Findings Of Fact By addition to Section 633.081(2), Florida Statutes, in 1981, the Florida Legislature required the State Fire Marshal to renew, on a triennial basis, the certification of fire inspectors in the State of Florida and to, by January 1, 1982, establish procedures to do so by rule. This statute and the 1979 edition thereof stipulated that all required fire inspections be conducted by a person certified as having met the inspection training requirements set by the State Fire Marshal and charged that individual with maintaining current files on all certified inspectors. Consistent with that mandate, on October 16, 1981, a representative of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training of the State Fire Marshal, by memorandum to all "Incumbent Fire Safety Inspectors," forwarded the procedures established by the Bureau to initiate the required certification process. The memorandum clearly indicated the test to be given during December, 1981, at various locations throughout the state would be to any "qualified' inspector. The term "qualified" was defined in the attachment to the memo as being: ndividuals who are currently functioning as fire inspectors provided they meet the requirements specified below. Have a minimum of one year of experience as a full-time fire safety inspector as of January 1, 1982, and have successfully completed a 40 hour course of instruction in Codes and Standards; or Have a minimum of five years experience as a full-time fire safety inspector as of January 1, 1982. This incumbent test was an open-book examination in all sections, and was not to be used to test new inspectors who had not been serving in that job. The test for new inspectors is open book in only one of five sections. On November 9, 1981, Respondent, John M. McCarthy, then serving as Fire Chief for the Fort Myers Beach (Florida) Fire Control District (FMBFCD), submitted his request to take the Incumbent Fire Safety Inspector examination. The application form Respondent submitted, verifying he had served as a full- time fire inspector for four years beginning September 11, 1977, to the date the application was signed by Respondent, as fire chief, as the certifying agent. Respondent contends he was advised to do just that by a representative of Petitioner in a phone call to Petitioner's Ocala office prior to the application. Mr. Stark, currently the bureau chief, was not serving in that capacity at that time. The then-incumbent is no longer at that office and did not testify. On the basis of Respondent's application and the verification of status appearing thereon, he was permitted to take the incumbent exam, which he passed, and was subsequently certified as a fire safety inspector. In early April, 1983, John Dahlgren, Jr., Vice Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners, FMBFCD, in the company of Mr. Robert J. Weatherbee, then lieutenant in the Fort Myers Beach Fire Department, came to Mr. Frederick C. Stark, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, Office of the State Fire Marshal, and presented a letter to him to the effect that it was the majority opinion of the members of the Board, FMBFCD, that Respondent was not qualified to take the incumbents' fire inspector examination when he did because he had not had the required one year experience as a full-time fire inspector and, therefore, his certification as such was in error. A letter to that effect, dated April 7, 1983, was also delivered. The following day, April 8, 1983, Mr. Stark wrote to Respondent, informing him of this allegation and offering him the opportunity to refute the allegation. Apparently, that same date, Mr. Stark sent a similar letter to Mr. Keith Hiatt, Chairman of the FMBFCD; and on April 12, 1983, Mr. Hiatt responded by letter, indicating that Respondent was, at the time of taking the exam, the full-time paid inspector, as well as full-time paid fire chief, citing the training that Respondent and another fire official gave to Mr. Weatherbee to qualify him for the position of fire marshal. Similar sentiments were contained in a letter, same date, from Mr. Frederick Bruchner, member of the Board, to Mr. Stark. Also on April 12, 1983, Respondent responded by letter to Mr. Stark, outlining his experience in fire prevention and detailing that his position as fire chief gives him final review and decision-making authority on the operation of the department's fire inspector, Mr. Weatherbee. Shortly thereafter, on April 29, 1983, Mr. Weatherbee and Charles Mulac, former Fire Marshal and acting Fire Chief, signed affidavits which subsequently got to Mr. Stark on May 2, 1983, which indicated that during their tenure in their respective offices, going back to June, 1979, Respondent had not served that department as a full-time inspector. Prior to signing his affidavit, Mr. Weatherbee personally went through all the inspection files, including approximately 180 residentials, 100 Businesses, 100 mercantiles, 5 schools, and some industrials. He recalls that Respondent was with him on some of his inspections, but does not recall any cases where Respondent did the inspection alone. During this period, Respondent called Mr. Stark and told him there were documents in the department files which showed he had done fire inspections, so on May 2, 1983, Mr. Stark wrote to Mr. Mulac, as acting Chief, and requested he search the department's fire inspection records for the period 1977-1980 for any documentation, such as inspection records, surveys, or the like, to indicate inspections done by Respondent. On May 5, Mulac responded in writing, indicating that a thorough search of the records in question disclosed no documentation on inspections by Respondent, nor did the records show Respondent was ever a part-time or full-time, paid or nonpaid, inspector during the period 1977-1980. In addition to the lack of full-time inspector employment, the Bureau also concluded that Respondent's training records did not reflect the required training in that it is felt he did not have training in: Blueprint reading and plan examination; Inspection procedures; (a) Private protection systems (sprinklers, alarms); and (d) Causes and origins of fires. Without this background, the Bureau concluded Respondent could not function as an inspector, as all are pertinent to that operation, especially in light of current building methods. Further, concerning the experience requirement, this was considered to be imperative because there are many aspects of fire safety which are learned only through experience. Without the experience, even the training would not, in Stark's opinion, make an individual a qualified inspector. Respondent's duties as fire chief, which required him to oversee inspections done by others, was not, in Stark's opinion, sufficiently connected to the inspection process to allow him to sit for the incumbents' examination. Therefore, on May 11, 1983, Mr. Stark, as Bureau Chief, voided Respondent's Municipal Fire Inspector certificate and advised him of that fact by letter. Respondent contends that Mr. Stark's action was taken without adequate investigation and was based on irrelevant matters. As to the latter issue, Mr. Stark admits that the discussion he had in his office with Dahlgren and Weatherbee related to the rules and procedures as they applied to Respondent. Mr. Stark assured these two gentlemen only that he would look into their allegations. Prior to this visit, he had no indication there was anything wrong with Respondent's certification or that of Mr. Taylor, also from the Fort Myers Beach Fire Department. About a week after this visit, Mr. Stark received a package in the mail that consisted mostly of newspaper clippings concerning Respondent and alleged improprieties in the District, but, he contends, he read only one, and none of this had any bearing on the decision to decertify Respondent as a fire inspector. He also received numerous phone calls from individuals in Fort Myers regarding Respondent's status, and he referred them all to the Fire Marshal's Office in Tallahassee. Without concluding at this point whether that decision was appropriate or not, it is clear there is no reason to disbelieve Mr. Stark in this regard or to conclude the decision was based on any improperly considered evidence. As to the adequacy of the investigation into the allegations, it is also clear that Mr. Stark could have improved little on what he did. He could have, himself, examined the department's records and, in light of the fact that at the time in question Respondent had been suspended as chief and was barred from the department offices (he could not, therefore, get to the files to secure copies of his inspection reports, if any existed), perhaps should have done so. However, at no time did Respondent contend he had done inspections himself, but instead, in his response to Mr. Stark's initial letter, relied solely on his supervisory position, the responsibility