The Issue This concerns the question of the Petitioner, George Castro's entitlement to be granted a mortgage solicitor's license by the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance. See Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action is an individual who desires to be licensed as a mortgage solicitor in the State of Florida. The Respondent in this cause, State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance, is an agency within the State of Florida, which has, among other functions, the licensure and regulation of those persons who would practice as a mortgage solicitor. At the commencement of the hearing in this cause, it was stipulated to between the parties that all requirements for the licensure of the Petitioner as a mortgage solicitor in the State of Florida related to the application form for registration have been met, with the exception that the answer to question (5) on the mortgage solicitor's application executed by the Petitioner, by its terms, would allegedly cause the denial of the application premised upon the requirements and conditions of Subsections 494.04(4) and 494.05(4), Florida Statutes. 1/ In particular, the Respondent contends that the initial answer to question (5), given under oath by the Petitioner contains substantive omissions or misstatements of material facts demonstrating that the Petitioner was engaging in the course of conduct which exhibits a lack of honesty, truthfulness and integrity, within the meaning of Subsection 494.04(4), Florida Statutes, and that the eventual correct answer to question (5) relating to arrest and indictments for crimes were, by their substance, such that it would cause the rejection of Petitioner as an applicant for licensure as mortgage solicitor, premised upon his alleged lack of honesty, truthfulness and integrity, again within the meaning of Subsection 494.04(4), Florida Statutes. In an effort to obtain a mortgage solicitor's license, the Petitioner, George Castro, executed an application form provided by the Respondent, and through that action answered question (5) in the affirmative. He also indicated that an affidavit was attached. Question (5) makes the inquiry, "Have you ever been arrested or indicted for crime?" It goes on to request "If your answer is in the affirmative, attach complete signed notarized statement of the charges and facts, together with the name and location of the court in which the proceedings were held or are pending." The Petitioner reviewed this question and further requirement and sought the assistance of his probation officer in an effort to comply with question (5). After placing next to question (5), the word "yes," and the words "affidavit attached," which words were found in parentheses, he went to the probation office in Dade County, Florida, in view of his probation and parole status arising out of a conviction in the Superior Court of Lumokin County, Georgia, to the charges of violation of the Georgia Controlled Substance Act, dating from an arrest in late 1976, or early 1977. His entry of a guilty plea was made on June 15, 1977, and he was adjudged guilty by the Georgia court and sentenced to confinement for a period of ten (10) years, five years to be served and the balance to be probated. On June 25, 1979, an amended order of the court was entered reducing the sentence which was imposed on June 15, 1977, to allow service of the balance of his sentence on probation and parole supervision through a transfer arrangement with the State of Florida. The Petitioner actually served approximately seven (7) months in prison. After June 28, 1979, he was under probation and parole supervision in the State of Florida and is still in their charge. Castro's intentions on, arriving at the probation and parole office was to have his probation and parole supervisor complete question (5) by making out an affidavit over the signature of the supervisor. The supervisor was not available and the application form and request was left with Castro's supervising officer's superior. Castro then operated on the assumption that the official would know how to respond to question (5), in view of the fact that Castro was of the opinion that a "rap sheet" containing his prior arrest history would be available to the probation and parole official in completing the affidavit. An affidavit was made by Lester R. Brandt, Supervisor, Probation and Parole Services within the State of Florida, Department of Corrections. That affidavit may be found as part of the Joint Composite Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence at the hearing. That exhibit also contains a copy of the application form. By the affidavit, Brandt alludes to the Georgia conviction in a general way but fails to make mention of any other offenses for which the Petitioner had been arrested. Once the affidavit had been completed, the affidavit and application form were placed in a preaddressed and stamped envelope provided by the Petitioner and sealed. The Petitioner returned to the office of the Probation and Parole Services and picked up that envelope containing the application and affidavit and mailed those items without examining the attached affidavit. When the application and affidavit form were received by the Respondent's office in Tallahassee, Florida, and compared with a "rap sheet" provided by the State of Florida, Department of Law Enforcement, it was determined that the affidavit failed to speak to certain items found on that "rap sheet." The "rap sheet" may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. On that sheet are arrests dating from January 1, 1976, related to a reckless driving matter which lead to a fine against the Petitioner. The next item dated April 9, 1976, related to driving offenses and other matters set forth, lead to a fine placed upon a plea to being guilty of public intoxication. An arrest from January 30, 1977, in St. Lucie County, Florida, lead to dismissals of those actions by