Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED William W. Tharpe, Jr., Esquire Department of Insurance Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dock Blanchard, Esquire Post Office Box 24 Ocala, Florida 32678 The Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Phillip J. Aleong, D.V.M., violated Section 474.214(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2005), by failing to pay an administrative fine and investigative costs within 30 days from the date of the filing of Final Order BPR-2005-04911 with Petitioner's Clerk as alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on June 26, 2006, in BPR Case Number 2005-066424; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice veterinary medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The following facts were stipulated to by the parties: Respondent is licensed in the State of Florida as a veterinarian, having been issued license number VM-6466. On September 1, 2005, Respondent appeared before the Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine to approve a Settlement Stipulation as to DOAH Case No. 05-1971PL. At the hearing, the terms of the Settlement Stipulation (herein after the "Stipulation") were placed on the record and the members of the Board voted to approve the settlement. On September 9, 2005, the Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine rendered the Final order Approving Settlement Stipulation Number BPR-2005-04911 (herein after the "Final Order") against Respondent's veterinary license, by filing the original Final Order with the Department's Agency Clerk. A copy of the Final Order was mailed to Respondent's Counsel. However, a copy was not sent or mailed directly to the Respondent. The Settlement Stipulation, as adopted by the Final Order, amongst other terms, required Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5000.00 and investigative costs in the amount of $479.76 within thirty (30) days from the date of filing the Final Order with the Department's Agency Clerk. As the Final Order was filed with the Agency Clerk on Setpember [sic] 9, 2005, Respondent's compliance with the payment terms of the Final Order was required on or before October 9, 2005. Pursuant to the Final Order and the Stipulation Agreement incorporated therein by reference, Petitioner and Respondent agreed that Respondent's veterinarian license would be suspended for 90 days in the event that Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Stipulation or the Final Order. Respondent was aware of this penalty provision at the time of signing the agreement, was present as the time of its adoption by the Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine, and was aware that the sums would be due 30 days after the Board signed the Final Order itself which was to occur sometime after the September 1, 2005 meeting. Respondent failed to remit payment of the administrative fine and cost required under the Final Order by October 9, 2005. On December 27, 2005, the DBPR mailed Respondent an investigatory complaint placing Respondent on notice that the fine had not been paid. The computer printout attached to the investigatory complaint, as well as the handwritten complaint generated by the Petitioner, both of which were included therein allege that Respondent had not paid the fine. Neither document asserts that the Respondent failed to remit the costs, however, a copy of the Stipulation and Order were included with the investigatory complaint. On January 12, 2006, after receipt of the investigatory [sic] complaint, Respondent paid the fine. Respondent paid the costs on May 8, 2006. On June 26 2006, after both the fine and costs were paid in full, Petitioner filed this proceeding alleging that the fine and costs had not been paid. Petitioner has stated that it has not located any cases in its records where a fine was imposed, then paid late, in which an administrative complaint was not filed. However, Petitioner is unable to offer testimony, with absolute certainty, that prior to the administrative complaint filed in this matter, that all other veterinarians have paid fines assessed in a final order by their due date. Petitioner has not found any evidence indicating that it has ever filed an administrative complaint against a party for failure to timely pay an imposed fine, after said fine was paid by the party. Petitioner has found no evidence contrary to or may otherwise reasonably dispute that the administrative complaint against a party for failure to timely pay an imposed fine, after said fine was paid by the party. The facts in Final Order BPR-95-05774 (Exhibit "B") and Final Order BPR-2003-02869 (Exhibit "C") are distinguishable from the facts of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Veterinary Medicine finding that Phillip J. Aleong, D.V.M., has violated Section 474.214(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as described in this Recommended Order, and requiring that he pay an administrative fine of $2,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 5th day of January, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Drew Winters, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Bradford J. Beilly, Esquire Law Offices of Bradford J. Beilly, P.A. 1144 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Juanita Chastain, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1991, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rules 33-22.005(5) and 33- 22.007(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rules. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Rule 33-22.005(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Section III. Report of Investigation. Upon receipt of the Disciplinary Report, the Senior Correctional Officer shall review the report and, when the facts suggest that the alleged violations is significant, he shall cause the report to be forwarded to the Correctional Officer Chief. Upon approval of the Correctional Officer Chief, or in his absence the Senior Correctional Officer, an impartial investigation of the charge against the inmate shall be conducted. This investigation shall be completed without unreasonable delay. Any delay at any state must be justified in the report. The Correctional Probation Supervisor shall review the report and cause an impartial investigation to be conducted for inmates participating in the Supervised Community Release Program. The investigating officer is responsible for obtaining the inmate's version of the offense as well as contacting the charging officer and any other staff members or inmates who have information pertaining to the allegation and the charge. The inmate charged shall be offered staff assistance and asked if he has any material witnesses to offer in his behalf. If the inmate has no witnesses, it must be noted in the report. If names of witnesses are given, the investigating officer shall then interview both inmate and staff witnesses and, if appropriate, have the Witness Statement Form DC4-856 completed. If inmate witnesses or staff witnesses are not contacted, a statement as to why they were not contacted must be included. Opinions as to innocence or guilt shall not be made by the investigating officer. The investigator shall sign and date the report. Rule 33-22.007(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (2) The Hearing Officer or Disciplinary Team can request further investigation or evidence, the appearance of additional witnesses or the statements of unavailable witnesses. . . . . Witnesses shall not be called or certain information disclosed if doing so would create a risk of reprisal, undermine authority or otherwise present a threat to the security or order of the institution. The inmate witnesses must be willing to testify but may offer an oral or written statement to the investigating officer in lieu of personal appearance. Notations shall be made in the report with reasons for declining to call requested witnesses or for restricting any information. The Petitioner has alleged that the Challenged Rules are invalid because the rules are "contrary to due process contained in enabling legislation. Section 20.315, Florida Statutes (1989)" and are vague, arbitrary and capricious. The Petition does not include any alleged facts supporting the Petitioner's assertion that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious."
The Issue Whether Judy Limekiller (Respondent) committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 30, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida created by section 20.165, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is charged with the responsibility of regulating the real estate industry in Florida pursuant to chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. As such, Petitioner is fully authorized to prosecute disciplinary cases against real estate licensees. Respondent was at all times material to this matter, the holder of a Florida real estate license, license number 3131887. At all times material to the allegations of this case Respondent was an active sales associate with Michael Saunders and Company. Respondent’s address of record is 1529 Pelican Point Drive, HA 205, Sarasota, Florida. In January 2012, Respondent was a sales associate handling a transaction with Regina Zahofnik (Ms. Zahofnik). Ms. Zahofnik was the seller of property located at 4527 MacEachen Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. Respondent admits she signed Ms. Zahofnik’s name to a Cancellation of Contract and Release. Respondent did not have written authorization to sign for Ms. Zahofnik. Instead, she maintains Ms. Zahofnik gave her verbal authority to sign the document. In February 2012, Respondent was a sales associate handling a transaction with Lynda Kravitz. Ms. Kravitz was the seller of property located at 1526 Pelican Point Drive, BA 147, Sarasota, Florida. Respondent signed Ms. Kravitz’ name to a Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement. Ms. Kravitz did not authorize Respondent to sign the document. In February 2012, Respondent was a sales associate handling a transaction with Cherryne Kravitz. Ms. Kravitz was the seller of property located at 1526 Pelican Point Drive, BA 147, Sarasota, Florida. On or about February 10, 2012, Respondent signed Ms. Kravitz’ name to a Residential Contract for Sale and Purchase. Ms. Kravitz did not authorize Respondent to sign the document. In all situations, Respondent believed she was authorized to sign the documents. She claims either e-mail or text message gave her the go-ahead to sign documents so that they could be timely processed. In the case of Ms. Zahofnik, the “deal was dead” and could not close. Since the buyer elected to walk away from the purchase when the seller could not complete the transaction, Respondent maintains that no party was injured by the signing of the document and that by doing so the refund to the buyer was processed. In the case of the Kravitz sale, Respondent signed the property disclosure because she knew the