that went with it, and his efforts on behalf of the Interlocal Agreement. In light of the evidence presented to him, Mr. Stark had no requirement to go further, and it is clear his inquiry into the matter was adequate. At the time of the test, no rule had been promulgated for the certification process. The Fire Marshal's Office took the statutory language calling for "certification" of inspectors as the authority to give the test to incumbents to certify them. It is the opinion of Mr. Stark that some of the 400 to 500 individuals who took the incumbent test, out of the 23,000 inspectors working in this state, had very little fire inspection training or experience at all. However, since the Training Bureau has only two individuals to do the checking for the entire state, he had to rely on the integrity of the individual who verified the experience claimed on the application form. If, however, the Bureau received information that someone was not qualified, it decertified that individual, utilizing the same procedure as done in the instant case; that is, to decertify after investigation, but without hearing prior to the decertification action. In fact, to the best of Mr. Stark's knowledge, there were five other cases where certificates were looked into because of alleged irregularities such as here. Respondent applied for employment with the FMBFCD on May 15, 1976. Prior to coming to Florida, he worked as a fire fighter in New York since 1965 and while there took numerous fire fighting courses and officers' training. After coming to Florida, he enrolled in St. Petersburg Junior College and Edison Community College by which latter institution he was awarded the Associate of Science Degree in Fire Administration. During the course of study, he took courses in: Introduction to Fire Protection; Fire Protection Systems; (a) Fire Company Leadership; Fire Fighting I; Fire Company Management; Fire Codes; Protection Organizations; Fire Prevention Investigation; Hazard Material; Fire Fighting II; and graduated in the winter of 1983 from Edison Community College with an overall grade point average of 3.22 out of a possible 4. Respondent submitted extensive documentation in the form of memoranda, notations, calendar memos, and newspaper articles to show that he was actively engaged in fire inspection. However, careful review of these documents reveals that while he was frequently embroiled in controversy over the inspections of various commercial and residential establishments in Fort Myers Beach, and while he may, from time to time, have actually been personally involved in inspections, for the most part he was the upper echelon supervisor who was called upon to resolve disputes over inspections conducted by others, on the basis of policy or whatever other concern was pertinent to the issue. Whatever else he did, it is clear Respondent was not a full-time fire inspector. In fact, Respondent admits that though he has personally participated in many inspections in the field, assisting Mr. Weatherbee, who was, at the time, the Fire Inspector (Marshal) for the FMBFCD, and bringing to his attention various aspects of the fire codes, he did not do the actual inspection and has never done one by himself. However, because of the periodic friction between Weatherbee and Mulac, then the Assistant Fire Chief, he found himself going out into the field with both, frequently to do inspections. Respondent contends that the area of fire prevention and code enforcement, into which fire safety inspection falls, is the biggest part of his job, which also entails fire suppression and rescue. During the period in question, Fort Myers Beach did more building in general than the rest of the county. As a result, he was always out at the site looking at plans and consulting with the builder. In that regard, however, he has, by his own admission, taken no course work in blueprint reading or plans review that was certified by the State Fire Marshal. Finally, concerning this particular subject, when Respondent was temporarily suspended from his job as fire chief in April, 1983, he was contacted by a reporter from the local paper who read to him, over the phone, from the long list of charges laid against him, of which, prior to that moment, he had no knowledge and had not seen. In response to the reporter's question about inspections, 1/ Respondent is quoted as having denied participating in fire inspections and indicating he had nothing to do with fire codes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: Respondent's certification as a fire safety inspector be rescinded. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1984.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. is an invalid exercise of legislatively granted authority in violation of section 120.52(8)(b), (c), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes (2020).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, is headed by the Chief Financial Officer of the state, who serves as the Chief Fire Marshal pursuant to section 603.104(1), Florida Statutes. The State Fire Marshal is charged with the responsibility to minimize the loss of life and property in Florida due to fire, and to adopt rules, which must “be in substantial conformity with generally accepted standards of firesafety; must take into consideration the direct supervision of children in nonresidential child care facilities; and must balance and temper the need of the State Fire Marshal to protect all Floridians from fire hazards with the social and economic inconveniences that may be caused or created by the rules.” § 633.104(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a Florida corporation authorized by the Department to offer fire certification training courses in both online and blended learning formats. A blended learning course is one that has both online and in-person components. The blended learning courses Petitioner currently offers have 37 hours of online learning and eight hours of in-person instruction to address those portions of the course that may need “hands on” instruction. Section 633.216, Florida Statutes, requires Respondent to certify fire safety inspectors, and to provide by rule for the development of a fire safety inspector training program of at least 200 hours. The program developed by Department rule must be administered by education or training providers approved by the Department for the purpose of providing basic certification training for fire safety inspectors. § 633.216(2), (8), Fla. Stat. Current Certification Requirements Section 633.406 identifies several certifications in the fire safety arena that may be awarded by the Division of State Fire Marshal: firefighter, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(4); fire safety inspector, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.216(2); special certification, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(6); forestry certification, for those meeting the requirements of section 590.02(1)(e); fire service instructor, for those who demonstrate general or specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities in firefighting and meet the qualifications established by rule; certificate of competency, for those meeting certain requirements with special qualifications for particular aspects of firefighting service; and volunteer fire fighter certifications. In order to become a fire safety officer, an applicant must take the courses outlined in rule 69A-39.005, and pass an examination with a score of 70% or higher. The five courses as listed in the current version of rule 69A- 39.005 are Fire Inspection Practices; Private Protection Systems; Blue Print Reading and Plans Examinations (also known as Construction Documents and Plans Review); Codes and Standards; and Characteristics of Building Construction. The Rulemaking Process On November 5, 2015, the Department held the first of a series of rule workshops and “listening sessions” as it began the process for making changes in the certification program for fire safety inspectors.1 These workshops and listening sessions were held on November 5, 2015; July 10, 2016; November 10, 2016; January 17, 2017; August 8, 2018; November 8, 2018; and October 29, 2019. As described by Mark Harper, who is now the assistant superintendent of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training at the Florida State Fire College, the Bureau conducted the first few listening sessions to hear the industry’s view on what changes were needed, followed by drafting proposed rule language and conduct of rule workshops. 