Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Hurner, currently holds Florida teaching certificate 447579, covering the area of Mental Retardation, from the Florida Department of Education (DOE). At all times material, the Respondent was licensed by DOE and employed as an ESE teacher at Paxson Junior High School, in the Duval County School District. On October 31, 1988, the Respondent was cleared to be issued a teaching certificate by Professional Practices Services after he acknowledged a 1984 conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. On January 7, 1990, the Respondent was arrested and charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol. On March 19, 1990, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol and was adjudicated guilty by the court. On March 19, 1990, the court sentenced the Respondent to three months' probation and ordered him to pay $926.50 in court costs and fines. In addition, the Respondent's driver's license was revoked for five years, and he was referred to the North Florida Safety Council. On June 15, 1993, the Respondent applied for a renewal of his teaching certificate. On his application, the Respondent acknowledged his 1990 conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Respondent has been a respected teacher with good evaluations from the Duval County School Board for seventeen years, despite his alcohol-related convictions. Neither of the arrests nor the underlying behaviors associated therewith occurred during school hours or in relation to any school sponsored events. No bodily harm or property damage was shown to be incident thereto. Respondent made no effort to hide his convictions from Petitioner agency and unrefuted testimony shows that his job performance and teaching reputation have not been affected thereby. The second event in 1990 occurred when Respondent was at a very low emotional ebb in his personal life. His mother was terminally ill. The North Florida Safety Council, in conjunction with the court and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, referred the Respondent to the Chemical Dependency Counselling Clinic. He successfully completed the requirements of all referring agencies. Although not required to do so, Respondent voluntarily increased his rehabilitation program with the Clinic to a full twelve weeks: five weeks awareness education and seven weeks of group and individual therapy. He did not use his personal problems as an excuse to fail, but was enthusiastic and made up any sessions he missed due to reasonable excused absences. On August 17, 1993, Respondent was discharged with such a good prognosis that no treatment recommendations were made by any of his three counsellors. Currently, he is diagnosed as "an alcoholic in recovery working on a lifestyle change." One of his former counsellors with the Chemical Dependency Counselling Clinic, Ms. Tibbett, testified on Respondent's behalf. She was trained by the U.S. Navy in the identification, treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation of drug and alcohol addiction. She has worked 16 years in the field and was certified by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in 1985 and as a Certified Addiction Associate Professional (CAAP) by the Department of Professional Regulation in 1989. She currently is completing the successor agency's requirements for the higher ranking Certified Addiction Professional (CAP) certification. She now teaches other addictionologists and drug/alcohol treatment personnel in both the public and private sectors in addition to her own clinical work. She volunteers to the Duval County School Board on occasion. As evidence of Respondent's dedication to his recovery as well as of his recovery itself, Ms. Tibbett pointed to Respondent's record of never failing a random alcohol test while he was in the Chemical Dependency Counselling Clinic program, even on a holiday Saturday morning at 6:00 a.m. and even after his mother died after a long illness in May, 1993. Ms. Tibbett believes Respondent's sobriety record on those occasions is good reason to believe he will never relapse into alcoholism. She opined that he is no risk to the public in general nor specifically to any school children in his care. She further testified that she gladly would have her own seventeen year old son taught by him. Although she explained that no alcoholic is ever "cured," in her opinion Respondent is rehabilitated. Her well-reasoned professional opinion is accepted. Upon the unrefuted testimony of Respondent; of Mark S. Kager, a colleague and professional teacher for fifteen years; of Albert George Day, Respondent's housemate; of William Dale Tackett, a colleague and another professional teacher for seventeen years; and of Angela Hornbeck, Respondent's steady girlfriend for four years; it is found that Respondent voluntarily has imbibed no alcoholic beverages since April 2, 1990.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the agency enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(e) F.S.; not guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(c) F.S.; and ordering him to fulfill a one year probationary period including random drug and alcohol testing as prescribed by the Educational Practices Commission. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of November, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 29th day of November, 1994.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent from employment as a bus driver, a non-instructional position.
Findings Of Fact Background The School Board is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades kindergarten through 12) in Hernando County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public education to school-aged children in the county. § 4(b), Art. IX, Fla. Const. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a bus driver, a position she held for approximately 16 years. Bus drivers are considered educational support or non-instructional employees. The School Board has adopted a Safe Driver Plan that applies to all bus drivers. All bus drivers receive a copy of the Safe Driver Plan annually, and are required to sign the Safe Driver Acknowledgement Form indicating that he/she has reviewed and understands the plan. The Safe Driver Plan specifically provides guidelines for assignment of points based on alleged driving-related incidents and maximum number of points that may be assigned for each violation. A recommendation for disciplinary action is based on the number of points assigned during a 12-month time period. Under the Safe Driver Plan, the recommendation for disciplinary action for the designated points within a 12-month period is as follows: 1-4 points, a documented warning; 5- 6 points, a one-day suspension without pay; 7-9 points, three days’ suspension without pay; and 10 points, recommendation for termination. Pursuant to the Safe Driver Plan, the Review Board “assesses points for any violation or incident/crash from 0 through 10 following the approved point system outlined in the plan.” Specifically, the Review Board, made up of five members, as designated by the Safe Driver Plan, is responsible for reviewing driver incidents, determining whether the incidents were preventable or unpreventable, listening to any evidence provided by the driver regarding the incidents, and assessing points pursuant to the Safe Driver Plan. The Review Board does not have discretion regarding the recommendation made to the driver’s site administrator. Regarding assignment of points, the Safe Driver Plan provides in relevant part: If court action is required to