The Issue Whether Petitioner violated Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.1(002), 3-1.3(066), and 3-1.3(067), and, if so, whether Petitioner should be terminated from his position with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office.
Findings Of Fact Based on a review of the case file, the Transcript of the final hearing, and the exhibits entered into evidence, the following Findings of Fact are found. On July 13, 2001, Dominguez was assigned to foot patrol at the K-Mart store in South Pasadena, Florida, as a community police officer. At that time he had been employed by the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office for approximately sixteen and one-half years. On the evening of July 13, 2001, Dominguez was standing outside K-Mart talking to an employee of K-Mart, Renee Herrington (Herrington). While talking to Herrington, Dominguez observed a white van and a black sport utility vehicle (SUV) parked in front of K-Mart next to a yellow curb. The area in which the vehicles were parked was marked by a faded “no Dominguez observed the vehicles for a time and when no one moved the vehicles, he decided to cite both vehicles for parking violations. He issued a citation to the white van and then proceeded to the black SUV. The SUV had been parked in front of K-Mart by Maryellen Ruvolo (Ruvolo) while she and her niece went into K-Mart to make a purchase. Ruvolo left the vehicle running, and her sister and two nephews remained in the vehicle. Dominguez went to the rear of the SUV and began writing the ticket. Ruvolo’s sister, Eugenia Quinn (Quinn), got out of the SUV and asked Dominguez to not issue the ticket and allow her to move the vehicle. Dominguez refused her requests and gave the ticket to Quinn. Dominguez started walking in the direction of Herrington, who was sitting on a bench approximately 30 yards away from the vehicles. When Ruvolo returned to the vehicle, Quinn gave her the ticket and told her that Dominguez would not let her move the SUV. Ruvolo turned in the direction of Dominguez and shouted, “Have a nice day, you fucking fat bastard.” Dominguez turned around and went back to where Ruvolo was standing. He wanted to confront her about her comment. Ruvulo started to yell after Dominguez went up to her. He arrested her, handcuffed her, and put her in his patrol car. The charge was disorderly conduct. During the confrontation between Dominguez and Ruvolo, none of the members of the public became involved in the dispute and Ruvolo did not incite any members of the public to participate in the dispute. She never physically or verbally threatened Dominguez. Ruvolo’s actions did not invade the right of others to pursue their lawful activities. Herrington went back inside K-Mart and other members of the public were not disrupted in their entering and leaving K-Mart. Quinn asked Dominquez why he was arresting her sister and he told her that he did not get paid enough to put up with what Ruvolo had said. While he was arresting Ruvolo, Dominguez had requested assistance from another deputy sheriff, Kelvin Franklin. When Deputy Franklin arrived on the scene the confrontation was over. Dominguez asked Franklin to go inside K-Mart and get the address of Herrington, who had witnessed the incident. Dominguez did not request Franklin to take a statement from Herrington. On the way to the jail, Ruvolo apologized to Dominguez, and he told her to shut up. Prior to reaching the jail, Ruvolo stopped for a few minutes in a parking lot and met with his supervisor to get some in-service papers. When they reached the jail, Dominguez was advised that there were six persons to be processed ahead of Ruvolo. Dominguez got out of the patrol car and turned off the ignition. He did some paperwork on the trunk of his patrol car while waiting. He left Ruvolo in the patrol car without air conditioning and the windows rolled up for approximately six or seven minutes. He returned to the vehicle and turned on the ignition and waited to be called to take Ruvolo inside the jailhouse. They waited approximately 20 minutes from the time they got to the jail until they entered it. Ruvolo spent approximately five hours in jail and was required to post bail before she could be released. After arresting Ruvolo, Dominguez prepared his incident/offense report and complaint/arrest affidavit. Dominguez admitted during his testimony that neither the arrest report nor the arrest affidavit set forth facts to establish the elements for the offense of disorderly conduct, the crime for which he arrested Ruvolo. Dominguez told the Administrative Review Board (ARB) that he felt that Herrington’s peace had been disturbed. Dominguez did not talk with Herrington between the time he heard Ruvolo make her remarks to him and the time he arrested Ruvolo. When asked why he had not included any statements from Herrington in his report, he replied, “Laziness.” During the ARB hearing, Dominguez stated that he had no excuse for not completing a thorough report and detailing the elements of the crime. He acknowledged the position that he placed the Sheriff's Office in when he did not do a complete and thorough report. Ruvolo and Quinn made complaints to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office about Dominguez’s actions. The complaints alleged that Dominguez was rude, intimidating, and unprofessional in his behavior during the July 13, 2001, incident. Ruvolo also alleged her arrest to be false. As a result of the complaints, Sergeant Tim Pelella (Pelella) of the Administrative Investigations Division of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office conducted preliminary interviews of Ruvolo and Quinn. During the course of the interview, Ruvolo recognized that she would have to pursue her false arrest claim through the courts. Pellella referred the matter to the commander of the road patrol division for investigation of the non-arrest components of the complaints. The complaints were referred to Sergeant Jay Morey (Morey), Dominguez’s immediate supervisor. Sergeant Morey talked to Dominguez and Herrington, but did not talk to either Ruvolo or Quinn. Morey concluded that he would not sustain the complaint, but his conclusion was never finalized or reduced to writing. The arrest for disorderly conduct was referred to the State Attorney’s Office for prosecution. The arrest report and arrest affidavit were reviewed by Assistant State Attorney Lydia Wardell, who concluded that neither the report nor the affidavit set forth sufficient facts to prosecute the case. As a result, a No Information was filed by the State Attorney’s Office disposing of the charges against Ruvolo, stating: “The facts and circumstances revealed do not warrant prosecution at this time.” As a result of the decision not to prosecute, the Administrative Investigation Division of the Sheriff’s Office retrieved the complaints from Morey and began its investigation of the false arrest complaint. It is the policy of the Sheriff’s Office not to investigate allegations of false arrest until such time as the State Attorney’s Office makes a decision on whether to prosecute. Dominguez was notified that an investigation was being initiated. Dominguez gave a sworn statement to