Findings Of Fact Thomas A. Baggett, Respondent, is a Tampa Bay Pilot licensed by the State of Florida and holds license number 000045. He was so licensed at all times relevant to the charges here involved. On December 13, 1985, the United States Coast Guard held a hearing concerning the Coast Guards charge of negligence against Baggett for his piloting of the T/B Bulkfleet Pennsylvania. At that hearing Baggett pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of the charge that he was negligent while piloting the T/B Bulkfleet Pennsylvania on November 19, 1985, which resulted in this vessel running aground in the vicinity of Cut "C" Channel, Hillsborough Bay, Florida. At the time of the grounding of the T/B Bulkfleet Pennsylvania, Baggett was acting under the authority of his Coast Guard license number 486856 and was subject to the jurisdiction vested in the Coast Guard under 46USC 7703 or 7704.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding respondent was licensed by the petitioner as a pilot. He began sailing as a seaman in 1945, received a pilot's license in Texas in 1954, was a captain of tugs from 1954 to 1969 and has been a member of the Tampa Bay Pilots Association from 1969 to the present time. Respondent has made close to sixty (60) trips per month in and out of Tampa Bay since 1969. On August 6, 1981, at approximately 1500 hours, Captain Baggett was aboard the M/V IFNI, a medium-sized oceangoing vessel, and was proceeding outbound in Tampa Bay. The tug DIXIE PROGRESS and Barge B-103 were proceeding inbound. The DIXIE PROGRESS, which is 115 feet long and 35 feet wide, was pushing Barge B-103, which is 430 feet long and 80 feet wide. The Barge was carrying 147,000 barrels of gasoline at the time. As the IFNI was in "G" Cut, Captain Baggett noticed the tug and barge proceeding inbound in "D" Cut, approximately three to five miles from him. He radioed the DIXIE PROGRESS in order to make arrangements for the meeting and passage of the two vessels. Respondent inquired if there was a pilot aboard the tug. In arranging meeting situations, it is customary for one pilot to communicate directly with the pilot on the other vessel. Donald Hyde, the first mate aboard the DIXIE PROGRESS responded to Captain Baggett's call and informed him that there was no pilot aboard the tug. Respondent informed Hyde that he would meet them in Cut "E" on one whistle. Walter H. Williams, the Captain aboard the DIXIE PROGRESS, was standing near the radio when respondent called from the IFNI. At the time, Captain Williams felt that respondent would try to break up the tug and barge on passing because the tug did not have a pilot on board. For that reason, he relieved his mate and took control of the tug. The DIXIE PROGRESS was the last vessel in Tampa Bay to start using pilots, and did not start taking pilots until September of 1981. Respondent Baggett's son wads employed by Dixie Carriers, Inc., the owner of the DIXIE PROGRESS. At the time of the radio communication with Captain Baggett, the DIXIE PROGRESS was travelling at a speed of about 5.5 knots. Its speed was reduced to ensure that the meeting would occur in Cut "E". As the IFNI passed through "F" Cut, two dredged were working in the vicinity. Captain Baggett decreased the speed of the IFNI as he approached each dredge, and stopped the engine after passing each dredge. After passing the second dredge in "F" Cut and while making the turn into "E" Cut, Captain Baggett ordered the engines full ahead. Captain Williams and first mate Hyde noticed a puff of black smoke emit from the IFNI after it passed the last dredge in "F" Cut and turned into "E" Cut. At this point, as the IFNI began to gain speed, the two vessels were approximately eight-tenths to one mile apart. Some seven to eight minutes later, the IFNI and the tug and barge passed each other in "E" Cut at a distance of approximately 75 feet. The channel in "E" Cut is about 400 feet wide. After the IFNI passed the tug and barge, waves of approximately five or six feet in height caused the barge to dive under the water and, as it came back up, a push wire two inches in diameter broke. After passing the DIXIE PROGRESS, respondent looked astern and noticed the tug and barge at odd angles to each other. He radioed the tug and inquired as to what had happened. When informed by Captain Williams that a push wire had broken, respondent replied that he was sorry and that he had not realized that the IFNI had caused such a large wake. At no time during the incident in question did DIXIE PROGRESS Captain Williams feel that his vessel was in danger or that there was going to be a loss of property or life. He considered this to be a minor incident. It is not unusual for another vessel to pass the DIXIE PROGRESS and its barge at a speed of full ahead. The DIXIE PROGRESS and Barge B-103 frequently "push out" of the Mississippi River in six foot seas using the same "in the notch" configuration as was used during the incident in question. It is not unusual for the push wires which connect a tug and barge together to snap. The Captain and first mate aboard the DIXIE PROGRESS estimated that the IFNI was travelling at a speed of approximately 15 knots as it passed the tug and barge. Captain Baggett believed that he was travelling at a speed of about 7.5 knots as he passed the DIXIE PROGRESS. To travel a distance of approximately eight-tenths of a mile in seven or eight minutes would result in an average speed of about six to seven knots. It could take the vessel IFNI anywhere from six to twelve minutes to reach full speed from a stopped engine, depending upon the currents and other factors. The speed which a reasonable and prudent pilot should maintain when approaching and passing a tug and barge is dependent upon the circumstances, including the weather conditions and currents, the swell or wake the vessel is pulling, the size and configuration of the channel, the amount of water outside the channel and the configuration and weight of the vessels. While a passage within 200 feet with the IFNI travelling at a speed of 15 knots would not be something that a reasonable and prudent pilot would do, it cannot be determined without knowledge of the surrounding circumstances whether a passage at 8 knots would constitute incompetence, negligence or misconduct. By a "Final Order" signed by the Chairman of the Board of Pilot Commissioners and filed on July 28, 1981, it was ordered that a proposed Stipulation in Case No. 0007227 was approved, adopted and incorporated by reference and that Thomas A. Baggett "is reprimanded and is placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. . . ." The Stipulation reveals that that case was the subject of a proposed complaint in a case factually unrelated to the present case and that part of the consideration for the Stipulation was that the proposed administrative complaint in that case be held in abeyance. Among the terms of the Stipulation were that "The Respondent shall be placed on probation for a period of one year from the date of the final order of the Board accepting this sti- pulation. The order of Probation will be deemed to have been violated, subject to proving the allegations, if the Respondent is found by the Probable Cause Panel of the Board to have engaged in any conduct which constitutes negligence, incompetence or mis- conduct as presently embodied within section 310.101, Florida Statutes. In such case both a new proposed Administrative Complaint may be filed and the instant proposed Admini- strative Complaint may be instituted. In this respect, the Respondent specifically waives any procedural objections to insti- tuting the instant proposed Administrative Complaint." In October of 1981, by a vote of 2-2, the Board of Pilot Commissioners refused to modify the Final Order of July 28, 1981, so as to delete the word "probation" from its terms.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the respondent on January 18, 1982, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 5th day August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Steven Yerrid Holland and Knight Post Office Box 1288 Tampa, Florida 33601 W. B. Ewers, Esquire Special Trial Counsel 2170 SE 17th Street Suite 204 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations, Respondent was a licensed pilot in the State of Florida having been issued License No. 0000025. On January 15, 1986, Respondent boarded the ship Act 5 as her state pilot for approaching an intended berth at Port Everglades. The Act 5 was over 700 feet long, had a single handed screw, a single rudder and was equipped with bow thrusters. The ship drew 34 feet at her stern on the date in question. The ship had a bulbous bow which protruded outwardly under the forward waterline. A tugboat, the Captain Nelson, captained by John A. Cummings was beside the Act 5 to assist in the berthing maneuver. The approach to Port Everglades is negotiated through a narrow canal. Vessels seeking berth proceed through the canal, past a jetties area, and into a turning basin. Once inside the basin a turn is required in order to bring a ship parallel to the intended berth. On January 15, 1986, the Act 5 was to be berthed at a location on pier 3 identified as berth 17. In order to approach berth 17 a sweeping turn to port must be made. On that date the Captain Nelson was positioned off the starboard bow during the Act 5's swing to port. Once this swing had been initiated, the Respondent ordered the tug to proceed to the port stern quarter. It was intended that the tug would assist to breast the ship beside the docking area. After the tug had begun its trip from starboard bow to stern, Respondent realized that the ship's swing would not be sufficient to bring her parallel to the dock. Accordingly, the Respondent ordered the tug to hook up and to pull at full throttle to slow the ship and bring her parallel. Additionally, since it was apparent the ship might collide with the dock, the despondent ordered the Act 5 to reverse at full throttle. Despite the corrective efforts, the Act 5 did not swing sufficiently to port and her bulbous bow struck the underplatting of the dock at berth 17. The platting cracked and the fill behind it washed out. When the fill washed out, the road built on top collapsed and the dock eroded. Approximately sixty feet of dock surface was destroyed. Unpredictable surface and subsurface currents in Port Everglades very dramatically affect docking procedures. The tides, which are repetitive, also affect docking maneuvers. Given the fluctuating tides and currents within the Port Everglades turning basin, it is not uncommon for a ship's handling to be predictable. Given the tide and current conditions known to Respondent on the date at issue, the collision was unpredictable and unforeseeable by a reasonably prudent pilot. Given the times and speeds noted in the Act 5's "bell book," the Respondent approached the intended berth under prevailing standards used by other pilots at Port Everglades.