The Issue The issues as alluded to in the Statement of Preliminary Matters and as will be more completely described in the course of this Recommended Order concern the question of whether the Respondent has committed offenses as a tenured instructor with the Petitioner, Daytona Beach Community College, which would cause disciplinary action to be taken against her, to include termination?
Findings Of Fact Background Facts Petitioner, Daytona Beach Community College, is an educational institution within the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of providing post-secondary education. To that end, it operates in accordance with the rules of the State Board of Education and State Board of Community Colleges and such rules, procedures and policies as its board of trustees would deem appropriate. Among the responsibilities of that board of trustees would be the hiring and firing of employees, to include instructional staff. See Section 240.319, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Amanda Leavitt, is an employee of the Daytona Beach Community College. She is a tenured faculty member. She holds the position of instructor and has been in a continuing contract position since August 17, 1981. Respondent, in addition to being an instructor, is the program manager in the Dental Assisting Program within the Division of Health, Human and Public Service Occupations of the Daytona Beach Community College. She had been an active member of the faculty until October 8, 1987, when she was suspended based upon the allegations that form the basis of this dispute. That suspension has remained in effect pending the outcome of the proceedings involving the charges at issue. The description of the procedural events that brought about the hearing in this case as set forth in the preliminary matters statement within this Recommended Order are incorporated as facts. The Petitioner, through its charges of October 12 and 23, 1987, has given sufficient notice to the Respondent to allow her to prepare and defend against those accusations. Respondent made a timely request for formal hearing in this case. This case began following complaints made by a number of students undergoing training in the Dental Assisting Program in the academic year 1986- 1987. Specifically, on June 11, 1987, these students, approximately twelve in number, met with the chairman of the Allied Health Department and program manager for the Respiratory Therapy Program, Charles Carroll, to describe their sense of dissatisfaction with certain circumstances within the Dental Assisting Program. Out of that conference, Carroll pursued the matter with Respondent Leavitt, and the Petitioner employed the offices of its internal auditor, Tom Root, to ascertain information about the contentions made by the students. Among other matters being examined by the auditor, was a question concerning the collection of money from the students within the Dental Assisting Program in that academic year, unrelated to the normal fee collections associated with enrollment at the Daytona Beach Community College. In furtherance of his task, the auditor prepared Internal Audit #83, which is constituted of the majority of Petitioner's exhibits. The audit was concluded on September 24, 1987, and contained twelve specific findings. Those findings, which were not favorable to the Respondent, formed the basis of her suspension on October 8, 1987, and underlie the five charges dating from October 12, 1987. Further investigation was done by the auditor subsequent to September 24, 1987, and that continuing investigation and certain conduct by the Respondent which the Petitioner regarded as actionable led to the two supplemental charges of October 23, 1987. Mr. Carroll had given the Respondent certain instructions concerning the allegations made by the students in which he sought the Respondent's assistance in clarifying what had occurred within the program and rectifying any problems that might exist. He was not satisfied with her response, as to the timeliness or the comprehensiveness of her reply to his instructions. The internal auditor in the face of Respondent's remarks about the funding dispute related to the payment of monies by the students sought to verify those observations by the Respondent by contact with members of the Dental Assisting Class in the academic year 1986-1987 and met with a considerable difference of opinion between those students and the Respondent. This led the auditor to believe that the Respondent was being less than candid in her relation of vents, so much so that the audit critical of the Respondent ensued. There is now related a discussion of the specific charges made against the Respondent: Charges 1 and 2 (October 12, 1987) Misconduct in office in the form of collecting and allowing those under your supervision to collect funds from students under false pretenses (i.e. claiming that these funds were lab fees) also the sale by you and those under your supervision of college program supplies, class handouts, and textbooks during the 1985-86, and 1986-87 school years. These collections were in violation of college policies and procedures and also violated the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, principle one, concerning instructor's responsibilities for dealing justly and considerately with each student and avoiding exploitation of professional relationships with students. Misconduct in office in the form of the existence of a cash shortage of approximately $400.00 together with a total lack of records as to the disposition of these funds which were collected from dental students during the Fall semester 1986-87 and the improper depositing of some of these funds in an off-campus account during the Fall semester 1986-87. The academic year 1986-1987 was constituted of the Fall semester in 1986, the Winter semester in 1987 and a shortened semester described as a Spring semester in 1987. In that school year Respondent was issued contracts for the period August 18, 1986 through May 1, 1987 and May 5, 1987 through June 29, 1987. This included approximately one week of employment prior to the students coming on campus in the Fall 1986 and two weeks beyond the time of their final exams in the Spring term of 1987. The 1986-1987 Daytona Beach Community College Catalog describing the Dental Assisting Program had a reference to an estimated cost for a "lab kit" as being $50. This was the first time that any such reference had been made in the college catalog. In addition, within the Dental Assisting Student Handbook related to the Dental Assisting Program published for the Fall of 1986, there was a similar reference to the "lab kit .....$50" fee. This had not been referenced in the student handbook for the academic year 1985-1986. The reference for "lab kit.....$50," was again stated in the student handbook for the Winter term 1987. These remarks in the publications concerning the "lab kit $50. " were placed under the auspices of the Respondent. The origins of the reference to the $50 amount came about when the Respondent and another employee of the Daytona Beach Community College, Sharon Mathes, had visited Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida, and observed that the students in a similar dental assisting program to that of the Daytona Beach Community College program had individual laboratory kits. Respondent and Mathes then discussed that it might be beneficial to have individual laboratory kits for the students in the Daytona Beach Community College program. This individual disbursement in their mind might assist in the preservation of the school's property and teach responsibility on the part of the students. The materials that were to be placed in the kit for the academic year 1986-1987 were purchased through the ordinary purchase order process for the provision of supplies for the Dental Assisting Program at school expense. This was a process in which an inventory check was made and necessary implements to fill out kits for an anticipated student enrollment of 25 participants were purchased. In this planning, a discussion was entered into between Respondent and Mathes concerning the question of whether the students should repurchase those materials that had been paid for through the ordinary expenditures associated with the program. Specifically, Respondent had made mention of the fact of the students buying the contents. However, it was never decided that they would buy those materials based upon a decision made between the Respondent and Mathes. Mathes surmises that it was not decided because the cost of those materials would be in excess of $70-75, an amount which exceeded the "lab kit. $50." The students did purchase the container or art box into which the materials were placed. This purchase was made from the campus bookstore and was not part of the $50 fee. At the commencement of the academic year 1986-1987, their uncertainty remained as to the use of any $50 amount to be collected from each student, reference the "lab kit." Respondent and Mathes had discussed the fact that, if the students returned laboratory kit items and some were missing or broken, that some of the money that had been gained from the students might be used to replace those items and avoid having to issue further purchase orders to be paid for by the Daytona Beach Community College for the replacement of those items that were no longer available for use. It was also discussed that the money might be used to offset other expenses such as costs of graduation, to send a student to a seminar, or possibly establishing a fund for students that may become financially stricken and might not be able to complete the program without financial assistance directed toward their tuition. There had also been discussion of reimbursement of monies not used for these general purposes, but no amount was arrived at concerning reimbursement. In the final analysis, the impression that Mathes was given out of these discussions was that the money would be used in the program and dispensed however it might be needed. In any event, it was determined by the Respondent and Mathes that $50 additional money over and above other fees authorized by the Daytona Beach Community College would be collected for each student participating in the Dental Assisting Program in the 1986-1987 academic year. It was explained to the students the $50 additional cost, a product of the Respondent and Mathes unrelated to authorized collections through the Daytona Beach Community College, was an additional cost item. The students were told that if it were a fee that was too much, they would have the opportunity to drop out of the program. Thus, the fee was presented as a mandatory fee. At the orientation at the beginning of in the academic year 1986-1987, Respondent, and Mathes, participated in the explanation about the $50 charge. The presentation by the Respondent and Mathes pointed out to the students that the $50 extra cost described as "lab kit-$50" was related to materials such as plaster that the students would employ in their course work and to defray expenses associated with graduation. The impression given to the students was that the materials were being rented or leased. The explanation given was that the $50 amount must be paid before graduation. In furtherance of this purpose, Respondent and Mathes continued to pursue the collection of this $50 amount from the students throughout the Fall term 1986. Laboratory fee amounts were collected from 16 students. Nine students paid the amount by check and seven through cash payments. The checks totalling $450 and cash in the amount of $50 was deposited in an off-campus bank account, unauthorized by the Daytona Beach Community College. This account was described with the Sun Bank of Volusia County, Daytona Beach, Florida, as DBCC Student Dental Assistants' Association. Checks by the students were made over to the Dental Assisting Program of DBCC or Daytona Beach Community College. There were $300 in funds collected from the students which had not been deposited into the bank account, and the exact whereabouts of those funds has not been established. The money collected and deposited and that which is unaccounted for had been held in an area of the physical plant related to the Dental Assisting Program to which faculty and students had easy access. Placement of the $50 fees on the grounds of the Daytona Beach Community College included placement in a cigar box in a file drawer and one $50 cash payment was kept or maintained separately in Respondent's desk drawer for what is described on the receipt given to that student as "...for cash." That student was Susan Woodstock. That $50 was part of the $300 which has not been explained in terms of its ultimate disposition. Respondent has contended that these $50 collections were in the way of club dues similar to those that had been collected in years previous for students participating in the Dental Assisting Program, as recently as the academic year 1985- 1986. In that year and other years as well which predate 1986- 1987, the students had paid incremental dues, usually $5 per month, for participation in a club. On the occasion of the academic year 1986-1987, collections for participation in a student club were not made. Therefore, the $50 amounts paid were unrelated to club dues. Having considered the facts in this case, it is evident that the Respondent was aware that the $50 collections from the 16 students were not associated with club dues. Respondent also participated in and condoned the unauthorized sale of X-ray film and pencils to the students in the academic year 1986-1987 and in other school years. These monies were collected in the way of petty cash maintained in envelopes in the Respondent's desk or in a cigar box maintained in another area. No receipts were given concerning the collection of these monies and no records were maintained. Mary Reep, a dental assisting student at Daytona Beach Community College in the academic year 1985-1986 paid $5 for the student handbook associated with that coursework. This handbook should have been provided without paying her program instructors. The payment was made to the Respondent and Mathes who were participating in the sale of the handbook. Reep also observed other people purchase the