Findings Of Fact The hearing officer's findings of fact are hereby approved and adopted. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the the hearing officer's findings of fact. Petitioner takes his vacation between school board meetings or by asking the school board to be excused from attending said meetings. No leave time is actually used for such absences. (Petitioner's Exhibit O) Prior to 1979 the Division had not determined Cooney was an employee being paid from a regular salaries account who was eligible for FRS membership. His actual position and employment status was not questioned until 1980. Following an extensive review of Cooney's position, which had not changed since 1965, the Division determined Cooney was not eligible for FRS membership because he was not filling a regularly, established position. The 1979 rule changes defined "regularly established position", but did not redefine employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division enter a final order declaring Richard W. Cooney eligible for membership in the Florida Retirement System both before and after July 1, 1979. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, 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 6th day of September, 1984.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner was provided incorrect, inaccurate, and erroneous information, and, if so, if she may transfer to the Florida Retirement System (FRS) Pension Plan (Pension Plan) by paying a “buy-in” amount of $2,418.55, consistent with the amount quoted to Petitioner in January 2020.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Evangelisto has been continuously employed by an FRS- participating employer since August 2012. As a new employee of an FRS-participating employer, Ms. Evangelisto had a choice to enroll in one of two FRS retirement plans: the Pension Plan or the Investment Plan. The Pension Plan is administered by the Florida Division of Retirement (Division of Retirement), which is housed within the Department of Management Services. The Pension Plan is a defined benefit plan; the benefit is formula-based. The formula used for calculating a pension plan benefit is based on total years of creditable service at the time of retirement, membership class, and average final compensation. See § 121.091, Fla. Stat. The Investment Plan is administered by SBA. The Investment Plan is a defined contribution plan; the benefit is based on gains and losses due to market performance. On January 22, 2013, Ms. Evangelisto enrolled in the Investment Plan, with an effective date of February 1, 2013. This choice is considered Ms. Evangelisto’s initial election. Ms. Evangelisto is still enrolled in the Investment Plan. After making an initial election, an employee may make a “second election” if still employed with an FRS-participating employer, earning salary and service credit. Ms. Evangelisto may utilize a second election to move into the Pension Plan, but must pay a “buy-in” amount to do so. This sum is derived from an actuarial calculation conducted by the Division of Retirement. To effectuate a second election, Ms. Evangelisto must complete and submit a 2nd Election Retirement Plan Enrollment Form (2nd Election Form) to the Plan Choice Administrator. The 2nd Election Form may be obtained by calling the MyFRS Financial Guidance Line or through the MyFRS.com website. When completed, the form may be submitted by facsimile, mail, or by electronic submission through the MyFRS.com website. Respondent is required to provide FRS Investment Plan participants with educational services, including: disseminating educational materials; providing retirement planning education; explaining the Pension Plan and the Investment Plan; and offering financial planning guidance on matters such as investment diversification, investment risks, investment costs, and asset allocation. See § 121.4501(8)(b), Fla. Stat. Respondent provides these educational services through Ernst & Young (EY), a contracted third-party administrator. EY financial planners provide information to FRS employees via the MyFRS Financial Guidance Line. On multiple occasions over the years, going back to as early as July 2018, Ms. Evangelisto spoke to EY financial planners via the MyFRS Financial Guidance Line to request a calculation of her buy-in amount.2 In July 2018, Ms. Evangelisto contacted the MyFRS Guidance Line to request her buy-in amount. In August 2018, she received a comparison estimate. The comparison estimate provided the estimated buy-in amount, the current value of her Investment Plan, and the amount of out-of-pocket funds 2 Ms. Evangelisto testified that she made requests to determine her buy-in amount even prior to 2018. Ms. Evangelisto would have to pay to buy into the Pension Plan. This out-of- pocket sum is the result of the difference between the buy-in amount determined by the Division of Retirement and her Investment Plan account balance. The amounts contained in the comparison estimate are only valid for the calendar month in which they are issued. From July 2018, through March 2019, there were numerous communications between Petitioner and EY Financial Planners by telephone conversation, email, and through voice messages. Ms. Evangelisto made requests for buy-in amounts and received updated comparison estimates in November 2018 and March 2019. On January 13, 2020, Petitioner requested a calculation of her buy-in amount. On January 22, 2020, she received a comparison estimate which set forth an out-of-pocket cost of $2,418.55 to transfer to the Pension Plan. The estimate indicated that it was valid until January 31, 2020. On February 14, 2020, Petitioner requested another calculation of her buy-in amount. On March 12, 2020, she received a comparison estimate with an out-of-pocket cost of $7,198.64. The estimate indicated that it was valid until March 31, 2020. Ms. Evangelisto testified that she did not transfer to the Pension Plan, after being provided comparison estimates, because she did not have the funds to pay for the associated out-of-pocket cost. On June 24, 2020, Petitioner called the MyFRS Guidance Line to request yet another comparison estimate. During this conversation, Petitioner inquired about potential changes to the buy-in amount associated with becoming “vested.” The conversation was recorded and later transcribed by a court reporter: Ms. Evangelisto: Does the cost to buy into the pension change significantly once you would be vested at the eight years? EY financial planner: I actually don’t know if it would or not. Ms. Evangelisto: Okay. EY financial planner: I can try to find out. I don’t think it’s necessarily based on vesting, but more the years of service. Ms. Evangelisto: Okay. During the June 24, 2020, call, the EY financial planner told Ms. Evangelisto that she could expect the comparison estimate in three weeks. Ms. Evangelisto agreed to July 16, 2020, for a follow-up call. On July 9, 2020, Ms. Evangelisto received an email from EY, but the email did not contain the requested comparison report. On July 15, 2020, Ms. Evangelisto called the MyFRS Guidance Line to follow up on her June 24 request and to ask about the July 9 email. The EY financial planner calculated the buy-in costs for her over the phone. He provided a verbal, estimated out-of-pocket cost of $17,657.00 to buy into the Pension Plan. Surprised by this number, which was over $10,000 higher than the out-of-pocket estimate provided in March 2020, Ms. Evangelisto asked why the cost increased. This telephone call was also recorded and later transcribed by a court reporter. Relevant parts of the conversation are as follows: Ms. Evangelisto: Does it normally jump up heftily at eight years of service -- EY financial planner: No. No. Ms. Evangelisto: -- or like in a yearly increment? EY financial planner: No. Ms. Evangelisto: It doesn’t? EY financial planner: It -- okay, you have been watching in and monitoring it very closely, so you had in December, January, March, and now we are a July figure. If all of those other figures were consistent, while the increase due to the change in the underlying interest rate might have a negative impact, it shouldn’t be so much that it’s going to bump up the cost by another $10,000. The EY financial planner promised to look into the numbers to ensure they were not miscalculated. On the same day, the EY financial planner called Ms. Evangelisto back and left a voicemail. He stated that the out-of-pocket cost he provided on the earlier phone call was correct and that the number had substantially increased because Ms. Evangelisto hit the eight-year vesting mark.3 The previous calculations were based on having an unvested account balance. Ms. Evangelisto returned the EY financial planner’s call and he confirmed the information he provided in the voicemail. Ms. Evangelisto asked EY financial planners, on two occasions, if her buy-in amount (and resulting out-of-pocket costs) would increase upon becoming vested. On the first occasion, during the June 24 call, the EY financial planner told her that he “did not know” and would endeavor to provide her with an answer by July 16. Unfortunately for Ms. Evangelisto, the final date to make the switch to the Pension Plan before the substantial increase4 was June 30. Ms. Evangelisto reached out to the MyFRS Guidance Line on July 15, prior to her scheduled July 16 call. On this occasion, the EY financial planner provided incorrect information when he told her that buy-in amounts did not 3 In her Proposed Recommended Order, Ms. Evangelisto asserted that she became “vested” on July 1, 2020, after completing eight years of creditable service with FRS-participating employers. 4 It is important to note that the amount to buy into the Pension Plan increased every time Ms. Evangelisto requested a calculation, albeit not the sizeable jump that occurred when she became vested. substantially increase upon vesting. This proved to be inconsequential, however, as the increase to Ms. Evangelisto’s buy-in amount had occurred as of July 1, 2020, prior to the EY planner providing the incorrect information. An EY financial planner provided inaccurate information to Ms. Evangelisto when he indicated that no substantial jump would occur upon vesting. Nevertheless, Ms. Evangelisto is required to pay a buy-in amount as calculated by the Division of Retirement when she chooses to move forward with making the second election. Petitioner did not prove that she should be entitled to pay the buy-in amount calculated in January 2020. That amount was valid until January 31, 2020, and the document provided to Ms. Evangelisto clearly notified her of such. Ms. Evangelisto still has a one-time second election to move into the Pension Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Florida Retirement System Investment Plan Petition for Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Elisha Marie Evangelisto 4604 20th Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34209 Deborah Stephens Minnis, Esquire Ausley McMullen, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ash Williams, Executive Director & Chief Investment Officer State Board of Administration 1801 Hermitage Boulevard, Suite 100 Post Office Box 13300 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3300
