Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, and the prehearing stipulation, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 473497 issued by the Florida Department of Education covering the area of auto body repair. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Dade County School Board as an auto body instructor at Robert Morgan Vocational Technical Institute (herein sometimes referred to as "Robert Morgan"). Respondent began his employment at Robert Morgan on a part-time basis during May of 1980 and was employed on a full-time basis during August of 1900. Prior thereto, Respondent had been employed in private industry working at Williamson Cadillac for several years and, later, Rhinehart Volkswagen. Respondent has worked in the auto body industry for approximately 20 years prior to being employed at Robert Morgan. The Dade County School District has adopted an internal accounting operating policy and procedure for production shops numbers 2-6 which was in effect during the time of Respondent's employment. (Joint Exhibit 21) Additionally, Robert Morgan adopted "management procedures and policies" which were set forth in a production manual, copies of which were provided to all production shop instructors. (Joint Exhibit 21) School Board policy and school production policy provides that the following individuals may have their automobiles worked on in Robert Morgan's Auto Body Repair Shop: (a) students currently enrolled in a particular program (in this case, auto body); (b) employees of the Dade County School District; and (c) non-profit organizations which submit a request to the school principal and whose requests are accepted. (Joint Exhibit 21) School Board policy and school production policy each require the preparation of a Work Order for each job received in the Auto Body Shop. Each customer is required to sign the Work Order disclaimer statement set forth in the Work Order form prior to the performance of any service upon the automobile. (Joint Exhibit 21) School Board policy and school board production policy required that a deposit be received for work to be performed in the event that the estimated costs exceed a sum of $50. The customer is required to make a deposit for the amount of the estimated cost over $50 which deposit is submitted to the School Treasurer prior to performance of the requested repairs. (Joint Exhibit 21) School production policy provides that the instructor completely fill in the upper portion of the Work Order. (Section IX, B of School Board production policy) After the work is completed, the Instructor must complete the description of materials used on work performed, including all charges for parts, supplies, shop fees, taxes and the final total to be paid by the customer. (Section IX, G of School Board production policy) The instructor thereafter sends the complete Work Order to the Treasurer's Office where the Treasurer checks the accuracy of totals on the Work Order. The instructor then notifies the customer that the work is completed and ready for pick-up. At that time, the instructor informs the customer of the total amount due and where the customers go to pay for services. The repaired automobile "shall not be released" until the customer presents a paid receipt from the Business Service Office to the instructor. (Section IX, H, I, and J of School Board production policy) Both School Board policy and School Board production policy prohibit any instructor, student or school employee from soliciting or accepting gratuities or remuneration for production work performed on the school premises or during school hours. No instructor, student or School Board employee is permitted to use his position to solicit work for private business or outside interests. (Joint Exhibit 21) At the beginning of each school year involved herein, Dade Program Coordinator, Clifton Lewis, conducted in-service meetings with all instructors to review School Board and Robert Morgan production policies which were contained in the Teachers' Handbook. At these in-service meetings, which Respondent attended, production policies were discussed in detail. Coordinator Lewis discussed any problem areas which may have arisen in the past as well as any discrepancies noted in their audit report in order that such matters might be corrected. Respondent attended these in-service meetings prior to the commencement of both the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. Additionally, Coordinator Lewis discussed School Board and Robert Morgan production policy with instructors informally from time to time when a discrepancy or problem would arise during the course of the school year. During Respondent's first year of employment at Robert Morgan (1980- 81), Coordinator Lewis' practice was to meet with first-year teachers every Wednesday to cover school production policies. Respondent attended those meetings. Among the subjects covered during these weekly meetings were the payment of deposits by customers for work to be performed as well as school policy requiring customers to pay in full for their vehicle prior to its removal from school grounds. Respondent attended approximately 60 of such meetings during his tenure at Robert Morgan. While the policy has been modified and has changed from time to time, at no time did Respondent indicate to Coordinator Lewis during any of those meetings that he did not understand the policies as discussed. Respondent received a Teachers' Handbook for the 1980-81 school year which incorporated Robert Morgan production policy. (Joint Exhibit 20) Sometime after August 24, 1982, Respondent signed a Memorandum of that date indicating that he read and that he had a working knowledge of the Robert Morgan Production Policy Manual. (Joint Exhibit 19) Additionally, Burton Watkins, the evening Program Coordinator at Robert Morgan during Respondent's employment, conducted in-service training for Respondent both individually and collectively with other instructors. Respondent attended those sessions during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. During those sessions, Watkins discussed county and school policy concerning clientele and such matters as whose automobile may be repaired, methods of payment, requirement for deposits and a requirement for payment in full prior to a removal of the vehicle from school grounds. Respondent never expressed a lack of understanding of the applicable policies for the Auto Body Repair Shop to Coordinator Watkins. (TR volume 3, pages 98 and 99) Additionally, Robert Snyder, Assistant Principal at Robert Morgan from August 1980 through August 1983, discussed the Auto Body Shop procedures with Respondent several times. Based thereon, it is found that during his tenure as an auto body repair instructor at Robert Morgan, Respondent was aware of School Board and Robert Morgan policies and procedures with respect to processing automotive body repair work in his day and evening classes. Respondent received excessive formal and informal training from Coordinators Lewis and Watkins and he (Respondent) indicated his working knowledge of that policy in writing on or about August 24, 1982. 