The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Florida A & M University Board of Trustees (“Board of Trustees”), improperly reassigned Petitioner, Dale Cassidy, to an alternative position at Florida A & M University (“FAMU” or the “University”); and, if so, whether Petitioner is entitled to damages or other relief.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a former employee of the University. He was hired in 2014 as vice president of Finance and Administration/Chief Financial Officer (“vice president of Finance/CFO”). He assumed the position at a starting annual salary of $195,000. In August 2015, he assumed additional duties and his salary was increased to $220,000 in recognition of the additional responsibilities. Petitioner served as vice president of Finance/CFO until March 14, 2017. Respondent is the Board of Trustees for FAMU, a university within the State University System. FAMU is a nationally known, historically black college located in Tallahassee, Florida. On Friday, March 11, 2016, Petitioner was visited in his office at FAMU by two individuals: Jimmy Miller and Santoras Gamble. The two came into his office as emissaries of the then-President of FAMU, Elmira Mangum. Miller was President Mangum’s chief of staff; Gamble was a “special assistant” to the President. The purpose of Miller and Gamble’s visit was to hand-deliver to Petitioner a letter signed by the President notifying Petitioner of a “change-in-assignment.” Specifically, Petitioner was being removed from his position as vice president of Finance/CFO and reassigned to the newly created position of Chief External Compliance and Ethics Officer (referred to herein as the “Ethics Officer”). His annual salary in that position would be reduced to $176,000 and he would receive normal (as opposed to enhanced) fringe benefits.1/ He would no longer be eligible to participate in the Executive Service pay plan which existed for certain high-level administrative and professional (“A&P”) staff. Petitioner’s change in assignment was to take effect the following Monday, March 14, 2016. Petitioner read the letter from President Mangum and dropped it on his desk. The two emissaries asked if he had any questions about the letter. He either told them he did not have any questions or he told them, “[no questions] that you can answer.” Either way, that was the end of the discussion between Petitioner and the two representatives of President Mangum. Miller, Gamble, and Petitioner then left Petitioner’s office and toured Lee Hall, purportedly looking for a new office for Petitioner once he assumed his new role. President Mangum’s office is also located in Lee Hall. Petitioner was ultimately moved to an office in the Foote-Hilyer building. On the day after the reassignment took effect, Jimmy Miller, as President Mangum’s chief of staff, issued a memorandum to the Board of Trustees. The memorandum outlined the changes in senior leadership assignments, including Petitioner’s reassignment to the position of Ethics Officer.2/ Over the next couple of weeks, Petitioner made his displeasure with the reassignment made known to a number of people. He was, however, especially unhappy that news of his reassignment (and presumptive demotion) was reported in the Tallahassee Democrat, the local newspaper. Petitioner moved into his new office on the fourth floor of the Foote-Hilyer building, in a suite of offices occupied by the vice president of Research, within two weeks of receiving the job change notice. On the day before he moved into his new office, Petitioner drafted a memorandum to his personnel file concerning his reassignment. The memo included the statement, “I accept this new role and pledge to perform the related duties . . . to the best of my ability.” On the day he assumed the new position, Petitioner wrote another memo that he asked to be placed in his personnel file. In the memo, Petitioner essentially complained that he had not been given any specific reason for the reassignment from the position of vice president of Finance/CFO. The memo did not mention that President Mangum’s emissaries had asked him if he had questions about the letter or that he had no questions for them. Petitioner did not point to any requirement in University regulations (or otherwise) that the President was required to give him a specific reason for the transfer. In fact, all A&P employees serve at the pleasure of the President and could have their employment terminated at any time, with or without cause. Petitioner received a request from President Mangum for him to meet with her concerning the change in assignment. The meeting was held (albeit on a day other than proposed by the President, pursuant to Petitioner’s request). At the meeting, ultimately held on March 21, 2016, Petitioner was presented with his new employment contract for the Ethics Officer position. He refused to sign the contract, citing his reasons, to wit: 1) He had not been told specific reasons why he could no longer serve as vice president of Finance/CFO; and 2) the President had not shared with him her vision of how she expected him to perform his duties in the new role. By not signing the employment contract, he knew that President Mangum would be within her rights to terminate his employment altogether. Petitioner seems to acknowledged that President Mangum “consulted” him about the new job classification at the meeting. He maintains, however, that it was too late to hold the consultation at that time. He provided no support or rationale for his stance. Petitioner then attempted to negotiate a different job description for the position to which he had been assigned. He asked for more salary, that the position be “interim” in nature, and that he retain his Executive Service benefits. President Mangum informed him that the University’s human relations department had “market priced” the salary and that it would not be changed. There is no evidence the other issues he raised were discussed at that time (or later, for that matter). As noted, Petitioner moved into his new office space on March 14, 2016, and by all appearances, assumed his duties as the Ethics Officer. He nevertheless maintains he did not believe he had ever formally served in that capacity. This testimony contravenes a memo he wrote on the day of his meeting with President Mangum. The memo, written to his personnel file, said, “I currently plan to accept the role [of Ethics Officer].” On June 21, 2016, Petitioner attended a seminar in Orlando relating to ethics and compliance officer regulations. In his travel request form, Petitioner identifies himself as “Officer, Compliance” and affirmed that the seminar constituted official business. His travel was approved and he attended the seminar. At final hearing, Petitioner said he attended the seminar as “an employee of the university” but not as the Ethics Officer. There is no evidentiary support for that contention and it seems unlikely in light of his travel documents. From March 14, 2016, until his resignation from employment, effective December 29, 2016, Petitioner