The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Division of Real Estate was the state agency responsible for the licensing of real estate salespersons and the regulation of the real estate sales profession in Florida. Respondent, Mark T. West, was licensed by the Division as a real estate salesperson on March 3, 1997, upon passage of the salesperson examination, and held license number SL-0647923. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony that he has not been actively engaged in the practice of real estate, licensure records maintained by the Division reflect that from March 11, 1997 through the present, he has been active as a salesperson with two broker corporations, TRI W Group, Inc., from March 11, 1997 through September 17, 2000, and TRI-W Brokerage Inc., from September 18, 2000 to the date of certification, February 22, 2001. On December 15, 1995, Respondent submitted an application for licensure to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. His application reflected he was born in St. Petersburg, Florida, on September 20, 1961. Question 9 on the application asks whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere, even if adjudication was withheld. The question indicates it's applicability to any violation of the law of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses other than minor traffic offenses, and requires the applicant to provide details, including dates and outcomes, in full, on a separate sheet of paper. The time period of applicability is not limited. On his application, Respondent, in answer to question 9, indicated "Yes" and listed a violation of failure to yield to a fire engine. No other offenses were reflected on the form, nor was any separate sheet listing other offenses found in the records of the Division. After the application was filed, consistent with its usual practice, the Division conducted a criminal records background check on Respondent which revealed other offenses had been charged against him. On January 17, 1980, Respondent was charged with DWI in Pinellas County. His driver's license was suspended for 90 days, and he was fined. On September 11, 1982, Respondent was charged with a misdemeanor charge of obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties. Though Respondent claims he did nothing wrong and the police officer was reprimanded for charging him, the fact remains that Respondent pleaded guilty to the charge on December 2, 1982, and adjudication was withheld. On January 13, 1986, Respondent was charged, in two separate cases, with obtaining property by worthless check. Both checks were for $81.90 and, according to Respondent, were given in payment for paint which he purchased to paint someone's home. He claims he was not paid for the job and, therefore, had no funds with which to satisfy the checks he wrote. Respondent pleaded guilty in both cases and was placed on probation in each case along with a requirement to make restitution and pay costs. He was discharged from probation after nine months. Respondent claims that as to all offenses to which he pleaded guilty, he did so upon advice of counsel. Respondent was interviewed regarding his application on January 13, 2000, by an investigator with the Division to whom he indicated at the time that he did not believe he was required to list any offense over ten years in the past. At hearing, however, Respondent modified that answer by indicating his belief the ten-year limitation related only to traffic offenses. Once the Administrative Complaint was served upon Respondent, in his election of rights, he claimed he had listed all the prior disciplinary actions on a separate sheet of paper which he enclosed with the application when it was submitted. He reiterated that claim in a letter to the Division on November 15, 2000, and he persists in that claim as of the date of this hearing. Review of the application in question reveals that Respondent had previously submitted application for licensure in September, 1994, and had failed the examination for licensure on November 11, 1994, and on January 1, April 3, and June 12, 1995. A review of Respondent's investigative file failed to disclose the prior application or whether Respondent had listed his other offenses on that application. He claims he did so, however. Respondent attended real estate school in preparation for taking the licensure exam. He cannot recall, however, whether, at the school, he was taught how to fill out the application and what was required to be on it. However, he admits to having read the application and realizes it had to be accurate and complete. He contends he believed he had complied with the disclosure requirements and signed the affidavit of completeness which appears on the application. Respondent admits that all his difficulties with the law are not listed on the application form itself. He also admits that there is no time limit listed on the application and that the application form, as he submitted it, does not reflect there is an attachment or continuation in any form. No explanation was given by the counsel for the Commission for the almost five-year delay between the filing of the application for examination by Respondent and the filing of the Administrative Complaint by the state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(e) and (m), Florida Statutes, placing his license as a real estate sales person on probation for one year under such terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Juana C. Watkins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Mark T. West 222 145th Avenue, East Madeira Beach, Florida 33708 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Subsections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Marich was certified by the Commission on February 2, 