The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's request for a substantial interests hearing under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2017),1/ should be dismissed as untimely.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency of the state of Florida charged with regulating the practice of CNAs pursuant to section 20.43, chapter 456, and chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Ms. Williams holds Department certificate number CNA20004. As a CNA, she is subject to regulation by the Department. A copy of the Department's filed Administrative Complaint was served on Ms. Williams, via certified mail, on January 5, 2018.2/ Attached to the Administrative Complaint was a Notice of Rights which included the following language: A request or petition for an administrative hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Department within 21 days from the day Respondent received the Administrative Complaint, pursuant to Rule 28-106.111(2), Florida Administrative Code. If Respondent fails to request a hearing within 21 days of receipt of this Administrative Complaint, Respondent waives the right to request a hearing on the facts alleged in this Administrative Complaint pursuant to Rule 28-106.111(4), Florida Administrative Code. The copy of the Administrative Complaint, Notice of Rights, and Election of Rights form gave Ms. Williams written notice of intended agency action that affected her substantial interests. As Ms. Williams credibly testified, she completed the Election of Rights form requesting a hearing at her attorney's office and signed that form on January 18, 2018. Ms. Williams testified that her attorney's secretary put the request for hearing form in the mail to the Department, but admitted she did not actually see the secretary do so. There was no testimony at the hearing from a secretary or other person as to when or how the document was placed into the mail, or even as to the usual procedures for mailing similar documents. There was no evidence as to the date the request for hearing was actually mailed. It was undisputed that Ms. Williams's counsel did not send an Election of Rights form to counsel for the Department via e-mail on January 18, 2018. It was also undisputed that Ms. Williams's counsel did not send a document entitled "The Respondent, Daphne Williams Answer to Petitioner's Complaint" to counsel for the Department via e-mail on January 18, 2018, despite the certificate of service on the document purporting to show service by Ms. Williams's counsel on counsel for the Department via e-mail on January 18, 2018. Ms. Carraway and Mr. Thomas testified convincingly from their personal knowledge as to their usual procedures in receiving and stamping the incoming mail at the Department. Mr. Thomas stated that he worked in the mail room and delivered mail to 12 different locations at the Department (three separate locations in each of four different buildings) on the same day that it arrived from the mail carriers. Ms. Carraway testified that she opened mail delivered to her location from the mail room and stamped it with the date and time on the same day she received it. Neither witness gave any credible testimony regarding Ms. Williams's specific request for hearing. There was no indication that either witness remembered that particular piece of mail, or remembered the day upon which it arrived at the Department. However, it is a reasonable inference that Ms. Williams's request was date-stamped on the date it was received. It is undisputed that the date stamp on Ms. Williams's request for hearing is January 29, 2018. Ms. Williams's request for hearing was received by the Department on January 29, 2018.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Daphney D. Williams's request for a substantial interests hearing under section 120.57(1) should be dismissed as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 6th day of September, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by Petitioner to operate its business at 13 S. E. Sixth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Although Respondent has attempted to qualify to operate a branch office, Petitioner has neither approved nor licensed Respondent to operate a place of business other than at the aforestated address. The 1979-80 edition of the Yellow Pages telephone directory published by Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company for the Hollywood, Florida, area carried a listing for Checkmate lnternational Detective Agency, which listing recites 9481 S. W. 49th Street, Cooper City, Florida, as the Respondent's address, and 434-1926 as the Respondent's telephone number. The listing does not include the address at which Respondent is licensed. The identical advertisement appears in the 1980-81 Yellow Pages directory published by Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company for the Hollywood, Florida, area. The address in Cooper City listed as the business address for Checkmate International Detective Agency is the home of Mr. Mutnich and his employee, Cyndee Heyl. Although Mr. Mutnich insists he did nothing to cause the erroneous listing and even spoke to some unidentified person at some unidentified time regarding the error, he presented no evidence to show any specific efforts on behalf of Respondent to correct the erroneous listing or to prevent the advertised telephone number from being provided to callers by Directory Assistance or to disconnect the telephone number after the listing first appeared. Additionally, no evidence was presented to show efforts made to either delete the advertisement from the following year's directory or to change or disconnect the telephone number. Respondent has further failed to present any testimony or documentation showing any definitive action to prevent this same "erroneous" listing from appearing in any editions of the telephone directory to be printed in the future. In accordance with Petitioner's policy, the fine assessed against the Respondent in the amount of $100 is the amount normally levied by the Division for a first offense.