The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 112.3148(3), Florida Statutes, by committing the acts alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, John Pollet (Pollet), served continuously as Mayor of Kissimmee from November 1, 1991, until he was suspended in 1995. As Mayor, Pollet was a voting member of the City Commission and signed contracts the city entered. At all times relevant to the instant case, George Geletko was employed as the Municipal Marketing Manager with Waste Management, Inc. Mr. Geletko's primary responsibility was to make sure that contracts between Waste Management, Inc., and its municipal customers were properly administered. Waste Management, Inc., had a contract with the City of Kissimmee to provide waste disposal services that was scheduled to expire in 1994. However, on September 6, 1994, the City of Kissimmee renewed its contract with Waste Management, Inc. Mr. Geletko was responsible for administering Waste Management's contract with the City of Kissimmee and was the contact person between Waste Management, Inc., and the City of Kissimmee. As the Municipal Marketing Manager for Waste Management, Inc., Mr. Geletko sought to influence or encourage the Kissimmee City Commission and Pollet to do business with his company. In order to accomplish this, Mr. Geletko, in his position with Waste Management, Inc., took actions that directly or indirectly furthered or communicated his intention to influence or encourage the Kissimmee City Commission and Pollet to do business with Waste Management, Inc. In the spring of 1994, during a telephone conversation, Pollet asked Mr. Geletko if Waste Management, Inc., had any tickets to an Orlando Magic basketball game. Mr. Geletko did not respond directly to Pollet's inquiry, but stated that "whatever we did, we would have to be in compliance with all ordinances and the State Code of Ethics." Pollet told Mr. Geletko that he would get back with him. However, no further inquiry regarding Orlando Magic tickets was made by Pollet to Mr. Geletko. At the time Pollet asked about Orlando Magic basketball tickets, he believed Mr. Geletko had taken former City Commissioner Richard Herring to a Magic game at some point prior to his inquiry. Pollet testified that the inquiry regarding Orlando Magic basketball tickets was made based on personal political considerations involving former City Commissioner Herring, who was sometimes an ally and sometimes a foe of Respondent in matters relating to City politics. However, Pollet gave no such explanation to Mr. Geletko during their conversation involving Orlando Magic basketball tickets. Based on Pollet's inquiry, Mr. Geletko felt that Pollet was asking him for tickets to the Orlando Magic game. Mr. Geletko, as a representative of Waste Management, Inc., gave gifts, including golf games and meals, to Pollet both before and after Respondent asked him about the Orlando Magic Tickets. Pollet's approach to Mr. Geletko was a solicitation for tickets. At all times relevant to the instant case, Charles Voss was a vice president with Camp, Dresser, and McKee, an environmental engineering firm. Camp, Dresser, and McKee had two contracts with the City of Kissimmee to provide engineering services. The City of Kissimmee and Camp, Dresser, and McKee entered into one such contract on November 2, 1993. Mr. Voss was responsible for marketing Camp, Dresser, and McKee's services to the City of Kissimmee. Mr. Voss sought to influence or encourage the Kissimmee City Commission and Pollet to do business with Camp, Dresser and McKee. To this end, Mr. Voss took actions that directly or indirectly furthered or communicated his intentions to influence or encourage the Kissimmee City Commission and Pollet to do business with Camp, Dresser, and McKee. In March 1993, Pollet called Mr. Voss and asked him if Camp, Dresser, and McKee had any tickets to the Nestle Invitational Golf Tournament. Mr. Voss told Pollet that his firm did not have tickets to the 1993 Nestle Invitational Golf Tournament. Based on Respondent's question, Mr. Voss thought Respondent was asking him for tickets to the golf tournament. Pollet testified that he asked about the passes because he wanted to know if Mr. Voss was going to attend the tournament. According to his testimony, Pollet thought that if Mr. Voss were going to the golf tournament, they could meet there. Notwithstanding his testimony, Pollet never asked Mr. Voss whether he was going to the tournament. In both 1994 and 1995, Pollet accepted passes to the Nestle Invitational Golf Tournament as gifts from Mr. Voss and Camp, Dresser, and McKee. Mr. Voss gave these golf tournament passes to Pollet because Pollet expressed an interest in the tournament in 1993. Pollet did not pay for the golf tournament passes he received from Mr. Voss in 1994 and 1995. Mr. Voss, as a representative of Camp, Dresser, and McKee, had given Pollet various gifts in the past. Except for partial payment for certain tickets, Pollet has never paid for any of these gifts. Respondent's approach to Mr. Voss was a solicitation for tickets to the 1993 Nestle Invitational Golf Tournament. Respondent admits he has accepted gifts from both Waste Management, Inc., and Camp, Dresser, and McKee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order and Public Report be entered finding that Respondent, John Pollet, violated Section 112.3148(3), Florida Statutes; imposing a civil penalty of $1,000.00 per violation; and issuing a public censure and reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CARLOYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-647 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric S. Scott, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Mark Herron, Esquire 216 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, General Counsel 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Kerrie J. Stillman Complaint Coordinator Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all relevant times, respondent, Passport Internationale, Inc. (Passport or respondent), was a seller of travel registered with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). As such, it was required to post a performance bond with