The Issue Whether the Motions for Rule Challenge Proceedings (referred to as Petition(s)) filed in each of the above-cited cases meet the requirements both in form and substance, pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004); Whether Respondent, Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), has inherent authority to reconsider a Final Order it has issued; and Whether FCHR should adopt a rule which would permit the granting of a motion to reconsider a Final Order.
The Issue Did Petitioner, Marcus Downes, prove by clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation that it is an abuse of discretion to deny his request for an exemption, as allowed by section 435.07, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ from disqualification due to a criminal offense, from working with children and other vulnerable individuals?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Downes seeks employment with Independent Living Services, LLC (Independent Living). His aunt, Stephanie Miller, and his mother are partners in Independent Living. It provides services to people with disabilities, including cerebral palsy, bipolar illness, and dual-diagnosed individuals. The services include supported living, coaching, companion services, and personal supports. Independent Living serves about 15 individuals in their homes. Some of the consumers are not verbal. Independent Living does not currently serve minors. But it could. The individuals are vulnerable adults as defined by section 415.102(28), Florida Statutes. Independent Living receives compensation through the Florida Medicaid Waiver program administered by the Agency. If employed by Independent Living, Mr. Downes would provide companion and personal support services to persons with disabilities. He has been providing similar services through a privately paid arm of Independent Living. For instance, for the past two years, Mr. Downes has provided Paula Carr light housekeeping, shopping services, and transportation. Ms. Carr is a dialysis patient and has cancer. She likes Mr. Downes and is satisfied with his service. If employed by Independent Living, Mr. Downes would be alone with Independent Living’s consumers at times. Mr. Downes' employment with Independent Living would be a position of trust as a direct service provider to individuals with disabilities. The position requires satisfaction of background screening requirements. People with identified criminal offenses are disqualified from working in positions serving vulnerable adults, unless exempted from the disqualification. On December 1, 2008, Mr. Downes entered a plea of "no contest" to a charge of traveling to meet a minor for an unlawful sexual act after use of a computer online or internet service, a violation of section 847.0135(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2008). This is a disqualifying offense. § 435.04(2), Fla. Stat. The court imposed a sentence of one day in the Orange County Jail, with credit for one day served, and withheld adjudication. The court also sentenced Mr. Downes to five years supervised probation, with leave to move for early termination after one-half of the term was completed and all conditions of probation had been satisfied. The conditions required a sexual evaluation and completion of any recommended treatment. They also limited Mr. Downes’ use of the internet to use for work and school purposes. The required sexual evaluation did not result in a recommendation for treatment. On April 14, 2011, as permitted by the sentence, Mr. Downes moved, without opposition from the State, for early termination of his probation. The court granted the motion. When Mr. Downes entered his plea, the offense did not trigger registration requirements for sexual offenders and sexual predators. The State and Mr. Downes did not intend for Mr. Downes to plea to an offense that required registration. In 2009, the Legislature amended the law to require registration for violators of section 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes (2008). In September 2009, the court granted a stipulated motion to relieve Mr. Downes from the requirement for sexual offender registration. The charge against Mr. Downes resulted from his actions in January 2008. Mr. Downes was 18 at the time and a recent high school graduate. He was a student at Valencia Community College. Mr. Downes, using the name FSUPlayer56, engaged in conversation in an American On Line chat room with an individual named Aprilgurly407. In an exchange of messages with Mr. Downes, Aprilgurly407 advised that she was 14 years old. They exchanged photographs. Mr. Downes observed "damn ur sexy 4 14." Aprilgurly407 was an undercover detective. Mr. Downes began sending sexually charged messages, including asking if Aprilgurly407 liked sex, if she was a virgin, if she "ever did oral," and if she would "do" him. He proposed coming over to see her. But he did not go that evening. The two chatted again on March 4, 2008. Mr. Downes proposed coming to her house for sex. They then communicated by text about timing and location. Deputy sheriffs arrested Mr. Downes when he arrived at the agreed location. Mr. Downes was remorseful and wrote a letter of apology to the mother of Aprilgurly407 before the deputies advised him that the person was a detective. The criminal proceedings described above followed. Mr. Downes was admittedly young. He has not been charged with criminal offenses or other misdeeds since the one arrest in 2008. In the exemption process and in the hearing, Mr. Downes minimized the offense, attributing it to youthful indiscretion and near entrapment by the detective. He evaded accepting responsibility. Mr. Downes' statement, in support of his exemption request and his hearing request, said he never knew the age of Aprilgurly407. Excerpts of the chat room transcripts show different. After reviewing the transcripts during the hearing, Mr. Downes said that he did not remember the January exchange when he chatted with Aprilgurly407 in March. He says he has a poor memory. Mr. Downes says that he wanted to maintain a "not guilty" plea, but his lawyer talked him into the "no contest" plea. He also says the undercover detective was very persistent about meeting. Transcript excerpts do not support this assertion. But there are no transcripts of separate text messages between Mr. Downes and the detective.