Findings Of Fact On February 23 and April 19, 1985, Respondent purchased woody ornamental plants from Pleasant View Nursery for a total purchase price of $650.50. The only payment on this account made by Respondent was $100 on November 15, 1985, leaving a balance due of $550.50. On February 23 and March 16, 1985, Respondent purchased citrus trees from Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery for a total purchase price of $720.90. The only payment on this account made by Respondent was $150, leaving a balance due of $570.90. Arthur A. Yambor, Respondent's President, is a licensed dealer in agricultural products under the provisions of Sections 604.15 - 604.30, F.S., and is bonded through United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Co- Respondent, as required by Section 604.19. Petitioners filed their complaints concerning this matter with the Department of Agriculture within nine months from the date of sale. Payment in full for the sales in question was to have been made within thirty days of the date of each sale. Respondent admits that the sales were made, and that Respondent did receive the agricultural products from Petitioner, for which these claims are made. However, Arthur A. Yambor testified that Respondent has not made full payment on these accounts because he believes the citrus trees purchased from Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery were infected with citrus canker which resulted in these, as well as other trees in his nursery, having to be destroyed. He has refused to make further payment to Petitioners due to the financial loss he sustained as a result of, what he believes to have been, infected trees he received from Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery. However, no proof was offered on behalf of Respondent that, in fact, trees purchased from Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery were infected. While Respondent did receive citrus canker compensation, there is no evidence that the canker resulted from citrus trees purchased from Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a Final Order requiring Respondent to make full payment on the remaining indebtedness claimed by Petitioners. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1996 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 9th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Holmberg, President Pleasant View Nursery & Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery 1321 N. Valrico Road Valrico, Florida 33594 Paul B. Boswell, Manager 1321 N. Valrico Road Valrico, Florida 33594 Arthur A. Yambor, President Shelton's of Brandon, Inc. 1351 W. Brandon Boulevard Brandon, Florida 33511 United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Joe Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Room 418, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Does the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department)'s proposed rule 5E-1.023 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: On February 2, 1996, the Department published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 22, Number 5, the text of proposed rule to be known as Rule 5ER-1.023, which the Department indicated that it intended to adopt. The proposed rule reads: 5E-1.023 Fertilizer. Procedures for Landowners and Leaseholders to Submit the Notice of Intent to Comply with Nitrogen Best Management Practices (BMPs). Definitions "Interim Measures" means primarily horticultural practices consistent with the fertilizer recommendations published by the University of Florida or the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, or modified by the Department, to reflect public input. "Notice of Intent to Comply with BMPs" means a notice of intent to comply with nitrogen Interim Measures and/or BMPs, or to no longer apply fertilizers or other soil-applied nutritional materials containing nitrogen. Notice of Intent to Comply with Nitrogen BMPs and all document requests made of the department must be submitted to the Environmental Administrator, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Agricultural Environmental Services, 3125 Conner Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650. Proof of providing Notice of Intent to the Department must be retained by the submitter. The Notice must contain the following information related to the implementation of the BMPs and Interim Measures: the name of the BMP or Interim Measures to be followed, the date of implementation, the name or other identification of the parcel or land unit upon which the practices will be implemented, the county(s) where said parcels are located, and the signature of the landowner(s) or leaseholder(s). The Department will consider requests to: (a) adopt Best Management Practices and Interim Measures as defined in this rule, other than those incorporated herein, in accordance with Section 576.045(3)(b), Florida Statutes; and, (b) modify adopted Best Management Practice and Interim Measures as defined in this rule based upon submission of adequate data in accordance with Section 576.045(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Approved Nitrogen BMPs Shadehouse Grown Leatherleaf Ferns. The BMP for Shadehouse grown leatherleaf ferns found in the University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Bulletin 300 (published February 1995), Irrigation and Nutrient Management Practices for Commercial Leatherleaf Fern Production in Florida" is hereby adopted. Copies may be obtained from Central Florida Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 2807 Binion Road, Apoka, Florida 32707. The associated record keeping requirements specified in "Record- keeping For The Nitrogen Best Management Practices For Shadehouse Grown Leatherleaf Ferns" dated 12-01-95 is also adopted. Copies are available from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Agricultural Environmental Services, 3125 Conner Blvd., Doyle Conner Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650. (a) Approved Nitrogen Interim Measures. Citrus. [The approved "Nitrogen Interim Measure For Florida Citrus", dated 12-01-95], and the associated recordkeeping requirements dated 12-01-95 [are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this rule]. Copies may be obtained from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Agricultural Environ- mental Services, 3125 Conner Blvd. Doyle Conner Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650. The foregoing documents are incorporated by reference into this rule. [Emphasis added] Specific Authority 576.045 FS. Law Implemented 576.045. History - New Section 576.011(2), Florida Statutes, provides: (2) "Best-management practices" means practices or combinations of practices determined by research or field testing in representative sites to be the most effective and practicable methods of fertilization designed to meet nitrate groundwater quality standards, including economic and technological considerations. Because of the lack of research or field testing with citrus to determine the most practicable methods of fertilization of citrus in conjunction with nitrate groundwater quality standards, the Department is proposing the Nitrogen Interim Measure for Florida Citrus rather than Best-management practices for citrus. Interim Measures is not defined by statute. However, the Department has defined Interim Measure in proposed rule 5E-1.023. For 1, 2, and 3 year old citrus groves, the Approved Nitrogen Interim Measure For Florida Citrus (Nitrogen Interim Measure), dated 12-01-95, provides for maximum nitrogen (N) rates per calendar year to be determined by set amounts of N per tree. The range of annual N rates for groves four years old or older is set out in pounds per acre. For oranges the range is 120 - 240 pounds of N per acre per year. For grapefruit the range is 120 - 210 pounds N per acre per year. On February 21, 1996, Petitioners filed a Petition challenging the Department's proposed rule 5E-1.023 on the basis that the proposed rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. More specifically, the Petitioners challenges the Nitrogen Interim Measure dated 12-01-95, and more particularly, that portion of the Nitrogen Interim Measure setting the range of annual N rates for grapefruit and oranges in groves four years old or older which Petitioners contend is arbitrary and capricious. GBS Groves, Inc. is a Florida corporation which owns a grapefruit grove in Polk County, Florida and such corporation is solely owned by James T. Griffiths and Anita N. Griffiths. Withers and Harshman, Inc. is a Florida corporation owning grapefruit groves in Polk County and Highlands County, Florida with its principal place of business located in Sebring, Highlands County, Florida. Petitioners would be substantially affected by the adoption of this proposed rule and thereby have standing to bring this action. The parties have stipulated that: on November 5, 1993, the Department gave notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to adopt proposed rule 5E-1.023; and proposed rule 5E-1.023 implements Section 576.045(6), Florida Statutes, by: establishing procedures for landowners and leaseholders to submit notice of intent to comply with nitrogen best management practices (BMPs) and interim measures; (2) adopting a specific BMP for shadehouse grown fern; and (3) adopting an interim measure for citrus. Petitioners concede that their challenge to the proposed rule is based solely on Section 120.52(8)(e), Florida Statutes, in that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious. Prior to, and independent of, the Department's work on proposed rule 5E-1.023, the faculty of the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), had begun work on revising IFAS's citrus fertilization guidelines. This revision eventually became SP 169, Nutrition of