The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from working with children.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) was responsible for administration of a program whereby Departmental employees were screened for employment with the Department to ensure that only persons qualified though training, experience, and behavior had direct contact with clients of the Department. Petitioner, Brian Reed, was employed by ACTS as a drug laboratory technician on the alcohol, drugs, and mental health, (ADM), side of Bradlee Manor, a residential facility operated by the DJJ. Bradlee Manor also operates a program for the DJJ for children between the ages of 10 and 13 who have been convicted of felony offenses. Mr. Reed also worked on the department’s side of the facility for about six months when the facility first opened, but found that he did not like it. His preference was to work with children with a substance abuse problem, and as a result, he was transferred to the ADM side of the facility. He does not want to work on the Department’s side but instead wants to continue working with the substance abuse residents because he is good at it and he likes it. However, as a part of his job it is necessary for him to come into contact with the DJJ residents from time to time for such things as lab work, and serving as a driver when no one else is available. Throughout his five and a half years of employment at the institution, Petitioner has received periodic performance appraisals. At first, admittedly, he had some minor problems with the accomplishment of his duties, but as he learned the requirements of his job, his difficulties disappeared. At no time were any of his problems related to his discipline or inappropriate behavior, and only on one report was his performance classified as conditional. On all other reports he has been rated either satisfactory or above satisfactory. There are no recorded instances of inappropriate behavior recorded in Petitioner’s employment file. In fact, the supervisor who at one time rated him lower than satisfactory later requested Petitioner be reassigned with him to a new facility. Petitioner has a criminal record. In June 1983, when he was a young man, he was arrested for car theft and for stealing a radio from the car and pawning it. At the time of this offense, Petitioner was 18 years old and almost consistently under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and he admits to having committed the offense to get money to support his habit. He was, at the time, living with his father who was also a drunk. As a result of this offense, adjudication was withheld and Petitioner was placed on two years probation which he subsequently violated in October 1983 by stealing his step- father’s truck. Again adjudication was withheld, but in February 1984, Petitioner was arrested for grand larceny and dealing in stolen property. Though the grand larceny charge was dropped, he was convicted on dealing in stolen property and was incarcerated. He claims that during this period, he was still on drugs and his offenses related to his habit. On October 13, October 15, and November 5, 1985, Petitioner was arrested on a total of 12 counts of burglary and grand larceny and was found guilty of all counts. He was sentenced to four and one half years confinement with a recommendation by the sentencing judge that he be confined in a facility where drug rehabilitation treatment was available. Petitioner remained in prison until he was released in July 1987. While in prison, Petitioner contends he realized he must change his life and weaned himself from drugs and alcohol, both of which were available in prison. On his release he entered a 12-step program for help with his alcohol and drug problem and is still enrolled. It is a life-time commitment, and he attends meetings two or three times a week. He has been drug and alcohol free since January 1988, when he had two glasses of wine on his wedding anniversary. He has not had any adverse involvement with the law since his discharge from prison, and is currently engaged to be married a second time. He owns a home and has a three-year-old son. He owns animals, fishes for a hobby, and associates only with people who do not drink or take drugs. When Petitioner was first hired by the DHRS, the predecessor agency to the DJJ, he made a complete disclosure of his criminal record and was cleared for employment by the Department’s screening process. By letter of August 19, 1993, James E. Thomas, the District Screening Coordinator for DHRS’s District Six, advised ACTS Inc., Petitioner’s employer, that the screening background check on Petitioner had been completed and had found nothing which would disqualify him from working in the ACTS program. The screening was considered to be valid for five years. Between 1993 and 1998, the Florida Legislature changed the statute to include misconduct of the nature committed by Petitioner among the bases for disqualification. By letter dated April 1, 1998, Priscilla A. Zachary, Background Screening Unit Supervisor for the DJJ, advised Petitioner that he was ineligible for continued employment in a position of special trust because of his prior criminal record. The record relied upon for this determination was identical to that made known to the DHRS when Petitioner was first hired and cleared by that agency. No additional of different misconduct was involved. Petitioner was also advised of his right to request an exemption from disqualification and he did so. By letter dated April 16, 1998, Jenny Spence, the ACTS program supervisor for the program in which Petitioner was employed, supported Petitioner’s continued employment, pointing out that one of the main concepts under which the organization operates is to support the employment of individuals who have made unfavorable choices in the past, have been rehabilitated, and are now leading productive lives. Petitioner is a prime example of such an individual, and was considered to be of good moral character now. Ms. Stone also pointed out that Petitioner had made full disclosure of his background and had been cleared for employment by the predecessor agency. On April 21, 1998, a District Screening Committee was appointed to consider Petitioner’s request for exemption. One of the members of the committee was Donald W. Lewis, a senior management analyst II, who has served on numerous exemption committees. As was pointed out in the letter of appointment, Mr. Lewis indicated the role of the committee is to look at the material presented, to listen to the evidence presented, and to make a determination if there is sufficient evidence to indicate the applicant’s employment should be continued, consistent with the guidelines provided by the Department. The committee met on April 28, 1998, and heard the Petitioner’s presentation. Petitioner testified in person, describing his offenses, his previous problems and how he had dealt with them, and his rehabilitation efforts. Petitioner also presented testimony from others by telephone and introduced documentary evidence in his behalf. He was completely forthcoming and gave the committee all the information it requested. The open session of the committee meeting lasted approximately one and a half hours. Petitioner did not ask for additional time nor did he ask to submit additional information. After Petitioner was excused, the committee immediately deliberated in closed session and, after considering all the information which had been presented, concluded unanimously that Petitioner should not be granted the exemption. The factors on which the committee relied in its decision were, in the main: the fact that Petitioner’s criminal record was so extensive as to both gravity and repetition. (Even while on probation, and after release from [the first] incarceration, Petitioner committed additional offenses.) the fact that Petitioner was twice incarcerated. Petitioner’s violation of probation. All of the above factors were not the characteristics that were desired in the DJJ programs contracted to ACTS. Mr. Lewis sees a difference between ADM residents and DJJ residents. In his opinion, Petitioner should not be in direct supervision of DJJ residents with his criminal background, but could work in other programs with children for other agencies. He is of the opinion that DJJ residents, themselves felony offenders, should have role models who do not have criminal backgrounds. According to Mr. Lewis, the committee found some degree of rehabilitation in Petitioner, but not enough evidence to show total rehabilitation. Such evidence would include presentations from people to show no likelihood of relapse, notwithstanding the extended period of time which has already elapsed since his last offense without relapse, and Petitioner’s successful and continuing participation in the 12-step program. Mr. Lewis was unable to state what objective information would be enough. He compares Petitioner with other employees who have not been convicted or incarcerated, but admits there are no objective definitions of what would be enough evidence to demonstrate complete rehabilitation. The committee took the position that Petitioner’s moral character has been good recently, but contrasted that with his youthful record. This was enough, it was believed, to give a legitimate concern about his relapsing. Another concern expressed by Mr. Lewis, but which was not raised by any of the evidence presented, is that Petitioner might have learned conduct while in prison which might make him a danger to children. No evidence to give rise to that suspicion was presented and it is pure speculation. The Department’s Inspector General, Mr. Perry Turner, pointed out that the number one goal of the Department is to improve the environment so that citizens can have a reduction in fear of crime and a better quality of life as a result of a reduction in juvenile delinquency. In hiring employees, both departmental and contract, the Department applies three priorities. The first is the public safety. The second is cooperation with communities. The