The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a real estate salesman on or about January 22, 1991. Respondent denied Petitioner's application on or about April 25, 1991. The sole basis for Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application was Petitioner's status as a defendant in multiple civil lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Petitioner voluntarily stated in answer to Question 8(b) on his application that he was a defendant in those suits. The lawsuits at issue arose from the failure of Centrust Savings Bank. Petitioner was President of Centrust Savings from sometime in February, 1988, to sometime in July, 1989. Petitioner served on the Board of Directors of Centrust from sometime in August, 1987, to sometime in July, 1989. The lawsuits allege that Petitioner and other officers and directors of Centrust breached their fiduciary duties to the corporation and violated federal securities laws. The allegations against Petitioner in the law suits at issue are nothing more than allegations in civil suits. Petitioner has motions to dismiss in each law suit. There has been no judicial determination or finding of wrongdoing by Petitioner in any of the law suits in which Petitioner is a named defendant. The uncontroverted evidenced established that Petitioner is an honest, truthful, and trustworthy individual. Petitioner is of good moral character and has an impeccable reputation for honesty and fair dealing in the business community.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of January 1992. DANIEL MANRY 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 23rd day of January 1992.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a community association manager by examination should be approved.
Findings Of Fact By application dated January 3, 1998, Jerry George Sardone, Jr. (Petitioner), made application for licensure as a community association manager by examination. Petitioner's application was received by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Managers (Respondent), on or about January 15, 1998. A section entitled "ESSENTIAL INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS" was located on the first page of the application. The section provided, among other things, the following: Pursuant to Rule 61B-55.004(5)(a)5.[sic], Florida Administrative Code, failing to provide full and complete disclosure or failing to provide accurate information on this application for licensure or in materials subsequently provided to the Division [Division of Professions] will result in the denial of this application. Question numbered 17 of the application inquired, among other things, about Petitioner's criminal background. Question numbered 17 stated in pertinent part: C) Criminal * * * 2. Have you ever been convicted or been found guilty of a felony or misdemeanor, entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony or misdemeanor? Yes ( ) No ( ) This question applies to any violation of the laws of any state, territory or country without regard to whether the matter is under appeal or you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, were paroled or pardoned. Petitioner checked "no" to the above inquiry. If an applicant checked "yes" to the above inquiry, the applicant was required to respond to additional inquiries regarding the applicant's criminal background. One of the additional inquiries involved the outcome of the criminal situation, and one of the possible outcomes listed was "Charges Dismissed (Nol Pros entered)." By letter dated March 5, 1998, Respondent notified Petitioner that, among other things, his application was deficient. The deficiency indicated was that the criminal history received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicated that Petitioner had a criminal history that he had not revealed on his application. The letter indicated the specific criminal history as follows: Specifically, you [Petitioner] were arrested on April 21, 1980 by the Sheriff's Office, West Palm Beach, Florida and charged with Failure to Appear for Arraignment/Resisting Arrest with Violence. You were arrested on November 15, 1988 by the County Police, Mineola, New York, and charged with Driving While Intoxicated. You were arrested on December 30, 1988 by the County Police, Mineola, New York, and charged with Burglary Second Degree, and Criminal Possession of a Weapon. The disposition of these incidents are either unclear or not known. The letter requested, among other things, certain information regarding the arrests, including disposition, within 60 days. By letter dated April 7, 1998, Petitioner responded to Respondent's letter dated March 5, 1998. Petitioner provided certified copies of the courts' disposition records regarding the arrests in Respondent's letter dated March 5, 1998. Petitioner also indicated in his letter that he had mistakenly recalled that the charges were dismissed and, therefore, had not included them on his application. By letter dated May 6, 1998, Respondent notified Petitioner of its intent to deny his application for licensure based upon Petitioner's failure to establish that he possessed good moral character. Respondent indicated, among other things, the basis for its determination that Petitioner lacked good moral character, namely, Petitioner's failure to include any arrests on his application, his arrest record, and his response that he submitted to the arrest record. As to the arrest and charge on April 21, 