The Issue The issue is whether Respondent has a policy regarding the approval of on-line continuing education courses for bail bond agents, which are rules as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, and which have not been promulgated as required by Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a non-profit corporation that represents the interest of bail bond agents within the State of Florida. Petitioner is also a provider of continuing education courses for bail bond agents. Petitioner's courses are classes with supervising instructors, who ensure the quality of the course material and who verify the identity of students at least two times during each class. Petitioner's classes do not require an examination. Petitioner's primary purpose is to advocate and promote, on behalf of its members, the professionalism of bail bond agents by improving, maintaining, and advancing the standards for bail bond agents, including licensing and educational requirements. Among the requirements for licensure renewal, bail bond agents must complete a minimum of 14 hours of continuing education courses every two years. Therefore, Petitioner has standing to bring this proceeding. Respondent is a state agency with the duty and responsibility to regulate bail bond agents pursuant to Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, and related administrative rules. Respondent must approve all continuing education course providers and continuing education courses for bail bond agents. On May 10, 2005, Respondent approved Athena, as an on- line provider of continuing education courses for bail bond agents. On May 10, 2005, Respondent approved Athena's application for Melissa H. Villella to serve as the school official. On July 14 or 15, 2005, Respondent approved the following on-line courses provided by Athena: Bail Bond Rules and Regs Refresher Course, Part I; Bail Bond Rules and Regs Refresher Course, Part II; Bail Bond Ethics; The New Castle Doctrine Laws; and Concealed Carry Rights and Responsibilities. The five applications for these courses did not refer to a supervising instructor or a monitored examination. The On-Line Training Course Checklist for each course states as follows in relevant part: Provider: Athena Solutions, LLC d/b/a OnDemandCE * * * Information pertaining to subject: a. On-Line Access Instructions: Go to: http://ondemandce.coursehost.com/ * * * c. Sample Exams: All exam questions are provided in the text copy . . . of the course. Two banks of questions are provided for each of the four quarterly exams. A total of 50 questions are provided, 25 per bank. However, the OnDemandCE learning system ramdomizes all quizzes, including question order and answer order, so that no two quizzes are ever the same. An unlimited number of quizzes will be generated from the questions written in this course. * * * g. Student Identity, Assessment and Control: When students enter the OnDemandCE learning system, a login form must be filled out in order to enter any course. The system will require the agent to provide his or her bail license number, full name, address, email address, and phone number. In addition, each student must agree to the following Terms of Use to enter the course: "By accepting these terms of service, you acknowledge your understanding that you must complete this entire course and achieve a passing grade of 70% or greater in order to receive the defined credit hours. You also agree to read the entire contents of this course, including all corresponding laws and rules. No partial credit will be given for this course. Throughout this course, you will be tested for comprehension of course material through graded quizzes. By accepting these terms of service, you acknowledge your understanding that the on-line course testing must be completed unassisted by any person, the course material or other materials. You also acknowledge understanding that violation of the above said rule shall result in the loss of course credit and administrative sanction by the Florida Department of Financial Services. Upon completion of this course with a passing grade of 70% or better and confirmed payment of all applicable course fees, the system administrator will submit earned credit hours to the Department of Financial Services Agent Education Database within 30 days. You may verify your credit hours at: https://dice.fldfs.com/public/pb index.asp By accessing any information beyond this page, you agree to these Terms of Use in full." Once the student information is submitted and the terms of use are accepted, the OnDemandCE learning system issues the student a temporary license to take the course. The temporary licensee is tracked by the OnDemandCE learning system throughout the entire course. Students have unlimited access to the course during the temporary license term, but must login each time to re-establish student identity. The OnDemandCE learning system will not allow students to advance to the lesson assessment or to the next lesson until the student has completed the current lesson material. Finally, the OnDemandCE learning system will verify that the student has completed each lesson assessment and achieved a passing grade of 70% or greater before issuing a certificate of completion. The course administrator will review and evaluate each student's course progress and test results before his or her credit is submitted to the DFS Education System. Procedures for Marketing Course Student identity is assessed and controlled upon registration and throughout the duration of the course. See explanation under 2(g). To respond to questions regarding course requirements and materials, students will be provided access to the School Official on a ratio of 30:1. Through the OnDemandCE learning system, course enrollment will be limited to 30 students to ensure that the instructor/student ratio is not exceeded. Student progress is assessed through quarterly quizzes. Upon completion of each quiz, the OnDemandCE learning system will notify the student of their score. Students must score at least 70% in order to pass the course and receive a certificate of completion. On-line testing: See 2(g), and student acknowledgement: See 3(c). The syllabus for each of Athena's on-line courses includes the following statements in pertinent part: Student Responsibilities Students must complete this entire course and achieve a passing grade of 70% or greater on internal tests in order to receive credit hours. Students must read the entire contents of this course, including corresponding laws. Throughout this course, students will be tested for comprehension of course material through graded quizzes. Students are required to acknowledge their understanding that the on-line course testing must be completed unassisted by any person, the course material or other materials. Each student must also acknowledge understanding that a violation of such standards shall result in the loss of course credit and administrative sanction by the Florida Department of Financial Services. * * * On-line Assistance Course assistance is available to each student registered and active in this course. The course administrator may be contacted through