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pilot Commissioners enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 26th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's, DPR/Board of Pilot Commissioners, proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, the times and speeds noted in the Act 5's bell book are estimates which are within a reasonable range for approaching berth at Port Everglades. Distances are in unsubstantiated estimates and should not suggest Respondent used excessive speed. Three witnesses testified the ship approached at a reasonable rate. Such direct evidence controls over speculative estimates. Accordingly, paragraph 4 is rejected. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 9, the cause of the collision is unknown. The ship did not swing to port sufficiently to become parallel to the dock. This lack of swing, coupled with the forward movement of the ship, resulted in the collision. As to why the ship did not continue its swing is speculative. Surface tides and currents as well as subsurface currents interfere with docking maneuvers and may have inhibited the swing. With regard to paragraph 10, the tides and currents noted were only surface ones. The subsurface currents which run deeper and which might effect a ship the size and draw of the Act 5 were not measured or charted. With that clarification, paragraph 10 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 11, it logically follows that Respondent's unforeseeable encounter would then serve as a warning to pilots involved in future docking procedures. That such pilots have benefitted from Respondent's incident does not suggest Respondent should have prejudged the problems. Accordingly, paragraph 11 is rejected as immaterial, irrelevant, and unnecessary. Rulings on Respondent's proposed finding of fact: Paragraphs 1-51 are accepted. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 53 is rejected a unnecessary, irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraphs 54-58 are rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial, or argumentative. Paragraphs 59-62 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 63 and 64, the Act 5 did collide with the underplatting at berth 17. The impact was felt by the tug Captain. Whether the dock was poorly maintained (and should have withstood the impact) or whether the fenders should have absorbed the shock is speculative but the touching was established. However, such touching was not caused by excessive speed or conduct falling below acceptable standards of safe pilotage. With that clarification, the paragraphs 63 and 64 are accepted. Paragraph 65 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Margaret Mathews, Esquire One Tampa City Center Suite 2600 201 N. Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Pilot Commissioners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact There is created within the Division of Professions of the Department of Professional Regulation a board known as the Board of Pilot Commissioners. See Section 310.011; Florida Statutes. That board, in conformance with Section 310.061, Florida Statutes, has authority to license state pilots for ports in Florida. This includes pilots for the St. Johns River, to include the Port of Jacksonville. In furtherance of this arrangement; the Department of Professional Regulation examines candidates for the positions of pilot and deputy pilot as a prerequisite to appointment and licensure or certification, depending on whether the position sought is that of pilot or deputy pilot. Out of this examination process; the Board; within its discretion, may decide how many pilots or deputy pilots it wishes to appoint and license or certify for a given port within the state. See Section 310.051, Florida Statutes. Petitioners and Intervenor, Captain Shiras M. Walker, and others stood examination for appointment and certification as deputy pilot for the port of Jacksonville in an examination given on August 26 and 27, 1985. All told, eleven candidates stood the examination for the position of deputy pilot in the Port of Jacksonville as held in August 1985. (There was one other candidate who was being examined for an unrelated port pilot position.) It was the intention of the Board to appoint and certify only one deputy pilot from this group of candidates. The candidates who stood the examination in August 1985 were required to be mariners who held a Master's License. This is a requirement of the Port of Jacksonville and is unique to that port. Petitioners and Captain Walker were qualified candidates in that sense. The candidates for examination in the August 1985 sitting, including Petitioners and Captain Walker, had been provided certain test information from the Department of Professional Regulation, Office of Examination Services, prior to being examined. Among those items was a document described as a "NOTICE TO APPEAR." Within those materials was found the admission slip to the examination, a description of the format of the examination and a suggested reading list which the candidates were encouraged to utilize in preparing for the examination session. The facets of the subject examination were as required by Rule 2155- 5.13, Florida Administrative Code which sets forth the seven test areas. They were: International Rules of the Road. Inland Rules of the Road and the Pilot Rules. Seamanship, Shiphandling and other subjects relating to piloting. Aids to Navigation. Local or specific knowledge of the port area for which the candidates are being examined. Chartwork for the port area for which the candidates are being examined. Knowledge of the federal and state pilotage laws. In carrying forward the examination process, the Department of Professional Regulation, in accordance with Section 455.217.(1), Florida Statutes, through the Office of Examination Services, is charged with the responsibility to ensure that the examination for deputy bar pilot in the Port of Jacksonville as given in August 1985, "adequately and reliability measures an applicant's ability to practice the profession" of deputy pilot. Further, this office must insure that the examination questions are a reliable measurement of the general areas of competence specified in the aforementioned rule. Those responsibilities as imposed upon the Department of Professional Regulation were adequately addressed in the examination process pertaining to deputy bar pilot for the Port of Jacksonville, August 1955 examination session. This examination as given in August 1985 was one related to placement of the top candidate in the one available position for a deputy pilot in the Port of Jacksonville. In order to gain that position, the candidates had to be successful in passing the various sections within the examination instrument. However, only the candidate who had passed the various sections within the examination process and attained the highest score would be selected. Rule 2155-5.13(3), Florida Administrative Code, mandates that a candidate correctly answer 90 percent of the subject matter set forth in the first two sections to the examination, described previously as (a) and (b) and 75 percent of the material in the five remaining subject areas. Failure in any one of these seven sections means that the candidate was unsuccessful, notwithstanding his overall percentage score as an average of the several sections within the examination instrument. The deputy pilot examination for the Port of Jacksonville administered in August 1955 was designed and written by the consultant to the Board of Pilot Commissioners, Captain John C. Hanson, with the assistance of Marty Persanpieri of the Office of Examination Services. These two individuals had the necessary expertise to design and ensure the fairness of the examination document. Captain Hanson is experienced and has gained expertise in the field of nautical science and seamanship and has sufficient appreciation of the circumstances in the Port of Jacksonville to test the candidates on matters of local knowledge of that port. Captain Hanson and Persanpieri graded the examination in question and carried out the review of protests to the examination scores. Based upon the examination and review of the test papers of Captains Dull and Walker, they were found to have successfully completed all portions of the examination. Captain Walker received an overall score of 90.71 percent, and Captain Dull received an overall score of 90.47 percent. Although Captain Flint achieved an overall score of 91.17 percent, the highest overall average, he was deemed by the graders to have failed the examination in that he scored only 86 percent on the Inland Rules portion of the examination, short of the required 90 percent score. On October 4; 1985, Captain