the investigators assigned to the case. Ruvolo and other witnesses also gave sworn statements. After the investigation was completed, Dominguez was given an ARB hearing. In accord with General Order 10-2 of the Sheriff’s Office, at least one member of Dominguez’s chain of command sat on his ARB hearing. Prior to the hearing, the ARB members are given a copy of the investigation conducted by the Administrative Investigation Division. At the hearing Dominguez was permitted to offer a statement, to respond to questions, and to present additional evidence. The ARB made the following determination: On July 13, 2001, Manuel Dominguez, #52303, while on duty in Pinellas County, Florida; did violate the Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Act Laws of Florida, 89-404 as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, Subsection 4, by violations of the provisions of law or the rules, regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, 3-1.1 (Level Five Violation), 002, relating to Loyalty, to wit: Members shall maintain their loyalty to the Sheriff's Office and it's [sic] members as is consistent with law and professional ethics as established in General Order 3-2. Synopsis: On July 13, 2001, you failed to abide by the PCSO Code of Ethics, to wit: You acted officiously or permitted personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence your decisions while in the performance of duty as a deputy sheriff. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, 3-1.3 (Level Three Violation), 066, relating to Performance of Duty, to wit: All members will be efficient in their assigned duties. Synopsis: On July 13, 2001, you failed to accurately document an incident that resulted in the arrest of a citizen of this county. Violate Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, 3-1.3 (Level Three Violation), 067, relating to Performance of Duty, to wit: All members will be effective in their assigned duties. Synopsis: On July 13, 2001, you effected an arrest which the State Attorney's Office could not prosecute because you were ineffective in your assigned duties. The violations resulted in a cumulative point total of 75 points. A Level Five violation is given a point value of 50 points. A Level Three violation is given a point value of 15 points. The ARB assigned a total of 25 points for the two Level Three violations and 50 points for the Level 5 violation. There were no previous discipline points added. The discipline range for 75 points is from a ten-day suspension to termination. The ARB recommended the maximum penalty of termination. General Order 10-2 of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office deals with disciplinary procedures. It provides that the termination procedure to be followed is the same as that of a member who is suspended without pay with certain additional procedures. Only the sheriff has the authority to terminate a member of the Sheriff’s Office. A member can only be terminated “subsequent to an Administrative Investigation Division investigation supported by findings and disciplinary action recommended by a Administrative Review Board, and at the instruction of the Sheriff” that the member be terminated. At the time that the ARB made its recommendation that Dominguez be terminated, Rice, the Pinellas County Sheriff, was out of the state. He had discussed Dominguez’s disciplinary case with Chief Deputy Coats (Coats) prior to leaving the state. Rice had specifically authorized Coats to impose discipline, including termination, upon Dominguez that was consistent with the ARB’s recommendations. Coats advised Rice of the findings and recommendations of the ARB. Rice told Coats that he had no problem with terminating Dominguez. Coats signed the inter- office memoranda for Rice, advising Dominquez of the findings and recommendations of the ARB and advising of the decision to terminate Dominguez from employment with the Sheriff's Office. Coats was instructed by Rice to terminate Dominguez. In his deposition, Rice stated that Dominguez should have been terminated and that it was his decision to approve Dominguez's termination. Dominguez did not know the elements of the offense of disorderly conduct when he arrested Ruvolo. He felt that he could arrest her for her inappropriate comments to him. At the final hearing, Dominguez admitted that based on his long career in law enforcement that he should have known what constituted disorderly conduct. Dominguez was insulted by Ruvolo's name-calling and felt that her words were a challenge to the uniform of a deputy sheriff. Dominguez allowed his personal feelings to influence his decision to arrest Ruvolo.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a Final Order finding Manuel R. Dominguez guilty of violating the Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office as set forth in September 27, 2001, inter-office memorandum and upholding the termination of Manuel R. Dominguez from his employment as a deputy sheriff with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Laubach, Esquire Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association 14450 46th Street, North Suite 115 Clearwater, Florida 33762 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34756 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, et al. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act by engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant; (2) Whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff rule relating to effectiveness in assigned duties; and (3) if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a detention deputy and has been so employed for more than 11 years. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was assigned to the Pinellas County Detention Center (Jail). Detention deputies are correctional officers and, as is the case with all detention deputies, Respondent is responsible for the care, custody, and control of inmates incarcerated at the Jail. On April 26, 1999, Respondent was assigned to the third shift, Special Operations Division, and was a corporal supervising the booking area. In connection with that assignment, Respondent's job responsibilities included booking inmates into the Jail. One part of the booking process required that detention deputies obtain certain information from individuals taken into custody in order to complete the necessary paperwork. While the information was being obtained, inmates are instructed to stand behind a blue line on the floor. As part of the booking process, detention deputies inventory the property in the possession of an inmate and make a written record of that property and "pat down" the inmate. Following these procedures, the inmate is seen by a nurse. However, if the nurse is unavailable, the inmate is told to wait in Pre-booking Cell 4 (Cell 4). Detention Deputy Robert McQuire was also assigned to work the third shift in the booking area of the Special Operations Division on April 26, 1999. On April 26, 1999, during the third shift, Jay McMillen (McMillen) was booked into custody at the Jail on the charge of driving without a valid driver’s license. Upon arrival at the Jail, he was taken to the booking area, instructed to stand behind the