Florida Citrus Trees (SP 169), and supersedes the Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 536 series A through D, Recommended Fertilizers and Nutritional Sprays for Citrus (Bulletin 536), which had provided guidelines for Florida citrus fertilization since 1954. SP 169 is the official position of IFAS on the subject of nutritional requirements for citrus in Florida. Sometime around August 1994, Department met with and requested IFAS to provide the Department with a interim measure for citrus fertilization which could be adopted by the Department. The Department reviewed the first draft of the proposed interim measure for citrus fertilization prepared by IFAS and concluded that it would not be acceptable to the citrus industry because it was too detailed. Thereafter, the first draft was revised by IFAS and now appears as: 6. Fertilizer Guidelines, SP 169, pages 21 through 25. While IFAS's interim measure contains many recommendations, the recommendation most relevant to this proceeding is the recommended range of the annual rate of N for groves four years old or older. The recommended rates are expressed in pounds of N per acre per year. For oranges a range of 120 - 200 pounds of N per acre per year is recommended. For grapefruit a range of 120 - 160 pounds of N per acre per year is recommended. For other varieties a range of 120 - 200 pounds per acre per year is recommended. SP 169 also provides the criteria, including, but not limited to, soil load, varieties, leaf and soil analysis, fertilizer placement and application frequency and timing for determining a rate within the recommended range and to exceed the upper level of the range. Using these criteria a range of 120 - 180 pounds of N per acre per year for grapefruit can be supported and range of 120 - 240 pounds of N per acre per year for oranges can be supported. SP 169 also recommends that all available sources of N, including, but not limited to, organic sources and foliar applications, be included in the calculation of the annual N rate. Also recommended is that while the annual N rate may be exceeded in any given calendar year, the average annual rate over three years should not exceed the guidelines. Subsequent to receiving the proposed citrus interim measure from IFAS, the Department held a series of meetings and public workshops wherein growers and representatives from the fertilizer industry and grower organizations were given an opportunity to be heard and to make suggestions. In an effort to make the interim measure more flexible so as to gain industry acceptance, the Department compromised on several of the citrus fertilization guidelines set out in SP 169. The comprises were: (a) not to include any N from foliar application in the calculation of the annual N rate; (b) to include only fifty percent of the total N content of the source from all organic sources in the calculation of the annual rate of N; and (c) increase the recommended range of the annual rate of N for grapefruit and oranges to 120 - 210 pounds per acre and 120 - 240 pounds per acre, respectively, without considering the criteria set out in SP 169 for determining a rate within the recommended range or to exceed the upper limits of the range. In deciding not to include any N from foliar application in the calculation of the annual rate of N, the Department considered: (a) the fact that N from foliar application would be quickly absorbed through the leaf and reduce the likelihood of any N leaching into the ground water; (b) that the cost of foliar application of N would prevent the indiscriminate use of foliar application of N; and (c) that foliar application would give the grower wishing to obtain maximum yield a source of N not included in the calculation of the annual rate. However, the Department did not consider the additional cost of the N to the grower who heretofore had used sources of N other than foliar application for obtaining maximum yield. In making the decision to include only 50 percent of the content of the source of N from all organic sources the Department took into consideration the public policy of encouraging the use of municipal sludge and other similar products, and the fact that on an average only fifty percent of the content of the source of N would be an available source of N. Although IFAS disagreed with the Department on not counting all the N in organic sources, IFAS did agree that since it was not known how much of the N in organic sources was immediately available, the figure of 50 percent of the content of the source was as good a figure as any. Increasing the range of the annual rate of N per acre from 120 - 160 pounds to 120 - 180 pounds for grapefruit and from 120 - 200 pounds to 120 - 240 pounds for oranges came about as a result of a meeting on April 20, 1995, at Florida Citrus Mutual. Apparently, the justification for the increase was due to the recommendations contained in the Criteria for selecting a rate within the recommended rate set out in SP 169, Fertilizer Guidelines which provides: Crop load. Nitrogen requirements vary as crop load changes. Replacement of N lost by crop removal is the largest requirement for N. Groves producing low to average crops do no require high fertilizer rates. Higher rates may be considered for very productive groves. Rates for oranges up to 240 lb per acre may be considered for groves producing over 700 boxes per acre. However, rates above 200 lb per acre should be used only if there is a demonstrated need based on leaf analysis, and if optimal fertilizer placement, timing, and irrigation scheduling are employed. For grapefruit producing over 800 boxes per acre, 180 lb N may be considered. The increase in the range of the annual rate per acre of N from 120 - 180 pounds to 120 - 210 pounds for grapefruit came about as result of Dr. Koo's concern over a potassium deficiency. Most fertilizers are formulated on a 1 to 1 ratio of N and potassium, and the application of only 180 pounds of potassium could result in a potassium deficiency. The Department did not consider if citrus trees could absorb N and potassium in a ratio other than a 1 to 1 which would have allowed the proper application of potassium without increasing the annual N rate. The following language appears in SP 169, Fertilizer Guidelines, 6.2 Bearing Trees: Rates of 0.4 lb N per box for oranges land lb N per box for grapefruit were recommended previously. With good manage- ment, oranges frequently exceed 600 boxes per acre and grapefruit production is commonly above 800 boxes per acre. Use of lb N per box in groves producing over 500 boxes per acre results in application of over 200 lb N per acre. The advantage of rates above 200 lb has not been demonstrated. Economic benefits are quest- ionable, and the potential for groundwater contamination increases. A significant yield response to rates above 200 lb N per acre appears unlikely, and other management practices should be first evaluated if grove performance at 200 lb N per acre is not satisfactory. Experts, both growers and researchers, testifying for Petitioners and previous IFAS Research Bulletins on citrus fertilization, disagree with the statements: (a) that the advantage of annual rates of N above 200 pounds per acre has not been demonstrated; (b) that economic benefits of annual rates of N above 200 pounds per acre are questionable; and (c) that a significant yield response to annual rates of N above 200 pounds per acre appears unlikely. This language also appears to be in conflict the language quoted above dealing with the criteria, "Crop load". Petitioners' experts and previous IFAS Research Bulletins disagree with the conclusion that there is a basis for a higher annual rate of N per acre for oranges over grapefruit. On November 14, 1995, the Department presented the citrus Interim Measure which recommended a range of 120 - 210 pounds N per acre annual rate for grapefruit and a range of 120 - 240 pounds N per acre annual rate for oranges to the Fertilizer Technical Council. After hearing testimony on the merits of the citrus Interim Measure, the Fertilizer Technical Council voted to recommend changing the citrus Interim Measure to provide that oranges and grapefruit be treated the same with a range of annual N rate per acre of 120 - 240 pounds for both. The Commissioner of Agriculture did not accept the recommendation from the Fertilizer Technical Council. In addition to the Fertilizer Technical Council, a large segment of the citrus industry, including, but not limited to, growers and grower organizations, expressed their approval of using the same range of annual rates of 120 - 240 pounds of N per acre for both oranges and grapefruit. However, the Department had already compromised by increasing the maximum annual rate of nitrogen per acre for grapefruit by 30 pounds above the maximum annual rate suggested by IFAS in SP 169, while leaving the maximum annual rate of nitrogen per acre for oranges at 240 pounds, the maximum rate suggested by IFAS in SP 169.
