Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as those facts stipulated to by the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner, Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., is a not-for- profit incorporated association of commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants and retailers, employing approximately 14,000 employees, and including 450 corporate and individual members. The executive offices of Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc. are located at 312 East Georgia Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1791. The members of Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., either catch, process, transport or sell Spanish mackerel and Spanish mackerel constitutes a major part of their business and livelihood. Petitioner, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc., is a not-for-profit incorporated association of 2,000 commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants and retailers, with its headquarters at P. O. Box 740, Melbourne, Florida 32901. Petitioner, Harry H. Bell & Sons, Inc., is a fish processor and sales company employing about 210 employees, located at 756-28th Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33712. A large percentage of the fish processed by Harry H. Bell & Sons, Inc., are Spanish mackerel. Petitioner, Bayside Shellfish, Inc., is a fish processor and fish seller, located at P.O. Box 176, Apalachicola, Florida 32320. This petitioner also obtains a substantial amount of its business through the processing and sale of Spanish mackerel. Petitioner, Inlet Fisheries, Inc., is a corporation with its headquarters at P. O. Box 3604, Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450, which unloads and ships fish, and, in particular, Spanish mackerel. Petitioner, J. O. Guthrie, Inc., is a fish processor located at P.O. Box 895, Ruskin, Florida 33570. This petitioner processes fish, including Spanish mackerel, which makes up a high percentage of its fish processing. Petitioner, C. & W. Fish Co., Inc., is a company which unloads and ships fresh fish, located at P.O. Box 1356, Port Salerno, Florida 33492. This petitioner earns its living from the loading and shipping of fresh fish including Spanish mackerel. Petitioner, City Fish Company, Inc., also unloads and ships fish and is located at 3880 Gulf View Avenue, Marathon, Florida 33050. Intervenor, Florida Conservation Association, located at 402 West College Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, is an affiliate of the Coastal Conservation Association, a non-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of Texas. Effective November 28, 1985, the Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) adopted rules relating to the commercial harvesting of Spanish mackerel on the East Coast of Florida. As pertinent to this proceeding, those rules prohibited the harvesting of Spanish mackerel by power-assisted gill netting in Dade and Palm Beach Counties, and imposed a 3 and one half-inch mesh size minimum for the monofilament portion of gill nets used to take Spanish mackerel from the remainder of the East Coast of Florida until March 15, 1990. After that date, the entire net was to have a minimum mesh size of 3 and one half inch stretched mesh. These net size requirements were applicable to all gill nets used on the East Coast to harvest Spanish mackerel during the period from November 15th to March 15th. The existing rule allows the harvest of Spanish mackerel as an incidental by-catch of other lawfully targeted species, so long as the combined weight does not exceed 15 percent of the total weight of the lawfully harvested species. The challenged proposed amendments to the MFC's Spanish mackerel rules continue the Palm Beach and Dade Counties gill net closures; establish gill net minimum sizes for three different regions of Florida; closes the weekend harvesting of Spanish mackerel by use of any nets; establishes set seasons for operators of vessels greater than 40 feet in length using power- assisted gill nets, said seasons subject to being shortened if the total regional commercial catch is projected to reach a specified poundage; and imposes a limit on the number of Spanish mackerel which recreational fishermen may possess per day. More specifically, the challenged proposed rules impose the following net size requirements on the harvesting of Spanish mackerel for the three regions of Florida. For the East Coast, defined as those state waters north of the Dade-Monroe County line, the period of the 3 and one half inch mesh size for the monofilament portion of gill nets is shortened to October 1, 1988, with the required minimum size being increased to 3 5/8- inches thereafter until October 1, 1990, whereupon all portions of gill nets are to be 3 5/5 inches stretched mesh. For the Southwest Coast, defined as state waters between the Taylor-Dixie County line and the Dade-Monroe County line, the minimum monofilament portion mesh size is 3 3/8 inches until October 1, 1988, increasing to 3 5/8 thereafter until October 1, 1990, whereupon the entire net is to have a minimum mesh size of 3 5/8 inches stretched mesh. The corresponding requirement for the Northwest Coast, defined as state waters west of the Taylor-Dixie County line, is 3 inches until October 1, 1988, increasing to 3 5/8 inches thereafter. Except for the 15 percent by-catch allowance provided in the existing rule, harvesting Spanish mackerel by use of any net is prohibited in all three regions on weekends, defined as commencing at sunset on Friday and ending at sunset on the following Sunday. Identical commercial fishing seasons for the use of power-assisted gill net gear by vessels greater than 40 feet in length are set for all three regions of Florida. That season opens on December 15 of each year and closes on November 1 of the following year. For other forms of commercial harvesting of Spanish mackerel, the season is year-round, or defined as from December 15 through December 14 of the following year. However, the proposed rule, Rule 46- 23.004, provides a mechanism for shortening the seasons in each region for all forms of commercial fishing (except for the various by-catch allowances) when the total harvest for each region reaches a specified number of pounds. For the larger vessels using power-assisted gill nets, the seasons for the East Coast, Southwest Coast and Northwest Coast close prior to November 1st if the total regional commercial harvest is projected to reach, respectively, 1,670,400 pounds, 1,350,900 pounds and 354,600 pounds. For commercial fishermen using other types of gear, the year-round season will close when the total regional commercial harvest in the season reaches, before December 14, 1,856,000 pounds (East Coast), 1,501,000 pounds (Southwest Coast) and 394,000 pounds (Northwest Coast). In addition to the 15 percent by-catch allowance previously mentioned, the proposed rule also excepts from the required season closures Spanish mackerel harvested as an incidental by-catch of other lawfully targeted species so long as the total weight of mackerel does not exceed 500 pounds, as well as those harvested with a net size greater than 4 inches stretched mesh used to lawfully harvest another target species. When the specified poundages which trigger the closing of the seasons are projected to be reached, the proposed rule provides for the giving of notice by the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources in the manner provided in Section 120.52(15)(d), Florida Statutes. Proposed Rule 46-23.005 sets forth a bag limit for recreational fishermen which applies during all times of the year. That limit is four Spanish mackerel per person per day. Because of evidence indicating that the abundance of Spanish mackerel in Florida is declining, the MFC began considering that fishery as a subject of possible regulation in March of 1984. Stock assessments were performed and updated, federal studies and mackerel fishery management plans were considered, various workshops and meetings were held, and numerous management option papers and alternatives were considered. Many of the witnesses in the instant rule- challenge proceeding appeared before, testified or otherwise provided input to the MFC during the rule promulgation process. In considering the proposed regulations, the MFC had before it evidence that commercial and recreational landings of Spanish mackerel had substantially decreased since the 1970's and that seasonal and areal compression had occurred in this fishery. While it could not be concluded with certainty whether the resource was experiencing recruitment overfishing or growth overfishing, the MFC determined that the resource was being overfished to the extent that a reduction in effort and an increase in the size of the fish caught was necessary to protect, conserve and recover the resource. While single year or seasonal commercial and recreational landing statistics may not be entirely accurate due to under-reporting, they are reliable indicators of trends and can be utilized to indicate abundance. Likewise, declining commercial landing statistics can be indicative of a decline in the effort directed toward harvesting and/or market conditions. In approximately 1977, there were over 120 large roller rig boats in the Spanish mackerel fishery. At the present time, there are approximately 41 large roller rig vessels utilized to commercially harvest Spanish mackerel. The size of fish desired in the market has changed somewhat, with a declining demand for the smaller fish. While the price of Spanish mackerel per pound has remained relatively stable over the past ten or more years, its price in relationship to other species of fish and shellfish has declined. The above factors, as well as the voluntary use of larger mesh size nets and the recent closure of Palm Beach and Dade