The Issue The issue in this cause is whether petitioner is entitled to either an agricultural classification of its land under F.S. 193.461 or a reduced assessment of its land under F.S. 193.011 for purposes of ad valorem taxation. More specifically, the issue is whether the change made by the Palm Beach County Board of Tax Adjustment in the property appraiser's assessment of petitioner's property lacked legal sufficiency or whether the evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the appraiser's presumption of correctness. In accordance with F.S. 193.122(1) and the case of Hollywood Jaycees v. State Department of Revenue, 306 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1975), the evidence and argument adduced at the hearing was limited to the scope of the record established before the Palm Beach County Board of Tax Adjustment (BTA).
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence introduced at the hearing and the oral argument presented by the parties, the following pertinent facts are found: Petitioner is the owner of approximately 310 acres of real property located in Palm Beach County. As of January 1, 1974, the subject property was used for agricultural purposes and had been so used by petitioner or its predecessor for some nineteen years prior to 1974. Prior to 1974, the subject land had been assessed at $600.00 per acre and had not been reassessed in approximately six years. Prior to and including 1974, petitioner did not file an application for agricultural classification of its land. For the year 1974, the property appraiser assessed the subject property at $4,000.00 per acre under the provisions of F.S. 193.011. Petitioner appealed to the Palm Beach County BTA which found that the appraiser's presumption of correctness had been overcome and that petitioner should be allowed to retain the prior years' assessment on its property ($600.00 per acre). In support of this decision, the BTA found that it had the authority to extend the time for filing an application for agricultural classification and that it had the authority "in light of AGO 71-81 dated April 28, 1971, to grant the continuance of a prior years assessment where the facts and circumstances surrounding the subject property have not changed and are not expected to change. The BTA notified the respondent of the change in assessment pursuant to F.S. 193.122. The respondent's staff recommended that the BTA's action in this case be invalidated on the ground that the evidence presented to the BTA was insufficient to overcome the property appraiser's presumption of correctness. The petitioner requested a hearing to review the staff recommendation, the respondent's Executive Director requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing and the undersigned was assigned as the Hearing Officer. Due to the fact that there was no court reporter present at the hearing, the parties stipulated that their respective positions would be reduced to writing by the submission of written memoranda. To date, no such memorandum has been received from petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the action of the Palm Beach County Board of Tax Adjustment in granting an agricultural classification and in reducing the assessment of petitioner's property for the tax year 1974 be invalidated. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 3230 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1976.
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner is liable for tax, penalties and interest under the authority of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, on certain purchases, rentals/leases and repairs to capital equipment made by the Petitioner on paging equipment, for the audit period October 1, 1974 through September 30, 1977. The audit also considers the purchase of office supplies in the aforementioned period, but for the purposes of this hearing the Petitioner is not contesting the imposition of tax, penalty and interest on those items. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not contest the mathematical calculations in arriving at the tax as set forth in the Notice of Proposed Assessment; instead, it is an attack on the right of the Respondent to affect such a tax against the Petitioner on the items in dispute.
Findings Of Fact This cause came on for consideration based upon the Petition filed by Gabriel Communications Corporation protesting a proposed deficiency of sales tax liability asserted by the Respondent, the Florida Department of Revenue, by its 1st Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest Under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. The contents of that 1st Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment, to include the worksheets of the Respondent's Tax Examiner, may be found as the Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. The proposed assessment contains claims for tax, penalties and interest on the Petitioner's purchase, rentals/lease and repair to capital equipment; to wit, pagers made by the Petitioner. The purchases and rentals/leases were involved in transactions between the Petitioner and certain suppliers to the Petitioner and the repairs pertain to materials necessary to keep the pagers in working order. There are additional items in the audit which concern certain office supplies purchased by the Petitioner for which sales tax was not paid; however, for the purposes of this proceeding those items are not contested by the Petitioner. Moreover, Gabriel Communications Corporation does not contest the amount of the assessment, assuming that the Respondent is entitled in law to make the assessment on the matters in dispute. Gabriel Communications Corporation is a Florida corporation and a holder of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the Florida Public Service Commission, which certificate authorizes Gabriel to provide radio, telephone and paging services to the public in certain areas in Florida. The Petitioner's corporate office is in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Gabriel Communications Corporation is one of forty-three organizations licensed by the Public Service Commission of the State of Florida as a radio common carrier. (The conclusion is borne out in the late-filed exhibit of the Petitioner, which is Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence, being a statement from the Commission Clerk for the Florida Public Service Commission.) The tax that the Respondent is attempting to impose in this matter is a tax on the pagers which the Petitioner has purchased or rented/leased from suppliers to be provided to the Petitioner's customers to assist in establishing the paging services which the Petitioner offers to those customers. The proposed tax also involves a tax asserted against the Petitioner on those items of inventory which the Petitioner purchases from its suppliers for purposes of making repairs to the equipment its customers are utilizing. The focus of the Petitioner's argument in support of this Petition is centered on the provision of Rule 12A-1.46(8) (i), Florida Administrative Code, which in discussing taxation involving telephone, telegraph and other communication services by radio common carrier states as follows: "(8) Radio Common Carriers. * * * The charge by the radio common carrier for one-way pocket pager service is exempt." In the view of the Petitioner this means that the entire transaction between the Petitioner and its customers involving paging services, to include the initial purchase or rental/lease of pagers from its suppliers and repairs thereto, would be