Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Darryl McGlamry, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. The Challenged Rule, Rule 33ER91-2, Florida Administrative Code. On January 23, 1991, the Respondent filed Rule 33ER91-1. This emergency rule was filed by the Respondent to alleviate problems created by a high increase in the number of close custody inmates caused by changes in the Respondent's rules during 1990. Pursuant to Section 120.54(9)(c), Florida Statutes, Rule 33ER91-1 was only effective for ninety (90) days. Therefore, Rule 33ER91-1 was due to expire on or about April 24, 1991. On April 23, 1991, the Respondent filed the Challenged Rule. The Challenged Rule is identical in its terms to Rule 33ER91-1. The Challenged Rule should have expired on July 22, 1991. The instant challenge was instituted on May 8, 1991, before the Challenged Rule expired. The amendments to Chapter 33-6, Florida Administrative Code, filed by the Respondent on July 1, 1991, do not repeal the effect of the Challenged Rule prior to July 1, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On December 3, 1991, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rule 33-22.012, 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 Rule. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, 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. Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, contains rules governing "inmate discipline." Those rules provide the general policy of the Respondent concerning inmate discipline (Rule 33-22.001), terminology and definitions (Rule 33-22.002), the procedures for taking disciplinary action against inmates (Rules 33-22.003-33-22.010), and the "Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions (the Challenged Rule). Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: 33-22.012 Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions. The following table shows established maximum penalties for the indicated offenses. As used in the table, "DC" means the maximum number of days of disciplinary confinement that may be imposed and "GT" means the maximum number of days of gain time that may be taken. Any portion of either penalty may be applied. "All GT" includes both earned and unearned gain time. In addition to the penalties listed below, inmates may be required to pay for damaged, destroyed or misappropriated property under the provisions of rule 33-22.008(2)(b)13. . . . . Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, includes a table listing of various offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken and the maximum penalty for such offenses. The Petitioner has alleged, in part, that the Challenged Rule is invalid because it: provides maximum penalties for major violations, but fails to designate, or define minor infractions, or provide sufficient guidelines to guide the agency in exercise of its discretion to designate minor infractions as opposed to major infraction listed by the rule. More particularly, the rule provides in part that "any portion of either penalty may be applied." Applying either penalty listed in this rule, which provides for loss of gaintime or disciplinary confinement, is definitionally a major violation. . . . The Petition and the Amended Petition do not included any alleged facts supporting the Petitioner's assertion that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious."
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.
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 pertinent to the allegations herein the Division of Real Estate was the state agency responsible for the licensing of real estate sales persons and brokers and the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida. Respondent, Diana C. Verdi, was licensed as a real estate salesperson under license number 0545114, and Respondent, Realtec Group, Inc., was licensed as a real estate broker under license number 0273784. Respondent, Verdi, was employed by Respondent, Realtec, at its office at 3474 Tampa Road, Palm Harbor, Florida. On October 23, 1993, Respondent Verdi, while working for Respondent, Realtec, solicited and obtained an offer from James and Maureen Herhold, to purchase residential property owned by J. and K. Griffin. The contract called for the placement of a $50,000 non-refundable deposit with Realtec, and allowed the Herholds to move in on October 30, 1993, with closing to be held on November 30, 1993. The contract also provided that once the Herholds moved into the house, the Griffins would no longer be responsible for any repairs or maintenance needed by the property. Prior to moving in, the Herholds requested that Respondent, Verdi, obtain for them a seller's disclosure statement which would list any material defects in the property known to the sellers. In that regard, the Griffins' listing agent, Marta Shank, had previously requested they prepare such a statement. The statement was prepared on August 20, 1993, and reflected that the only known defect was a shower leak which had purportedly been fixed and a shower wall which had purportedly been replaced. Notwithstanding the Herholds repeatedly requested the disclosure statement from Respondent, Verdi, and notwithstanding such a statement had been prepared by the Griffins, the statement was not furnished to Respondent, Verdi, by Ms. Shank and, thereafter, to the Herholds until after they moved into the property. Consistent with the terms of the contract, the Herholds were required to pay for the repairs to the shower and shower wall which, it appears, were not properly repaired prior to their move into the property. At closing the Herholds requested the Griffins reimburse them for the cost of the repairs, which was not done. In the interim, however, and before the Herholds moved into the property, Respondent, Verdi, as was her custom in all residential sales, insisted that the Herholds obtain an independent inspection of the home. Mr. Herhold admits she did this. She claims she would not sell a home without this being done. This inspection, conducted by an inspector of the Herholds' choosing, failed to disclose any defect in the shower or shower wall. Respondent, Verdi, also suggested that since her repeated efforts to obtain the disclosure statement were unsuccessful, Mr. Herhold contact the Griffins or their agent directly. She also suggested to him that if he were not satisfied with the condition of the house, or if he had any qualms about moving in without the disclosure statement, he should not move in until he received it. This was verified by Ms. Kissner. Herhold elected not to do this, however, because he feared he might lose his deposit. Respondent, Verdi, represents herself as being an experienced and successful real estate salesperson, and there appears little reason to doubt that representation. She contends that though she never went to Shank's office to pick one up, she repeatedly asked Ms. Shank, the selling agent, for a disclosure statement as she always does, and her testimony in this regard is supported by that of both Ms. Kissner and Mr. Scarati. Both repeatedly tried to contact the selling office to obtain a disclosure statement but their calls were either nonproductive or not returned. There is some indication that when Ms. Verdi asked Ms. Shank for a disclosure statement, she was told that none existed. After the closing, when Mr. Herhold was unable to obtain a reimbursement from the Griffins for the cost of repairs, he filed suit against Realtec, Verdi, Shank and her agency, Coldwell Banker and his own inspection service. He admits that, at court, when he was asked by the judge who he believed was responsible, he did not know. He sued Verdi because he had asked her for a disclosure statement which she did not give him. He claims the sale was not an "as is" sale. At hearing, he was awarded $835.20 plus costs against Verdi and Realtec. She did not pay right away and sought the advice of counsel. When Herhold found she was listing her own home for sale, he filed a lien against it. As a result of that action, because she determined that fighting the lien would cost more than the amount involved, she paid the judgement even though she believed the judgement to be in error. Realtec paid nothing. No evidence was presented as to exactly when the judgement was satisfied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter against Respondents Diana C. Verdi and Realtec Group, Inc., t/a Re/Max Realtec Group, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 6th day of September, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Diana C. Verdi 2474 Tampa Road Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Realtec Group, Inc. percentRe/Max Realtec Group 3474 Tampa Road Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Insurance (Department) is responsible for regulation of insurance transactions in the State of Florida. In 1996, the United States Supreme Court held in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N. A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) that nationally chartered banks located in towns with populations of 5000 or less were authorized to own insurance agencies. In response, the 1996 Florida legislature revised Section 626.988, Florida Statutes (the "anti-affiliation" statute) to conform to the Court's ruling in the Barnett case The 1996 legislature also enacted Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, informally identified as the "parity statute." Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: The department shall adopt rules to assure the parity of regulation in this state of insurance transactions as between an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a federally chartered financial institution, an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a state- chartered financial institution, and an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with an entity that is not a financial institution. Such rules shall be limited to assuring that no insurance agency or agent is subject to more stringent or less stringent regulation than another insurance agency or agent on the basis of the regulatory status of the entity that owns the agency or is associated with the agent. For the purposes of this section, a person is "associated with" another entity if the person is employed by, retained by, under contract to, or owned or controlled by the entity directly or indirectly. This section does not apply with respect to a financial institution that is prohibited from owning an insurance agency or that is prohibited from being associated with an insurance agent under state or federal law. (Emphasis supplied.) The 1996 legislature also amended to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (the Administrative Procedures Act) to restrict agency authority to promulgate rules, so as to prohibit the adoption of rules which, although perhaps rationally related to the purpose of an implementing statute, were not specifically authorized by the legislature. In the summer of 1996, the Department began circulating a draft of rules intended to address issues related to the sale of insurance in financial institutions. Beginning in January 1997, the Department began the formal process of adopting rules intended to address the "parity" of insurance regulation between insurance agencies affiliated with financial institutions and agencies which are unaffiliated. The Petitioners challenged parts or all of the proposed rules as invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. As set forth in the Final Order entered June 29, 1998, in the consolidated rule challenges, Proposed Rules 4-224.002, 4-224.004, 4-224.007, 4-224.012, 4-224.013 and 4-224.014, Florida Administrative Code, were determined to be invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Although the challenged rules were determined to be invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority for various reasons, all were determined to be outside the Department's specific statutory authority as set forth by the legislature. There was no appeal of the Final Order. Prior to the hearing on the fee issue, all parties signed and filed a Prehearing Stipulation. According to the Prehearing Stipulation, "[t]he Department disputes entitlement to fees as a matter of law. It does not dispute the reasonableness of the fees, as capped by statute. It disputes the reasonableness of the costs sought by Florida Bankers Association. " The applicable statute provides that "a judgment or order shall be rendered against the agency for reasonable costs and reasonable attorney's fees, unless the agency demonstrates that its actions were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust." The Department asserts that the agency's actions in adopting the challenged rules were substantially justified and that special circumstances exist which make the award unjust. The greater weight of the evidence fails to support the assertion. The evidence establishes that, from the initiation of the rule drafting process, the issue of whether the Department had the authority to adopt the proposed rules was of concern to the parties in this case. In response to an early draft of the rule circulated by the Department, the Florida Bankers Association (FBA) in June 1996 asserted that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. The FBA continued to maintain this position throughout the rule-drafting process and the subsequent rule challenge cases. The Department was apparently also concerned about whether the agency had authority to adopt the rules. In response to a question raised by Department legal staff, a December 31, 1996, letter to the Department from an attorney at the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee on the issue of authority indicates that the Department's general authority to adopt rules was restricted by the 1996 APA amendment to Section 120.536(1), Florida Statutes, and that additional specific authority would be required to support the promulgation of rules. At the fee hearing, the Department conceded that the parity statute alone did not grant the agency with the specific authority to prescribe or proscribe specific acts or actions of an insurance agent. The Department asserted that the authority for the proposed rules was set forth by the combination of Section 626.988, Florida Statutes, under which pre-existing rules had been adopted, with the Department's previous legal actions related to insurance sales by agents affiliated with financial institutions, and the presumed effect of the parity statute on the Department's otherwise-existing authority. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's reliance on historical authority to promulgate rules and the authority provided under the parity statute was reasonable given legislative restrictions on agency rulemaking set forth in the 1996 legislature's amendments to the Administrative Procedures Act. There was no credible evidence presented at the rule challenge hearing or during the fee hearing which suggested that an emergency, either existing or potential, which required the Department to take immediate action to protect insurance consumers. There was no credible evidence presented at the rule challenge hearing or during the fee hearing that insurance consumers were threatened by an availability of insurance products in settings other than in insurance agencies. There are no special circumstances that make an award of fees and costs unjust. The Department apparently asserts that because the FBA participated in the rulemaking process, special circumstances exist which make an award of fees unjust. Although the FBA participated in the workshop process, the FBA consistently asserted, as stated earlier, that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. By letter of June 5, 1996, the FBA specifically filed written objections to the proposed rules, asserting that they were inconsistent with the APA amendments and the authority granted by the parity statute. Further, the FBA noted in the June letter and again in a letter of September 27, 1996, that the purpose and authority of the parity statute was met by a single proposed rule which, in essence, stated that the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code were applicable equally to all agents and agencies, regardless of ownership or affiliation. At the fee hearing, the Department acknowledged that the FBA had raised specific objections regarding the agency's lack of statutory authority during the rule process. The FBA consistently asserted during the rulemaking process that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. The FBA pursued the assertion throughout the rulemaking process and successfully challenged the rules on the same basis. There was no evidence presented during the rule challenge or the fee case suggesting that the FBA retreated from the objection at any point in the rulemaking process. According to the Prehearing Stipulation signed and filed by the parties, the disputed issues of fact are whether the expert witness fee paid to Dr. Michael White was reasonable and whether other costs sought to be recoverable are reasonable. The only specific challenge presented by the Department to costs is directed towards Dr. White's fees. The evidence establishes that under the circumstances of this matter, Dr. White's fee is reasonable. At the fee case hearing, the FBA presented the deposition testimony of William B. Graham, an attorney practicing in Tallahassee, Florida, in support of Dr. White's fees. Mr. Graham's testimony is accepted and credited as to the amount of Dr. White's fee and to the time required to prepare for and participate in this proceeding. Based on Mr. Graham's testimony, Dr. White's fee of $320 per hour is reasonable for an expert of Dr. White's credentials. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. According to the three dated invoices submitted to the FBA by Dr. White, Dr. White expended a total of 106 hours and five minutes in rule challenge-related activities on behalf of the FBA. Based on Mr. Graham's testimony, the time recorded by Dr. White of 106 hours and five minutes for his services is reasonable under the circumstances of the rule challenge. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. The total amount of time billed by Dr. White results in a fee of $33,946.66. The three invoices submitted by Dr. White also bill the FBA for expenses totaling $2,643.72. There is no credible evidence that the Dr. White's expense billings are unreasonable. The total amount of fees and expenses charged by Dr. White to the FBA is $36,590.38. The FBA paid to Dr. White the total amount reflected on his invoices. By comparison with the fees charged by its own expert, the Department asserts that Dr. White's fees are unreasonable. The fact that the Department paid its expert less than the FBA paid to its own does not establish that payments to Dr. White were unreasonable. The amount of the attorney's fees to which the successful parties are entitled is not at issue in this proceeding. According to the Prehearing Stipulation, the Department "while contesting entitlement to any award of fees . . . does not dispute that the fees sought, as capped by the statute, is reasonable for the efforts of all counsel in this proceeding." The FBA, by affidavit, identified attorney's fees totaling $145,683.01, and seeks an award of $15,000, the statutory limit. By stipulation of the parties, the FBA is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $15,000. The FBA identified total costs of $40,537.53, including the fees and expenses paid to Dr. White. There is no evidence that the costs of $3,947.15 set forth in the attorney billing records (and unrelated to costs related to Dr. White) are unreasonable. Based on the foregoing, the FBA is entitled to receive a total of $55,537.53. The Community Bankers Association identified attorney's fees totaling $10,290.00, and costs of $806.23. By stipulation of the parties, the Community Bankers Association is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $10,290.00. There is no evidence that the Community Bankers Association costs of $806.23 are unreasonable. Based on the foregoing, the Community Bankers Association is entitled to receive a total of $11,096.23. The Department asserts that, due to "untimeliness" of the Petitions for Fees filed in these cases, an award of fees in this case is unjust. There is no issue of timeliness to be addressed in this matter. The Petitions for Fees were filed approximately 60-90 days after the time for appeal of the Final Order in the rule challenge cases had passed. The Final Order entered in the rule challenge proceeding specifically retained jurisdiction for an award of fees. There is no evidence that the Department was adversely affected by any delay in filing the Petitions for Fees.
Conclusions Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Department of Insurance shall pay total fees and costs as follows: The Florida Bankers Association shall receive a total of $55,537.53 The Community Bankers of Florida shall receive a total of $11,096.23. DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 6th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Townes, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 Counsel for Florida Bankers Association Michael H. Davidson, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Counsel for Department Martha J. Edenfield, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson & Dunbar, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Counsel for Community Bankers of Florida Eli S. Jenkins 3330 Overlook Drive, Northeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 Authorized Representative of Specialty Agents, Inc. Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
The Issue Whether Proposed Rule 69O-186.003(1)(c) should be invalidated on the grounds that it is an invalid delegation of legislative authority as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2005).1
Findings Of Fact Based on the record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Background The Commission was created by statute effective January 7, 2003. It is composed of the Governor, the Attorney General, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Commissioner of Agriculture. The Commission members "serve as agency head of the Financial Services Commission." § 20.121(3), Fla. Stat. The OIR is an "office" of the Commission and is "responsible for all activities concerning insurers and other risk bearing entities . . . ." The OIR is headed by a director, who is also known as the Commissioner of Insurance Regulation. § 20.121(3)(a)1., Fla. Stat. Pertinent to this proceeding, the legislature delineated the powers to be exercised by the Commission and the OIR, respectively, in Section 20.121(3), Florida Statutes, as follows: (c) Powers.--Commission members shall serve as the agency head for purposes of rulemaking under ss. 120.536-120.565 by the commission and all subunits of the commission. Each director is agency head for purposes of final agency action under chapter 120 for all areas within the regulatory authority delegated to the director's office.[3] Stipulated Facts (verbatim) The following stipulated facts are adopted as findings of fact for the purpose of this Final Order: On February 25, 2003, the Commission met, considered, and approved an agenda item involving the rulemaking process to be used by the Commission, the OIR, and the Office of Financial Regulation. The rulemaking procedure that is under consideration in this case involves the Commission's delegation to the OIR of the authority to engage in certain rulemaking activities. A true and correct copy of that agenda item, as approved by the Commission, and the relevant pages of the transcript of that meeting, are attached hereto as "Appendix A." On May 13, 2003, the Commission met and without objection approved the minutes of the Commission's February 25, 2003, meeting. The rulemaking process and delegation set forth in Appendix A permit the OIR to initiate rulemaking and to publish a proposed rule without the prior approval of the Commission, but require the Commission to approve the proposed rule prior to its filing for final adoption pursuant to Section 120.54(3)(e), Florida Statutes. Since its adoption in 2003, the Commission and the OIR have routinely employed the rulemaking process described in Appendix A and used this delegation of rulemaking authority in promulgating rules regulating the insurance industry. The Commission and the OIR employed the rulemaking process described in Appendix A and used this delegation of rulemaking authority in promulgating the proposed JLP rule that is the subject of the pending rule challenge. In May 2005, the OIR issued an order approving the JLP forms that had previously been submitted by First American Title Insurance Company. Shortly thereafter, on June 3, 2005, the OIR published a proposed rule in the Florida Administrative Weekly that would set an industry-wide premium rate for the newly approved JLP forms. Pursuant to the OIR's notice of proposed rulemaking, a public hearing was held on July 13, 2005, at which interested parties had the opportunity to speak and address the provisions of the proposed rule. The OIR's counsel specifically stated on the record during the hearing that the rulemaking process was ongoing and that the "final" hearing for the proposed rule would be subsequently noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly and held before the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Commission. On or about July 25, 2005, the Fund and the Association filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings challenging the validity of the proposed JLP rule. Consistent with the Commission's routine practice, a notice of the "final" hearing before the Commission on the proposed JLP rule will be published in Part VI of the Florida Administrative Weekly ("Notices of Meetings, Workshops and Public Hearings"), and a copy of the notice will be mailed to all persons who notified the OIR of their interest in the proposed JLP rule, including the Fund and the Association. Statutory rulemaking procedures A "rule" is defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, as "each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule." Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, sets forth the rulemaking procedures that are to be followed by all Florida agencies, including the Commission, see § 120.52(1)(b)4., Fla. Stat., and these procedures constitute the exclusive process for the promulgation and adoption of rules in Florida. See § 120.54(1)(a) and (3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. The rulemaking procedures mandated in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, are detailed and comprehensive and contain two primary requirements: public notice at each step of the rule-development and rule-adoption process and an opportunity, throughout the rulemaking process, for the public and substantially affected persons to be heard with respect to any rule an agency proposes to adopt. See § 120.54(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. Generally, the first step in the rulemaking process is "rule development," as described in Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. The agency is required to give notice of its intent to develop proposed rules in the FAW "before providing notice of a proposed rule as required by paragraph (3)(a)," and the notice must "indicate the subject area to be addressed by rule development, provide a short, plain explanation of the purpose and effect of the proposed rule, cite the specific legal authority for the proposed rule, and include the preliminary text of the proposed rules, if available " § 120.54(2)(a), Fla. Stat. The agency may also hold public workshops during the rule development process, and it must hold a public workshop "if requested in writing by any affected person, unless the agency head explains in writing why a workshop is unnecessary." Id. Once the agency has developed a proposed rule, it must follow the adoption procedures set forth in Section 120.54(3), Florida Statutes. Foremost among these procedures is publication of notice of the agency's "intended action" in the FAW. This notice must be published by the agency "[p]rior to the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any rule other than an emergency rule" and only "upon approval of the agency head." § 120.54(3)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. The notice "must state the procedure for requesting a public hearing on the proposed rule" and must include a short, plain explanation of the purpose and effect of the proposed action; the full text of the proposed rule or amendment and a summary thereof; a reference to the specific rulemaking authority pursuant to which the rule is adopted; and a reference to the section or subsection of the Florida Statutes or the Laws of Florida being implemented, interpreted, or made specific. § 120.54(3)(a)1., Fla. Stat. If requested in writing, a public hearing must be conducted by the agency prior to adoption of a proposed rule in order to "give affected persons an opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues under consideration." See § 120.54(3)(c)1., Fla. Stat. Once this public hearing has been held, the agency may modify or withdraw the proposed rule or may adopt the proposed rule by filing it with the Department of State. See § 120.54(3)(d) and (e), Fla. Stat. If the agency decides to modify the substance of a proposed rule after the final public hearing or after the time for requesting a public hearing has passed, any substantive change in the rule "must be supported by the record of public hearings held on the rule, must be in response to written material received on or before the date of the final public hearing, or must be in response to a proposed objection by the [Administrative Procedures] committee." § 120.54(3)(d)1., Fla. Stat. The agency must also, among other things, publish notice of the change and the reasons for the change in the FAW. Id. When the agency has determined that the proposed rule is ready for adoption, it must file with the Department of State "three certified copies of the rule it proposes to adopt, a summary of the rule, a summary of any hearings held on the rule, and a detailed written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying the rule. § 120.54(3)(e)1., Fla. Stat. The proposed rule must be filed for adoption "no less than 28 days nor more than 90 days after the notice required by paragraph (a) [of Section 120.54(3), Florida Statutes]," § 120.54(3)(e)2., Fla. Stat.; the proposed rule is adopted upon filing with the Department of State and becomes effective 20 days after it is filed. § 120.54(3)(e)6., Fla. Stat. In addition to the opportunities to be heard at public hearings specified in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, persons who are substantially affected by a proposed rule may file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting an administrative hearing to determine the validity of the proposed rule, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent part: GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF A RULE OR A PROPOSED RULE.-- (a) Any person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed rule may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. * * * (e) Hearings held under this section shall be de novo in nature. The standard of proof shall be the preponderance of the evidence. Hearings shall be conducted in the same manner as provided by ss. 120.569 and 120.57, except that the administrative law judge's order shall be final agency action. The petitioner and the agency whose rule is challenged shall be adverse parties. . . . CHALLENGING PROPOSED RULES; SPECIAL PROVISIONS.-- Any substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of any proposed rule by filing a petition seeking such a determination with the division [of Administrative Hearings] within 21 days after the date of publication of the notice required by s. 120.54(3)(a), within 10 days after the final public hearing is held on the proposed rule as provided by s. 120.54(3)(c), within 20 days after the preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs required pursuant to s. 120.541, if applicable, or within 20 days after the date of publication of the notice required by s. 120.54(3)(d). The petition shall state with particularity the objections to the proposed rule and the reasons that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The petitioner has the burden of going forward. The agency then has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised. Any person who is substantially affected by a change in the proposed rule may seek a determination of the validity of such change. Any person not substantially affected by the proposed rule as initially noticed, but who is substantially affected by the rule as a result of a change, may challenge any provision of the rule and is not limited to challenging the change to the proposed rule. * * * (c) When any substantially affected person seeks determination of the invalidity of a proposed rule pursuant to this section, the proposed rule is not presumed to be valid or invalid.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners initiated an Administrative Complaint in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 81809, DOAH Case No. 89-0599, against Petitioner, Frank A. Brown, Ph.D., on January 13, 1989. Petitioner is the owner and proprietor of a professional service business engaged in the practice of psychology. At the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner's business employed less than twenty- five (25) full-time employees and had a net worth under two million dollars. Additionally, Petitioner's residence, business domicile, and principal office were located in Florida, and have been so located since 1976. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Petitioner was guilty of sexual misconduct in the practice of psychology, that the Petitioner failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, and that Petitioner was unable to practice the profession for which he is licensed under Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, with reasonable skill or competence as a result of impairment due to a mental or physical condition or by reason of illness, drunkenness, or excessive use of drugs, narcotics, chemicals or any other substance, pursuant to Florida Statutes, 1981-1987. On August 24, 1989, an Amended Administrative Complaint was filed alleging the same violations pursuant to Florida Statutes, 1981-1986. Petitioner disputed these allegations and requested a formal administrative hearing. Prior to hearing in the underlying proceeding, DOAH Case Number 89- 0599, Petitioner moved for dismissal of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner's motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. A formal hearing was held in this matter on September 12-13, 1989. At the hearing and after presentation of a portion of the testimony, the Department voluntarily dismissed its allegation of sexual misconduct in the practice of psychology. The hearing proceeded on the remaining two charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint. After the close of the evidence and submission of Proposed Recommended Orders by both parties, the Hearing Officer, on May 14, 1990, filed a Recommended Order recommending dismissal of the Amended Administrative Complaint against the Petitioner. On July 2, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners, filed a Final Order adopting the Recommended Order and dismissed the case consistent with