Counties, may provide some rationale for the decline in commercial landing statistics since the 1970's. However, given the evidence concerning a decline in recreational landings, seasonal and areal compressions, and the increased capacity of large power-assisted gill netting vessels, it was not unreasonable for the MFC to conclude that the decline in commercial landings is indicative of a decline in abundance resulting from overfishing. The conceptual goal of the proposed rules is to return the Spanish mackerel fishery to the condition in which it was in the early 1970's. In order to accomplish this goal, the MFC determined to effect an approximate 45 percent reduction in efforts devoted to harvesting and to effect an increase in the size of the fish harvested for commercial purposes. The minimum gear size proposed is directed toward the desired fish size, and the reduction in effort goal is to be accomplished through continued closures of certain areas, weekend closures, and the establishment of commercial seasons, commercial season catch limits and recreational bag limits. Gill mesh nets are highly selective for a specific size of fish. A 1/8 inch difference in gill net mesh size makes a significant amount of difference in the size of the fish caught. The large nets utilized for Spanish mackerel harvesting can cost up to $20,000.00, with the monofilament portion of the net costing between $3,000.00 and $4,000.00. Due to destruction by sharks and normal wear and tear, the life expectancy of the monofilament portion of a gill net is between 1/2 to 3 seasons. The initial minimum mesh sizes proposed in the challenged rules for the monofilament portion of gill nets are reflective of the sizes currently being utilized in the industry in each of the three regions specified in the rule. No conclusive scientific data exists on a statewide basis as to the size of fish that will be captured using a 3 5/8 inch gill net mesh size. The MFC does intend to gather more data concerning gill net mesh size selectivity, and that is one of the reasons the proposed rule delays imposition of the 3 5/8 inch requirement until October of 1988. The evidence does demonstrate that Spanish mackerel in the Northwest Coast region or Panhandle area tend to be longer and thinner with less yield per fish than those found in the East Coast or Southwest Coast areas. There is insufficient evidence to conclude, however, that the Gulf Spanish mackerel stock and the Atlantic Spanish mackerel stock constitute two separate populations. Due to the seasonal migration of the Spanish mackerel in a southerly and northerly direction along the East Coast of Florida, it is impossible to determine the precise impact on effort reduction of the closure of Palm Beach and Dade Counties. The MFC heard evidence from commercial fishermen that the impact from closing those areas could result in a reduction in catch of at least 30 percent. The MFC's calculation of a lower percentage was not unreasonable given the large capacity of the power-assisted gill net industry and the potential for harvesting Spanish mackerel while en route to or from these closed counties. The proposed season catch limits for commercial fishermen are intended to provide a backup to the other effort reduction measures in the proposed rules. It is intended that if the commercial seasons for larger power-assisted rigs, the weekend closures, the increased net sizes, and the areal closures do not significantly reduce the actual landings of Spanish mackerel in Florida, then the season for all commercial fishing can be shortened to effectuate such a result. The quota for each region constitutes a fixed cap on commercial landings per season. Consequently, if abundance does increase, there is no automatic mechanism in the proposed rule for increasing season catch limits. This, of course, will result in the unreliability of landing statistics alone as an indicator of stock abundance. Because the proposed rule contains no restrictions upon the number of recreational fishermen who may enter the fishery, no season for recreational fishing and no limit upon the number of fish caught, as opposed to possessed, by recreational fishermen, the rule could cause some reallocation of the Spanish mackerel fishery from the commercial sector to the recreational sector. In recent years, the commercial sector has maintained at least a 75 percent share of the Spanish mackerel resource. Within the commercial sector, there is no domestic substitute for Spanish mackerel.
Findings Of Fact The following are the facts to which the parties have stipulated: Respondent is the holder of a pound net registration issued on November 30, 1983, by Dennis E. Holcomb, Director, Division of Fisheries, for the Executive Director of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (Commission). The registration authorizes the Respondent to operate pound nets for Commercial purposes on certain areas of the St. Johns River, subject to law and Commission rules. On April 30, 1986, Petitioner pled guilty to illegal fishing with pound nets and was adjudged guilty and fined by the County Court of Putnam County, Florida. As a result of this Conviction, Respondent's pound net registration was temporarily revoked for a period of six (6) months dating from June 23, 1986 until December 23, 1986. On October 15, 1986, during the afore-mentioned revocation period, Respondent pled guilty to illegal fishing with unpermitted pound nets, and was adjudged guilty and fined by the County Court of Putnam County, Florida. Based on the Respondent's conviction of illegal fishing with pound nets during the revocation period, the Commission found just cause to permanently revoke Respondent's pound net registration and filed an Administrative Complaint on March 30, 1987 against Respondent to effectuate that revocation. Based on Respondent's unrebutted testimony which I found to be credible, the following relevant facts are found: That in addition to the fine imposed on the Respondent by the County Court of Putnam County, Florida on October 15, 1986, for illegal fishing, the Commission seized and Confiscated two (2) of Respondent's pound nets worth approximately $6,000.00. Respondent, subsequent to October 15, 1986, continues to fish pound nets as the designee of other parties holding pound net registrations, without incident and in compliance with the law and Commission rules. The Respondent is substantially dependent upon pound net fishing for his livelihood and has been prohibited from fishing his pound nets since June 23, 1986. Respondent's pound net registration was not reinstated at the end of the revocation period ending on December 23, 1986.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the conduct and demeanor of Use witness, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order temporarily revoking Respondent's pound net registration for a period of twelve (12) months beginning December 23, 1986. Respectfully submitted and entered this 11th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 11th day of August, 1987.
The Issue Whether Respondent's beverage license should be suspended or revoked, or a civil penalty assessed, for an alleged violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Section 561.29(1) Florida Statutes, as set forth in Notice to Show Cause issued by Petitioner. The hearing was originally scheduled for December 8, 1977, but respondent filed a motion for continuance which was granted by the Hearing Officer and the hearing was rescheduled for January 18, 1978. At the hearing, respondent moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the Notice of Hearing issued on November 21, 1977, by the Hearing Officer was defective in that it did not adequately describe the petitioner's Notice to Show Cause or attach it to the Notice of Hearing. The motion was denied upon a determination that respondent had adequately been placed on notice as to the nature of the offense charged and due to the fact that the Notice to Show Cause had been sent by certified mail to respondent and that the receipt thereof on August 13, 1977, by an authorized agent of respondent was not contested. Further, respondent's motion for continuance indicates that her counsel was aware of the subject matter of the charges. Additionally, if such had not been the case, respondent had sufficient opportunity during the period in which the case had been continued to seek amplification or clarification of the issues involved in the case as set forth in the Notice of Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jennie E. Harrell, d/b/a W. D. Harrell Fish Bait and Tackle, 515 South Roberts Street, Quincy, Florida, holds license Number 30-82, Series 1 COP, issued by petitioner which permits the sale of beer for consumption on the premises. The license was in effect during August, 1976. (Petitioner's Exhibit l) An occupational license for 1975-76 issued by the City of Quincy, Florida, Number 394, was issued to the Lake Talquin Fish Market, 515 South Roberts Street, Quincy, Florida, on October 15, 1975, to engage in the occupation of merchant. A similar license in the same name at the same address, Number 395, and issued on the same date, authorized the licensee to engage in the occupation or business of retail sale of gasoline. City occupational license 1976-77, Number 298 ,issued by the City of Quincy to Lake Talquin Fish Market at 517 South Roberts Street, to engage in the business or occupation of merchant, was issued on September 30, 1976. The Lake Talquin Fish Market is located at 517 South Roberts Street. The official records show that the license was issued to Jenny Harrell of 515 South Roberts Street, Quincy, Florida, and that the 1975-76 license Number 394 was issued in the same name. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 10, supplemented by Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3) On August 15, 1976, at approximately 10:55 a.m., State Beverage Officers Gary Sams and Fred Miller met with a reliable informant, one Guy Williams, in the vicinity of respondent's licensed premises at 515 South Roberts Street, Quincy, Florida. After searching Williams for any money or alcoholic beverages on his person, Sams gave him $7.20 and instructed him to attempt to purchase whiskey at respondent's place of business, W. D. Harrell Fish Bait and Tackle. The officers observed Williams drive to the building in question, but could not see his subsequent actions. He returned approximately fifteen to twenty minutes later with a partially filled one-half pint bottle of Seagram's Seven Crown whiskey. Williams had entered respondent's premises and asked a woman behind the counter if he could purchase a half-pint of whiskey. She told him he would have to go next door. He thereupon entered the adjacent premises, Lake Talquin Fish Market, and ordered a half-hint of Seagram's Seven Crown whiskey from a man there. The man went in the back of the store and returned with a sealed one-half pint bottle labeled Seagram's Seven Crown. Williams paid $2.50 for the bottle, took a drink from it, and found that it was, indeed, whiskey. The bottle was thereafter labeled for identification by the beverage officers and placed in the evidence room of petitioner's Tallahassee office. However, it was destroyed by petitioner prior to the hearing. (Testimony of Sams, Miller, Williams) On August 22, 1976, the two beverage agents again met with Williams at the same location at approximately 9:30 a.m. Following the same procedures as before, Sams gave Williams $4.00 and instructed him to go to respondent's state- licensed premises to attempt to purchase liquor. The same sequence of events as on August 15th occurred, involving a woman at W. D. Harrell Fish Bait and Tackle, and a man at the Lake Talquin Fish Market. This time the purchase was for a one-half pint sealed bottle of Seagram's Golden Dry Gin for which Williams paid $2.50. Again, he drank out of the bottle and verified that it was gin. This bottle was turned over to the beverage agents who verified that it was gin by its smell, and it was tagged and placed in petitioner's evidence room in Tallahassee. It, too, was destroyed by petitioner prior to the hearing. (Testimony of Sams, Miller, Williams) On August 23, 1976, criminal complaints were filed by petitioner's representatives against respondent and others, and, on August 24, a search warrant was issued authorizing a search of the premises of the Lake Talquin Fish Market at 517 South Roberts Street, and warrants were issued for the arrest of respondent and the individuals who had allegedly sold the alcoholic beverages to Williams. At approximately 5:15 p.m. on August 28, Agent Miller, together with local police officers, served the search warrant on one Isaac Ford at the Lake Talquin Fish Market. A search of the premises failed to reveal the presence of alcoholic beverages. The agents observed a well-worn path leading approximately 15 or 20 feet to an adjacent condemned frame house, and also an electric wire running from the store to the house. Further, they discovered a light switch in the store which controlled a light in the northeast room of the house. They observed a quantity of liquor and wine bottles on the floor of that room. It was noted that the house was secured by a padlock. Upon Inquiry, Ford stated that he did not have the key to the lock. The agents then asked respondent, who was at her place of business, if she had the key. She answered in the negative. When asked if the whiskey that had been observed in the house belonged to her, she said that it did not, but that she owned the house and wanted the whiskey off the premises. The agents thereupon forced entry into the house and seized 265 bottles of alcoholic beverages found inside. The bottles were sealed and strips indicating that tax had been paid were on the bottles. Sixteen of the bottles were assorted brands of wine; the remainder were liquor. (Testimony of Sams, Miller, Fader, Petitioner's Exhibits 5-13)
Recommendation That a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 be imposed against Jennie E. Harrell, d/b/a D. Harrell Fish Bait and Tackle, License Number 30-82, pursuant to Section 561.29(1)(h) and (4),F.S., for violation of Section 562.12(1), F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Francis Bayley,. Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Jack A. Harnett, Esquire Post Office Box 706 Quincy, Florida 32351 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional compensation for fishing nets that he sold to the State of Florida under the Net Buy-Back Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a commercial fishers who is an affected person under the Florida Net Ban, which is set forth in the Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 16. Section 370.0805(5), Florida Statutes, which became effective on July 1, 1995, establishes the Net Buy-Back Program. The program enables eligible persons previously engaged in the commercial fishing industry to sell fishing nets to the State of Florida. The Legislature appropriated $20 million to the Seafood Workers Economic Assistance Account (the Account) to fund the payments authorized in Section 370.0805, as well as agency expenses in administering the program. Section 370.0805(3)(b) directs Respondent to purchase nets "according to the availability of funds on a first-come, first-served basis determined by the date of receipt of each completed application." By Net Buy-Back Application signed on July 5, 1995, and filed with Respondent on the same day, Petitioner applied to sell nets to the State of Florida. His application form is completely filled out and shows two saltwater-product license numbers, one for an individual and one for a vessel. The application form calls for the applicant to list the "TOTAL NUMBER OF YARDS OF EACH NET TYPE THAT YOU INTEND TO SELL." The form lists five categories of nets: gill (49 meshes or less); gill (50 meshes or more); beach, purse, seine; trawl; and trammel. The former gill net is a shallow-water gill net. The latter gill net is a deepwater gill net. Petitioner listed on his application 800 yards of shallow-water gill nets, 4600 yards of deepwater gill nets, two trawls, and 600 yards of trammel nets. After checking a data base maintained by the Department of Environmental Protection, Respondent found only one of Petitioner's two listed saltwater-product licenses. Respondent thus processed Petitioner's application as though he had only one license. By letter dated August 8, 1995, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was eligible "to receive compensation for 8 nets" and set an appointment for him to turn in the nets on September 6, 1995. On September 6, 1995, Petitioner appeared at the appointed site with nets to sell to the State of Florida. He delivered 4800 yards of seine nets, for which he received a voucher for $27,998.40. Prior to paying the voucher, Respondent discovered that the Account might be exhausted before Respondent had paid for all of the nets that fishers might lawfully seek to sell to the State. Respondent thus dishonored Petitioner's voucher, as well as the vouchers held by numerous other fishers, while Respondent considered changes in its administration of the program. The purpose of the Net Buy-Back Program, as provided by Section 370.0805(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was to allow, "[a]ll commercial saltwater products licensees and persons holding a resident commercial fishing license" to apply to Respondent "to receive economic assistance to compensate them for nets rendered illegal or useless by the constitutional limitation on marine net fishing." The emphasis was on economic assistance. Section 370.0805(5)(a) authorizes Respondent to make payments only "in nonnegotiable amounts not intended to reflect the actual value of the nets." Section 370.0805(5)(a) assigns payment amounts of $3500 for beach, purse, or seine nets of at least 600 yards in length; $500 for trawls and shallow-water gill nets of at least 600 yards in length; and $1000 for trammel nets of at least 600 yards in length and deepwater gill nets of at least 600 yards in length. Section 370.0805(5)(a) states that, except for trawls, nets of less than 600 yards in length shall be "valued proportionately." Section 370.0805(5)(c) limits the number of nets that a commercial fishers could sell, based on his annual earnings from the sale of eligible saltwater products. The limits range from four nets, for licensees whose annual earnings average from $2500 to $4999 in earnings, to ten nets, for licensees whose annual earnings average more than $30,000. Respondent relied on another data base from the Department of Environmental Protection to determine the average yearly earnings of applicants. The Department of Environmental Protection maintains records of each licensee's trip tickets, which disclose earnings. The only other limit in the statute as to the type and number of nets to be purchased is that, under Section 370.0805(5)(d), "[n]o licensee may be paid for more than two. . . trawls." Respondent reviewed the applications that it received from the initial 951 fishers who filed applications. This was a large majority of the 1104 fishers who would eventually sell their nets to the State under the Net Buy-Back Program. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the funds in the Account would be sufficient to cover the nets that the State was to be purchasing. Respondent found from the applications that seine nets represented only about five percent of the nets that fishers intended to sell to the State. Relying on this information, Respondent calculated the potential encumbrance of $6.5 million on the Account, based on an average payment of $1000 per net. Applications contained few seine nets because commercial fishers initially resisted selling their best nets to the State of Florida. The Net Buy-Back Program provided for payment of only $3500 per seine net, even though many seine nets were worth $10,000. And commercial fishers were optimistic at first that their legal challenges to the constitutional amendment would succeed. Applying liberal eligibility criteria, such as calculating the number of nets that each applicant could sell based on the number of licenses that he held, Respondent raised its estimate of the potential encumbrance to $8.775 million. But in recalculating the potential encumbrance on the Account, Respondent still assumed that the average payment per net would be $1000. Respondent began receiving nets on August 3, 1995. Through the first three weeks of August, Respondent purchased seine nets in roughly the same five-percent mix that it had used in calculating the potential encumbrances on the Account. After this point, however, fishers started turning in much larger numbers of seine nets than they had listed in their applications. During this first phase of the program, Respondent paid fishers for whatever types of nets they presented at their net buy-back appointment. Respondent would pay a fishers entitled to sell eight nets for seine nets if he turned in seine nets, even though he had listed only gill nets on his application. This policy jeopardized the solvency of the Account because the payments to fishers turning in all seine nets were 3.5 times greater than the figures that Respondent had used in calculating the potential encumbrance on the Account. From the fishers's perspective, the program acquired an element of chance, as applicants with earlier appointment times-which did not necessarily correspond with earlier-filed applications-netted fine catches of economic assistance at the expense of their counterparts, upon whom destiny had bestowed later appointment times. By late August, the applicants, less sanguine about their litigation prospects (as the fishers suggest) and more inventive in recasting old gill nets as seine nets (as Respondent suggests), began turning in seine nets in large numbers, so that Respondent was purchasing nearly all seine nets. Eventually, the cumulative effect of this trend raised the total mix of seines purchased from five percent, during the first three weeks, to sixty percent. After a brief period of trying to stay the course, Respondent decided on September 6, 1995, that it had to take action or else the Account would be exhausted before the State had purchased all of the nets listed on the applications. Respondent immediately suspended further payments on issued vouchers and applied new criteria to persons holding unpaid vouchers, as well as to applicants who had not yet received vouchers. This action stopped payment on all vouchers issued from around August 28 through September 6. At the time that it stopped payment on outstanding vouchers, Respondent had approved the purchase of nets from about 750 fishers. About 450 of these applicants received their money prior to the suspension of payments, leaving about 300 applicants, including Petitioner, holding worthless vouchers. However, a large number of the 450 applicants who were actually paid for their nets prior to September 6 sold a relatively large percentage of gill nets rather than seine nets. As of September 6 (retroactive to August 28), Respondent began the second phase of the Net Buy-Back Program. In this phase, Respondent paid for seine nets, but only up to the greater of the number of seines shown on the application or the number of seines based on past use of seines. Respondent determined the latter figure from the trip tickets, which also contained information as to types of catch, from which Respondent could infer the type of net used. As in the first phase, Respondent continued to insist the fishers turn in seines if they were being paid for seines. The 300 fishers holding dishonored vouchers filed a class action suit. Petitioner's voucher for his first eight nets was covered in this legal action and is not the subject of this case. Petitioner received slightly more than $10,000 on his claim for about $28,000. In the meantime, Respondent discovered that Petitioner in fact held two licenses, as he had represented on his application. By letter dated October 5, 1995, Respondent advised Petitioner that it had reconsidered his application and determined that he had the right to sell 16 nets, not eight nets, but none could be a seine net. Respondent issued Petitioner a new voucher for these additional eight nets. This voucher is in the amount of $7996.80 for 4800 yards of deepwater gill net. On October 13, 1995, Petitioner turned in eight nets and received his money. Petitioner's application lists no seine nets. His application, as noted above, lists one and one-third shallow- water gill nets (i.e., 800 yards), eight deepwater gill nets, two trawls, and one trammel net. Petitioner claimed that he turned in seine nets. If turned in during the first or second phase of the program, Respondent would have treated these nets as seine nets. But it is Petitioner's unique fortune to have been intimately involved with all three phases of the Net Buy-Back Program. Evidently dissatisfied with the effects of the restrictions introduced by the second phase of the program, Respondent added a third phase by promulgating an emergency rule defining "seine nets," effective October 2, 1995. This third phase, which did not change Respondent's policy of paying for the greater number of seines as shown on the application or the trip tickets, restricted the kinds of nets that fishers could turn in as seine nets. Rule 38BER95-1 provides that, for the purpose of "the implementation of the Net Buy-Back Program" described in Section 370.0805(5): "Gill net" means a wall of netting suspended vertically in the water, with floats across the upper margin and weights along the bottom margin which captures fish by entangling them in the meshes, usually by the gills. Any net offered for the net buy- back program that consists of at least fifty- one percent (51 percent) gill net, shall be considered a gill net. "Seine" means a small-meshed net suspended vertically in the water, with floats along the top margin and weights along the bottom margin, which encloses and concentrates fish, and does not entangle them in the meshes. No net offered for the net buy-back program shall be considered a seine if the wings are composed of entangling mesh. * * * THIS RULE SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON BEING FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Effective Date: October 2, 1995 Under the emergency rule, Respondent's nets were not seines, but were gill nets because they were at least 51 percent, by area, gill net. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent estimates that the Account balance is about $300,000 with about 160 contested claims remaining to be resolved.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order dismissing the petition for additional payment from the Account. ENTERED on October 3rd, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this October 3rd, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Secretary Douglas L. Jamerson Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 John Wayde Campbell 1103 67th Street Northwest Bradenton, Florida 34209 Louise T. Sadler Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a commercial fisher who is an affected person under the Florida Net Ban, which is set forth in the Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 16. Section 370.0805(5), Florida Statutes, which became effective on July 1, 1995, establishes the Net Buy-Back Program. The program enables eligible persons previously engaged in the commercial fishing industry to sell fishing nets to the State of Florida. The Legislature appropriated $20 million to the Seafood Workers Economic Assistance Account (the Account) to fund the payments authorized in Section 370.0805, as well as agency expenses in administering the program. Section 370.0805(3)(b) directs Respondent to purchase nets "according to the availability of funds on a first-come, first-served basis determined by the date of receipt of each completed application." By Net Buy-Back Application signed on July 5, 1995, and filed with Respondent at 7:39 am on the same day, Petitioner applied to sell nets to the State of Florida. His application form is completely filled out and shows two saltwater-product license numbers, both for vessels. The application form calls for the applicant to list the "TOTAL NUMBER OF YARDS OF EACH NET TYPE THAT YOU INTEND TO SELL." The form lists five categories of nets: gill (49 meshes or less); gill (50 meshes or more); beach, purse, seine; trawl; and trammel. The former gill net is a shallow-water gill net. The latter gill net is a deepwater gill net. Petitioner listed on his application "maximum allowed." He did not otherwise fill in the blanks as to types or yardage of nets. After checking a data base maintained by the Department of Environmental Protection, Respondent found that Petitioner held three saltwater- product licenses. Respondent thus processed Petitioner's application as though he had three licenses, not two. By letter dated August 8, 1995, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was eligible "to receive compensation for 18 nets" and set an appointment for him to turn in the nets on September 14, 1995. A few days prior to September 14, a representative of Respondent telephoned Petitioner and told him that the net buy-back appointment was canceled and Respondent had shut down the program temporarily in order to make changes. The problem was that Respondent had discovered that the Account might be exhausted before Respondent had paid for all