The Issue Whether respondent FGCIA should reinstate petitioner as its director or acting director and give her back pay from August 31, 1978, because FGCIA terminated her employment as of that date on account of her race?
Findings Of Fact Jan Marie Tuveson, became the third person to go to work for the FGCIA, although she is not an Indian herself. In February of 1974, she began doing secretarial work and generally assisting Osley Saunooke and John L. Chaves, at the time the FGCIA's director and assistant director, respectively. With Mr. Saunooke's resignation later the same year and Mr. Chaves' resignation in May of 1975, all of the Council's staff work fell to Ms. Tuveson and a secretary whom she hired after consulting the cochairmen of FGCIA's Board of Directors. CODIRECTOR About four months after Mr. Chaves' departure, Ms. Tuveson assumed one of two newly created program coordinator positions. She was seen as "representing" the Miccosukee Tribe, while the other program coordinator, originally Steve Bowers, was seen as representing the Seminole Tribe. Together the program coordinators were to act as codirectors of the FGCIA. In September or October of 1975, Joe Billie succeeded Steve Bowers as codirector. An extremely likeable person, Joe Billie, a Seminole Indian for whom English is a second language, did not spend much time at FGCIA's Tallahassee headquarters. As a result, Ms. Tuveson had almost full responsibility for the staff work of the FGCIA, after Joe Billie became codirector. During this period, she worked on behalf of and dealt with not only Buffalo Tiger and the Miccosukee Tribe, but also the Seminole Tribe, Mike Tiger, Joe Dan Osceola and other Seminole Indians. According to uncontroverted testimony, she treated the tribes "equally." CETA PROGRAM DIRECTOR Shortly after becoming program coordinator, Ms. Tuveson proposed to FGCIA's Board of Directors that FGCIA apply for funds under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). With Howard Tommie, chairman of the Seminole Tribe and cochairman of the FGCIA, dissenting, the Board approved the suggestion, Ms. Tuveson went forward with preparation of a grant application, and a CETA grant was awarded. Ms. Tuveson established and, as CETA program director, oversaw the program funded by the grant. Mr. Tommie's objection to the proposal was that money which, at least in his view, might otherwise have been routed to the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes exclusively was not being administered by the tribes and was being made available to other American Indians, as well. Later Mike Tiger came to share this view as did Joe Billie, who had originally said a CETA grant would be a good idea. Mr. Tommie also felt that administration of a CETA grant would be "a hectic responsibility," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, p. 42, for FGCIA. JOE BILLIE RESIGNS At a special meeting of the Board of Directors on November 21, 1977, Joe Billie resigned his position with the FGCIA effective November 25, 1977. Expense account irregularities occasioned the resignation, but Howard Tommie resented Mr. Billie's leaving. According to the minutes of the special meeting: The meeting was then directed to the discussion of the appointment of a new Codirector. Howard Tommie ... felt there should not be a designated Codirector for the Miccosukees or the Seminoles. Bob Travis agreed that each Codirector should be obligated to work for both Tribes. Howard Tommie stated the struc- ture should be changed to suit a state agency because of the fact that the Council now works with all Indians in the State of Florida, not just the Tribes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Other board members expressed other views, but the position Joe Billie left vacant was not filled, and a board member "directed the staff to prepare alternative organization structures and job descriptions." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. REORGANIZATION At its December 6, 1977, meeting, the FGCIA Board decided on organizing staff into an executive director, a deputy director, two program coordinators and a "Secretary III/Bookkeeper," Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 4 and 5, but the positions were not filled at that time. Although "on the same level as the Deputy Director," the program coordinators were to report to the deputy director, as well as "to the tribes and [were to] be located at the Tribal headquarters most of the time." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. On the subject of job descriptions, Joe Wilson, who "was present at the [November 25, 1977] meeting for the Department of Community Affairs as a representative of Mr. Robert Guttman instructed the staff . . . to add the Indian preference in order not to discriminate." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Among the policy changes effected at the December 6, 1977, meeting, was addition of a personnel policy in these words: Preferential consideration will be given to federally recognized Native American appli- cants and/or those with experience in Native American programs. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. The Board did not adopt specific job descriptions for the positions decided upon at the December 6, 1977 meeting. ACTING DIRECTOR When the FGCIA Board met on June 23, 1978, it was generally acknowledged that Ms. Tuveson had been FGCIA's acting director for some time. Board member Robert Mitchell, for example, remarked, "Up to the present time you could say that Jan is the real Director, or Executive Director . . . ," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, and another board member thought it might be official: "I think we may have given Jan the title of Director. I don't remember." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. But, after further deliberations by the board, member Robert Travis' motion to "unhire" Jan as Director and place the [executive director's] position vacant and then Jan would apply for the position along with everybody else," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, carried. Later in the same meeting, according to the minutes, Joe Dan Osceola directed the meeting to clarifying whether or not Jan Tuveson would remain as Acting Director for the Council until someone is hired permanently. Ms. Tuveson stated that she would. Joe Dan Osceola made a motion to make Jan Tuveson Acting Director. Cochairman Tiger seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Although she had acted as FGCIA's director for almost two years and was officially named acting director when the board met on June 23, 1978, it was at this same meeting that Ms. Tuveson first began to fear for her continued employment. Several members of the board expressed the view that FGCIA should hire staff, including CETA program staff, who were of American Indian extraction. Ms. Tuveson herself remarked, during the meeting, "I think that is the intention of the personnel committee that any position that is vacated should be filled with a Native American . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Board member Joe Dan Osceola explained his position: So I say with the Indian programs any Indian program which is designed for the Indians in the law states that it should be run as such, meaning Indians should be in that position. The non Indians, no matter what color it is, there is going to be a time when you all are going to have to switch over to another job. . . . So I believe in Indian movement, I mean if we don't who is going to do it. It has to be the Indians who do it. So, I wish Jan was an Indian, really. Because she has done a good job. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Board member Jo Ann Jones stated, "Any program now in our area should be all Indians." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. NATIVE AMERICAN DIRECTOR At its next meeting the FGCIA Board of Directors chose Joe Allen Quetone as executive director of the FGCIA, and voted him a starting salary of $20,000 per year. Mr. Quetone, who is a Native American and a member of the Kiowa tribe of Oklahoma, began as executive director on September 1, 1978, a week after his selection. He has held the position since, and nothing in the evidence suggests that he has done anything other than an exemplary job as executive director. Beginning March 17, 1977, he had worked at FGCIA's headquarters in a CETA position for which Ms. Tuveson had recruited him. A 1973 graduate of Florida State University in philosophy, he began, but did not finish, some graduate public administration courses, before starting at FGCIA. He served as a noncommissioned officer in the U.S. Army, was a paid assistant to a student body president while in college, worked at a car wash and a pizza parlor, tended bar, worked at the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a mail clerk; and, for the year and a half or two year period next preceding the move to FGCIA, worked for the Florida Human Relations Commission. INDIAN PREFERENCE The board went forward with the selection on August 25, 1978, despite the suggestions of Cochairman Mike Tiger and board member Robert Travis that the decision be put off. Cochairman Tiger reported Bob Mitchell's request for deferment, and Jim Hutchinson's request for a postponement, which was stated in a letter and related to the board in his absence, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 91, also proved unavailing. A three-member personnel committee had recommended Jan Tuveson, Joe Quetone and Henry A. Williams, Jr., as "highly qualified" to serve as Executive Director. Robert Travis reported on the personnel committee's work to the eight board members present, on August 25, 1978, and described the committee's criteria or "formula" as basically the same thing we've always been talking about; one dealing with the educa- tional background of the person, experience factors, and an Indian preference. Those are the three, or at least the three major things that the committee considered..... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 94. The board first voted to eliminate Mr. Williams from consideration, them voted to promote Joe Quetone to Executive Director. The FGCIA board chose Mr. Quetone over Ms. Tuveson on the basis of their respective racial origins. Other factors may have entered in, as well. Published reports of the possibility of a lawsuit on race discrimination grounds did not endear Ms. Tuveson to certain board members, see, e.g., Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 108-111; and Howard Tommie, among others, seemed still to harbor resentment over the establishment of the CETA program. At least one board member feared a schism between the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes. Mr. Travis remarked: I think Jan kept the Council together. My preference is I would prefer to vote for her; but, if that vote will cause a split between the S[e]minoles and Miccosukees, and the organizations, the staff she is supposed to help, then my overall concern is for the Indian people. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 144. Mr. Travis was one of six board members who voted for Mr. Quetone. Two members abstained. Joe Dan Osceola explained his position: I'm not against white people, believe me; black, or anybody, even other Indians.... There's Indian programs--there's such a law as Indian Preference Law. There used to be a policy; but it's a law as of 1967.... I know a lot of you don't share my opinion. ... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 122. Mr. Osceola may have been referring to an informal legal opinion which John Chaves, himself raised as an American Indian, had given as legal counsel to the FGCIA's CETA program, to the effect that the FGCIA could not lawfully implement an Indian preference. FGCIA had nevertheless adopted such a policy, although, over objection of the Seminole and some other board members, the phrase "and/or those with experience in Native American programs" had been added. (During the federal trial, Mr. Tommie testified that he did not think Ms. Tuveson had such experience. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, p. 52) At least one other board member adhered to the FGCIA's preference policy in the course of the selection process on August 25, 1978. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 135. Ms. Tuveson testified that jokes about her race that various Seminole members of the FGCIA's board had made from time to time seemed much less amusing in retrospect, after the August 25, 1978 vote. NO OFFER After it was decided that Mr. Quetone would begin work on September 1, the Board began to turn to other matters, when an "Unidentified Female Voice" inquired: Mr. Chairman? Before we start discussing the future business, do you think it's possible we could get some clarification as to Jan's termination date? Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 176. The cochairmen responded and Joe Dan Osceola expressed his views: COCHAIRMAN TIGER: All right. They need that, too; otherwise, we'd have to do something, because--I mean, she's still on the payroll. COCHAIRMAN TOMMIE: I think one takes care of the other. Do you want to go on record as terminating Jan Tuve- son as our director? ... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 176. JOE DAN OSCEOLA: ... You have a certain day that when somebody has come in that you are supposed to move out of their office ... You clean out your table and desk and everything else because another guy is taking your place. I really can't see all this question on this. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 177. After a confusing colloquy, Joe Dan Osceola raised the question whether Ms. Tuveson was "quitting the Council": JO ANN JONES: I know what you're saying. She's going to get the pay for those two weeks. COCHAIRMAN TOMMIE: Yes, if she wants to stay on the payroll for an extra two weeks, then we've just got to make the provisions... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 180. COCHAIRMAN TIGER: I think we understand where we stand. ... JAN TUVESON: Effective September 1st, I am on two weeks' notice; right? CO-CHAIRMAN TIGER: No. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 181. JOE DAN OSCEOLA: Is she quitting the Council? That's one part I'm not familiar with, if she's quitting. That's one thing I haven't heard from Jan, that she's not going to be (inaudible) for Miccosukee or (inaudible). That's one thing I don't know. JAN TUVESON: (Inaudible) I'm not (inaudible) coordinator right now, Joe, and I'm acting director. JOE DAN OSCEOLA: Yes, that's what I know. JAN TUVESON: And I haven't been offered the position of coordinator, which would be ludicrous in my opinion, anyway, since it would be a backward step for me. But, the point is, I think, on September 1st, am I to be given two weeks' paid notice? Or am I not to be given any notice at all? Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 183. Neither the Board of Directors as a whole nor any individual board member offered Ms. Tuveson employment in any capacity beyond August 31, 1978. EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT A 1972 graduate of the University of Texas, with a major in English, Ms. Tuveson also attended Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. as an undergraduate. After graduation, she worked as assistant manager and advertising director for "Hook'm Horns Night Club" in Austin, Texas. In Tallahassee, she worked as public relations assistant to the Sesquicentennial Committee and then for a department store, also in public relations; at Gayfer's, she had supervisory responsibilities, worked on a budget, and wrote copy for radio, television and newspapers, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, at a salary of $8,000 to $10,000 a year. She began taking graduate courses at Florida State University after she went to work for FGCIA, first in mass communications then in public administration, but did not earn a degree in either field. After she left the employ of the FGCIA, Ms. Tuveson sent out 25 to 30 applications for jobs and had several interviews. In every interview the matter of her losing her job at the FGCIA arose. Receiving no job offers, she applied to law school in October of 1978, and began in January of 1979. She graduated from law school at Western State University in June of 1981, finishing an accelerated program which left little time for gainful employment. She did not work the whole of the year 1982 partly because she was ill and partly because she took time off to study for a bar examination, which she has never succeeded in passing. She was employed in 1983 in the legal department of the Alamo Savings & Loan Association in San Antonio, Texas. In May of 1984 she moved back to Tallahassee and found work at Electronic Communications. During 1977, the last full year Ms. Tuveson worked for FGCIA, she was paid $18,736.23. The following year FGCIA paid her $15,948.70 for the work she did from January 1, 1978 through August 31, 1978, representing an annual rate of $21,264.93. Her 1979 income totalled $1,818.97. In 1980, Ms. Tuveson's income fell almost to nothing. She earned approximately $2,500 in 1981, and about the same in 1982. Her 1983 income was $10,832.38 and she made $11,526.87 in 1984. At the time of the hearing she was still working for Electronic Communications. Petitioner's proposed recommended order and respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order were filed on August 12 and 13 1985, respectively. Proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, to the extent they are supported by the weight of the evidence, except where they are cumulative, subordinate or immaterial.
Findings Of Fact Because of the complexity of the structuring of the transaction at issue, the following references will be used throughout in order to assist the reader in keeping track of the various items and corporate entities involved. Taxpayer: South Florida Beverage Corp. a Florida Corporation incorporated on December 28, 1967 is the operating entity of the Pepsi Facility. Pepsi Facility: The plant and equipment located at 7777 NW 41st Street, Miami Florida from which Pepsi-Cola and other soft drink products are manufactured and distributed. Holiday: Holiday General Corporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, the sole stockholder of Taxpayer and a wholly owned subsidiary of General Cinema Corporation. GC-H: GC-H Corporation, a Delaware Corporation is the owner of the Pepsi Facility. GCC: GCC Beverages of Mass., Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation. A wholly owned subsidiary of General Cinema which functions as the Home Office for Taxpayer, Holiday and other bottling corporations throughout the country which, in the aggregate, constitute the "Beverage Division," so-called, of General Cinema. ABC: American Beverage Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, which through controlled subsidiaries previously owned and operated the Pepsi Facility and other non-Florida soft drink bottling plants. The tax assessment at issue covers the audit period between April 1, 1979 through June 30, 1983. During the latter part of the 1960's General Cinema entered into negotiations with ABC with an eye to acquiring its bottling plants and franchises. At the time, ABC owned, or through its subsidiaries controlled, the Pepsi facility and plants in Dayton, Youngstown, and Akron, Ohio. On or about March 11, 1968, after successfully reaching agreement with ABC stockholders, General Cinema caused Holiday to purchase the stock of ABC for a price of approximately twelve million dollars ($12,000,000.00). The purchase price was paid in cash. Shortly thereafter, Holiday merged with ABC and its subsidiaries and became the owner of the Pepsi Facility along with the Dayton, Youngstown, and Akron plants. With the exception of a small existing mortgage on the Pepsi Facility Holiday ended up owning all of its newly acquired assets unencumbered. In conjunction with this acquisition, Taxpayer which had recently been incorporated, was activated by an issuance of its stock to Holiday and commenced to operate the Pepsi Facility. Inasmuch as Holiday now owned twelve million dollars ($12,000,000.00) worth of highly leveragable assets virtually unencumbered, it was highly desirous of refinancing the same. To this end, it sought the assistance of Haas Financial Corporation, a large mortgage broker who routinely acted as a middle man in structuring financial arrangements between would be borrowers and institutional lenders. Haas was successful in securing financial commitments from a consortium of eight insurance companies who, in the aggregate, agreed to loan approximately eleven million seven hundred thousand dollars ($11,700,000.00). The transaction was a sale and lease-back arrangement entered into in July 1969. The main aspects of this arrangement were as follows: GC-H was created by Haas Financial Corporation and/or its principals; GC-H borrowed eleven million seven hundred thousand dollars ($11,700,000.00) from the insurance companies, GC-H used the proceeds received to "purchase" the Pepsi Facility and those in Ohio from Holiday, The assets acquired were pledged as security for the institutional loans, GC-H then leased back to Holiday under a long-term lease . . . the properties and assets involved, General Cinema guaranteed Holiday's payments under the Lease . . . GCC on behalf of Holiday and the other lessees pays to GC-H all amounts due under the Lease. GCC charges back to Taxpayer and the other corporations their pro rate share of the payments. The Pepsi Facility and the other plants are owned by GC-H. The lease assets for book purposes have been capitalized. This is the same treatment the Taxpayer uses for its other leased assets under lease-purchase agreements and is a common practice under lease-purchase arrangements. The Lease . . . covers the real estate and personal property of the Pepsi Facility and the Ohio locations. It was entered into in June, 1969 and runs for a basic term of eighteen (18) years through June, 1987. According to paragraph 2 of the Lease, the Lease may be extended, at the Lessee's option, for not more than six (6) consecutive extended terms; the first extended term to be for ten (10) years and the five subsequent extended terms to be for five (5) years each. Basic rental payments under the Lease for all of the properties are set forth in paragraph 3 of the Lease and amount to approximately $300,000.00 quarterly or $1,200,000.00 a year. The Pepsi Facility represents forty percent (40 percent) of the leased assets. Accordingly the Taxpayer is charged through inter-company billings for forty percent of the basic rent (which is forty thousand dollars [$40,000.00] a month or four hundred eighty thousand dollars [$480,000.00] a year). Pursuant to paragraph 22 of the Lease, at the end of the initial basic term the Lessee, Holiday has an option to purchase all of the properties subject to the Lease by paying to Lessor (GC-H) a purchase price in cash equal to the amount specified in said paragraph of the Lease. Pursuant to the terms of paragraph 23.3 of the Lease, if the Lessee, Holiday elects to purchase the property, the Lessor, GH-C [sic], promises to convey such property to Lessee by quitclaim deed, bill of sale and other necessary instruments and, if requested by Lessee, promises to obtain and deliver to Lessee an instrument releasing such property from the lien of the mortgage on the property. Pursuant to paragraph 36 of the Lease, there is no merger of the Lease nor of the leasehold estate created by the Lease with the fee estate in the properties or any part thereof. unless there is a written instrument effecting such merger executed as specifically provided in said paragraph 36. At all times material hereto fee simple record title to the property herein known as the Pepsi Facility was in the name of GC-H Corporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Stipulated Findings of Fact and the foregoing Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered assessing delinquent taxes against Petitioner in the amount of $32,873.18, plus penalties and interest. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of February, 1986, at Tallahassee Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel L. Rubin, Esquire GCC Beverages, Inc. Box 500, 1300 Boyston Street Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02167 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William D. Townsend, General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Miller, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Golden Dolphin was the holder of the State of Florida Alcoholic Beverage license number 15-229 for the period October 1, 1976, through September 30, 1977. DABT seeks to assess a civil penalty against the Golden Dolphin or to suspend or revoke its beverage license on the grounds that seven violations of Section 847.011(4), Florida Statutes, occurred on the premises of Golden Dolphin on June 9, 10 and 11, 1977. During that period of time, various dance routines depicting sexual acts, representing sexual acts or suggesting or encouraging sexual arousal occurred on the premises. No evidence was introduced purporting to establish that any of the performers were agents, servants or employees of Golden Dolphin. Accordingly, it is found, as a matter of fact, that the performers were not agents, servants or employees of Golden Dolphin. No evidence was introduced purporting to demonstrate whether, to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appealed to prurient interests. Accordingly, it is found, as a matter of fact, that to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material presented at the Golden Dolphin, taken as a whole, did not appeal to prurient interests.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Notice to Show Cause herein, Respondent, Grand Saloon Tavern, Inc., was the holder of a valid alcoholic beverage license number 15-00028, Series 4-COP issued by Petitioner (DABT) to Respondent for the Inner Room located at 74 North Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida. On the evening of April 24, 1984, Beverage Investigator Gloria Smith and Special Agent Terry Altman, both in an undercover capacity, entered Respondent's licensed premises and took a seat near the disc jockey's booth. Smith asked an employee of the bar, a dancer named Janice Decker, who used the stage name "Angel," whom she had met weeks previously and established a friendship with, if Angel could get her some cocaine. Angel agreed and made arrangements for some cocaine, which she told Smith and Altman would arrive in about a "half hour." Somewhat later, Angel came up to the two agents where they were sitting in the bar, told them the cocaine had arrived, and received a $100 bill from Smith. Smith saw Angel engage in an exchange between Angel and the courier known to Smith as "Tommy" after which Angel came back to the agents' table and delivered to them a match box and told them it contained cocaine in two half-gram packages. When Angel left the table, Smith opened the match box and observed it contained two clear plastic bags which both had a white powder in them subsequently properly identified as cocaine. She took one of the bags out of the match box to check it. In Altman's opinion, the disc jockey saw her do this but that individual denies having done so. He contends that, given her position in the booth, with the lights adjusted as they are, he cannot see the people sitting at the tables below him and he knows nothing of any sale of drugs by Angel to Smith. Smith and Altman had gone into the Inner Room as a part of an ongoing investigation of several establishments to see if they could purchase drugs in them. Smith had met Angel at the Show Bar, another Cocoa Beach bar, in early March when Angel, who was working there at the time, did a personal dance for Agent Altman. After that, she made several purchases from Angel at the Show Bar using the cover story that she the, widow of an older man, who had been left a good income, and was now out looking for some "fun" with some younger man of whom Altman was supposed to be one. She said she wanted the cocaine for recreational use. The first time she want into the Inner Room she went in part to meet people and see the atmosphere of the place. On the first occasion, when she asked for Angel, Angel was not there. Smith returned to the Inner Room on May 10, 1984, this time in the company of United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Eslingor and the two of them sat along the east wall of the lounge. On this occasion, she met Mr. Johnson, one of the owners who introduced her to the other owner, Mr. Crockett. The licensed premises is divided into three general areas--a small lounge, a larger lounge, and a game room. The east wall, where Smith sat, is in the area near the disc jockey's booth. Smith spoke with Angel about Angel's inability to deliver the cocaine she had promised on a previous occasion and asked her if she knew of anyone else who might have any cocaine for sale. When inquiry by Angel failed to reveal any available sources that evening, Smith gave Angel $100.00 for 1 gram of cocaine to be delivered the next night. Just about that time, Smith observed another dancer, Danielle, going into the restroom and followed her in. She went after Danielle because, based on information she had received from a third dancer, Deosia, she thought Danielle might have some for sale. When she got into the restroom, Smith asked Danielle if she had any cocaine to which Danielle replied she had only a little in her personal stack, of which she could give Smith a "line." Danielle then poured some white powdery substance, subsequently identified as cocaine, from a plastic triangular bag into a cellophane cigarette wrapper and handed it to Smith. Smith does not recall if Danielle asked for payment, but when Smith handed her $5.00 and when asked if that was enough, Danielle replied, "That's what I usually get." When Smith and Eslinger went back the following night, approximately 11:15 p.m., Angel, to whom Smith had given $100.00 the previous evening, told her that she had the cocaine Smith had asked for. She then delivered the substance, later identified as cocaine, and stated that she had taken a "line" for herself out of it. Smith agreed to that. Smith does not recall if the cocaine was delivered in a matchbook or in a folded $1.00 bill. In either case, however, consistent with her routine practice, upon delivery she checked the delivered substance out in the open by opening the package, tapping the enclosure on the table, and examining it, a procedure, he feels, that takes about 10 seconds. On this occasion, as on all other occasions, when she was in this lounge, she sat in an area off to the side of the bar which is visible from all other areas of the bar except the entrance. There are also other tables there as well. On May 25, 1984, Smith, Altman and Eslinger went into the Inner Room, actually at about 12:15 a.m. on May 28. On this occasion, Angel told Smith she had gotten rid of the cocaine she had promised to get for Smith because she had fronted the money for it. However, she stated she would have her husband bring some more, and later the same evening came back to the table where Smith and the others