student handbook in that year. Mathes participated in other sales of handbooks than the transaction with Reep in the academic year 1985-1986, Fall semester. On this occasion, Respondent remarked to Mathes that if the community college knew of this collection of $5 for the handbooks, Respondent would be "fired." This practice of the sale of the handbooks continued in the academic year 1986-1987, at which time a number of students purchased the Fall 1986 student handbook from the Respondent and Mathes. During the time that Mathes had been working in the Dental Assisting Program, this had been the common practice, i.e. the collection of funds for the student handbook. On every occasion, the students had been entitled to be provided a student handbook without charges beyond those authorized by the Daytona Beach Community College. The community college had not allowed for additional charges by faculty placed against the students when distributing the student handbooks. Charge 3 (October 12, 1987) Misconduct in office for your intentional overpayment of assistants for work not performed by them during December 1985 and January 1986. On August 28, 1985, Respondent wrote to Charles Carroll, her supervisor, and asked, among other things, that two instructors be hired to help manage and oversee 24 students. This related to making available two persons who had a familiarity with the University of Florida's dental school, at which the students would be involved in an externship program commencing in January, 1986, or the Winter term of the academic year 1985-1986. In turn, Carroll referred this to his superior, Dr. Lynn O'Hara, describing the transport and involvement in the Winter term. This memo to Carroll from O'Hara is of September 9, 1985. On September 16, 1985, O'Hara wrote a memo to Carroll in which it was indicated that one position could be approved to be shared by two persons, if the hiring did not commence during the Fall term. Nonetheless, Respondent arranged for and took Denise Dorne and Kim Rockey to the dental school in Gainesville, Florida on December 18, 1985, during the Fall semester. No indication was made in the Respondent's request for leave that she would intend to take Dorne and Rockey. Respondent followed this trip by including eleven hours of paid time for the December 18, 1985 trip for Dorne and Rockey on their initial pay request for the month of January, 1986, which was signed by the Respondent. In effect, these two individuals had, contrary to the instructions of the Respondent's superior, been allowed to undertake activities at a time which they were not authorized to participate as employees in the Dental Assisting Program at Daytona Beach Community College. Dorne and Rockey were paid for eight trips made for class participation in the Winter term of 1986 in the externship at the dental school in Gainesville, Florida, as shown in pay requests that were signed and submitted by the Respondent for the benefit of those employees. This action by the Respondent was taken knowing that the two individuals had not attended one of the sessions in Gainesville. This circumstance is mitigated by the fact that the Respondent had the two individuals undertake other assignments of equal value to make up for the nonattendance at the externship session. Charge 4 (October 12, 1987) Willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office for your absence without authorized leave and failure to perform your duties on January 23, 1986 for which you received pay; your failure to teach all classes as indicated on your Load Letter as your teaching responsibility during the Fall semester 1986; and Absence without Leave and failure to fulfill prescribed duties for the period of June 22 through June 29, 1987, for which you received pay. On January 15, 1986, Respondent made request for annual leave for January 24 and 27, 1986, which was approved. She also determined to take leave and was absent on January 23, 1986, without authorization. On January 23, 1986, she was on a ski trip in North Carolina. The fact of her being away from the Daytona Beach Community College is acknowledged in a slip found within the Petitioner's Exhibit 32 in which she says, "I had leave on 1/23/86." This references the reason why she is not seeking to collect money for participation in the externship at the dental school in Gainesville, Florida on that date as discussed in Petitioner's Exhibit 32. Related to this nonattendance, Respondent has been less than forthcoming. Only when confronted with details by way of evidence demonstrating her whereabouts on January 23, 1986, that is, Bannerelk, North Carolina, did she reluctantly acknowledge not being at her job on January 23, 1986. The impression given is that she deliberately took time off from her employment on January 23, 1986 without permission. An item referred to as a Load Letter forms the basis of describing the requirement of an instructor with the Daytona Beach Community College to teach the number of hours and the courses, at the prescribed times as set out in that document. This is the bargain which the instructor makes with the community college. The Fall semester 1986 Load Letter indicates that the Respondent was to teach Class #1671 on Monday morning at 11:00 to 11:53 and Class #1669 on Monday afternoon from 1:00 to 4:53. Contrary to her obligation, Respondent did not teach those classes. Instead, she used Sharon Mathes to teach Class #1671 (dental anatomy) on Wednesday morning and Class #1669 (biomedical sciences) on Monday afternoon at its scheduled time. The reason for changing the dental anatomy class slot was to accommodate the students by not causing them to be confronted with too much in the way of difficult material on Monday, and which would have also placed them in the position of not being prepared for a Tuesday afternoon laboratory which needed a lecture class by way of predicate. Sharon Mathes was paid as an instructor in the Fall 1986 term in her dental materials class, taught on Monday morning. She received a different classification of pay at a lesser rate for the classes taught which had appeared on the Respondent's Load Letter, Class #1671 and Class #1669. Respondent was also paid as the instructor teaching those classes listed on Respondent's Load Letter. The student evaluations forms related to Class #1671 and Class #1669 taught by Mathes in the Fall term 1986 show the Respondent's name as the instructor providing contact hours with the students in those two classes. Moreover, in a part-time instructional monthly report and salary voucher related to Class #1671, Respondent indicates that she taught this course on Monday morning, when in fact it was taught on Wednesday morning by Sharon Mathes. This part-time instructional report relates to an overload payment beyond the basic salary structure associated with Respondent's duties under contract, which are to teach a load of 15 hours. The first 15 hours of that 17 hours tame under her normal salary structure and included Class #1669. Respondent's protestations that this arrangement in the Fall of 1986 in which Mathes taught classes on the Respondent's Load Letter, Mathes was paid at a rate not commensurate with service as an instructor, evaluations were made by students related to an instructor who did not teach them, Respondent was paid for her normal teaching load and an overload for classes not taught were items contemplated by an accreditation arrangement with the American Dental Association and countenanced by the Daytona Beach Community College are unavailing. These arrangements which Respondent made concerning her responsibilities for teaching in the Fall 1986 were misleading, unauthorized and contrary to her employment agreement with the community college. Charge 5 (October 12, 1987) Gross insubordination for your failure to comply with DBCC Procedure #1091 which requires your cooperation with the College as it attempted to determine the accuracy of the various allegations made against you by the students and the additional matters described above which were discovered by the College Administration during its investigation. In the afore-mentioned meeting of June 11, 1987 between students in the Dental Assisting Program and Charles Carroll, a discussion was entered into concerning the payment of the $50 fees which has been described as the "lab kit- $50." Other complaints were aired as well, leading Carroll to focus on the overall program and the "lab kit" cost in particular. To this end, Carroll contacted the Respondent on the same date and discussed his concerns with her. Following that meeting, among the instructions given by his memorandum of June 15, 1987, Carroll told Respondent to immediately dissolve the student association and to provide a detailed accounting of the disposition of club assets as he had had those described to him by the Respondent. He informed the Respondent that she should operate student club activities under the guidelines established by the Student Government Association on campus. In addition, he asked the Respondent to meet with him before the school year concluded, that is the school year 1986-1987, so that they might review the student handbook and grading policies. Respondent was instructed to bring copies of those materials for his records. Related to the checking account which was associated with the Sun Bank, Respondent explained to Carroll in the June 11, 1987 meeting that checks were outstanding and although she did not indicate that checks would have to be written to conclude other expenses within the academic year, she did describe that those expenses were forthcoming. This discussion about expenses pertains to a check written to K-Mart on June 9, 1987 in the amount of $19.89 for Cross pens for two dentists associated with the Dental Assisting Program in recognition of that association; a check written in the amount of $52.30 to the Belleview Florist on June 9, 1987 for flowers for the graduation dinner for the students in the 1986-1987 class, and a check that would be written to Marker 32 in the amount of $155.35 for costs of the graduation dinners, that check being written on June 12, 1987. The checks of June 9, 1987 cleared the bank on June 11, 1987, and the June 12, 1987 check cleared the bank on June 16, 1987. Ultimately, a balance was left in the account of $127.18. Following the June 11, 1987 meeting, Respondent informed Carroll that she was waiting for the last bank statement before closing out the account. Petitioner's Exhibit 115 is the last bank statement rendered with an ending balance of $130.18 from which $3 was deducted, leaving the balance at $127.18. The ending balance reflects the date June 30, 1987. Prior to the rendering of this bank statement, on June 23, 1987, Carroll had written to the Respondent and told her that it was unacceptable for her to wait for the normal statement of ending balance and expressed his belief that the bank would provide a final accounting upon closure of the account. In this case, the proof is missing on whether the bank would have provided an accounting at the closure of the account following the clearing of the last check on June 16, 1987. As of June 30, 1987, when the account ending balance was established, Respondent was between school years and not under active employment by the Petitioner. She did not take any action to close the account in June and July, 1987. Nor did the Respondent provide a copy of the student handbook; instead, she excerpted three pages from that handbook and gave those to Carroll. Carroll was unable to find the Respondent on campus during the work week June 22 through June 25, 1987, and wrote a memorandum on June 29, 1987 referring to the fact that he had made several attempts to contact her and noting that she was unavailable in her office and not subject to contact at her home. He admonished her about not being in attendance or on authorized leave, and by his remarks referred to the need to discuss urgent matters. In fact, Respondent, as alluded to in Charge 4, was not at her work place June 22 through June 25, 1987 and had not been granted permission to miss that time. On July 15, 1987, beyond the contract year, Respondent was written by Carroll in which he references his correspondence of June 15 and 23, 1987, and complains about the failure to provide evidence that the Student Dental Assisting Association has been dissolved, and that an accounting has been made related to what he refers to as "club assets." He also indicates that he did not feel that the Respondent was cooperating in providing requested information. On July 23, 1987, Charles R. Mojock wrote to the Respondent referring to the fact that he did not believe that the bank account related to the Student Dental Assisting Association was legal, and that he believed it was contrary to State statute and to community college policy, based upon his discussion with others in the administration at the community college. As a consequence, he reminded the Respondent that, the sooner the funds were removed from that account, the easier it would be to settle the matter. He recounts in this memorandum what he believed to be a problem with the Respondent's compliance with the requests related to the account. The memorandum is basically conciliatory indicating that it was not intended to make accusations, but to resolve the problem. Eventually on August 3, 1987, Respondent wrote to Tom Root, the auditor at the community college, and apprised him of her willingness to provide information that he sought upon his return from leave. This return to his job was supposed to occur on August 12, 1987. On August 13, 1987, the Respondent turned over to Root the balance of the funds in the Sun Bank account by cashier's check which was credited to the Community College Foundation account and a receipt given to the Respondent. Those funds were left to be used for the benefit of needy dental assisting students. The amount of cash found within the instructional area of the Dental Assisting Program, was $15.08. Respondent also provided the auditor with an item dated August 3, 1987, on stationary of the Daytona Beach Community College, referred to as a Student Dental Assistant 1986-1987, listing officers and the comment that dues were collected in the amount of $5 per month as the source of