The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's decision to reject all replies to Invitation to Negotiate 2019-44, Social Media Monitoring (ITN), is arbitrary or illegal, within the meaning of section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In response to the tragic shootings at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018, the legislature enacted, effective March 9, 2018, the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act (the Act). Among other things, the Act authorizes Respondent to spend $3 million for the 2018-19 fiscal year "to competitively procure . . . [a] centralized data repository and analytics resources pursuant to s. 1001.212, Florida Statutes[,]" and provides that Respondent "shall make such resources available to the school districts no later than December 1, 2018." Ch. 2018-3, §§ 50 and 52, Laws of Fla. Within one month after the passage of the Act, Respondent confirmed that the above-quoted language mandated the procurement of two systems and that "analytics resources" refers to the Monitoring Tool. Respondent researched the relevant technology and drafted an ITN, which it issued on August 3, 2018. In general, the ITN requires each vendor to submit, by September 6, 2018, a reply consisting of a technical reply and a price reply and provides that Respondent will evaluate the replies by September 10, 2018. ITN section 3.4 states that the Negotiation Committee will commence negotiations on or about September 24, 2018, and the winning vendor or vendors will commence work on October 19, 2018. ITN section 8.1.2, which contains the "Criteria for Evaluation," states that Respondent will score each reply based on a maximum of 70 points for the technical reply and 30 points for the price reply. Section 8.1.2 states that, after negotiations, Respondent anticipates awarding the contract, if any, to not more than three vendors that Respondent has determined provide the best value to the state. ITN section 8.3 provides that, after Respondent awards a contract to each of up to three vendors, "[s]chool districts will then choose from these approved vendors to determine which [Monitoring Tool] is used in their district." ITN section 8.1.3, which contains the "Criteria for Negotiations," broadly authorizes Respondent to negotiate revisions to each vendor's technical reply, as required to serve the best interest of the state. Section 8.1.3.E. also authorizes Respondent to revisit each vendor's price reply: "[Respondent] reserves the right to negotiate different terms and related price adjustments if [Respondent] determines that it is in the state's best interest to do so." ITN Attachment B is the "Price Reply." The first paragraph of Attachment B states: "There shall be no additional costs charged for work performed under this ITN. The [school] district price on this page will be used for evaluation and scoring purposes." The second paragraph, which is titled, "Assessment Instrument," adds: "Respondent shall provide a cost for the Social Media Monitoring instrument and services in subsequent contract." Immediately below this statement is the following price form: Description Cost Social Media Monitoring Contract 10/19/18-6/30/19 $ instrument and services Period 7/1/19-6/30/20 $ 2018-2021 7/1/20-6/30/21 $ Social Media Monitoring Optional 7/1/21-6/30/22 $ instrument and services Renewal 7/1/22-6/30/23 $ Years 7/1/23-6/30/24 $ Grand Total Cost* $ $ The price form fails to reveal if the "Grand Total Cost" and annual costs are per-district prices or gross prices, regardless of the number of school districts choosing to use the Monitoring Tool. The asterisk is meaningless because the ITN contains no explanation as to its meaning. The second blank line to the right of "Grand Total Cost" is consistent with an extension of a per-district price, but the document does not direct the vendor to perform such an extension, which would be impossible because, as noted above, the multiplier is unknown until districts contract to use a specific Monitoring Tool. On August 22, 2018, Respondent issued ITN Addendum #1, which answers questions posed by vendors. Through this means, Respondent informed vendors that school districts are not required to use the Monitoring Tool, Addendum #1, p. 3; it is impossible to determine the volume of usage of the Monitoring Tool among over 4000 schools serving about 3 million students, Addendum #1, p. 3; replies may include more detailed pricing schedules, such as "pricing based on differing user counts and/or number of schools or districts," Addendum #1, p. 4; and the Monitoring Tool may be used by as many as 67 school districts plus six university-affiliated lab or charter schools, Addendum #1, p. 6. On August 30, 2018, Respondent issued ITN Addendum #2, which makes two changes to Attachment B. Addendum #2 deletes the second blank line to the right of "Grand Total Cost" and explains the asterisk by stating, "Points awarded will be based on this price." Neither change resolves the ambiguity as to whether the quoted prices are per-district or gross prices. Eight vendors, including Petitioner, timely submitted replies. Petitioner is a responsible vendor and its reply is responsive. It appears that Respondent completed scoring of all of the technical and price replies of the eight vendors in substantial conformity with the September 10 deadline stated in the ITN. As provided by the ITN, five of Respondent's employees scored the technical replies, staff scored the price replies, and the five employees who scored the technical replies formed the negotiating team. One of the technical evaluators failed to discharge his responsibilities. Appearing not to have read or understood the basics of Petitioner's reply, which describes a Monitoring Tool already in use by several Florida school districts, the evaluator wrongly concluded that Petitioner's reply did not offer a Monitoring Tool and improperly assigned a low score to its reply. This evaluator abruptly quit the day after turning in his evaluations, and Respondent's negotiating team was reduced to the four remaining evaluators. Based on the scoring of the replies, Respondent selected three vendors with which to negotiate: Abacode, Veratics, Inc. (Veratics), and NTT Data Inc. (NTT Data). Abacode resolved the ambiguity of the price form in Attachment B by adding to the price form language stating that its price is a per-district price. For the three years of the base contract and three optional renewal years, Abacode's "Per-District Grand Total Cost" was $68,350, meaning that, even ignoring the lab schools, the gross price would slightly exceed $4.5 million, if all 67 school districts chose Abacode's Monitoring Tool for six years. Abacode offered a 15% discount in the unlikely event that all 73 school districts and lab schools chose to use its Monitoring Tool. Veratics did not alter the price form and offered a "Grand Total Cost" of $143,325.18 for the three years of the base contract and three optional renewal years. This appears to be a per-district price, so the gross price would slightly exceed $9.6 million, if all 67 school districts chose Veratics' Monitoring Tool for six years. NTT Data likewise completed the price form without alterations, showing a "Grand Total Cost" of $88,454 for the three years of the base contract and three optional renewal years. An additional page entitled, "Additional Pricing Detail" confirms that the "Grand Total Cost" is a per-district price, so the gross price would slightly exceed $5.9 million, if all 67 school districts chose NTT Data's Monitoring Tool for six years. Negotiations with the three vendors commenced in late October 2018. During negotiations, Respondent's negotiating team realized that the ITN failed to convey adequately Respondent's requirement to receive the notifications that the Monitoring Tool transmits to the contracting school district, as vendors had not included this service in their price replies. At some point, the negotiating team also realized that the price form was ambiguous as to per-district or gross pricing. On November 13, 2018, Respondent's procurement officer sent to a member of the negotiating team a draft revised price form that specified per-district pricing for the base years, but not for the optional renewal years. After further revisions by the recipient of the email, Respondent distributed a revised price form to the three vendors, but not the five vendors that it had not selected for negotiations. As applicable to both the base and optional renewal periods, the revised price form requires an annual price for notifications to Respondent; a one-time price for the "Initial Districts [sic] first six (6) months"; and "Costs per additional district," which are classified by "Small," "Medium," and "Large." The revised price form also includes a list of all 67 districts with their 2017-18 enrollments and classifies each district as "Small," "Medium," or "Large." The three vendors timely submitted revised price replies with the following "Grand Total Costs": Abacode-- $4.6 million, Veratics--$34.4 million, and NTT Data--$6.0 million. The price replies of Abacode and NTT Data increased by relatively modest amounts, but the price reply of Veratics, which increased by nearly $25 million over the six years of the procured service, itemized about $5.5 million for the first year. Hurdling past the $3 million authorized for the procurements of the Monitoring Tool and a centralized data repository, Veratics implicitly eliminated itself as a vendor. On December 10, 2018--nine days after the statutory deadline for making the Monitoring Tool(s) available to school districts--Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Award the contract to Abacode. Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Protest and Formal Written Protest, which includes a Petition for Administrative Hearing. The petition details, among other things, the ambiguity in the original price form as to per-district or gross pricing and alleges that Respondent failed to perform the necessary conversions to compare price replies accurately. Addressing the negotiations, the petition notes, among other things, that the three selected vendors were allowed to change their price replies and submitted what the petition describes only as "higher" pricing--certainly, a charitable understatement as applied to Veratics. For relief, Petitioner requested recommended and final orders directing that Respondent award the contract to Petitioner, "or, alternatively, that [Respondent] reject all Replies and conduct a new procurement." On January 3, 2019, Respondent did just that: Respondent issued an Amended Agency Decision rejecting all replies and advising that it would reissue the ITN in a second attempt to procure the Monitoring Tool. However, Petitioner timely filed a Second Notice of Intent to Protest and Formal Written Protest, as well as the Petition, which, as noted above, requests a recommended order awarding the contract to Petitioner. Due to the school-safety issues involved in the subject procurement, Commissioner of Education Richard Corcoran issued a memorandum on February 13, 2019, authorizing Respondent to proceed with the second procurement "to avoid an immediate and serious danger to the public health, safety or welfare," as provided by section 120.57(3)(c). On the same date, Governor Ron DeSantis issued Executive Order 19-45, which, among other things, characterizes as "unacceptable" Respondent's failure to meet the December 1 statutory deadline and orders Respondent to "immediately take any and all steps necessary to implement [the Act] to provide . . . [the Monitoring Tool] . . . by August 1, 2019." The new invitation to negotiate is similar to the ITN, except that its definition of "Notifications" in the scope of services clearly defines the need to transmit notifications to Respondent, as well as to the contracting school district, and the price form in Attachment B bases the evaluation on gross prices. Respondent's decision to reject all replies is supported by five facts: 1) the irrational scoring of Petitioner's reply by one evaluator; 2) the potential confusion caused among potential vendors, including the eight vendors that submitted replies, by the ambiguity contained in the price form in Attachment B; 3) the revision of the price form for the three selected vendors to clarify that the pricing was on a per-district basis; 4) the effective loss of one of the three selected vendors upon receipt of pricing replies to the revised price form; and 5) the capacity to resolve the then-pending protest by acceding to Petitioner's demand for a reject-all decision. As for the first reason, Petitioner objected at hearing to testimony from one of Respondent's witnesses pertaining to this matter because, on deposition, Respondent's agency representative failed to identify the irrational scoring as a factor in the reject-all decision. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, section 120.57(3)(f) requires a determination of whether an agency's reject-all decision "is," not "was," arbitrary. Thus, all facts may be considered, regardless of whether an agency witness cited them in a deposition or, more broadly, whether an agency cited them at the time of making the reject-all decision. Additionally, despite the failure of the deposition witness to identify this factor, Petitioner mentioned in the Pre-hearing Stipulation "incorrect evaluations" by at least one evaluator, so Petitioner was aware of this basis for the reject-all decision, even though Petitioner may not have been aware that Respondent relied on this factor in making the reject-all decision. As for the third reason, as noted above, the ITN permits Respondent to negotiate new items and, if so, obtain revised price replies from the vendors with which it is negotiating. These provisions cover the addition of the notification to Respondent, which Respondent substantially omitted from the ITN. However, resolution of a basic element of any bid2/ solicitation--here, whether the price form calls for per-district or gross pricing--does not fall within these provisions, so Respondent's decision to provide this revision only to the three selected vendors raises competitive concerns. As for the fourth reason, the ITN permits Respondent to have selected two vendors for negotiations in the first place. But this does not mean that the effective loss of a selected vendor is not available as a legitimate reason to reject all replies. Also, Veratics' jarring price increase indicates either that one of the successful vendors failed to appreciate the scope of the procurement or did not wish to participate in the procurement any further--either reason signaling a potential problem with the procurement, so that Respondent rationally may have decided to reject all replies. As for the fifth reason, Respondent had already missed the December 1 statutory deadline, and a reject-all decision represented the quicker route to completing this procurement because of the above-cited flaws in the initial procurement; the school-safety issue, which authorizes the immediate commencement of a second procurement for the Monitoring Tool; and, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, a reject-all decision is easier to defend than an award decision. In the Pre-hearing Stipulation, Petitioner requested relief in the form of a reopening of the procurement process following a clarification from Respondent--presumably, as to the pricing ambiguity in the original price form and the need to provide notifications to Respondent; an opportunity for all eight vendors to submit new replies; and the scoring of the new replies. First, Petitioner did not seek this relief in its initial petition protesting the award decision or even in the Petition protesting the reject-all decision. So, when making the reject-all decision, Respondent was acceding to the only alternative posed by Petitioner that did not result in an award to Petitioner. By doing so, as explained above, Respondent rationally pursued an expeditious resolution of the then-pending protest and, thus, the procurement of the Monitoring Tool. Had Respondent chosen an option not presented by Petitioner, Respondent had no assurance that its choice would have induced Petitioner to dismiss its first protest. Second, even if Respondent should have assumed that a restart of the first procurement would have resolved Petitioner's then-pending protest, as it accomplishes the same thing as a reject-all decision followed by a rebid, the focus is on whether Respondent made a rational choice, not whether it made the best choice. By this point, at least, Respondent was trying to hurry along the procurement, and a reject-all decision would achieve this end, even if a restart of the first procurement might have been resulted in an earlier award. Under the circumstances, Respondent's decision in January 2019 to cut its losses and reject all replies, clean up the documents, and rebid the procurement is not arbitrary. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, no further analysis is required of Petitioner's claim that the reject-all decision is arbitrary for the additional reason that the sequence of events--an award decision, a reject-all decision, and a rebid--has resulted in the disclosure of each vendor's reply and undermined the integrity of the procurement process. The point is that the reject-all decision is rational--not, as discussed above, whether Respondent could have made a better decision or, in connection with a claim of arbitrariness, whether the effect of the agency's decisionmaking sequence may also have undermined the integrity of the procurement process.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2019, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2019.
The Issue The question presented in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 34-5.0291.