email available from the On-Demand CE system and will receive assistance during regular business hours. Messages received after regular business hours will be returned the following day. Live customer service can be reached at (850) 906-9111. Neither the On-Line Training Course Checklist nor the syllabus for any of Athena's courses refers to a supervising instructor, a monitor, a monitor group, or a monitored examination. The On-line Training Course Checklist states that students have access to a school official for course assistance. The On-line Training Course Checklist refers to a system or course administrator who will evaluate tests and report the results to Respondent. The syllabus for each course states that students have on-line access to the course administrator for course assistance. On July 25, 2005, Ms. Villella sent Respondent a memorandum by e-mail. The purpose stated was to reassure Respondent that Athena's on-line system was "a fully monitored system." The letter explained that the "system monitors each student's progress through the course and through all exams." Additionally, the letter asserts that Ms. Villella monitors "the integrity of the OnDemandCE system to ensure that the application remains stable, secure, and operational." Finally, the letter states that "no other interactive on-line provider is required to send their students outside of their on-line system for testing, nor are bail agents required to take any quiz in a classroom course." On July 26, 2005, Ms. Villella sent Respondent a memorandum by e-mail. The memorandum refers to administrative rules that Ms. Villella asserts support her position that the on-line internal testing of an interactive on-line self-study course is equal to a monitored exam. Lisa Miller, Respondent's Chief of Staff, wrote a letter dated September 7, 2005, to Janet Collins, president of the Bail Agents Independent League of Florida. The letter stated that Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-228.080 formed the legal basis for approving on-line continuing education courses for bail bond agents. Ms. Miller also indicated that Ms. Villella was Athena's school official and not its instructor. The September 7, 2005, letter does not contain any reference to a supervisory instructor or monitored exams. On January 9, 2006, Ms. Villella sent Respondent a memorandum by e-mail. The memorandum cites to administrative rules that, according to Ms. Villella, authorize the on-line internal testing of an interactive on-line self-study course as the equivalent of a monitored exam. In a letter to Petitioner's counsel dated January 10, 2006, Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Licensing, Hazel Muhammad, responded to a request for public records regarding the name of an approved supervising instructor for Athena. The letter did not state that Athena was not required to have an approved supervising instructor. Instead, the January 10, 2006, letter stated that Respondent's records did not contain the name of an approved supervising instructor for Athena's on-line courses. At that time, Athena had withdrawn an initial application for a supervising instructor with the intent to file another such application. The January 10, 2006, letter from Ms. Muhammad stated that Respondent did "not have any public records for monitored examinations for bail bond continuing education courses." The letter did not state that such courses do not require a monitored exam. On January 25, 2006, Respondent approved the application of Warren Eugene Stewart as the supervising instructor for Athena's on-line continuing education courses. Ms. Villella is the owner and operator of Athena. She developed the course material that is contained in the on-line courses. Prior to forming Athena in 2005, Ms. Villella worked for Petitioner for over six years. During her employment with Petitioner, Ms. Villella assisted in the development of continuing education courses and coordinated the presentation of the courses throughout the State of Florida. Athena's on-line courses use the Learning Management System. The system is offered through a vendor known as Mind Flash. When students go on-line to study the course material or to take a quiz, Ms. Villella is able to observe the amount of time spent on each page of content material and/or each test. She is able to determine how the students answer the questions on the tests. Ms. Villella stays in contact with students through e-mail. She verifies that the students successfully complete the course and advises Respondent of their passing grades. There is no documentation showing that Respondent has approved Ms. Villella as a monitor or part of a monitor group for Athena's on-line examinations. Ms. Villella believes that she has Respondent's tacit approval as a monitor based on her communications with Respondent's staff regarding Athena's on- line internal testing process. A course provider of an interactive on-line course with on-line internal testing, to include Athena, cannot confirm the identity of the person taking an on-line examination. The provider must except the student's on-line acknowledgement that he or she is not being assisted by another person or using a textbook or other material to answer test questions. Athena's supervising instructor only becomes involved if a student has a content question that Ms. Villella cannot answer. The supervising instructor acts as a consultant with expertise in content areas. As of the date of the hearing, at least 51 bail bond agents had received credit for taking Athena's continuing education courses. On February 28, 2006, Petitioner took the deposition of Hazel Muhammad, Respondent's Bureau Chief of Licensing. Her deposition was accepted as deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony at the hearing. The deposition, as a whole, creates the impression that the witness was being interrogated to establish her understanding of the rules related to supervising instructors and monitored examinations for bail bond agent continuing education courses. The deposition by its terms did not elucidate preexisting agency policies on these topics, which were not already established by statute or adopted rule. When questioned about specific rules, Ms. Muhammad stated that that a supervising instructor could monitor an on- line continuing education course. According to Ms. Muhammad, the rules allow Respondent to determine whether an on-line course is monitored based on an applicant's outline that describes the on-line monitoring process, including the monitoring of the on-line tests. Ms. Muhammad would not agree that the rules necessarily distinguish between a monitored examination and an on-line examination depending on the physical presence or absence of a monitor. When questioned about Athena's application, Ms. Muhammad testified that Athena's on-line courses, as initially approved by Respondent, did not reflect supervising instructors. She also testified that the on-line checklists for Athena's courses did not refer to monitored or unmonitored examinations. Applying the rules as she interpreted them, Ms. Muhammed concluded that Athena's courses met the requirements for internal on-line testing and monitored examinations.