determine fault in an incident/crash, and the assignment of points would be five (5) points or less, the driver shall not be assigned points until court action is taken. Effective date of points assigned shall be the date of the violation. * * * If a driver is assigned points, he/she will be informed of the assignment of points by the Safe Driver Review Board in writing. The driver may then accept the point assignment or he/she may appeal the assignment of points to the Coordinator of Safety and Security. When points are assessed by the Review Board, the driver who is the recipient of the points has an opportunity to appeal the decision. The Safe Driver Plan includes an appeal process which provides, in relevant part, the following: The driver must inform his/her supervisor in writing of their decision to appeal within five working days of notification of assigned points. The request shall state the driver’s objections to the assignment of points in detail. The supervisor shall then forward the request for appeal to the Coordinator of Safety and Security. A driver who chooses to appeal the assignment of points will be given a copy of all accident information for their review by the investigator prior to the date of the meeting. This will give the driver the opportunity to review all information that will be presented at the hearing and prepare for the hearing in order to rebut any of the information that will be presented. It will also give the driver the opportunity to present testimony and information to the Coordinator of Safety and Security or to offer an explanation of mitigating circumstances prior to points being upheld. After the Safe Driver Review Board’s final recommendation of administrative action is made and any driver’s appeal is heard, all disciplinary action taken by the driver’s supervisor must follow the School Board approved disciplinary policy. For purposes of this matter, the driver appeals the assignment of points to William Hall, the manager of fire, safety, and security. Mr. Hall testified that he reviews all of the information submitted by the driver, and if there is additional evidence or mitigating circumstances that were not before the Review Board, he would meet with the driver for a hearing. If there is no new evidence or mitigating circumstances, Mr. Hall then unilaterally determines the appeal based on the documents. After a driver has exhausted the appeal process, a driver, who is facing a potential suspension or termination based on the accumulation of points, may appeal the coordinator’s decision by using the School Board’s approved complaint process. For purposes of this matter, that appeal goes to the supervisor of professional standards, Matthew Goldrick, who serves as the designee for the superintendent and handles the driver’s predetermination meetings. At the predetermination hearing, the driver is given an opportunity to present any information that she wants prior to any decision being made for a suspension or termination. The superintendent then decides whether to proceed with a recommendation for discipline. The School Board has adopted policy 6.37, which establishes standards for the separation, discipline, and discharge of non-instructional employees, including Respondent. Paragraph (5)(d) recognizes three categories of offenses and a guide for recommended penalties. Relevant to this proceeding are the offenses and recommended penalties for Group III. The penalty for Group III offenses carry a recommended penalty of "up to discharge" for the first violation. The School Board has charged Respondent with violating the Safe Driver Plan by accumulating 10 points within a 12-month period, which results in a recommendation of termination. Respondent was also charged with a violation of a Group III offense, namely accumulating disciplinary actions, no one of which standing alone would warrant discharge. The accumulation of points resulted from four driving violations, which are discussed further below. Driving Violations On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, Respondent was issued a traffic citation for careless driving while operating her bus. Respondent did not immediately report the citation as required by the Safe Driver Plan. On January 6, 2016, the Review Board reviewed Respondent’s December 8, 2015, incident. The Review Board assessed Respondent with a violation for “[f]ailure to report an incident/crash or citation, no matter how minor, while operating a School Board vehicle immediately during regular working hours and as soon as reasonably possible after working hours,” a Category 3 violation. The Review Board determined the incident was preventable and assigned Respondent 10 points. Respondent appealed the Review Board’s assignment of 10 points for the December 8, 2015, incident. On January 21, 2016, a Safe Driver Appeals Meeting was held before Mr. Hall. As a result of the appeal, Respondent’s assigned points were reduced to four points. On April 25, 2016, Respondent was involved in an accident while operating her bus. The Review Board met and assigned Respondent the maximum of two points for improper backing, a Category 25 violation of the Safe Driver Plan. The assessment brought Respondent up to six points in a 12-month period. Respondent did not appeal this assessment of points. On May 23, 2016, Respondent was issued a citation for running a red traffic light signal. On September 14, 2016, the Review Board reviewed Respondent’s alleged violation from May 23, 2016, at which time the Review Board listened to Respondent’s evidence and reviewed the available video. The Review Board determined that the video reflected that Respondent failed to obey the red light traffic signal, a Category 13 violation of the Safe Driver Plan. While such a violation could result in a maximum of four points under the Safe Driver Plan, the Review Board assigned Respondent two points for the violation. The Review Board’s assignment of points placed Respondent at an accumulated eight points for the past 12-months. Mr. Handzus and Mr. Goldrick credibly testified that court action was not necessary to determine fault because the video clearly depicted Respondent failing to obey the red light. On September 14, 2016, Respondent wrote a letter to Mr. Hall seeking to appeal the assessment of two points for failure to obey the red light traffic signal. In the appeal letter, Respondent indicated her objection to the assessment in detail by stating that she ran the red light, because she “had almost no choice but to go through it.” Mr. Hall denied her request for an appeal.1/ Respondent was brought in for a predetermination hearing as part of the disciplinary process because her eight points in a 12-month period would result in a three-day suspension. After the predetermination hearing, and listening to Respondent’s arguments, the recommendation was made to suspend Respondent for three days without pay. Respondent did not appeal the disciplinary action resulting in the three-day suspension.2/ On October 26, 2016, after having been reinstated from her suspension, Respondent was involved in an incident on Deer Run Road where she backed her school bus into a mailbox. On November 7, 2016, the Review Board assigned Respondent the maximum two points for improper backing, a Category 25 violation of the Safe Driver Plan. This was Respondent’s second violation for improper backing. On November 7, 2016, Respondent timely sent a letter to Mr. Hall timely requesting an appeal of the assessment of two points for the October 26, 2016, incident. In the letter, Respondent explained in detail her objection to the