Findings Of Fact Robert Burgess (Burgess) was the Santa Rosa County Property Appraiser from 1984 until December 31, 2000. He continues to reside in Santa Rosa County. Leon Cooper (Cooper) is a former employee of Robert Burgess, and qualified as a candidate for the Property Appraiser of Santa Rosa County on April 12, 2004, to run against the incumbent, Greg Brown (Brown), the Petitioner in this case. Brown was elected and took office on January 1, 2001, and in 2004 was running for re-election for the first time. Burgess supported Cooper's candidacy and opposed Brown's re-election bid in 2004. On April 12, 2004, the day Cooper qualified to run, Burgess signed an ethics complaint to the Florida Commission on Ethics alleging that Brown had reinstated a religious tax exemption for the Spiritual Life and Healing Waters church on November 14, 2003, and deleted taxes assessed against said church for the tax years 2000 through 2003. Burgess alleged that Brown did this corruptly in return for the political support of the owner of the church, Ms. Lovie Grimes in the 2004 election. He further alleged that Brown also did this to garner the support of Grimes to have Cooper terminated as an employee of the Florida Department of Revenue. Burgess filed his complaint in concert with that of Hilton Kelly, who is the subject of a companion case considered at the same time as this case, but the subject of a separate order, involving alleged favors regarding another property owner. Both complaints were motivated by the desire to impugn Brown's character and the performance of his elected duties, i.e., to injure Browns reputation. The Burgess complaint was fully investigated by the Commission. The investigation revealed that, prior to Burgess' leaving office, a determination to eliminate the tax exemption for the Spiritual Life and Healing Waters Church was made. The investigation revealed that notice that the exemption was eliminated was not provided to the property owner, Grimes. The lack of proper notice occurred during Burgess' tenure in office. Taxes were assessed as a result of this action by Burgess and Brown, and after Brown came into office, Grimes was notified of the pending tax sale of tax liens against her property. Grimes protested, stating that she had not received notice of the assessment of taxes. Brown caused this matter to be investigated by a member of his staff, Chief Deputy Property Appraiser Lorenzo Law Drinkard (Drinkard). Drinkard looked into the matter and determined that notice had not been given, and visited the church where he found pews, religious materials, and a piano. Although services were not being conducted at the time he was there, Drinkard concluded that it was obviously being used as a church. Drinkard determined on November 14, 2003, that the exemption should be re-instated because it was being used as a church and the taxes assessed be eliminated because notice had not been provided. Burgess, as the former Property Appraiser, was uniquely aware of the legal necessities and requirements in granting and removing exemptions. His office failed to provide the required notice to the owner of the elimination of the exemption for property used for religious purposes. During his tenure as Property Appraiser, Burgess had no direct contact with the Spiritual Life and Healing Waters Church regarding the factual basis for removal of the religious tax exemption. Burgess did not examine the public records of his former office to determine the basis for re-instating the exemption. The record reflects that Brown did not write the Department of Revenue about Cooper improperly engaging in campaign activities on state time until February 13, 2004. Burgess knew that determination to re-instate the exemption in question was made on November 14, 2003, and he knew that Brown's letter of complaint to the Department of Revenue regarding Cooper's alleged improper campaigning was on February 13, 2004. Therefore, Brown's alleged motivation in granting the exemption as it might have related to any support for Grimes' support with the Cooper complaint is sequentially impossible. Burgess did make this complaint in concert with the complaint by Kelly for which he provided copies of the records of the Property Appraiser's office. It is clear from the timing that Burgess' motivation was to impugn Brown's reputation. Burgess lacked a factual predicate to assert that Brown's re-instating the religious exemption was done corruptly, was done to improperly influence Grimes and in return for her political support, or to garner her support for Brown's complaint against Cooper. Affidavits were presented in support of attorney fees and costs, and their reasonableness. The Proposed Recommended Order restated those amounts as 94.4 hours at a rate of $175 per hour. The total provided in the Proposed Order was $17,079.50; however, 94.4 times $175 equals $16,250. If one considers that the difference is attributable to law clerks, if one subtracts $16,250 from $17,079, the balance of $559.46, which divided by 8.1 hours for clerks, equals $69.06 per hour for law clerks, which is a reasonable rate. The costs incurred by the attorneys in defending the action and presenting this case were $5,366.56, which are reasonable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Commission enter its final order awarding the Petitioner the amount of $17,079.50 in attorneys' fees and $5,366.56 in costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2006, 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 31st day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert T. Gimbel, Esquire Mark Herron, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 701 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph Hammons, Esquire Hammons, Longoria & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Commission of Ethics 3600 Macclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel Commission of Ethics 3600 Macclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, as campaign treasurer, signed two checks drawn on the candidate's primary campaign account when such account lacked sufficient funds to cover the checks and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a certified public accountant since 1996. Since 2000, Respondent has been employed with a Hollywood, Florida accounting firm, where he is now a partner. Respondent has been licensed since 1996 to practice accounting in Florida. Sometime prior to June 2005, a friend of Respondent told him that a candidate for office in Miami needed help with his campaign. Respondent agreed to meet with the candidate, Richard Dunn, who was running for the District 5 seat on the City of Miami Commission. At the meeting, Respondent became acquainted with Mr. Dunn, who is a minister and an experienced candidate for public office. During the meeting, Mr. Dunn asked Respondent to serve as his campaign treasurer. Mr. Dunn explained that his main duty would be to maintain the campaign checkbook and make deposits of campaign contributions. Respondent also understood that he would have to attend some fundraising events. Respondent had never previously served as a campaign treasurer, but the parties agreed upon a satisfactory payment, and Respondent assumed his duties as campaign treasurer in July 2005. When Respondent started as treasurer, Mr. Dunn's campaign staff gave him checkbooks and deposit slips. At no time did Respondent ever investigate whether the election laws imposed upon him any special requirements. No one on Mr. Dunn's campaign staff gave Respondent a copy of the explanatory campaign materials provided each campaign by the Clerk's Office of the City of Miami. These materials include all relevant campaign finance laws. Respondent's lack of familiarity with the duties of a campaign treasurer emerged early. He learned that he had to file campaign treasurer reports when campaign staff informed him of this responsibility. At the same time, Respondent learned that campaign staff, including Mr. Dunn, were not careful in the management of the campaign's finances. In trying to prepare his first report, Respondent had problems obtaining all of the necessary information, such as all of the checks that had been written. Despite his lack of familiarity with campaign finance laws, Respondent knew that he could not write a check if an account had insufficient funds. Respondent assumed (wrongly, as noted below in the Conclusions of Law) that he could sign a check, even if the account lacked funds to cover it, as long as sufficient funds would be deposited before the check was presented for payment at the payor's bank. Respondent was not the first campaign treasurer for this campaign. However, the existence of a prior treasurer did not make it any easier for Respondent to assemble the necessary documents, such as copies of bank statements, so that he could do his job. Also, 30-45 days after taking over as treasurer, Respondent learned that the campaign maintained at least one other checking account. In short order, Respondent learned that the bank mailed the statements to Mr. Dunn, not the treasurer. Respondent suggested to Mr. Dunn that the bank issue a copy to Respondent. Mr. Dunn agreed with this proposal, but the bank, Wachovia Bank, said that it could not do so. Respondent never suggested to Mr. Dunn that he direct the bank to mail the statements to Respondent, who would then send a copy to Mr. Dunn. Quickly, Respondent also learned that Mr. Dunn was writing most of the checks, including counter checks. Respondent repeatedly impressed upon Mr. Dunn the importance of keeping Respondent informed about these checks, but Mr. Dunn and his campaign staff did not routinely do so. After failing to convince Mr. Dunn to restrict check- issuing privileges to Respondent, Respondent prepared a check authorization form that Mr. Dunn and his campaign staff could use each time that they issued checks. However, despite all of these efforts, consisting of five to ten telephone calls and meetings, Respondent never succeeded in obtaining Mr. Dunn's cooperation for very long. On the 10-15 occasions that Respondent wrote and signed campaign checks, he often, but not invariably, contacted the bank and asked it to fax transaction reports or partial statements to cover a specific date range. On those 10-15 occasions, Respondent often, but not invariably, called Mr. Dunn for confirmation of deposits before writing. If Respondent ever attempted to obtain this information by online banking, he never so indicated during the hearing. Although Respondent did something to update himself on current activity in the checking account each time that he had to write and sign a check, his information was necessarily incomplete. Overall, Respondent admits that he never was able to get the accounting problem within the campaign under control. Although Respondent wrote and signed relatively few checks, he wrote and signed the two checks at issue in this case many months after discovering the problems described above. On October 27, 2005, Respondent signed a check to The Miami Times for $3625.63 and drawn on the campaign account. Account balances were $542.34, $792.34, and $1892.34 on October 26, 27, and 28, 2005, respectively. Clearly, Respondent signed this check at a time that the account