the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order. Therefore, Petitioner became the prevailing party in the underlying action. The allegations against Petitioner contained in the Administrative Complaint resulted from a complaint received in 1987 from R.B. and D.B. concerning the care and treatment R.B. received from Petitioner in his capacity as a psychologist which centered on the illicit 7-year love affair between R.B. & Petitioner. It was the turmoil caused by the discovery of this affair by D.B., R.B.'s husband, that caused Petitioner, in April, 1987, to be examined and treated at CPC Parkwood Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia by Psychiatrist Warren A. Hinson, M.D. The Petitioner was advised of the complaint made by R.B. and D.B. around April 14, 1987. Petitioner responded through his attorney on at least two separate occasions with factual and legal arguments regarding the complaint lodged by R.B. and D.B. On November 9, 1987, a Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychological Examiners met to review the investigative report and responses from Petitioner. The investigative report consisted of several statements from R.B. and D.B., the responses from Petitioner, an interview with a Dr. Trotter, who had rendered psychological services to both R.B. and Petitioner, together and separately, and various documentary evidence. The investigative report was submitted to the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychological Examiners by the Chief Attorney for Allied Health Services of the Department of Professional Regulation under cover of a memorandum dated October 27, 1987. The memorandum states that the case was being submitted without a recommendation for an administrative complaint or closing order in Petitioner's case. The memorandum states: The attached case is being submitted without a recommended A/C or C/O. There are legal problems with charging sexual misconduct, although a strong argument could be made to support a finding that the subject failed to meet minimum standards of professional per- formance. Another issue, is the subject's fitness to practice by reason of emotional problems. Dr. Brown's attorney has suggested that the probable cause decision be deferred to allow Petitioner to enroll in the Impaired Practitioner's Program. Although there is no statutory provision for a psychologist to participate in the IPP, I see no reason why if couldn't be accomplished (by mutual agreement). The Chief Attorney realized that there was a problem with the allegations against Dr. Brown, in light of the retroactive application of a recent rule of the Board of Psychological Examiners defining the psychologist/client relationship as continuing in perpetuity for purposes of sexual misconduct allegations and in light of the fact that Dr. Brown's conduct could be construed to have occurred after the termination of the professional relationship between Petitioner and R.B. The legal problem created by the fact that Dr. Brown's conduct could be construed to have occurred during a time when the practice of psychology was not regulated did not occur to the Chief Attorney at the time of the 1987 meeting. However, as indicated by both the memorandum and transcript of the comments made at the probable cause meeting there were legal arguments which could be legitimately made which might overcome the problems with this case. 1/ These arguments also could be applied to the legal problem caused by the absence of a statute regulating the practice of psychology. The Probable Cause Panel, in the course of their review, considered the suggestion from Petitioner that a determination of probable cause be deferred pending the entry of the Petitioner into a program for impaired practitioners similar to the Impaired Practitioners Program utilized by other professions regulated by DPR. At that meeting, the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychological Examiners, after reviewing the investigative report and attachments, believed there was sufficient evidence to find probable cause. However, in light of the problems with this case and Petitioner's request to attempt to enter an impaired practitioners program (IPP), the Probable Cause Panel agreed to defer a finding of probable cause on condition that Petitioner develop and present to the Probable Cause Panel a comprehensive treatment and practice plan and possibly undergo a psychological/psychiatric evaluation. Around November 10, 1987, the Chief Attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation, Allied Health Services, notified the Petitioner that the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychology voted to "defer the probable cause decision", and requested that Petitioner initiate action to be accepted into an IPP and further, that Petitioner provide a comprehensive practice and treatment plan for the Probable Cause Panel's consideration at its next meeting. The Chief Attorney also requested that Petitioner's attorney contact the Department when he had the requested documentation prepared. Importantly, neither the transcript nor the letter from the Department's Chief Attorney indicates what the Board or the Probable Cause Panel might do after the deferral period. At best, from a reading of the transcript, it appears that the Panel intended to leave its options open as to whether the Panel might later find probable cause even if Petitioner complied with the Panel's instructions. Clearly, both attorney's involved in the matter hoped the case would be settled. However, such attorney's hopes do not translate into a Board or Panel promise or settlement agreement to forgo action against Petitioner should he comply with the Panel's instructions. Given the transcript of the probable cause panels meeting, deferring a decision cannot be translated into an agreement to not take any action by the Panel. 2/ In any event, the Petitioner initiated action to enroll in an IPP. Around January 1988, Dr. Goetz, Director of the Physician Recovery Network accepted Petitioner into the IPP program. Dr. Brown began participation in the Impaired Practitioners' Program by undergoing a five day inpatient evaluation in Atlanta. There was no judgment reached from this five day review that Petitioner was either incompetent or that he could not return to practice. Since there was no actual impairment of Dr. Brown, he returned to Pensacola to continue quarterly evaluations by psychiatrist Lawrence E. Mobley, M.D., and Pat O'Connell, M.D., and psychotherapy supervision with psychologist Jack Keller, Ph.D. The Department received several generalized reports of Petitioner's status and progress with the IPP program. The reports were dated July 29, August 18, August 16, November 10, and December 1, 1988. The Department also received at least two status reports from Petitioner's attorney. Around October 6, 1988, the Petitioner's attorney requested from the IPP program the information necessary to develop a comprehensive practice and treatment plan as requested by the November, 1987, Probable Cause Panel. The Respondent was never provided a comprehensive treatment and practice plan which was satisfactory to it. However, the Petitioner did make attempts to comply with this requirement. 3/ Believing Petitioner had complied with the Board's instructions, sometime around October 6, 1988, Petitioner's attorney informed the Department the Petitioner was established with an IPP program and that the matter was now ready for the Board's consideration. On December 4, 1988, the Probable Cause Panel reviewed the investigative report which included, in part, the diagnosis and report of Dr. Hinson relating to the Petitioner and his hospitalization at CPC Parkwood, in Atlanta, Georgia; the Petitioner's responses and arguments as presented by his attorney's correspondence with DPR; the Petitioner's letter to R.B., returning professional fees previously collected during treatment; the August 5, November 10, and December 1, 1988, reports from the IPP program regarding Petitioner; the opinions of Patrick Cook, Ph.D., and Deborah Frank, R.N. Ph.D., L.M.F.T.; the interviews of R.B. and D.B.; additional sworn statements of R.B. and D.B., and various documentary evidence associated with the underlying case. Neither Dr. Brown nor his attorney were permitted to attend this Probable Cause Panel's meeting. On the same date, the Probable Cause Panel after reviewing the investigative report, discussing the allegations, and consulting with legal counsel for the Board, Mr. Allen Grossman, Assistant Attorney General, by unanimous vote determined the existence of probable cause and directed the issuance of an Administrative Complaint as outlined in paragraph 3 above. At the time a finding of probable cause was made by the Board, at least two factual issues were considered by the Probable Cause Panel. Those issues were whether the Petitioner built his intimate relationship with R.B. upon an existing professional relationship