Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Respondent, Scarlet Manor, Inc., d/b/a Scarlet Manor is located at 13009 Lake Carl Drive, Hudson, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed by the Agency to operate an ACLF (facility) at 13009 Lake Carl Drive, Hudson, Pasco County, Florida, housing a maximum of 40 residents. Ray Dorman is the owner of Scarlet Manor and has operated the facility since 1984. The facility primarily serves clients who are or have been diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness. On January 14, 1994, the Agency conducted a biennial survey of the facility and found violations in 68 categories of Class III deficiencies. During an exit interview on January 14, 1994, following the completion of the biennial survey, the Respondent's employee was advised of the deficiencies and was told that the deficiencies had to be corrected by February 14, 1994. The Agency reported the results of its biennial survey in a Summary of Deficiencies For ACLF Licensure Requirements (Summary of Deficiencies). A copy of the Summary of Deficiencies was furnished to the Respondent, who acknowledged on February 21, 1994, that a copy of the Summary of Deficiencies had been received on February 19, 1994. As indicated by the Summary of Deficiencies, a large number of the deficiencies were cited due to the unavailability of records at the time of the biennial survey. The records were kept at Ray Dorman's residence rather than the facility and Mr. Dorman was not available on the day of the survey to produce the records. Another large number of the deficiencies pertain to record keeping, and one would have to strain to show that such deficiencies, individually or jointly, "indirectly or potentially threaten the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of facility residents". At the time Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Summary of Deficiencies it requested an extension for correcting the deficiencies from February 14, 1994, until March 21, 1994. The Agency granted the request for extension. The Respondent did not request any further extension. On March 21, 1994, the Agency revisited the facility and determined that 15 deficiencies remained uncorrected. The Respondent was again provided with a Summary of Deficiencies which, under column (4), indicated March 21, 1994 as the date of revisit, the identifying number of the deficiency and whether the deficiency was corrected or not corrected on the date of revisit. By letter dated July 1, 1994, the Agency denied Respondent's application for renewal of its license to operate the facility which had expired on March 11, 1994. The specific basis for the Agency's denial was the Respondent's failure to maintain minimum standards for an ACLF as evidenced by the Respondent's failure to correct the 15 deficiencies previously identified in the Summary of Deficiencies as not being corrected within the Agency's extended time of March 21, 1994. The letter identified and listed only 11 uncorrected deficiencies. The difference in numbers of deficiencies in the Summary of Deficiencies (15) and those listed in the denial letter (11) results from the Agency combining deficiencies ACLF300, ACLF301 and ACLF303 as number 3; above combining deficiencies ACLF702 and ACLF703 as number 4 above; and failing to list deficiency F.S.28, a catch all deficiency, pertaining to the failure to meet all federal, state and local codes as evidenced by the other listed deficiencies. No documentation of radon testing. Deficiency ACLF203 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that the facility did not have proof that radon testing as mandated by Section 400.056, Florida Statutes, has been conducted. It is further alleged that this deficiency was not corrected at the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit. On January 14, 1994, the Respondent did not have documentation of radon testing for the facility because there had been no testing of the facility for radon. During the interim between January 24, 1994, and March 21, 1994, the Respondent was in the process of engaging someone to test the facility for radon. However, due to the cost of testing the facility for radon and the availability of people certified to test for radon, the Respondent was unable to have the radon test completed by March 21, 1994, but Respondent did have the radon test (analysis) of the facility completed and documentation available on March 28, 1994. No documentation that all employees are free from signs and symptoms of communicable disease. Deficiency ACLF508 in Summary of Deficiencies alleges that on January 14, 1994, staff did not appear to be free from apparent signs and symptoms of communicable diseases, as documented by a statement from a health care provider, in that there was no statement for five of the six employees reviewed; three of whom had been employed over 30 days. Also it was noted that two of the employees had T. B. and VDRL tests only. It is further alleged that this deficiency was not corrected at the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit. On January 14, 1994, the Respondent failed to produce certification from a health care provider certifying that employees Cheryl O'Shell, Cindy Plunkett and Arlene Hutchinson, who had been employed for over thirty days, were free of communicable diseases. Apparently the other four employees either had the required certification or had not worked for the Respondent over 30 days. Rule 10A-5.0131(2)(cc), Florida Administrative Code, defines a health care provider as physician duly licensed under Chapter 458 or 459, Florida Statutes, or an advanced registered nurse practitioner (ARNP) duly licensed under Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. On March 21, 1994, at the time of the Agency's revisit, facility employee Cheryl O'Shell had test results but no certification from a health care provider. On March 21, 1994, facility employees Arlene Hutchinson and Cindy Plunkett had test results and a certification signed by registered nurse rather than an health care provider. This deficiency has subsequently been corrected. Appropriate resident contracts were not on file or did not contain required elements. Deficiency ACLF300 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that: (a) a female resident had signed the resident contract on May 4, 1989, however, a legal guardian was appointed January 17, 1992 and the contract was not re- executed; and (b) another female resident did not have an executed contract in her record available for review. It is further alleged that this deficiency was not corrected at the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit. Facility resident Tina Mickler, the female resident referred to in 12(a) above, had signed a contract in 1989 upon admission to the facility prior to being adjudicated incompetent and having a guardian appointed by the court. After Tina Mickler signed the contract on admission, Tina Mickler and her father, jointly executed a contract with the facility before her father was appointed guardian on January 17, 1992. After the March 21, 1994, revisit, Tina Mickler's father, as guardian, executed a new contract with the facility on behalf of Tina Mickler. Facility resident Mary Heagrey, the female resident referred to in 12(b) above, had a signed contract on file with the facility on January 14, 1994 and on March 21, 1994, notwithstanding testimony of the Agency witness to contrary. Apparently, the contract was overlooked when reviewing her records. Deficiency ACLF301 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that the facility resident contract did not contain certain provisions required by statute and rule. It is further alleged that only one provision of the resident contract had been corrected at the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit. The Agency reviewed nine out of 28 resident contracts. Some of the nine contracts reviewed did not have all of the provisions that were required by statutes and rules as of January 14, 1994. There was no evidence that the contracts were not in accordance with the statutes and rules at the time they were executed by the resident. At the time of the revisit on March 21, 1994, the provision identified as number 1 under ACLF301, concerning prorated refunds for the unused portion of payments after termination, had been corrected. However, those provisions identified as numbers 2, 3 and 4 under ACLF301, concerning refunds if the facility discontinues operation, disbursement of refunds under Florida Probate Code for a deceased resident and the handling of funds where they are not disbursed under the Florida Probate Code, respectively, were not corrected in that those resident contracts lacking those provision had not been replaced with a newly executed contract with those provisions or had those provisions added to the contract with an addendum. This deficiency has subsequently been corrected. Deficiency ACLF303 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that on January 14, 1994, the facility did not have for review an admission package, and as such, it could not be determined that all information was included as required by Rule 10-5.024(2)(a)3., Florida Administrative Code. It is further alleged that this deficiency was not corrected at the time of March 21, 1994, revisit. The facility did not have an admission package per se for review during the Agency's January 14, 1994, or March 21, 1994, visits. However, the facility did have the necessary documents to review with a new resident but they were not contained in a packet to give to the resident; therefore, the Agency could not determined if all required information was included. This deficiency has been corrected in that the facility now has an admission packet. No documentation of social or leisure services activities and activities calendar were followed. Deficiency ACLF702 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that on January 14, 1994, that it could not be determined that opportunities were provided for social and leisure services to facilitate social interaction, enhance communication and social skills, and reduce isolation and withdrawal. It is further alleged that this deficiency was not corrected at the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit. Deficiency ACLF703 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that on January 14, 1994, the administrator or designee had not fulfilled his responsibility for the development and implementation of or arrangement for participation by residents in an ongoing activities program. It is further alleged that this deficiency was not corrected at the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit. While there appeared to be some effort on the part of the facility to fulfill its responsibility Rule 10A-5.0182(4), Florida Administrative Code, at the time of the January 14, 1994, survey and the March 14, 1994, revisit, regarding social and leisure services, to provide a activities calendar and to develop and implement arrangements for participation by residents in an ongoing activities program, the facility's effort fell short of what is required in this regard. However, the facility's efforts in this regard subsequent to the March 21, 1994, revisit have corrected those deficiencies. Residents rights and freedoms not protected or provided for. Deficiency ACLF705 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that the facility has a written policy that no one is allowed to go to the store after dark which is an infringement on the residents' rights and freedoms. There was testimony concerning a facility policy of requiring resident visitors to be cleared with the Administrator; however, this was not covered in the Summary of Deficiencies under deficiency ACLF705 or any other deficiency. At the time of both the January 14, 1994, survey and the March 21, 1994, revisit, the policy of the facility was not to allow residents to leave the facility after dark and that visitors were to be cleared by the administrator. The basis for these policies was the safety of the residents due the location of the facility, particularly, the policy of not leaving the facility after dark to go to the store. This is no longer a policy of the facility. The facility residents are free to come and go as they may desire. Lack of documentation of facilities response to resident complaints. Deficiency ACLF710 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that there was no documentation that the facility responded to resident complaints, in that there was no procedure available for review of complaints received and responses documented. While there was evidence that the facility did encourage filing complaints and did respond to complaints received, the facility did not have an established procedure whereby the review of complaints received and responses were documented. The facility now has an established procedure for documenting the review of complaints and responses. Furnishings not in good repair. Deficiency ACLF904 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that furniture was not in good repair, as evidenced by the worn, torn and broken sofa and chairs in the lounge area. It is further alleged that this deficiency was not corrected at the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit. At the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit there was a torn chair in the lounge area. Ray Dorman testified that the furniture observed on March 21, 1994, was not the same furniture observed on January 14, 1994, because that furniture had been thrown away. Dorman further testified that the torn chair observed at the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit had been torn by a resident in interim between the January 14, 1994, survey and the March 21, 1994, revisit. However, I do not find this testimony to be credible, particularly since the Agency employee conducting the revisit was not made aware of this by anyone at the facility. Proper care not being given to insect control. Deficiency ACLF905 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that there is lack of an effective control method to prevent against flies, rodents and other insects from entering the facility as evidenced by: (a) exit doors at end of each corridor did not close properly; and (b) doors to center patio did not close properly. It is further alleged that this deficiency was not corrected at the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit. This deficiency did exist on January 14, 1994, and was not corrected at the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit. However, this deficiency was corrected shortly after the March 21, 1994, revisit. Hot water exceeds maximum allowable temperature. Deficiency ACLF1023 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that hot water service to lavatories, showers and baths for residents' use had water temperature readings of 135 degrees thereby exceeding the maximum of 115 degrees provided for in Rules 10A-5.0221(3) and 10A-5.023(10)(e), Florida Administrative Code. This deficiency did exist on January 14, 1994, and was not