4/ (Joint Exhibit 19) Robert Morgan production policy specifies that when an instructor orders parts for production work, the Work Order number is supplied to the vendor as the purchase order number. (Section VIII, A, Joint Exhibit 21) On or about November 12, 1980, Respondent prepared a Work Order, number 5997, for himself upon which he indicated that materials were ordered from Service Auto Supply of Homestead in the amount of $255. (Joint Exhibit 24) The invoice received by Robert Morgan from Service Auto Supply of Homestead dated November 17, 1980, in the amount of $255 was paid by the school on or about January 30, 1981. (Joint Exhibit 25) Frances Mesiano, school Bookkeeper, received the bill from Service Auto Supply and contacted Respondent concerning that Work Order when she discovered that she had not received any deposit for that Work Order and she did not know who the work was for. Respondent acknowledged to Ms. Mesiano that it was for himself and that he would bring the Work Order to her. (TR volume III, page 170) Ms. Mesiano told Respondent that "You need to pay us some money on that. I'm paying it out of school funds and I do not have a deposit on it." Respondent indicated that he would do so; however, when he failed to make any payment by the end of the month, Ms. Mesiano reported the matter to Mr. John White, Vice Principal, who spoke to Respondent about the matter. Following the conversation with Mr. White, Respondent gave Ms. Mesiano a deposit on May 8, 1981, of $150 and the balance due of $105 which Respondent owed Robert Morgan on that Work Order remained unpaid until April 15, 1983. (TR volume III, pages 170-173) The parts Respondent purchased during November of 1980 consisted of a front and rear "spoiler" which he intended to mount on a personal automobile which he was in the process of customizing. (TR volume IV, page 333) When Respondent paid the balance owed to Robert Morgan for the parts ordered during November of 1980, he was under investigation by Petitioner, Dade County School Board, for violation of School Board policies. On March 2, 1982, Respondent accepted for repair at Robert Morgan a 1974 Porsche automobile owned by Roy E. Bates. Mr. Bates was not a Dade County School Board employee. Kenneth Rogers, Assistant Principal at Homestead Junior High School, had previously discussed purchasing that car from Mr. Bates, if Mr. Bates would have certain body damage repaired. Mr. Rogers recommended that Mr. Bates contact Respondent about performing the necessary repairs. Mr. Rogers contacted Respondent and advised him that a friend of his had a Porsche which he (Rogers) wanted to buy if the body damage to the automobile was repaired. Mr. Rogers asked Respondent if he would repair it. Rogers told Respondent that the car belonged to a friend and that he was going to buy it if it was repaired. Initially, Messrs. Bates and Rogers planned on having Respondent repair the automobile at Respondent's home but they were unable to contact Respondent at home. Respondent finally told Rogers to have the automobile brought to Robert Morgan. Bates drove the Porsche to Robert Morgan one evening, followed by Mr. Rogers. After examining the body damage, Respondent told Mr. Bates that he would need $400 "to get started." Mr. Bates gave Respondent a check dated March 2, 1982, in the amount of $400 payable to Respondent. (Joint Exhibit 1) Mr. Bates left the Porsche at Robert Morgan's Auto Body Shop, or in the immediate vicinity thereof. (TR volume I, pages 48-50) Approximately one month later, Respondent contacted Mr. Rogers to request more money for the repair work to the Porsche. Mr. Rogers talked to Mr. Bates, who gave Mr. Rogers a check in the amount of $200 made payable to Respondent. Mr. Rogers gave the check to Respondent. A day later, Respondent contacted Mr. Rogers and requested that he come pick up Mr. Bates' check, give it back to Mr. Bates and tell him to issue a new check made payable to Robert Morgan. Mr. Rogers relayed that information to Mr. Bates. Respondent later went to Mr. Bates' home to discuss the matter. At that time, Respondent requested that Mr. Bates tell anyone who inquired that the $400 check which Mr. Bates had first given him was for the rental of a mobile home. Respondent also requested that Mr. Bates reissue the $200 check, this time made payable to Robert Morgan. At the time, Respondent was concerned about the investigation being conducted of him by the petitioner, Dade County School Board. Mr. Bates told Respondent that he would not lie about the origin and the reason for the $400 check. Respondent thereafter became angry and made what Mr. Bates considered to be an "indirect threat" to the effect that he would hate to see anybody like Mr. Bates with his position giving trouble. (TR volume I, pages 31-32) Mr. Bates never leased a mobile home, motor home or trailer of any kind from Respondent. At Respondent's request, Mr. Bates wrote another check made payable to the Dade County School Board in the amount of $200. Mr. Bates, however, stopped payment on the check several days later. (TR volume I, pages 26, 27) Once the investigation of Respondent was underway by the Dade County School Board, Mr. Rogers was interviewed by School Board Investigator Dodson concerning the $400 check issued to Respondent. Respondent thereafter contacted Mr. Rogers and asked him to change his story that he had given the investigator telling him that he had made a mistake and that the check was not for parts but for the rental of a camper. Mr. Rogers advised Respondent that he could not do that whereupon Respondent told him that if he got in trouble, it would be because he was trying to do both Rogers and Bates a favor. In a later telephone conversation, Respondent told Mr. Rogers that he had gotten in trouble because he was doing Mr. Bates and him a favor. At that time, Respondent warned Mr. Rogers about showing up for a hearing in this case. Also, Respondent made what Mr. Rogers considered to be a veiled threat. Mr. Bates' 1974 Porsche automobile sat on Robert Morgan school grounds from March 2, 1983, until near the end of the 1982-83 school year when it was towed away. The car was sold by the towing company that picked it up from school grounds. Respondent assigned Work Order number 10337 to the Porsche. The Work Order was not fully completed by Respondent. Respondent indicated on the Work Order, however, that the vehicle was owned by Ken Rogers. When Coordinator Lewis inquired of Respondent concerning the Porsche prior to the summer of 1982, Respondent advised him that it was "a night job," indicating that Mr. Watkins, the evening Coordinator, was aware of the car and had accepted it for repair. (TR volume I, page 75) When Mr. Watkins first noticed the Porsche sometime in 1982, he inquired of Respondent concerning the vehicle and was informed that Coordinator Lewis, the day Coordinator, had approved the car for repair. (TR volume I, page 105) Students of Robert Morgan in the evening program performed work to the left rear quarter panel of the Porsche automobile in the body shop used by night students. Respondent did not pay over to Robert Morgan the $400 given him by Roy E. Bates at Robert Morgan on or about March 2, 1982. Instead, Respondent endorsed and cashed Mr. Bates' check himself. (Joint Exhibit 1) When Coordinator Lewis inquired of Respondent concerning the $400 check written to him by Mr. Bates, Respondent told him that the money was for the rental of his "motor home." (TR volume I, page 83) A few days later, Respondent made the statement in Coordinator Lewis' presence that Mr. Bates' $400 payment was for a trailer which he had made for Mr. Bates. Respondent acknowledges that he negotiated the $400 check written to him by Mr. Bates. Respondent purchased a left rear quarter panel and a front bumper which he used to repair the Porsche automobile. When Coordinator Lewis discussed a $200 check written by Mr. Bates, Respondent told him that Mr. Bates was the owner of the Porsche, although Respondent had previously told Coordinators Lewis and Watkins that Mr. Rogers owned the vehicle. On or about September 23, 1982, Respondent ordered