The Issue Whether the Respondents should be required, pursuant to Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, to pay the Petitioner $701.88 for agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Pleasant View Nursery, Inc., is a corporation located in Valrico, Florida. K. S. Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a The Landscape Company and First Coast Wholesale Growers, is a corporation located in Jacksonville, Florida. K. S. Enterprises, at the time of the transaction involved in this proceeding, was licensed in Florida as a dealer in agricultural products. Lawyers Surety Corporation provided Surety Bond Number FLA-390042 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bond"), in the amount of $10,000.00 in support of K. S. Enterprises' license. The conditions and provisions of the Bond assure proper accounting and payment to producers, their agents or representatives for agricultural products purchased by K. S. Enterprises. On December 31, 1990, Pleasant View sold to K. S. Enterprises nursery plants produced by Pleasant View. The nursery plants were provided to, and accepted by, K. S. Enterprises. In consideration for the nursery plants sold to K. S. Enterprises on December 31, 1990, K. S. Enterprises agreed to pay Pleasant View the sum of $6,741.60 within 30 days from date of sale. K. S. Enterprises also agreed to the following terms of payment: We extend credit to few customers because of the tremendous capital required to carry it, because of the extensive cost of borrowing that capital. All accounts 30 days past due will be charged 1 1/2%. . . . A bill for payment for the plants purchased by K. S. Enterprises was sent to K. S. Enterprises the first week of January, 1991. No payment was made by K. S. Enterprises. K. S. Enterprises was billed again during the first week of February, 1991. No payment was made by K. S. Enterprises during the month of February. Interest of $101.12 attributable to the month of January, 1991, and $102.61 attributable to the month of February, 1991, was added to K. S. Enterprises account. Another bill was sent to K. S. Enterprises in March, 1991. On or about March 18, 1991, K. S. Enterprises paid $500.00 to Pleasant View. The payment was credited against the principal outstanding and not against interest in order to reduce the amount of interest that would accrue on the remaining indebtedness. Pleasant View continued to bill K. S. Enterprises each month for the balance due from K. S. Enterprises. Accrued interest was added to K. S. Enterprises' account each month. By August, 1991, the total amount of interest due from K. S. Enterprises was $701.88. The total amount remaining unpaid for the plants sold to K. S. Enterprises was $6,241.60. On or about June 19, 1991, a letter was mailed to K. S. Enterprises notifying K. S. Enterprises of Pleasant View's intent to file a complaint with the Department. K. S. Enterprises received the notice on or about June 25, 1991. On or about June 19, 1991, Pleasant View filed the complaint with the Department. The complaint was filed within six months after the date of the sale to K. S. Enterprises. Subsequent to the Department sending notice to K. S. Enterprises of the complaint, K. S. Enterprises paid Pleasant View $6,241.60. On or about August 13, 1991, Pleasant View received the payment of $6,241.60 from K. S. Enterprises. Pleasant View applied the payment first to the amount of interest that had accrued ($701.88) leaving $5,339.72 ($6,241.60 payment less $701.88 applied to interest) to apply against the remaining indebtedness. Applying the remaining $5,339.72 toward the remaining $6,241.60 owed for the plants left an unpaid balance of $701.88. These actions were taken pursuant to established policy of Pleasant View.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order requiring that K. S. Enterprises, Inc., pay the sum of $701.88 to Pleasant View Nursery, Inc. It is further RECOMMENDED that, should K. S. Enterprises, Inc., fail to comply with the Final Order, that Lawyers Surety Corporation should be called upon to pay the sum of $701.88 to Pleasant View Nursery, Inc., pursuant to Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Case Number 92-3032A Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX Pleasant View has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Respondents did not file a proposed recommended order. Pleasant View's Proposed Findings of Fact Hereby accepted. Accepted in finding of fact 5. Accepted in findings of fact 6-7. Accepted in findings of fact 8-9 and 11-12. Accepted in findings of fact 14-15. Accepted in findings of fact 13 and 17. Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Goben, Office Manager Pleasant View Nursery, Inc. 1321 North Valrico Road Valrico, Florida 33594 Kenneth W. Smith, President K. S. Enterprises, Inc. 1914 Beachway Road, Suite 2-J Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2320 Lawyers Surety Corporation Legal Department 1025 South Semoran Suite 1085 Winter Park, Florida 32792 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services The Capitol, Pl-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) of the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida as alleged in Petitioner?s June 6, 2012, notice of recommendation of termination and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Lake County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. §1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a teacher of K-3 students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent?s class had between two and seven students. Respondent holds a bachelor?s degree in elementary education and a master?s degree in special education. Respondent received her Florida teaching certificate in 2008. Petitioner has completed the coursework for the autism endorsement, but has not yet added it to her teaching certificate. Petitioner also received annual Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) training, which is a nonviolent crisis intervention and restraint training. CPI teaches ways to restrain or calm an autistic child when the child is “coming at you physically.” Respondent started her teaching career in Lake County in December 2008 at Eustis High School, where she taught ninth grade ESE students. She taught at the Spring Creek charter elementary school for the 2009-2010 school year, where she taught a self-contained K-6 class of approximately fifteen students having various disabilities. Respondent was hired at Fruitland Park Elementary School for the 2010-2011 school year, and was assigned to teach a K-3 level class for ASD students. Most of the students in Respondent?s class were kindergarten-level students. Respondent was retained at Fruitland Park Elementary School for the 2011-2012 academic school year pursuant to a professional services contract, entered on August 15, 2011, which provided that: The Teacher shall not be dismissed during the term of this contract except for just cause as provided in sections 1012.33, Florida Statutes, and such other provisions as prescribed by state law, School Board Policy, and the District?s Instructional Personnel Evaluation System. “Just cause” includes, but is not limited to the following: immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude. Respondent received “acceptable” evaluations while at Fruitland Park Elementary School, which was the highest rating at the time. Respondent was the subject of no parent complaints. Respondent was well regarded as a good and effective teacher, firm in discipline, and knowledgeable in her field. Prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Respondent was not subject to any disciplinary action. Students with ASD have difficulty controlling their behavior, often act out in a physical manner, and are frequently non-verbal. Respondent?s classroom was located in a portable classroom building. Thus, if a student was outside of the classroom, he or she was physically outside, and not in an interior hallway of a larger building. The classroom backed up to the PE field. Respondent was assigned one full-time and one part- time teacher?s assistant (TA) to help with her ASD students. Elizabeth Price was Respondent?s full-time assistant for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. Ms. Price claimed that she was “verbally abused” by Respondent during the 2011-2012 school year as a result of an October 2011 discussion, initiated by Respondent and directed at Ms. Price?s “negative attitude.” Ms. Price was overtly critical of Respondent to others during the course of the school year, including the classroom behavior analyst, Ms. Rose. In addition to her testimony as to the criticism leveled at Respondent by Ms. Price, Ms. Rose testified as to her impression that Ms. Price wanted more independence to implement her own strategies, but that Respondent guided her “in staying with the protocols that she had in the classroom.” Ms. Rose?s testimony is not accepted to prove the truth of the matters asserted, but rather as evidence of Ms. Price?s feelings of ill-treatment at the hands of Respondent. Ms. Price testified that she felt unable to complain to the administration because Respondent “had a personal relationship with our assistant principal” and that, if she complained, her job would be in jeopardy. The testimony of Ms. Price as a whole, and her written statement provided to the school on May 2, 2012, leaves the undersigned with the distinct impression of a personal animus by Ms. Price against Respondent. The part-time TAs varied throughout the year. Sharon Rogers was assigned as a part-time TA to Respondent?s classroom at the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. She was only in the class for a few weeks. Ms. Rogers was replaced by Lauren Atwood, who was in the class from September 27, 2011, to January 30, 2012, at which time she accepted a full-time position as a K-2 teacher for intellectually disabled students at Fruitland Park Elementary. Prior to being placed in Respondent?s classroom, Ms. Atwood had never worked in a unit with autistic children. During the time Ms. Atwood was in Respondent?s class, she never saw Respondent strike a student, never saw Respondent roughly handle a student, and never saw Respondent grab a student by an arm or leg. Ms. Atwood was replaced by Helen Johnson. Ms. Johnson was the part-time TA at the time Respondent was removed from the classroom. From November 2011 until late April, 2011, Lisa Bass was a TA in Jacqueline Dobbs? class for emotionally disturbed children. In late April 2012, Ms. Bass was assigned to replace Ms. Price as a TA in Respondent?s class. Ms. Bass was asked by Candice Benjamin, the Fruitland Park ESE specialist, to report anything “untoward