Walker was informed by Fred Roche, Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation, that Walker was the successful candidate in the examination for appointment and certification as deputy pilot for the Port of Jacksonville. Upon receipt of this notification, and following confirmation of this communication through a letter from Secretary Roche Walker left his position as captain of a ship operating out of Valdez Alaska and took the position as deputy pilot for the Port of Jacksonville. In doing ; he sold his home in Merritt Island, Florida, and relocated his family to Jacksonville; Florida. He then executed a contract with the St. Johns Bar Pilots Association, through which that association obligated itself to afford Walker the necessary training to become a licensed state Pilot. Following the signing of that contract; Walker has performed the duties associated with deputy piloting in the St. Johns River related to the Port of Jacksonville. Around the time Walker had been notified of his success; the Petitioners were made aware of their examination results and followed the necessary procedures for review of their examination responses. They then offered timely written objections to certain questions within the examination, which should have been considered prior to the appointment and certification of Captain Walker as deputy pilot. Through his protest, Captain Flint objected to the following questions: Inland Rules No. 52; Inland Rules No. 54; Inland Rules No. 63; State and Federal Laws No. 154; Local Knowledge No. 2; Local Knowledge No. 19; Chartwork No. 15; Chartwork No. 27; Chartwork No. 9; the overall point total assigned for Chartwork; the Chartwork in general; and Chartwork sample questions. Captain Dull objected to the following questions: International Rules No. 20; Inland Rules No. 67; Inland Rules No. 65; Inland Rules No. 76; Navigational Aids No. 106; Navigational Aids No. 125; Federal Laws No. 165; Federal Laws No. 166; Local Knowledge No. 19; Chartwork No. 1; Chartwork No. 7; Chartwork No. 14; Chartwork No. 29; Chartwork No. 52; Chartwork light list reference; Chartwork No. 595; Chartwork No. 5300; and the Chartwork in general. These specific objections were considered by the Office of Examination Services and Captain Hanson. The protests were found to be without merit based upon an adequate analysis of the questions, an assessment of the recommended answers and the responses made by the candidates in answering the examination questions. Through this process, all candidates were given credit for answers for two examination questions unrelated to the challenges by the Petitioners. Having been unsuccessful in an attempt to gain adjustments to their examination scores; Petitioners individually petitioned for formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearings. Those petitions were timely submitted. The cases were then referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings leading to the formal hearing of May 5 and 9, 1956. Prior to the date of formal hearing, Captain Walker and the St. Johns Bar Pilots Association offered a timely motion to intervene in these actions and intervention was allowed. Those Intervenors have demonstrated their standing in the record developed at the final hearing. In the course of the final hearing, Captain Flint abandoned his objection to the questions: Inland Rules No. 54; Local Knowledge No. 2; Local Knowledge No. 19; Chartwork No. 27; and the chart sample questions. This left for consideration these matters: Inland Rules No. 52; Inland Rules No. 63; State and Federal Laws No. 154; Chartwork No. 9; Chartwork No. 15; the Chartwork in general; and the chartwork point total. Captain Dull also abandoned objections pertaining to questions: International Rules No. 20; Inland Rules No. 68; Inland Rules No. 76; Navigational Aids No. 106; Federal Laws No. 166; Local Knowledge No. 19; Chartwork No. 29; Chartwork No. 895; and Chartwork 5300. He continued to protest the Questions: Inland Rules No. 67; Navigational Aids No. 125; Federal Laws No. 165; Chartwork No. 1; Chartwork No. 7; Chartwork No. 14; Chartwork No. 52; Chartwork in general; and the Chartwork light list reference. In the NOTICE TO APPEAR which the Petitioners and Captain Walker received, reference is made to the seven sections within the examination instrument. This notification gave the following information about the chartwork that was to be done in the Chartwork and Local Knowledge portions of the examination. It stated: Chartwork and local knowledge will be admin- istered in the afternoon. Chartwork requires you to draw on a tracing of the chart of the port, all channels aids to navigation and their characteristics (type, color, shape, number, light/sound characteristic, elevation when appropriate as listed in the 1985 C.O. Light List for more recent information see note at end of No. 3), shoaling areas, precautionary signs, anchorage areas, obstructions, COLRBGS demarcation lines, danger areas, pipelines and cable crossings and any other inclusions on the chart relevant to navigation. Indicate true course to be steered on ranges and straightaways as appropriate. You may also be responsible for indication of direction of tide flow as indicated in the Tidal Current Tables. Local knowledge requires you to recall, from memory, information contained in the Coast Pilot relevant to the chart. Included is information concerning controlling widths lengths and depths of channels. Four (4) hours will be allowed to complete this portion of the examination. By the NOTICE TO APPEAR the candidates were also referred to the examination study sources as follows: Listed below are some general sources that may aid you in your study for some of the examination areas. This list of sources is not exhaustive. Questions may appear from other sources. Abbreviations used: CG = Coast Guard Publication USC = U.S. Code FS = Florida Statutes BPC = Board of Pilot Commission Rules Area Source International CG: Navigation Rules: Inter- Rules and national-Inland (COMDTINST Inland Rules M16672.2)(including all rules, appendices and colregs) Federal Pilot- 46 USC 11; 211-215; 232. age Laws Coast Pilot Chapter 2; Parts 162 and 164. 14 USC 51-59, 642, etc. Knowledge of U.S. Coast Pilot for the Local Port particular port (State Pilots and Deputy Pilots) Aids to CG 193, Chart No. 1: Nautical Navigation Chart symbols and abbrevi- ations, 14 USC 51-59, 33 CFR 64.01. State Pilotage Chap. 310 FS, BPC 21-55 Laws Chartwork St. Johns River from the sea buoy to the fixed bridge at Red Bay Point above Green Cove Springs and the ICW from its junction with the St. Johns River South to the Atlantic Boulevard Bridge Chart Nos. 11491 7 July 1954 11459 1 Sept 1954 11492 5 Sept 1954 Seamanship Various seamanship textbooks (for example; Basic Ship- handling for Masters, Mates and Pilots by Willerton; Practical Ship Handling by Armstrong; Ship Handling in Narrow Channels by Plummer, Knights Modern Seamanship) NOTE: Basic publications utilized in developing Jacksonville exam; in addition to the charts listed above were: 1985 CGT Light List 1985 Coast Pilot Vol. 4 If more recent information is used from CO notice to Mariners or Corps of Engineers reports, please indicate source and date so proper credit may be given. Flint Challenge Question No. 52 in the Inland Rules portion of the examination, among the choices of answers, indicated that the "lookout," "shall not be assigned other duties." Petitioner Flint did not feel that this choice was a correct answer. Six of the twelve candidates gave the prescribed answer, to include Captains Walker and Dull. The prescribed answer contemplated the proposition that lookouts shall not be assigned other duties. The prescribed answer is found to be correct, and Petitioner in his suggestion that it is appropriate for a lookout to have other duties in an inland water situation is not credited. Having considered the presentation at hearing, it is determined that the lookout in that setting must give full attention to those duties. Question No. 63 in the Inland Rules portion of the examination states that: "Rule 2(b); known as the General Prudential Rule; could be properly applied in which of the following situations?" Seven of the twelve candidates correctly answered that examination question, to include Captains Walker and Dull in that they indicated that the only correct answer to the question was the choice "action contrary to the rules as proposed by one vessel and accepted by another." Petitioner Flint felt that this answer; as well as the answer which said, "When the stand-on vessel first has doubts as to the intentions of the give-way vessel," should be considered correct. Flint also believes that it is unreasonable to require that the candidates know rules by number reference and contends that this particular rule is not known as the "General Prudential Rule." This concern about the need to know the rule by number and the reference to the term "General Prudential Rule" is a reasonable requirement given that one of the source materials which the candidates were encouraged to study was that source Farnsworth & Young, Nautical Rules of the Road, wherein it is stated that Rule 2(b) is known as the "General Prudential Rule." On the merits of the protest, as to the answer given, Captain Flint is wrong to apply the ideas expressed in the "General Prudential Rule" to a situation in which the stand-on vessel first has doubts as to the intentions of the give-way vessel. Other steps must he taken before resorting to the subject rule. An example of those initial steps would be the sounding of a signal. In the section dealing with state and federal laws, in Question No. 154, it is indicated that the number of state pilots in the various ports is: (1) determined by the supply and demand for pilots and services, (2) determined by investigation conducted by the Department