assessment of the points by stating that on “[t]he morning of 10/26/2016 at 5:30am . . . I hit a mailbox” and that “[w]hile backing up [she] hit the mailbox.” Mr. Hall reviewed the appeal letter and denied the request for appeal. Mr. Hall testified that he denied the request for appeal because there was no information in the letter that would mitigate Respondent’s conduct and there was an admission regarding the violation. However, Mr. Hall’s actions were a direct contradiction to the appeal process as expressly written in the Safe Driver Plan. The Safe Driver Plan does not provide Mr. Hall the authority to unilaterally deny a driver’s “request for an appeal” or exercise discretion in granting or denying an appeal. Ms. Rodgers was entitled to an appeal so long as she made that request in writing within five days of notification of the assigned points. Respondent complied with that requirement. The appeal process also provides that Respondent would be entitled to a copy of all information for review prior to the date of the meeting to prepare for hearing and given an opportunity to present testimony and mitigation before the points are upheld. Mr. Hall testified that he considered the comments in Respondent’s letter as mitigation. However, under the Safe Driver Plan appeal process, mitigating evidence would be offered at the hearing, not in the notice of appeal letter. Further, the driver checklist in items 7 through 9 restates the procedure as outlined in the appeal process. Simply put, the appeal request letter is only required to include details regarding any objection, nothing more. Mr. Hall did not properly comply with the appeal process in the Safe Driver Plan as written. Pursuant to the Safe Driver Plan, “[c]hanges to the plan may not be implemented without Board approval.” There was no evidence offered at hearing that the written Safe Driver Plan had been changed. Mr. Hall improperly denied Respondent’s request for an appeal and, thus, improperly upheld the Review Board’s decision to assess the two points for the October 26, 2016, violation. Based on the alleged accumulation of 10 points within a 12-month period, Respondent appeared for a predetermination meeting regarding the recommendation for termination of employment. At the predetermination meeting, Respondent was provided the opportunity to offer any mitigating circumstances to the recommendation for termination. The recommendation for termination included the assessment of the two points for the October 26, 2016, incident. Mr. Goldrick considered Respondent’s arguments and determined that there were no mitigating circumstances that would warrant discipline short of termination. The record does not include evidence regarding the mitigation considered by Mr. Goldrick. Following the predetermination meeting, on January 3, 2017, the School District’s superintendent notified Respondent by letter of the recommendation to terminate Respondent’s employment for misconduct. Respondent timely disputed the allegations in the Notice and requested a hearing to appeal the recommendation of termination. By letter dated January 20, 2017, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective January 25, 2017, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the January 24, 2017, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. The evidence at hearing demonstrates that Mr. Hall improperly denied Respondent’s request for an appeal of the October 26, 2016, violation. However, given the procedural posture of this case the undersigned has considered whether the Review Board appropriately assigned the two points for the October 26, 2016, incident. The undersigned finds evidence of mitigation in the record. The record demonstrates that on October 26, 2016, Respondent had been driving a new, unfamiliar route for approximately two days before the incident. Respondent stated in her request for appeal letter that it was “pitch-black outside” and her ability to turn was impeded by an oncoming vehicle using its high beam lights. After considering the above mitigating factors, the undersigned finds that the evidence in the record does not warrant a deviation from the Review Board’s assignment of the standard two points for the October 26, 2016, improper backing violation. The evidence supports that the assignment of two points against Respondent for the October 26, 2016, incident was appropriate. The mitigation did not warrant reduction of the points assessed. As a result, the record correctly demonstrates that Respondent accumulated 10 points. Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that there is just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order terminating the employment of Mildred Rodgers as a bus driver. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 30th day of November, 2017.
The Issue The issue presented for decision is whether or not Respondent failed to maintain the qualifications of a law enforcement officer and, if so, what penalty would be appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on December 6, 1974, and was issued Certificate Number 02-12297. From at least June 1982 through August 29, 1986, Respondent was employed as a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol. During late 1984, Respondent's performance came under scrutiny by Lt. Dun, who was Respondent's supervisor. Lt. Dunn performed an evaluation of Respondent's performance as a trooper on December 28, 1984. Lt. Dunn used a standard appraisal form which uses a numerical evaluation with a range of 1 through 40. The highest score denotes the highest level of performance. A rating of 18 or under denotes a conditional evaluation. On Respondent's 1984 evaluation by Lt. Dunn, he earned a performance rating of 19. Based on his marginal performance, he was given a special evaluation which noted, inter alia, that he had feigned sickness and thereby had misused sick time, by using 81 hours of sick leave while he appeared to be in good health and was late turning in his weekly reports of daily activities, and specifically that Respondent used 81 hours of sick time while he appeared to be in good health. Lt. Dunn gave Petitioner a special evaluation for the third time within 60 days of his 1984 annual evaluation and at that time Respondent received a numerical rating of 17. That rating is indicative of less than satisfactory performance. At that time, Respondent had not improved in the areas found deficient during the time period when he received his 1984 annual performance evaluation and the two succeeding special evaluations. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Sgt. David Johnson, the squad supervisor assigned to the Miami office since approximately November 1984, worked with Respondent and directly supervised him during January 1986. On January 9, 1986, Sgt. Johnson and Respondent worked the same shift. Respondent's car had been moved from a shopping mall where he left it unattended for several hours. The car was ordered moved by supervisory officers in the Miami office. Respondent lived near Sgt. Johnson and phoned him to get a ride to work since his car had been moved when he left it unattended at the shopping mall. Sgt. Johnson was aware that Respondent's car had been towed before he called him seeking a ride to work. While in route to work that morning, Respondent told Sgt. Johnson that he needed professional counseling and admitted that he was addicted to drugs and alcohol. Respondent was referred to the highest officer in authority at the Miami station, Cpt. Jack Hardin, for counseling. At approximately 2:45 p.m. on the afternoon of January 6, 1986, Respondent was interviewed by Cpt. Hardin. Respondent told Cpt. Hard in that he needed professional help due to his addiction to drugs and alcohol. Respondent advised Cpt. Hardin that this problem had persisted during the previous six years and that he wanted to save his job. Based on that admission, Cpt. Hardin reassigned Respondent to administrative duties. He also advised Respondent that it was necessary for him to notify Major Grayson, Unit Commander, inasmuch as use of a controlled substance, to wit, cocaine, was a felony. Based on Respondent's admission to use of a controlled substance and the other problems associated with drug addiction, Cpt. Hardin took possession of Respondent's firearm. Since April 1, 1982, Cpt. M. Leggett has been the commander of the subdistrict in Miami known as Troop "E." Respondent was assigned to Troop "E" during all times material to this case. On June 9, 1986, Cpt. Leggett summoned Respondent to his office for a disciplinary interview. Respondent was provided notice of the interview and was represented by legal counsel. Respondent provided a sworn oral statement after he was apprised of the purpose of the interview and the charges which had been filed against him, i.e., possession of a controlled substance in violation of the rules and regulations of law enforcement officers and a notice of the intended disciplinary action. During Respondent's sworn statement, he admitted that he had used cocaine and that use continued during the years 1982 through 1986. In mitigation, Respondent stated during his interview with Cpt. Leggett that his use was "occasional" and that he would only use a gram or two at any given time. At the time of his interview, Respondent appeared to be in control of his faculties. (Testimony of Respondent and Capt. Leggett).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's law enforcement Certificate Number 02-12297. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Paul A. Lavery 5325 West 20th Lane Hialeah, Florida 33012 Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 2302 Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Virtual School's intended decision to award a contract, challenged by All Florida Safety Institute, LLC, is contrary to Florida Virtual School's governing statutes, rules, policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Virtual was created by statute to develop and deliver online distance learning in the State of Florida. § 1002.37, Fla. Stat. Florida Virtual is governed by a board of trustees appointed by the Governor. § 1002.37(2), Fla. Stat. Florida Virtual issued the RFP on October 14, 2019, seeking responses from qualified proposers interested in providing hands-on, "Behind the 1 On April 20, 2020, Petitioner filed exceptions to the proposed recommended orders submitted by the other parties. These exceptions were filed at DOAH, before the Recommended Order was issued. Exceptions to proposed recommended orders are not authorized by statute or rule and have not been considered. Wheel" driver education courses to Florida Virtual's driver education students. Florida Virtual received proposals from two qualified vendors, All Florida and United Safety Council, the current Behind the Wheel course provider. The RFP established the following scoring criteria: Criteria No. Step 1: Main Criteria Description Weight 1. Compliance 10% 2. Qualifications, Experience of Team Members and References 24% 3. Contractor Methodology 20% 4. Demonstrated Ability to Meet or Exceed Stated Requirements and Responses to Questionnaire 25% 5. Price Proposal 20% 6. Acceptance of Invoice Payments via FLVS Visa Purchasing Card 1% TOTAL 100% The six categories were to be scored using a 1 to 20 scale. The contract was to be awarded to the respondent that received the highest total weighted score. The RFP required that the proposals be scored by the Proposal Evaluation Committee (Committee). Florida Virtual appointed four of its employees to serve on the Committee: Debbie Adams, the instructional leader over Florida Virtual's driver education program; Janet Conway, an accounting manager; Martin Kelly, the senior director of curriculum development; and Kevin Locke, the director of project management. On November 14, 2019, the Committee met at a public meeting to score the proposals. The meeting was audio-recorded. Ms. Conway, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Locke were physically present at the meeting. Ms. Adams attended the meeting remotely with an audio connection. Karen Stolarenko is Florida Virtual's senior solicitation specialist. Ms. Stolarenko and her supervisor, Nathaniel Askew, facilitated the Committee's deliberation at the public meeting as representatives of Florida Virtual's procurement department. One or more representatives of United Safety Council attended the public meeting and observed the Committee's deliberations. All Florida was aware of the public meeting but did not send a representative to attend. The proposals were provided to the Committee before the meeting for review, but the scoring was done at the public meeting. The evaluators' individual scores were tabulated at the conclusion of the public meeting. Ms. Adams gave All Florida the highest weighted score, but the other three evaluators all gave United Safety Council the highest weighted score. United Safety Council had the higher total weighted score of 72.40, compared to All Florida's total weighted score of 70.48. At the conclusion of the public meeting, the Committee voted unanimously to award the contract to United Safety Council as the respondent receiving the highest total weighted score. PROTEST GROUNDS Class A v. Class E License Requirements for Instructors Section A.2(1) of the RFP includes the following minimum requirement for instructors: Class A license with a refresher every five (5) years or retest required as a result of passing examinations and road test approved by Bureau of Driver Education prior to issuance of certificate. Must possess 3 years of experience with a Class A CDL and no conviction on record within the last five years in order to be qualified. A Class A license is a commercial driver's license that is unrelated to the driver education course sought by the RFP. Although there was no testimony directly on point, Florida Virtual essentially conceded that the RFP's reference to a Class A license was an error. All Florida did not protest the RFP's Class A license requirements after the RFP was issued, to argue those requirements make no sense for the services sought by the RFP. Instead, it committed in its proposal to meet all qualifications for a Class E license, the license sought by students who attend the Behind the Wheel driver education course. While this is a logical response to what appears to be an error in the RFP, it was risky because it did not comply with the letter of the RFP. United Safety Council took the safe route, responding by confirming that its instructors would meet the requirements of section A.2(1). At the public meeting, before the proposals were scored, Ms. Adams (the instruction leader for Florida Virtual's driver education program) told the other evaluators that a Class A license was inapplicable to the course services sought in the RFP. No evidence was presented to prove that any evaluator scored All Florida lower because it committed to meet Class E—as opposed to Class A—license requirements for instructors. Committee's Deliberation at the Public Meeting At the conclusion of the public meeting, the evaluators were allowed to take a break and move around the room while their scores were handed to Ms. Stolarenko to be