were sitting, sat down with them, and handed Smith a folded $1.00 bill for which Smith gave her $100.00. From this $1.00 bill, Smith took a small plastic bag which contained a substance later identified as cocaine. Not all cocaine sales ware arranged at the licensed premises, however. On June 4, 1984, Agent Smith phoned Angel at home and suggested that Angel get her some cocaine and deliver it at the Inner Room. She thereafter took $100.00 to Angel at her home and made the definite arrangements for the delivery of the cocaine at the licensed premises. When Smith, Altman, and Eslinger went to the Inner Room at approximately 9:30 p.m. that evening, Angel came over to them and delivered a cigarette package to Smith. After Angel left, Smith took a plastic bag from the cigarette pack and checked it on top of the table so that it could be seen by other patrons and Hank, the manager, was standing over near the disco booth talking with two men who appeared to be Cocoa Beach police officers. Smith cannot say that her actions were seen by these people, but the package contained what was later identified as cocaine. Smith was not arrested by these police officers even though they did not know she was an undercover agent. This leads to the conclusion that her "checking out" of the deliveries was not so open or notorious as, by Smith's own admission, had they seen what she was doing, they probably would have had cause to arrest her. When Smith first bought cocaine from Angel in the Inner Room, she had already made two or three purchases from her at another bar in the area and it was always Smith who made the purchases. She also paid Angel to "dance" for her "boyfriend" Altman several times and for each "dance" paid Angel $3.00. Over the period of the investigation, including this establishment and others, she got to know Angel and liked her. In doing so, she built up Angel's trust in her which Angel contends was the only reason she sold Smith cocaine. Smith purchased from only Angel and Danielle at the Inner Room. There is no evidence of other drug sales by other employees to other agents nor does Smith have any personal knowledge of any drugs on the premises except for those forming the bases of the allegations here. Altman played the part of the hanger-on sponging off a rich lady consistent with Smith's cover story. He was introduced to one of the co-owners, Mr. Johnson, on one occasion but had no conversations with him or anyone else regarding drugs. He made no drug purchases because his DATF investigation related to firearms. Though he was in the Inner Room quite a few times with and without Smith, he never saw any independent opportunity to buy drugs except for Smith's buys and he has no personal knowledge of anyone other than Angel or Danielle who had drugs for sale or were dealing drugs there. While in the Inner Room, Smith had several general conversations with owner Johnson during which she says she may have mentioned her "mid-life crisis" cover story. She denies any conversations with him, however, in which she tried to entice him into using drugs with her or when he said he did not use drugs or permit them on the premises. She does not recall them discussing what steps he took to keep drugs out. She did not notice any posted rules or notices regarding drugs. On each occasion Smith was in the Inner Room, either one or both of the owners were there in addition to a manager. She does not know what this latter individual's responsibilities were. There were also always men at the door but she does not knew what their function was other than to collect the entrance fee. Angel, whose real name is Janice M. Decker, was employed at the Inner Room as a dancer. She had just returned there prior to April 24, 1984, after working at the Show Bar, another club in Cocoa Beach, for 9 months. Prior to that, she worked at the Inner Room for 3 1/2 years. When she was first hired, she was instructed by owners that their rules included no drugs, no alcohol, and no solicitation for prostitution on the premises and during the first 3 1/2 years she worked there, she never had any drugs or saw any there. She first met Agent Smith at the Show Bar in July 1983 and developed a friendship with her. Smith did not make any requests for cocaine until their fourth meeting. By this time, Angel had accepted Smith's cover story and thought she was a nice lady. They had talked of going shopping together and of going out to dinner with their respective man as couples. In fact, Smith gave Angel her home phone number, but whenever Smith would call Angel, she would say she was out of town. Smith's first request for cocaine from Angel came at the Show Bar. Angel contends that even though she did not use cocaine and did not have any, because of her friendship for Smith and the fact that she felt sorry for her, she agreed to try to get some from someone. She found a source and whenever she bought any for Smith, she would deliver all she got and keep more for herself. She also felt close enough to Smith to front the money for these purchases and each time Smith requested cocaine, the purchase details ware always secondary to social conversation and "girl talk." When Angel quit the Show Bar and went back to the Inner Room, though she had fears about bringing drugs into the premises because she knew the owners' anti-drug policy, she did so because: (1) she knew her reputation there was as a "straight," and (2) she felt sorry for Smith and wanted to help her. As a result, she deceived her employers. On several of the occasions alleged, Angel didn't want be deliver on the premises but Smith insisted she deliver there. Their agreement was to meet outside for the transfer on two occasions, but each time Smith was not there and since Angel had to go to work, she had to go inside and when Smith showed up deliver there. Aside from the sales to Smith, Angel contends she has never had any drugs inside the Inner Room, nor has she ever seen any other employee with it in their possession there. She got the cocaine from a supplier she knows as Terry who she would meet at McDonald's-- never her husband. When she would get cocaine for Smith, she would keep it in her work purse with her in the lounge and not in her street purse in her locker. Neither she nor her locker has ever been searched for drugs. In her opinion, the licensees run a legitimate operation. They are strict about people who break the rules and seem to know what is going on there. Either one or both owners are on the premises every night along with two security people. This opinion is shared by other club employees like the dancers Angie and Danielle. Angie worked for the licensees for 11 months before they closed on June 8 and never saw any drug dealings or employees with drugs on the premises. Customers have asked her about drugs on various occasions but she always refused to get involved. When she was hired, she was advised that the club rules included no use or sale of drugs and called for the employee to be fired if this rule was violated. Danielle, who has worked there for 9 or 10 months, had the same understanding of the rules. When she was hired, she was given a copy of the posted rules and the owners have periodic meetings of the employees at which they are reminded of the rules regarding no alcohol, no drugs, no prostitution, and the need to report any infractions. She knew that a violation of those rules would result in termination. Regarding the sale to Smith, Danielle admits the transfer, but contends she at first refused and gave Smith the cocaine only after Smith said it was for her boyfriend who needed it badly. She didn't ask Smith for any money, intending it to be a gift even though she had never met Smith before. After the transfer, Smith threw her $5.00 and left. She is concerned about her job even though she has not been told she was fired. The disc