parts totalling $424.41 from Toyota of Homestead, giving said parts supplier a purchase order number 10330. (Joint Exhibit 3) Respondent ordered those parts to repair his personal Toyota truck which was damaged in an auto accident. The parts ordered by Respondent for his truck were ordered on the wholesale account of Robert Morgan. Respondent signed for the parts when they were delivered to Robert Morgan. (Joint Exhibit 3) On or about October 8, 1982, Respondent ordered an air conditioner from Toyota of Homestead on the account of Robert Morgan for installation in his personal Toyota truck. Respondent provided Toyota of Homestead with purchase order number 10341. The air conditioner ordered on the account of Robert Morgan cost $425. (Joint Exhibit 4) Respondent prepared Work Order number 10330 to indicate that the work to be done by the Robert Morgan Auto Body Shop was for a 1979 Chevrolet owned by Dr. Burt M. Kleiman, a School Board employee. (Joint Exhibit 15) Dr. Kleiman's Chevrolet had, in fact, been repaired under Work Order number 10328. (Joint Exhibit Respondent assigned Work Order number 10341 to himself on or about October 7, 1982, in order to use said Work Order as a purchase order for ordering the air conditioning unit for his Toyota truck from Toyota of Homestead. (Joint Exhibit 16) Respondent placed no information on Work Order number 10341 to indicate that the work to be performed pursuant to that Work Order would be upon his personal vehicle. Ms. Mesiano, the School Treasurer, first received notice from Toyota of Homestead in November 1992 of outstanding charges on the account of Robert Morgan. She requested duplicate copies of the invoice from Toyota of Homestead. Upon examining the duplicate Work Orders, she determined that the purchase order numbers coincided with Work Orders contained within Respondent's lot of Work Orders. Ms. Mesiano called Respondent on the telephone to inquire about which customers those Work Orders were for. Respondent told Ms. Mesiano that the Work Orders were not with him, that they were in his car and that he would have to call her back with the information. Later that day, Respondent told Ms. Mesiano that Work Order 10330 was his and that he would get her a duplicate copy of the invoice from Toyota of Homestead. Later that same day, Respondent also advised Ms. Mesiano that Work Order 10330 involved an insurance settlement on his part. Tom Huddleston, Parts and Service Director for Toyota of Homestead, contacted Respondent when their invoice for parts ordered by Respondent and delivered during September and October 1982 went unpaid past thirty days. Respondent advised Mr. Huddleston that he would look into the matter and "get it squared away." (TR volume I, pages 130-131) When the matter remained unpaid the following month, Mr. Huddleston again contacted Respondent and Respondent told him that he would clear the matter up with Robert Morgan. During December of 1982, Mr. Huddleston personally visited Robert Morgan and spoke to Respondent. Respondent told Mr. Huddleston that there would be no problem in getting the bill paid. On December 16, 1982, Respondent called Mr. Huddleston and told him that the school (Robert Morgan) wanted him to pay the bill. Respondent requested that Mr. Huddleston send him a copy of the statement. Mr. Huddleston complied that same day. (TR volume I, pages 134-135) When Respondent had not paid the bill by January 1983, Mr. Huddleston contacted Respondent about getting the payment for the bill. During that period, Respondent agreed to pay the bill in two installments beginning the first of February and the remaining 50 percent on the first of March. At that time, the bill totalled $751.41. Mr. Huddleston agreed with Respondent's assumption of the financial responsibility for the bill and to his method of repaying one half the bill in February and the remaining one half in March 1983. Respondent failed to make the 50 percent payment, as agreed, on February 1, 1983. Mr. Huddleston attempted to get the payment and Respondent asked him (Huddleston) to send his driver by Robert Morgan to pick up some money from him. When the driver returned, he presented Mr. Huddleston with a check in the amount of $100, which amount was unacceptable and not in conformance with the agreement. Respondent became hostile, accused Mr. Huddleston of "hassling" him and told Mr. Huddleston to throw the check in the garbage. (TR volume I, pages 138, 139) Following receipt of the check for $100 Huddleston prepared a letter dated February 25, 1983, to the Principal of Robert Morgan concerning the matter. (Joint Exhibit 5) In the letter, Mr. Huddleston and Mr. John A. Machado, General Manager of Toyota of Homestead, outlined the contacts which they had recently made with Respondent. In summary, they demanded that the school immediately pay the bill in full. Following said correspondence, Respondent contacted Mr. Machado and arranged to pay $100 a week until the bill was paid in full. Toyota of Homestead then negotiated Respondent's first $100 check and then received a second check in the amount of $100 on March 14, 1983. They received no further payments from Respondent during that month and determined that they should go back and demand full payment from Robert Morgan. Toyota of Homestead sent Robert Morgan a statement dated March 31, 1983, for the balance due of $551.41 with the notation contained thereon that "Mr. Johnson has failed to keep the agreement with us of $100 every week. We request that you pay the balance in full immediately." (Joint Exhibit 6) As of the date of the final hearing herein, there remains an outstanding balance of $351.41 due Toyota of Homestead on the account of Robert Morgan for Toyota truck parts Respondent ordered for his personal truck during September and October 1982. On November 28, 1982, a friend suggested that Sally Bradley, a retiree, contact Robert Morgan concerning auto body repairs which she desired for her 1972 Ford LTD. 5/ Ms. Bradley lives in the Pine Wood Villas senior citizens' section of the Perrine/Cutler Ridge area. Those villas are owned by the Lutheran Church for the Elderly. Ms. Bradley was told to contact Respondent while she attended a Christmas party at the Veterans of Foreign Wars on November 28, 1982. She was referred to the school by Edward Oberlies, a photographer for the News Leader, a local newspaper. Ms. Bradley was talking about her car being "rusted out" and wanted body work done. Mr. Oberlies informed her that they had a body shop at Robert Morgan school and that some of the instructors there "moonlighted." Ms. Bradley contacted the school during early December and asked to speak to someone in the body shop. Ms. Bradley learned that Archie Johnson worked on cars at his home so she asked, "May I speak with him?" Respondent was summoned to the phone and he spoke with Ms. Bradley arranging to inspect her automobile at her house on December 5, 1982. Base on Ms. Bradley's testimony which indicates that she was looking for someone to do the work at their home; the fact that no work was done by Respondent to Ms. Bradley's car while on school premises, and, finally, that no work was done to Ms. Bradley's car by Respondent during school hours, this situation involves a purely private matter which was not prohibited by the school's policies or were in some other manner, in violation of the Petitioner, Department of Education's rules and regulations. 