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a limited surety agent should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Background At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Harris was licensed as a limited surety agent and continues to be eligible for licensure and appointment in Florida. On June 2, 1988, Respondent executed a bail bond agreement with Indiana Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance Company (Indiana Lumbermen's) as the insurer of the surety bonds, Underwriters Surety, Inc. (Underwriters) as its agent, and Jim Fowler, Jr. d/b/a Fowler Enterprises (Fowler) as its representative indemnitor and supervising representative. Under the terms of the agreement, Indiana Lumbermen's agreed to act as surety on bail bonds solicited and signed in its name by Respondent Harris. In turn, he agreed to charge, collect and remit all bond premiums through Fowler, who has a separate agreement with Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters regarding those duties. Additionally, Respondent agreed to hold Indiana Lumbermen's, Underwriters, and Fowler harmless for all bond forfeitures and court costs expended by any of them for bail bonds issued in Indiana Lumbermen's name by him. Because Fowler was also required to indemnify Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters against bond forfeitures and court costs resulting from bonds issued by Respondent Harris, a $10,000 mortgage was placed against Respondent's home as collateral for such losses by Fowler. Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters also required Respondent Harris to place two per cent of the face amount of each bond in an indemnity fund. The agreement states that after each indemnification is finally determined and satisfied, the remaining portion of the indemnity fund will be delivered to the Respondent or to Fowler. Fowler and the Respondent agreed that when the indemnity fund built up to $25,000.00 in reserved funds, Fowler would release the mortgage. Respondent could also request that the amount of money he was required to place into the indemnity fund for subsequent bond executions be reduced to one per cent of the face of the bonds. After the bail bond agreement was executed by all parties and the Respondent's wife in June of 1988, the bail bonds service office was opened in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Bond Forfeitures On December 12, 1988, two final judgments were entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-168638 and No. BB1-168639 due to the failure of Charles Douglas, Jr., to appear to answer criminal charges for which the bonds had been issued. Each bond was in the principal amount of $1,000.00 and was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney- In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The sum of the two judgments was $2,000.00 and $169.00 and court costs. Warren H. Dawson, attorney for the Defendant, motioned the court to vacate the judgments on January 24, 1989. Instead vacating the judgments, the court stayed the enforcement of the judgments until April 26, 1989. At the chose of the time period, Charles Douglas, Jr., was not located, ad the bond funds were forfeited to the State of Florida for the use and benefit of Hillsborough County. These funds, totalling 2,000.00, were paid to the Clerk of Court by Harry Hamner Enterprises on May 18, 1989, as agent for Fowler. Court costs of $84.50 were paid by Respondent Harris, and $84.50 in court costs remain outstanding. The funds paid to the Clerk of Court on behalf of Fowler were issued to a low Fowler to comply with the bail bond agreement as super representative. Respondent Harris is still obligated to indemnify Fowler for the payment. On December 3, 1990, a remittance of $1,000.00 was given to Fowler because Defendant had been located. As this hearing took place only three days later, it is unknown if a check for the other S1,000.00 was forthcoming to Fowler. If the failure to remit the owner $1,000.00 was an oversight, it could be easily corrected by the Clerk of Court as the location of the Defendant would allow we return of these funds as well. On June 4, 1989, a final judgment was entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-200214 due to the failure of Ivan R. Jacob to appear in court to answer the criminal charges for which the bond had been issued. The bond was in the principal amount of $1,000.00 and was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney-In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The judgment was for $1,000.00 and $84.50 in court costs. Warren H. Dawson, attorney for the Defendant, motioned the court to vacate and set aside the judgment and costs on July 12, 1989. The motion was granted on August 24, 1989, except that the payment of $84.50 in court costs was still required. The outstanding court costs of $84.50 were paid by Rubin C. Bazarte, Bail Bonds, on behalf of Indiana Lumbermen's on August 28, 1989. Respondent Harris has not indemnified Indiana Lumbermen's for those funds expended to pay the court costs as required by the bail bond agreement. He is still obligated to do so. On June 14, 1989, a final judgment was entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-197205 due to the failure of William A. Evans to appear to answer criminal charges for which the bond had been issued. The principal amount of the bond was $500.00. It was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney-In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The sum of the judgment was $500.00 with court costs of $84.50. The judgment and court costs were satisfied by Rubin C. Bazarte, Bail Bonds, on behalf of Indiana Lumbermen's on August 28, 1939. Respondent Harris has not indemnified Indiana Lumbermen's for the funds expended, as required by the bail bond agreement. On June 21, 1989, a final judgment was entered in Hillsborough County which required the forfeiture of Surety Bond Power No. BB1-197204 due to the failure of Williams A. Evans, Jr., to answer criminal charges for which the bond had been issued. The principal amount of the bond was $500.00, and it was issued by Respondent Harris as Attorney-In-Fact for Indiana Lumbermen's. The sum of the judgment was $500.00 plus court costs of $84.50. On August 28, 1989, the judgment and court costs were satisfied by Rubin C. Bazarte, Bail Bonds, on behalf of Indiana Lumbermen's. Respondent Harris has not indemnified Indiana Lumbermen's for the funds expended, as required by the bail bond agreement. Respondent has not received funds to pay for the bond forfeitures from any source. Bond Net Premiums As part of his duties regarding the issuance of bonds for Indiana Lumbermen's, Respondent was required to regularly report the execution of bail bonds to Fowler and Underwriters. The net premiums were to be paid to either of these agents for Indiana Lumbermen's. According to the business records maintained by Fowler, the Respondent failed to remit the required net premiums owed with reports numbered 35, 36, 37 and 38. The amount of money owed for these premiums is $2,370.00. For April 7, 1989, Rosettia Jacobs paid