third is accountability by offenders and the Department. Employment screening standards are applicable to both the Department and contractor employees. The screening process is overseen by the Inspector General who sits as action officer on exemption requests after the screening by the exemption committee. In the instant case, Mr. Turner reviewed the Petitioner’s file and the record of the committee, and based on the entire package, decided to deny the request for exemption. His reasons for doing so rest on Petitioner’s extensive criminal record, the severity of the acts committed, his double incarceration, and his violations of probation along with all the information submitted by Petitioner. The issue is whether Petitioner should be allowed to work with the special needs clients of the DJJ, and whether he could be a good role model for children already involved with the criminal justice system. Considering the criminal justice purpose of the agency, as opposed to its social service purpose, and consistent with the dictates of the enabling statute, Mr. Turner concluded the exemption should be denied. Petitioner disagrees with the position taken by Mr. Turner. In his opinion, he would be an appropriate role model for the young people incarcerated in the department’s facility. His success and rehabilitation would, he claims, show that an individual who was on drugs and alcohol, who gave up those substances, and who applied himself to making a better life for himself, can, with appropriate help, guidance, and assistance, make good. Ms. Loretta Longworth, an administrative assistant in personnel management for ACTS, is the individual who submitted the screening request for Petitioner. She recalls that when Petitioner was hired in 1993, he disclosed his complete criminal history which was forwarded to the DHRS. That agency approved him without restriction. Since that time, Petitioner has worked successfully for ACTS in a number of different positions, including serving as a direct care worker for children and as a shift supervisor. Based on their experience with Petitioner, ACTS has no reason to believe he is not of good moral character. He has demonstrated no problems, nor has he received any bad reports, and there is no reason to believe he would be a danger to children who would come into contact with him. Much the same opinion is held by Kenneth Hogue, Petitioner’s long-time supervisor at Bradley Manor, and the individual who hired Petitioner at ACTS more than five years ago. Petitioner made him aware of his criminal background at that time, and over the several years he has supervised Petitioner, has found his performance to be above satisfactory. In fact, he asked Petitioner to go with him from one facility to another. Though his experience with Petitioner is purely work- based, Mr. Hogue finds Petitioner to be of good moral character and has no reason to believe Petitioner would pose any danger to children. Mr. Hogue does not believe a criminal record by itself should be disqualifying. The individual is the issue, and Petitioner’s story is a prime example of learning from mistakes and succeeding. Mr. Hogue has no reservations at all about Petitioner working with DJJ residents. Based on his day-to-day observation of Petitioner, he finds Petitioner to be a positive role model for young people. In Hogue’s opinion, it is important to have both reformed malefactors and individuals with clean records working with children in the juvenile justice system. Lawrence Douglas, a personal friend and prior co-worker, and himself a recovering alcoholic, works as an addiction counselor at another facility. He found Petitioner to be very good with clients who gave orderly directions and never posed a threat to the clients. According to Mr. Douglas, it is not unusual for recovering substance abusers to work in counseling, and they are usually good at it. Petitioner is, and Hogue does not believe Petitioner, who he finds to be of good moral character, would pose any threat to his clients. Nadine Griffith, a teacher in Hillsborough County, met Petitioner at a Narcotics Anonymous meeting about 12 years ago and sees him weekly at their home group sessions. She has observed Petitioner in the company of juveniles in their recovery group, and from those repeated observations does not believe he would be any danger to juveniles. Juveniles seem to like Petitioner and come to him for guidance. He passes his substantial recovery experience on to these juveniles, and this is helpful to their recovery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a Final Order granting Brian Reed an exemption from disqualification from employment to work in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary L. Greenwood, Esquire Greenwood & Associates Law Group, P.A. 2130 West Brandon Boulevard Suite 101 Brandon, Florida 33511 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Inspector General’s Office 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Commission as a correctional officer on July 1, 1981, and was issued Certificate Number 33-81-500-00. At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was employed by the Collier County Sheriff's Office and was assigned to work with inmates in the county jail. In the course of his duties, Respondent Parks became acquainted with a young female inmate, Melissa Sue Watson. After her release from jail, the Respondent continued to see the woman socially. As part of their relationship, the Respondent would occasionally give the woman money or anything else she requested that he was able to provide for her. While the Respondent and the young woman eventually became sexually intimate, the money was not given to her in direct exchange for sexual services. Instead, the money and other requested items were bestowed as gifts to demonstrate his affection and to assure that she would continue to allow a married man of his years to court her. Due to the fact that Respondent's wife was in charge of the family finances, the sums of money given to the young woman were sparse. These gifts amounted to little more that the Respondent's spare change and lunch money. After the relationship progressed to the stage where the parties had become sexually intimate, the young woman asked the Respondent to get her some marijuana. She was provided with the pipe and marijuana the Respondent had confiscated from his teenaged son. The Respondent smoked the marijuana with the young woman. During her relationship with the Respondent, the young woman had an ongoing relationship of a different kind with another member of the Collier County's Sheriff Department. Melissa Sue Watson was a confidential informer for Linda Leis, a narcotics investigator with the Vice-Intelligence-Narcotics Unit (VIN Unit). She assisted Ms. Leis in the arrest of several narcotics violators prior to her report that Respondent Parks had given her money and marijuana in exchange for sex. Ms. Watson gave the investigator the pipe used to smoke the marijuana. A field test confirmed that it had contained marijuana. The young woman was told to arrange an assignation with the Respondent so his actions could be documented and an arrest made if the allegations were well-founded. Pursuant to instructions from Ms. Leis, the woman placed a telephone call to the Respondent which was recorded by the sheriff's department. The Respondent was asked to join Ms. Watson at White's Motel after work. Ms. Watson requested that the Respondent bring money and marijuana because she needed funds and wanted "to get high." In response to her invitation, Respondent told Ms. Watson that he would meet her and that he had ten dollars she could have. However, he was unable to provide marijuana because he did not know where to get it. When she inquired as to where he got the marijuana in the pipe, he teased her by withholding the information. Eventually, after she prodded him for an answer, he agreed with her suggestion that he had grown the marijuana in order to stop the inquiry. He told her there was no more and closed the topic. In fact, the Respondent had not grown the marijuana. As mentioned previously, he confiscated it from his son. When the Respondent arrived at the hotel, members of the VIN Unit had already installed listening and recording devices in the room. They waited in the adjoining room to take pictures and make an arrest once it was determined that Respondent Parks had given Melissa Sue Watson money for sex. During the motel room conversations between Respondent and Ms. Watson, the Respondent expressed concern about Ms. Watson's failure to appear in court that morning on a new pending criminal charge. She feigned surprise about having been on the court docket and stressed her need for money. She teased the Respondent during their foreplay that she had something for him if he had the money he said he was bringing to her. Because the Respondent was expected home shortly, he handed Ms. Watson the money he brought to give to her when she asked to see it. Based upon their prior relationship and the contents of the recorded conversations, the giving of the money and the sexual activity between the parties were concurrent actions that were not connected to each other. They occurred at the same time because the parties were involved in a clandestine, adulterous affair that allowed them to see each other on an infrequent basis. Once the Respondent stripped down to his underwear in order to proceed further with the sex play, members of the VIN Unit entered the room and placed the Respondent under arrest. After he waived his right to receive the Miranda warning, the Respondent admitted to having had sex with Melissa Sue Watson in the past and having smoked marijuana with her that he had provided at her request.