was considered by the University to be its Ethics Officer. He performed duties associated with that position, operated out of the office assigned to that position, and accepted compensation for serving in that position. The University human resources officer (who was called as a witness by Petitioner at final hearing) opined that Petitioner’s actions clearly confirmed that he had accepted the position. A further example: On August 19, 2016, Petitioner issued a report on matters relating to his position as Ethics Officer. He signed the report, noting his position as “Acting Chief Compliance & Ethics Officer.” Petitioner said he signed the report that way because FAMU did not have “acting” administrative employees; they were either permanent or interim. However, Regulation 10.106(1)(b) states, “A&P employees who are appointed to established positions with an appointment status modifier or type, other than Regular (for example, Acting, Temporary or Visiting) are not entitled to a notice of non- reappointment.” Granted that section is referring to non- reappointment and addresses established positions, neither of which is relevant to the instant matter, but it does show that “Acting” is a nomenclature used by FAMU for A&P employees. Petitioner is seeking the difference in pay and benefits he received as Ethics Officer versus what he had been making as vice president of Finance/CFO, for the time period March 14 through December 29, 2016. He asserts that since he never signed the contract to be Ethics Officer, he never officially served in that position. The Personnel Action Request (“PAR”) in Petitioner’s personnel file was signed by President Mangum, the appropriate vice president (Ronica Mathis), and the HR Officer; and it clearly reassigns Petitioner to the position of Ethics Officer, effective March 14, 2017. The PAR, which sets out the employee’s current position, proposed new position, salary and other information, need not be signed by the employee. He or she would only be provided a copy of the PAR if they requested to review their personnel file. When asked what services he performed during his tenure as Ethics Officer, Petitioner responded, “Whatever the President, as my supervisor, asked me to do, which was largely nothing.” Petitioner did not provide further elucidation as to how doing “largely nothing” warranted additional payment from the University. Petitioner maintains he was not properly advised of his proposed reassignment pursuant to relevant University regulations. He cites to Regulation 10.209, Change-In- Assignment of Faculty and Administrative and Professional Employees, which states in pertinent part: The President or President’s designee may for the best interest of the University, at any time, assign a Faculty or Administrative and Professional (A&P) employee to other institutional assignments only after consultation with the employee and the departments or other units affected. Regardless of the change-in-assignment, however, the University is committed to compensate the employee. Despite being asked by the President’s designees (Miller and Gamble) on March 11, 2016, whether he had any questions about the reassignment, Petitioner maintains he had no “consultation” as required by the regulation. Rather, he posits, all he received was “notice” of the reassignment. Petitioner points out that the dictionary definitions of consultation and notice are different and they do not share the same synonyms. From Petitioner’s perspective, consultation would involve some degree of give and take between the President and the employee. Or, as he stated in his PRO filed in this case, the synonym for consultation is “asked to discuss or exchange views” of a matter. Petitioner says that Miller and Gamble asking him if he had any questions was not sufficient “consultation” on the matter. Petitioner provided no other support for his position. Further, Petitioner points out that Richard Givens, vice president of Audit and Compliance, was not notified about Petitioner’s reassignment. Petitioner maintains that Givens’ office was affected by the reassignment and thus should have been consulted as well. Givens stated at final hearing that his office “could have been affected” by the reassignment, but ultimately it had not been affected. Timothy Moore, vice president of Research, maintains that consultation means nothing more than a letter, email, phone call or other means of transmitting the fact to an employee. Clearly, Petitioner was provided notice of the reassignment and had opportunity to consult with the President’s representatives, but he refused to do so. Givens received notice of the reassignment when he read about it in the local newspaper. He does not remember being advised by anyone at FAMU concerning the change before it occurred, but received written notice on the day Petitioner started his new position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Florida A & M University Board of Trustees, upholding the employment action as to Petitioner, Dale Cassidy, and denying Petitioner’s claim for damages or other relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 13th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner’s request for exemption from employment disqualification should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On April 30, 1996, James L. Wilson was arguing with his wife. Mr. Wilson’s stepson entered into the argument. The stepson was 15 years old. Mr. Wilson, using his open hands, pushed his stepson in the chest, causing his stepson to fall over a chair and onto the floor. This incident occurred in Richmond County, Georgia. As a result of Mr. Wilson’s action against his stepson, Mr. Wilson was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor offense of simple battery. On May 1, 1996, Mr. Wilson pled guilty to the simple battery charge before the court in Richmond County, Georgia, and was sentenced to 12 months' probation and ordered to pay a fine of $150. As conditions for his probation, Mr. Wilson was ordered to have no violent contact with his stepson and to pay $20 per month for probation supervision fees. Subsequently, Mr. Wilson’s relationship with his stepson greatly improved. Mr. Wilson and his stepson get along well with one another. In July 1997, Mr. Wilson began employment with Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) in the State of Florida to assist CCA in the establishment of a program for juveniles in Florida. He was transferred by CCA from the State of South Carolina where he worked with juveniles for CCA. CCA is a contract provider with the State of Florida, Department of Juvenile Justice (Department). Working in Florida, Mr. Wilson was a shift commander at CCA’s Okeechobee Youth Offender Camp in Okeechobee, Florida. As shift commander, he supervised six staff members, supervisors of two main shifts, and 50 juvenile offenders. Mr. Wilson worked directly with juveniles. Subsequently, Mr. Wilson became the assistant maintenance/training officer, training staff at CCA’s Okeechobee Redirect Center for Juvenile