Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the pleadings and supporting documents, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Dr. Frank A. Brown, is a licensed psychologist having been issued license number PY-0002079. Respondent, Board of Psychological Examiners (Board), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of psychology pursuant to Chapter 490, Florida Statutes. The parties agree that Dr. Brown is a small business party as defined in Subsection 57.111(3)(d)1.a., Florida Statutes. On August 24, 1989, the Board issued an amended administrative complaint against Dr. Brown alleging that he had violated chapter 490 in three respects while treating patient R. B. during the period from 1978 until 1987. In general terms, the complaint alleged that: Petitioner had violated sections 490.0111 and 490.009(2)(k) by committing any act upon a patient or client, other than the spouse of the doctor, which would constitute sexual misconduct. (Count I) Petitioner had violated section 490.009(2) (s) by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (Count II) Petitioner had violated section 490.009(2)(p) by being unable to practice the profession for which he is licensed under chapter 490 with reasonable skill or competence as a result of a mental or physical condition or by reason of illness, drunkeness, chemicals or any other substance. (Count III) The complaint was later referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was assigned Case No. 89-0599. An evidentiary hearing on the complaint was held on September 12 and 13, 1989. At the formal hearing the agency prosecutor voluntarily dismissed Count I, and the case was tried on the remaining two counts. On May 14, 1990, a Recommended Order was issued by Hearing Officer Diane Cleavinger recommending that all remaining charges be dismissed. Of significance to this proceeding is the allegation in Count II which charged Dr. Brown with failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Bearing on Hearing Officer Cleavinger's decision to dismiss that count was her determination that the psychologist-patient relationship ended prior to the beginning of any love affair between Dr. Brown and his former patient. Among others, the hearing officer made the following findings: 5. Respondent's psychologist/client relationship was with R. B. and did not include her husband. The interest demonstrated by R. B.'s husband in her therapy was that of a concerned husband. Dr. Brown saw him collateral to the therapy he was conducting with R. B. He met with R. B.'s husband in order to make R. B.'s termination of therapy more successful. The evidence did not show that Respondent had ever agreed to formulate a psychologist/ client relationship with R. B.'s husband and, although the husband paid R. B.'s therapy bills, he was never charged separately for the discussions he had with Respondent during R. B.'s therapy. The other contacts, referenced by R. B.'s husband's testimony as supporting a professional relationship between him and Respondent, occurred well after R. B.'s therapy had terminated. The contacts variously involved obtaining advice from Dr. Brown on the impending death of a relative during an otherwise social gathering at the B.'s home, asking Dr. Brown, during a lunch meeting, for help with sexual problems for which Dr. Brown referred him to another psychologist, and testing of the B's children for scholastic purposes. All such contacts appear to have been given in friendship and not in a professional capacity. (Emphasis added) The underscored portion of the findings was intended to make a determination that any contact between Dr. Brown and R. B.'s children was not made in a professional capacity and as to those contacts the psychological/client relationship did not exist. The recommended order was considered by the Board at a meeting held on June 7, 1990, and was adopted in toto without change. A final order was issued on July 2, 1990, dismissing all charges against Dr. Brown. During the meeting held on June 7, 1990, and while discussing an exception to the recommended order raised by the agency prosecutor, the following statement was made by Board counsel: I will express now what other concern I've had with reading this case. It does seem clear that a dual relationship was formed during that period of time when there was regulation, in that Dr. Brown gave psychological services to the children of his lover, and of her unsuspecting husband. I have - you know, I'm just going to be very honest with you. When I was reading through the transcripts, some of the thoughts that occurred to me were out of his own mouth. . . (emphasis added) This statement was made in the belief, albeit incorrect, that Hearing Officer Cleavinger's findings in paragraph 5 of her recommended order regarding a dual relationship pertained only to the husband and not to the children. Counsel's statement suggested that Dr. Brown's relationship with the children was done in a professional capacity and thus was unethical, given his romantic relationship with R. B. Accordingly, prior to the issuance of a final order in Case No. 89- 0599, on June 11, 1990, the Board's counsel authored the following memorandum to counsel for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR): By Dr. Brown's own admission, he performed psychological