The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent should be dismissed from her teaching position in the Dade County School System for incompetence and willful neglect of duty. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses Patrick Gray, Richard Artmeir, Willie Joseph Wright, Jesselyn Brown, Olga Miyar, and Ira Wax. Respondent testified on her own behalf. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence three exhibits. The Respondent offered and had admitted five exhibits during the course of the hearing. Respondent's Exhibit 6 is a late-filed exhibit accompanied by a stipulation entered into between the parties to this action. This was admitted as a late-filed exhibit and is part of the record. Counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted in this order, they were considered and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, the Respondent was employed as a teacher by the Dade County School Board. Pursuant to a stipulation by and between the parties, the following facts are found: During the 1981-82 school year, Bertha Altuzarra was employed by the Dade County School Board and was located at Riverside Elementary. From January 4, 1982, to June 18, 1982, Respondent was absent on personal leave due to the death of her mother. On August 25, 1982, she was ordered to return to work at Riverside Elementary. Between August 27, 1981, and January 4, 1982, the Respondent was assigned to Riverside Elementary School. During this time period, she was absent from her teaching position thirty-five days. Many of the absences were without any notification to the school. Under her contract with the School Board, she was entitled to 10 days of personal leave during the school year. Prior to December 16, 1982,the Respondent had made no request for personal leave. At a conference on November 20, 1981, Respondent was given a memorandum by the assistant principal of Riverside Elementary School. The memo (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) related to the Respondent's absences from her class and the adverse affects that such absences were having on her class and the school. As of the date of the memo, Respondent had been absent 20 days and present 33 days. The following problems were noted in the memorandum: Excessive absences-33 days present; 20 days absent - causing: severe disruption in student program disruption in classroom teachers' plans administrators' inability to conduct formal observation. You were scheduled for an observation today but you were absent. Loss of mandatory parent permission letters for one of your classes that is now scheduled for another teacher. Failure to submit all class rosters - timeline given: today. Failure to adhere to class times as scheduled: tardiness in meeting groups early dismissal of students Failure to manage classroom and maintain student control: several staff members have broken up disruptions in your groups. The school monitor has been repeatedly summoned to your classroom. These problems were discussed by the assistant principal Olga Miyar, with Mrs. Altuzarra. Subsequent to the conference with the assistant principal, the Respondent continued to accumulate absences. On December 11, 1981, the Respondent was sent a memo from the principal of Riverside Elementary School regarding the absences and inquiring about Respondent's intentions for the remainder of the school year. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On December 16, 1981, Respondent received the memo and responded by letter stating that her mother had been seriously ill and that she intended to be back at her class on December 17, 1981. (See Respondent's Exhibit 2). As of December 11, Respondent had been absent from her class a total of 32 days. Respondent returned to the school on December 17, 1981, and acknowledged she had had some problems with absences but that she would be back after the holiday and do her job. Pursuant to a request and authorization, Respondent went on personal leave without pay beginning January 4, 1982. As of January 4, 1982, when her leave began, the Respondent had been absent from her class a total of 35 days since August, 1981. On or about April 7, 1982, Respondent, while on leave without pay, was sent a letter requesting that she provide the School Board with a letter as to whether she intended to return to active teaching status when her leave ended on June 18. The Respondent's letter of intent was due within 30 days. As of June 7, 1982, no letter or response had been received from Respondent and a second letter was sent to her by the personnel office. On July 12, 1982, the personnel office was informed that Respondent intended to return to active teaching status. Sometime prior to August 25, 1982, Respondent received written notification to return to Riverside Elementary on August 25, 1982. When Respondent reported to Riverside Elementary School on August 25, 1982, she was informed by the principal, Jesselyn Brown, that she had been assigned to another school and was no longer assigned to Riverside Elementary. Ms. Brown called the Area Office and informed Mrs. Altuzarra that the Area Office requested she go to the Area Office. Ms. Brown also informed Mrs. Altuzarra that her position had been reallocated to a different school and that as a result, she had been surplused and reassigned to Pine Villa Elementary School. On August 26, 1982, Respondent again reported to Riverside Elementary School and was again told by the principal, Ms. Brown, that she was assigned to Pine Villa Elementary, not Riverside Elementary. She was again instructed by the principal to report to the Area Office. Mrs. Altuzarra was also informed by the area personnel director and a line director that she was assigned to Pine Villa Elementary and that she should report to Pine Villa. Sometime later, Ms. Brown received a call from Mr. Pollock, a representative of the teacher's union, and she also explained to him that Mrs. Altuzarra had been surplused and was no longer assigned to Riverside Elementary. On August 31, 1982, Respondent received a telephone call from Dr. Willie Joseph Wright, the principal of Pine Villa Elementary School. He informed her she was assigned to Pine Villa and asked why she had not reported to the school. Respondent stated that she had heard about Pine Villa and it was too far from her home and that she was not going to report. On September 20, 1982, the Respondent met with Mr. Meers, Director of the South Area to which Respondent was assigned. He instructed her to report to Pine Villa. This meeting occurred at approximately 11:30 a.m. and the Respondent never reported to Pine Villa. The Respondent, in the meeting with Mr. Meers, stated she would report to Pine Villa Elementary. Sometime prior to September 20, 1982, Respondent also received a telephone call asking her to report to Caloosa Elementary School for a possible position there. She went to Caloosa Elementary, but was informed by the principal that there was no position for her at Caloosa Elementary. The Respondent had not received a letter or writing of any type requesting her to report to Caloosa Elementary. On November 3 1982, Respondent and Mr. Bennie Pollock, United Teachers of Dade County representative, met with Mr. Richard A. Artmeir, Supervisor of the Division of Personnel Control, to discuss Respondent's failure to report to Pine Villa Elementary School and to also discuss her excessive absences during the 1981-82 school year. Subsequent to the meeting, Respondent was sent, by certified mail, a memorandum of the conference which included a reprimand for having willfully been absent from her assigned work location without authorization. On October 15, 1982, Dr. Ira Wax, the Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Personnel, submitted to the Executive Director of the Division of Personnel Control of the Dade County School Board, a recommendation that dismissal proceedings be initiated against the Respondent. Respondent testified that the only reason she never reported to Pine Villa Elementary was because she had not received a letter or writing assigning her to Pine Villa.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter an order dismissing the Respondent and denying her request for back pay. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse James McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137 William DuFresne, Esquire Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire DuFresne & Bradley 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination, misconduct in office and absent without leave as more fully alleged in letter dated November 7, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Joseph A. Tourney held an Educator's Certificate from the Florida Department of Education (Ex. 1) and has been on continuing contract since 1972 with the Pinellas County School Board (Ex. 2). He has taught in the Florida School System for approximately 20 years with the last 14 years at Pinellas Park High School (PPHS) as a social studies teacher. As early as 1970, while a teacher at Lakewood Senior High School, Respondent's negative attitude toward strict compliance with school policies was noted (Ex. 9). Much of this attitude was exhibited by arriving later than and departing prior to the time designated for teachers to be at the school (Ex. 10). Following a review of Respondent's evaluations and conferences with him regarding his attitude respecting school policies and procedures to which Toumey did not agree, a recommendation was made by the Principal at Lakewood that Toumey be transferred (Ex. 12). Toumey was transferred to Largo High School. No problems were reported regarding Toumey during his tenure at Largo. When Pinellas Park High School opened circa 1976 Toumey was transferred to that school. Hugh Kreiger was principal at Pinellas Park High School. Krieger was a hands-on administrator who closely observed those under his supervision. The first time he observed Toumey depart school early he called him in and assigned Toumey permanent parking lot duty which required Toumey's presence at the parking lot until after the designated departure time. For the next five years no further problem was noted regarding Toumey's punctuality at school. Krieger was replaced by Louis Williams and Toumey's attendance problems resumed. After repeated warnings about leaving school in the afternoon prior to the scheduled departure time for teachers (30 minutes after students are released) and a conference between Williams and Tourney, Williams requested a conference with Tourney and John Mixon, Director of Personnel Services for the school board. This conference was held October 14, 1982 (Ex. 13). During this conference Respondents's early departures from school, his attitude toward school policies to which he disagreed, and his insensitivity to students was discussed and Tourney was advised that improvements in these matters was expected. By memo dated February 28, 1983 (Ex. 15) Williams noted several occasions where Toumey had departed school early and Tourney was charged with one-half day's leave and given a written reprimand. A subsequent documentation of Tourney leaving school early is contained in a memo dated November 7, 1986, from Williams to Tourney (Ex. 16). On September 21, 1987, Nancy Blackwelder, Assistant Principal at PPHS, submitted a memorandum to Tourney memorializing a conference with him in which he was again reminded of his need to improve in classroom atmosphere conducive to learning, judgment, and routine duties; and noting that if he failed to perform routine duties he would receive a written reprimand (Ex. 17). On October 8, 1987, a conference was held between Tourney; Nancy Zambito, who replaced Dr. Mixon as Director of Personnel Services; the principal of PPHS, M. Heminger; and a union representative. The summary of this conference is contained in a memo from Zambito to Tourney dated October 3, 1987, (Ex. 18). In this conference Tourney's inappropriate behavior in class involving his participation in a program adopted by the school, Patriot Educational Partners (PEP), was discussed, Tourney was again reminded of the need to support school board policies and programs in his contact with students, and Tourney agreed to improve. In November 1987 Tourney and the School Board entered into a Stipulation and Agreement (Ex. 19). In this Agreement Tourney acknowledged that he had been given less than satisfactory evaluations for the school years 1970-71, 1982-83, 1983-84, and 1986-87, that he had received numerous counseling sessions to discuss his failure to adhere to established school procedures and his negative comments to students. He also acknowledged that during the 1987-88 school year while assigned as advisor to a group of students with whom he is supposed to meet for five minutes each morning, he has frequently been late; that he referred to this program in the presence of students in negative and profane terms; and on one occasion he threw financial aid papers in the trash can and told students they could get them from there if they wanted them. For these infractions Tourney agreed to a suspension without pay for five days. He also acknowledged that further infractions may lead to a recommendation for his dismissal. In his testimony at this hearing Tourney averred that most of the students who were given financial aid applications threw them on the floor from which they had to be picked up and placed in the trash baskets, and that he was merely shorting the process by throwing these applications in the trash can rather than pass them out to the students who would throw them on the floor. On May 9, 1989, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand (Ex. 20), by Principal Heminger for inappropriate conduct in his class during a visit to the class by members of the committee conducting a ten-year evaluation of the PPHS for accreditation during the period of April 25-28, 1989. In this reprimand he was also found to have arrived late at the final meeting of the Visiting Committee and to have returned from lunch with the odor of alcohol on his breath. On September 12, 1989, a conference was held between John Reynolds, Assistant Principal at PPHS and Tourney to discuss Tourney's 1988-89 evaluation. This conference is memorialized in memorandum dated September 19, 1989, (Ex. 21). The areas in which improvement is expected in the evaluations are attitude, judgment and routine duties. October 13, 1989, was an in-service day for teachers. This is a normal school day which only teachers attend. It was one of several similar days during the school year that teachers hold meetings, catch up on the grading of papers and perform tasks other than conducting classes for their students. It is a day all teachers are expected to be present at school. At PPHS in-service days have always been more informal than regular school days and in the past teachers have departed early once their tasks were completed. Prior to 1988 there had been no sign-in sheet for teachers at PPHS but such a procedure was instituted and in effect for the in-service day of October 13, 1989. Respondent appeared at school on October 13, 1989, as required but slightly late. Around 9:00 a.m. he received a telephone call from his good friend and fellow teacher in the social studies department, David Smith, who told respondent that he, Smith, had just awakened after not having slept well during the night, and Smith requested Respondent to sign him in and he would arrive shortly. Respondent did so. After making the call, Smith went back to bed and when he again awoke it was afternoon and he realized he was suffering from flu-like symptoms and was too sick to go to school. Several people were aware that Smith did not report to school on October 13, 1989 and reported same to the authorities. When confronted with the accusation both Tourney and Smith denied that Tourney had signed Smith in and that Smith was not at school that day. When he finally acknowledged his absence from school on October 13, 1989, Smith was suspended for three days without pay. The October 13, 1989, incident was the culmination of a long history of Respondent's failure to comply with school policies and directives, to "trash" school programs to which he did not agree, and to be in the forefront of rebellion against such programs and policies which led to the proposed action of the school board to dismiss Respondent from his continuing contract as a teacher in the Pinellas County school system at the expiration of the 1989-90 school year.
Recommendation It is recommended that Joseph Tourney be dismissed from his position as a continuing contract teacher in the Pinellas County School System at the conclusion of the 1989-90 school year. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 5th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Dr. Scott N. Rose, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Bruce Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, FL 33675-0638
