The Issue The issues presented are whether Petitioner is entitled to supplemental compensation payments, and, if so, whether those payments should be retroactive.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner has been a certified firefighter, having become certified in February 1999. On December 17, 1994, Petitioner received a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in hospitality administration. In 1999, Petitioner applied for admission to the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the bachelor's degree level. Petitioner's current job title with the Miami-Dade Fire Department is "firefighter." He submitted a copy of his job description. The "Nature of Work" in his job description is described as "specialized work in the protection of life and property through combatting [sic] fires, performing emergency medical rescue duties and participating in fire prevention activities." Petitioner agrees that his main job duties are fire prevention, fire suppression, protection of life and property, and medical rescue. Petitioner's job description lists the following under "Knowledges [sic], Abilities and Skills": Knowledge of modern firefighting techniques and principles. Knowledge of basic mechanical principles in operating a variety of complex equipment and apparatus. Knowledge of department regulations and operational procedures. Knowledge of firefighting equipment and gear on assigned apparatus. Knowledge of the fundamental principles of hydraulics. Knowledge of emergency medical rescue practices, methods, and techniques. Knowledge of the geography of the metropolitan area. Knowledge of fire prevention principles and programs. Knowledge of the need for personal hygiene and clean living quarters. Ability to react promptly and correctly in emergency situations. Ability to assess a situation, draw valid conclusions, and take appropriate action. Ability to read, retain and apply guidelines, regulations and policies to a variety of situations. Ability to understand and carry out written and verbal instructions. Ability to use basic hand and power tools. Ability to read, interpret and comprehend diagrams, charts, and gauges. Physical strength and agility sufficient to perform assigned duties including physical tasks requiring sustained effort. None of the skills listed in Petitioner's job description relates to a major in hospitality administration. A college degree is not required in order to become a firefighter for the Miami-Dade Fire Department. The level of education required is either a high school diploma or the equivalency. Rule 4A-37.084, Florida Administrative Code, lists nine major study concentration areas for which supplemental compensation will be paid to qualified firefighters. Hospitality administration is not one of the nine majors listed in the Rule. The Department has never awarded an applicant supplemental compensation for a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in hospitality administration. The Department makes a determination of whether a particular college degree which is not one of the nine listed in the Rule is readily identifiable as applicable to fire department duties by reviewing the applicant's job description and verifying the degree received according to the applicant's college transcript. Petitioner's major is not readily identifiable to his fire department duties as evidenced by the transcript and job description Petitioner submitted to the Department. If a required job activity is prevalent, it should appear on the official job description. Unlike protection of life and property and fire suppression which are listed on Petitioner's job description, customer service is not a main part of a firefighter's duties nor is it listed on Petitioner's job description. Petitioner has not yet achieved the rank of lieutenant or fire chief with the Miami-Dade Fire Department although he intends to achieve those ranks over time. A lieutenant's or a fire chief's job descriptions would reflect different duties from those listed on a regular firefighter's job description. Petitioner's Fire Chief is Chief Paulison. Paulison declined to write a letter to the Department stating that Petitioner's degree is directly related to Petitioner's job duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for supplemental compensation. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Walter W. Wray 2983 Northwest 200th Terrace Miami, Florida 33056
Findings Of Fact The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact #6 on the basis that it is a conclusion of law and should have been addressed accordingly and also that the Hearing Officer has misinterpreted the Department's Rules promulgated to implement the Supplemental Compensation Program. The Hearing Officer begins her analysis of the Petitioner's job description with the faulty premise that because she is on the waiting list for the hazardous materials team, this some how qualifies her major study concentration area of Environmental Studies as fire-related. The Department is correct when it states in its exceptions that the proper standard is whether the Petitioner's major study concentration area is fire-related, not whether the major study concentration area includes courses that are job-related. The intent of the statute and the rule is to require fire fighters to qualify themselves for the performance of their duties by taking fire science courses, not general courses which might be somewhat generally related to the fire fighting career. In the Matter of Jorge Du Quesne; Case No. 91-L-367AKL (Final Order entered November 22, 1991). The Department's exception to finding of fact #7 is accepted. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact #7 on the basis that it is a conclusion of law and should have been addressed accordingly. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 above, the Department's exception to finding of fact #7 is accepted. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law #11 the reason being that the Hearing Officer uses an erroneous interpretation of the applicable Rules. It appears that in this conclusion of law the Hearing Officer is simply restating the provisions of Rule 4A-37.084(3) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. Although some what difficult to follow, it does not appear that the Hearing Officer has erroneously interpreted this Rule. The Department's exception to conclusion of law #11 is rejected. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law #12, again the reason being that the Hearing Officer uses an erroneous interpretation of the applicable Rules. The Hearing Officer has incorrectly equated courses with major study concentration area. The Hearing Officer speculates that when, one day, the Petitioner might be on the hazardous materials team, she could make use of her major study concentration area. Not only is this conclusion of law unsupported, it incorrectly finds that because some courses may be fire-related, the entire major study concentration area become fire-related. This is an incorrect interpretation of the applicable Rules. See In the Matter of Jorge Du Quesne; Case No. 91-L-367AKL (Final Order entered November 22, 1991). Accordingly, the Department's exception to conclusion of law #12 is accepted. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS TO RULINGS ON FINDINGS SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT IN APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 1. To the extent not inconsistent with the rulings on exceptions to findings of fact contained herein, the Department's exceptions to the Hearing Officer's appendix to Recommended Order are accepted. RULING ON EXCEPTION TO RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing rulings on the Department's exceptions to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer's recommendation that the Petitioner be accepted into the Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation Program is rejected and the appropriate disposition of this case is that Petitioner is denied participation in said program. Upon careful consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is ORDERED: The Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer are adopted as the Department's Findings of Fact, with the exception of Findings of Fact #6 and 7. The Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer are adopted as the Department's Conclusions of Law with the exception of Conclusion of Law #12. That the Hearing Officer's recommendation that Ms. Richter's request for entry into the Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation Program be accepted is rejected and the appropriate disposition of this case is that Ms. Richter's request is denied. ACCORDINGLY, the request for entry into the Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation Program submitted by SHERRY P. RICHTER is hereby DENIED. Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Order is entitled to seek review of this Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a petition or notice of appeal with the General Counsel, acting as the agency clerk, at 612 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida, and a copy of the same with the appropriate district court of appeal within thirty (30) days of rendition of this Order. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of May , 1993. TOM GALLAGHER Treasurer and State Fire Marshal COPIES FURNISHED: HONORABLE LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 SHERRY P. RICHTER 1980 Northwest 32 Street Oakland Park, Florida 33309 DANIEL T. GROSS, ESQUIRE Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application for entry into the Firefighters' Supplemental Compensation Program at the bachelor's degree level. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 31st day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6298 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-7, and 11 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issue being determined herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 10 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 9 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Sherry P. Richter 1980 Northwest 32 Street Oakland Park, FL 33309 Daniel T. Gross, Esq. Department of Insurance and Treasurer 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Mr. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, Esq. General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to supplemental compensation pursuant to the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program, by virtue of his Bachelor of Arts degree with a major course of study in Communications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, James A. Barr, is a certified firefighter/EMT. He has been employed full-time by the City of St. Petersburg Fire Department since 1996. On or about May 11, 1998, Petitioner applied for admission to the Firefighter’s Supplemental Compensation Program (the “Program”), pursuant to Section 633.382, Florida Statutes. The Program is a state fund providing additional compensation to firefighters who meet certain educational criteria over and above the basic training required for certification as a firefighter pursuant to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. The Program’s purpose is to provide an incentive for firefighters to pursue educational opportunities related to their fire department duties. Petitioner received a Bachelor of Arts degree, with a major in Communications, from the University of South Florida in August 1995. Petitioner applied for compensation from the Program for his Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications. Respondent denied the application because a degree in Communications is not one of the nine acceptable majors listed in Rule 4A-37.084(5), Florida Administrative Code, nor is it otherwise “readily identifiable” to Petitioner’s duties as a firefighter. The pertinent portion of the rule states: (5) “Major Study Concentration Area” as identified on official sealed transcripts, includes a major in fire science, municipal management, public administration, business administration, computer science, engineering, management information systems, emergency medical technology, and paramedic technology. Petitioner conceded that Communications is not one of the listed “Major Study Concentration Areas,” but contended that a Communications major is “readily identifiable as applicable to fire department duties,” as stated in Rule 4A-37.084(3), Florida Administrative Code. Thomas M. Burton, Assistant Fire Chief, testified that the St. Petersburg Fire Department is very active in fire prevention, public education, and community service activities. New employees are required to take a five-week training program that includes public education activities. Trainees are required to develop a teaching outline covering safety concepts that a firefighter might use with elementary school children, and then must make a fifteen-minute presentation using vocabulary appropriate to a second grade class. Once on the job, firefighters are required to perform all manner of public education activities, addressing groups as diverse as senior citizens, college students, and elementary schoolchildren. The presentations may include discussion of smoke detectors, CPR, fall prevention, and swimming pool safety. The firefighters themselves are required to prepare their own presentations for these activities. Mr. Burton testified that he believes Petitioner’s Communications degree relates to many of his duties, especially the public education aspects of the job. Mr. Burton conceded that all firefighters must perform the public education duties he described, and that Petitioner is in no way singled-out for assignment to these duties. The City of St. Petersburg Fire Department’s written job description for firefighters does not include the public education activities described by Mr. Burton. The job description does include a statement that a firefighter must possess the ability “to communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.” Mr. Burton minimized the import of the written job description, stating that it is not an operating document that firefighters use to manage their day-to-day activities. He described it as more in the nature of a “mission statement” or a “value statement.” Larry McCall, Field Representative Supervisor for the Division of State Fire Marshall, is the person responsible for managing the Program. Mr. McCall reviews the applications and makes the decisions on accepting or denying them. Mr. McCall made the decision to deny Petitioner’s application. Mr. McCall testified that he reviews the applicant’s college transcript and written job description to determine whether the applicant’s college major relates to the duties set forth in the job description. Mr. McCall determined that Petitioner’s major in Communications was not “readily identifiable” to the fire department duties set forth in the job description. Mr. McCall acknowledged the language in the job description requiring firefighters to “communicate clearly and concisely,” but he described that as a generic phrase that is included in all or most job descriptions. He stated that firefighters are able to perform public presentations effectively without degrees in Communications. Mr. McCall testified that he would consider other factors, such as whether the applicant had been assigned to special duties relating to his college major. For example, Mr. McCall testified that he had previously approved an application for a Communications major where the applicant had been assigned to the training division and was the department’s video production person. Petitioner in this instance had been given no such special assignment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying James A. Barr’s application for entry into the Firefighters’ Supplemental Compensation Program, without prejudice to his ability to reapply in the event of changes to his job description or assignments. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1999. www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Elenita Gomez, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Gabriel Mazzeo, Esquire Division of State Fire Marshall Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Sylvia A. Barr, Esquire 2900 55th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Findings Of Fact The city would not stipulate that it was a public employer as defined by Section 447.002(2), "Florida Statutes, or that petitioner was an employee organization as defined by Section 447.02(10) Florida Statutes. With respect to the former, the hearing officer takes official notice that the City of Lakeland is a municipal corporation with the basic authority of all municipal corporations in Florida, i.e., it has power to tax, pass and enforce ordinances, appropriate funds, hire people to provide services to the residents of the city and perform those functions normally performed by cities. The city appeared to vacillate on the proposition that the Civil Service Board, instead of the city, might be the public employer in this situation. However, subsequent testimony revealed that the Board has no power to expend funds other than those authorized by the city, or to order into effect a pay raise unless the funds to provide such a raise had previously been authorized and approved by the City Commission. The hearing officer also takes official notice of Section 112.191, Florida Statutes, relating to death benefits for firemen which states: "[Tlhe word 'employer' means a state board, commission, department, division, bureau or agency, or a county, municipality or special district." From the foregoing the hearing officer concludes that the city is a public employer as defined in Section 447.002(2), Florida Statutes. With respect to an employee organization as defined in Section 447.002(10), Florida Statutes, testimony was received that Local 2350 is a labor organization and represents or seeks to represent public employees concerning matters relating to their employment relations with the City of Lakeland. Accordingly, the hearing officer concludes that the petitioner is an employee organization as defined in section 447.002(10), Florida Statutes. The city called ten witnesses, nine of whom were from the police force, and the tenth a member of the Civil Service Board. The latter's testimony clearly demonstrated that the Board is not a public employer. Although a considerable amount of time was expended in attacking the registration of petitioner with the Commission as an employee organization, no evidence was presented not known to the Commission at the time Exhibit 3 was executed with one possible exception. That was the fact that a revision of the International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, Constitution and By-Laws had been received by petitioner subsequent to his filing the petition and had not been forwarded to PERC. The only difference between the revised edition and its predecessor known to the president of Local 2590 was that the covers had different colors. However, even if substantial changes in the Constitution and By-Laws of IAFF had been made, it is difficult to see how this could have affected the registration. One captain, five lieutenants, and one driver-engineer were called by the City