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 19B-14.001, 19B- 14.002, and 19B-14.003 (collectively the “Rules”), are each an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the State Agency which administers the Stanley G. Tate Florida Prepaid College Program (Florida Prepaid College Plan) set forth in section 1009.98, Florida Statutes, and the Florida College Savings Program (Florida 529 Plan) set forth in section 1009.981, collectively known as the Plans. Intuition is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Intuition provides services to customers nationwide, including college savings and prepaid record keeping administration services. It is the largest third- party contractor in the country providing prepaid record keeping administrative services. The Board and Intuition have entered into a series of contracts over the past 25 years. The parties entered their last contract on July 1, 2019, which called for Intuition to provide customer services and records administration services to the Board. Witnesses for both parties testified about the possibility of an upcoming contract dispute involving $700,000.00. This issue prompted the rule challenge. The dispute resolution paragraph in the July 1, 2019, contract provides the following in pertinent part: 33. INTERPRETATION, VENUE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION * * * B. The sole and exclusive manner of resolution of all claims, disputes or controversies related to or arising under or from this Contract shall be pursuant to Rules 19B-14.001, 19B-14.002, and 19B-14.003, Florida Administrative Code, as amended from time to time. 5. Rules 19B-14.001, 19B-14.002, and 19B-14.003, were effective as “New” on June 20, 1996. Rule 19B-14.001, the only rule that has been amended since 1996,4 currently provides: 19B-14.001 Scope These rules shall apply to the resolution of all claims, disputes or controversies related to or arising from contracts, including any extensions of contracts, entered by the Florida Prepaid College Board on or after the effective date of these rules. These rules shall constitute the sole procedure for the resolution of all claims under all such contracts. These rules do not apply to advance payment contracts for the prepayment of Registration Fees, Local Fees, the Tuition Differential Fee and dormitory fees. Rulemaking Authority 1009.971(1), (4), (6) FS. Law Implemented 1009.971[5] FS. History–New 6-20-96, Amended 10-18-10.[6] Rule 19B-14.001 identifies the “Rulemaking Authority” as section 1009.971(1), (4), and (6), and the “Law Implemented” as section 1009.971. 4 The rule was amended in the following ways: the name was changed from Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expenses Board to Florida Prepaid College Board; the word “postsecondary” was deleted before “Registration Fees”; the word “registration” was deleted after the word “dormitory”; “Registration Fees” was capitalized; and the phrase “Local Fees, the Tuition Differential Fee” was added. 5 Although section 1009.971 is cited as the “Law Implemented,” these three statutory subsections: (2) Florida Prepaid College Board; Membership; (3) Florida Prepaid College Board; Elections; Meetings; and (5) Florida Prepaid College Board; Contractual Services, are not applicable to the challenged rules. 6 These history notes are not completely accurate. This rule was amended in 2010 and the citations are accurate for 2010. Florida Administrative Code Rule 1-1.012, Legal Citations and History Notes, provides the specific method to record legal citations and history notes. Section 1009.971(1), (4), and (6) state in pertinent part: FLORIDA PREPAID COLLEGE BOARD; CREATION.—The Florida Prepaid College Board is hereby created as a body corporate with all the powers of a body corporate for the purposes delineated in this section. The board shall administer the prepaid program and the savings program, and shall perform essential governmental functions as provided in ss. 1009.97-1009.988.[7] For the purposes of s. 6, Art. IV of the State Constitution, the board shall be assigned to and administratively housed within the State Board of Administration, but it shall independently exercise the powers and duties specified in ss. 1009.97- 1009.988. * * * (4) FLORIDA PREPAID COLLEGE BOARD; POWERS AND DUTIES.—The board shall have the powers and duties necessary or proper to carry out the provisions of ss. 1009.97-1009.988, including, but not limited to, the power and duty to: Appoint an executive director to serve as the chief administrative and operational officer of the board and to perform other duties assigned to him or her by the board. Adopt an official seal and rules. Sue and be sued. Make and execute contracts and other necessary instruments. Establish agreements or other transactions with federal, state, and local agencies, including state universities and Florida College System institutions. 7 In 1996, the statutes addressing the Plans ended at section 1009.984. Sections 1009.985 through 1009.988 were added in 2015; but those additions do not affect the issue herein. Further reference to these additional sections 1009.985 through 1009.988 will not be noted. Administer the trust fund in a manner that is sufficiently actuarially sound to defray the obligations of the prepaid program and the savings program, considering the separate purposes and objectives of each program. The board shall annually evaluate or cause to be evaluated the actuarial soundness of the prepaid fund. If the board perceives a need for additional assets in order to preserve actuarial soundness of the prepaid program, the board may adjust the terms of subsequent advance payment contracts to ensure such soundness. Invest funds not required for immediate disbursement. Appear in its own behalf before boards, commissions, or other governmental agencies. Hold, buy, and sell any instruments, obligations, securities, and property determined appropriate by the board. Require a reasonable length of state residence for qualified beneficiaries. Segregate contributions and payments to the trust fund into the appropriate fund. Procure and contract for goods and services, employ personnel, and engage the services of private consultants, actuaries, managers, legal counsel, and auditors in a manner determined to be necessary and appropriate by the board. Solicit and accept gifts, grants, loans, and other aids from any source or participate in any other way in any government program to carry out the purposes of ss. 1009.97-1009.988. Require and collect administrative fees and charges in connection with any transaction and impose reasonable penalties, including default, for delinquent payments or for entering into an advance payment contract or a participation agreement on a fraudulent basis. Procure insurance against any loss in connection with the property, assets, and activities of the trust fund or the board. Impose reasonable time limits on use of the benefits provided by the prepaid program or savings program. However, any such limitations shall be specified within the advance payment contract or the participation agreement, respectively. Delineate the terms and conditions under which payments may be withdrawn from the trust fund and impose reasonable fees and charges for such withdrawal. Such terms and conditions shall be specified within the advance payment contract or the participation agreement. Provide for the receipt of contributions in lump sums or installment payments. Require that purchasers of advance payment contracts or benefactors of participation agreements verify, under oath, any requests for contract conversions, substitutions, transfers, cancellations, refund requests, or contract changes of any nature. Verification shall be accomplished as authorized and provided for in s. 92.525(1)(a). Delegate responsibility for administration of one or both of the comprehensive investment plans required in s. 1009.973 to persons the board determines to be qualified. Such persons shall be compensated by the board. Endorse insurance coverage written exclusively for the purpose of protecting advance payment contracts, and participation agreements, and the purchasers, benefactors, and beneficiaries thereof, including group life policies and group disability policies, which are exempt from the provisions of part V of chapter 627. Form strategic alliances with public and private entities to provide benefits to the prepaid program, savings program, and participants of either or both programs. Solicit proposals and contract, pursuant to s. 287.057, for the marketing of the prepaid program or the savings program, or both together. Any materials produced for the purpose of marketing the prepaid program or the savings program shall be submitted to the board for review. No such materials shall be made available to the public before the materials are approved by the board. Any educational institution may distribute marketing materials produced for the prepaid program or the savings program; however, all such materials shall be approved by the board prior to distribution. Neither the state nor the board shall be liable for misrepresentation of the prepaid program or the savings program by a marketing agent. Establish other policies, procedures, and criteria to implement and administer the provisions of ss. 1009.97-1009.988. Adopt procedures to govern contract dispute proceedings between the board and its vendors. Amend board contracts to provide Florida ABLE, Inc., or the Florida ABLE program with contractual services. (aa) Adopt rules relating to the purchase and use of a prepaid college plan authorized under s. 1009.98 or a college savings plan authorized under s. 1009.981 for the Gardiner Scholarship Program pursuant to s. 1002.385, which may include, but need not be limited to: * * * (6) QUALIFIED TUITION PROGRAM STATUS.— Notwithstanding any other provision of ss. 1009.97- 1009.984, the board may adopt rules necessary for the prepaid program and the savings program each to retain its status as a “qualified tuition program” in order to maintain its tax-exempt status or other similar status of the program, purchasers, and qualified beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code. The board shall inform participants in the prepaid program and the savings program of changes to the tax or securities status of advance purchase contracts and participation agreements. Rule 19B-14.001 provides, in plain language, “[t]hese rules shall apply to the resolution of all claims, disputes or controversies related to or arising from contracts” and “shall constitute the sole procedure for the resolution of all claims under all such contracts.” The term “shall” is defined as “directives to express what is mandatory.” See Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shall). Rule 19B-14.002 provides the following: 19B-14.002 Initiating Proceedings Related to Contracts with the Board. Any person or firm that has entered into a contract with the Board and has been adversely affected by a decision of the Board or its employees concerning such contract shall file a written petition to contest the decision with the Board within 21 days of the date of the receipt by such person or firm of the decision. The notice of the decision shall be provided in writing to the person or firm by the Executive Director. The date of receipt of the notice shall be either the date on which the notice is received by the person or firm if the notice is sent by registered mail or by other means of delivery which results in a receipt for delivery or the date of the decision plus five days if the notice is sent by regular mail. Any person or firm who receives such written notice of the decision and who fails to request a hearing within twenty-one days, shall have waived his right subsequently to request a hearing on such matters. The petition shall include the following: The name and business address of the person or firm which claims to be adversely affected by a decision of the Board or its employees; A concise statement of the ultimate facts upon which the claim arose; The date and subject of the contract under which the claim arose; A statement of all disputed issues of material fact upon which the claim is based or, if there are none, the petition shall so indicate; A concise statement which explains how the substantial interests of the person or firm are affected by the decision of the Board or the Board’s employees; A concise statement of the provisions of the contract together with any fed., state and local laws, ordinances or code requirements or customary practices and usages in the industry asserted to be applicable to the questions presented by the claim; The demand for relief sought by the claimant; The date of the occurrence of the event or events which gave rise to the claim and the date and manner of the Contractor’s compliance with the contract; and Any other material information the person or firm contends is material to its claim. The written petition shall be printed, typewritten or otherwise duplicated in legible form. The petition shall include copies of all documents which support the claim. Rulemaking Authority 1009.971(1), (4), (6) FS. Law Implemented 1009.971 FS. History–New 6-20- 96.[8] Rule 19B-14.002(1) clearly states that any person or firm (vendor) “shall file a written petition to contest the decision with the Board within 21 days of the date of the receipt by such person or firm of the decision.” The next sentence provides the method by which the specific date of receipt of the notice is determined, and when the clock starts ticking for the affected vendor to file a written petition. However, the rule fails to establish a time frame in which Respondent must issue the notice once the adverse decision is made. Further, there are no specific requirements for the content of the written notice, such as explaining the basis for the adverse decision. Although Mr. Thompson asserted that any affected vendor could file a written petition to contest any adverse decision by the Board or a Board employee, there is no such language in the rule, the “sole procedure” for a vendor to do so. Rule 19B-14.002(2) provides specific requirements for the written petition. Although a vendor may be able to include some of the required information for the written petition, the requirement that the vendor “shall” provide a “concise statement of the ultimate facts upon which the claim arose”; a “statement of all disputed issues of material fact upon which the claim is based ...”; and a “concise statement which explains how the substantial interest of the person or firm are affected by the decision of the Board or the Board’s employees” is impossible without specific information from Respondent as to the circumstances giving rise to the adverse decision. Mr. Thompson testified there was nothing to preclude an affected vendor from filing a public records request seeking the information desired. 