services for the children of R. B. The facts surrounding the dual relationship were not included in the administrative complaint filed in Case No. 89-0599. They do, however, constitute a separate cause of action and should be brought to the attention of the probable cause panel. Responding to this memorandum, DPR counsel recommended on June 18, 1990, that DPR open a new investigation against Dr. Brown concerning the issue of a possible dual relationship, that is, the testing of R. B.'s children while Dr. Brown was engaged in a love affair with R. B. The DPR uniform complaint form described the alleged misconduct in the following manner: Subject stated during testimony in previous DPR case (89-0599 DOAH) that he had engaged in a love affair with a client whose children he was counseling. Possible violation of Section 490.009(2)(s), F. S. The matter was assigned DPR Case No. 9007566. By letter dated August 11, 1990, petitioner's counsel was advised that a complaint had been filed against his client. The letter gave the following pertinent reasons for initiating the matter: This complaint is based upon information obtained in formal proceedings in Department of Professional Regulation case number 0081809. It is alleged by the Department that during the time Dr. Brown was providing psychological services to the children of R. B., he was concurrently engaged in a love affair with her. This dual relationship is a possible violation of Section 490.009(2) (s), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a licensee from failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Dr. Brown, through counsel, put DPR on notice by letter dated September 5, 1990, that: It would be a violation of due process of law to charge Dr. Brown with a violation based upon the same set of facts previously adjudicated. The doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and bar and merger are applicable. By a second letter dated September 25, 1990, petitioner's counsel again advised DPR "that the Department does not have a basis in law or fact for any allegations." On October 18, 1990, petitioner's counsel authored another letter to DPR stating in part as follows: I reiterate that it would be a violation of due process of law to charge Dr. Brown with a violation based upon the same set of facts previously adjudicated. The doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and bar and merger are applicable. I respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the investigative file to be considered by the Probable Cause Panel. DPR counsel advised petitioner's counsel on September 28, 1990, that all factual and legal matters, including the objections raised in his letter, would be presented to the probable cause panel. Thereafter, DPR counsel submitted a suggested closing order to the panel proposing that a letter of guidance be issued based upon a belief of a violation of Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, as outlined in the August 17, 1990 letter sent to petitioner's counsel. By letter dated January 11, 1991, petitioner's counsel again placed the Board on notice that the subject matter of the new investigation was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The letter stated as follows: Dr. Brown was served with the notice of investigation in August, 1990. I have advised the department of Dr. Brown's position by letters dated August 13, August 20, September 5, September 25, October 1 and October 18, 1990. This investigation stems from matters resolved in favor of Dr. Brown in DPR Case number 0081809, DOAH Case Number 89-0599 in which Dr. Brown was charged with failure to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in violation of Section 490.009 (2)(s), Florida Statutes (1981-86). Included in consideration of that charge was the scholastic testing of the children of (D. and R. B.) which is the subject of this pending investigation. The adopted finding of fact number 5 in the above case refers to the collateral relationships between Dr. Brown and (D. B.) and the children including "testing of the B's children for scholastic purposes." Finding of fact number 5 finds that: ALL SUCH CONTACTS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN FRIENDSHIP AND NOT IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY. I reiterate that it would be a violation of due process of law to charge Dr. Brown with a violation based upon the same set of facts previously adjudicated. The doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and bar and merger are applicable. The panel met on February 14, 1991, and considered DPR's recommendation to prosecute, the investigative report and all supplemental materials including a report from its expert consultant. The panel was also given a copy of the letter sent by Dr. Brown's counsel on January 11, 1991, which raised the collateral estoppel issue. After considering all of these materials, including the estoppel matter, the panel made a determination that respondent violated chapter 490 by providing therapy to the children while romantically involved with their mother and failing to disclose this relationship to the children's school and father. While the panel found probable cause to exist, it was advised by its counsel that the case was "weak," the chances of a successful prosecution were "minimal," and