Nolle Prosse. The arrest in Georgia as related herein brought about the judgment and sentence referred to above. Concerning a May 11, 1979, arrest for driving while intoxicated, the disposition was not clear in terms of the testimony presented at the hearing. It was, however, revealed that the Petitioner has had his driver's license privilege suspended due to an accumulation of adverse points and now may only drive to school and work by special permission of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. When confronted with the failure to mention the other related matters found in the "rap sheet," aside from the Georgia experience, the Petitioner stated that he did not intend to omit or misstate his answer to question (5), instead it was a matter of oversight. Nonetheless, in Administrative Proceeding No. 80-19DOF (MB) the State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance, offered a proposed final order which would deny the application of George Castro premised upon alleged substantive omissions or misstatements of material facts which put at issue the Petitioner's honesty, truthfulness and integrity as required by Subsection 494.04(4), Florida Statutes. This proposed order was entered on December 4, 1980, and contemporaneously the Petitioner was afforded a right to hearing on the question of his application and through the present hearing processes, availed himself of that opportunity. The proposed order and notice of right to hearing may be found in the Joint Composite Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Persons who have known the Petitioner for a period of two to two and one half years, one of which was a former Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent and the other a Senior Personnel Officer in the City of Miami, Florida, gave testimony at the hearing and spoke positively of the Petitioner's present propensity for truthfulness, honesty and integrity. Those persons have familiarity with the Petitioner's family, the former FBI Agent who is now a consultant in real estate type pursuits, having business relationships with the Petitioner's father by way of receiving advice from the Petitioner's father on real estate matters and the personnel officer being a family friend of the father's of long standing duration. The City official has indicated willingness to give an accounting position to the Petitioner in the City of Miami if that position were available. Neither of these individuals has seen the petitioner under the influence of any form of drug, be it alcohol or narcotics, within the time that they have known him. The former FBI Agent has seen the Petitioner approximately thirty (30) times in the two and one half years he has known him and the City official sees the Petitioner twice a week on an average. The Petitioner, while serving his probation and parole responsibility has been found to be a model probationer as stated in the affidavit. Castro is now employed as a runner for a mortgage broker, and that mortgage broker would be willing to hire the Petitioner as a mortgage solicitor if he is entitled to be granted a mortgage solicitor's license, to include passage of the mortgage solicitor's test.
Findings Of Fact Roland C. Foote, Respondent, holds Florida teaching certificate number 107445, Graduate, Rank II. He served as Principal of Webster Elementary School (formerly Webster Junior High), hereinafter called Webster, from 1968 until he was replaced in late 1978. He has been employed in the Florida school system for more than twenty-five years. On May 8, 1978, Respondent sent a letter (Exhibit 10) to the Sumter County School Superintendent recommending the suspension of James Constable, one of the teachers at Webster. This was referred to the PPC for investigation by the Superintendent. By letter dated May 16, 1978 (Exhibit 12) some 11 teachers at Webster signed a letter to Ms. Angela J. Peterson, an investigator for the PPC, requesting an audience to discuss several urgent matters relating to Webster. Constable was one of the signers of this letter. Some of those who signed were aware the purposes was to complain of the manner in which Respondent ran Webster; others thought the purpose was to assist Constable. The first meeting with the PPC representative was held on June 6, 1978. Some eight teachers attended this meeting, discussed with Ms. Peterson several situations of which they were aware involving possible improper conduct by Respondent, and agreed to provide PPC with testimony and facts necessary to prepare charges against Respondent. Numerous additional meetings were held by this group, some with PPC representatives and others without PPC representation, for the purpose of reconstructing the dates of the incidents complained of and to ascertain who had knowledge of the incidents. Prior to discussing the specific charges preferred against Respondent and the evidence relating thereto, additional background information gleaned from the testimony and the exhibits admitted into evidence is first presented. Sumter County is predominantly a small-farm agricultural area as opposed to an urban society, with the socioeconomic level below that of most of the larger counties in Florida. In addition to those permanent residents who live and work on farms, there are migrant workers who appear at harvest time. The population mix is about 1/3 black and that is also the school population mix. Several of these students are classified as educationally mentally retarded and qualify for supplemental education programs. About 7 of the 25 teacher faculty at Webster are black and no evidence of any faculty racial tensions or frictions was presented. Friction has existed at Webster between some faculty members and Respondent for a long time. In school year 1974-75 a special workshop was conducted at Webster to improve the communications between the faculty and the administration. The workshop met with mixed success. Some of the teachers at Webster mad minor