in an attempt to establish collusion, coercion, intimidation or misrepresentation in obtaining the signature cards. Absolutely no evidence discrediting the validity of the cards was produced. Ultimately, evidence was received relative to unit determination. Both parties stipulated that all combat, full-time firefighters below the rank of lieutenant were properly included in the unit and that only firefighting personnel, excluding clerical personnel, dispatchers, and maintenance personnel would be included. There was disagreement regarding the inclusion of lieutenants, captains, deputy chiefs, fire marshals, fire inspectors, fire alarm maintenance superintendents and training officers in the unit, with the petitioner taking the position that they should be included. All parties stipulated that the Fire Chief should be excluded from the unit. Evidence presented regarding these contested positions will be discussed in the descending order of rank in the fire department. The Lakeland Fire Department is organized on quasi-military lines with the forces organized into one combat division comprised of three combat platoons. The three deputy chiefs each command one platoon. They stand 24-hour shifts at the main fire station and are then off for 48 hours. During the time on duty, the Deputy Chief makes all decisions affecting the department when the chief is unavailable. They have authority to transfer personnel from one station to another; they evaluate captains and approve evaluations on lower personnel, make effective recommendations regarding the discharge of employees, promotions, etc. These duties are more fully contained in Exhibit 20. The Fire Marshal carries the same rank as Deputy Chief. He is responsible for fire prevention, arson investigation and fire code enforcement. His is the basic responsibility for modifications of the fire code to keep up with changes in conditions, and he is the senior city official involved in enforcement and application of the fire code. Most of his work requires independent judgement and decision making. He establishes policies applicable throughout the fire department. He is assisted by two fire inspectors and makes effective recommendations respecting their pay, promotion, transfer, etc. The two fire inspectors perform many of the functions assigned to the fire marshal and in carrying out their inspections make recommendations that are effective in changing policies, rules and regulations applicable throughout the department. One of the inspectors carries the rank of captain and the other the rank of lieutenant. If assigned to duties other than inspections, e.g., as a member of a combat team in an emergency, they would be expected to exercise the authority and responsibilities associated with their rank. These duties are more fully contained in Exhibit 19. Captains stand their 24-hour watches at the main fire station with the Deputy Chiefs. In addition to having some responsibilities affecting the entire platoon's readiness posture, captains are in charge of one of the engine companies at the main station. As such they prepare efficiency reports on personnel under them which affects promotions, transfers and assignments. During the absence of the Deputy Chief they are in command of the fire station and make required managerial decisions. During fire fighting operations, as officer in charge of their companies, they are called upon to make decisions subjecting personnel under them to situations of great physical peril. The duties of captains are more fully described in Exhibits 14 and 21. The Fire Alarm Maintenance Supervisor (FAMS) is recognized in the captain's category. He is not an integral part of the combat force which is engaged in fighting fires but has the minimum training required to be used in such capacity if needed. He generally works independently with occasional help assigned to him from the combat platoon. He is responsible for the maintenance of various fire alarms throughout the city and has the basic responsibility for determining where these alarms shall be installed. The FAMS reports directly to the Fire Chief, and the nature of his duties require that he make an independent valuation and judgement decision on practically every problem with which he is confronted. The duties and responsibilities of the FAMS are more fully contained in Exhibit 16. The training officer holds the rank of captain. He has the responsibility of training all fire department personnel in the basic requirements of firefighters and in preparing continuing training schedules to maintain and upgrade these capabilities. In carrying out these duties, he is required to submit reports on the personnel undergoing training which can effect their promotion and retention. In developing training programs and procedures, he effectively formulates policies having direct impact throughout the fire department. The training officer reports directly to the chief. The duties and responsibilities of the training officer are more fully set out in Exhibit 17. Lieutenants are the lowest rank in the officer category in the Lakeland Fire Department whose inclusion in an appropriate bargaining unit is proposed by Petitioner. There are 15 lieutenants and they command the companies not commanded by captains at the main station as well as being in charge of the three outlying stations. They prepare efficiency reports on the people in their company and make effective recommendations regarding personnel actions which affect the promotion, discipline, and salaries of these personnel. As the officer in charge of a combat company engaged in fighting a fire, the lieutenant perforce has the responsibility for making the operational decision on how to employ his company in fighting a particular fire. While there are procedures developed during training programs designed to acquaint these officers with proven solutions to many problems they are likely to encounter, the final decision on which particular solution is most appropriate for the situation at hand ultimately is determined by the exercise of the independent judgment of the officer in charge at the scene. In exercising this judgment, the lieutenant will in many situations have the responsibility for detaching one or more of his company to a firefighting task involving high risk of physical injury. The duties of the lieutenants are more fully described in Exhibits 18 and 22. With respect to all of these disputed categories, they have several common denominators with all combat fire fighters. All stand duties on a 24 hour on - 48 hour off basis; all sleep and eat at the fire station to which they are assigned; and all are covered by the existing Civil Service System adopted by the city. In carrying out their fire fighting assignments they share, in company with all other combat personnel in the platoon, the rigors and dangers with which their profession is afflicted.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, who on November 17, 1999 (two days prior to the final hearing in this case) was certified by Respondent to be eligible to receive, effective June 1, 1999, firefighter supplemental compensation pursuant to Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, is entitled to any further relief from Respondent in this administrative proceeding (which was initiated by Petitioner after he had received Respondent's June 2, 1999, notice of its preliminary determination that Petitioner was not entitled to firefighter supplemental compensation).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: In August 1994, Petitioner applied to Respondent for entry in the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program (1994 Application). The application materials that Respondent received were a completed and signed Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program Transcript Request form; a copy of Petitioner's transcript from North Carolina Central University (reflecting that he had graduated on May 10, 1986, with a Bachelor of Science degree in biology), along with a cover letter to Respondent from the Office of the University Registrar; a job description; and a letter to Respondent from Petitioner, which read as follows: Enclosed [y]ou will find information regarding my educational earnings. I received a Bachelor of Science (Biology) in May, 1986 from North Carolina Central University in Durham. Additionally, I have earned 29 credits at Miami Dade Community College [a]nd I [a]m [a] Paramedic. Please [r]eview [t]his information and include me in the supplemental compensation program. I[']d [l]ike to thank you in advance for your time and consideration. The job description that was included in the application materials Respondent received was for the classification of Fire Fighter and read as follows: NATURE OF WORK: Skilled fire-fighting work in combating, extinguishing and preventing fires, and in the operation and maintenance of fire department equipment, apparatus and quarters. Work involves responsibility for protecting life and property by fire-fighting and rescue activities, usually under close supervision. Employees of this class are required to learn and participate in the operation of fire apparatus and equipment, and the performance of hazardous tasks under emergency conditions which may require strenuous exertion under such handicaps as smoke and cramped surroundings. Although fire-fighting and rescue activities are the primary responsibilities of this class, the major portion of time is spent in drilling and studying methods, techniques and organization, and in routine duties in the care and maintenance of fire department property and equipment. Employees of this class may be assigned to duty as communications officer, chief driver and aide, and fire prevention inspector, which involves the application of specialized abilities and knowledge developed through experience and training. Specific orders and directions are given by superior officers, but the work requires initiative and a thorough individual understanding of fire- fighting methods. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF WORK PERFORMED: (The examples of work as listed in this class specification are not necessarily descriptive of any one position in the class. The omission of specific statements does not preclude management from assigning specific duties not listed herein if such duties are a logical assignment to the position. Examples of work performed are not to be used for allocation purposes.) Attends training courses; participation in fire drills and attends classes in fire- fighting and first aid; reads and studies assigned materials related to fire-fighting and prevention. Responds to fire alarms with a company; operates pumps, aerial ladders and auxiliary equipment; lays and connects hose; holds nozzles and directs fog or water streams; raises and climbs ladders; uses chemical extinguishers, bars, hooks, lines and other equipment. Performs general maintenance work in the upkeep of fire department property; cleans and washes walls and floors; makes minor repairs to property and equipment; washes, hangs, and dries hoses; washes, cleans, polishes and tests apparatus. Performs limited fire prevention activities; inspects commercial and residential properties for the existence of fire hazards, and seeks removal of such hazards through education and persuasion. When assigned to the Rescue Division the Fire-Fighter should be able to accurately and efficiently evaluate and gather patient assessment information; interpret assessment finding; formulate a working diagnosis (i.e. possible M.I.); plan, prioritize and implement necessary treatment as per Rescue protocol and/or physician direction via the radio; evaluate treatment outcome and re- assess the patient's status; plan and implement additional treatment or modifications as indicated by re-assessment and follow-up evaluation. When assigned as a fire inspector, inspects buildings and premises; reviews plans for compliance with fire regulations specified in the City of Miami Building Code; checks on complaints; and may aid investigation of arson cases when assigned to fire prevention duties. Performs other related work as required. DESIRABLE KNOWLEDGE, ABILITIES AND SKILLS: (The knowledge, skills and abilities identified in this class specification represent those needed to perform the duties of this class. Additional knowledge, skills and abilities may be applicable for individual positions in the employing departments.) Some knowledge of the street system and physical layout of the City of Miami. Ability to learn a wide variety of fire- fighting duties and methods within a reasonable working test period. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with other employees and the general public. Ability to understand and follow oral and written instructions. Ability to perform limited mechanical work involved in maintaining fire-fighting and rescue apparatus, equipment and tools. Physical strength, endurance, agility and freedom from serious physical defects as shown by a physical examination. Coordination and dexterity. DESIRABLE BASIC TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE: Graduation from high school or State of Florida Equivalency Certificate OR Equivalent combination of training and experience. By letter dated August 23, 1994, Respondent advised Petitioner that it had determined that he was not qualified to receive supplemental compensation. The letter, which was received by Petitioner on September 6, 1994, read as follows: After reviewing your transcript, it has been determined that you do not possess an appropriate Major Study Concentration Area to qualify for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor level. Rule 4A-37.084, Florida Administrative Code, does not list Biology as a "Major Study Concentration Area." Rule 4A-37.084, Florida Administrative Code, states: "4A-37.084 Definitions. For purposes of this part, terms used in Rules 4A-37.082-4A- 37.089 are as defined in Section 633.382(1), Florida Statutes, and terms which are not otherwise defined in said statutes are defined as follows: 'Bachelor's Degree' means a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree conferred by an accredited post-secondary institution provided the major study concentration area is readily identifiable and applicable as fire related. A firefighter may receive Supplemental Compensation based on possession of a Bachelor's Degree regardless of whether or not an Associate Degree was previously earned. In no event shall receipt of a transcript for an Associate Degree be used in consideration for qualification of the Bachelor's Degree Supplemental Compensation. The major study concentration area, at least 18 semester hours or 27 quarter hours, [must] be readily identifiable and applicable as fire related. Specific Authority 633,45(2)(a) FS. Law Implemented 633.382(2) FS. History-New 01-03-90." 1/ At this level of the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program it has been determined that your Bachelor Degree is not readily identifiable and applicable as fire related, per Rule 4A-37.084, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapters 4-121 and 28-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), you have a right to request a proceeding to contest this action by the Department. You may elect a proceeding by completing the attached Election of Rights form or filing a Petition. Your Petition or Election of a proceeding must be in writing and must be filed with the General Counsel acting as the Agency Clerk, Department of Insurance. If served by U.S. Mail, the Petition or Election should be addressed to the Florida Department of Insurance, at 612 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300. If Express Mail or hand delivery is utilized, the Petition or Election should be delivered to 448 Fletcher Building, 101 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300. The Petition of Election must be received by, and filed in the Department within twenty-one (21) days of the date of your receipt of this notice. If a proceeding is requested and there is no dispute of fact, the provisions of Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, would apply. In this regard you may submit oral or written evidence in opposition to the action taken by this agency or a written statement challenging the grounds upon which the agency has relied. While a hearing is normally not required in the absence of a dispute of fact, if you feel that a hearing is necessary one will be conducted in Tallahassee, Florida or by telephonic conference call upon your request. If you dispute material facts which are the basis for this agency's action, you may request a formal adversarial proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. If you request this type of proceeding, the request must comply with all of the requirements of Rule Chapters 4-121 and 28-5, F.A.C. and contain: A statement identifying with particularity the allegations of the Department which you dispute and the nature of the dispute; An explanation of what relief you are seeking and believe you are entitled to; Any other information which you contend is material. These proceedings are held before a State hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Unless the majority of witnesses are located elsewhere, the Department will request the hearing be conducted in Tallahassee. Unless a Petition or Election or your written submission challenging this action is received by the Department within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the receipt of this notice, the right to a proceeding shall be deemed waived. Failure to follow the procedure outlined with regard to your response to this notice may result in the request being denied. All prior correspondence in this matter shall be considered freeform agency action, and no such correspondence shall operate as a valid request for an administrative proceeding. Any request for administrative proceeding received prior to the date of this notice shall be deemed abandoned unless timely renewed in compliance with the guidelines as set out above. Petitioner did not file a "Petition or Election or . . . written submission challenging this action [described in Respondent's August 23, 1994 letter]" within 21 days of the date of his receipt of the letter. He next corresponded with Respondent in May of 1999, when he applied for a second time for entry in the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program. Along with a completed and signed Application for Initial Entry into Supplemental Compensation Program (Second Application), he sent Respondent a copy of his transcript from North Carolina Central University and an "official job description for current position held: FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC," which was different than the job description that had accompanied his 1994 Application and which read as follows: Firefighter Definition: The term firefighter is used to describe all individuals assigned to the various areas within the City of Miami Fire Department. The responsibilities of a Firefighter are very diverse and require specialized training in many areas. Fire Suppression: These individuals are responsible for protecting life and property by means of fire extinguishment. This individual must have a working knowledge of pumps, water friction and resistance