lacked sufficient funds to cover it. Respondent delivered the $3625.63 check to a member of the Dunn campaign and instructed her to ensure that the account had sufficient money before giving it to the payee. He added that she should deliver the check only to Mr. Dunn. On the same day, Mr. Dunn signed a check drawn on the same account in the amount of $500 and payable to the prior campaign treasurer, Johnny Studstill. Although the October bank records reveal no insufficient funds fees, the November bank records reveal seven instances of insufficient funds: November 10, 21, 22, and 30 (four times). Respondent explained that the bank imposed these fees because deposits had not yet cleared, but the imposition of these fees was sufficient to alert Respondent to mounting problems, and two of these instances had arisen prior to the date on which he signed the November 22 check, which is the second check at issue in this case. On November 22, 2005, Respondent signed a check to radio station WMBM for $2000 and drawn on the campaign account. Account balances were $694.25, $2909.25, and $6091.84, on November 21, 22, and 23, 2005, respectively. The relevant day is November 22, so it would appear that the bank balance was sufficient to cover this check. However, on the same day, Respondent signed checks in the amounts of $1065 and $1492.65 and payable to ASAP Mailing Service and Dodd Printing, although the latter check was marked void shortly after Respondent signed it. Thus, the total of the $2000 check to WMBM and $1065 check to ASAP (counsel for Petitioner conceding at the hearing that a voided check should not count) exceeded the account balance of $2909.25. On the same day, Mr. Dunn signed three checks drawn on the same account. One was in the amount of $850 and payable to radio station WEDR, one was in the amount of $185 and payable to Isaiah Walker, and the third was in the amount of $2000 and payable to radio station WHQT. About three weeks prior to the end of the campaign, Respondent realized that the situation was unworkable, even though his administrative assistant at the accounting firm was devoting 20 hours weekly to campaign-related bookkeeping work. Respondent remained with the campaign only to avoid the negative appearance that would be created by his leaving his post in the days running up to the election. Respondent asked Mr. Dunn not to leave him "high and dry," but Respondent was never paid for his services to the campaign, beyond a single $1000 check to cover costs. When signing the October 27 check, Respondent knew that, due to the campaign's poor financial management practices, he lacked even the information to determine whether the account balance would be sufficient when the check was presented to Wachovia. He did not consider whether the account balance was sufficient when he signed the check because he was not aware of this requirement of law. Respondent's violation of law was willful when signing the October 27 check. By this time, Respondent had been serving as campaign treasurer for nearly four months. He was increasingly aware that he did not have the full cooperation of the candidate. Although he did not know the relevant requirement of law, Respondent recklessly disregarded this requirement because he had never made any effort--let alone a reasonable effort--to inform himself of this legal requirement. The circumstances likewise establish recklessness in the signing of the November 22 check. Factually, Respondent's acts and omissions on November 22 were less defensible because the account had twice incurred insufficient-funds fees in the two weeks preceding the signing of the November 22 check, and he had another month to see that Mr. Dunn and the campaign staff would not agree to reasonable financial-management controls. Legally, Respondent's ongoing failure to inform himself of the applicable legal requirements imposed upon him as a campaign treasurer remained entirely unreasonable, with the passing of another month, the incurring of insufficient-funds fees, and the repeated confirming that Respondent would not have any significant cooperation from Mr. Dunn as his campaign approached its completion. The key factual determination in this case is that Respondent willfully violated the legal requirement that sufficient funds be in the account when the checks were signed. Respondent was understandably unfamiliar with this requirement, which is different from the more common requirement, with which he was familiar, that sufficient funds must be available when a check is presented to the issuing bank for payment. The requisite finding of Respondent's recklessness in failing to exercise any apparent effort to inform himself of this requirement of law is facilitated by the manner in which he handled the more common responsibilities of bookkeeping. Respondent proceeded recklessly in this area, as well. Respondent knew that the probability of bounced checks elevated considerably, the longer that more than one person wrote checks and the campaign staff was so lax in getting him the information on their activity in the account. Reckless disregard for the proper discharge of basic bookkeeping responsibilities is evidence of Respondent's overall state of mind at the relevant time. If Respondent did not initially realize his ignorance of campaign finance laws, he had to understand the limits of his knowledge when campaign staff told him he had to file campaign treasurer reports. By not informing himself of Section 106.11(4), Florida Statutes, by the time that he signed the two checks that are the subject of this case, Respondent displayed reckless disregard of his legal obligations. Under the law set forth below, Respondent's reckless disregard of the law constitutes a willful violation of the law. Here, Respondent, an accountant, has wholly disregarded Section 106.11(4), Florida Statutes, without making any reasonable inquiry into the limitations on check signing in a campaign.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of two counts of violating Section 106.11(4), Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2007, 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 21st day of August, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Rushing, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission Collins Building, Suite 224 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Mark Herron, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. 2618 Centennial Place Post Office Box 15579 Tallahassee, Florida 32317
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted arbitrarily when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received in response to a solicitation seeking bids on a contract for roof repairs.
Findings Of Fact On January 10, 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department" or "DEP") issued an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), the purpose of which was to solicit competitive bids from qualified contractors on a project whose scope of work envisioned repairs to the wind-damaged roofs of several buildings located on the grounds of the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Some of the buildings to be repaired were single-family residences. Work on these structures accordingly needed to conform to the requirements prescribed in the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the "Manual"), which the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission"), following an explicit legislative directive, see Section 553.844(3), Florida Statutes,1 recently had adopted, by incorporative reference, as a rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2007).2 The Rule had taken effect on November 14, 2007, giving the Manual's contents the same status and force as the Florida Building Code. Id. Just before the Department issued the ITB, the Commission had approved, at a meeting on January 8, 2008, a modified version of the Manual, which it called the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures, Version 2 (the "Revised Manual"). In consequence of the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual, the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") caused a Notice of Proposed Rule Development to be published on January 25, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This official advertisement announced that the Commission intended to amend Rule 9B-3.0475, so that its incorporative reference would mention the Revision Manual instead of the Manual. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 461-62 (Jan. 25, 2008).3 DCA caused a Notice of Proposed Rule respecting the intended revision of Rule 9B-3.0475 to be published on February 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 605 (Feb. 1, 2008).4 On February 5, 2008, the Department issued Addendum No. 4 to the ITB (the "Addendum"). The Addendum provided in pertinent part as follows: Bidders shall bid the project as specified despite the recent change in Rule 9B-3.0475 relating to hurricane mitigation retrofits. Any additional water barrier will be accomplished by Change Order after award of the contract. (The foregoing provisions of the Addendum will be referred to hereinafter as the "Directive"). On February 12, 2008, the Department opened the bids it had received in response to the ITB. Ten (out of 12) of the bids submitted were deemed responsive. The bid of Petitioner Spinella Enterprises, Inc. ("Spinella") was one of the acceptable bids. On February 19, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to award a contract to the lowest bidder, namely Spinella, which had offered to perform the work for $94,150. The second lowest bidder was The Bookhardt Group ("Bookhardt"). Bookhardt timely protested the intended award, raising several objections, only one of which is relevant here. In its formal written protest, dated March 3, 2008, Bookhardt alleged that "[t]he new State of Florida law F.S. 553.844 was not part of the solicitation." On April 4, 2008, Rule 9B-3.0475, as amended to incorporate by reference the Revised Manual, took effect. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2008). On May 16, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. (Bookhardt's protest, which remained pending, had never been referred to DOAH for a formal hearing.) Spinella timely protested the Department's decision to reject all bids. In an email sent to Spinella on July 22, 2008, DEP's counsel explained the rationale behind the decision: The reason the Department rejected all bids follows. When the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Spinella Enterprises, Inc., the second low bidder (Bookhardt Roofing) protested the intent to award. The second low bidder's basis for protesting the intended award was that Addendum 4 directed bidders to ignore certain rules of the Construction Industry Licensing Board [sic], which had become effective after the bid opening, which was not in accordance with the law. As a result, this may have caused confusion and the Department had no assurance that bidders were bidding the project correctly. In addition, the statement in Addendum 4 that the Department would add the required moisture barrier afterward by change order set up a situation where bidders had no idea how much the Department would be willing to pay for the change order. Further, the moisture barrier was not the only thing required by the new rules. Potential bidders may not have bid due to these uncertainties. The Department agreed with Bookhardt's assertions and rejected all bids . . . . Notwithstanding Spinella's protest, the Department issued a second invitation to bid on the project in question. As of the final hearing, the bids received in response to this second solicitation were scheduled to be opened on August 12, 2008. Ultimate Factual Determinations The Department's decision to reject all bids is premised, ultimately, on the notion that the Directive told prospective bidders to ignore an applicable rule in preparing their respective bids.5 If this were true, then the Directive could have been a source of potential confusion, as the Department argues, because a prudent bidder might reasonably hesitate to quote a price based on (possibly) legally deficient specifications. The Directive, however, did not instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule. Rather, under any reasonable interpretation, it instructed bidders to ignore a proposed rule and follow existing law. Such an instruction was neither confusing nor inappropriate. To be sure, the first sentence of the Directive——at least when read literally——misstated a fact. It did so by expressing an underlying assumption, i.e. that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been changed, which was incorrect. In fact, as of February 5, 2008, the Rule was exactly the same as it had always been. (It would remain that way for the next two months, until April 6, 2008).6 DEP's misstatement about the Rule might, conceivably, have confused a potential bidder, at least momentarily. But DEP did not factor the potential for such confusion into its decision to reject all bids, and no evidence of any confusion in this regard was offered at hearing.7 More important is that the unambiguous thrust of the Directive was to tell bidders to rely upon the "not recently changed" Rule 9B-3.0475, which could only have meant Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 (2007) as originally adopted, because that was the one and only version of the Rule which, to that point, had ever existed. Thus, even if the Department were operating under the mistaken belief, when it issued the Addendum, that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been amended; and even if, as a result, DEP thought it was telling prospective bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule, DEP nevertheless made clear its intention that prospective bidders follow the original Rule 9B- 3.0475, which was in fact the operative Rule at the time, whether or not DEP knew it. Indeed, as any reasonable potential bidder knew or should have known at the time of the Addendum, (a) the Commission recently had approved the Revised Manual, but the contents thereof would not have the force and effect of law unless and until the Revised Manual were adopted as a rule, which had not yet happened; (b) the Commission had initiated rulemaking to amend Rule 9B-3.0475 so as to adopt the Revised Manual as a rule, but the process was pending, not complete; (c) Rule 9B-3.0475 had not been amended, ever; and, therefore, (d) the Manual still had the force and effect of law. See endnote 6. The Directive obviously could not alter or affect these objective facts. At bottom, then, a reasonable bidder, reviewing the Directive, would (or should) have concluded either (a) that the "recent change" which DEP had in mind was the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual (or the subsequent announcement of the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475) or (b) that DEP mistakenly believed the Rule had been changed, even though it had not been. Either way, a reasonable bidder would (or should) have known that the Department wanted bidders to prepare their respective bids based not on the Revised Manual, but the Manual. In other words, regardless of what DEP subjectively thought was the existing law, DEP clearly intended (and unambiguously expressed its intent) that bidders follow what was, in fact, existing law. This could not have confused a reasonable bidder because, absent an instruction to exceed the minimum required legal standards (which the Directive was not), a reasonable bidder would have followed existing law in preparing its bid, just as the Directive required. Once it is determined that the Directive did not, in fact, instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing law, but rather told them to rely upon the applicable, existing law (notwithstanding that such law might change in the foreseeable future), the logic underlying the Department's decision to reject all bids unravels. Simply put, there is no genuine basis in logic or fact for concluding that the Addendum caused confusion. The other grounds that DEP has put forward do not hold water either. Contrary to the Department's contention, the possibility that a Change Order would be necessary if an "additional water barrier" were required could not possibly have confused potential bidders or caused them to be uncertain about how much money the Department would be willing to pay for such extra work. This is because Article 27 of the Construction Contract prescribes the procedure for entering into a Change Order, and it specifies the method for determining the price of any extra work. See ITB at 102-05. The fact that the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475, if it were to be adopted and become applicable to the instant project, might require other additional work, besides a water barrier, likewise could not reasonably have caused potential bidders to refrain from bidding, for the same reason: The Construction Contract contains explicit provisions which deal with the contingency of extra work or changes in the work. Id. In sum, DEP's intended decision to reject all bids cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is, therefore, arbitrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that its decision to reject all bids was arbitrary. Because the Department elected not to comply with the statutory directive to abate this procurement pending the outcome of Spinella's protest, with the result that the contract at issue possibly has been awarded already to another bidder; and because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation regarding the means by which DEP should rectify the harm to Spinella, but he urges that other appropriate relief be granted if Spinella cannot be awarded the contact. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2008, 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 2nd day of October, 2008.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent willfully violated Section 106.141(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to properly account for and report the expenditure of certain campaign funds.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was elected as State Attorney for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in 1988. He defeated the incumbent at that time, Stephen Boyles. Thereafter, in 1992, the Respondent was a republican candidate for re-election as State Attorney in that circuit. The Respondent was challenged in that republican primary in 1992 by Steve Alexander, a former Assistant State Attorney, under both Mr. Boyles and the Respondent. The campaign was a nasty and personal one, focusing on the Respondent's religious beliefs, including his prison ministry. The Respondent was defeated by 57 votes of more than 40,000 votes cast. Upon being defeated in the primary, the Respondent elected to support the democratic candidate in the general election, Ted Doran. The Respondent sent letters on his campaign stationery through the law office of Kermit Coble, a partner with the firm of Coble, Woods, Seps, Clayton and Teal. Two groups of letters were sent out: one to supporters of the Respondent in the primary and another to all members of the Florida Bar for the Seventh Judicial Circuit. The postage on these letters was provided through Mr. Coble's postage meter at his law firm and totaled $260.00. There came a time when Mr. Coble and representatives of his law firm called the Respondent to request reimbursement for the postage funds expended, the $260.00. The Respondent, therefore, wrote a check to reimburse Mr. Coble for the postage early on the morning of October 1, 1992. He used a check drawn on the campaign account. Typically, Mrs. Tanner wrote the check, both on the campaign checkbook and on their personal checkbook. The Respondent did not normally write checks. However, on this occasion, the Respondent did not want to bother Mrs. Tanner with the issuance of the reimbursement check. She was a student at the time, in graduate school, in addition to having to care for two daughters, the youngest of which was causing her parents considerable difficulty. Although the Respondent had read Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, in connection with embarking on his political campaign, he did not recall a specific prohibition which barred the use of campaign funds for the purpose involved in this proceeding. The use of the campaign checkbook did not trigger any awareness, at the time the Respondent issued the check, of any inappropriateness of using campaign funds in that manner. He did not give his action the thoughtfulness and attention that he should have, by his own admission. He conceded that he was pre-occupied with other duties and responsibilities at the time and failed to adequately consider the legal ramifications and consequences of his actions. At about this time, he was heavily involved in the preparation of a "double murder case", one of several significant cases in his office that he was attempting to complete prior to the end of his term of office. In fact, he had just recently completed the trial of serial killer, Aileen Wuornos. He had been keeping very long hours, arising before dawn and working late at night in order to prepare for each day's work and complete it. Several weeks later, he realized he had made an error in using campaign funds to pay for the postage charge. He requested Mrs. Tanner to reimburse the campaign account from their personal funds. He then relied upon and trusted his wife, Mrs. Tanner, who was also his campaign treasurer, to accomplish the reimbursement payment. He did not actually follow up on his request to her and gave it no further thought, assuming that it had been done. The Respondent and his wife have been married for 25 years, and she served as his campaign treasurer for both of his political campaigns in 1988 and 1992. She collected and deposited contributions to the campaign, wrote checks for campaign expenses, and she was responsible for completing and timely filing campaign reports with the Division of Elections and with local elections officials in her capacity as campaign treasurer. Mrs. Tanner acknowledged that the Respondent had asked her to reimburse the campaign account from their personal funds and that she had simply forgotten to do it. This time in question was a difficult time for her and her family. She was a student in graduate school and working as the mother of teenage daughters. Their