1971, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 47090. At all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Marich was employed as a law enforcement officer with the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office). In October and part of November 2007, Mr. Marich was a lieutenant assigned to the duty of road supervisor, which meant that he supervised six men in 12-hour shifts. Mr. Marich was issued a marked patrol car to use in the performance of his law enforcement duties. Mr. Marich’s patrol car was a Ford Crown Victoria. No evidence was presented to establish the year the patrol car was manufactured. The Sheriff’s Office provided gasoline to run the patrol cars assigned to its employees. The gasoline was the property of the Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff’s Office's fueling station was located behind the jail. The fueling station is a self-serve station. Each officer would pump the gasoline into his or her patrol car and log the amount on a log book kept near the pump. The gasoline dispensed from the pump by the law enforcement officers was to be used only by the law enforcement officers to carry out their official duties. The Sheriff’s Office, as owner of the gasoline, did not authorize or consent to any appropriation of gasoline for any law enforcement officer’s private use or personal benefit. In October and November 2007, Mr. Marich carried one or more gasoline cans in the trunk of his patrol car. His supervisor, Major Chester Creamer, did not direct Mr. Marich to carry gasoline cans in his patrol car to assist stranded motorists or other deputies. Major Creamer is not aware of any of the other Sheriff's Office's law enforcement personnel carrying gasoline cans in their patrol cars. Mr. Marich worked 12-hour shifts from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. on October 26 and 27, 2007; October 28 and 29, 2007; October 31 and November 1, 2007; November 5 and 6, 2007; and November 6 and 7, 2007. On the intervening days, Mr. Marich was not on duty. The Sheriff’s Office had reason to believe that gasoline was being taken without authorization from the Sheriff’s Office’s fueling station. Surveillance video cameras were set up at the fueling station. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 is a video disc made from the recordings of the surveillance video cameras. The disc fairly and accurately depicts Mr. Marich on October 27 and 29, 2007, and November 2, 6, and 7, 2007, while at the fueling station located at the Sheriff’s Office, knowingly dispensing gasoline into the fuel tank of his assigned Sheriff’s Office's patrol car and also into a gasoline can or cans located in the trunk of Mr. Marich’s patrol car. Mr. Marich claims that the gasoline which he was dispensing into gasoline cans in the trunk of his patrol car was used for official purposes. He claims that he helped stranded motorists; that he used more than a tank of gasoline on each shift and needed the extra gasoline so that he would not run out of gasoline; and that his wife, who is an employee of the Sheriff’s Office, would often forget to fill her Sheriff’s Office's vehicle with gasoline, and he had to put gasoline in her vehicle from the cans in the trunk of his patrol car. It is not a frequent occurrence for the Sheriff's Office's law enforcement officers to help motorists who have run out of gasoline. Normally, a deputy assisting such motorists would take the motorist to the nearest service station so that the motorist can purchase gasoline or the deputy would get a gasoline can and go to the nearest service station to get gasoline, and the motorist would be responsible for paying for the gasoline. However, there have been exceptions to this method of aiding stranded motorists when the motorist was unable to pay for the gasoline. A deputy could get enough gasoline from the Sheriff's Office's fueling station to get the motorist home. The deputy was to log the amount of gasoline taken and note in the log that the gasoline was for a stranded motorist. Mr. Marich has provided stranded motorists with gasoline from the cans in the back of his patrol car in the past. On one such occasion, he was called by the then sheriff to aid a motorist who had run out of gasoline. Mr. Marich responded to the call and provided the motorist with gasoline. The then sheriff approved of Mr. Marich carrying gasoline in the trunk of his patrol car for such purposes. When a Sheriff's Office's law enforcement officer encounters a disabled vehicle, including vehicles that are out of gasoline, the officer is to advise the dispatcher for the Sheriff’s Office that he or she has encountered a disabled vehicle and give the location of the vehicle. The officer is also supposed to log the encounter on the Sheriff's Office's computer system and to run a check on the vehicle's license tag to make sure the vehicle is not stolen. From October 27 through November 7, 2007, the records for the Sheriff's Office do not contain any record of Mr. Marich encountering a disabled vehicle and providing assistance to a stranded motorist. No evidence was provided to establish that Mr. Marich noted on the log that he had used gasoline for a stranded motorist. On at least one occasion prior to October 2007, Mr. Marich has provided gasoline from the cans in the back of his patrol car to a deputy, other than his wife, who had run out of fuel. No evidence was presented to rebut Mr. Marich’s claims that he used the gasoline that he put in the cans in the back of his patrol car for the patrol car that his wife used in her official duties with the Sheriff’s Office. Thus, his testimony is credited. No evidence was presented to rebut Mr. Marich’s claims that he used the gasoline that he put in the cans in the back of his patrol car for his patrol car while