revenue. This reference too $5 dues as already found is false. It goes on to state that no fund-raising had been undertaken. It states, "I do not think there were any fund-raising activities." This is taken to mean what the Respondent asserted, according to this document. Under "expenditures," there is a reference to open house refreshments, Halloween party, buffet lunch, gifts for speakers, flowers and cards for classmates, reference books from the book rack, donation of a magnifying glass, graduation flowers and dinners. On August 18, 1987, the internal auditor wrote to the Respondent requesting additional information related to receipts for the funds paid by the students in the 1986-1987 year and bank statements. He opines in this memorandum that the Respondent either was misunderstanding his request or was misrepresenting the way the funds were collected. Respondent replied to the memorandum of August 18, 1987 by a memorandum of August 20, 1987 and through a phone conversation with the auditor. In the memorandum by the Respondent, she indicates that she was unaware that funds were collected by Mathes until after the fact, meaning the $50 collection and that the students had been misled about the intent of the funds in their student account. This contention in the memorandum of August 20, 1987 is patently false and is seen as thwarting the efforts on the part of the auditor to discern the true facts of the matter. Respondent was aware of the $50 fee collection. Other suggestions within the memorandum refer to the fact that she had been told that part of the funds were to be used for replacement of lost items in the lab kit pertaining to the students, and from there came the phrase "lab kit rental." She talks in terms of the fact that the students were aware that the money was being used for name tags, open house, doctor's gifts and graduation. She states that this strongly suggests that the dues were mandatory. She goes on to describe that Ms. Mathes, once she left, had no records of who had or had not paid, and no effort was made to collect unpaid dues, and the fact that this was the obligation of the student treasurer. All of these comments were apparently designed to deflect the attention away from the true status of the matter, which included the fact that no student dues were collected in the amount of $5, that the Respondent was thoroughly acquainted with the collection of the $50 fee amounts for use of laboratory materials and graduation, and that the student treasurer had no part to play in the collection of these $50 fees or the deposit of those sums. By contrast, Respondent had been involved in the collection of fees and the endorsement of checks and payment of those fees which were deposited. Furthermore, her disclaimer of having knowledge of what was on the front of the checks she endorsed in terms of the reason for the $50 checks being written, five in number and that she only endorsed the backs without a knowledge of the reason for the checks is incredulous. The facts of this case lead to the conclusion that Respondent did know what those five checks were for. The Respondent was also in possession of Exhibit 42 offered by her at the hearing which showed a list of student signatures reflecting both those who had not paid and subsequent dates of when the students had paid. This exhibit was not revealed to the auditor during his investigation, though such information was sought by the auditor. It only became a matter within his knowledge on February 8, 1988. The memorandum of August 20, 1987 by the Respondent indicates having discussions with the students concerning ways to use the money that had been given for the laboratory kits or fee and the fact that it was decided that a certain workbook referred to as a Core Packet should not be assigned, meaning in the future, but be used as a reference in the future. This Core Packet had been purchased by the students for course work in the amount of approximately $40 and ordered from an off-campus bookstore. Additional copies remained from the order that had been placed with that bookstore, and these were purchased from that store known as the Campus Bookrack, six Core packets in all at the expense of $178.08 taken from the Student Dental Assisting account at the Sun Bank. Contrary to the memorandum and her testimony, the students had no knowledge of this purchase and did not condone it. Neither did the students condone the purchase of a magnifying glass to be used for the sharpening of dental instruments in one of the classes related to this program. The memorandum says the students agreed that a lighted magnifying glass would help them in sharpening instruments, and discussion between Respondent and the students led to the students donating that magnifying glass. No discussion of this nature was held with the students as outlined in the memorandum of August 20, 1987, and described in testimony by the Respondent at hearing. Respondent did spend $47.20 in the purchase of the magnifying light. In summary, Respondent had been involved with the establishment of the $50 extra fee as listed in the 1986-1987 college catalog and in the Fall 1986 and Winter 1987 student handbooks, but she failed to advise the auditor about this or that she was present while it was being discussed with the students at orientation in the Fall of 1986 or that she had endorsed checks comprising the initial deposit of the $50 collections in the bank account. This together with other items as described greatly impeded the efforts of the college at determining the reason for the $50 charge, who was responsible for placing the charge and who among the students had paid the money. The principal manifestation of the impediment was experienced by the internal auditor when all sixteen students who paid the $50 fee held a different and generally consistent viewpoint from that of Respondent concerning the fee and its usage. This lead to additional effort by the auditor in ascertaining the true facts. Charge 6 (October 23, 1987) Gross Insubordination for your willfully altering information related to the College's investigation, which is in violation of DBCC procedure #1091. In support of this charge, the following witnesses; Mr. Robert Schreiber, Mr. Charles Carroll, Mr. Tom Root, Ms. April Pulcrano, and Mr. Charles R. Mojock will testify that they were present (or in telephone contact) during the discussion regarding the possibility of your tendering your resignation. They will refute your statement that you were informed that if you did not resign, "the case would be turned over to the State Attorney for a theft prosecution." They will further refute that you were told "that this was extremely important so that the College could cover the alleged fund shortage from detection by state auditors." On October 8, 1987, counsel for the Respondent wrote to the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College and discussed his interest in reconciling the differences between the parties amicably. In that correspondence, there is found the following reference "...Early in the school year, Mrs. Leavitt was notified by several of her superiors that, if she did not resign, her case would be turned over to the State Attorney for a theft prosecution. In addition, she was told that this was extremely important so that the college could cover the alleged fund shortage from detection by state auditors." This is an attorney's attempt to state his client's position and from this event the prosecution seeks to have the Respondent found insubordinate. Having considered the testimony of Charles Carroll, Robert Schreiber and Chuck Mojock, together with the Respondent, there is clearly a difference of opinion about what was said in various meetings between the Respondent and administration officials within the community college. On balance, the exact facts may not be found which describe insubordination for remarks found within correspondence by counsel for the Respondent attributable to his client. Charge 7 (October 23, 1987) Misconduct in office for your use of part- time employees and a student teacher to teach a substantial portion of your assigned instructional load during the Winter of 1987. Specifically, the College will show that the externship program (Section 1667) with local dentists' offices, was conducted totally by Ms. Elizabeth Switch and Ms. April Pulcrano. In addition, Ms. Switch taught Practice Management (Section 1664) and Ms. Pulcrano taught Preventive Dentistry and Nutrition (Section 1665). Ms. Pulcrano will testify (and students enrolled in the Externship course will confirm this fact) that only she and Ms. Switch made visits to the local externship sites, and that Ms. Pulcrano had responsibility for writing up the reports, meeting with students, and assigning grades for this course. Ms. Pulcrano will further testify that you approached her during the first week of the Fall term in this academic year and asked her to teach the Dental Anatomy and Physiology course, but to be paid at the staff assistant pay rate instead of the appropriate adjunct instructional pay rate. The numbers of hours on the Load Sheet pertaining to the Respondent for the Winter term 1987 showed 14 semester hours for which courses are set out. Respondent routinely taught only one of those classes, Chairside Assisting II, on Fridays from 10:00 a.m. until noon. This was two lecture hours and two hours of contact. The remaining four contact hours for laboratory, which equated to two semester hours of the four total hours associated with Chairside Assisting II, Course #1666, were not done by the Respondent. As the Load Letter contemplates, the laboratory was done by an adjunct instructor. On the Load Letter for Winter 1987 and in keeping with the continuing contract entered into on August 17, 1981 and at subsequent times Respondent should have taught the remaining courses reflected on her Load Letter for the Winter semester 1987. One of those courses was Course #1664, Practice Management, a course for which she was entitled to receive an overload payment, according to the Load Letter. Respondent turned in the overload pay sheet for that course certifying that she had taught the class, when in fact Elizabeth Switch, a part- time instructor, taught that class and was paid for her work. In this same term, Winter 1987, April Pulcrano, a student from the University of Central Florida, served as a student teacher in the Dental Assisting Program. She was hired by the Respondent to teach Chairside II laboratories on Monday afternoon and on Wednesday afternoon. She also was made responsible for the externship of students during the Winter semester consisting of her visitations to dental offices where the students had been placed to gain clinical experience as part of their studies at' the community college. Pulcrano's involvement in the externship included administrative paperwork, involving forms of evaluation which the dental offices made of the performance of students who were externed. She summarized and provided grades to the externship students in this program. These activities by Pulcrano were done on a routine basis in which she was primarily responsible for the externship program with assistance one day a week on the part of Elizabeth Switch. The externship program involving six semester hours and 12 contact hours per week in Course #1667 was the responsibility of the Respondent, according to her Load Letter in the Winter term 1987. Respondent had initial contact with this responsibility on the first day that the students were dispatched to various dental offices throughout Volusia County, Florida, and some occasional contact beyond that point. This involvement by the Respondent did not approach the kind of responsibility contemplated by the assignment in her Load Letter. A course on the Load Letter of Winter 1987 related to the Respondent was what is referred to as Prevention and Nutrition, Course #1665. This is a two hour course with two contact hours. This course was taught by Pulcrano and not the Respondent. Respondent did not assist Pulcrano in the laboratory portion of a Chairside Assisting II class, and the Respondent placed Pulcrano into the class without introduction or explanation. As with the circumstance related in Charge 4, the failure to teach courses on the Load Letter pertaining to the Fall semester 1986, Respondent had not been relieved of the necessity to teach her courses reflected in the Load Letter pertaining to the Winter semester 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the full consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered terminating Amanda Leavitt's employment with the Daytona Beach Community College and providing for the forfeiture of her pay received for January 23, 1986 and January 22, 1987 through January 29, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 15th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4937 Petitioner has offered fact finding in its proposed recommended order. Respondent gave argument but declined to offer fact proposals. Petitioner's facts have been used as subordinate facts with the exception of the following which are rejected for reasons described: Charges 1 and 2: Paragraph 9 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 17 is rejected because the evidence was not sufficient to find violations in the years contemplated in Charge 1. Paragraph 18 describes facts which are not contemplated within the charging documents. Charge 6: Paragraphs 3-7 are contrary to facts found. Charge 7: Paragraph 1 is not relevant. Paragraph 3 is not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Dana Fogle, Esquire FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A. Post Office Box 817 DeLand, Florida 32721-0817 Jason G. Reynolds, Esquire COBLE, BARRIN, ROTHERT, GORDON, MORRIS, LEWIS & REYNOLDS, P.A. 1020 Volusia Avenue Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020 Dr. Charles Polk, President Daytona Beach Community College Post Office Box 1111 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Board of Trustees Daytona Beach Community College c/o J. Dana Fogle, Esquire FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A. Post Office Box 817 DeLand, Florida 32721-0817