of Professional Regulation. The answer prescribed by the examination was the first choice only. Captain Flint did not feel that either of the choices of answer was correct. He is struck by the language of Section 310.061(2), Florida Statutes, which says, The Board shall determine the number of pilots in conformance with Subsection (1) based upon the supply and demand for piloting services and the public interest in maintaining efficient and safe piloting services. Therefore, according to Captain Flint, since there are fixed limits set forth in Subsection (1) on the number of pilots that may be available in a given port, in order to determine the number of pilots, one must not only be mindful of supply and demand, but also recognition of the finite number of available pilots as set forth in Subsection (1) should be taken into account. This interpretation by Captain Flint is sufficiently legitimate that he should be afforded credit for the answer to the examination question in which he selected the answer that indicated that neither of the two choices was correct. In the Chartwork referred to as No. 9, Petitioner Flint argues that the instructions were, "The chart drawing is to cover up the St. Johns River to the highway bridge at Red Bay Point," meaning that only the features within the system before the point of the bridge needed to be indicated. This would preclude necessity to set forth any of the characteristics of the Red Bay Point Bridge, per Flint. Those characteristics are matters which a pilot should reasonably be expected to be examined on as to horizontal and vertical clearances of the bridge. This is a more persuasive interpretation of the examination instruction than the literal reading which Captain Flint gave in determining to cut short his chartwork before describing the characteristics of the bridge and points should have been deducted from his score. Another challenge described as Chartwork No. 15 dealt with Captain Flint's belief that the area of the St. Johns River described as St. Johns Bluff Reach is not a range or straightaway. Consequently, he did not believe that it was necessary to set out a true course through that portion of the river in keeping with instructions which indicated that the candidates should establish courses in ranges and straightaways in the chartwork. St. Johns Bluff Reach is of sufficient dimension in length that the candidate should have identified a course. For failure to set forth the course; it was appropriate to deduct points from Petitioner Flint's score in the chartwork. Generally speaking, Captain Flint believed that no points should have been deducted from his examination for his failure to relate items set forth on the Coast Guard Light List 1985, in setting up his chart drawing. He premises his argument on the fact that the instructions allowed the candidate to use either the chart information from the various charts which the candidate was referred to or to set forth on the chart examination that information reflected in the Coast Guard Light List 1985. It is not possible to set out complete characteristics of the navigational aids without reference to both the charts and the Coast Guard Light List 1985. Taking this into account, and in view of the basic instructions given the candidates prior to and at the point of examination, it was an unreasonable interpretation to suggest that it was unnecessary to refer to the Coast Guard Light List 1995 and offer information from that source on the examination chart, and points should have been deducted for this oversight. Petitioner Flint had initially contended that the total score related to his points in the chartwork was incorrectly computed in that he was entitled to 577 Points when the examination was graded as contrasted with the 575 points which he was awarded. In his fact proposal this position is abandoned in that he concedes that 575 points was the correct total to be awarded when the examination was graded. No adjustment has been made to that score, and 575 points remain his entitlement. Although some slight adjustment is indicated in the overall score for Captain Flint, the critical matter of the point total for the Inland Rules questions has not been overcome, and having failed to pass that portion of the examination, Captain Flint has failed the entire examination. Dull's Challenge In the Inland Rules portion of the examination at Question No. 67; it is stated that "A vessel proceeding with a following current in a narrow channel or fairway shall have the right of way over a vessel proceeding against the current in/on, and the choices were (1) western rivers, (2) all inland waters; (3) Great Lakes. The correct answer is (1) and (3). The answer is taken from reference material which the candidates were referred to, Farnsworth & Young, Nautical Rules of the Road, which points out that these vessels are given the right of way in operating on the Great Lakes, western rivers, and waters specified by the Secretary. Captain Dull was incorrect when he indicated that the answer should have been "all inland waters." Captain Dull objected to Question No. 125 in the portion of the examination related to navigational aids. That question states, "A preferred channel buoy indicating the preferred channel will be followed by leaving it on your port hand could:" (1) show red and black horizontal bands, (2) show a composite group flashing light; (3) show red or white light. Captain Dull rightly asserts that all three of those items would be correct in the instance in which a ship was proceeding to sea; however, the available answers for the question did not include the possibility that all three items were correct. If the ship were to be proceeding inbound, away from the sea, (1) and (2) are correct and (3) is incorrect in that the buoy could not show a red or white light. Therefore, the correct answer to the question is (1) and (2) only, and that answer was available to the candidates. The question asked was a legitimate question which was missed by Captain Dull. In that portion of the examination dealing with knowledge of federal and state pilotage laws there is Question No. 165. That item states, "To legally provide pilot service to a foreign flag vessel arriving at a Florida Port, a person must hold a valid" (1) state license or certificate, (2) federal license. The prescribed answer was that it is only necessary to hold a state license or certificate. Captain Dull felt that the answer which pertained to choices (1) and (2) was the correct answer in that in order to gain a license or certificate in Florida one must have a federal license. Nonetheless, once the Florida license has been obtained; it is no longer necessary for the federal license to be in force and effect in order to legally provide pilotage service to the foreign flag vessel arriving at a Florida Port. Under these circumstances; Captain Dull is not entitled to receive credit for his answer. In chartwork under Question No. 1 Captain Dull contends that the four anchorage positions which he failed to indicate on his chart were set forth on chart sheets not described in the instructions given to the candidates prior to examination or at the point of examination. He states that those four anchorage Positions are areas which the candidates were not alerted to study for. One of the charts which is referenced as a study source, No. 11491; has a Note A making reference to the anchorages in question by referring the reader to the Coast Pilot No. 4 which provides the information as to location of the four anchorages at issue. Moreover, the anchorages at issue are within the approaches to the St. Johns River which the candidates were instructed to depict in the chart which they prepared in response to the chartwork requirement in the examination. By failing to note these anchorages on his chart, he was subject to have points deducted from his examination, which deductions were made. In the Chartwork Questions No. 7 and 14, Captain Dull failed to set forth true courses from various locations at issue by not giving response in degrees and minutes. This relates to May Point Cut Range and White Shells Cut Range in which it was possible to give the answer in degrees and minutes. Captain Dull did not do his, although the instructions required that he give the answers in degrees and minutes. It was appropriate to deduct points from his score for failure to give the more exact responses to the requirements. Captain Dull in Question No. 52 related to chartwork also believed, as did Captain Flint, that the alternative was presented to the candidates to use either the charts or Coast Guard List 1985 in preparing the chartwork. For reasons discussed in the challenge to this matter fostered by Captain Flint Captain Dull is also incorrect in his assertions. Therefore he is not entitled to any adjustment in points for this matter. Captain Dull has not established the entitlement to further points; and Captain Walker remains the high scorer of all candidates who passed the deputy pilot examination at issue.