tabulated. The break was approximately 20 minutes long. This break was not recorded, but was not required to be under any governing statute, rule, policy, or RFP specification. Following this break to tabulate the scores, there was an interruption of the recording of the meeting. When the audio recording resumed, Ms. Stolarenko can be heard stating: This is Karen Stolarenko, November 14th 2019, 3:24 p.m. We are reconvening to go over the scores and rankings for the Behind the Wheel Driver Education RFP. Our network went down, and we did have our prior recording interrupted. So there will be two separate recording sessions for today's meeting. I'll do a quick—since we did have an interruption just do a quick roll call so everybody knows who is in the room. Thereafter, the evaluators can be heard on the audio recording confirming their unanimous recommendation to award the contract to United Safety Council as the highest-ranked respondent, a decision consistent with the tabulation of the evaluators' score sheets and the RFP's award specifications. There is no evidence that the interruption in the audio recording was intentional or in bad faith, or that it violated any governing statute, rule, policy, or specification of the RFP. The meeting was public; there is no evidence that anyone was excluded from this portion of the meeting. All Florida could have sent one or more representatives to attend the meeting but chose not to. Corrections to Evaluator Scoresheets The evaluators were provided individual scoresheets to record their scores. The evaluators who attended the meeting in person—Mr. Locke, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Conway—were provided paper scoresheets and pens to handwrite their scores. Ms. Adams, who attended the meeting remotely, was provided a digital scoresheet and typed her scores. Mr. Kelly's scoresheet included two scores that were scratched out and rewritten. Under the category labeled "Compliance," Mr. Kelly's final rewritten score for All Florida was 19. Under the same category for United Safety Council, Mr. Kelly's final, rewritten score was 18. Mr. Kelly testified that he scratched out his original scores and replaced them with the rewritten final numbers listed above. He further testified that he could not recall why he scratched out the original scores before turning in his scorecard to Ms. Stolarenko other than that he changed his mind. Mr. Kelly's testimony was credible and is accepted here. Ms. Conway testified that she initially erred in the manner in which she scored the proposals; that is, she assigned scores based upon the total weight instead of using the 1 to 20 scale she should have applied to score the respondents for each of the six categories. For example, the "Compliance" category was weighted 10 percent, and Ms. Conway mistakenly applied a 1 to 10 scale (instead of a 1 to 20 scale) when initially scoring this category. She made the same mistake for both respondents. Ms. Stolarenko brought this error to Ms. Conway's attention when she handed in her scoresheet for tabulation at the public meeting. Ms. Conway testified that she corrected the error in her scoresheets without changing the intent behind her original scoring. Two of the categories required no alteration, because they were weighted 20 percent, and Ms. Conway therefore applied the correct 1 to 20 scale when she originally scored those categories. Ms. Conway's testimony was credible and is accepted here. Ms. Conway did not change the intent behind her original scores when she corrected her scores to apply the correct 1 to 20 scale, and this correction did not disadvantage All Florida or provide a competitive advantage to United Safety Council in any way. In fact, Ms. Conway's correction to her score sheet was required to comply with the RFP's specifications on the evaluation of responses. Evaluator Comment Regarding Tesla Fleet All Florida committed to include new Tesla vehicles in its fleet for the Behind the Wheel student drivers' use. When this commitment was discussed by the Committee, Evaluator Mr. Kelly can be heard on the audio recording making a statement that sounds like "[w]hat a bunch of idiots." All Florida argues that this comment shows bias against it and that it caused the other evaluators to view its proposal through a negative lens. That was not proven here. Mr. Kelly testified that he did not recall making the "idiots" comment, but that it sounds like something he might have said because he recalled thinking it was "silly to give those types of cars, that are quite expensive," to student drivers.2 Mr. Kelly went on to testify that his opinion regarding All Florida's Tesla commitment had no bearing on his scoring. Mr. Kelly's testimony was credible and is accepted. Although Mr. Kelly could have chosen better words to express himself, the use of the term "idiots" in this context does not suggest that he was biased. The other evaluators denied hearing Mr. Kelly's "idiots" comment; there is no evidence that this comment influenced any of the scores the other evaluators assigned to All Florida. Qualification and Experience Scores All Florida contends that the evaluators failed to consider the "real numbers" of teen drivers served by All Florida as compared to those served by United Safety Council when they scored the respondents in the category for "Qualifications, Experience of Team Members and References." All Florida offered no evidence to support this protest ground. The evaluators testified at the final hearing but were not questioned on this issue. United Safety Council failed to prove that the scores assigned by the evaluators for "Qualifications, Experience of Team Members and References" were arbitrary or capricious. United Safety Council's Proposal Irregularities Section B.1 of the RFP, entitled "Respondent Questionnaire," contains 14 questions the respondents were instructed to answer in their proposals. United Safety Council's proposal included answers to questions 1 through 5 but omitted the answers to questions 6 through 14. All Florida's proposal included answers to the entire questionnaire. United Safety Council's omission caught Ms. Stolarenko's attention; at the public meeting, she advised the evaluators that United Safety Council 2 The audio recording of this comment from Mr. Kelly is very faint and difficult to hear. But given Mr. Kelly's testimony that it "sounds like something he might have said," the inference is that he did make the "idiots" comment. failed to answer questions 6 through 14. Most, but not all, of the information answering questions 6 through 14 can be found elsewhere in United Safety Council's proposal. Ms. Stolarenko correctly advised the evaluators that they were to score United Safety Council's proposal based on the information contained in its proposal. The RFP required the respondents to consecutively number all pages of the proposal. United Safety Council did not consecutively number all pages of the proposal. All Florida does not allege that United Safety Council's proposal should have been deemed non-responsive—and thus ineligible for a contract award—due to these proposal irregularities.3 Instead, All Florida alleges that it should have received a higher score because its proposal did not contain the same deficiencies. All Florida failed to prove that the evaluators' scores were arbitrary or capricious because United Safety Council received overall higher weighted scores, notwithstanding these two irregularities in its proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Florida Virtual School dismissing the protest of All Florida Safety Institute, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRIAN A. NEWMAN 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 4th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jeffrey D'Agata, General Counsel Florida Virtual School 2145 Metrocenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32835 (eServed) Samuel P. Garrison, Esquire Bradley, Garrison & Komando, P.A. 1279 Kingsley Avenue Orange Park, Florida 32073-4603 (eServed) Jessica Beecham, Board Clerk Florida Virtual School 2145 Metrocenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32835 Keith A. Graham, Esquire Marchena & Graham, P.A. 976 Lake Baldwin Lane, Suite 101 Orlando, Florida 32814 (eServed) Shannan Collier Stalvey, Esquire The Law Office of Shannan S. Collier, P.C. 100 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Dr. Barbara M. Jenkins, Superintendent Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Orlando, Florida 32801-0271