property better than the sellers and an expedited completion of the paperwork was requested. Again, Respondent states Ms. Kravitz authorized the signature. And with regard to the signing of the contract, Respondent asserts that Ms. Kravitz was slow to return the contract and that she was getting pressure from the other Ms. Kravitz to get the paperwork completed. Eventually, both Kravitz daughters signed the contract. Respondent does not deny signing the contract. As a result of the allegations of this case, Michael Saunders and Company incurred expenses and lost commissions. Petitioner did not present evidence regarding the cost of investigating this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission finding Respondent in violation of the provision of law set forth in the Administrative Complaint as alleged by Petitioner, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00, and imposing a suspension of Respondent’s real estate license for a period of 30 days, with probation to follow for such period of time as the commission deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 21st day of June, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Leigh Matchett, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James P. Harwood, Esquire James Harwood, P.A. Suite 106 1277 North Semoran Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32807 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Juana Watkins, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Darryl James McGlamry, is an inmate under the supervision of the Respondent. The Petitioner is incarcerated at Dade Correctional Institution. The Respondent is the Department of Corrections, an agency of the State of Florida. The Petitioner has challenged Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code. The Challenged Rule governs the visitation privileges of unmarried inmates. The Petitioner has alleged that the Challenged Rule "impairs the Petitioner's substantial interest in that it restricts the Petitioner's First Amendment Right of Freedom of Association, as it substantially limits the number of female visitors that the Petitioner may have." The Petitioner has also alleged that the Challenged Rule is invalid because the restriction on visitation of the Challenged Rule is: . . . contrary to the Civil Rights Act of Florida, Chapter 760.01, Florida Statutes. 11. As such, it is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority". The Respondent does not have the authority to pass rules that are contrary to other statutes. This amounts to vesting unbridled discretion to the agency in violation of Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes. The Amended Petition is devoid of any alleged facts which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rule is invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation That the certificate of registration issued to respondent Robert T. Sharkey be suspended for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 John A. Friedman, Esquire 634 N.E. Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, An agency of the state of Florida, Petitioner, PROGRESS DOCKET NO. 3196 BROWARD COUNTY vs. DOAH CASE NO. 77-854 ROBERT T. SHARKEY, Defendant. /
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Petitioner was an inmate incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution within the custody and control of the State of Florida, Department of Corrections. Respondent stipulated at final hearing that Petitioner has "standing" to maintain the rule challenge proceeding. The parties also stipulated that the rule under challenge in this proceeding is a rule adopted by Respondent in accordance with the settlement reached in a previous administrative rule challenge proceeding in which Petitioner was a party. The parties further stipulated that ". . . inmates within the Respondent's care enjoy meaningful access to the courts." There are presently approximately 2,500 inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution. There is one Xerox machine located in the law library at Union Correctional Institution, and the librarian has two inmate clerks assigned to assist in the operation of the library. There is insufficient money in the library budget to fund either additional copying machines or additional personnel to assist in copying materials other than those authorized under Respondent's rule.
The Issue Whether Rules 33-3.005(2), (7) and (11), 33-3.0051, and 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner and the Intervenor; Standing. The Petitioner, W. Gerry Hargrove, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Petitioner was subject to the rules of the Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Petitioner's marital status was single. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Intervenor, Ann Hintenlang, was a married woman. The Intervenor is not related to the Petitioner. The Petitioner and the Intervenor have attempted to get approval for the Intervenor to visit the Petitioner. The Respondent has refused to approve the Intervenor as a visitor of the Petitioner because she is a married woman unrelated to the Petitioner. The Respondent's rejection of the Intervenor as a visitor is based upon the Respondent's interpretation of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida and the operation of the Respondent. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted governing mail, visiting hours and privileges and all other aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code. Section 944.23, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part: The following persons shall be authorized to visit at their pleasure all state correctional institutions: The Governor, all Cabinet members, members of the Legislature, judges of state courts, state attorneys, public defenders, and authorized representatives of the commission. No other person not otherwise authorized by law shall be permitted to enter a state correctional institution except under such regulations as the department may prescribe. [Emphasis added]. Pursuant to the authority of Sections 944.09 and 944.23, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has adopted Chapter 33-5, Florida Administrative Code, titled "Visitors." Rule 33-5.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: Upon being committed to the custody of the Department, each inmate shall be given the opportunity to submit a list of persons from whom he wishes to receive visits. The initial list . . . shall be limited to members of the inmate's immediate family. Once the inmate has been assigned to a permanent institution, additional relatives and friends, business associates and others may be considered, but only after a criminal history background inquiry has been made. . . . Rule 33-5.006(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (7) Inmate visits with approved family members or friends should be encouraged for the positive purpose of maintaining home and community ties, which after release should provide a deterrent to recidivism. To the extent that it is safe and practicable to do so, such visiting should be allowed to take place in a relaxed atmosphere. Rule 33-5.006, Florida Administrative Code, also provides certain circumstances when a person may be excluded from an inmate's visitors list. For example, persons convicted of a felony may be excluded. Rule 33-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, is titled "Visitation Denial." Pursuant to this rule, it is provided that visitation may be denied under certain circumstances, i.e., if a visit would present a clear and present danger to the security and order of an institution. Rule 33-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, also provides: (3) No visit should be denied: . . . . (c) for any reason unrelated to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the institution. Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (8) Inmates not married may be allowed to have one single non-immediate family member of the opposite sex on the visiting list, after approval. A married inmate may be allowed to have one single, non-family member of the opposite sex on the visiting list, after approval, if a pending divorce or separation of long duration can be verified and the spouse is removed from the list. [Emphasis added]. The Respondent interprets the portion of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, challenged in this proceeding and emphasized in finding of fact 15, to allow a single male inmate to have a single female visitor and, therefore, prohibits a single male inmate from receiving visitation from a married female visitor not related to the inmate. The Respondent's interpretation of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, as argued in its proposed final order, is intended "in part to deter potential problems involving visitors to the institution and to promote security of the institution and the inmates because of fights and conflicts which have occurred in the visiting park." See proposed finding of fact 7 of the Respondent's Proposed Final Order. The Respondent's interpretation of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, set out in finding of fact 17 is uniformly applied by the Respondent. The Respondent's interpretation of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, set out in finding of fact 17 has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner presented no evidence during the formal hearing concerning Rule 33-3.005, Florida Administrative Code, other than the rule itself. The Petitioner has challenged Rule 33-3.005(2), (7) and (11), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-3.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (2) Legal mail shall be defined as: Mail to and from municipal, county, state and federal courts. Mail to and from state attorneys. Mail to and from private attorneys. Mail to and from public defenders. Rule 33-3.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (7) The institution shall furnish postage for mail to courts and attorneys and for pleadings to be served upon each of the parties to a lawsuit for those inmates who have no funds at the time the mail is submitted to the mailroom, but not to exceed payment for the original and two copies except when additional copies are legally required. The inmate shall be responsible for proving that copies in addition to the routine maximum are legally necessary. Rule 33-3.005(11), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (11) "Privileged mail" is a category that includes, mail to and from public officials, governmental agencies and the news media. Privileged mail may be opened only for inspection for contraband and only in the presence of the inmate. Such mail may not be read except for signature and letterhead. If necessary, it may be held for a reasonable time pending verification that it was sent by or is properly addressed to any attorney, a court, a public official, a governmental agency or a member of the news media. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Rule 33-3.005(2), (7) or (11), Florida Administrative Code, is contrary to statutory law or that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that Rule 33-3.005(2), (7) or (11), Florida Administrative Code, is vague, fails to establish standards or vests unbridled discretion in the Respondent. Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner presented no evidence during the formal hearing concerning Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code, other than the rule itself. Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code, governs the manner in which institutions of the Respondent are required to provide photographic copying services to inmates. Although the Petitioner has not designated which specific language in Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code, he believes is invalid, the Petitioner has evidently challenged the requirement of Rule 33-3.0051(3), Florida Administrative Code, that "[i]nmates will be charged $0.15 per page for standard legal or letter size copies . . . " and the following portion of Rule 33-3.0051(4), Florida Administrative Code: (4) Copying services shall not be denied inmates unable to pay for copies. An inmate shall be considered unable to pay for copies when there are no funds in his inmate account at the time the copies are completed and the assessment of cost is determined. If an inmate requesting copies has any funds in his account, he shall be required to pay for copies furnished him at the rate of $0.15 per page until the costs reduce his account to zero. . . . The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code, is contrary to statutory law or that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code, is vague, fails to establish standards or vests unbridled discretion in the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Parole and Probation Commission, adopted revised rules of practice and procedure which became effective on September 10, 1981. Among these is Rule 23-21.09, Florida Administrative Code, which establishes "matrix time ranges" that are used in determining presumptive parole release dates for persons who are serving prison terms. In determining presumptive parole release dates, the Respondent's rules require that a "salient factor score" be determined based upon such factors as the number of prior criminal convictions, the number of prior incarcerations, total time served in prisons, the inmate's age at the time of the offense which led to the first incarceration, the number of probation or parole revocations, the number of prior escape convictions, and whether burglary or breaking and entering is the present offense of conviction. The degree or severity of the present offense of conviction is then determined. The Respondent's Rule 23-21.09 sets guidelines for time ranges for presumptive parole release dates depending upon the severity of the present offense of conviction and the salient factor score. The more severe the present offense of conviction, the longer will be the period before the presumptive parole release date. Similarly, given the severity of the offense, the higher the salient factor score the longer will be the period before the presumptive parole release date. The rule replaced a rule which set different matrix time ranges. The new rule generally sets longer time ranges, but this is not uniformly true. The Petitioner, Seimore Keith, is an inmate presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution, Polk City, Florida. Polk Correctional Institution is a facility maintained by the Florida Department of Corrections. Petitioner Keith was convicted of grand theft in July, 1980, and was sentenced to serve five years in prison. The conviction was the result of a guilty plea which was entered in accordance with a plea bargain. During plea negotiations, Petitioner Keith was advised that his presumptive parole release date under Florida Parole and Probation Commission rules would require that he serve no more than 25 months in prison. At the time that Petitioner Keith's presumptive parole release date was set by the Respondent, the new Rule 23-21.09 had come into effect, and the Petitioner's presumptive parole release date was set to require that he serve 32 months in prison. The Petitioner, Ronnie McKane, is presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. He was convicted of the offense of armed robbery in February, 1981. Under rules in effect when he was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23-21.09, Petitioner McKane's presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rule was applied by Respondent in setting McKane's presumptive parole release date. The Petitioner, Daniel P. Hull, is presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. He was convicted in September, 1971, of the offense of robbery and sentenced to serve ten years in prison. He was paroled in 1974, but was reincarcerated as a result of a parole violation in 1976. In 1977 he escaped, and was recaptured in January, 1981. On June 1, 1961, Petitioner Hull was convicted of the offense of escape and sentenced to serve nine months. Under the rules in effect when he was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23-21.09, Hull's presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rules were applied by Respondent in setting Hull's presumptive parole release date, and it has been set subsequent to the expiration of his sentence. Hull will therefore be