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).
The Issue Whether proposed rules of Respondent constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Highway Patrol (FHP), a division of Respondent, was accredited by the Commission On Accreditation For Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) by notification received on November 16, 1996. For a period of five years prior to receipt of accredited status, FHP had been involved in that process. Among FHP actions taken in the process of accreditation was the revision of a policy manual for FHP members which took effect on February 1, 1996. The policy manual is issued to all FHP sworn officers and a copy is maintained at each FHP station. Chapter 3.03 of the policy manual contains the five policies challenged in this proceeding. FHP Policy 3.03.06 A 6 provides, as follows: Members will conduct themselves on and off- duty in such a manner so that their actions and behavior reflect favorably on the Division. Members will not engage in conduct which discredits the integrity of the Division or its employees, or which impairs the operations of the Department/Division. FHP policy 3.03.06 A 19 provides: Members will be courteous to the public. Members will be tactful in the performance of their duties, will control their tempers, and exercise the utmost patience and discretion and will not engage in argumentative discussions even in the face of extreme provocation. In the performance of their duties, members will not use coarse, violent, profane or insolent language or gestures, and will not express any prejudice concerning race, religion, politics, national origin, lifestyle or similar personal characteristics. FHP policy 3.03.03 A 33 provides: Involvement in political activities will not be permitted during members’ on-duty time. Political activities include soliciting or receiving any contribution for any political party or cause, or storing, posting, carrying or distributing political literature of any nature. Specifically, Florida Statutes provide that members shall not Hold or be a candidate for public or political office while in the employment of the State or take any active part in a political campaign while on-duty or within any period of time during which they are expected to perform services for which they receive compensation from the State. However, when authorized by the agency head and approved by the Department of Management Services, employees in the career service may be a candidate for or hold a local public office which involves no interest which conflicts or interferes with that state employment. Use authority of their position to secure for or oppose, any candidate, party or issue in a partisan election or affect the results thereof. Use any promise of reward or threat of loss to encourage or cause any employee to support or contribute to any political issue, candidate or party. Perform any police duty connected with the conduct of any election. Subsections (a)-(c) were taken from Section 110.233(4) and (5), Florida Statutes. FHP policy 3.03.03 A 50 provides: Members, while off-duty, will refrain from consuming intoxicating beverages to the extent that it results in impairment, intoxication, or obnoxious or offensive behavior which discredits them or the Division, or renders the members unfit to report for their next regular tour of duty. FHP policy 3.03.03 A 54 provides: Personal activities or associations of a member that knowingly create an apparent or real conflict of interest with the conduct of official duties are prohibited. A “conflict of interest” arises when a member’s private interest, whether of a financial nature or otherwise, conflicts with the member’s impartial conduct of official duties and responsibilities. Section 321.02, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, the following: [Respondent] shall set up and promulgate rules and regulations by which the personnel of the Florida Highway Patrol shall be examined, employed, trained, located, suspended, reduced in rank, discharged, recruited, paid and pensioned, subject to civil service provisions hereafter set out. Respondent provides citation to this statutory provision as the law implemented by the challenged regulations. This authority sufficiently supports adoption by reference, pursuant to 120.54 (l)(i), Florida Statutes, of the conduct regulations which form the subject of Petitioner’s challenge. Discipline for violation of the foregoing policies is applied to a member through application of Chapter 15-3, Florida Administrative Code, which contains Respondent’s disciplinary guidelines. Among those guidelines is listed the offense of violation of rules, regulations or policies. Following Petitioner’s filing on April 2, 1997, of the Petition To Determine The Invalidity Of Rules, Respondent published, on April 18, 1997, a Notice of Development of Proposed Rules in compliance with requirements of Chapter 120, Florida statutes. The text of the notice documented Respondent’s intent to adopt the FHP policy manual as an administrative rule.