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered requiring Respondent to pay to the Petitioner the amount of $100 by a date certain. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Steven T. Barnes, Chief Bureau of License Issuance Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Thomas Mutnich Checkmate International 13 South East Sixth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Petitioners were inmates incarcerated at Lake Correctional Institution (LCI) are affected by the challenged rule, and have standing to bring the rule challenges here involved. Respondent stipulated that neither PPD No. 4.07.05, LCIOP No. 84-3, nor Form 50-16 was promulgated as rules pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prior to receipt of incoming legal mail or sending out legal mail, inmates at LCI are required to sign Form 50-16 acknowledging mailing or receipt of such mail. Some testimony was submitted that on occasion inmates received their legal mail opened contrary to established procedures and directives. Also, one witness testified that he had not always received returned receipts for registered mail. Those parts of PPD 4.07.05 (Exhibit 2) and LCIOP No. 84- 3, which involve action to be taken either by inmates or Department of Corrections personnel, are identical to, or a paraphrasing of, similar provisions in Rules 33-3.03 through 33- 3.12, Florida Administrative Code. Those sections not directly relating to action taken or to be taken constitute internal management memoranda which have no application outside LCI.
Findings Of Fact Under Section 26 of the United States Code Section 125, the federal government allows employers to establish programs that provide a federal income pre-tax benefit to employees. To maintain the pre-tax benefit, the employer is required to administer the program in compliance with applicable federal laws, rules and regulations. Employers participating in the 125 pre-tax program are required to implement a written plan (Cafeteria Plan) and take deductions from an employee’s earned income that are credited to the employee’s flexible spending account (FSA) for the purpose of paying medical and/or dependent care expenses. The State of Florida has developed such a plan. The FSA program is managed by Respondent, Department of Management Services. Petitioner, James D. Wells, Jr., has maintained a FSA daycare reimbursement account since 1994. During the 2005 plan year, Petitioner was an enrolled member of the Daycare Reimbursement program. In 2005, Petitioner contributed $3,000.00 to his account. The reimbursement filing deadline for Plan Year 2005 was April 17, 2006. The deadline for 2005 occurred because the normal deadline day of April 15th fell on a weekend. Therefore, the deadline was moved by rule to the first regular business day following April 15th. Petitioner obtained a receipt for eligible expenses for 2005 totaling $3800.00 from the Immanuel Baptist Church Daycare. On March 27, 2006, he took the receipt to his office. While at work, he filled out the appropriate reimbursement request form. Petitioner placed these documents in an envelope with the correct postage and address on it. He placed the envelope in his inter-office mail receptacle. Mail placed in the inter-office receptacle is picked up by an employee of Petitioner’s agency, taken to the agency mailroom, and there picked up by the U.S. Postal Service. The inter-office mail receptacle is neither owned nor controlled by the U.S. Postal Service. Consequently, personal mail is not postmarked until it is received at the U.S. Postal Service. There is no evidence that Petitioner’s envelope was received by the U.S. Postal Service or that it was postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service. The address on the People First reimbursement form reads: “People First Service Center, Flexible Spending Account, Post Office Box 1800, Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1800.” The address is a post office box of the U.S. Postal Service, owned by Fringe Benefits Management Company (FBMC). FBMC is a private entity that processes benefits for various private and public employees, including the State of Florida’s flexible spending accounts. FBMC does not have access to any information regarding a claimant’s dependents and does not verify the authenticity of the names of the dependents or whether the claimant has dependents. FBMC uses Post Office Box 1800 specifically for FSA reimbursement requests submitted by all employees of FBMS clients. The U.S. Postal Service separates all of the mail addressed to Post Office Box 1800 and places it in bins, which are picked up each day by FBMC mailroom employees. The mailroom employees deliver the mail to the claims area at FBMC. Mail processors open each piece of mail and enter the name and/or social security number of the claim and amount of requested reimbursement in the FBMC computer system. Each claim is labeled as pending in the system. For each batch of 50 reimbursement requests entered into the system, the mail processors print a list of the 50 claims and attach the associated paper work for each claim into a batch. Each batch of 50, the list and actual forms are then delivered to “adjudicators” who again input the name and/or social security number directly from the reimbursement