corrected at the time of the March 21, 1994, revisit. This deficiency was corrected after the March 21,1994, revisit, and the day of the hearing the hot water temperature for the residents' use was at 115 degrees. Automatic smoke detectors not serviced. Deficiency F.S.17 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that there was no documentation of the automatic smoke detectors having the required sensitivity test during the past two years. The facility had documentation of annual inspections of the automatic smoke detectors for March 23, 1993, March 11, 1994 and March 13, 1995. Both the 1994 and 1995 report shows the automatic smoke detectors having the required sensitivity test. However, while the 1993 report does indicate that the required sensitivity test was conducted, Ray Dorman's testimony, which I find credible in this regard, was that the test was performed and paid for, but the failure to note that on the report was an oversight which he failed to note and have corrected. The evidence appears to show that the Agency was not provided with these reports at the January 14, 1994, or March 21, 1994, visits. Emergency lighting inoperable. Deficiency F.S.21 in the Summary of Deficiencies alleges that the emergency lighting was not maintained as evidenced by the lights in the corridors or dining room failing to operate when tested. This deficiency existed at the time of the January 14, 1994, survey. During the interim between January 14, 1994, and March 21, 1994, Ray Dorman caused the emergency lighting system to be checked and repaired. However, on March 21, 1994, there was one light out in the west corridor; therefore, the Agency considered the deficiency as not being corrected. There was no evidence that any of the above deficiencies was a repeat deficiency as that term is defined in Rule 10A-5-0131(2)(xx), Florida Administrative Code, or that they were recurring deficiencies. There was sufficient evidence to show that the above deficiencies, in the aggregate, did potentially threaten the health, safety, or welfare of the facility residents. The deficiencies cited in the administrative complaint in AHCA No.: 05-94-053-ACLF were the same deficiencies cited in the denial letter of July 4, 1994, which eventually resulted in a default Final Order being issued against Scarlet Manor on the basis of the administrative complaint on September 7, 1994. Administrative fines in the amount of $3,250 were assessed against Scarlet Manor, which fines remain unpaid and no payment plan has been arranged. A default Final Order was issued against Scarlet Manor in AHCA No.: 05-94-052-ACLF on September 7, 1994, wherein an administrative fine in the amount of $1,750 was assessed against Scarlet Manor, which fines remain unpaid and no payment plan has been arranged.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and considered the factors set forth in Section 400.419(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10A-5.033, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Petitioner Agency For Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Respondent Scarlet Manor has outstanding fines for which there has been no payment plan arranged. It further recommended that Respondent Scarlet Manor's renewal license be denied unless such fines are paid forthwith or a payment plan is arranged under the terms and conditions the Agency deems appropriate. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 21st day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4475 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 23are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 39. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 9 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 36. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire Division of Health Quality Assurance Agency for Health Care Administration 7827 N. Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33614 Eloise Taylor, Esquire Taylor and Wilkerson 11912 Oak Trail Way Port Richey, Florida 34668 Sam Powers, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Ste. 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Ste. 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact The Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County is responsible for maintaining a solid waste management program for the unincorporated areas of the county. The portion of the Florida Keys known as the "lower keys" between Pigeon Key on the north and Key West on the south is such an area. Prior to July 1, 1977, solid waste from this area was dumped at a site located on Middle Torch Key. Until approximately two years prior to the hearing, the Middle Torch Key dump site had been operated by private companies. The private companies apparently could not operate the site profitably under rules and regulations promulgated by the Department, and the County took over operation of the site. The site served as the solid waste dump for the lower keys until July 1, 1977. The Department had issued a temporary operating permit for the site, and open burning was permitted. The temporary permit expired on July 1, 1977. The Middle Torch Key dump site was never operated in full compliance with the Department's rules. The temporary operating permit was issued for the apparent purpose of allowing the County an opportunity to develop a system that could be operated accordance with the Department's rules. The County purchased a site on Cudjoe Key in the lower keys with the intention of utilizing it as a sanitary landfill. The instant proceeding is the culmination of the County's effort to obtain a permit to operate the Cudjoe Key site. The County has been utilizing the Cudjoe Key Site as a sanitary landfill since July 1, 1977. The Petitioners are homeowners in a residential subdivision which is located between three fourths of a mile and one mile from the proposed landfill site on Cudjoe Key. They object to operation of a sanitary landfill in such close proximity to their homes. In order to meet its obligation to maintain a solid waste disposal system, and in order to comply with DER regulations, the County needed to locate a landfill site in the area of the lower keys. The County lacks resources to truck solid waste from the lower keys to any sites in the upper keys, or on the mainland. Tie Cudjoe Key site was chosen for a sanitary landfill for two reasons. First, it was relatively isolated and had been used as a dump before. Secondly, it was for sale, and the County could afford to purchase it. The Cudjoe Key landfill site is not visible from any highway or from any residences or businesses. The site adjoins other public property, and is next to electric company property. The average height of the site is seven to eight feet above sea level. The site is located in close proximity to a borrow pit, and fill is thus obtainable at a fairly inexpensive rate. The County's plan of operation basically is to place solid waste on the site, and to cover it with six inches of landfill at the end of each working day. The site, if used in this manner, would have a useful life of approximately three years. If incineration techniques are eventually permitted, the life expectancy of the site would be increased to approximately twenty years. It does not appear that there is any ideal site for a sanitary landfill in the lower keys. There is very little dry land available that has not been previously developed. It appears that the best present alternative for solid waste disposal for the lower keys would be a joint venture with the City of Key West to desalinate salt water through incinerating activities at a site on Stock Island located just south of Key West. Neither the City of Key West, nor the unincorporated areas of the lower keys produce sufficient solid waste alone to make such a project feasible. Thus far a solution of this sort has not been politically feasible. Aside from this possibility, it appears that the proposed Cudjoe Key site is the best location for a sanitary landfill in the lower keys. The site on Middle Torch Key, which was previously operated as a dump would not comply with the Department's rules. The site is under water at high tide. In order to develop the site so that it would comply with the Department's regulation, a very large expenditure would be required. A copy of the County's completed application to the Department was received in evidence at the hearing as Department's Composite Exhibit 1. The application is complete, and contains the material required under Rule 17-7.05,, Florida Administrative Code. No competent evidence was presented at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the proposed Cudjoe Key landfill site does not comply with statutory requirements, or with the requirements set out in the Department's rules and regulations. Considerable evidence was offered from which it could be concluded that the site has not been operated in full compliance with the Department's regulations since July 1, 1977. Clearly the County has been operating the site since that date without a permit issued by the Department. It is apparent that the Department has not sought to take action against the County due to the pendency of this action. Pictures offered at the hearing, and observations made at the view of the site demonstrate that the required daily cover of solid waste has not been applied at the site. These violations could, and should if they continue, result in enforcement action being taken by the Department. The violations, and anticipated violations cannot, however, constitute grounds for denying a permit to operate a sanitary landfill site which complies with the pertinent statutes and rules and regulations.
The Issue Whether Respondent properly invalidated Petitioner’s Florida Teacher Certification Examination for Health K-12 for violating test center rules, as alleged in the Agency Action Letter dated September 17, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Matthew B. Forrest, resides in Jacksonville, Florida where, at all times relevant hereto, he was a football coach and teacher of Health Opportunities in Physical Education (“HOPE”) at Creekside High School. In order to continue teaching HOPE for the 2019-2020 school year, Petitioner was required to become a certified teacher by passing both the General Knowledge and the Health K-12 components of the FTCE. Respondent, Richard Corcoran, as Commissioner of Education (hereinafter, “Respondent” or “Department), is the agency with the duty and authority to certify teachers for the State of Florida. For purposes of this Recommended Order, the Department is the “test program sponsor.” The Department administers the FTCE through third party test administrators. The test administrator in the instant case is a company known as “Pearson.” Petitioner took and passed the General Knowledge Examination on February 25, 2019. Petitioner took the Health K-12 Examination on three different occasions. The administration of the exam relevant hereto was on August 7, 2019. Two different types of breaks may be taken during test administration. A scheduled break is automatic, usually given between sections of an exam. The test administrator instructs candidates as to the length of the break and when to return to the testing room. During a scheduled break, a candidate may access personal items which have been stored at the test center. An unscheduled break is voluntary, and may include time to use the restroom or water fountain. John Hartzog was the test center administrator for the August 7, 2019 exam administration. Petitioner took three unscheduled breaks during the exam. The first lasted 16 minutes, while the other two breaks lasted 6 minutes each. At each break, Petitioner notified the proctor he was leaving to use the restroom. At the Florida Gateway College test center, the restrooms are separate from the testing rooms. The two are located in the same building, but are accessed by different entrances connected by an outdoor covered walkway. The restrooms are considered part of the test center building; however, the parking lot is not. During Petitioner’s third unscheduled break, Mr. Hartzog walked down to the restrooms to check on Petitioner. Mr. Hartzog observed Petitioner exiting his personal vehicle in the parking lot. Petitioner explained that he had water bottles stored in his vehicle and had retrieved and consumed a water bottle after he used the restroom. Through the window of the vehicle, Mr. Hartzog observed a case of 12- ounce water bottles on the back seat directly next to a beach bag, which was unzipped. Mr. Hartzog observed Petitioner’s exam study notes and other papers, as well as Petitioner’s cell phone, in plain view in the open bag.1 Administrative Charges On or about September 17, 2019, Petitioner received the Agency Action Letter, which states, in pertinent part, as follows: As noted on the program website under ‘Policies,’ the FTCE/FELE testing rules DO NOT permit an examinee to leave the test center or to access personal items during an unscheduled break. Therefore, the scores for your Health K-12 examination taken on August 7, 2019, have been invalidated. The Department has charged Petitioner with both leaving the test center, and accessing prohibited materials, during an unscheduled break.2 1 Mr. Hartzog photographed the items on the back seat, as well as the items in the open bag. The photographs were admitted in evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit 10. 2 The Department’s Agency Action Letter does not specifically state what actions taken by Petitioner constitute a violation of the rules. Respondent’s position was clarified throughout the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education issue a final order invalidating Petitioner’s FTCE Health K-12 Examination due to his violations of test center rules during the August 7, 2019 administration of the exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 14th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew B. Forrest 10743 Alden Road, Unit 4 Jacksonville, Florida 32246 Bonnie Ann Wilmot, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Gavin Hollis Dunn, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Chris Emerson, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1520 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Angel Casady (Ms. Casady or Respondent), violated section 1012.795(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2012), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(5)(a), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty shall be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher licensed by the Florida Department of Education, and has been issued Florida Educator’s Certificate 1204471. The certificate covers the area of elementary education, and is valid through June 30, 2015. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an associate teacher at Breakfast Pointe Academy in Panama City, Florida. Breakfast Pointe is a K-8 school in the Bay County School District. Respondent worked in a fourth-grade “overflow” classroom with lead teacher, Joy Chonko. An overflow classroom is a classroom that has more than 25 students because the actual number of enrolled students exceeded the projection for the grade level. In that instance, the lead teacher is assigned an associate teacher to assist her. Ms. Chonko’s classroom had between 30 and 37 students. Ms. Chonko is in the fourth year of her teaching career. She worked for two years in Montana before moving to the Panama City area and starting at Breakfast Pointe. The events giving rise to this case occurred during her first year at Breakfast Pointe. Ms. Chonko is generally regarded as a good teacher. According to her principal, Denise Kelley, her students and their parents love her, and she is always going the “extra mile” to help them, both in and out of the classroom. She is very involved with both students and other teachers on her grade level, and those teachers wanted her to return so that they could continue working as a team. When asked if she recommended her return, Ms. Kelley’s response was “absolutely.” Ms. Chonko was assigned to an overflow class a few weeks into the school year, and an associate teacher was assigned to help her. However, in December 2012, that teacher was let go because she was not performing the duties assigned to her. Respondent previously worked at Northside Elementary School and was let go from that assignment, and then placed at Breakfast Pointe in Ms. Chonko’s class. Ms. Chonko described the relationship between the two women as cooperative, like team teachers.1/ She did not think of Ms. Casady as a subordinate, although it is clear from Ms. Casady’s job description that she was to work under the direction of one or more lead teachers. Further, it is clear from the assignments in the classroom that Ms. Chonko shouldered the bulk of the instruction responsibilities. For at least part of the spring semester, Ms. Chonko taught language arts, social studies, and science, with Ms. Casady assisting her, while Ms. Casady taught math with Ms. Chonko’s assistance. On March 5, 2013, there was a meeting with Ms. Kelley, Ms. Chonko, Ms. Casady, and Leah Margulies, a classroom coach, to address Ms. Casady’s role in the classroom. The plan at that time was for Ms. Chonko to continue teaching the language arts, social studies, and science classes. Ms. Casady was to observe, with Ms. Margulies, another fourth-grade teacher at Breakfast Pointe teaching math; another teacher off-campus teaching math; and Ms. Chonko teaching math. Then Ms. Chonko would teach math on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, while Ms. Casady taught math on Tuesdays and Thursdays.2/ All of these observations were planned to help Ms. Casady improve her teaching skills. In April 2013, both Ms. Chonko and Ms. Casady were involved in the administration of the FCAT. Both teachers participated in the training for those who administered the exam, and were given a testing administration manual. Included in the manual are the Prohibited Activities Agreement and the Test Security Agreement, which teachers are to sign and date once training is completed. The Test Administration and Security Agreement includes the following text: Examples of prohibited activities are listed below: Reading or reviewing the passages or test items Revealing the passages or test items Copying the passages or test items Explaining or reading passages or test items for students Changing or otherwise interfering with student responses to test items Copying or reading student responses Causing achievement of schools to be inaccurately measured or reported * * * The use of untrained test administrators increases the risk of test invalidation due to test irregularities or breaches in test security. Inappropriate actions by district or school personnel will result in further investigation and possible loss of teacher certification. I, , have received adequate training regarding the administration of the Spring 2013 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT/ FCAT 2.0) and have read the Florida Test Security Statute and State Board of Education Rule in Appendix B and the information and instructions provided in all applicable sections of the Spring 2013 Reading, Mathematics, and Science Test Administration Manual. I agree to administer the FCAT/FCAT 2.0 according to these procedures. Further, I will not reveal or disclose any information about the test items or engage in any acts that would violate the security of the FCAT/FCAT 2.0 and cause student achievement to be inaccurately represented. Respondent signed the Security Agreement on April 9, 2013. Respondent also signed the Test Administrator Prohibited Activities Agreement on April 9, 2013. This document provided in pertinent part: It is important for you, as a test administrator of a statewide assessment, to know that the following activities are prohibited. Engaging in such activities may result in an investigation, loss of teaching certification, and/or prosecution for violation of the law. Please read the following list of prohibited activities and sign your name on the signature line at the bottom of this page indicating that you understand these actions and their consequences: * * * I understand that during the test I may not: * * * Give students more time than is allotted for the session (unless the student has an extended time accommodation) * * * Instruct students to test in a session other than the one designated for that day/allotted testing time (going on to Session 2 during Session 1, reviewing work in Session 1 during Session 2) Coach students during testing regarding test-taking strategies * * * I understand that after testing I may not: * * * Discuss the content of the test with anyone, including students or other school personnel The FCAT is a very structured test. Administrators are given the actual script to use as instructions for the test. The Script for Administering Grade 4 Reading, Session 2, includes the following directions to be given orally to students: You may not change any answers from Session 1. Remove all materials from your desk except a No. 2 pencil. You’ll have 70 minutes to complete Session 2 of the Reading test. Open your test and answer book to Session 2 on page 33. The session number is at the top of each page. You may work only in Session 2. Remember the following: * * * When you have finished, check through your answers in this session only to make sure you have filled in only one bubble for each question. Try to answer every question. If you aren’t sure how to answer a question, skip it and keep going. After you have answered all the other questions, go back and answer any questions you skipped in this session only. When you come to the STOP sign, you have finished Session 2. If you complete Session 2 before time is called, go back and check your work. Do not go back and work in Session 1. Please remember that during this test session you MUST NOT work in Session 1 talk to other students or make any disturbance look at another student’s test and answer book allow another student to look at your test and answer book ask for help answering any test questions give help to another student in answering test questions have notes or scratch paper have any electronic or recording devices in your possession at any time, including breaks, even if you do not use them fail to follow any other instructions given After the test you may not discuss the test items with anyone. You have 10 minutes to finish Session 2. Remember, do not go back to Session 1. Administration of the FCAT began on Monday, April 15, 2013. Although Ms. Chonko and Ms. Casady would see each other and talk in the mornings each day before the testing began, they had separate groups of children for testing, and were not testing in the same classroom. N.C. was a fourth-grade student in Ms. Chonko’s classroom. Ms. Chonko described him as a very respectful, polite, hard-working student who presented no discipline problems. She could not remember specific grades but thought he was a good student. N.C. described his grades as good, although when asked for more specifics, he said he got As, Bs, Cs, and maybe a couple of Ds.3/ N.C. was in the group of students to whom Ms. Chonko administered the FCAT. Session 1 of the reading portion of the FCAT was administered Monday, April 15, 2013. After testing for the day was over, N.C. told Ms. Chonko that he did not finish all of the questions in Session 1, and asked if he would be able to finish the session. Ms. Chonko told him he would not be able to go back into Session 1, that Monday was for Session 1, and Tuesday they would be doing Session 2. Ms. Chonko was not overly concerned that N.C. did not finish, because she recognized that with a timed test not all children are going to finish.4/ Tuesday morning, Ms. Chonko mentioned her conversation with N.C. to Ms. Casady. Ms. Casady told Ms. Chonko she should tell N.C. to go back and finish Session 1. Ms. Chonko reminded Ms. Casady that it was against the rules to do so. Ms. Chonko did not see Ms. Casady speak to N.C. after their conversation Tuesday morning, and she thought the issue was over. However, on Wednesday, April 17, Ms. Casady told her that she had encouraged N.C. to go back and finish the questions he did not complete on Monday. The following day, Ms. Casady told her that N.C. had in fact gone back and finished Session 1. Ms. Chonko believed that there was a violation of the testing protocol, and she reported it to her principal, Ms. Kelley, on Thursday afternoon. According to Ms. Kelley, Ms. Chonko appeared hesitant, but came to her office on Thursday, saying, “I think I need to tell you something.” Ms. Chonko told Ms. Kelley about N.C. going back into Session 1. Ms. Kelley asked Ms. Chonko to write a statement regarding the incident, which she did. She also called Camilla Hudson, the District’s assessment coordinator, and Sharon Michalik, the executive director for human resources for the District. After direction from Ms. Hudson, Ms. Kelley and the assistant principal, Ms. Weatherly, interviewed N.C. and asked him to write a statement as well. A Testing Incident Report was prepared by Ms. Kelley and Ms. Bailey, the school’s testing coordinator, and N.C.’s FCAT reading score was invalidated. N.C. was interviewed by Ms. Kelley and Ms. Weatherly on Friday, April 19, 2013. N.C. confirmed that he told Ms. Chonko that he did not finish Session 1 and that she told him he could not work in Session 1 anymore. He told Ms. Casady on Tuesday morning that he had not finished the first session, and she told him, “if you are at one minute, you should always mark them B or C.” She also told him if you have enough time after session 2, you should go back and mark B or C. N.C. told Ms. Kelley and Ms. Weatherly that after he finished Session 2, he went back and marked the unanswered questions in Session 1 with the answer “B.” The testing coordinator confirmed that the last six questions of Session 1 were marked B. N.C.’s statement was prepared in Ms. Kelley’s office. He identified it at hearing and testified that the contents of the statement were true. N.C. also testified that he liked both Ms. Chonko and Ms. Casady and that Ms. Casady had never written him up for disciplinary problems. N.C.’s statement reads as follows: I didn’t finish session 1 reading I had 6 questions left Mrs. Chonko told me to work in session 2 I told Mrs. Cassady that I didn’t finsh she said if I’m not finshed and thairs 1 minute left I should mark B or C. She also said if I had a enough time left after session 2 I should go back in session 1 and mark the questions that I didn’t finish B or C. And I did mark them B.5/ There was no problem with the group of students for whom Ms. Casady administered the FCAT. Ms. Michalik came to Breakfast Pointe on Friday, April 19, 2013. She interviewed Ms. Chonko, and then, with Ms. Kelley and Ms. Weatherly present, interviewed Ms. Casady. The meeting was lengthy. Its purpose was to inform Ms. Casady of the investigation and give her an opportunity to present her side of the story. At the beginning of the meeting, Ms. Casady did not seem all that concerned, but as the meeting progressed and she realized that others viewed the matter more seriously and that there could be repercussions for what happened, she became quite upset. She denied that the incident occurred and said that Ms. Chonko was a “nervous wreck” about students not finishing the test, and that the two of them were trying to brainstorm ways the boys could finish. According to Ms. Michalik, Ms. Casady said that she thought it would be fine if the boys went back into Session 1 as long as no one knew. Ms. Casady also expressed frustration over the incident, stating that she could not understand why it was “such a big deal over two FCAT questions and a fourth grader.” When Ms. Michalik asked her why she would not have known about the prohibition on going back, since it is in the testing manual, she said that while she did attend the training, she did not study the manual’s script for day two until she read it on the second day of testing. During the meeting, Respondent also claimed that it was N.C.’s father who told him to go back into Session 1 on the second day of testing. While N.C.’s father told him that if he was not going to be able to finish a session, to answer B or C for remaining questions, he never told him to go back and finish during another session of the test, and never told anyone that he had given such advice. It was clear after the meeting that Ms. Casady was very upset with Ms. Chonko, and Ms. Kelley and Ms. Michalik decided it would not be best for the two women to be in the same room with the students.6/ Ms. Michalik elected to transfer Ms. Casady to another school. There was an unanticipated opening as a media specialist at another school due to the death of an employee, so she was transferred there for the rest of the school year. She was not recommended for return the following year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of Counts two and three of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondent’s educator’s certificate for one year; impose an administrative fine of $500; and that upon reinstatement, Respondent serve three years of probation, subject to terms and conditions determined by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 28th day of July, 2014.