1 Curiously, neither party introduced the notices for any of these workshops or listening sessions, so how notice was provided to interested persons wanting to give input on possible changes cannot be determined. The first workshop/listening session was conducted on November 5, 2015, in Palm Beach Gardens, and was moderated by Mark Harper. At this workshop, a variety of comments were received regarding the quality of the existing program and the quality of the fire safety inspectors being certified. Those comments included the need for more field training and more hours of instruction; suggested use of a “task book” in training; the view that classes should be taught by more experienced inspectors, not just people who have passed the classes; and the need for more practical training. The view was expressed by at least one attendee that the quality and method of delivery needed to be examined, and that Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review should not be taught online. In December 2015, Tony Apfelbeck, the Fire Marshal for Altamonte Springs, provided to Mr. Harper proposed draft revisions to chapter 69A-39, which included increasing the number of training hours to 315 hours (as opposed to the 200 hours required by section 633.216), and requiring use of a task book, as well as other changes. The draft did not include any language regarding course methodology in terms of classroom, online, or blended format classes. At the next workshop, held July 10, 2016, a draft proposal was provided to the audience, but it is not clear whether the draft provided is the one Mr. Apfelbeck suggested or something else. Concerns were expressed regarding the implementation of the use of a task book, and at least one speaker speaking against the suggested changes opined that the changes suggested in the draft would cost more money. Another commented that increasing the hours may not help the issue. Instead, there should be a greater emphasis on the quality of the educational delivery, and that instruction needed to be tied more closely to field work. Late in the workshop, comments were made regarding online and classroom delivery, and it was suggested that some classes should not be held online. While the drafts that were provided at the various workshops are not in the record, at some point, language was added that would require two of the five courses for fire safety certification, i.e., Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review, be taught in a traditional classroom setting only. The subject of online classes was discussed more thoroughly at the next workshop held November 10, 2016. During this workshop, there were comments both in favor of and against the use of online classes. While the speakers cannot always be identified from the recordings of the workshops, some attendees stated that some of the online providers were doing a really good job, and the concern was raised that if online classes were eliminated, it might be an exchange of convenience for quality.2 At least one person expressed the opinion that the speaker was not a fan of online classes, and Mr. Harper suggested that blended learning might be a way to meet some of the concerns expressed, and that the method of delivery would be up to the institution. Others who participated in the workshop spoke highly of blended classes. The remaining workshops also had discussions regarding the online class change, as well as other changes in the proposed rule. Opinions were voiced on both sides of the issue. The primary source of comments seeking a traditional classroom setting only were fire marshals at various municipalities around the state concerned about the need for “hands-on” training and the current lack of preparation encountered with new staff. On July 10, 2019, the Department filed a Notice of Proposed Rules for rules 69A-39.003, 39.005, and 39.009. The proposed rule amendments included the following amendment to rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d.: d. The courses “Codes and Standards” and “Construction Documents and Plans Review” 2 The identity of the speakers is not important, and the comments are not relayed for the truth of the statements made. They are listed simply to show that the Department heard several viewpoints during these listening sessions. required under this paragraph (1)(b) will only be approved by the Bureau when taught in a traditional classroom delivery method. No definition for “traditional classroom delivery method” is provided. On January 15, 2020, Respondent conducted a public hearing on the proposed rule. As was the case with the workshops, people voiced both support and opposition to the proposal to require a traditional classroom setting for the Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review courses. Counsel for Petitioner appeared and spoke against the proposed language to eliminate online and blended learning for the two classes, and asked whether any type of data existed to support the change in the rule, or whether any type of study had been conducted to gauge the need for the change. Respondent’s representative stated that the proposed language was based upon “extensive testimony” from employers requesting the change. Counsel also asked that Respondent consider defining what is meant by traditional classroom delivery. No such definition has been added to the rule. The Notice of Proposed Rule does not include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. Instead, it states: The Agency has determined that this will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the Agency. The Agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: The Department’s economic analysis of the potential impact of the proposed rule amendments determined that there will be no adverse economic impact or increased regulatory costs that would require legislative ratification. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs, or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so within 21 days of this Notice. Petitioner addressed the increased costs under the proposed rule during at least one of the workshops. There is no evidence, however, that Petitioner submitted, in writing, a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative within 21 days of the Notice of Proposed Rule. On January 27, 2020, Petitioner filed its Petition to Challenge Specific Changes to Proposed Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. The Petition is timely filed. Current Online Providers and Course Review Process As of April 10, 2020, there are approximately 20 organizations approved by the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that offer distance learning delivery for courses in programs leading to a certification pursuant to rule 69A-37.605. Of those providers, two are approved to teach Codes and Standards and three are approved to teach Construction Documents and Plans Review. In addition, as of June 1, 2020, there are 13 state colleges and/or universities in Florida also approved to provide distance learning. Of those, ten are approved to offer Codes and Standards, and ten are approved to offer Construction Documents and Plans Review. Petitioner has been approved to teach these two courses in a blended format since at least 2015. It also has articulation agreements with some educational institutions, including Waldorf University in Iowa, and Columbia Southern University in Alabama. The Department previously sought to take action against Ricky Rescue related to the type of courses taught, although the statutory basis for taking action against Ricky Rescue is not part of the evidence presented in this proceeding. The Consent Order entered to resolve the prior proceeding expressly provides, “Respondents agree that they will not offer any on-line courses until such time as they obtain approval from the Bureau, which will not be unreasonably withheld.” In order to be approved to teach any of the courses for certification in an online or blended format, a provider is required to go through an extensive review process. Initially, Respondent used a Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric to evaluate the courses a provider sought to offer. Course approvals initially took anywhere from four months to a year and a half to meet the standards and be approved. Respondent no longer uses the Quality Matters rubric, because it has transitioned to the accreditation process used by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. With this change, the length of time for class approvals has shortened considerably. Susan Schell used to be the Department’s Training Programs Manager and was in charge of the review and approval of classes for online learning. She has since moved on to another position within the Department. Ms. Schell would take the submitted course herself, view the different videos and discussion boards, and work through some of the projects, as well as review some of the case discussions and questions. Ricky Rescue’s courses that she reviewed met all of the state requirements to be approved. According to Ms. Schell, classes taught in the traditional format did not go through the same review process. Ricky Rescue’s accreditation verification from AdvancED Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement indicated that Ricky Rescue’s