1980, Petitioner pled guilty on June 23, 1980, to and was convicted of failure to appear for arraignment and a lesser charge of resisting arrest without violence. Adjudication was withheld and Petitioner was sentenced to six months probation. As to the arrest and charge on November 15, 1988, Petitioner pled guilty on January 5, 1989, to and was convicted of a lesser charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. Petitioner was ordered to pay $250 or spend five days in jail, and his license was ordered revoked. As to the arrest and charge on December 30, 1988, Petitioner pled guilty on July 21, 1989, to and was convicted of a lesser charge of attempted petit larceny. The disposition was a conditional discharge.2 Respondent included another arrest in its letter dated May 6, 1998, which was not indicated in its letter dated March 5, 1998. The arrest occurred on December 9, 1984, when Petitioner was arrested by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department in Florida and charged with willful and wanton reckless driving. The disposition of that arrest was not established at hearing. It is undisputed that Petitioner failed to include any of the criminal history on his application for licensure. Even if Petitioner thought that the charges were dismissed, as he indicated in his response letter, the application provided Petitioner an opportunity to list the charges and to indicate that they were dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Managers, enter a final order denying the application of Jerry George Sardone, Jr., for licensure as a community association manager by examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 29th day of April, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida, Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Johnny Johnson (Johnson), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer for approximately three years, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Johnson. Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Johnson had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. 3/ By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Johnson and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Johnson filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Johnson denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency record, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a preemployment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Johnson on May 14, 1985, at which time he admitted that he had used marijuana on two occasions. At that time he estimated the date he last used marijuana to have been 1972; however, the proof demonstrates that he misapprehended the date of last usage, and that the proper date was December 1970. His last use consisted of "passing a joint" ,with some college friends when he was 23 years of age. Prior to that, he had used marijuana once while a solider in Vietnam. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Johnson's background, that Johnson possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on his isolated use of marijuana over 18 years ago. The Commission's action is unwarranted. Here, Johnson used marijuana two times, the last time being over 18 years ago when he was 23 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Currently, Johnson has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for approximately three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Prior to his employment as a corrections officer, Johnson was employed as an administrative assistant by Dade County, Department of County and Economic Development, for two and one-half years. He has been certified as a substitute teacher in Dade County since 1982, and has been a member of the Air Force Reserve for three years, with several letters of commendation Overall, Johnson has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Johnny Johnson, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1989.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 943.13(7) and 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B- 27.0011(4)(a) and (b), 2/ by failing to maintain good moral character; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers in the state. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to certificate number 93245 and Auxiliary Law Enforcement certificate number 93246. In 1995, Respondent was employed by the Cocoa Police Department, Cocoa, Florida. On February 8, 1995, Respondent entered the residence of Ms. Rashwanda Pace Anderson ("Ms. Pace"), his former girlfriend, on two separate occasions. Respondent had no authority to enter the premises on either occasion. On the second occasion, Respondent committed battery against Ms. Pace. The battery caused physical injury that resulted in swelling around one eye but did not require medical attention. Prior to February 1995, Respondent was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Pace. However, the relationship had recently ended. After the relationship ended, Respondent harassed Ms. Pace. On one occasion, he was forced from the Walmart where Ms. Pace worked, and Ms. Pace had to be escorted to her vehicle. On February 8, 1995, Mr. Reginald Devoe visited Ms. Pace at her mother's home in Rockledge, Florida, where Ms. Pace resided. The telephone rang. Ms. Pace answered the phone and recognized Respondent's voice. She said, "I don't want you no more. Stop calling the house. I have company." She then terminated the