The Issue Should the Board of Nursing (the Board) impose discipline on Respondent's nursing license for violating Section 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2003)?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts At all times material to this Complaint, Respondent was a registered nurse (R.N.) within the state of Florida, having been issued license number RN 2055672. Respondent's address of record is Rt. 22, Box 2347, Lake City, Florida 32024. On or about April 21, 2004, Respondent submitted to a pre-employment drug screen. The drug screen returned on or about April 24, 2004, indicating a positive test result for cannabinoids - tetrahydrocannabinol, the principal active component of Marijuana. Marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance pursuant to Section 893.03(1)(c)35., Florida Statutes. A substance in Schedule I has a high potential for abuse and has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and its use under medical supervision does not meet acceptable safety standards. Respondent did not have a lawful prescription or a legitimate medical reason for using Marijuana, or any other substance that might test positive for cannabinoids - tetrahydrocannabinol. Specimen Submission On April 21, 2004, when Respondent underwent a pre- employment drug screen, it was by providing a urine specimen. As the donor she signed a form with the following language: I certify that I provided my urine specimen to the collector: that I have not adulterated it in any manner: each specimen bottle used was sealed with a tamper evidence seal in my presence and that the information provided on this form and on the label affixed to each specimen bottle is correct. It was specimen ID number 190920 to be submitted for drug testing at Doctors Laboratory, Inc. (Doctors Laboratory) in Valdosta, Georgia. The reason Respondent provided the urine specimen was in relation to a job application with Shands, Lake Shore, Live Oak and Starke (Shands) whose business address is in Gainesville, Florida. Respondent was tested for drugs in accordance with the Florida Drug Free Work Place Program that is part of the pre-employment process for the prospective employer. The urine specimen was tested for the presence of amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine, barbiturates, benzodiazepines and methaqualone. Respondent's urine specimen was packaged and shipped to Doctors Laboratory in Valdosta, Georgia, where it was received on April 22, 2004, for testing. The test designed to detect cannabinoids is referred to as "9 CARBOXY-THC." The laboratory test performed on Respondent's urine specimen returned as positive for the presence of cannabinoids, outside what would be considered an acceptable range. On April 23, 2004, Doctors Laboratory released Respondent's test results to the Occupational Health Services Unit within Shands, which was received by that unit on the same date as evidenced by a stamp found on the laboratory test information copy. On April 26, 2004, nurse Denise Cannon signed a document that is headed "Shands Healthcare Occupational Health Services Positive/Abnormal Drug Screen." It pertains to Respondent. It mentions the prospective hiring of the Respondent to work at Lakeshore in the position of R.N./ICU. It notes of the positive drug screen for: 9 CARBOXY-THC-Marijuana. It notes that nurse Cannon notified Respondent of the results on April 26, 2004. Part of the notification was to verify Respondent's identity by social security and date of birth and to advise Respondent of Shands Drug Free Work Place Policy, as well as rights/responsibility under the Florida Drug Free Work Place Act of 1988. The form indicates that Respondent requested a consultation with the MRO, short for Medical Review Officer. It comments that the Respondent was not hired. The comment section states that Respondent "would like to contest the drug screen." On April 28, 2004, a MRO Verification Worksheet was completed in relation to the Respondent and specimen ID 190920, which shows that a positive result was received on April 27, 2004. On April 28, 2004, the worksheet was signed by Dr. Ku-Lang Chang M.D., M.R.O. According to the MRO Verification Worksheet, an attempt was made to call Respondent on April 27, 2004. On April 28, 2004, as the worksheet describes, a message was left "LM with husband." The Verification Worksheet goes on to describe that on April 28, 2004, an interview was conducted in which the "applicant decided not to pursue this." This is understood to refer to Respondent as the applicant. In the April 28, 2004, conversation Respondent was informed of the test results. The MRO Verification Worksheet has a notation that "reported to IPN 5/3/04" IPN is read to refer to the intervention project for nurses. In conclusion, the MRO Verification Worksheet made a verification decision: positive for 9 CARBOXY-THC. On April 28, 2004, Dr. Ku-Lang Chang notified N. Denise Cannon, R.N., Occupational Health Unit within Shands, of the positive drug screen. On May 10, 2004, nurse Cannon executed a form provided by the Department reporting on Respondent's positive drug screen. On June 10, 2004, nurse Cannon wrote Ms. Julie Weeks, of the Department, outlining the drug screen process, notification of the results on April 26, 2004, and the advice to Respondent to contact IPN. The June 10, 2004, correspondence refers to Respondent's request that the results of the drug screen be turned over to Dr. Ku-Lang Chang, Medical Review Officer (MRO). The June 10, 2004, correspondence from nurse Cannon to Ms. Weeks speaks of the intervention project, the IPN, Intake Case Manager Pat Falke and Respondent's failure to follow through with the recommendations of IPN. As a consequence, Nurse Cannon corresponded with the Department to undertake an investigation. On May 28, 2004, Pat Falke, had written nurse Cannon indicating that efforts at gaining Respondent's participation with IPN had not succeeded and reminding nurse Cannon to proceed with the execution of the uniform complaint on the Department's form. Laboratory Analysis Doctors Laboratory where Respondent's urine specimen was analyzed is a clinical reference laboratory that serves Florida, among other states. Its affiliation with Florida is in relation to the Florida Drug Free Work Place Program in providing forensic urine drug testing for employment screening. Richard Earl Struempler, B.S., M.T., (ASCP), MS, MA, NRCC is the Director of Operations and the Director of Toxicology for Doctors Laboratory. As such, he is responsible for the day-to- day operations of the forensic urine drug testing laboratory pertaining to procedures and protocols, in the interest of making certain that the procedures followed in the laboratory comply with rules, regulations, and certification standards for the Florida Drug Free Work Place Program employment drug testing, among other affiliations. By stipulation, Mr. Struempler was accepted as an expert in toxicology and drug testing for purposes of his testimony. On April 22, 2004, Doctors Laboratory received Respondent's urine specimen for drug testing. Tests were performed to detect the class of drugs that have been described. Within that grouping was Marijuana which is also known as THC. THC stands for tetrahydrocannabinol, with delta nine tetrahydrocannabinol being the main psychoactive ingredient found in Marijuana. The test conducted on the urine specimen was designed to look for the metabolite of this substance in the carboxylic acid form. Respondent's urine specimen was collected in Gainesville and taken by carrier to Doctors Laboratory in Valdosta, Georgia. When it arrived by carrier, it was placed in the accessioning area within the laboratory for immediate transfer to the drug testing area within the laboratory. The accessioning area is a secured facility within the laboratory with limited access, access only to the individual(s) who would need to work with the specimen. Shipping containers are opened in the accessioning area and the individual specimens are removed with an interest in discovering any damage or tampering that may have occurred during shipment. The sample is assigned an accessioning number and is marked as being received in the drug testing laboratory accessioning area. Nothing about Respondent's sample indicated that there were signs of tampering or damage. It was specifically indicated that the primary seal bottle for the urine specimen was intact upon arrival. The accessioning number for Respondent's drug specimen was 07163062. That number was utilized in tracking the urine specimen through activities associated with the urine specimen while in the laboratory. Two tests were employed to analyze Respondent's urine specimen in Doctors Laboratory. The first test, referred to as an initial test, was the immunoassay test designed to identify categories of drugs, to include cannabinoids. It is an antibody antigen reaction test to reveal a color associated with a given drug. At this stage the laboratory also does specimen validity testing, looking for the presence of any indicators that might show that the specimen was tampered with. These steps in the process were utilized in analyzing Respondent's urine specimen. The initial test was by use of an aliquot of the urine specimen. The immunoassay test is accepted in the scientific community and is contemplated as a protocol related to the Florida Drug Free Workplace Program. Respondent's results show the presence of cannabinoids at the cut-off level of 15 nanograms per milliliter or greater. Being within that range, it was considered to be a positive test. Recognizing the positive results, the laboratory staff tested the urine specimen further through what is referred to as confirmation testing. When the confirmation test was performed, a fresh aliquot was obtained from the urine specimen bottle. The confirmation test is designed to extract from the urine, delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol or delta 9 THC carboxylic acid. The extracted material is concentrated in a small vial and derivatized or converted into a form that allows it to be analyzed by an instrument known as a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer, also referred to as GC/MS. This step in the process is designed to separate THC from other things found in the urine specimen, breaking it down into molecular components. The components are measured as to size, weight, and amount. The GC/MS test is considered within the scientific community to be accurate and reliable. The results of the test on Respondent's urine specimen revealed the presence of delta 9 THC carboxylic acid at 57.5 nanograms per milliliter, a significant amount confirming the presence of the drug. The immunoassay and GC/MS test equipment was properly calibrated before performing the test on Respondent's urine specimen. The tests were properly performed. The chain of custody from the collection point through the testing regimen was not breached and is well documented. The chain of custody was maintained in accordance with standards required at Doctors Laboratory. Respondent's urine specimen that remained following the laboratory test was retained for at least a year, the period required for retention. During that time, no request was made to make the specimen available for independent testing outside the laboratory. As an expert, Dr. Struempler offered his professional opinion that Respondent's urine specimen was collected and submitted to the Doctors Laboratory in accordance with standard operating procedures, that the test and handling of the specimen was in accordance with standard operating procedures, and that the results of the tests reported on April 23, 2004, as being positive for the presence of cannabinoids, THC, was a true and accurate reflection of the nature of the substance found. No administrative or technical errors in the handling and testing occurred. Dr. Struempler expressed the opinion that the Respondent, donor, would have had to have consumed Marijuana or a Marijuana THC containing product one to four days prior to submission of the specimen or as long as 10 days prior to the submission under extreme circumstances. Dr. Struempler's expert opinion is accepted.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2003), for failing to meet the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practices through a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-8.005(2)(k) and that Respondent be fined $250, subject to IPN evaluation and placed on a period of probation for one year, in accordance with the disciplinary guidelines provision set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-8.006(2)(vv). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 2nd day of March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Miller, Esquire Ellen Simon, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Duncan Alden Jones, Esquire 330 Southwest Fourth Avenue High Springs, Florida 32643 Rick Garcia, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Tom Koch, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioners were the victims of an unlawful employment practice by being denied promotions allegedly on account of their age.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Little was employed by Monsanto, the Respondent, for 34-1/2 years until his retirement on January 1, 1990. Petitioner Akins is currently employed by Monsanto and commenced employment with that firm on December 13, 1955. The Monsanto Company operates a manufacturing facility in the vicinity of Pensacola, Florida, which converts certain chemical feed stocks to synthetic filaments and/or yarns for use in the textile and fiber industries. Petitioner Akins is currently a "Group 12 Maintenance and Instrument Mechanic", an hourly "manufacturing unit" position. Prior to his retirement, Petitioner Little was a "Group 11 Maintenance and Instrument Mechanic", also an hourly manufacturing unit position. Monsanto's Pensacola facility operates with a manufacturing unit employing hourly wage employees and a Technical Center which employs essentially all salaried employees. The two facilities within the plant are separate and distinct units. In December 1989, Monsanto posted two vacancies for a salaried "Operations Technician" position in the Technical Center. The procedure for a promotion or transfer from an hourly job to a salaried Technical Center job is contained in the Nonexempt Selection Procedure Manual, in evidence as Petitioners' Exhibit 1 and Respondent's Exhibit 1. When a vacancy is announced in a salaried position, interested employees submit a "Request for Salaried Job" and "Employee Placement Profile" to the plant employment office. Thereafter, a screening committee comprised of plant personnel determines whether the self- nominated candidates are qualified for the vacancy. That committee selects the qualified candidates and submits the list of those candidates to the Technical Center personnel superintendent. The department with the vacancy thereafter receives notification from the Technical Center personnel department of the candidates to be interviewed. The employees who nominated themselves for the vacant Operations Technician position were Petitioners Little and Akins, Terry Nettles, W. D. Tidwell, and Joni Troutman. All of the candidates who were self-nominated for that Operations Technician position were interviewed by a committee consisting of three technical employees; Charles Livingston, Lawrence Brantley, and Gary Green. All these individuals on the committee were over the age of 40. The committee interviewed each candidate in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the Nonexempt Job Selection Procedure Manual. Some of the factors which the committee considered were the knowledge and skills of each candidate, applicable experience, past job performance, communication skills, attendance records, human-relation skills, and employee initiative. The committee's objective was to select the most