accreditation was confirmed on March 31, 2017, for a five-year term expiring June 30, 2022. There is no credible dispute regarding whether Ricky Rescue complies with the requirements for offering its courses in a blended format. The report of the external review team prepared by AdvancED Education, Inc., noted that the school’s website is exemplary and stated in its conclusions: Once a month, students attend a day on site blended learning instruction where students can collaborate and complete and present projects. Given that the owners are brother fire fighters, there is a genuine feeling of camaraderie and collegiality. It is apparent to the Team that the Ricky Rescue Training Academy is an ideal institutional opportunity to obtain classes for firefighter training and certification classes. … The school has embraced the continuous improvement model to insure that they continue to deliver high quality online educational programs with rigor, relevance, and fidelity. Two Different Views Petitioner and Respondent approached the proposed rule amendment, both at the workshops and public hearing conducted by the Department and at the hearing in this proceeding, from different perspectives. Ricky Rescue focused on the needs and opinions of students seeking to take the courses. Its witnesses testified that the blended courses had significant substantive content; that the in-person component gave the necessary opportunity for completion of group projects and hands-on instruction or field trips; and that the ability to complete the course at any time during a 30-day period was essential in terms of both costs and scheduling for the student, and completing the classes while managing job and family responsibilities. For example, Ryan Russell has worked for over ten years in the fire service and is a battalion chief for the Haines City Fire Department. He has a variety of certifications and oversaw the training division for his department. Mr. Ryan has taken five courses from Ricky Rescue, and speaks highly of them. Mr. Ryan agrees that there are some advantages to traditional classroom settings, because they provide more opportunities for engagement, but that ultimately, a class is only as good as the instructor. Similarly, Robert Morgan is also a battalion chief at another fire department, and took Documents and Plans Review from Ricky Rescue. Mr. Morgan believed that the online blended course is just as good as a traditional classroom setting, and believes that in the blended setting, a student has to work harder than just sitting at the back of the classroom. Both men spoke of the convenience and accessibility that online learning provides that a traditional classroom does not. Matthew Trent also testified in favor of the availability of online and blended courses. Mr. Trent has a master’s degree in public administration and is a Ph.D. student in public policy administration. He is also a certified state firefighter II; pump operator; Fire Officer I, II, III, and IV; fire inspector I and II; fire investigator I; and fire life safety educator I. About half of Mr. Trent’s certifications have been based on classes taken online, and all of his classes for his masters’ and doctoral degrees have been online. Mr. Trent felt both courses at issue could be taught in an online format, and stated that both as a student and as an instructor, it is up to the student to choose the delivery method by which they want to learn. If not for online learning, he would not have been able to accomplish nearly as much in his professional life, because distance learning gives the student the ability to work around other responsibilities. The Department, on the other hand, was influenced more heavily by (and sought information from) the fire safety officials across the state who employ fire safety inspectors. Many of those officials spoke at the public workshops and some testified at hearing. The major concern voiced by these officials was that new fire safety inspectors certified by the state were not really prepared to do their job. Although most acknowledged that some on the job training would always be necessary to deal with local codes and ordinances that are not part of the state curriculum, they felt that new inspectors did not have a good grasp of the concepts necessary to be effective, especially with respect to the skills taught in the classes at issue in this case. For example, Anthony Apfelbeck is the Director of the Building and Fire Safety Department for the City of Altamonte Springs. He has worked in that department for approximately 20 years and served as Fire Marshal for a significant portion of his tenure there, and served in other cities as well. Mr. Apfelbeck has an impressive array of certifications and currently supervises approximately eight fire safety inspectors. He attended almost all of the workshops and was an active participant. Mr. Apfelbeck testified that he concurred with the State Fire Marshal’s Association that both classes should be offered only in a traditional classroom environment. He stated that there is a limited period of time to get someone trained and certified as a fire safety inspector, and he has seen some of the deficiencies in the current training. In his view, requiring these two classes to be given in a traditional classroom environment allows the instructor to keep the student engaged, and to get into critical thinking with probing questions and real-life examples. Instructors can have interactions with students that address issues the students may be having in the students’ jurisdictions, and read the body language of the students to gauge involvement. He also spoke of the ability to develop relationships with other individuals in the class and develop a peer group within that body. Mr. Apfelback has used the virtual environment extensively during the COVID-19 pandemic, and does not feel that it has the spontaneity and free- flow of information that a traditional classroom affords. Mr. Apfelbeck has not taken any of Ricky Rescue’s classes, and does not know what it has done to make sure its students get 200 hours of education. Likewise, he is not aware of the review Ricky Rescue went through to get its courses approved. He stated, correctly, that the rule is not written specifically about Ricky Rescue’s programs. It is written for all educational programs that are provided pursuant to this rule. Michael Tucker is the assistant superintendent for the State Fire Marshal’s Office. His experience includes serving as battalion chief for the Reedy Creek Improvement District (i.e., Disney) for 13 years, and serving as the Chief of the Fire Department for the Villages for 13 years. He has taught fire safety classes both in the classroom setting and online. While at Reedy Creek, he was the training officer responsible for providing training to fire inspectors, firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs. Mr. Tucker believes that the two classes addressed in the proposed rule are very intricate classes with a lot of detail. He believes that the traditional environment gives more opportunity for students to get hands-on instruction and have more interaction with the instructor. He acknowledged that there is a possibility that fees could increase under the proposed rule, but thinks that the increased cost is outweighed by the value that employers would get when they hire people trained in a classroom setting. Cheryl Edwards is the Fire Marshal for the City of Lakeland, and her views regarding traditional versus online learning are similar to those already expressed. She believes that the traditional classroom environment promotes collaborative learning and enhances critical thinking skills, through live discussions, and the need to think on your feet. She also felt that in person, an instructor is better able to gauge students’ learning styles and provide activities and modalities for all to learn, regardless of learning style. Ms. Edwards believes that the traditional classroom setting allows for more “teachable moments,” and guided practice before a student has to put that knowledge into use. Finally, David Abernathy is the Fire Chief of the City of Satellite Beach and has worked with the City for 35 years. Mr. Abernathy has an impressive list of certifications and has taught all five of the courses necessary for fire safety inspector certification, but has never taught them in an online or blended learning format. Mr. Abernathy believes that for these two courses there is a benefit to the traditional classroom setting. He believes that both classes need a hands-on approach to be the most effective. Mr. Abernathy also believes that requiring these two courses to be taught in a traditional classroom setting will cost more, but as an employer is more willing to pay for it than for online classes. Mark Harper testified that during the workshops, the Department wanted to hear from everyone, because all would be impacted