conversation. The telephone rang again. Ms. Pace answered the phone, said, "No," and hung up the receiver. Shortly afterward, Ms. Pace heard the sound of an automobile horn outside. She looked out the window and saw Respondent. Respondent came to the door. Ms. Pace was afraid. She did not answer the door. She ran into her bedroom and locked the bedroom door. Mr. Devoe went into the bathroom. Respondent entered the residence without authority and went into the bathroom with Mr. Devoe. Respondent told Mr. Devoe that Respondent was Ms. Pace's boyfriend. Respondent then went to the bedroom door behind which Ms. Pace was hiding. Respondent hit the door and told Ms. Pace to come out. Ms. Pace did not come out of the bedroom. After a short discussion with Mr. Devoe, Respondent left the house. Mr. Devoe also left shortly thereafter. Respondent drove his car to an adjoining street and parked his car so that it could not be seen by Ms. Pace. He knew that Ms. Pace would not let Respondent into her residence. Respondent approached Ms. Pace's residence across the backyard of another house. He entered Ms. Pace's residence through the back door. Ms. Pace was getting ready for work. She heard someone come through the back door. She looked around the corner and saw Respondent. Respondent and Ms. Pace went to the front room of the house. An altercation ensued. Respondent grabbed Ms. Pace and shoved her. The telephone rang. Respondent answered the phone. The caller was Mrs. Marjorie Pace, Ms. Pace's mother. Mrs. Pace heard her daughter screaming and asked to speak to her. Respondent hung up the receiver. Mrs. Pace called back. Ms. Pace answered the telephone and said, "He's in here beating me up. He's beating me up." Respondent then telephoned the Rockledge City Police. He stated that he and his girlfriend had been involved in an altercation and requested that an officer be dispatched. Ms. Pace ran out the front door of the house and met Officers Klayman and Pirson. She had swelling around one eye but did not require medical treatment. Respondent had no visible injuries.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 943.13(7) and 943.1395(6), not guilty of violating Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(a), guilty of violating Section 943.1395(7), guilty of violating Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and suspending Respondent's certificate for a period consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner made application to the Respondent for the grant of a Class "M" license related to service as an office manager. Consideration of this application was in accordance with Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Having reviewed the application, Respondent decided to deny the request. The stated authority for denial included Section 493.319(1)(f), Florida Statutes, through the contention that the Petitioner was guilty of fraud or deceit, or of negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of his business for which a license was held. Further, the decision to deny was based upon an alleged problem with Section 493.306(2)(b), Florida Statutes, in that Petitioner was said to be lacking in good moral character, on the belief that there was a substantial connection between the reputed lack of good moral character and the business for which the license was being sought and based upon the opinion that the denial for reasons of lack of good moral character was supported by clear and convincing evidence. In particular, the alleged factual basis for this denial was: The records of the Respondent indicated that Petitioner had an outstanding debt, an administrative fine which was owed to the Department in the claimed amount of $1,600. The Petitioner's Class "A" and "B" agencies, Ross Detective Agency and Ross Security Patrol Agency, respectively, had been closed by the Internal Revenue Service and the Florida Workman's Compensation agency and the Internal Revenue Service had filed liens against the applicant's bank account and/or assets. Petitioner did not accept the denial and requested a formal 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. The matter was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings and a hearing officer was assigned. On February 4, 1986, the formal hearing was conducted to consider the dispute between the parties. While Respondent held Class "A," "B" and "C" licenses issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, an administrative complaint was brought against him by the Respondent. The allegations of the complaint dealt with alleged conduct on the part of employees of the Respondent in the licensed business, having to do with being on duty without possession of identification cards within the meaning of Section 493.311(4), Florida Statutes; the failure of certain security guards employed by the Respondent to possess Class "G" licenses while on duty; certain security guards being employed by the Respondent not having possession of Class "D" licenses while on duty; and the failure of the Respondent to have a disclosure notice posted in a conspicuous place in his principal place of business. In the face of this complaint, Respondent requested an informal hearing by completion of an election of rights form on February 24, 1984. This request was in accordance with the terms of Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. The informal hearing was held on July 6, 1984, in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent was represented