he was on road patrol. Thus, his testimony is credited. Mr. Marich was terminated from his employment with the Sheriff’s Office on November 7, 2007, for the unauthorized taking of gasoline. Major Creamer inspected Mr. Marich’s patrol car within an hour of Mr. Marich’s termination. Major Creamer noticed a strong smell of gasoline in the interior of the car, which was emanating from the trunk of the car. The odor lingered after several cleanings, and the matting had to be removed from the trunk to get rid of the gasoline smell. During 2006 and 2007, Mr. Marich drove a blue, two- tone Dodge pickup truck as one of his personal vehicles. On two occasions, Mr. Marich was observed siphoning gasoline from a Sheriff’s Office's patrol car into a gasoline can and pouring the gasoline into a blue, two-tone Dodge pickup truck. However, the Commission did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the gasoline in the patrol car was the property of the Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Marich could have bought the gasoline and put it in the patrol car. Thus, the siphoning of the gasoline does not establish that Mr. Marich stole the gasoline. There was testimony from a mechanic, who had worked on the Sheriff’s Office’s patrol cars for several years, that Ford Crown Victoria's had an anti-siphoning device which prevented gasoline from being siphoned from the fuel tank. The mechanic did not know when Ford Motor Company began installing the anti- siphoning devices and had not examined the patrol car driven by Mr. Marich to determine whether it contained an anti-siphoning device or to determine whether anyone had tampered with the gasoline nozzle. Thus, the mechanic’s testimony is not credited with establishing that gasoline could not be siphoned from the patrol car driven by Mr. Marich. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Mr. Marich used the gasoline that he put in the gasoline cans in the trunk of patrol car on the dates alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint for his personal benefit or for the benefit of others who were not authorized to use the gasoline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that John T. Marich did not violate Subsections 943.13(7) and 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Todd Voigt, should be terminated from employment with the City of Clearwater (City) for violating City policies as alleged in the City's Termination and Dismissal Notice (Notice) dated August 3, 2016.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board make a determination that the charges in the Notice are sustained, and that Mr. Voigt be terminated as a City employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2009), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.004(4), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer, certified by the CJSTC. At the time relevant to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was acquainted with a person named Terrence Hicks. Mr. Hicks was apparently involved in some business dealings with a Mr. Brichler. In connection with these business dealings, Mr. Brichler had possession of several motorcycles owned by Mr. Hicks. Respondent accessed information regarding Mr. Brichler from a secure Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles DAVID system on two different occasions: Friday, September 26, 2008, and Monday, October 27, 2008. Respondent was not working on any investigation regarding Mr. Brichler at the time he accessed the DAVID system. No traffic citations, field contact cards, or offense reports regarding Mr. Brichler were generated by Respondent or any other deputy. After the second time he accessed the system, on or about November 3, 2008, Respondent went to Mr. Brichler's home to inquire about the motorcycles. Based upon his conversation with Mr. Brichler, Respondent claims that he determined that the dispute between Brichler and Mr. Hicks was civil in nature, and he generated no complaint or paperwork as a result. At the time he visited Mr. Brichler's home, Respondent was off duty. However, he was in uniform and arrived at the home in a marked, county-issued vehicle. Mr. Brichler contacted the Volusia County Sheriff's Office in or about February 2009, stating that Respondent had come to his home in November 2008 and identified himself as Deputy Sanchez. Mr. Brichler claimed in his complaint that the officer coming to his house provided him with a business card bearing the insignia for the Volusia County Sheriff's Office, with the office's address and telephone number. The card had a line stating, "Presented By:" followed by a blank line, with the words Deputy Sheriff written underneath. Written on the blank line was "Deputy Sanchez." According to the police report, there is no Deputy Sanchez that has worked or does work for the Volusia County Sheriff's Office. The complaint indicates that Brichler realized that the person identifying himself as Deputy Sanchez was actually Respondent, because he read an article about two deputies that had been arrested for racing motorcycles, and the photograph of one of the deputies was of Respondent, identifying him as Deputy Lopez. He supplied the business card with Deputy Sanchez written on it to Deputy Turner, who investigated his complaint. Respondent admits accessing the DAVID system to gain information on Mr. Brichler, and admits going to his home to ask about the motorcycles. With respect to the business card, Respondent states that it was a blank, generic business card provided by the sheriff's office. Mr. Brichler did not testify in this proceeding. During his interview with Deputy Turner, Respondent denied giving Mr. Brichler a business card with "Deputy Sanchez" written on it. He admitted accessing the DAVID system and going to Mr. Brichler's house.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Commission enter a Final Order: dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 11-1236PL; finding that Respondent failed to maintain in violation of section 943.1395(7), as defined in rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c)2.,; and suspending his certification for a period not to exceed five days. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Omar Lopez Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the School Board was bound to renew respondent's contract, once the Superintendent nominated him to continue as General Director of Security? If not, whether good cause exists to reject the nomination?