The Issue Whether Respondent should be terminated from her employment with the Seminole County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Mack has been employed by the School Board for six years. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mack was a school lunch assistant assigned to Seminole High School. Her immediate supervisor was John Caldwell (Caldwell). Mack received satisfactory evaluations of her work for Petitioner until April 2002, when she received an evaluation from Caldwell criticizing her in several areas. On April 12, 2002, a Friday, Mack was upset about her evaluation, showed her evaluation to fellow workers and loudly complained about her evaluation. She was becoming disruptive to the cafeteria operations. Caldwell called Mack into his office to discuss her behavior. She became loud, and Caldwell had to call the Assistant Principal. Mack was sent home. Caldwell did not tell her not to come back, and, at that time, did not tell her that he was going to recommend that she be terminated. On Monday, April 15, 2002, Mack called her workplace and said that she was sick and was going to the emergency room. On April 16, 2002, Mack called in and spoke to Janelle Harris (Harris), who was Caldwell's assistant. Mack told Harris that she had the flu and would not be coming to work. The policy for a food service worker at Seminole High School who was going to be absent from work because of sickness was that the worker was to call either Caldwell or Harris and notify them of the absence. The telephone in Caldwell's office has voice mail capabilities; thus, if Caldwell or Harris were not in the office, the sick employee was to leave a message on the voice mail. Caldwell and Harris were the only two persons who had access to the code to retrieve messages from the voice mail. On April 17, 2002, Mack was absent from work, but did not call in and give an explanation for her absence. Mack continued to be absent from work without calling in. On April 26, 2002, Mack came to the school office and picked up her paycheck. She did not go to the cafeteria and tell Caldwell or Harris why she had not been at work. Learning that Mack had gone to the school to pick up her check, Caldwell called Mack at her home. Mack told Caldwell that she had called in and left a voice mail. No messages were left on the voice mail by Mack between April 17 and April 26. Caldwell explained to Mack that she was required to call in unless she was in the hospital or could not talk. Daniel Andrews (Andrews), the Director of Food Services, prepared a letter to be sent to Mack under Caldwell's signature. The letter, dated May 2, 2002, advised Mack that she had continued to be absent without calling in to notify Caldwell of her absence and to provide a reason for the absence. The letter further advised her that three days of absence without leave required a penalty of termination. Mack was requested to contact Caldwell by noon on May 7, 2002, or the case would be referred to Andrews. Mack did not receive the letter until May 8, 2002; however, she never contacted Caldwell concerning the letter. By letter dated May 10, 2002, Andrews advised Mack that because of her continued absences without leave and her failure to provide justification for her absences that he would be requesting that her termination be recommended to the School Board. Mack received this letter on May 18, 2002. By letter dated May 20, 2002, Paul Hagerty, Superintendent of Public Schools for the School District of Seminole County, Florida, advised Mack that he would be appearing before the School Board on May 28, 2002, and recommending that she be suspended without pay. He further advised her that at the June 11, 2002, School Board meeting he would file a recommendation that her employment be terminated effective June 12, 2002. Mack contacted Andrews by telephone and left a voice mail. On May 21, 2002, Andrews returned her call, and Mack told him that she had gotten the voice mail when she tried to call Caldwell but did not leave any messages. Andrews would have accepted a reasonable explanation from Mack for her absences when she talked to him on May 21, but she did not provide any plausible reason for not notifying Caldwell of her absences nor did she ever provide any documentation from a doctor that she had been ill during her absences. Mack told Andrews that she did not care if her employment was terminated. By letter dated May 25, 2002, Mack requested a hearing on the decision to terminate her employment. Mack did not request a hearing concerning the recommendation for her suspension. On May 28, 2002, the School Board suspended Mack, effective May 29, 2002. Mack had a job at a local barbeque restaurant during the evening hours. While she was absent from her job at Seminole High School, she continued to work at the barbeque restaurant. The Non-Instructional Personnel of Seminole County Board of Public Instruction, Inc., and the School Board have entered into a collective bargaining agreement, effective July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2002, covering the wages, hours, and the terms and conditions of employment of the public employees within the bargaining unit. The collective bargaining agreement applies to Mack's employment with the School Board. Article VII, Sections 5, 11, and 15 of the collective bargaining agreement provide: Section 5. Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years (without a break in service) shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: * * * 10. Improper use of sick leave. Section 11. Absence Without Leave Employees will be considered absent without leave if they fail to notify their principal, appropriate director or supervisor that they will be absent from duty and the reason for such absence. Absence without leave is a breach of contract and may be grounds for immediate dismissal. Section 15 Employees shall report absences and the reason for such absences prior to the start of their duty day in accordance with practices established at each cost center. An employee who has been determined to have been AWOL shall be subject to the following progressive discipline procedures: 1st Offense--Written reprimand and one day suspension. 2nd Offense--Five day suspension without pay. 3rd Offense--Recommend for termination. The School Board interprets the collective bargaining agreement to mean that each day an employee is absent without leave is a separate offense. At no time did the School Board issue Mack a written reprimand, one-day suspension, or a five- day suspension prior to her termination, as set forth in Section 15 of the collective bargaining agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Dorothy Mack was absent without leave, suspending her for one day, and issuing a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 10th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. 215 West Verne Street, Suite D Tampa, Florida 33606 Sandra J. Pomerantz, Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Paul J. Hagerty, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Turlington Building, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Carl B. Dietz (Dietz) was employed as a member of the instructional staff of Trafalgar Middle School, Lee County School District (District) pursuant to a professional service contract. Throughout Dietz's employment with the District, his annual evaluations indicate that the quality of his work was deemed an "effective level of performance". Dietz was initially employed by the District as a regular teacher on August 15, 1985. Dietz holds Florida Teaching Certificate #543771 issued by the Florida Department of Education. He is certified to teach secondary-level history and junior high school mathematics. For six years prior to the 1991-92 school year, Dietz taught advanced level American history and math at Cypress Lakes High School. Most of Dietz's students at Cypress Lakes were approximately 16-18 years old. A decrease in enrollment at Cypress Lakes resulted in a reduction of teaching staff at Cypress Lakes. Because no other high school instructional positions were open, Dietz was offered and accepted a position at Trafalgar Middle School. During the 1991-92 school year, Dietz taught history to Trafalgar eighth graders. During the school year 1992-93, Dietz was assigned teaching responsibilities for the Trafalgar Middle School sixth grade PASS program math and social studies classes. The PASS (Pupils Achieving School Success) program is a state funded project developed to focus specific attention on students identified as at risk of withdrawal from school prior to high school graduation. Dietz had no previous experience as an instructor in a PASS program. Dietz received no special