The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner's application for a commercial telephone seller license pursuant to provisions of Chapter 501, Part IV, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Gerovicap Pharmaceutical Corporation, Inc., a Nevada Corporation. Petitioner was incorporated in 1988. Petitioner has no offices in any state other than Nevada. Petitioner has been operating telemarketing services for a period of approximately 10 years. Respondent is the state agency charged with the enforcement of state regulation of telemarketing businesses in accordance with provisions of Chapter 501, Part IV, Florida Statutes. The application submitted by Petitioner to Respondent for licensure as a commercial telephone seller listed three legal actions taken against Petitioner in the states of Florida, Oregon and Wisconsin. Petitioner entered into an Agreed Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit for Dade County, Florida, on October 5, 1992. At that time, Petitioner accepted responsibility for running a mail advertisement promotion in Florida, advising potential customers to call a toll free number to place orders although Petitioner had not met the State of Florida's registration requirements. As a part of the settlement, Petitioner agreed to refrain from advertising and promoting sweepstakes in Florida in violation of state requirements and paid a total of $2,500 to cover a civil penalty, as well as attorney fees and costs. Petitioner entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance in Circuit Court in Marion County, Oregon, on August 7, 1992. Petitioner agreed at that time to refrain from engaging in telephone solicitations in the state of Oregon and to pay $7,500 in investigative costs and attorney fees to the Oregon Department of Justice. On September 11, 1992, a Consent Judgment was entered in the Circuit Court for Waukesha County, Wisconsin. Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the judgment enjoined Petitioner from engaging in certain sweepstakes activities and ordered Petitioner to pay a civil forfeiture to the state of Wisconsin in the amount of $10,000 for various violations of that state's telemarketing regulations. In accordance with provisions of Section 501.612(1)(c), Florida Statutes, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for licensure in the State of Florida as a commercial telephone seller as a result of the Florida, Oregon and Wisconsin legal actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 20th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings, pursuant to requirements of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Accepted in substance. 3.-5. Rejected, relevance. 6.-8. Subordinate to HO findings on this point. Rejected, unnecessary. Accepted, but not verbatim. 11.-12. Rejected, argument, relevancy. Accepted. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevancy. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-7. Accepted in substance. Rejected, recitation of statute. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry Fleischer, President Gerovicap Pharmaceutical Corporation 1785 East Sahara Ave., Suite 160 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 Jerome A. DePalma, Esquire 3201 South Maryland Parkway Suite 326 Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 John S. Koda, Esquire Office of General Counsel Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Richard Tritschler General Counsel 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Rm 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Michael L. Illes, holds law enforcement certificate number 02-24636. On or about December 1981, while on duty, the Respondent responded to a call from Deborah Raybin regarding a malfunctioning alarm system at her home in Broward County, Florida. At said time, the Respondent was employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Department in the capacity of a deputy sheriff. The Respondent went to the Raybin home in the routine course of his duties. The Respondent admitted having been to the Raybin home after December 1981 in response to further false alarms and on other occasions not related to his duties. However, no competent evidence was introduced that the Respondent harassed Ms. Raybin by going to her home while either on duty or off duty. No evidence was received in support of the allegations that the Respondent, while on duty, went to the Raybin home and offered pornographic movies to Ms. Raybin. The only competent evidence presented was the credible testimony of the Respondent that while at the Raybin house on official business on or about June 19, 1982, he was asked by Ms. Raybin for a video tape. Respondent admitted that on the night of June 23, 1982, he arrived at the Raybin house with said video tape. At that time, prior to his ringing Ms. Raybin's doorbell, Respondent was stopped by his shift supervisor and another officer of the Broward County Sheriff's Department. They were there in response to a telephone call from a person whose identity was not established by competent evidence. The Respondent was out of his assigned patrol zone and had not checked out of his patrol car (unit). While proceeding to the Sheriff's Department prior to the beginning of his shift, Respondent made a traffic arrest of a driver for driving while under the influence. Respondent was involved in booking the arrested driver until after 12:00 midnight on the evening of June 23, 1982. Thereafter, he went to the Raybin house. On the night shift, the policy regarding leaving an assigned patrol area was flexible, particularly during those periods in which on-duty personnel were on break or eating. While on break, officers were not required to be in their patrol zones. Respondent would have been entitled to a break at the time he was at the Raybin house. Conflicting testimony was received concerning whether officers were required to check out of their units while on break. The shift supervisor stated that officers were required to check out when on break or at meals. Respondent stated that the night shift officers did not customarily check out