blue line on the floor near the counter in the booking area, and asked for information required to complete the inmate property form. Both Respondent and McGuire participated in booking McMillen but McGuire asked the inmate most of the questions. During the booking process, McMillen cooperated with Respondent and McGuire and provided the information required to complete the booking form. Moreover, McMillen complied with orders given to him by the detention deputies. Although McMillen occasionally wandered a few feet away from the booking counter, he would immediately return to the area behind the blue line when so instructed. While being booked, McMillen never threatened either Respondent or McGuire. Furthermore, McMillen never physically resisted the actions of the detention deputies or exhibited physical violence. During the course of the booking process, Respondent undertook a routine pat down search of McMillen. As a part of that process, McMillen again complied with Respondent’s instructions to assume the appropriate position. While engaging in the pat down, some slight movement of McMillen’s leg occurred. However, at the time of this movement by McMillen, Respondent took no action to restrain McMillen. After the pat down was completed, McMillen was then told to sit on the bench in the booking area and to remove his shoes for inspection. McMillen immediately complied with this instruction. After Respondent completed the search of the shoes, he then ordered McMillen to have a seat in Cell 4. When Respondent ordered McMillen to Cell 4 to await nurse screening, McMillen complied with that order. While McMillen was walking toward Cell 4, McMillen made a single verbal statement to Respondent. The statement by McMillen was inappropriate and unnecessary. In the statement, McMillen referred to Respondent as "bitch." In response to McMillen's statement, Respondent turned from his original direction of returning to the booking counter and followed McMillen into Cell 4. It was Respondent’s intent at that time to remove McMillen from Cell 4 and to transport him to C Wing, an area used for inmates who were agitated or upset and needed a "cooling down" period. Respondent’s decision to remove McMillen from Cell 4 to the C Wing was based solely upon the tone of McMillen’s voice and was not the result of any aggressive physical act taken by McMillen or a verbal threat made by McMillen. Respondent followed McMillen into Cell 4 without the benefit of assistance from another detention deputy. In fact, prior to acting upon his decision to remove McMillen from Cell 4, Respondent did not advise McGuire or any other detention deputy of his intent or ask for assistance. Although Respondent did not advise any detention deputy that he was going into Cell 4, McGuire apparently observed Respondent proceeding toward Cell 4, and within approximately nine seconds, followed Respondent into the cell. At the time Respondent entered Cell 4 there was another inmate in the cell. Once in Cell 4, McMillen complied with Respondent’s instruction to face the wall and place his hands behind his back. However, while Respondent was handcuffing McMillen, McMillen exhibited an aggressive move toward him. As a result of McMillen's aggressive move, Respondent exercised force in restraining McMillen, engaging in an arm hold and forcing McMillen to the ground. Once on the ground, McMillen did not resist further and cooperated in the efforts of Respondent and McGuire to return him to his feet. During the process of Respondent's utilizing this force, McMillen suffered a cut over his right eye that required medical attention. McGuire then assisted Respondent in the handcuffing and transporting of McMillen. McMillen was then transported to C Wing where he was seen by a nurse, his restraints were removed, and he was left in a cell. McMillen did not resist further at that time and complied with the instructions of Respondent. Following the incident described in paragraph 16, Respondent and McGuire reported the incident as a use of force. Their incident reports were reviewed by Respondent’s supervisor, Sergeant Richard Leach, who approved the use of force and completed his own report. Prior to completing his report, Sergeant Leach attempted to speak with McMillen, but McMillen refused to discuss the matter with him. Sergeant Leach discussed the incident with Respondent and McGuire, but did not review the videotapes of the pre-booking area for the time period during which the incident occurred. It was later that Sergeant Leach was advised there was a problem with regard to the use of force. After reports were completed and submitted, the videotapes made in the pre-booking area of the incident were reviewed by Lieutenant Alan Harmer, pursuant to the procedures utilized at the Jail. Lieutenant Harmer also reviewed the incident reports prepared by Respondent and McGuire and the use- of-force report prepared by Sergeant Leach. Upon reviewing the tapes, Lieutenant Harmer determined that the events leading up to the use of force and the use of force itself violated Sheriff’s Office rules. As a result of Lieutenant Harmer's preliminary determination, an internal investigation was conducted by the Administrative Inquiry Division (AID) of the Sheriff’s Office pursuant to the referral by Lieutenant Harmer. Sworn statements were taken by investigators, including statements of Respondent, McGuire, and the inmate in Cell 4 at the time of the altercation. In his sworn statement, Respondent alleged that McMillen was verbally abusive during the course of the booking process and that he further was uncooperative and had initiated an act of possible physical resistance by moving his leg in a manner possibly designed to strike Respondent. After completing its investigation, the AID presented its entire investigative file to the Administrative Review Board (Board) without conclusion or recommendation. Sergeant Leach was among the officers sitting on the Board. Although Sergeant Leach had initially approved the use of force when he reviewed the reports of Respondent and McGuire, he voted to discipline Respondent based upon his observations from the videotapes of the incident. The Board met and after reviewing the materials provided by AID and giving Respondent the opportunity to respond further, the complaint was sustained. Specifically, the violations determined by the Board to have occurred were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules and regulations and operating procedures of the Office of the Sheriff; Violation of rule and regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, General Order 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 067, relating to a member’s effectiveness in their assigned duties. On April 26, 1999, you unnecessarily caused a use of force by entering a cell and confronting an inmate. Further, you exposed yourself to undue risk by entering the cell without appropriate back-up. Under the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Guidelines, a sustained finding of one Level Three violation is the basis for assigning 15 disciplinary points. As a result, Respondent was assessed 15 disciplinary points. Sheriff’s Office General Order 10-2 identifies a