6/ On March 28, 1983, Carol Fontani, a teacher at Killian High School, took her 1978 Lancia automobile to the vicinity of Robert Morgan in order to have it painted by Respondent's class. Ms. Fontani and her husband previously had their 1976 Dodge Charger painted by Respondent's class at Robert Morgan and were pleased with the result. Prior to that time, Ms. Fontani had spoken to Respondent about getting her Lancia painted at the school and Respondent had advised her that he did not think that a second car could be painted within a short span of time following repairs of her first car. Respondent agreed to check into that situation and advised Ms. Fontani that he could not paint her Lancia at school but that he would do so at his home. Ms. Fontani agreed and requested an estimate as to the charges to paint the Lancia. Respondent gave a $450 estimate to Ms. Fontani. Respondent demanded and Ms. Fontani gave him a $200 deposit, made payable to him. Approximately one month later, on April 25, 1983, Ms. Fontani, her husband and their two children, went to Robert Morgan in the evening to pick up their car. A student accompanied the Fontanis to Respondent's home where they picked up their Lancia automobile. When the Fontanis arrived at Respondent's home, Respondent's wife, Mrs. Johnson, asked for the remaining balance of $250 before giving them the car keys. The Fontanis indicated that they were pleased with the way that the car looked and openly praised Respondent's workmanship to Mrs. Johnson and the student who accompanied them to Respondent's home. The Fontanis stopped payment on the $250 check given Mrs. Johnson the following morning claiming that the work was shabbily done and that they could not determine the shoddiness of Respondent's work until the following morning. 7/ After learning that he was under investigation for violation of School Board and school policies, Respondent made numerous charges of alleged violations of School Board and school policies and procedures by school administrators and his colleagues including allegations against a fellow auto body instructor, Charles Taylor, Assistant Principal, Robert Snyder, evening program Coordinator, Burton Watkins and Robert Morgan's Treasurer, Frances Mesiano. Petitioner, Dade County School Board, conducted an internal investigation of the allegations of impropriety leveled against administrators and colleagues by Respondent. As a result of that investigation, Respondent's allegations were determined to be "unfounded." (TR volume II, page 201 and Stipulation of Respondent's counsel) Respondent's conduct, as set forth herein, generated notoriety beyond that reported in the media, which notoriety adversely affected both Respondent's effectiveness and the standing of Robert Morgan in the community. As a result of Respondent's orders of parts for his Toyota truck from Toyota of Homestead on the account of Robert Morgan, Robert Morgan lost its good credit standing with the auto suppliers. (TR volume I, page 148) Additionally, Toyota of Homestead intends to sue Robert Morgan if the remaining balance on Respondent's bill is not paid. Respondent's unfounded accusations against fellow Robert Morgan employees further impaired his effectiveness in that they no longer trust him nor would they want to work with him in the future. (TR volume II, page 330; volume III, page 113 and 102) According to the expert testimony of Dr. Pat Gray, Executive Director, Division of Personnel Control for the Dade County Public Schools and an employee of the school system since approximately 1965, Respondent has "clearly failed to demonstrate the standards expected of a public school teacher. He has impugned the integrity of himself as well as that of the education profession and, in so doing, he has violated the specific statutes and state regulations with regard to the expected standards for public school teachers." (TR volume III, pages 146, 147) Respondent's effectiveness "has been so seriously diminished and reduced that he could not possibly function in an efficient and professional manner as a public school teacher." Respondent's performance as an instructor during his tenure at Robert Morgan Vocational Technical Institute has been outstanding. While his performance is not here at issue, it is, no doubt, the reason that he has found himself here in violation of Petitioners' rules and regulations. Respondent was sought out by fellow school board employees and administrators to perform work on their private vehicles. Respondent, having come from the private industry, had no prior experience with the procedures expected of instructors in the various vocational technical shops at Robert Morgan, the largest vocational technical school in the southeast. Also, during the period of Respondent's tenure, the production policy at Robert Morgan was anything other than static. As example, during 1980, the policy changed respecting when a deposit had to be placed for a customer who wanted his automobile painted. Also, policies as to when the Work Order would be signed were indefinite during 1981. As example, it was as likely that a Work Order could be signed on picking up an automobile as upon dropping it off. (Testimony of John D. White, Vice Principal at Robert Morgan from its inception through 1983.) Finally, while the results of the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County's, internal investigation revealed that the allegations of impropriety filed by Respondent against administrators and his colleagues were unfounded, the facts herein do not support a conclusion that they were made maliciously and with knowledge that the charges were false. Respondent credibly testified herein that he believed those charges were true and he was encouraged by Dr. Patrick Gray to give him information concerning those matters. Respondent's conduct as set forth herein is the type conduct that cannot be countenanced by the Petitioners. Given the Respondent's prior work experience, his on-the-job performance, the continued state of flux of the petitioner's, Dade County School Board's production policy in effect at Robert Morgan, and the entire circumstances herein, coupled with the fact that Respondent was at no time ever issued a written reprimand or disciplined in any other way for any violation of School Board policy such consideration was given as to the imposition of an appropriate penalty. Based thereon, the ultimate penalty of termination and revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of ten years, as requested by Petitioners, would be too harsh and does not appear to be indicated by the facts herein. I shall therefore recommend lesser penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order affirming its suspension of the Respondent without pay through the end of the 1983-84 regular school year. That the petitioner, Department of Education, Education Practices Commission, enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's teaching certificate number 473497 issued by the Florida Department of Education covering the area of auto body repair for a period of one (1) year from the date of his suspension by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County. 8/ RECOMMENDED this 18th of October 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October 1984.