and unprofessional” that happened in Respondent?s classroom. Ms. Bass testified that Ms. Benjamin?s request “was very cryptic” and that she felt as though she was acting “cloak and dagger.” Ms. Bass served as a TA for approximately five days, and on May 2, 2012, reported the conduct that resulted in Respondent?s removal from the classroom. The TAs were typically with Respondent at all times, and assisted with the “centers” where the students did their work. Respondent was, as a rule, alone with the students for no more than 15 minutes per day, when one TA would go to lunch, and the other would go to pick up lunches for the students, who ate in the classroom. During the times they were assigned to Respondent?s classroom, none of the TAs held teaching certificates, and none were certified in any behavioral specialties. In addition to the TAs, Respondent?s class was visited on a regular basis by a speech therapist. The speech therapist missed Respondent?s classroom visit at least once a month, and sometimes more, for reasons that varied. Since the absences often occurred on Wednesdays, Respondent tried to make alternative arrangements for a student who had her speech therapy on Wednesdays and who Respondent felt was being short- changed as a result. Respondent complained to the ESE specialist regarding the absences. In late April, 2012, the school decided to rotate TAs to different classes. Respondent felt that practice disrupted her classroom, which in some measure depended on stability and familiarity of the teachers to the students. Respondent complained about the practice in late April 2012. There were no complaints made against Respondent by her TAs or anyone else until Ms. Bass reported her complaint on May 2, 2012. No TAs complained until Ms. Dejarlais called them in for interviews. Ms. Nave, the Fruitland Park Elementary School assistant principal, observed Respondent in the classroom “many times”. She never observed Respondent engaging in any inappropriate behavior, including slapping, kicking, or grabbing of students. Ms. Linson, the School Board ASD Program Specialist, occasionally observed Respondent in the classroom. She never observed inappropriate behavior in Respondent?s classes. The notice of recommendation of termination that forms the basis for this proceeding alleged that Respondent “slapped, squeezed faces, and pulled forcibly on the arms of the students” and created “a culture of silence . . . in your classroom which discouraged other staff from coming forward with the allegations.” Allegations of Slapping Ms. Atwood testified that she saw Respondent slap one student?s hands “a few times.” The incidents occurred when a particular student took something that was not his, or tried to place his hands on or hurt another student. The slaps were not hard, and triggered no concern that the incidents should be reported. Other than slapping hands, Ms. Atwood knew of no other incidents of Respondent striking a student. Ms. Johnson testified that she observed Respondent slap a student?s hand on one occasion. The incident occurred after the student struck Respondent on the back. Ms. Johnson testified that Respondent slapped the student?s hand and said “don?t hit.” The incident left no mark on the student?s hand. Ms. Johnson did not contemporaneously report the incident. Ms. Johnson also testified that Respondent slapped a student?s hand when he pinched her nipple. Ms. Johnson understood the slap to be a reflexive reaction to the pain. The undersigned does not consider a mild human response to a personal and painful event to constitute a violation of the disciplinary standards at issue in this case. Other than the single incident of slapping the student?s hand in response to being struck on the back, Ms. Johnson never observed Respondent roughly physically handling any student. Ms. Price testified that, on one occasion during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent slapped a student on the arm while engaged in a “tug of war” over a bin where the student sat. She stated that the slap was, in her opinion, harder than necessary. The slap left no mark on the student?s arm. Ms. Price could not recall when the alleged incident occurred, being unable to narrow it even to a six month window. Ms. Price did not contemporaneously report the incident. Respondent testified that she never struck a student. Respondent testified that she occasionally had to deflect student attempts to strike her, but that physical contact was done as an avoidance technique or when a student was perceived to be a threat to others. ASD teachers are taught to fend off attempts by students to strike the teacher or others by the use of blocking techniques in which the kicks and hits are deflected. The impression conveyed to the undersigned was one of a “wax on-wax off” motion. The attempts are physically blocked, and the target moved. Respondent testified that her attempts to deflect and redirect blows by pushing away a student?s hand could be conceived as a slap. Respondent testified that she is hit and kicked by her students almost as a matter of course. Her testimony was supported by that of Ms. Linson, who noted that ASD students frequently hit teachers, and Ms. Rose, who commented that Respondent turned her back to the students when they struck her, and as a result “often got hit in the back.” Respondent generally ignored the frequent incidents. The evidence as to the slapping of students? hands was contradictory. The analysis of the evidence was made more difficult by the fact that Respondent had specialized training in dealing with ASD students and the TAs had none, and by the fact that blocking techniques could be misconstrued as slapping by those unfamiliar with the intervention. The evidence indicates that at least some of the small handful of incidents were taken to prevent a student from harming other students. Nevertheless, Petitioner proved, by a bare preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent slapped the hands of one or more students in something more than a purely defensive or protective manner on, at most, a very few occasions, including the incident described by Ms. Johnson in which Respondent slapped the hand of a student after having been hit on the back. The evidence demonstrates such incidents were isolated and mild. There was no evidence introduced to support a finding that the incidents were harmful to any student?s learning, or that the incidents adversely affected any student?s mental or physical health, or their safety. Allegations of Squeezing Student?s Faces Two days after she was placed in Respondent?s classroom, Ms. Bass testified that she observed Respondent grab a child?s face. The incident purportedly occurred when a student was running with a toy. Respondent wanted the student to settle down, which he would not do. The student fell and began to cry. Ms. Bass testified that Respondent grabbed the student?s face and said, in a voice between calm and yelling, something to the effect of “I am in charge. You?re not in charge here. You will do as I say.” Ms. Bass stated that “[i]t appeared from my perspective she was squeezing his cheeks.” The incident left no marks on the student?s face. Ms. Bass reported the incident to Ms. Dejarlais and Ms. Nave. Respondent generally denied the description of the event provided by Ms. Bass, and specifically denied ever having squeezed a student?s cheeks. Respondent testified that she would occasionally hold a student?s face in her hands, and direct the student?s eyes to hers while speaking. In directing eye contact, she exerted no pressure on the student?s cheeks or face. That intervention technique was done to gain the attention of the student and remove what may have been distracting them. Based on her education and experience, Respondent understood that technique to be an acceptable way to direct eye contact. Her testimony was more credible than that of Ms. Bass. Ms. Rose agreed that it is an acceptable research- based intervention to orient a student?s face, deliver instruction, and then provide reinforcement. In implementing that “shadowboxing technique,” it is appropriate to use physical guidance, i.e. holding the student?s face, to get eye contact. That approach is “in the scaffolding of prompting, physical prompting,” and is not outside the scope of what the research indicates is effective. Ms. Rose testified that with younger children it is often more appropriate to start with the most prompting and fade to the least prompting, an intervention described as “errorless learning.” Using that model, physical prompting as a first resort is an effective method and it is supported by the research. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent squeezed students? faces as alleged in the notice of recommendation of termination. Allegations of Pulling Forcibly on the Arms of the Students Ms. Price provided the only evidence that Respondent pulled forcibly on the arm of any student. The alleged incident occurred after a student had eloped from the classroom. The student was sitting, cross-legged, on the landing outside the portable classroom. The landing is not gated or otherwise secured, and there is nothing to prevent one from walking from the landing to the PE field or beyond. Ms. Price testified that Respondent got her body in the doorway, grabbed the student by the arm, and pulled him back into classroom “more forcefully than necessary.” Ms. Price characterized the event as aggressive in nature. When asked whether Respondent tried other methods to get the student to return to the classroom, Ms. Price testified that “I?m sure that she did. She typically did,” but that “I don?t recall. I was doing something else.” Ms. Price?s lack of direct attention to the incident leads the undersigned to question her account. Respondent testified that she never pulled a child in from outside through door. In cases of elopement, she would usually try to hold the student by the hand or wrist to guide them back in, but never jerked or pulled on the arm of any student. Her testimony was more credible than that of Ms. Price, and is accepted. Ms. Linson testified that in cases of elopement, it is appropriate to take a student by the hand or wrist to guide them back inside. She stressed that “we have to be careful around wrists and arms” to avoid concerns with dislocation of the shoulder, but gave no suggestion that guiding by the wrist was inappropriate. Ms. Linson also testified that if a student is trying to run away, it is appropriate to apply the “children?s control position” as taught as part of the CPI. In that intervention, an adult, with his or her arms crossed and elbows locked, would hold the student on the adult?s side. The intervention is appropriate only for small children, but is an approved restraint. Ms. Linson recognized that human reflex can occasionally result in the restraint being imperfectly, but still appropriately, administered. Ms. Atwood testified that Respondent occasionally had to move a student to time-out when the student had engaged in behavior warranting discipline. She testified that Respondent generally just guided the student, but that when the student would not go willingly, she might put her arms through the student?s arms and move the student to time-out. Ms. Atwood took the required annual CPI course offered to teachers and TAs, but that even with that one-day training, she was not sure how to handle autistic students, and did not know whether the method used by Respondent to move recalcitrant students to time-out was correct or not. In any event, the method described by Ms. Atwood does not meet the allegation that Respondent “pulled forcibly on the arms of the students.” Respondent testified that she occasionally had to physically move a student if he was injuring himself or others, and it was not possible to get others away. In such an instance, Respondent and a TA would implement an approved intervention to move the student to time out, but in no instance would she or anyone else in her classroom pick a student up by the arm, or otherwise pull a student by the arm. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent “pulled forcibly on the arms of the students” as alleged in the notice of recommendation of termination. Allegation of Creating a Culture of Silence The allegation that Respondent created a culture of silence was based on a statement, frequently repeated at various places, that “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” or “what happens in the classroom stays in the classroom.” The allegation suggested that Respondent made the statement with the intent to discourage the TAs or others from reporting abusive conduct. Ms. Atwood testified that she never heard the “Vegas” statement, but that in any event she was not intimidated by Respondent, and was never discouraged from reporting inappropriate activities. Ms. Nave overheard the “Vegas” conversation at the bus loop in the fall of 2011. The TAs and Respondent were laughing about it, and she perceived nothing of importance or significance about the statement. She understood it to apply to “some silly things that were happening in the classroom.” Ms. Johnson testified that she heard the “Vegas” statement, but was confused about it, and did not know what it meant. Ms. Johnson offered no testimony to support a finding that Respondent intended the statement to discourage her from reporting abusive conduct. Ms. Price offered the only suggestion that the “Vegas” statement was intended to discourage reporting unprofessional or inappropriate activities in the classroom. Ms. Price testified that she “took it” to mean that Respondent was telling her not to bring any complaints against her. She did not testify that Respondent made any direct statement to that effect, but based her testimony on her own subjective belief. Ms. Price did not mention Respondent having discouraged the reporting of inappropriate conduct by means of the “Vegas” statement or otherwise in her May 2, 2012, written witness statement. Rather, she only raised it when her supervisors at the school district told her to think about it. Ms. Price?s testimony and written statement that Respondent intended the oft-repeated “Vegas” statement to be an effort to mask abuse in the classroom, taken as a whole and in conjunction with her general degree of antipathy towards Respondent as described above, is not credible. Respondent and others testified convincingly that the concept of “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” was intended to allow the teachers and TAs to discuss personal matters, and even gossip about other school employees, without fear of their comments being spread around. Respondent testified that the statement was not intended to act as a shield for unprofessional or abusive conduct occurring in the classroom. Respondent?s testimony is accepted. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent created “a culture of silence . . . in your classroom which discouraged other staff from coming forward with the allegations” as alleged in the notice of recommendation of termination. Unpled Issues Ms. Atwood, Ms. Johnson, and Ms. Price each alluded to a degree of “yelling” in Respondent?s class that was greater than they believed should occur in a “normal” class. In her written statement, Ms. Atwood stated that “at times [it] seemed to be a little too much.” Ms. Johnson felt that it “was, to me, over the top.” However, no TA saw fit to report Respondent?s yelling at any time prior to May 2, 2012. No one described what was meant by “yelling” except in the most general and subjective way. No witness testified as to any standard or criteria regarding “yelling” in an ASD class setting. No evidence was elicited as to whether “yelling” might be appropriate at times. Respondent admitted that she raised her voice on occasion to get the students? attention when the classroom was loud or to make a point, but gave no suggestion that it was contrary to any standard. Although Ms. Linson testified that “yelling” is not appropriate in any class, she did not define “yelling,” nor does she have an autism endorsement to her teaching certificate that might provide additional weight to her testimony as applied to the unique challenges of an ASD class. Despite the volume of the evidence and testimony regarding “yelling,” the fact is that it was not pled as a basis for Respondent?s termination. Had it been pled, the Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the “yelling” violated any standard warranting discipline against Respondent. During the course of the proceeding, references were made to Respondent having moved the furniture from her classroom. The evidence was conflicting as to whether the removal of the furniture was known or authorized by the school administration. However, it appears that there was a sound, safety-based reason for removing the furniture and gradually reintroducing it to the classroom. Despite the discussion regarding the removal of furniture from the classroom, that issue was not pled as a basis for Respondent?s termination. Had it been pled, the Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the removal of the furniture violated any standard warranting discipline against Respondent. Discipline Petitioner has adopted, as policy section 6.361 of the School Board of Lake County, an Employee Discipline Plan. The plan provides that “[w]hen discipline of any employee becomes necessary, such action should be in proportion to the employee?s offense or misconduct ” The Employee Discipline Plan includes a Progressive Discipline Method by which sanctions are scaled based on the severity of the occurrence, and on whether it has recurred. The purpose of the policy is to let employees know the nature of the violation and provide an opportunity to correct the behavior. The Progressive Discipline Method includes five steps: Counseling, Level I Reprimand, Level II Reprimand, Suspension and Termination. The Method provides that: Because of the severity in the loss of one?s job employees should be terminated only after thorough investigation. The investigation should conclude that: The employee did, in fact, commit the act; Evidence of guilt is available; The employee?s entire work record, positive and negative, has been considered; The same rules are applied uniformly to other employees; and The penalty of dismissal is reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense. The Employee Discipline Plan provides that: The Superintendent is not required to use this Progressive Discipline Method and may administer discipline at any level, including termination, based on the nature of the offense and the particular circumstances. Examples of actions resulting in immediate suspension or dismissal include, but are not limited to, the following: immorality, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, incompetence, substance abuse including alcohol, being convicted or found guilty of or pleading guilty to (regardless of adjudication of guilt) any crime involving moral turpitude. Respondent did not commit any of the specified offenses that constitute “examples of actions resulting in immediate suspension or dismissal.” The School District did not exercise the Progressive Discipline Method, but proceeded directly to termination of Respondent. Ms. Dejarlais did not know why the progressive disciplinary policy was not followed in Respondent?s case. The school officials elected to have the investigation done at the county level, rather than at the school level. It was not explained why such an investigative procedure was undertaken, or whether it was a deviation from the normal disciplinary practice of the school. Since most of the allegations against Respondent were not proven, including those that would normally be understood to be the most serious, there is no reasonable basis to disregard Petitioner?s adopted Employee Discipline Plan and Progressive Discipline Method. Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent committed the acts alleged, with the exception of a few instances in which she slapped students? hands. The slaps, which were themselves mild, may have been misconstrued defensive blocking techniques. In any event, the instances were isolated, and formed no pattern of unprofessional or inappropriate conduct. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it considered Respondent?s entire work record, positive and negative, during the investigation. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it applied the same rules that led to Respondent?s termination to other employees. However, since most of the allegations against Respondent were disproven, any analysis of the violations -- as charged -- would be of limited value. As to the issue of slapping hands, the only evidence in the record as to the sanction for that type of incident was the testimony of Ms. Linson, who was not aware of any instance in which a teacher was terminated for slapping the hand of a student. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the sanction of termination was reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense, especially given that most of the allegations upon which the decision to terminate was based were not proven. Given the isolated nature of the hand slaps, the mild nature of the slaps, and the possibility that the slaps were misperceived blocking techniques, the undersigned finds that the sanction of termination was not reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense. The evidence demonstrates that, upon her removal from the classroom, Respondent was assigned to the school Copy Center at full pay and benefits pending the outcome of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Lake County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing those allegations in the notice of recommendation of termination that Respondent squeezed faces, pulled forcibly on the arms of the students, and created a culture of silence which discouraged other staff from coming forward with allegations of misconduct; finding that Respondent slapped the hands of students, but that such incidents were isolated, mild, and may have been a misperception of an otherwise acceptable defensive blocking technique; reinstating Respondent to a position equivalent to that previously held with the Lake County School District; imposing the Step I sanction of counseling as set forth in Petitioner?s Progressive Discipline Method; and to the extent Respondent lost wages or benefits, award full back pay and benefits from the time she was removed from the classroom in May 2012, until the date of her reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire McLin and Burnsed, P.A. Post Office Box 491357 1000 West Main Street Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Alfred Truesdell, Esquire Jill S. Schwartz and Associates, P.A. Suite 212 655 West Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789-3745 Susan Moxley, Ed.D., Superintendent Lake County School Board 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778-2496 Pam Stewart, Interim Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioners for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners are producers and sellers of tomatoes. They own and operate Sunfresh Farms in Florida City, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products. The Controversy The instant case involves two separate transactions involving the sale of tomatoes pursuant to verbal agreements between Petitioners (as the sellers) and Respondent (as the buyer). Both transactions occurred in January of 1995. The First Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5270) Under the terms of the first of these two verbal agreements (First Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box (which was the market price at the time). In accordance with the terms of the First Agreement, Petitioners delivered 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 23, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold these 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a local produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to another local produce house. The tomatoes were eventually sold to a company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On January 28, 1995, five days after Petitioners had delivered the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent, the tomatoes were inspected in Grand Rapids, Michigan. According to the inspection certificate, the inspection revealed: "Decay (3 to 28 percent)(mostly early, some advanced stages);" "Checksum;" and "Average approximately 85 percent light red to red." Petitioners have yet to be paid any of $1,214.40 Respondent owes them (under the terms of the First Agreement) for the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The Second Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5299) Under the terms of the second verbal agreement at issue in the instant case (Second Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 132 boxes of ("no grade") cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box. In accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement, Petitioners delivered 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 27, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold 84 of these 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a Florida produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to a company in Houston, Texas. These 84 boxes of cherry tomatoes were inspected in Houston, Texas, on January 31, 1995, four days after Petitioners had delivered them to Respondent. The defects found during the inspection were noted on the inspection certificate. Petitioners have yet to be paid in full for the 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement. Respondent tendered payment (in the form of a check) in the amount of $811.20, but Petitioners refused to accept such payment because it did not represent the full amount ($1,669.80) Respondent owed them (under the terms of the Second Agreement) for these cherry tomatoes. (Although they have not endorsed or cashed the check, Petitioners are still holding it in their possession.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent is indebted to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20, (2) directing Respondent to make payment to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, (3) indicating that the $811.20 check that was previously tendered to Petitioners by Respondent (and is still in Petitioners' possession) will be considered partial payment of this $2,884.20 indebtedness, if Respondent advises Petitioners, in writing, that it desires the check to be used for such purpose and if it provides Petitioners written assurance that the check is still a valid negotiable instrument; and (4) announcing that if payment in full of this $2,884.20 indebtedness is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Farm Bureau, Respondent's surety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 2nd day of February, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Junior Martin, Petitioner, is a farmer d/b/a/ Junior Martin Farms in the State of Florida. Bastista Madonia is a farmer doing business in Florida and West Virginia and a licensed broker in Florida and packer of agricultural products d/b/a/ East Coast Brokers and Packers. Madonia holds Florida license no. 3906 supported by bond no. 743F4618 written by Travelers Indemnity Company as surety. In the summer of 1984 James DiMare, Bastista Madonia, and Junior Martin entered into a Farming Agreement (Exhibit 1) to establish a joint venture to grow cherry tomatoes in the fall 1984 farming season and, if successful, to continue this agreement into the spring season. Pursuant to this agreement approximately fifty (50) acres of tomatoes would be grown by Martin. DiMare and Madonia agreed to supply all plants and $500 cash per acre for which they would own 25 percent of the crop and the profits derived therefrom. East Coast Brokers (Madonia) was to supply picking bins and advance all picking money. Two dollars ($2) per package was to be charged for packing and thirty cents ($.30) per package for selling. Costs for growing the tomatoes was approximately $2,250 per acre. With their advance of $500 per acre and providing plants DiMare and Madonia financed approximately 25 percent of the growing cost of which they were to receive 25 percent of the profits. They were also to advance funds to harvest the tomatoes and deliver them to the packing house. In addition, Madonia paid for two (2) deliveries of tomato stakes to Martin's farm. The tomato crop planted in the fall of 1984 froze and was a total loss. DiMare then pulled out of the agreement. The agreement provided that if both parties are satisfied and things are going well by October 15, all parties will continue this venture by planting a spring crop. Madonia offered to contribute DiMare's share as well as his own for a spring Crop and Martin agreed to plant the spring crop. The spring crop was harvested from late March 1985 through late May 1985 (exhibit 4) at a profit. It is from this venture only that Martin bases his claim. In auditing the records, the Department of Agriculture investigator did not consider the transactions involving the fall crop because that had occurred more than nine (9) months before Martin's complaint. Section 604.21(1) Florida Statutes limits the time frame in which a complaint may be brought. Following the harvesting of the spring crop, Martin and Madonia went to Virginia