exempt from any tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner supports its argument in this vein by citing Attorney General's Opinion 68-62, dated 1968, dealing with an interpretation of Section 212.05(5), Florida Statutes, and the subsequent Florida Revenue Commission ruling No. 068-56 of June 27, 1978. That section, 212.05(5), Florida Statutes, states: (5) At the rate of 4 percent on charges for all telegraph messages and long distance telephone calls beginning and terminating in this state; on recurring charges to regular subscribers for local telephone service and for wired television service; on all charges for the installation of telephonic, wired television, and telegraphic equipment; and, at the same rate, on all charges for electrical power or energy. Telephone and telegraph services originating within this state and completed outside this state or originating outside this state and completed within this state are not taxable. The provisions of s. 212.17(3), regarding credit for tax paid on charges subsequently found to be worthless, shall be equally applicable to any tax paid under the provisions of this section on charges for telephone and telegraph services and electric power subsequently found to be uncollectible. The word 'charges' in this subsection shall not include any excise or similar tax levied by the federal government, any political subdivision of the state, or any municipality upon the purchase or sale of telephone, wired television or telegraph service, or electric power, which tax is collected by the seller from the purchaser." The Petitioner makes a further argument that the provision which the Respondent relies on in proposing its assessment does not have application. That provision is Rule 12A-1.46(8)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and it reads: "(8) Radio Common Carriers. * * * (e) Sales, rentals or repairs of machines, equipment, parts or accessories to a radio common carrier for its use in providing communication services are taxable. This includes parts and materials used by radio common carriers in the repair and installation of their own communication equipment. When purchasing equipment for resale or for exclusive rental, a radio common carrier should furnish its supplier a resale certificate in lieu of paying the tax." The Petitioner doesn't feel that this provision has application to it because of the perception that the sale-rental or repair of equipment is not for purposes of the radio common carrier's use in providing communication service, but is for the benefit of the ultimate consumer/customer of the Petitioner. Finally, the Petitioner argues that if a tax should be allowed, it should be on the arrangement between the Petitioner and the customer, on the theory that the arrangement involves the rental of a pager by the customer and the Respondent should not make that tax have retroactive application to the transactions in question. From the point of view of the Respondent, Section 212.21(2), Florida Statutes, establishes the general proposition that tax shall be levied for sales and rentals considered under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, except to the extent that those transactions were specifically exempted. To the Respondent, the only exemption in application is that exemption found in Rule 12A-1.46(8)(i), Florida Administrative Code, and that only pertains to the one-way pocket pager service, not as Rule 12A-1.46(8)(e), Florida Administrative Code, sets out, the, "sales, rentals or repairs of machines, equipment, parts or accessories to a radio common carrier for its use in providing communication services." In the position of the Respondent, the purchase or rental of equipment and the repair to that equipment made by the Petitioner are for its own use in providing the separate exempt service to the Petitioner's customers. After analyzing the arguments in behalf of the parties, the Respondent's position is found to be persuasive. Although the service charges made by the Petitioner to its consumer are exempt from taxation, under authority of Rule 12A-1.46(8)(i), Florida Administrative Code, the purchase or rental/lease and repair to the capital equipment of the Petitioner which it uses in providing that service to its consumers are taxable pursuant to Rule 12A- 1.46(8)(e), Florida Administrative Code. There flows from that tax liability certain interest charges not to exceed a total penalty of 25 percent in the aggregate (see Section 212.12(2), Florida statutes). However, the Respondent may for good cause shown compromise those penalties after investigation reveals that the penalty would be too severe or unjust (see Section 212.12(5), Florida statutes). In view of the testimony offered by a number of radio common carriers in the State of Florida licensed by the Florida Public Service Commission to the effect that they misunderstood the tax liability under Rule 12A-1.46(8)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and the acknowledgement of the undersigned of that difficulty, it would be recommended that no penalty be imposed in this instance. (A review has been made of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted, and they have been utilized in this Recommended Order in those instances in which the proposals were deemed to be appropriate.)
Recommendation Upon a full consideration of the facts in this cause, it is recommended that the Petitioner be required to pay the tax and applicable interest due and owed under the 1st Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest, which is the subject of this case. It is further recommended that the penalties be waived. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1978 COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Costigan, Esquire Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida Maxie Broome, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent, University of West Florida (Respondent or the University), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Petitioner, Jacqueline R. Pinkard (Petitioner), based upon Petitioner’s race or in retaliation for her participation in protected activity.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a public university within the Florida State University System. Petitioner was hired by the University in 1998 in the Office of University Budgets (Budget Office) as a Coordinator. In 2004, Petitioner was promoted to the position of Assistant Director of the Budget Office. She received a pay increase simultaneous with the promotion and another pay increase shortly thereafter. She has received several pay increases throughout her employment with the University. From 1998 through June 30, 2014, the Budget Office was a stand-alone department, headed by Valerie Moneyham. In January 2014, Ms. Moneyham was promoted to Assistant Vice President in the Business, Finance, and Facilities Division. Her duties included continued oversight of the Budget Office until June 30, 2014. On July 1, 2014 the Budget Office moved under and became a part of the University’s Financial Services department. There were three employees in the Budget Office: Petitioner, Assistant Director, who is African American/Black; Pam Cadem, Senior Budget Data Analyst, who is Caucasian; and Josie Warren, Coordinator, who is Caucasian (collectively, Budget Office employees). All three Budget Office employees retained their position titles and pay rates upon moving into the Financial Services department. There was another employee in the Budget Office prior to the move named Lourdes Stevens. Ms. Stevens was a Coordinator who began at the University