Findings Of Fact Herein, Ibanez seeks recovery of attorney's fees and costs she claims to have incurred in DOAH Case No. 91-3336R styled Silvia S. Ibanez et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy et al. In that case, Ibanez challenged the validity of Board of Accountancy Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. (the "holding out rule"). Ibanez unsuccessfully tried to initiate that case by filing a petition on May 10, 1991 with the Department of Professional Regulation. Ibanez successfully initiated the rule challenge on May 30, 1991, by filing with DOAH a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing under Section 120.56 F.S. This type of action is commonly referred to as a "challenge to an existing agency rule." In such a case, the Petitioner is fully the initiator, challenger, or sword-wielder in the proceeding and bears both the duty to go forward and the burden of proof. Ibanez initiated the rule challenge in her capacity as a licensed certified public accountant (CPA). She is a sole practitioner and an employee of a law firm called "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.," but the law firm "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.," was not a party and did not participate in the rule challenge, except as one of several legal representatives for Silvia S. Ibanez, the individual. The Board participated in the rule challenge case to defend the holding out rule. The Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants (FICPA) intervened in the rule challenge in support of the position of the Board that the holding out rule was valid. While Ibanez' petition in the rule challenge contained a prayer for "other appropriate relief, including award of costs as appropriate," her petition therein did not request an award of attorney's fees. Ibanez' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and her accompanying Memorandum of Law submitted after formal hearing for that case, both of which pleadings were dated October 11, 1991, did not contain proposed findings of fact or proposed conclusions of law addressing the issue of attorney's fees and costs. Neither of Ibanez' post- hearing filings contained a request for attorney's fees or costs or a request to reserve jurisdiction in that case for such an award. The undersigned hearing officer rendered a final order declaring invalid the holding out rule on January 15, 1992. That final order did not award attorney's fees and costs, nor did it reserve jurisdiction to decide attorney's fees and costs at another time. Neither Ibanez nor any of her corporate entities nor any of her supporting intervenors filed any motion requesting a reservation of jurisdiction or requesting reconsideration. The Board and FICPA each appealed the final order in the rule challenge to the First District Court of Appeal in February 1992, but dismissed those appeals on May 6, 1992, by filing a Joint Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The First District Court of Appeal issued an order acknowledging the Joint Dismissal on May 14, 1992. The Joint Dismissal and First District Court of Appeal Order were both attached to the material filed by the parties in this instant case. For purposes of deciding the pending motions to dismiss herein, the undersigned has considered the Joint Dismissal, the First District Court of Appeal Order, and the record in the rule challenge case, DOAH Case No. 91-3336R. Due to the unique arguments advanced in Ibanez' fees and costs motion (sic) herein, it also has been necessary and appropriate to consider the record in DOAH Case No. 91-4100. On May 22, 1991, a probable cause panel of the Board held a probable cause hearing involving Ibanez. As a result of that hearing, the Board initiated a disciplinary proceeding styled State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy v. Silvia S. Ibanez, DOAH Case No. 91-4100, by filing an administrative complaint on June 13, 1992. That case was a disciplinary action arising under Section 120.57(1) F.S. which was prosecuted by the Department of Professional Regulation on behalf of the Board against Ibanez. At one time, the disciplinary case was consolidated with the rule challenge case. The two cases were bifurcated prior to formal hearing of the merits of either case. FICPA never intervened in the disciplinary case, nor had they any standing to do so. The undersigned hearing officer conducted a 120.57(1) F.S. hearing in the disciplinary case on August 27, 1991, and issued a recommended order to the Board on January 15, 1992. The Board issued its final order in the disciplinary case on April 23, 1992. Therein, contrary to the recommended order, the Board held that Ibanez had violated Sections 473.323(1)(a), (f), (g), and (h) F.S. and Rule 21A-24.001 F.A.C. The Board accordingly issued a reprimand to Ibanez, which reprimand was stayed by the Board pending appeal. Ibanez has appealed the Board's final order in the disciplinary case to the First District Court of Appeal, which appeal is still pending. Ibanez served on July 9, 1992 her Motion for Attorney's Fees which is here under consideration. In doing so, Ibanez elected to use the style of the underlying rule challenge case, DOAH 91-3336R, the style of which still included intervenors James R. Brewster and American Association of Attorney Certified Public Accountants. Those intervenors have never attempted to appear in the instant fees