interrelated with whether there had been a termination of that professional relationship and whether Petitioner's romantic involvement with R.B. occurred during a time when the practice of psychology was a regulated profession. The Probable Cause Panel relied upon the interviews of R.B. and her additional sworn statements regarding her romantic and professional relationship with the Petitioner. These statements as well as other evidence in the investigative file supported a finding of probable cause of sexual misconduct with a patient. Additionally, the Probable Cause Panel reasonably relied upon the statements of R.B. and D.B. and Petitioner's responses to DPR, regarding his relationship with R.B. and her family in finding probable cause of practicing below the prevailing standard for practice. On both these issues, the relevant time periods involved in this case were unclear from the information the Probable Cause Panel had before it. However, there was enough evidence in the investigative file for the Board to reasonably conclude that Petitioner had engaged in actions which would subject him to discipline during a time when the practice of psychology was regulated or cause his later behavior to relate back to a time when the practice of psychology was regulated. Additionally, as noted with the 1987 Probable Cause Panel, there were legitimate legal arguments which could be made in an attempt to overcome the problems due to a lack of rules or statutes incurred in the underlying action. Therefore, given the fact that the Board had a reasonable basis in law and fact to find probable cause against Petitioner for violation of Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees. The Probable Cause Panel also, considered the issue of Petitioner's mental health vis a vis Petitioner's ability to safely practice psychology. This latter issue and the resultant charge in the Administrative Complaint appears to be a "throw in" charge for which the Panel had no reasonable legal or factual basis to find probable cause. However, the issue of Petitioner's mental health was never seriously prosecuted by the Department and did not play a significant role in the litigation or the fees expended in the litigation. Additionally, the evidence did not demonstrate what portion of the Petitioner's attorney's fees and costs could be attributed to this single issue. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to an apportionment of attorney's fees and costs based on this issue.
Findings Of Fact Both parties filed proposed findings of fact. Except as noted below, I have incorporated the substance of these proposed findings into my findings of fact. Rejected DOT Proposed Findings of Fact The following proposed findings are rejected because they are not facts but only recitations of testimony: Rule 22I-6.006 - proposed finding 1 - second and third sentence. Rule 22I-6.037 - proposed finding 1 - second sentence. proposed finding 2 - first and second sentence. The following proposed findings are irrelevant to the resolution of this case: Rule 22I-6.006 - proposed finding 4 and 5 because the proposed rule applies to other agencies than DOT. proposed finding 6 because whether another method of notifying all bidders is more efficient is not the standard to determine validity of the rule. Rule 22I-6.037 - proposed finding 3, 5, and 7. Rejected DOAH Proposed Finding of Fact The following proposed finding of fact are rejected because these are more in the nature of legal argument or conclusions of law rather than findings of fact: Proposed finding 5 - sentences 5 and 6. Proposed finding 6 - second paragraph, sentences 1 and 2; third paragraph, sentence 4 and 5; and fourth paragraph Proposed finding 7 - second paragraph; third paragraph; and fourth paragraph, fifth sentence Proposed finding 8 - fourth paragraph; fifth paragraph; and sixth paragraph The follow proposed findings are rejected as being irrelevant to the resolution of the issues presented in this case. Proposed finding 1 - fourth sentence Proposed finding 6 - second paragraph, sentence 5 and 6 Proposed finding 7 - fourth paragraph, sentence 1 through 4 The following proposed finding is rejected as not supported by the record evidence: Proposed finding 6 - fourth paragraph, sentence 4 fifth paragraph, sentence 4 ANALYSIS Standing The first issue that must be addressed is DOT's standing. DOAH asserts that Dot lacks standing to challenge Proposed Rules 22I-6.035 and 22I-6.037. DOT has the burden to establish that it would be substantially affected by the proposed rules should they be adopted by DOAH. Section 120.54(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In order to resolve whether DOT has met its burden, a review of the pertinent decisions on standing is appropriate. 5/ The case cited most often on standing is the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Florida Department of Corrections v. Jerry, 353 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1978). The court held that an inmate who had been confined for committing an assault while in prison lacked standing to challenge an existing rule concerning disciplinary confinement and forfeiture of gain-time. Because the inmate was no longer confined under the rule and had not lost any gain-time when he filed the rule challenge, the court reasoned that the inmate had not suffered an injury in fact at the time of the challenge, end therefore, was not substantially affected by the existing rule. Whether the inmate would be subject to the rule again depended on the likelihood he would commit another infraction. The court deemed this too speculative and subject to conjecture to grant standing. 353 So.2d at 1236. In a later case, the Florida Supreme Court overruled Jerry to the extent it required associations to demonstrate a specific injury to the organization itself rather then to some of its members. Florida Home Builders' Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1982). In reaching its decision, the court warned against an overly restrictive application of the concept of standing in the rule challenge cases by noting: "Expansion of public access to activities of governmentally agencies was one of the major legislative purposes of the new Administrative Procedure Act." 412 So.2d at 352-53. Standing to challenge proposed agency rules was addressed in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). There, the court held that all women of child bearing age who received medicaid benefits were not substantially affected by a proposed rule denying medicaid payments for abortions except under limited circumstances. In denying standing to a woman who was not pregnant at the time of the rule challenge, the court specifically rejected the argument that standing to challenge a proposed rule under Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (1985), is less restrictive than standing to challenge an existing rule under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1985), by stating: There is no difference between the immediacy and reality necessary to confer standing whether the proceeding is to challenge an existing rule or a proposed rule. 367 So.2d at 1052. In Professional Fire Fighters of Florida v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 396 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the court held that a group of paramedics had standing to challenge rules establishing additional requirements for renewal of a paramedical certification. There was no showing on any of the individual paramedics had attempted to comply with the new rules or that anything in the new rules would disqualify them from retaining their certification. In rejecting the hearing officer's ruling that these individuals could not claim an injury because they had not yet applied for certification under the new rules, the court stated: The order below would preclude a challenge by anyone who had not first complied with a rule and suffered injury, no matter how clear the rule's applicability to, or substantial its effect on, the challengers... The APA permits prospective challenges to agency rulemaking and does not require that an affected party comply with the rule at his peril in order to obtain standing to chal- lenge the rule. A party may demonstrate standing by showing that a rule has a real and immediate effect upon his case as well as by proving injury in fact. 396 So.2d at 1195-96 (citations omitted) see also 4245 Corp., Mother's Lounge Inc. v. Department of Beverage, 345 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The court distinguished Jerry and Alice P. on the grounds that the petitioners in the case before it were immediately subject to the rule which rendered their continued employment as paramedics unlawful without compliance with the rule. The individuals were presently affected by the rule because they worked in the area to be regulated. 