disciplinary range for a total point assessment of 15 points to be a minimum discipline of a written reprimand and a maximum discipline of a three-day suspension. In the instant case, Respondent was assessed the maximum discipline, a three-day suspension. The conduct engaged in by Respondent in following McMillen into Cell 4 and then engaging in a physical altercation with McMillen based solely upon a single comment by McMillen, regardless of the extent to which the comment constituted a vulgar insult directed toward Respondent, did not constitute a good correctional practice. Moreover, such conduct is not consistent with the training or conduct expected of correctional officers. The role of correctional officers in a volatile situation is to calm the situation and to maintain control, not to act to aggravate or to escalate the dispute or to allow the inmate to control the situation via verbal comments. Proper correctional practice would have been to allow McMillen to remain in Cell 4 for sufficient time to cool off and calm down before initiating further contact with him. Similarly, the actions of Respondent in following McMillen into the cell by himself rather than obtaining assistance prior to entering the cell, are also contrary to good correctional practice. Again, this conduct by Respondent served only to potentially escalate and aggravate the confrontation, rather than to calm the situation. Moreover, it is also good correctional practice to have two detention deputies transport an inmate. This is particularly so considering the presence of another inmate in Cell 4 at the time Respondent entered the cell. There was no need for Respondent to enter the cell with McMillen or to initiate physical contact with McMillen, and his actions are contrary to Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Policy and Procedure File Index No. DCB 9.29 that requires that detention deputies refrain from one-on-one confrontations with inmates that may lead to physical confrontations. The actions of Respondent created a situation that led to a use of force and injury to McMillen that could have been avoided had Respondent effectively performed his duties as a detention deputy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the conduct alleged in the charging document and upholding Respondent’s suspension for three days from his employment as a detention deputy with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Laubach, Esquire Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association 14450 46th Street, North Suite 115 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler and Evans Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kenneth Katsaris, is the duly elected Sheriff of Leon County, Florida. Respondent has its principle place of business in the City of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of operating a county-wide law enforcement agency, pursuant to the Florida Constitution and the applicable statutes promulgated thereunder. Charging Party, Perry Lawrence was employed by Respondent as deputy with the Leon County Sheriff's Department of approximately four years and seven months prior to his discharge on February 3, 1977. Charging Party, Michael Spiers was an employee with the Leon County Sheriff's Department for approximately four years and one month prior to his discharge on February 3, 1977. At times material herein, Gene Goodman was employed as a Captain with the Leon County Sheriff's Department and as such was an agent and a representative of the Respondent acting on its behalf, and/or a managerial employee. On February 3, 1977, and for sometime previous thereto, Joe E. Davis was employed with Respondent as a Sergeant and was the immediate supervisor of Deputy Perry Lawrence. Also on February 3, 1977, Wilford Jiles was employed as a Lieutenant with the Leon County Sheriff's Department and for approximately one week prior to the termination of Deputy Spiers, was his immediate supervisor. During the period during which Lawrence and Spiers was employed with the Leon County Sheriff's Department, both under former Sheriff Raymond Hamlin and the present Sheriff Kenneth Katsaris, neither received an oral or written reprimand regarding their conduct; nor had they been counseled by either Sheriff or any superior with regard to any type of attitude problem or complaints about their work performance. THE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORTS The deputy sheriffs of the Leon County Sheriff's Department discussed and began to consider the possibility of organizing collectively in October or November of 1976. However, serious organizational efforts did not begin until January of 1977. On January 31, 1977, Perry Lawrence contacted union organizer James Mixon and established February 5, 1977 as the date for the initial organizational meeting of the Leon County Sheriff's Deputies. The record reveals that deputies Lawrence and Spiers spearheaded the organizational drive, however, they made no contacts concerning organizational activities with employees during their working hours or of the working hours of the deputy employees whom they solicited. The evidence reveals that solicitation efforts were made during the period January 31, February 1 and February 2, 1977, at which time the first meeting was scheduled for February 5 at deputy Lawrence's house. January 31 was the last day of the January pay period for the Leon County Sheriff's Department employees. Evidence further reveals that Respondent Sheriff first learned about the organizational efforts within his department in mid to the latter part of January, 1977. Nearing the end of January or the first of February, Sheriff Katsaris learned of the roles of Lawrence and Spiers in the organizational effort. It was during this time period that deputy Spiers was being considered for a position in the detective division by Captain Poitinger, a managerial employee who was first employed with the advent of the new administration on January 4, 1977. Following the defeat of the incumbent sheriff in November, 1976, by Sheriff Katsaris, he (Katsaris) conducted interviews with the deputy sheriffs appointed by Sheriff Hamlin in order to ascertain those individuals who would be retained on his staff. Both deputies Lawrence and Spiers were interviewed and indicated their desire to continue their law enforcement careers and pledged to support the new administration. Sheriff Katsaris, based on this interview, decided to retain both deputies Lawrence and Spiers. Sheriff Katsaris took office as the Sheriff of Leon County on January 4, 1977. Sheriff Katsaris testified that individuals whose name he could not recall, indicated that deputies Lawrence and Spiers were dissatisfied with his administration and they decided to try to organize the deputy sheriffs. Interestingly, it was about this same time period that Sheriff Katsaris began thinking about terminating deputy sheriffs Lawrence and Spiers. In this regard, Sheriff Katsaris, who had only been in office 10 to 14 days, testified that "he had been unhappy with the conduct of both of them for some time." The record is devoid of any specific incident which deputies Lawrence and Spiers had committed which would bring them