and costs case and apparently seek no relief via Ibanez' pending fees and costs motion. The rule challenge case was final for all purposes before DOAH as of January 15, 1992 and before the District Court of Appeal on May 14, 1992. The DOAH case file for DOAH Case No. 91-3336R has been closed for several months. Ibanez' Motion for Attorney's Fees was received and deemed filed by DOAH on July 13, 1992. It was filed with DOAH sixty-eight (68) days after the rule challenge appeals were voluntarily dismissed by FICPA and the Board and sixty (60) days after the First District Court of Appeals entered its order ratifying the voluntary dismissal. Because petitions brought solely under Section 57.111 F.S. result in final orders, it is DOAH's standard operating procedure to open new files for all fees and costs cases arising under Section 57.111 F.S. Upon receipt of Ibanez' motion, DOAH's Clerk assigned Ibanez' motion the instant new case number (DOAH 92-4271F), primarily on the basis that the motion prayed for relief upon grounds of Section 57.111 F.S., among other statutes. The other statutory grounds cited in the motion were Sections 120.57(1)(b)5 and 120.59(6) F.S.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the following rules promulgated by the Respondent, the Department of Business Regulation [now the Department of Business and Professional Regulation], Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering, are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority: F.A.C. Rules 61D-1.002(18) [formerly 7E-16.002(18)] and 61D-1.006 [formerly 7E-16.006]; and emergency rules 7ERR92-2(18) and 7EER92-6.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 30, 1991, the Petitioner, John R. Witmer, applied to the Respondent, the Department of Business Regulation (now the the Department of Business and Professional Regulation), Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering (the Division), for a three-year occupational license as a veterinarian. The license was issued with a scheduled expiration in 1994. In October, 1993, the Division filed an Administrative Complaint alleging that the Petitioner violated emergency rule 7EER92-2(18) and F.A.C. Rule 61D-1.002(18) (formerly codified as F.A.C. Rule 7E-16.002(18)) on November 11, 1992, and April 2, 1993. The charges remain pending and have been referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where they have been given DOAH Case No. 93-6638. On or about June 18, 1992, the Division released the legal opinion of its General Counsel that, if certain provisions of the statutes governing pari- mutuel wagering were allowed to sunset on July 1, 1992, the Division legally would be unable to regulate pari-mutuel wagering adequately, and pari-mutuel wagering would become illegal in Florida. In response to the legal opinion, several tracks and jai alai frontons filed suit in circuit court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. On or about June 30, 1992, a temporary injunction was issued in the court case requiring the parties to maintain the status quo in effect on June 30, 1992, until further order. A final hearing in the court case was held on August 10, 1992. The court's Final Order held that the statutes that remained in effect after July 1, 1992, were "legally sufficient and not in violation of Article X, Section 7, of the Florida Constitution (1968) [a prohibition against lotteries not sanctioned by law]." The court dissolved the temporary injunction effective August 25, 1992. After the court decision, notwithstanding the earlier legal opinion issued by its General Counsel, the Division determined that it had the necessary statutory authority to promulgate emergency rules to implement what remained of the pari-mutuel wagering statutes after July 1, 1992. Approximately $1.7 billion in cash was being wagered annually. Taxes collected on the wagers amounted to approximately $105 million a year. The possibilities for cheating and stealing to obtain a piece of the action illegally are endless, requiring effective regulation and constant vigilance. It is not unusual, for example, for cheaters to attempt to drug race animals illegally. As a result, some 85,000 urine and blood samples are taken from race animals annually. It was determined that, under the remnants of the statutes that remained after July 1, 1992, there were three areas vital to the public's welfare for which sanctions or rulemaking, or both, were necessary: (1) regulation of the pari-mutuel wagering pool; (2) regulation relative to the collection of taxes; and (3) regulation of the administration of medicines and drugs to racing animals. Fifty-four emergency rules, designated 7EER92-1 through 7EER92-54, were promulgated on or about August 24, 1992. (These compare to the 340 rules previously promulgated under the authority of, and to implement, the entirety of Chapter 550, Fla. Stat. (1991), in effect before July 1, 1992.) In addition, the Division requested that the tracks and frontons promulgate "in-house" rules in an attempt to maintain, as a practical matter, the status quo as of June 30, 1992, to the extent possible. On or about November 22, 1992, the emergency rules were replaced by permanent rules, designated F.A.C. Rule Chapter 7E-16, and F.A.C. Rule Chapter 7E-4 was repealed. On or about December 16, 1992, the Legislature enacted Chapter 92-348, Laws of Florida (1992), a new comprehensive statute governing dog