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter its final order denying the request for an exemption from disqualification submitted by Petitioner, Marcus Downes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Each Respondent holds a Class "B" Watchman, Guard, or patrol Agency License number BOO-00847 and has held such licensure at all relevant times. All references to Respondent are to Murrell security Patrol, Incorporated. All references to Respondent Murrell are to Alfred L. Murrell. Respondent's main office was at all relevant times in Melbourne, Florida. In August, 1986, Respondent leased office space for a branch office in Orlando, Florida. Respondent hired Lee Hayes as branch manager for the Orlando office. Mr. Hayes worked for Respondent from early September, 1986, until mid-January, 1987. Shortly after beginning to work for Respondent, Mr. Hayes and Respondent applied to Petitioner for, respectively, a Class "MB" branch manager's license and a Class "BB" branch office license, which were subsequently issued. Following Mr. Hayes' departure, the managerial duties of the Orlando branch office were in large part performed by Gerald Bellizzi, who supervised guards on patrol, solicited guard business, billed accounts, and collected receivables. Mr. Bellizzi had no Class "MB" license, nor any other license under Chapter 493 until he obtained, in late December, 1986, a Class "D" license, which allowed him to perform watchman, guard, or patrol duties. Respondent provided Mr. Hayes, while he served as manager of the Orlando branch office, business cards to be used in soliciting business. These cards stated that Respondent's business included investigations, in addition to guard and patrol duty. At the same time, Respondent placed an advertisement in the Southern Bell Yellow Pages in the Orlando area. The ad stated that Respondent's services included investigations. Although the Orlando branch office never performed any investigations, Mr. Hayes received two inquiries concerning the possibility of Respondent performing investigative services. In responding to the first inquiry, Mr. Hayes contacted Respondent Murrell and, with his permission, quoted an hourly rate for investigative work. In both cases, the prospective customers never asked Respondent to do any work. At all times since the incorporation of Respondent in 1976, Respondent Murrell has been its president and his son, Mike Murrell, has been Respondent's vice president.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents Alfred L. Murrell and Murrell Security Patrol, Incorporated, not guilty of the charges contained in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, but guilty of the charges contained in Counts I and II. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine upon respondents, jointly and severally, in the amount of $500. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1760 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-3. Rejected as not finding of fact. 4a. Adopted. 4b,c. Rejected as irrelevant. First sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. Rejected as recitation of testimony and, in view of the nonspecificity of allegations in Count III, irrelevant. 8. Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 John C. Murphy, Esquire 1901 South Harbor City Boulevard Suite 805 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State 181 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities abused its discretion when denying Petitioner’s request for exemption from being disqualified to work in a position of special trust.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that Petitioner has an extensive criminal background. His disqualifying offenses (larceny) occurred in April 1998 and July 2009, respectively. Petitioner’s first recorded involvement, as an adult, in the criminal enterprise commenced in 1997, when, at the age of 19, he was charged with burglary. During the 12-year period between 1997 and 2009, Petitioner was arrested multiple times for criminal violations such as marijuana possession, shoplifting, and failure to appear in court. He also had multiple instances during this period where he violated the terms of his probation and was cited for motor vehicle traffic infractions. Petitioner readily acknowledges that from 1997 through July 2009, his life was in a fairly constant state of chaos, and he recognized that if he did not make a change he would likely end up in prison or dead. In or around October 2009, Petitioner started a new chapter in his life when he made the decision to become a member of the Jesus Christ Outreach Center (JCOC). Petitioner has been a committed member of JCOC as evidenced by his extensive involvement in several ministries of the church, which include working with troubled youth, coordinating church-related conferences, and serving as a praise and worship leader. Since September 2009, Petitioner has been continuously employed. In July 2012, Petitioner went to work for Sandy Park Development Center where he worked as a direct care aide for individuals with developmental disabilities. In early 2015, Petitioner went to work for the Shalimare Company in Ft. Myers, Florida, where he also provided assistance to individuals with developmental disabilities. According to the testimony of one of his co-workers, Petitioner has proven himself to be a hard- working, trustworthy, and a reliable individual. In order to provide assistance to individuals served by Shalimare, it was necessary that Petitioner pass a background screening check. On July 10, 2014, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), pursuant to a request from Shalimare, cleared Petitioner to work in positions of special trust, including those positions where services are provided directly to individuals with developmental disabilities. Petitioner believes that he has clearly and convincingly proved that he is rehabilitated because since 2009 he has not engaged in criminal activity, has maintained steady employment where he distinguished himself as being hard-working, trustworthy and reliable, and has demonstrated dedicated and unwavering commitment to his church and community. Furthermore, Petitioner also believes that his claim of rehabilitation is bolstered by the fact that since July 10, 2014, he has been authorized by AHCA to work in positions of special trust. Respondent, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, believes that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he can be trusted to work in positions of special trust as to clients under the jurisdiction of the agency. In support of its position that Respondent has not demonstrated that he is rehabilitated, APD cites discrepancies between Petitioner’s account of his criminal activity and the law enforcement records pertaining to the same, his actions of knowingly driving with a suspended driver’s license while transporting a minor, and his pattern of poor decision making as evidenced by his multiple arrests.1/ While APD commends Petitioner for the positive steps he has taken towards turning his life around, APD believes that ultimately Petitioner’s 12 years of deviant behavior are not, at this time, counterbalanced by the normalized behavior that he demonstrated during the last 7 years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2016.
