness had no knowledge as to the future operating plans of the respondent. The two respondents presented witnesses who were qualified as experts in the areas of design and construction of sewage treatment systems. Both witnesses had reviewed the subject permit application and were of the opinion that if the proposed plant is constructed as designed, it will meet the minimum treatment standards required by DER's statutes and rules. The application submitted by Pilot Properties was for the issuance of a construction permit. Among the conditions of the proposed issuance of such a construction permit is a requirement that the permitted obtain an operation permit sixty days prior to the expiration date of the construction permit. Prior to the issuance of an operating permit, the applicant must provide the Department of Environmental Regulation with four months of results of analysis and flow measurements. An operation permit is issued only to those facilities which are able to operate within the standards of DER's rules. If the plant does not properly operate, DER requires the necessary corrections and modifications to bring the plant into compliance. DER may also prohibit further hookups if the plant operates improperly.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue to the Respondent Pilot Properties, Inc. the requested construction permit subject to the conditions contained in the Department's initial notice of intent to issue the permit. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day March of 1980. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jacob Varn Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T. Michael Patterson, Esquire 26 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Robert T. Fulton General Counsel Pilot Properties, Inc. 664 Cherry Street Winter Park, Florida 32789 William Hyde, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