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G14-22.012 is an invalid exercise of legislatively delegated authority in violation of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner BBP is an association of harbor pilots that performs the pilotage services at PortMiami. BBP consists of pilots licensed by the State of Florida in accordance with chapter 310, Florida Statutes. Petitioner PEPA is an association of harbor pilots that performs the pilotage services at Port Everglades. PEPA consists of pilots licensed by the State of Florida in accordance with chapter 310. FHPA is a statewide organization representing the interests of Florida’s approximately 100 state-licensed harbor pilots, the membership of which is comprised of the eleven local pilot associations that serve each of Florida’s 14 deep-water ports. BBP and PEPA are members of FHPA. Chapter 310 governs pilots, piloting, and pilotage in the waters, harbors, and ports of Florida. Section 310.141, Florida Statutes, requires that, except in certain narrow circumstances, all vessels shall have a licensed state pilot or deputy pilot on board to direct the movements of the vessel when entering or leaving ports of the state or when underway on the navigable waters of the state’s bays, rivers, harbors, and ports. Section 310.011 creates the 10-member Board of Pilot Commissioners (“BOPC” or “Board”); each member is appointed by the Governor “to perform such duties and possess and exercise such powers relative to the protection of the waters, harbors, and ports of this state as are prescribed and conferred on it in this chapter.” In addition to other responsibilities, the Board determines the number of pilots in each port (section 310.061) and disciplines licensed pilots when appropriate (section 310.101). Although the BOPC has numerous statutory responsibilities, setting the rates of pilotage in each port is not one of them. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G14-22.012 (“challenged rule” or “rule”) is entitled “Determination of Disputed Issues of Material Fact; Formal or Informal Hearings.” 5. Rule 61G14-22.012 cites section 310.151(1)(c) as specific authority. The challenged rule lists as “Law Implemented” sections 310.151 and 120.57. The former Pilotage Rate Review Board originally adopted the rule in 1995. When the Legislature amended chapter 310 in 2010, the former Pilotage Rate Review Board’s name was changed to the Pilotage Rate Review Committee (“PRRC” or “Committee”). The Committee consists of seven members, all of whom are also members of the BOPC. The PRRC is responsible for setting rates of pilotage in each port. On November 5, 2014, the BOPC/PRRC published a notice in the Florida Administrative Register announcing a telephone conference call meeting for consideration of “Rate Review Committee Rules.” PRRC members voted at that meeting to repeal rule 61G14-22.012, but determined they did not have enough information to know if a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs was required. On December 11, 2014, the BOPC/PRRC published a second notice in the Florida Administrative Register announcing a telephone conference call meeting for consideration of “Rate Review Committee Rules.” At that meeting, the PRRC voted to reconsider its original vote to repeal rule 61G14-22.012, but because the issue of potential reconsideration had not been properly noticed, no official vote on reconsideration was taken. On January 7, 2015, the BOPC/PRRC published a notice in the Florida Administrative Register announcing a meeting on January 22, 2015, and January 23, 2015. Among the subjects noticed for consideration was “Reconsideration of Repeal of Rule 61G14-22.012, F.A.C.” This matter was considered by the PRRC on January 23, 2015. By a 5-2 vote, the Committee voted against repealing rule 61G14-22.012. FCCA is a trade association representing cruise lines that are subject to pilotage fees pursuant to chapter 310, Florida Statutes. FCCA has filed petitions to reduce the rates of pilotage in both PortMiami and in Port Everglades.
Findings Of Fact On November 15, 1982, Petitioner applied to Respondent to take the January 31, 1983, pilot's examination for the Port of Miami. Prior to that time, Petitioner had served as an apprentice pilot in the Port of Miami from January 1, 1967, through January 1, 1971. Petitioner was terminated from his position as an apprentice pilot with the Port of Miami in 1971, and has not piloted any ships in the Port of Miami or any other port in the state since that time. At the time of his application to take the pilot's examination, Petitioner was over 18 years of age, had been awarded a high school diploma, and was in good physical and mental health. Petitioner had also obtained a valid first class unlimited pilot's license issued by the United States Coast Guard in 1971. In addition to Petitioner, three other persons, William A. Arata, Stephen E. Nadeau, and Robert K. Brownell, also applied to take the January 31, 1983, pilot's examination for the Port of Miami. Arata submitted his application to sit for the examination on November 19, 1982. At that time, Arata had been licensed as a deputy pilot for the Port of Miami since January 28, 1980. In addition, he possessed an unlimited first class pilot'S license for the Port of Miami and had successfully completed the deputy pilot training program for that port. On November 24, 1982, Nadeau submitted his application to sit for the January 31, 1983, pilot's examination. Nadeau had been licensed as a deputy pilot in the Port of Miami since July 23, 1980, possessed an unlimited first class pilot's license for the Port of Miami, and had successfully completed the Port of Miami deputy pilot training program. Brownell applied on November 29, 1982, to sit for the same pilot's examination. At that time, Brownell had been licensed as a deputy pilot for the Port of Miami since July 31, 1980, also possessed an unlimited first class pilot's license for the Port of Miami, and had successfully completed the Port of Miami deputy pilot training program. In accordance with the provisions of Section 310.071, Florida Statutes, the applications of Petitioner, Arata, Nadeau, and Brownell were submitted to the Department of Professional Regulation which, in turn, submitted those applications to Respondent for a determination of eligibility to sit for the licensing examination. Respondent ultimately determined and advised the Department of Professional Regulation that all four applicants were qualified to sit for the licensing examination. All four applicants took the examination on January 31, 1983, and each of them received a passing grade. In accordance with Rule 21-8.09, Florida Administrative Code, the Department of Professional Regulation ranked the grades received by the applicants from highest to lowest. Petitioner received the lowest grade of the four applicants. Accordingly, since Respondent had certified three openings to be filled for licensed state pilots in the Port of Miami, the Department of Professional Regulation, act some time between February 1, 1983, and May 6, 1983, issued state pilot licenses for the Port of Miami to Captains Arata, Nadeau, and Brownell. There is in force in the Port of Miami a Deputy Pilot Training Program which has been approved by Respondent. The minimum time required for completion of the program, which is a prerequisite for applying for a state pilot's license, is two years. One of the requirements of the program is that participants obtain a first class unlimited pilot's license from the United States Coast Guard. This license allows the holder to pilot coastwise vessels which sail under the American flag. A state pilot's license standing alone permits the holder only to pilot ships sailing under foreign flags. In order to acquire a first class unlimited pilot's license, an applicant must possess another maritime license, such as a master's or male's license, must meet age and sea experience requirements, and must pass an examination prepared and administered by the United States Coast Guard. In addition, a condition to obtaining a first class unlimited pilot's license is that the applicant must possess a radar observer's certificate. The Florida State Pilot's Association, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation composed of 59 licensed state pilots from every port in Florida with the exception of Jacksonville and Fort Pierce. Captains Arata, Nadeau, and Brornell are members of that organization. The purpose of the organization is to represent the interests of its members at local, state, and federal levels.
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a Class "G" license, statewide gun permit, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that petitioner's application for a Class G" statewide gun permit was properly filed with the Department of State, Division of Licensing. The application was not entered into evidence; however, the parties stipulated that the only bases for the denial of the license were those stated in the letter of February 16, 1987. On April 7, 1969, petitioner was adjudicated guilty of the offenses of breaking and entering an automobile and petty larceny. Petitioner was placed on probation for a period of five years. On April 16, 1987, petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of battery and was placed on probation for a period of six months. Respondent testified that between 1969 and 1974, while he was on probation, he tried to get his civil rights restored but that he has never been able to determine the status of his civil rights. Petitioner presented no evidence establishing that his civil rights had been restored. No evidence was presented at this hearing regarding the factual circumstances surrounding petitioner's arrest and conviction for breaking and entering an automobile. In his proposed findings of fact, petitioner describes facts from a document he describes as "listed as Item 4, Case Number 85-67 in a hearing held in 1985 on file with the Division of Administrative Hearings." However, no evidence regarding the breaking and entering conviction was submitted at this hearing, and a document submitted during the course of some prior hearing cannot be used to establish factual findings in this proceeding. Petitioner is the owner of Sun Coast Securities, Inc. His company provides security for major events needing crowd control, and a primary employer is the Florida State Fairgrounds. Petitioner has a Class "D" license and an agency license. On the night of October 31, 1986, petitioner was hired by the owner of Yesterday's Lounge to provide security at a Halloween party. Samuel Valez was one of the customers at the Halloween party. The Halloween