of the nets that fishers might lawfully seek to sell to the State. Respondent thus canceled Petitioner's appointment and suspended payment on outstanding vouchers while Respondent considered changes in its administration of the program. The purpose of the Net Buy-Back Program, as provided by Section 370.0805(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was to allow, "[a]ll commercial saltwater products licensees and persons holding a resident commercial fishing license" to apply to Respondent "to receive economic assistance to compensate them for nets rendered illegal or useless by the constitutional limitation on marine net fishing." The emphasis was on economic assistance. Section 370.0805(5)(a) authorizes Respondent to make payments only "in nonnegotiable amounts not intended to reflect the actual value of the nets." Section 370.0805(5)(a) assigns payment amounts of $3500 for beach, purse, or seine nets of at least 600 yards in length; $500 for trawls and shallow-water gill nets of at least 600 yards in length; and $1000 for trammel nets of at least 600 yards in length and deepwater gill nets of at least 600 yards in length. Section 370.0805(5)(a) states that, except for trawls, nets of less than 600 yards in length shall be "valued proportionately." Section 370.0805(5)(c) limits the number of nets that a commercial fisher could sell, based on his annual earnings from the sale of eligible saltwater products. The limits range from four nets, for licensees whose annual earnings average from $2500 to $4999 in earnings, to ten nets, for licensees whose annual earnings average more than $30,000. Respondent relied on another data base from the Department of Environmental Protection to determine the average yearly earnings of applicants. The Department of Environmental Protection maintains records of each licensee's trip tickets, which disclose earnings. The only other limit in the statute as to the type and number of nets to be purchased is that, under Section 370.0805(5)(d), "[n]o licensee may be paid for more than two ... trawls." Respondent reviewed the applications that it received from the initial fishers who filed applications. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the funds in the Account would be sufficient to cover the nets that the State was to be purchasing. Respondent found from the applications that seine nets represented a small percentage of the nets that fishers intended to sell to the State. Relying on this information, Respondent calculated the potential encumbrance of $6.5 million on the Account, based on an average payment that reflected the absence of a significant number of the most expensive seine nets. Applying liberal eligibility criteria, such as calculating the number of nets that each applicant could sell based on the number of licenses that he held, Respondent raised its estimate of the potential encumbrance to $8.775 million. But in recalculating the potential encumbrance on the Account, Respondent still assumed that the average payment per net would not be affected by a significant number of seines. Respondent began receiving nets in early August, 1995. Through the first three weeks of August, Respondent purchased seine nets at the relatively low rate that it had anticipated. After this point, fishers started turning in much larger numbers of seine nets than they had listed in their applications. During this first phase of the program, Respondent paid fishers for whatever types of nets they presented at their net buy-back appointment. Respondent paid a fisher entitled to sell six nets for seine nets if he turned in seine nets, even though he had listed only gill nets on his application. This policy jeopardized the solvency of the Account because the payments to fishers turning in all seine nets were much greater than the figures that Respondent had used in calculating the potential encumbrance on the Account. From the fishers' perspective, the program acquired an element of chance, as applicants with earlier appointment times-which did not necessarily correspond with earlier-filed applications-netted fine catches of economic assistance at the expense of their counterparts, upon whom destiny had bestowed later appointment times. By late August, the applicants began turning in seine nets in large numbers, so that Respondent was purchasing nearly all seine nets. Before long, Respondent was purchasing nothing but seines. After a brief period of trying to stay the course, Respondent decided on September 6, 1995, that it had to take action or else the Account would be exhausted before the State had purchased all of the nets listed on the applications. Respondent immediately suspended the program and developed new criteria to apply to all persons not yet paid for their nets. As of September 6 (retroactive to August 28), Respondent began the second phase of the Net Buy-Back Program. In this phase, Respondent paid for seine nets, but only up to the greater of the number of seines shown on the application or the number of seines based on past use of seines. Respondent determined the latter figure from the trip tickets, which also contained information as to types of catch, from which Respondent could infer the type of net used. As in the first phase, Respondent continued to insist the fishers turn in seines if they were being paid for seines. Petitioner's application lists no seine nets. But his application put Respondent on notice that Petitioner sought to sell as many nets, as at high a value, as the law would permit. This would mean seine nets. And based on his possession of three licenses, this would mean 18 seine nets, given Petitioner's earnings during the relevant period. Petitioner claimed that he turned in seine nets. If turned in during the first or second phase of the program, Respondent would have treated these nets as seine nets. But these nets were turned in during what became the third phase of the Net Buy-Buyback Program. After canceling Petitioner's net buy-back appointment, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter, setting another net buy-back appointment for October 2. The letter states that Respondent would purchase a total of 18 nets, but none could be a seine net. Dissatisfied with the effects of the restrictions introduced by the second phase of the program, Respondent added a third phase by promulgating an emergency rule defining "seine nets," effective October 2, 1995. This third phase, which did not change Respondent's policy of paying for the greater number of seines as shown on the application or the trip tickets, restricted the kinds of nets that fishermen could turn in as seine nets. Rule 38BER95-1 provides that, for the purpose of "the implementation of the Net Buy-Back Program" described in Section 370.0805(5): "Gill net" means a wall of netting suspended vertically in the water, with floats across the upper margin and weights along the bottom margin which captures fish by entangling them in the meshes, usually by the gills. Any net offered for the net buy-back program that consists of at least fifty-one percent (51 percent) gill net, shall be considered a gill net. "Seine" means a small-meshed net suspended vertically in the water, with floats along the top margin and weights along the bottom margin, which encloses and concentrates fish, and does not entangle them in the meshes. No net offered for the net buy-back program shall be considered a seine if the wings are composed of entangling mesh. * * * THIS RULE SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON BEING FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Effective Date: October 2, 1995 Under the emergency rule, Respondent's nets were not seines, but were gill nets because they were at least 51 percent, by area, gill net.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order directing payment from the Account to Petitioner of the difference between the amount he has already received and the amount he would have received had all 18 of the nets that he delivered to Respondent been valued as seine nets. ENTERED on October 4, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this October 4, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Secretary Douglas L. Jamerson Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Charles L. Wilson, pro se 9210 West Robson Tampa, Florida 33615 Louise T. Sadler Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's wholesale dealer's license should be approved for renewal.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witness and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Henry's Seafood, Inc. was established and began doing business in 1978. From its inception Henry Torres has served as president of the company. Petitioner ceased doing business in May of 1986 when its application to renew its whole sale license to sell salt water products was denied by Respondent. On November 25, 1985, Henry Torres entered a negotiated plea of guilty to knowingly transporting with the intent to sell, offering for sale, and knowingly selling in interstate commerce approximately 120 pounds of undersized spiny lobster tails with a market value in excess of $350.00, knowing that said spiny lobster tails were possessed in violation of law. As a result of the plea, a conviction was entered and Mr. Torres was required to pay a fine in the amount of $10,000. On November 25, 1985, Petitioner, Henry's Seafood, Inc., entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the same charge described in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Petitioner was then found guilty and was placed on probation for two years. The negotiated pleas entered by Petitioner were done in the interests of minimizing costs relating to the defense of the criminal actions. Moreover, said pleas were entered with the express understanding that Petitioner would be allowed to continue in business. Additionally, it was the intention of the trial judge in imposing sentence that Petitioner be allowed to continue in business. There was never a factual determination that Petitioner did possess undersized lobster tails. In fact, Petitioner received payment for some of the lobster tails which had been seized. Mr. Torres denied having violated either the Lacy Act or Florida Law. The lobster tails were not the product of Florida but had been caught in waters elsewhere. The lobster tails seized from Henri's were combined with all of the lobsters seized from other business. It was impossible to determine how many, if any, were undersized. When Petitioner applied for the renewal of its license, a disclosure was given as to the conviction described in Findings of Fact, paragraphs 1 and 2.