form. The adjudicator also determines whether the attached documentation supports the amount of the claim. Once the adjudicator enters the 50 requests into the system, the adjudicator prints another list of names. If either the mail processor or adjudicator enters incorrect information into the computer system, the adjudicator will produce a list that does not match the mail processor’s list. At that point, the mail processor’s list and the adjudicator’s list are reconciled. During reconciliation, if the adjudicator discovers a claim form that does not appear in the pending computer file, the adjudicator will add the name to the pending file or personally deliver the request to the mail processor to enter into the pending file. If the identification data of the claimant entered by the adjudicator matches the information in the “pending file,” and if the backup documentation in support of the claim is adequate as to amount, FBMC authorizes payment; if not, the claim is denied. The claim information is then sent to Convergys to process the claim. Convergys is a private entity that administers the State of Florida human resources and personnel system. Convergys has subcontracted with FBMC to process the payments of FSA requests for reimbursement. Upon receipt of files from FBMC, Convergys responds to all reimbursement requests it receives from FBMC. It either processes payment for approved requests or provides written notification that the claim has not been approved for payment. In June 2006, Petitioner had not received any information regarding his claim and had not received the documents back from the post office. He called the agency and discovered that it did not have any record of his claim. He explained that he had mailed it prior to April 17, 2006. Both FBMC and Convergys searched their records for Petitioner’s claim. Convergys had no record of receiving Petitioner’s claim from FBMC. FBMC searched every “James Wells” in its database listed for each employer-client to whom reimbursements were paid for the 2005 Plan Year. No payment was processed for any other James Wells. FBMC also physically searched all claims from all employees of all its clients, beginning March 27, 2006, through April 22, 2006. Each claim was pulled and each sheet of paper attached to each claim was reviewed. Petitioner’s claim was not located. Given the mail and claim handling procedures used by FBMC in processing claims, it does not appear that Respondent received Petitioner’s claim by April 17, 2006. Therefore, Petitioner’s claim for reimbursement was not timely filed in 2005, and Petitioner is not entitled to reimbursement. The request for hearing should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent issue a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not timely file his reimbursement request, is not entitled to reimbursement and dismissing the request for hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 14th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda South, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John Brenneis, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 James D. Wells, Jr. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 47 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sonja P. Matthews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Based upon the joint stipulation of counsel and the pleadings filed in this cause, the following findings of fact are determined: Government Service Supply Corporation (GSSC) was a Florida corporation engaged in the business of supplying federal agencies with office supplies and related items. It was wholly owned by Krista Peterson. On an undisclosed date, Krista Peterson incorporated Aerotek Resources Corporation in the State of Virginia, and that entity became involved in supplying agencies in the State of Florida with general office supplies and computer equipment. Because an unrelated company claimed that the name "Aerotek" infringed on its trademark, on an undisclosed date, Aerotek Resources Corporation changed its name to Tekresources Services Corporation, the petitioner in this cause. David Peterson was formerly the vice-president of GSSC. His relationship to Krista Peterson, if any, is not of record. During the period from July 1, 1991, to November 30, 1993, David Peterson used United States General Services Administration (GSA) supplier contract numbers without authorization. He concealed the lack of authorization to use the numbers by making representations to government purchasing agents that he was authorized to use the GSA supplier numbers. On August 9, 1994, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida filed an information charging David Peterson and GSSC with making a false statement in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, a public entity crime. Thereafter, GSSC and Peterson pled guilty to the charge. Judgments of conviction were rendered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on November 4, 1994. As required by law, on June 12, 1995, Aerotek Resource Corporation made timely notification to respondent, Department of Management Services (DMS), and provided details of the convictions. After conducting an investigation, on July 26, 1996, DMS gave its notice of intent to place petitioner on the convicted vendor list on the theory that petitioner was "related" to GSSC through Krista Peterson's ownership of both corporations. Placement on the list forbids petitioner from doing business with the State of Florida. In mitigation, the parties have agreed that the federal government suffered no loss as a result of these illicit actions, and there was no intent to cause any loss or to sell or provide inferior products to the government. In addition, David Peterson paid a $16,000 fine, petitioner fully cooperated with both the federal government and the DMS in their respective investigations, and petitioner promptly notified DMS of the convictions. Finally, procedures have been implemented which are designed to prevent the recurrence of this conduct. Given these mitigating factors, the parties have agreed that it is not in the public interest to place petitioner on the convicted vendor list. Therefore, the petition should be approved.