jockey, Ken Carlin, who has worked at the Inner Room for 4 years, relates much the same story regarding the owners' efforts to keep drugs out as do the dancers. There are frequent meetings of all personnel regarding illegal activities and anyone caught involved in them is fired. Whereas the dancers disclaim any knowledge of any employees involved in drugs, Mr. Carlin, however, indicates at least one a month is fired. This must be for other reasons, however, because, according to him, he has seen drugs on the premises only once about a year ago and had fired the dancer who had them immediately. In addition to his job as disc jockey, his responsibilities also include policing the premises on a frequent basis and this includes inspecting the dancers' dressing room which he does about three times each night. When he does these inspections, he does not go into the house, however. In addition to the owners, the managers and Carlin, all of whom exercise the responsibility to check the premises for drugs, Gary O. Greenwald, one of the doormen and bouncers, also patrols the inside for violations. He has bean briefed regarding certain known drug users or dealers who are barred from entering the club. He has also been instructed to throw anyone suspected of possessing drugs out and if anyone is caught with it, he is to hold that person and call the police. During the three months he has worked there, ha has not observed any drugs on the premises. The Inner Room's reputation with at least a portion of the Cocoa Beach police force is high. William McDonald, who has been an officer for 11 years, has visited the licensed premises two or three times a week for 11 years and has never, at any time, seen any drug activity there. He has been called there by the owners several times (never for drugs) and has made some arrests for such offenses as drunk and disorderly, firearms, and assaults. In his opinion, none of the bars in the area are completely drug-free, but comparing this bar with others in the area, it is run better because the owners are more conscientious. Mr. Johnston has talked with him repeatedly about the effort made to keep drug activity out of the bar and considering the fact that the owners are not police, he feels they do a good job of it. So, too, does David E. Schoch, also a Cocoa Beach Police Officer who has gone into the Inner Room three to four times a week on duty and at least one night a week off duty for the past several months. In all that time, he has never seen drugs on the premises except one time when he was called there on duty. By the time he arrived, one of the owners and the bouncer had the situation under control and had confiscated some cocaine. He finds this bar to be one of the better and safer bars in the area due to the preventive actions of the management. He is convinced it is one of the more drug-free bars in the area due primarily to these efforts and considers that, considering their lack of training, the owners do a good job of it. Lamar L. Johnston has been a co-owner of the Inner Room with Jesse Crockett for 8 1/2 years. During that time, the bar has never been cited for any infractions of the beverage laws. He has what is to him a lot of money invested in this bar and to keep from losing it, he has worked hard and been through in indoctrinating his people on the no drug policy. He has published a list of employee rules which are made known to every employee at monthly meetings and are posted in the dancers' dressing room, behind the bar, and in the disc jockey booth. He keeps tabs not only on his employees but also on his clientele and if he sees someone in the bar who he knows to be involved in any type of illegal activity, he advises his bouncers to keep that person out. He personally patrols the bar on a regular basis each night and has his disc jockey, managers, 2 bouncers, and security men do the same. He requests the Police Department to come in on duty and has given off-duty policemen passes to come in without paying the admission charge. With the exception of the one occasion described by Officer McDonald, he has never seen any drugs in his club. With regard be the personnel he hires, he keeps tabs on all dancers in the area including as far away as Orlando and Daytona Beach, by real and stage names, who have been arrested or fired for prostitution or drugs. If one of these apply for work, he will not hire them. However, he contends he cannot prevent an employee from breaking a rule if that person is bent on doing so. All he can do is publicize the rules and warn his employees of the consequences of breaking them. He checks the dressing room six times a night and, recognizing that thirty pairs of eyes are better than one, put into effect the rule relating to firing employees who have knowledge of but fail to report drug activity. His bar is not brightly lighted because, in his experience, bar patrons do not like a brightly lighted bar. Because of that, he tries to patrol as much as possible. On top of that, his lounge caters to a higher element clientele such as engineers from Cape Kennedy Space Center, Administrators from Brevard Community College, and professional people. His bouncers are instructed to keep the lower element out and a dress code is enforced.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 21, 1981, Respondent, Ft. Myers Banana Boat, Inc., d/b/a Banana Boat, applied to enter the drawing for eight new quota liquor licenses for Lee County to be held on December 16, 1982. The application disclosed that Dykes J. Riggs and James G. Kincaid each owned fifty percent of the stock of the Respondent and served as president and secretary, respectively. On or about January 5, 1983, Respondent was notified that it had been selected in the drawing as one of the preliminary applicants. In late February or early March 1983, Respondent filed its application for licensure. The application again disclosed Dykes Riggs as president and James Kincaid as secretary. It added that Kincaid also served as treasurer. It omitted any reference to stock ownership. On or about July 22, 1983, Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), issued Respondent license number 46-1146, Series 4-COP, for the address 9100 South Cleveland Avenue, Ft. Myers. Because the location was unsuitable, Respondent, by letter dated August 5, 1983, requested the Division to place its license in escrow, and the escrow was "finalized" on or about January 31, 1984. The license remained in escrow until on or about November 30, 1984. While the license was in escrow, Riggs began to have serious doubts about the trustworthiness of Kincaid. In addition to their interests in Respondent, Riggs and Kincaid also had interests in two other licensed businesses--Boca Banana Boat, Inc., and The Banana Boat of Pompano, Inc. (A third individual, Don Litzenberger, also had an interest in the Boca Banana Boat, Inc.) Kincaid was suffering from acute alcoholism and was in heavy debt. Riggs was concerned that Kincaid would transfer his interest in Respondent or one of their other licensed businesses in order to satisfy a portion of his debts. Riggs was concerned about having a substitute business associate with whom he would have to work. Although not his primary concern, Riggs also was concerned that, by transferring his interest in Respondent, Kincaid would be violating Section 561.32(4), Florida Statutes (1983), and that Respondent would lose its license. Riggs also was concerned because Kincaid had told him of the pendency of administrative proceedings against Kincaid in connection with two other licenses in which Kincaid had an interest. Subsequently, Riggs learned that Kincaid had given a creditor named Wagner a power of attorney over all Kincaid's interests. Riggs did not like Wagner and suspected that Wagner was of bad moral character and may not be qualified for