complaints to various supervisors over the years but none was ever willing to reduced a complaint to writing and present it to the Superintendent. As a result, the Superintendent on one occasion told the faculty at Webster that he was tired of hearing complaints about Webster and for them to work out their problems at the school. The principal at smaller schools, where assistant principals or deans are not provided, is the primary as well as final, authority in the discipline of students and in particular in the administering of corporal punishment. In addition to a wooden paddle or two, Respondent had provided himself with a leather strap which he also used to administer corporal punishment. The strap used by Respondent was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 20. At the time it was used, a metal slat was inserted between the two pieces of leather comprising the strap to provide additional stiffness. The addition of this metal slat did not make the strap a more sinister punishment tool. Straps similar to Exhibit 20 are sold in tack shops and are called bats. They are approximately 18 inches long and are comprised of two pieces of leather one-eight inch thick, sewed together. The bat is about one inch wide through the first foot of its length and then flares out to two inches wide at the end. The two pieces of leather at the flared end are not sewn and they clap together making a louder noise when something is struck with the bat than would occur with only a single piece of leather. It is this flared part of the bat that contacts the backside of a pupil who is administered corporal punishment. This strap or bat will cause less injury to a student than a wooden paddle if each is used with the same degree of force. While the immediate sting from the bat may be as great as the sting from a paddle, the former is much less likely to bruise a child than is the paddle. Some of the implications of the material allegations, as well as the opinions of some witnesses, are that the use of a leather strap for administering corporal punishment is itself cruel and unusual. So long as corporal punishment is authorized, these implications and opinions are without foundation. The material allegations preferred against Respondent will be discussed in chronological order. It is to be noted that the two earliest incidents were familiar to many people at the time they occurred, but no action was taken until 1978. Material Allegation 3 alleges that on or about March 1, 1972 at 8:30 a.m. Larry James, a ten-year old black student at Webster, received an eye injury resulting in the loss of sight in the injured eye when a nail he was attempting to drive was deflected by the hammer and became impaled in his right eye. James was attempting to repair a loose leg on a chair which his teacher had told him to get the custodian to fix. While the teacher was out of the room, James attempted to repair the chair and the accident ensued. James pulled the nail from his eye and ran to the bathroom. His teacher, Mrs. Batten, took him to the office. Respondent was not at school on March 1, 1972 and did not see James until after James returned to school several days later. Petitioner presented five witnesses, including James, the doctor who treated him, his mother, and Mr. and Mrs. Donahue, who were teachers at Webster to whom James was taken by the teacher, Mrs. Batte. None of these witnesses saw Respondent on the day of the accident. James was not sent to a doctor and spent most of the day in Mrs. Donahue's class until the school bus took him home, presumably after 2:45 p.m. His mother testified she had James taken to a doctor that day, which she identified as 2 March, two days after her youngest child was born on 28 February 1972. 1972 was a leap year and February that year contained 29 days. James was referred to the hospital in Ocala by his family doctor, Dr. Wiley. The medical records show James was admitted at 3:56 p.m. on March 2, 1972. It is doubtful James could have reached home on the bus before 3:15 p.m. or reached Dr. Wiley's office before 4:00 p.m. The only time and date certain was the date and time admission to the hospital. The parties stipulated that school records would show Larry James was absent from school on March 2, 3 and 4, 1972. Accordingly, the accident obviously occurred March 1, 1972. The evidence was undisputed that on March 1, 1972, Respondent Foote was in Leesburg attending the closing on the residence he was purchasing. Respondent's testimony to this effect was corroborated by the bank closing officer and documents executed at closing (Exhibit 43). Respondent testified that he first learned of James' injury the following day when he returned to school. Material Allegation 11 alleges that in school year 1971-72 or 1972-73 Respondent struck Louise Weddell, a student, in the face knocking her to the ground. The date of the incident was not established with any degree of certainty. Louise Weddell, now 20 years old, testified that she was 15 and in the seventh grade when the incident occurred. According to Louise, she was fighting with another girl outside the building when Respondent came out with a paddle in his hand to break up the fight. Louise testified that Respondent slapped her with his left hand, knocking her to the ground; that she got up, called him a black mother fucker and ran away. She denied spitting in Respondent's face. For running away she was suspended for 10 days. Several witnesses observed the incident. All except Respondent testified to the slapping and one saw Foote wipe his face with his handkerchief after Louise ran away. Respondent's testimony was that while he was stopping the fight Louise called him the name and spit in his face. He admitted only "pushing" her in the face with his left hand. Material Allegation 10 alleges that during the 1974-75 school year Respondent paddled Gralyn Dorsy numerous times on the buttocks, legs, sides and hips while calling him "a sorry