8 These citations are not accurate. In 1996, Respondent listed sections 120.53(1) and 240.551(5), Florida. Statutes (1995), as the “Specific Authority” and section 240.551 as the “Law Implemented.” Rule 1-1.012, Legal Citations and History Notes, provides the specific method to record legal citations and history notes. However, this is contrary to the specific language of the rule, which neither requires the Board to explain the basis for their adverse decision nor provides any procedure for an adversely affected vendor to obtain the information necessary to file a written petition. There is no such language in the rule, the “sole procedure” for a vendor to do so. Rule 19B-14.003 provides the following: 19B-14.003 Resolution of Claims. Upon receipt of a formal written petition, the Executive Director shall attempt to resolve the matters that are the subject of the petition by mutual agreement within fifteen (15) days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. If the petition is not resolved by mutual agreement within fifteen (15) days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, the Executive Director shall deliver, within forty-five (45) days from the date such petition was filed, to the person or firm that filed the petition a determination that indicates the Board’s written response to the claims or such person or firm. Unless the person or firm who filed the petition agrees to the determination of the Board and a consent order adopting the determination is entered within thirty (30) days from the receipt by the person or firm of the Board’s determination, the Executive Director, if no disputed issues of material fact are involved, shall designate a hearing officer who shall conduct an informal proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(2), F.S., and applicable Board rules. The hearing officer designated by the Executive Director shall be either a person who is a member in good standing of the Florida Bar or a person knowledgeable by virtue of education or practical experience with the subject matter of similar contracts involving state agencies. If there is a disputed issue of material fact, the Executive Director shall refer the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services for proceedings under Section 120.57(1), F.S. Once the Executive Director has referred the dispute to a hearing officer pursuant to subsection (3) or (4), no further information or amendment of the claims shall be permitted. The statements, facts, documents and materials contained in the petition filed pursuant to Rule 19B-14.002, F.A.C., or which are submitted to and received by the Executive Director prior to the determination made pursuant to subsection 19B- 14.003(2), F.A.C., shall constitute the entire factual record submitted by a person or firm on which a claim against the Board may be sustained in any hearing under this rule. A person or firm making a claim against the Board shall not be allowed to submit to a hearing officer any statements, facts, documents or materials to support any claim against the Board which were not submitted to the Executive Director by the person or firm making the claim prior to the Executive Director’s determination pursuant to subsection 19B- 14.003(2), F.A.C. The Board may submit statements, facts, documents or materials in response to the factual record submitted by a person or firm making a claim against the Board or to sustain the decision of the Executive Director which was made pursuant to subsection 19B- 14.003(2), F.A.C. The filing of a petition by a person or firm pursuant to the provisions of this rule shall not affect the duty or obligation of the person or firm pursuant to the contract under which the claim or dispute arose. Any person or firm which files a petition pursuant to the provisions of this rule expressly agrees that it shall continue to proceed with all scheduled work as determined under any prior existing schedule pursuant to such contract unless otherwise agreed in writing between the person or firm and the Board. Rulemaking Authority 1009.971(1), (4), (6) FS. Law Implemented 1009.971 FS. History–New 6-20- 96.[9] Rule 19B-14.003(1) adds the word “formal” before “written petition” in the first sentence. The addition of this one word, without any definition and without any previous mention in rule 19B-14.001 (the “sole procedure”), imposes another requirement on vendors. Yet, there is no direction provided as to what that “formal written petition” includes. Respondent aptly states in its PFO: “A rule may be vague if it does not define important terms or standards.” Such is the case when a word is inserted and not defined. The remainder of rule 19B-14.003(1) places a duty on the Board’s Executive Director to attempt a resolution of the “formal written petition” within 15 business days of its receipt. Rule 19B-14.003(3) establishes that if no resolution is reached, the matter is referred to a hearing officer designated by the Board’s Executive Director for a hearing not involving disputed issues of fact (formerly and commonly referred to as an “informal hearing”). This informal hearing is to be conducted pursuant to section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. Rule 19B-14.003(4) establishes that if no resolution is reached, the matter is referred to DOAH for a hearing involving disputed issues of fact (formerly and commonly referred to as a “formal hearing”), “for proceedings under section 120.57(1),F.S.” However, rule 19B-14.003(5) provides that regardless of which referral is made (either rule 19B-14.003(3) or (4)), “no further information or amendment of the claims shall be permitted.” This, in effect, precludes the discovery process at DOAH, and purports to cut off the authority of the presiding administrative law judge to grant leave to amend the petition. 9 See Footnote 8 above. Rule 19B-14.003(6) then proceeds to place further restrictions on how either hearing (informal or formal) must proceed. Subsection (6) restricts what “shall constitute the entire factual record” to the “statements, facts, documents and materials contained in the petition,” and that which is “submitted to and received by the Executive Director prior to the determination made pursuant to subsection Rule 19B-14.003(2), F.A.C.” This phrase is emphasized again with the following statement: “[A] person or firm making a claim against the Board shall not be allowed to submit to a hearing officer any statements, facts, documents or materials to support any claim against the Board which were not submitted ... prior to the Executive Director’s determination.” (Emphasis added). However, the Board, itself, “may submit statements, facts, documents or materials in response to the factual record submitted by person or firm making a claim against the Board, or to sustain the decision of the Executive Director which was made pursuant to subsection 19B-14.003(2), F.A.C.” Overall, these three rules set forth the procedures, in either informal or formal proceedings, to adjudicate contractual disputes. To prohibit the adversely affected party from fully prosecuting their claim, while allowing the Board to submit additional material to the trier of fact is not fair, and is contrary to the procedures in place at DOAH, contrary to several statutory provisions found in sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), and the discovery permitted at DOAH under the Florida Rules. of Civil. Procedures. The phrase “judge, jury, and executioner” may not be an incorrect analogy. Each rule cites as its “Rulemaking Authority” section 1009.97(1), (4), and (6). The Board is a creature of the Florida Statutes, created by section 1009.971(1), “with all the powers of a body corporate,” yet subsection (1) does not provide any rulemaking authority. Further, nowhere does this section grant the Board the ability to adopt rules to bind another state agency, that is governed by different statutes and rules. Section 1009.971(6) allows the Board to “adopt rules necessary for the prepaid program and the savings program... to maintain its tax-exempt status or other similar status of the program,” but does not specifically provide that the Board may impose its rules on another state agency. Section 1009.971(4)(b) grants the Board the “power and duty to… (a)dopt an official seal and rules.” This subsection does not expound on what the rules may impart, and thus does not grant the specific authority to do more. Section 1009.971(4)(y) grants the Board the “power and duty to… “(a)dopt procedures to govern contract dispute proceedings between the board and its vendors.” Although the Board has the ability to adopt rules, that authority does not grant the Board the ability to impose its “procedures” on another state agency that is governed by different statutes and rules. The term “procedures” is not defined in the statute. The common definition of procedures is “a particular way of accomplishing something.” See Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary (https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/procedure). In the legal arena, the term “procedure” is defined as “[T]hat which regulates the formal steps in an action or other judicial proceeding; a form, manner, and order of conducting suits or prosecutions.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1368 (4th ed. 1968). Another characterization of the term “procedure” is the structure for carrying on a lawsuit, including the pleadings, discovery process, evidence, and practice. The Division10 provides independent administrative law judges to conduct hearings pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), and other laws. Section 120.569 sets forth the type of proceedings to be conducted: “Decisions which affect substantial interests.” The petition for a hearing is 10 The Division operates two distinct programs: the adjudication of administrative cases by administrative law judges (ALJs); and the adjudication of workers’ compensation claims by the judges of compensation claims. In this instance, the Division employs ALJs to conduct hearings in which the substantial interests of a person or entity are determined by an agency and involve a disputed issue of material fact. filed with the affected agency, which in turn has 15 days to notify DOAH, although the parties may attempt to resolve the dispute and a delay in sending the case to DOAH occurs. Once the case is at DOAH, an ALJ is assigned and the affected agency is mandated to “take no further action with respect to the proceeding ... except as a party litigant, as long as the division has jurisdiction over the proceeding under s. 120.57(1).” The “presiding officer has the power to swear witnesses and take their testimony under oath, to issue subpoenas, and to effect discovery on the written request of any party by any means available to the courts ” See § 120.569(2)(f), Fla. Stat. Further, the presiding officer shall exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence, while allowing “all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs ” See § 120.569(2)(g), Fla. Stat. The Florida Administration Commission, composed of the Governor and Cabinet, adopted the hearing procedures that DOAH utilizes, commonly referred to as the Uniform Rules. See §§ 14.202 and 120.54(5), Fla. Stat. Chapter 28-106, Part I, sets forth the general provisions that apply to “all proceedings in which the substantial interest of a party are determined by the agency and shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every proceeding.” Part II sets forth those processes for hearings involving disputed issues of material fact, which are at specific odds with rule 19B-14.003.11 Section 120.54(5)(a)2. provides that an “agency may seek exceptions to the uniform rules of procedure by filing a petition with the Administration Commission.” The Board provided no evidence that it has sought and received an exception that would authorize the challenged rules. 