the best it could hope for was a reprimand. Accordingly, it followed the suggestion of counsel and recommended to DPR that the case be closed with a letter of guidance to the subject, which was then the most lenient form of discipline for a licensee. By the admission of counsel and panel members at that meeting, however, it was clear they knew the letter would become a part of Dr. Brown's disciplinary file, it was accessible by any member of the public examining his file, and the Board could use the letter against Dr. Brown in the event of future proceedings. In disposing of the contention by Dr. Brown that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied, DPR and Board counsel gave the following advice: Ms. Gaffney: There's a great big legal issue in this case. That is whether or not this has been litigated. If we pursue an administrative complaint, we're going to be considering whether or not he treated the children and whether or not that's below the standards. That's easily proved testimony. But we have a pending litigation for attorney's fees on that prior case and this one is a case in which Mr. Lambert, in the materials there, there's correspondence indicating respondent's attorney, Mr. Lambert, will make legal attempts to squash the case by argument and motions to dismiss, such as this has already been litigated and so forth. Possibly double jeopardy, all that. Res judicata and double jeopardy, I think, are the two issues he's raised. I don't know whether he would prevail on that or not. I have a point of view, which is that the actual issue here was not charged in the administrative complaint when it was at the final hearing before the Board. The Board took notice of and supplements, and he said well, that's not charged. You can't do anything about that. So I don't know but that would be already double jeopardy or res judicata. Ms. Daire: I would agree with you on that, that it was not charged in the initial administrative complaint. It only came out in the testimony of Dr. Brown, when he talked about having treated the children, as well, and we could not do anything about that issue that was raised during the proceedings except to issue a new administrative complaint on his own admission. Although the panel members themselves did not discuss the issue, by finding probable cause, they implicitly accepted their counsel's advice and rejected the contention that they were precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from issuing a second complaint on the stated ground. On March 27, 1991, DPR counsel, acting on behalf of the Board and in response to the panel's decision, sent a letter of guidance to respondent which read as follows: This letter is sent to inform you of the action taken in regard to the above-referenced complaint. This complaint concerned allegations that you failed to meet minimum standards of performance in professional activities in violation of Section 490.009 (2)(s), Florida Statutes. It has been determined that probable cause exists to believe that you have violated the provisions governing the practice of psychology. In light of the circumstances presented, however, this case is closed with issuance of this Letter of Guidance in lieu of further administrative action. It has been noted that your professional care for the patient's children while involved with the patient on a personal basis, without disclosure to the father and school falls below minimum standards. The Panel recommends that you review current literature regarding dual relationship issues. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the statutes and rules governing the practice of psychology and to abide by these provisions in the future. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. On March 19, 1991, or before the letter was issued, petitioner filed a motion to set aside the probable cause determination as improvidently found. After the letter was issued, he requested a formal hearing on four separate occasions. All requests were denied and a final order was issued by DPR on April 24, 1991, denying the petition in all respects. Thereafter, petitioner appealed the letter of guidance to the First District Court of Appeal. The court reversed the Board's action and remanded the matter with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Brown v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners, 602 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In dealing with the estoppel issue raised by Dr. Brown, the court noted that Hearing Officer Cleavinger had made the following findings in her recommended order: . . . and testing of the B's children for scholastic purposes. All such contacts appear to have been given in friendship and not in a professional capacity. The court went on to say The above-quoted findings of fact establishes that the sole allegation of misconduct in the 1990 complaint was actually litigated in the 1989 case. The record in that case contains evidence that the results of testing the children were submitted to the school. The Department, the Board, and the Probable Cause Panel became bound by the determination of fact that Dr. Brown did not violate section 490.009(2)(s) because a nexus between Dr. Brown's conduct and his practice of psychology did not exist. The Department, Board, and Panel are thus collaterally estopped from reasserting any charge of professional misconduct predicated on these acts. Id. at 1341. The court also noted that a letter of guidance affected Dr. Brown's substantial interests within the meaning of section 120.57, and that Dr. Brown was thus entitled to a section 120.57 hearing as requested. The court added, however, that because the agency was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues raised in the second complaint, it was remanding the case with directions to dismiss the complaint. The parties are in agreement that the amount of attorney's fees and costs requested by petitioner is reasonable. Such fees and costs total $12,537.00.