by the changes. However, he believes that there is a heavier weight of responsibility on employers as opposed to students, because they are the ones trying to fill positions, and they are the ones having to deal with additional costs occasioned by failures in training. As a practical matter, employers are more cognizant of the potential liability jurisdictions face when a fire safety inspector, who looks at everything from mom and pop businesses to industrial sites with large containers of hazardous materials, is not adequately trained. The decision to go forward with the proposed rule amendment requiring a traditional classroom delivery method with respect to Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review is based on the feedback received through the workshop process. It is not based on data. The Department does not track how students who took certification classes online or in a blended format score on the certification examination as opposed to students who took the same classes in a traditional setting. It would be difficult to collect that type of data, because there is no requirement that a student take all five courses the same way. In preparation for the hearing in this case, the Department conducted a survey of employers regarding their views on traditional versus distance learning. The Florida Fire Marshals and Inspectors Association distributed the survey to its members, and of the 358 addressees, 114 responded. There was no evidence to indicate that the Department attempted to survey people taking the classes. The questions asked in the survey were quite limited, and frankly, provide no guidance because they provide only two alternatives, and do not address blended learning formats at all. There are three questions, and they are as follows, with the responses in parentheses: Is there is current need to increase the proficiency of newly certified Firesafety Inspectors in Florida? Yes (59.65%) No (16.67%) Neutral opinion (12.68%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Codes and Standards class, which class setting would produce a more proficient inspector? Traditional classroom delivery method (71.17%) Online (distance learning ) delivery method (9.91%) Neutral opinion (18.92%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Construction Documents and Plans Review Class, which class setting would produce a more proficient instructor? Traditional classroom (76.32%) Online (7.02%) Neutral opinion (16.67%) Questions two and three assume that one format must be better than the other, rather than allowing for the possibility of equivalency. Had there been some recognition of a blended learning format, the answers might be different. The survey was informative in terms of the comments that were provided by the respondents. Similar to the views expressed at the workshops, there were strong opinions both in favor of limiting the classes to the traditional setting, and strong opinions advocating for the option of online learning. Petitioner presented information related to the increased costs that will be incurred should the rule go in effect. Those costs include the need for space rental for five-day periods in order to teach in multiple locations; the costs related to conversion of the material to a classroom setting versus online; and the need to pay instructors for more days each time the course is taught. It does not appear from the evidence presented that Ricky Rescue would experience increased costs of $200,000 in one year. However, Ricky Rescue is just one provider, and section 120.54 speaks in terms of an increase in costs in the aggregate, meaning as a whole. It is not known whether the other approved providers who teach these two courses will continue to do so should the rule be amended to require a classroom setting. It is also unknown what types of costs would be borne by state colleges and universities in order to recast the courses for traditional classroom settings. Finally, the litigants to this proceeding were well aware that this rule was being developed and was noticed as a proposed rule before the world began to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. It is open to speculation whether some of the impetus to require a traditional classroom setting would have changed in light of the changes society has had to make over the last six months. Department employees were questioned regarding the Fire College’s response to the pandemic, and both Mark Harper and Michael Tucker testified about the precautions being taken on the campus to insure safety, such as taking temperatures, having students complete a questionnaire regarding possible exposure, limiting the number of students per class, and spacing people six feet apart to maintain effective social distancing. Mr. Tucker testified that they would be ready to postpone some classes until they could be taught safely in person. When asked whether Respondent would consider postponing the effective date of the proposed rule, he indicated “that would be something we would have to take into consideration, and again, the feedback from our constituents, but if it became necessary, then we would consider it.”
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the operation of hotel and restaurant establishments pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a rooming house located in Pensacola, Florida. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held license numbers 2705932 for food service and 2705800 for operation of a rooming house issued by the Division. Russell Crowley is a Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist employed by the Division. Mr. Phelan has a two- year degree in environmental technology. He has been employed by the Division for eight years. Prior to working for the Division, he was in the Air Force, Public Health Service, for 26 years. He also received training in laws and rules regarding public food service and lodging, and is a certified special fire inspector. Case Nos. 06-3292, and 06-3293 On February 28, 2006, Mr. Crowley conducted an inspection of Respondent's premises and issued a food service inspection report and a lodging service inspection report while on the premises. Harrison Anderson an employee of Respondent, signed for the inspection reports. During the February 28, 2006 inspection, Mr. Crowley observed six food service violations and four lodging violations and issued a warning that the violations must be corrected by March 28, 2006. Mr. Crowley conducted a call-back inspection on March 29, 2006, during which he observed that four of the violations noted on February 28, 2006 had not been corrected. At the time of the first inspection, Mr. Crowley observed that the fire extinguishers were out of date. During the call-back inspection, he again found the fire extinguishers to be out of date, in that they had last been inspected in April 2005. This is a critical violation because if a fire extinguisher is not inspected to be sure it is in proper working condition, it could malfunction causing a fire safety hazard. During the original inspection, Mr. Crowley also observed that the stove hood in the kitchen was not cleaned. This was listed as a violation because it is a vermin control issue. This is a critical violation because grease buildup in the stove hood system can cause a fire. This violation had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. During the original inspection, Mr. Crowley observed that the hood suppression system in the kitchen was out of date. This had not been corrected at the time of the call- back inspection. Hood suppression systems should be inspected every six months. This is a critical violation because the hood suppression system is how grease fires are put out. Mr. Crowley also observed an accumulation of food debris on the kitchen floor and under the stove and refrigerator. This had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. Another violation that Mr. Crowley found that had not been corrected is that the manager lacked proof of a food manager certification. This is a critical violation because a food manager who has received training in proper food handling procedures must be on the premises. Mr. Crowley gave Respondent a time extension of 60 days to correct this violation. Additionally, Mr. Crowley gave a 60-day time extension for a related violation, in that there was no proof of employee training in proper food handling procedures. A lodging violation that had not been corrected between inspections is that the central heat and air conditioning was inoperable. Mr. Crowley observed space heaters in some but not all rooms. The central air system was still inoperable on the call-back inspection and there were only four space heaters for 15 rooms. On June 6, 2006, Mr. Crowley made a call-back inspection of Respondent's facility and found that there still was no proof of anyone having received food manager training and no proof of employee