11 Chapter 28-106, Part III, provides the uniform procedures for proceedings and hearings not involving disputed issues of material fact; Part IV provides the uniform procedures for mediations; Part V provides the process for emergency actions; and Part VI provides conflict direction. It is true that the Board can adopt procedures to govern contract dispute proceedings. However, the challenged rules, read separately and as a whole, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Background And Overview Respondent was first employed by Petitioner, School Board Of Palm Beach County, Florida (the "School Board"), in 1964 as a teacher. Respondent was promoted to principal in 1971, Assistant Superintendent for the School Board in 1978, and Associate Superintendent of Schools for Planning and Operations on July 1, 1984. Respondent was one of three Associate Superintendents in the Palm Beach County school district. There was also an Associate Superintendent of Instruction and an Associate Superintendent of Administration. Each Associate Superintendent reported to the Deputy Director who reported to the Superintendent. Respondent served as Associate Superintendent of Planning and Operations until he was demoted to principal on November 5, 1991. Respondent served under an annual contract as an Associate Superintendent and maintains a continuing contract as a teacher. While employed as an Associate Superintendent, Respondent never received notice of an allegation of incompetent conduct, was never disciplined, and never received a negative performance evaluation prior to this proceeding. In the Summer of 1991, Respondent was a finalist for the position of Superintendent. The position of Associate Superintendent of Planning and Operations was subsequently abolished effective July 1, 1992. Planning And Operations: Organization And Regular Duties The organization of Planning and Operations has changed in specific regards during the years Respondent was its Associate Superintendent. 1/ For the purposes of this proceeding, however, Planning and Operations employed approximately 1,500 people and was organized and operated in three subdivisions: Growth Management; Facilities Planning and Management; and Personnel Relations. Personnel Relations is not at issue in this proceeding. 2/ Growth Management responsibilities included: identifying school district demographics; determining racial balance; and site acquisition for development of schools and other facilities. Facilities Planning and Management responsibilities included: building new schools; renovations; improvements; and maintenance. Each of the three subdivisions of Planning and Operations was supervised directly by an Assistant Superintendent. The Assistant Superintendents supervised one comptroller and nine directors. Directors had direct responsibility for assistant directors. Assistant directors supervised first-line managers. First-line managers supervised numerous employees who regularly worked on: major school center projects; new school construction; facility design and contract services; facility operations; maintenance and renovations; personnel administration; information management; recruitment and selection; and human resources. Additional Duties In addition to their regular duties, Respondent and other senior administrative supervisors were required by Mr. Thomas Mills, the former Superintendent, to promote and solicit the involvement of members of the local business community in the Palm Beach County school system. The school system faced student overcrowding, a lack of materials, a lack of adequate funding, and a rising drop out rate. Members of the business community were recruited to help raise money for operating expenses and to support a bond issue for which the School Board sought voter approval in 1986. Many members of the local business community were also vendors to the School Board. Respondent was directed by former Superintendent Mills and Dr. James Daniels, the Deputy Superintendent, to contact and network with as many members of the business community as possible. Such activities were considered by former Superintendent Mills to be a high priority. Respondent complied with the directives of the former Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent. The efforts of Respondent and other senior managers proved successful. The business community in Palm Beach County raised funds to supplement the operating expenses of the school system and supported a bond issue for construction of new facilities and capital improvements to existing facilities. In 1986, the majority of registered voters in Palm Beach County approved a Special Referendum authorizing a $678 million bond issue for the construction of educational facilities in the Palm Beach County School District. The School Board established a five year plan for the construction of educational and ancillary facilities (the "five year construction plan"). A portion of the bond money was allocated to capital improvement projects to renovate or remodel existing facilities. Planning and Operations supervised all bond issue projects, including capital improvement projects. In the 1986- 1987 school year, such projects, including capital improvement projects, were supervised by the division of New School Construction. In the Fall of 1987, supervision of capital improvements was transferred to Maintenance and Renovations. Maintenance and Renovations was also organized within Planning and Operations. Approximately 39 new schools were constructed in Palm Beach County while Respondent was Associate Superintendent of Planning and Operations. The total budget for construction of new schools was approximately $550 million. Thousands of construction projects, renovations, and improvement or maintenance projects were performed by Planning and Operations. Approximately $317 million of the authorized bond issue was issued from 1987 through 1989. In addition to the construction of new schools, the School Board approved a plan in 1985 to acquire land and construct four ancillary facilities. The ancillary facilities included a new administrative complex, a central warehouse, and a maintenance and operations facility. Planning and Operations supervised the site acquisition and construction of all four ancillary facilities. Deficiencies In Planning And Operations Deficiencies in the organization and operation of Planning and Operations were well known to both the School Board and Planning and Operations personnel. They were pandemic deficiencies that Respondent could not correct without the approval and financial support of the School Board and the technical assistance of experts. 3/ The School Board retained an outside consultant, Price Waterhouse, to study deficiencies in Planning and Operations and to formulate an improvement program. The improvement program was to be developed in three phases. The first phase identified deficiencies within Planning and Operations on the basis of discussions with department personnel and outside specialists. The second phase would have focused on verifying and prioritizing problems and their impacts. The third phase would have formulated a program for improvement of Planning and Operations. Deficiencies in Facilities Planning and Management were identified in interviews conducted by the accounting firm of Price Waterhouse with directors, assistant directors, and first- line managers. In 1987, Price Waterhouse issued a draft report to the School Board describing the deficiencies found in Facilities Planning and Management (the "Price Waterhouse Report"). 4/ The School Board determined that the Price Waterhouse Report merely told the School Board what was already common knowledge and that further expenditures on a program for improvement with Price Waterhouse would be a waste of money. The School Board knew of the deficiencies in Planning and Operations. The School Board knew that those deficiencies created impediments to the supervision of Planning and Operations. Known deficiencies within Facilities Planning and Management involved: financial procedures and controls; staff performance, including personnel and control; planning of operations and projects; contract administration; construction administration; and organization structure. Deficiencies in financial procedures resulted in budgeting without adequate preparation, historical data, timing, and coordination between departments. Poor cost and schedule accounting for capital improvements, maintenance, and operations made it difficult to capture and report cost information in sufficient detail and in a timely manner. Poor cost controls directly affected the control of operations, decisions to perform work by in-house staff or contractors, and the value received for money spent. Adequate project management tools and policies were not in place to contain costs and adhere to schedules for maintenance, capital improvements, and new construction. Payment of suppliers, contractors, architects, and other vendors was slow, frustrated vendors, and made them reluctant to do work for the School Board. There were deficiencies in staff performance, personnel, and control. Productivity appeared to be low. There was a lack of performance measurement and reporting mechanisms in place to accurately assess productivity. Productivity was significantly affected by: inadequate work planning and coordination; the condition and availability of equipment and materials; logistics; and geographic constraints. Many employees were uncertain as to their responsibilities and corresponding authority, particularly at the first-line manager level. Uncertainty over responsibility and authority undermined the effectiveness of first-line managers dealing with vendors, contractors, and architects. Staffing levels and management span were not adequate to maintain existing facilities and operations, control personnel growth, and prevent duplication of field personnel skills between maintenance and capital improvements. Support resources were weak in technical expertise, administrative staff, reference materials, and computer aided design equipment. Capital improvement, new construction, and maintenance tasks were frequently not scheduled in sufficient accuracy and detail to foresee and anticipate potential problems. Frequent schedule slippage allowed contractors less time to complete construction and meet schedules; adversely affecting productivity, project costs, and the ability to plan for and manage project issues and achieve targeted completion dates. Shortages of materials and supplies often caused project delays. Coordination of work between and within departments failed to determine the optimal sequence in which work was to be performed to maximize the utilization of trade employees and avoid conflicts and rework. Deficiencies in contract administration led to lack of clarification in the responsibilities, requirements, and expectations of parties to contracts. Contract documents and conditions were too vague and resulted in frequent disputes, delays, and occasional change orders. To avoid delays caused by change orders, contractors sometime proceeded without proper authorization at their own risk. The definition of authority and responsibility and the guidelines for quality control and inspection for in-house employees and contractors needed to be improved. Such deficiencies in construction administration resulted in project delays, poor construction, and higher facility life cycle costs. A lack of consistency in procedures and policies for project management exacerbated the deficiencies in construction administration. Deficiencies in organization structure directly affected problems in other areas of Planning and Operations. Continuity of work was lacking on new construction. Project managers changed when responsibility passed from one division to the next; resulting in a start-stop effect on the project and a loss of specific project knowledge. Improvement was needed in communications between and within departments and in upper management support of lower management authority. There was a need for a long range organization structure and staffing strategy which addressed alternatives such as internal staffing and contracted services. The presence of deficiencies described in the Price Waterhouse Report in 1987 was confirmed in 1993 in a Report On Audit Of The Palm Beach County District School Board For The Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1992 Dated: June 24, 1993 issued by the State of Florida, Office Of The Auditor General (the "Auditor General's Report"). The Auditor General's Report found that deficiencies similar to those described in the Price Waterhouse Report for Facilities Planning and Management also existed in Growth Management. Problems reported in the Price Waterhouse Report and in the Auditor General's Report described a deficient organizational and operational system in which the School Board required Respondent to supervise unprecedented growth and activity. Respondent was required to: supervise a $550 million construction plan involving thousands of projects and four ancillary facilities; 5/ promote involvement of the business community in the school system; and perform the duties he was otherwise required to perform in the absence of the five year construction plan established by the School Board and associated promotional responsibilities. In 1987, the Price Waterhouse Report stated that supervisors and assistant directors were stretched very thin, and their roles needed to be more clearly defined. Communication between and within departments and from directors and similar supervisors was poor. 6/ Many of the deficiencies described in the Price Waterhouse Report and the Auditor General's Report created impediments to Respondent's supervision of Planning and Operations irrespective of his additional duties associated with the five year construction plan. Petitioners' Allegations Petitioners' allegations against Respondent are based on two separate investigations conducted by Petitioners. 