Findings Of Fact The Duval County School Board's security office is responsible for coordinating and maintaining an incident reporting records system, collection and cross-checking school employees' criminal records, conducting various internal investigations and for "coordination and monitoring of the security alarm systems ... " Respondent's Exhibit No. 5, p. 13. As associate superintendent of personnel for the Duval County School Board, before he became superintendent in 1976, Herb A. Sang had hired James W. Heard to head up the Board's security operations. Eleven years later, Superintendent Sang learned that law enforcement officers who worked under Mr. Heard's supervision (although they were furnished to the School Board under an agreement between the Board and the Sheriff's Office) were using School Board cars "moonlighting ... for stores like May Cohens." (T. 200-201) On this account, and because of "concerns about theft inside," (T. 201) Mr. Sang decided to create a new position to oversee security for the School Board. Mr. Heard enjoyed civil service protection, and stayed on. When respondent Richard M. Davis became the first person to hold the new position, he was known as general director of security and Mr. Heard began reporting to him. Mr. Davis had gone to work for the F.B.I. upon graduation from law school, and only left to take the job with the Duval County School Board, where he began on December 28, 1984. Continuously since 1970, he had had supervisory duties. As the School Board's General Director of Security, he supervised, in addition to Mr. Heard, three clerical employees, Linda Hancock, Lorraine Hampton and Agnes Carlyle; and several investigators, including Robert Dickinson, Jack Adams, Thomas Tawes, Messrs. Poston, Hogan, Harrington, Dixon, and Miller. SONITROL Soon after respondent Davis began work with the School Board, he relieved James W. Heard of responsibility for overseeing Sonitrol's installation of security systems. He took on this responsibility himself, although he shared the duties with Jack Adams until school opened in the fall of 1985. Mr. Davis never discussed "the problems of the Sonitrol system," Mr. Heard deposition, P 75, with Mr. Heard. He never asked Mr. Heard's advice, and Mr. Heard volunteered none. When Mr. Davis began as general director of security, Sonitrol of Jacksonville, Inc. (Sonitrol) had already installed 82 alarm systems in 73 of the some 140 schools the Duval School Board operates, in accordance with a contract entered into, perhaps in 1982. Heard deposition, P. 52. In early 1985, another system was installed at another school. On April 15, 1985, the School Board approved installation of 71 more Sonitrol alarm systems. In separate action the same month, the Board approved installation of two other systems for a total of 73 systems for 66 sites. At the schools selected, systems were installed to monitor the school office, the computer room, other places where high dollar items are" (T.I. 132) and "major entries," id., but many classrooms went unmonitored in order to keep costs down. Installation of such a system entails attaching metal plates or "door-contacts" on doors opposite like plates on jambs. Wires are then run so that, when current is supplied, opening the door breaks an electrical circuit, which "registers in the control panel that's in the school ... [which panel) transmits that information in code form over a telephone line to ... [the central monitoring station ... (T.II. 153, 154) In addition, up to 16 "preamps," audio sensors known loosely as microphones, can be wired to each central panel so that sound is also transmitted to the central monitoring station, if the noise level rises above a certain level. How best to use a limited number of preamps varies from building to building, depending on, among other things, where noise-generating equipment is located. Once they are in place, the system is calibrated to avoid transmissions of routine, background or "ambient" noise, sounds emanating from water coolers, fluorescent lights, cooling and heating systems and other "internal" sources. Anybody with the access number can turn the alarm system on and off. Systems ordinarily remain off during the school day. Once their work is completed, the custodial staff turn them on for the night. At least at night, a school board employee monitors a video display terminal on which "PE" indicates that a perimeter entry" has been effected, i.e., that a door has opened. When sound picked up by an audio sensor is transmitted to the central monitoring station, "AU" appears on the screen while the sound is reproduced on a loudspeaker. Next to "PE" or "AU" appears a number corresponding to the school or other facility at which opening a door broke a circuit or from which sound is transmitted. The audio transmissions are recorded and can be replayed by the monitor who must decide whether something is amiss. Computerized storage equipment creates a permanent record on magnetic tape of all "occurrences ... any time there is an activation audible or perimeter entry or code ... when someone comes in the school, when someone leaves the school, or the telephone line falters and the system redials, whatever transpires out there " (T.II. 160) Under its agreement with the School Board, Sonitrol was to furnish school board personnel a detailed, written plan for each school involved, and, once the security chief approved the plan, to install the system. Installation has three phases: Physical Installation - This is complete when the school has been wired, and the control unit, microphones and door contacts installed. On-Line - This is complete when the Contractor has "powered the system up" and performed tests on the microphones. Operational - This is complete when access numbers have been issued and the systems are monitored by the central monitoring board at the administration building. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10, p. 2. Under the Board's agreement with Sonitrol, Sonitrol undertook "[e]quipment installation, testing and training within ninety (90) days after receipt of purchase order," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1O, p 4, but witnesses testified that, after physical installation was accomplished, and the contractor had tested the system, it was the School Board, not Sonitrol, who was "to go out and train the operators, deliver the code cards." (T.I. 157) Although programmed and "on line," a system might not be operational if, for example, conduit ... has not been installed ..." (T.II. 168) The School Board was responsible for installation of a sufficient number of telephone jacks. Sonitrol agreed to maintain the systems for a monthly fee "for twelve (12) months from date or completion of installation and operating condition (including training and testing.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10, p. 2. The agreement called for preventive maintenance at least quarterly, and specified that "system failure due to normal wear or telephone failure is covered under your service contract." Petitioner's exhibit No. 10, p. 4. Prior to January 1987, the School Board did not keep records of what preventive maintenance Sonitrol performed. When Mr. Heard oversaw Sonitrol's installation of alarm systems, he and the principal or head custodian of the school involved would walk the school to see if the equipment was in and installed as it was supposed to be, that it was all there; and we would test it for them. When Mr. Gallagher called me and said, "We've got school number so-and-so on-line. We're going to test it for a week," they would before we actually put it on-line. And we would test it down in the monitoring room, and then they'd fine tune it and get the noisy areas out and so forth. And at the end of a week or ten days, it would be on-line at that point, then we started paying for maintenance ... ... they put it on-line, and we'd monitor it. They'd have people down there during that night and listen to it. And if there was a noise problem with it, then they'd do what they called fine-tune it. They'd go out there and try to locate what the noise was. They night have to relocate a mike a little further away from the heater or something of this nature Heard deposition, pp. 56, 57. Before December of 1984, Mr. Heard told the clerical staff "whenever a school was put on-line." Carlyle deposition, p. 47. In some instances Sonitrol began billing for maintenance for systems even before they were operational. As far as the evidence showed, those systems were "on line" before billing for their maintenance began and, in fact, required maintenance. If the monitor learned of a problem with a system after it had become operational, she notified Sonitrol and made an entry in a log book to that effect. Sonitrol made a monthly report of maintenance it performed. After Mr. Davis became General Director of Security, significant delays attended the transition from "on-line" status to "operational" status. Charges incurred for maintenance of systems before they become operational aggregated more than $13,000 for the period between September 1, 1985 and March 31, 1987. Especially without the contract in evidence, however, the proof does not establish that these moneys constituted an overpayment to Sonitrol for maintenance. But, even if these moneys were not overpayments to Sonitrol, they nevertheless may be said to represent part of the cost of the delays in rendering systems operational after Sonitrol had completed its work in installing them. The School Board also lost the protection operable alarm systems would have afforded after their physical installation but before they became operational, although the evidence established no burglary losses attributable to the delays. As General Director of Security, it was respondent Davis' responsibility to see that "on line" systems became operational as promptly as practical. In December of 1986, Mr. Davis left off overseeing installation personally and turned this task back over to Mr. Heard. At that time, 40 some systems were "ready to be completed and ready to go on line that needed to be put on-line." Heard deposition, p. 62. Of these, "about 16 or 17 ... were ready ... had things to be done to them before they could be put on- line." Id. Seven or eight systems had been installed, at least partially, for 18 months or longer but were not operational. Forest and Paxon high schools each lacked a phone jack that was needed and "there was some conduit that had to be run on one of the systems in order to complete the installation of it." - (T. 63) The System at Normandy Village Elementary School had been in place since May of 1986, but had been struck by lightning, and needed to be reprogrammed in December of 1986, when Mr. Heard inspected. The system at Stillwell Junior High School also needed to be reprogrammed. As far as the evidence shows, no burglaries occurred at any of these seven or eight schools while their systems were not operational. The School Board paid invoices aggregating $470 "for phone line problems, replacing batteries,... [and] for service calls when no problems were found." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10, p. 4. Whether these charges were proper under the contract between Sonitrol and the School Board is not clear from the evidence. The contract was not offered in evidence, although excerpts are quoted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. Sonitrol sometimes received payment for equipment before it was installed. In these instances, the School Board lost the use of various sums for varying periods. The evidence does not establish what these sums or how long these time periods were. A NEW BOSS When he first began, Mr. Davis called a meeting with the investigators in which he told them that Mr. Heard would continue to supervise them and that nothing would change, in that regard. This was the last meeting in which all the investigators were invited to participate. Ms. Hancock, who had worked for Mr. Heard for ten years, had grown used to the way Mr. Heard did things and felt very loyal to him. She was upset to an extent, when Mr. Davis took charge of the security staff, although she became his secretary. She was also offended at his apparent lack of confidence in her, and chagrined that he sent work to typists elsewhere in the building. She believed these typists avoided her, because he did. Heated arguments between Mr. Davis and Messrs. Dickinson and Tawes proved distracting, and Ms. Hancock took umbrage at some of Mr. Davis' profanity, although his language "improved over time. (T.45) On two or more occasions, Mr. Davis yelled at someone in the office in the presence of other employees. Heard deposition, P. 40. He "hollered" at Mr. Dixon after discovering that the latter failed to apprise him of a teacher's arrest. Once Mr. Davis came to the investigator's office door and started yelling, "Goddamn you son of a bitches. If you aren't happy here, transfer your asses out of here." He was just ranting and raving. Tawes deposition, p. 27. Once he upset Ms. Hampton by shaking a telephone message "in front of ... [her] face," Carlyle deposition, p. 33, rebuking her, although without raising his voice, in the presence of others, for failing to take down a caller's telephone number. SHOP TALK At least until December of 1986, Respondent Davis daily employed "all of the normal vulgarity type words" (T. 61) including "fuck quite regularly, God damn" (T. 60) and "son of a bitch." Id. Ms. Hancock does not believe in taking "the Lord's name in vain" (T. 41) and does not think "fucking, any of those type words ... should be said around a lady." (T. 42) Mr. Davis' language also displeased Ms. Carlyle and Ms. Hampton, Carlyle deposition; Heard deposition, p. 17, but nobody ever spoke to Mr. Davis about it, as far as the record shows. He did not actually swear at the clerical staff as far as the evidence shows. PERSONNEL CHANGES After working for Mr. Davis for more than two years, Ms. Hancock applied for a transfer in February of 1987. He first learned of her intention to leave when she told him she had secured another position. At no time did Ms. Hancock ever voice any complaint to Mr. Davis about working conditions. When Mr. Davis started, the security department had two vacancies. One had existed for about a decade, and the other for more than a year before Mr. Davis began, having arisen when an investigator retired. Both remained unfilled at the time the present charges were made. The perennially vacant position was kept on the books at the direction of senior administrators as a means of enhancing the department's budget. Robert C. Dickinson, a law enforcement officer, had been "assigned to School Board Security" (T. 59) for six years then Mr. Davis began working there. He, too, stayed on another two years, but he did not leave voluntarily. Sheriff McMillan transferred him to patrol duty in response to Mr. Davis' request made both by telephone and in writing on December 17, 1986, that he do so. In his letter of that date to the sheriff, Mr. Davis explained the basis for the request: On December 15, I proceeded to the public parking lot at the intersection of Southside Boulevard and Baymeadows Road, where I parked in order to observe the entrance to the Jacksonville Country Day School. At approximately 7:52 a.m., I observed Detective Dickinson, stopped southbound on Southside Boulevard, at the traffic light. He had a passenger in the right front seat that I must presume was his daughter, whom I have heard him say attends Jacksonville County Day School. He made a left turn into the school grounds. At about 7:54 a.m, he exited the school driveway, turning north onto Southside Boulevard. Again, on December 16, 1986, I waited in the same location. At 8:01 a.m., I observed Detective Dickinson turning into the school grounds from Southside Boulevard, again with the same young female passenger. He exited the school driveway at 8:03 a.m., again turning north on Southside Boulevard. On both days I observed Detective Dickinson he was operating a 1985 Ford Crown Victoria, 4 door sedan, color white, bearing Florida tag 307-EUS, vehicle 6019, his assigned unit for School Security. Naturally, the observations are of great concern to me, since he is supposed to be in a duty status at 7:3O a.m, and was supposed to be checking various Duval County school buses for safe driving, equipment and student conduct, while the buses are on the roadway. Further I was quite dismayed to see the two "Activity Reports" submitted by Detective Dickinson - for the dates of December 15 and 16, 1983. These reports indicate he was checking buses from 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m., on