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of unlawfully, delivering less than twenty grams of cannabis to another person and of constructive possession as set forth in Paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) of the Administrative Complaint. That the Respondent be found not guilty of having engaged in prostitution with another person, as set forth in Paragraph 2(c) of the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent's certificate as a correctional officer be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 12th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-6766 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Accepted. See HO #7. 4. Accepted. See HO #7. 5. Accepted. See HO #7. 6. Accepted. See HO #8. 7. Accepted. See HO #9. 8. Accepted. 9. Accepted. See HO #10. 10. Accepted. See HO #10. 11. Accepted. See HO #10. 12. Accepted. See HO #11. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #12-#13. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #16. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #16. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #14. Copies furnished to: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Al Beatty, Qualified Representative c/o Clyde W. Parks 5226 Jennings Street Naples, Florida 33962 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is eligible for an exemption from disqualification from working with children.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at hearing established the facts that follow. In 2000, Petitioner Sonia Leggs-Stewart (“Leggs- Stewart”) sought employment with at least two entities that provide services under contract to Respondent Department of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”). These two providers are the Dade Marine Institute, Inc. (the “Institute”) and Youth Services International/Everglades Academy (the “Academy”). The positions that Leggs-Stewart sought entailed contact with children. As a condition of applying for such employment, she was required to consent to a background investigation. Further, the employment applications that Leggs- Stewart completed and submitted to these two providers included queries pertaining to the applicant’s criminal record. Finally, Leggs-Stewart, as required for employment, executed and delivered to each prospective employer an Affidavit of Good Moral Character (the “Affidavit”). The Affidavit is a DJJ form. In it are listed 45 consecutively numbered criminal offenses, each identified by a citation to the applicable section of the Florida Statutes and a brief description of the crime. The affiant must either (a) attest that she has not been convicted of any of these disqualifying offenses “or of any similar offense in another jurisdiction” or (b) disclose any such convictions.1 Above the notary’s signature line on the Affidavit are two separate statements. The affiant is supposed to certify the accuracy of one or the other by signing below the applicable statement. These are the options: I attest that I have read the above carefully and state that my attestation here is true and correct that neither my adult nor juvenile record contains any of the listed offenses. I understand, under penalty of perjury, all employees in such positions of trust and responsibility shall attest to meeting the requirements for qualifying for employment and agreeing to inform the employer immediately if arrested of any of the disqualifying offenses. I also understand that it is my responsibility to obtain clarification on anything contained in this affidavit which I do not understand prior to signing. I am aware that any omissions, falsifications, misstatements or misrepresentations may disqualify me from employment consideration and, if I am hired, may be grounds for termination at a later date. SIGNATURE OF AFFIANT OR To the best of my knowledge and belief, my record contains one or more of the disqualifying acts or offenses listed above. (If you have previously been granted an exemption for this disqualifying offense, please attach a copy of the letter granting exemption.) (Please circle the offense(s) contained in your record.) SIGNATURE OF AFFIANT (emphasis added). Leggs-Stewart applied for employment with the Academy in March 2000. On the employment application, she answered “yes” to the question: “Have you ever been convicted of a felony or a first degree misdemeanor?” Leggs-Stewart explained that she had been convicted in February 1991 of “possession with intent to distribute cocaine.” On the corresponding Affidavit, however, which she executed on March 13, 2000, Leggs-Stewart incongruously signed below the first certificate (meaning no convictions) and failed to circle any of the listed offenses, including this one: [Chapter 893, Florida Statutes,] relating to drug abuse possession and control if the offense was a felony or if any other person involved in the offense was a minor (this includes charges of possession of controlled substances, the sale of controlled substances, intent to sell controlled substances, trafficking in controlled substances, and possession of drug paraphernalia, etc.) The record is silent as to whether the Academy offered Leggs-Stewart a job; there is no evidence that she worked for the Academy. In December 2000, Leggs-Stewart applied for a job with the Institute. The employment application asked: “Have you ever been committed [sic] or convicted of a crime, pled guilty or nolo contendere, had a pretrial intervention or withheld adjudication? Yes NO If yes, give dates and type of action: .” Leggs-Stewart left these lines blank. Also, as before in connection with her application to the Academy, Leggs-Stewart signed the Affidavit below the first certificate and circled none of the listed offenses. The Institute hired Leggs-Stewart to work in a program for youth called W.I.N.G.S. for Life South Florida. Some months later, in June 2001, DJJ notified Leggs- Stewart that an investigation of her background had uncovered arrests for, on one occasion in 1990, federal charges involving the importation and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and, on another in 1989, an unrelated state aggravated assault charge.2 She was asked to furnish DJJ with a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the disqualifying offenses, to complete a new Affidavit, and to explain why the previous Affidavit failed to indicate any disqualifying offenses. On July 3, 2001, Leggs-Stewart executed a new Affidavit on which she circled the disqualifying offenses of aggravated battery and drug trafficking. In a letter of that same date, Leggs-Stewart wrote to DJJ: In regards to the Affidavit of Good Moral Character and providing a detailed explanation as to why the original affidavit was not truthful, to be honest I completed the affidavit in accordance to what my supervisor, at that time instructed me to do. I diligent [sic] explained the incidents to him and I personally did not identify which offense to circle for the Arrest #2 [aggravated assault] due to nothing never happen [sic] in court to my knowledge. In regards to Arrest #1 [drug trafficking], I believe that we, (both my supervisor and I) focused on the second part of the offense description that mentioned involving a minor which was his primary concern. I did not intentionally mean to mislead anyone regarding these offenses. The basic material facts concerning Leggs-Stewart’s arrest and conviction on drug-related criminal charges were not disputed. Leggs-Stewart was arrested in late 1990 by federal authorities for bringing cocaine into the United States from Panama. She was charged with two counts relating to this criminal activity. In February 1991, Leggs-Stewart pleaded guilty before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. (The second count relating to importation was dismissed.) The court sentenced Leggs-Stewart to four years in prison followed by five years of supervised release. Leggs- Stewart served her time and successfully completed probation. She has not been in trouble with the law since her arrest for the federal drug crime. Leggs-Stewart requested an exemption from disqualification from employment. As a result, an informal hearing on the matter was conducted on August 8, 2001, by a committee of three individuals whose responsibility was to make a recommendation to the ultimate decision maker, DJJ’s Inspector General. In a report dated August 9, 2000, the committee unanimously recommended that Leggs-Stewart be granted an exemption from disqualification, citing factors showing her rehabilitation. DJJ’s Inspector General disagreed with the committee, however, and decided that the exemption should be denied. Ultimate Factual Determinations The undisputed circumstances surrounding Leggs- Stewart’s conviction for drug possession demonstrate that the offense was more than a mere youthful indiscretion. Smuggling cocaine into the United States from a foreign country with intent to distribute is a serious crime. While there are no identifiable victims of Leggs-Stewart’s criminal misconduct, trafficking in cocaine is an offense that both the federal and state governments have deemed, as a matter of public policy, to be harmful to society as a whole. The gravity of Leggs- Stewart’s offense clearly “raises the bar” in terms of establishing rehabilitation. To her credit, Leggs-Stewart by all appearances has turned her life around. She is married and raising a family, owns a home, has attended community college, and has been gainfully employed since being released from prison. In short, she is now leading a stable and responsible life. These factors demonstrate that Leggs-Stewart has been largely, if not completely, restored to the capacity of law-abiding citizen. In addition, more than 11 years have passed since Leggs-Stewart’s arrest and conviction, and she has not been arrested during that time. This consideration also favors a finding of rehabilitation. Leggs-Stewart does not presently pose a danger to the safety or well being of children. However, the Affidavits that Leggs-Stewart signed—— wherein she attested, incorrectly, that her criminal record was clean——are a problem. Even if Leggs-Stewart’s explanations for nondisclosure are accepted3, the inescapable fact is that the Affidavits were not truthful, and she reasonably should have known that.4 Leggs-Stewart knew when she executed the Affidavits that she had served time in a federal prison on a serious drug charge. She knew (or reasonably should have known) that the list of disqualifying offenses in the Affidavit specifically included “possession of controlled substances” and “intent to sell controlled substances”——plainly apposite descriptions of the crime to which she had pleaded guilty. And she knew that any omissions or misstatement might be grounds for disqualification or termination. Yet, she attested under oath that her criminal record contained none of the listed disqualifying offenses. Thus, it is determined that while Leggs-Stewart did not intend to defraud her prospective employers, she nevertheless culpably misrepresented her past. In failing to disclose her criminal record, Leggs-Stewart committed acts tinged with dishonesty.5 Considered in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances, Leggs-Stewart’s willingness to be untruthful in applying for a position of trust and responsibility in a program for youth or children, regardless of her motivation, causes the trier of fact some hesitancy about the completeness of her rehabilitation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order denying Leggs-Stewart an exemption from disqualification from working with children. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 20th day of March, 2002.