7/ Petitioners' allegations involve: acquisition of a site for a central warehouse for $3.161 million (the "District Warehouse Site"); acquisition of a site for a west bus compound for $750,000 (the "West Bus Compound"); construction of an addition to a new maintenance and operations building on Summit Boulevard in West Palm Beach for Maintenance and Renovations and Facility Operations and construction of an addition to a north maintenance building (the "Summit Facility"); requests for additional services on form G-604 (the "G-604" issue); acceptance of gratuities from members of the business community who were also vendors of the School Board; and evaluation of two employees. Petitioners' allegations of incompetency primarily involve the five year construction plan and ancillary facilities. Few of the alleged acts of incompetence involve other aspects of Respondent's job performance from July 1, 1984, through November 5, 1991. The District Warehouse Site The School Board determined in 1985 that a need existed for a centralized warehouse site in Palm Beach County. 8/ The School Board determined that approximately 10 acres would be adequate. Since the value of land in Palm Beach County was appreciating, the School Board also approved the policy of former Superintendent Mills that encouraged the acquisition of land for future expansion if the land could be acquired at a desirable price, i.e., "warehousing" land for future use. Respondent had advocated a decentralized warehouse system in which separate warehouse functions would be carried out in various regions of Palm Beach County. Others in Planning and Operations supported the concept of a centralized warehouse site. The centralized warehouse concept was accepted and approved by former Superintendent Mills and the School Board. On October 11, 1989, the School Board purchased approximately 16 acres of real property as a site for a centralized district warehouse. The property was purchased for $3.161 million from KEI Palm Beach Center, Ltd. ("KEI"), a limited partnership in which Mr. William Knight was a limited partner and Knight Enterprises, Inc., a corporation controlled by Mr. William Knight, was the general partner (the "Knight property"). Respondent did not act incompetently and did not violate any statute, rule, policy, instruction, or directive, or circumvent normal acquisition procedures (collectively referred to hereinafter as "applicable standards") with regard to the evaluation and purchase of the Knight property. Respondent neither proposed nor advocated the purchase of a particular warehouse site. Respondent did not propose or advocate the identification, evaluation, selection, and purchase of the Knight property. Respondent showed no favoritism to Mr. William Knight, to his son, Mr. Jim Knight, or to any entity owned by the Knights. Respondent committed no act or omission which impaired his business judgment, compromised his independence, or which was otherwise improper in connection with the acquisition of the District Warehouse Site. Initial Site Selection And Evaluation Prior to the acquisition of the Knight property, the School Board attempted to acquire property owned by Palm Beach County and known as Section 6. Negotiations for the acquisition of Section 6 terminated when Section 6 became unavailable. A site search for the District Warehouse property was conducted by Growth Management. Ten separate sites, including the Knight property, were initially identified and reviewed by a site acquisition team within Growth Management. The site acquisition team was headed by Mr. William Hukill, Assistant Superintendent for Growth Management. The site acquisition team also included Mr. Robert Skakandy, a real estate acquisition coordinator in Growth Management, and Mr. David Williams, Assistant Director of Growth Management. Respondent was not significantly involved in identifying the 10 properties considered by the site acquisition team, including the Knight property. Each property was placed on the list by the site acquisition team because it was within or proximate to the geographical area preferred by the site acquisition team or possessed other targeted location characteristics. 9/ Site selection procedures typically did not involve Respondent. Site selection procedures were described in detail in the Auditor General's Report: . . . upon identification of potential sites, the sites were evaluated by the District's Growth Management Center. A description of each site was presented to the Assistant Superintendent, Growth Management and to the Assistant Director, Growth Management for their review, after which the descriptions were . . . presented to the Superintendent. Following the Superintendent's review, the preliminary site investigations and site descriptions with the Superintendent's recommendation were to be presented to the School Board for their review and approval. (emphasis supplied) Auditor General's Report at 63. Growth Management first considered the Knight property in August, 1988. Mr. Jim Knight communicated the availability of the Knight property to Ms. Linda Howell, a real estate coordinator in Growth Management. Ms. Howell and Mr. Jim Knight conducted further discussions. Ms. Howell identified the Knight property as a potential site and relayed the site information to Mr. Skakandy. The site acquisition team reduced the list of ten sites to a list of three final sites. The Knight property was not one of the three final sites selected. The three final sites were all less expensive than the Knight property. The three final sites were the Riviera Beach site, the Boyton Beach site, and the Farmer's Market site. Feasibility problems developed with each of the three final sites. The Riviera Beach site was sold to another party. The Boyton Beach site was objected to by other staff not on the site acquisition team. It was 15-20 miles south of the center of the county and failed the express criteria for a "central" warehouse. Environmental problems and costs associated with the disposal of building materials caused Maintenance and Renovations to recommend against purchase of the Farmer's Market site. 10/ Reconsideration Of Knight Property On or about January 11, 1989, former Superintendent Mills sent a memorandum to Mr. Hukill indicating that Mr. William Knight had called the Superintendent to express his interest in having the Knight property reconsidered for the District Warehouse Site. Respondent received a copy of that memorandum but was not otherwise involved significantly in the reconsideration of the Knight property. On or about January 20, 1989, Mr. Hukill sent a letter to the former Superintendent indicating that the Knight property was still under consideration and that the Knight property location was quite good under the circumstances. Mr. Hukill indicated that appraisals had been ordered and that a site recommendation would be forthcoming. 11/ The Knight property was reconsidered in accordance with procedures customarily followed in Growth Management. There was no formalized procedure followed in Growth Management for the evaluation of property for site acquisition. Sites were discussed in a free form fashion. Except for a recommendation of the final site selected, written records for recommendations on specific properties were not customarily prepared by staff in Growth Management. 12/ Mr. Hukill made the ultimate decision to add or drop sites from consideration. Acquisition sites were added or deleted from site acquisition lists without notifying Respondent. The Knight property was evaluated by the entire staff in Growth Management. The evaluation of the Knight property included a review of environmental issues, utilities, zoning, and road use. Mr. Jim Knight had more than 20 meetings with Growth Management staff including Mr. Hukill, Mr. Skakandy, and Mr. Williams. Respondent was not significantly involved in those discussions. 13/ The Knight property was recommended by staff because of its suitability for the District Warehouse and because of the unavailability or unsuitability of the first three sites originally selected by the site acquisition team. The Knight property was located in almost the exact center of the county. It was also located on Southern Boulevard, a roadway that runs directly to western communities in Palm Beach County where many new schools were scheduled for construction. Respondent properly relied on staff recommendations for the Knight property in accordance with his customary practice. At no time prior to the time the property was acquired did any employee within Growth Management state to Respondent that the Knight property was not a suitable site or that the purchase of the Knight property would be detrimental to the School Board. Mr. Hukill did not sign the written recommendation for the Knight property. The reason for his refusal, however, had nothing to do with the suitability of the Knight property for the District Warehouse. Mr. Hukill believed, as a philosophical matter, that the School Board should spend its money on schools rather than on additional warehouse sites. Mr. Hukill, in effect, objected to a determination made by the School Board in 1985. Mr. Hukill agreed with the recommendation that the Knight property was suitable based on the marketplace, location, and ease of distribution for servicing schools. Respondent neither identified nor advocated the Knight property. Respondent had no conversations with either Mr. William Knight or Mr. Jim Knight concerning the evaluation of the Knight property as a site for the District Warehouse except as previously described. Except for the price paid for the Knight property, Respondent's involvement in the acquisition of the Knight property was limited to a review of staff recommendations and the acceptance of those recommendations. Additional Acreage The initial search for a District Warehouse site focused on the acquisition of 10 acres of property. However, the Knight property included 16 acres. The additional acreage was purchased to overcome access problems that would have occurred if only 10 acres had been purchased. Unanticipated problems in site selection was one of the deficiencies known to the School Board and discussed in the Price Waterhouse Report in 1987. Engineering involvement frequently did not occur early enough in site acquisition. As a result, sites selected by the site acquisition team required unanticipated expenses, and the full cost of the project was not properly assessed. 