and horse racing pari-mutuel wagering. It replaced the prior law. The final bill analysis and economic impact statement produced by the House of Representatives Committee on Regulated Industries referred to Chapter 92-348 as a "revision" of the law on the subject. The Division suggested to the Senate Commerce Committee that an earlier Senate version of the bill contain a retroactive "savings clause" to specify that the Division would have jurisdiction to prosecute disciplinary proceedings against occupational licensees that were pending on July 1, 1992, under the Division's emergency rules and under the provisions of what would become Chapter 92-348. No such provision was included in Chapter 92-348. On or about December 17, 1992, the Division transmitted to the Department of State, Bureau of Administrative Code, as "technical changes" under F.A.C. Rule 1S-1.002(9), "corrections" to the statutory authority for, and law implemented by, F.A.C. Rule Chapter 7E-16. The "corrections" substituted appropriate provisions from Chapter 92-348. The Division interprets F.A.C. Rule 1S-1.002(9) to apply to changes in the statutory authority for, and law implemented by, rules. F.A.C. Rule Chapter 7E-16 later was redesignated as F.A.C. Rule Chapter 61D-1. Between July 1 and December 16, 1992, the Division issued some 11,000 occupational licenses and denied some 22 applications. During this time period, the Division collected some $400,000 in occupational license fees. The fees were part of the more than $800,000 collected in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1993. During the period from July 1 to December 16, 1992, the Division dismissed more than 80 pending disciplinary matters out of concern for whether the Division still had authority to impose sanctions for the violations in question. In addition, during that time period, out of the same concerns, the Division declined to prosecute more than 260 other cases in which track judges or stewards had found violations.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Everett S. Rice, Sheriff of Pinellas County, is a constitutional officer for the State of Florida, responsible for providing law enforcement and correction services within Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Gina Hubbard, was a classified employee of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) where she worked as a certified detention deputy for approximately nine years until her termination on May 19, 1998. The incident that gave rise to Respondent's termination occurred on the evening of October 30, 1997, at Respondent's residence. On that date, at least three officers with the Pinellas Park Police Department responded to a call and went to Respondent's residence for a check on her welfare. Two of the officers positioned themselves outside the residence near the garage, where they believed that Respondent was located. The third officer was stationed across the street from Respondent's residence. Shortly after the officers arrived at Respondent's residence and while stationed at their posts, the officers heard a gunshot from inside the garage. After the gunshot, the officers maintained their positions for approximately five minutes, apparently listening for any activity in the Respondent's residence or garage. After hearing no activity, one of the officers banged twice on the garage door with a flashlight in an effort to determine Respondent's condition. Immediately thereafter, a shot was fired from Respondent's garage and exited through the garage door near the area where the officer had banged the flashlight. This shot came within two feet of the two officers standing immediately outside the residence. It was later determined that Respondent Hubbard was the person who discharged a firearm twice within her residence on the evening of October 30, 1997. Based on the aforementioned incident, Respondent was arrested on November 10, 1997, for aggravated assault, even though she was never charged or convicted of this offense. However, as a result of the October 30, 1997 incident, on April 24, 1998, Respondent pled nolo contendere to violating Section 790.10, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon and is a misdemeanor. In connection with this incident, Respondent also pled nolo contendere to violating Section 790.19, Florida Statutes, which prohibits shooting into a building and is a felony. The court withheld adjudication, but as a result of her plea, Respondent was placed on four years probation and prohibited from carrying a firearm. Based on the aforementioned incident and matters related thereto, the PCSO conducted an internal investigation. As a part of the investigation, Respondent gave a sworn statement. As a part of her sworn statement, Respondent admitted that she was guilty of the above-cited criminal offenses. Moreover, during her sworn statement, Respondent also admitted that she violated PCSO Rule C-1, V, A, 005 obedience to laws and ordinances and Rule C-1, V, C, 060, relating to standard of conduct. After completion of the PCSO internal affairs investigation, the Chain of Command Board considered the evidence and based on its findings, recommended that Petitioner charge Respondent with engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant and violating rules of the PCSO and terminate her employment. Specifically, Respondent is charged was violating the following PCSO rules: Rule