by counsel in that matter. Following the conduct of the informal hearing, a final order was entered by the Respondent in this cause fining the Petitioner in this action $2,200 for the several violations found. That final order dates from February 22, 1985. A copy of the final order may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. Prior counsel to the Petitioner in this cause was provided a copy of the February 22, 1985 final order. Although Petitioner is aware that he fines are outstanding, he has yet to pay the fines. Having not received payment of the fines, the Respondent in this action brought a case against the present Petitioner related to Petitioner's Class "A," "B," "C" and "G" licenses seeking the suspension of those licenses pending the payment of the $2,200 in fines which had been imposed. The date of this complaint is April 5, 1985. A copy of the complaint is found as Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. Petitioner requested a formal hearing in the matter of the suspension case of April 5, 1985. The Respondent agency being of the opinion that the present Petitioner had not made a timely request for hearing, on April 30, 1985, it entered a final order suspending the various categories of licenses held by the Petitioner pending the payment of the outstanding $2,200 in fines. That suspension would end upon the expiration of the present Petitioner's license terms, provided the payment of the fines had not occurred in the interim. A copy of this final order may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence. Effective February 22, 1985, the present Petitioner owed the Respondent $2,200 in fines. No appeal was taken from that final order and the fines remain in force and effect. Whether the present Petitioner made a timely request for formal hearing in the action seeking his suspension for nonpayment of the fines and whether the suspension should have been imposed by final order are not relevant to the questions raised by the present application for Class "M" license. It is the failure to render payment for the fines that forms the basis of denial of the application, not the idea of suspension. The imposition of the fines relates to Petitioner's conduct in the practice of his business associated with the licenses he held under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. The violations for which he was fined shows the Petitioner to be lacking in good moral character and this lack of good moral character continues with the nonpayment of the administrative fines. Petitioner's Class "B" license has been voluntarily placed in an inactive status pending the collection of taxes by the Internal Revenue Service. The exact status of the Class "A" license is not apparent. Petitioner at present works for the New Dawn security agency, a Class "B" agency. He has worked there since bay 1985 dealing with contractual matters of that agency and going to job sites, coordinating and supervising and filling in for security guards. New Dawn is an agency owned by the Petitioner's son. The evidence does not reveal that the Internal Revenue Service has closed down the Ross Detective Agency and Ross Security Patrol Agency related to the Petitioner's Class "A" and "8" licenses. Petitioner has made an arrangement with the Internal Revenue Service to use funds which his various businesses had earned in government jobs, totaling some $106,000, to satisfy obligations which the Petitioner has with the Internal Revenue Service. The amount of money owed to the Internal Revenue Service is $48,000. Some of that obligation has been satisfied. This collection process may have been instituted following the placement of a lien, but that is not clear from the facts in this record. The record does not reveal that the Petitioner had liens placed against his businesses by the Florida Workman's Compensation agency. In his testimony, Petitioner indicated that he did not owe the Workman's Compensation agency any money. Petitioner's involvement with the Internal Revenue Service and Florida Workman's Compensation agency has not been proven to constitute any form of fraud or deceit, negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of his business or does not reveal lack of good moral character, based upon the hearing record in this case. Petitioner had otherwise qualified to gain licensure, but for the concerns expressed in the statement of denial.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, John Hawks (Hawks), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Hawks. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Hawks had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of Section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Hawks and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly cultivated and delivered cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Hawks filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Hawks denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Hawks on January 25, 1985, at which time he admitted that he had, three years previously, grown four marijuana plants which he had given away, and that he had on another occasion, three years previously, delivered one ounce of marijuana to a friend. The circumstances surrounding these incidents were further developed at hearing. There, the proof demonstrated that in or about 1982, Hawks was employed by the Metro-Dade Water and Sewer Authority on a survey crew. While working in the field, Hawks stumbled upon a marijuana plant, which was identified to him by a coworker. Having never seen a marijuana plant before, Hawks took 3-4 seeds back to his home and planted them to see what they would do. What they did, following his fertilization, was die when they had matured to the stature of approximately one inch. Following their death, Hawks permitted a coworker to take the plants. Regarding his delivery of one ounce of marijuana, the proof demonstrates that in or about 1982, Hawks was about to go to Broward County to visit a friend when another friend, aware of the pending visit, asked him to deliver a package to the same friend. Hawks did so, and after delivering the package learned for the first time that it contained one ounce of marijuana. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Hawks' background, that Hawks possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing isolated incidences. The Commission's proposed action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Hawks, born November 13, 1957, delivered a package which contained, unbeknownst to him, one ounce of marijuana and grew four marijuana plans to a stature of approximately one inch approximately 7 years ago. Considering the nature of such acts, their isolation and lack of timeliness to the pending application, and Hawks' age at the time, they are hardly persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Hawks has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Hawks has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, John Hawks, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed certified public accountant in the State of Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The Respondent's license number is AC 20884 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The information filed by the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, in Case No. CRC-88-16361-CFANO-A, alleged that the Respondent unlawfully did solicit Detective Rick Shaw to commit the offense of murder in the first degree, an offense prohibited by Section 782.04(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and in the course of such solicitation, did command, urge, hire, or request the Mr. Shaw to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such offense or an attempt to commit such offense, to wit: to unlawfully and from a premeditated design effect the death of Zena Leider, a human being, contrary to Section 777.04(2), Florida Statutes (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On or about December 4, 1989, the Respondent was convicted in Case No. CRC-88-16361-CFANO-A of one count of solicitation to commit murder in the first degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On or about December 4, 1989, the Respondent was sentenced to be committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections to be imprisoned for a term of 17 years. After serving a period 12 years, the balance of the sentence shall be suspended; and he will be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Daniel Hevia, CPA, was accepted as an expert in the profession of accountancy and testified concerning that profession (Transcript, pg. 24). Accountancy is based upon professional judgment, both technical and ethical. People practicing accountancy must have good ethics and a strong character because of the types of judgments which have to be made in the profession (Transcript, pg. 26). Accountants have to have mature judgment and maintain good mental stability because the public places a great deal of trust in CPA's (Transcript, pg. 27). Good moral character means a personal history of honest, fairness, respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the State of Florida and the nation (Transcript, pg. 25). The Respondent's conviction shows a lack of good judgment and an absence of ethics and good character which adversely effect the Respondent's ability to practice public accounting (Transcript, pg. 42). In the opinion of Mr. Hevia, the Respondent violated Section 473.323(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Transcript, pgs. 28 and 30).
Recommendation Having proved that the Respondent has violated Section 473.323(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to maintain good moral character; and having proved that the Respondent has violated Section 473.323(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by being convicted of a crime relating to his ability to practice public accounting, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-6424 The Respondent did not file proposed findings of fact. The Petitioner filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following proposed findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons stated: 1-10. Adopted. 11-12. Rejected, as repetitive and cumulative. 13-14. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Martha Willis Executive Director Board of Accountancy Department of Professional Regulation 4001 Northwest 43rd Street Suite 16 Gainesville, FL 32606 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Tobi C. Pam, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 David S. Leider D.C. #118606 Sumter Correctional Institution P.O. Box 667 Bushnell, FL 33513-0667