Findings Of Fact A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: No Cause was issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations and mailed to the parties by certified mail on January 30, 1985. Therein Petitioner was advised that the determination would become final unless: (1) a Request for Redetermination was filed within 20 days of the date of mailing of this notice or (2) Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief within 30 days of the mailing of this notice. Petitioner was further advised that failure of complainant to timely file either a request or petition will result in dismissal of the complaint. Petition for Relief was mailed by Petitioner to the Department of Corrections on March 12, 1982, and the Department of Corrections forwarded the Petition for Relief to the Commission on Human Relations where it was date-stamped as received March 13, 1985. By Order to Show Cause dated April 29, 1985, the Commission on Human Relations directed Petitioner to show cause within 10 days why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In response thereto Petitioner submitted a letter dated May 9, 1985, which was received by the Commission on Human Relations on May 13, 1985, enclosing statements verifying a son's illness February 19-22, her mother's hospitalization February 21-28, and that Petitioner had notified the school of days her daughter, Davita Clark, was home sick. No evidence was submitted showing Petitioner took sick leave during any of these periods or did not report for work each of these days. To be timely the Petition for Relief must be filed with the Commission within 30 days of the date determination of no cause was made. In this case the petition should have been received by the Commission on or before March 1, 1985. Section 22T-9.01, Florida Administrative Code. If three days mailing time is allowed for receipt of the notice by Petitioner, the petition was due on or before March 4, 1985. The petition was received by the Commission March 13, 1985, some 12 or 9 days after the 30-day period during which Petitioner was allowed to file a Petition for Relief. None of the reasons given by Petitioner for the delay in filing the Petition for Relief would justify granting an extension of time for filing such petition--if such extension may legally be granted.
Findings Of Fact On August 8, 1989, Respondent issued to prospective vendors a clear and unambiguous request for proposals (RFP) relating to the delivery to travel agency services for the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. All proposals were due no later than August 28, 1989. Review of proposals, to include any interviews Respondent deemed necessary, was to take place between August 29 and September 18, 1989. The following appears in Paragraph 1.1 of the RFP, in the introductory section: 1.1 This is a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide travel agency services to the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida; The School District operates 112 schools and 55 administrative departments in an area encompassing 2,332 square miles. The services include but are not limited to, purchases and delivery of air and other modes of travel tickets and related travel services. ... The introductory section of the RFP also provides the names, titles and telephone numbers of two persons to whom questions could be directed. The following appears in Paragraph 5.5 of the RFP, in the terms and conditions section: 5.5 The District reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to further negotiate any proposal, to request clarification of information submitted in any proposal, and to request additional information from any Proposer. Proposals relating to the provision of the following services are solicited in Paragraph 6.1 of the RFP, the scope of services section: 6.1 The following are to be included in the specific tasks to be performed by the Travel Agency; however, it is not considered as a complete list of tasks: A. Deliver tickets, itineraries and other travel documents to the specific office or school requesting same. Proposals from several vendors were received, including proposals from Petitioner and ETA Travel Agency. Petitioner's response to Paragraph 6.1(A) was as follows: Ticket Delivery: will be made as follows: An On-Site reservation and ticketing facility at a mutually acceptable location on School Board administration property. Deliveries will be made to other offices as follows: Scheduled. Emergency. Delivery receipts. Via agency and outside courier service. ETA's response to Paragraph 6.1(A) was as follows: E.T.A. provides immediate free delivery of airline tickets and documents to school board travelers as detailed below: E.T.A.'s radio dispatched couriers provide unlimited deliveries of tickets and travel documents to schools and school board offices from Jupiter to Boca Raton as often as required throughout the business day. At E.T.A. Travel we never limit deliveries to once of twice a day. Tickets are delivered according to the school board's schedule - not ours. In addition to office delivery, E.T.A.'s couriers will deliver tickets and documents to the traveler's home or to other