training. Case No. 06-3294 During the March 29, 2006, call-back inspection of Respondent's facility, Mr. Crowley observed that no room rate schedule was filed with the Division and that no room rate was posted in each room or unit. He wrote an inspection report finding these two lodging violations, issuing a warning about these two violations, and notifying Respondent that the violations needed to be corrected by April 29, 2006. Mr. Crowley went back to Respondent's facility on May 5, 2006, and found that these violations had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. His call- back re-inspection report noted that the owner stated that she sent the room rate schedule to the Division for filing, but that when he called to verify this, there was no record of Respondent's room rate schedule with the Division. In any event, the room rate schedule was not posted. Case Nos. 06-3698 and 06-3699 On April 11, 2006, Mr. Crowley again inspected Respondent's facility. As a result of this inspection, he wrote a lodging inspection report on which he noted nine violations. He noted on the inspection report a call-back date of April 12, 2006. On April 12, 2006, he returned to Respondent's facility to make a joint inspection with an inspector from another agency, the Agency for Health Care Administration. As a result of the April 12, 2006, inspection, he found two violations that had not been corrected: he observed an insufficient number of fire extinguishers and observed 10 live gnats in a resident's room. He also gave a 30-day time extension for the seven other violations found, indicating a call-back date of May 13, 2006. During the April 12, 2006 inspection, Mr. Crowley also observed an expired fire sprinkler inspection tag, indicating it had been last inspected on April 11, 2005. The inspection report again shows a call-back date of May 13, 2006. Mr. Crowley made a call-back inspection of Respondent's facility on June 6, 2006, and found two violations that had not been corrected from the April 2006 inspections: the smoke detector in the common area was not working and there was rotted wood in the restroom. The smoke detector not working is a critical violation; the rotted wood in the bathroom is not. Mr. Crowley did note in his report that the air conditioning/heating system was now working. On May 15, 2006, Mr. Crowley made a call back inspection and found that the fire sprinkler had still not been inspected since April 2005. This is a critical violation. Mitigation Ms. Finkley offered mitigating circumstances regarding some of the deficiencies noted by Mr. Crowley. Regarding the allegation that no food service manager had a certification, Ms. Finkley asserts that before the house was licensed to be a rooming house, it was an assisted living facility. She and others who had previously worked there had received training and were not aware they needed additional training when the facility became a rooming house. Further, Ms. Finkley took the training class on July 17, 2006. Regarding the allegation that the stove hood had a grease buildup, Ms. Finkley asserted that she did have the hood cleaned, and showed the inspector the receipt for the cleaning. Mr. Crowley disputes this and insists that had he been shown the receipt, he would have given her credit for having it. Mr. Crowley's testimony in this regard is more persuasive and accepted. Ms. Finkley explained that the house and floor are very old. Therefore, she feels that it was more the condition of the floor as opposed to uncleanliness. In any event, she has installed a new floor since Mr. Crowley's inspections. Regarding the room rates, Ms. Finkley insists that she mailed the room rates to the Division. It was returned to her from the Division within a couple of days after Mr. Crowley was there, and she then posted it. Her assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. Regarding the allegations about the fire extinguishers, Ms. Finkley asserted that she had taken two fire extinguishers to be inspected and tagged the day Mr. Crowley made his reinspection. According to Ms. Finkley, Mr. Crowley was still in the yard of the facility when she returned with the fire extinguishers and attempted to show them to Mr. Crowley. This apparently happened after he had written his report, as Mr. Crowley recalls passing her in the driveway as he was leaving. Her assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. Regarding the allegation about the smoke detector, Ms. Finkley asserts that it was brand new and had just been installed that day (the day of Mr. Crowley's inspection) by the maintenance man. She was not present during the inspection but retuned to the facility that day and found the smoke detector to be working. Her testimony in this regard is accepted as credible. Regarding the sprinkler system, the utility company was working on the road outside the facility and had cut the water line to the facility due to work being done on the day the inspector inspected the system. This is corroborated by Wesley Perdue's testimony and is accepted as credible. Again, this correction to the cited violation was made after the callback inspection. Wesley and Vicki Perdue lease the facility to Ms. Finkley and perform maintenance on the facility. Regarding the allegation about the rotten wood in the bathroom, they remodeled the entire bathroom including putting in new walls, a new commode, and a new vanity with a new sink. The Perdues also installed the new kitchen floor. According to Mr. Perdue, they repaired many things that were written up by Mr. Crowley after he had cited Ms. Finkley for the deficiencies, and he believes that the repairs were completed during the call-back time frame of Mr. Crowley's inspection reports. While Mr. Perdue believes this, the weight of the evidence is that repairs were not completed before Mr. Crowley's reinspection.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order that imposes an administrative penalty in the amount of $3,000, places Respondent under probation for a period of two months after issuance of the Final Order, and requires Respondent to attend a Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 28th day of December, 2006 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-1015 Fannie Finkley House of Love 5191 Zachary Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32526 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated July 23, 1992; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent filed an application for fire safety inspector certification on or about March 4, 1992. One of the questions on the application for fire safety inspector certification posed the following: Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude? Respondent answered the foregoing question by marking the space before "NO." On or about March 8, 1989, Respondent was charged by information issued through the State Attorney's Office in Lake County, Florida, with aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is a felony. On or about June 2, 1989, the information referenced above was amended but continued to allege aggravated assault. On June 8, 1989, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated assault and was placed on probation for a period of three years. Adjudication of guilt was withheld at that time. Subsequently, the Respondent was discharged from probation and the proceedings in the criminal case were terminated. Respondent had completed his probation at the time his application for certification as a firesafety inspector was made. Respondent is currently certified as a firesafety inspector, certificate number FI-66318. Additionally, Respondent is employed as a firefighter with the Reedy Creek Fire Department. Subsequent to the receipt of Respondent's application for certification, the Department requested information from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding Respondent's criminal record. The information received from those sources led to the discovery of the facts addressed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 above and the initiation of these proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order revoking Respondent's certification as a firesafety inspector. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 27th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4921 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Egan, Jr. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Daniel T. Gross Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent violated Section 509.032, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated August 15, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing, regulating, and inspecting public lodging establishments to protect public safety. To accomplish this purpose, Petitioner employs persons trained to inspect public lodging establishments to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations. Such inspectors visit and inspect these premises making routine inspections or, in response to complaints, to gather facts and make reports documenting their findings. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Susan Cecilione ("Cecilione") as an Inspector assigned to its Division of Hotels and Restaurants. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Hidden Cove Apartments, was a licensed public lodging establishment within the meaning of Subsection 509.013(4)(a), Florida Statutes, operating under license control number 15-04455H 000, and located at 1951 Southeast Convair Street, Palm Bay, Florida, 32909. During a routine inspection on or about July 14, 2000, Cecilione visited Hidden Cove Apartments. Cecilione's inspection revealed various violations. Specifically, Cecilione observed: The 2A10BC fire extinguisher at building 1961 was discharged; In apartment 101, building 1961, the electricity flickered on and off in the dining room area; Fire ant hills were observed along the walkways around buildings 1951 and 1961; The shower in apartment 103, building 1951, leaked behind the wall into the closet; The cement driveway was caving in and broken apart; There were no back flow prevention devices on hose bibbs at buildings 1951 and 1961; The laundry room had a heavy accumulation of lint and dirt on floor beside, behind, and beneath the dryer; (i) The front windows in many apartments had been either bolted closed or sealed so they could not be opened without the window falling out; There were broken screens on the sliding glass doors at apartments 103 and 104, building 1951; In apartment 102, building 1951 and apartment 101, building 1961, the front door sweeps and seals (gaskets) around the doors were loose fitting, leaving large gaps. Respondent was informed that all violations must be corrected by July 27, 2000. On or about July 28, 2000, Cecilione made a callback/reinspection visit for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had corrected the violations noted on the previous visit. One of the violations previously noted had been corrected. The laundry room had been cleaned. Each of the uncorrected violations listed in paragraph 5 hereinabove constitutes a separate and distinct potential hazard to the health and/or safety of individuals on the premises.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the above-specified provisions of the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code; that Respondent be required to pay a fine in the amount of $2,400; and that Respondent's license be suspended until the fine is paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ JEFF B. CLARK 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 16th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David Moallem Hidden Cove apartments 2115 Palm Bay Road, Northeast No. 3 Palm Bay, Florida 32909
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firesafety inspector.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a firesafety inspector. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Firesafety Inspector Training Course and pass a firesafety inspector certification examination. Petitioner successfully completed his required coursework at the Florida State Fire College and Daytona State College. To pass the written examination, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent. Petitioner took the exam the first time and did not receive a passing score. After a month or so, Petitioner took a "retest." He received a score of 68 on the retest, which is below the minimum passing score of 70. By letter dated October 11, 2011, Respondent notified Petitioner that he did not receive a passing grade on the retest. The notice also informed Petitioner that because he failed both the initial and retake examinations, it would be necessary for him to repeat the Inspection Training Program before any additional testing can be allowed. The notice further informed Petitioner that if he enrolled in another training program, he would have to submit a new application. Petitioner submitted a letter which was received by the Department on September 27, 2011, in which he raised concerns about the quality of instruction he received at Florida State Fire College. Petitioner asserted that in two classes he took, the instructors had not taught the class before. He also asserted that the books used for class were not always the books used for testing, and that he believed that some of the state inspector test questions were irrelevant to how or what he would need to know in performing an actual inspection. Attached to this letter were five questions which had been marked as being answered incorrectly on the examination. Petitioner's letter and attachments were treated as a request for administrative hearing, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which resulted in this proceeding. Marshall Shoop took classes with Petitioner at the Florida State Fire College. It was also Mr. Shoop's understanding that at least one instructor had never taught the class before. Karl Thompson is the Standard Supervisor for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training. At hearing, Mr. Thompson reviewed each question offered by Petitioner and the answer Petitioner thought to be correct. Mr. Thompson concluded that Petitioner answered each of the five questions incorrectly. Mr. Thompson explained that the firesafety test is a secure document and, pursuant to a contract with a third party, persons who take the test and later review their incorrect answers are not allowed to write down the questions or copy anything from the test. The test must remain secure so that it is not compromised. The test questions and answers are not in evidence. Petitioner has been shadowing a part-time fire inspector for the City of Flagler Beach. Martin Roberts is the Fire Chief for the City of Flagler Beach. Chief Roberts would feel comfortable with Petitioner taking on the role of fire inspector despite Petitioner's grades on the fire safety inspector certification examination. While attending Daytona State College, Petitioner earned an "A" in a building construction course and a "B+" in a course in "construction codes and materials rating."
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Firesafety Inspector, and permitting Petitioner to repeat the required coursework before retaking the Firesafety Inspector certification examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 16th day of February, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the application for an initial license to operate an Adult Family Care Home ("AFCH") should be denied because the applicant submitted fraudulent or inaccurate information in the application.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is owned by Ms. Marvell Lawton, R.N. (the "applicant"). On June 3, 1996, the applicant applied for a license to operate an AFCH at 550 East Division Street, Deland, Florida (the "facility"). Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing AFCHs. Respondent requires several documents to be submitted with the application including: a Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Community Residential Homes Sponsor Certification Form (the "HRS Form"); a statement by the local zoning office that the facility is properly zoned (the "zoning approval"); and a fire inspection report. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report to indicate that the facility was approved for a maximum capacity of five residents. Respondent initially denied the license application solely on the basis of the fire inspection report. However, the basis of denial was amended to include the HRS Form and the zoning approval pursuant to an order entered by Judge Stephen F. Dean on October 16, 1996. By letter dated July 11, 1996, Respondent notified the applicant that her application was denied. The letter stated, in relevant part, that the specific basis for denial was: . . . Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency. The fire safety inspection report submitted with the application package was altered to indicate approval for five residents when the fire marshal's office had only approved three residents. The local fire marshal's office has verified that the original approval was for three residents because Ms. Lawton did not want to install a manual alarm system which is required for four or five residents. Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency is grounds for denial of the AFCH application, s. 400.619(11)(e),F.S. On April 2, 1996, the applicant obtained a fire inspection report from the City of Deland Fire Department (the "Fire Department"). The fire inspection report limited the maximum capacity of the facility to three residents because the applicant did not have the manual alarm system required for four or five residents and did not wish to install such a system. The applicant altered the fire inspection report that she submitted with her application. She changed the number "3" to a "5" so that the fire inspection report appeared to approve the facility for a maximum capacity of five residents. As part of its review of the application, Respondent attempted to verify the fire inspection report included in the application by calling the Fire Department. When the Fire Department did not verify that the maximum capacity was five residents, Respondent obtained a copy of the original fire inspection report from the Fire Department. On March 22, 1996, the applicant obtained a zoning approval from the City of DeLand stating that the maximum capacity of the facility is three residents. The applicant added the phrase "to 5" after the number "3" in the zoning approval so that the zoning approval authorized a maximum capacity of "3 to 5" residents. On June 3, 1996, the applicant submitted the HRS Form to Respondent. The applicant amended the portion of the HRS Form requiring a designation of capacity for facilities with six or fewer residents as well as that for facilities with 7-14 residents. The latter category does not apply to Petitioner. The applicant did not submit fraudulent information to Respondent. The applicant did not intend to defraud Respondent. She misunderstood the application process. The facility has space for only three residents. It is physically impossible to house more than three residents in the facility. The applicant would have gained nothing from an authorized capacity of more than three residents. The applicant's refusal to add the manual alarm system required for four or five residents is consistent with the facility's limit of three residents. The applicant assumed that Respondent's minimum license category is for a license of 1-5 residents. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report under the mistaken belief that the capacity designation in each document should conform to the maximum capacity in Respondent's license category. In the HRS Form, the applicant even altered the licensed capacity for facilities with 7-14 residents. The applicant mistakenly submitted inaccurate information to Respondent within the meaning of Section 400.619(11)(e), Florida Statutes.1 The maximum licensed capacity of the facility must be consistent with fire safety requirements for the welfare of the residents. The licensed capacity of the facility must also conform to applicable zoning laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and thereinGRANT a license to operate an AFCH for three residents. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner James T. Steffens is currently employed as Chief of the Oneco-Tallevast Fire Control District located in Manatee County and has been so employed since June 1, 1982. The fire control district covers approximately 26 square miles southeast of Bradenton, and includes residential and commercial developments and some rural areas. The district employs six firefighters who, along with Petitioner, work a normal 3:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, work week. There are 28 volunteer firemen in the district who provide most of the firefighting services for the district. The career personnel are hired primarily to supplement the volunteer group during the ordinary work week. However, they and the Petitioner are also volunteer firefighters. During the period of his employment, Petitioner has taken charge of firefighting on six or seven instances, one of which occurred during his normal hours of employment. (Testimony of Steffens) Petitioner was hired as a result of a screening and interview process by the Board of Commissioners of the Oneco- Tallevast Fire Control District. They were interested in a person who could unify factions within the district and modernize district procedures. The Board of Commissioners was more interested in Petitioner's administrative skills rather than his qualifications as a firefighter. However, it was aware from prior communications with Respondent's personnel that either a certified firefighter should be hired, or if not, that the individual hired would have to be certified in Florida. Petitioner primarily performs administrative functions, such as personnel and budget matters, training and scheduling of personnel, procurement of supplies, and scheduling of fire inspection and prevention programs. Actual fire inspections are conducted by the district fire marshal. (Testimony of Petitioner, Skinner) Respondent's form FST-1 "Qualification of New Employee," was filed on behalf of Petitioner in June 1982 by Raymond F. Skinner, Jr., Secretary- Treasurer, Board of Commissioners, Oneco-Tallevast Fire Control District. The form reflected that Petitioner had completed the equivalency examination at the State Fire College, Ocala, Florida, on July 11, 1977, and the Report of Physical Examination that accompanied the form showed that he had no physical abnormalities. Upon inquiry by Respondent as to a discrepancy on the physical examination report that reflected Petitioner had adequate visual acuity, as compared to a prior medical report received by the Department showing that his uncorrected vision in the right eye was 20/200 and in the left eye, 20/400, the examining physician advised the Respondent that the earlier eye examination should be deemed correct. (Respondent's Exhibits 1-2) By letter of October 5, 1982, Mr. Skinner was advised by the Office of the State Fire Marshal that Petitioner could not be certified because he did not meet the requirements of pertinent law and regulations as to visual acuity, and also due to the fact that he had a "noticeable limp." Specifically, he was advised that Section 633.34(5), Florida Statutes, required that "Any person initially employed as a firefighter must be in good physical condition as determined by a medical examination as prescribed by the division," and that Rule 4A-37.37, Florida Administrative Code, implementing the statutory provision, provided in subsection (3) for adoption of the standards of NFPA 1001 (1974). The letter further stated that NFPA 1001, Chapter 2-2.7.2(b), provided that standard visual acuity, without correction, of less than 20/40 in one eye, and 20/100 in the other eye, was cause for rejection for appointment, and that Chapter 2-2.6.2.4(d) provided that shortening of a lower extremity resulting in any limp of noticeable degree was also cause for rejection. Subsequent to receipt of the letter from Respondent, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Petitioner does not meet the visual acuity standards set forth in the above-cited law and regulations in that his uncorrected eyesight is 20/200 in his right eye and 20/400 in his left eye. (Respondent's Exhibit 1-2, Stipulation) Respondent's ground for rejection of certification because Petitioner has a "noticeable limp" was based solely on observation of Petitioner by Mr. Raymond Schaffner, Program Coordinator for Fire Standards, Office of the State Fire Marshal. However, Mr. Schaffner has no knowledge of Petitioner having a shortening of either leg, nor is there any medical evidence in that regard. Although he is of the opinion that a person with a limp would have difficulty as a firefighter carrying heavy weights on stairs, or maintaining control on a ladder with his legs to free his hands, he is unaware of any actual limitations that Petitioner might have in this regard. (Testimony of Schaffner) Petitioner concedes that he has a slight limp, but can offer no medical explanation for it. He purchases trousers which have the same inseam for both legs. The problem becomes more pronounced if he becomes overweight. It has never hampered his sports activities in the past, or his prior activities as a volunteer firefighter since 1956. In 1977, he successfully completed the equivalency examination at the State Fire College in Ocala, which required that he perform field "evolutions" or practical exercises in firefighting. Although they do not necessarily test an individual's endurance, Petitioner participated in advancing heavy hoses and carried a man down from a ladder during his equivalency examination. He has performed "leg locks" on ladders "hundreds of times" in the past. (Testimony of Schaffner, Petitioner) Volunteer firefighters are not required to be certified by the state. However, Respondent's interpretation of applicable statutes is that the employed chief of a fire control district must be certified if he meets the definition of "firefighters" set forth in Section 633.31, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Schaffner, Stark)
Recommendation That Petitioner James T. Steffens be determined unqualified for employment and certification as a firefighter pursuant to Chapter 633, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 3 day of 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Gross, Esquire Post Office Box 1302 Hialeah, Florida 33011 Susan E. Koch and Dennis Silverman, Esquires Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