The Issue Whether or not Charles D. Reynolds, on January 7th, 1976, was arrested and charged with DWI, Aggravated Assault, and Resisting Arrest without Violence; the charge of DWI was reduced to driving with an unauthorized blood alcohol level; Charles D. Reynolds plead guilty, was adjudicated guilty and paid a fine of $200 plus court costs; the aggravated assault charge was nol prossed; he plead guilty and was adjudicated guilty of Resisting Arrest without Violence and paid a fine of $250 plus court costs, his license was revoked, and he was sentenced to DWI School; and due to the above misconduct has failed to perform his duties as an educator as described in Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, thereby subjecting himself to the penalties found in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. Whether or not Charles D. Reynolds, on December 25th, 1976, was arrested and charged with DWI, and resisting arrest with violence; he plead guilty to the lesser including Offense of Assault on a Law Officer, was put on one year's probation, sentenced to spend weekends in Jail for a period of three months beginning June 11th, 1977; he was allowed to vacate the guilty plea and plead nolo contendere to the charge of Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer with the same conditions as the guilty plea; and due to the above misconduct has failed to perform his duties as an educator as described in Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, thereby subjecting himself to the penalties found in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Charles D. Reynolds, is presently the holder of Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 316529, Graduate Rank III and is employed in the public schools of Duval County, Florida. This cause has been brought for consideration based upon a recommendation by the State of Florida, Department of Education, Professional Practices Council, Executive Committee, dated May 17th, 1977. Upon examination of the recommendation, the Commissioner of Education found probable cause for filing a petition for the suspension of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate within the meaning of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and in accordance with Rule 6A-4.37, F.A.C. This determination was made on May 17th, 1977. On May 23rd, 1977, a petition for the suspension of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate was filed. The Respondent has filed his answer to the petition and has opposed the entry of an order of suspension. The case has been forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration by correspondence from the Petitioner dated July 14th, 1977. On January 7th, 1976, Respondent, Charles D. Reynolds a/k/a Chuck Daniel Reynolds was involved in an automobile accident in the parking lot of his residence at the Arrowhead Apartments located in Jacksonville, Florida. Officers of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office investigated the case and in the course of the investigation asked to enter Respondent's apartment to obtain his driver's license. Reynolds was opposed to them entering his apartment, but they did go in. Reynolds went to the bedroom and obtained the license and came back into the living room area. At that point he became angry with the officers and took a swing in the general direction of a Sergeant Branch. The other officers subdued Reynolds and handcuffed him. He was subsequently taken to the hospital for treatment of wounds received in the scuffle. In addition to the events described, Reynolds also made verbal threats against the witnesses to the accident, to the effect that he would get even with them. During the course of this entire exchange, Reynolds appeared intoxicated as evidenced in slurred speech, erratic actions, excitability and a strong odor of the substance alcohol. He continued to be belligerent and kicked the side of the police car while being transported. It should be indicated that the Respondent did not carry out any of the verbal threats that he made. As a result of the incident, the Respondent was charged with DWI, aggravated assault, and resisting arrest without violence. The charge of DWI was reduced to driving with an unauthorized blood alcohol level and a guilty plea was entered for which he was fined in the amount of $200.00. The aggravated assault charge was nol prossed. The further provision of his sentence was that he attend the DWI school. The particulars of this case may be found in the Petitioner's composite exhibit 1 admitted into evidence, which describes the pleas and the judgment and sentence. The Respondent was fined in the amount of $250.00 for his plea of guilty to resisting arrest without violence. The second incident for which Respondent is charged in the Petition for Suspension, pertains to events on December 25th, 1976. On that date officers of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office were traveling east on 103rd Street, in Jacksonville, Florida. Reynolds was going west, driving with his bright lights on and straying into the oncoming lane in which the officers were driving. The time was approximately 1:30-2:00 a.m. The officers turned around and pursued Reynolds, who at one point in the pursuit pulled off the road to avoid the officers. The officers finally caught Reynolds on Interstate 295 in Duval County, Florida. After making the stop, they removed Reynolds from the car and noted that he had a strong odor of alcohol about his person, and was staggering around. One officer administered so-called field sobriety tests , specifically the finger to nose and balance test. In the finger to nose test the individual tries to place an index finger on his nose while standing in a certain posture. Reynolds was unable to do this and was also unable to stand on one foot in attempting the balance test. The officers felt that Reynolds was driving while under the influence of alcohol; however, being Christmas Day they intended to give Reynolds the opportunity to have someone come and pick him up and drive his car home, and waive charges. When this was explained to Reynolds, Reynolds replied that he wanted to get back in his car, for purposes of driving away. The officers prohibited him from getting in the car, at which point a struggle ensued between the officers and Reynolds for a period of minutes. Most of the struggle was in the traffic lanes of Interstate 295. In the end, Reynolds was charged with DWI, a couple of traffic violations and resisting arrest with violence. After the struggle Reynolds indicated that the officers were going to be sorry for, "screwing with me." He was taken to the Duval County, Florida Jail and booked for the