Offenders. Mr. Wilson worked directly with juveniles. Mr. Wilson was in a caretaker position with CCA at both locations. Being in the positions with CEA in Florida, Mr. Wilson was required to make application for a caretaker position with CCA. In conjunction with the application, the Department required Mr. Wilson to submit to a background screening conducted by the Department’s Background Screening Unit, Bureau of Investigations (Screening Unit). Only a Florida criminal history check was conducted by the Screening Unit, which revealed no criminal history for Mr. Wilson. As part of the background screening process, Mr. Wilson was required to sign and submit two notarized affidavits (Affidavit of Good Moral Character), which were dated July 7, 1997, and December 31, 1997, respectively. On both affidavits, Mr. Wilson indicated that he had no disqualifying offenses that would deem him ineligible to work in direct contact with juveniles. Listed on each affidavit, as one of the disqualifying offenses, was "battery, if the victim of the offense was a minor," which is the offense for which Mr. Wilson was convicted in May 1996 in Richmond County, Georgia. Neither affidavit stated as to whether the offense was a misdemeanor or felony. Before signing each affidavit, Mr. Wilson communicated with his supervisor at CCA. He explained to his supervisor about the misdemeanor and queried his supervisor as to whether he should indicate that he had a disqualifying offense. Mr. Wilson’s supervisor advised him that the focus of the affidavits was on felonies. Even though neither affidavit stated that the offenses were misdemeanors or felonies, Mr. Wilson indicated that he had no disqualifying offense. In completing the affidavits, Mr. Wilson had no intention to deceive. However, the responsibility was upon Mr. Wilson to complete the affidavits and to complete them accurately and honestly. He should have known to indicate on the affidavits that he had a disqualifying offense in the absence of the affidavits stating whether the offenses were misdemeanors or felonies. After Mr. Wilson began working in Florida with CCA, he was also required to undergo a state and federal fingerprint check. The fingerprint checks revealed the simple battery on his stepson and also revealed a 1995 arrest for a misdemeanor simple battery in the State of Georgia, which was nolle prossed. By letter dated February 22, 1999, Mr. Wilson was notified by the Screening Unit’s supervisor of his potential disqualification from employment based upon the two arrests revealed by the fingerprint checks. The letter included identifying information regarding the arrests. The Screening Unit's supervisor requested that Mr. Wilson submit certified copies of arrest reports, court dispositions, and other court documents regarding the two arrests. Mr. Wilson complied and subsequently submitted the requested information. The Department reviewed the information. The Department determined that Mr. Wilson was ineligible for continued employment in a position of special trust based upon the May 1, 1996, misdemeanor simple battery against his stepson. By letter dated April 29, 1999, the Screening Unit’s supervisor notified Mr. Wilson that he was ineligible and that he could request an exemption from disqualification. CCA was also notified simultaneously of Mr. Wilson’s ineligibility and was instructed to immediately remove him from direct contact with juveniles. CCA removed Mr. Wilson from direct contact with juveniles. Mr. Wilson requested an informal exemption hearing, which was held on June 8, 1999. The hearing was conducted by a committee of two individuals, who only had the authority to make a recommendation to the Inspector General who had final decision-making authority. In a report dated June 16, 1999, the committee recommended that, although Mr. Wilson had rehabilitated himself, his exemption be denied based upon his falsification of the two notarized affidavits. 1/ The committee’s recommendation, along with the entire background screening file, was forwarded to the Department’s Inspector General. After reviewing the recommendation and the file, the Inspector General denied Mr. Wilson’s request for exemption. The Inspector General denied the exemption on three grounds. First, Mr. Wilson’s falsification of the two notarized affidavits was proof of Mr. Wilson’s lack of good moral character and of rehabilitation. Second, an insufficient amount of time had elapsed since Mr. Wilson’s commission of simple battery on his stepson, a minor, to establish good moral character and rehabilitation. Third, Mr. Wilson failed to show that he had successfully completed his probationary period regarding his conviction of simple battery on his stepson. By letter dated June 22, 1999, the Inspector General notified Mr. Wilson that his request for exemption was denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order denying James Wilson an exemption from disqualification of employment to work in a position of special trust or responsibility with it. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in proceeding, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer on March 11, 1983 and issued Certificate Number 502-3844. The Respondent was a correctional officer with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office beginning in January 1983. On August 27, 1986, the Respondent resided with Ms. Burton (who has subsequently married Respondent and is now known as Elaine Burton Edwards) and two of her children. One of her children, Karl McInis ("Karl") was twenty three months old at the time and he was in the process of being toilet trained. On August 27, 1986, the Respondent discovered that Karl had "messed" on the floor and/or in his pants. The Respondent felt that the child's actions were deliberate and that the child needed to be disciplined. Therefore, Respondent struck the child fives times with a leather belt. There is a dispute as to the type and size of the belt used. While Petitioner contends that Respondent used his heavy Sheriff's Deputy belt, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent used a typical men's trousers belt. As a result of the discipline described in paragraph 5 above, Karl suffered bruises on his buttocks and legs. Subsequent to the incident, the child was removed from the home by HRS. He currently resides out of state with his grandparents. Criminal charges were brought against Respondent after HRS reported the incident to the police. However, after Respondent successfully completed a counseling program as part of a pre-trial intervention program, the charges were nolle prossed on November 10, 1988. As a result of his arrest, Respondent was suspended from his job at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department pending the outcome of the criminal case. Respondent has not been reinstated. After completing the counseling program, Respondent altered his methods of disciplining his children. On most occasions, Respondent has refrained from using corporal punishment and instead attempts to apply the assertive discipline