tables as well as ropes, foams and nozzles, infra- red cameras and basic building construction and style. Throughout the fire service, physical fitness is important. Hazardous Material Team: Work involves protecting life and property from toxic substances. Must have a working knowledge of fundamental chemistry and chemical interactions with each other. Must be able to identify Department of Transportation Placards to determine substances being transported by vehicles. Additionally, individuals must be familiar with explosive ranges of gases and mixture that have the potential to explode or cause harm to others. Must understand hazardous materials containment areas and the various levels of protective clothing w[o]rn. Emergency Medical Services: Work involves protecting life through use of basic life support and advance life support methods. Individuals involved in these services work under the license and management of a medical director. Paramedics are generally assigned to these positions when possible. Individuals should be able to accurately gather and interpret patient information to formulate a working diagnosis and provide necessary treatment as per protocol or physician[']s direction. Personnel [are] responsible for calculating and administering various drugs under stressful conditions (i.e. cardiac arrest and major trauma) and reporting patient status and treatment via radio to the medical director. A working knowledge of anatomy and physiology, medical terms and conditions is required. Fire Prevention Bureau: Work involves inspecting buildings and premises; reviewing plans for compliance with fire regulations specified in the City of Miami Building Code; checking on complaints; investigating arson cases and conducting public education throughout the City of Miami. Petitioner did not indicate, in submitting his Second Application, that he was seeking anything other than prospective entry in the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program. Respondent preliminarily determined that Petitioner's Second Application should be denied because his "Major Study Concentration Areas of Biology does not meet the criteria found in Rule 4A-37.084, Florida Administrative Code, for entry in the program," and so advised Petitioner, who subsequently requested an administrative hearing on the matter. Respondent, however, subsequently changed its mind regarding Petitioner's eligibility for the program and, by letter dated November 17, 1999 (two days prior to the final hearing in this case) advised Petitioner that, "[u]pon [f]urther review of [his] application, it had "found [Petitioner] to be eligible" and that he would receive supplemental compensation effective June 1, 1999. Respondent also prepared and sent to Chief James Fisher of the City of Miami Fire Rescue an Official Acceptance Notification, which read as follows: James E. Kemp, Social Security Number, . . ., has met the eligibility requirements for entry into the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program. Effective June 1, 1999, Mr. Kemp will receive Supplemental Compensation for qualifying under the requirements of Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, and Rule 4A-37.085 for possession of a Bachelor's degree. Mr. Kemp will be eligible to receive up to $110.00 a month until such time as he may become ineligible in accordance with Rule 4A- 37.087. Please insure that the referenced firefighter's name and the amount of Supplemental Compensation paid, appears on your Quarterly Report (form FSTE-3). If any further information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact us. (A copy of this Official Acceptance Notification was sent to Petitioner.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner is not entitled to the additional relief he is seeking. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2000.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. is an invalid exercise of legislatively granted authority in violation of section 120.52(8)(b), (c), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes (2020).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, is headed by the Chief Financial Officer of the state, who serves as the Chief Fire Marshal pursuant to section 603.104(1), Florida Statutes. The State Fire Marshal is charged with the responsibility to minimize the loss of life and property in Florida due to fire, and to adopt rules, which must “be in substantial conformity with generally accepted standards of firesafety; must take into consideration the direct supervision of children in nonresidential child care facilities; and must balance and temper the need of the State Fire Marshal to protect all Floridians from fire hazards with the social and economic inconveniences that may be caused or created by the rules.” § 633.104(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a Florida corporation authorized by the Department to offer fire certification training courses in both online and blended learning formats. A blended learning course is one that has both online and in-person components. The blended learning courses Petitioner currently offers have 37 hours of online learning and eight hours of in-person instruction to address those portions of the course that may need “hands on” instruction. Section 633.216, Florida Statutes, requires Respondent to certify fire safety inspectors, and to provide by rule for the development of a fire safety inspector training program of at least 200 hours. The program developed by Department rule must be administered by education or training providers approved by the Department for the purpose of providing basic certification training for fire safety inspectors. § 633.216(2), (8), Fla. Stat. Current Certification Requirements Section 633.406 identifies several certifications in the fire safety arena that may be awarded by the Division of State Fire Marshal: firefighter, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(4); fire safety inspector, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.216(2); special certification, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(6); forestry certification, for those meeting the requirements of section 590.02(1)(e); fire service instructor, for those who demonstrate general or specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities in firefighting and meet the qualifications established by rule; certificate of competency, for those meeting certain requirements with special qualifications for particular aspects of firefighting service; and volunteer fire fighter certifications. In order to become a fire safety officer, an applicant must take the courses outlined in rule 69A-39.005, and pass an examination with a score of 70% or higher. The five courses as listed in the current version of rule 69A- 39.005 are Fire Inspection Practices; Private Protection Systems; Blue Print Reading and Plans Examinations (also known as Construction Documents and Plans Review); Codes and Standards; and Characteristics of Building Construction. The Rulemaking Process On November 5, 2015, the Department held the first of a series of rule workshops and “listening sessions” as it began the process for making changes in the certification program for fire safety inspectors.1 These workshops and listening sessions were held on November 5, 2015; July 10, 2016; November 10, 2016; January 17, 2017; August 8, 2018; November 8, 2018; and October 29, 2019. As described by Mark Harper, who is now the assistant superintendent of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training at the Florida State Fire College, the Bureau conducted the first few listening sessions to hear the industry’s view on what changes were needed, followed by drafting proposed rule language and conduct of rule workshops. 1 Curiously, neither party introduced the notices for any of these workshops or listening sessions, so how notice was provided to interested persons wanting to give input on possible changes cannot be determined. The first workshop/listening session was conducted on November 5, 2015, in Palm Beach Gardens, and was moderated by Mark Harper. At this workshop, a variety of comments were received regarding the quality of the existing program and the quality of the fire safety inspectors being certified. Those comments included the need for more field training and more hours of instruction; suggested use of a “task book” in training; the view that classes should be taught by more experienced inspectors, not just people who have passed the classes; and the need for more practical training. The view was expressed by at least one attendee that the quality and method of delivery needed to be examined, and that Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review should not be taught online. In December 2015, Tony Apfelbeck, the Fire Marshal for Altamonte Springs, provided to Mr. Harper proposed draft revisions to chapter 69A-39, which included increasing the number of training hours to 315 hours (as opposed to the 200 hours required by section 633.216), and requiring use of a task book, as well as other changes. The draft did not include any language regarding course methodology in terms of classroom, online, or blended format classes. At the next workshop, held July 10, 2016, a draft proposal was provided to the audience, but it is not clear whether the draft provided is the one Mr. Apfelbeck suggested or something else. Concerns were expressed regarding the implementation of the use of a task book, and at least one speaker speaking against the suggested changes opined that the changes suggested in the draft would cost more money. Another commented that increasing the hours may not help the