14/ The decision to purchase additional acreage was not made by Respondent. Former Superintendent Mills wanted the additional acreage to accommodate future expansion for office space on the warehouse site. The former Superintendent believed that a larger site was desirable to properly accommodate future expansion needs and directed the purchase of the additional acreage. The issue of whether to increase the site for the District Warehouse from 10 acres to 16 acres was discussed at a Superintendent's staff meeting. The former Superintendent, the School Board attorney, Respondent, and a dozen other members of the former Superintendent's staff attended the meeting and participated in the discussion. The decision and recommendation to purchase the additional acreage was made by the former Superintendent. Purchase Price The final purchase price for the Knight property was reasonable and beneficial for the School Board. Respondent was responsible for the final purchase price. Two separate appraisals for the Knight property were obtained by Growth Management in accordance with its customary practice and applicable law. 15/ Respondent did not select the appraisers. They were selected by Mr. Skakandy with the approval of Mr. Williams. The appraisers were qualified and had been used many times in the past by Planning and Operations. The two appraisals for the Knight property differed by $1.00 a square foot. The higher appraisal was for $5.50 a square foot. The lower appraisal was for $4.50 a square foot. 16/ Respondent refused to accept Mr. William Knight's offer to split the difference between the two appraisals and insisted on a sales price of $4.42 a square foot. The price paid for the Knight property was reasonable and less than the lowest appraised value. Contract Negotiations Respondent was not involved in contract negotiations for the Knight property and did not dictate any of the terms of the contract for the purchase of the Knight property; except the final purchase price discussed in the preceding paragraph. Site acquisition personnel typically negotiated site acquisition contracts in concert with the School Board attorney. Site acquisition personnel did not customarily report the status of contract negotiations to Respondent. No established procedure required such reports. Contract negotiations for the acquisition of the Knight property were carried out entirely by site acquisition personnel within Growth Management and Mr. Robert Rosillo, the School Board attorney. Negotiations by staff and the School Board attorney for the Knight property were within the scope of normal functions for site acquisition. The School Board attorney did not confer with Respondent during the three months in which contract negotiations for the Knight property were conducted. Respondent never gave the School Board any direction or other information concerning the acquisition of the Knight property. It is the responsibility of the School Board attorney and technical staff in Growth Management to draw acquisition contracts, address zoning requirements, and determine contingencies for closing. Any problems associated with the final contract for purchase of the Knight property were the responsibility of the School Board attorney and staff negotiators. Road Improvements: Allocation Of Costs Between The Parties The contract for the Knight property addressed road improvements, right-of-way, and relocation measures necessary for the use of the property. Engineering drawings reflected the right-of-way issues, the need to relocate water and sewer lines and a lift station, and the need for road improvements. The parties to the contract agreed to share the cost of road improvements proportionally. The contract required the seller to place $70,000 in a separate escrow account to be used to fund the necessary road improvements. While Petitioners now complain that the amount escrowed by the seller was inadequate, the terms of the contract were prepared by the School Board attorney and recommended by Growth Management staff in accordance with long standing practice. In 1987, The Price Waterhouse Report stated that contract documents did not delineate specific responsibilities. The result was confusion, disagreements, and additional costs to the School Board or outside parties. 17/ Adverse impacts from the purchase of the Knight property on October 11, 1989, reflected deficiencies reported in the Price Waterhouse Report in 1987. Those deficiencies were well known to the School Board at least two years before the acquisition of the Knight Property. The School Board chose not to expend additional funds on a program of improvement suggested by Price Waterhouse. Financial Ability Of Seller To Comply With Repurchase Option The contract for the Knight property contained a provision which gives the School Board the right to require the seller to repurchase the property if conditions pertaining to zoning are not satisfied (the "repurchase option"). The repurchase option was drafted by the School Board attorney. A decision not to enforce the repurchase option was made by the School Board, the School Board attorney, and the former Superintendent. If the School Board had elected not to proceed with closing, the contract afforded the seller to right to sue for specific performance. A foreclosure suit was filed against the Knight property a few days prior to the closing on October 11, 1989. Mr. Rosillo discussed the impact of the foreclosure suit on the purchase with former Superintendent Mills. The issue was not discussed with Respondent. The contract did not require the seller to evidence its financial ability to perform the terms of the contract. Nor did the contract require Mr. William Knight to personally guarantee the obligation of the seller under the repurchase option. Temporal Considerations The time required for the evaluation and purchase of the Knight property was reasonable and adequate. The transaction was not "rushed." The evaluation and purchase of the Knight property required approximately 14 months to complete. Once the decision to purchase the property was made, approximately three months were required to finalize the terms of the contract and close the transaction. Even if the evaluation and purchase of the Knight property was rushed, Respondent did not act as an impetus to rush the transaction. Respondent was not significantly involved in the identification, evaluation, and purchase of the Knight property except for the final purchase price. Mr. Jim Knight actively negotiated the transaction with Mr. Rosillo, Mr. Hukill, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Skakandy. The entire transaction was discussed fairly and adequately by Growth Management staff and the School Board attorney. Respondent did not propose or advocate the Knight property. Respondent did not negotiate the terms of the contract to purchase the Knight property except for the final purchase price. Respondent did not decide whether to close the transaction or whether to enforce the repurchase option. Bifurcated Funding For Land Acquisition And Construction The fact that the Knight property was acquired prior to the time that money was available to construct the District Warehouse does not make Respondent incompetent. Property was customarily purchased first and a building constructed out of budget appropriations in subsequent years. In 1987, The Price Waterhouse Report included such practices in its list of deficiencies. The capital budgeting process lacked sufficient coordination, timing, and input. Adequate cost accounting tools were not available. Existing reports lacked sufficient detail, accuracy, and timeliness. Capital improvement funding sources were not clearly identified. The fact that priorities for capital improvements were not easily or accurately tracked was a source of frustration for administrators including Respondent. 18/ Those deficiencies were known to the School Board prior to 1987. In 1987, the School Board chose not to pursue a program of improvement with Price Waterhouse. In 1993, the Auditor General's Report found that originally designated capital outlay moneys had been expended on projects, land purchases, and other purposes which were not contemplated in the 1986 school construction plan. Expenditures not contemplated in the five year construction plan included the District Warehouse Site. 19/ The notice of tax levy for capital improvements had not been prioritized within categories as required by Section 200.065(9)(a), Florida Statutes. Failure to prioritize the projects contributed to delays in undertaking some of the projects at issue. Furthermore, the School Board did not segregate and account for the proceeds and related expenditures of each respective year's levy. 20/ The decision to purchase the Knight property and rely on budget appropriations in subsequent years for construction was made by former Superintendent Mills. The former Superintendent's policy was to purchase land at a reasonable price if there was a future need for the property. Land values in Palm Beach County were appreciating rapidly. The money to construct the buildings on such properties typically came from budget appropriations in subsequent years. The Knight property was purchased for less than its lowest appraised value. 2.10 Gratuities And The Knight Property Respondent went fishing in 1986 and 1987 on Mr. William Knight's fishing boat in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, and in Bimini, Bahama Islands. Respondent reported both fishing trips on his annual financial disclosure forms. The two fishing trips did not adversely affect Respondent's business judgment or create the appearance of impropriety. Respondent was not significantly involved in the acquisition of the Knight property in October, 1989. In 1986, Respondent accepted an invitation from Mr. Robert Howell, a member of the School Board at the time, to go fishing in St. Thomas. The invitation was made to Respondent through former Superintendent Mills. The former Superintendent joined Respondent on the fishing trip. Respondent had never met Mr. William Knight before that time. The fishing trip lasted two days. Respondent paid for his own transportation to St. Thomas. In 1987, Respondent and former Superintendent Mills accepted an invitation from Mr. William Knight to fish with their children in Bimini. The fishing trip lasted one day. The West Bus Compound On or about April 24, 1990, the School Board purchased property in Royal Palm Beach for $750,000 (the "West Bus Compound"). The property was purchased from Mr. John Bills. Site selection procedures typically did not involve Respondent. 21/ Respondent did not act incompetently or violate applicable standards with regard to the identification, evaluation, and purchase of the West Bus Compound. Respondent did not propose or advocate the West Bus Compound or the evaluation, selection, and purchase of the West Bus Compound. Respondent showed no favoritism to Mr. Bills, or any entity owned by Mr. Bills. Respondent committed no act or omission which impaired his judgment, compromised his independence, or which was otherwise improper in connection with the evaluation and acquisition of the West Bus Compound. The need for a site to service the western portion of Palm Beach County was identified by Mr. George Baker, the Director of Transportation. Transportation was a division of the Department of Administration. The Associate Superintendent of Administration was Dr. Henry Boekhoff. Respondent had no authority or responsibility over Transportation. The need for a site to service the western portion of Palm Beach County was uncontroverted. Due to westward population migration, several new schools were built in the western regions of the County. Mr. Baker determined that it was not cost effective to transport buses back and forth from compounds in the eastern portion of the County for maintenance and storage. Mr. Baker and Dr. Boekhoff determined that a West Bus Compound would result in significant savings in the operating budget. The need for a West Bus Compound was well known within the school district administration, including Growth Management. Mr. Baker had repeatedly stated to everyone "within earshot" that the need for a West Bus Compound was urgent. Mr. Baker identified a site location in Royal Palm Beach owned by Mr. Bills. Mr. Baker told Mr. Williams, who worked in Growth Management, that Transportation wanted the site owned by Mr. Bills for the West Bus Compound. Mr. Bills was trying to sell his property. Mr. Bills submitted a brochure on the property to Mr. Hukill and other staff in Growth Management. Mr. Hukill recommended the property owned by Mr. Bills to Respondent. Respondent discussed the site with former Superintendent Mills. At Mr. Hukill's request, the former Superintendent authorized Mr. Hukill to proceed with negotiations for the property owned by Mr. Bills. Respondent advised Mr. Williams of the availability of the property owned by Mr. Bills. Respondent instructed Mr. Skakandy to follow normal procedures regarding the West Bus Compound site. The West Bus Compound site was evaluated by Mr. Skakandy and Mr. Williams. They also negotiated the contract for acquisition. Such action on the part of Mr. Skakandy and Mr. Williams was consistent with customary practice within Growth Management and was within the scope of their regular duties and responsibilities. Two appraisals were obtained for the West Bus Compound. The higher appraisal was for $810,000. The lower appraisal was for $703,000. The property was purchased for $750,000. Respondent properly relied on the recommendations and advice of technical staff in Growth Management with respect to the acquisition of the West Bus Compound site. Respondent was never informed by anyone within Growth Management that there were any limitations on the use of the site. Certain zoning and easement requirements reduced the usable area for the site below that originally projected by Growth Management. Mr. Baker recommended the site even though the usable area was less than originally projected. Respondent was not acquainted with Mr. Bills at the time that the West Bus Compound was evaluated and acquired. Subsequently, however, Respondent developed a friendship with Mr. Bills. Respondent never showed any favoritism to Mr. Bills in connection with the West Bus Compound. The Summit Facility On July 1, 1989, employees of Maintenance and Renovations and employees of Facility Operations were housed in a leased facility at 3323 Belvedere Road, West Palm Beach, Florida (the "Belvedere" site). A new ancillary facility was nearing completion in the Fall of 1989. The new facility was located at 3300 Summit Boulevard in West Palm Beach (the "Summit Facility"). The Summit Facility included a second building known as the north building. The landlord for the Belvedere site exercised its rights under the lease to obtain use of the Belvedere site sooner than originally anticipated by the School Board. Electronics employees housed at the Belvedere site were moved to Northshore High School ("Northshore") on a temporary basis until the Summit Facility was completed. Residents of the neighborhood adjacent to Northshore complained to some members of the School Board about increased traffic. The School Board took the matter up at a public meeting during the Fall of 1989. Approval Of Day Laborers In Trades Sections At the public meeting conducted in the Fall of 1989, the School Board specifically authorized Mr. David Lord, Director of Maintenance, and former Superintendent Mills to use day- laborers in the trades sections 22/ to construct additions to buildings at the Summit Facility and to relocate electronics employees from Northshore to the Summit Facility by January 1, 1990. Mr. Lord and the former Superintendent discussed the matter with the School Board in detail. 