under the Sheriff's scrutiny. However, it was revealed that the alleged discriminatees (deputies Lawrence and Spiers) as were numerous other deputies including Sergeant McDearmid, Spier's supervisor, indicated that it had taken a period of adjustment to adapt to the new administration; some deputies voiced their dissatisfaction with the administration and complained about the "colors of the cars, shining their shoes" and the "change in uniforms that was imminent." Based thereon, plus the fact that Deputy Spiers failed to speak to the new Sheriff on numerous occasions, Sheriff Katsaris had decided as of mid January that he know deputies Lawrence and Spiers could not remain with his administration. This decision was, according to his testimony, based on the above unspecified conduct by them during his two week's tenure which in his opinion was so reprehensible that termination of their employment was necessary. Deputies Lawrence and Spiers continued to work in their departments unaware that their conduct was below the expectations and standards of the new administration. Between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. on February 3, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris discharged Deputies Lawrence and Spiers. The reasons assigned for the discharge of Deputy Lawrence was that his attitude was bad and his conduct was unethical and Deputy Spiers' assigned reasons for discharge were a "bad attitude"; "unability to adjust" and "poor work performance." As stated above, and as acknowledged by Sheriff Katsaris, neither Lawrence nor Spiers were ever counseled about their conduct, attitude, or work performance, nor were their supervisors consulted with regard to their conduct, attitude of work performance. The undersigned is mindful of Sergeant McDearmid's testimony that when Deputy Spiers initially came on board, he was over zealous. This, however, is not considered as a shortcoming in terms of ability to adequately perform. In any event, this matter was corrected at the outset of Spiers' employment. Aside from the unsubstantiated rumors received from unknown sources that Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were disgruntled with the new administration and were hampering the new administration's programs, the only specific action discernible in the record which is attributable to Deputy Lawrence is his failure to say "Hello" to the Sheriff on several occasions. Similarly, except for the rumors relied on by the Sheriff, the only two specific actions attributable to Deputy Spiers were: Stating, after the Sheriff inquired about his opinion of the newly painted police cars, that they looked like those on "TV, Adam-12"; and (b) advising the Sheriff that he had been offered a position in other police departments but had turned them down in hopes that he could get into the detective or narcotics unit with the Leon County Sheriff's Department. The record is barren of any further specific actions attributable to the alleged discriminatees. The evidence reveals that on January 26 - 28, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris attended a workshop of the Florida Sheriff's Association. At the workshop a session was held on dealing with unions. Following the session, the Sheriff concluded that under the circumstances it was time for him to deliver a message to the men as to how he felt about unions. On January 31, 1977, Deputy Lawrence contacted the union organizer, James Mixon and established February 5, as the date for the initial organizational meeting. During the period of January 31 through February 2, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers contacted all deputy sheriffs and sergeants, some 85 individuals about the union and the organizational meeting on February 5, 1977. On February 1, 1977, Captain Gene Goodman, a managerial employee of the Sheriff's Department called Deputy Sheriff Scott Key into his office. Among other things, Captain Goodman inquired about Key's knowledge about the union movement; whether Perry Lawrence was contacting the men; when the organizational meeting was being held; whether it was being held at Lawrence's home and what was Lawrence's home address. Captain Goodman indicated that Sheriff Katsaris might like to speak to Deputy Key immediately contacted Deputy Lawrence and advised him of the meeting because he (Key) thought Lawrence's position was in jeopardy. During the nights of January 31, 1977 and February 1 and 2, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris conducted several command staff meetings with his attorney. At the meetings several matters were discussed including union activities of employees and the names of Deputy Spiers and Lawrence were discussed at those meetings. On February 3, 1977, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were terminated and on February 4, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris posted a no solicitation- no distribution rule and at the same time issued a departmental policy on unions and employee organizations. Included in the Sheriff's position letter was an expression of his feeling that union organization of the department's employees would not serve their best interests and will work to their substantial detriment of the high professional standards that [he] was seeking to achieve. He therefore concluded that it was his firm policy to oppose union organization of any group of the Leon County Sheriff's Department employees by every proper and legal means. (See Respondent's Exhibit #1, Attachment #2) Following the termination of Deputies Lawrence and Spiers the subsequent distribution of the Sheriff's no solicitation-no distribution rule and the position letter dated February 4, 1977, organizational activities within the Sheriff's Department ceased and testimony reveals that those employees who had signed authorization cards became disinterested and requested that they be returned to them.
Conclusions An examination of the above factors leads the undersigned to the conclusion that the Respondent's discharge of Deputies Lawrence and Spiers was discriminatorily motivated and undertaken based on anti-union sentiments. The Respondent was aware that organizational activities were occurring among its employees and that admittedly, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were spearheading this activity. Respondent's knowledge was gained, at least in part, from its agent, Captain Goodman's interrogation of Deputy Scott Key. Without reciting her the details of Goodman's interrogation, it suffices to say that Respondent was much concerned about the on-going organizational drive. A reading of Respondent's position statement released the day following the discharges of Deputies Spiers and Lawrence unquestionable confirms this concern. Prior to these terminations, the organizational drive was mounting with great interest. However, following the terminations, those employees who had expressed organizational interests by executing authorization cards manifested no further interest and attempted to withdraw their support by requesting that their executed authorization cards be returned. Without question, at this point Respondent had driven home its point that those employees who