on breaks because criminals monitored their radio reports and committed crimes when they knew that the officers were on break or at meals. Neither side could substantiate their testimony with any written policy. No evidence was received regarding when officers would report that they were on break, i.e., when they left their assigned zone, when they arrived at a break location, or when they left their units. Based upon the testimony received and the fact that officers wore portable radio units, it is found that officers were required to check out if they intended to be away from their units for more than a few minutes. When stopped by his shift supervisor, the Respondent was wearing his police radio. Respondent's uncontroverted and credible testimony was that he had stopped at the Raybin house on his way to his break location to drop off the tape Ms. Raybin had requested and had not intended to remain at the Raybin house longer than was necessary to drop off said tape.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent, Michael L. Illes, be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 22nd day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Ravenell, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire 1244 SE Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 G. Patrick Gallagher, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission 408 North Adams Street Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a telephone salesperson license should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department), is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing Chapter 501, Part IV, Florida Statutes, the Florida Telemarketing Act. On or about November 29, 1999, Petitioner, Gary A. Pappas (Petitioner), applied for licensure as a telephone salesperson. By letter dated February 10, 2000, the Department issued a letter denying Petitioner's application for licensure. According to the letter, the basis for denial of the license was Petitioner's felony conviction and his failure to disclose information relative to the felony conviction on his licensure application. As a part of the Department's application review process, a background investigation is conducted on each applicant. In this case, the Department had such an investigation done on Petitioner. The results of the background investigation of Petitioner revealed that he had been charged and convicted of a felony offense. According to the background investigation report, on October 17, 1988, in Pinellas County, Florida, Petitioner was convicted of a felony offense, constructive possession of an illegal substance. The report further indicated that adjudication was withheld. The Department's application form for licensure as a telephone salesperson contained Question 3 which requested information concerning the applicant's criminal history. In pertinent part, the question is as follows: 3. Please complete this section if you: a. Have previously been arrested for, convicted of or are under indictment or information for a felony and, if so, the nature of the felony. Conviction includes a finding of guilt where adjudication has been withheld. * * * If you have not been subject to any charge set forth above and are not subject to any current or restrictive order, then mark your initials in the [preceding] box. Your true name at the time of the action: Court or administrative agency rendering the decision, judgement [sic] or order: Date of conviction, judgement [sic] or order: / / Docket# Name of governmental agency which brought the action: Nature of conviction, judgement [sic], order or action: In response to Question 3, Petitioner initialed the box next to the statement, "If you have not been subject to any charge set forth above and are not subject to any current or restrictive order, then mark your initials in the box. The term "charge set forth above" referred to the offenses described in subsections a, b, c, d, and/or e of Question 3. In this case, only subsection a of Question 3 is relevant. By initialing the box mentioned in paragraph 7 above, Petitioner was indicating that he had never been convicted of a felony. On November 29, 1999, Petitioner signed his completed application for licensure as a telephone salesperson. On the application, immediately above the applicant signature line, the following statement was printed in bold letters: I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN QUESTIONS 1-3, AND IN THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED HERETO, IS TRUE AND CORRECT. At the formal hearing, Petitioner admitted that in 1988, he had been convicted of a felony and adjudication had been withheld. He also testified that the conviction was for the sale and possession of marijuana. Although Petitioner had been convicted of a felony, he failed to disclose the conviction on his application for licensure as a telephone salesperson. Petitioner testified that he was misinformed and had misread and misinterpreted Question 3. Petitioner also testified that because the incident occurred more than ten years ago and adjudication was withheld, he thought the conviction did not have to be disclosed on the application. Petitioner's stated justification for failing to disclose his 1988 felony conviction lacks credibility given the clear wording of Question 3 on the application for licensure. Notwithstanding Petitioner's statements to the contrary, his testimony established that he was capable of reading and interpreting the questions on the application, including Question 3. Petitioner has had no felony convictions since the aforementioned conviction in 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for licensure as a telephone salesperson. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 508 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 William N. Graham, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 515 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Gary A. Pappas 2555 Oak Trail North, Number 114 Clearwater, Florida 33764