Respondent $1,000.00 to obtain two bonds for the pretrial release of her son, Andre Hudson. Two bonds, with a face value of $5,000.00 each were executed by Respondent that day. The net premiums for two bonds with a face value of $10,000.00 were listed on bail bond execution report number 36, but the net premium was never paid to Fowler or Underwriters from the cash received from Rosettia Jacobs for that purpose. In July 1989, Melvin Rolfe met with Respondent's son, who represented he could accept funds on behalf of his father for the bail bond business. Melvin Rolfe gave Respondent's son $250.00 for a bail bond in order to obtain the pretrial release of his brother, Joseph Rolfe. Of these funds, $100.00 was for payment of the gross premium and $150.00 was collateral. The bond for $1,000.00 was executed by Respondent on August 1, 1989. The collateral given to Respondent's son was not noted on bail bond execution report number 35. The net premium for the $1,000.00 bond for Joseph Rolfe was not sent to Fowler or Underwriters from the cash delivered by Melvin Rolfe for that purpose. On August 1, 1989, Melvin Hamilton gave the Respondent $250.00 for two bonds in order to obtain the pretrial release of his brother, Mark Hamilton. One bond premium was $100.00 and the other bond premium was $50.00. The additional $100.00 was collateral. Bonds with the total face value of $1,250.00 were executed by Respondent on August 1, 1989. The collateral was not noted on the bail bond execution report number 35, and the net premiums were not sent to Fowler or Underwriters from the funds delivered by Melvin Hamilton for that purpose. On August 4, 1989, Charles Rodriguez paid $350.00 for bond premiums to Respondent in order to obtain the pretrial release of his wife, Tina Dunn. The total gross premium amount was $450.00. Respondent extended credit to Charles Rodriguez and issued three bonds with the total face value of $4,500.00 on August 4, 1989. Although the bonds were issued and noted on bail bond execution report 35, the net premiums were not sent to Fowler or Underwriters from the funds delivered by Charles Rodriguez for that purpose. On September 13, 1989, Fowler, as supervising representative for Indiana Lumbermen's and Underwriters, sent a formal demand to Respondent for the $2,370.00 due for premiums not included with reports numbered 35-38. Respondent has failed to pay any of the funds actually received for those premiums to Fowler, Underwriters, or Lumbermen's. Mitigation Respondent has made some attempts to locate defendants whose bonds have been forfeited to the state. Respondent extended credit to some people seeking bail bonds so he never collected some of the money owed to Indiana Lumbermen's for premiums.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, which demonstrates that Respondent misappropriated net bond premiums owed the insurer on four occasions between April and early August 1989, it is RECOMMENDED: The limited surety license of Rudolph Harris, Respondent, be suspended for one year, pursuant to Section 648.49(1), Florida Statutes [1987]. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of February 1991. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 22nd day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4689 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See #18-#23. Also, irrelevant as to charging document which claimed Respondent misappropriated bond forfeiture funds. Rejected. Irrelevant as to charging document which claim Respondent misappropriated forfeiture funds. See HO $14-#17. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #8-#13. Accepted. See HO #35. COPIES FURNISHED: Gordon T. Nicol, Esquire Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Rudolph Harris 812 E. Henderson Avenue Tampa, FL 33602 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue Should Respondent's license as a bail bond agent in the State of Florida be disciplined for the alleged violation of certain provisions of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes. Respondent, at all times relevant to this proceeding, was licensed as a bail bond agent in the State of Florida and subject to the provisions of Chapter 648, Florida Statutes. Respondent, at all times relevant to this proceeding, was employed by Alliance Bail Bonds (Alliance), which was owned by Linda Jones. There was a verbal employment agreement between Alliance and Respondent, which provided for, among other things, Respondent's salary. However, the verbal employment agreement did not require that Respondent write bail bonds exclusively for Alliance. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Alliance's office was located in Respondent's home in Titusville, Brevard County, Florida, which had a separate entrance and separate telephone for Alliance. Alliance's files, both active and inactive, were also housed in this office. On March 30, 2000, a person identifying himself as Johnny Lamb contacted Respondent by telephone concerning a bail bond for an individual known as Bernard J. Dougherty who was being held in the Brevard County, Florida, jail. The bond amount was $8,500.00. Since Dougherty was not a resident of the State of Florida, Respondent wanted Lamb to put up the full amount of the bond as collateral. However, Lamb advised Respondent that he did not have enough cash to put up the full amount of the bond. Therefore, Respondent and Lamb eventually agreed on $7,000.00 cash as collateral. Additionally, Respondent advised Lamb that the premium for writing the bail bond would be $850.00 (10 percent of the bond amount). Later that same day, Lamb came to Respondent's office to complete the paperwork and put up the necessary funds for the collateral and bond premium. Lamb paid Respondent the collateral and bond premium in cash (U.S. currency, 20's, 50's, and 100's). Respondent prepared a Collateral Receipt and Informational Notice (Collateral Receipt), which was signed by Lamb. The Collateral Receipt indicated that Lamb had deposited the $7,000.00 collateral with Respondent and had executed an Indemnity Agreement and Promissory Note. Lamb also executed a Bail Application. Respondent gave Lamb the white copy of the Collateral Receipt for his records. The goldenrod copy of the Collateral Receipt was also given to Lamb to be delivered to Dougherty at the jail. The yellow copy and pink copy of the Collateral Receipt were retained by Respondent for Alliance's record. Lamb also paid Respondent $850.00 in cash (U.S. Currency) for the bail bond premium for which Respondent gave Lamb a receipt (number 20454) indicating that Lamb had paid the bail bond premium in the amount of $850.00. After completing the bond transaction with Lamb, Respondent prepared a file in Dougherty's name, which included the copies of the Collateral Receipt, Promissory Note, Indemnity Agreement, Bail Application, and a copy of the receipt for the bail bond premium. After preparing the file, Respondent prepared two Powers of Attorney (Powers), one in the amount of $5,000.00 and one in the amount of $3,500.00, and proceeded to the Brevard County jail to interview Dougherty. Upon arriving at the Brevard County jail, Respondent was advised that in addition