The Issue This cause came on for consideration upon Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Relief from a "Determination: No Cause," order entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact The undisputed facts are as follows: After investigating Petitioner's Claim of Discrimination, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) entered its Order, "Determination: No Cause," on March 12, 1996. FCHR's order unequivocally advised Petitioner that her Petition for Relief, if any, must be filed within 35 days. The thirty-fifth day would have been April 16, 1996. After the time as provided by FCHR's Rule 60Y-5.008(1) and by FCHR's March 12, 1996 order for the filing of her Petition for Relief had already run out, Petitioner filed a request for extension of time in which to file her Petition for Relief. Her request for extension stated that she needed the extension of time "due to failing health of my spouse and medical care and concern for him." This late request for extension of time was the only request for extension of time filed by Petitioner. It was dated April 17, 1996, (one day late) but it was not filed with the FCHR until April 24, 1996 (eight days late). Petitioner did not mail a copy of her April 1996 request for extension of time to Respondent as required by FCHR rules. Therefore, Respondent was unaware there had been a request for extension made to the FCHR until Respondent received the FCHR's order dated May 31, 1996. Because it had no notice that Petitioner was requesting an extension in April 1996, Respondent had no opportunity to object to the FCHR before the Commission entered its May 31, 1996 order. By its May 31, 1996 order, FCHR granted Petitioner an extension of time only until June 14, 1996 in which to file her Petition for Relief. The order does not state a number of days, but clearly and specifically states that the Petition for Relief must be filed by June 14, 1996. FCHR granted no further extensions to Petitioner for filing her Petition for Relief. Petitioner filed her Petition for Relief beyond the June 14, 1996 date assigned her by the FCHR. Although her Petition for Relief was dated June 14, 1996, FCHR's date stamp on the Petition for Relief shows that it was not filed with the Commission until June 18, 1996. FCHR transmitted the Petition for Relief to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about July 12, 1996. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Relief and an Answer with affirmative defenses based on untimeliness. See, Conclusion of Law 15. In response to the October 8, 1996 order to show cause herein, Petitioner filed a pleading she labelled "Order Requiring Further Advices and to Show Cause." Although she had been required to show cause why she did not timely file her Petition for Relief between May 31, 1996 and June 18, 1996, she instead explained her tardiness in filing for an extension of time back in April 1996 this way: I was under the impression that I had 35 days to respond from the time I received the Notice of Determination: No Cause. I receive [sic] this notice on March 15, 1996, under my impression the 35 day lapse period would have been until April 19, 1996. I feel my response met this time period as my letter was dated April 17, 1996. In response to the October 8, 1996 order herein, Petitioner has offered no explanation why she filed her Petition for Relief beyond the clearly specified extension period granted her by the Commission.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
The Issue Whether this cause is barred by a release of all claims.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing Petitioner, Amanda L. Van Parys', Petition for Relief from employment discrimination for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 9th day of December, 2010.
The Issue Whether Cubic Western has standing to bring the bid challenge involved in these proceedings.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 31, 1989, CUBIC submitted a Proposal in response to DOT RFP-DOT-88-01 for a toll collection system for Florida's Turnpike. After reviewing this proposal, DOT determined CUBIC's proposal was nonresponsive to the RFP, and on May 18, 1989, advised CUBIC of the rejection of its proposal and of CUBIC's right to challenge this determination by filing a petition for administrative hearing. CUBIC timely filed a Formal Written Protest dated June 5, 1989 requesting an administrative hearing challenging this agency action. This protest was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by DOT order of July 20, 1989, and the case was scheduled to be heard August 4, 1989. On July 31, 1989, CUBIC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The Division of Administrative Hearings entered an ORDER OF DISMISSAL closing the DOAH file and returning the matter to DOT for final disposition. DOT entered a Final Order dismissing CUBIC's bid protest. On October 5, 1989, CUBIC filed an Amended Complaint in the Circuit Court, Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, against DOT, which had been consolidated with an action filed by PRC against DOT as both cases stemmed from action taken by DOT on RFP-DOT-88-01. In this civil action, CUBIC seeks return of the RFP it submitted to DOT. In this civil complaint CUBIC asserts that since its proposal had been rejected by DOT as nonresponsive to the RFP, at that point in time "DOT and the public had no further interest in CUBIC's Proposal, and there is no public interest to be served by disclosing the CUBIC Proposal at this time." On November 21, 1989, DOT posted notice of its intended award of the contract based on the RFP to PRC. On December 6, 1989, CUBIC timely filed the Formal Written Protest that is the subject of this Motion.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Formal Written Protest dated December 6, 1989, submitted by Cubic Western Data, be dismissed. ENTERED this 2nd day of January 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank A. Shepherd, Esquire Gernard M. Kouri, Esquire Thomas H. Bateman, 111 Kimbrell and Hamann General Counsel Suite 900, Brickell Center Department of Transportation 799 Brickell Plaza 562 Haydon Burns Building Miami, FL 33131-2805 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Robert Daniti, Esquire Ben G. Watts Department of Transportation Secretary Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 Department of Transportation Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 David Bressler, Esquire Fowler, White, et al. 101 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