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 27, 1989, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1968, Respondent, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, was issued Certificate Number GF-101468 and is currently certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer. On Friday, March 11, 1988, Respondent reported to work at the Metro- Dade Police Department, although ill and exhausted. Respondent had been suffering from an acute bronchial and strep throat-type condition prior to and including March 11, 1988 and had taken medication to combat the illness. Respondent left work early on March 11, 1988 with approval of his supervisor and, although feeling conjested, stopped by Sears department store on his way home to inspect a miniature freezer for his wife's vending business. He purchased the freezer on his Sears credit card which he had with him. Respondent, who was dressed in plain clothes, was carrying a shiny, leather, black briefcase with no handle which weighed a considerable amount and was cumbersome. The briefcase contained his weapon, handcuffs, bullets and miscellaneous paperwork. Respondent, after purchasing the freezer, did some browsing, as is his custom, looking for gadgets. The security personnel for Sears noticed Respondent and began monitoring his activities. At some point Respondent picked up a screwdriver item. Respondent placed the screwdriver under his arm, between the briefcase and his body, to free his hand in order to look at other items. He went to an available check out counter and paid cash for the screwdriver. He returned to the merchandise area to look over some retractable clothesline which had caught his attention for use in his townhouse. He selected the item but was having a difficult time handling his briefcase and the slippery, plastic carded clothesline. He remembered that he needed some T- shirts to wear under his uniform. Again, to free a hand to look at the T- shirts, he placed the clothesline in the bag which contained the screwdriver with the intent of paying for the clothesline at the time he purchased the T- shirts. Respondent left the hardware area of the store in search of the T- shirts when he began to feel nauseous. Fearing that he would vomit in the store, he decided to step outside. In his distraught condition, Respondent stepped outside the store without paying for the clothesline. While Respondent was attempting to compose himself and almost immediately after he walked out of the store, he was approached by Fred Ponce of Sears security. Mr. Ponce identified himself to Respondent and searched Respondent's bag of purchases which contained the clothesline. Respondent then realized he had, unwittingly, not paid for the item and remarked concerning the mistake. The item in question had a retail value of $7.99, at the time of the incident, and Respondent had the cash and credit with him in an amount sufficient to cover the purchase. Respondent was observed to be nervous, sweating and not looking well. Respondent was asked by Mr. Ponce to accompany him back to the security office inside the store, which Respondent did without incident. Once inside the security office Respondent identified himself as a police officer, requested water and asked to speak to the store manager, Mr. Stephens. After speaking to the store manager, Respondent notified the Metro Dade Police Department about the incident. Prior to leaving, Respondent was presented with a form, incident report for him to sign. The form language contained the following statement, "I had no intention of paying for this article." Respondent did not read the form carefully since he was under the impression, from what he was told by Sears' security personnel, that the form was merely an administrative report which he was required to acknowledge before he left. Feeling ill, distressed about the event and anxious to return to his work to speak with his supervisors, Respondent signed the form. Respondent then returned to the Metro-Dade Police Department to personally discuss the incident with his superiors. Respondent is a 21 year veteran of the Metro-Dade Police Department. At the time of the incident, he was assigned to the warehouse section of the Property and Evidence Bureau and was responsible for the accountability of millions of dollars of confiscated property including cash, drugs and jewelry. In the 3 years Respondent was so assigned, all inventory audits, which were done on a quarterly basis checked out. Respondent has a reputation in the community for honesty and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Training Commission issue a Final Order dismissing the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of February 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner’s request for exemption from employment disqualification should be granted.
Findings Of Fact In July 1998, Petitioner held a position with the James E. Scott Community Association (Association) as a caretaker for juveniles. Petitioner had been employed with the Association since 1995. In July 1998, the Association, as a provider facility for Respondent, submitted a Request for Preliminary FCIC/NCIC and DHSMV Screening Check package (Screening Package) on Petitioner to the Respondent's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Included in the Screening Package was an Affidavit of Good Moral Character (Affidavit). Petitioner executed the Affidavit on July 13, 1998. Petitioner indicated on the Affidavit that she had no disqualifying offenses that would deem her ineligible to work in direct contact with juveniles. The disqualifying offenses were enumerated on the Affidavit. The offense pertinent to Petitioner was an offense of Chapter 812, Florida