issue. Instead, there should be a greater emphasis on the quality of the educational delivery, and that instruction needed to be tied more closely to field work. Late in the workshop, comments were made regarding online and classroom delivery, and it was suggested that some classes should not be held online. While the drafts that were provided at the various workshops are not in the record, at some point, language was added that would require two of the five courses for fire safety certification, i.e., Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review, be taught in a traditional classroom setting only. The subject of online classes was discussed more thoroughly at the next workshop held November 10, 2016. During this workshop, there were comments both in favor of and against the use of online classes. While the speakers cannot always be identified from the recordings of the workshops, some attendees stated that some of the online providers were doing a really good job, and the concern was raised that if online classes were eliminated, it might be an exchange of convenience for quality.2 At least one person expressed the opinion that the speaker was not a fan of online classes, and Mr. Harper suggested that blended learning might be a way to meet some of the concerns expressed, and that the method of delivery would be up to the institution. Others who participated in the workshop spoke highly of blended classes. The remaining workshops also had discussions regarding the online class change, as well as other changes in the proposed rule. Opinions were voiced on both sides of the issue. The primary source of comments seeking a traditional classroom setting only were fire marshals at various municipalities around the state concerned about the need for “hands-on” training and the current lack of preparation encountered with new staff. On July 10, 2019, the Department filed a Notice of Proposed Rules for rules 69A-39.003, 39.005, and 39.009. The proposed rule amendments included the following amendment to rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d.: d. The courses “Codes and Standards” and “Construction Documents and Plans Review” 2 The identity of the speakers is not important, and the comments are not relayed for the truth of the statements made. They are listed simply to show that the Department heard several viewpoints during these listening sessions. required under this paragraph (1)(b) will only be approved by the Bureau when taught in a traditional classroom delivery method. No definition for “traditional classroom delivery method” is provided. On January 15, 2020, Respondent conducted a public hearing on the proposed rule. As was the case with the workshops, people voiced both support and opposition to the proposal to require a traditional classroom setting for the Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review courses. Counsel for Petitioner appeared and spoke against the proposed language to eliminate online and blended learning for the two classes, and asked whether any type of data existed to support the change in the rule, or whether any type of study had been conducted to gauge the need for the change. Respondent’s representative stated that the proposed language was based upon “extensive testimony” from employers requesting the change. Counsel also asked that Respondent consider defining what is meant by traditional classroom delivery. No such definition has been added to the rule. The Notice of Proposed Rule does not include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. Instead, it states: The Agency has determined that this will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the Agency. The Agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: The Department’s economic analysis of the potential impact of the proposed rule amendments determined that there will be no adverse economic impact or increased regulatory costs that would require legislative ratification. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs, or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so within 21 days of this Notice. Petitioner addressed the increased costs under the proposed rule during at least one of the workshops. There is no evidence, however, that Petitioner submitted, in writing, a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative within 21 days of the Notice of Proposed Rule. On January 27, 2020, Petitioner filed its Petition to Challenge Specific Changes to Proposed Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. The Petition is timely filed. Current Online Providers and Course Review Process As of April 10, 2020, there are approximately 20 organizations approved by the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that offer distance learning delivery for courses in programs leading to a certification pursuant to rule 69A-37.605. Of those providers, two are approved to teach Codes and Standards and three are approved to teach Construction Documents and Plans Review. In addition, as of June 1, 2020, there are 13 state colleges and/or universities in Florida also approved to provide distance learning. Of those, ten are approved to offer Codes and Standards, and ten are approved to offer Construction Documents and Plans Review. Petitioner has been approved to teach these two courses in a blended format since at least 2015. It also has articulation agreements with some educational institutions, including Waldorf University in Iowa, and Columbia Southern University in Alabama. The Department previously sought to take action against Ricky Rescue related to the type of courses taught, although the statutory basis for taking action against Ricky Rescue is not part of the evidence presented in this proceeding. The Consent Order entered to resolve the prior proceeding expressly provides, “Respondents agree that they will not offer any on-line courses until such time as they obtain approval from the Bureau, which will not be unreasonably withheld.” In order to be approved to teach any of the courses for certification in an online or blended format, a provider is required to go through an extensive review process. Initially, Respondent used a Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric to evaluate the courses a provider sought to offer. Course approvals initially took anywhere from four months to a year and a half to meet the standards and be approved. Respondent no longer uses the Quality Matters rubric, because it has transitioned to the accreditation process used by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. With this change, the length of time for class approvals has shortened considerably. Susan Schell used to be the Department’s Training Programs Manager and was in charge of the review and approval of classes for online learning. She has since moved on to another position within the Department. Ms. Schell would take the submitted course herself, view the different videos and discussion boards, and work through some of the projects, as well as review some of the case discussions and questions. Ricky Rescue’s courses that she reviewed met all of the state requirements to be approved. According to Ms. Schell, classes taught in the traditional format did not go through the same review process. Ricky Rescue’s accreditation verification from AdvancED Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement indicated that Ricky Rescue’s accreditation was confirmed on March 31, 2017, for a five-year term expiring June 30, 2022. There is no credible dispute regarding whether Ricky Rescue complies with the requirements for offering its courses in a blended format. The report of the external review team prepared by AdvancED Education, Inc., noted that the school’s website is exemplary and stated in its conclusions: Once a month, students attend a day on site blended learning instruction where students can collaborate and complete and present projects. Given that the owners are brother fire fighters, there is a genuine feeling of camaraderie and collegiality. It is apparent to the Team that the Ricky Rescue Training Academy is an ideal institutional opportunity to obtain classes for firefighter training and certification classes. … The school has embraced the continuous improvement model to insure that they continue to deliver high quality online educational programs with rigor, relevance, and fidelity. Two Different Views Petitioner and Respondent approached the proposed rule amendment, both at the workshops and public hearing conducted by the Department and at the hearing in this proceeding, from different perspectives. Ricky Rescue focused on the needs and opinions of students seeking to take the courses. Its witnesses testified that the blended courses had significant substantive content; that the in-person component gave the necessary opportunity for completion of group projects and hands-on instruction or field trips; and that the ability to complete the course at any time during a 30-day period was essential in terms of both costs and scheduling for the student, and completing the classes while managing job and family responsibilities. For example, Ryan Russell has worked for over ten years in the fire service and is a battalion chief for the Haines City Fire Department. He has a variety of certifications and oversaw the training division for his department. Mr. Ryan has taken five courses from Ricky Rescue, and speaks highly of them. Mr. Ryan agrees that there are some advantages to traditional classroom settings, because they provide more opportunities for engagement, but that ultimately, a class is only as good as the instructor. Similarly, Robert Morgan is also a battalion chief at another fire