Findings Of Fact The Respondent. The Respondent, Charles Polk, served as the President of Daytona Beach Community College from 1974 to 1990. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk resigned as President of Daytona Beach Community College in 1990. Mr. Polk's Purchase of Real Estate from Anargyros N. Xepapas. In November, 1985, Mr. Polk and his wife purchased a life estate and one-half interest in a condominium unit from Anargyros N. Xepapas. Mr. Xepapas owned the other one-half interest in the condominium unit. [Stipulated Fact.] The purchase price of the life estate and one-half interest in the condominium unit was $150,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this price was not the fair market value or that the transaction was not an arms-length transaction. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Polk and his wife were required to pay $30,000.00 immediately. They subsequently executed and delivered to Mr. Xepapas a note and mortgage for the remaining $120,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk was a mortgagor and Mr. Xepapas was a mortgagee. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Polk was required to pay maintenance fees of approximately $5,000.00 per year, taxes, insurance and all other expenses of the unit, which totaled approximately $14,000.00 per year. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas agreed to maintain the payments on the first mortgage. [Stipulated Fact.] Following the closing, Mr. Polk paid Mr. Xepapas an additional $60,000.00 on the mortgage, reducing the principal balance to $60,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] A warranty deed was provided to Mr. Polk for the purchase of the property. [Stipulated Fact.] Neither the deed nor the mortgage were recorded. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk and his wife used the condominium as their residence. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas action in selling the condominium to Mr. Polk and his wife was a business transaction. Mr. Xepapas. Mr. Xepapas is an architect and developer who designs, builds, and sells property in the Daytona Beach area. [Stipulated Fact.] At the time Mr. Polk purchased the one-half interest in the condominium unit from Mr. Xepapas, Mr. Xepapas was the owner of the condominium building in which the unit was located. [Stipulated Fact.] In addition to being the owner of the condominium building at issue, Mr. Xepapas was the architect, developer and contractor for the condominium and for other condominium buildings in the areas. Mr. Xepapas was trying to sell the condominium units as part of his business because of cash-flow problems. [Stipulated Fact.] The condominium sales market was "soft" and Mr. Xepapas was trying to eliminate the carrying costs for unsold units. Mr. Xepapas sold a total of four condominium units pursuant to an arrangement similar to the arrangement by which he sold the condominium unit to Mr. Polk. Mr. Xepapas had made offers to sell one-half interests in condominium units to various other persons besides Mr. Polk. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas was a sole proprietor. He entered into his relationship with Mr. Polk in his capacity as a sole proprietor. Mr. Xepapas has known Mr. Polk for ten to fifteen years and considers himself a friend of Mr. Polk. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas' Business with Daytona Beach Community College. In 1987, the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College decided to expand the College's educational facilities by obtaining a new center in the Deltona area. [Stipulated Fact.] In September, 1987, the Board of Trustees instructed staff to develop a request for proposal for the design and construction of the facility which would be leased to the College. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk was involved to some extent in the decision as to whether the new center should be purchased or constructed, and whether it should be acquired through a long-term lease/purchase agreement. In response to the advertisement of the request for proposal in September, 1988, Mr. Xepapas submitted a proposal. [Stipulated Fact.] There were a total of nine persons or businesses that responded to the request for proposal for the Deltona facility. Mr. Polk knew that Mr. Xepapas had picked up a bid proposal package and, therefore, believed that Mr. Xepapas would submit a proposal. Mr. Polk appointed the committee which reviewed the proposals. This committee ultimately narrowed the acceptable proposals to two, including Mr. Xepapas, and directed that those two proposers submit final proposals. In January, 1989, Mr. Xepapas, in his capacity as a sole proprietor, was the successful bidder on the contract; however, there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Polk abused his position in order to ensure this result. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas and Mr. and Mrs. Polk were co-owners of the condominium prior to and at the time that Mr. Xepapas was awarded the Daytona Beach Community College contract. Ultimately, Mr. Xepapas was not able to fulfill his obligations under the contract with Daytona Beach Community College. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polk asserted any influence over the decision to award the contract to Mr. Xepapas, Mr. Polk was involved to some small degree in the award of the contract to Mr. Xepapas. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polk disclosed his co-ownership of the condominium with Mr. Xepapas to the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College, that he refused to participate in any way in the bidding process or that he attempted to take the more drastic step of severing his relationship with Mr. Xepapas while the bidding process was going on. In May, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Polk ultimately quit claim deeded the property to Mr. Xepapas. The evidence failed to prove why. They, therefore, lost their investment in the property. Mr. Polk also resigned as President of Daytona Beach Community College as a result of the allegations concerning his relationship with Mr. Xepapas.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report finding that the Respondent, Charles Polk, violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Complaint No. 89-80. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Polk be subjected to public censure and reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3-11. 3 13. 4 14-16. 5 16 and 18. 6 4, 12 and 19-20. 7 Hereby accepted. 8 3, 21, 27-28 and 30. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 2 13. 3 3, 11 and 14. 4 20. 5 16. 6 4 and 17-18. 7 5 and 8-9. 8 6-7. 9 21. 10 22. 11 24. 12 26 and hereby accepted. See 23, 27 and 30. 13 27 and 30. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 David A. Monaco, Esquire Post Office Box 15200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Bonnie J. Williams Executive Director Commission on Ethics The Capitol, Room 2105 Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed chiropractic physician in the state of Florida with license number CH 0003034. Respondent treated Mr. Richard Turner several times between February 3, 1988 and February 13, 1988. Respondent had treated Turner previously and, in fact, had been Turner's chiropractic physician for several years before treating him on this occasion. Turner had health care coverage through the Daytona Beach Community College Health Care Plan. However, Turner had not met the $200.00 annual deductible at this time. Therefore, Respondent allowed Turner to pay $20.00 per visit to be applied to the portion of his bill not covered by insurance. Turner furnished Respondent's office with certain information concerning his insurance coverage and was made aware by Respondent's office that a claim for reimbursement would be filed with Turner's insurance carrier as had been done on previous occasions. Respondent filed a claim for reimbursement with the Daytona Beach Community College Health Care Plan for services rendered Turner but failed to provide a copy of this billing to Turner until some 2 to 3 months after filing with the insurance carrier. Respondent was not reimbursed for these services by Turner's insurance carrier or Turner; therefore, a claim was filed in the County Court of Volusia County, Florida against Turner. The court awarded the Respondent a judgment in the amount of the unpaid balance, plus costs.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter of Final Order reprimanding Respondent, Michael A. Petker for his failure to strictly comply with Section 460.413(1)(bb), Florida Statutes. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 16th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5267 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Shaw, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 Paul Bernardini, Esquire LaRue Bernardini, Seitz & Tresher Post Office Drawer 2200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015-2200 Lawerence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Should discipline be imposed on Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 878226, based upon the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Case No. 034-0140-Q, before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 878226, covering the areas of chemistry, which is valid through June 30, 2004.2/ At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Gulf Coast High School Charter, in the Escambia County School District. STIPULATED FACTS Gulf Coast High School (GCHS) conducted a field trip to Pensacola Beach on May 10, 2002. No certified lifeguards were employed by GCHS for the May 10, 2002 beach field trip. GCHS conducted a similar field trip to Pensacola Beach in April 2001. For the April 2001 (trip), GCHS claims it employed two certified lifeguards. Fifty-eight students attended the May 10, 2002 beach field trip. The following eight GCHS employees accompanied the students to the beach: Russell D. Bourne, Transportation Supervisor --"Mr. Bo" Deanna Jones, Science Teacher Felicia Churchwell, English Teacher Anthony Bassett, Social Studies Teacher Alphonso Lewis, Behavioral Tech Minnie Robertson, Secretary/Attendance Clerk Ray Steven White, Student Services Specialist Melvin Burnett, Behavioral Tech Mr. Burnett left the field trip around lunch time, before the drowning took place. For each student attending the beach field trip, parents signed a field trip authorization form and attached a $5.00 payment for expenses. The beach field trip form specifically stated the student would be going to the beach and that a "certified lifeguard would be on duty." Although the field trip was planned by Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, the person in charge at the beach was Felicia Churchwell, a second-year English teacher. Ms. Deanna Jones took no part in planning the field trip. Both Assistant Principal Kevin Jones and Trip Supervisor Churchwell attended last year's beach trip (the 2001 trip) and knew lifeguards were on duty at that time. Neither Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, nor any other employee of GCHS polled students to ascertain whether students could or could not swim. Neither Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, nor any other employee of GCHS polled employees to ascertain whether the employees attending the field trip could or could not swim. Prior to leaving the school on May 10, 2002, the fifty-eight students were shown the safety video: A Safe Visit to the Beach. The video described the meaning of the beach flag system and provided information on how to manage dangerous surf conditions such as rip tides. Aside from a viewing of the video, Assistant Principal Kevin Jones' only other precautionary instruction to the students was that they were not to go into the water deeper than their navels. The students boarded two GCHS buses and were taken to the gulf side of the beach near the entrance to Fort Pickens. They arrived at the beach at approximately 10:30 a.m. Ms. Deanna Jones immediately advised Ms. Churchwell and other staff that no lifeguards were on duty and yellow flags were flying. Ms. Churchwell stated that she was not concerned that a lifeguard was not present. Students remained in the water for nearly an hour and a half before being called out of the water for a lunch break. All students left the water for lunch. The students were permitted to return to the water following the lunch break at approximately 12:45 p.m. Two staff members, Ms. Deanna Jones and Mr. Alphonso Lewis, stayed at the pavilion. Mr. Lewis was cleaning up from lunch and Ms. Jones was watching the students who were still eating. The remaining staff members returned to the beach to monitor the students who were either sitting or standing near the water's edge observing the students. Some students began to go out into deeper water, venturing beyond the sandbar approximately ten to fifteen yards from shore. At that time Social Science teacher Anthony Bassett began to yell to the students to get out of the water. Students Isaiah Baker, Colan White, Johnny Smith, Ryan Dumas and the decedent, Earl Beasley, were together in the water. No staff person observed the decedent in any danger. No staff person observed the decedent drown. Staff at the beach determined the decedent was missing only after students leaving the water indicated the decedent was missing. Initially GCHS staff believed the decedent could have been in the rest room. When the decedent could not be located, Anthony Bassett called 911. No GCHS personnel, except Alphonso Lewis, entered the water to search for the decedent. Mr. Lewis traveled to the sand bar, but was discouraged from going further by another GCHS employee due to the dangerous surf. Mr. White searched the water visually through the zoom feature on his camera. Rescue personnel arrived with jet skis about ten minutes after the 911 call was made. The decedent's body was found submerged ten to fifteen minutes later approximately fifty yards off shore. Rescue personnel performed CPR at the scene and Life Flight took the decedent to Gulf Breeze Hospital. Earl Beasley was pronounced dead thirty minutes later. ADDITIONAL FACTS On February 26, 2002, Respondent commenced her employment at GCHS. During employment at GCHS Respondent had not been told about school policies