December 15, 1986, and from 7:30 a.m. to 8:20 a.m., on December 16, 1986, when in fact he was using a vehicle of the Duval County School Board to transport his daughter to her private school. The fact that he included such erroneous information on an official document gives me cause to doubt his veracity and I do not feel he is the type of individual that should be assigned to the School Security Department. Copies of the "Activity Reports" are attached. In addition on December 17, 1986, I was in the office when I observed Detective Dickinson walking out of the door. I asked him where he was going. He responded "To the cafeteria. I asked what he was doing in the office and he replied "paperwork." I also inquired as to his whereabouts earlier in the morning and he responded "Why checking buses like I always do." I then requested that he go to his desk and do the "paperwork" instead of the cafeteria. He walked to his desk and I went into my office. Shortly, I heard him slam the telephone into the cradle, I asked him what the noise was about and he said it was the phone and he had slammed it down because he was unable to reach his party. I then cautioned him against such rough treatment of the equipment He immediately put his hand, palm out, toward me as if to warn me away, and he sarcastically commented that I had started the whole thing by making comments during a recent School Board meeting that "they" were not cooperating. I told Detective Dickinson that we were not talking about that, but about his rough treatment of the telephone, He responded "0kay, you got it. Whatever you want. I regard this last incident as a poor reflection upon an experienced law enforcement officer. His conduct and demeanor was antagonistic, rude, and unprofessional. Coupled with his actions on December 15 and 16, 1986, I have concluded that Detective Dickinson is not the type of person that should be representing the School Security Department or working with the student and staff population of the public schools. I would appreciate your removing him immediately and replacing him as soon as possible. Mr. Davis had decided to lie in wait across the street from the Jacksonville Country Day School after a neighbor told him the child regularly arrived in a school board vehicle. At hearing Mr. Davis testified that Officer Dickinson's "work was not in question," (T. :11.132) characterizing much of it as "an outstanding and excellent job." Id. According to Mr. Davis, Officer Dickinson is intelligent and well-spoken. Officer Dickinson's testimony that he did in fact follow school buses as he drove his daughter to school on December 15 and 16, 1986, was credible and credited. The transfer was accomplished while Officer Dickinson was away on vacation. He learned about it from his brother who had read of it in the newspaper. With respect to the personal use of school board vehicles, respondent testified that he was "sure that every one of those investigators, including our people who work at night as security officers, have probably used the car to accomplish a personal errand or something of a personal nature." (T. 134) He himself had driven a school board car to his dentist's office and to a barber shop during the work day. With respect to his tonsorial outing, he testified, [M]y hair grows on the school board time and I don't feel remiss in getting it cut once in a while on school board time," (T. 135) although more recently he had opted for Saturday afternoon haircuts. By Thomas Nathan Tawes' count, "Mr. Davis ... used harsh profanity towards," Tawes deposition, p. 9, Mr. Tawes on four occasions. In January of 1985, Mr. Tawes, a school board investigator, ran a red light and caused a traffic accident. The following day Mr. Davis informed him that he had received a report that Mr. Tawes was "drinking prior to the accident and...high on drugs," Heard deposition, p. 11, and said "I'm going to have to investigate it. We've got a complaint." And [Tawes] said, "I would like for Captain Heard to be in here, sir. " [Davis] said, "No. I'm your goddamn supervisor." [Tawes] said, "Sir, I would like for Captain Heard to be in here." [Davis] said, "You son of a bitch, I'm your goddamn supervisor." [Tawes] said, "Sir, I would like for Captain Heard to be in here." [Davis] said, "Well, then, goddammit, go get him." Tawes deposition, p. 11. Mr. Tawes felt he had a right, under a collective bargaining agreement, for his immediate supervisor to be present. In June of 1985, Mr. Tawes found a note on his desk from Mr. Davis, directing him "to go to a Class 3 hearing," id. p. 18, involving a case of alleged sexual battery at Sandalwood High. Mr. Tawes went to Mr. Davis' office and objected to attending, saying he had been excused from such hearings before. In the course of their conversation, Mr. Davis used "goddamn" and "son of a bitch." Tawes deposition, p. 19. Mr. Tawes left Mr. Davis' office and refused to return, even when Mr. Davis said, "goddamn, I'm sorry. Now, get back in my goddamn office." Tawes deposition, p. 20. As Mr. "Tawes stormed out of the office without Mr. Davis' permission," Heard deposition, p. 51, Mr. Heard entered the suite of offices. Mr. Davis told Mr. Heard what had transpired. At Mr. Heard's urging, Mr. Tawes apologized. Heard deposition, pp. 49-50. Sometime before Christmas of 1985, Mr. Davis swore at Officer Tawes again, in discussing delays Mr. Tawes had encountered in trying to secure an interview with a bus contractor. At an unspecified time during the 1985-1986 school year, Officer Tawes brought Mr. Davis an investigatory report. While he stood in the doorway of Mr. Davis' office, Mr. Davis swore at him and said, Just go have a seat in your damn office." Tawes deposition, p. 28. In December of 1986, at Mr. Davis' request, Officer