in 2012. Ms. Stevens left the University before the Budget Office became a part of the Financial Services department. The Financial Services department was and is headed by Colleen Asmus, Associate Vice President and University Controller. In her Complaint, Petitioner alleges several bases for alleged race discrimination and retaliation. First, Petitioner alleges that the University discriminated against her based on her race and retaliated against her when Petitioner’s former supervisor, Ms. Valerie Moneyham, issued a “poor” performance evaluation of Petitioner for 2014. Next, Petitioner alleges that her current supervisor, Ms. Colleen Asmus, “accepted Ms. Moneyham’s false and retaliatory evaluation as a means to justifiably deny [Petitioner] an equitable pay increase, position reclassification or promotional opportunity.” And, finally, the Complaint alleges that the University discriminated against Petitioner based on her race when, on December 12, 2014, Ms. Asmus created a position with “very specific ‘preferred’ qualifications . . . as a way to essentially tailor the job to fit a preselected employee or applicant,” who she believed to be “a white male from Financial Services.” The findings of fact pertinent to these allegations are set forth under three separate headings, A. through C., below. Petitioner’s 2014 Performance Evaluation The subject of Petitioner’s first allegation is her performance evaluation covering the period from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014 (2014 evaluation). The evaluation cycle for University staff is from July 1 to June 30 each year. Prior to the University’s 2013 evaluations, a different cycle and scoring system was used for performance evaluations. Due to the change in cycling, there were no evaluations for University staff in 2012. The University’s performance evaluation system is electronic-based. The evaluation contains three main parts. The first part is a self-evaluation by the employee. The second part is the supervisor’s evaluation, and the third part is a goal-setting section for the following year. In the second part of the evaluation, supervisors provide numeric ratings on a five-point scale on a series of eight work-related categories, and they also provide narrative feedback on an employee’s strengths and areas for improvement. Since 2013, the numeric scores have been averaged and the resulting number is the employee’s overall evaluation rating. Since 2013, the overall numeric ratings have equated to the following Performance Standards: 1.0 to 1.4 –- “Below” - Not Acceptable 1.5 to 2.4 –- “Below” – Needs Improvement 2.5 to 3.4 –- “Satisfactory” 3.5 to 4.4 -- “Above” 4.5 to 5.0 -- “Superior” It is the University’s standard practice for the supervisor of University staff positions to be the individual who completes those staff position evaluations if he or she was the supervisor for the whole period covered by the evaluation. Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record for the Budget Office for the entire period covered by the July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014, evaluation. Labratta Epting, Human Resources Specialist in the University’s Human Resources department, advised Ms. Moneyham by email dated October 24, 2014, to complete the 2014 performance evaluations for each one of the three Budget Office employees. Ms. Moneyham completed the supervisor’s evaluation portion of the 2014 performance evaluations for all three Budget Office employees because she was their supervisor during the period of time covered by the evaluation. In the electronic performance evaluation system, the evaluations are housed under the name of the current supervisor. In this case, that was Ms. Colleen Asmus, for all three Budget Office employees. For the 2014 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham provided the evaluation information for each of the three Budget Office employees to Ms. Asmus, who cut and pasted the information into the electronic evaluation system. Ms. Asmus completed the future goals section of the evaluation for each of the three Budget Office employees because she was the supervisor beginning on July 1, 2014, and on into the future. In the 2014 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham rated the Budget Office employees as follows: Petitioner received a numeric score of 3.3 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard; Ms. Cadem received a numeric score of 3.8 and an “Above” Performance Standard; and Ms. Warren received a numeric score of 3.0 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard. In the 2013 evaluation, Ms. Moneyham rated Petitioner with a numeric score of 3.2 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard, Ms. Cadem with a numeric score of 3.8 and an “Above” Performance Standard, and Ms. Warren with a numeric score of 3.0 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard. In the 2011 evaluation, under the old scoring system, Ms. Moneyham rated Petitioner with a numeric score of 42 and a “Satisfactory” Performance Standard, and Ms. Cadem with a numeric score of 46 and an “Above” Performance Rating. As previously noted, the numeric rating system was changed for all staff evaluations after the 2011 evaluation. Ms. Moneyham increased the numeric score of only one employee from the 2013 to the 2014 evaluation, and that employee was Petitioner. She increased Petitioner’s numeric rating from 3.2 in 2013 to 3.3 in 2014. Petitioner’s Performance Rating was at the “satisfactory” Performance Standard level in 2011, 2013, and 2014. Petitioner testified that Ms. Moneyham’s comments on page 7 of Petitioner’s 2014 performance evaluation under the heading of “Supervisor’s Comments” were not discriminatory and were not retaliatory. Ms. Asmus’ Acceptance of Petitioner’s 2014 Evaluation Ms. Asmus received a copy of the October 24, 2014, email sent by Ms. Epting to Ms. Moneyham directing Ms. Moneyham to complete the 2014 evaluations for Petitioner, Ms. Cadem, and Ms. Warren. When Ms. Asmus met with Petitioner to discuss Petitioner’s 2014 evaluation, Ms. Asmus stated that she believed that they (Petitioner and Ms. Asmus) had started with a clean slate, which began when Ms. Asmus became Petitioner’s supervisor on July 1, 2014. Petitioner’s letter dated December 15, 2014, to the EEOC acknowledges this, quoting Ms. Asmus as saying, “I hope we can move forward with a great working relationship.” No evidence was provided by Petitioner showing that Ms. Asmus used the evaluation scores provided by Ms. Moneyham in the 2014 evaluation to deny Petitioner any benefit of any kind. Denial of Position Reclassification and Promotional Opportunities Interim Promotion In the Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Ms. Asmus used the “poor evaluation” as a means to deny her a position reclassification or a promotional opportunity. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that she should have been made Interim Associate Budget Director, or a similar title, starting when Ms. Moneyham was no longer physically in the same building as the Budget Office employees, which she said was during “Spring 2014.” She also testified that the interim position should have lasted either until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor of the Budget Office employees (July 1, 2014) or, alternatively, until February 2, 2015, when Mr. Djerlek became the supervisor of the Budget Office employees. Ms. Moneyham became Assistant Vice President in January 2014. No evidence was offered stating a more specific date of when Ms. Moneyham moved to a different building than the Budget Office employees. Petitioner did not offer any comparators for this allegation. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that any employee was made Interim Associate Budget Director (or similar title) in this situation. Petitioner admitted on cross-examination that Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record for the Budget Office employees until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor for the Budget Office employees. Ms. Rentz, the former University Associate Director for Human Resources, testified that there was no Interim Associate Budget Director or other position into which Petitioner could have been placed because Ms. Moneyham was the supervisor of record over the Budget Office employees until Ms. Asmus became the supervisor of record. That testimony is credited. 2. Reclassification In support of her allegation that she was denied a position reclassification, Petitioner submitted into evidence an email that she sent to her supervisor, Ms. Asmus, on December 11, 2014. In the email, Petitioner asked Ms. Asmus to reclassify all three Budget Office employees (Petitioner, Ms. Cadem, and Ms. Warren) and provide each of them with salary increases. On December 11, 2014, the three Budget Office employees had been under the supervision of Ms. Asmus for approximately five and one-half months. Petitioner’s email further stated that all three employees were well trained. Petitioner, however, provided no evidence either in the email or at the hearing that would reasonably provide a basis for reclassification or promotion of any of the three Budget Office employees. Petitioner did not offer any comparators for this allegation. No evidence was provided showing that there has been a position reclassification or promotion for any of the three Budget Office employees since being moved into the Financial Services department on July 1, 2014. The University provided credible testimony that seniority, or length of time in a position, is not, on its own, a basis for a promotion at the University of West Florida. Denial of Equitable Pay Increase Petitioner also alleged in the Complaint that Ms. Asmus used Ms. Moneyham’s “poor evaluation” as a means to deny Petitioner an equitable pay increase. At the hearing, Petitioner stated that she was denied an equitable pay increase when distributions were made to some staff under a 2013 Employee Pay Equity and Compression Program conducted by the University (Salary Study). Petitioner and the two other employees in the Budget Office did not receive a distribution under the 2013 Salary Study. The University provided credible evidence showing that approximately 25 percent of the staff received increases through the Salary Study, and that Petitioner’s salary was the only salary in the Budget Office that was above the benchmark for receiving an increase. On April 7, 2014, Petitioner filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC claiming that she was denied a distribution from the 2013 Salary Study based on race and retaliation. The EEOC found that the University did not violate discrimination statutes and issued Petitioner a “Right to Sue” letter on September 30, 2014. Petitioner did not file suit in connection with that EEOC discrimination charge. The University has not conducted any equity studies since 2013 and Petitioner has not been excluded from any staff pay increases since 2013. In May 2015, Ms. Asmus asked the Human Resources department to determine whether there was a pay inequity as to Ms. Warren’s salary. Ms. Warren’s position in the Budget Office was “Coordinator” and it remained “Coordinator” when she moved into the Financial Services office. Human Resources reviewed Ms. Warren’s salary against the other Coordinators in the Financial Services department. The Human Resources department determined that Ms. Warren was performing services similar to the Accounting Coordinators in the Financial Services department. The starting salary for an Accounting Coordinator in Financial Services is $45,000. Ms. Warren was earning $32,000 at the time. As a result, in May 2015, Ms. Warren’s salary was increased to $45,000, which is the level of the starting salary for Accounting Coordinators in the Financial Services department. No evidence was offered of a similar increase for Ms. Cadem. Petitioner’s current position is Assistant Director. Before she was promoted to Assistant Director, Petitioner’s position title was Coordinator. The position of Assistant Director is higher in rank than the Coordinator/Accounting Coordinator position occupied by Ms. Warren. Petitioner’s salary is approximately $15,000 higher than Ms. Warren’s salary at the increased level. There is no similar pay inequity in Petitioner’s position as there was with Ms. Warren. Petitioner’s salary is right at the midpoint of the five employees in the Financial Services department at the Assistant Controller/Assistant Director level. Petitioner is earning more than two of the Assistant Controllers and less than two of the Assistant Controllers. Petitioner did not allege or provide any evidence showing that her job duties were more complex than the two Assistant Controllers who have a higher salary than she does. Preferred Qualifications for Associate Controller Position During the fall 2014 semester, Ms. Asmus envisioned an improvement in the efficiency and consistency of the reporting functions carried out by the Financial Services department. She had noticed that there were overlaps and redundancies between the financial reporting area and the budget reporting area. She believed greater consistency in reporting could be achieved if these areas were merged. In November-December 2014, the Financial Services department began the recruitment process for an Associate Controller. The Associate Controller was to be over the reporting areas, which would include financial reporting (production of financial statements), budget reporting, and tax reporting. Florida’s State University System’s (SUS) minimum qualifications for an Associate Controller were posted as the minimum qualifications for the position. They are: Master’s degree in an appropriate area of specialization and four years of appropriate experience; or a Bachelor’s degree in an appropriate area of specialization and six years of appropriate experience. Although the SUS system allows additional requirements be added to the minimum qualifications, none were added in the posting of the Associate Controller position. The preferred qualifications for the position as advertised were: Master’s or Bachelor’s degree must be in an accounting related field. CPA License preferred. Experience with production of financial statements in a higher education setting preferred. Experience with tax accounting in a higher educational setting preferred. Familiarity with budget operations in a higher educational setting preferred. The preferred qualifications were all approved by Human Resources as being job-related before the position announcement was posted. After receiving an applicant pool from the first posting for the Associate Controller position, Human Resources for the University did not “certify” the applicant pool because the percentage of minority applicants was low. The position was posted again and was also advertised again in a publication geared to attract minority applicants. Although additional applicants applied, the percentage of minority applicants decreased. Nevertheless, because it determined that a good faith effort was made to recruit qualified female and minority applicants, Human Resources certified the pool after the second posting. Petitioner