to look into the feasibility of planting a summer crop in Virginia. They obtained suitable land to lease and, under a modification of their agreement, Madonia would put up most of the money required for the land, fertilizer, etc., and would be entitled to 50 percent of the profits. This venture was unsuccessful and resulted in a large loss, none of which has been paid by Martin. This endeavor was not included in the Department of Agriculture's audit because it occurred outside Florida and beyond the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Agriculture. The parties discussed a fall 1985 crop after the debacle in Virginia and the Respondent advanced $10,000 to Petitioner for this crop (exhibit 16). This crop was never planted and the Petitioner has rendered no accounting for this advance. The endeavors by Madonia and Martin to grow fall and spring crops in Florida and a summer crop in Virginia were ongoing farming operations carried out pursuant to the Farming Agreement (Exhibit 1). As such, the endeavor was a joint farming venture with Martin providing the land (in Florida) and the farming expertise while Madonia provided plants and funds equal to one-fourth of the expenses and the marketing experience to sell the crops. Accordingly this endeavor was exempt from the provisions of Section 604.15-604.34 Florida Statutes, by Section 604.16(1) (Florida Statutes). The audit conducted by the Department of Agriculture (exhibit 6) showed Petitioner was owed $18,401.91 by Madonia as a buyer for the 1985 spring crop only. This figure does not include any advances over and above the $500 per acre advanced to Martin by Madonia for the fall crop 1984, or the advances for the Virginia operation in excess of the amount agreed to be provided by Madonia. Nor does this figure reflect the 25 percent of the profits due Madonia pursuant to the Farming Agreement. The amount Petitioner claims is owed to him by the Respondent for the spring crop is $60,632.86 (exhibit 7). This balance was prepared by Mrs. Martin from her records. Numerous checks endorsed by Petitioner which he received from Madonia were not included in those figures. Although cashed by Petitioner, they did not get into Mrs. Martin's bookkeeping records. Mrs. Martin acknowledged that she was not sure that she properly credited all of the checks she did receive from Madonia to the spring crop account. Accordingly, this figure is totally unreliable. Disregarding the fall 1984 crop and the Virginia episode, and accepting the Department of Agriculture's audit figures of $18,401.91 as the profits on the spring crops, 25 percent should go to Respondent pursuant to the Farming Agreement. This would leave $13,801.43 owed to Petitioner. From this should be deducted, at least, the $10,000 advance given to the Petitioner for the fall crop of 1985 which was never planted. The parties are engaged in civil litigation to resolve the disputes engendered by the farming activities above discussed. In those proceedings, all of the activities in which they participated pursuant to the Farming Agreement can be considered by the tribunal and resolved. Accordingly, that is the proper forum to resolve the disputes here in issue.
The Issue This matter began with the filing of a complaint by Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc., (Homestead Tomato) with the Florida Department of Agriculture asserting that it was due $9,502.50 for tomatoes sold January 21, 1985, to Seymour Cohen Brokerage Company (Cohen Brokerage). While Cohen Brokerage did not appear, due to the death of the owner, Seymour Cohen, the surety on its Agricultural Products Bond, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland did appear. Because it represents the interest of Cohen Brokerage, in this order its position will be characterized as that of Cohen Brokerage. Cohen had already paid $16,360.00 for the tomatoes. The dispute centers upon the agreement between the parties as to the price of the tomatoes. The parties agree that the price was to be set after the tomatoes were shipped, due to an impending freeze which had caused volatility in the price for tomatoes. Homestead Tomato contends that other purchasers bought tomatoes at about the same time and agreed to the price which Homestead Tomato claims is due from Cohen Brokerage. Cohen Brokerage maintains that the price claimed is excessive, and that the payment made was full payment.
Findings Of Fact Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc., sells tomatoes as agent for Strano Farms of Florida City, Florida, which produces tomatoes. Cohen Brokerage is a licensed dealer in agricultural products holding license number 3047, which is supported by a bond written by the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, number 9634509. Seymour Cohen died, apparently before the complaint in this action was filed. See the Verified Suggestion of Death of Party and Motion to Dismiss filed on June 26, 1986. On Thursday, January 17, 1985, Rosario Strano, the President of Homestead Tomato, learned that a freeze would occur in South Florida on or about January 22, 1985. Strano notified Homestead Tomato's sales staff, including Thomas Banks, that beginning January 19, 1985, all sales were to be made at prices to be determined following the freeze. On January 21, 1985, Cohen Brokerage, acting through Rick Cohen (the son of Seymour Cohen, now deceased), purchased 1,600 boxes of Strano Pride #25, 6X7 (medium) tomatoes. Both parties testified that the price was not established on Monday, January 21, but that it would be established "sometime in the middle of the week" (Testimony of T. Banks, Transcript 177)) on or about Wednesday, January 23, 1985 (Testimony of R. Cohen, Transcript 225). This is consistent with the brokerage confirmation from Cohen Brokerage dated January 21, 1985, which was belatedly submitted to Homestead Tomato, stating that the tomatoes were "to be priced on or about Wednesday, 1/23/85, in line with Florida Tomato industry Market". The parties intended that the tomatoes would be priced by Wednesday, January 23, 1985, in accordance with the market price for U.S. number one tomatoes 85 percent or better. The freeze did occur on January 21 and 22, 1985, which caused a shortage of high quality unfrozen tomatoes. The expectation of the freeze had caused uncertainty in the market price for tomatoes during the period January 19 through January 25, 1985. From January 19 through January 22, 1985, Homestead Tomato sold 43 loads of tomatoes to buyers at prices to be determined later. On Wednesday, January 23, 1985, Rosario Strano set his price for 6x7 Strano Pride tomatoes at $16.00 a box and told sales staff to inform those who had purchased from Homestead Tomato before the $16.00 per box price had been set that they could return the tomatoes if they were dissatisfied with his price. According to Mr. Strano, he was unable to compare his prices the week after the freeze to what competitors were charging for like quality, unfrozen tomatoes because there were not enough others with tomatoes to make a price comparison. (Transcript 44-45). On January 23, Homestead Tomato's salesman Banks called Rick Cohen and gave him the price. The Florida Fruit and Vegetable Report is a market quotation service for agricultural commodities published by the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Division and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Marketing, Bureau of Market News. It is used and generally relied on by those in agriculture. It shows that tomatoes sold January 21, 1985, were sold with sales prices to be established later. The January 24th edition of the report shows that on January 23, 6x7 tomatoes sold for $16.00 per box. Homestead Tomato also introduced evidence that other buyers purchased 6 x 7 tomatoes which were shipped between January 19 and January 23, 1985, who were invoiced at $16.00 per box and paid that amount. This evidence of price is undercut, however, by the testimony of Rosario Strano with respect to disputes he had with other tomato purchasers, such as acme Pre-Pack over his price of $16.00 for medium tomatoes. Under cross-examination about whether he had reduced his billing or given a discount to protesting purchasers, Mr. Strano testified: The only -- Way back last -- latter part of February, I told them I would not give rebates. I told Mr. -- when they bought future tomatoes, when we got back in the tomatoes, we would work out an arrangement. I never quoted $2. I heard quoted $2, 4, 6, 8. I never quoted the price. I told them that I understood their plight but that I was not -- they had to take that then and there, settle and pay in full, or I was not going to do anything, and [there] was a reason for that, [which] was to expedite the collections of some very, very serious money, as you can see in this [case] right here. Transcript pages 165-166. Cohen Brokerage was invoiced $16.00 per box on January 25, 1986, for the tomatoes it had received on January 21, 1985. The total amount of the bill was $25,862.50. Cohen Brokerage made a payment on the invoice in the amount of $16,360.00 which then caused Homestead Tomato to file the instant complaint for the balance billed of $9,502.50.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the complaint filed by Homestead Tomato against Cohen Brokerage be dimissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 2nd day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3923A The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. 8. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as argument. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as inconsistent with the more significant testimony of Mr. Strano relied on in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as inconsistent with other evidence, see for example Petitioner's Exhibit #29. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected because the prices quoted were asking prices but not necessarily market prices. See Conclusion of Law 3. Rejected as a recitation of evidence. Rejected as a recitation of evidence. Rejected as a recitation of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent (Seymour Cohen Brokerage Company) Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 and the statement of the issues. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as a conclusion of law. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Scherer was unpersuasive because the methodology implied to determine the price of $10.00 per box for 6x7 tomatoes was not adequately explained. Rejected as unnecessary. Sentence 1 rejected as unnecessary. Sentence 2 covered in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexander J. Pires, Jr., Esquire 2501 M. Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20037 Murray H. Dubbin, Esquire 1000 Rivergate Plaza 444 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to an award of $11,952 for payment of a shipment of tomatoes made to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, including the proposed ore tenus requests by Petitioner's counsel, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Corky Foods Corporation, is a diversified agri-business company engaged in, among other things, the sale of produce from one of its warehouses in Boynton Beach, Florida. On January 21, 1985, Pat Adams, a broker for Adams brokerage company in Bonita Springs, Florida, placed an order with Petitioner's salesman, Daniel Garcia, for a load of tomatoes from Georgia Tomato Company. The tomatoes were sold to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, on January 21, 1985. The invoice of these products (No. 18917) was dated January 23, 1985 and contained a total of 1,440 boxes. Respondent was allowed a $1 credit under the market price which amount reflects the amount of the initial claim by Petitioner against Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company; i.e., $25,560 less the credit of $1,440 for a total claim of $24,120. During this period of time, there was a freeze in South Florida which occurred on January 20, 1985 and the price of produce dropped substantially for products picked after January 20, 1985. The market value for tomatoes picked on January 19, 1985 was as follows: 5 x 6 #1 @ $18.00 6 x 6 #1 @ $16.00 6 x 7 #1 @ $14.00 This amount, less the $1 credit given to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, by Petitioner represents the amount initially claimed by Petitioner; i.e., $24,120. Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, failed to pay Petitioner's invoiced amount which resulted in a complaint being filed by Petitioner against Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, on March 4, 1985. Once that complaint was filed, Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, tendered to Petitioner an amount of $12,168 which reduced the complaint by that amount leaving a balance now due and owing Petitioner of $11,952 based on its amended claim filed herein dated April 24, 1985. Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, contends that it was overcharged on the amount of this shipment of tomatoes and attempted to substantiate its position by showing several invoices for tomatoes that it purchased subsequent to January 21, 1985. Daniel Garcia, Petitioner's vice-president in charge of marketing, determined the market price for the tomatoes shipped to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, on January 21, 1985. In doing so, he called brokerage houses in Homestead, Bonita Springs, and other brokers, including Pat Adams, the broker who purchased the tomatoes here in question on behalf of Adams Brokerage House, and established the market price as per the invoice sent to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company. In addition, Mr. Garcia referred to the Southeastern Fruit and Vegetable Report, Volume 30, No. 17, which is a guide to the pricing information for fruit and vegetables in the southeast and which is relied upon to ascertain fruit and vegetable prices in this area. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) This data supports Petitioner's claim for the amount invoiced to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company. Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, did not dispute the quality of the tomatoes shipped by the Petitioner. Respondent offered no other defenses against the amount claimed by Petitioner. Based thereon, it is herein concluded that the Petitioner is entitled to an award of the amount in its amended claim of $11,952.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, Inc., be ordered to pay Petitioner, Corky Foods Corporation, the amount of $11,952 as set forth in its amended complaint filed herein dated April 24, 1985, within fifteen (15) days of the date of entry of the Final Order by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of License and Bond. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 9th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger C. Lambert, Esquire 250 South County Road, Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Glenn Vaughn, General Manager Georgia Tomato Company, Inc. Building F State Farmers Market Forest Park, Georgia 30050 Joe Kight, Chief Bureau of License & Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 418 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Continental Insurance Company Legal Section (License & Bond) 80 Maiden Lane New York, New York Robert Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Doyle Conner Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is owed $7,097.15 by Respondent Green Acres for various nursery products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a wholesaler engaged in the business of producing agricultural products, primarily nursery plants, since approximately 1953. Green Acres is a retail nursery engaged in the business of selling sod, nursery products, and provision of other related landscaping services. Green Acres is a newly-formed business which commenced operations during the summer of 1992. On August 10, 1992, Green Acres purchased from Petitioner various quantities of flowers and nursery products which are reflected by Petitioner's invoice nos. 5074, 5076, 5077 and 5080 in the respective amounts of $625.25, $1,097.00, $2,927.50, and $383.20. On August 14, 1992, Green Acres purchased another order of nursery products from Petitioner which is reflected by Petitioner's invoice no. 5085 in the total amount of $1,063.75. On August 18, 1992, again Petitioner delivered products to Green Acres based on an order (Petitioner's invoice no. 5060) for the total sum of $599.20. Finally, on September 17, 1992, Green Acres ordered various nursery products from Petitioner (Petitioner's invoice no. 5097), which were delivered to Green Acres for the total sum of $401.25. Petitioner has made numerous attempts to collect for the nursery products that it supplied to Green Acres without success. These efforts to collect included personal trips to the Green Acres nursery by Roy Amerson. When disputes arose as to the pricing of plants, Green Acres unilaterally adjusted the price to the amount that it desired to pay which amount Petitioner accepted without protest based upon the fact that Petitioner's owners were aware that Green Acres was a new nursery and Petitioner was desirous of building a good client over a long period of time. For this reason, Petitioner also extended credit to Green Acres on an open-account basis for a long time without attempting to collect. Petitioner extended credit to Green acres based upon Petitioner's knowledge and understanding of the difficulty that new retail nursery owners undergo in starting a new nursery business. Green Acres suffered fire damage at one of its office buildings on the Friday prior to the Labor Day weekend during 1992. As a result of that fire, Green Acres contends that it paid Petitioner in cash for products and was not properly receipted for those payments. Green Acres maintains that its receipts were destroyed in the fire. Green Acres's contention in this regard was considered; however, it is more likely than not that Green Acres did not pay Petitioner for any nursery products which they have not been granted credit for. In this regard, Petitioner introduced invoices and credit notations for each purchase of products that Green Acres ordered. Those invoices appear to properly reflect the entire series of transactions of the purchase of products from Petitioner with the appropriate credits and adjustments noted. Respondent, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm), issued a surety bond to Green Acres for the period during which Petitioner provided nursery products to Green Acres in 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order ordering Green Acres to pay to Petitioner the sum of $7,097.15 within fifteen (15) days after the issuance of its Final Order. Upon the failure of Green Acres to tender the referenced amount to Petitioner, it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services direct that the surety company pay over to the Department out of the surety bond posted for such dealer, the amount necessary to cover the indebtedness noted herein of $7,097.15. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 2nd day of September, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Roy and Barbara Amerson Post Office Box 202 Terra Ceia, Florida 34250 Shelly K. Thomas 9330 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34641 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esq. General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ms. Becky L. Herald State Farm Fire & Casualty Company 112 East Washington Street Bloomington, Illinois 61710-1001