The Issue Whether Keith Jackson, Ph.D. (‘Petitioner’) should be required to pay FAMU’s claimed overpayment of salary as calculated in the amount of $29,141.57, for the pay periods between July 11, 2008 and December 12, 2008.
Findings Of Fact 1, On or about July 1, 2005, Petitioner executed an employment contract with FAMU to serve as Vice President for Research. The contract executed by Petitioner provides that Petitioner “is subject to the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida and the United States and the rules, policies, guidelines and procedures of the Board of Governors and the University as now existing or hereafter promulgated.” 2. On July 11, 2008, Petitioner submitted to the University a letter advising that he was resigning from his administrative position with the University as the Vice President for Research. 3. Petitioner's letter of resignation was accepted by the University effective July 11, 2008. 4. Tenure as a faculty member was granted to Petitioner by the University on May 25, 2007. 12
Conclusions This matter is now before Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Board of Trustees (“FAMU,” “Respondent,” or the “University”) for final agency action.
Findings Of Fact Herein, Ibanez seeks recovery of attorney's fees and costs she claims to have incurred in DOAH Case No. 91-3336R styled Silvia S. Ibanez et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy et al. In that case, Ibanez challenged the validity of Board of Accountancy Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. (the "holding out rule"). Ibanez unsuccessfully tried to initiate that case by filing a petition on May 10, 1991 with the Department of Professional Regulation. Ibanez successfully initiated the rule challenge on May 30, 1991, by filing with DOAH a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing under Section 120.56 F.S. This type of action is commonly referred to as a "challenge to an existing agency rule." In such a case, the Petitioner is fully the initiator, challenger, or sword-wielder in the proceeding and bears both the duty to go forward and the burden of proof. Ibanez initiated the rule challenge in her capacity as a licensed certified public accountant (CPA). She is a sole practitioner and an employee of a law firm called "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.," but the law firm "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.," was not a party and did not participate in the rule challenge, except as one of several legal representatives for Silvia S. Ibanez, the individual. The Board participated in the rule challenge case to defend the holding out rule. The Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants (FICPA) intervened in the rule challenge in support of the position of the Board that the holding out rule was valid. While Ibanez' petition in the rule challenge contained a prayer for "other appropriate relief, including award of costs as appropriate," her petition therein did not request an award of attorney's fees. Ibanez' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and her accompanying Memorandum of Law submitted after formal hearing for that case, both of which pleadings were dated October 11, 1991, did not contain proposed findings of fact or proposed conclusions of law addressing the issue of attorney's fees and costs. Neither of Ibanez' post- hearing filings contained a request for attorney's fees or costs or a request to reserve jurisdiction in that case for such an award. The undersigned hearing officer rendered a final order declaring invalid the holding out rule on January 15, 1992. That final order did not award attorney's fees and costs, nor did it reserve jurisdiction to decide attorney's fees and costs at another time. Neither Ibanez nor any of her corporate entities nor any of her supporting intervenors filed any motion requesting a reservation of jurisdiction or requesting reconsideration. The Board and FICPA each appealed the final order in the rule challenge to the First District Court of Appeal in February 1992, but dismissed those appeals on May 6, 1992, by filing a Joint Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The First District Court of Appeal issued an order acknowledging the Joint Dismissal on May 14, 1992. The Joint Dismissal and First District Court of Appeal Order were both attached to the material filed by the parties in this instant case. For purposes of deciding the pending motions to dismiss herein, the undersigned has considered the Joint Dismissal, the First District Court of Appeal Order, and the record in the rule challenge case, DOAH Case No. 91-3336R. Due to the unique arguments