to the Brevard County charges, there was an outstanding warrant for Dougherty from Volusia County and a hold for a parole violation in the State of Pennsylvania. Lamb was not present at the Brevard County jail at this time. Therefore, Respondent advised Dougherty of the Volusia County warrant and the hold from Pennsylvania. Respondent further advised Dougherty that although he could post bond for the Brevard County charges, Dougherty would not be released because of the Volusia County warrant and the hold for parole violation in Pennsylvania. Dougherty advised Respondent that he did not want to post bond. Whereupon, Respondent attempted to contact Lamb using the telephone numbers furnished Respondent by Lamb but was unsuccessful in locating Lamb. On March 31, 2000, Respondent called the Brevard County jail and had Lamb paged. Upon being advised that Lamb was present in the Brevard County jail, Respondent asked that they instruct Lamb to call Respondent at his office. Lamb called Respondent at his office and was advised of the situation concerning Dougherty. Respondent also advised Lamb that he was on his way to the jail and would bring Lamb's money with him. Upon arriving at the Brevard County jail, Respondent explained the circumstances regarding the posting of bail for Dougherty and proceeded to return Lamb's money. Lamb did not have the copies of the Collateral Receipt with him that had been given to Lamb on March 30, 2000. Therefore, Respondent took his copy of the Collateral Receipt and documented the return of the $7,000.00 collateral and the $850.00 premium fee. Lamb signed the documentation on the Collateral Receipt showing the return of the $7,000.00 collateral and the $850.00 premium fee. Respondent then placed all of the documents, including the Collateral Receipt with the documentation showing the return of the $7,000.00 collateral and the $850.00 bond premium, in Dougherty's file with Dougherty's name highlighted in blue for filing. Afterwards, Respondent voided the Powers by writing "Void" across the front of the Powers and had them sent to Linda Jones by UPS. Subsequently, the Powers were forwarded by Linda Jones to Charles A. Parish, Agent for Continental Heritage Insurance Co., on whom the Powers were written. On March 31, 2000, Respondent returned the $7,000.00 collateral plus the $850.00 bond premium fee to Lamb, notwithstanding the testimony of Lamb to the contrary, which lacks credibility. Respondent did not at any time present any of the paperwork for posting Dougherty's bond, including the Powers, to the Brevard County jail personnel. Since Alliance's Brevard County files were being kept at Respondent's office in Titusville, Florida, Respondent did not forward Dougherty's file to Linda Jones. However, as a caution, Respondent advised Linda Jones by telephone of what had occurred in regards to Dougherty, notwithstanding Linda Jones' testimony to the contrary, which lacks credibility. Sometime in January 2001, Linda Jones came into Respondent's office in Titusville, Florida, and removed all of Alliance's Brevard County files, both active and inactive, that were in the possession of Respondent. The Alliance files removed by Linda Jones included Dougherty's inactive file with the documentation concerning the return of the $7,000.00 collateral and the $850.00 bail bond premium, notwithstanding Linda Jones' testimony to the contrary, which lacks credibility. By letter dated May 10, 2001, after talking to William Travis and Linda Jones, Lamb filed a complaint with the Department alleging that Respondent had failed to return the $7,000.00 collateral and this proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent, Michael Scott Kelly, not guilty of violating Subsections 648.442(1) and (3); and 648.45(2)(d),(e),(g),(h), (j), and (n), and (3)(a),(c),(d), and (e), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Michael Scott Kelly. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 23rd day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dickson E. Kesler, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Steven G. Casanova, Esquire 100 Rialto Place, Suite 510 Melbourne, Florida 32935
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Adriana Winkelmann, d/b/a Adriana's Bail Bonds, Tampa, currently is licensed and eligible for licensure in this State as a Limited Surety Agent. On or about October 31, 1986, William L. Counts and his wife, Madie Counts, a/k/a Madie G. Clark, went to see the Respondent about getting Mr. Counts' first cousin, Clayton D. Counts, bailed out of jail. Cousin Clayton was charged with second degree murder, and bail was set on the second degree murder charge at $5000. Clayton Counts also had been charged with eight other counts involving sexual battery on a child and sexual activity with a child under his custodial authority. On October 2, 1986, Clayton Counts had posted $14,000 of bonds that had been set on the eight charges and had been released from jail. Adriana's Bail Bonds, acting as bail bondsman and as attorney-in-fact for the surety company, Accredited Surety And Casualty Company, Inc. (Accredited or the surety), was the surety on the $14,000 of bonds, and Scott Erickson, a friend of Clayton Counts, indemnified Accredited and put up collateral to secure the indemnification agreement. All but $150 of the premium on the $14,000 of bonds had been paid to Adriana's Bail Bonds; Clayton Counts' wife promised to pay the additional $150 at a later date. When Clayton Counts was re-arrested and charged with second degree murder and just an additional $5000 bond was set on the new charge, Erickson became fearful that Clayton Counts might skip the bonds, jeopardizing Erickson's collateral. He told the Respondent that he wanted to be taken off the bonds. At about this same time, on or about October 31, 1986, Mr. and Mrs. William L. Counts came in to Adriana's Bail Bonds, at Clayton Counts' request, to see about bailing out Clayton for the second time. Mr. and Mrs. Counts agreed with the Respondent to indemnify the surety on the total amount of all of the bonds, $19,000. They agreed to pay the $150 balance of the premium on the bonds put up on or about October 2, 1986, on the first set of charges, plus a $500 premium on the bond put up on or about October 31, 1986, on the second degree murder charge. The indemnity agreement was to indemnify the surety company for the entire $19,000 amount of the bonds in the event of a forfeiture, plus "all claim, demand, liability, cost, charge, counsel fee, expense, suit order, judgment, or adjudication" sustained or incurred by the surety company. As collateral to secure their indemnity agreement, Mr. and Mrs. Counts put up their mobile home, to which they gave the Respondent a power of attorney dated October 31, 1986, and an $8,000 mortgage on a lot worth approximately $8000. They also gave Adriana's Bail Bonds a $19,000 promissory note as collateral. On October 31, 1986, an employee of Adriana's Bail Bonds gave Mr. Counts a collateral receipt, signed by Mr. Counts and the employee, for the $19,000 promissory note, the indemnity agreement, the mortgage on the lot and the mobile home. The original was given to Mr. Counts