The Issue In an order dated January 29, 1992, the State of Florida, Commission on Ethics found probable cause that the Respondent, as a city commissioner of the City of Cottondale, violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by having a contractual relationship with a business entity which was doing business with the city. The issue in this proceeding is whether the violation occurred and, if so, what penalty should be recommended.
Findings Of Fact Leonard Norsworthy served two two-year terms as a city commissioner for the City of Cottondale, a small community in the Florida panhandle. His tenure spanned from 1987 until July 1991. Mr. Norsworthy is sole proprietor of J. & L. Housepainting and Remodeling (J & L), a roofing and remodeling business. He has a State of Florida contractor's license. Sometime in 1990, the City of Cottondale, through its grants coordinator in Tallahassee, sought and obtained Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for various needed public works. The project was advertised, and a bid was awarded to T & A Utilities Contractors, Inc. (T & A), a Lynn Haven, Florida, firm owned by Charles Williams. The total contracted amount of $244,282 included resurfacing two streets, a parking lot, a children's park, 8-inch water lines, and renovations to the city hall. Not all of the work was done immediately, as the city needed to get various permits. Due to changes in the scope of work, additional money became available for other projects, including renovating a public bathroom to make it accessible for handicapped persons. Some of the work was subcontracted by T & A to other firms. Charles Williams did not advertise for bids for the subcontracted work, but obtained proposals. He had obtained proposals from some Panama City firms for the bathroom and city hall renovations because he was not aware of firms closer to Cottondale. "Pete" Hilton was Cottondale's Public Works Director for eight years until he left in October 1992 for medical reasons. He told Charles Williams that he knew someone who could do the work for a good price, and shortly thereafter Leonard Norsworthy called Williams. Mr. Norsworthy's proposal was less than the prices quoted by the Panama City firms, and on June 5, 1991, T & A subcontracted with J & L for the renovation work for a total amount of $8,460. The sum was paid in three releases. The jobs performed by Mr. Norsworthy under the subcontract included redoing the bathroom and a handicap ramp entrance, installing rain gutters, removing a wall and plastering and finishing a wall. At no charge for his labor, Mr. Norsworthy also painted the building. Leonard Norsworthy knew about the city's revitalization contract with T & A because he was a city commissioner at the time. While the city was a party to the contract, the specifications and the background work were handled by the city engineer, who recommended the award to T & A. Leonard Norsworthy admits that he did the work and says, "You live and learn." He concedes that there are others in the area who could have done the work, but believes he gave a good price for the job. He says that work is scarce in the area and you have to take it where you find it. He knew that the law prohibited doing business with one's own agency, but he had no idea that the prohibition extended to subcontracts as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission enter its final order and public report finding that Leonard Norsworthy violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, and recommending a penalty of $300.00. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of April 1993. MARY CLARK 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 12th day of April 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig Willis, Esquire Michael Ingraham, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1502 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Leonard Norsworthy Post Office Box 299 Cottondale, Florida 32431 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of Florida, in particular, Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. On May 18, 1987, Respondent, Thomas J. Christenson (Christenson), submitted an application to the Department for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Included with his application was a sworn affidavit by Christenson dated April 21, 1987, which stated: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate salesman, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the person so applying, that he has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his knowledge, information, and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever . . . Question six of the application asked whether the applicant had "ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld . . ." To question six of the application, Christenson replied, "yes," and stated, "I was convicted of disorderly conduct (misdemeanor) and driving while intoxicated in Pennsylvania in 1981 and disorderly conduct in New Jersey in 1978. I completed probation on both occasions." However, Christenson failed to disclose that on or about January 2, 1987, approximately four months before he signed the affidavit on his real estate salesperson application, he had entered a plea of nolo contendere to and was adjudicated guilty of one count of resisting arrest without violence or that he was adjudicated guilty of criminal mischief on or about November 2, 1981, in the Municipal Court of Lower Township, New Jersey. Relying on Christenson's application, the Department issued Christenson a real estate salesperson's license. The records from the Chester County Courts Management System indicate that on April 19, 1984, Christenson entered into a plea bargain on the charges of driving under the influence of alcohol, drivers required to be licensed, and disorderly conduct. He was sentenced to jail for 48 hours, put on probation for 23 months and required to pay a fine of $102.50. On September 3, 1985, a bench warrant was issued for violation of parole. In 1991, the bench warrant was quashed and the petition was dismissed because Christenson's whereabouts had been unknown since August 15, 1985. On September 5, 1989, Christenson submitted an application to the Department for licensure as a real estate broker. On the application, Christenson