department, and took Documents and Plans Review from Ricky Rescue. Mr. Morgan believed that the online blended course is just as good as a traditional classroom setting, and believes that in the blended setting, a student has to work harder than just sitting at the back of the classroom. Both men spoke of the convenience and accessibility that online learning provides that a traditional classroom does not. Matthew Trent also testified in favor of the availability of online and blended courses. Mr. Trent has a master’s degree in public administration and is a Ph.D. student in public policy administration. He is also a certified state firefighter II; pump operator; Fire Officer I, II, III, and IV; fire inspector I and II; fire investigator I; and fire life safety educator I. About half of Mr. Trent’s certifications have been based on classes taken online, and all of his classes for his masters’ and doctoral degrees have been online. Mr. Trent felt both courses at issue could be taught in an online format, and stated that both as a student and as an instructor, it is up to the student to choose the delivery method by which they want to learn. If not for online learning, he would not have been able to accomplish nearly as much in his professional life, because distance learning gives the student the ability to work around other responsibilities. The Department, on the other hand, was influenced more heavily by (and sought information from) the fire safety officials across the state who employ fire safety inspectors. Many of those officials spoke at the public workshops and some testified at hearing. The major concern voiced by these officials was that new fire safety inspectors certified by the state were not really prepared to do their job. Although most acknowledged that some on the job training would always be necessary to deal with local codes and ordinances that are not part of the state curriculum, they felt that new inspectors did not have a good grasp of the concepts necessary to be effective, especially with respect to the skills taught in the classes at issue in this case. For example, Anthony Apfelbeck is the Director of the Building and Fire Safety Department for the City of Altamonte Springs. He has worked in that department for approximately 20 years and served as Fire Marshal for a significant portion of his tenure there, and served in other cities as well. Mr. Apfelbeck has an impressive array of certifications and currently supervises approximately eight fire safety inspectors. He attended almost all of the workshops and was an active participant. Mr. Apfelbeck testified that he concurred with the State Fire Marshal’s Association that both classes should be offered only in a traditional classroom environment. He stated that there is a limited period of time to get someone trained and certified as a fire safety inspector, and he has seen some of the deficiencies in the current training. In his view, requiring these two classes to be given in a traditional classroom environment allows the instructor to keep the student engaged, and to get into critical thinking with probing questions and real-life examples. Instructors can have interactions with students that address issues the students may be having in the students’ jurisdictions, and read the body language of the students to gauge involvement. He also spoke of the ability to develop relationships with other individuals in the class and develop a peer group within that body. Mr. Apfelback has used the virtual environment extensively during the COVID-19 pandemic, and does not feel that it has the spontaneity and free- flow of information that a traditional classroom affords. Mr. Apfelbeck has not taken any of Ricky Rescue’s classes, and does not know what it has done to make sure its students get 200 hours of education. Likewise, he is not aware of the review Ricky Rescue went through to get its courses approved. He stated, correctly, that the rule is not written specifically about Ricky Rescue’s programs. It is written for all educational programs that are provided pursuant to this rule. Michael Tucker is the assistant superintendent for the State Fire Marshal’s Office. His experience includes serving as battalion chief for the Reedy Creek Improvement District (i.e., Disney) for 13 years, and serving as the Chief of the Fire Department for the Villages for 13 years. He has taught fire safety classes both in the classroom setting and online. While at Reedy Creek, he was the training officer responsible for providing training to fire inspectors, firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs. Mr. Tucker believes that the two classes addressed in the proposed rule are very intricate classes with a lot of detail. He believes that the traditional environment gives more opportunity for students to get hands-on instruction and have more interaction with the instructor. He acknowledged that there is a possibility that fees could increase under the proposed rule, but thinks that the increased cost is outweighed by the value that employers would get when they hire people trained in a classroom setting. Cheryl Edwards is the Fire Marshal for the City of Lakeland, and her views regarding traditional versus online learning are similar to those already expressed. She believes that the traditional classroom environment promotes collaborative learning and enhances critical thinking skills, through live discussions, and the need to think on your feet. She also felt that in person, an instructor is better able to gauge students’ learning styles and provide activities and modalities for all to learn, regardless of learning style. Ms. Edwards believes that the traditional classroom setting allows for more “teachable moments,” and guided practice before a student has to put that knowledge into use. Finally, David Abernathy is the Fire Chief of the City of Satellite Beach and has worked with the City for 35 years. Mr. Abernathy has an impressive list of certifications and has taught all five of the courses necessary for fire safety inspector certification, but has never taught them in an online or blended learning format. Mr. Abernathy believes that for these two courses there is a benefit to the traditional classroom setting. He believes that both classes need a hands-on approach to be the most effective. Mr. Abernathy also believes that requiring these two courses to be taught in a traditional classroom setting will cost more, but as an employer is more willing to pay for it than for online classes. Mark Harper testified that during the workshops, the Department wanted to hear from everyone, because all would be impacted by the changes. However, he believes that there is a heavier weight of responsibility on employers as opposed to students, because they are the ones trying to fill positions, and they are the ones having to deal with additional costs occasioned by failures in training. As a practical matter, employers are more cognizant of the potential liability jurisdictions face when a fire safety inspector, who looks at everything from mom and pop businesses to industrial sites with large containers of hazardous materials, is not adequately trained. The decision to go forward with the proposed rule amendment requiring a traditional classroom delivery method with respect to Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review is based on the feedback received through the workshop process. It is not based on data. The Department does not track how students who took certification classes online or in a blended format score on the certification examination as opposed to students who took the same classes in a traditional setting. It would be difficult to collect that type of data, because there is no requirement that a student take all five courses the same way. In preparation for the hearing in this case, the Department conducted a survey of employers regarding their views on traditional versus distance learning. The Florida Fire Marshals and Inspectors Association distributed the survey to its members, and of the 358 addressees, 114 responded. There was no evidence to indicate that the Department attempted to survey people taking the classes. The questions asked in the survey were quite limited, and frankly, provide no guidance because they provide only two alternatives, and do not address blended learning formats at all. There are three questions, and they are as follows, with the responses in parentheses: Is there is current need to increase the proficiency of newly certified Firesafety Inspectors in Florida? Yes (59.65%) No (16.67%) Neutral opinion (12.68%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Codes and Standards class, which class setting would produce a more proficient inspector? Traditional classroom delivery method (71.17%) Online (distance learning ) delivery method (9.91%) Neutral opinion (18.92%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Construction Documents and Plans Review Class, which class setting would produce a more proficient instructor? Traditional classroom (76.32%) Online (7.02%) Neutral opinion (16.67%) Questions two and three assume that one format must be better than the other, rather than allowing for the possibility of equivalency. Had there been some recognition of a blended learning format, the answers might be different. The survey was informative in terms of the comments that were provided by the respondents. Similar to the views expressed at the workshops, there were strong opinions both in favor of limiting the classes to the traditional setting, and strong opinions advocating for the option of online learning. Petitioner presented information related to the increased costs