The Issue The central issue in this case, and the only issue that needs to be addressed, is whether the Respondent made material misrepresentations on her 1994 and 1996 applications for employment with the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a school bus driver employed by the Palm Beach County School Board. The Respondent holds a non- instructional employee annual contract. The Respondent applied for her current position in 1994 and again in 1996. She was not hired when she applied in 1994. On November 28, 1994, the Respondent, as part of her employment application, certified on the Applicant Security Check form that she had never been convicted or received a penalty (imprisonment, probation, fines, court costs, etc.) from a judge or a law enforcement agency, for a crime other than minor traffic infractions. Respondent also certified, however, that she received a fine of $110.00 in 1979 for fighting; that she was arrested in 1988 for fighting but not charged; and that she received a ticket in 1992, for which she was put on probation. On a second Applicant Security Check form, signed and dated June 27, 1996, Respondent certified that she had, in fact, been convicted or received a penalty for a crime other than a minor traffic infraction, but only provided the same three incidents previously listed on her November 28, 1994, application. Shortly after the 1996 application, the Petitioner offered the Respondent a job. The Respondent accepted the offer and began work shortly thereafter. Consistent with its usual practice, when the Respondent started work for the Petitioner, the Petitioner obtained a set of fingerprints from the Respondent and sent the fingerprints to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and to the FBI along with a request for criminal history information regarding the Respondent. By early January of 1997, the Petitioner received information which caused it to believe that the Respondent had a more extensive criminal history than had been reported on her 1994 or her 1996 employment applications. The Petitioner was specifically concerned about four specific incidents not mentioned in the applications on which it believed the Respondent had been fined and/or adjudicated guilty as a result of criminal conduct. The Petitioner inquired further into the matter and also afforded the Respondent an opportunity to explain why she had not disclosed on her applications the four incidents that were of concern to the Petitioner. Thereafter, apparently dissatisfied with the Respondent's explanations, the Petitioner notified the Respondent that she was being charged with "falsification of application," and that she would be suspended and terminated. The only evidence in the record of this case that could arguably be described as tending to prove that the Respondent was convicted of criminal violations she failed to disclose on the 1994 and the 1996 applications is, at best, second-hand or third- hand hearsay, none of which would be admissible over objection in a civil action. In other words, there is no competent substantial evidence that the Respondent was ever convicted of any crime other than the ones she disclosed on the 1994 and 1996 applications.1
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case to the following effect: (1) dismissing the Petition For Suspension Without Pay And Dismissal on the basis of insufficient evidence, (2) vacating the Respondent's suspension and restoring the Respondent to her position of employment, and (3) awarding back pay to the Respondent from the date of her suspension until the date she is reinstated to her position of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1997.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's request for an exemption from employment disqualification should be approved.
Findings Of Fact In or about April 1999, Petitioner, Darlene Renfroe, submitted a State of Florida Employment Application to Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice (Department), for employment as a group treatment leader, a caretaker/direct contact position. Among the information sought on the application was a response to the question "[h]ave you ever been convicted of a felony or a first degree misdemeanor?" Petitioner respondent "yes" to the question and elaborated that she had been convicted of "Possession of Control[led] Substance" in Miami, Florida, on April 1, 1986. Accompanying the application was a copy of the Indictment filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (Case No. 85-937CR-Scott) which charged that on or about November 23, 1985, at Miami International Airport, Dade County, Florida, Petitioner knowingly and intentionally imported into the United States (Count I), and knowingly and intentionally possessed with intent to distribute (Count II), at least one kilogram of cocaine, a Schedule II narcotic controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 952(a) and 960(a)(1), as to Count I, and Title 21, United State Code, Section 841(a)(1), as to Count II. The application was also accompanied by a three-page handwritten letter signed by Petitioner which offered her explanation of the events leading to her conviction. The position for which Petitioner applied, group treatment leader, is a position of special trust which requires, as a condition of employment, a successful background screening process to exclude the possibility that Petitioner was ever found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to certain enumerated disqualifying offenses under Florida law or similar offenses in another jurisdiction. If the screening process reveals a disqualifying offense, the applicant is not qualified for employment unless a request for exemption (pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes) is approved. Notably, among the disqualifying offenses is a violation of "Chapter 893 relating to drug abuse prevention and control if the offense was a felony . . . (. . . includ[ing] charges of possession of controlled substances, the sale of controlled substances, intent to sell controlled substances, trafficking in controlled substances, and possession of drug paraphernalia, etc.)," an offense for which Petitioner (as disclosed by her application) had been convicted. To complete the Department's background screening, Petitioner also completed and submitted three additional documents: a Request for Preliminary FCIC/NCIC and DHSMV Screening Check form; a Consent to Background Screening form; and an Affidavit of Good Moral Character.1 On May 27, 1999, the Department completed its background screening process. That process revealed (consistent with Petitioner's disclosure) that on April 1, 1986, Petitioner pled guilty to and was adjudicated guilty of the offense of "knowingly and intentionally import[ing] into the United States from a place outside thereof, a Schedule II controlled narcotic substance, that is a quantity of cocaine, at least one kilogram, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 952(a) and 960(a)(1), as charged in Count I of the Indictment. Count II of the Indictment was dismissed upon motion of the United States attorney. As a penalty for such offense, Petitioner was committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative for imprisonment for a period of three years and six months. Petitioner served a two-year term of confinement at Women's Federal Correctional Institute, Lexington, Kentucky (released April 1, 1988), followed by a six- month term at a half-way house and then was discharged. Upon completion of its background screening, the Department concluded that (based on her conviction for importation of cocaine) Petitioner was disqualified from working in a position of trust; however, by letter of June 7, 1999, the Department accorded Petitioner an opportunity to request an exemption pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes. That letter reasonably advised Petitioner of her obligation to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she had been rehabilitated and that she would not present a danger if accorded employment in a position of special trust. Among the items requested for Department review (in passing on a request for exemption) were the following:2 A detailed, written and notarized description of the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the disqualifying criminal offense. The time period which has elapsed since the offense. Whether there was any harm caused to victims and the nature of that harm. Your personal history since the offense (work, education, civic, religious history, etc.). And, such other circumstances as shall be sufficient to indicate that you will not present a danger to the safety or well-being of juveniles. A statement as to whether you have been involved in any other criminal