396 So.2d at 1196. In Village Park Mobile Home Association v. Department of Business Regulation, 506 So.2d 426, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the court on rehearing emphasized under the test for standing set forth in Fire Fighters that a party may show "that a rule has a real and immediate effect upon his case, as well as injury in fact." Standing was not found in Village Park for certain mobile home owners to challenge agency approval of the prospectus for a mobile home park because the prospectus only disclosed the method for raising rents and reducing services in the future. It was up to the landlord to implement the prospectus at some unspecified date in the future. 6/ Thus, no standing was found because the alleged injury was contingent upon the future actions of a third party. 506 So.2d at 433-34; see also Boca Raton Mausoleum v. Department of Banking, 511 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In this case, DOT has not alleged that it has suffered an injury in fact by Proposed Rules 22I-6.035 and 22I-6.037. That is not surprising with respect to Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 since it is a new rule that has not been implemented. However, with respect to the proposed amendments to Rule 22I-6.035, dealing with attorney's fees and costs, most of DOT's challenges concern portions of the rule that were not substantially changed in the proposed rule. For example, DOT objects to the provisions requiring an agency to file a response or affidavit and the provisions which allow for a waiver of the right to an evidentiary hearing when one is not affirmatively requested by either party. Rule 22I-6.035 presently contains such provisions. Therefore, the injury in fact test would be applicable. However, DOT has not presented any facts indicating that a prevailing small business party has ever filed a petition seeking costs and attorney's fees from DOT under Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. Consequently, no injury exists. The alternative test for standing is whether the proposed rules would have a "real and immediate effect" upon DOT. With respect to Proposed Rule 22I- 6.035, DOT has not met this test merely by demonstrating that it is a party to pending cases involving small business parties. In order for DOT to be affected by Proposed Rule 22I-6.035, a small business party would first have to prevail against DOT and then file a petition for costs and attorney's fees based upon its belief that DOT was not "substantially justified" in bringing the administrative action. Whether these contingencies, which are controlled by a third party, will occur in the future is open to conjecture and speculation. The type of immediacy envisioned by the court in the Fire Fighters case does not appear to be present with respect to Proposed Rule 22I-6.035. Therefore, DOT does not have standing to challenge this proposed rule. On the other hand, I conclude that DOT has standing to challenge Proposed Rule 22I-6.037. DOT presently has at least nine pending cases involving administrative complaints. The proposed rule on voluntary dismissals would be immediately applicable to DOT's ability to take a voluntary dismissal on those cases without being contingent upon the acts of a third party. Such a real and immediate effect on pending cases involving DOT is sufficient to provide DOT with the requisite standing. DOT does not have to invoke the rule by seeking a voluntary dismissal in order to have standing to challenge the rule as suggested by DOAH. See Professional Fire Fighters of Florida, 396 So.2d at 1195. Invalidity of Proposed Rules 22I-6.006 and 22I-6.037 The Florida Legislature has recently defined what constitutes an invalid exercise of Legislative authority. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 87-385, Section 2, Laws of Florida, provides: (8) "Invalid exercise of delegated legisla- tive authority" means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one or more of the following apply: (a ) The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedure set forth in s. 120.54; The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule enlarges, modifies, or con- travenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency; or The rule is arbitrary or capricious. These standards are similar to those used by the courts in Florida to test the validity of agency rules. See e.g., Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1979); Humana Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 469 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In Agrico Chemical Co., the First District Court of Appeal stated: [I]n a 120.54 hearing, the hearing officer must look to the legislative authority for the rule and determine whether or not the proposed rule is encompassed within that grant. The burden is upon one who attacks the proposed rule to show that the agency, if it adopts the rule, would exceed its author- ity; that the requirements of the rule are not appropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act; that the requirements contained in the rule are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation or that the proposed rule or the requirements thereof are arbitrary or capricious. A capricious action is one which is taken without though or reason or irration- ally. An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic, or is despotic. Administrative discretion must be reasoned and based upon competent substantial evi- dence. Competent substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as a reason- able person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement that a challenger has the burden of demonstrating agency action to be arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of administrative discretion is a stringent one. 365 So.2d at 763. In this case DOT has the burden to demonstrate that adoption of Proposed Rules 22I-6.006 and 22I-6.037 would constitute an invalid exercise of legislative authority. Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 DOAH is statutorily authorized "to adopt reasonable rules to carry out the provisions of this act [Chapter 120]." Section 120.65(7), Fla. Stat. (1985). Regarding bid protests, an agency is required to forward a protest to DOAH for an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1985), whenever there is a disputed issue a material fact. Section 120.53(5)(d)2, Fla. Stat. (1985). Section 120.57(1) sets forth certain procedures for conducting evidentiary hearings and proceedings where the substantial interests of a party are determined. In light of these statutory provisions, DOAH proposes to amend Rule 6.006 by requiring that an agency send a copy of the notice of hearing to all bidders, other than the protesting bidder, and attempt to telephonically notify these bidders of the date, time, and place the hearing. The purpose of this requirement is to give notice of the deadline to file a motion to intervene in the protest proceeding to the successful bidder, as well as all other bidders who had not filed a timely protest. Motions to intervene must be filed within five days prior to start of an evidentiary hearing. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 6.010. DOT persuasively argues that this portion of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 requires an agency to do a useless act because any bidder that has not flied a timely protest is precluded from gaining party status in a bid protest proceeding by filing a motion to intervene. I agree. Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1985), requires an agency to provide notice of its decision, or intended decision, concerning a bid solicitation. The notice must contain the following statement: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." Paragraph (b) of Section 120.53(5), provides: Any person who is affected adversely by the agency decision or intended decision shall file with the agency a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours after the posting of the bid tabulation or after receipt of the notice of the agency decision or intended decision and shall file a formal written protest within 10 days after the date he filed the notice of protest. Failure to file a notice of protest or failure to file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120. The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based. These statutory provisions are clear and unequivocal. An unsuccessful bidder must file a protest within the 72 hour limitations period in order to participate in further Chapter 120 proceedings. Xerox Corp. v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation, 489 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also Capelletti Brothers v. Department of Transportation, 499 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(72 hour deadline applies to protest challenging bid specifications). An adversely affected bidder cannot, and should not be allowed to, gain a back door point of entry to obtain party status in a bid protest