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent should be assigned to J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Anya Cooper and Aaron Brumm and had admitted Exhibits P-1 (two pages of subpoena), P-2 (case management form 676566), P-3 (composite of Student Observation 1/12/87), P-4 (Composite Student Case Management Referral Forms), P-5 (Second Report for School Year 1986-1987), P-6 (Composite of Student Academic and Behavioral Reports), and P-7 (Individualized Education Program, IEP). Respondent presented the oral testimony of Fred Sage and had admitted R-1 (Computer printout), R-2 (Computer printout), R-3 (Child Study Team Conference Notes), and R-4 (composite of report card with progress notes of Grace Baptist Academy). Joint Exhibit A (Multi- Disciplinary Team Report) was also admitted. Due to the failure of Bonnie Edison to respond to a validly served subpoena, the parties stipulated to the taking and filing of her deposition by Petitioner subsequent to July 21, 1987. Respondent's father's August 22, 1987, letter has been treated as a Motion to Strike or Amend the Edison deposition, and the Edison deposition with attached exhibits has been admitted as amended by the Order of September 10, 1987. Petitioner filed a "Memorandum of Law on Jurisdiction, Substantial Interest, and Case or Controversy," and Respondent filed a letter styled, "Request for Ruling." These documents are addressed the Appendix to this Recommended Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's parents were notified by a letter dated January 30, 1987, that Respondent had been administratively assigned to the Dade County School Board's alternative education program at J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. Being previously aware that the recommendation for administrative assignment had been made, Respondent's parents had formally withdrawn Respondent from the public school effective January 29, 1987, and timely petitioned for formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent's parents are currently complying with State law by continuing their son in a private educational facility, however Respondent's substantial interest entitling him to a formal hearing continues to exist in that the parents desire their son to be enrolled in the regular program of the Dade County public school system and in that they propose to re-enroll him in that system if they prevail in these proceedings. At all times prior to his withdrawal from public school, Respondent was enrolled at Cutler Ridge Junior High School, located in Dade County, Florida. He attended summer school in the summer of 1986, and was 13 years old and in the seventh grade for the regular 1986-1987 school year. During the regular 1986-1987 school year, Anya Cooper was Respondent's mathematics teacher. In her class, Respondent performed his basic skill work below grade level. She described his conduct in her class as very "fidgety, constantly moving around, bothering other students, and talking and kicking purses." However, she also described the foregoing behavior as all done "in fun" and described Respondent's usual responses to admonishment as being, "Okay, Okay." Apparently she interpreted these responses to her correction as being in the nature of back-talk but admitted that following a smart retort, Respondent usually would not say more beyond "Okay" and often complied with her requests. Beginning September 22, 1986, Ms. Cooper kept a daily record of negative behaviors of Respondent. That day, Respondent was extremely talkative and refused to participate in boardwork. He also lied, saying a paper without a name on it which had received a grade of "B" was his own paper when, in fact, it had been submitted by someone else. When confronted with his lie, Respondent admitted the lie immediately. On September 24, he was too talkative and changed his seat. On September 26, he talked during a test and refused twice to take the test before actually taking it. On September 30, he chewed gum and was required to remove it. On an occasion in early October, he talked back to Ms. Cooper and was instructed not to talk in class anymore. On October 22, he threw a piece of staple which hit another student. Ms. Cooper counselled with Respondent about the danger of throwing staples, but Respondent interrupted her and refused to work. On October 23, Respondent kicked a female student, and on October 28, he put his foot on her arm. Ms. Cooper put him out of her class. There is no evidence that any student was ever injured. On October 27, Respondent refused to work and talked during the entire class period. Later that month, he threw a pen into the trash can, creating a loud noise and distraction. Nonetheless, despite the number of these incidents, Ms. Cooper only referred Respondent for discipline by the school administration one time. During summer school the previous summer, the Respondent had been referred by the coach to Assistant Principal Brumm for running around the cafeteria. Respondent was reprimanded and warned without being assigned to indoor or outdoor suspension. On July 22, 1986, also during summer school, Respondent had been referred to the office for disruptive and non-attentive behavior in one class. Assistant Principal Brumm sent Respondent home for one-half day as a disciplinary measure. By October 6, 1986, Respondent was in the Student-At-Risk-Program (SARP). This program assembles a special group of teachers within the school who are able to deal particularly effectively with disciplinary problems. The student members of the program are assigned their own counsellor and attend classes of much smaller size than do those students in the academic mainstream. The target goal of SARP is to identify students at risk for dropping out of school and modify their behavior so as to retain them in the school system. The testimony of Bonnie Edison, Respondent's seventh grade SARP life science teacher for the regular 1986-1987 school year, was submitted by after- filed deposition. Ms. Edison did not routinely refer Respondent to the administration for his discipline problems, nor did she involve the SARP counsellor. She addressed Respondent's disruptive behavior solely with SARP behavior modification techniques. In Ms. Edison's class, Respondent was "off task" and disruptive seventy to eighty percent of the time unless Ms. Edison addressed him on a one-to-one basis, or unless she included him in a group of no more than three students. Despite measurably high ability, Respondent's work effort was below standard ninety percent of the time. He consistently failed to bring proper materials to class but admitted he should do so. Ms. Edison counselled with Respondent a few minutes daily and occasionally for longer periods, sometimes with temporary success, but never with lasting success. Her greatest concern was that Respondent's need for one-on-one attention deprived her of teaching time and limited her time for other students. She also was concerned because, in their conversations, Respondent could name no rewards or goals she could integrate into her program at school. Nonetheless, noting that Respondent related better to plants than to people, and recognizing his very superior ability with horticulture, Ms. Edison involved him in independent study with plants as a reward. She also devised a reward system based upon Respondent's interest in wrestling as a contact sport, and upon his affection and respect for the wrestling coach who had previously referred Respondent for discipline. This coach helped Respondent study for his second grading period exam in Ms. Edison's class, and Respondent earned an "A" on this final exam. Between September 1986 and the end of January 1987, Respondent had a total of seven referrals to the school administration, although some referrals covered several incidents. The constant theme of the referrals of Respondent to the administration was that Respondent had the ability to learn, but insufficient self-discipline to allow him to learn. Respondent had been assigned to six days of CSI (indoor suspension) and one day of outdoor suspension. In the first grading period of the regular 1986-1987 school year, Respondent earned two F's, one D, two