nigger on food stamps and welfare." The evidence is undisputed that Respondent paddled Dorsey several times during that school year (Exhibit 45). The incident leading to the allegation occurred on March 3 1975 when Dorsey was brought to Foote by Mrs. Jones for a discipline problem she did not know how to handle. It appears that the previous day while Foote was away from school Dorsey had committed some vulgar act, the nature of which was not disclosed at the hearing, with another boy in the bathroom. Mrs. Jones expected Respondent to counsel Dorsey. Instead, Dorsey was given a paddling. Mrs. Jones does not remember if James Constable was also present. She testified that she counted 13 licks. Exhibit 45, the paddle list, shows 5 licks given to Dorsey. James Constable testified he also observed the paddling of Dorsey and that after Dorsey had been given 2 or 3 hard licks he started to get up. Respondent pushed him back over the chair saying "I'm not through with you, boy", appeared to lose control and began flailing away while calling Dorsey a sorry nigger on food stamps and welfare. According to Constable, Dorsey received 12 or 13 licks and, while squirming around, some of the blow landed on the side of Dorsey's hip and one landed on his hand. Mrs. Jones was upset over the severity of the paddling. Neither she nor Constable made a complaint until after May, 1978. The school secretary, Doris Brank, whose desk was just outside Foote's office, recalls two paddlings of Dorsey, one at which he was given 3 licks. She never heard Respondent make racial slurs to children while disciplining them. Material Allegation 2 alleges that in the spring of 1976 Herbert Brown, a student, injured his ankle on the playground before school and Respondent wouldn't allow Mrs. Miriam Jones, his teacher, to take him home or to the doctor but required he remain in school. On 2 February 1976 Herbert Brown, a twelve-year old black student, injured his ankle while playing before school. Mrs. Jones took roll call in Herbert's room and learned his ankle was hurting him. She took him to Respondent and asked permission to take him home. Respondent examined the ankle, saw it was slightly swollen and had his secretary, Mrs. Branch, call the phone number on Herbert's records. No answer was received. Respondent refused Mrs. Jones' request to take Herbert home. The ankle continued to swell. Mrs. Branch also called the doctor, whose office was closed. When school was out, Mrs. Jones drove Herbert home. His mother took him to Dr. Lehrer, who examined Herbert's ankle in the emergency room at the hospital and diagnosed the injury as a sprain. No medication was prescribed, as the pain did not appear sufficient to warrant treatment. The doctor has no independent recollection of the incident but, because he prescribed no medication, would assume the sprain was not severe. Material Allegation 9 alleges that on or about January 6, 1977 Respondent paddled Greg Christian while stating that people in the "subs" did not tell "this white man" what to do. When taken to Respondent for disciplining by his teacher, Molly Jo Teters, Greg told Respondent his brothers said Foote was not to paddle him any more and to run home if he did. Mrs. Teters testified that Respondent, while paddling Greg, told him "people in the subs don't tell this white man what to do." Greg's testimony was that following his remarks about Foote not paddling him, Foote held up a clenched fist saying, "This is black power", covered it with his right hand and said, "This is white supremacy." Daniel Lee Christian, Greg's father, recalled Greg telling him of the paddling and of Foote's gestures and remarks about white power over black power. Foote denied all allegations of using racial slurs to students while disciplining them or otherwise. Material allegation 7 alleges that on May 13, 1977 Respondent paddled Joanne Williams with a leather strap, hitting her on her bottom and later on the front of her body as she turned; and that, during the paddling called her a nigger and made comments about welfare, free lunches and food stamps. Mrs. Simpson, Joanne's teacher, took Joanne to Foote for discipline because she had stolen money from another student, spent it and failed to repay the money as directed by Mrs. Simpson. Foote had her bend over a chair and paddled her with the leather strap. After the first blow, Mrs. Simpson testified Joanne turned over and Foote continued to strike her on the front portion of her body while appearing to lose control. During this time, Mrs. Simpson testified, he said Joanne's family was on food stamps, free lunches and had everything given to them and when not given, they stole. Exhibit 45 shows 4 licks awarded to Joanne by Foote. Foote denies making the remarks and Mrs. Branch, who was immediately outside the office, heard no such remarks made. Mrs. Simpson was upset following the incident and vowed never to take another child to Foote for discipline. However, on April 25, 1978, she sent one of her students, James Jackson, to Foote for discipline after Jackson had been paddled by her and continued his misconduct. Material Allegation 8 alleges that in the fall of 1977 Respondent paddled Bobby Clemons with a leather strap and, while so doing, called him a "no-good nigger". Nancy Gridley took Bobby Clemons to Foote for authority to discipline him for being a "smart-mouth". While talking to Bobby, a ten-year old black student whose mother is a teacher at Webster, Mrs. Gridley testified Foote became angry, picked up his strap and gave Bobby three licks while yelling that Bobby was a nigger who would end up in prison if he kept getting into trouble. Bobby confirmed that he was called a nigger by Foote and told he would end up in jail if his conduct didn't improve. Mrs. Clemons was told of the incident by Mrs. Gridley and when she asked Bobby about it, he confirmed the incident. All witnesses agreed that Bobby was a discipline problem. Respondent acknowledged the