in relation to serving as a chaperone on a field trip for the student body. The persons responsible for planning the May 10, 2002 outing for the school were Kevin Jones, the assistant principal, and Felicia Churchwell, an English teacher. Mr. Jones and Ms. Churchwell did not delegate to Respondent any planning or organizational responsibilities associated with the field trip. In that connection, Respondent was not called upon to determine whether the students could swim. Respondent was not called upon to arrange for a lifeguard to be in attendance at the outing. Assistant Principal Jones did not attend the field trip. Ms. Churchwell was placed in charge of the field trip and served as supervisor at the beach. Respondent had no supervisory authority or control over other persons who served as chaperones on the field trip. Respondent was required by Assistant Principal Jones to attend the field trip as a chaperone. Assistant Principal Jones had informed Respondent of the duty to act as chaperone a couple of days before the field trip. It was the intent of Assistant Principal Jones that all students who would participate in the field trip watch the video on safety. After the students watched the video Mr. Jones told the students that they should not go deeper in the water than their belly buttons. Earl Beasley did not view the safety video. But he was allowed to go on the field trip. There is no indication in the record that Respondent participated in the decision to allow Mr. Beasley to participate in the outing without a knowledge of the instruction presented in the safety video. When the party arrived at the beach, there was a lifeguard stand but no lifeguard. The lifeguard stand had a sign displayed indicating that the lifeguard was not on duty. A yellow flag was displayed reminding swimmers to proceed with caution. When Respondent told other chaperones, to include Ms. Churchwell about the absence of the lifeguard, those other persons responded that they knew that the lifeguard was not on duty. Before lunch Respondent spent time down by the water watching students in her role as chaperone. Some students were in the water, others were not. Some students were observed violating the assistant principal's instruction not to go deeper than their belly buttons. Respondent called out to those students who exceeded the depth allowed. The students came closer to the shore where they could understand what was being said. Respondent then told them that Mr. Jones had said that they could not go above their belly buttons. Beyond the time at which she had offered this reminder to stay within the bounds for depth, Ms. Churchwell allowed the students to return to the deeper water. Later in the morning Respondent reminded the students another time to not go so deep in the water. By that point the water was becoming more choppy. A short time later the students were called for lunch. The students went to a location behind the sand dunes away from the beach, where a picnic area was located to have their lunch. The students were required to remain out of the water for a period of time beyond the point in time when they ate their lunch. From the picnic area, one could not see the immediate shoreline because of the dune height. Respondent remained in the picnic area after lunch to watch some students who had remained in that area. Respondent became aware that Earl Beasley was missing when people began to approach the picnic area by coming across the boardwalk that topped the dune. These persons were trying to find the missing student in the restroom areas adjacent to the picnic area. Respondent was told words to the effect that Earl Beasley was in the water and in distress. Having been told about Mr. Beasley's circumstances, Respondent returned to the beach. She observed that the water was even rougher than it had been before. Respondent was prepared to assist in the attempt to rescue Mr. Beasley. She decided against this course given the water conditions. The efforts of others to save Mr. Beasley were not successful.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Counts 1 through 3 of the Administrative Complaint, upon a finding that Respondent has not violated Section 1012.795(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes (2002), nor has she violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a).3/ DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 13th day of April, 2005.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is what costs, if any, are recoverable by petitioner as a consequence of its successful prosecution of an appeal from the agency's final order heretofore rendered in the above-styled matter.
Findings Of Fact Background On January 14, 1988, respondent, Key Biscayne Limited partnership, formerly known as Biscayne Beach Hotel Association, Ltd. (the "Hotel") , filed an application with Respondent, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit authorizing it to conduct construction activities seaward of the Dade County CCCL on Key Biscayne, Florida. As proposed, the Hotel, which currently owns the Sonesta Beach Hotel on Key Biscayne, sought authorization to construct a nine-story 124-unit habitable addition and a one-story non habitable addition, with understructure parking, to its existing facility. Incident to such construction, the Hotel also sought authorization to construct a deck and jacuzz-type hot tub south of the addition, and authorization to excavate approximately 1,400 cubic yards of fill for the pile foundation and caps, and to deposit such fill seaward of the CCCL. Excavation for the foundation would extend a maximum of 177 feet seaward of the CCCL and placement of the excavated material would extend a maximum of 300 feet seaward of the CCCL. On August 11, 1988, DNR issued a notice of intent to approve the Hotel's application and to is sue a CCCL permit subject to the following special conditions: The issuance of the permit placard shall be withheld pending staff receipt and approval of: Two sets of specifications and final certified construction plans accurately dimensioned with elevation referenced to NGVD. Details of the foundation of the 9-story and single- story addition, pile/pile cap/column connections, column/floor slab and roof slab connections, cantilevered balconies, garage floor slab, breakaway walls, storm drainage and domestic waste disposal, and fences shall be included in the plans. Two sets of certified dimensioned site plans showing the location of the control line, existing sea grape trees, the placement of excavated material seaward of the control line, and species of salt-resistant vegetation. The site plans shall be subject to review and acceptance by the Bureau staff. Evidence that written notice has been recorded in the deed covenants and restrictions for the subject property that: The construction of any future rigid coastal protection structures on the property shall be prohibited. The deed covenants and restrictions shall be recorded in the public records of Dade County. Such deed covenants and restrictions shall be enforceable and shall not be altered unless approved by the Department of Natural Resources. The use of gravel or other similar materials or structures with the potential for becoming aerodynamically propelled missiles shall not be included in the construction of the roof. Salt-resistant vegetation such as sea oats, sea grape, panic grass, salt jointgrass, and/or other approved salt- resistant species shall be planted on the fill area. In addition, the permittee shall irrigate and apply fertilizer as appropriate for the particular species planted until the vegetation is established. A 75 percent survival rate of the vegetations shall be ensured and replanting shall be conducted until a 75 percent overall survival rate is attained and until any sizeable barren portions of the area are covered. The excavated fill material to be placed on the beach shall consist of material compatible in grain size and coloration as the native beach sand and shall come from a source located landward of the coastal construction control line. The main structure of the addition shall not extend further seaward than the projected line of the existing retaining wall located seaward of the existing swimming pool. Petitioner, Key Biscayne Council (the "Council"), filed a timely protest of DNR's action. Essentially, the Council contended that the location of the proposed construction would be seaward of the 30-year seasonal high-water line and, therefore, prohibited by Section 161.053(6)(b), Florida Statues; that the proposed construction would adversely impact the beach-dune system and adjacent properties; that construction of similar projects along the coast would have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline; and that the proposed construction failed to comply with the setback requirements or zoning or building codes of Dade County. The Key Biscayne Council In Its petition for formal hearing, the Council alleged that it was a not-for-profit Florida corporation which had, as one of its purposes, the preservation of the environment of Key Biscayne, including its beaches. The proof at hearing failed, however, to demonstrate that the Council enjoyed corporate status but, rather, demonstrated that it was an association formed in November 1987 to give the residents of Key Biscayne a more effective voice on matters of local interest, including the preservation of the environment of Key Biscayne. The Council is governed by nine individuals who are residents of Key Biscayne. These individuals are elected to their positions by the resident members of the association, who are also registered voters in Dade County. 4/ The Council meets at least once each month, and its meetings are open to the public. The agenda for each meeting is published in the local Key Biscayne newspaper, The Islander, the week before each meeting. Of particular interest to the Council is the preservation and protection of the beaches of Key Biscayne which form an important part of that community's and the Council members' lifestyle. To date, the Council has been a motivating force behind the enactment of Dade County Ordinance No. 89-23 discussed infra, which established the CCCL as the mandatory setback line for new construction on Key Biscayne, as well as efforts to fund a cleanup of the beaches, to establish a vegetation dune system, and to protect the sea turtle population. Here, by unanimous vote of the Council, it elected to contest the propriety of DNR's proposal to approve the Hotel's application to construct the proposed additions seaward of the CCCL. Key Biscayne and the surrounding topography Key Biscayne is the southernmost barrier island in what is now a chain of barrier islands extending southward from Miami Beach. Historically, Miami Beach was connected to some extent with Virginia Key, which lies to the north across Bear's Cut from Key Biscayne. In 1835, however, a hurricane struck the area, breached whatever connection existed between Miami Beach and Virginia Key, and formed what is now known as Norris Cut. The topography of the area was further altered in 1905 when construction of Government Cut, the navigational channel for the Port of Miami, was begun. Construction of that cut severed the southern tip from Miami Beach, and formed what is now known as Fisher Island. By 1927, a jetty had been constructed on the north side of Government Cut that created an effective barrier to any along shore sediment transport to the south. Over time the channel in Government Cut was deepened and jetties on its north and south sides extended. Today, the channel is 42 feet deep and extends two miles into the ocean. The north jetty extends 3,000 feet into the ocean, and the south jetty extends 2,750 feet into the ocean. Key Biscayne, which lies to the south of Government Cut and the other islands, is a sand island, roughly "drum-stick" in shape, formed on a limestone base, with elevations ranging from 5 1/2 to 6 1/2 feet. The northern and southern portions of its eastern shore are dominated by Crandon Park and Cape Florida State park, respectively, with development concentrated in the central portion of the island. It is along this central part of the island that the Sonesta Beach Hotel exists, and where the proposed construction is to occur. Immediately north of the existing hotel lies the Silver Sands Hotel and Sand Dollar Restaurant. To the south of the hotel lies the Sheraton Beach Hotel and Beach Club and, further south, the Key Biscayne Hotel and Villas. 