released when his sentence expires in March, 1982. The Petitioner, Douglas L. Adams, was convicted of the offenses of possession of marijuana and uttering a forged instrument, and sentenced in February, 1981, to two consecutive five-year sentences. Under the rules in effect when Adams was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23- 21.09, Adams' presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rule was applied by the Respondent in setting Adams' presumptive parole release date. During 1980, the Respondent directed its staff to begin considering proposed changes to its rules of practice and procedure. Various proposals were considered, and by September, 1980, a proposed rule package had been developed. The Respondent directed its staff to submit the proposed rule package to the Governor and members of the Cabinet, various pertinent legislators, county and circuit judges, prosecutors and public defenders, superintendents of each prison in the State, and to members of the Supreme Court and the district courts. The Commission opted to conduct various workshops throughout the State, and to invite all interested persons to share their input. Notices of the workshops were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The workshops were conducted, and the Commission commenced formal rule-making proceedings. Notice of rulemaking was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and hearings were scheduled. Notice of the formal rulemaking proceedings was also published in the St. Petersburg Times, the Pensacola Journal, the Tallahassee Democrat, the Orlando Sentinel-Star, and the Florida Times-Union. Persons who had requested specific notification were provided it. In response to this notice, the Respondent received considerable written input, and oral presentations were made at hearings that were conducted. The final hearing in the rule-making proceeding was conducted on June 19, 1981, and the rules, including Rule 23- 21.09, were thereafter adopted effective September 10, 1981. Notice of the proposed rule changes and of the formal rulemaking proceeding was not specifically disseminated to inmates at Florida's prisons. The proposed rules were for- warded to the superintendent of each facility. At some of the institutions the proposed rules were apparently posted. All persons who requested copies of the proposed rules from the Florida Parole and Probation Commission were provided them. Numerous prisoners and organizations that represent prisoners made input during the various states of the rulemaking proceeding. None of the Petitioners in this matter were specifically noticed of the rulemaking proceeding. One of the Petitioners had heard that rules were being proposed, and requested copies of them from members of the Legislature or from Department of Corrections personnel. None of the Petitioners requested copies of the proposed rules from the Respondent or anyone connected with the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation with its business located in Tampa, Florida. Respondent is a stated agency charged with responsibility for investigating and resolving unlawful employment practices. Its duties and powers are enumerated in Chapter 23, Florida Statutes, the Human Rights Act of 1977. 2. Respondent has adopted Rules 9D-8.06, 8.22(2), 9.03(4), and 9.03(7), Florida Administrative Code. These rules authorize Respondent to issue subpoenas, serve them by registered mail, and enforce them through judicial proceedings. The rules specifically authorize issuance, service, and enforcement of subpoenas in connection with investigations of unfair employment practices. They provide that inferences may be drawn from the failure of a person to provide requested information. . . Linda Parties filed a complaint against Petitioner with the Respondent, alleging sex discrimination by Petitioner. Based upon the complaint, Respondent initiated an investigation. It formally requested information from Petitioner on July 13, 1979. On April 7, 1981, Respondent issued a subpoena in connection with the investigation and served it by registered mail in accordance with its rules. Petitioner objected to the subpoena and has not provided the requested information. Respondent has sought to enforce the subpoena through a "Petition for Enforcement" filed in Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida. Circuit Judge Donald O. Hartwell has entered an Order which provides: This cause came to be heard on the Motion To Dismiss Petition For Enforcement of Investigatory Subpoena filed by the Human Development Center, Respondent. Both parties were represented by Counsel who presented argument to the court. The court being otherwise fully advised enters this its order; therefor it is, Ordered that the service of an investigatory subpoena served by certified mail pursuant to Rule 9D-8.22, Florida Administrative Code is valid service. Such service is not required to be served in accordance with Florida Statutes 48.031 or Rule 1.410(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. It is further, Ordered that the Motion To Dismiss Petition For Enforcement of Investigatory Subpoena is denied. It is further, Ordered that further proceedings to enforce the investigatory subpoena in this cause are stayed pending the ruling of Hearing Officer G. Steven Pfeiffer in Case No. 81-2101RX now set for hearing on October 21, 1981. Respondent has made no determination of reasonable cause to believe that Petitioner has engaged in any unlawful employment practice.