procedures he learned in the counseling program. However, Respondent admits that on a few occasions when he felt the children did not respond to the assertive discipline techniques, he has resorted to corporal punishment. On March 2, 1989, Respondent disciplined one of his children, Julius Edwards, by striking him five times on the palms of the hands with a belt. At the time of the incident described in paragraph 10, Julius was five years old. Julius and at least one other sibling from Respondent's previous marriage were living with Respondent and Ms. Burton. Respondent punished Julius because he felt the child was deliberately engaging in a pattern of obstinate conduct in an attempt to be returned to the custody of his natural mother. That conduct included eating excessive amounts of food after being instructed not to. During the punishment, Julius struggled and at least one of the blows landed on his arms. As a result of the punishment, Julius had bruises on his arms which measured approximately four inches long and one inch wide. As a result of the corporal punishment administered by Respondent to Julius, Respondent was arrested and ultimately adjudicated guilty of a misdemeanor for violating Section 827.04, Florida Statutes (child abuse) on March 29, 1989 in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, in case no. 89-5869MMA08. As a result of this conviction, Respondent was required to undergo additional counseling. While the bruises suffered by the children in the two incidents described above are significant cause for concern, neither of the children required medical attention. At the time of both of the incidents in question, none of the other children evidenced bruises, they all appeared well-fed and there was no other evidence of any neglect. Indeed, the evidence reflects that the Respondent is a dedicated and caring father. He is extremely concerned about the many negative influences that affect children in our society. As a result, he believes it is important for him to discipline the children in an attempt to ensure that they choose the right path in life. Respondent contends that he was raised with a similar type of discipline and finds it difficult to understand the commotion caused by his attempts to discipline his children in the manner in which he was raised. While his motives are good, he has used very poor judgment in certain situations and imposed excessive punishment given the age of the children and the nature of their behavior. Respondent has aspired to be a law enforcement officer since his high school days. He has spent hundreds of hours as a volunteer for various school projects and programs involving children. He has strived hard to be a good role model and an active member of his community. However, he needs to temper his concerns and enthusiasm with more sensitivity to the rights of others. There is no indication of any deficiencies or problems in Respondent's job performance. Indeed, the only evidence introduced regarding his performance as a law enforcement officer indicated that he was dedicated, concerned and responsible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and seriousness of the offense as it relates to the public trust placed in a correctional officer who guards those incarcerated by society, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a Final Order placing Respondent Glenn S. Edwards' correctional officer certification on probation for a period of two years and requiring him to complete an appropriate counseling program for parents while refraining from any further violations of Section 943.13(1)-(10). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April 1990.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and (c),2 by failing to maintain the qualifications established in Section 943.13(7) for good moral character; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers in the state. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to certificate number 139869 and is employed as a correctional officer by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department (the "Department"). On January 23, 1994, Deputy J. W. Strickland observed Respondent in a parked vehicle in a vacant lot in an area of town known to the deputy as an area of drugs and prostitution. A white female was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. Deputy Strickland approached the vehicle and asked Respondent what he was doing in the area. Respondent identified himself as a correctional officer. Deputy Strickland recognized the female as Ms. Sherry Reinstzell. Ms. Reinstzell has a criminal history of prostitution. Deputy Strickland completed a field investigation report. Respondent and Ms. Reinstzell drove away. Deputy Strickland filed the field investigation report with the appropriate Department office. Sgt. Donald Retzer, Internal Affairs, received a copy of the field investigation report. He opened an internal affairs investigation concerning Respondent's conduct. Sgt. Retzer obtained a sworn statement from Respondent on January 28, 1994. Respondent stated under oath that he was just giving Ms. Reinstzell a ride to see a friend and did not know she was a prostitute. He denied any sexual activity with Ms. Reinstzell. Later in the same interview on January 28, 1994, Sgt. Retzer confronted Respondent with additional evidence previously gathered by Sgt. Retzer, including a sworn statement by Ms. Reinstzell. Respondent admitted that he picked Ms. Reinstzell up on Lane Avenue and negotiated a monetary arrangement for sex. Respondent then drove to an abandoned warehouse where Ms. Reinstzell performed fellatio on Respondent. Respondent paid Ms. Reinstzell $20 for the oral sex. He then drove her to a house where she used the $20 as part of the purchase price for illegal drugs with Respondent's knowledge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 943.1395(6), guilty of violating Section 943.1395(7) and Rule 11B-27.0011(4), and suspending Respondent's certificate for two years, including the period, if any, that Respondent has been unemployed by the Department prior to the date of this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1997.