Findings Of Fact By its Invitation to Bid, RFP #84-012-PS, Respondent sought proposals for the production of public service announcements for statewide distribution for both television and radio broadcast. The Invitation to Bid contained five criteria for evaluating proposals. Four of these were "narrative" criteria worth a maximum of 25 points per category. The fifth category, price, was worth a maximum of 50 points. The dispute in this case concerns Respondent's interpretation of the narrative criteria contained in paragraph X, A., 1 which was used to evaluate: [t]he experience and evident capa- bility of the offeror to perform the work required including the background of the offeror's organi- zation. In response to the Invitation to Bid, Cowles and Petitioner submitted proposals for consideration by Respondent. In response to the narrative criteria requirement contained in paragraph X, A., 1, quoted above, Cowles submitted the following: Bill Cowles was for more than fifteen years employed in the radio and tele- vision industries in Ohio and Florida. For many of those years he was actively in charge of the production and direction of hundreds of public service announce- ments, commercials and news and public affairs programs. For an additional eight years while engaged in political campaigns and the direction of the Republican Party of Florida, he was responsible for innumer- able commercials (all media) for individual candidates, party promotions, get-out-the- vote campaigns, etc. For the past five years, as co-owner of his own business, he has worked closely with many state agencies in a variety of communication related situations. During all these years, the offeror assembled many "teams" of talent representing all the disciplines required in order to most effec- tively complete the task at hand In preparation for the project outlined in this RFP, Cowles has used his vast knowledge and experience to bring together a "team" that is particularly qualified. Working with him to successfully complete the requirements of the RFP will be a staff of experts who will be directed by Cowles and the following professionals: Roy Nilson who is the President/Owner of WRENPRO Corporation has spent his entire career in the electronic media. He has held positions as Program Director, Producer, Operations Manager and Executive Producer of radio and television stations in Minnesota, New Mexico and Tampa-St. Petersburg. He formed WRENPRO, a consulting and production company, in 1971. Nilson is credited with the innovation of the "do-nut" and "pretzel" commercials that are now commonplace in the industry. He has served as consultant to over 100 radio and television stations; written several books on electronic media contests, history and radio auto- mation and has produced and syndicated radio programs and contests. His pro- duction of OPUS, an annual review of the top records of the year, is aired on more than 300 stations. OPUS has been the recipient of two BILLBOARD "Silver Mikes". The public service announcements, com- mercials and programs produced by Nilson number in the thousands. The creativity of Cowles and Nilson will be augmented by the technical expertise of: Dan Lunin who is currently the General Manager of WRENPRO and is also the Production Engineer of Production Associ- ates of Tampa. Lunin in the cast twenty-five years has served as Production Engineer, Channel 40, Sarasota; Production and Chief Engineer, Channel 28, Tampa; Chief and Production Engineer, WLCY AM & FM, Tampa-St. Petersburg and General Manager of TV-9 (Group W), Tampa-St. Petersburg. Mr. Lunin will be in charge of the technical direction of the tasks to be performed at the studios of WRENPRO (radio) and Pro- duction Associates (television) Petitioner contends that the information quoted above from Cowles' proposal was not responsive to the narrative criterion in that Cowles submitted no evidence to show that he had entered into any joint venture agreement or contractual relationship with the associates named in the proposal. Petitioner contends further that Cowles' proposal should have been evaluated on his individual qualifications, and that no consideration should have been given to the background, experience, and capabilities of Messrs. Nilson and Lunin since they were neither employed by nor under contract with Cowles. Petitioner also contends that the inclusion of the experience and qualifications of Messrs. Nilson and Lunin was misleading in that they were not actually "offerors" on the proposal, but were instead only independent contractors who were to be utilized by Cowles. Finally, Petitioner contends that the inclusion of the qualifications and experience of Nilson and Lunin resulted in the award of higher point totals under narrative criteria X, A., 1 than would have been awarded had Cowles been measured on his individual qualifications. The gist of Petitioner's objection to Cowles' proposal is that Cowles does not own a production company, but instead proposes to produce the public service announcements to be furnished to Respondent with associates who are in essence independent contractors. There is, however, no requirement in the Invitation to Bid that the public service announcements be produced by means of an inhouse production company. The means by which the announcements are to be produced is left to the discretion of the offeror, so long as he can demonstrate, in accordance with the terms of the Invitation to Bid, "experience and evident capabilities" to perform the work. In fact, the narrative criteria at issue in this proceeding clearly require a demonstration of "experience and evident capability" to perform the work of both the "offeror" and the "offeror's organization." In this regard, Cowles' response to this narrative criteria, as outlined above, was clearly responsive to the provisions of the Invitation to Bid. Further, nothing in Cowles' response could be misleading, since there is no representation that Messrs. Nilson and Lunin are anything other than independent contractors who would be utilized by Cowles in the production of public service announcements. Cowles has extensive experience in the radio and television industry. In addition, he has produced radio and television announcements and