party was supposed to start at about 9:00 p.m. However, Mr. Valez and a few of his friends got to the bar about 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. Mr. Valez had several drinks during the course of the evening. At some time after 10:00 p.m., Mr. Valez got into a dispute with a bartender. Petitioner thought he saw Mr. Valez take a swing at the bartender. However, Ms. Spalding, who was sitting at the bar, did not see any incident with the bartender. Ms. Ryan observed the dispute with the bartender and stated that Mr. Valez did not hit anyone but was having a disagreement over the service of the drinks. In any event, Mr. Valez was asked to leave the premises by the owner. Mr. Valez was intoxicated. Petitioner and the owner escorted Mr. Valez outside. After they got outside, petitioner and Mr. Valez exchanged a few words. Petitioner pushed Mr. Valez and then hit him in the face. Ms. Imschweiler, Ms. Spalding, and Ms. Ryan all observed the incident. None of the three saw Valez attempt to hit anyone, either petitioner or the owner of the lounge. Ms. Ryan testified that petitioner hit Valez more than once. After Mr. Valez had fallen, petitioner grabbed Valez by his ankle and dragged him across the parking lot ground. Mr. Valez kept stating he didn't want to fight, but every time he tried to get up petitioner pushed him to the ground again. Mr. Valez was bleeding. Ms. Ryan described Valez as having been beaten to a pulp. Petitioner contended that he was merely protecting the owner, that Mr. Valez had taken a swing at the owner, and that petitioner grabbed Valez' arm to prevent the owner from being hit. He also testified that Mr. Valez tried to hit him, and he hit Mr. Valez in self-defense. However, none of the witnesses saw Mr. Valez swing at anyone. The witnesses characterized petitioner's attack on Mr. Valez as unprovoked. Petitioner is 5'10" and weighs 300 pounds. Petitioner does power lifting and holds state and national records. He can squat lift 830 pounds. Mr. Valez is approximately 5'7" tall and weighs about 140 pounds. As a result of the altercation with Mr. Valez, petitioner was arrested and charged with aggravated battery. Petitioner ultimately pleaded nolo contendere to simple battery. The evidence presented at the hearing established that petitioner's attack on Mr. Valez was not in self-defense or in the defense of his client.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioner's application for a Class "G" license. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1988.
The Issue Whether respondent discriminated against petitioner in terminating his employment, either on account of his race or because he had engaged in protected activities?
Findings Of Fact In order to serve as Marine Patrol officers, candidates muse successfully complete a training program at DNR's Marine Patrol Academy, which only accepts one class a year. In 1983, DNR began its officer trainee program, an affirmative action effort to recruit members of minorities as Marine Patrol officers. The idea was to give recruits employment pending the annual beginning of the Marine Patrol Academy course, so that they would not be otherwise committed when classes started. In the interim, these officer trainees accompanied regular Marine Patrol officers, ordinarily in the field at the post nearest the trainee's home, and learned informally about the work. Ronald D. Jones, who is black, began as a Marine Patrol officer trainee in respondent's Division of Law Enforcement, on October 1, 1984. He and then Captain Thompson had discussed the position in May of 1984, after Clydie Hubbard, DNR's equal employment opportunity coordinator, referred Mr. Jones to Captain Thompson. Mr. Jones' home was in Quincy and the nearest Marine Patrol base on the water was in Carrabelle. Instead of being required to commute five days a week to Carrabelle, he was permitted to report to general headquarters in Tallahassee three days a week, and to Carrabelle two days a week. Weak In Swimming In the course of their first conversation, Captain Thompson informed Mr. Jones that he would have to pass a physical fitness test in order to be admitted to the Marine Patrol Academy. When Mr. Jones said "he felt he was a little weak in swimming," (T.52) captain Thompson told him that he would administer the test at Mr. Jones' convenience, whenever he felt he was ready to take it. Later in May, when Mr. Jones indicated he felt he was ready, the test was scheduled for June 8, 1984. On June 8, 1984, Mr. Jones passed every test easily, except for the swimming and floating tests. To pass the swimming test required swimming 300 yards in ten minutes or less. Mr. Jones was unable to swim more than two swimming pool lengths without clutching a rope for support. He also failed the floating test: he could not stay afloat for five minutes without grabbing for something. Captain Thompson told him he could pass the swimming and floating tests later, without having to retake any other portion of the physical fitness test, and suggested that he go to Alicia Crews at Florida State University or check with people at the YMCA or at Florida A & M University for swimming lessons or coaching. At the time Mr. Jones failed the tests, he was only an applicant for the officer trainee program and had no assurances of being chosen as a trainee. He did not follow the advice to seek help in order to improve his swimming. Numerous Reminders When he saw Captain Thompson in September of 1984, Captain Thompson reminded him he needed to pass the swimming and floating tests. Captain Thompson spoke to him on the telephone, in September of 1984, and, as he had when he had seem him, again told Mr. Jones he had to pass the tests. When he was hired, on October 1, he was reminded yet again about the swimming and floating tests, and Captain Thompson sent him a copy of the physical fitness requirements, Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, which mentioned that the tests had to be passed. As an officer trainee, he sometimes helped administer swimming and floating tests to others, but always refused offers to try again himself. Mr. Jones was consistently told he had to pass the swimming and floating tests in order to be admitted to the Marine Patrol Academy. At the time Mr. Jones was hired, DNR had a firm requirement that candidates pass the physical fitness assessment tests before entering the Academy. At one time the policy had been to let people in, if passing seemed to be within reach, but experience had persuaded those in charge that this was a mistake; people who were let in on this basis often actually regressed. Mr. Jones did not seem to be close to passing the swimming and floating tests, in any case. Early on Mr. Jones was told that training at the Academy would start in February, and written materials reflected this, although perhaps at one time someone told him March. In fact, classes at the Academy began on February 11, 1985. DNR decided to send out letters on January 21, 1985, three weeks ahead of time, so that applicants who held other employment could give notice of two weeks or better to their employers that they would be leaving, in order to enter the Academy. Before mailing these letters, DNR sought to determine how many positions were available. On December 21, 1984, Captain Thompson, sent a letter to Mr. Jones reminding him that he still had not passed the swimming and floating tests and telling him that he would have to make arrangements to do so on or before January 21, 1985. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Memo From The Trainee Four days earlier, on December 17, 1984, Mr. Jones had written Clydie Hubbard, DNR's EEO Coordinator, a memorandum on the subject "GHQ Staff," as follows: Against my better judgment, I deferred writing to you until now. To my knowledge there are no Black employees in GHQ's staff (Florida Marine Patrol). This is a problem not only for Tallahassee, but also the state of Florida, in turn [a]ffecting the Nation as a whole. How long must this problem exist in this department? How am I depicted as ap Black, if the entire GHQ is lilywhite? From the first time I set foot in GHQ, I knew it was time for a change. The training section is located in GHQ, so every employee of the Florida Marine Patrol has to pass through these offices. Thinking of other Black Sisters and Brothers coming to seek employment, they just can't believe their eyes. How can we be treated fairly? All the White faces and not one Black, let you know that racism does exist in 1984. Maybe you are not aware, but I think it's time something is done. This is a[n] opportunity for someone to change an ugly situation. People in the know, do not let opportunities go by. They hit at injustice; they hit at evils. They make life great for themselves by making life great for others. Have respect and esteem for every person. See beneath their exteriors, know them for what they really are. I'm not here to fight any battles, nor am I here to lose any. The reason I'm telling you these things is because President Reagan told me to. If there are any problems direct them to him. Thank you in advance for your interest in this matter. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 He copied the N.A.A.C.P. State Conference; Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner, then Executive Director of DNR; Bob Graham, then Governor of the State of Florida; and Ronald Reagan, President of the United States. He did not, however, copy Captain Thompson, and Captain Thompson was unaware of the existence of this memorandum when he wrote his letter on December 21, 1984, Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, advising Jones that he needed to make arrangements to take and pass the swimming and floating tests on or before January 21, 1985. When Colonel Ellingsen received a copy of Mr. Jones' memorandum to Clydie Hubbard, on December 19 or 20, 1984, he telephoned Inspector Nash, a black Marine Patrol Inspector in Jacksonville, and asked him to investigate the allegations the memorandum made. Mr. Nash came over from Jacksonville and, after reading the memorandum, had a conversation of some two hours' duration with Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones said he had been personally discriminated against on account of the absence of black faces on the seventh floor of the Commonwealth Building where the Marine Patrol is headquartered. As they talked further, Mr. Nash came to believe that Mr. Jones wanted a job on the seventh floor at general headquarters, perhaps one that would not require swimming. In January of 1985, Mr. Jones talked things over with Dr. Gissendanner, DNR's Executive Director, who suggested, as others had before suggested, that Mr. Jones make arrangements to work with a swimming coach or otherwise get swimming lessons. Deadline Passes On January 20, 1984, Major Thompson, as he is now, not having heard from Mr. Jones, telephoned him and instructed him to present himself at his office the following day. Mr. Jones failed to appear at the appointed time. About three hours later, Captain Thompson found him in Colonel Ellingsen's office. The three of them discussed his taking the swimming test. Mr. Jones complained that it was a cold day. Indeed, he testified at hearing that it was six degrees." The pool in which the test was proposed to be given was out of doors, but the water was heated. Colonel Ellingsen and Captain Thompson offered to get into the water with him and told him that that day was the absolute deadline, but he refused to take the swimming test. On that account, Colonel Ellingsen advised him in his office that he would be terminated and wrote him a letter terminating him, effective 5:00 p.m. that day. Colonel Ellingsen knew of the memorandum when he terminated Mr. Jones, but the deadline for taking the physical fitness test was set without reference to any individual, and the requirement that the test be passed before admission into the Academy antedated the memorandum to Clydie Hubbard. There was no evidence that the memorandum precipitated petitioner's discharge or that any other factor entered into the decision aside from the fact that he was originally unable and was subsequently unwilling to try to pass the swimming and floating tests.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That FCHR dismiss petitioner's petition for relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of August, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3716 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3 and 7 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 1, the testimony was that he swam two lengths of the pool which a witness testified was 50 feet but may well have been 50 yards. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2, admission to the academy was conditioned on passing the physical fitness tests. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 4 accurately reflects the evidence as far as it goes, but Captain Thompson was unaware of the complaint when he wrote the letter. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 5 has been rejected. The evidence did not establish retaliation on the part of DNR. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, petitioner was terminated for failure to take the swimming test on January 21, 1985, or on any other day before then, going back to May of 1984. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 8, being able to swim 300 yards could mean the difference between life and death for a marine patrol officer. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 2 has been adopted, in substance, except that the record cited does not support a finding that a trainee's salary is 90 percent of a sworn officer's. Petitioner was paid $1,047.48 per month. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the testimony was that he swam two lengths of 25 feet each, but the pool may in fact have been 25 yards long. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 16, petitioner did not ask for a different job from Col. Ellingsen, although the evidence did not show that he had refused or declined any request that he ask for a job. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Mr. Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Laura S. Leve, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Suite 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ronald D. Jones 211 Tropicaire Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint in the manner specified therein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now, and has been since November 2, 2006, a Department-licensed state pilot. Respondent's license (License No. SP177), which is current and active, authorizes him to pilot vessels in and out of the Port of Palm Beach (Port). The Port has 17 berths at which vessels can dock. The navigable portions of the Port consist of an inner and an outer channel, two turning basins, and three slips. To aid mariners traversing the Port, there are navigation markers (herein referred to as "Beacons"), which are sequentially numbered in ascending order from east to west with odd-numbered markers to the port side and even-numbered markers to the starboard side of inbound vessels. The Tropic Carib (Ship) is a foreign-flagged container ship owned by Tropical Shipping (Tropical). With an overall length of 525 feet and a gross registered tonnage of 10,825, it is the largest vessel regularly accommodated at the Port. It is equipped with bow and stern thrusters and a Becker rudder and is otherwise designed to handle well in harsh conditions. At 12:50 p.m. on August 3, 2011, at around high water slack, the Ship was offshore, just to the east of the entrance to the Port's outer channel, drawing 21 feet four inches forward and 23 feet aft, when Respondent boarded and took command of the vessel from the Ship's captain for the final leg of its journey. The Ship was bound for the Port's Berth 7 (Assigned Berth) to offload its cargo. The Assigned Berth is a 464-foot, north-south oriented marginal wharf that lies directly on the western end of the Port's main turning basin (Main Turning Basin), into which the inner channel flows.2/ As the Ship, with Respondent on the bridge and in command,3/ entered the outer channel heading west to the Assigned Berth following the much smaller, 31-foot pilot boat (Pilot Boat) that had carried Respondent out to the Ship, there was no evidence of any storms in the area.4/ Precipitation, in the form of a light drizzle, was first encountered as the Ship was travelling in the inner channel between Beacon 8 and Beacon 10. Respondent, at this time, also observed lightning in the distance. He saw one bolt that struck a Port transformer5/ and another bolt that struck approximately one-half mile north of the Port causing a small explosion. After seeing these lightning strikes, Respondent decided to inquire as to whether the lightning had impacted the availability of Tropical's Port-based line handlers to assist with the mooring of the Ship at the Assigned Berth. He did not have the capability of communicating directly with Tropical's Port-based personnel, so he radioed the pilot of the Pilot Boat (Boatman), who did have such capability, and asked her to make this inquiry on his behalf. Respondent did not hear back from the Boatman until the Ship had passed Beacon 10 and was approaching Beacon 12, beginning its turn to the southwest toward the Assigned Berth. The Boatman informed him that the line handlers had been ordered to take cover, as a precautionary measure, due to the lightning in the area and therefore were not at the Assigned Berth waiting for the Ship to arrive. Respondent, however, did not receive any report from the Boatman, who was in front of him on the Pilot Boat, that there were any squally conditions ahead about which Respondent needed to be concerned in navigating the Ship to its ultimate mooring position. By the time Respondent heard back from the Boatman, the intensity of the rain had increased somewhat, but weather conditions had not worsened to the extent that Respondent's ability to maneuver the Ship was impacted. Visibility was still good and the winds, which were predominantly westerly, did not present a problem. The Ship was about ten minutes away, under ordinary circumstances, from its intended destination to the southwest alongside the Assigned Berth. Respondent had the Ship continue on course, in a southwesterly direction, toward the Assigned Berth, a decision that was reasonable under the circumstances that existed at the time. That line handlers might still be unavailable when he arrived did not make heading toward the Assigned Berth a foreseeably more risky or imprudent choice than any other option that Respondent may have had at the time. Respondent had no reason to believe that, if there no line handlers at the Assigned Berth to catch and secure the Ship's mooring lines, the Ship, equipped as it was, would not be able to hover in the water alongside the Assigned Berth and wait for the line handlers to appear. Moreover, even if there were stronger than anticipated westerly winds and the Ship, for some reason, were unable to hold its position, it would be blown, not toward, but away from the Assigned Berth, in the direction of the center of the Main Basin. A few minutes later, as the Ship was approaching the Assigned Berth, it ran into a sudden and unexpected rain squall, with west-southwesterly wind gusts over 30 knots and blinding rains which reduced visibility to zero. Radio communications from the boatswain at the bow of the Ship, who was providing Respondent with needed information concerning the Ship's position in relation to the Assigned Berth, became garbled and unreliable. Reasonably fearing an allision if the Ship