training for the PASS program. The sixth grade students in the PASS program were approximately 11-12 years old. The nature of the PASS program may result in students who are less disciplined and more disruptive than the students Dietz had previously taught. Dietz taught two PASS classes, a morning group and an afternoon group. Students from both classes testified during the hearing. Conflicts in testimony have been resolved as indicated in the following Findings of Fact. It is alleged that on one day in October, 1992, Dietz, yanked a chair from under a student, resulting in the student's head striking the desk as he fell to the floor. The evidence establishes that the student was sitting sideways in the chair and was rocking back on the rear legs of the chair. Dietz grabbed the seatback and the chair slid from under the student who fell to the floor. The greater weight of the evidence is insufficient to establish that the student struck his head during the fall. In any event, the student was not physically injured in the incident. Dietz asserted that the student had been previously warned about sitting improperly, and that he grabbed the seatback to startle the child and "make the point" that he should sit properly. There is no evidence that the action of Dietz was an appropriate manner in which to discipline the child for sitting incorrectly in the chair. It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz addressed a child (whose pronunciation of his first name was poor) by a mispronunciation of the child's name as a means of encouraging the child to pronounce the name correctly. Upon requesting Dietz to correctly pronounce the name, Dietz discontinued his practice. The evidence fails to establish that the child was harmed by the mispronunciation of his name. In October, 1992, Dietz removed a non-functioning clock from the classroom wall and threw it down. The battery came out of the clock and struck a female student's leg, but no injury resulted. The allegation that Dietz's removal of the clock was accompanied by a remark that the "piece of shit" clock was not working is not supported by the greater weight of credible evidence. It is alleged that Dietz threw a pencil and book at one student who came to class without materials. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Dietz slammed a book down on the table in front of the student, who was being seated away from class as a disciplinary measure. The evidence also establishes that Dietz tossed a pencil to the child. The evidence fails to indicate that tossing a pencil to a sixth grade child is an appropriate method of distributing school supplies. The pencil would have hit the child had he not moved from the path of the projectile, however the evidence does not establish any intent to injure the child by Dietz. In October, 1992, four female students from Dietz's afternoon class locked themselves in a bathroom stall during a rest room break and remained there when the break ended. Standing in the school hallway, Dietz reached into the bathroom, knocked on the stall door and directed the female students to return to class. It is alleged that upon exiting the bathroom, Dietz addressed the students as "lesbians," "perverts" and "gaywads." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the presence of the female students or that his action in directing the students to return to class was inappropriate. It is alleged that at various times in the classroom during the 1992- 93 school year, Dietz uttered the following words and phrases: "nigger," "nigger shit," and "nigger talk," and instructed one student to "take your black ass back to Africa." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the classroom. It is alleged that at various times in the classroom during the 1992- 93 school year, Dietz uttered the following words: "ass," "assholes," "shit," "hell," "fucking assholes," and "fucking jerks." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the classroom. It is alleged that on one occasion at the end of the class session during the 1992-93 school year, Dietz instructed a student in the completed class to get his "fat ass" out of the classroom. There was testimony that Dietz directed the student to get his "fat carcass" out of the classroom. While the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence establishes that Dietz indeed addressed the child as "fat", it is insufficient to establish that Dietz used the word "ass" in the presence of the child. The evidence fails to establish that use of the descriptive word "fat" resulted in injury to the child. It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz threw a plastic cup at a student. The evidence fails to support the allegation. It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz threatened to tell the mother of a student that the child was "a big fat lump of nothing." The evidence fails to support the allegation. In October, 1992, a student inquired of Dietz as to whether he believed the students in the class were "brats." Dietz replied in the affirmative. The student then asked if Dietz thought the inquiring student was a "brat." Dietz again replied in the affirmative. It is alleged that Dietz drove onto the school grounds with a loaded and cased handgun locked in the glove box of his car. It is alleged that on the day questioned about the gun, Dietz admitted having the gun in the car. The evidence fails to establish that, on the day questioned, Dietz (who owned several vehicles) had the gun in the glove box of the car driven. However, the evidence establishes that, on at least one occasion, Dietz drove onto the school grounds with a loaded and cased handgun locked in the glove box of his vehicle. The all times material to this case, there was no written School Board policy prohibiting a loaded and cased weapon from being on the school grounds locked in a vehicle glove box. There were no oral directives to faculty that a loaded and cased weapon, locked in a vehicle glove box, was prohibited from school grounds. At one time in the Spring of 1992, the school principal brought a firearm onto school grounds, the thereafter loaded and fired the weapon as part of a demonstration. The District's assertion that the related alleged violation of federal law is sufficient to support termination is rejected. On October 28, 1992, a number of Dietz's students went to the office of a school guidance counselor and voiced a number of complaints about alleged conduct. The counselor noted the complaints and reported the matter to the assistant principal of the school. On October 29, 1992, the assistant principal met with Dietz to discuss the allegations. According to the assistant principal, Dietz admitted to the alleged behaviors, except for one specific accusation regarding addressing a specific student as a "fucking ass." According to Dietz, he did not admit that such behaviors occurred and instead asserts that he attempted to explain some of the reasons for the allegations, including the grades assigned to some of the complaining students. The conflict in recollections is reconciled in favor of Dietz. On October 30, 1992, Dietz met with the principal of the school, during which time Dietz admitted that he had previously stored a loaded and cased handgun in the glove box of one of the vehicles he drove onto school grounds. On October 30, 1992, Dietz was suspended with pay based on the allegations of improper conduct. In November, 1992, an employee of the superintendent of the Lee County school district undertook an investigation of the allegations regarding Dietz. On November 10, 1992, a predetermination conference was held. On November 13, 1992, Dietz was advised that on November 17, 1992, the district superintendant would recommend to the school board that Dietz be suspended without pay and benefits pending termination of employment. Effective November 17, 1992, the board elected to suspend Dietz without pay and benefits. Dietz was notified of the board action by letter dated November 25, 1993. The letter provided that Dietz could request a formal administrative hearing on the matter. By letter dated November 19, 1992, Dietz requested formal hearing of the board's November 17 action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School District of Lee County enter a Final Order reinstating the employment of Carl B. Dietz and providing for back pay and benefits retroactive to November 17, 1992. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 27th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7075 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6-8. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected. The rest room discussion is irrelevant. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence fails to establish that the chair was "yanked" from under the student or that the student struck his head. The alleged lack of an apology is irrelevant. Rejected as to Dietz interaction with Mr. Nolan, irrelevant. Rejected, as to the discussion of poster touching, irrelevant. Rejected, as to the alleged "black talk" remark, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as to alleged remark that the class "sucks", not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 20-21. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 23-25. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 26. Rejected, subordinate. 28-29. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. 30, 32. Rejected, subordinate. Recitation of testimony not appropriate finding of fact. 33. Rejected, unnecessary. 34-40. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 11. Rejected as to allegation of child striking head in fall, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 13, 15. Rejected, subordinate. 16. Rejected as to force of toss or intent to strike child, irrelevant, no evidence that such action is appropriate regardless of intent. 17-20, 22. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, unnecessary 25-30. Rejected, subordinate. 31-38. Rejected, goes to credibility of witnesses which has been determined as reflected in the Findings of Fact set forth herein. 42, 44. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James A. Adams Superintendent Lee County School District 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John J. Hament, Esquire 1800 Second Street, Suite 785 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from employment with a private contractor providing adult day training to developmentally disabled clients of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact From April 2016 to October 2016, Petitioner Bertha Delaney ("Delaney") was employed by Cypress Place, Inc. ("Cypress"), a private, nonprofit corporation that provides services to developmentally disabled clients, and operates under the regulatory jurisdiction, of Respondent Agency for Persons with Disabilities ("APD"). Delaney was hired by Cypress as a receptionist, and her responsibilities included answering the phones, handling clerical tasks such as maintaining attendance sheets and filing, and assisting other employees as needed. Cypress operates an adult day training program, which offers "adult day training services" to APD clients. Such services include "training services that take place in a nonresidential setting, separate from the home or facility in which the client resides, and are intended to support the participation of clients in daily, meaningful, and valued routines of the community. Such training may be provided in work-like settings that do not meet the definition of supported employment." § 393.063(1), Fla. Stat. There is no persuasive evidence showing that, during her employment with Cypress, Delaney ever had face-to-face contact with a client while performing adult day training services. She was not, therefore, a "direct service provider" as that term is defined in section 393.063(13), Florida Statutes. Delaney did, however, have incidental, in-person interactions with clients, the evidence establishes, occasionally assisting clients in need of immediate help. Thus, although Delaney did not provide training services to clients, she provided some services in the broader sense of "helpful acts." In early August of 2016, an incident involving a client occurred at Cypress's facility, which the Department of Children and Families ("DCF") investigated. In the course of the investigation, the DCF investigator interviewed Delaney and learned that, because the subject client had appeared to be limping on the day in question, Delaney had helped the client walk from the bus to the building. At the time, Delaney had not yet undergone level 2 background screening because Cypress had not instructed her to do so. Rather, in or around April 2016, when she was hired, Cypress had required Delaney to go to the police department for a local criminal background check, which she did. Delaney, in fact, did everything that Cypress asked her to do with regard to background screening. Soon after (and perhaps because of) the DCF investigation, Cypress directed Delaney to submit to a level 2 background review, which she did.1/ And so it happened that in late August 2016, a search of Delaney's criminal history was performed, and the results were forwarded to DCF, which administers the background screening process for APD. By letter dated October 3, 2016, DCF notified Delaney that it had discovered her criminal conviction on a charge of grand theft of the third degree, to which she had pleaded no contest on June 13, 2001. This crime is a "disqualifying offense" under the applicable screening standards, which means that Delaney is ineligible to work as a direct service provider without an exemption from such disqualification. DCF advised Delaney that she needed to quit her job at Cypress and obtain an exemption from disqualification if she wanted to resume working there. Delaney promptly resigned her position with Cypress. Delaney then sought an exemption from disqualification from employment, submitting her Request for Exemption to DCF in November 2016. By letter dated March 17, 2017, APD informed Delaney that it intended to deny her request based solely on the ground that Delaney had "not submitted clear and convincing evidence of [her] rehabilitation." In other words, APD determined as a matter of ultimate fact that Delaney was not rehabilitated, which meant (as a matter of law) that the head of the agency had no discretion to grant an exemption.2/ APD did not, as an alternative basis for its proposed agency action, articulate any rationale for denying the exemption notwithstanding a showing of rehabilitation, assuming arguendo that such had been made. Delaney initiated the instant proceeding, hoping to prove her rehabilitation. The undersigned has considered the evidence as it relates to the statutory criteria for assessing rehabilitation, and makes the following findings of fact as a predicate for the ultimate determination. The Circumstances Surrounding the Criminal Incident. In or around September of 2000, Delaney stole cash receipts from her employer, Blockbuster Video, totaling approximately $13,800.00. She was soon arrested and charged with grand theft of the third degree, a felony offense as defined in section 812.014, Florida Statutes. At the time of the offense, Delaney, then 25 years old, was experiencing financial difficulties raising two young daughters. Although married, Delaney managed the household mostly on her own, as her husband, an interstate truck driver, was often on the road. Exercising what she now acknowledges was poor judgment, Delaney stole her employer's funds to ease her personal financial burden. On June 13, 2001, appearing before the Circuit Court in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Delaney entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal charge, was convicted by plea (adjudication withheld), and was sentenced to two years' probation with orders to make restitution in the amount of $13,778.00 to Blockbuster. Delaney completed her term of probation and complied with all of the other conditions imposed by the court, including the payment of restitution. The Time Period That Has Elapsed since the Incident. The disqualifying offense was committed about 17 years ago. Delaney thus has had ample time to restore her reputation and usefulness to society as a law abiding citizen following her conviction, and to mature into an older, more responsible adult. The Nature of the Harm Caused to the Victim. Delaney did not cause personal injury to any person in the commission of her crime. She was ordered to make restitution to the victim, and did, although the details of this transaction are not available in the record. Therefore, the economic harm caused by Delaney's theft appears to have been minimal. The History of the Applicant since the Incident. Since her conviction, Delaney has completed a training program to become a patient care technician and obtained a license to practice in Florida as a certified nursing assistant. She has held positions in these fields and performed admirably. Delaney lives with her two adult daughters, son-in-law, grandson, and fiancé; her current family