5/ Although Key Biscayne is generally subject to mild weather conditions and a low energy environment, it has been subjected to erosion along its eastern shore, with the more severe erosion occurring along the central portion of its shoreline. Seaward of the northern and southern portions of its eastern shore, sand shoals exist which tend to dampen the force of wave energy that would otherwise be exerted against that stretch of coast line. The center of the island is not, however, accorded similar protection and the consequent concentration of wave energy causes sand to be transported from the center of the island to its outer ends. As a result, the central portion of the island, where the subject development is proposed, has historically eroded at a faster rate than the north or south ends of the island. In September 1984, as a consequence of the severe erosion suffered to the eastern shore of Key Biscayne, Dade County was authorized to place over 411,000 cubic yards of sand along approximately 10,000 feet of shoreline on Key Biscayne, and to construct a terminal structure at the south end of the island. The beach was restored by hydraulically pumping sand onto the beach from an offshore dredge and then redistributing the sand with a bulldozer. The resulting beach is characterized as "plan form," and is expected to assume a natural profile over time by responding to the natural forces of wind and waves. The fill pipes which were used to pump sand onto the beach were removed from the area of the Sonesta Beach Hotel on July 3, 1987, and the reprofiling or redistribution of sand in that area was completed around July 20, 1987. On September 26, 1987, the renourishment project was certified complete. The 30-year erosion projection Section 161.053(6)(b) Florida Statutes, provides that DNR may not issue a permit for construction seaward of the CCCL, except for certain specific structures not pertinent to this case, if the structure is "proposed for a location which, based on the department's projections of erosion in the area, will be seaward of the seasonal high-water line within 30 years after the date of application for such permit." The "seasonal high-water line" is a creature of statute, and is defined by Section 161.053(6)(a), Florida Statues, as "the line formed by the intersection of the rising shore and the elevation of 150 percent of the local mean tidal range above local mean high-water." Here, the seasonal high-water line, which is established as an elevation, calculates to approximately 5.4 feet NGVD, and according to the survey dated August 1, 1987, which was submitted with the Hotel's application, currently derives a line that is approximately 375 feet seaward of the proposed construction. To establish the 30-year erosion projection, DNR proposes to horizontally shift the profile which was depicted on such survey in a landward direction a distance equal to the expected erosion rate over a 30-year period. Ordinarily, DNR would calculate a 30-year erosion projection based on historic erosion rates, referred to as "horizontal change rates" in Rule 16B- 33.024, Florida Administrative Code, by reviewing two or more historical surveys taken over a period of time, and measuring the amount of shoreline recession that had occurred during that period. From that figure, an erosion rate would be derived by dividing the number of years which elapsed over the period of record chosen into the amount of shoreline recession that occurred during that period. The result would be the historic erosion rate which, when multiplied by 30, would establish the location of the 30-year seasonal high-water line. However, where, as here, the beach as been renourished, consideration of the effect and performance of such project must also be considered in making the 30- year erosion projection. Rule 16B-33.024(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, to determine the expected location of the seasonal high-water line in 30 years in this case, it is necessary to establish a historical shoreline change rate and to evaluate the effect and performance of the beach renourishment project. To establish an appropriate historical erosion rate for the subject site, consideration must be given to both the tidal datum relied upon to obtain the rates, and the time period selected as the period of record for analysis of historic shoreline change rates. With regard to tidal datums, the Department's rule provides that horizontal shoreline change rate values may be obtained from one of several available tidal datums, including mean high-water, mean sea level, and mean low-water. Rule 16B-33.024(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. However, the preferred and more reliable tidal datum to use in assessing historic erosion rates is the line of mean high-water. The time period used in calculating the historic shoreline change rate is required by DNR's rule to extend from the date of the field work for the applicant's survey, which was submitted as part of the application, to the earliest date for which reliable information is available. Rule 16R- 33.024(3)(b) Florida Administrative Code. The historic shoreline change rate analysis should generally include data from points 3,000 feet on either side of the proposed construction, with the change rate for each point averaged for the time period chosen. Rule 16R-33.024(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code. In the event that coastal or shoreline protection structures exist which have influenced the shoreline data for any of the reference points, such influence must be addressed, and if such influence renders the data unreliable the rate data obtained from that point during the period of influence must be rejected. 6/ Rule 16B-33.024(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Historic shoreline change rates for the subject project are properly determined by reference to DNR reference monuments R-101 to R-106, located on Key Biscayne. Monument R-104 is the closest monument to the project site, lying approximately 180 to 200 feet south of the site, with the project lying between monuments R-103 and R-104. To facilitate an accurate determination of historic shoreline change rates, DNR has created the Beaches and Shores Growth Management Data Base (DNR Data Base), which consists of data from primary source maps from various governmental agencies, including the United States Coastal and Geodetic Survey, National Ocean Survey, and United States Geologic Survey. These maps have been digitized relative to the DNR monuments, which are located along- the coast at- approximately 1,000-foot intervals, and the resulting data is used to assess shoreline changes over time. Inherent in these shoreline changes are the effects of natural forces on the shoreline, such as wind, wave height, and temperature. Pertinent to this case, the surveys available in the DNR Data Base prior to 1989 were those of 1851, 1919, 1927, 1935, 1945, and 1962. In or about February 1989, DNR contracted with Florida State University to redigitize maps of Key Biscayne. As a consequence, the accuracy of existing data was enhanced and a new survey, the 1913 United States Coastal and Geodetic Survey Map, was added to the DNR Data Base. The addition of the 1913 survey to the DNR Data Base is significant to this case, since the proof demonstrates that the data derived from the 1919 survey is unreliable and should be disregarded. Accordingly, the surveys that may be reasonably relied on in this case are those of 1851, 1913, 1927, 1935, 1945, and 1962. In selecting the appropriate period to determine the historic change rate in this case, several factors should be considered. First, in 1926 a hurricane, which came very close to Key Biscayne, resulted in severe damage to the beach. This storm was reported as at least a 100-year storm event, and is the major storm of record for the area. The 1926 storm, as a naturally occurring event, should be taken into consideration in arriving at an historic erosion rate, but should not be allowed to bias the data. Accordingly, any survey immediately preceding it should not ordinarily be used as a starting point for determining an historic erosion rate, because it would overestimate the historic change rate. Similarly, the immediate post-storm survey of 1927 should not be used as the starting point for determining the historic change rate, since this data would overestimate the effects of the post-storm rebound (accretion), but ignore the erosion caused by the 1926 storm and artificially lower the erosion rate. Finally, the 1962 survey should be the most recent survey used to establish an historic erosion rate, since it marks the end of the predevelopment phase of the study. In the mid-1960's, shoreline structures (seawalls) were erected along portions of the coast, and a beach renourishment project was carried out at Crandon Park in 1969 resulting in filling at DNR Monument R-101. These events render post 1962 data unreliable in assessing an historic change rate. Here, the proof demonstrates that the appropriate time period for analyzing the historic change rate is 1851 to 1962. Based on an analysis of the historic change data for such period, the appropriate historic erosion rate for the project site is -2.3 feet per year. In reaching the foregoing conclusion, the Council's contention that pre-1919 survey data should be rejected in deriving an historic change rate because the construction of Government Cut had, by 1927, interrupted a littoral supply of sand in the neighborhood of 200,000 to 400,000 cubic yards of sand to the south has not been overlooked. However, the more credible proof demonstrates that the littoral transport of sand along this area of Florida's coast is approximately 10,000 cubic yards per year, and that little of that sand ever reached Key Biscayne. Accordingly, the construction of Government Cut had little, if any, impact on Key Biscayne. Also, notable to this conclusion is the fact that an analysis of the historic change rate from 1913 to 1962 calculates an historic erosion rate of -2.5 feet per year, an insignificant difference from that calculated for the period of 1851 to 1962, and the existence of an erosional trend at the central portion of Key Biscayne prior to the construction of Government Cut. Following the establishment of an historic erosion rate, the next step in assessing the expected location of the seasonal high-water line in 30 years in situations where, as here, the beach has been renourished, is a consideration of the effect and performance of such renourishment project. The importance of this analysis cannot be gainsaid, since a beach nourishment project may behave differently than the natural beach, as the nourishment may erode faster or slower than the natural beach or it may accrete. Factors which may cause a beach nourishment project to behave differently than the natural beach include project design, such as the length and width of the project, the seaward slope of the fill material, and the nature of the fill material; and, natural and manmade factors, such as offshore shoals, jetties, and breakwaters. The length and width of a project is very significant in terms of how long the project will remain in place. A project which is short in length will have a tendency to erode at a faster rate than a long project or the natural beach. This loss, referred to as "end losses" or "spreading-out losses," is not necessarily a loss of material from the system, but rather a redistribution of the sediment to the outer edges of the nourishment project. These spreading-out losses are caused by the project's exposure to waves that occur from offshore. As a nourishment project is exposed to waves, it reacts to the force of those waves by spreading out in an alongshore direction, resulting in a reduction in the overall width of the project. A longer project, such as the nourishment project in the existent case, will erode from the ends more slowly than a small project and, consequently, maintain its width and life for a greater period of time. The seaward slope of the nourished beach will also affect the project's performance. When a nourishment project is constructed, the seaward slope of the beach may initially be steeper than the slope which existed prior to nourishment, and may be irregular in shape compared to the natural shoreline. During the slope adjustment process, gravity and waves act on the shoreline to create a more natural slope and shape. During this process, the upland portion of the beach, as well as any irregularities in the shoreline, will experience shoreline recession, with the material being redistributed along shore and offshore. This adjustment process, and the effects it will have on the project's performance, may extend over several years after nourishment is completed. The grain size of the material used in the nourishment project can also affect the performance of the project. If the sediments used to construct the nourishment project are essentially of the same grain size and quality of the sediments which existed on the natural beach, then the nourished beach can be expected to perform, after initial slope adjustment, in much the same manner as the natural beach.. Natural features or manmade structures which may affect the performance of the nourishment project include the shoreline and offshore characteristics of the area that can increase or slow the rate at which the material may otherwise erode, or a groin or natural feature that would tend to confine the project and prevent or minimize spreading-out losses. Here, the nourishment project is a long project, approximately 10,000 feet in length. This factor will contribute favorably to the project's longevity. The material used in the nourishment project is very similar to that which existed on the natural beach. Therefore, after initial slope adjustment, the nourished beach should perform in a manner similar to the natural beach. Finally, the portion of the beach fronting the hotel is bordered to the north and south by areas which are historically stable or accreting. This factor should stabilize the ends of the project, and reduce the alongshore spread which would otherwise occur. In sum, after the slope and shoreline have adjusted to a natural profile and shape, the nourishment project should perform in a manner very similar to the pre-nourishment beach. While the nourishment project should ultimately perform similar to the pre-nourished beach, little time has elapsed since completion of the project for slope and shoreline adjustment or to demonstrate stabilization. Here, the nourished beach was profiled by man (bulldozers), with the reprofiling in she area of the hotel being completed around July 20, 1987. The Hotel submitted its application for the subject permit on January 14, 1988, together with a survey of the area dated August 1, 1987. Based on this survey, DNR proposes to establish the 30-year seasonal high-water line by horizontally shifting the profile depicted on the survey in a landward direction. To predict the performance of the beach nourishment over time, the Hotel offered the results of an analytical computer model run by Dr. Robert Dean, an expert in coastal and oceanographic engineering and coastal processes. That model predicts spreading-out losses," and considers site specific factors that will affect the nourishment project, including pre-existing shoreline conditions, size and quality of the beach fill, volume, length of the project, conditions at the end of the fill, and the affect of wave forces on the coast. The wave data relied upon by Dr. Dean to drive his model was derived from a wave gauge located just north of Government Cut. The wave characteristics at Key Biscayne are, however, dissimilar to those experienced off Miami Beach due to the wave damping characteristics of the offshore area of Key Biscayne. While dissimilar, Dr. Dean opined that the data from Miami Beach could be reliably used as a conservative estimate of the force of waves at Key Biscayne, and that his model would, thereby, present a worst case scenario