signed a sworn affidavit which provided: The above-named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as a real estate broker, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that he/she is the person so applying, that he/she has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information, and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations, whatsoever . . . Question seven of the application asked whether the applicant had "ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld." Christenson replied "yes" to the question and stated, "I paid a fine for a misdemeanor of disorderly conduct in Wildwood, N.J. in 1977." However, Christenson failed to disclose that on or about January 2, 1987, he had entered a plea of nolo contendere to and was adjudicated guilty of one count of resisting arrest without violence, that he was adjudicated guilty of criminal mischief on or about November 2, 1981, in the Municipal Court of Lower Township, New Jersey, that he was convicted of disorderly conduct and driving under influence of alcohol in Pennsylvania in 1981, and disorderly conduct in New Jersey in 1978, that he plea bargained on charges of driving while intoxicated, driving without a license, and disorderly conduct in 1984 in Chester County. In reliance upon Christenson's application, the Department issued Christenson a real estate broker's license. Christenson expected that the Department would conduct a detailed search into his prior records when he answered "yes" on his application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Christenson testified that he did not reveal that he had entered a plea of nolo contendere and was adjudicated guilty of resisting arrest without violence in January 1987 because he did not understand that the conviction was for a criminal offense because the offense had arisen out of a traffic incident and he had paid only a fine and court costs, totaling $150. When Christenson filed his application for a broker's license, he was fully aware that his application for a salesperson's license was already on file with the Department and thought that the Department would also consider the information that he had included on the application for a salesperson's license. Since Christenson has held licenses with the Department, he has had no other disciplinary actions taken against his licenses. He has been the top salesman in his office for the last ten years and serves on the Chairman's Advisory Council for Coldwell Banker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered suspending Thomas J. Christenson's license for one year and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 24th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Bruce Wilkinson, Esquire 221 East Osceola Street Stuart, Florida 33994 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the CJSTC was the state agency responsible for the certification of law enforcement officers in Florida. Respondent was certified by the CJSTC on May 21, 1982, holding law enforcement certificate number 105625. On November 7, 1997, the Tampa Police Department's Street Anti-Crime Squad initiated one of its periodic routine reverse prostitution stings at the intersection of Crawford and Nebraska Avenues in Tampa. Officer Dana Berry, a female police officer, played the part of the prostitute. Located in an unmarked police car across the intersection, also in civilian dress, was the "eyeball," Sergeant Russell Marcotrigiano, Officer Berry's supervisor. Officer Berry was to wait to be approached by a male customer, and when that happened, was to agree to an assignation for money. Without doing anything in furtherance thereof, if the customer agreed, she was to direct him to room 8 of the El Rancho Motel, down the block on Nebraska Avenue. Her pointing to the motel was the signal to Sergeant Marcotrigiano that a deal had been made. If the customer went to the motel, he would be arrested there. If he did not and drove away, the offense was in the solicitation and the customer would be arrested in a routine traffic stop within two blocks of the site. Sergeant Marcotrigiano was there to coordinate the sting, and even more important, to safeguard the welfare of Officer Berry. Parked in a marked patrol car about two blocks north on Nebraska Avenue were two uniformed officers, Officer Stephen Prebich and Officer MacFarlane, who, upon the direction of Sergeant Marcotrigiano, were to arrest the perpetrator in the routine traffic stop. The sting operation started at approximately 1:45 p.m. on November 7, 1997. At approximately 2:06 p.m., Respondent, driving a green pickup truck, stopped at the intersection in question and made eye contact with Berry, who was standing near a parking lot close-by. Immediately upon contact, Berry came over to the driver's side of Respondent's vehicle and asked if he was lost. Berry did not recognize Respondent as a police officer though there is some evidence, and Respondent so claims, that they had met at work on a previous occasion. Respondent denied being lost and asked Berry if she needed a ride. Berry indicated that she had a room at a nearby motel where they could go, but not without knowing what Respondent wanted. She had been instructed not to mention a sexual act but to wait until the subject first described the requested sexual act. Ultimately he said "a blow-job," and when Berry asked him how much money he had, he replied either "twenty," as Berry claims, or "plenty," as Respondent claims. At this point, considering the deal made, Berry directed Respondent to the motel and pointed to it. This was the signal to Sergeant Marcotrigiano that Respondent should be arrested. Instead of going to the motel, Respondent drove off, turning right onto Nebraska Avenue, heading north. Within two blocks, he was pulled over by Officers Prebich and McFarland. Both officers went to Respondent's vehicle, accompanied by two other officers. Weapons were not drawn. When the officers got to Respondent's vehicle, Officer Prebich opened the driver's door and requested he get out of the vehicle. When Respondent complied, he was placed under arrest. At this point, Officer Prebich did not recognize Respondent. However, it appears that Officer MacFarlane did recognize him. While Respondent was being searched, a pay stub was discovered which indicated that Respondent was a police officer. The arresting officers took Respondent back to the command post where Sergeant Marcotrigiano and Officer Berry were waiting. At this point, Respondent was asked where he worked and replied, "tactical." Prebich claims he did not say much to Respondent at that time. He states he may have mentioned Berry's name