situation is stable, both emotionally and financially. Her civil rights have been restored. She has not reoffended or otherwise run afoul of the law. APD severely faults Delaney for a so-called nondisclosure in her response to a question on the exemption request form concerning previous employment. The form asks the applicant to "provide your employment history for the last three years." Delaney answered, in relevant part, by stating: "I have not been employed for the last three (3) years." She followed this statement by describing employment predating "the last three (3) years" and explaining that an ankle injury in May 2013 (which required multiple surgeries to repair), together with the attendant convalescence and rehabilitation, had kept her out of the workforce for a couple of years. APD argues that Delaney lied about her employment history——it is undisputed that she had, in fact, worked (for Cypress) during the three years preceding her request for an exemption——and that this alleged "lie" proves Delaney had known not only that she was required to undergo level 2 background screening before taking the job with Cypress, but also that such screening would reveal her disqualifying criminal conviction, and that, therefore, to avoid detection, she had worked without being screened, in knowing violation of law. Put aside for the moment the issue of fact regarding whether Delaney "lied" about her employment history. APD's argument (that this "lie" is proof of Delaney's knowing violation of the background screening law) is illogical. For even if (as a matter of fact3/) Delany were required to be screened, and even if (as a matter of law4/) the background screening statutes were personally violable by an applicant or employee, Delaney's allegedly fraudulent answer to the employment history question does not rationally lead to the conclusion that she knew either of these premises to be true. Moreover, as discussed in endnote 1, it is unacceptable for an agency to rely upon an applicant's alleged violation of a regulatory statute as grounds to deny an exemption request where such alleged violation has never been proved in an enforcement proceeding. This is because any person charged with committing a disciplinable offense must be served with an administrative complaint and afforded clear notice of the right to a hearing, at which, if timely requested, the agency must prove the alleged wrongdoing by clear and convincing evidence. APD wants to skip all that and just have the undersigned find here, for the first time, that Delaney clearly violated section 393.0655 by working at Cypress for at least six months without being screened. See Resp.'s PRO at 9. That's not happening. The only relevant finding in this regard, which the undersigned makes, is that Delaney has never been found to have violated section 393.0655 by working at Cypress for at least six months without being screened. As for the alleged "lie," APD's position that Delaney's response to the employment history question was knowingly and intentionally false (by omitting reference to Cypress) does not make sense, because DCF already knew (from investigating an unrelated matter) that Delaney had worked for Cypress, and Delaney knew that DCF was aware of this fact when she filled out the form. That cat was out of the bag. At hearing, Delaney testified credibly and convincingly that she had not intended to mislead DCF. It is clear that she interpreted the question as asking about her employment during the three years before the job from which she had been disqualified (as opposed to the three years before completing the exemption request form). She misunderstood the question, to be sure, but it was an honest mistake, and the undersigned can appreciate how a person in Delaney's shoes could conclude that the job from which one has recently been disqualified does not "count" towards her employment history for purposes of seeking an exemption from disqualification. Delaney's testimony in this regard is corroborated by the fact that she submitted to DCF, as part of her exemption request package, two letters of recommendation from employees of Cypress, written on Cypress letterhead, attesting to her good character. These letters, taken together, make it clear that Delaney had recently been an employee of Cypress. Obviously, if Delaney had intended, knowingly, to deceive DCF by concealing her employment with Cypress, she would not have provided these letters. APD argues that one of these letters, from Rashard Williams, which is dated October 27, 2016, does not specifically indicate that Delaney ever worked at Cypress——and thus does not bolster Delaney's testimony that she never intended to conceal the fact that she had. To reach this conclusion one must discount the writer's statement that "Ms. Delaney has proven herself to be reliable, trustworthy, and compassionate both as a person and as an employee." If the Williams letter were the only written recommendation from a Cypress employee, however, the undersigned would consider APD's interpretation to be, while certainly not the best or most reasonable, at least plausible in view of Mr. Williams's additional comments about how well Delaney took care of his grandmother in a capacity, apparently, other than as an employee of Cypress. But the companion to the Williams letter, a recommendation from Mark Chmiel dated October 24, 2016, leaves no room for doubt that Delaney was a recent employee of Cypress. A short, two-sentence excerpt suffices to support this finding: "Bertha is an invaluable addition to our agency [i.e., Cypress,] and she has fulfilled the potential of her position far better than anyone before her. Her moral character is beyond reproach and I have no qualms about trusting her with our clients."5/ The letters of recommendation that Delaney furnished DCF refute the notion that she knowingly omitted Cypress from her employment history with the intent to mislead DCF. They prove, instead, that Delaney took for granted DCF's knowledge of her work for Cypress, for she was certain DCF already knew about it. In turn, that foundational assumption (which, in fact, was true) prompted Delaney to provide a history of her employment during the several years leading up to the job with Cypress. The undersigned finds that Delaney is not guilty of knowingly withholding material information from DCF in response to the question about her previous employment. Finally, the undersigned observes that APD, in its preliminary decision-making, impermissibly allowed speculation and conjecture to take the place of facts. In forming its intent to deny Delaney's application, APD took into account the "possibility that Ms. Delaney was trying to protect Cypress Place from demonstrating that they were in violation of the screening laws" as well as the "possibility that Rashard Williams might have tried to hide the fact [sic6/] that there was a violation of the screening requirements by Cypress Place." Resp.'s PRO at 10 (emphasis added). On the basis of this rank speculation, APD conjectured that "Ms. Delaney was willing to collude with [Cypress employees] in order not to spotlight their violation of the licensing law." Resp.'s PRO at 18. APD proved none of this imaginative guesswork. Circumstances Showing Applicant Poses No Danger. Yvonne Ginsberg, the executive director of Cypress, testified in support of Delaney's application. Ms. Ginsberg stated that Delaney was an "excellent" employee and affirmed that she had "no qualms" about Delaney's returning to work at Cypress once an exemption has been secured. The undersigned credits Ms. Ginsberg's testimony as to Delaney's character. In addition, Delaney submitted the written character references of Messrs. Chmiel and Williams, which were discussed above. These documents credibly attest to Delaney's trustworthiness, integrity, and ethical behavior. The undersigned finds without hesitation that Delaney would likely not present a danger in the future if an exemption from disqualification were granted. Ultimate Factual Determination The undersigned has determined, based on clear and convincing evidence, including sufficient persuasive evidence of rehabilitation, that Delaney should not be disqualified from employment because she is, in fact, rehabilitated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order granting Bertha Delaney the exemption from disqualification for which she is, in fact, eligible. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 18th day of August, 2017.