advanced in Ibanez' fees and costs motion (sic) herein, it also has been necessary and appropriate to consider the record in DOAH Case No. 91-4100. On May 22, 1991, a probable cause panel of the Board held a probable cause hearing involving Ibanez. As a result of that hearing, the Board initiated a disciplinary proceeding styled State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy v. Silvia S. Ibanez, DOAH Case No. 91-4100, by filing an administrative complaint on June 13, 1992. That case was a disciplinary action arising under Section 120.57(1) F.S. which was prosecuted by the Department of Professional Regulation on behalf of the Board against Ibanez. At one time, the disciplinary case was consolidated with the rule challenge case. The two cases were bifurcated prior to formal hearing of the merits of either case. FICPA never intervened in the disciplinary case, nor had they any standing to do so. The undersigned hearing officer conducted a 120.57(1) F.S. hearing in the disciplinary case on August 27, 1991, and issued a recommended order to the Board on January 15, 1992. The Board issued its final order in the disciplinary case on April 23, 1992. Therein, contrary to the recommended order, the Board held that Ibanez had violated Sections 473.323(1)(a), (f), (g), and (h) F.S. and Rule 21A-24.001 F.A.C. The Board accordingly issued a reprimand to Ibanez, which reprimand was stayed by the Board pending appeal. Ibanez has appealed the Board's final order in the disciplinary case to the First District Court of Appeal, which appeal is still pending. Ibanez served on July 9, 1992 her Motion for Attorney's Fees which is here under consideration. In doing so, Ibanez elected to use the style of the underlying rule challenge case, DOAH 91-3336R, the style of which still included intervenors James R. Brewster and American Association of Attorney Certified Public Accountants. Those intervenors have never attempted to appear in the instant fees and costs case and apparently seek no relief via Ibanez' pending fees and costs motion. The rule challenge case was final for all purposes before DOAH as of January 15, 1992 and before the District Court of Appeal on May 14, 1992. The DOAH case file for DOAH Case No. 91-3336R has been closed for several months. Ibanez' Motion for Attorney's Fees was received and deemed filed by DOAH on July 13, 1992. It was filed with DOAH sixty-eight (68) days after the rule challenge appeals were voluntarily dismissed by FICPA and the Board and sixty (60) days after the First District Court of Appeals entered its order ratifying the voluntary dismissal. Because petitions brought solely under Section 57.111 F.S. result in final orders, it is DOAH's standard operating procedure to open new files for all fees and costs cases arising under Section 57.111 F.S. Upon receipt of Ibanez' motion, DOAH's Clerk assigned Ibanez' motion the instant new case number (DOAH 92-4271F), primarily on the basis that the motion prayed for relief upon grounds of Section 57.111 F.S., among other statutes. The other statutory grounds cited in the motion were Sections 120.57(1)(b)5 and 120.59(6) F.S.
The Issue The issue for disposition in this case is whether Respondents have implemented agency statements that meet the definition of a rule, but which have not been adopted pursuant to section 120.54.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert Wood, P.E., is a Florida-licensed professional engineer, holding license No. PE 31542. A large part of Petitioner?s work involves the design of aluminum-framed structures. Respondents, DBPR and FBPE, are charged with regulating the practice of professional engineering in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G15. The FEMC is a public-private partnership established by the legislature to provide administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the FBPE. By statute, the FEMC operates under a written contract (Contract) with the DBPR, which Contract is approved by the FBPE. Term of the Contract From the creation of FEMC in 1997 until 2000, the legislature provided that the required written contract was to be “renewed annually.” In 2000, the legislature amended section 471.38 to require that the written contract be an “annual contract.” In 2003, the legislature again amended section 471.38 to repeal the requirement that the contract be an annual contract. There is currently no specified term or time for renewal for the required written contract. The DBPR and the FEMC have elected to continue to enter written contracts with a term of one year. Determination of Legal Sufficiency Since its creation in 1997, section 471.038 has provided that “[t]he corporation may not exercise any authority specifically assigned to the board under chapter 455 or this chapter, including determining probable cause to pursue disciplinary action against a licensee, taking final action on license applications or in disciplinary cases, or adopting administrative rules under chapter 120.” The only change to that restriction was made in 2000, when the term “corporation” was changed to “management corporation.” In 2000, the legislature also enacted the Management Privatization Act, section 455.32, Florida Statutes. That Act was intended to establish a model for the creation of non-profit corporations with which the DBPR could contract