C-1, V, A, 005, relating to obedience to laws and ordinances (Level Five Violation); Rule C-1, V, C 060, relating to Standard of Conduct (Level Three Violation). Respondent's violations were found to constitute Level Three and Level Five infractions and resulted in a cumulative point total of 65. At this point total, the recommended disciplinary range is from a seven-day suspension to termination. As a result of these violations and the underlying conduct which is the basis thereof, Respondent's employment with the PCSO was terminated on May 19, 1998. In the instant case, termination is an appropriate penalty, is within the PCSO guidelines, and is consistent with the long-standing policy of the PCSO and state law. There is an absolute policy at the Sheriff's Office to not hire applicants or retain any employees who are on probation for felony offenses, whether or not adjudication is withheld. The policy is applied to correctional officers, as well as civilian personnel of the PCSO.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Board enter a Final Order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant and violating PCSO Rules C-1, V, A, 005 and C-1, V, C, 060; and, (2) upholding the termination of Respondent's employment as detention deputy with the PCSO. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1999, 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 2nd day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard J. Dietzen, III, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler, Evans & Dietzen Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 Robert W. Pope, Esquire 2037 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 B. Norris Rickey Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 William Repper, Chairperson Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board Post Office Box 539 Clearwater, Florida 33757
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Insurance (Department) is responsible for regulation of insurance transactions in the State of Florida. In 1996, the United States Supreme Court held in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N. A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) that nationally chartered banks located in towns with populations of 5000 or less were authorized to own insurance agencies. In response, the 1996 Florida legislature revised Section 626.988, Florida Statutes (the "anti-affiliation" statute) to conform to the Court's ruling in the Barnett case The 1996 legislature also enacted Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, informally identified as the "parity statute." Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: The department shall adopt rules to assure the parity of regulation in this state of insurance transactions as between an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a federally chartered financial institution, an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a state- chartered financial institution, and an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with an entity that is not a financial institution. Such rules shall be limited to assuring that no insurance agency or agent is subject to more stringent or less stringent regulation than another insurance agency or agent on the basis of the regulatory status of the entity that owns the agency or is associated with the agent. For the purposes of this section, a person is "associated with" another entity if the person is employed by, retained by, under contract to, or owned or controlled by the entity directly or indirectly. This section does not apply with respect to a financial institution that is prohibited from owning an insurance agency or that is prohibited from being associated with an insurance agent under state or federal law. (Emphasis supplied.) The 1996 legislature also amended to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (the Administrative Procedures Act) to restrict agency authority to promulgate rules, so as to prohibit the adoption of rules which, although perhaps rationally related to the purpose of an implementing statute, were not specifically authorized by the legislature. In the summer of 1996, the Department began circulating a draft of rules intended to address issues related to the sale of insurance in financial institutions. Beginning in January 1997, the Department began the formal process of adopting rules intended to address the "parity" of insurance regulation between insurance agencies affiliated with financial institutions and agencies which are unaffiliated. The Petitioners challenged parts or all of the proposed rules as invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. As set forth in the Final Order entered June 29, 1998, in the consolidated rule challenges, Proposed Rules 4-224.002, 4-224.004, 4-224.007, 4-224.012, 4-224.013 and 4-224.014, Florida Administrative Code, were determined to be invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Although the challenged rules were determined to be invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority for various reasons, all were determined to be outside the Department's specific statutory authority as set forth by the legislature. There was no appeal of the Final Order. Prior to the hearing on the fee issue, all parties signed and filed a Prehearing Stipulation. According to the Prehearing Stipulation, "[t]he Department disputes entitlement to