The Issue The issues presented concern the attempt on the part of the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to impose a fine against Ron Harrod (Respondent) for willfully or knowingly damaging or removing products from sovereign lands without the consent of DNR or the State of Florida, Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The products spoken to is timber allegedly cut and removed from state-owned lands on November 20, 1985, and April 1, 1986. This purported conduct on the part of the Respondent is said to have violated Section 253.04(2), Florida Statutes (1985), and Rule 16Q- 14.03(2) and (6), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1985, Blanche Farrow made an agreement with the Respondent which allowed the Respondent as the owner of "Rons Cypress" to cut all the timber on her property. Rons Cypress is a business for cutting cypress slabs. This property is described in the agreement as being located on Highway 48 approximately 1 mile east of Floral City, on both the north and south sides of the road. Further it was stated that the timber contemplated in this arrangement could be found along Daniels Drive. A copy of the statement of agreement between Farrow and the Respondent may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. The exact nature of the Farrow property which is the subject of the agreement with the Respondent may be found in a copy of the Warranty Deed pertaining to this property, which has been admitted as DNR Exhibit 4. This property is located in Citrus County, Florida. The extent of the property over which Blanche Farrow and her husband, Chester B. Farrow, hold ownership does not extend into Lake Tsala Apopka, Lake Bradley and Little Lake, lakes adjacent to their property. These lakes constitute part of an historically meandered lake system and are subject to the sovereign rights of the State of Florida. In effect, the State of Florida owns those water bodies. The limitations of the boundaries of the Farrow property are made clear in the Warranty Deed in which certain language describes the boundaries of the property owned by the Farrows as being ". . . to the waters of Lake Tsala Apopka; thence Southerly along the water's edge of said Lake Tsala Apopka . . ." and ". . . to the water's edge of Lake Bradley . . ." Therefore, notwithstanding Respondent's protestations to the contrary and any statement made by Chester B. or Blanche Farrow, the legal description of the property does not convey title to those individuals for the several lakes described, nor create any leasehold interest on the part of the Farrows to the lakes. In pursuit of the agreement with the Farrows, Respondent made arrangements with Jerry Lovett, who is in the lumber business, to cut trees, principally cypress trees. Through this agreement, Lovett would write checks to Blanche Farrow which would be given to her by the Respondent. The Respondent in turn would be able to take the stumps left over from the cutting of cypress trees and use them for slabs in his business of selling cypress tree products. Respondent was to pay Ms. Farrow for the stumps from which he cut slabs. Respondent also took cypress knees in this area for use in his business. Respondent's Composite Exhibit 3 describes payment made by Jerry Lovett to Blanche Farrow for trees removed. On October 14, 1985, $600.00 was paid for cypress trees. On October 28, 1985, $1,275.72 was paid, of which 52.31 tons of cypress at $6.00 a ton was included in that purchase. On November 4, 1985, $551.28 was paid for cypress trees. On November 15, 1985, he paid $131.92 for removal of cypress trees. In this endeavor, Lovett in the person of his work crew had cut and removed cypress trees which belonged to the State of Florida. Respondent cut and removed slabs from the stumps left following Lovett's lumbering operation and took cypress knees as well belonging to the state. Respondent's involvement with the stumps and knees was through activities of a crew working for the Respondent. Neither the Farrows, Lovett nor Respondent had permission to take cypress products from this land belonging to the State of Florida. Lovett, in his activities, had operated under the misapprehension that the Farrows owned the disputed cypress trees that were cut from lands of the sovereign. He was led to believe in his discussions with Blanche Farrow that Respondent would point out the places where the cut could be made. Lovett also understood from his conversation with Ms. Farrow that certain monuments identifying the extent of her ownership could be found on the side of the road near Lakes Tsala Apopka and Bradley, described as cement corners. Lovett never located those monuments in that as he understood the outer bounds of the Farrow ownership, as Ms. Farrow described them, he would not approach those outer limits in his activities. Respondent likewise believed that the Farrows owned the property where the cypress cutting was being done. Nevertheless, Lovett cut and removed cypress trees in Lake Tsala Apopka, Lake Bradley and Little Lake and Respondent took stumps and knees from those lakes owned by the sovereign. Lovett sold the cypress logs which he removed from the area in dispute, to include cypress logs belonging to the State of Florida. Lovett removed less than 300 trees from the site and left some cypress logs at the site. Lovett through his crew was operating at the site of the dispute sometime approximately a week before October 14, 1985, through November 15, 1985. Lovett ceased his activities in the cutting of cypress when instructed to do so by the Respondent who mentioned something to the effect that the local zoning board said that this cutting had to cease. In the course of his operations in the three lakes, Respondent took 693 knees and between 800 and 1,200 cypress slabs. DNR became aware of the activities of Lovett and the Respondent based upon an investigation that was prompted by observations which Linda Sanford made. Linda Sanford is a zoning inspector for Citrus County. She also lives adjacent to Lake Bradley. As she describes it in her testimony, she observed work crews in the water cutting cypress "off and on." Among the people that she identified as being a member of the work crew was a James Gunn, who is an employee of the Respondent. The first time she saw the Respondent's crew was on November 13, 1985, around Daniels Road and Highway 48. Three persons were in the water and a chain saw was being operated. On November 16, 1985, while at home, Ms. Sanford received complaints from some neighbors about saws being operated and observed Respondent's crew again. One other time on a date that Ms. Sanford does not remember, which would have been following the first two occasions of her observations, Ms. Sanford asked the work crew if they had permits for the activities. Ms. Sanford never saw the Respondent's work crew remove any of the cypress materials. On November 20, 1985, Lieutenant Louis Feulner, then a Sergeant for the Florida Marine Patrol, went to the area where cypress trees had been cut by Lovett and cuttings from stumps and cypress knees were being taken by Respondent's work crew. This area was described by Feulner as the Lake Tsala Apopka chain. A copy of his report of the incident may be found as DNR Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence. Feulner was sent to investigate by his superior, Major Brown of the Florida Marine Patrol. Feulner arrived at the scene of the cutting activity around 3:30 in the afternoon and saw three subjects in the water. Those persons were James Gunn and Respondent's two sons. Feulner saw that cypress trees had been cut down on the site and some were located in the water. He observed stumps in the water as well. These observations were made of cypress products in knee- deep water. Feulner saw a chain saw being operated by the crew. The cutting that was being done was a slab from a stump. He did not see trees being removed from the site of the cutting. Upon inquiry, Gunn told Feulner that he worked for the Respondent and that the Respondent had gotten permission to cut the cypress trees from Ms. Farrow. Feulner advised Gunn that the activities involved in the cutting violated state law. In fact those activities did involve cutting of property belonging to the State. Major Brown had dispatched Lieutenant Fuelner to the questioned site on November 20, 1985, based upon a request of Gordon Roberts, Assistant Chief of Aquatic Lands for NR. At that time, Roberts was employed in a Division of State Lands, as an administrative assistant involved with investigations and enforcement. He held that position until May 1, 1987. On December 4, 1985, Roberts