licensure by the Division. If disqualified for licensure, Wagner's interests in Respondent and the other licensed businesses in which Riggs and Kincaid had interests would jeopardize the licenses. In addition, a transfer of interest in Respondent from Kincaid to Wagner would violate Section 561.32(4), Florida Statutes (1983). During this period, Riggs also suspected that Kincaid was stealing money from the operation of The Banana Boat of Pompano, Inc. To deal with all of these business problems with Kincaid, Riggs had Kincaid's name taken off all bank accounts of the three licensed businesses in which they shared interests and refused to allow Kincaid any further say in the operation or the businesses or to review the books and records of any of the corporations through which the businesses were operated. Kincaid sued Riggs, Respondent and Boca Banana Boat, Inc., for damages. Riggs consulted with his attorney, Ernest Alexas, and decided to enter into a Settlement Agreement with Kincaid on or about June 29, 1984. Under the Settlement Agreement, Riggs would pay Kincaid $10,000, and Kincaid would "execute all necessary stock transfers, releases and other documents necessary" to "assign [to Riggs] all of his right, title and interest" in the three corporations through which Riggs and Kincaid operated licensed businesses, including Respondent. The documents were to be held in escrow by Alexas pending payment of $106,000 to Kincaid. The agreement then provided that the documents in escrow would be "delivered" to Riggs or the three corporations. The agreement also provided that Kincaid would dismiss his damage suits against Riggs, Respondent and Boca Banana Boat, Inc., and that Kincaid would resign "from all offices and positions as director held by him" in the three corporations, including Respondent. By September 18, 1984, the parties had performed all of the obligations under the June 29, 1984, Settlement Agreement. Kincaid had dismissed the damage suits. Boca Banana Boat, Inc., had pledged assets to secure a loan of $106,000, which was paid to Kincaid and Wagner. However, acting upon the advice of his attorney, Alexas, Riggs decided to instruct Alexas to continue to hold the documents in escrow for the time being. No decision was made whether Kincaid's stock should be placed in Riggs' name individually, placed in Respondent's name as treasury stock, placed partially in the name of Boca Banana Boat, Inc., or retired. In any case, Alexas advised Riggs that no violation of Section 561.32(4), Florida Statutes (1983), would occur unless the stock were transferred within the statutory three-year time period which was due to expire in approximately August 1986, to someone other than Riggs or to a corporation or partnership in which someone other than Riggs held an interest. Riggs himself was unclear exactly what Kincaid's relationship to Respondent was after September 18, 1984. Riggs' purpose in settling with Kincaid was to eliminate any and all control Kincaid might have over Respondent and the other corporations involved in the settlement. At the same time, Riggs thought Kincaid still should be obligated personally for his share of the debts of the corporations. Riggs hoped that, by leaving the documents in escrow and by not changing officers and directors on the corporate books, this would be accomplished. In November 1984, Riggs began the process of applying to have Respondent's license taken out of escrow and issued to a location at 865 San Carlos Boulevard, Ft. Myers Beach. On the application which Riggs signed, Riggs was listed as fifty percent stock owner and president. James G. Kincaid still was listed as fifty percent stock owner and secretary/treasurer. The Division took the license out of escrow, placed it at the new address and changed it to a Series 3-PS license. However, the Division did not prove that Riggs intended to mislead personnel of the Division in the performance of their official duty by referencing Kincaid on the application. First, the evidence was that Riggs was following the advice of his lawyer, Alexas, which he trusted and believed, that the elimination of Kincaid did not violate Section 561.32(4), and Riggs did not think there was any reason to mislead the Division by not disclosing the Settlement Agreement. Second, the evidence was that Division personnel helped Riggs' wife complete the application using information on prior applications, including Kincaid's interest. Finally, the evidence was that Riggs himself did not really know or understand Kincaid's precise legal status in relation to Respondent as of November 30, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a Final Order dismissing the Notice to Show Cause against Respondent, Ft. Myers Banana Boat, Inc., d/b/a Banana Boat, in this case. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of January 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of January 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2307 To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), rulings are made on the parties proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. But as to the second paragraph of proposed finding 4, only the date the application was filled out was in error in all likelihood; the substance and rest of Mrs. Riggs' testimony is accepted as true. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1-7. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, except that the first two-and-one-half lines of proposed finding 4, including the date "October of 1984," are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary except the date probably was November 29, 1984. First two sentences rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Sarnonski filled out part of the application and advised Mrs. Riggs how to fill out the rest, including the references to Kincaid, by reference to information in the prior application. Third sentence accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 12.-14. Subordinate and unnecessary. 15. Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Leslie T. Ahrenholz, Esquire Post Office Box 2656 Ft. Myers Beach, Florida 33931 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty on six counts of charging an advance fee for the listing of time-share estates for sale, in violation of Section 721.20(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of Arkansas and was authorized by the Florida Secretary of State to transact business in the State of Florida from November 1991 through December 1997. Respondent's main office is now located in Mountain Home, Arkansas. Respondent's credit card terminals are in Arkansas. Respondent has an escrow and operating account in Mountain Home, Arkansas. Respondent hired Jack McClure to open and operate its Florida office. Jack McClure held a Florida real estate broker's license. National Resort Mart conducted business from its Florida office in Kissimmee, Florida, until McClure's death in December 1997. Respondent opened and maintained escrow and operating accounts in Florida from 1992 through 1997 for its Florida business. The Florida office was limited to the activities of time-share real estate sales. The Respondent did not list time- shares, nor collect any advance fees for listing time-shares at its Kissimmee, Florida, branch office. Global Title Company of Naples, Florida, conducts the closings for Respondent for the majority of their Florida time- share sales. Respondent advertised its Florida office in its direct mail brochure, sent to Florida time-share owners, with the statement: "Our Orlando office is situated only seven miles from Disney World." Ms. Valnecia Williams of Madison, Florida, owns a time- share unit at Cypress Point Resorts in Central Florida. Williams received a mailed "brochure" from Respondent's home office which advised her that Respondent was in the business of buying and