cared to exercise their right to engage in collectively organized activities faced the ultimate penalty of discharge. The reasons advanced by the Respondent for the discharge of Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were considered and are rejected. The discriminatees had been employed for more than four years and at no time had either been disciplined, reprimanded or counselled about their work performance or attitude. The reasons rested on unsubstantiated rumors without any efforts to confirm that they (Deputies Lawrence and Spiers) were experiencing attitudinal problems. Nor were they given any opportunity to deny, admit or correct such problems. This entire matter hardly resembles the workings of an efficient law enforcement agency that prides itself (according to Respondent) with effective investigative techniques. Respecting Respondent's claim that they (Deputies Lawrence and Spiers) were not adjusting to the new administration, evidence reveals that employees are yet adjusting to the new administration. Indeed, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers had no idea (based on the benefit of consultations from their supervisors) that their performance was anything but satisfactory. To adjust to the new administration, they were given all of one month. Given these facts, the undersigned can only conclude that the reasons assigned by Respondent were merely a pretext and the real reasons that Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were discharged are accurately cited in the complaint herein and it is so concluded. The interrogation of Deputy Scott Key by Captain Goodman constitutes a violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) of the Act since the interrogation centered exclusively around the union activities of Respondent's employees. See e.g. Laborer's International Union, Local #666 v. Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital 3 FPER 172 (June 30, 1977). In the instant case, the Respondent, as was its right, expressed its position opposing unionization of its employees; the interrogation sought information which would lead one to reasonably conclude that such would form a basis for taking disciplinary action; the interrogator was a high-ranking staff personnel and the Deputy (Key) was called away from his duty station. Key's testimony reveals that it was indeed unusual for Captain Goodman to summon employees to his office except in matters of extreme importance. The fact that Deputy Key feared that disciplinary action would be taken is borne out by the fact that when Captain Goodman confirmed that Deputy Lawrence was active in the organizational drive, he advised Deputy Key that he thought that the Sheriff would like to know about that; and that (Key) should wait in his office until he could locate the Sheriff in order that he could be briefed on the matter. When the Sheriff was located, and the matter called to his attention, he told Captain Goodman that he was not interested in speaking to Deputy Key about the subject. Deputy Key spoke to Deputy Lawrence about the interrogation as quickly as he could after leaving Captain Goodman's office and attempted to convince Lawrence to "quit the organizing effort before he lost his job." It is apparent that the Sheriff recognized the dangers inherent in the situation, however, he did nothing to alert the other rank and file employees that he was repudiating the action of Captain Goodman. By failing to do so after learning of the interrogation, the Sheriff is held accountable for the acts and conduct of Captain Goodman. It is so recommended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Chapter 447.501(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, as required by Chapter 447.503(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Based thereon, it is further recommended that the Respondent be ordered to reinstate Deputies Perry Lawrence and Michael Spiers to their former or substantially equivalent position of employment and be reimbursed for all back pay with interest computed at 6 percent per annum beginning on February 4, 1977, in accordance with the formula set forth in Pasco County Teachers Association v. Pasco County School Board, PERC Order No. 76U-U75 (1976). It is further recommended that Respondent be required to post in each of its facilities in Leon County, Florida, on copies of an appropriate "notice to employees" for a period of sixty (60) days, a notice substantially providing that the Respondent will cease and desist from engaging in unfair practices within the meaning of Chapter 447.501, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Gene L. Johnson, Esquire Staff Attorney Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 P. Kevin Davey, Esquire Post Office Box 1674 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jack M. Skelding, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Each Respondent holds a Class "B" Watchman, Guard, or patrol Agency License number BOO-00847 and has held such licensure at all relevant times. All references to Respondent are to Murrell security Patrol, Incorporated. All references to Respondent Murrell are to Alfred L. Murrell. Respondent's main office was at all relevant times in Melbourne, Florida. In August, 1986, Respondent leased office space for a branch office in Orlando, Florida. Respondent hired Lee Hayes as branch manager for the Orlando office. Mr. Hayes worked for Respondent from early September, 1986, until mid-January, 1987. Shortly after beginning to work for Respondent, Mr. Hayes and Respondent applied to Petitioner for, respectively, a Class "MB" branch manager's license and a Class "BB" branch office license, which were subsequently issued. Following Mr. Hayes' departure, the managerial duties of the Orlando branch office were in large part performed by Gerald Bellizzi, who supervised guards on patrol, solicited guard business, billed accounts, and collected receivables. Mr. Bellizzi had no Class "MB" license, nor any other license under Chapter 493 until he obtained, in late December, 1986, a Class "D" license, which allowed him to perform watchman, guard, or patrol duties. Respondent provided Mr. Hayes, while he served as manager of the Orlando branch office, business cards to be used in soliciting business. These cards stated that Respondent's business included investigations, in addition to guard and patrol duty. At the same time, Respondent placed an advertisement in the Southern Bell Yellow Pages in the Orlando area. The ad stated that Respondent's services included investigations. Although the Orlando branch office never performed any investigations, Mr. Hayes received two inquiries concerning the possibility of Respondent performing investigative services. In responding to the first inquiry, Mr. Hayes contacted Respondent Murrell and, with his permission, quoted an hourly rate for investigative work. In both cases, the prospective customers never asked Respondent to do any work. At all times since the incorporation of Respondent in 1976, Respondent Murrell has been its president and his son, Mike Murrell, has been Respondent's vice president.