went to the site and observed that cypress harvesting had taken place in wetlands, in a submerged area. The area he observed was one involving buttress cypress trees. Roberts observed that harvesting was being done in an area below a line which represents the minimum flood plan line, a control line for what is described as the water management division. In conversation which Roberts had with the Respondent following the Feulner visit to the site, Roberts explained to the Respondent that there was some question about whether the cutting was on privately owned land or submerged land belonging to the State. He further advised the Respondent not to cut anymore in that area until a determination could be made about ownership of the property. Roberts wrote to the Respondent on December 13, 1985. A copy of this correspondence may be found as DNR Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. Respondent says he did not receive this correspondence Nonetheless it was sent to the address utilized in noticing of the Respondent of the final hearing in this cause, as attended by the Respondent. The letter mentions concerns of the State on the subject of the belief held by the State that cutting was being done on its property. It went on to say that a survey was going to be conducted to decide where the line of demarcation between the upland owners property and that of the State would occur. The letter states that DNR preferred to have the matter settled amicably but indicated that trees should not be cut where buttressed cypress were found nor any other trees below the ordinary high water line of the lakes in question. It warned Respondent that a fine of $10,000 could be imposed under the provisions of Rule 16Q-14, Florida Administrative Code, for unauthorized removal of the trees and that the fine could be mitigated. Further it was stated voluntary cessation of the tree cutting would be a consideration on the amount of the fine. Finally, the letter stated that the Respondent could contact the State concerning these issues. By activities of Louis Neuman, Senior Forester for DNR, an attempt was made to ascertain the value of cypress trees which were cut in the areas in dispute. Mr. Neuman is qualified to assess the value of the trees cut. A description of his evaluation may be found in DNR Exhibits 12A-C representing the assessment made in Little Lake, Lake Bradley, and Lake Tsala Apopka. This involves a survey of December 18-20, 1985, as made by Mr. Neuman. He found that value involved in the cutting to be $440, $1,364 and $2,948, respectively, for Little Lake, Lake Bradley and Lake Tsala Apopka. These findings were related to Gordon Roberts in a memorandum of February 25, 1986, a copy of which may be found as DNR Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. His assumption was that 78 trees, 306 trees and 815 trees had been cut within Little Lake, Lake Bradley and Lake Tsala Apopka, respectively. The total amount for cut cypress trees in all three lakes was $4,752, per Mr. Neuman's observations. Comparing his observations to those of the Respondent and Lovett, there is a disparity in valuation; however, it suffices to say that a substantial dollar amount of product was destroyed and removed from sovereign waters. This was an arrangement in which the Respondent was a knowing participant, who profited from the endeavor. In spite of the conciliatory tone of the letter of December 13, 1985, from Roberts to the Respondent, on March 26, 1986, a notice of violation or administrative complaint was brought against the Respondent concerning the observations made on December 4, 1985 and in view of the $4,752 statement of damages on the part of Mr. Neuman. The State sought to collect that amount of money and $2,000 punitive damages. A copy of the March 26, 1986 complaint letter may be found as DNR Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence. That complaint or notice of violation was subsumed in action of July 2, 1986, which forms the basis of the present dispute and for which the Respondent sought timely hearing. In the present complaint, allegations are made concerning observations of November 20, 1985, and the assessment of an administrative fine of $6,752 for what is described as a first offense. There is set forth in the notice of violation a second count or claim of violation pertaining to events of April 1, 1986, in which Respondent is stated to have willfully and knowingly removed products from the same area in which sovereign lands are said to have been involved. For this alleged second offense, DNR sought the imposition of an additional $10,000 fine. The accusations concerning a second offense arise from an investigation performed by Robert Verlato, an officer with the Florida Marine Control, which was conducted on April 1, 1986. He went to the Bradley Lake site where the cutting had been done in the past and observed three individuals at work. These were members of the Respondent's crew, including James Gunn and Respondent's two sons. He saw them operating a chain saw cutting the base of the stump which was approximately two feet in length. Gunn was operating the saw. Verlato told the individuals to stop work and they did. He arrested them for trespassing and removing state property. Respondent then arrived at the scene and indicated that he should be charged if there were any violations, and that the three men were members of his crew under his supervision and control. Verlato also observed other freshly cut stumps than the one which he had seen crew members working on, which stumps were in the same general area. He collected ten of the these fresh-cut stumps and took them as evidence for the criminal court case. Respondent indicates that the activities of April 1, 1986, had to do with the cleanup of this site requested by Ms. Farrow and not for purpose of further removal of cypress products for Respondent's benefit. The facts lead to the conclusion that while the Respondent may have had in mind accommodating Ms. Farrow, he also was accommodating his financial interests as well. This conclusion is supported by Respondent's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence which was a letter from Ms. Farrow to Respondent on May 19, 1986, after the April 1, 1986, incident in which she asked the Respondent to observe the state's suggestions that no further cutting and hauling be done related to the cypress trees in question. Composite Exhibit 5A-D constitutes photographs of the site related to Lake Tsala Apopka showing where trees have been removed. DNR Common Exhibits 6 and 14 is an aerial photograph which marks the places where the subject cypress trees have been cut in the three lakes. They are shown in red marking. The findings about cutting that was done in Tsala Apopka Lake are not conclusive because the ordinary high water line for Lake Tsala Apopka was not established. This circumstance is discussed in the following paragraph. DNR commissioned an ordinary high water line study to be performed by Douglas A. Thompson, Professional Land Surveyor, registered in the State of Florida, and other states. He is the Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Survey and Mapping for DNR. Other members of his team included Kenneth M. Campbell, Bureau of Geology, and geologist for DNR; Catherine M. Gilbert, Bureau of Aquatic Plants, and botanist for DNR; and Louis A. Neuman of the Bureau of Mine Reclamation, forester. The details of this study are set forth in DNR Exhibit 11 admitted into evidence which is a copy of the ordinary high water lines survey of Bradley Lake and Little Lake. This study established the ordinary high water line elevation for Bradley Lake at 42.75 feet and for Little Lake at 41.75 feet. Areas where cypress trees were observed to have been cut in the operations of Lovett and the Respondent showed that in Little Lake the maximum elevation for those cuttings was 40.3 feet and at Lake Bradley the maximum elevation was at 41.4 feet. Both of these measurements are below the ordinary high water line elevation for those two water bodies. This confirms that Lovett and the Respondent were destroying and taking products belonging to the State which were below the ordinary high water line and within the boundaries of the sovereign's ownership. Due to the special nature of Lake Tsala Apopka, DNR was unable to establish with exactitude the high ordinary high water line for Lake Tsala Apopka. They were able to approximate that line at 42.75 feet in a setting where the maximum elevation of cuttings of cypress within that lake were found at 41.2 feet.