offenses either prior or subsequent to the commission of the disqualifying offense. * * * Letters of support/recommendation from others indicating that you are of good moral character. If you were placed on probation/community control, certified documentation of successful completion of probation/community control. A statement as to what you believe you have to offer to juveniles and why you want to work with the Department of Juvenile Justice or a Provider Facility. Petitioner duly requested an exemption from disqualification and submitted the requested documentation to the Department. Upon review, Petitioner's request for exemption was denied. The Department's expressed rationale was stated in its Inspector General's letter of August 1, 1999, as follows: In order to reach a decision on your request, I have reviewed your criminal history and the supporting documentation you submitted. Based upon a careful review of all documentation, compelling evidence does not exist which would lead me to grant you an exemption. Therefore, your request is denied. As a criminal justice agency, this department has to exercise great care and caution in selecting those persons who are allowed to work with the juveniles entrusted to our care and custody. The letter further advised Petitioner of her right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to challenge the denial of her request for exemption. Petitioner filed a timely request for such a hearing and these proceedings duly-followed. Consistent with the Inspector General's conclusion that Petitioner had failed to convincingly demonstrate her entitlement to the requested exemption, the proof at hearing demonstrated that the crime to which Petitioner pled guilty and for which she was convicted ("knowingly and intentionally importing . . . a Schedule II controlled substance, that is a quantity of cocaine, at least one kilogram") gravely violated moral sentiment or accepted moral standards of the community, such that it could reasonably be said that Petitioner committed a crime of gravity involving moral turpitude.3 It may also be said, consistent with the Inspector General's observation, that Petitioner's explanation of the circumstances surrounding the criminal incident (as set forth in her letter of May 25, 1999, contained in Respondent's Exhibit number 1) appears, at best, fanciful. Finally, given the nature of the offense and Petitioner's age at the time (28 years), her conduct can hardly be characterized as youthful intemperance. Contrasted with the negative impression to be gleaned from the foregoing facts, the proof also provided some positive information. In this regard, the proof demonstrated that Petitioner successfully completed (with apparent good behavior) her term of incarceration; that she committed no other transgression; and that she has been continuously employed since her release (most recently by the State of Florida, Landmark Learning Center, as a behavior program associate, assisting and training mentally retarded children). Moreover, since January 1997, Petitioner has been licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Children and Family Services, to operate a foster home and currently has four children (two boys and two girls) under her care. Finally, among those who know her, Petitioner is considered truly remorseful for her misconduct, is believed to present a good role model for the youths she services, and is considered a reliable and trustworthy member of her community. While there are certainly accomplishments in Petitioner's life since her conviction which weigh favorably, it must be concluded (as urged by the Department) that the gravity of her offense, as well as her lack of candor regarding the circumstances surrounding the criminal incident, do not permit a conclusion to be drawn, with the requisite degree of certainty, that Petitioner stands rehabilitated. Stated differently, it must be concluded that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is currently rehabilitated and will not pose a danger or risk (if allowed employment) to the social, emotional, and intellectual development of the juveniles in her charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's request for exemption from employment disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 14th day of January, 2000.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has demonstrated eligibility for licensure as a resident life, including variable annuity, insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation and the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, documentary material received in evidence, stipulation of the parties, and evidentiary rulings during the hearings, and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant, material, and substantial facts are determined: The Department is the state agency responsible for the licensure of insurance agents in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2004). On October 4, 2004, Petitioner filed an online application with the Department seeking licensure as a resident life, including variable annuity, insurance agent. The online application form completed by Petitioner for the licensure at issue included the following question: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony or crime punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? Petitioner answered this question in the negative. On November 9, 2004, the Department sent a letter to Petitioner, requesting she provide, among other things, certified copies of court documents relating to her 1999 arrest in Hillsborough County, Florida, for child abuse. Petitioner found the above question to be confusing and in an attempt to be completely forthcoming, she sent the Department copies of two documents: (1) an August 9, 2004, letter to Petitioner from the Department of Corrections and (2) Petitioner's two-page printout regarding the Probation/Parole record. The Department received the referenced documents on November 23, 2004. Petitioner's criminal history established a November 18, 1999, arrest on two felony counts of aggravated child abuse. Petitioner had used an electric cord to spank her daughter as punishment for stealing and had left marks on the child as a result. The two-count information was filed in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Case No. 99-20373, on January 27, 2000. On December 13, 2000, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to one felony count of child abuse, as set forth in Count II of the information, and the second count pending against Petitioner was nolle prossed. The disposition of the case was that adjudication of guilt be withheld on the one felony count of child abuse and that Petitioner be placed on four years probation and required, inter alia, to complete parenting and anger management classes, which she did. Circumstances that resulted in Petitioner's plea involved her method of disciplining her daughter. Petitioner was born and grew up in Haiti and her method of punishment, spanking her daughter with electric cord, is culturally accepted. Spanking with electric cord leaves bruises and marks on the child spanked. Petitioner's testimony indicates that she learned through her anger management classes that the Haitian method of punishment is not considered appropriate, and other nonphysical methods would bring about desired results. Petitioner now has four children. She is employed by Lakeshore Villas, a nursing home where she is responsible for caring for elderly persons, as a full-time Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). To acquire her CNA license from the Department of Health (DOH), Petitioner testified that she reported her criminal history to the DOH, and no disciplinary action was taken by the agency because of her plea. Even though the answer to the criminal history question on her application for licensure was not correct, circumstances evident from evidence of record reveals that Petitioner, in fact, disclosed her criminal history to the Department prior to the Department's specific inquiry about that history. She testified that her "no" answer on the application was because she spent only two days in jail. Subsequently realizing the possibility of a misunderstanding, Petitioner, before a request by the Department, mailed documents to the Department that disclosed her criminal history. Viewed in the totality of circumstances, Petitioner's voluntary disclosure of her criminal history negates any reasonable inference or conclusion that Petitioner made an intentional "[m]aterial misstatement, misrepresentation, or fraud in . . . [her] attempt to obtain the licensure or appointment," Subsection 626.611(2), Florida Statutes (2004). Likewise, the simple fact that Petitioner (through misunderstanding) incorrectly answered the application question does not show that Petitioner's conduct demonstrated a "lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance." Notwithstanding the foregone findings, there is no evidence that Petitioner was under the age of 21 years when the crime was committed. There is no written documentation from the prosecuting attorney evidencing the belief that Petitioner posed no significant threat to public welfare if licensed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding that Petitioner did not attempt to obtain the license at issue through material misstatement, misrepresentation or fraud, but that Petitioner has not met the 15-year mandatory waiting period applicable to her criminal history and is, therefore, ineligible for licensure pursuant to Subsection 626.611(14), Florida Statutes (2004), and denying Petitioner's request for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 9th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Alia Baptiste Sossous 10310 Birdwatch Drive Tampa, Florida 33647 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement officer, failed to maintain good moral character by unlawfully acquiring or obtaining, or attempting to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge on or about July 16, 1999; by unlawfully