the Department conditioned on the performance of contracted services. In this case, petitioner, Cecile M. Haake, has filed a claim against the bond in the amount of $398.00 alleging that Passport failed to perform on certain contracted services. On December 24, 1990, petitioner responded to a newspaper advertisement promoting a five-day, four-night cruise to the Bahamas for $199.00 per person. The advertisement was run by Travel Partners International (TPI), a telemarketeer selling travel certificates on behalf of Passport. Petitioner purchased a certificate authorizing two persons to take the cruise. For this, she paid $398.00. Shortly thereafter, petitioner received a package with a reservation request form. The form carried the name, address and telephone number of Passport. It should have contained an issue date and the name of the sponsor, but TPI erroneously left that information blank. Ordinarily, a certificate would expire one year after the issue date. Petitioner was not told this when she agreed to purchase the package. Around February 20, 1992, petitioner returned the reservation request form to Passport with a requested travel date of May 1, 1992. On February 26, 1992, Passport returned the form and advised petitioner that "your reservation form was not completed by your sponsor." She was told to have TPI complete the form, and resubmit it with her requested travel dates. By now, however, TPI had gone out of business. Petitioner accordingly filled in TPI's name in the space for the sponsor, and she inserted an issue date of March 15, 1991. This meant her certificate would expire on March 15, 1992, or less than a month later. She again returned the form to Passport. Since her requested travel dates were more than a year after the issue date, Passport declined to accept the reservation. Although in some cases Passport offered to extend certificates for an additional year for a $50.00 fee, there is no evidence that Passport did so in this case. When petitioner requested a refund of her money, Passport's successor corporation, Incentive International Travel, Inc. (Incentive), declined to issue a refund on the ground the package was purchased from TPI and not Passport, and Passport had never received any money from the telemarketeer. To date, petitioner has never received a refund of her money.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim of petitioner against the bond of respondent be granted in the amount of $398.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of January, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecile M. Haake 7254 Quail Meadow Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Julie Johnson McCollum 2441 Bellevue Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Robert G. Worley, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are true, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the agency charged with regulating the pari-mutuel wagering industry in Florida, including persons licensed under Chapter 550, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was licensed as a cardroom employee occupational license number 1395921-1181, issued by the Petitioner. On May 20, 1998, the Respondent was working as a teller in the cardroom at Tampa Jai-Alai. The evidence establishes that on May 20, 1998, the Respondent provided wagering tickets to a patron of the facility without obtaining cash or a cash voucher in exchange for the tickets.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order revoking the cardroom employee license number 1395921-1181 of Bobbie J. Manning. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan C. Felker-Little, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bobbie J. Manning 3007 Spillers Avenue Tampa, Florida 33619 Deborah R. Miller, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the $124.00 penalty assessed against Respondent by the Department of Transportation is legally and mathematically correct.
Findings Of Fact The maximum legal weight allowed for vehicles traveling on a Florida state highway is 80,000 pounds. On November 18, 1991, a commercial motor vehicle owned and operated by Respondent was driving on State Road 15, also known as U.S. Highway 1, in Nassau County, Florida. At that time and place, DOT Weight Inspector R. S. Young weighed Respondent's vehicle on the pit scale at the Hilliard Weigh Station at approximately 23:32 (11:32 PM), using a "split weigh" method because the vehicle exceeded the 56 feet which the DOT scale would accommodate. Inspector Young filled out the Load Report indicating three separate axle weights of the vehicle with a total weight of 82,480 pounds, which exceeded the maximum weight restriction by 2,480 pounds. The fine imposed was $124.00, calculated at five cents per pound by which the scale weight of the vehicle exceeded the maximum weight of 80,000. Respondent paid the fine. The scale at the Hilliard Weigh Station which was used by Inspector Young on November 18, 1991 had been inspected and certified pursuant to statute by the Florida Department of Agriculture on July 24, 1991, four months before the weighing of Respondent's vehicle. On March 4, 1992, approximately five months after Respondent's vehicle was weighed, the Hilliard Weigh Station scale was again inspected and certified by the Florida Department of Agriculture. Neither time was there a discrepancy in true weight which would have materially affected the weighing of Respondent's truck on November 18, 1991. Affording Respondent's position every benefit of the doubt, it is possible, but not proven, that the Hilliard Weigh Station scale could have weighed 80 pounds heavier than the truck's true weight on November 18, 1991. Respondent contended that he had "split weighed" his loaded vehicle earlier on November 18, 1991 on a commercial Howe scale and that the Howe scale weight was accurate in showing his vehicle weighed under the 80,000 pound statutory limit, as opposed to the weight at the Hilliard Weigh Station later the same day, which weight showed the loaded vehicle weighed over the 80,000 pound statutory limit. All witnesses are agreed that if done correctly, a "split weigh" is reasonably accurate for multiple tandem, multiple