pointed out at the hearing that the January 2015 advertisement in the publication geared to attract minority applicants contained an application deadline of December 19, 2014, which was prior to the date of the advertisement. The University’s Associate Director of Human Resources provided credible testimony that the published application deadline was a mistake, and that she was unaware of the error when she certified the pool after the second posting. Ms. Asmus provided credible testimony explaining why each of the preferred qualifications for the Associate Controller position was job related. No contrary evidence as to any of the preferred qualifications was offered by Petitioner. Ms. Asmus advised the three Budget Office employees of the job posting and invited them to apply for the position. Petitioner met the minimum criteria for the position but did not apply for the position. All candidates who met the minimum qualifications for a position would have been considered for the position. Petitioner testified that she did not apply for the position because she did not meet the preferred qualifications. Petitioner explained that in 2012 she had applied for a position as an Executive Assistant in the University’s President’s Office, and she was not selected for the position because she did not have all the preferred qualifications. She said that she did not have event-planning experience. She said that based on that experience in 2012, she did not apply for the Associate Controller position posted in December 2014. Petitioner acknowledged on cross-examination that the Executive Assistant position that she applied for in 2012 was in the President’s Office and that the Financial Services department is in a different division of the University than the President’s Office. There were no limitations in the advertisement that would discourage an individual of any particular race from applying for the position. The advertisement stated on the bottom, “The University of West Florida (UWF) is an Equal Opportunity/Access/Affirmative Action Employer.” Mr. Djerlek was ultimately selected for the Associate Controller position. He is Caucasian and is outside of Petitioner’s protected class. Mr. Djerlek’s qualifications for the position were stronger than Petitioner’s. Mr. Djerlek had experience in all three of the areas that would be under the supervision of the Associate Controller: financial statements/reporting, budget reporting and tax reporting. Mr. Djerlek's background included a great deal of experience with financial statements, tax reporting, and budgeting, along with some budget reporting experience. He is licensed as a Certified Public Accountant. At the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that she did not have experience in two of three areas that the Associate Controller would be supervising: financial statements/reporting and tax reporting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 3rd day of May, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Samuel J. Pomeranz holds a "Rank 2" certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner Samuel J. Pomeranz obtained an advanced certificate in Educational Administration and Supervision in June 1970, from City College of New York. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree in 1957 and a Master of Arts Degree in Education in 1959. Petitioner was licensed as a teacher in the State of New York and served as head of Curriculum Development in a senior high school in New York, New York. At the time of the hearing, he had not taught school in the State of Florida. Petitioner applied for a "Rank 1A" teaching certificate from the Respondent Department of Education Certification Section, but certification as "Rank 1A" was denied. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.049(1)(b) 1. requires that an applicant hold a "sixth year postmaster's level degree." Applicant received a certificate rather than a degree at the conclusion of his postmaster's work.
Recommendation Affirm the Respondent's action in denying Petitioner's request for "Rank 1A" certificate. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Boyd, Esquire Post Office Box 5617 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gene T. Sellers, Esquire State Board of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether respondent's rules of conduct contained in Department of Law Enforcement Directive #200.08 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the ground that they were not promulgated in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1979)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Maggie L. Allen was a Career Service employee (with permanent status) of the Department of Law Enforcement until she was terminated from her position or about June 15, 1981. She has appealed her termination to the Florida Career Service Commission. (Prehearing Stipulation, p. 2; Respondent's Admissions.) The reason given for her termination was, in part, her alleged violation of Department Directive #200.08(5), Rules of Conduct ("Directive") . More specifically, the Department charged her with violating specific rules of conduct contained in the Directive: Rule 10, entitled, "Insubordination"; Rule 22, entitled, "Departmental Reports"; Rule 23, entitled, "Performance of Lawful Duty"; and Rule 34, entitled, "Truthfulness." (Prehearing Stipulation, p. 2; Respondent's Admissions; Exhibit No. 3.) The Directive, effective November 27, 1978, is an official statement of Department policy and is generally applicable to all employees of the Department. Its stated purpose is "to provide each Departmental employee with clear examples of acts which would violate the above personnel rules or statutes." (Emphasis supplied.) (Exhibit No. 1.) Essentially, the Directive defines acceptable conduct for Department employees by specifically enumerating 35 standards of conduct. By its terms, breach of one or more of those standards constitutes employee misconduct and may result in disciplinary action against an employee ranging from oral reprimand to discharge. However, these standards are not intended to be an exclusive, or exhaustive listing of impermissible conduct. (Respondent's Admissions; Exhibit No. 1.) The Directive is part of the Department's Duty Manual, a volume containing directives on personnel, administrative, training, and fiscal matters as well as the operations of the Department's divisions. The stated purpose of the Duty Manual is to "inform and guide . . . [Department] officers and employees in the performance of their official duties." (Exhibit No. 2.) The Duty Manual recites that it is "promulgated" pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, that copies are disseminated to all employees and that employees must obey, comply with, and follow the Manual's directives. The Manual has been incorporated, by reference, in Department Rule 11-1.12, Florida Administrative Code. All formalities concerning publication of Rule 11-1.12 were complied with prior to its publication in the Florida Administrative Code. (Prehearing Stipulation; Exhibit No. 2.) Department Rule 11-1.12, incorporating--by reference--the Duty Manual, was adopted on March 20, 1979, for the purpose of validating those portions (unspecified) of the Manual which constituted "rules" under the APA. At the time, the Department anticipated that adopting the Manual, by rule, would "lead to greater efficiency." (Exhibit No. 2.)
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and/or costs, pursuant to section 120.595(4); and, if so, the amounts of attorney's fees and/or costs to which he is entitled.