fees as a matter of law. It does not dispute the reasonableness of the fees, as capped by statute. It disputes the reasonableness of the costs sought by Florida Bankers Association. " The applicable statute provides that "a judgment or order shall be rendered against the agency for reasonable costs and reasonable attorney's fees, unless the agency demonstrates that its actions were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust." The Department asserts that the agency's actions in adopting the challenged rules were substantially justified and that special circumstances exist which make the award unjust. The greater weight of the evidence fails to support the assertion. The evidence establishes that, from the initiation of the rule drafting process, the issue of whether the Department had the authority to adopt the proposed rules was of concern to the parties in this case. In response to an early draft of the rule circulated by the Department, the Florida Bankers Association (FBA) in June 1996 asserted that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. The FBA continued to maintain this position throughout the rule-drafting process and the subsequent rule challenge cases. The Department was apparently also concerned about whether the agency had authority to adopt the rules. In response to a question raised by Department legal staff, a December 31, 1996, letter to the Department from an attorney at the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee on the issue of authority indicates that the Department's general authority to adopt rules was restricted by the 1996 APA amendment to Section 120.536(1), Florida Statutes, and that additional specific authority would be required to support the promulgation of rules. At the fee hearing, the Department conceded that the parity statute alone did not grant the agency with the specific authority to prescribe or proscribe specific acts or actions of an insurance agent. The Department asserted that the authority for the proposed rules was set forth by the combination of Section 626.988, Florida Statutes, under which pre-existing rules had been adopted, with the Department's previous legal actions related to insurance sales by agents affiliated with financial institutions, and the presumed effect of the parity statute on the Department's otherwise-existing authority. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's reliance on historical authority to promulgate rules and the authority provided under the parity statute was reasonable given legislative restrictions on agency rulemaking set forth in the 1996 legislature's amendments to the Administrative Procedures Act. There was no credible evidence presented at the rule challenge hearing or during the fee hearing which suggested that an emergency, either existing or potential, which required the Department to take immediate action to protect insurance consumers. There was no credible evidence presented at the rule challenge hearing or during the fee hearing that insurance consumers were threatened by an availability of insurance products in settings other than in insurance agencies. There are no special circumstances that make an award of fees and costs unjust. The Department apparently asserts that because the FBA participated in the rulemaking process, special circumstances exist which make an award of fees unjust. Although the FBA participated in the workshop process, the FBA consistently asserted, as stated earlier, that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. By letter of June 5, 1996, the FBA specifically filed written objections to the proposed rules, asserting that they were inconsistent with the APA amendments and the authority granted by the parity statute. Further, the FBA noted in the June letter and again in a letter of September 27, 1996, that the purpose and authority of the parity statute was met by a single proposed rule which, in essence, stated that the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code were applicable equally to all agents and agencies, regardless of ownership or affiliation. At the fee hearing, the Department acknowledged that the FBA had raised specific objections regarding the agency's lack of statutory authority during the rule process. The FBA consistently asserted during the rulemaking process that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. The FBA pursued the assertion throughout the rulemaking process and successfully challenged the rules on the same basis. There was no evidence presented during the rule challenge or the fee case suggesting that the FBA retreated from the objection at any point in the rulemaking process. According to the Prehearing Stipulation signed and filed by the parties, the disputed issues of fact are whether the expert witness fee paid to Dr. Michael White was reasonable and whether other costs sought to be recoverable are reasonable. The only specific challenge presented by the Department to costs is directed towards Dr. White's fees. The evidence establishes that under the circumstances of this matter, Dr. White's fee is reasonable. At the fee case hearing, the FBA presented the deposition testimony of William B. Graham, an attorney practicing in Tallahassee, Florida, in support of Dr. White's fees. Mr. Graham's testimony is accepted and credited as to the amount of Dr. White's fee and to the time required to prepare for and participate in this proceeding. Based on Mr. Graham's testimony, Dr. White's fee of $320 per hour is reasonable for an expert of Dr. White's credentials. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. According to the three dated invoices submitted to the FBA by Dr. White, Dr. White expended a total of 106 hours and five minutes in rule challenge-related activities on behalf of the FBA. Based on Mr. Graham's testimony, the time recorded by Dr. White of 106 hours and five minutes for his services is reasonable under the circumstances of the rule challenge. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. The total amount of time billed by Dr. White results in a fee of $33,946.66. The three invoices submitted by Dr. White also bill the FBA for expenses totaling $2,643.72. There is no credible evidence that the Dr. White's expense billings are unreasonable. The total amount of fees and expenses charged by Dr. White to the FBA is $36,590.38. The FBA paid to Dr. White the total amount reflected on his invoices. By comparison with the fees charged by its own expert, the Department asserts that Dr. White's fees are unreasonable. The fact that the Department paid its expert less than the FBA paid to its own does not establish that payments to Dr. White were unreasonable. The amount of the attorney's fees to which the successful parties are entitled is not at issue in this proceeding. According to the Prehearing Stipulation, the Department "while contesting entitlement to any award of fees . . . does not dispute that the fees sought, as capped by the statute, is reasonable for the efforts of all counsel in this proceeding." The FBA, by affidavit, identified attorney's fees totaling $145,683.01, and seeks an award of $15,000, the statutory limit. By stipulation of the parties, the FBA is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $15,000. The FBA identified total costs of $40,537.53, including the fees and expenses paid to Dr. White. There is no evidence that the costs of $3,947.15 set forth in the attorney billing records (and unrelated to costs related to Dr. White) are unreasonable. Based on the foregoing, the FBA is entitled to receive a total of $55,537.53. The Community Bankers Association identified attorney's fees totaling $10,290.00, and costs of $806.23. By stipulation of the parties, the Community Bankers Association is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $10,290.00. There is no evidence that the Community Bankers Association costs of $806.23 are unreasonable. Based on the foregoing, the Community Bankers Association is entitled to receive a total of $11,096.23. The Department asserts that, due to "untimeliness" of the Petitions for Fees filed in these cases, an award of fees in this case is unjust. There is no issue of timeliness to be addressed in this matter. The Petitions for Fees were filed approximately 60-90 days after the time for appeal of the Final Order in the rule challenge cases had passed. The Final Order entered in the rule challenge proceeding specifically retained jurisdiction for an award of fees. There is no evidence that the Department was adversely affected by any delay in filing the Petitions for Fees.
Conclusions Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Department of Insurance shall pay total fees and costs as follows: The Florida Bankers Association shall receive a total of $55,537.53 The Community Bankers of Florida shall receive a total of $11,096.23. DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 6th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Townes, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 Counsel for Florida Bankers Association Michael H. Davidson, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Counsel for Department Martha J. Edenfield, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson & Dunbar, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Counsel for Community Bankers of Florida Eli S. Jenkins 3330 Overlook Drive, Northeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 Authorized Representative of Specialty Agents, Inc. Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's Petition Seeking an Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of an Existing Rule (Petition) should be dismissed on the ground that the "challenged rule in this proceeding has been effectively repealed by the Florida Legislature by Section 626.854(11), Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2008," as requested by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a permanent Career Service employee of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation (DOR), State of Florida, who was serving as a Planner and Evaluator II, Class Code 5291, Position No. 04038, Planning and Development Section, Bureau of Planning, Research and Statistics, in July, 1977. (Composite Exhibit 3) The 1977 Florida Legislature reduced the number of authorized positions in the DOR through "productivity adjustment," effective July 1, 1977. By letter of July 26, 1977, the Secretary of the DOR requested the Secretary of Administration to approve a statewide competitive area for the positions to be abolished. By letter of July 27, the Secretary of Administration approved the requested competitive area to include all organizational units on a statewide basis within the Department. At that time, the DOR had four positions in the class of Planner and Evaluator II. These were then