or prediction of spreading-out loss of sediment on the nourished beach. Based on such analysis, Dr. Dean predicted that shoreline recession on the nourished beach, attributable to spreading-out losses, would amount to 28 feet over the next 30 years, most of which would occur in the early years of the project. When combined with the historic change rate of -2.3 feet per year for 30 years, Dr. Dean calculates that 97 feet of erosion will occur at the subject site over a 30-year period, and that at the end of that period the proposed addition will be 102 feet landward of the seasonal high-water line. DNR also made an erosion projection to predict the performance of the beach nourishment over time. In its analysis, DNR relied on monitoring data Dade County had gathered regarding the performance of the project. Such data measured, at various monuments, the amount of accretion or erosion that had occurred within the first 6 months of the project, and the amount of accretion or erosion that had occurred over the next 12 months of the project. The data was not, however, complete for all monuments within 3,000 feet of the hotel, and was otherwise unpersuasive for reasons hereinafter discussed. In performing its analysis, DNR chose to focus on one monument, PL-5- DC, which is located 200 feet north of the hotel. The data at that monument showed that within the first six months the mean high-water line (MHWL) had receded 22 feet, and that over the next 12 months it had receded an additional 10 feet. Assuming a constant rate of erosion based on those two time points, DNR concluded that initial slope adjustment or stabilization would occur within four years, and that shoreline recession on the nourished beach over that 4-year period would amount to -41.6 feet. When combined with an historic change rate of -2.3 feet for the next 26 years, DNR's methodology calculates that 101.4 feet of erosion will occur at the subject site over a 30-year period, and that at the end of that period the proposed addition will be 99 feet landward of the seasonal high-water line. 7/ While Dr. Dean's model and DNR's analysis of Dade County data may yield similar results, neither methodology is, under the circumstances of this case, persuasive proof of how the nourishment project will perform or where the 30-year seasonal high-water line will be located. Here, the proof demonstrates that Key Biscayne enjoys a low-energy environment, and that the only force of significance ordinarily exerted along its coast occurs during the winter months when northeasters impact its shoreline. It is this wave energy that would, under normal circumstances, mold or adjust the seaward slope and shoreline of the nourishment project until it reached a more natural slope and shoreline, and after which the rate of erosion would be consistent with the historic change rate. However, since completion of the nourishment project, Key Biscayne has enjoyed unusually mild weather conditions, and the usual winter storms have not occurred. Consequently, the nourishment project has yet to be subjected to the forces of nature which can be reasonably expected to ultimately mold or adjust its seaward slope and shoreline. DNR's conclusion that the nourishment project will reach stability within four years, based on its analysis of the meager data provided by Dade County, is simply unpersuasive. That data, which appears on page 6 of DNR's exhibit 5, showed that at monument PL-5-DC the MHWL had receded 22 feet in the first six months of project existence and 10 feet over the course of the next 12 months. Based solely on these two measurements, DNR calculated a straight line decreasing rate of erosion to conclude that within four years the project would erode at the historic change rate. DNR's methodology and assumption, based on only two points of measure within the first 18 months of project existence, is not credible or persuasive proof of how the nourishment project will perform, and is rendered even less persuasive In view of the mild weather that affected Key Biscayne during such time period. Dr. Dean's opinion, based on his analytical computer model, which assessed shoreline recession on the nourished beach attributable to spreading- out losses, is likewise unpersuasive proof of how the nourishment project will perform. While Dr. Dean considered spreading-out losses and the historic change rate in reaching his conclusion, he failed to address offshore losses of sediment that will occur as the seaward slope of the project adjusts to a more natural profile. Here, the proof demonstrates that the seaward slope was constructed much more steeply than the natural slope, and that in the first 18 months of project existence significant quantities of fill have been lost offshore. At monument PL-5-DC the slope remains steep. Notably, while Dr. Dean calculated a spreading-out loss for the life of the project of 28 feet under what he termed a worse case scenario of wave height, the MHWL at the nourishment project has already receded 32 feet, under mild weather conditions, in the first 18 months of existence. Compared with Dr. Dean's and DNR's conclusions, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which designed the nourishment project, calculated a loss rate of approximately 22,000 cubic yards of fill each year. Should the project perform consistent with the Corps' estimate of project life, it will have receded to the Dade County erosion control line within 10 years, and over the course of the next 20 years to a point such that the proposed addition would lie seaward of the 30-year seasonal high-water line. Under the circumstances of this case, a calculation of the probable location of the 30-year seasonable high-water line, based on the Corps' estimate of the performance of the nourishment project, is more compelling than that of Dr. Dean or DNR. 8/ Impact on the beach and dune system Where, as here, construction is proposed seaward of the CCCL, Section 161.053(5)(a)3, Florida Statutes, requires DNR to consider the potential impacts which the location of the proposed structures or activities may have on the beach-dune system. That system includes the beach, the dunes, and the overwash areas, which are interrelated by the sediment erosion and accretion process. 9/ DNR's analysis of potential impacts to the beach-dune system includes both short-term and long-term impacts of proposed construction. Short-term impacts are those which may arise during construction of a project and are often a concern in sensitive areas, such as those areas characterized by natural dune features and dune-stabilizing vegetation. Long-term impacts of a project may include increased flooding caused by a lowering of dunes and increased erosion caused by a lowering of dunes or by a net loss of sand from the beach-dune system. Impact to the beach-dune system can also be caused by increased pedestrian traffic associated with the construction of a major habitable structure. Pedestrian-caused impacts are, however, a potential concern only in areas where there are dune features and stabilizing vegetation which could be destroyed. In the absence, of these dune features, pedestrian traffic has no significant impact to the beach-dune system. Here, the site of the proposed construction does not have any prominent dune features or stabilizing dune features or stabilizing dune vegetation. In fact, the site is the present location of an asphalt parking lot, which extends 40 feet seaward of the footprint of the proposed construction. Construction of the project will not result in any net excavation of material. Since dunes will not be lowered and there will be no net loss of material, there will be no increased flooding or erosion caused by the project. Under such circumstances, the proof demonstrates that there will be no long-term or short-term impacts to the beach-dune system occasioned by the project. Adverse cumulative impact on the beach-dune system Section 161.053(5)(a)3, Florida Statutes, also requires DNR to assess the potential cumulative impacts to the beach-dune system that may be caused by construction seaward of the CCCL. Here, the proof demonstrates that the proposed project, either singularly or in combination with other existing or similar projects, would not have any adverse impact to the beach-dune system. Impact on adjacent property Construction activities proposed for a location seaward of the CCCL are also analyzed by DNR to assess their impact on adjacent properties. Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code. Such analysis includes a determination of whether construction activities will be confined on-site; whether a lowering of dunes will occur such that increased flooding on adjacent property could occur; whether elevations on the proposed construction site will be lowered such that flooding of adjacent property could occur; and whether proposed construction, in the event of a major storm event, would potentially increase erosion on adjacent property. Here, the proof demonstrates that construction activities will be confined on site, there will be no lowering of the dunes or elevations, and that there will be no net excavation of materials such that any increased risk of flooding or erosion could occur to either the project site or to adjacent properties. Interference with public beach access One purpose of CCCL permitting is to preserve public beach access. Sections 161.053(1) and (5)(e), Florida Statutes. "Public access" is defined as "the public's right to laterally traverse the sandy beaches of this state where such access exists on or after July 1, 1987." Section 161.021(1), Florida Statutes. The public presently does not have east-west access to the beach at the Sonesta Beach Hotel, and is not entitled to such access by law. The Hotel does not propose to hinder existing north-south (shore parallel/lateral) beach access, and the proposed project would not impede such access until the seasonal high-water line receded to the project. 10/ While the project might limit lateral access at times once the seasonal high-water line recedes, such impact would be de minimis in the instant case since construction of the project would not be seaward of existing structures on the Hotel's property. Compliance with local zoning requirements In order for a permit application to be deemed complete, an applicant must provide DNR with written evidence, provided by the appropriate local governmental-agency having jurisdiction over the activity, that the proposed development does not contravene local setback requirements or zoning or building codes. Rule 16B-33.008(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated February 10, 1988, the Hotel submitted to DNR a letter from Metropolitan Dade County's Department of Building and Zoning which indicated that the site plan for the proposed project was consistent with existent regulations. On April 21, 1988, DNR deemed the Hotel's application complete. While not contesting the consistency of the proposed project with local regulations at the time the Hotel's application was deemed complete, the Council contends that subsequent events have rendered its proposal inconsistent with such regulations. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the Hotel received site plan approval for the proposed addition from Dade County in November 1988, but that its application for a bull ding permit was denied and returned to the Hotel for further action. To date the Hotel has not sought to further process such application with the County. On April 4, 1989, Dade County enacted Ordinance No. 89-23, effective April 14, 1989, relating to construction seaward of the CCCL on Key Biscayne. Pertinent to this case, the ordinance prohibits the new construction of major habitual structures and severely restricts the construction of nonhabitable structures seaward of the CCCL, absent a variance. At hearing, no proof was offered that any portion of the proposed project would qualify for a variance, or that the nonhabitable portion of the project complied with the requirements of the new ordinance. 11/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Hotel's application to construct and excavate seaward of the CCCL. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of September 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 5th day of September, 1989.
The Issue Whether DOT has improperly excluded Western Waste Industries, Inc. from bidding by combining two Volusia County sites in a single invitation to bid?