proceeding by filing a motion to intervene when the bidder has already waived its right to participate in the proceeding. The only substantially effected entity that would be entitled to intervene in a bid protest proceeding is the successful bidder. Therefore, there would be a valid purpose in adopting a rule that required the successful bidder to receive the notice of hearing so that it would be aware of the deadline for filing a motion to intervene. However, as to all other non-protesting bidders, there is no statutory basis for providing the notice of hearing to them in light of what appears to be a clear prohibition against allowing those bidders to obtain party status after failing to file a timely protest pursuant to Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). DOAH argues that the need for subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 is dramatized by the case of Spillis Candella and Partners, Inc. v. School Board of Dade County, No. 86-3002 Bid. There, the hearing officer determined that the agency never complied with the notice requirements triggering the 72 hour limitations period. Therefore, the protest filed in that case was determined to be timely since the 72 hour time limit had not expired. This single case does not provide justification for requiring agencies to give notice of the evidentiary hearing to all unsuccessful bidders in all bid protest cases. No evidence was adduced indicating that the failure to provide the requisite statutory notice issue raised in the Spillis Candella case had ever occurred in any other bid protest proceeding that had come before a DOAH hearing officer. Even if this had been a recurring problem, subsection (b) of the Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 could have been more closely tailored to remedy issues similar to that raised in Spillis Candella. The rule should have limited an agency's responsibility to provide a notice of hearing to all unsuccessful bidders if the agency had not previously complied with the notice requirements of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1985). 7/ In light of the foregoing, I conclude that subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 is arbitrary because it requires agencies to provide notice of a bid protest hearing to bidders who have waived their right to become parties in the proceeding. The rule also contravenes Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), which contemplates that only timely protestors may participate as parties in a bid proceeding. 8/ Subsection (3) is also invalid because it requires that an agency provide to the hearing officer proof that it has complied with subsection (2). DOT's remaining objections to Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 are without merit. The fact that all agencies involved in bid protests must adopt rules end procedures for the resolution of such protests, and that the Administration Commission shall also adopt model rules on the same subject, does not indicate a legislative intent to preempt DOAH from adopting rules pertaining to the procedures for conducting bid protest hearings. Section 120.53(5)(a) and (f), Fla. Stat. (1955). In addition, Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), does not prohibit non-parties from receiving notice of an evidentiary hearing. Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 DOT advances numerous arguments in support of its contention that subsections (2) and (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 constitute an invalid exercise of legislative authority. I am persuaded by two of these arguments that DOT's position has merit. First, with respect to subsection (2), the proposed rule provides a hearing officer with the discretion to grant a motion for voluntary dismissal "upon such terms and conditions as the hearing officer deems just and proper." This language fails to provide any guidance to a hearing officer or to the parties in an administrative complaint proceeding as to what conditions a hearing officer could impose for allowing the agency to withdraw its complaint without prejudice. Instead, the rule gives the hearing officer unlimited discretion to impose any condition the hearing officer subjectively believes is "just and proper." These words cannot be construed as words of limitation because it must always be presumed that a hearing officer will rule in a manner that he or she believes is just and proper. Thus the elimination of the "just and proper" language from the rule would not give any more discretion to a hearing officer than is presently granted by the proposed rule. The fact that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(2) provides that a trial court may grant a voluntary dismissal filed after submission of a case to the court "upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper," does not provide a basis for concluding that subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 is valid. The Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted pursuant to the inherent power of the courts, a power that administrative agencies do not possess. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. Tampa Heart Institute, 472 So.2d 748, 753-54 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985). Agency rules may not violate the standards set forth in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 57-325, Section 2, Laws of Florida. In this case, subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I- runs afoul of paragraph (d) of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended, which provides that a rule is invalid if [t]he rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency." Therefore, subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 is invalid. Subsection (3) of the proposed rule is also invalid but for a different reason. Unlike subsection (2), nothing is left to the parties' imagination as to the consequences an agency will encounter if it files a notice of voluntary dismissal of an administrative complaint containing nonjurisdictional allegations that were previously the subject of a voluntary dismissal. Those nonjurisdictional factual allegations contained in both complaints will be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The issue with regard to this rule provision is whether DOAH has the statutory authority to adopt a rule that requires dismissal of an administrative complaint with prejudice under these circumstances. Although no cases are directed on point, two district court of appeal decisions are instructive. In Great American Bank v. Division of Administrative Hearings, 412 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the First District Court of Appeal revised a hearing officer's order imposing sanctions for a party's failure to make discovery and for a witness' failure to give responsive testimony. The court ruled that certain portions of the model rules, which purported to give such authority to a hearing officer, were invalid because they conflicted with the discovery enforcement provisions found in the Administrative Procedure Act. Section 120.58(3), Fla. Stat. (1981). The Legislature subsequently amended Section 120.58 to specifically grant hearing officers the authority to pose sanctions to effect discovery. Ch. 84-173, Laws of Florida. In Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. Tampa Heart Institute, 472 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the Second District Court of Appeal declared Model Rule 28-5.211 invalid to the extent the rule authorized a hearing officer to impose sanctions, including dismissal, to enforce procedural orders. The court rejected the argument that the same general rulemaking authority relied upon by DOAH as authority for Proposed Rule 22I-6.037, Sections 120.53 and 120.65(7), Florida Statutes (1985), authorized the model rule. Rather, any rule that provides a sanction in the form of a penalty must be based upon explicit statutory authority such as that found in Section 120.58(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), or Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). 9/ 472 So.2d at 747-48. Subsection (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 imposes the sanction of dismissal with prejudice. However, in contrast to the specific saction authority granted to hearing officers in Sections 120.58(1)(b) and 120.57(1)(b)5, no provision in Chapter 120 specifically authorizes DOAH to impose a sanction under the circumstances set forth in subsection (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037. Therefore, while I find the purpose of adopting subsection (3) of the proposed rule, to ensure failness, is laudable, this portion of the rule is invalid because DOAH does not possess the requisite legislative authority to adopt such a rule. Section 120.52(5)(b), Fla. Stat., as amended by Ch. 87-358, Section 2, Laws of Florida.
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).