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Natural Resources enter a Final Order approving Petitioner's renewal application and placing said license on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2394 Rulings of the Proposed Finding of Fact submitted by Respondent 1. Rejected, outside the scope of evidence Submitted at the final hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael I. Rose, Esquire Suite 303, Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Douglas Building, Suite 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mr. Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas G. Tomasello, Esquire General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Respondent, The MG Herring Group, Inc. (MG Herring), was an employer of Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Xencom provides general maintenance, landscaping, housekeeping, and office cleaning services to retail facilities. In September of 2015, Xencom entered three contracts for services with CREFII Market Street Holdings, LLC (CREFII). The contracts were to provide maintenance, landscaping, and office cleaning services for a mall known as Market Street @ Heathbrook (Market Street) in Ocala, Florida. Michael Ponds, Xencom’s president, executed the contracts on behalf of Xencom. Two individuals executed the contracts on behalf of CREFII. One was Gar Herring, identified as Manager for Herring Ocala, LLC. The other was Bernard E. McAuley, identified as Manager of Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC. MG Herring was not a party or signatory to the contracts. MG Herring does not own or operate Market Street. A separate entity, The MG Herring Property Group, LLC (Property Group) operated Market Street. The contracts, in terms stated in an exhibit to them, established a fixed price for the year’s work, stated the scope of services, and detailed payment terms. They also identified labor and labor-related costs in detail that included identifying the Xencom employees involved, their compensation, and their weekly number of hours. The contract exhibits also identified operating costs, including equipment amortization, equipment repairs, fuel expenses, vacation costs, health insurance, and storage costs. The contracts ended December 31, 2016. The contracts specify that Xencom is an independent contractor. Each states: “Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the owner. Accordingly, neither Contractor nor any of Contractor’s Representatives shall hold themselves out as, or claim to be acting in the capacity of, an agent or employee of Owner.” The contracts also specify that the property manager may terminate the contract at any time without reason for its convenience. The contracts permit Xencom to engage subcontractors with advance approval of the property manager. They broadly describe the services that Xencom is to provide. Xencom has over 80 such contracts with different facilities. As the contracts contemplate, only Xencom exerted direct control of the Petitioners working at Market Street. Property Group could identify tasks and repairs to be done. Xencom decided who would do them and how. In 2013, Xencom hired Michael Harrison to work as its Operations Manager at Market Street. He was charged with providing services for which Property Group contracted. His immediate supervisor was Xencom’s Regional Manager. In 2016, that was David Snell. Mr. Snell was not located at Market Street. Property Group also did not have a representative on site. Before Xencom hired him, Mr. Harrison worked at Market Street for Property Group. Xencom hired the remaining Petitioners to work at Market Street under Mr. Harrison’s supervision. Each of the Petitioners completed an Application for Employment with Xencom. The application included a statement, initialed by each Petitioner, stating, “Further, I understand and agree that my employment is for no definite period and I may be terminated at any time without previous notice.” All of the Petitioners also received Xencom’s employee handbook. As Xencom’s Operations Manager and supervisor of the other Petitioners, Mr. Harrison was responsible for day-to-day management of Petitioners. He scheduled their work tasks, controlled shifts, established work hours, and assigned tasks. Mr. Harrison also decided when Petitioners took vacations and time off. His supervisor expected him to consult with Property Group to ensure it knew what support would be available and that he knew of any upcoming events or other considerations that should be taken into account in his decisions. As Operations Manager, Mr. Harrison was also responsible for facilitating payroll, procuring supplies, and managing Xencom’s equipment at the site. Xencom provided Petitioners work uniforms that bore Xencom’s name. Xencom required Petitioners to wear the uniforms at work. Xencom provided the supplies and equipment that Petitioners used at work. Only Xencom had authority to hire or fire the employees providing services to fulfill its contracts with the property manager. Only Xencom had authority to modify Petitioners’ conditions of employment. Neither MG Herring, Property Group, nor Xencom held out Petitioners as employees of MG Herring or Property Group. There is no evidence that MG Herring or Property Group employed 15 or more people. Property Group hired Tina Wilson as Market Street’s on- site General Manager on February 1, 2016. Until then there was no Property Group representative at the site. The absence of a Property Group representative on-site left Mr. Harrison with little oversight or accountability under the Xencom contracts for Market Street. His primary Property Group contact was General Manager Norine Bowen, who was not located at the property. Ms. Wilson’s duties included community relations, public relations, marketing, leasing, litigation, tenant coordination, lease management, construction management, and contract management. She managed approximately 40 contracts at Market Street, including Xencom’s three service agreements. Ms. Wilson was responsible for making sure the contracts were properly executed. Managing the Xencom contracts consumed less than 50 percent of Ms. Wilson’s time. During the last weeks of 2016, Mr. Harrison intended to reduce the hours of Kylie Smithers. Ms. Wilson requested that, since Ms. Smithers was to be paid under the contract for full- time work, Ms. Smithers assist her with office work such as filing and making calls. Mr. Harrison agreed and scheduled Ms. Smithers to do the work. This arrangement was limited and temporary. It does not indicate Property Group control over Xencom employees. Ms. Wilson was Xencom’s point of contact with Property Group. She and Mr. Harrison had to interact frequently. Ms. Wilson had limited contact with the other Xencom employees at Market Street. Friction and disagreements arose quickly between Mr. Harrison and Ms. Wilson. They may have been caused by having a property manager representative on-site after Mr. Harrison’s years as either the manager representative himself or as Xencom supervisor without a property manager on-site. They may have been caused by personality differences between the two. They may have been caused by the alleged sexual and crude comments that underlie the claims of discrimination in employment. They may have been caused by a combination of the three factors. On November 21, 2016, Norine Bowen received an email from the address xencomempoyees@gmail.com with the subject of “Open your eyes about Market Street.” It advised that some employees worked at night for an event. It said that Ms. Wilson gave the Xencom employees alcohol to drink while they were still on the clock. The email said that there was a fight among Xencom employees. The email also said that at another event at a restaurant where Xencom employees were drinking, Ms. Wilson gave Ms. Smithers margaritas to drink and that Ms. Smithers was underage. The email claimed that during a tree-lighting event Ms. Wilson started drinking around 3:30 p.m. It also stated that Ms. Wilson offered a Xencom employee a drink. The email went on to say that children from an elementary school and their parents were present and that Ms. Wilson was “three sheets to the wind.” The email concludes stating that Ms. Wilson had been the subject of three employee lawsuits. On December 14, 2016, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Bowen, and Mr. Snell met at Property Group’s office in Market Street for their regular monthly meeting to discuss operations at Market Street. Their discussion covered a number of management issues including a Xencom employee’s failure to show up before 8:00 to clean as arranged, security cameras, tenants who had not paid rent, lease questions, HVAC questions, and rats on the roof. They also discussed the email’s allegations. The participants also discussed a number of dissatisfactions with Mr. Harrison’s performance. Near the end of a discussion about the anonymous email, this exchange occurred:2/ Bowen: Okay, so I know that David [Snell], I think his next step is to conduct his own