qualified candidate for the position based upon the aforementioned factors. Seniority was considered by the committee, but only as one of many factors. Although seniority is a deciding factor in manufacturing unit professions, seniority is not the deciding factor in the selection process in the Technical Center. In accordance with Monsanto's equal employment opportunity policy, age was not a consideration in the selection process. The committee did not ask any candidate any questions about age, nor did the committee ask the candidate when he or she planned to retire from the company. Following the interview, the committee selected Richard T. Nettles, age 47, as the most qualified candidate for the Operations Technician position. Mr. Nettles had been employed by Monsanto from December 1963 until he was terminated by a reduction in force or layoff in June 1985. After leaving Monsanto, Mr. Nettles worked for the James River Corporation at a similar type of plant in an Operations Technician position, the type of position at issue in this proceeding. His job was very similar to the one he held at Monsanto. Mr. Nettles was subsequently rehired by Monsanto in September 1989 as an hourly Manufacturing Unit Employee. During his previous employment with Monsanto, Mr. Nettles had been in an Operations Technician position in the Technical Center for approximately 18 years. During that time, Mr. Nettles' performance evaluations were consistently above average or excellent. Additionally, Mr. Nettles had recently completed college level courses in computers, science and metallurgy, as well as a chemical operator training course at Pensacola Junior College. Mr. Nettles was the only applicant for the Operations Technician job who had ever performed the Operations Technician job in the past. Mr. Nettles was a probationary employee at the time he applied for the Operations Technician position. Monsanto has no policy which prohibits probationary employees from applying for promotions. Rather, the probationary period is simply a period in which a newly hired employee is being evaluated for purposes of retention and during which no job-related benefits accrue. Further, Mr. Nettles was not barred from applying for the Operations Technician position because he was required to spend any length of time in his prior job. Promotions or transfers from hourly to nonexempt salaried positions in the Technical Center are governed by the Nonexempt Selection Procedure Manual. The Nonexempt Selection Procedure Manual contains no restrictions on upward mobility. Monsanto has never followed a policy of restricting the upward mobility of its employees. Ultimately, Mr. Nettles was evaluated by the committee, the appropriate recommendations were made, he was found to be the most qualified candidate for the job and thus was offered the Operations Technician position, which he accepted. Petitioners Little and Akins were dissatisfied with the committee's selection and thereafter pursued the plant's appeal procedure to appeal the decision to hire Mr. Nettles for that position. In the final step in that appeal procedure, the Petitioners met with plant manager Leon Hebert. Mr. Hebert played no part in the selection of Mr. Nettles. Indeed he has no authority over the Technical Center hiring process at all. In their meeting, Mr. Hebert explained to Petitioners why Mr. Nettles was selected over them for their Operations Technician position, most notably, because of his past experience on the job. Mr. Hebert also explained the differences in the selection procedure in the manufacturing unit as compared to the Technical Center. Mr. Hebert made no comments about the Petitioners ages during this meeting, although Mr. Akins maintains he made a comment to the effect that the job in question was not to be a "swinging gate for retirees." Even if Mr. Hebert made such a comment, it is not probative of discrimination or discriminatory intent on the part of the employer for the reasons discussed in the conclusions of law below involving Mr. Hebert playing no part in the decision concerning who to hire for the position in question. Shortly after the vacancy for the Operations Technician position was filed, a similar vacancy was announced for a Spinneret Technician position in the Technical Center. The candidate selected for that position, Mr. Walter Williams, was the oldest candidate who applied for the job.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petitions of Bennie J. Little and Carlton E. Akins in their entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated in its hiring practices against Petitioner because of his race, and whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner because he filed a charge of discrimination, and a complaint.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 2000, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the FCHR. (The Charge of Discrimination was FCHR No. 2101775). Thereafter, on or about May 3, 2001, Petitioner filed an Amended Charge of Discrimination (attached to Petition for Relief filed on July 17, 2002). The essence of the Amended Charge was that he had been discriminated against on the basis of race because whites were employed in positions for which he had applied. Petitioner also alleged retaliation and claimed that after he filed his initial Charge of Discrimination, he was not rehired by Respondent as an adjunct instructor and he was denied compensation. The Commission conducted an investigation and on June 4, 2002, issued a Determination: No Cause. The Commission found that there was "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred." On the same date, the Commission also issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause, in which it advised Petitioner of his right to request an administrative hearing by filing a Petition for Relief within 35 days of the Notice. Petitioner was also advised that if he failed to request an administrative hearing within 35 days "the administrative claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1997, Chapter 760, will be dismissed pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1992)." Petitioner did not file his petition for relief until July 17, 2002, 43 days after the date of the Notice of Determination. In his Petition for Relief, Petitioner claimed that he had been denied full-time employment by Respondent since 1998, and when complaints were filed, Respondent retaliated against him by not rehiring him as an adjunct instructor and denying him unemployment compensation. Petitioner is an African-American male. He received a bachelor of science in mathematics education from Tuskegee University in 1967; a master's degree in business management from Rollins College in 1976; and, a Doctor of Education degree from the University of Central Florida in 2000. Petitioner worked in private industry in Central Florida during the period 1972-1992. During portions of that time, he also worked as an adjunct instructor at Valencia Community College, Florida Southern, and Phillips College. He was employed full-time as an instructor at Brevard Community College from 1992-1996. From 1996 to 1998 he taught at Evans High School in Orlando where he also served as the assistant football coach. Petitioner also taught mathematics and science classes to fifth to eighth grade students at Madison Middle School for part of the 1998/1999 school year. In 1998, Petitioner began teaching as an adjunct instructor at North Florida Community College (College). The College is located in Madison, Florida. It serves the six counties of Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Suwannee, Lafayette, and Taylor. The College's district is, geographically, the largest community college district in Florida. Respondent offers a variety of programs ranging from its college transfer program with an associate of arts (AA) or associate of science (AS) degree to two vocational certificate programs. Total enrollment varies from 3,000 to 4,000, depending on vocational enrollments which are demand-based. The current FTE (full-time equivalency) is just under 800. Classes are taught at the campus in Madison and at public high schools in each of the six counties in the service district. Approximately 72 percent of the population of the district is white and 28 percent is non-white. Enrollment at the College mirrors to a large extent the population of the district, except in the college transfer program, where the African-American enrollment is approximately 20 percent, white enrollment is 75 percent, and other groups, including Hispanics, comprise five percent of the students. The Hispanic population of Respondent's six-county district has increased from 1,699 or 1.92 percent of the population in 1990, to 5,019 or 4.73 percent of the population in 2000. This represents a 195 percent increase. Statewide, Florida's Hispanic population grew by 70 percent during the same period. Search committees are appointed by the president of the College and efforts are made to ensure that a member of Respondent's equity committee and a minority, if at all possible, are assigned to each committee. A search committee was appointed by Respondent for each of the applications at issue in this case. Each search committee was charged with reviewing the applications which met the minimum qualifications for each position and then determining the most qualified individuals to be interviewed. After the interviews, the search committee was to recommend the best qualified individual to be offered the position. Search committees are not told to interview individuals of a particular race or gender, but they are encouraged to give special consideration to minorities. If the top two applicants are equal in terms of qualifications and one is a minority candidate and the other is not, they are told to recommend the hiring of the minority applicant over the non-minority. There are 23 full-time instructors in the AA and AS degree programs at the College. Four of those are math instructors. In 1998, Petitioner applied for a position as a full-time mathematics instructor. There were no vacancies in the mathematics department at that time, nor has there been a vacancy for a full-time mathematics instructor at the College at any time since 1991. In 1998, Respondent advertised for an instructor to teach computer science courses in the Business Department. The courses were designed to develop basic computer operation skills, and focused primarily on Microsoft Office Suite software. At the hearing, Petitioner introduced a copy of a letter which was sent to Mr. Doug Brown, a college administrator, in July 1998. In the letter, Petitioner stated that he was "applying for a position in the business or education disciplines." Petitioner discussed his private sector employment experience and his college-level teaching experience, but did not state whether he had any computer science teaching or work experience. The computer science vacancy was filled by a white female who had a master's degree in business and 18 graduate hours in computer science. She had been an adjunct computer science instructor at the College for two years prior to being hired as a full-time instructor. She also taught computer science courses at Madison High School, and she had her own computer business. In 1999, Respondent advertised for the position of program administrator for the North Florida Workforce Development Board. At the time, Respondent was the administrative entity and fiscal agent for the Workforce Development Board. Petitioner applied for the position. None of the applicants were interviewed and the position was never filled because it appeared that Respondent was going to be replaced as administrative entity and fiscal agent, which, in fact, occurred. In December 1999, Respondent advertised to fill the position of project coordinator for the College Reach Out Program (CROP). The program targets economically and educationally disadvantaged youth enrolled in grades 6-12 in the schools in Respondent's service district, who have the potential to finish college but who are likely, without intervention, to drop out of high school. The goal of the program is to keep the students in high school, get them to graduate, and enroll in college. Requirements for the position of project coordinator included a bachelor of arts degree from a four-year college or university and three years of experience working with alternative education programs, at risk youth, or teaching in a youth program department. Approximately 30 persons, including Petitioner, applied for the position of CROP coordinator. A five-member search committee was appointed to review the applications and select individuals to be interviewed. The members of the search committee included Amelia Mulkey, who at the time was Respondent's Director o f Financial Aid, Purchasing and Reports; Mary Anne Wheeler, Director of Student Support Services; and Clyde Alexander, an African-American who is Respondent's athletic director and equity coordinator. After reviewing the applications, the search committee selected five individuals, including Petitioner and Nancy McClellan, to be interviewed. When the interviews were completed, the search committee chose not to rank the applicants. Instead the members unanimously recommended Nancy McClellan for the position. Nancy McClellan was a white female with a bachelor's degree in psychology and a master's degree in social work. A major factor in the selection committee's decision was her ten years of experience working with at-risk adolescents at DISC Village in Leon County, Florida, where she coordinated a comprehensive vocational services program. Her work at DISC Village included assessment, case management, community networking, career exploration, providing employability skills classes, coordinating with education and training providers, grant work, supervising staff, and counseling with parents. In September 2001, Respondent advertised for a case manager for the College Reach Out Program (CROP) in Lafayette and Suwannee Counties. The qualifications for the position were identified as a bachelor's degree in secondary education, social work, or the social services field, with the provision that working with at-risk youth could substitute for education on a month-by-month basis. Case managers are responsible for implementing the CROP programs in the counties to which they are assigned. They market, recruit, and provide services to students in the counties. They work closely with teachers, guidance counselors, students, and parents to enroll the students in the program and to ensure that the students remain in school and graduate. The case managers work with the students on a one-to-one basis. Experience has shown that a social work case management background is an important asset in a CROP case manager in Respondent's district. Students recruited for CROP have a multitude of family issues in their family lives which impact on their ability to remain in school. These include poverty, abuse, neglect, divorce, mental health, and disability issues, all of which social workers are taught to identify, assess, and address. Case