for “administrative, examination, licensing, investigative and prosecutorial services to any board created within the department.” The similarities between section 471.38 and section 455.32 make it obvious that the latter was largely patterned after the former. Among the duties to be performed by a “corporation” under section 455.32(10) is to: . . . make a determination of legal sufficiency to begin the investigative process as provided in s. 455.225. However, the department or the board may not delegate to the corporation, by contract or otherwise, the authority for determining probable cause to pursue disciplinary action against a licensee, taking final action on license actions or on disciplinary cases, or adopting administrative rules under chapter 120. In previous years, at least through 2001, the written contract between the DBPR and the FEMC provided that “FEMC shall not exercise the police powers inherent in the Department and the FBPE including a determination of legal sufficiency or insufficiency of a disciplinary complaint.” At some time after the passage of the Management Privatization Act, the contractual “police powers” restriction was changed, and now reads, as reflected in the current Contract, as follows: Except when providing those prosecutorial and investigative services set forth in this Agreement, FEMC shall not exercise the police powers inherent in the Department and the FBPE under Chapters 455 or 471, Florida Statutes, including determining probable cause to pursue disciplinary action against a licensee, other than failure to comply with final orders of the Board as set forth in Rule 61015-18.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, taking final action on license applications or in disciplinary cases, or adopting administrative rules under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prosecutorial servicing shall only be executed in the name of FBPE. That contractual restriction is consistent with the statutory limitation on the powers of the FEMC set forth in section 471.38. In its current form, the Contract establishes the services that are to be provided by FEMC to the DBPR and the FBPE. The list of prosecutorial services to be provided by FEMC include coordinating with investigators, reviewing and taking “appropriate action” on complaints, and preparing cases for presentation to the FBPE probable cause panel. The list of investigative services to be provided by FEMC include receiving complaints, interviewing complainants, witnesses, and subjects of complaints, issuing subpoenas, preparing investigative reports, and taking other actions leading to the prosecution of a case. The Contract does not specifically address the issue of determining legal sufficiency. The typical procedures of the FEMC in performing its investigatory functions are initiated when the FEMC receives a complaint by various means, including telephone, e-mail, or submission of a written complaint. Written complaints are normally directed to the FEMC chief prosecutor, who assigns them to an investigator for initial review. If the complaint is verbal, the investigator fielding the call will ask the complainant to file a written complaint. If a complaint is unaccompanied by information to substantiate the claims, the investigator typically requests supporting documentation, which may be a set of engineering plans, a report, or similar evidence of the facts underlying the complaint. In a procedure implemented by the FEMC in 2012, after receipt of the complaint and supporting documentation, the investigator forwards the complaint to an engineering expert retained by FEMC for a pre-review. The expert prepares a preliminary report which is then considered in the determination of legal sufficiency. Prior to implementation of the 2012 pre- review procedure, the determination of legal sufficiency was made without the benefit of a pre-review report in the manner otherwise described below. After receipt of the complaint, the supporting documentation, and, since 2012, the pre-review report, the investigator presents the complaint to the FEMC chief prosecutor. If the chief prosecutor determines that the complaint is not legally sufficient, the investigator is instructed to draft a memorandum for the chief prosecutor to review, which is in turn submitted to the FBPE Executive Director for signature. If the chief prosecutor determines that the complaint is legally sufficient, he or she verbally authorizes the investigator to place the engineer on notice of the investigation. At that point, the complaint is investigated using the investigative tools available to FEMC as set forth in the Contract. If sufficient evidence that a violation has occurred is found, the investigation culminates in a recommendation to the FBPE probable cause panel for a decision as to whether the panel believes there to be probable cause to proceed with disciplinary action. The decision to proceed with a disciplinary proceeding requiring a point of entry to challenge the action is entirely that of the FBPE probable cause panel. Probationary Project Review On November 4, 2009, FBPE entered a disciplinary final order regarding Petitioner that incorporated a stipulated settlement agreement, and imposed sanctions on Petitioner, including probation. By his entry of the settlement stipulation, Petitioner