The Issue The issue is whether or not Respondent's Law Enforcement Officer Certification should be revoked for alleged conduct which was below the minimum qualifications for law enforcement officers as required in that he failed to maintain good moral character.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on January 13, 1973, and was issued Certificate Number 02- 6995. At all times material to the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint, the Respondent maintained a personal checking account at a bank known as Bankers Trust, located in North Charleston, South Carolina under the name Charles H. Wardlow, Jr. At all times material to the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was employed by Rice Business College in North Charleston, South Carolina as an Admission Representative and Counselor. On or about July 1980, the Respondent personally assisted Roger G. Clemmons, a U.S. Armed Forces Veteran, in filling out and submitting to the Veterans Administration the appropriate Veterans Administration forms to obtain federal financial assistance in attending Rice Business College as a student. Roger Clemmons did not attend classes at Rice Business College in 1980 or 1981. Mr. Clemmons did attend Rice Business College beginning in January 1982 but withdrew after the completion of approximately one half of the quarter term which began in January of 1982. In apparent response to Mr. Clemmons' submission of the forms described in paragraph 4 above, the United States Treasury Department, Fiscal Service Division of Disbursement in Kansas City, Kansas, forwarded four checks payable to the order of Roger G. Clemmons. The checks were mailed to Rice Business College. 7. The checks, numbered 49,762,137; 18,537,709; 18,669,713; and 18,895,582 were drawn on September 19, 1980, December 1, 1980, December 31, 1980, and February 27, 1981 respectively and were in the amounts of $331.73, $327.00, $218.00, and $342.00 respectively. On December 24, 1980, December 15, 1980, January 5, 1981, and a date in March 1981, respectively, each of the four checks was deposited into the Respondent's personal checking account at Bankers Trust, North Charleston, South Carolina. Upon deposit in the Respondent's account, each of the four checks bore the endorsement of Roger G. Clemmons, followed by the endorsement of Charles H. Wardlow, Jr. Roger G. Clemmons did not receive nor deposit any of the four checks prior to their deposit in the Respondent's account. Mr. Clemmons did not endorse his name on any of the four checks nor did he cash any of the checks or receive any proceeds from any of the checks. Mr. Clemmons did not give anyone authority or permission to endorse his name on any of the four checks. On September 6, 1983, the Respondent voluntarily provided handwriting samples to Special Agents Bert J. Steves and Louis R. Cruz of the U.S. Secret Service On February 17, 1985 Special Agent Thomas J. Smith, an examiner of questioned documents employed by the U.S. Secret Service, examined the Respondent's handwriting samples and compared them with the endorsements on the four checks described herein. Agent Smith is an expert qualified to give an opinion in the area of handwriting comparison and questioned documents. Agent Smith has been employed as an examiner of handwriting and questioned documents by the U.S. Secret Service for approximately ten years. Prior to this employment, Agent Smith was employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation where he also worked as an examiner of handwriting and questioned documents, for approximately ten years. Agent smith was trained at the Federal Bureau of Investigation laboratory in document and handwriting examination prior to his beginning work with this agency. Agent Smith has been held to be an expert in his field and permitted to give his expert opinion regarding the examination of questioned documents in a total of approximately forty to fifty cases tried in United States district courts and the trial courts of several states including Florida, Alabama, Georgia and California. Upon Agent Smith's comparison of the Respondent's handwriting samples with the handwriting which appeared in the endorsements on the backs of each of the four checks, Agent Smith concluded that Charles H. Wardlow had written the endorsements on the checks bearing the name Charles H. Wardlow, Jr. Agent Smith was of the opinion that Charles H. Wardlow had also written the endorsement bearing the name Roger G. Clemmons on check number 18,537,709. Agent Smith was of the opinion that Charles H. Wardlow had probably written the endorsement bearing the name Roger G. Clemmons on the remaining three checks. In August, 1986, four warrants were filed against the Respondent in Charleston County South Carolina on four counts of forgery regarding the four checks described herein. In January 1987, the Respondent entered into a pretrial intervention agreement with the Solicitor's Office in Charleston, South Carolina. The Respondent has since paid, in compliance with the agreement, $1,218.73 in restitution to the United States Government. Special Agent Mark Parkman of the United States Department of the Treasurer, Secret Service Bureau, was assigned the case involving Respondent during August, 1982. Special Agent Parkman was then employed at the Charleston, South Carolina office of the Secret Service. Special Agent Parkman was referred the case from the Department's Check Claims Division. The investigation involved the total of twenty-two (22) checks from the Veterans Administration (VA) payable to a total of nine payees, including Roger Clemmons, all of which had been forwarded to Rice Business College. Respondent was not a payee on any of the checks. The purpose of the investigation was to ascertain if, and under what circumstances, the checks were negotiated into the Respondent's checking account. Subsequent investigation by Agent Parkman revealed that the Respondent had since left the Charleston area and relocated in Miami. During the course of the investigation, Agent Parkman contacted the Miami Office of the Secret Service and requested that agents make contact with the Respondent. Respondent was interviewed concerning the checks and handwriting exemplars were obtained. On September 6, 1987, Agents Cruz and Steves interviewed Respondent in Miami at Agent Parkman's request. On this occasion, Respondent denied having committed any forgeries while at Rice Business College. Agents Cruz and Steves forwarded the handwriting samples in a report of the interview to Agent Parkman. Upon receipt of the report and handwriting samples Agent Parkman forwarded the samples as well as the checks to the Secret Service questioned documents laboratory in Washington, D. C. for analysis. Upon receipt of the laboratory's report, Agent Parkman requested that agents in the Miami office of the Secret Service conduct a second interview of Respondent. On January 22, 1987, a second interview was conducted in Miami by Agent Laura Bykowski of the Secret Service's Miami office. The Respondent at first denied that he signed any payees' name on the checks in question, but thereafter admitted that it was possible that he had signed the payee's name and endorsed the checks. (TR 39-40).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's Certification Number 02-6995 as a law enforcement officer be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles H. Wardlow 1280 North West 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33167 Robert R. Dempsey, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner possesses the requisite good moral character for certification as a correctional officer.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Alfonso Morales (Morales), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since June 30, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 11, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Morales. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 11, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Morales had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 7, 1988, the Commission notified Morales and the County that his application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly carried a concealed firearm. You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cannabis. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Morales filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his request for hearing, Morales denied that he failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Morales on December 18, 1985, at which time he divulged that, as to arrests, he had been arrested one time in 1980 for carrying a concealed weapon and that, as to drug usage, he had used marijuana one time "many, years ago." Regarding the use of marijuana, the proof demonstrated that Morales had used it but once, and that was in 1976, when he was 17 years old and attending high school. Regarding his arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, the proof demonstrates that in August 1980, Morales was stopped while driving in the City of Miami Beach for a "routine traffic offenses (unsafe equipment)." Following the stop, Morales volunteered to the officers that he had a .25 caliber automatic pistol under the driver's seat which, upon discovery by the officers, resulted in his arrest. No charges were filed, however, as a consequence of that arrest, and Morales' arrest record was expunged and sealed by court order in August 1985. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Morales' background, that Morales possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on the foregoing incidents. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Morales, born March 9, 1959, used marijuana one time, 13 years ago when he was 17 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, can Morales' arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, considering what has occurred in his life since that time, be considered persuasive proof, if it ever was, of bad moral character. 4/ Morales graduated from high school in 1981, and entered the U.S. Army in 1982 where he served honorably for over three years. During his service he attained the rank of sergeant, enjoyed a top secret security clearance, garnered several commendations, and all drug screenings met with negative results. Following his discharge from the services, Morales was employed by the State of Florida, Job Services of Florida, until his employment by the County. To date, Morales has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost three years. His annual evaluations have ranged from above satisfactory to outstanding, and his periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of him, he is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Morales has demonstrated that he possessed the requisite good moral character when he was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that he currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Alfonso Morales, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. 2/ Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commissions personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The Pending Application Petitioner, Marie Elie Davis (Davis), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since December 5, 1986, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Davis. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated August 10, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Davis had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Davis and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine and cannabis. You have unlawfully and knowingly committed petty theft. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Davis filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Davis denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good Moral Character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre-employment interview of Davis on April 25, 1986, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana and cocaine, and that she had been arrested in 1979 for shoplifting. Regarding her use of controlled substances, the proof demonstrates that Davis tried marijuana one or two times prior to 1980 and that she tried cocaine one time prior to 1980. Other than these isolated incidents she has not otherwise used controlled substances. Regarding her arrest, the proof demonstrates that in December 1979 Davis was arrested for shoplifting costume jewelry. She pled guilty to the offense of petit theft, and was fined $40. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Davis' background, that Davis possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her isolated use of marijuana and cocaine almost 9 years ago, and her conviction in 1979 of petit theft. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Davis, born September 12, 1958, used marijuana two times and cocaine one time, the last time being almost 9 years ago when she was approximately 21 years of age. Such isolated and dated usage can hardly be termed proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. Nor, is her arrest and conviction for petit theft almost 9 years ago current or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ Currently, Davis has been employed by the County as a corrections officer, a position of trust and confidence, for almost two and one-half years. Her annual evaluations have been satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Overall, Davis has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Marie Elie Davis, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact In July 1998, Petitioner held a position with the James E. Scott Community Association (Association) as a caretaker for juveniles. Petitioner had been employed with the Association since 1995. In July 1998, the Association, as a provider facility for Respondent, submitted a Request for Preliminary FCIC/NCIC and DHSMV Screening Check package (Screening Package) on Petitioner to the Respondent's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Included in the Screening Package was an Affidavit of Good Moral Character (Affidavit). Petitioner executed the Affidavit on July 13, 1998. Petitioner indicated on the Affidavit that she had no disqualifying offenses that would deem her ineligible to work in direct contact with juveniles. The disqualifying offenses were enumerated on the Affidavit. The offense pertinent to Petitioner was an offense of Chapter 812, Florida Statutes, relating to theft, robbery and related crimes, if the offense was a felony. The OIG conducted a review of Petitioner's criminal history. OIG's review revealed that Petitioner had potential disqualifying criminal offenses. Her criminal record contained seven arrests by the Metro-Dade Police Department from 1975 to 1995, which were as follows: October 10, 1975, arrested and charged with shoplifting and fraud (insufficient funds check (IFC)). December 15, 1978, arrested and charged with shoplifting, felony; shoplifting; fraud (IFC); and a nonmoving traffic violation. December 10, 1983, arrested and charged with shoplifting, reduced to funds check, felony. April 18, 1984, arrested and charged with fraud (IFC), felony; fraud (IFC), misdemeanor; and larceny, grand, second degree. November 17, 1984, arrested and charged with shoplifting, petty. November 9, 1985, arrested and charged with larceny, grand. March 3, 1995, arrested and charged with fraud, welfare; and larceny, grand. By letter dated July 23, 1998, the supervisor of Respondent's Background Screening Unit notified Petitioner of the potential disqualification. Further, the Screening Unit's supervisor requested Petitioner to provide certified police reports and judicial dispositions on the arrests. Petitioner complied with the request and submitted certified documents regarding the arrests. The documents indicated that Petitioner's arrests in 1984, 1985, and 1995 for grand theft were disqualifying in nature because they involved violations of Chapter 812, Florida Statutes. Such violations were indicated in the Affidavit as being disqualifying offenses. Regarding the arrest on April 18, 1984, Petitioner, along with another person, exited a department store with clothing items for which she had not paid. The value of the clothing items was $630. The court made a finding of guilt, withheld adjudication, and imposed probation. As to the arrest on November 9, 1985, Petitioner and another person exited a department store with clothing for which they had paid. Petitioner's vehicle was searched, and additional clothing from a second department store was discovered. The court made a finding of guilt, withheld adjudication, and imposed probation and community control. Regarding the arrest on March 7, 1995, Petitioner and an accomplice received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits and Food Stamp benefits for which they were not entitled from August 1993 through August 1994. The value of the AFDC benefits was $3,111 and the Food Stamps benefits was $6,856. Petitioner pled guilty, and the court made a finding of guilt and adjudicated her guilty and, among other things, imposed probation, community service, and restitution. In completing the Affidavit, Petitioner had no intent to deceive. Petitioner’s employer advised Petitioner to complete the Affidavit indicating that she had no disqualifying offenses. However, the responsibility was upon Petitioner to complete the Affidavit and to complete it accurately and honestly. She should have known to indicate on the Affidavit that she had a disqualifying offense. Respondent reviewed the information. Respondent determined that Petitioner was ineligible for continued employment in a position of special trust or responsibility. By letter dated April 6, 1999, the Screening Unit’s supervisor notified Petitioner that she was ineligible based on the dispositions of the arrests on April 18, 1984, and March 7, 1995, and that she could request an exemption from disqualification. The Association was also notified simultaneously of Petitioner’s ineligibility and was instructed to immediately remove her from direct contact with juveniles. The Association removed Petitioner from direct contact with juveniles. Petitioner requested an informal exemption hearing, which was held on May 14, 1999. The hearing was conducted by a committee of three individuals, who only had the authority to make a recommendation to Respondent’s Inspector General who had final decision-making authority. In a report dated June 7, 1999, two of the committee’s members recommended that Petitioner’s exemption be denied, one member recommended granting the exemption. On May 14, 1999, Petitioner also executed a corrected Affidavit, indicating that she had disqualifying offenses. The committee’s recommendation and Petitioner’s file, along with the corrected Affidavit was forwarded to Respondent’s Inspector General. After reviewing the recommendation, the file, and the Affidavit, the Inspector General denied Petitioner’s request for exemption on June 9, 1999. By letter dated June 11, 1999, the Inspector General notified Petitioner that her request for exemption was denied. Respondent’s Inspector General denied Petitioner’s exemption because she failed to accurately complete the Affidavit; because of her recent conviction of welfare fraud and grand theft, regarding the March 7, 1995, arrest; and because she had not completed her obligations for the conviction of welfare fraud and grand theft. At the time of the denial and the hearing, Petitioner had not completed her probation, which would end in April 2000, and Petitioner had not paid restitution. Petitioner has performed in an exemplary manner during her employment with the Association. Petitioner’s witness provided support as to her good moral character. However, even Petitioner’s witness stated that Petitioner is unable to show good moral character until she completes her probation and pays restitution. Petitioner presented letters to support her position of good moral character. Respondent concedes that Petitioner does not present a threat to juveniles.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order denying Earline Johnson an exemption from disqualification of employment to work in a position of special trust or responsibility with it. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Earline Johnson 1788 Northwest 58th Street Miami, Florida 33142-2422 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Inspector General’s Office 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact Background In June 1988, respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission (Commission), acting on a tip from the local media that intervenor, Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (County), had in its employ a number of corrections officers who were not certified, undertook a review of the County's employment records. Following a comparison of the County's records and those of the Commission, the Commission identified 363 individuals, including the petitioner, who were employed by the County as correctional Officers but who had not been certified by the Commission. On August 10-11, 1988, Commission personnel visited the County's personnel office, and audited the personnel file of each of the 363 individuals in question. The audit demonstrated that the files were disorganized, lacking documentation required by Rule 11B-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to apply for certification, and that the County had failed to apply for certification on behalf of the 363 officers. Over the course of their two-day visit, the Commission's personnel set up an "assembly line" and, together with the County's staff, attempted to complete the documentation on each file. Variously, registration forms and affidavits of compliance were prepared, and birth certificates, fingerprint cards and other missing documentation was assembled. On August 12, 1988, the Commission's personnel returned to Tallahassee with the subject registration forms and affidavits of compliance. Over the course of time, these applications were processed and the vast majority of the individuals were certified; however, the Commission declined, for reasons hereinafter discussed, to certify petitioner. The pending application Petitioner, Linda Dunham (Dunham), has been employed by the County as a correctional officer since February 26, 1988, without benefit of certification. On August 10, 1988, as a consequence of the aforementioned audit, the County, as the employing agency, applied for certification on behalf of Dunham. 