held by Petitioner, Sunil Nath, Position 00053, Edward M. Teuton, Position 07974, and Bill C. Schnitzer, Position Number 03756. All of these positions except Position 07974 were abolished as a result of the legislative mandate. The incumbents of the four positions met with Mr. James A. Ball, DOR Personnel Officer, on or about July 28, 1977. At that time, he informed them of the position deletions and consequent necessary layoffs. Ball indicated in his comments to the group that the Petitioner would not be adversely affected because he had the greatest number of retention points of the four individuals. It was further indicated by Ball to Petitioner at this meeting and in later discussions that Petitioner would assume the duties of the remaining Position 07974 and proceed to "phase in" to the job. By letters dated August 5, 1977, Nath, Teuton and Schnitzer were notified by the Secretary of the DOR of their layoff under State Personnel Rule 22A-7.11, and advised of their options and rights under pertinent law. (Composite Exhibits 1-4, Testimony of Ball, Fitzgibbon) By letter of August 31, 1977, to the State Personnel Director, the Secretary of the DOR requested that selective competition be approved under State Personnel Rule 22A-7.11(3) for the position of Planner and Evaluator II, DOR, Class Code 5291, Position Number 07974, among persons affected by layoff in the Department. The letter stated: The specific background necessary to perform the job requirements of this unique position of Mutual Participation Program Administrator are reflected below and relate directly to the duties of the position as reflected on the official Position Description, a copy of which is attached. The letter further indicated the particular qualifications for the position. The Position Description attached to the letter set forth the duties and responsibilities of the job, but did not specify particular qualifications required of the incumbent. Conley M. Kennison, State Personnel Director, in a letter of September 8, 1977, approved selective competition for the position in question "In accordance with Section 22A-7.11(3), Personnel Rules and Regulations, F.A.C., and based on the specific qualifications required of this position to function as the coordinator for the Mutual Participation Program as substantiated by the Position Description you submitted." The concept of selective competition for a position arises only in layoff situations. Under normal layoff procedures, an employee's number of retention points computed under Rule 22A-7.11 determines priority for available remaining positions. However, if selective competition is used, only those employees possessing the special qualifications for a particular position are eligible to compete therefor, and if several have the necessary qualifications, the employee with the highest retention points is selected. Approval for selective competition is based on special qualifications that must be derived from the official Position Description. In such cases, an economic impact statement is not prepared nor are the normal procedures for promulgation of a rule. Neither are Position Descriptions promulgated as rules under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Minimum qualifications for a particular class of positions are set forth in separate documents called Class Specifications. Position Descriptions are prepared by the affected agency and approved by the Department of Administration. In the instant case, the Deputy State Personnel Director approved selective competition for Position 07974 based upon qualifications considered necessary from the duties and responsibilities shown in the Position Description. (Composite Exhibit 2, Testimony of Dean) After approval had been obtained for selective competition for Position 07974, it was determined by DOR that only Edward M. Teuton, the incumbent of that position, possessed the necessary qualifications. As a result, Petitioner, who had no prior knowledge that selective competition was to be applied, was orally informed by his supervisor on September 13 or 14 that he would not receive the position and that Teuton would retain the same. On September 19, he received a letter dated September 14, 1977, from the Secretary of the DOR, which provided formal notice of layoff, and informed him of his right to appeal such action and to request demotion or reassignment to a position for which he might be eligible. He thereafter appealed the layoff and requested demotion in lieu thereof based on information received from the Department Personnel Officer who told him that he would have to take such action in order to retain state employment. (Composite Exhibit 4, Testimony of Petitioner)