Statutes, relating to theft, robbery and related crimes, if the offense was a felony. The OIG conducted a review of Petitioner's criminal history. OIG's review revealed that Petitioner had potential disqualifying criminal offenses. Her criminal record contained seven arrests by the Metro-Dade Police Department from 1975 to 1995, which were as follows: October 10, 1975, arrested and charged with shoplifting and fraud (insufficient funds check (IFC)). December 15, 1978, arrested and charged with shoplifting, felony; shoplifting; fraud (IFC); and a nonmoving traffic violation. December 10, 1983, arrested and charged with shoplifting, reduced to funds check, felony. April 18, 1984, arrested and charged with fraud (IFC), felony; fraud (IFC), misdemeanor; and larceny, grand, second degree. November 17, 1984, arrested and charged with shoplifting, petty. November 9, 1985, arrested and charged with larceny, grand. March 3, 1995, arrested and charged with fraud, welfare; and larceny, grand. By letter dated July 23, 1998, the supervisor of Respondent's Background Screening Unit notified Petitioner of the potential disqualification. Further, the Screening Unit's supervisor requested Petitioner to provide certified police reports and judicial dispositions on the arrests. Petitioner complied with the request and submitted certified documents regarding the arrests. The documents indicated that Petitioner's arrests in 1984, 1985, and 1995 for grand theft were disqualifying in nature because they involved violations of Chapter 812, Florida Statutes. Such violations were indicated in the Affidavit as being disqualifying offenses. Regarding the arrest on April 18, 1984, Petitioner, along with another person, exited a department store with clothing items for which she had not paid. The value of the clothing items was $630. The court made a finding of guilt, withheld adjudication, and imposed probation. As to the arrest on November 9, 1985, Petitioner and another person exited a department store with clothing for which they had paid. Petitioner's vehicle was searched, and additional clothing from a second department store was discovered. The court made a finding of guilt, withheld adjudication, and imposed probation and community control. Regarding the arrest on March 7, 1995, Petitioner and an accomplice received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits and Food Stamp benefits for which they were not entitled from August 1993 through August 1994. The value of the AFDC benefits was $3,111 and the Food Stamps benefits was $6,856. Petitioner pled guilty, and the court made a finding of guilt and adjudicated her guilty and, among other things, imposed probation, community service, and restitution. In completing the Affidavit, Petitioner had no intent to deceive. Petitioner’s employer advised Petitioner to complete the Affidavit indicating that she had no disqualifying offenses. However, the responsibility was upon Petitioner to complete the Affidavit and to complete it accurately and honestly. She should have known to indicate on the Affidavit that she had a disqualifying offense. Respondent reviewed the information. Respondent determined that Petitioner was ineligible for continued employment in a position of special trust or responsibility. By letter dated April 6, 1999, the Screening Unit’s supervisor notified Petitioner that she was ineligible based on the dispositions of the arrests on April 18, 1984, and March 7, 1995, and that she could request an exemption from disqualification. The Association was also notified simultaneously of Petitioner’s ineligibility and was instructed to immediately remove her from direct contact with juveniles. The Association removed Petitioner from direct contact with juveniles. Petitioner requested an informal exemption hearing, which was held on May 14, 1999. The hearing was conducted by a committee of three individuals, who only had the authority to make a recommendation to Respondent’s Inspector General who had final decision-making authority. In a report dated June 7, 1999, two of the committee’s members recommended that Petitioner’s exemption be denied, one member recommended granting the exemption. On May 14, 1999, Petitioner also executed a corrected Affidavit, indicating that she had disqualifying offenses. The committee’s recommendation and Petitioner’s file, along with the corrected Affidavit was forwarded to Respondent’s Inspector General. After reviewing the recommendation, the file, and the Affidavit, the Inspector General denied Petitioner’s request for exemption on June 9, 1999. By letter dated June 11, 1999, the Inspector General notified Petitioner that her request for exemption was denied. Respondent’s Inspector General denied Petitioner’s exemption because she failed to accurately complete the Affidavit; because of her recent conviction of welfare fraud and grand theft, regarding the March 7, 1995, arrest; and because she had not completed her obligations for the conviction of welfare fraud and grand theft. At the time of the denial and the hearing, Petitioner had not completed her probation, which would end in April 2000, and Petitioner had not paid restitution. Petitioner has performed in an exemplary manner during her employment with the Association. Petitioner’s witness provided support as to her good moral character. However, even Petitioner’s witness stated that Petitioner is unable to show good moral character until she completes her probation and pays restitution. Petitioner presented letters to support her position of good moral character. Respondent concedes that Petitioner does not present a threat to juveniles.