Findings Of Fact On March 3, 2017, DOAH entered an Amended Final Order in Case No. 16-6127RU, determining that a portion of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Procedure Manual TL-10, dated April 30, 2014, and Technical Advisory RS/TL 14-18, dated October 20, 2014 (hereafter, the "Unadopted Rules"), are unadopted rules that violate section 120.54(1)(a). "Stephen J. Williams, as a Trustee for the Sparkhill Trust," is Petitioner in this proceeding, and also was Petitioner in Case No. 16-6127RU. Petitioner appeared in Case No. 16-6127RU as a trustee of the Sparkhill Trust ("Trust"), which holds title to the motor vehicle for which a certificate of title was denied by Respondent and its agent, the Lee County Tax Collector, in 2014. As previously found in Case No. 16-6127RU, Petitioner also is the beneficiary of the Trust. Petitioner is not licensed to practice law in Florida, and has neither alleged nor shown that he was licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in Florida at any point during the pendency of Case No. 16-6127RU.2/ Petitioner received a law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law and is licensed to practice law in Connecticut, New York, and the District of Columbia; however, he currently is suspended from practicing law in those jurisdictions. Petitioner also is a lawyer on the Roll of Solicitors in England and Wales, but is not currently authorized to practice in those jurisdictions because he does not hold a practicing certificate. Petitioner asserts in the Motion that he is an attorney acting in a representative capacity as a trustee on behalf of the Trust. Petitioner filed a document titled "Declaration of Stephen J. Williams in Support of Petitioner's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs" ("Declaration") in support of the Motion. Although the Declaration represents that it is made "under penalty of perjury," it does not constitute a legally sufficient oath or affidavit because it does not comply with the requirements of section 92.50(1), Florida Statutes. Specifically, it does not contain a jurat or certificate of proof or acknowledgement authenticated by the signature and official seal of a judge, clerk or deputy clerk of court of record in this state, or a United States commissioner or notary public in this state, as required by the statute.3/ Petitioner attached an itemized timesheet to the Declaration. The timesheet lists, for each item for which attorney's fees are sought, the date and description of the legal services alleged to have been rendered for the particular item, and the amount of time alleged to have been spent per item. The timesheet represents that a total of 54.8 hours were spent in prosecuting Case No. 16-6127RU. Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to a $350.00 per hour attorney's fee, multiplied by a 1.5 loadstar multiplier, and a contingency multiplier of three, for a total of $86,310.00 in attorney's fees. Attached to the Declaration is email correspondence sent to Petitioner by Kiara Guzzo, Respondent's Public Records Coordinator, stating that Petitioner owed $119.73 for Respondent's response to Petitioner's public records request. In the Declaration, Petitioner states that "[t]he attached email of Guzzo email [sic] accurately indicates the out-of-pocket expenses which have been paid." Pursuant to his statement in the Declaration, Petitioner is "exclusively engaged in the practice of law." Pursuant to his statement in the Declaration, Petitioner undertook the prosecution of Case No. 16-6127RU on a contingency basis, with his attorney's fees being "limited to that approved by this tribunal."4/ Petitioner previously challenged the Unadopted Rules in two DOAH proceedings, Case Nos. 14-6005RU and 15-0484RU.5/ Thus, as far back as 2014, Respondent was on notice that its statements (i.e., the Unadopted Rules) may constitute unadopted rules.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent used a title that tended to indicate he was an active registered engineer in the State of Florida when he did not hold such registration; (2) whether Respondent violated an order previously issued by the Department; (3) and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Frank V. Burianek, earned a Master of Science Degree in Civil and Structural Engineering from the University of Bratislava. In 1967, when Respondent earned this degree, the University of Bratislava was located in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia. However, since that time, the country of Czechoslovakia was dissolved and divided to form two new countries. The country in which the City of Bratislava is now located is the Slovian Republic. Respondent has worked in the construction business for about 30 years. During this time, Respondent worked as an engineer in Africa and Europe. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent resided in Pinellas County, Florida. After moving to the area, Respondent made inquiries concerning how he could become a licensed or registered engineer in the State of Florida. After considering the matter, however, Respondent decided that he would not pursue applying for and obtaining a license to practice engineering in the State of Florida. Instead, Respondent chose to become a home inspector. In Florida, there is no requirement that individuals who work as home inspectors be licensed. Moreover, neither the home inspection business, nor its employees, are regulated by the State of Florida. According to a flyer distributed by Respondent, he began conducting home inspections in the Pinellas County area in 1992. The flyer stated in relevant part the following: Hi, my name is Frank Burianek. I am a Civil and Structural Engineer. I have thirty years experience in the construction industry. I have been successfully completing Home Inspections in this area since 1992. You might have used me before, seen my marketing, or heard how I saved your colleague's deal. I want to offer you and your colleagues the best service, but I need your professional opinion . . . your advice. And here is where I need your help. You have obviously used a number of inspectors in the past and you can help me be the best one. Don't worry. I have never killed a deal. On the contrary. As there are few inspectors eagerly killing some deals, I have been called on a number of occasions for Engineer's re-inspection. On October 27, 1998, a letter of complaint, which included a copy of Respondent's flyer, was filed with the Department. The letter of complaint, which appeared to be from the president of a company located in Spring Hill, Florida, that provided construction inspections consultation, indicated that Respondent did not list his license number on the flyer. The Department assigned the complaint described in paragraph 6 above as DBPR Case No. 98-21925. In a letter from the Department, Respondent was advised that a complaint had been filed alleging that Respondent "acted in the capacity of an ENGINEER without being duly licensed, a business that requires licensure in the State of Florida." The letter further stated that "this unlicensed practice is a criminal offense for which [Respondent] may be criminally prosecuted." The Department's investigation of DBPR Case No. 98-21925 included reviewing Department records and Respondent's flyer and written response to the Department, interviewing Respondent, and conferring with Department staff. During the course of the investigation, Respondent's flyer was reviewed by the contract administrator for the engineering board. After the contract administrator completed her review of the flyer, she wrote