to Respondent but does not believe he did so. Officer Politano was working at the command post at this time, writing up paper work on the prostitution sting and monitoring the radio. He recalls Respondent being brought into the command post under arrest. Sergeant Marcotrigiano spoke with Respondent and instructed Politano to take down the names of the parties. In the course of doing this, Politano spoke with Respondent who told him he knew Officer Berry and her former supervisor, Sergeant Raulerson, and was just playing with Berry when he made the statements attributed to him by her. Politano contends that it is quite common for police officers to tease undercover operatives who are on duty, including women. This teasing, however, is usually confined to cat-calls and whistles, and he has never heard of a proposition such as was involved here in a stake-out situation. Respondent admits to a conversation with Officer Berry at the location in issue on the afternoon of November 7, 1997. However, he denies having driven past Berry's location twice before stopping to speak with her. Both Berry and Sergeant Marcotrigiano claim he did, however, and neither would have any reason to dissemble. Further, Respondent contends that he could not have been at the intersection at 2:06 p.m. as indicated by Berry and the sergeant. He claims to have left his credit union on Bearss Street after 1:45 p.m., and considering the state of traffic, could not have traveled the 8.9 or so miles between the credit union and the intersection of Crawford and Nebraska Avenues, gone around the block twice as alleged, and still have had the conversation with Berry in time to be arrested at 2:06 p.m. There are several collateral matters to consider regarding the time issue. In the first place, Respondent contends that the accuracy or lack thereof is indicative of the non-credibility of the arrest report. However, no independent evidence was introduced to show that the time stamp on the credit union transaction ticket, showing 1:45 p.m., is accurate. Regardless, Respondent admitted to a version of the reported conversation between him and Berry, and it is that conversation and the circumstances which surround it, not the exact time, which is important. Respondent categorically denies having seriously solicited Officer Berry for an act of oral sodomy. He claims that while driving in the vicinity, searching for a shop to reasonably detail his relatively new truck, he spotted her on the sting. They made eye contact and, he claims, she nodded at him. Since he recognized her from work, he thought she recognized him as well. She did not, though he had seen her on several occasions at the police station where he would go frequently. Respondent claims he noticed Officer Berry when he stopped for a traffic light at the intersection, and while he was waiting for the light to change, she came up to his truck and asked him if he was lost. Thereafter, the conversation progressed as previously indicated, though Respondent claims to have said "plenty" rather that "twenty" in response to her query as to how much he had. He claims he had no intention to have any sexual contact with Berry and drove off, heading north on Nebraska Avenue, when she pointed to the motel. When questioned by Sergeant Marcotrigiano at the command post, Respondent claims he indicated that he thought Berry had recognized him as he had recognized her, and was just "fucking around." Respondent related this same story to Captain Doyle, the supervisor, but such crass verbalization without an indication he was kidding makes Respondent's claim unbelievable. In July 1997, Respondent and the CJSTC entered into a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in the Commission's case number L-3388 whereby Respondent's certificate was suspended for 80 hours, and he was placed on probation for a period of one year after reinstatement of his certificate. The documentation of record does not indicate the basis for that action. During May 1999, Respondent, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge of soliciting for prostitution which had been filed against him in Hillsborough County Court. On June 14, 1999, the motion to dismiss was granted and Respondent was discharged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Police Benevolent Association 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue This matter is a bid protest filed by STATEWIDE challenging the DEPARTMENT's decision to award a contract for service of process services to All American Legal Service, Inc., (herein after All American). The DEPARTMENT's position was chat a company could meet the two years of experience in serving legal process requirement if key personnel had at least two years of experience. All American was the lowest bidder on ITB-DOT-95/96-9003. STATEWIDE was the second-lowest bidder. STATEWIDE protested, claiming the DEPARTMENT should have rejected All American's bid on the grounds that All American did not have two years of experience and had not identified its key personnel or provided the DEPARTMENT with copies of circuit court issued certifications to serve process. During the formal hearing on October 23, 1995, testimony was received that All American is the corporate successor of a firm that was formed approximately 23 months prior to the bid being submitted and had as part of its organization an independent contractor, Robert Simmons, who was a licensed process server and who lacked two years of experience in serving process at the time the bid was submitted. All American also retained the services of the founder and former owner, Jon C. Martin, to act as an advisor. Mr. Martin lacked two years of experience in serving civil process at the time the bid was submitted. The DEPARTMENT offered testimony that it did not require the bidding entity to have been in existence for more than two years so long as the company had employees (either direct employees or independent contractors) with the requisite experience. DEPARTMENT officials also testified that no personnel were considered key personnel by the DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The DEPARTMENT's first exception is rejected as irrelevant. The DEPARTMENT's remaining exceptions are rejected and need not be individually reached inasmuch as the conclusion of this Order is chat a decision to waive the two years of experience requirement in the bid documents would be an abuse of discretion. To describe a requirement as so essential as to require no consideration of the bid when it is not met, and later construe the bid documents as allowing waiver of the requirement is, by definition, without reason and arbitrary