younger teenage daughter was having behavioral problems which made her difficult to manage. Additionally, at the same period of time, the Respondent's mother was ill and required medical attention, including emergency room visits. In summary, it was a stressful, difficult time for the Respondent and his wife. Mrs. Tanner was quite distracted from the orderly, normal performance of her duties as a mother and student, as well as a campaign manager. She simply forgot to make the reimbursement, after being requested to do so by the Respondent. The Respondent and his wife filed the campaign treasurer's report dated October 5, 1992, which covered the period of August 28, 1992 through October 5, 1992. This report did not include any reference to the expenses related to the letters sent on behalf of Ted Doran. A note attached to the report, however, indicated that an amended report would be filed. The final campaign treasurer's report, covering the period October 5, 1992 through December 12, 1992 did include an expense of $260.00 to reimburse the firm of Coble, Woods, Seps, Clayton and Teal for the postage in question. The report did not note any payment from the Tanners' personal funds to the campaign as reimbursement for that postage. The Respondent and his wife signed the campaign treasurer's reports, as required by law, certifying the correctness and completeness of the report, which the Respondent believed to be the case at the time he signed it. He testified that he reviewed the report for accuracy, completeness and legal compliance and did not note the lack of an entry showing a personal reimbursement to the campaign account. He stated that the report was accurate and complete and that it contained all financial activities of the campaign for that period in question. On January 12, 1993, however, a sworn complaint was filed by Shirley Bundy, former chairwoman of the Volusia County Republican Party Executive Committee, against the Respondent. She complained of the use of the Tanner republican campaign stationery to support a democratic candidate. The complaint also stated that a "reliable source" had informed Mrs. Bundy that Kermit Coble had paid the postage for the letters the Respondent sent in support of democratic candidate, Ted Doran. Thereafter, pursuant to statutory authority, the Division of Elections initiated an investigation in response to the Bundy complaint. Investigator, C.L. Ivey, was assigned to conduct the investigation. He is an experienced investigator, having over 31 years of experience with the Florida Department of Business Regulation and the Florida Department of Professional Regulation. On March 8, 1993, the Respondent filed an initial response to the complaint. He attributed the complaint to political retribution by Mrs. Bundy. He stated at that time that the postage cost had been reimbursed to Mr. Coble "with a personal check". He believed that that had, indeed, been done at the time he made that representation. The Respondent testified at hearing that he summarily put together his initial response to the complaint without reviewing his records or consulting his wife about the matter. He knew that she had been under a lot of stress at the time and did not even mention it to her. He was in the process of re- establishing his private law practice and was very pre-occupied with that and, therefore, relied exclusively on his memory of the facts involved in making the initial response to the complaint. Shortly thereafter, as part of his investigation, Mr. Ivey sought certain information and records from the 1992 campaign from Mrs. Tanner. She asked the Respondent about the request for information and, after further discussion and review of pertinent records, the Respondent and Mrs. Tanner learned that the Respondent's initial response, indeed, was incorrect. This was the first time that the Tanners had discussed the matter since the Respondent's original request for Mrs. Tanner to reimburse the campaign account from their personal account. On March 23, 1993, the Respondent filed a notarized, corrected response to the complaint, in which he explained the circumstances of his initial response, as well as explaining the circumstances surrounding the payment of the postage to Mr. Coble's law firm and the failure of Mrs. Tanner to reimburse the campaign funds from their personal funds, as he had requested her to do. The Respondent stated in this corrected response that in the last months of his term as State Attorney, he was pre-occupied with other matters and "was just too busy and did not give this matter my personal attention". Simultaneously with making this corrected response, the Respondent sought to reimburse the general revenue fund of the state for $260.00 with his personal check. He was informed that he needed to file an amended campaign report and to sent his reimbursement check with that report. He promptly did so and made his reimbursement to the general revenue fund at that time. Mr. Ivey completed his investigation and submitted his report on April 28, 1993. The report was based solely on documentary evidence. Mr. Ivey did not interview, depose, or otherwise interrogate the Respondent or Mrs. Tanner. Following the completion of his report, Mr. Ivey had no further contact with the case. Mr. Ivey had a case load at that time of 30 or 40 cases assigned to him. Mr. Ivey testified that he tries to complete investigations within a six-month period. He testified at hearing that because of the case load and limited resources available to him, many investigations had to be handled through correspondence, without an interview or a deposition. In this case, one of the reasons why an interview or deposition was not conducted, according to Mr. Ivey, was because the Respondent admitted all of the acts necessary to make out a violation of the statute, except for denying the element of willfulness. The investigative report stated that the Respondent had acknowledged the improper payment of the postage and had taken steps to correct it. The report also states that the Respondent did not acknowledge that the violation was willful. More than one year after Mr. Ivey completed his report, on May 19, 1994, the Division of Elections found probable cause to believe that a willful violation of Section 106.141(1), Florida Statutes, had occurred. A letter from Barbara Linthicum informing the Respondent of that finding was sent on May 19, 1994 to the Respondent. He testified, however, that he had never received that letter. The Florida Elections Commission issued its order of probable cause on June 28, 1994. It has not been established by sufficient, preponderant evidence of record that the Respondent willfully violated Section 106.141(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged. The probable cause finding was based only on an investigation which consisted of a review of documents and not upon consideration of any testimony or statements by either the Respondent or Mrs. Tanner. The weight of the evidence establishes that the Respondent acted in a careless manner but that his conduct was not "willful", as that term is employed and intended in Section 106.l41(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the complaint against John Tanner for the reasons found and concluded above. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4641 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-14. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not entirely in accord with the weight and credibility of the preponderant evidence of record and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. The Hearing Officer has made the findings of fact on this subject matter after weighing, considering and determining the candor and credibility of the witnesses and evidence. Accepted, in the sense that the Respondent, if he had adequately reflected, would have known that the campaign check written was in violation of the law but not in terms of the violation being willful, intentional and conscious at the time he wrote the check. Consequently, this proposed finding of fact is subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as contrary to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact made on this subject matter after determining the candor and credibility of the witnesses and the evidence. Accepted, only in terms of a mere recitation of the attempted proof of the Respondent concerning bias on the part of agency personnel. It has not been found that such bias, if any existed, had an effect on the prosecution of this case by the agency and the Respondent has candidly receded from that position in a post-hearing letter to the Hearing Officer and opposing counsel. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted, to the extent that they are in accord with the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer. Proposed findings number 28 and numbers 30 through 39 are rejected as being immaterial and unnecessary to an adjudication of this dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Westcott, Esq. Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Christopher R. Haughee, Esq. AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON, P.A. 216 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Don Bell, Esq. General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Freda Sherman Stevens (Respondent), a candidate in the 2008 primary for a seat in the Florida House of Representatives, willfully violated section 106.07(5), Florida Statutes (2008), by certifying that six of her campaign reports were true, correct, and complete when they were not. Whether Respondent willfully violated section 106.19(1)(c), Florida by falsely reporting, or deliberately failing to report information required to be reported by chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2008).1/