23/ At the public meeting, the School Board instructed Mr. Lord to use whatever resources were available to him to make needed capital improvements to the Summit Facility by January 1, 1990. Confusion over when to use contractors or in-house personnel was one of the deficiencies discussed in the Price Waterhouse Report in 1987. Criteria for determining when to perform work on a contract basis and when to perform work in- house were not clearly established. This made planning difficult and increased project costs. 24/ Lack of communication and agreement between project managers and construction personnel concerning time and cost of in-house projects resulted in incorrect decisions concerning the desirability of building in-house or by contract, caused delays, cost overruns. 25/ Comparative cost analyses of in- house and contract maintenance construction were not available. 26/ In 1993, the Auditor General's Report found that established procedures did not provide reasonable safeguards to monitor day-labor projects to ensure that goods and labor were used only for authorized projects. The Auditor General's Report recommended that such procedures be established. 27/ Mr. Lord used day-laborers from his trades sections to make the capital improvements mandated by the School Board in accordance with the School Board's instructions. The work was begun in December, 1989, and completed in March, 1990. Code Violations In 1991, after considerable time for discussion and analysis among attorneys and technical staff within the Department of Education and Planning and Operations, it was determined that some additions to the Summit Facility were not in compliance with applicable safety code regulations. Respondent properly relied on Mr. Lord and Mr. Lord's immediate supervisor for technical compliance with applicable code provisions. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 6A-2 contains the State Uniform Building Code. Part A of Chapter 6A-2 ("Part A") applies in some circumstances, and Part B of Chapter 6A-2 ("Part B") applies in other circumstances. In July, 1990, officials of the Department of Education, Educational Facilities Department, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, were invited to a demonstration of fire alarms at the Summit Facility. Mr. Russell Smith, Director of Facilities Design, determined that life/safety code violations existed in the two buildings at issue in the Summit Facility. Mr. Smith's determination of code violations was based on the assumption that Part A applied to the capital improvements at the Summit Facility. Mr. Lord had determined that Part B applied to the capital improvements. The capital improvements at the Summit Facility complied with the requirements of Part B but not Part A. Mr. Smith did not report the alleged code violations to Respondent until December, 1990. Respondent directed Mr. Smith to obtain a determination from the Department of Education. Mr. Smith pursued the matter with representatives of the Department of Education as well as Mr. Lord in Growth Management. Ms. Abbey Hairston, General Counsel for the School Board, concluded that there was a strong likelihood that Part B applied. Mr. Lord suggested that an outside consulting firm be retained to determine the applicability of Part A or Part B to the capital improvements at the Summit Facility. Respondent could not have detected the existence of the alleged code violations in the capital improvements to the Summit Facility. Respondent did not have the expertise to make such a determination. Respondent's regular duties and responsibilities did not require that Respondent maintain such expertise, conduct inspections for the purpose of detecting code violations, or correct code violations. Respondent did not act incompetently and did not violate applicable standards with regard to the capital improvements to the Summit Facility. Respondent did not propose or advocate that capital improvements be made to the Summit Facility in compliance with Part B. Respondent properly relied on his staff for technical compliance with applicable code requirements. When Respondent received notice of alleged code violations, Respondent acted in a competent and timely manner. In 1987, The Price Waterhouse Report discussed several deficiencies in staff performance, personnel, and control. The Price Waterhouse Report stated: Internal expertise is limited. Knowledge of specialized areas is limited, project quality suffers, life cycle costs are higher. . . . Training programs and budgets are insufficient, especially with respect to technical and safety training. Employees are not as efficient or effective as they could be. Knowledge of project managers is less than they feel is necessary Project managers are resistant to new management techniques. . . . Inadequate technical library. . . . Price Waterhouse Report, Staff Performance, Personnel And Control, Issues 5, 7, and 9, and corresponding Impacts. In 1993, the Auditor General's Report recommended that: . . . District personnel strengthen procedures to provide that, prior to occupancy in the future, the required approvals for occupancy are obtained to ensure that the facilities meet the prescribed safety standards. Auditor General's Report at 64. Tracking And Reporting Costs The computer codes and accounting approach used to track and report the cost of capital improvements to the Summit Facility complied with applicable standards. The computer codes and accounting approach recorded each transaction and were subject to separate retrieval in accordance with established procedures. Required object, fund, and function codes were used to document the expenditure of funds for the capital improvements to the Summit Facility. In 1987, the Price Waterhouse Report stated: Adequate cost accounting tools are not available. Existing reports lack sufficient detail, accuracy and timeliness. [There is] . . . [n]o ability to manage and control project cost. This results in true project cost being unknown and lack of problem identification on a timely basis. . . . Capital Improvement Requests are not easily or accurately tracked. Priorities are difficult to track and coordinate. This is a source of school administration frustration. . . . Project management tools are not available. Project cost containment suffers. Control and reporting is lacking. . . . Accountability is difficult to enforce. Price Waterhouse Report, Financial Procedures And Controls, Issues 4, 8, and 17, and corresponding Impacts. The day-labor hours billed for additions to the Summit Facility totaled approximately 6,373. In the three fiscal years from 1989 through 1992, approximately 566,853.75 day-labor hours were paid and approximately 454,701.75 were billed. Day-labor hours paid exceeded day-labor hours billed by approximately 112,152 hours. 28/ As the Price Waterhouse Report indicated in 1987, adequate cost accounting tools were not available. The cost accounting and reporting procedures that were in fact utilized for the additions to the Summit Facility complied with available cost accounting procedures. Respondent did not act incompetently and did not violate applicable standards in connection with the method used to track and report the cost of capital improvements to the Summit Facility. Respondent did not propose or advocate any particular accounting procedure. Respondent properly relied on technical staff to track and record the cost of capital improvements to the Summit Facility, and staff properly utilized the accounting tools available to them. Purchase Orders Purchase orders for mezzanine and modular offices were originated by staff in lower levels of Maintenance and Operations. The purchase orders were processed in accordance with normal procedure and approved by Ms. Betty Helser, Director of Purchasing. Ms. Helser was under the supervision of the Associate Superintendent of Administration and was not subject to the authority of Planning and Operations. Planning and Operations had no authority over Purchasing. Respondent did not participate in the purchase order approval process. Respondent was not responsible for that process. Several names were listed on the purchase orders as resource or contact persons in connection with the purchase order. Respondent was not one of those named. Funding Source For Capital Improvements Respondent did not act incompetently and did not violate applicable standards in connection with the funding source for capital projects, including acquisition of the District Warehouse site, the West Bus Compound, and additions to the Summit Facility. Funding sources for such projects were approved by the School Board. The funds used to pay for the District Warehouse, the West Bus Compound, and the Summit Facility were not misappropriated or misapplied. The School Board approved those capital projects and their corresponding budgets. The budget for each capital project provided for the transfer of capital outlay moneys to the general fund. 29/ Taxes had been levied for capital improvements pursuant to Section 236.25(2), Florida Statutes. Funds were transferred from this special millage money and not from general obligation bond money. Such transfers occurred in prior years and were consistent with customary procedure. Moreover, no funds were used for capital projects without the prior knowledge and consent of the School Board. Deficiencies in the budget reporting and control process impeded full consideration by the School Board of the impact of capital projects and budget transfers on the 1986 school construction plan. As a result, originally designated capital outlay moneys were expended on capital projects not contemplated in the 1986 school construction plan. Accordingly, some originally contemplated projects were not undertaken in the five year plan due to lack of funds. 30/ Deficiencies in financial processes and controls reported by Price Water House in 1987 and known to the School Board prior to that time created impediments to proper budgeting and resulted in poor budget quality. In 1987, the Price Waterhouse Report stated: Performance measurement (feedback) needed to assess and improve budget accuracy is lacking. Poor budget accuracy, control, and forecasting [results]. . . . The capital budgeting process lacks sufficient coordination, timing and department input. Budget priorities may not be sufficiently addressed and quality of actual budgets may suffer. Priorities for improvements are defined by construction and remodeling, but they may not be consistent with the school's needs. High priority projects may not be addressed on a timely basis. Price Waterhouse Report, Financial Procedures And Controls, Issues 2, 16, and corresponding Impacts; Price Waterhouse Report, Planning Of Operations And Projects, Issue 9 and corresponding Impact. Projects funded by the capital outlay millage derived under Section 236.25(2), Florida Statutes, were not prioritized within categories in the notice of tax levy as required by Section 200.065(9)(a). Failure to prioritize the projects to be funded by the capital outlay millage contributed to delays in undertaking some of the projects contemplated in the 1986 construction plan. In addition, the proceeds and related expenditures of each year's levy was not segregated and accounted for. 31/ Reports reviewed by the School Board consisted of monthly financial statements containing analyses of revenues by source of funds and analyses of expenditures by function. Status reports showed comparisons of projected revenues designated for the 1986 school construction plan with actual revenues received. Comparisons of projected construction costs anticipated in the five year construction plan with actual construction costs were not available. Like the notice of tax levy, available status reports did not prioritize projects within categories. The failure to prioritize projects and reporting inadequacies constituted some of the pandemic deficiencies known to the School Board prior to 1987 and did not result from Respondent's alleged incompetence. In 1993, the Auditor General's Report recommended several procedures for rectifying deficiencies in the budgeting process. First, quarterly status reports on capital projects should be revised to show the projected costs of projects, current expenditures, and the variances over or under projected costs. Second, proposed budget amendments should include an explanation of the possible effects on capital construction plans and operating budgets. Third, the ". . . Board and the Superintendent. . ." 