investigation with his [Xencom] people, and HR is still following up with John Garrett, and you’re meeting with Danny [intended new Xencom manager for Market Street] tonight? David Snell: Yes. Bowen: To finish up paperwork, and, based on his investigation, it will be up to Xencom to figure out what to do with people that are drinking on property, off the clock or on the clock, you know, whatever, what their policy is. * * * Bowen: So, I don’t know what to make of it. I’m just here to do an investigation like I’m supposed to do and David is here to pick up the pieces and meet with his folks one-on- one, and we’ll see where this takes us. This exchange and the remainder of the recording do not support a finding that Property Group controlled Xencom’s actions or attempted to control them. The participants were responsibly discussing a serious complaint they had received, their plan to investigate it, and pre-existing issues with Mr. Harrison. The exchange also makes clear that all agreed the issues involving Xencom employees were for Xencom to address, and the issues involving Property Group employees were for Property Group to address. At the time of the December 14, 2016, meeting, the participants were not aware of any complaints from Mr. Harrison or Mr. Smithers of sexual harassment or discrimination by Ms. Wilson. On December 15, 2016, Gar Herring and Norine Bowen received an email from Mr. Harrison with an attached letter to Xencom’s Human Resources Manager, and others. Affidavits from Petitioners asserting various statements and questions by Ms. Wilson about Mr. Harrison’s and Mr. Smithers’ sex life and men’s genitalia and statements about her sex life and the genitalia of men involved were attached. Xencom President Michael Ponds received a similar email with attachments on the same day. On December 21, 2016, Mr. Ponds received a letter from Herring Ocala, LLC, and Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC, terminating the service agreements. Their agreements with Xencom were going to expire December 31, 2016. They had been negotiating successor agreements. However, they had not executed any. Xencom terminated Petitioners’ employment on December 21, 2016. Xencom no longer needed Petitioners’ services once MG Herring terminated the contract with Xencom. This was the sole reason it terminated Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying the Petitions of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 11th day of May, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of absence without leave from his teaching duties and misconduct in office, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact During the 1992-93 school year, Respondent was employed by Respondent as a teacher. He was on annual contract with Respondent. During the 1992-93 school year, he taught with a temporary teaching certificate. Respondent was paid $23,635 annually at a rate of $17.23 hourly. The reason that Respondent taught with a temporary teaching certificate was that he had failed to pass both parts of the test that teachers must take in order to be certified. Respondent's temporary teaching certificate was effective only for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years and could not be renewed for the following school year. Respondent would thus not have been able to work as a teacher during the 1993-94 school year, after which he could again obtain another two-year temporary teaching certificate while he continued to take the examination. On or about April 8, 1993, Petitioner terminated Respondent after determining that he had been absent without leave from his teaching duties. Respondent was first assigned to Trout Lake in September, 1991. Trout Lake is a residential exceptional student education (ESE) facility operated by Tri-County Addictions, Inc. Consisting of 43 acres, the facility includes residential and school buildings, which are not within sight of each other. It takes about 10 minutes to walk between the residences and school building. Trout Lake serves an average of 18-24 students ranging in age from 13 to 18 years. The students have all been classified as Severely Emotionally Disturbed and often suffer from drug addiction. In general, the students present difficult management problems. Petitioner is contractually responsible for educating the Trout Lake students. Toward that end, Petitioner has routinely assigned one or two teachers to teach the students at the school building located on the Trout Lake campus. Immediate responsibility for the teachers rests with the principal at Avon Park High School, which is about five miles from Trout Lake. During the 1991-93 school years, the principal was Barbara Dean. Given the nature of the students, however, considerable responsibility for the success of Petitioner's involvement with the Trout Lake program rests with Petitioner's District ESE staff. Respondent was certified to teach social studies, not ESE. His orientation at Trout Lake consisted of following around his predecessor for three or four weeks. After the predecessor left, Respondent was by himself for the entire 1991-92 school year. Respondent's schedule at the beginning of the 1992-93 school year required his services from 7:15 am to 2:45 pm. His duties on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday were different from those on Wednesday. Each weekday morning, the students began the day around 7:15 or 7:30 am with about an hour of peer counselling. Respondent actively participated in this activity, which took place at the residence. On weekdays except Wednesdays, the students were divided into two groups. One group went to school in the morning, immediately after peer counselling, while the other group remained at the residence for counselling from the counsellors employed by Trout Lake. In the afternoon, the group that had gone to school went to the residence for counselling, and the group that had remained at the residence went to school. The students who went to school in the morning typically left the residence for school at about 8:30 am. At about 11:30, after four periods of about 45 minutes each of social studies, science and health, mathematics, and English, the morning students rejoined the others at the residence for lunch. At around 12:30 pm, the afternoon students arrived at the school building and attended the same four courses until about 3:30 pm. The Wednesday schedule was different. The Trout Lake counsellors needed one weekday during which they could counsel all of the students together. Thus, on Wednesdays, all of the students went to school in the morning and were taught in classes twice as large as normal. From 11:00 am to about 11:30 am, the counsellors met with various groups. Then, lunch took place at the residence from about 11:30 am to about 12:30 pm. Beginning at about 12:30 pm, the counsellors conducted a staff meeting at which they discussed the students and any problems that they were facing. Respondent typically attended the lunch at the residence each weekday, as well as the Wednesday afternoon staff meeting. Unlike his predecessor, Respondent routinely attended the Wednesday afternoon staff meeting. Respondent believed that his attendance at the meeting helped him and the counsellors work better together to assist the students. The Wednesday afternoon staff meetings often lasted two or three hours and addressed many issues irrelevant to Respondent. For these reasons, Respondent normally spoke first at the meetings and left when he was finished, after no more than 40 minutes. Wednesday afternoons were Respondent's planning period. When he left the staff meeting, he could engage in planning activities for the remainder of the afternoon. The nature of planning, as well as the limited resources at the Trout Lake school building, demanded that Respondent leave the campus from time to time during his planning time in order to accomplish tasks relevant to his planning duties. Petitioner's witnesses testified that Respondent should have contacted Ms. Dean before leaving the Trout Lake school. In general, these witnesses attributed the authority for this practice to courtesy or professionalism. However, no such practice had existed when Respondent arrived at Trout Lake or during his first year there. Respondent understandably felt isolated at Trout Lake. He received no orientation from Ms. Dean or any of the ESE staff when first assigned to Trout Lake. He had to learn the customs hurriedly from his predecessor, and later from a paraprofessional. In addition, neither Respondent nor Ms. Dunham was able or expected to attend faculty meetings at Avon Park High School. Ms. Lethbridge visited the facility once every week to three weeks. Ms. Lethbridge's supervisor, Connie Tzovarras, visited the Trout Lake only one time between September, 1992, and March, 1993. From September, 1992, through mid-March, 1993, Ms. Dean visited Trout Lake twice. One time, she came when computers had been stolen. The second visit of Ms. Dean was when she evaluated Respondent. Ultimately, Ms. Dean received a letter of reprimand for her supervision of the Trout Lake teachers. Respondent testified that he sometimes left the school early on Wednesday afternoons, during his planning time, to perform school-related duties, such as gathering supplies or meeting with school personnel at other locations. Undoubtedly, these are appropriate activities for which Respondent may leave the campus. Given the customs of Trout Lake, Respondent's past experience during the 1991-92 school year, and the failure of Ms. Dean or any ESE staff to instruct Respondent differently, there was no requirement that Respondent advise anyone at Avon Park High School or the ESE District office of such departures for school business or that he sign out when leaving the campus on school-related business. The absence of a requirement of notice to someone