offenses and given a breathalizer examination which showed his reading to be .27 percent blood alcohol level. This reading nay be found in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence. He entered a plea of guilty to the lesser included offense under resisting arrest with violence, to wit assault on a law enforcement officer. The Court withheld the adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent on probation for a period of one year on the condition that he spend weekends in jail for a period of three (3) months, beginning on June 11th, 1977, and pay $10.00 per month for cost of supervision. This plea was subsequently withdrawn and the Court allowed a plea of nolo contendere to be entered in lieu of the guilty plea. The Court also allowed a motion to mitigate the sentence, which motion was filed prior to the imposition of the petition for suspension made by the Petitioner in this cause. The Court's Order Granting the Motion to Mitigate was entered subsequent to the Petition for Suspension made by the Petitioner. The probation terms were modified by memorandum of June 9th, 1977, from the Court, deleting the provision to spend weekends in jail. Subsequently, the Respondent was required to spend time working in a program known as the Jacksonville Probation and Restitution Center, working with young offenders. (The Director of that program testified in the hearing and indicated that Mr. Reynolds did an admirable job of assisting in the program.) For the violations alleged on January 6th, 1976 and December 25th, 1976, the Petitioner has charged Respondent with violations of Section 231.09 and .28, F.S. The two incidents will be discussed chronologically in considering whether the Petitioner has proven the violations or not. The first factual incident discussed pertains to the events of January 7th, 1976. In reviewing the events that led to the arrest and charges previously discussed and the subsequent disposition of those charges in terms of a possible substitute violation of Section 231.09, F.S., the only provision of that section which would seen to have any application would be Section 231.09(2) F.S. No other sub-paragraphs of Section 231.09, F.S. seem to have application under the evidential facts established. The subsection that does have application, i.e., Section 231.09(2), F.S. reads as follows: "EXAMPLES FOR PUPILS -- Labor faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their studies, deportment and morals, and embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the principles of truth, honesty and pat- riotism and the practice of every Christian virtue." This provision of the chapter has been considered in the case of Meltzer vs. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, etc., et al., 548 F.2d 559 (5th Circuit Court of Appeals), in that opinion the Court held Section 231.09(2), F.S., to be unconstitutional. However, on petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, reported at 553 F.2d 1008, The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, granted rehearing with the right for oral agreement and the opportunity to submit supplemental briefs, with the date of the oral agreement to be announced in the future. The rehearing has not been held at the time of this recommended order, to the knowledge of the undersigned. Consequently, the undersigned will report whether the evidential facts as demonstrated established a violation under the language of Section 231.09(2), F.S., with a caveat that this section may not withstand the final order of the Court in Meltzer, supra. Should Section 231.09(2), F.S. be upheld, the acts of being arrested and pleading guilty to driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level and resisting or opposing a police officer without violence constitute violations of Section 231.09(2), F.S., both in terms of the entry of the plea in those two counts and in terms of the underlying evidential facts which led to the plea of guilty. These facts establish that the Respondent failed to labor faithfully and honestly for the advancement of the pupils in their department and morals, in accordance with Section 231.09(2), F.S., assuming this latter section of the law to be constitutional. Again, the evidential facts spoken of are those established in the events reported in the hearing pertaining to the incident of January 7th, 1976, in which Respondent was driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level and resisted the police without violence. In connection with the events of January 7th, 1976, there is a further allegation of a violation of Section 231.28, F.S. In pertinent part, Section 231.28(1), F.S., states that the license can be suspended in accordance with the following language: * * * "(1) It can be shown that such person obtained the teaching certificate by fraudulent means, or has proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform his duties as an employee of the public school system, or to teach in or to operate a private school, or has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, or has had his certificate revoked in another state, or has been convicted of a mis- demeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic vio- lation , or upon investigation has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board, or has otherwise violated the provisions of the law, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate, or has refused to comply with the re- gulations of the State Board of Education or the school board in the district in which he is employed." In reviewing the language of that section in comparison to the facts established in the events of January 7th, 1976, it is established that Respondent is guilty of a violation of that section because he has plead guilty to driving with an unauthorized blood alcohol level and resisting arrest without violence, which are misdemeanors or other criminal charges, other than minor traffic violations. This activity was also an act involving moral turpitude. No other violations of this section were shown as a result of the matters of January 7th, 1976. Turning to a consideration of the factual matters established in this hearing as it pertains to December 25th, 1976, and in view of the discussion of Section 231.09(2), F.S., pertaining to January 7th, 1976, a violation has been shown. The events of December 25th, 1976, are likewise subject to the caveat pertaining to the case of Meltzer, supra. The events of the arrest and subsequent pleas in Court after the factual events of December 25th, 1976, have shown the Respondent has failed to labor faithfully and honestly to the advancement of pupils and their deportment and morals, by his condition while driving and by his resistance to the authorities who were trying to enforce the laws of the State of Florida. No other violations of Section 231.09, F.S., were shown for the December 25th, 1976 incident. The events of December 25th, 1976, show a violation of Section 231.28(1), F.S., in that the act of the Respondent's driving and resistance to the authorities who were enforcing the laws of the State of Florida were acts involving moral turpitude. Also by the entry of the plea of nolo contendere which the Court accepted in lieu of the guilty plea, the Respondent has been convicted of a misdemeanor other than a minor traffic violation. No other violations of Section 231.28, F.S. were shown for the events of December 25th, 1976. By the guilty plea entered to the offenses of driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level and resistance without violence in the charges of January 7th, 1976, and the nolo contendere plea to the offense of assault on a law enforcement for the events of December 25th, 1976, the Petitioner has made a prima facie proof of grounds for revocation of the Respondent's teaching certificate, as set forth in Section 231.28(3), F.S. These prima facie grounds have not been refuted by the Respondent.