managers also educate parents of students regarding available financial aid and college preparation courses which their children should be taking. Eight people, including Petitioner, applied for the position. Two individuals, Lynn Waller and Cheryl Chandler, were interviewed. Lynn Waller was selected for the position. She has a bachelor's degree in social psychology. At the time she was selected, she had been employed as a children's case manager at Apalachee Center for Human Services, working with students in the Madison County School System. She was responsible for recruiting students, working with them, their parents, teachers, and guidance counselors to assess needs, perform psychological assessments, and coordinate same. In his application, Petitioner stated that he had been employed as the CROP Coordinator by Respondent and by Brevard Community College. In fact, Petitioner had never been employed as the CROP Coordinator by Respondent or by Brevard Community College. Petitioner had been employed as one of four part- time facilitators by Respondent from January through June 2000. His duties were to recruit students, organize them into groups, meet with the groups two days per week and schedule one Saturday field trip per month. Nancy McClellan elected not to interview Petitioner for the case manager position, based upon her experience with Dr. Brown as a CROP field facilitator in 2000. When Nancy McClellan assumed her role as CROP Coordinator, Petitioner had not recruited any students from Suwannee County. Eventually, he recruited a total of eight students for CROP. By contrast, in April 2000, Lafayette County had 23 students, Taylor County had 15, and Madison County had 35 students. While Petitioner was case facilitator for Suwannee County, Nancy McClellan received complaints from Suwannee County regarding Petitioner's failure to bring application forms to the County's schools, to pick them up when they had been filled out, and to attend scheduled meetings with students. Petitioner also failed to take the eight students who enrolled in the program on any field trips. By contrast, the other field facilitators were taking the students on regular field trips which was an important part of motivating students to stay in school. In June 2001, Respondent advertised for two positions: learning resource coordinator and transfer advisor. Both were grant-funded positions. The learning resource coordinator is the manager of the tutoring lab for developmental students. These are students who do not have the placement test scores to begin college level work. In the lab they receive assistance in developing their skills in mathematics and English. The learning resource coordinator supervises the transfer advisor, who works with students in developing skills in English, and the retention advisor, who works in developing students' mathematics skills. The learning resource coordinator also supervises and trains tutors, peer mentors, and does some individual tutoring. In addition to the requirement for a four-year degree, the advertisement for the position stated that language proficiency in Spanish was preferred. The preference for Spanish proficiency was based upon the growing Hispanic population on Respondent's campus and the need for a staff person who could tutor the students in their own language, as well as to speak with the families who often accompany them to campus. Experience had shown that Hispanic students were better able to grasp concepts, as in mathematics, when they received tutoring in their native language. There were 18 applicants for the position of learning resource coordinator, among them Petitioner. Petitioner was not selected to be interviewed by the search committee because he did not have proficiency in Spanish. The three individuals who were chosen to be interviewed were proficient in Spanish: two were native Spanish speakers and one had a degree in Spanish. Maria Elizabeth Gonzalez was selected to fill the position. She was a native of Colombia and a native Spanish speaker. She identified herself on her application as Hispanic. At the time she was selected, she had been working for the previous three years as a tutor and as a lab assistant. The transfer advisor position is a grant-funded advisor position in the tutoring lab for developmental students. The transfer advisor works with developmental students in English; the retention advisor works with those students in mathematics. The advertisement for the transfer advisor listed as one of the qualifications a bachelor's degree with an emphasis in English. There were 20 applicants for the Transfer Advisor position. Petitioner was one of the applicants. Four individuals were chosen by the selection committee to be interviewed; all had an undergraduate degree with an emphasis in English. Petitioner was not chosen to be interviewed because his degree did not have an emphasis in English. Carmen Renee Perez was selected to fill the position. She had a bachelor's degree in English and two years of graduate work in English. She had also taught English as a second language. On her application she identified herself as Hispanic/Cuban/Caucasian. In March 2000, Respondent advertised to fill the position of instructor of business and economics. The advertisement stated that the duties of the position would include teaching courses in business, management, accounting, finance, business law, and economics. The minimum requirements included an MBA from an accredited institution or a master's degree with a minimum of 18 semester hours of subject specific graduate course work. There were between 20 and 30 applicants for the position. The search committee chose to interview five of the applicants. Among them were Petitioner; Ellen Stevens, a white female; and Scott Tori, a white male. Following the interviews, the search committee concluded that Dr. Brown had "great math credentials," but his business and economics credentials "were considerably less" than some of the other applicants. The committee concluded that both Ellen Stevens and Scott Tori were better qualified than Petitioner for the position. Ellen Stevens had a masters in business administration, and Scott Tori had a doctorate in economics. Scott Tori was offered the position and he accepted. In addition to his Ph.D., he had a master's degree in economics, and a bachelor's degree in business administration, with an emphasis in finance. At the time he was hired, Tori was an assistant professor of economics and finance at Thomas University. In the late winter of 2002, Respondent advertised to fill a vacancy caused by the retirement of the chemistry and physics instructor. The advertisement stated that the successful candidate would teach chemistry courses through the sophomore level, a year-long organic chemistry sequence, an algebra and calculus-based physics course sequence, and physical science courses, as needed. Petitioner submitted a letter application to Respondent dated March 2, 2002, for a "mathematics/physics/science instructor" position. This was not the title of the open position. In his letter, Petitioner identified himself as a "professor of mathematics." Petitioner was considered for the position but not selected. Terrence M. Zimmerman was determined by the search committee to be the best qualified to fill the position. He had a bachelor's degree in chemistry cum laude, a master's degree in science education, and all but a dissertation for a doctorate in chemistry. He had been an adjunct instructor in chemistry at Tallahassee Community College, an adjunct in chemistry and environmental science at Santa Fe Community College and, at the time he was hired, he was teaching chemistry and environmental science for Respondent as an adjunct. From 1988 until the time he was hired, he also taught chemistry, environmental science, and general science at Taylor County High School in Perry, Florida. Respondent presented credible evidence for each of the positions for which Petitioner applied establishing a non- discriminatory reason for Respondent's decision to hire someone other than Petitioner. In 1998, Petitioner began teaching mathematics courses for Respondent as an adjunct instructor (Adjunct). Adjunct instructors (Adjuncts) are part-time faculty members who are hired by Respondent on a semester-by-semester basis to teach specific classes in subjects in which they are qualified to teach. Adjuncts teach classes at various locations throughout Respondent's six-county district. They are employed on an as-needed basis and execute a new contract for each semester they are hired. Each semester, Respondent publishes a class schedule for the following semester. If Respondent has confirmed that a particular adjunct is going to be teaching a particular class, the adjunct's name will appear on the schedule. If an adjunct has not been confirmed to teach a particular class, the designation of the instructor for that class will appear as "staff." Petitioner was identified by name on the class schedule for one class each in the Spring and Fall of 1999, two classes in the Spring of 2000, and one class in the Fall of 2000. He taught classes in which the name of the instructor appeared on the class schedules as "staff" as follows: one class in the Fall of 1998, two classes in the Summer of 2000, and two classes in the Fall of 2000. The department chair has the discretion to determine which individuals will be hired to teach as adjuncts. Generally, if there is an adjunct who is local, competent, and willing, he or she will be rehired. There is no prescribed procedure for contacting adjuncts. Sometimes the adjuncts contact the department chair; sometimes the department chair contacts the adjuncts. In the Fall semester of 2000, David Proctor, a history professor, was department chair for Respondent's entire AA program. In addition to teaching three classes, one of which was in Hamilton County, he was responsible for scheduling full-time faculty instructors and 34 adjuncts to teach courses in the AA program. He was also responsible for preparing budgets for each department, evaluating faculty, and preparing class schedules. David Proctor intended that Petitioner would teach some of the introductory and intermediate algebra and developmental arithmetic classes during the 2001 Spring Semester. He did not hear from Petitioner in the Fall of 2000 regarding Petitioner's interest in teaching for the 2001 Spring Semester while he was preparing the schedule for the semester; therefore, he used the term "staff" in place of the instructor's name for four classes, intending that Petitioner would teach some of them. In October 2000, after the schedule for the Spring 2001 semester was published, Petitioner approached Proctor on the sidewalk outside the general classroom building on Respondent's campus and asked why his name was not in the schedule. Proctor assured Petitioner that he had every intention of having Petitioner teach during the Spring semester and suggested that they meet and decide what classes Petitioner would teach. Proctor was subsequently unable to meet with Petitioner as scheduled, so he left a note for Petitioner in which he highlighted classes on the schedule and asked Petitioner to tell him which two classes he would like to teach. This occurred in late October or early November. In December 2000, Proctor saw Petitioner outside Proctor's office in the adjunct mailbox area on campus and remembered that he had not heard from Petitioner regarding Petitioner's choice of classes to teach during the Spring semester. Proctor approached Petitioner and suggested they look at the schedule together and identify the classes Petitioner wanted to teach. Petitioner informed Proctor that he was looking elsewhere for employment and he would not be teaching for Respondent. Proctor was surprised, but wished Petitioner well and offered to write letters of recommendation for him. When Petitioner informed Proctor that he did not intend to teach for Respondent, Proctor asked a Hispanic adjunct instructor, Ephraim Bonilla, to pick up these additional courses. The only subsequent contact Petitioner made with Respondent regarding teaching again as an adjunct was a single telephone call at an unspecified date to the new mathematics department chairman, Mr. Harris, during which Petitioner inquired if there were any courses available. Harris told him there were none. Petitioner asked another individual to call with the same question. The individual Petitioner asked to call reported to Petitioner that he had met with the same response. When he prepared the schedule for the Summer of 2001, Proctor assumed that Petitioner was no longer interested in teaching for Respondent, and when he did not hear from him, he did not put his name in the schedule. When Proctor prepared the schedule for the 2001 Spring semester he was unaware that Petitioner had filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission. He was aware of it by the time he prepared the schedule for the Summer of 2001, but that knowledge played no role in his decision not to list Petitioner by name as an adjunct instructor when he prepared the class schedule for the Summer of 2001. Petitioner filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits effective December 17, 2001, because he was not employed by the College as an adjunct instructor during the 2001 Spring semester. When Respondent received a copy of Petitioner's claim for unemployment compensation, Respondent's Director of Human Resources, Bill Hunter, spoke with David Proctor and learned from him that Petitioner had rejected the opportunity to teach during the 2001 Spring Semester. Bill Hunter provided this information on Respondent's copy of the claim and returned it to the Agency for Workforce Innovation. Petitioner's claim for unemployment compensation was subsequently rejected by state officials and he appealed. Following a telephone hearing during which David Proctor and Petitioner testified, the appeals referee concluded that Petitioner had refused Respondent's offer of an adjunct teaching position for the 2001 Spring Semester and, therefore, was properly barred from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. Petitioner subsequently sought review by the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which affirmed the decision of the appeals referee. In August 2000, Petitioner, and several other college employees, filed a complaint against Respondent with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), alleging that Respondent was discriminating against students on the basis of race with regard to recruitment and financial aid. The complaint also alleged that Respondent was discriminating on the basis of race in its hiring practices. In a letter dated September 13, 2000, OCR notified Respondent's former president, Dr. Beverly Grissom, of the Complaint. In an attachment to the letter, OCR advised Dr. Grissom that "OCR does not reveal the name or other identifying information about an individual unless it is necessary for the completion of an investigation or for enforcement activities against an institution that violates the laws, or unless such information is required to be disclosed under the FOIA or the Privacy Act." OCR subsequently determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the student financial aid and recruitment allegations. OCR also determined that there was no statistically significant difference between the number of African-American administrators and faculty members actually employed and the expected employment rate based on the relevant labor market. OCR, therefore, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to further investigate the matter. Finally, OCR referred the individual employment allegations in the complaint to the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission because it did not have jurisdiction over such claims. Consistent with its September 13, 2000, letter to Dr. Grissom, OCR did not identify the individual complainants, and Respondent was not otherwise aware of this until the hearing in this case that Petitioner had been one of the complainants. Respondent's decisions with regard to filling the vacancies for which Petitioner applied were not based on race, nor were they based on any retaliatory motive. Respondent's decision regarding the absence of Dr. Brown's name from the Spring 2001 class schedule was not based upon a retaliatory motive, nor was there a retaliatory motive involved in informing the unemployment compensation office that Petitioner had refused the offer of a position as an adjunct instructor for the 2001 Spring Semester.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its final order dismissing the case. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. __________________________________ STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 12th day of December, 2002.