continued its forward motion under these conditions, Respondent prudently ordered that the port anchor be dropped, with 1.5 shots (135 feet) on deck,6/ and that the Ship's engines be put astern, orders that were followed. After determining, from the prop wash that he saw on the starboard side of the vessel, that the Ship was no longer closing on the Assigned Berth, Respondent ordered slow ahead, but the Ship's bow thrusters were overcome by the wind, causing the bow of the Ship to swing and the anchor to drag. As a result, the Ship's starboard stern corner touched the sandy bottom approximately 30 feet west of Beacon 12 in the northern part of the Main Turning Basin, where recorded water depths are from 13 to 15 feet and, at high water slack, are generally three to four feet higher. The grounding produced minor, cosmetic damage to the Ship's rudder. No other damage to the Ship was sustained. The squally conditions lasted a mere two minutes. When the weather cleared, Respondent ordered engines ahead. The Ship proceeded to its mooring position alongside the Assigned Berth, where it was serviced by the Tropical line handlers, who had emerged from the shelter they had sought from the lightning. Thereafter, at the recommendation of the Ship's captain, Tropical had divers inspect the underbody of the Ship. The inspection revealed the damage to the rudder caused by the grounding of the Ship during the rain squall (Grounding Incident).7/ Respondent was notified by Tropical of the outcome of the divers' inspection at around 3:30 p.m. on August 3, 2011, and, within a matter of minutes of receiving such notification, he telephonically reported the Grounding Incident to the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and to the Department's Pilot Consultant/Investigator, Lieutenant Commander Galen Dunton, USCG (Ret.).8/ The following day, Respondent provided Commander Dunton with a written report of the incident, as required by section 310.111 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G14-15.002. On August 30, 2011, Commander Dunton issued his Investigative Report concerning the Grounding Incident. It contained the following "Conclusions" and "Recommendation": Conclusions: It is concluded that Captain Hansen was operating under the auspices of his state license and therefore subject to disciplinary action by the State of Florida. The proximate cause [of the grounding of the Ship on August 3, 2011] is unknown. The most probable cause was the failure of the pilot to seek a better position within the [Main] Turning Basin to anchor instead of trying to come alongside the intended berth. The pilot made an error in judgment in deciding to approach the berth without any line handlers to assist versus seeking a better position within the [Main] Turning Basin to anchor and ride the storm out. Had the pilot proceeded further to the SW in the [Main] Turning Basin and then anchored,[9] he may not have grounded or at least bought more time to ride out the storm. The anchor began to drag once the bow started to swing with the wind, and as a result the stern quickly touched bottom near Beacon #12. There is evidence of a violation of FS 310.101(1)(a) on the part of the pilot, in that he failed to make allowances for the wind by anchoring off the berth instead of seeking a better position within the [Main] Turning Basin. There is evidence of a violation of FS 310.101(1)(k) on the part of the pilot in that he failed to (1) seek a better position to anchor within the [Main] [T]urning [B]asin, (2) [a]ttempted to approach the berth knowing that there were no line handlers available, practices not in keeping with the acceptable standards of safe piloting. Recommendation: It is recommended that 1. This case be forwarded to the Probable Cause Panel and that probable cause be found to exist for the following violations: FS 310.101(1)(a) on the part of the pilot in that he failed to make allowances for the wind by anchoring off the berth instead of seeking a better position within the [Main] Turning Basin. FS 310.101(1)(k) on the part of the pilot in that he failed to (1) seek a better position to anchor within the [Main] [T]urning [B]asin, (2) [a]ttempted to approach the berth knowing that there were no line handlers available, practices not in keeping with the acceptable standards of safe piloting.[10] The probable cause finding Commander Dunton recommended was made, and an Administrative Complaint, based on this finding, was thereafter filed. Respondent subsequently requested a "formal hearing" on the allegations against him. This administrative proceeding ensued, with the final hearing being held on February 27, 2012. Ultimate Finding The evidence presented at the final hearing did not clearly and convincingly establish that, in having the Ship approach the Assigned Berth and anchor where it did during its inbound journey through the Port on August 3, 2011, Respondent failed to exercise the care a reasonable and prudent Department- licensed pilot would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances or otherwise violated some professional standard of care or safety he was obligated to follow as a Department- licensed pilot.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Pilot Commissioners dismiss the Administrative Complaint against Respondent in its entirety. S DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2012.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation should be granted?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner graduated from Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Illinois in May of 1976 with a Bachelor of Science degree. His major was "Radio-Television." Petitioner is currently employed by the City of Delray Beach as a firefighter/paramedic, the job description for which reads as follows: JOB TITLE: FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Skilled technical work in the City's Fire Department in the field of fire suppression, prevention and emergency medical services. Work is performed under the general direction of the Battalion Chief. ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS: Performs all duties in the Firefighter job description. Responds with necessary equipment to requests for medical assistance, where life is endangered by illness or injury. Administers basic and advanced life support at the scene of an emergency. Transports victims to the closest appropriate medical facility according to protocol, unless turned over to a licensed transport agency with equal or higher medical authority. Maintains basic and advanced life support apparatus and equipment. (These essential job functions are not to be construed as a complete statement of all duties performed. Employees will be required to perform other job related marginal duties as required.) FULL PERFORMANCE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITIES AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS: Knowledge of the positions of firefighter and driver engineer and the skills to perform the duties of each. Knowledge of the geography of the City with respect to streets, hydrants and building access information. Knowledge of the location and layout of all high risk and special hazard occupancies, and the problems encountered with each. Knowledge of the strategy and tactics of handling fire, rescue and medical emergencies and the ability to analyze and respond effectively under stress to each. Knowledge of the record keeping system in use, the components of the system, and the functions of each. Knowledge of paramedic principles, practices and techniques and how they are used in rescue operation. Ability to carry out orders and to see that department and City policies are adhered to. Ability to perform Firefighter and ALS duties effectively. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: High School graduation or possession of an acceptable equivalency diploma. Completion of minimum standards as required by the State of Florida. Successful completion of all medical and fitness requirements and examinations as described by the City. LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS OR REGISTRATIONS: State of Florida Paramedic Certification. State of Florida Firefighter Certification. Protocol Certification issued by Department Medical Director. Class D Commercial Drivers License. ESSENTIAL PHYSICAL SKILLS: Meet physical requirement as indicated for State certification. Must endure sustained acts of physical exhaustion and endure periods of duty under unfavorable and life threatening situations. Heavy (45 pounds and over) lifting and carrying Reaching Acceptable eyesight (with or without correction) Acceptable hearing (with or without hearing aid) Ability to communicate orally Climbing (including ladders) Pulling Pushing Walking Standing Crawling Kneeling Bending Balancing Smelling Stooping Jumping Throwing Driving Running Swimming ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS: Hazardous conditions: flames, fire, chemicals, smoke, heat, gases, moving vehicles, falling structures and debris, electricity, poor ventilation, poor lighting and related hazards Stressful situations Bio-hazard infectious disease (Reasonable accommodations will be made for otherwise qualified individuals with a disability.) Because of his educational background in "Radio- Television," Petitioner has, on occasion, been requested by his supervisors to produce video tapes used for firefighter/paramedic training or for educating the public concerning the services offered by the City of Delray Beach Fire Department. The production of these video tapes, however, is not one of Petitioner's primary job duties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that Respondent is not entitled to the supplemental compensation he is seeking pursuant to Section 633.382(2)(a)2., Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1997.