Findings Of Fact Respondent was a candidate for the House of Representatives, District 100, in the August 26, 2008, primary election. As a candidate for the Florida Legislature, the Division of Elections of the Florida Department of State (the Division), was Respondent's filing office, and Respondent was required to file all her reports electronically. On October 30, 2007, Respondent filed with the Division her Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository form listing herself as treasurer for her 2008 campaign. On November 1, 2007, Ms. Bronson sent Respondent a letter acknowledging that Respondent had been placed on the 2008 active candidate list. The letter advised Respondent that all candidates filing reports with the Division were required to use the electronic filing system (EFS) and provided Respondent with a personal identification number (PIN) and initial password to grant access to the EFS. The user was expected to change the initial password after logging on for the first time. Ms. Bronson's letter included the following information: You, your campaign treasurer, and deputy treasurers are responsible for protecting these passwords from disclosure and are responsible for all filings using these credentials, unless the Division is notified that your credentials have been compromised. * * * Each campaign treasurer's report filed by means of the EFS is considered to be under oath by the candidate and campaign treasurer and such persons are subject to the provisions of Section 106.075(5), Florida Statutes. * * * An online guide is available to you on the EFS to assist with navigation, data entry, and submission of reports. The Division of Elections will also provide assistance to all users by contacting the EFS Help Desk at (850) 245-6240. All of the Division's publications and reporting forms are available on the Division of Election's web site at http://election.dos.state.fl.us. It is your responsibility to read, understand, and follow the requirements of Florida's election laws. Therefore, please print a copy of the following documents: Chapters 104 and 106, Florida Statutes; Candidate and Campaign Treasurer Handbook (September 2007 edition); 2007-2008 Calendar of Reporting Dates; and Rule 1S-2.017, Florida Administrative Code. When a campaign report is submitted electronically through the EFS, both the candidate and treasurer's PINs must be entered into the website. Though it is possible for either the candidate or the treasurer to give their PINs to another individual to enter the report on their behalf, the candidate remains responsible for the PINs and the filed reports. Respondent did little to educate herself as to her responsibilities as a candidate and as the treasurer for her campaign. She could not even remember whether she read Ms. Bronson's letter, and she did not remember whether she had read the handbook referred to by Ms. Bronson. Respondent did not attend any candidate trainings offered by the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office. On November 21, 2007, Respondent resigned as treasurer and appointed her mother, Clementine Sherman, as her new treasurer. On December 5, 2007, Ms. Bronson sent a letter to Ms. Sherman, with a copy to Respondent, acknowledging Ms. Sherman's appointment as treasurer and providing the same information contained in Ms. Bronson's letter to Respondent dated November 1, 2007 (and discussed above). On January 29, 2008, the Division accepted Respondent's appointment of herself as her deputy treasurer. Respondent did not have a system for keeping track of campaign contributions or expenditures. Pursuant to section 106.07, Florida Statutes (2008), Respondent was required to file periodic reports listing "all contributions received, and all expenditures made, by or on behalf of her candidacy." At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been the owner of Prodigal S & D Corporation, which does business as Green Apple Association of Christian Schools (Green Apple). Respondent was authorized to issue and sign checks on the bank account owned by Green Apple. In August 2008, shortly before the primary election, Respondent placed an order with WPLG-TV for airtime to disseminate political advertisement for her campaign. The script used in the advertisement aired on WPLG included the following: "Please vote Freda Stevens for State Representative District 100 on August 26. Thank you."2/ On August 6, 2008, Respondent signed two checks made payable to WPLG. Both checks were drawn on the same bank account owned by Green Apple. Check 1050 was in the amount of $13,812.50. Check 1051 was in the amount of $680.00. Both checks were made payable to WPLG in payment for political advertising that Respondent had purchased from WPLG. When Respondent signed those checks to WPLG, she knew, or should have known, that there were insufficient funds in both the Green Apple account and her campaign account to cover the checks. On August 15, 2008, Respondent signed check number 1053 payable to WPLG that was drawn on the same bank account owned by Green Apple as checks 1050 and 1051. Check number 1053 was in the amount of $7,161.25 and was used to pay for political advertising that Respondent bought from WPLG prior to the primary election. When Respondent signed check numbered 1053 to WPLG, she knew, or should have known, that there were insufficient funds in both the Green Apple account and her campaign account to cover the check. Check numbered 1050 and 1051 were returned to WPLG for non-sufficient funds. WPLG did not deposit check numbered 1053. Respondent filed an original and five amended 2008 F3 Reports. Respondent certified that each report was true, correct, and complete. All reports were filed electronically utilizing the PIN number given to Respondent by Ms. Bronson. On August 22, 2008, Respondent filed her "Original Report." That report listed no campaign contribution from Green Apple, and it failed to list campaign expenditures to WPLG or other media. Because of those omissions, the report was not accurate, and it was not complete. On August 23, 2008, Respondent filed a first "Amended Report." That report listed five in-kind contributions from Respondent with the descriptor "media" under each contribution. The amounts of the in-kind contributions were $13,812.50; $680.00; $3,185.85; $7,161.25; and $3,187.00. That report was inaccurate because the in-kind contributor for three of the in- kind contributions ($13,812.50; $680.00; and $7,161.25) was Green Apple, not the Respondent.3/ Respondent lost the primary election. After the election, on August 30, 2008, Respondent filed a second "Amended Report." The five in-kind contributions from Respondent with the descriptor "media" that had been on the first "Amended Report" were deleted from the report and were replaced with the following four in-kind contributions with the reported date of the contribution in parentheses: $13,812.50 (August 6); $3,187.50 (August 20); $3,128.85 (August 18); and $680.00 (August 6). That report was inaccurate because the in-kind contributor was Green Apple, not the Respondent. That report also failed to report the check in the amount of $7,161.25 that Green Apple had issued to WPLG on August 15. On November 24, 2008, Respondent filed a third "Amended Report", a fourth "Amended Report", and a fifth "Amended Report." The third "Amended Report" deleted the in- kind contribution from Respondent dated August 6, in the amount of $13,812.50, and with the descriptor "media." The fourth "Amended Report" and the fifth "Amended Report" reflected no contributions, only expenditures, none of which was for media. These "Amended Reports" were incomplete and inaccurate. WPLG attempted to collect the monies owed by Respondent's campaign. Clementine Sherman remitted a payment (by cashier's check) in the amount of $6,000.00 on August 27, 2008.4/ Respondent remitted three money orders that were deposited September 28, October 15, and December 22, 2009, respectively. These money orders were in the amounts of $200.00, $200.00, and $680.00. These payments were not reflected on any report filed by Respondent.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be awarded attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act (the Act), Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact These proceedings arise out of DOAH Case No. 01-2928, Department of Health, Board of Physical Therapy v. Raymond H. Cralle. There, a Recommended Order was entered on November 27, 2001, which recommended entry of a final order dismissing all charges against Petitioner. On February 8, 2002, Respondent filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings a final order of dismissal in that case. Petitioner, the prevailing small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, timely filed his request for fees and costs pursuant to the Act. Respondent does not dispute the reasonableness of the attorney's fees claimed in the total amount of $10,050.00, nor does it dispute that costs in the amount of $2,655.95 were incurred by Cralle in the underlying case. The entire record in this case, which includes a transcript of the probable cause hearing, considered in light of the entire record in Case No. 01-2928, establishes that the total amount of fees and costs claimed here were necessarily and reasonably incurred in the successful defense of the administrative charges. In opposition to Cralle's request for reimbursement pursuant to the provisions of the Act, Respondent argues that the case falls within an exception for proceedings which were "substantially justified" at the time the charges were brought. The crux of Respondent's argument is that "[the] Administrative Law Judge decided the case primarily on the basis that, in her belief, based on the demeanor of the complainant, [Respondent] was more credible than the complainant." Respondent's argument requires that material facts be ignored. In the underlying case, Respondent had the burden to prove the administrative charges by clear and convincing evidence. Yet its factual case was based exclusively upon the testimony of Helen Mesa (Mesa). Mesa's demeanor was just one of several things noted in the Recommended Order which cast doubt upon her credibility. At the time of the probable cause hearing, it was known, or at least knowable, that Mesa fit the profile of the stereotypical "disgruntled former employee." At least a half dozen witnesses could have been expected to corroborate Mesa's testimony, and at the probable cause stage of the proceedings, Respondent's own expert recommended that at least some of these individuals be found and interviewed. With this red flag flying, and Cralle's attorney protesting that Mesa's story should be corroborated in some fashion before the litigation process was set in motion, Respondent elected to proceed on a needlessly thin investigation.
Findings Of Fact On January 16, 1987, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services notified J. S. By letter that it had received a report of neglect regarding him and advised him of his right to request the report be amended or expunged. J. S. did so but on February 26, 1987, the Department advised him his request for expungement had been denied. Thereafter, J. S. requested a formal hearing which was held by the undersigned on October 27, 1987. After a full, formal hearing on the merits, at which both testimony and documentary exhibits were presented by both parties, the undersigned, on December 1, 1987, entered a Recommended Order in which it was found, as a matter of fact, that while the alleged victim of the neglect was incapable of totally caring for himself, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the relationship between the victim and J. S. was a care-giving one or that J. S. had the responsibility to look out for the victim so as to bring him within the purview of the statute. The Department thereafter entered a Final Order consistent with the Recommended Order, amending the classification of the report to "unfounded" and expunging it from the Department records. Evidence introduced at the original formal hearing held herein established that J. S. was an employee, (resident manager) at the Royal Palm Retirement Home in Ft. Myers, Florida. He was not the owner of the facility nor was any evidence introduced to indicate he had any financial interest, other than as an employee, in the facility. Further, he was not engaging in the professional practice of a licensed profession. His relationship with the alleged victim was found to be no more than that of landlord-tenant. The Department's investigation of the alleged neglect, while not completely comprehensive, nonetheless was sufficiently thorough to meet the test of reasonableness.