Findings Of Fact The DOT issued ITB-DOT-95/96-9003 (the ITB) soliciting bids from contractors to provide for one year on an as-needed-basis to its General Counsel all services necessary to effectuate service of process, service of subpoenas, and service of other papers statewide in accordance with the applicable laws to be submitted on August 16, 1995. AALSI submitted the lowest bid for the ITB. Statewide submitted the second lowest bid for the ITB. Section 1.5 of the ITB, Joint Exhibit 1, stated as follows: GENERAL Bidders should meet the following minimum qualifications. Have been actively engaged in the type of business being requested for a minimum of two years. When submitting the bid, each bidder shall submit a written statement, (FORM D), detailing their qualifications which demonstrate they meet the minimum qualifications contained in Subparagraph 1.5.1.1. Bidders' failure to prove the above item(s) will constitute a non-responsive determination. Bids found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. (Emphasis in original.) A representative of the DOT testified and both parties agree that the word "should" in the provision above is mandatory and in context means "shall." It was important to DOT that bidders have at least two years experience in the business of serving process, and DOT intended to reject any bids which did meet this requirement. Exhibit "A" to the ITB, "Scope of Services," Section B.1, "Services Required," and B.5, "Who Shall Provide Services," provided respectively that: B.1 Services Required The contractor shall provide all services necessary to effectuate service of process, subpoenas and other papers throughout the state of Florida, and shall provide such services in accordance with the laws of the state of Florida. . . B.5 Who Shall Provide Services Services shall be provided by individuals in compliance with Chapter 48, Florida Statutes, and other applicable law. Section 48.29, Florida Statutes, requires that persons serving process be certified by the chief judge of each judicial circuit. The business being requested, as the term is used in the ITB, is all services necessary to effectuate service of process, subpoenas, and other papers throughout the State of Florida for civil actions in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. No evidence was received that the DOT is involved with the service of arrest or search warrants. Paragraph 1.5.2, "Qualifications of Key Personnel," provides that: Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project should have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise excepted by the Department's Project Manager. Where State of Florida registration or certification is deemed appropriate, a copy of the registration of certificate should be included in the bid package. The ITB required that a bidder demonstrate that its key personnel had experience in providing all services necessary to effectuate service of process, subpoenas, and other papers throughout the State of Florida in accordance with the law. Form D asked bidders to answer the following questions: How many years has your business been serving process? In what counties are your currently serving process? Describe your current capabilities to serve process in the State. If you do not have the current capability to serve process in all counties of the State of Florida, describe the changes that you will make in order to be able to serve process in all counties. Describe the means by which your business would accomplish routine services of process on a statewide basis under the Scope of Services of the Invitation to Bid. Describe the means by which your business would accomplish priority service of process on a statewide basis under the Scope of Services of the Invitation to Bid. The ITB contained a provision which permitted it to waive minor informalities or irregularities in bids received which were a matter of form and not substance. The requirement that the bidder have two years experience is not, under the terms of the ITB, a waivable provision, but was part of the essential minimal requirements which the bidder must have. In response to the first question on Form D, AALSI responded: All American Legal Service, Inc. and its predecessor firm, Jon C. Martin & Associates, have been in business over two years and provides nationwide service for its existing clients. DOT accepted the representation of AALSI in evaluating whether it possessed the required two years of experience, and concluded AALSI was qualified. DOT also evaluated the other responses by AALSI to Form D to assess its approach to providing the scope of work required by the ITB, and concluded it was qualified. Evidence presented at hearing revealed that Jon C. Martin, a former law enforcement officer, had begun a private investigation business as a sole proprietorship in September, 1993. Mr. Martin, who testified at hearing, found that it was more profitable to serve process than to conduct investigations, and changed the emphasis of the business; however, Mr. Martin was not personally authorized to serve process nor did he serve any process until May, 1994, although he had served arrest warrants as a law enforcement officer. Mr. Martin used the services of qualified process servers to serve process in the central Florida region; however, these personnel were not employees of Martin. Mr. Martin was a member of the National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS), whose members are qualified to serve process; and Mr. Martin used this service to find the names of persons qualified to serve process in those counties and jurisdictions in which he did not have employees or contract personnel. Mr. Martin changed the name of his business to All American Process, and ultimately incorporated under that name. Mr. Martin sold All American Process in May, 1995 to Andrew Forness and Forness' father, who changed the name of the corporation to All American Legal Service, Inc. Mr. Martin agreed to be an unpaid advisor/consultant to Mr. Forness after the sale. Mr. Forness has virtually no experience as a process server, and had never been qualified to serve process or served process until after May, 1995. Mr. Forness is dependent upon Robert Simmons, an independent contract process server, for daily advice on service of process. Mr. Forness has continued to use the network of personnel used by Mr. Martin, who are not employees of the business, and NAPPS to serve process. The business does employ two full-time, paid certified process servers, who reside and work in central Florida area. One of these employees, Noah Medeiros, was first authorized to serve process in Orange County in September 1995, and is not authorized to serve process in any other county in Florida. No information was provided on the other employee. Mr. Forness did not identify anyone as a key individual in the bid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That DOT not award the bid to AALSI which was determined to have been a nonresponsive bidder, and that it consider awarding the bid to the next lowest, responsive bidder, Statewide. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 18th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-5035BID Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1,2 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 4 Paragraphs 6,7 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 10 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 11 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 12 Conclusion of Law Paragraphs 13,14 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 Paragraphs 15-20 Subsumed in Paragraphs 16-18 Paragraphs 21-26 Subsumed in Paragraphs 18-19 Paragraph 27 Subsumed in Paragraphs 7,8 Paragraph 29 Ultimate finding Paragraph 30 Paragraph 14 Paragraph 31 Irrelevant Paragraph 32 Ultimate finding Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1,2 Subsumed in Paragraph 1 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 11 Paragraph 6 Subsumed in Paragraph 5 Paragraph 7 Subsumed in Paragraph 12 Paragraph 8 Not necessary Paragraph 9 Paragraph 13 Paragraph 10,11 Subsumed in Paragraph 14 Paragraph 12-16 Irrelevant or argument Paragraph 17 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 18-25 Irrelevant or argument Paragraph 26,27 Subsumed in Paragraphs 2,3 Paragraph 28-33 Subsumed in Paragraph 16 Paragraph 34-41 Subsumed in Paragraph 19 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Layne Smith, Esquire 2804 Remington Green Circle, Suite 4 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Thomas H. Duffy, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Wade Raulerson Pontiac,1/ committed unlawful employment practices contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2009),2/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on his race by subjecting him to different terms and conditions than similarly situated employees outside of his protected classification, or by reducing Petitioner’s wages and ultimately discharging Petitioner from his employment in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct.
Findings Of Fact Wade Raulerson Honda and Wade Raulerson Pontiac are each an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. They are subsidiary companies of Morgan Auto Group, a Tampa-based company that owns eight car dealerships in Gainesville, Ocala, and the Tampa Bay area. On March 7, 2008, Petitioner, a black male, commenced employment at Wade Raulerson Honda as a detailer. In April 2008, Petitioner was promoted to detail manager. As Detail Manager, Petitioner earned a salary of $950 per week, or $49,400 per year. At the time he was hired, Petitioner received from Morgan Auto Group an “Associate Manual,” essentially an employee handbook setting forth, among other things, the parent company’s policy promoting equal employment opportunity and prohibiting discrimination or harassment based on age, sex, disability, race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, or “any other non-merit factor.” The Associate Manual also set forth a conflict resolution process for any employee complaints or grievances, including those of harassment, discrimination, or denial of equal employment opportunity. The employee was to first discuss the problem with his supervisor or department manager. If the response at the first step was not timely or satisfactory, the employee could then submit his complaint to the general manager of the dealership, or to the HR manager for the parent company. There were three employees in the Detail Department of Wade Raulerson Honda. As detail manager, Petitioner supervised the other two employees, Berton Curtis, who was black, and Matthew Luchenburg, who was white. Mr. Curtis worked for $8.50 per hour, and Mr. Luchenburg was paid $8.00 per hour. The work performed by Petitioner was termed “detailing” and was performed to prepare used cars for the showroom and sales lot. Petitioner pressure washed the engine, buffed and waxed the car, and shampooed the interior. He examined every detail of the interior and exterior of the used car to ensure that it was clean and ready to show on the lot. The bulk of the work performed by the other two employees was termed “cleaning” or “washing” and was performed on new cars and used cars already on the showroom floor. They vacuumed and dusted the interior, then ran the car through the car wash. Their work was much less exacting and time consuming than the detailing work performed by Petitioner. The evidence presented at hearing established that Mr. Curtis performed some “detailing” work, but that the great majority of the detailing performed on the premises of Wade Raulerson Honda was performed by Petitioner. In addition to paying Petitioner for detailing work, Wade Raulerson Honda also paid an outside vendor $125 per car to perform detailing on used cars. Wade Raulerson Honda also sent some of its used cars to be detailed at Wade Raulerson Pontiac for a fee. These outside sources were used because the volume of used cars was more than Petitioner could handle alone, not due to any dissatisfaction with Petitioner’s job performance. Respondent stipulated that Petitioner’s job performance was very good throughout his employment. In late 2008 and into 2009, the poor economy was especially hard on retail automobile sales. By June 2009, business was off by 40 percent at Wade Raulerson Honda, and management looked for any way possible to cut costs. Wade Raulerson Honda was organized under the headings of “fixed operations” and “variable operations.” Fixed operations comprised the Parts Department and the Service Department, which included the Detail Department. Variable operations included the Sales and the Finance and Insurance Departments. Dan Schmidt, then the general manager of Wade Raulerson Honda, explained that fixed operations are easier to control, and that when business turns down, they are the most obvious place to cut expenses. In June 2009, Mr. Schmidt, in consultation with Tom Yonkers, his Fixed Operations Director, decided to close the Detail Department and to send his used cars to Wade Raulerson Pontiac’s larger detailing facility. Petitioner’s Detail Manager position was eliminated altogether. Mr. Curtis and Mr. Luchenburg were reassigned to new positions in which they performed their washing duties as well as lot cleanup, mowing