and Adriana's Bail Bonds kept a copy. There was no evidence that the collateral receipt, or any other statement or affidavit, for this or any other collateral (other than Erickson's original collateral on the $14,000 of bonds on the first set of charges) ever was filed anywhere. Mr. Counts paid $500 by check dated November 14, 1986, for the premium on the $5000 second degree murder bond. In December 1986, Clayton Counts left the state and missed a court appearance on December 19, 1986. The $19,000 of bonds was estreated. In about January 1987, Mrs. Counts went to see the Respondent about substituting some other collateral for the mobile home. She was concerned about where she and her husband would live if the bonds were estreated and forfeited and the mobile home had to be sold to perform the indemnity agreement. She wanted to be able to move the mobile home somewhere else even in that event. After some discussion, it was agreed that the Respondent would accept $6000 cash as substitute collateral in place of the mobile home. Mrs. Counts promised to pay the $6000 in installments of approximately $500 a month. The Respondent repeatedly was able to have the court delay forfeiture of the bonds because she was able to demonstrate that she was trying to locate and return the defendant to the court. In her efforts, the Respondent incurred expenses for hiring private investigators, for a six- day trip to Missouri, for long distance telephone charges, for attorneys' fees for getting postponements of the forfeiture of the bonds and for other miscellaneous expenses. The Respondent collected portions of the promised cash collateral substitution in the following installments, some of which were picked up at the Counts' home by the Respondent: April 21, 1987 $2,000 July 17, 1987 $ 300 August 10, 1987 $ 500 August 20, 1987 $ 800 January 6, 1988 $ 500 On each occasion, the Respondent gave Mrs. Counts a collateral receipt signed by the Respondent and by Mrs. Counts. Each receipt noted the amount received, the balance due on the cash collateral substitution promise, and the $150 balance on the premium on the October 2, 1986 bonds on the first set of charges. Again, there was no evidence that any of these collateral receipts were "filed" anywhere. On January 6, 1988, Mrs. Counts asked the Respondent for a summary of the amounts of collateral paid to that date. The Respondent wrote on a piece of paper, incorrectly dated January 6, 1987, that $4100 had been received to date. Mrs. Counts also was confused what the money would be used for. The Respondent answered her question, saying that the money, together with the lot, would go towards indemnifying the surety for the $19,000 amount of the bonds if they were forfeited and, under the indemnity agreement, could be used to indemnity Adriana's Bail Bonds for expenses caused by the estreature. The Respondent listed these items on a piece of paper, too: Attorney fees to continue case 4 times over one year. Long distance calls for one year. Gas, stamps, & miscellaneous. One trip to Missouri, gas, motel, meals. Investigators services in Missouri and Florida. Later in January 1988, Clayton Counts was arrested and returned to Florida. The bonds, however, were not discharged at that time. Later in 1988, the Respondent made demand on Mrs. and Mrs. Counts for payment of an additional $2,150. This was supposed to represent $2000 due on the cash collateral substitution promise, plus the $150 balance on the premium on the October 2, 1986 bonds on the first set of charges. In fact, only $1900 was due and owning on the cash collateral substitution agreement. In March and April 1988, the Respondent collected from Mrs. Counts two additional $350 installments of the cash collateral substitution promise. Only one receipt was given for both installments, once again signed by both the Respondent and Mrs. Counts, reducing the balance to $1200, plus the $150 premium owing. In June and July 1988, Mrs. Counts was hospitalized. On June 13, 1988, the Respondent went to the hospital to have Mrs. Counts sign a receipt for the return of the original collateral for the $19,000 of bonds--i.e., the $19,000 promissory note and indemnity agreement, the mortgage on the lot and the mobile home. The Respondent did not return the cash collateral. On July 14, 1988, the court entered an order releasing the surety and Adriana's Bail Bonds from the bonds. The Respondent did not return the cash collateral because Mrs. Counts died in July 1988, and the Respondent was unsure to whom the money should be paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of the violations set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order and that her license and eligibility for licensure be suspended for a period of thirty (30) days, that she be required to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $250, and that she be placed on probation for nine months after expiration of the suspension period, conditioned on : (1) successful completion of either a basic certification course or a correspondence course approved by the Bail Bond Regulatory Board; and (2) payment of the cash collateral to the rightful owner, or in the alternative, if the Respondent is in doubt as to the rightful owner, into a court registry in conjunction with an interpleader action, within 30 days of entry of final order. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Office 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 24th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-2588 To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner'S proposed findings of fact: 1-9. Accepted and, along with other facts, incorporated. 10. Rejected in part and accepted in part. The note was a receipt of sorts, but it was not the only receipt. The incorrect date on the "receipt" was January 6, 1987; the actual date the "receipt" was given was January 6, 1988. 11.-16. Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Office of Legal Services Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 James N. Casesa, Esquire 3845 Fifth Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 The Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32999-0300
The Issue This is a bid protest proceeding in which the Petitioner challenges the Department's notice of intent to award the contract under RFP-DOT-94/95-8006 to the Intervenor Martin Petroleum Corp. Petitioner, who is the fifth-ranked bidder, contends that all four of the higher ranked bidders submitted non- responsive bids, that its own bid was responsive, and that it should be awarded the subject contract.