paddling, denied the racial slur and testified he told Bobby he needn't expect to get away with misbehavior because his mother was a teacher. Mrs. Branch confirmed Foote's testimony. Material Allegation 6 alleges that Respondent on February 22, 1978 paddled Jeannie Barnes, a fifth grade student, with a leather strap in the library in front of students. James Constable witnessed the paddling, which consisted of three blows with the leather strap. The paddling took place in the library which was serving as the temporary office while the old offices were being renovated. Constable's testimony that a class was being held in the library at the time constituted the only testimony that classes were held in the library. Respondent recalled no other student being present when this punishment was administered. Material Allegation 5 was that during February or March, 1978, Respondent paddled one of the Roper twins in the workroom of the library without an adult witness present, striking the student on the sides, back and legs. Mrs. Newell testified she came into the room while Respondent was paddling Landis Roper with a paddle. Landis was lying on the floor, Foote had hold of his wrist and blows were landing on back, legs and arm. She also testified that Roper was screaming his head off and threatening to kill himself if Foote didn't stop. As Mrs. Newell walked in, Mrs. Stevens and Mrs. Hodges were exiting the room. Mrs. Newell is the only witness to testify the other Roper twin was also present. Mrs. Newell took Landis outside after the paddling. Mrs. Stevens was in the library when Foote came in, got his paddle and paddled Roper. She was in the room while the paddling was going on but didn't watch. She was upset because so many licks (about 10) were given to a special education child. Mrs. Hodges did not testify that she was in the library at any time during the Roper incident. Both Respondent and Mrs. Branch recalled the paddling of Roper and that three licks were given. Landis had been reported for fighting in the cafeteria that morning by Mrs. Carter, whose glasses he had accidentally knocked off while swinging at his opponent. Mrs. Carter inquired later if Mr. Foote had seen Landis and was advised no. After lunch Foote sent for Landis, and after talking to him a short while started to paddle Roper. When several children appeared in the hall, Foote then took Roper into the workroom, leaving the door open while the paddling took place. Mrs. Branch testified no other child was present. Foote's testimony was that he gave Roper three licks with the paddle just inside the workroom door and that no other child was present. Material Allegation 4 alleges that on May 16, 1978 Respondent administered corporal punishment to Kenny Robertson with a leather strap without an adult witness present. Kenny Robertson testified that he was paddled with a leather strap by Foote for fighting, that nobody else was in the room, and that Mrs. Branch was at her desk just outside the door. Molly Jo Teters testified she was in outer office, did not see Mrs. Branch, but heard Foote yell at Kenny that he was not to pull girls off bars and to keep his shirt tucked in. Shortly after the last blow she walked by the door, saw Foote returning the strap to his desk and saw only Foote and Robertson. Mrs. Sellers had bus duty May 16, 1978 and saw a boy whose name she didn't know push a girl off the monkey bars. She took him to Foote and observed the paddling. Mrs. Branch testified that Mrs. Sellers brought Kenny Robertson to Foote because of some problem on the playground and that both she and Mrs. Sellers witnessed the paddling given Robertson. Mrs. Branch didn't see Mrs. Teters in the office at that time. Material Allegation 12 alleges that in May 1978 Respondent paddled Ronald Hise, using excessive force, in the lunchroom in front of second and third grade classes. Frances Simpson witnessed Foote paddle Ronnie Hise in the lunch room in May 1978 after a teacher had told Foote Ronnie was misbehaving in the lunch line. Foote picked up his paddle, pulled Ronnie out of the line and gave him three "hard" licks. Theresa Lee, another teacher, also witnessed the Hise paddling. Her version was that another teacher brought Ronald to Foote for discipline because he misbehaved in the lunch line and Foote paddled him there. She thought the blows "too severe" for the "very thin, pale child." Foote acknowledged that from time to time he has paddled children in the lunchroom because he found that this procedure often had a therapeutic effect in calming down a noisy lunchroom. Material Allegation 1 alleges that in May 1978 Herschell Bellamy seriously injured his eye during physical education in the afternoon, that his mother was notified and was coming to pick him up, but Respondent instructed he be put on the school bus to go home at the end of the day. Herschell Bellamy fell on the monkey bars near the end of his physical ed period and cut his eyelid. His P.E. teacher, James Constable, took him to his office, cleaned and bandaged the eye using a large eye patch. Constable then went to the office with Herschell, who remained there, got Herschell's folder and called the phone number there listed for emergencies, which phone belonged to the next-door neighbor. The neighbor advised that she would tell Herschell's mother to come for him. The neighbor later called back to the school office to advise that Herschell's mother was enroute to pick him up. James Constable, Patricia Newell, and Dorothy Stevens all testified that shortly before time for the buses to leave they were in the office with Herschell Bellamy and Foote, from his inner office, asked what the commotion was about. Someone advised him that Bellamy had hurt his eye. Foote then asked if he was white or black and when told Herschell was black, said "Put him on the bus". Foote's testimony, corroborated by Mrs. Branch, was that he returned to school from a meeting in the county office just at the bell was