Findings Of Fact On April 30, 1985, Petitioner filed an application for employment as a clinical laboratory technician with Indian River County, Florida and in support of that application presented a temporary license from Respondent authorizing Petitioner to work in the capacity of a clinical laboratory technician until the receipt of the April 27, 1985examination results but no later than December, 1985. The license provided that failure to appear to take the April 27, 1985 examination invalidated the temporary license. On April 30, 1985, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent for licensure as a clinical laboratory-technician. Prior to April 30, 1985, Petitioner had not filed an application for licensure as a clinical laboratory technician with Respondent. He did not take the April 27, 1985 examination. On May 2, 1985, Doris E. Roy, an employee of Indian River County, mailed a copy of the temporary license presented by Petitioner to the Respondent as a result of a telephone conversation with Nancy Chapman, an employee of Respondent. Prior to making application for employment with Indian River County, Petitioner had worked as a clinical laboratory technician with Insta Med Clinic, Inc. from June, 1984 to April, 1985 and had taken laboratory training as a clinical laboratory technician at University Community Hospital, Tamarac, Florida from September, 1982 until May, 1983. The temporary license presented by Petitioner to Indian River County had been altered to show Petitioner as the temporary licensee but the evidence was insufficient to prove that Petitioner had in any way altered the temporary license. Petitioner's testimony that he received the temporary license through the corporate office of his previous employee, Insta Med Clinic, Inc. is believable, but his testimony that he had no knowledge of, or any reason to believe that, the temporary license was anything other than genuine prior to presenting it to Indian River County on April 30, 1985 is not credible. This is based on the following considerations: Particularly when you consider: (a) Petitioner's completion of required laboratory training wherein individuals are trained to meet the requirements for licensure as a clinical laboratory technician in Florida; (b) Petitioner's knowledge of the language in the temporary license indicating that Petitioner's application had been reviewed when, in fact, Petitioner had never submitted an application: (c) the statutory language requiring the application to be under oath which puts Petitioner on notice that he must fill out the application personally and not rely on someone else to file his application; and, (d) Petitioner's failure to take the April 27, 1985 examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order DENYING Petitioner's application for licensure as a clinical laboratory technician. Respectfully submitted and entered this 1st of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: K. C. Collette, Esq. HRS District Nine Legal Counsel 111 Georgia Avenue, 3rd Floor West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Mr. Richard J. Strang 8775 20th Street, No. 157 Vero Beach, FL 32960 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32301 ================================================================ =
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether Section 255.0515, Florida Statutes, which applies to "state contracts", applies to the contract involving school construction in the case at bar. As a part of that consideration, it must be determined whether approval by the Respondent, The Leon County School Board (Board), of the substitution of Petitioner, G.A.P. Enterprises, Inc. (G.A.P.), as a subcontractor was "state agency action" for purposes of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which can be challenged in a proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings. It follows then that it must be determined whether G.A.P. has standing to challenge such a state agency action, if the Board's approval, indeed, is such. If, indeed, the Petitioner is in the "zone of interests" sought to be protected by the enactment of Section 255.0515, Florida Statutes, then it must be determined whether good cause exists for G.A.P. to have been removed as the site work and underground utility contractor by the general contractor, the Intervenor herein, Watkins Engineers & Constructors, Inc. (Watkins).
Findings Of Fact The Board formulated final construction plans and specifications for a new school at Fort Braden sometime in July, 1992. Upon the final plans and specifications being prepared and executed, the Board initiated procedures for letting a construction contract to a general contractor through state mandated competitive bidding procedures. Watkins is a general contractor engaged in construction of commercial, industrial and other large non-residential construction projects. It became aware of the project proposed by the Board and obtained a copy of the plans and specifications preparatory to preparing and submitting a bid to the Board on the school project. In preparation for submitting a bid for the site work and underground utility work to all of the general contractors bidding on the project, G.A.P. obtained a copy of the plans and specifications, as well, and attended a pre-bid conference. On August 11, 1992, G.A.P. sent, by facsimile, a preliminary "scope sheet" to all of the general contractors, including Watkins. That scope sheet was sent for the purpose of informing the general contractors that G.A.P. would be submitting a bid to them for the site work package and to generally describe the components of the project that would be included in the G.A.P. bid. On August 17, 1992, G.A.P. sent by facsimile a more detailed scope sheet which specified the precise work to be included in the G.A.P. bid to be submitted the next day. This sheet was sent to Watkins and to the other general contractors who were preparing a bid on the project. On August 18, 1992, at approximately 10:00 a.m., the bid day, G.A.P. maintains that it sent a facsimile bid for the site work described in the detailed scope sheet to Watkins and the other general contractors. G.A.P.'s price for this work was $1,286,276.00. The G.A.P. bid stated: "At this time, we are not bondable. We can acquire a bond through a company for a 6 percent increase in our price. This increase would include the bond." Watkins' testimony is to the effect that it did not actually receive that facsimile transmission, although it was received by the other general contractors to whom it was sent. In any event, on August 18, 1992, Watkins submitted its bid to the Board for the school project. Pursuant to the bidding requirements, it listed G.A.P. as a major subcontractor to perform the site work, paving, well work, and sewage treatment plant work. On the morning of the August 18th bid day, Michael Imbler of Watkins had called the various prospective site work subcontractors to verify the scope of the work they proposed and to confirm that their prices included certain specific items of work. As he spoke to the subcontractors, he made checkmarks on a spread sheet in order to confirm the items that were included in the proposals from the subcontractors. He had telephone conversations with Mr. Strickland of G.A.P. on that day. He first discussed with him the scope of the work to be submitted by G.A.P. and during that conversation, was told by Mr. Strickland that G.A.P. was bondable but that Strickland was unsure of the rate. The second conversation with Strickland later that morning was to get further clarification concerning the scope of the work proposed by G.A.P. In the final conversation that morning, Mr. Strickland gave Mr. Imbler G.A.P.'s bid price and he wrote that price down on the proposal sheet he had received from G.A.P., later transferring that bid price to his own spread sheet. On bid day, Douglas Wright, a vice-president of Watkins, read the list of proposed subcontractors. Being unfamiliar with G.A.P., he asked Mr. Imbler about them and whether they were bondable. Mr. Imbler told him that G.A.P. had submitted a comprehensive bid proposal and was bondable. Mr. Strickland insisted that he transmitted the information relating to his bid to Watkins, via a facsimile letter, containing the bid price, as well as the above-quoted statement that G.A.P. was not bondable, except through a third party at a 6 percent premium. Watkins maintains that it did not receive that facsimile. In any event, on August 19, 1992, Mr. Strickland met with Mr. Imbler and Mr. Johnson of Watkins. In addition to getting information relating to G.A.P. and their business references, Watkins was, at that point at least, told that G.A.P. was not bondable but that it could acquire a bond through a third party at a rate of 6 percent added to the price. Mr. Imbler reported that information to Mr. Wright. On August 21, 1992, Watkins submitted a more detailed listing of subcontractors and suppliers to the Board. G.A.P. was listed as the subcontractor to perform the building layout, clearing, and general site work. Watkins issued a certification to the Board concerning each subcontractor to the effect that its determination was to its complete satisfaction that such contractors maintained fully-equipped organizations, capable of technically and financially performing all pertinent work and that they had made similar installations in a satisfactory manner. Thereafter, on August 26, 1992, the Board awarded the Fort Braden school contract to Watkins for a contract price of approximately $7.4 million. Watkins had a standing policy to the effect that major subcontractors had to be bonded unless Watkins had previously done work with them or unless the requirement was waived by the appropriate corporate officer of Watkins. Watkins had never done business with G.A.P. in the past, which is why Watkins had required that G.A.P. provide it with references so that it could check with prior entities or firms with whom G.A.P. had done business to ascertain G.A.P.'s qualifications. Mr. Douglas Wright was one of the corporate officers assigned the authority to accept or reject a subcontractor for a job based upon its bonding capacity or other circumstance. Mr. Wright was concerned about the lack of bonding capacity in G.A.P. but decided to delay action to ascertain if the Board was actually going to re-bid the contract or go through with the award. This was because Watkins, although low bidder, had exceeded the construction budget of the Board for the project. Mr. Wright also wanted to determine, upon further inquiry, who the third party supplying the performance bond would be and to get further information about G.A.P. as to its general performance capabilities. After awarding the contract to Watkins, the Board requested that Watkins agree to engage in "value engineering" in order to ascertain if the project could be reduced in scope and in price in some areas of work so that the entire project could be constructed and finished within the Board's construction budget. A "value engineering" committee was thus appointed consisting of the project architect, engineers, Board staff, Watkins' staff, and PTA members. The Watkins' representatives on the value engineering committee were Michael Imbler and Mark Carrell. Mr. Wright, after initially committing Watkins to the value engineering process at the request of Mr. Byrd of the Board staff, did not attend any value engineering meetings or actively participate in that phase of the pre-construction process. In discussions with the Board in the value engineering process, it was agreed that when an item was changed, in order to confirm prices quoted by the subcontractors on the job as accurate ones, additional subcontractors, other than the listed low bidder, would be called upon to verify price information. None of the subcontractors being used for verification purposes were told that there was potential for them to be awarded the contract. They were being used to insure that the Board was receiving good value for the changes and reductions that were being made in the scope of the project. No subcontractor, including G.A.P., was asked to re-compute its original price submitted for the job. In April, 1992, G.A.P. had been cited by the Leon County Code Enforcement Board for violating the excavating, grading and site work code provisions by clearing several residential lots without being licensed as an excavating, grading and site work licensed contractor. Ms. Angela Smith informed Mr. Paramore of G.A.P., in her capacity as enforcement officer for environmental regulations, that his state license as an underground utility contractor would not authorize him doing site work which was not directly related to underground utility installation work. In view of this circumstance, G.A.P. applied to the Leon County Licensing and Examination Board to become licensed as an excavation, grading and site work contractor on the day after Watkins was awarded the contract, August 26, 1993. Watkins was unaware (not being informed by G.A.P. or by any other means) that G.A.P. lacked a local excavating, grading and site work contractor's license or that it was filing an application to become so licensed. Watkins, at the time of the bid award, was unaware also that G.A.P. had been cited for performing such work without proper licensure in April of 1992. Jerry Hicks, the project architect, is