agreed to a “project review” at six and eighteen-month intervals. The project review consisted of the submission by Petitioner of a list of all completed projects. That list was provided to an engineering expert, who then selected two of the projects for a more comprehensive review. The steps to be performed by Petitioner and the FBPE are generally described in Project Review Process Guidelines that were provided to Petitioner by FBPE as an attachment to the notice of the two projects selected for comprehensive review. As a result of the project review, the two projects were determined to violate engineering standards, which resulted in the FEMC making a recommendation of probable cause to the FBPE probable cause panel. The probable cause panel found probable cause, leading to the issuance of an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. Petitioner introduced evidence of one other case in which a project review was required as a condition of probation. In that case, an administrative law judge, after having determined that the professional engineer committed violations of section 471.033 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 19.001, recommended imposition of “probation for two years with appropriate conditions for this case.” The Final Order, entered on March 12, 2008, imposed the recommended probation “with a plans review at 6 months and 18 months from the date of this Order.” The basis for the imposition of that sanction was not explained. There was no evidence introduced at the final hearing as to any other specific case in which a project review was required, other than the case involving Petitioner. The 2012 FEMC Annual Report, which is a business record of the FEMC, indicated that between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, the FEMC was involved in the investigation and/or prosecution of 32 cases in which Administrative Complaints were filed against engineers. Disciplinary sanctions imposed against engineers during that one-year period included, among others, twenty-five reprimands, six license suspensions, eight probations, seven license restrictions, two voluntary license relinquishments, and four license revocations. Also included among the sanctions imposed during that period were three project reviews. The sanction of project review is one that is, statistically, used sparingly by the FBPE. There was no evidence introduced to establish the criteria, if any, for the imposition of a project review as a condition of probation, or to demonstrate that it was generally applied in any specific circumstances.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as real estate sales associate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On February 28, 2011, Mr. Poppell filed with the Commission an application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. In his application, Mr. Poppell stated that he was pleading not guilty to current charges of "trafficking, possession and receiving stolen property." By letter dated April 7, 2011, Mr. Poppell sent to the Commission the Alabama Uniform Incident/Offense Report relating to his arrest in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, on September 12, 2010, for trafficking in illegal drugs and unlawful possession of a controlled substance. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Poppell was a student at the University of Alabama. The criminal case against Mr. Poppell is currently pending, and Mr. Poppell does not anticipate that it will be resolved until 2012. Mr. Poppell, who is 22 years old, posted bail of $175,000. He currently lives in Florida and owns a pizza and sub restaurant with his mother in Niceville, Florida. On July 14, 2011, the Commission filed a Notice of Intent to Deny Mr. Poppell's application. The Commission's denial was based on Mr. Poppell's criminal history as revealed in his application and the unpersuasive testimony or evidence presented by Mr. Poppell as an explanation or mitigating factors. The Commission cited the following statutory basis for denying Mr. Poppell's application: Failing to demonstrate: honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character, a good reputation for fair dealing competent and qualified to conduct transactions and negotiations with safety to others. 475.17(1)(a), 475.181 F.S. Having engaged in conduct or practices which would have been grounds for revoking or suspending a real estate license. 475.17(1)(a), 475.181, F.S. * * * F. Found guilty of a course of conduct or practices which show applicant is so incompetent, negligent, or dishonest that money, property and rights of others may not safely be entrusted to applicant. 475.25(1)(o), 475.181 F.S. * * * M. The Commission concludes that it would be a breach of its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public to license this applicant and thereby provide him/her easy access to the homes, families or personal belongings of the citizens of Florida. 455.201, F.S. Additionally, the Commission cited section 455.213(3), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ as an additional ground for denial.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying Mr. Poppell's application. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND 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 1st day of December, 2011.