ringing to end the school day. As he entered the building he passed a lady taking a small boy with a bandage over his eye out of the building. He denied making any comment regarding Herschell's race. Herschell and his mother both testified. When Herschell fell on the monkey bar and hurt his eye, Coach Constable put a bandage on it and took him to the office where he waited a long time before his mother came to pick him up. He didn't hear Mr. Foote say anything but testified Foote was in the office when his mother came to pick him up. Herschell's mother testified she came to school in response to the message that her son had been hurt and that she arrived just as the children were about ready to get on the bus to go home. She saw Foote, but he said nothing to her or look at Herschell. She took Herschell to Dr. Wiley, who treated Herschell for a lacerated upper eyelid, a minor injury. Wayne Ham, a supervisor in the Sumter County school system, acknowledged that he had received complaints from Mrs. Simpson, Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Teter regarding Foote's use of the leather strap to discipline children. They considered use of the strap constituted too severe punishment. Ham doesn't recall if he passed these complaints to his superior. He denied telling Mrs. Teter not to show to anyone a written complaint she had prepared. Bernard Shelnutt, the other Sumter County supervisor, who functions similar to Ham, had never heard a complaint against Foote of brutality, failure to get medical attention for children, or use of racial slurs. In addition to denying the allegations preferred against him, Respondent presented numerous witnesses who testified to Foote's good reputation in the community, to their satisfaction with the job Foote was doing as principal, to Foote's administrative capabilities, and to lack of knowledge of any irregularities at Webster until the charges here considered were published in the newspaper. Two principals of Orange County schools, for whom Respondent had worked before coming to Webster, attested to his capability and competence as well as to their conclusion that the job of principal is the most difficult in the field of education. The principal is the one primarily responsible for the discipline in the school and the manner in which punishment is administered. Corporal punishment policy is usually left to the sound judgment of the principal at each school, subject however to statutory restrictions, and prescribed school board policies. None of the four elected Sumter County school board members who testified on behalf of Respondent had ever received any complaints against Respondent, prior to the investigation by the PPC, involving medical neglect, severe punishment or racial slurs, nor had complaints been received from the black community. They considered Respondent a good administrator with a good reputation. The only complaints they had received involved minor administrative matters such as school bus schedules, and teacher complaints that Respondent worked them too hard. Several witnesses for Petitioner admitted that they were not happy with Respondent's requirement that all teachers attend PTA meetings unless they had a good excuse for being unable to do so. Eighteen teachers, former teachers, substitute teachers, and speech clinician called by Respondent had never seen or heard Respondent medically neglect, abuse, or use racial slurs to students at Webster. Most, if not all of these witnesses, had never hear of the complaints against Respondent before reading them in the newspapers shortly before the fir trial. The chiefs of police of Webster and Center Hill attested to Respondent's good reputation in their communities and that they had never received a complaint that Respondent had abused a student. Five parents whose children now attend or had attended Webster testified that Respondent had provided proper treatment to their children, their children had never complained of medical or physical mistreatment or abuse by Respondent, and that when children had been neglected by other teachers a call to Respondent corrected the situation. Two employees, other than Mrs. Branch, who had worked at Webster for many years had never seen or heard Respondent medically neglect, physically abuse, or direct racial slurs towards children at Webster. They first became aware of complaints when they read in the news that charges had been preferred against Respondent. No direct testimony was presented that the misconduct here alleged to have been committed by Respondent seriously reduced his effectiveness in the school system. It is perhaps significant that approximately one week in May 1978 (May 8- 16) provided one-third of the twelve material allegations preferred against Respondent. Coincidentally, Respondent's letter recommending James Constable for dismissal was dated 8 May 1978 and the letter to the PPC signed by eleven teachers was dated May 15, 1978. It is further noted that two of the material allegations involve incidents occurring 6 or 7 years ago.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice medicine has been disciplined in another state and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty for the Petitioner to impose?