Tawes was transferred back to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. He gave neither Tawes nor Dickinson any counselling or advance notice of their transfers. Office morale reached its nadir in the wake of these transfers. SCHOOL FIRE On November 26, 1986, Robert E. Lee High School caught fire. Fire alarms failed to sound, and nobody at the central monitoring station heard sounds of fire or detected other evidence of fire, even though the fire did "several million dollars worth of damage." (T. I. 159) As one result, the school board hired a former Sonitrol employee, Barrett Miller, to investigate "implementation of the Reston report, the Sonitrol contract and Underwriters' Laboratory standard as it applied to the public school installations." (T. I. 112, 127) The Reston report, Respondent's Exhibit No. 5, entitled "School Security Needs Assessment" came into existence "a couple of years before," Heard deposition, p. 52, Mr. Davis began as director of security, but only came to his attention some time in early 1985 after he had begun. Among numerous other recommendations, the Reston report recommended that: The incident reporting system and several other security files should be automated so that better information is available for feedback to schools and facility planners, as well as for security tactics (e.g., movement of alarms); ... Respondent's Exhibit No. 5, p. 22. Although Mr. Davis learned of the report in a conversation with Superintendent Sang, neither Mr. Sang nor anybody else directed him to implement any of the report's recommendations.. When he originally read the automation recommendation, Mr. Davis "didn't know enough ... about the incident reporting system to know whether ... [automation] was justified ..." (T. 37, 38) In January or February of 1987, however, having decided that it was justified, he "requested and received a budget allocation for the acquisition of data base hardware" (T. II. 28) for the purpose. In late 1986, he had discovered problems with manual compilation of the incident reports. On or about October 10, 1986, Ms. Carlyle furnished Mr. Davis a memorandum she had drafted, styled, "SECURITY DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT FOR 1985/1986 SCHOOL YEAR," Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, purporting to summarize losses the School Board had sustained from vandalism, theft and arson that year and offsetting recoveries. In fits and snatches, over the course of a month or six weeks, Mr. Davis checked this draft against incident reports in the office files, the supposed source of the information compiled in the draft. Discovering apparent discrepancies, Mr. Davis mentioned the matter to Superintendent Sang, who directed David E. Wilson, Assistant Superintendent in charge of finance, to cause an audit of the incident reports to be performed to test the draft report's accuracy. The audit confirmed Mr. Davis' suspicions. In order to produce an accurate report, Mr. Davis turned all of the incident reports over to Mr. Wilson's staff, who entered the data into a computer and generated a report dated January 30, 1987, which the School Board received. The Board had never set a deadline for submission of these reports. In previous years it had been submitted as late as October after the school year ended. (T. II. p. 22) WASTING TIME He assigned Mr. Heard supervision of "officers on their day-to-day investigation." Heard deposition, p. 23. Mr. Heard also "check[ed] employee application records or criminal records for school employees that had been arrested," id., until he received a memorandum dated December 30, 1985, which "restricted [him] to the office.." Id. The memorandum stated Effective immediately, you will no longer conduct the record checks for criminal charages or dispositions ... Your duty post is in the security offices in the School Board Administration Building. Should you believe it necessary to leave the building on official business, you should discuss the need with me for approval. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 to the Heard deposition. Supervising investigators in the field from his office was "second best," Heard deposition, p. 27, Mr. Heard felt, but he saw the investigators at the end of the work day and took telephone calls from them during the day. On more than ten occasions while the December 30, 1985 directive was in force, students or others came on school grounds with firearms. Mr. Heard felt he should have been on the scene personally, but he never sought approval to go. Even so, Mr. Heard "c[ould]n't say that it caused any specific loss to the schools," Id., p. 29, his being required to supervise from the office. But that was not enough to keep him busy. He found himself spending up to five hours a work day unproductively, reading the newspaper, talking to the clerical staff, and so forth. This idleness was particularly unfortunate in light of the alarm systems that required attention. Mr. Heard was ill part of this time. He missed 50 some working days between January and October of 1986.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED; That the School Board reject the Superintendent's nomination of the Respondent Richard M. Davis as General Director of Security. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 27th day of January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Harrison, Esquire Steven E. Rohan, Esquire Gail A. Stafford, Esquire Office of the General Counsel 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Lamar Winegeart, III, Esquire Mahoney, Adams, Milam, Surface & Grimsley, P.A. Post Office. Box 4099 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Herb A. Sang Superintendent of Schools Duval County Public Schools 1731 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