C's and one B. By January 29, 1987, in the second grading period, Respondent had earned two F's, two D's and two C's. In the second grading period, he had only been absent 2 or 3 times in each class except for math, in which he had 8 absences. There is no evidence that any teacher or administrator viewed these absences as excessive. On January 20, 1987, a teacher referred Respondent for disrupting other students in CSI by making squeaking sounds. Thereafter, a Child Study Team was convened. Each of Respondent' a teachers participated in a conference with Respondent's mother on January 28, 1987. The consensus of the team and teachers was that Respondent needed extremely close supervision. Each teacher consulted with Respondent's mother on this occasion. Although there is evidence of some parental contact due to previous disciplinary problems, it appears that January 28, 1987, when the alternative education program was being actively explored, was the first time the parents were made aware of the serious penalties attendant upon Respondent's grades, behavior, and absences. The probable explanation for the lack of prior communication is that Respondent never gave contact slips/reports to his parents, but it is also clear that there was little or no administrative follow-up on the written material sent home and that the parents also resented and reacted hostilely to two oral contacts by the administration. Mr. Brumm opined that all disciplinary and counselling techniques at his disposal had been tried but had proven ineffectual. It was Respondent's parents' position that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them concerning their son's disinterested and disruptive behavior; had failed to involve them early enough in disciplinary and academic correction of their son; and had failed to use corporal punishment to discipline Respondent. To buttress their assertion that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them, the parents asserted that since certain disciplinary reports/referrals had not been committed to writing or consigned to the computer prior to the administrative school assignment (January 30, 1987) or prior to the formal withdrawal of their son from the Dade County School System (January 29, 1987), there was little or no credibility in any of the disciplinary reports/referrals admitted in evidence and particularly no credibility in those reports/referrals dated February 6, 1987, and later. The failure of teachers and administrators to timely commit to writing the reports does not diminish the credibility of the oral testimony on the same facts by the teachers and Mr. Brumm. It does, however, render less credible the administration's assertion that adequate communication was made with the parents simultaneously with the alleged disciplinary actions. The parents' assertion that the school failed to use corporal punishment as an accepted disciplinary technique is ill-founded. The administration's failure to employ corporal punishment was consistent with established policy, and not demonstrated to be unreasonable. Respondent's exhibits of report cards and progress reports from the private school which he entered subsequent to withdrawal from the Dade County Public School System are irrelevant to the statutory issues discussed in the conclusions of law. They are also virtually unintelligible without any "key" by which they may be interpreted.
Findings Of Fact Culmer Place Tenants Association and Allapattah Tenant Association are not-for-profit corporations chartered by the State of Florida (Exhibits 1 and 2). Allapattah has received IRS tax-exempt status as a publicly supported corporation. Culmer Place has applied for such status but has not as yet received the IRS designation. Both Culmer Place and Allapattah are tenant associations at Housing and Urban Development (HUD) projects in Miami, Florida. These HUD projects are low- income residences sponsored and managed by HUD. The principal source of funds for each Petitioner is HUD. The Associations submit a budget to HUD and receive funds semiannually. Culmer Place received $453 from HUD in 1980 and Allapattah received a slightly less amount. The Associations sponsor activities in their projects principally oriented towards children. These projects, which have been presented by both Petitioners, are the Easter project, family picnic on July 4, Christmas project, community movies, and trips to the circus or other attractions. In addition, one or both Associations have sponsored dances and held rummage sales. Allapattah is currently proposing the establishment of a softball team if funds can be obtained. The Easter project consists of purchasing candy and eggs, getting volunteers to dye the eggs and putting these treats in bags which are given to the children who participate. At Culmer they have an Easter egg hunt but lack of space for hiding the eggs requires the bag approach at Allapattah. The Christmas project is similar to the Easter project in that the Petitioners use the money provided by HUD to purchase candy, fruits and stockings which are taken around and given to the children who live in the project. At the family picnic on July 4, barbeque is provided, as is other food and drinks. It appears that the Associations primarily provide "refreshments" at the projects they sponsor. No picnic was held in 1981 because funds were not available. Other activities sponsored by the Associations include cleanup campaigns at which the young people are assembled to pick up trash and generally "clean up" around the projects. The Associations provide refreshments for the workers and HUD provides the funds to pay these youngsters for their cleanup work. The money for the refreshments is budgeted by the Associations and provided by HUD. The summer lunch program is carried out at these projects with the food for the participants provided by the City, County, or HUD. The volunteers who supervise the serving of the food and activities that accompany this project are members of the Associations and are paid by HUD for the three hours they are so engaged each day. Movies are occasionally shown at the projects. The film is usually rented and the residents are invited by "flyer" to attend. Sometimes cartoons are obtained to show to the children. Occasionally, free tickets to the circus or to some local attraction are obtained by the Associations who arrange the transportation for the children and supervisors to participate in these field trips. These-projects and activities are provided free to the participants and participation is not limited to children, or others, who live in the Petitioner organizations. "Flyers" advertising these projects are prepared and delivered to the residents, placed on the bulletin boards at the housing project office, and some flyers are distributed outside the housing projects by putting them on poles, in stores (that permit) and in washerettes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner V.S. is the managing director of Source of Light and Development, Inc., a non-profit corporation which operates "Hope House", a licensed emergency shelter home. The license is issued jointly to V.S. and to Hope House. There is no evidence that the Petitioner is the sole owner of the facility or the corporation. The evidence establishes that the shelter could continue to operate under the direction of another individual if V.S. were no longer responsible for the facility. At some point in 1991, Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS") received a report alleging that V.S. had been driving under the influence while a resident of Hope House was in the vehicle. Although