withholding information from a medical practitioner from whom he sought to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance on or between April 1, 1999, and August 5, 1999; by corruptly using or attempting to use his official position as a law enforcement officer in such a manner as to secure a special privilege for himself or others, to wit: prepared a fictitious Offense/Incident Report as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Tad K. Moody, is a certified law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. He was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 160029 on February 11, 1996. Respondent was employed by the City of Tampa Police Department as a police officer during the period February 11, 1996, through May 19, 2000. In August of 1998, Respondent received an on-duty injury and was prescribed pain medications as a result. Respondent signed a contract with Dr. Greenberger stating that he would only receive controlled substances from Dr. Greenberger. Respondent went to several different doctors after August 1998 and received prescription pain medications from all of them. Respondent never advised his treating physicians that he was receiving Hydrocodone or other pain medication from each of his treating physicians. Respondent did not inform any of the physicians that he was receiving prescription pain medications from any of the other physicians. On or about July 16, 1999, Respondent reported to his treating physician’s office that his vehicle was stolen with his medication in it. Dr. Batas required substantiation of the theft in the form of an auto theft report prior to issuing additional medication. On or about July 16, 1999, Respondent prepared a false Tampa Police Department Offense/Incident Report, reporting that his vehicle containing medications had been stolen. He submitted it to Dr. Batas' office in order to receive additional medication. On August 4, 1999, Respondent presented a prescription for 90 Vicoprofen to the Eckerd Drug Store pharmacy at 1904 West Lumsden in Brandon, Florida. Dr. Steven J. Tresser, M.D., had written Respondent a prescription on August 4, 1999, for 40, not 90, Vicoprofen. The Eckerd Drug Store personnel identified Respondent as the individual who submitted the altered prescription for Vicoprofen or Hydrocodone. Respondent admitted to Detective Lusczynski, during an interview, that he had an addiction problem due to the back pain he suffered as a result of the injury he received in 1998. In late 1999, Respondent was charged with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (2 counts) and obtaining drugs from a physician by withholding information. On or about July 24, 2000, Respondent entered into a Drug Court Agreement for 18 months' probation with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit's State Attorney's Office. As part of the agreement, Respondent was required to successfully complete the Drug Court Program, including evaluation; counseling; random urinalysis; and pay $372 court costs, plus $40 a month toward supervision. Respondent's drug case was dismissed on March 14, 2002, based on his successful completion of the Drug Court Program. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent unlawfully acquired possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation on or about July 16, 1999. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent unlawfully withheld information from a medical practitioner from whom he sought to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance during the relevant time period. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent corruptly used, or attempted to use, his official position as a law enforcement officer in such a manner as to secure a special privilege for himself by preparing a fictitious Offense/Incident Report on or about July 16, 1999.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order as follows: Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2000). Respondent's certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 20th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie B. Binder, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Tad K. Moody 10124 Woodberry Road Tampa, Florida 33619 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 408.809(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2010),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 4.106(2) and (4)(x), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint (AC);2/ and whether the violations, if found, warrant the imposition of a conditional licensure rating and a $2,500.00 fine under section 400.23(7)(a) and (8)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the regulatory authority responsible for the licensure of nursing homes and the enforcement of applicable federal regulations and state statutes and rules governing skilled nursing facilities pursuant to the Federal Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1987, Title IV, Subtitle C (as amended); chapters 400, Part II, and 408, Part II, Florida Statutes; and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 59A-4. Further, Petitioner evaluates nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established state regulations as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Marilyn Jones works for Petitioner as a health facility evaluator II. It is Ms. Jones's responsibility to ensure that healthcare facilities are in compliance with the rules and regulations concerning healthcare as it relates to nursing homes. Ms. Jones has passed the surveyor minimum qualification test (SMQT), which requires extensive training on how to conduct nursing home surveys. Based on her passing the SMQT, she is allowed to perform surveys or evaluate nursing homes by herself. Laurence Branch, Ph.D., is a distinguished professor emeritus from the University of South Florida. Dr. Branch was proffered as an expert in the evaluation of risk to elders. At all times material, Respondent was a licensed nursing facility under the licensing authority of Petitioner, operating a licensed 60-bed nursing facility in Bradenton, Florida. Respondent was required to comply with all applicable statutes and rules. Makissa Abner has been Respondent's human resource (HR) director since February 2009. It is her responsibility to ensure that background checks are completed on all the new hires. Respondent's administrator may also be involved with HR issues including criminal history checks. Eric Kingsley became Respondent's nursing home administrator in December 2010. As such, Mr. Kingsley oversaw the day-to-day operations of Respondent's facility. He participated in the survey conducted at Respondent's facility in April 2011, but was not involved with the hiring of employees prior to his arrival in December 2010. As part of her job, Ms. Abner was aware of Respondent's "Clinical Division Standards & Guideline" (Guideline), a three- page document issued in 2004, with a revision date of November 2009, regarding "Background Checks" for employees of Respondent. This Guideline sets forth Respondent's screening requirements for new employees as of May 2010. Those requirements included in part: STANDARD: All potential employees will have a background check completed prior to start of employment to ensure the safety and welfare of residents and staff. Criminal history screening is required for employees whose responsibilities require them to: Provide personal care or services to residents; Have access to resident living areas; or Have access to resident funds or other personal property GUIDELINES: No employee will begin work without a completed background check. . . . Administrators must assure that there are internal systems in the facility to maintain compliance. Pre-screening Job Applicants and assuring all employees have Background screening Drug screening Reference checks (2) completed Active & current license and or certification. Information must be obtained prior to allowing applicant/employee to care for our residents. Employee must complete application while onsite in facility. Consent for background will be obtained in writing. Information will be entered into a Background Screening system by HR or designee. Results will be obtained, reviewed by HR or designee for a disqualifying conviction, and kept in sealed envelope in human resource file, marked confidential. Any infractions identified on the report will be discussed with the prospective employee, documented on the background screening form and placed in the file. Any flags on report must be reviewed and approved by administrator and RDO. All out of state and those residing in state less than 5 years will have Level 2 background check completed. For those having met exemption status from prior offenses then final hiring decision must be decided by administrator and RDO. SCREENING REQUIREMENTS Level 1[5/] screening standards.--All employees required by law to be screened shall be required to undergo background screening as a condition of employment and continued employment . . . level 1 screenings shall include, but not be limited to, employment history checks and statewide criminal correspondence checks through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and may include local criminal records checks through local law enforcement agencies. Every person employed in a position for which employment screening is required must, within 5 working days after starting to work, submit to the employer a complete set of information necessary to conduct the screening. Employees who have not maintained continuous residency within the state for the five (5) years must complete a Level 2.