Findings Of Fact Findings stipulated to by all parties 4/ The Department solicited proposals for renovation and operation of service stations on Florida's Turnpike through RFP- DOT-94/95-8006, which was issued September 21, 1994. The award recipient, known as the Operator, would have to furnish, prior to contracting, a $1,000,000 performance bond for operation of the seven stations on the Turnpike. No performance bond was required at the time the proposals were due. The RFP required all proposers to submit letters of commitment from surety companies with their proposals, however. The RFP stated: J. FINANCIAL ABILITY To assess the Proposer's financial ability to perform the requirements set forth in this Request for Proposals and the resulting Service Station Lease and Operating Agreement, the Department has determined that it will require a Proposal Guaranty, a Performance Bond, and a Letter of Credit. * * * Considerations The successful Proposer will be required to provide, prior to execution of a contract, a satisfactory Performance and Payment Bond in the amount of $1,000,000 on the form provided in Section VII of this RFP or other form acceptable to the Department. The bond shall be maintained in effect throughout the life of the Contract and shall ensure full compliance with all the terms and conditions of the Contract except construction/ renovation and signage activities. The Performance and Payment Bond is not to be mailed with the proposal, but will be required prior to execution of the final Contract. The cost of this bond shall be borne by the Proposer. The Surety on any Performance and Payment Bond shall hold a certificate of authority authorizing it to write surety bonds in the State of Florida and shall be licensed to do business in the State of Florida. The Surety Bond shall be signed by the Surety and Surety's Florida resident agent. Requirements The proposer must provide a letter of commitment from a Surety who meets the surety qualification requirements set forth above. Such letter must state that the Surety will issue on behalf of the Proposer a Performance and Payment Bond in the amount of $1,000,000 covering all obligations under the Contract except construction/renovation related activities. The only contingency permitted in the commitment letter is the award of the Contract to the Proposer. The bond requirements were set out in the Lease and Operating Agreement, which stated, in pertinent part: [T]he Operator has provided, prior to execution of this Agreement, a Performance and Payment Bond in the amount of $1,000,000 to the Department which must be maintained in effect throughout the life of the Agreement to ensure full comp- liance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement except construction/renovation and signage activities. This bonding requirement may be fulfilled through use of sequential bonds provided (1) the duration of any given bond shall not be less than one year, (2) the bond amount shall be $1,000,000 for any given bond duration, and (3) at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of any given bond, the Operator must present the Department a new bond effective upon expiration of the bond then in effect. Under the RFP the proposals were to be rated in four major categories: management experience and staffing, fuel pricing and services, service station operations, and market development plan. The four scores would than be added and the proposers would be ranked from the highest to the lowest score. The surety commitment letters, among other requirements, were not "scored" items, but were reviewed for compliance with the RFP. Any deemed to be materially deficient would render the proposal nonresponsive and result in its disqualification. Seven proposals were opened on December 20, 1994. The proposals were evaluated by three employees of the Department who had experience and knowledge in the program area and who were appointed by the District Secretary. Woodrow L. Lawson, the Director of Contractual Services for the Department's Turnpike Division, performed the responsiveness review. Martin's surety commitment letter was from Poe & Brown Insurance of Daytona Beach, Florida, was dated December 9, 1994, was signed by Donald P. Bramlage, Attorney-in-Fact & Resident Agent and stated: North American Specialty Insurance Company has executed the bid bond for the operation, renovation and maintenance of service stations located on Florida's Turnpike. Should the contract be awarded to Martin Petroleum Corporation, North American Specialty stands ready to execute an annual $1 million performance and payment bond for this contract. Should you need any additional information whatsoever, please advise. Chambliss' surety commitment letter was from Poe & Brown Insurance of Daytona Beach, Florida, was dated December 16, 1994, was signed by Donald P. Bramlage, Attorney-in-Fact & Resident Agent and stated: North American Specialty Insurance Company has executed the bid bond for Operation, Renovation and Maintenance of Service Stations located on Florida's Turnpikes. Should the contract be awarded to Joe A. Chambliss, Inc., North American Specialty Insurance Company stands ready to execute an annual $1 million Performance and Payment bond for this contract. Should you need anything additional whatsoever, please advise. Mobil's surety commitment letter was from Chubb Group of Insurance Companies of New York, New York, was dated November 16, 1994, was signed by Betty Calderon of Federal Insurance Company, as attorney-in-fact, and stated: Please be advised that should Mobil Oil Corp- oration be awarded a contract, we will secure from the Federal Insurance Company a Performance and Payment Bond in the amount of said contract. If you have questions, please feel free to call. The surety commitment letter submitted by Amoco Oil Company was from Seaboard Surety Company of Chicago, Illinois, was dated December 16, 1994, was signed by Patricia Thurmond, as agent for Seaboard Security Company, and stated: It is our understanding that Amoco is submitting a proposal for the above-referenced project. Please be advised that we currently have Amoco placed with St. Paul/Seaboard for their surety bond needs. Our ability to secure final performance and payment bonds is subject to a favorable review of the bond forms and mutually acceptable contract terms. This commitment shall remain in full force and effect for a period of sixty (60) days unless extended in writing by the undersigned. Knight's surety commitment letter was from ACSTAR Insurance Company of New Britain, Connecticut, was dated December 16, 1994, was signed by William J. Dykas as Attorney-in-fact, and stated: In the event that Knight Energy Turnpike Services, Inc. should be awarded the contract for the operation, renovation and maintenance of seven Florida Turnpike locations, Project No. RFP-DOT-94/95-8006, ACSTAR Insurance Company as Surety, will furnish a Payment and Performance Bond in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for all obligations except construction/renovation and signage. Woodrow Lawson reviewed the surety commitment letters as part of his responsiveness review of the proposals. He found no defect in the surety commitment letters of Martin, Chambliss, Mobil, Amoco, or Knight. Martin had the highest-rated proposal, followed by Chambliss, Mobil, Amoco, Knight, and Sunshine Oil Company. A proposal from Orestes Flores was disqualified for being nonresponsive. The Department decided to award the contract to Martin, and posted notice of that decision on January 20, 1995. Findings based on evidence at hearing The Department had two principal purposes for requiring the surety commitment letters: (a) to help ensure that the intended award recipient would be able to acquire a performance and