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Luke Chou-Tit Kung, Respondent, was licensed with the Florida Board of Medicine to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued License No. ME 0050393 on April 6, 1987 (Exhibit 1). This license was renewed December 13, 1989 to expire December 31, 1991 (Exhibit 2). Prior to his licensure in Florida, Respondent graduated from medical school at Wuhan Medical College in Hankow, China, in 1960. He did an internship at Wuhan Medical College 1960-61 and was in residence at this hospital 1961-62. Dr. Kung worked for American Cyanamid in Hong Kong from 1962-67. In 1967, he went to England and continued postgraduate study of medicine at Old Church Hospital, Romford, Essex, England, and St. Peters Hospital at Chertsey, Surrey, England 1968-69. In January 1970, he came to the United States and did an 18 month rotating internship at Perth Amboy General Hospital, Perth Amboy, New Jersey, until June 1971. From July 1971 through June 1973 he did his residency in internal medicine at Episcopal Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. From July 1973 until June 1974, he was Chief Resident of Internal Medicine at Easton Hospital in Easton, Pennsylvania. In 1974, he opened his office in Easton, and in 1975 was appointed part-time member of the Allied Staff and Clinical Instructor of Internal Medicine at Hahnemann University Hospital where he remained until 1985 when he was recruited to Dawson, Georgia. He practiced in Dawson from 1985 to 1987 at which time he opened an office in Homerville, Georgia. In April 1989, Dr. Kung closed his office in HomerVille, Georgia, and moved to Tampa. He has practiced in the Tampa area since that time (Exhibit 4). In 1988, the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners in Georgia filed charges against Respondent alleging unprofessional conduct in the prescribing of controlled substances and failure to maintain proper records of those prescriptions. Following the filing of those charges, Respondent entered into a Consent Order (Exhibit 3) with the Georgia Composite State Board of Medicine Examiners in which he consented to the Board suspending his license for one year, with all but 15 days stayed, and those 15 days served by working on a charitable pro bono basis, one day per week for 15 weeks. Respondent's license was put on probation for three years under various terms and conditions specifically restricting his prescribing controlled substances. Respondent's testimony that he has complied with the terms of the Consent Order since his arrival in Florida was not rebutted. Respondent's testimony that he moved to Florida to facilitate the education of his two daughters was also unrebutted. In addition to his office in Tampa, Respondent is on the staff at Children's Hospital in Carrollwood, and he works 20 hours per week at East Pasco Health Center, a private not-for- profit health facility in Lacoochee, Florida, a medically underserved low income area where over 90 percent of the patients are Medicaid or indigent. Respondent accepts Medicaid patients in his private practice, and his name is on the Medicaid provider list with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Recommendation That a Final Order be entered finding Luke Chou-Tit Kung guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that his license to practice medicine in Florida be placed on probation to run concurrently with the probation established by the Georgia Board and subject to the same terms and conditions. In view of his pro bono work in Florida and complying with the terms of his probation, it is further recommended that he be assessed a minimum administrative fine of $50. ENTERED this 19th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 730 South Sterling Street Suite 201 Tampa, FL 33609 Paul B. Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 3416 Tampa, FL 334601-3416 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are whether, in violation of sections 120.54(1)(a) and 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Respondent has made an agency statement that is an unadopted rule in implementing a 2017 statutory amendment broadening the category of first-time test-takers to be counted when calculating the passing rate of the graduates of Petitioner’s prelicensure professional nursing education program (Program) and whether, pursuant to section 57.111, Petitioner may recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Respondent. At Petitioner’s request, the parties presented evidence concerning constitutional challenges that Petitioner intends to present to a district court of appeal.
Findings Of Fact The Program is a prelicensure professional nursing education program that terminates with an associate degree. Respondent approved the Program in 2013, thus authorizing Petitioner to admit degree-seeking students into the Program, as provided in section 464.019. As provided by section 464.019(5)(a)1., the passing rate of the Program’s graduates taking the NCLEX for the first time must meet or exceed the minimum passing rate, which is ten points less than the average passage rate of graduates taking the NCLEX nationally for the first time. Until June 23, 2017, the passing rate of a Florida program was based only on first-time test-takers who had taken the exam within six months of graduating (New Graduates). Chapter 2017-134, sections 4 and 8, Laws of Florida, which took effect when signed into law on June 23, 2017 (Statutory Amendment), removes the six-month restriction, so that the passing rate of a Florida program is now based on all first-time test-takers, regardless of when they graduated (Graduates). The statutory language does not otherwise address the implementation of the Statutory Amendment. For 2015 and 2016, respectively, the minimum passing rates in Florida were 72% and 71.68%, and the Program’s New Graduates passed the NCLEX at the rates of 44% and 15.79%. As required by section 464.019(5), Respondent issued the Probationary Order. The Probationary Order recites the provisions of section 464.019(5)(a) specifying the applicable passing rate, directing Respondent to place a program on probation if its graduates fail to pass at the minimum specified passing rates for two consecutive years, and mandating that the program remain on probation until its passing rate achieves the minimum specified rate. The Probationary Order details the 2015 and 2016 passing rates of Petitioner’s relevant graduates and the minimum passing rates for these years. The Probationary Order makes no attempt to describe the condition of probation, which might have included a reference to New Graduates, other than to refer to section 