and edging, and sundry other duties that allowed Mr. Schmidt to make further cuts in maintenance and janitorial expenses. Mr. Schmidt also laid off service advisors and two lube technicians. Mr. Schmidt testified that Petitioner was a good employee, and “good employees are very hard to come by.” Mr. Schmidt sought ways to retain Petitioner’s services. He offered Petitioner a non-management position that would have essentially involved performing the type of work being done by Mr. Curtis and Mr. Luchenburg, but at a rate of $600 per week, significantly more than the other two men were paid. Petitioner declined the offer, saying he could not take such a large cut in salary. Mr. Yonkers contacted his fixed operations director counterpart at Wade Raulerson Pontiac, Charles Jones, to inquire whether Mr. Jones had any openings appropriate for Petitioner. Mr. Jones already had three detailers and was paying them $13 an hour. Two of these employees, including the detail manager, were black. Mr. Jones agreed to meet with Petitioner and to try and make a space for him. Mr. Jones testified that he was interested in grooming Petitioner for the detail manager position. He understood that Petitioner had been making around $900 per week at Wade Raulerson Honda, and believed that a productive Detail Manager would be worth that much money. On or about June 12, 2009, Petitioner met with Mr. Jones at Wade Raulerson Pontiac. They discussed the position that Mr. Jones had in mind for Petitioner and talked about money. Mr. Jones made a tentative offer to Petitioner of $17 per hour with a guarantee of 55 hours per week. He gave Petitioner a “Morgan Auto Group Pay Plan” form filled in with those terms. The form contained signature spaces to be completed by the employee, the employee’s manager, and the general manager of the dealership. Mr. Jones told Petitioner that the offer was not considered binding until all three parties had signed the pay plan. This form was never signed by management of Wade Raulerson Pontiac. Mr. Jones testified that he reported the $17 per hour offer to Mr. Dalessio, who would not agree to pay Petitioner any more money than his current detailers were receiving. Mr. Dalessio believed it was unfair to his current employees to bring in a new man at a significantly higher wage than they were making. A second Morgan Auto Group Pay Plan was prepared for Petitioner, with a pay rate of $13 per hour and no guarantee as to the number of hours per week. Petitioner initially declined this offer. On June 16, 2009, Petitioner was given a transfer notice by Wade Raulerson Honda, stating that he was transferring to Wade Raulerson Pontiac due to the closure of the Honda’s dealership’s Detail Department, “with time served and benefits not lost.” The notice also stated that Petitioner’s future wages were to be negotiated at Wade Raulerson Pontiac, not at Wade Raulerson Honda. On June 16, 2009, Petitioner happened to meet Morgan Auto Group’s HR manager, Jason Hillman, in the parking lot of the Honda dealership. Petitioner showed Mr. Hillman the $17 offer sheet and asked to discuss the matter with him. Mr. Hillman agreed to meet with Petitioner at the Pontiac dealership. They went separately to Wade Raulerson Pontiac and met with Mr. Dalessio to discuss the situation. Mr. Hillman explained that the $17 offer was not binding and that the $13 offer was the only offer on the table for Petitioner. Mr. Hillman stated, not very diplomatically, that the $17 offer sheet was “not worth the paper it was written on.” Petitioner became upset and asked Mr. Hillman to fire him so that he could collect unemployment. Mr. Hillman explained that he could not fire Petitioner because he had not yet accepted the offer from Wade Raulerson Pontiac. He further explained that if Petitioner declined the offer, he would be considered to have been laid off from Wade Raulerson Honda and that the company would not oppose his claim for unemployment benefits. Petitioner eventually accepted the $13 per hour offer from Wade Raulerson Pontiac. He worked and was paid for 12 hours over the course of two days, at the rate of $13 per hour. On June 19, 2009, Mr. Jones met with Petitioner to have him formally sign the $13 per hour pay plan. At that time, Petitioner told Mr. Jones that he could not work for those wages. He left the dealership and did not return to work. Petitioner was not fired from his position. Petitioner alleged that, subsequent to his leaving Wade Raulerson Pontiac, the dealership hired a white detailer named “Joe” at a rate of $15 per hour. However, evidence presented at the hearing established that Wade Raulerson Pontiac hired a detail technician named Joe Halliday on July 13, 2009, at a rate of $13 per hour, the same rate offered to Petitioner. Petitioner offered no evidence to establish that the terms and conditions of his employment were different than those of similarly situated persons outside of his protected classification, or that his wages were reduced or he was terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct. There was no credible evidence that Petitioner ever complained or even mentioned harassment or discrimination on the basis of race to any member of management at Wade Raulerson Honda or Wade Raulerson Pontiac.3/ Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Wade Raulerson Honda or Wade Raulerson Pontiac discriminated against him because of his race, subjected him to harassment because of his race, or retaliated against him in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Wade Raulerson Honda for closing its Detail Department, or by Wade Raulerson Pontiac for declining to hire Petitioner at a salary nearly equal to the amount he made as detail manager at Wade Raulerson Honda. Petitioner disputed the company’s claim that the Detail Department at Wade Raulerson Honda was itself losing money, but failed to establish that the company’s decision to make large cuts in fixed operations expenses was anything other than a rational business decision necessitated by a severe decline in sales revenue. The evidence established that Petitioner was considered a good employee and that the Wade Raulerson dealerships made every good faith effort, consistent with the economic realities of the retail automobile sales business as of June 2009, to retain Petitioner’s services during the economic downturn. The discussions between the parties turned on money, not race. Petitioner simply decided that he could not work for the amount that Wade Raulerson Pontiac offered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Wade Raulerson Honda and Wade Raulerson Pontiac did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2010.