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order denying Earline Johnson an exemption from disqualification of employment to work in a position of special trust or responsibility with it. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Earline Johnson 1788 Northwest 58th Street Miami, Florida 33142-2422 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Inspector General’s Office 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue Whether Petitioner should he permitted to take the CPA examination for licensure with the State Board of Accountancy. The Petitioner appeared at the hearing without legal counsel and therefore was advised as to his rights in administrative proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. He indicated that he understood these rights and desired to represent himself during the proceedings.
Findings Of Fact On February 2, 1978, Respondent received from the Petitioner an application for permission to take the certified public accountant examination for state licensure. In answer to question 15 of the application form as to whether he had been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, Petitioner answered "Yes" and submitted an accompanying letter which stated that he had been convicted on a plea of guilty to a charge of accepting a gratuity and that he had received a suspended sentence with two years probation. He further noted in the letter that although he was a member of the New York Bar during that period, no action had been taken against him for disciplinary reasons by chat organization and that he had' lived a clean and exemplary life since that time. Three individuals certified on Petitioner's application as to his good moral character and integrity, and he listed three others who would submit character references on request. (Exhibits 1-2) On May 1, 1973, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 70Cr.653, Petitioner, upon his plea of guilty, was convicted of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 201 and 2 in that being a public official, to wit, a Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly and indirectly, did ask, demand, exact, solicit, seek, accept, receive and agree to receive things of value, to wit $2,000, because of official acts to be performed by him in connection with an investigation." Petitioner was sentenced to a two-year period of confinement which was suspended and was placed on probation for like period. (Exhibit 4) Incident to its processing of Petitioner's application, Respondent received a letter from his probation officer stating that court records indicated Petitioner had been "seriously involved over a long period of time in numerous bribery and attempted bribery situations while working as a special agent for the IRS." However, the officer stated that petitioner had presented no problems while on supervision, made a satisfactory adjustment, and was terminated from probation on April 30, 1975. (Exhibit 4) Respondent's executive director testified that no inquiry had been made into the character references supplied by Petitioner on his application due to the fact than the amount of time to process applications for the May examination did not provide sufficient time to do so. However, he also testified that such references are not routinely investigated in processing applications. By letter of March 4, 1978, Petitioner was advised by Respondent that his application to take the May, 1978, CPA examination had been denied for failure to comply with Section 473.08(1)(c), F.S., in that "you were convicted on charges of `accepting a gratuity as an IRS agent, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 201(g)'." (Testimony of Thompson) Petitioner testified that he served as an investigative agent in the Internal Revenue Service for a period of seventeen years prior to his retirement for medical disability. He conceded that he was asked to resign from that employment due to the fact that he was being investigated for some 20 to 30 alleged instances of activities similar to that for which he was convicted. He was employed by accounting firms in New York for a number of years prior and subsequent to his employment with the Internal Revenue Service. He has been employed with an accounting firm in Florida since February, 1978. In 1974, he served as Chancellor, Knights of Pythias, in New York. He believes that he has been rehabilitated and should be permitted to take the State CPA examination. (Testimony of Kronish, Exhibit 1) Respondent does not have a consistent position on dealing with applications involving prior convictions, but considers each case on its individual merits. In cases where an application has been denied for such a reason, Respondent normally permits the applicant to appear before it personally if he files a second application. (Testimony of Thompson)
Recommendation That Petitioner Harry T. Kronish be permitted to take the next examination for the purpose of determining whether he shall be permitted to practice in this state as a certified public accountant. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: James S. Quincey, Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Harry T. Kronish 4533 Jefferson Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 =================================================================