32/ should develop written management reporting guidelines. Finally, the School Board should re- examine the remaining bond plan projects to ensure that they reflect current needs. G-604s: Requests For Additional Services Respondent did not act incompetently and did not violate applicable standards with regard to the use of requests for additional services or change orders on form G-604. Requests for additional professional services or for change orders are made on form G-604. Palm Beach County requires that such requests be reviewed by the School Board. Respondent never attempted to hide requests for architectural services from the School Board or to prevent their review by the School Board. In August of 1986, Mr. Hukill wrote a memorandum to Respondent requesting that directors be allowed to review and approve appropriate requests for additional services in an amount no greater than $20,000 per request and then submit the G-604 to the School Board for subsequent review. Respondent approved the procedure requested by Mr. Hukill. Two weeks later, Mr. Larry Mione, Contract Administrator, erroneously wrote a memorandum to four assistant directors authorizing requests for additional services of up to $20,000 per request without the need to have such requests subsequently reviewed by the School Board. As a result of the erroneous memorandum from Mr. Mione, some G-604s were approved by directors and were not subsequently reviewed by the School Board. This practice was in derogation of the memorandum issued by Respondent. When the discrepancy was discovered, several investigations were ordered by former Superintendent Mills and Deputy Superintendent Daniels. There were approximately 30 people at staff meetings two times a month. All of them review School Board reports. None of them discovered the discrepancy in the conflicting memoranda until after the violations had occurred. Respondent was not charged with wrongdoing or incompetence and was not found incompetent. An independent outside consultant confirmed the need for the G-604s and the procedure authorized by Respondent. Gratuities Former Superintendent Mills established a policy that required all senior administrative personnel, including Respondent, to promote the involvement of members of the business community in the school system. The policy was designed to obtain the aid of business in solving problems such as overcrowding, lack of materials and text books, a lack of funding, and an increasing drop out rate. The policy was a high priority for former Superintendent Mills. Respondent performed the duties required under the policy established by former Superintendent Mills. Respondent entertained members of the business community and was entertained by them. The gratuities accepted by Respondent generally involved free lunches, dinners, and golf outings. Policy Directive Respondent's activities did not violate the policy directive of former Superintendent Mills. Former Superintendent Mills knew of Respondent's activities and approved of those activities. Upper management was encouraged to socialize with members of the business community, including contractors and architects, in an effort to get them involved in solving problems facing the school system. Business Judgment And Impropriety Respondent's business judgment was not adversely affected by his association with vendors of the school system. Respondent's association with such members of the business community did not create the appearance of impropriety. The award of contracts to vendors was the responsibility of Purchasing. Purchasing was under the control of Dr. Boekhoff, the Associate Superintendent of Administration. Ms. Helser was the Director of Purchasing. Respondent did not have the authority to influence decisions made in Purchasing. Incompetence Respondent carried out the policy directive of former Superintendent Mills competently with no adverse affect on his business judgement and without the appearance of impropriety. The business community became actively engaged in solving problems of the school district. Companies such as Motorola, Pratt Whitney, and IBM provided opportunities for speakers to address employees to promote the bond issue. The bond issue was approved by the voters. A program known as "Cities in Schools" was developed as a business partnership to prevent drop out. Funds were raised for programs and materials. Respondent did not improperly promote a particular vendor or product in connection with the business of the School Board. Respondent never violated any administrative directive or established standard of conduct of the Department of Education. Evaluations 128. The Amended Petition For Demotion alleges that Respondent was incompetent in evaluating two employees. Those employees were Mr. Goode and Mr. Hukill. No credible and persuasive evidence was submitted by Petitioners to support their allegations in this regard. Attorney Fees And Costs The parties' request for attorney fees and costs are addressed in the Conclusions of Law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of any of the allegations in the Amended Petition For Demotion, award Respondent back salary with applicable interest for the entire period of his demotion, immediately reinstate Respondent to a salary level comparable to that received as Associate Superintendent of Planning and Operations in accordance with Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, dismiss the request to return Respondent to annual contract status under Section 231.35(4)(c), and maintain Respondent on continuing contract. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 July, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the foregoing and in consideration of Pitts' failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, the following Findings of Fact are made in this matter: On or about December 12, 2007, J2J filed a form entitled, "Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Political Committees and Electioneering Communication Organizations" with the Florida Division of Elections (the "Division"). The form designated Pitts as the chairman and treasurer of J2J. The Division then sent Pitts a letter dated December 14, 2007, providing directions concerning the filing of a Committee Campaign Treasurer's Report ("Report") by J2J in accordance with the campaign financing requirements set forth in chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2007). Pitts received the letter from the Division. By letter dated April 13, 2009, the Division notified Pitts that J2J had failed to file the Report which had been due on April 10, 2009. Pitts received the letter from the Division concerning the overdue Report. The Division sent a follow-up letter to Pitts dated April 27, 2009, concerning the delinquent Report. Pitts received the letter from the Division. As of the date of its Motion for Summary Final Order, the Division had not received the Report from Pitts. J2J is in violation of the campaign financing requirements for political committees in Florida. The Division deems Pitts' failure to file the Report for J2J to be a willful violation of the Florida campaign financing laws.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner qualifies, pursuant to Section 212.08(7)(o)2.d., Florida Statutes, for a consumer's Certificate of Exemption as a state, district, or other governing or administrative office, the function of which is to assist or regulate the customary activities of educational organizations or members.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a "not for profit" corporation that, for all relevant periods of time, has held an exemption from federal income tax as an educational institution pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the federal Internal Revenue Code. The purpose of the Society, the Petitioner, is to further the practice of the teaching of photography and to insure high standards in photographic education in the educational institutions in this country and in Florida, particularly post- secondary educational institutions. The Society has been provided facilities at the Daytona Beach Community College, including office space, telephones and facsimile lines. The community college provides publication and marketing services to the Society. There is no formal affiliation between the Society and any higher educational institutions. The community college provides these services to the Society in return for the prestige associated with its being home to the Society. The Society is not accredited as an educational institution in its own right. It is an educational organization consisting primarily of university, college and secondary school educators as members. Its purpose is to advance the field of photographic education and to assist its members in their collective interests and concerns as educators. The Society also assists colleges, universities, and other organizations in achieving their educational mission in terms of education in the field of photography. It therefore functions as an administrative office, " . . the function of which is to assist or regulate the customary activities of educational organizations and members." The Society's national office assists the customary activities of the regional organizations under its umbrella through management of their data bases in support of their regional publications and conferences. The dominant function of those conferences is to promote educational standards in photography and related fields. They are typically attended by graduate students and educators in the field of photographic education. Moreover, the Society's national office examines and approves regional budget funding proposals and disburses funds to regional organizations that are in accord with its national by-laws and policies, so as to provide appropriate control and regulation with regard to its educational mission. The treasurer of the Society for photographic education requires uniform accounting procedures for each of the regional treasury accounts. The Society is thus an umbrella organization for eight regional societies located throughout the country. The Society provides money to these regional organizations and the regions are required to prepare and submit financial statements to the Society. These regional societies operate pursuant to the national by-laws and their officers serve at the pleasure of the national organization. Annual national conferences are held as are regional conferences by the regional societies. Participants at these conferences are offered seminar level courses and workshops in different areas of photography, such as digital imaging. There is also typically a trade show at these conferences where corporations demonstrate new products in the field of photography. Most of the persons attending these conferences are either graduate students or faculty members of various educational institutions. While the Society does not provide educational credit to attend these, the programs at these conferences are educational in nature, designed to further the education of the attendees in the aspects of the field of photographic education. The Society does not regularly provide educational curricula to other organizations.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order granting the consumer Certificate of Exemption applied for by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kevin O'Donnell, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 James J. Murphy, Executive Director Society for Photographic Education Post Office Box 2811 Daytona Beach, Florida 32120-2811 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