the record is unclear as to what information was available to the agency at that time, (the Hope House resident allegedly in the vehicle operated by V.S. refused to offer a statement) the DHRS classified the report as proposed confirmed and advised V.S. that she could request that the classification be reviewed. On July 19, 1991, V.S. requested that a proposed confirmed report of abuse or neglect be expunged or amended. Thereafter, the matter was assigned to Michael J. Hally, an expunction analyst for the agency. Mr. Hally initially reviewed the statements of three law enforcement personnel taken at the time of the event. The law enforcement officials were apparently responding to a reported altercation at the Hope House. Hally then spoke to the law enforcement personnel who provided confirmation of their prior reports. Hally subsequently discussed the matter with the resident who essentially stated that V.S. had consumed alcohol and become intoxicated while operating a car in which the resident was riding. During this period of time, V.S., through legal counsel, attempted to identify and provide to Mr. Hally a number of persons who could provide exculpatory information on V.S.'s behalf. Mr. Hally interviewed the persons identified by counsel. Based upon the information available, the DHRS determined the report to be correctly classified. On August 20, 1991, the DHRS informed V.S. that her expunction request was denied and notified her of the right to challenge the agency's determination through the formal administrative hearing process. On September 25, 1991, V.S. requested a formal hearing to challenge the agency's refusal to expunge or amend the report. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings which scheduled the matter for hearing. In preparation for formal hearing, the deposition of the resident was taken. Subsequently, the DHRS determined that the credibility of her testimony would be subject to attack. Based on the resident's lack of credibility, the DHRS, on February 4, 1992, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, E. J. Strickland Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), submitted to Respondent, Department of Transportation (Department), a bid on State Project No. 75030- 3518. Petitioner's was the lowest bid received by the Department. Petitioner's bid failed to meet the D.B.E. goals on State Project No. 75030-3518. The D.B.E. goal was 12 percent; under Petitioner's bid, only .04 percent of the contract would be performed by economically disadvantaged business enterprises. The only effort Petitioner made to secure bids of certified D.B.E. contractors to incorporate in its bid to the Department was to run a legal advertisement in the Orlando Sentinel on January 18, 19 and 20, 1986. The Department was scheduled to open all bids on January 22, 1986. Petitioner documented only the advertisements and the fact that it incorporated the only response to the advertisements in its bid in an effort to demonstrate good faith effort to meet the D.B.E. goals. 2/ There is no evidence that Petitioner acted with specific discriminatory intent in preparing its bid on State Project No. 75030-3518. Petitioner proved that it acted in this case precisely as it acted in the only other Department job on which it bid. In that case, Petitioner ordered from the Department plans and specifications and was sent plans, specifications and a bid package and was placed on the Department's list of prospective bidders. In accordance with the custom in the industry, the Florida Transportation Builders Association (FTBA) obtained from the Department the list of prospective bidders as of ten days before the bid letting date and distributed the list to its members. In accordance with the custom in the industry, several DBE and WBE contractors contacted Petitioner, verified that Petitioner was bidding on the project and submitted proposals for inclusion in Petitioner's bid. In that way, Petitioner received enough response from certified DBE and WBE contractors to meet the DBE and WBE goals on the job. In this case, in accordance with the Department's normal practice, the Department only sent Petitioner plans and specifications in response to Petitioner's December 30, 1985 request for plans and specifications. Also, since Petitioner did not specifically request a bid package, the Department did not include Petitioner on its list of prospective bidders. For that reason, no FTBA members, including the certified DBE contractor who bid on Petitioner's previous job with the Department, received notice that Petitioner was a prospective bidder on State Project No. 75030-3518. Had Petitioner been included on the FTBA list, Petitioner probably would have received enough response from certified DBE contractors to meet the DBE goals on this job, too. All four of the other bidders on State Project No. 75030-3518 met the DBE goals. One of them relied entirely on the FTBA list to notify prospective certified DBE contractors. One of them -- including the next lowest bidder, Cone Constructors, Inc. -- also sent a written request for a proposal to Pary, Inc., the same certified DBE contractor who previously had contracted with Petitioner on a Department job that was still ongoing. Another of the bidders on State Project No. 75030-3518 telephoned Pary, Inc., and asked for a proposal. Petitioner is not a member of the FTBA and did not inquire whether it was listed as a prospective bidder on the FTBA list. Petitioner did not make any effort to use the Department's DBE directory to directly contact certified DBE contractors concerning the job. Petitioner did not even contact Pary, Inc., to request a bid although Pary, Inc., was working for Petitioner at the time and had not responded to Petitioner concerning State Project No. 75030-3518. Petitioner's small effort to meet the DBE goals on State Project No. 75030-3518 did not rise to the level of good faith efforts. The evidence that Petitioner acted in this case precisely as it acted in the only other Department job on which it bid does not prove that Petitioner made a good faith effort in this case. To the contrary, it proved only that Petitioner was lucky to meet the DBE goals on the prior contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Transportation, dismiss the bid protest of Petitioner, E. J. Strickland Construction, Inc., and award the contract in State Project No. 75030-3518 to the lowest responsive bidder, Cone Constructors, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of April, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Revenue's ("Department"), B03 assessment against Petitioner, GBR Enterprises, Inc. ("GBR"), for sales tax and interest is incorrect.