3/ Accompanying the application (registration) was an affidavit of compliance, dated February 26, 1988, signed by Fred Crawford, Director of Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which comported with existing law and which certified that such employing agency had collected, verified, and was maintaining on file evidence that Dunham had met the provisions of Section 943.13(1)-(8), and Section 943.131, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Among the provision of section 943.13 is the requirement that the applicant be of good moral character. By letter dated November 1, 1988, the Commission notified Dunham and the County that her application for certification as a correctional officer was denied for lack of good moral character because: You have unlawfully and knowingly possessed and introduced into your body cocaine, cannabis and amphetamine. Following receipt of the Commission's letter of denial, Dunham filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In her request for hearing, Dunham denied that she failed to possess the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. Good moral character Pursuant to Rule 11B-27.0011, Florida Administrative Code, the County, as the employing agency, is responsible for conducting a thorough background investigation to determine the moral character of an applicant. Consistent with such mandate, the County routinely uses previous employment data, law enforcement records, credit agency records, inquiries of the applicant's neighbors and associates, and a pre-employment interview, at which a polygraph examination is administered, to assess an applicant's moral character. In assessing an applicant's character, the County is bound by the provisions of Rule 11B-27.0011(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant for certification, employment, or appointment at any time proximate to such application for certification, employment, or appointment conclusively establishes that the applicant is not of good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7). The unlawful use of any of the controlled substances enumerated in Rule 11B-27.00225 by an applicant at any time remote from and not proximate to such application may or may not conclusively establish that the applicant is not of good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), depending upon the type of controlled substance used, the frequency of use, and the age of the applicant at the time of use. Nothing herein is intended, however, to restrict the construction of Section 943.13(7), only to such controlled substance use. The substances enumerated in rule 11B-27.00225 are amphetamines, barbiturates, cannabis (marijuana), opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone. Pertinent to this case, the County undertook a pre- employment interview of Dunham on November 23, 1987, at which time she admitted that she had used marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines. Regarding such use, the proof demonstrates that in 1970 Dunham was traveling with a dinner theatre and would occasionally take amphetamines, which she obtained from a friend, to stay awake. In the early 1970s, Dunham also used marijuana approximately twice a month over a three-year period. After terminating such use in the early 1970s, she did not again use marijuana until 1985 when she tried it one time at a birthday party. Dunham's use of cocaine was sporadic and infrequent, totalling no more than 5 times over the course of her life, with the last time being in 1985. Other than as heretofore found, Dunham has not used any controlled substances. Notwithstanding the County's conclusion, based on its investigation and analysis of Dunham's background, that Dunham possessed the requisite good moral character for employment and certification, the Commission proposed to deny certification based on her prior use of controlled substances. The Commission's action is not warranted by the proof. Here, Dunham, born January 22, 1953, was 18-20 years of age when she used amphetamines and marijuana in the early 1970s, and her use of cocaine was limited to approximately five times during the course of her life, with the last time being in 1985. But for having tried marijuana one more time in 1985, Dunham has not otherwise used controlled substances. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Dunham's use of controlled substances was not proximate or frequent within the meaning of rule 11B-27.0011(2), or persuasive evidence of bad moral character. 4/ To date, Dunham has been employed by the County as a correctional officer, a position of trust and confidence, for over one year. Her annual evaluations have been satisfactory, and her periodic drug screenings have all met with negative results. By those who know of her, she is considered an excellent employee, observant of the rules, honest, fair and respectful of the rights of others. Dunham was certified by the Commission on June 17, 1988, for completion of the 675-hour basic correctional officer course, and has received two commendations during the course of her employment with the County. She is current on all her financial obligations, and otherwise enjoys a good reputation in the community. Overall, Dunham has demonstrated that she possessed the requisite good moral character when she was employed by the County as a correctional officer, and has demonstrated in this de novo proceeding that she currently possesses the requisite good moral character for certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner, Linda Dunham, for certification as a correctional officer be approved. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of June 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Randall J. Cason, is a certified law enforcement officer having been issued certification number 0228323 on December 8, 1980 by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Until sometime in 1986, he was employed as a police office by the City of Miami. On or about March 4, 1986 Cason was convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery by a public servant (a first degree misdemeanor) and bribery by a public servant (a third degree felony). On April 21, 1986 he was sentenced to serve five years in prison for the felony conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's law enforcement certification number 0228323 be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Randall J. Cason 2521 Ludlum Road Miami Springs, Florida 33166 Mr. Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