464.019(5)(a)2., which, unchanged by the Statutory Amendment, specifies only that a program must remain on probation until and unless its graduates achieve a passing rate at least equal to the minimum passing rate for the year in question. For 2017, the minimum passing rate for a Florida program was 74.24%. If, as Respondent contends, the new law applies to all of 2017, six of the fifteen of the Program’s Graduates failed the NCLEX, so the Program’s passing rate was inadequate at 60%. If, as Petitioner contends, the old law applies to all of 2017, twelve of the Program’s test-takers were New Graduates, and only three of them failed, so the Program’s passing rate was adequate at 75%. Respondent clearly applied the Statutory Amendment retroactively to January 1, 2017, in the Order Extending Probation because the order states that that the passing rate of the Program’s Graduates for 2017 was only 60% and therefore extends Petitioner’s probationary status for 2018. The Order Extending Probation provides Petitioner with a clear point of entry to request an administrative hearing. Each party applies the Statutory Amendment without regard to the effective date of June 23, 2017, but Respondent reaches the correct conclusion: the passing rate of the Program’s graduates for 2017 was inadequate. The NCLEX is administered throughout the year, and the dates of graduation are available for Petitioner’s Graduates taking the NCLEX in 2017, so it is possible to calculate a combined passing rate, using only New Graduates under the old law for testing dates through June 22 and all Graduates under the new law for testing dates after June 22. From January 1 through June 22, 2017, five of the Program’s test-takers were New Graduates and they all passed. From June 23 through December 31, 2017, four of the eight Graduates taking the NCLEX passed the test. Combining these results for all of 2017, the Program’s passing rate was nine divided by thirteen, or 69%, which was inadequate for 2017.
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Darryl McGlamry, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. The Challenged Rule, Rule 33ER91-2, Florida Administrative Code. On January 23, 1991, the Respondent filed Rule 33ER91-1. This emergency rule was filed by the Respondent to alleviate problems created by a high increase in the number of close custody inmates caused by changes in the Respondent's rules during 1990. Pursuant to Section 120.54(9)(c), Florida Statutes, Rule 33ER91-1 was only effective for ninety (90) days. Therefore, Rule 33ER91-1 was due to expire on or about April 24, 1991. On April 23, 1991, the Respondent filed the Challenged Rule. The Challenged Rule is identical in its terms to Rule 33ER91-1. The Challenged Rule should have expired on July 22, 1991. The instant challenge was instituted on May 8, 1991, before the Challenged Rule expired. The amendments to Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code, filed by the Respondent on July 1, 1991, do not repeal the effect of the Challenged Rule prior to July 1, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an inmate incarcerated at the Florida State Prison in Starke, Florida. In accordance with plea arrangements, Petitioner was convicted of numerous charges of robbery, burglary, sexual battery, and false imprisonment in Circuit Courts in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida. He received numerous and various prison sentences, all of which were to run concurrently with a 99- year sentence. Assuming that Petitioner is eligible for statutory gain time for good behavior, his sentence would expire sometime prior to the year 2080. During July, 1981, Petitioner was interviewed by an examiner of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission for the purpose of establishing a presumptive parole release date (PPRD). Under Parole and Probation Commission rules then in effect, the examiner was to consider the severity of the offense committed by the Petitioner, calculate a "salient factor score" and apply various aggravating or mitigating circumstances in determining a recommended PPRD. The examiner classified the offense as "greatest (most serious III);" determined a salient factor score of nine based upon prior convictions, total time served, the existence of burglary as a present offense of conviction, the number of prior incarcerations, and the Petitioner's age of first commitment; and applied numerous aggravating circumstances based upon the nature of various of the charges that had been lodged against Petitioner. The examiner recommended a PPRD of March 4, 2092. On August 26, 1981, the Parole and Probation Commission considered the examiner's recommendation and affirmed it. Petitioner is now pursuing a review of the PPRD before the Commission. In promulgating the rules which were in effect when Petitioner'S PPRD was determined, the Parole and Probation Commission sought to isolate factors that would predict the probability of a successful parole outcome. There is no perfect predictive device on a case-by-case basis. An inmate's past behavior and statistical relationships that can be isolated provide the best predictive devices. The Commission's C utilization of a system which first classifies the offense characteristics, then applies a salient factor score and aggravating or mitigating circumstances is designed to set a presumptive parole release date based on an inmate's past behavior and based upon the statistical relationships that have been found to exist. The evidence does not establish that the guidelines adopted by the Commission in its rules which were applied to the Petitioner are arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The Parole and Probation Commission has amended the rules which were followed in the setting of the Petitioner's PPRD. The Petitioner continues to be affected, however, by the rules as they existed prior to the amendments because those rules provide the basis for his PPRD.