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents Alfred L. Murrell and Murrell Security Patrol, Incorporated, not guilty of the charges contained in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, but guilty of the charges contained in Counts I and II. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine upon respondents, jointly and severally, in the amount of $500. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 15th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1760 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-3. Rejected as not finding of fact. 4a. Adopted. 4b,c. Rejected as irrelevant. First sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. Rejected as recitation of testimony and, in view of the nonspecificity of allegations in Count III, irrelevant. 8. Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 John C. Murphy, Esquire 1901 South Harbor City Boulevard Suite 805 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State 181 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact In April, 1986, Lee was employed by HRS as a secretary in the Human Services Program Office. She reported to work on April 25, 1986, which was a payday. On the next regular day of work (April 28, 1986), Lee telephoned her office to request leave, explaining that her daughter had sprained her ankle and had to be taken to the doctor. Leave for this day was approved. Lee did not report to work on April 29, 30, or May 1, 1986, and she did not speak to her supervisor, Charles Lauria, on any of these dates to request leave. She testified that her sister notified the office that she was taking more leave, but the sister was not at the hearing to verify this statement. Lee did not report to work on May 2, 5, 6, 7 or 8, 1986, all of which were normal work days. Lee did not contact her supervisor or her office during this period. Charles Lauria was Lee's supervisor. When he had not heard from Lee by May 7, 1986, he reported to the local personnel office that Lee had abandoned her job and should be terminated. Lauria had previously warned Lee that failure to appear at work without prior approval could result in disciplinary action or termination. Lee signed a disciplinary memorandum indicating that she should personally contact Lauria in the event she would have to miss work for any reason. The HRS personnel office (David Porter) recommended to the District Administrator that Lee be terminated for violating the abandonment provision of the HRS personnel rules. On May 7, 1986, a letter of termination was mailed to Lee, notifying her that she had been terminated as of this date. On May 9, 1986, Lee reported to work. May 9 was a payday, the first payday since Lee's last appearance at work on April 25, 1986. She was given verbal notice of her termination at this time. Lee was aware of the abandonment provision in the HRS rules. She had acknowledged receipt of a copy of the rules upon commencing work at HRS. She had previously had problems regarding attendance, and had been counseled as to the importance of personally contacting her supervisor when she could not report for work. Lee missed seven consecutive days of work prior to being terminated by HRS. HRS attempted to contact Lee prior to terminating her, but was unable to locate her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order terminating the employment of the Respondent, Rebanner Lee, from her position as a secretary in the Human Services Program Office, for abandonment, pursuant to Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code, effective May 7, 1987. THIS Recommended Order entered on this 19th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 19th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2072 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: 1-11. Accepted. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Accepted, but prior authorization to take leave had not been granted. These are argumentative and not proposed factual findings. They are thus rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens Department of Administration General Counsel 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Rebanner Lee, in pro se Post Office Box 192 Starke, Florida 32091
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Between July 25, 1977, and August 10, 1978, petitioner, Douglas A. Charity, was employed with the Division of Security, Department of General Services, first as a Capitol Security Officer I and then as a Surveillance Systems Operator. Thereafter, petitioner was employed for approximately ten months as a legislative intern budget analyst with the Senate Ways and Means Committee. From there, he was employed between June and November of 1979 as a research analyst with the Citizens Council for Budget Research. One of his prime projects in this position was a review and analysis of the Division of Motor Pools in the Department of General Services (DGA). From December of 1979 through August 27, 1980, petitioner was unemployed. He desired to find a position in an administrative, analytical or consulting capacity but was unsuccessful in finding employment. On August 27, 1980, petitioner was offered employment with the Division of Security within DGS. Based upon prior conversations, it was orally agreed between petitioner and administrators within the Division of Security that petitioner would be assigned to and be paid at the salary level for the position classified as a Capitol Security Officer I. The salary for this position was approximately $8,000.00 per year. It was further agreed that petitioner would not wear a uniform nor would he perform the duties normally required of a Capitol Security Officer. Instead, it was agreed that petitioner would perform duties normally required of a Capitol Security Officer. Instead, it was agreed that petitioner would perform duties of an "administrative" nature and assist with the preparation and writing of a four-year plan containing an analysis of the Division of Security. Because the preparation of the four-year plan was not expected to take long and because the salary for a Capitol Security Officer was not as high as petitioner desired, it was anticipated by those within the Division of Security that petitioner would continue to seek other employment. Petitioner did, in fact, continue to seek other employment. One of his reasons for accepting employment with the Division of Security was to enhance his possibilities for employment in an administrative, analytical or consulting capacity through his record at DGS which would show his work on the four-year plan. Some two and a half months prior to petitioner's employment with the Division of Security on August 27, 1980, an outline for the four-year plan had already been prepared and approved. The purpose of the plan was to review the function and performance of the Division of Security and to set a plan for structural and program development and change. A portion of the plan pertained to position descriptions and classifications and the Division of Security's need for additional positions classified as management analyst and administrative assistant. The plan ultimately concluded that such positions were not needed within the Division of Security. The four-year plan was completed in February of 1981. In addition