that will be incurred should the rule go in effect. Those costs include the need for space rental for five-day periods in order to teach in multiple locations; the costs related to conversion of the material to a classroom setting versus online; and the need to pay instructors for more days each time the course is taught. It does not appear from the evidence presented that Ricky Rescue would experience increased costs of $200,000 in one year. However, Ricky Rescue is just one provider, and section 120.54 speaks in terms of an increase in costs in the aggregate, meaning as a whole. It is not known whether the other approved providers who teach these two courses will continue to do so should the rule be amended to require a classroom setting. It is also unknown what types of costs would be borne by state colleges and universities in order to recast the courses for traditional classroom settings. Finally, the litigants to this proceeding were well aware that this rule was being developed and was noticed as a proposed rule before the world began to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. It is open to speculation whether some of the impetus to require a traditional classroom setting would have changed in light of the changes society has had to make over the last six months. Department employees were questioned regarding the Fire College’s response to the pandemic, and both Mark Harper and Michael Tucker testified about the precautions being taken on the campus to insure safety, such as taking temperatures, having students complete a questionnaire regarding possible exposure, limiting the number of students per class, and spacing people six feet apart to maintain effective social distancing. Mr. Tucker testified that they would be ready to postpone some classes until they could be taught safely in person. When asked whether Respondent would consider postponing the effective date of the proposed rule, he indicated “that would be something we would have to take into consideration, and again, the feedback from our constituents, but if it became necessary, then we would consider it.”
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Joe A. Cabrera (Petitioner) was, and is currently, a certified firefighter in the State of Florida and employed with the City of Miami. On or about November 1, 1993, Petitioner applied for entry into the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program (Program). He executed a transcript request form for the Program, requesting Miami-Dade Community College (Miami-Dade), Miami, Florida, to forward an official copy of his transcript to Respondent. Miami-Dade complied with Petitioner's request. Petitioner's transcript showed all courses completed and indicated that he was awarded an Associates of Arts degree from Ranger Junior College in Texas on May 7, 1982. It does not identify a major associated with his degree. Furthermore, Petitioner's transcript reflected that subsequent to the issuance of his Associates of Arts degree, he completed in excess of 30 hours of fire-related courses at Miami-Dade. By letter dated November 12, 1993, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for entry into the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program on the basis that he failed to possess an eligible associate degree in accordance with Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, and Rule 4A-37.085, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order denying Joe A. Cabrera entry into the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the associate degree level. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 22nd day of June 1994. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Petitioner's proposed findings are not numbered, so they are addressed paragraph by paragraph.) Paragraph 1. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 5. Paragraph 2. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 1, 3 and 4. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 5. 4 & 5. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 6. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 4. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, nor supported by the evidence, argument, or conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Phillips, Esquire Kaplan & Bloom, P.A. Suite 214, Plaza Bank Building 3001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Kathleen M. Phillips, Esquire Kaplan & Bloom, P.A. Suite 214, Plaza Bank Building 3001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner qualifies for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor level for supplemental compensation at the rate of $110.00 per month.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to these proceedings, the Petitioner has been employed as a firefighter with the Metro-Dade Fire Department. The Petitioner's primary function with the Metro-Dade Fire Department is as a firefighter. By letter dated May 30, 1991, and received on June 10, 1991, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent for Firefighters Supplemental Compensation at the Bachelor degree level. Three transcripts were submitted with the Petitioner's application. The first was from Miami-Dade Community College, and showed that an Associate of Science degree in Fire Science was awarded to the Petitioner on May 4, 1991. The second transcript was from Broward Community College, showing many courses taken by Petitioner, but no degree awarded. 3/ The third transcript was from Florida International University, and showed that a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Industrial Technology was awarded to Petitioner on December 12, 1980. Petitioner's Bachelor degree from Florida International University is not based upon, and does not include, any of the courses in fire science that formed the basis for Petitioner's Associate degree from Miami-Dade Community College. 4/ Petitioner's transcript of her Bachelor degree does not reveal a major study concentration area of at least 18 semester hours or 27 quarter hours which is readily identifiable and applicable as fire- related. On or about June 24, 1991, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that she was eligible for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Associate degree level by virtue of her Associate of Science degree in Fire Science from Miami-Dade Community College. On or about June 26, 1991, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that she was not eligible for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor degree level because Petitioner's major in Industrial Technology from Florida International University was not a recognized Major Study Concentration Area in Rule 4A-37.084. The denial letter cites and quotes the definition of "Bachelor's Degree" at Rule 4A-37.084(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance issue a final order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for participation in the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor degree level. 7/ DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of December, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 17th day of December, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is employed as a full-time professional firefighter by the City of Tampa Fire Department. His primary responsibility is the prevention and extinguishment of fires, the protection and saving of life and property, and the enforcement of municipal, county and state fire prevention codes, as well as of any law pertaining to the prevention and control of fires. Petitioner received an associate in arts degree in Business Administration in May 1989 from Hillsborough Community College. In addition, he has earned 90 hours credit towards an associate in science degree from the same accredited post secondary institution. Petitioner's permanent academic record at Hillsborough Community College reveals he has successfully completed the following fire-related courses: SUMMER 1983 SEMESTER CREDITS ENS 1119 EMT AMBULANCE 5 EMS 1119 EMT AMBULANCE LAB 1 FALL 1986 SEMESTER CREDITS FFP 2601 FIRE APPARATUS PRA 3 FFP 1600 FIRE APPARATUS EQ 3 FALL 1990 SEMESTER CREDITS FFP 2420 F/F TACTICS & STRA 3 FFP 2660 RESCUE PRACTICES 3 FFP 2110 FIRE COMPANY MAN AG 3 Although Petitioner has 21 semester hours that the Department has agreed are fire related courses, 9 of these hours were credited to him after his associate in arts degree was conferred upon him in May of 1989. In order for a firefighter to be eligible for supplemental compensation related to an associate degree, he or she must have at least 18 semester hours that are fire related and are part of the firefighter's studies for the degree. Petitioner had only 12 semesters of fire related studies prior to the award of his degree. In order for Petitioner to receive eligibility credits for the full 21 semester hours in the Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation Program, he would have to acquire his second associate degree from Hillsborough Community College.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner should be denied eligibility for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program as he did not complete at least 18 semester hours of fire related courses prior to receiving his award of an associate of arts degree. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 6th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #4 and #5. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark B. Maxey 6909 N. Glen Avenue Tampa, FL 33614 William C. Childers, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil Deputy General Counsel Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