The Issue The ultimate issue in this case is whether Respondents' proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.030, which would establish procedures and standards governing the submission, review, and approval (or disapproval) of each school district's instructional personnel and school administrator evaluation systems, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Department of Education ("DOE") is the state agency responsible for administering and implementing educational policy under the direction and control of Respondent State Board of Education (the "SBE"), a collegial body consisting of seven members appointed by the governor. DOE and the SBE will be referred to collectively as "Respondents" except when it is necessary to identify a specific actor. On September 30, 2011, DOE caused a Notice of Development of Rulemaking to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly ("FAW"), which announced the agency's intent to substantially amend Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.010 so as to establish procedures for the submission, review, and approval of district evaluation systems in accordance with section 1012.34(8), Florida Statutes.1 DOE caused a second Notice of Development of Rulemaking to be published in the FAW on November 23, 2011. This notice informed the public that the procedures for the submission, review, and approval of district evaluation systems would be set forth in an amendment to rule 6A-5.030, instead of rule 6B- 4.010. In addition, three rule development workshops were scheduled to occur between December 12 and December 14, 2011. On February 24, 2012, a Notice of Proposed Rule was published in volume 38, no. 8, of the FAW, pages 804-07, https://www.flrules.org/Faw/FAWDocuments/FAWVOLUMEFOLDERS2012/38 08/3808doc.pdf. The full text of proposed rule 6A-5.030 is included in this notice. Subparagraph (1)(a) of the proposed rule contains a statement that a document entitled "Review and Approval Checklist for Instructional Personnel and School Administrator Evaluation Systems, Form No. EQEVAL-2012" ("Checklist"), is incorporated by reference.2 (The published text of rule 6A-5.030 will be referred to as the "Rule Text" when necessary to distinguish between the Rule Text and any material incorporated by reference.) The Notice of Proposed Rule further advised that the rule would be presented to the SBE for its approval at a meeting on March 27, 2012. By letter dated March 16, 2012, the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee ("JAPC") provided comments on the proposed rule to DOE. On March 26, 2012, Petitioners filed a Petition to Invalidate Proposed Rule with DOAH. At the SBE meeting on March 27, 2012, which constituted the final public hearing on the proposed rule, DOE recommended that the proposed rule be revised to reflect JAPC's comments, and the SBE voted in favor of such revisions. The SBE approved nontechnical changes that modified both the Rule Text and the Checklist. Among the changes was the insertion into the Checklist of an incorporative reference to a document entitled "High Effect Size Indicators (2012)" ("HESI Document"). As a result of the SBE's action, proposed rule 6A- 5.030, as amended, comprises three separate documents: the amended Rule Text, the amended Checklist, and the HESI Document.3 Collectively, these three items will be called the "Rule." Respondents have not caused a notice of change concerning the Rule to be published in the FAW pursuant to section 120.54(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The documents which constitute the Rule can be found, however, online at Florida Department of Education, District Performance Evaluation Systems, http://www.fldoe.org/profdev/pa.asp (last visited Aug. 20, 2012). On March 30, 2012, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition to Invalidate Proposed Rule, which revised their original petition to take account of the changes to the Rule that had been made by the SBE on March 27, 2012.4 Petitioner Karen Peek ("Peek") is a teacher employed by the Okaloosa County School Board. During the 2011-12 school year, Peek taught Language Arts and Science to fifth-grade students who took the Reading and Math portions of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). A portion of Peek's performance evaluation for 2011-12 school year will be based upon her students' FCAT Reading scores according to the formula approved by the Commissioner of Education pursuant to section 1012.34(7), which formula is mentioned in the Checklist. The remainder of her performance evaluation rating will be based upon classroom observations. The Rule requires school districts to make significant changes in their personnel evaluation systems. These changes will affect the evaluation criteria that will be used to measure Peek's level of performance and determine whether she is rated highly effective, effective, needs improvement, or unsatisfactory. A rating of unsatisfactory could be grounds for dismissal. Petitioner Beth Weatherstone ("Weatherstone") is a teacher employed by the Indian River County School Board. During the 2011-12 school year, Weatherstone taught Algebra I to eighth-grade students who were tested on the Math portion of the FCAT during the school year. A portion of Weatherstone's 2011- 12 performance evaluation will be calculated using her Algebra I students' FCAT Math scores according to the formula referenced in the Checklist. The remainder of her performance evaluation rating will be based upon classroom observations conducted according to an evaluation system that will need to conform to the requirements of the Rule. The Florida Education Association (the "FEA") is a professional association of educators and education support employees which works with and through affiliated local unions around the state in representing public school teachers in collective bargaining. The FEA and its local affiliates represent approximately 135,000 member educators in Florida on all matters associated with the wages they earn and how their performance is assessed, in addition to other issues related to their working conditions.