[6/] Employees requiring a Level 2 screening may work in a conditional status for 180 days pending the screening results. * * * Standards must also ensure that the person: For employees and employers licensed or registered pursuant to chapter 400, . . . meets the requirements of this chapter. Has not committed an act that constitutes domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28. EXEMPTION PROCESS: Individuals found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, any offense prohibited for Level 1 screening and for Level 2 screening are disqualified for employment as a nursing home employee in one of the three areas specified or serving as owner, administrator, or financial officer. The employee has the option to apply for an exemption from disqualification which, if granted, would allow him/her to provide personal services to residents or to serve as owner, administrator, or financial officer. In May 2010, Diane Davis expressed an interest in working for Respondent. Ms. Abner asked for and received from Ms. Davis an application and a completed fingerprint card. The fingerprint card was submitted to the appropriate agency. A short time later, Ms. Davis provided to Ms. Abner a "Background Report for Davis, Diane" with a print date of May 17, 2010, showing a "Report Summary" for "FL State Criminal Report" as "Clear" (background report). No one disputed this background report. Ms. Davis started working as a dietary assistant for Respondent's dietary section around June 1, 2010. At the time Ms. Davis was hired, the law allowed an employee who required a Level 2 background screening to begin work while the employer awaited the results of that additional background screening. The following excerpts from Respondent's dietary assistant job description provide the expectations for dietary assistants such as Ms. Davis: GENERAL PURPOSE: Provide assistance in food preparation and dining services in accordance to menus, diets and facility guidelines. Maintain clean and sanitary conditions in the kitchen and dining areas under the supervision of the Dietary Manager or Cook. QUALIFICATIONS: * * * Must be able to relate professionally and positively to resident and families and to work cooperatively with others. * * * ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS: A. FOOD PREPARATION AND SERVING Duties: Assist in the preparation and serving of meals and snacks; use portion control procedures. Assist in checking trays for menu and diet preferences and accuracy; ensure proper storage of foods and supplies. * * * F. RESIDENTS' RIGHTS AND POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS FUNCTIONS Duties: Understand, comply with and promote all rules regarding residents' rights; promote positive relationships with residents, visitors and regulators, to include a professional appearance and attitude. (emphasis added). None of Ms. Davis's job duties called for her to take care of resident's property, resident's funds, or required her to go into a resident's room.7/ The job duties that Ms. Davis was expected to perform included preparing food, or help in preparing food for the residents, and making sure the dishes were clean, the kitchen was sanitary, the drinks were covered, and the food in the freezers was placed appropriately. None of the job duties or descriptions specify that a dietary assistant: will provide personal care or services to or interact with residents; will have access to resident living areas; or will have access to resident funds or other personal property. To have a qualification that, you "must be able to relate . . . positively with residents . . ." does not state that you will relate to residents, only that you have the ability to do so. Additionally, assisting in the "preparation and serving of meals and snacks" and "checking trays" does not state that a dietary assistant will be in direct contact with residents. In mid to late June 2010, Ms. Davis received a letter dated June 16, 2010, from Petitioner (Petitioner's Letter), with a subject line of "RE: 07/27/1974 Simple Assault, Portsmouth, Va Pd."8/ Ms. Davis brought Petitioner's Letter to Ms. Abner who placed it in Ms. Davis's personnel file. Petitioner's Letter acknowledged receipt of Ms. Davis's fingerprint card and advised Ms. Davis that her criminal history report regarding her "arrest and court case history was missing some information." Petitioner's Letter requested additional information regarding Ms. Davis's arrest report and the court disposition. It advised that Ms. Davis had to provide the requested information within 30 days (of June 16th) in order for Petitioner to determine whether Ms. Davis was eligible to work for a healthcare provider. In the event Ms. Davis did not meet this 30-day deadline, the entity that had requested the screening (Respondent) would be notified that Ms. Davis was not eligible for employment. Petitioner's Letter did not notify Ms. Davis that she was disqualified from employment at that time. Ms. Abner made a copy of Ms. Davis's unsigned, non- notarized response statement dated July 1, 2010 (Response Statement), and placed it in Ms. Davis's personnel file. After she notarized the Response Statement, Ms. Abner mailed it and believed that Ms. Davis (and Respondent) had complied with Petitioner's Letter. Ms. Abner did not receive any further communication from Petitioner with respect to this Response Statement.9/ Prior to August 1, 2010, Ms. Abner thought she was conducting her duties with respect to the background screening requirements in compliance with the law that was in effect at the time. Ms. Abner was well-aware that on August 1, 2010, the Florida law regarding personnel screening requirements changed to require Level 2 background screening for all personnel as required in section 408.809(1) and (2). Mr. Kingsley was unaware of any possible issue with Ms. Davis's employment; however, he was not the administrator at the time Ms. Davis was initially hired. On April 5, 2011, Ms. Jones conducted a survey of Respondent's facility.10/ During this survey, Ms. Jones reviewed Respondent's personnel records. When she reviewed Ms. Davis's personnel record, Ms. Jones saw just four items: Petitioner's Letter, the Level 1 criminal history (background report), Ms. Davis's completed June 3rd fingerprint card, and her Response Statement. Ms. Jones inquired about the status of the Level 2 background screening for Ms. Davis. Ms. Abner was initially unable to provide that information, but, following a computer check through Petitioner's website, Ms. Abner found that Ms. Davis received an exemption on March 14, 2011. Ms. Davis continually worked at Respondent's facility from June 1, 2010, through March 14, 2011, and beyond. Ms. Davis was not terminated or placed on suspension when, at the 180 days from her initial employment, Respondent had not received notification of the Level 2 background screening. Ms. Abner did not receive any notification from Petitioner that Ms. Davis had a disqualifying offense, which should have been forthcoming, if, in fact, there was a disqualifying offense. It is clear that Respondent did not follow up on Ms. Davis's Level 2 background screening. However, the law in effect on her hire date did not equate a simple assault to a disqualifying offense. Ms. Davis had to undergo the Level 2 background screening solely because she had not lived in Florida continuously for the preceding five years.11/ Petitioner presented Dr. Branch as an expert in risk assessment for the elderly. Dr. Branch provided insight into the risk associated with persons who have failed a background screening. Petitioner provided Dr. Branch the following documents for his review: the AC, the response to the AC, Ms. Abner's deposition and its attachments, the controlling statutes regarding background screening for Florida nursing homes in effect up to and after August 2010, the deficiency classification system and definitions in part II of chapter 400, and Petitioner's "statistics relating to the number of persons applying for positions in the healthcare community and requiring criminal history background screening and how many of those screenings were positive." Petitioner's statistics were for 250,000 people who applied for the criminal background screening clearance in Florida during a 14-month period. Of those applicants, nearly 10,000, or four percent failed the screening. Although an interesting study, the analysis did not measure whether the disqualifying offense (that caused the background screening failure) occurred one year ago, or 40 years ago or if there was more than one disqualifying offense involved. In the instant case, there is mention of Ms. Davis's arrest in Petitioner's Letter, a simple assault that allegedly occurred in 1974. However, there was no documentation or testimony of any court action regarding that arrest. Thus, there is uncertainty that an actual disqualifying offense occurred.12/ A simple assault does not qualify as a disqualifying offense, unless the victim was a minor. Based on Ms. Davis's age in 2010, when her Response Statement was mailed in, and her explanation of the event, she was, at the time of the alleged 1974 simple assault, 25 years of age. The age of the alleged victim was never proven. As such, there is no proof that the alleged simple assault is the more serious disqualifying offense. A simple assault is not a disqualifying offense under either statute. While recognized as an expert in his field and accepted as one in this case, the statistical analysis provided by Dr. Branch does not carry any significant weight. The statistical analysis fails to include all the relevant information. Further, in the instant case, there is no disqualifying offense; thus, the statistics provided are not persuasive. There was no testimony or evidence presented that any staff member re-applied for a Level 2 background check in December 2010. There was no testimony or evidence that any staff member first applied for an exemption in December 2010.13/ There was no testimony as to what "direct care" means. Further, there was no testimony as to what "personal care" means.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Respondent is not guilty of a Class II violation and re-issuing the license to reflect a standard license for the period previously issued as conditional. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 April, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner’s request for exemption from employment disqualification should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On April 30, 1996, James L. Wilson was arguing with his wife. Mr. Wilson’s stepson entered into the argument. The stepson was 15 years old. Mr. Wilson, using his open hands, pushed his stepson in the chest, causing his stepson to fall over a chair and onto the floor. This incident occurred in Richmond County, Georgia. As a result of Mr. Wilson’s action against his stepson, Mr. Wilson was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor offense of simple battery. On May 1, 1996, Mr. Wilson pled guilty to the simple battery charge before the court in Richmond County, Georgia, and was sentenced to 12 months' probation and ordered to pay a fine of $150. As conditions for his probation, Mr. Wilson was ordered to have no violent contact with his stepson and to pay $20 per month for probation supervision fees. Subsequently, Mr. Wilson’s relationship with his stepson greatly improved. Mr. Wilson and his stepson get along well with one another. In July 1997, Mr. Wilson began employment with Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) in the State of Florida to assist CCA in the establishment of a program for juveniles in Florida. He was transferred by CCA from the State of South Carolina where he worked with juveniles for CCA. CCA is a contract provider with the State of Florida, Department of Juvenile Justice (Department). Working in Florida, Mr. Wilson was a shift commander at CCA’s Okeechobee Youth Offender Camp in Okeechobee, Florida. As shift commander, he supervised six staff members, supervisors of two main shifts, and 50 juvenile offenders. Mr. Wilson worked directly with juveniles. Subsequently, Mr. Wilson became the assistant maintenance/training officer, training staff at CCA’s Okeechobee Redirect Center for Juvenile Offenders. Mr. Wilson worked directly with juveniles. Mr. Wilson was in a caretaker position with CCA at both locations. Being in the positions with CEA in Florida, Mr. Wilson was required to make application for a caretaker position with CCA. In conjunction with the application, the Department required Mr. Wilson to submit to a background screening conducted by the Department’s Background Screening Unit, Bureau of Investigations (Screening Unit). Only a Florida criminal history check was conducted by the Screening Unit, which revealed no criminal history for Mr. Wilson. As part of the background screening process, Mr. Wilson was required to sign and submit two notarized affidavits (Affidavit of Good Moral Character), which were dated July 7, 1997, and December 31, 1997, respectively. On both affidavits, Mr. Wilson indicated that he had no disqualifying offenses that would deem him ineligible to work in direct contact with juveniles. Listed on each affidavit, as one of the disqualifying offenses, was "battery, if the victim of the offense was a minor," which is the offense for which Mr. Wilson was convicted in May 1996 in Richmond County, Georgia. Neither affidavit stated as to whether the offense was a misdemeanor or felony. Before signing each affidavit, Mr. Wilson communicated with his supervisor at CCA. He explained to his supervisor about the misdemeanor and queried his supervisor as to whether he should indicate that he had a disqualifying offense. Mr. Wilson’s supervisor advised him that the focus of the affidavits was on felonies. Even though neither affidavit stated that the offenses were misdemeanors or felonies, Mr. Wilson indicated that he had no disqualifying offense. In completing the affidavits, Mr. Wilson had no intention to deceive. However, the responsibility was upon Mr. Wilson to complete the affidavits and to complete them accurately and honestly. He should have known to indicate on the affidavits that he had a disqualifying offense in the absence of the affidavits stating whether the offenses were misdemeanors or felonies. After Mr. Wilson began working in Florida with CCA, he was also required to undergo a state and federal fingerprint check. The fingerprint checks revealed the simple battery on his stepson and also revealed a 1995 arrest for a misdemeanor simple battery in the State of Georgia, which was nolle prossed. By letter dated February 22, 1999, Mr. Wilson was notified by the Screening Unit’s supervisor of his potential disqualification from employment based upon the two arrests revealed by the fingerprint checks. The letter included identifying information regarding the arrests. The Screening Unit's supervisor requested that Mr. Wilson submit certified copies of arrest reports, court dispositions, and other court documents regarding the two arrests. Mr. Wilson complied and subsequently submitted the requested information. The Department reviewed the information. The Department determined that Mr. Wilson was ineligible for continued employment in a position of special trust based upon the May 1, 1996, misdemeanor simple battery against his stepson. By letter dated April 29, 1999, the Screening Unit’s supervisor notified Mr. Wilson that he was ineligible and that he could request an exemption from disqualification. CCA was also notified simultaneously of Mr. Wilson’s ineligibility and was instructed to immediately remove him from direct contact with juveniles. CCA removed Mr. Wilson from direct contact with juveniles. Mr. Wilson requested an informal exemption hearing, which was held on June 8, 1999. The hearing was conducted by a committee of two individuals, who only had the authority to make a recommendation to the Inspector General who had final decision-making authority. In a report dated June 16, 1999, the committee recommended that, although Mr. Wilson had rehabilitated himself, his exemption be denied based upon his falsification of the two notarized affidavits. 1/ The committee’s recommendation, along with the entire background screening file, was forwarded to the Department’s Inspector General. After reviewing the recommendation and the file, the Inspector General denied Mr. Wilson’s request for exemption. The Inspector General denied the exemption on three grounds. First, Mr. Wilson’s falsification of the two notarized affidavits was proof of Mr. Wilson’s lack of good moral character and of rehabilitation. Second, an insufficient amount of time had elapsed since Mr. Wilson’s commission of simple battery on his stepson, a minor, to establish good moral character and rehabilitation. Third, Mr. Wilson failed to show that he had successfully completed his probationary period regarding his conviction of simple battery on his stepson. By letter dated June 22, 1999, the Inspector General notified Mr. Wilson that his request for exemption was denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order denying James Wilson an exemption from disqualification of employment to work in a position of special trust or responsibility with it. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 26th day of January, 2000.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to maintain good moral character, in violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent as a correctional probation officer on February 1, 1991, and as a criminal justice training instructor on December 7, 1999. Her respective certificate numbers are 20851 and 205697. Respondent was first employed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) on August 10, 1990. She was employed as a correctional probation officer. As a result of promotions, Respondent became a DOC Correctional Probation Specialist in February 1995, so that she was responsible for, among other things, various administrative duties, such as handling citizens' complaints of employee misconduct and coordinating training events. In April 2001, Respondent filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that DOC forced her to work in a hostile environment. On February 15, 2002, Respondent, alleging the same facts, commenced a legal action against DOC in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 02-60236-CIV. As part of the federal litigation, DOC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, in part, that Respondent's complaint failed to claim damages. In response, on March 28, 2003, Respondent, representing herself, filed a lengthy affidavit, to which she personally attested. In the affidavit, Respondent swore to the following statement: I requested assistance from management [following the departure of the other Correctional Probation Specialist from Respondent's office and DOC's failure to fill the empty position], but they refused to assign another Specialist to the office to assist me. As a result I had to work an average of five hours per week extra in overtime without pay to properly supervise this caseload to prevent from being reprimanded, suspended or terminated by [DOC]. I was not paid for this time. The evidence is clear that Respondent did not work overtime, with or without pay. The Correctional Probation Supervisor who directly supervised Respondent at the time testified at the hearing. Obviously not hostile to Respondent, the supervisor testified definitively that during the relevant period in the affidavit--March 2, 2001 through May 9, 2002--she was intimately familiar with Respondent's work, including her itinerary and travel logs. The supervisor testified that Respondent incurred no overtime whatsoever during this period, and this testimony is credited in its entirety. Respondent's sworn statement in the affidavit is false and was false at the time that Respondent made it. Respondent's sole purpose in making this false statement was to deceive the court and show an element of damages that did not, in fact, exist. DOC terminated Respondent on August 1, 2003. She has not since worked in a job that requires certification from Petitioner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificates as a correctional probation officer and criminal justice training instructor for one year retroactive to August 2, 2003; placing these certificates on probation for two years from the date of the final order; and requiring Respondent to attend an ethics course approved by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Faye E. Wright-Simpson