at Avon Park High School or at least signing out before leaving campus on school-related business undermines Petitioner's case. There is considerable evidence that Respondent was not at the school building on Wednesday afternoons. But, with two exceptions, there is no evidence that Respondent ever left the campus on other than school- related matters. Given the remoteness of Trout Lake and its relative lack of on-site resources, Respondent necessarily had to leave the campus to carry out normal planning activities. If Respondent's departures from campus had been accompanied by a violation of some clearly defined policy, it would be reasonable to infer that Respondent was pursuing personal business. However, Petitioner has proved that two of Respondent's absences had nothing to do with school business. Evidently as part of a course that he was taking, Respondent was required to teach reading on two occasions to a group of elementary school students. After having discussed the matter with Ms. Dean, who advised him that he would need to take personal leave if the reading classes took place during the school day, Respondent proceeded on two occasions to visit the elementary school without obtaining leave. On each occasion, Respondent arrived at the Trout Lake school at about 9:15 am and thus was absent two hours without leave. By letter dated March 26, 1993, Petitioner advised Respondent that he was charged with misconduct in office, violation of School Board Policy 2.31, and violation of Section 231.45, Florida Statutes. The letter also cites a violation of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes, for absence without leave. The March 26 letter further informs Respondent that the Highlands County School Board, at its next meeting on April 8, 1993, would consider the recommendation of the Superintendent that Respondent's employment be immediately terminated. In the meantime, the letter states that Respondent was suspended with pay. On April 8, 1993, Petitioner terminated Respondent. Petitioner later advised Respondent that it had determined that he owed the School District over $700 for monies paid for which duties were not performed. Petitioner recovered this sum from Respondent by withholding them from his final paycheck. By letter dated May 19, 1993, Respondent requested a formal hearing on his termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Highlands County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment, as of April 8, 1992, and refunding to Respondent the difference between the amount actually withheld and $68.92. ENTERED on December 10, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 10, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2867 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22-23: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 24-26: rejected as irrelevant. 27: adopted. 28: adopted only as to the four hours missed when Respondent twice taught reading at an elementary school. 29-30: adopted. 31-33: rejected as unsupported by the necessary weight of the evidence to the extent of the implication that Petitioner proved that Respondent was, on these occasions, not engaged in school- related business. 34-35: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 36-40: adopted. 41-45: rejected as subordinate. 46 and 48: adopted as to the four hours described above. 47: rejected as irrelevant. 49: rejected as repetitious. 50: rejected as subordinate. 51-55: adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as unsupported by the necessary weight of the evidence and as legal argument. 10-12: rejected as irrelevant. 13-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22: rejected as recitation of evidence. 23: adopted or adopted in substance. 24: rejected as unsupported by the necessary weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Gavin W. O'Brien Gavin W. O'Brien, P.A. 1806 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205 Mark S. Herdman Kelly, McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School Street Sebring, Florida 33870-4048 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed food service violations, and, if so, whether disciplinary action should be taken. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent did commit violations and should be subject to the fine described herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Respondent was licensed as a public food establishment in the State of Florida by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Department). Respondent's business address is 8084 North Davis Highway, No. A1, Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner's witness, Inspector Crowley, is employed by the Department as a senior sanitation safety specialist in Panama City Beach, Florida. He has worked for the Department for 12 years and has prior experience in the United States Air Force for 26 years, during which he also preformed public health inspections at food and lodging facilities. Inspector Crowley engages in continuing education on a regular basis and performs approximately 800 inspections a year. "Critical violations" are those that are likely to result in food-borne illness or environmental degradation. "Non-critical violations" are minor issues that are not classified as critical violations. Inspection reports are electronically prepared on a Personal Data Assistant by the inspector. On July 14, 2009, Inspector Crowley performed a routine food service inspection of Respondent at its location on North Davis Highway in Pensacola. During the inspection, Inspector Crowley prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations he encountered during the inspection. On that same date, Inspector Crowley notified Respondent about the violations. Respondent's owner signed the inspection report. Also, Inspector Crowley made the owner aware that each violation noted during the inspection must be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. On December 14, 2009, Inspector Crowley performed a routine food service inspection of Respondent. During the inspection, Inspector Crowley prepared and signed an inspection report indicating that some of the violations noted on the July 14, 2009, inspection report had not been corrected. On that date, Inspector Crowley notified Respondent of the violations and the fact that he was recommending an administrative complaint. Respondent's owner signed the inspection report. The most serious violation was observed at both the July 14 and December 14 inspections. Inspector Crowley observed the handwash sink being used for purposes other than handwashing. This is a critical violation because handwashing is the best way to prevent food-borne illness within a public food service establishment. Mr. Wong testified that during both inspections a brush used for cleaning the sink had been left inside the handwash sink. Inspector Crowley observed the next most serious violation during the December 14 inspection, misrepresentation of food products. Imitation crab was advertised as genuine crab meat, and escolar was advertised as white tuna. This constitutes a critical violation because patrons could unknowingly ingest foods causing an allergic reaction or illness. The misrepresentation of food items had been corrected at the time of hearing. Mr. Wong admitted that the escolar labeling had been incorrect, but that the crab labeling was only a handwritten note to the chefs in the area where they work both with soft-shelled crabs (real crab) and imitation crab used in sushi products. The patrons are not served imitation crab when the dish calls for real crab or real crab when the dish calls for imitation crab. Regardless of the corrective actions taken, the Department's policy is to immediately issue an administrative complaint when a misrepresentation violation is noted. The next most serious violation noted by Inspector Crowley occurred during both the July 14 and December 14 inspections. He observed the use of a grooved and pitted cutting board that was no longer cleanable. This constitutes a violation because dirt and food remain in the grooves even after the cutting board has been washed, allowing bacteria to grow, which can lead to future contamination of food products. Respondent was unable to remove the cutting board after the July 14 inspection because it was part of the counter where food preparation occurs. Mr. Wong testified that it is used only as a table since the July 14 inspection, not as a cutting board. He admitted that bacteria on the board could be transferred to the underside of food-bearing plates placed on it. The next most serious violation was observed by Inspector Crowley at both the July 14 and December 14 inspections. He observed a buildup of grease on the surface of equipment that does not come into contact with food. This constitutes a violation of cleanliness standards which can ultimately lead to food-borne illness. Inattention while cleaning led to the buildup of grease on equipment surfaces.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a penalty in the amount of $500 for the critical violation concerning the mislabeling of the escolar; $500 for the critical violation of using the handwashing sink for purposes other than handwashing; $150 for the non-critical violation of continuing to use the grooved and pitted cutting board; and $150 for the non-critical violation of allowing grease to accumulate on non- food contact surfaces. The total fine in the amount of $1,300 shall be paid to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants within 30 days of the entry of its final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 18th day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Christopher Wong Teriyaki Cafe Sushi and Grill 8084 North Davis Highway, Suite A1 Pensacola, Florida 32514 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