The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, in which the parties have stipulated 1/ that the only disputed issues to be resolved by the Hearing Officer are: Whether the Petitioner qualifies as a small business party as defined by Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Whether the agency's actions were substantially justified. Whether special circumstances exist that would make an award of attorney's fees unjust.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Stephen S. Spector, M.D., has at all times material to this proceeding been licensed in the State of Florida as a physician. At all times material to this proceeding the Petitioner has engaged in the practice of medicine specializing in ophthalmology and ophthalmic surgery. In connection with his medical practice, the Petitioner also owns and operates, directly or indirectly, at least one outpatient surgery center where he performs most of his surgical procedures. In the normal course of events, when the Petitioner performs surgery at the outpatient surgery center he owns, the patient, or the patient's insurance carrier, is billed separately for the Petitioner's professional services as surgeon and for the use of the outpatient facility. 3/ In the course of his professional practice as a physician/surgeon and the operation of his outpatient surgery center, the Petitioner does business under a variety of business names or business entities, including the following: 4/ Steve S. Spector, M.D., P.A.; Presidential SurgiCenter, Inc.; Presidential Optical, Inc.; and Presidential Eye Center, P.A. At all times material, the Petitioner owned 100 percent of the stock in each of the four corporate entities listed immediately above. At all times material, the Petitioner was employed by Presidential Eye Center, P.A., as a physician/surgeon specializing in ophthalmology, and has been so employed for a period of approximately fourteen or fifteen years. In recent years, the Petitioner's estimated monthly income from his employment by Presidential Eye Center, P.A., was $10,000.00 per month. In some recent years, his income from his employment by Presidential Eye Center, P.A., was somewhat higher. 5/ The Petitioner also receives monthly rental payments from Presidential Eye Center, P.A., Presidential SurgiCenter, Inc., and Presidential Optical, Inc., of approximately $9,500.00. As of the date on which the Administrative Complaint was filed, the Petitioner's net worth was approximately $691,000.00. The evidence in the case does not reveal the number of Petitioner's employees or the number of people employed by the corporate entities through which the Petitioner does business. 6/ The evidence in this case does not clearly reveal which professional and/or business activities are engaged in by the Petitioner in his individual capacity and which are engaged in through each of the four corporate entities of which he is the 100 percent owner. 7/ The Case of Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine v. Stephen S. Spector, M.D., DOAH Case No. 93-1307, DPR Case No. 92-0666, had its genesis in a September 17, 1991 letter from Marc Freeman, M.D., Medical Director of the Family Medical Centers, to the Department of Professional Regulation 8/ (Department) alleging that the Petitioner had made false representations related to billing practices regarding five cataract surgeries and that the Petitioner also made a practice of submitting bills for services and facilities that were allegedly covered by a capitation contract. The case was assigned to DPR Investigator Robert Herron, who notified Petitioner of the complaint and investigation by letter of February 6, 1992. Investigator Herron obtained copies of the medical records for four of the patients indicated in Dr. Freeman's complaint letter, which included records from Humana Hospital and Presidential SurgiCenter, Petitioner's surgical center. Investigator Herron interviewed Dr. Freeman, interviewed the Petitioner through his attorney, and interviewed the attorney representing Humana Health Care Plan. The Petitioner, through counsel, represented that any overbilling to Humana occurred due to errors in bookkeeping and accounting, and not through any fraud on the part of the Petitioner. Other documents obtained as part of this investigation included, but were not limited to, capitation agreements between Petitioner and Humana Medical Plan, Inc., and related court documents from civil litigation which transpired as a result of Petitioner's alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Investigator Herron did not interview the employees of the Petitioner who handled the Petitioner's billing for professional services and for use of facilities. Humana's civil complaint against Petitioner, Case No. CL 90-8421 A B, alleged that Petitioner breached his contract with Humana and profited unfairly as a result, by performing surgeries and billing for same contrary to the provision of capitation agreements between the Petitioner and Humana. Humana claimed that the overbilling by the Petitioner totaled almost $400,000.00. On or about May 21, 1992, Investigator Herron compiled a report which was reviewed and approved by his supervisor on the same date. Settlement of the case between Humana and Petitioner was reached, and an Order of Dismissal was filed in that cause on September 23, 1991. The settlement called for Petitioner to pay Humana Medical Plan, Inc., a total sum of $210,000.00 over an approximate four-year period of time. This settlement was also to include a letter by Humana indicating that this case involved a contractual dispute based upon accounting procedures, and was not based upon allegations of fraud. 9/ Prior to the Probable Cause Panel meeting of July 29, 1992, the Department forwarded to the panel members copies of the complete investigative file regarding the Petitioner, along with a copy of the Department's recommendation in the form of a draft Administrative Complaint. Each panel member received and reviewed the materials related to this case prior to the Probable Cause Panel meeting. DPR Case No. 92-0666 was forwarded to the Probable Cause Panel with a recommendation that probable cause be found for an Administrative Complaint. Present at the July 29, 1992, Probable Cause Panel meeting were panel members Richard McEven, Chairman; Gerard Kaiser, M.D.; and Edward Dauer, M.D. Also present were M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire, from the Attorney General's office, Carlos J. Ramos, attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation, and Teresa Corley, also from the Department. Probable cause was found to exist unanimously by the Panel members, with Dr. Dauer noting that the proposed Administrative Complaint accurately represented "the facts of law at issue." Probable cause was found to exist that Petitioner violated the following statutory provisions: Section 458.331(1)(h), (k) and (n), Florida Statutes. On or about August 7, 1992, the Department initiated action against the Petitioner's license to practice medicine as directed by the Probable Cause Panel of the Board in DPR Case No. 92-0666, later DOAH Case No. 93-1307, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint filed on August 7, 1992, charged Petitioner with the following violations: filing false reports which the licensee knew to be false in that Petitioner billed patients' insurance carriers for use of his private surgical facility when, in fact, he did not use the facility to perform the surgeries and had agreed to provide services under a capitation agreement; by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of medicine or employing a trick or scheme in the practice of medicine in that Petitioner billed patients' insurance carriers for use of his private surgical facility when, in fact, he did not use the facility to perform the surgeries and had agreed to provide service under a capitation agreement; and exercising influence on a patient or client in such a manner as to exploit the patient or client for financial gain of the licensee or of a third party in that Petitioner billed patients' insurance carriers for use of his private surgical facility when, in fact, he did not use the facility to perform the surgeries and had agreed to provide services under a capitation agreement. At the time of the four surgeries that form the basis for the underlying Administrative Complaint, there was no capitation agreement between the Petitioner and Humana, because Humana had terminated the agreement. The materials presented to the original Probable Cause Panel included several documents, all apparently overlooked, which showed that the capitation agreement had been terminated and that the effective date of the termination was prior to the date of the four surgeries at issue in the Administrative Complaint. At the time of the four surgeries at issue in the underlying Administrative Complaint, an employee of Petitioner, Jeanne Gold, had the responsibility of billing for Petitioner's services and for the Presidential SurgiCenter facility fee. For each patient listed in the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Gold billed Humana a surgical facility fee for surgeries purportedly rendered by Petitioner at the Presidential SurgiCenter, even though the surgeries were actually performed at Humana Hospital. There were logical explanations for how the errors occurred, which explanations are set forth in affidavits from Jeanne Gold, Brenda Gruber, and Stephen Cohen. These affidavits which explain how the errors in billing occurred were not part of the materials reviewed by the original Probable Cause Panel, but the information contained in these affidavits could have been obtained prior to the original Probable Cause Panel meeting if the case has been adequately investigated. When the Petitioner was told that Humana believed he had incorrectly billed for the four surgeries at issue, he instructed his staff to inquire into the matter and take any necessary corrective action. The Petitioner subsequently made appropriate reimbursements to correct the subject billing errors. On or about September 14, 1993, Department legal counsel presented DPR Case No. 92-0666 to the Probable Cause Panel for reconsideration based upon information which indicated that Petitioner did not have a capitation agreement with Humana at the time of the subject surgeries and that the incorrect billing was simply an error, not an intentional or fraudulent act. Based upon the recommendation of Department legal counsel, the second Probable Cause Panel dismissed all charges against the Petitioner. The evidence presented to the original Probable Cause Panel was an insufficient basis upon which to find probable cause for the violations asserted in the Administrative Complaint. That evidence failed to contain evidence that would reasonably support a belief that the Respondent acted intentionally or fraudulently, and the evidence also affirmatively showed that some of the facts asserted in the Administrative Complaint were incorrect. Adequate investigation would have revealed that all of the incorrect billing alleged in the Administrative Complaint resulted from unintentional error, for which there was a logical explanation.