payment bond and thus be able to execute the contract and (b) to help the Department weed out proposers that could not perform, the assumption being that companies with inadequate resources would not be able to secure a commitment. The criteria listed in the Requirements section on page 28 of Joint Exhibit 2 were the only criteria used by the Department to evaluate compliance with Section IV, Paragraph J.2 of the RFP. After Lawson had completed his own responsiveness review, he solicited comments from the three evaluators regarding the responsiveness of the proposals. None of the evaluators expressed any concern about the responsiveness of the surety commitment letters submitted by Martin, Chambliss, Mobile or Knight. Lawson did conclude that the letter submitted by Amoco was irregular for containing additional contingencies beyond what the RFP permitted, but he considered the irregularity to be minor, and waived it, thus treating Amoco's proposal as responsive.Courier 5/ In the RFP the Department expressly reserved the right to waive minor irregularities in the proposals. Knight's proposal was prepared and submitted by Mr. Dave Blech, President of Knight Energy Turnpike Services, Inc. Upon receipt of the RFP, Mr. Blech sent the document to his insurance agent and requested that the agent obtain a bond to satisfy the requirements of the RFP. Relevant amendments, including the amended contractual language, were also provided to Knight's insurance agent. Mr. Blech interpreted the J.2 bond criteria of the RFP to require a surety commitment letter that would cover all obligations of the contract, except construction, renovation, and signage, for the entire eight and a half or nine year period of the contract. This opinion was shared by Knight's insurance agent, and Knight received similar opinions concerning the term and the amount of the bond from other bonding companies which were contacted by Knight during the preparation of its proposal. The Department's interpretation of the J.2 bond criteria was to the effect that a commitment to a one year period was sufficient. In view of the bond requirements set out in the Lease and Operating Agreement, the Department's interpretation was reasonable, if not required.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order in this case concluding that the bid submitted by the Intervenor Martin Petroleum Corp. was responsive in all material regards and dismissing the Petitioner's Formal Protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 10th day of April, 1995.
The Issue At issue is whether petitioner's request for a bond waiver under the provisions of Section 559.927(10)(b)5, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Consolidated Cruises and Tours, Inc., is a "seller of travel," as that term is defined by Section 559.927(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and was formed in April 1993 by Steven Wolf, its president, to carry on the travel business he had previously operated through Consolidated Cruises, Inc., since October 1987. Effective October 1, 1988, Chapter 88-363, Laws of Florida, codified at Section 559.927, Florida Statutes (1989), required sellers of travel to register with the Department, and to post an annual performance bond. Failure to register with the Department or to conduct business as a seller of travel without the required bond was a violation of law, and subjected the person or business to civil and criminal penalties. Consolidated Cruises, Inc., the business through which Mr. Wolf was operating at the time, did not register with the Department as a seller of travel until November 1, 1991. Effective October 1, 1993, Chapter 93-107, Section 1, Laws of Florida, amended Section 559.927, Florida Statutes, to provide that: The department may waive the bond requirement in this subsection if the seller of travel has had 5 or more consecutive years of experience as a seller of travel in Florida. . . . On or about May 25, 1994, petitioner filed an application for registration as a seller of travel with respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (Department), and requested a waiver of the annual performance bond requirement. Pertinent to this case, the request for waiver described the history of Consolidated Cruises, Inc., and Consolidated Cruises and Tours, Inc., as follows: Consolidated Cruises Inc. was established on 10/1/87 as a company that promoted cruises. The sales for the company was minimal for the first 2 years. The principal stock holder was Steven Wolf (100 percent). In March of 1990 Consolidated Cruises added 3 new major stock holders to the company and split the company stock as follows: Steven Wolf - 25 percent Miriam Wolf - 25 percent Yoav Tavory - 25 percent Judy Tavory - 25 percent In April of 1993 Consolidated Cruises ceased to function since the major stock holders had a disagreement as to the dissolution of the company. In the interim, to keep the company going a new corporation was formed by Steven Wolf & Miriam Wolf called, "CONSOLIDATED CRUISES & TOURS INC. For all practical purposes, the company continued to work the same as before but under the auspices of a new company name. In all the years that we have been providing our services, we have never had ONE complaint. On the basis of our past performance, we request that you waive the requested security bond of $10,000. Our previous registration number for CONSOLIDATED CRUISES INC. are as follows: certificate of registration No: 11347 certificate No. 00283 By letter of June 16, 1994, the Department denied petitioner's request for bond waiver. Such denial was premised on the Department's interpretation of Section 559.927, Florida Statutes, as allowing a waiver of the bond requirement only when the "seller of travel has had 5 or more consecutive years of experience as a seller of travel in Florida" that was lawfully obtained, i.e., that such experience occurred while the person or business was duly registered with the Department as required by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered denying petitioner's request for a performance bond waiver. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of January 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January 1995. APPENDIX Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 4, otherwise not relevant. See, paragraph 9. 3-5. Addressed in paragraph 6, otherwise unnecessary detail. 6. Addressed in paragraph 3, otherwise unnecessary detail. 7 & 8. Addressed in paragraph 5. 9. Addressed in paragraphs 4 and 5. 10 & 11. Addressed in paragraph 6. 12. Rejected as not relevant since the Department did not specify such reason as a basis for denial in its letter of June 16, 1994, did not seek to amend its reasons for denial prior to hearing, and did not raise such issue until after petitioner had presented its case-in-chief. See paragraph 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Wolf, President Consolidated Cruises and Tours, Inc. 8181 Northwest 8th Manor Plantation, Florida 33324 Jay S. Levenstein, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL - 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL - 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