Findings Of Fact A three-man maintenance crew works out of DOT's Daytona Beach construction office, which is 16 miles distant from DOT's principal Volusia County facility, the Deland maintenance yard. In the summer, when both mowing operations and littering are at their peak, 72 DOT field people and 14 convicts set out from the Deland yard daily to sweep the roadways, police, grade and seed the shoulders, cut the grass and do other bridge, pipe and concrete maintenance. At one time, as the work day ended, crews dropped litter and mown grass at the county dump on their way back to the sites at which they assembled mornings in Deland and Daytona Beach. The Daytona Beach crew still does. But somebody calculated that DOT could save 100 man hours a month by arranging for "dumpsters" at both its Volusia County yards. That way all workers can return to their work stations directly, and no side trip is required in order to dispose of litter and cut grass. On April 1, 1988, petitioner Western Waste Industries, Inc. (WWII) installed two dumpsters, each with a capacity of eight cubic yards, at DOT's Deland yard. Under a month to month agreement, WWII empties both containers twice weekly in exchange for $273 monthly. DOT is satisfied with its decision to use dumpsters, but is obliged to invite bids, because DOT cannot procure the services it needs for less than $3000 a year. Among the specifications set out in DOT's invitation to bid is the form of the contract the successful bidder is to sign, which includes the following: 1.00 The Department does hereby retain the Contractor to furnish certain services in connection with Central Point Refuse Pickup and Disposal Originating at the Department's Maintenance Office Located at 1655 North Kepler Road, Deland, Florida, with an Option to Include Similar Services for the Department's Construction Office Located at 915 South Clyde Morris Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Florida. DOT's Exhibit No. 1 (emphasis in original) In Exhibit A to the form contract, entitled "SCOPE OF SERVICES," the specifications call for "trash containment and removal of litter ... from specific offices located in the Department's District Five." Id. Exhibit A specifies both the Daytona Beach and the Deland offices by name and address. Attachment B indicates that the successful bidder is to remove 40 cubic yards of refuse weekly from DOT's maintenance yard in Deland and, at DOT's option, additional refuse from the Deland yard, from the Daytona Beach office, or from both. If DOT exercised both options, the contractor would haul ten percent of DOT's refuse from the Daytona Beach office, on an annual basis. In its letter of protest, dated June 14, 1988, WWII complains that it "operate[s] on the West Side [of Volusia County] only." But the two companies who submitted bids in response to DOT's invitation to bid are willing to collect refuse at both sites. No exclusive franchise or other legal impediment precluded WWII from bidding on collection at both sites By soliciting bids for service at both sites, DOT avoids the administrative costs of inviting and evaluating two sets of bids.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Schrier holds a Florida teaching certificate, No. 586600, which is valid through June 30, 1992, and covers the areas of drivers education, social studies, history, and physical education. Mr. Schrier was employed as a teacher at Palm Beach Lakes Community High School beginning in 1988 by the School Board of Palm Beach County. On September 29, 1988, a newly registered student was assigned to a world history class taught by Mr. Schrier and was given a note to take to Mr. Schrier explaining that she would be an additional student in the class. Mr. Schrier refused to admit the black female student to his class saying that his class was already too large. The student came back to the school office and she was sent back with another note instructing Mr. Schrier to admit the student, but he once again refused. On the third occasion, the student was accompanied to Mr. Schrier's class by the Vice Principal, Glen Heyward, and once again, Mr. Schrier, in the presence of the student, refused to admit the student to the class on the grounds that he already had too many students and that there were too many black students already in the class. All the students heard these comments, which were wholly inappropriate. Eventually the student was assigned to another class, which was already larger than Mr. Schrier's class. His comments had made it untenable for that student to be assigned to Mr. Schrier's class. As the result of the incident, Mr. Schrier received a written reprimand from the Principal of Palm Beach Lakes Community High School on October 10, 1988. Mr. Schrier had a history of difficulty in controlling the conduct of students in his class. It was common for students to be eating, talking or engaged in other acts of misbehavior while he was attempting to teach. On about October 31, 1990, during Mr. Schrier's second period world history class, a number of students were failing to pay attention or otherwise misbehaving and, in general, the class was loud and unruly. In the course of attempting to restore order, Mr. Schrier said to this integrated class that the black students should act like white students. All students had been unruly and it was simply not true that the black students were the only students misbehaving. This comment upset both the black students and the white students and they began to wad paper and throw it at him and to yell at him, which caused him to panic and to push a buzzer to summon the deans from the school office. The deans attempted to restore order and Mr. Schrier was unable to complete that class. Parents of both black and white students learned of the incident and objected to their children being taught by Mr. Schrier on account of his inappropriate racial remark. Black students in his class were both embarrassed and angry about his disparaging comment. As a result of disciplinary action taken against him by the School Board of Palm Beach County, Mr. Schrier's actions became generally known in the community through a story which appeared in the Palm Beach Post. It is inappropriate for a teacher to tell black students to act like white students. Discipline is imposed on the basis of misconduct, not on the basis of race. Mr. Schrier's statement embarrassed and disparaged the students and created a poor learning environment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Richard Schrier, be found guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission issue a letter of reprimand to the Respondent, impose an administrative fine of $500 and that the Respondent shall be placed on two years probation with the Education Practices Commission. The terms of the probation shall include the requirement that the Respondent: Shall immediately contact the Education Practices Commission upon any reemployment in the teaching profession within the State of Florida, indicating the name and address of the school at which he is employed, as well as the name, address and telephone number of his immediate supervisor. Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the Education Practices Commission with quarterly reports of his performance, including, but not limited to, compliance with school rules and school district regulations and any disciplinary actions imposed upon the Respondent. Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the Education Practices Commission with a true and accurate copy of each written performance evaluation prepared by his supervisor, within ten days of its issuance. Shall satisfactorily perform his assigned duties in a competent professional manner. Shall violate no law and shall fully comply with all district and school board regulations, school rules, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006. During the period of probation shall successfully complete two college courses or the equivalent in- service training courses in the areas of cultural awareness and classroom management, with progress and completion to be monitored by the Education Practices Commission. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of June 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 5th day of June 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mr. Richard E. Schrier Apartment 116 500 North Congress Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on charges that he violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.06, Florida Administrative Code, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 234479 issued by the Florida Department of Education and covering the area of Physical Education. (Request for Admissions, dated December 10, 1985.) At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent 1 was employed as a teacher and basketball coach at Vero Beach Senior High School in Vero Beach, Florida. (Request for Admissions, dated December 10, 1985.) During the 1984-85 school year, Respondent was assigned an early morning duty station on the grounds of Vero Beach Senior High School. P.K., a senior at the school, became acquainted with him by passing him each morning as she rode her bicycle to school. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. ll) P.K. attended Vero Beach High School for the eleventh and twelfth grades. She participated in various extra curricular school activities such as the Spanish Club, French Club, Latin Club, Junior Classical League and Future Business Leaders of America. She was a member of the Track and Soccer Teams, and captained the Cross-Country Team. She also worked at various part-time jobs after school. In June 1985, she graduated with a "B" average. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p.7) During her attendance at Vero Beach High School, P.K. did not attend any courses taught by the Respondent or participate in any sports which he coached. She became acquainted with him in December 1984. During lunch time she helped him keep statistics for the high school basketball team, which he coached. In January 1985, she would routinely spend her lunch hour in his office, visiting with him and keeping basketball statistics. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. l3) By the first week of February 1985, her relationship with the Respondent had changed and become more intimate. In lieu of her attending track practice after school, the Respondent picked her up at school and drove her to his apartment, where they had sexual intercourse. Respondent then drove her back to school where she retrieved her bicycle. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 15 ) During February and March 1985, Respondent and P.K. engaged in sexual intercourse at his apartment on 10 to 15 different occasions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. l6) On most of these occasions, Respondent drove P.K. from the high school to his apartment, had sexual intercourse with her, then returned her to school to retrieve her bicycle. When this occurred, she would skip track or cross country practice. On one or two occasions he picked her up at her place of part- time after-school employment, took her to his apartment and had sexual intercourse. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p.l6) On Valentines Day in 1985, Respondent sent her an arrangement of roses which were delivered to the office at Vero Beach High School. (Request for Admissions, dated December 10, 1985: Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 19) Toward the end of March 1985, P.K. told her mother about her relationship with Respondent. During the two months in which Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual intercourse with P.K., he told her that he loved her. During the Summer of 1985, he asked her if she would marry him, and she agreed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 22) During the period of time in which they were sexually intimate, Respondent told her that she should find a method of birth control and use it. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 22) On one occasion in February 1985, Respondent and P.K. visited the local beach after school. There were other students from the high school present on the beach at the time. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p.24: Tr. p.ll) After P.K. told her mother about her sexual relations with Respondent, school officials were contacted and advised of the situation. The Superintendent of Schools for the Indian River County School District immediately initiated an investigation into the matter. During the course of the investigation, school officials interviewed P.K. and questioned her extensively concerning the contents, furnishings and physical layout of Respondent's apartment in an attempt to either confirm or disprove her allegations. After obtaining from her a detailed description of Respondent's apartment and furnishings, Assistant Principal Gregory Smith and Personnel Director Douglas King visited Respondent's apartment. They found that her description was accurate, including her description of quilts located on the floor in Respondent's bedroom closet and a bag of frozen clams in his freezer. (Tr. pp. 36-39) When school officials interviewed Respondent, he told them that during the evening of March 22, 1985--when P.K. had indicated that she and the Respondent were together--he was with John Wyatt, a friend, until approximately 11 or 12 o'clock. Although he and Mr. Wyatt were together on the evening of March 22, 1985, watching an NCAA basketball game, Respondent drove Mr. Wyatt home at approximately 9 p.m., at which time he told Mr. Wyatt that he was going to pick up P.K. at Gringo's Restaurant, where she worked after school. (Tr. p. 14,40) During the course of the School Board's investigation, the local news media learned of the matter and began providing extensive coverage of the allegations and investigation. The three newspapers serving the Vero Beach area, as well as local radio and television stations, provided extensive coverage of the incident. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2 Tr. pp. l9,28) As a result of the extensive coverage by the news media, allegations against Respondent became well known among students, faculty and staff at Vero Beach High School. As a result of the notoriety, P.K. suffered embarrassment and disparagement. Her friends avoided her for several weeks. A member of the school basketball team confronted her on more than one occasion because he was upset over Respondent's resignation. (The basketball player felt that this ruined his chance of going to college Respondent had been helping him in that effort.) On another occasion, a student pointed out P.K. to a reporter who was on campus gathering information about the incident. P.K. was so upset and embarrassed that the Principal recommended that she leave school for a day or so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pp. 40, 41 Tr. pp.l7, 28, 30) In addition to the embarrassment and disparagement which P.K. suffered as a result of the notoriety surrounding the incident, her grades suffered. (Tr. pp.23,24) P.K. had a good reputation for truth and veracity at Vero Beach Senior High School. (Tr. pp.24,28) P.K. received mental health counseling to help her deal with mental and emotional problems resulting from her relationship with Respondent and the notoriety surrounding the incident. (Tr. pp.43,44) Prior to her involvement with Respondent, P.K. planned to attend college. Her relationship with Respondent and its after effects contributed, at least in part, to her subsequent decision to forego college. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pp. 45,46) Respondent's sexual involvement with a female high school student, recognized by administrators, teachers and students as improper conduct, has seriously diminished his effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be permanently revoked for violating Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and rules of the State Board of Education. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1986.