selling time-shares. Based on the Respondent's direct mail flyer, Williams called the Kissimmee, Florida, telephone number to find out information related to her listing. Apparently, the call was automatically switched to the home office. She received some initial information. Several weeks later she called the Respondent's Arkansas office and talked to a different salesperson. Williams agreed to list her time-share, Cypress Pointe Resort, Unit 5206, Week 37, with Respondent on March 5, 1997, at an asking price of $12,9000 in an open listing for a period of a year. Consideration was in the form of a seven percent of gross sale of the unit, or a $750 minimum commission, to be paid to Respondent at the closing of the sale. Respondent charged an advance fee of $439 from Ms. Williams of Madison, Florida, at the time she listed her Florida time-share period at Cypress Point Resort for sale with Respondent. Williams authorized Scott Fisher, Respondent's salesperson in Arkansas to charge the refundable advertising and marketing fee of $439 to Williams' USAA Federal Savings Bank charge card. Williams was not pleased with the service provided by Respondent and, on or about July 28, 1997, demanded a refund from the Respondent. Sometime within the next two months Respondent complied with the request and refunded the fee by crediting Williams' charge card with the same amount. Kim Collins of Faith, North Carolina, owns a time-share unit at Westgate Lakes, Orlando, Florida. Collins received brochures from Respondent's home office seeking a listing for her time-share unit in Florida, approximately one year later. Collins called Respondent at an "800" number which was automatically forwarded to Respondent's main office in Arkansas. Eventually, Collins decided to use Respondent's services and borrowed the money from her mother to pay the advance fee and sign the listing contract. Respondent collected an advance fee from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Collins of Faith, North Carolina, of $439 at the time they listed their Florida time-share period at Westgate Lakes, Orlando, for sale with Respondent, by mail and check to the Respondent's main office in Arkansas. Collins' time-share has been listed for sale with Respondent since July 1, 1996. Dan Coffey of Jacksonville, Florida, owns a time-share unit at Orange Lake in Central Florida. Coffey received a brochure from Respondent's home office and called for more information. Coffey agreed to list his unit for sale with Respondent on October 14, 1996, at a negotiable price of $12,900. Respondent collected an advance fee from Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Coffey of Jacksonville, Florida, of $439 at the time they listed their Florida time-share period of Orange Lake Resort, Orlando, Florida, for sale with Respondent. In like manner, Respondent collected an advance fee from Mr. and Mrs. Rick Rogers of Maumee, Ohio, at the time they listed their Florida time-share period with Respondent. Respondent also collected an advance fee from Mr. and Mrs. Donald Gordon of Pensacola, Florida, at the time they listed their Florida time-share period with Respondent. Respondent collected an advance fee from Mr. and Mrs. William Budai of Duquesne, Pennsylvania, of $539 at the time they listed their Florida time-share period at Westgate Villas, Kissimmee, Florida, for sale with Respondent. The contract signed by each complainant was titled "Listing Agreement." The Listing Agreement between the time- share owner of the Florida unit and Respondent was for the listing of their time-share for sale for a percent of gross sale of the unit to be paid at the closing, with an advance fee payable immediately. All transactions between the owners and Respondent were made through the Respondent's home office in Arkansas. No advance fee was collected within the boundaries of the State of Florida. Complainants Collins and Coffey did not receive refunds of the advance fees they paid to Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, enter a final order that: Finds Respondent guilty of six violations of Section 721.20(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent pay a penalty of $10,000 per violation for each of the six violations, to be paid within thirty (30) days of the entry of the final order. That Respondent refund $439 each to Kim Collins and Daniel Coffey, to be paid within thirty (30) days of the entry of the final order. That Respondent cease and desist from collecting advance fees for the listing of time-share periods for Florida residents and/or Florida time-share units. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 20th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Denise O'Brien, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James H. Gillis, Esquire James H. Gillis Associates, P.A. 8424 Pamlico Street Tallahassee, Florida 32817-1514 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Philip Nowick, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condos, and Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Mr. Ernest Pierce was the principal at Seminole Elementary School for the 1976-77 school year. Respondent Johnson began as a physical education teacher at Seminole Elementary School in the fall of 1976, after working for petitioner as a teacher in secondary schools for eleven years. Discouraged by what he perceived as a demotion, respondent was repeatedly absent from school. On August 30, 1976, respondent's sister telephoned at 8:10 am., ten minutes after teachers at Seminole Elementary School are expected to report for work, with the news that respondent would be absent. The following day, she telephoned at 7:50 a.m., again to say that respondent would be absent. Mr. Pierce told her that he needed to know by 2:00 p.m. the day before of an impending absence, if possible. The next three days in succession, September 1- 3, 1976, respondent continued to be absent from work. When respondent returned to work, Mr. Pierce discussed with him personally the importance of notifying the school as promptly as possible whenever it was necessary for him to be absent and of notifying the school when an absence would last longer than a single day. On October 4, 1976, respondent was absent from school and the school was not notified beforehand. On November 22, 1976, respondent's sister notified the school that he would be absent that day. Respondent's absence extended beyond November 22, 1976, even though the school received no notice that it would. After this absence, Dr. Douglas McBriarty, petitioner's Director of Instructional Personnel, Mr. Pierce and respondent had a conference about respondent's absenteeism, and respondent was again told the importance of notifying the school with respect to each day he had to be absent. On December 7, 1976, respondent's sister telephoned the school to report that respondent was not coming to work that day. In fact, respondent never came to work again. Mr. Pierce heard nothing further from him until February when two keys arrived at the school. In the meantime, petitioner had suspended respondent. Respondent was also absent on August 18, 1976, when Ms. Brenda Smith Clark, a resource teacher for elementary physical education, presided over a staff development meeting. Ms. Clark occasionally observed respondent's classes, and is of the opinion that respondent delegated too much work to an assistant who helped with the kindergarten physical education class.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, and in view of the fact that respondent has indicated, in a posthearing pleading, that he has "no desire to work for the Pinellas School Board," it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Nall, Esquire Post Office Box 5069 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Mr. Calvin Johnson 1151 Kingsley Street Clearwater, Florida 33516