an e-mail to the Department's investigator regarding recommended changes that could be made to Respondent's flyer to correct the problem raised in the complaint. The e-mail, dated January 8, 1999, stated in part the following: I've read the flyer. Suggest to Mr. Burianek that he change the second sentence to the following: "I hold a Master Degree in Civil & Structural Engineering from University." If it is a foreign university, listing the city, state and or country might be helpful too! The way it is currently written implies or "tends to indicate" that he holds an active registration as a licensed engineer when he does not. The e-mail described in paragraph 10 was referred to in the Department's Investigative Report of DBPR Case No. 98-21925. According to the Investigative Report, the engineering board's contract administrator recommended that Respondent "change the second sentence on the flyer and add credentials." During the investigation of DBPR Case No. 98-21925, Respondent indicated that he was a civil and structural engineer because he had a master's degree in that field from the University of Bratislava. Respondent also indicated to the investigator that he was working as a home inspector and never intended that the flyer indicate he was licensed or registered as a professional engineer by the State of Florida. Based on the custom and practice in Europe, as a result of Respondent's obtaining a graduate degree in civil and structural engineering, his title was engineer. On January 13, 1999, the Department issued a Notice to Cease and Desist in DBPR Case No. 98-21925. The Notice to Cease and Desist, which ordered Respondent to "Cease and Desist from the unlicensed and illegal practice of Engineering," provided in relevant part the following: You are hereby notified that the following specifically described conduct constitutes the unlicensed practice of contracting by yourself: * * * Advertising in the capacity of an Engineer without being duly licensed. Company advertisement indicates that SUBJECT is holding himself as a Civil and Structural Engineer without being licensed. Subject is in violation of F.S. 471.031(1)(a). You are hereby advised that under Chapter 471.031 of the Florida Statutes, only persons or firms licensed by the Florida Engineering Board may hold himself or advertise as an Engineer. * * * You are hereby ORDERED to immediately CEASE AND DESIST from the unlicensed practice of Engineering in the State of Florida. You are further notified that under Section 455.228, Florida Statutes, a fine of up to $5000 may be imposed on any person engaging in the unlicensed practice of Engineering. On or about January 13, 1999, Respondent met with Department staff regarding his flyer. At that meeting, Department staff advised Respondent that although he had a master's degree in civil and structural engineering, because he was not licensed or registered as a professional engineer in the State of Florida, he could not simply refer to himself as an engineer. Rather, he also had to indicate that he had a degree in civil and structural engineering and the name and location of the university where he obtained the degree. The flyer, which was the basis for the complaint in DBPR Case No. 98-21925, had stated only that Respondent was a civil and structural engineer, but made no mention of his educational credentials. However, based on the information the Department gave to Respondent, he modified his initial flyer to include the fact that he had a master's degree with distinction from the University of Bratislava in Europe. Additionally, in the modified version of the flyer, Respondent deleted the reference to his being called to conduct an "Engineer's re-inspection." Rather, the revised flyer stated that Respondent had been called on a number of occasions for a "re-inspection." In the revised flyer, Respondent made the following two changes: I am a Civil and Structural Engineer (Master's Degree with distinction from University of Bratislava - Europe). * * * As there are few inspectors eagerly killing some deals, I have been called on number of occasions for a re-inspection. On or about January 13, 1999, Respondent provided the Department with an affidavit and a copy of the revised flyer. In the affidavit, Respondent stated that he did not intend to deceive the public and had changed the flyer pursuant to the Department's instructions and recommendations. The revised flyer was reviewed and approved by the Department. On January 24, 1999, after the Department reviewed Respondent's affidavit and revised flyer, it issued a Closing Order. The Closing Order found that probable cause existed to believe that Respondent violated Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, and noted that the Department had issued a Notice to Cease and Desist to him. Finally, the Closing Order stated that because "the unlicensed activity" had ceased, the case would be closed without further prosecution. On or about June 8, 2000, the Florida Engineers Management Corporation received a complaint against Respondent. Included with the letter of complaint was a letter dated October 23, 1996, that appeared to be from Respondent to someone for whom he had performed an inspection. This complaint was written on stationery with the letterhead of Advanced Building Inspections, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida. The complaint referred to in paragraph 21 stated that the October 23, 1996, letter attached thereto was documentation of a "past structural inspection." The complaint further alleged that Respondent, whose name appeared on the letterhead of the October 23, 1996, letter and who appeared to have signed the letter, was not in the Department's computer. The implication was that Respondent was not a registered or professional engineer in the State of Florida. The Department took no action against Respondent as a result of the allegations in the June 8, 2000, complaint. However, during the course of the Department's investigation of that complaint, the Department requested that Respondent provide a copy of his current business stationery and business card. On or about October 25, 2000, Respondent provided to the Department the documents it had requested as a part of its investigation of the June 2000 complaint filed against Respondent. In addition to sending the requested documents to the Department, Respondent also sent a letter which stated that the Department had advised him some time ago to "include the city/place of my university with my qualification." In referring to his letterhead and business card, Respondent wrote, "As you can see, I have complied with this request, whenever, I refer to my engineering degree." Finally, Respondent stated that his business cards were printed about eight years ago and that because he does not use them often, "instead of wasting the old ones and printing new ones," he had added the requested information by hand. The address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address were inscribed on the letterhead of the stationery provided to the Department by Respondent. Also, inscribed on the letterhead just above this information was the following: Frank V. Burianek, MSC, MBA Civil and Structural Engineer (Bratislava) As requested, Respondent also provided the Department with one of his business cards. In the center of the business card, in all capital letters and in bold print was "HOME INSPECTION." In the lower left corner of the business card was the following: Frank Burianek MSC, MBA Civil and Structural Engineer (Bratislava) Respondent's name, educational degrees earned, and "Civil and