also a member of the licensing board. He noted on September 3, 1992 that Mr. Paramore of G.A.P. had applied to take the licensing examination to become qualified as a licensed excavating, grading and site work subcontractor and noted that his application was agendaed for the meeting of September 3, 1992. Mr. Hicks thus realized that G.A.P. was not properly licensed to do the site work at the Fort Braden school project. He therefore telephoned Mark Carrell of Watkins to inform him of that fact and that the licensing board meeting that evening would involve a determination of whether or not Mr. Paramore of G.A.P. would be permitted to sit for the examination to become properly licensed. Mr. Carrell immediately told Mr. Imbler of Watkins and both then informed Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright, at that point, had not yet decided how to resolve the question of G.A.P.'s lack of bonding capacity. On or about September 1, 1992, Watkins had received a company memorandum from its parent corporation directing a change in the company policy concerning how Watkins could approve the use of subcontractors who were not bondable. That directive stated as follows: Doug/Eddie: While we have not had the problem yet in our industrial work, subcontractor failure has cost us dearly on the commercial side. The decision has been yours [Doug Wright], but now I am asking that you talk to me before contracting with unbonded subs so I have the chance to agree or disagree. Better stated, it would give me a chance to understand and concur with a no bond decision. Don 9/1/92 (See G.A.P. exhibit 8 in evidence). Construction was due to start on the school project on September 8, 1992, including a meeting between the environmental department of the county and the site work subcontractor. The problem of G.A.P.'s licensure and bonding capacity was a complicating factor in the circumstance of the necessity to avoid any significant delays in the construction start. Any significant delay during the course of the job could jeopardize the project and expose either the contractor or the Board to damages potentially amounting to $5,000.00 per day. Mr. Wright thus had to make a decision without further delay as of September 3, 1992. The bidding documents contained a requirement that all subcontractors be properly licensed. The contract with the Board stated at section 5.2.2 that: "The contractor shall not contract with a proposed person or entity to whom the owner or architect has made reasonable and timely objection." (See Watkins exhibit 6 in evidence). Mr. Wright interpreted the telephone call from Mr. Hicks, the project architect, to constitute an objection in accordance with this contractual provision, to the use of G.A.P. as the site work subcontractor based upon G.A.P.'s lack of proper licensure status. He felt, therefore, that in view of this circumstance, coupled with the bonding capacity problem, he had to immediately replace G.A.P. Mr. Wright thus instructed Mr. Carrell and Mr. Imbler of his firm to personally visit and inform Mr. Strickland of G.A.P. of the decision not to use them as the subcontractor. Mr. Imbler and Mr. Carrell personally visited Mr. Strickland and informed him of that fact, stating as the reason the problem of bonding capacity and the licensure status. Mr. Wright had not been involved in the value engineering effort before making the decision to replace G.A.P. At that time, he was not aware of any of the results in terms of money involved or scope of work of the value engineering price reduction efforts. No one from Watkins at that point had made any attempt to discuss with Crowder, Eubanks Excavating, Inc., or any of the other potential site work subcontractors what their price might be to undertake the overall site work for the job. In making the decision to not use G.A.P., Mr. Wright thus did not already have a suitable alternative site work subcontractor arranged-for. He was taking a risk at finding one on short notice who would be willing to negotiate a price for the required work at a competitive level, given the bid price and Board construction budget that Watkins was required to accommodate. Angela Smith, the director of environmental inspection and enforcement for the county, who had cited G.A.P. on April 17, 1992 for violation of the Environmental Management Act of Leon County because of clearing lots without being properly licensed, testified at hearing that in her opinion, G.A.P. could not legally perform the site work at the Fort Braden school with its underground utilities contractor's license. This opinion was shared by Paul Byrd, the director of construction for the Board. He concurred with the decision to replace G.A.P. and was considering requiring Watkins to do it on account of the improper licensure circumstance. In any event, on September 16, 1992, Mr. Carrell wrote to Mr. Hicks, the project architect, informing him that G.A.P. had been replaced due to the bonding and licensing problem. On September 29, 1992, Mr. Wright, in response to a suggestion from Mr. Hicks, wrote to Graham Carothers, the Board's attorney, requesting that the Board approve the change of site work subcontractors. On October 13, 1992, after notice to both Watkins and G.A.P., the Board unanimously approved Watkins' request to change subcontractors from G.A.P. to Crowder. In order for Watkins to have undertaken the site work utilizing the general contractor's license and the hiring of G.A.P. to do the actual work, Ms. Smith, in her testimony, established that it would be necessary, under the county ordinance involved, for Watkins to provide her office with a letter in which Watkins would assume responsibility for G.A.P.'s site work and agree to direct and supervise it. Because Watkins did not have any in-house expertise in site work or in compliance with environmental regulations involved with site work, it needed a firm which had those qualifications in its own right, so that responsibility and related liability could be passed on to such a site work subcontractor. Under the county ordinance interpreted by Ms. Smith, G.A.P. did not have proper licensure to allow it to assume that responsibility and liability. Thus, in order for Watkins to avoid assuming that responsibility and liability directly, it would have to hire a subcontractor who was properly licensed to do the site work. A subcontractor properly licensed to do the site work would have the primary responsibility for complying with environmental ordinances and coordinating the work with the local environmental authorities charged by ordinance with regulating the work. When Mr. Wright made the decision to replace G.A.P., he was not aware that G.A.P. could be hired as a subcontractor if the requisite letter assuming responsibility was provided by Watkins to the Environmental Inspection and Enforcement Department. When later confronted with the availability of that option, Mr. Wright stated that he never would have agreed to handle the situation in that manner, since he was looking for a site work contractor to assume primary responsibility in complying with local codes applicable to that phase of the work. State Contract Issue The Department of Education (DOE) regulates many aspects of the construction of school facilities by local school boards pursuant to its authority under Chapter 235, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code. It should be noted, parenthetically, that in order for Section 255.0515, Florida Statutes, to apply in this proceeding and to get to the issue of whether G.A.P. has standing to call into question the substitution of subcontractors and the "good cause" issue, it must first be established if this is a "state contract" under Chapter 235, Florida Statutes, related to educational facilities. It has already been held in this proceeding that the Board is a "state agency" so that decisions it makes affecting substantial interests can initiate a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, proceeding (see the Hearing Officer's Order entered on January 21, 1993 and cases cited therein). It is also established that the subject contract was entered into pursuant to the competitive bidding provisions of Chapter 235, Florida Statutes, related to educational facilities. Such contracts and facility projects are regulated pursuant to a related body of rules enacted and administered for such contracting by the DOE at Chapter 6A-2, Florida Administrative Code. Thus, the subject contract involved in this proceeding is under the regulatory authority of the DOE. The DOE, for instance, requires each school project such as this to be submitted to the DOE for approval in terms of its concept, plans and specifications. The DOE requires that an educational facility such as this be publicly advertised and competitively bid. It requires the local Board to file a contract with the DOE and to submit all change orders as to the project to the DOE. The design of the project is subject to DOE review and approval, and all building specifications and inspections are administered or regulated by the DOE. However, the evidence shows that no state funds are involved or to be expended in furtherance of this contract and project. Rather, local funds, apparently consisting largely of a bank loan in favor of the Board, are funding the project. Further, the overall tenor of the evidence shows that the project, the project site, and the improvements to be constructed thereon are and will be wholly owned by the Board itself, which is not a state agency in terms of actions it takes beyond the scope of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, such as taking title to property, entering into contracts for construction of improvements on that property, and the like.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board dismissing the petition of G.A.P. Enterprises, Inc. for lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 1st day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6805 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted. 5. Accepted, but irrelevant. 6-8. Accepted. 9. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 10-13. Accepted, but not in themselves dispositive of the material issues presented. 14. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15-16. Accepted. 17-18. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by the preponderant evidence of record. 19-20. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted, in terms of describing Watkins' legal argument. 24-25. Accepted, but not in itself materially dispositive of the issue of the existence of a "state contract". Rejected, as not constituting a finding of fact but a legal interpretation which is determined to be erroneous. Accepted, but immaterial in this de novo proceeding. Rejected, G.A.P.'s interest is indirect. See, Systems Controls and Services, Inc. v. St. Johns River Water Management District, DOAH Case No. 92-3385BID; Recommended Order entered June 15, 1992). Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant evidence of record. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. Accepted. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-44. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Neil H. Butler, Esquire BUTLER & LONG, P.A. 322 Beard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 C. Graham Carothers, Esquire AUSLEY, MCMULLEN, ET AL. 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Davisson F. Dunlap, Jr., Esquire PENNINGTON, WILKINSON, ET AL. Post Office Box 13527 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-3527 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard Merrick, Superintendent Leon County School Board 2757 W. Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304-2907
Findings Of Fact SJRWMD caused "Request for Qualifications No. 91H157" to be published in the Jacksonville Business Journal on May 3 through 9, 1991. In part, the request stated: Interested firms shall submit a letter of interest (three (3) copies) which contains, but is not limited to, the following: Experience in assessing the environmental fate of pollutants. Familiarity with current and historical agricultural practices employed by vegetable farms in Florida. In particular, knowledge of the storage and application of pesticides and herbicides is required. Ability to perform environmental chemistry and to assess the toxicological, chemical, and physical properties of hazardous materials. Ability to evaluate and/or develop site monitoring plans, industrial hygiene plans, site safety plans, decontamination plans, remediation plans, and abatement measures. Experience in performing environmental audits at potential hazardous waste sites. Staff must have the OSHA required 40 hours Hazardous Waste Site Safety Training pursuant to 29 CFE 1910.120. Documentation of experience in sampling of surface water, ground water, soil, sediment, including installation of temporary and permanent wells and split-spoon borings while following current state and federal approved procedures, and must be capable of preparing and implementing a quality assurance project plan specific to each site assessment. At least $5,000,000 of professional liability insurance. Evaluation of submitted letters of interest will be pursuant to Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. Contracts shall be negotiated pursuant to provisions of Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Halff, Jammal and Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (G & M) among others, responded to the request for qualifications with letters of interest. SJRWMD staff evaluated the letters of interest and ranked the respondents in order: Halff was first; Jammal was second; and G & M was third. Staff recommended beginning negotiations with Halff. After tabling the matter at the first Board meeting at which it came up, the Board discussed the staff recommendation on August 14, 1991, and, it seemed from a tape recording of the meeting in evidence, was unfavorably impressed with the fact that Halff had only one full-time employee in Florida, Robert Barnard. (Three other people are in petitioner's Jacksonville office on "a sub-contract basis." T.50.) Mr. Barnard, who would have had charge of the work for SJRWMD if Halff had been chosen, spoke at the Board meeting. He came up to the podium and answered questions, but did not make a formal presentation. No other contender was represented at the Board meeting. As far as the evidence shows, each Board member had read all letters of intent carefully: The record is silent on the point. The Board voted to rerank Jammal and Halff first and second, respectively, and directed staff to begin negotiations with Jammal.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, recommended that SJRWMD proceed with negotiations with Jammal, Halff and G & M in that order. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: William Lon Allworth, Esquire 1301 Gulf Life Drive, Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32207 John W. Williams, Esquire P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Wayne Flowers, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