commercials while employed by the Florida Republican Party. There are no facts of record in this proceeding from which it can be concluded that Cowles is either unqualified to perform the work required in the Invitation to Bid, or that he is unable for any reason to successfully produce the work called for in that document. In fact, this record supports the conclusion that Cowles has the requisite experience and evident capability to perform the required work, and that he has, in fact, successfully completed similar projects for other state agencies in the recent past. Finally, Petitioner's contention that Cowles was awarded more points on narrative criteria X, A., 1 than would otherwise have been the case had the qualifications of Messrs. Nilson and Lunin been omitted from his proposal, is without merit in that the record in this proceeding contains no evidence of the points actually awarded to either Cowles or Petitioner in the bid evaluation process. Even had Cowles' proposal been determined in this proceeding to have been unresponsive, there are insufficient facts of record in this cause from which any recommendation could have been made to award the contract to Petitioner. Although the petition alleged that Petitioner was the second lowest bidder, there are no facts of record to substantiate that allegation. In fact, there is no evidence of record in this cause regarding the "cost" portion of the bid submitted by Cowles or Petitioner, which would allow a comparison of those proposals to those of any of the other bidders.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification to work in a position of trust or responsibility in a direct care position pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a single mother of five children, including two sets of twins. She is twenty-nine years old and has a tenth-grade high school education. On July 26, 1995, Petitioner drove a car into a Walmart parking lot in Leon County, Florida, and parked illegally directly in front of the store. Petitioner was operating the car while her driving privileges were suspended. After parking the car, Petitioner left her five children unsupervised in the car while she went into Walmart to exchange a shirt. At that time, the older twins were six years old, one child was four years old, and the younger twins were three years old. When Petitioner went into the store, she removed the key from the ignition and left the windows down. The temperature was 93 degrees. Petitioner was in the store for approximately ten minutes. Upon Petitioner's return to the car, a policeman arrested her for the second-degree misdemeanor offense of "negligent treatment of children" under Section 827.05, Florida Statutes (1993). 1/ The children were not harmed as a result of being left unattended in the car. They were never removed from Petitioner's custody. After her arrest, Petitioner and her children were picked up and taken home by a relative. In September 1995, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge of "negligent treatment of children." The County Judge of Leon County accepted Petitioner's plea, withheld adjudication of guilt, and ordered that Petitioner be placed on probation for six months. One of the conditions of Petitioner's probation was that she attend parenting class. On February 28, 1996, Petitioner was charged with violating her probation related to the charge of "negligent treatment of children." Specifically, she had not provided proof that she had attended the parenting class. Additionally, she had not paid a $100 probation supervision fee or a $150 court fine. Petitioner violated her probation because she did not have funds to pay for the parenting class or the required fee and fine. At the violation of probation hearing on May 10, 1996, Petitioner presented proof that she had attended the parenting class. The County Judge of Leon County terminated Petitioner's probation in open court. On March 5, 1998, Petitioner was charged in Leon County, Florida, with the traffic offense of driving with suspended driving privileges. The County Judge of Leon County convicted and adjudicated Petitioner guilty of this offense on March 25, 1998. On September 7, 1998, Petitioner was charged in Leon County, Florida, with the traffic offense of driving with suspended driving privileges. The County Judge of Leon County withheld adjudication of guilt for this offense on October 7, 1998. Petitioner has worked as a dietary aide at Tallahassee Convalescent Home (TCH) for four years. In 1998, she applied for a position with TCH as a certified nurse assistant, a direct care position. The application included Petitioner's request for a Florida Abuse Hotline Information System Background Check. A member of Respondent's staff completed the background check on September 23, 1998, finding no confirmed report of abuse or neglect. On April 16, 1999, Petitioner signed a sworn Affidavit of Good Moral Character as part of the application process to secure a direct care position with Tallahassee Developmental Center. By signing the affidavit, Petitioner swore that she had not been found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, regardless of the adjudication, to a number of offenses, including "negligent treatment of children." This affirmation was false. Petitioner's testimony that she forgot her plea of nolo contendere and subsequent conviction for "negligent treatment of children" or that she never knew the exact nature of her crime is not persuasive. In April 1999, Petitioner was charged with violating her probation related to one of her offenses for "driving while privileges suspended" in Leon County, Florida. Petitioner violated her probation because she did not have funds to pay her traffic fines. Petitioner subsequently entered the Florida Traffic Assistance Program. She completed a corrective driving class on August 14, 1999. The Department of Motor Vehicles issued Petitioner her first driver's license on August 31, 1999. Since October 1999, Petitioner has paid $50 per month on her outstanding traffic fines. She now owes $453 in traffic fines.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