designated place whenever required. Deliveries to west area schools and school board offices are provided through the school board's "pony express" mail system, time permitting, or through federal express overnight delivery services. Deliveries to out-of-county travelers, or to west area travelers requiring expedited delivery, are provided through federal express overnight delivery service. E.T.A. Travel Agency utilizes a delivery and pickup receipt system to insure tracking of all airline tickets. To insure accountability all tickets delivered and picked up must be signed for and receipted at the time of exchange. While in the process of evaluating the respective proposals, Dr. Henry Boekhaff, Respondent's Associate Superintendent for Administration, contacted Mr. James Bertino, the owner of Petitioner to seek clarification as to the operation of Petitioner's proposed on-site ticketing and reservation facility. Mr. Bertino explained that there would be located on school board property a satellite ticket printer that could print airline tickets at the school board site. However, Mr. Bertino did not make it clear to Dr. Boekhoff that the travel documents printed on the satellite ticket printer would be delivered by Petitioner to each office requesting the travel document. Mr. Bertino's verbal description of the manner in which the satellite ticket printer would operate, along with Petitioner's written response to Paragraph 6.1(A), caused Dr. Boekhoff to conclude that Petitioner was not proposing to deliver travel documents to each requesting office. Respondent, following its review of Petitioner's proposal and following Dr. Boekhoff's conversation with Mr. Bertino, construed Petitioner's proposal as making a distinction between deliveries to offices in the administrative building in which the satellite ticket printer was to be located and deliveries to other offices. Respondent construed the proposal to require that persons whose offices were in the same building as the satellite ticket printer to pick up from the printer the tickets, itineraries, and other travel documents they had requested, while deliveries to offices in other administrative buildings and schools would be made by Petitioner. Respondent's construction of Petitioner's proposal was a reasonable construction of the written proposal presented by Petitioner and of the comments Mr. Bertino made to Dr. Boekhoff. Petitioner did not make it clear in either its response to Paragraph 6.1(A) or during the conversation between Mr. Bertino and Dr. Boekhoff that the Petitioner was proposing to deliver tickets to each office in the administrative building where the satellite facility would be located, a service that is of primary importance to Respondent. Following the evaluation of awards the proposal of ETA was selected, subject to the resolution of any timely protest. The services to be afforded by the vendor and the cost of those services were the items of primary importance to Respondent in evaluating and selecting a vendor. Petitioner's protest of the intended award of the contract to ETA was filed on a timely basis. During the informal hearing held in an attempt to resolve this dispute and in the formal hearing held in this proceeding, Petitioner, through Mr. Bertino, maintained that it intended by its response to Paragraph 6.1(A) to state that it would deliver tickets, itineraries, and travel related documents to every School Board office. Petitioner contends that it should be permitted to clarify its intentions at this time. Although Petitioner's response to Paragraph 6.1(A) did not cause its proposal to be rejected by Respondent, the Petitioner's failure to clearly state that it would deliver tickets, itineraries, and other travel documents to each requesting office was the primary reason the proposal of Petitioner was not selected. The services that ETA proposed in its response was the deciding factor in its favor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order which rejects the bid protest filed by International Tours of Juno Beach and which accepts the proposal submitted by ETA Travel Agency. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 7th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6775BID The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected, in part, as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The evidence failed to establish that the proposal submitted by Petitioner was superior to the proposal submitted by ETA. What action the School Board may have taken had Petitioner clearly stated its proposal is speculative. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. While Mr. Boekhoff did contact ETA during the evaluation period regarding its organizational structure, there is no contention that such contact was improper. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are rejected as being conclusions of law instead of findings of fact. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in Paragraph 13 or as being conclusions of law and not findings of fact. 8-10. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8-10 are rejected as being conclusions of law and not findings of fact. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part by paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald R. Fountain, Jr., Esquire Lytal & Reiter 515 North Flagler Drive Post Office Box 024466 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-4466 Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire School of Palm Beach County 3970 RCA Boulevard Suite 7010 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent repay Petitioner $5,053 in disallowed costs: DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of April, 1982.