to his work on the four-year plan, both before and after February of 1981, petitioner performed duties in the following areas: reports on security personnel, procedures and problems; administrative correspondence and paperwork; budget issues; legislative bill analysis; and the attendance of meetings with DGS officials and legislative staff persons. His duties varied from day to day, dependent upon instructions he received from the Division Director or Assistant Director. Construing the facts presented at the hearing with respect to the duties actually performed by petitioner from August 27, 1980 through January 10, 1982, in a manner most favorable to petitioner, his actual duties compared with the job description for the classification of Administrative Assistant I. During the entire period in question, petitioner was classified as and received the salary of a Capitol Security Officer I. He never wore a uniform and he never performed the duties of a Capitol Security Officer I which duties included patrolling and maintaining the security of the Capitol Building and Legislative facilities on an assigned shift, locking doors, raising and lowering flags, maintaining logs and related security duties. Petitioner's immediate superiors within the Division of Security, as well as the Executive Director and those within the personnel office of DGS, were aware that petitioner was performing out-of-class duties for the Division of Security. Various efforts were made by DGS officials to help petitioner find employment in a higher position. The possibility of creating a management analyst position in another Division was considered, but that position was never established. Petitioner did not qualify for such a position until approximately October of 1981. The Chief of the Bureau of Personnel Management Services performed an audit of the Division of Security to ascertain if additional administrative positions were needed. While the first draft of the audit report recommended a reorganization of the Division to include an Administrative Assistant I position, it was ultimately concluded that the Division needed only two administrative positions -- the Director and the Assistant Director. Petitioner was informed of a position as an Assistant Facilities Services Coordinator in the Bureau of Property Management, but chose not to apply for that position. Though efforts were made by officials within DGS to either create a higher position for petitioner or place him in a vacant higher position, petitioner was never promised a specific position. Instead, he was informed of possibilities for placement in the future. He was also told that should such positions become established or available, he would have to qualify for the position and compete with other applicants. Petitioner discussed his increasing frustrations with his employment situation with officials within DGS. He also sought advice from a Personnel Program Analyst with the Department of Administration (DOA). She advised him that he could request an audit of his position through his supervisor, his own personnel officer or the DOA Bureau of Program Assistance, whose function is to perform desk audits to ascertain whether the duties performed by an employee are the same as the position description for that employee. She also informed petitioner that he could resolve his difficulties through the career service system or the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. She indicated to him that he may wish to wait and see if the management analyst position (which had been discussed) would become available, in which case the problem might resolve itself if he were able to fill that position. The Department of Administration was never furnished with a current position description accurately reflecting the duties of petitioner's position. No one ever requested the DOA's Bureau of Program Assistance to perform a desk audit appraisal of petitioner's duties and classification, and petitioner's position was not among those randomly selected for desk audit review. By late November and throughout December of 1981, officials within DGS were becoming increasingly concerned with the fact that petitioner was performing out-of-class duties. Though efforts were maintained to find a position for petitioner which would more accurately reflect his actual job duties, such efforts were not successful. In mid-December 1981, petitioner filed a grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. After the final draft of the audit of the Division of Security indicated that no additional administrative positions were needed in that Division, petitioner was informed that he would be required to cease out-of-class work and that he must commence to perform the official duties of a Capitol Security Officer I effective January 11, 1982. Petitioner did assume the duties of a Capitol Security Officer on January 11, 1982, and has since functioned in that capacity.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the relief sought by petitioner from the Department of General Services and the Department of Administration be DENIED, and that the petitions filed in Case Nos. 82-2733 and 82-3381 be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 14th day of October 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Beitler, Esquire Post Office Box 12921 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Sylvan Strickland, Esquire Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas M. Beason, Esquire Suite 858, Barnett Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Secretary Nevin Smith Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Brown, Executive Director Department of General Services 133 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 2B-1.0025(3), (5), and (7) and 2B-1.0027(3) are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a political entity subject to the regulations set forth in Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is the subject of certain complaints and several investigatory proceedings initiated by Respondent. The aforementioned complaints were determined to be legally sufficient, pursuant to the Florida Administrative Code, and as a result thereof, investigatory subpoenas were issued in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 2B-1.0027(2). The rules subject to Petitioner's challenge, Florida Administrative Code Rules 2B-1.0025(3),(5), and (7), and 2B-1.0027(2), were all subject to and reviewed by legal counsel to the Joint Administrative Procedure Committee of the Florida Legislature pursuant to Subsection 120.54(3)(a)4., Florida Statutes, and were promulgated without Committee objection prior to 1999. The aforementioned investigatory subpoenas served upon Petitioner were challenged by Petitioner, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 2B-1.0027(2). The challenge was heard by Respondent's Chair via telephone conference call on January 9, 2006, and the subpoenas were upheld by the Chair. Petitioner has been, and continues to be, subject to the provisions and operations of the rules that are the subject of this proceeding and is, thus, substantially affected by said rules. Accordingly, Petitioner has standing to maintain this proceeding.