Structural Engineer," were inscribed on Respondent's business card. "(Bratislava)" was hand-written just below the words, "Civil and Structural Engineer." Bratislava is the name of the university where Respondent earned his Master of Science Degree and the name of the city where the university is located. Because the name and location of the university were the same, rather than writing, "Bratislava, Bratislava," Respondent wrote only "Bratislava." Respondent had seen business cards of other individuals that had only included the name of the university where they had earned their degrees. Based on this and the Department's prior instructions, Respondent believed that the addition of "Bratislava" to his letterhead and business cards was acceptable, particularly in view of the fact that the name of the university and the city where it is located are identical. In the lower right-hand corner of the business card, Respondent's telephone number, including the area code of "813", was inscribed. On the business card, Respondent had crossed out the "813" area code and had written above it the new area code of "727." In the January 13, 1999, meeting with Department staff, Respondent was specifically advised how his flyer should be modified so as to avoid the perception that he was a professional engineer, licensed by the State of Florida. Based on Respondent's understanding of the Department's instructions given at that meeting and its approval of his revised flyer, Respondent reasonably believed that he could use the title, "Civil and Structural Engineer" because he had earned a degree in that area, if he included his educational credentials. In light of the Department's instructions and recommendations, Respondent revised the flyer. In that revised version, Respondent stated, "I am a Civil and Structural Engineer (Master's Degree with distinction, from University of Bratislava - Europe)." The Department approved this revised version of the flyer. The instructions and suggestions that the Department staff gave to Respondent in January 1999 specifically addressed the flyer that was the subject of the complaint filed in DBPR Case No. 98-21925. However, Respondent reasonably assumed that the substance of those instructions and/or recommendations should apply to his other business documents and advertisements. The language on Respondent's letterhead and business card complies with the instructions and recommendations given to him by the Department on or about January 13, 1999, and do not tend to indicate that Respondent is a registered engineer in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order that dismisses Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank V. Burianek Post Office Box 4563 Seminole, Florida 33775 David K. Minacci, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Doug Sunshine, Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Based upon the foregoing and in consideration of Pitts' failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, the following Findings of Fact are made in this matter: On or about December 12, 2007, J2J filed a form entitled, "Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Political Committees and Electioneering Communication Organizations" with the Florida Division of Elections (the "Division"). The form designated Pitts as the chairman and treasurer of J2J. The Division then sent Pitts a letter dated December 14, 2007, providing directions concerning the filing of a Committee Campaign Treasurer's Report ("Report") by J2J in accordance with the campaign financing requirements set forth in chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2007). Pitts received the letter from the Division. By letter dated April 13, 2009, the Division notified Pitts that J2J had failed to file the Report which had been due on April 10, 2009. Pitts received the letter from the Division concerning the overdue Report. The Division sent a follow-up letter to Pitts dated April 27, 2009, concerning the delinquent Report. Pitts received the letter from the Division. As of the date of its Motion for Summary Final Order, the Division had not received the Report from Pitts. J2J is in violation of the campaign financing requirements for political committees in Florida. The Division deems Pitts' failure to file the Report for J2J to be a willful violation of the Florida campaign financing laws.
The Issue Whether Respondent's proposed award of a contract to Intervenor is contrary to statutes, rules, policies, or the bid specifications, pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 14, 2003, Respondent advertised for bids by way of an invitation to bid (ITB) for Contract Number E3C42, Maintenance Financial Project Number 40952917201. This would be a "Push Button" contract for the replacement of damaged guardrails along various roadways in Okaloosa and Walton Counties. Pursuant to this Contract, the successful bidder would respond upon notice, and repair or replace guardrails, or take other measures to ensure safety of the traveling public. The bid solicitation and contract were issued pursuant to Section 337.11, Florida Statutes. All bidders had to certify compliance with Florida Statutes and other applicable law, and all contractors were held to strict compliance with all legal requirements. There were no protests to the terms and conditions of the bid solicitation. The instant challenge does not allege non-compliance with the statutes or terms of the ITB generally. The challenge is whether award of the bid to Intervenor, as a non-profit corporation, is "contrary to competition." This maintenance contract does not require that the contractor be pre-qualified pursuant to Section 334.14, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code. Four bidders responded to the solicitation, with the apparent low bidder being Intervenor, and the apparent second low bidder being Petitioner. Respondent posted its intended award of the contract to Intervenor, and Petitioner timely filed a protest that initiated this proceeding. Intervenor is a not-for-profit corporation created under the provisions of Chapter 617, Florida Statutes. As such, pursuant to Sections 617.0301 and 617.2001, Florida Statutes, Intervenor can engage in any lawful purpose not for pecuniary profit. As a not-for-profit corporation, Intervenor may receive certain tax breaks and other economic advantages not enjoyed by a for-profit corporation. Petitioner is a for-profit corporation. No evidence exists that Intervenor is not capable and responsible to perform the work. Intervenor is qualified to contract with Respondent for the performance of work related to the construction and maintenance of transportation-related facilities by youths enrolled in youth work experience programs, pursuant to Section 334.351, Florida Statutes. Respondent spends appropriations under this section, and Intervenor is the recipient of such contracts. However, the instant contract will not be let under Section 334.351, Florida Statutes, but pursuant to Section 337.11, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the protest filed by Petitioner be dismissed and Respondent shall award the subject contract to Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 24th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Bottcher, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Brant Hargrove, Esquire Law Office of Brant Hargrove 2984 Wellington Circle, West Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Timothy Patrick Driscoll, Esquire Timothy Patrick Driscoll, P.A. 101 First Avenue South, Suite 340 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