Recommendation In the course of the hearing, certain witnesses testified as to the Respondent's good character and teaching proficiency. These witnesses were various members of the community and members of the staff of the school in which the Respondent teaches and pupils of the Respondent. Although these witnesses were not aware of the events involved in the incidents of January 7th, 1976, and December 25th, 1976, they were nonetheless impressed with Respondent's abilities as a teacher. In considering their testimony and the testimony offered which established the alleged violations, it is
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (“Petitioner”) may properly terminate its contract with Perotte Driving and Traffic School, Inc. (“Respondent”), on the basis of failure to comply with the provisions of the contract, pursuant to section 322.56(3)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the State agency authorized to enter into contracts with driving schools to administer driving and skills portions of examinations for driver licenses, pursuant to section 322.56. Petitioner regulates third-party administrators for compliance with contract provisions in furtherance of Petitioner’s mission to ensure safe roads in the State of Florida. Section 322.56 authorizes Petitioner to contract with private sector entities to conduct services in the same manner Petitioner conducts services at both its driver license offices and tax collector offices. Respondent is a third-party administrator under contract with Petitioner to conduct Class E Knowledge Examinations for State of Florida driver licenses. Ms. Dume is employed as a Regulatory Program Specialist for Petitioner. Her duties include visiting third-party administrators and monitoring their activities to ensure that they are abiding by the terms of their contracts with Petitioner. Assistance by Misrepresentation On October 8, 2020, Ms. Dume was present at Respondent’s school conducting an on-site inspection. She left at 5:45 p.m., having been informed by Mr. Perotte that the school closed at 6:00 p.m. Ms. Dume returned to continue her inspection on October 9, 2020, arriving at 10:20 a.m. She monitored the school from the parking lot before entering at 11:20 a.m. Then, Ms. Dume observed Mr. Perotte entering information into his computer showing that a student had completed the four-hour Traffic Law Substance Abuse Education course (“TLSAE”). The TLSAE is a requirement to earn a Florida driver license. The course must be taken in one consecutive four-hour period. Ms. Dume obtained the certificate for TLSAE course completion for the student, which reflected a completion date of October 9, 2020. However, based on Ms. Dume’s credible testimony, it would have been impossible for the student to have completed the four-hour TLSAE course on the date that Mr. Perotte entered into the computer because Ms. Dume was present up until 15 minutes prior to the school closing and did not observe the student taking the course. Mr. Perotte’s claim that the student took the course after Ms. Dume left was not credible. His credibility was further diminished by his inconsistent and illogical testimony that he entered the erroneous date of course completion by mistake. Although it was established that the same student did complete the TLSAE in 2013, that fact is immaterial to Mr. Perotte’s clear misrepresentation of the course completion date. Ensuring Only Applicants Allowed in Examination Area During Ms. Dume’s on-site inspection on October 8, 2020, she observed an applicant inside the testing room taking the knowledge exam with an instructor also inside the testing room. The instructor explained to Ms. Dume that she was inside the testing room to have the applicant sign paperwork, but Ms. Dume believed that the reason was pretextual based on her observations. On October 14, 2020, during another on-site inspection of Respondent, Ms. Dume observed Mr. Perotte inside the testing room standing over a customer who was sitting down taking the knowledge exam. Mr. Perotte testified that he was inside the testing room while a test was in progress to fix a technical issue with the computer. He also testified, however, that in the event of a technical issue, he would ask the examinee to exit the testing room while a staff member addressed the issue. Mr. Perotte’s testimony was unconvincing and inconsistent. Allowing the Department to Conduct Random Inspections Ms. Dume testified that for each of her on-site inspections that are relevant to this proceeding, on October 8, 9, and 14, 2020, she entered Respondent’s facility through an unlocked door. During her October 14, 2020, inspection, Ms. Dume observed that there were a number of customers present when she arrived at 12:30 p.m. A few minutes later, all of the customers were gone, and Mr. Perotte stopped others from entering the school. Ms. Dume believed that the customers were discouraged by Mr. Perotte from patronizing the school while Ms. Dume was present. Ms. Dume left around 2:30 p.m., due to the school being empty. The reasons why customers may have left or decided not to enter the school in Ms. Dume’s presence were based on assumptions and were not conclusively established.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Elana J. Jones, Esquire Roberto R. Castillo, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Respondent: Matthew E. Ladd, Esquire Matthew E. Ladd P.A. Suite 301 4649 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found in violation of the contract, as alleged in the Complaint, and that the contract be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Elana J. Jones, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Joseph R. Gillespie, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432, MS02 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Terry L. Rhodes, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-443 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Christie S. Utt, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Matthew E. Ladd, Esquire Matthew E. Ladd P.A. Suite 301 4649 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher based on his conviction of the crime of vehicular homicide.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was hired as a teacher by Miami-Dade County Public Schools in February 2000. On August 13, 1999, Respondent was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Monroe County, Florida. The accident resulted in criminal charges filed against Respondent in December 2000 for vehicular homicide (Section 782.071, Fla. Stat. [sic]). On or about May 2002, Respondent pled no contest and was adjudicated guilty of the offense of vehicular homicide by the Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Monroe County, Florida. Respondent was placed on probation for five years, ordered to pay $50.00 court costs per month for his suspension [sic], and ordered to perform 500 hours of community service work. On March 15, 2006, Petitioner took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent due to his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.021 defines vehicular homicide (Section 782.071, F.S. [sic]) as a crime involving moral turpitude.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 11th day of September, 2007.