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Audit Period GBR is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. Gilda Rosenberg is the owner of GBR and a related entity, Gilly Vending, Inc. ("Gilly"). GBR and Gilly are in the vending machine business. At all times material hereto, Amit Biegun served as the chief financial officer of the two entities. The Department is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's sales tax laws pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes. This case concerns the audit period of January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. GBR's Provision of Vending Machine Services Prior to the audit period, the school boards of Broward and Palm Beach County issued written solicitations through competitive invitations to bid ("ITB"), seeking vendors to furnish, install, stock, and maintain vending machines on school property. The bids required a "full turn-key operation." The stated objectives were to obtain the best vending service and percentage commission rates that will be most advantageous to the school boards, and to provide a contract that will be most profitable to the awarded vendor. The stated goal was that student choices from beverage and snack vending machines closely align with federal dietary guidelines. GBR operates approximately 700 snack and beverage vending machines situated at 65 schools in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties. Of these 65 schools, 43 are in Broward County, 21 are in Palm Beach County, and one is in Miami-Dade County. The snack vending machines are all owned by GBR. Beverage vending machines are owned by bottling companies, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Of the 700 vending machines, approximately 60 percent of the machines are for beverages and the remaining 40 percent are for snacks. GBR has written vending agreements with some schools. In these agreements, GBR is designated as a licensee, the school is designated as the licensor, and GBR is granted a license to install vending machines on school property in exchange for a commission. Furthermore, GBR is solely responsible to pay all federal, state, and local taxes in connection with the operation of the vending machines. Ownership of the vending machines does not transfer to the schools. However, in some cases the schools have keys to the machines. In addition, designated school board employees have access to the inside of the machines in order to review the meter, monitor all transactions, and reconcile the revenue from the machines. GBR places the vending machines on school property. However, the schools control the locations of the vending machines. The schools also require timers on the machines so that the schools can control the times during the day when the machines are operational and accessible to students. The schools also control the types of products to be placed in the machines to ensure that the products closely align with the federal dietary guidelines. The schools also control pricing strategies. GBR stocks, maintains, and services the vending machines. However, Coca-Cola and Pepsi may repair the beverage machines they own. GBR is solely responsible for repairing the machines it owns. The schools require that any vendor service workers seeking access to the vending machines during school hours pass background checks. GBR route drivers collect the revenue from all of the vending machines and the revenues are deposited into GBR's bank accounts. In exchange for GBR's services, the schools receive from GBR, as a commission, a percentage of the gross receipts. However, neither GBR nor the schools are guaranteed any revenue unless sales occur from the machines. On its federal income tax returns, GBR reports all sales revenue from the vending machines. For the tax year 2012, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $5,952,270. Of this amount, GBR paid the schools $1,363,207, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2013, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,535,362. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,122,211, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. For the tax year 2014, GBR's federal income tax return reflects gross receipts or sales of $6,076,255. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $1,279,682, a percentage of the gross receipts which GBR characterized on the tax return and its general ledger as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. Thus, for the audit period, and according to the federal tax returns and general ledgers, GBR's gross receipts or sales were $18,563,887. Of this amount, GBR paid directly to the schools $3,765,100, as a commission and equipment space fee and cost of goods sold. The Department's Audit and Assessment On January 27, 2015, the Department, through its tax auditor, Mary Gray, sent written notice to GBR of its intent to conduct the audit. This was Ms. Gray's first audit involving vending machines at schools. Thereafter, GBR provided Ms. Gray with its general ledger, federal returns, and bid documents. On October 28, 2015, Ms. Gray issued a draft assessment to GBR. The email transmittal by Ms. Gray to GBR's representative states that "[t]he case is being forwarded for supervisory review." In the draft, Ms. Gray determined that GBR owed additional tax in the amount of $28,589.65, but there was no mention of any purported tax on the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. However, very close to the end of the audit, within one week after issuing the draft, and after Ms. Gray did further research and conferred with her supervisor, Ms. Gray's supervisor advised her to issue the B03 assessment pursuant to section 212.031 and rule 12A-1.044, and tax the monies paid by GBR to the schools as a license fee to use real property. Thus, according to the Department, GBR was now responsible for tax in the amount of $246,230.93, plus applicable interest. Of this alleged amount, $1,218.48 was for additional sales tax (A01), $4,181.41 was for purchase expenses (B02), $13,790 was for untaxed rent (B02), and $227,041.04 was for the purported license to use real property (B03). Ms. Gray then prepared a Standard Audit Report detailing her position of the audit and forwarded the report to the Department's dispute resolution division. On January 19, 2016, the Department issued the Notice of Proposed Assessment ("NOPA") against GBR for additional tax and interest due of $288,993.31. The Department does not seek a penalty against GBR. At hearing, Ms. Gray acknowledged that she and her supervisor "struggled" with understanding GBR's reference to commissions and equipment expense fees in the tax returns and general ledgers and the Department's decision to ultimately issue the B03 assessment. At hearing, the Department's representative, Mr. Zych, acknowledged that a proper analysis as to whether a particular arrangement constitutes a license to use real property involves a consideration of issues of control, such as control over access to and placement of the machines, products, and money. In the instant case, the schools controlled significant aspects of the parties' arrangement, including placement of and access to the machines, pricing strategies, and the type of products that could be placed and sold from the machines. The vending machines were placed at the schools and under significant control by the schools so that the schools would be in compliance with federal dietary guidelines. GBR provided an important service to the schools in order that the schools meet federal dietary guidelines. GBR was able to provide the service only because of a competitive ITB process. The goal of the bids was to obtain a vendor service for the sale of products to students in conformity with federal dietary guidelines, not to enter into a license for the use of real property. Although GBR characterized the payouts to the schools on its tax returns and general ledgers as "commissions" and "equivalent space fees," and GBR controls some aspects of the arrangements, the facts adduced at hearing demonstrate that the substance of the arrangement is in the nature of a service contract. In sum, given the totality of the circumstances and under the unique facts of this case, the undersigned concludes as an issue of fact, that the arrangement between GBR and the schools boards and schools is in the nature of a service, and not a license to use real property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order rescinding the B03 assessment in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2019.