axle vehicles longer than 51 feet, and it is unrefuted that many of these types of weigh-ins are done regularly at the Hilliard Weigh Station and throughout the industry. The method is specifically permitted for use by law enforcement, in this instance, by DOT. However, the expert testimony of Mr. Robert Garris, Supervisor of Weights and Measures for the State of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is accepted that "split weighs" on a Howe scale are "assuredly inaccurate" because such scales are not manufactured to be used with "split weighs" and that, although DOT is authorized, for law enforcement purposes, to do "split weighs", DOT's scales also are not necessarily any more accurate for use with the "split weigh" method than the Howe commerical scale. Therefore, it is found that if it could be shown by competent evidence that the Howe scale "split weigh" and the Hilliard scale "split weigh" were each done correctly and showed different weights, one weight being "over" and one weight being "under" the statutory limit, DOT could not prevail herein by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent presented a weight ticket purportedly showing that this loaded vehicle had a gross weight of 76,600 pounds on the Howe scale at 14:29 (2:29 PM) on November 18, 1991, also achieved by a "split weigh" method. Although self-serving, Respondent's direct testimony to this effect is unrefuted, as is his direct testimony that when he weighed his loaded truck on the Howe scale, the Howe scale bore a current Florida Department of Agriculture certification seal. However, the four weights printed automatically onto the Howe scale weight ticket do not add up to the pencilled "76,600" handwritten thereon. Upon Respondent's direct testimony and supporting exhibits, it was also shown that a commercial Certified Automated Truck Scale (CAT Scale) had recorded the gross weight of Respondent's front two axles as only 19,280 pounds on October 9, 1991. The CAT scale, which renders a "full platform" gross weight, provides a more accurate gross weight than the "split weigh" method, but this weigh-in occurred approximately a month before the weighing of Respondent's truck at the Hilliard Weigh Scale on November 18, 1991 and accounted for only two axles and no load. Respondent contended that if one added together the weight of his load as stated by the shipper on his November 18 bill of lading, the manufacturer's weight of 9500 pounds as stamped on the side of the trailer, a weight he personally estimated for nylon ropes to secure the load, possible fuel intake, and the CAT weight of his vehicle's front two axles, Respondent's vehicle weight on November 18 would still have been under 80,000 pounds when it reached the Hilliard scale, and Respondent would not have been subject to an overweight assessment and fine. However, this scenario is speculative. It is speculative because of insufficient predicate for the accuracy of some of the figures named, due to the failure of the numbers on the Howe scale ticket to add up as specified by Respondent, and due to the margin for error when only two axles were weighed a month earlier on the CAT scale.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order ratifying the assessment and penalty of $124.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17 day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-1872 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59 (2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner's PFOF: 1-6, 8 (There is no "6", but the unnumbered paragraph between "5" and "7" is treated as "6") Accepted. 7 Accepted in part and rejected in part because of Respondent's direct testimony which established certain facts found. Respondent's PFOF 1, 13 Accepted that some of this is what the shipper told Respondent and placed on the bill of lading, but it remains hearsay and unpersuasive on the dispositive issue of true weight in light of other exhibits and testimony. Accepted except where contrary to the probative evidence and rejected as unproven and also rejected where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Specifically, the numbers show a print out of 4 axles, not 3, or four printed items for gross, tare and net pounds. It is not clear which. Also, the total of the four figures are in excess of legal weight limits. See Exhibit R-1. Rejected as not of record and rejected as legal or persuasive argument as opposed to a proposed finding of fact; rejected as not dispositive and as not persuasive. The first sentence is accepted. The remainder is rejected as mere legal or persuasive argument. 5-6, 8-10 Accepted except where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 7,14 Rejected because much of this is not of record. Otherwise it is unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 20-21, 23 Accepted, except that Mr. Garris did not testify that the Howe scale was certified or accurate. This was Respondent's testimony. 11-12 Rejected as stated because not supported by the record as a whole. Covered accurately in the RO. 15-18 These calculations are rejected as speculative and not supported by any weight ticket. Legal and persuasive arguments are also rejected as not factual proposals. 19 Accepted, but unnecessary, subordinate and cumulative. 22, 24 Rejected as legal and persuasive argument only, not factual proposals. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn S. Holifield Chief, Administrative Law Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mrs. Thomas Bachota 201 North Shaffer Street Milford, Indiana 46542 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Thornton J. Williams, General Consel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, is authorized to charge and collect interest from Respondent, Florida Gaming Centers, Inc., on the unpaid value of the outsbook for the 1995-1996 meet from August 29, 1997, the date payment of the value of the outsbook was due, to September 8, 1998, the date payment was received by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent held a permit to conduct jai alai pari-mutuel wagering, under License No. 2909-D Amended, issued by the Department. Between July 1, 1995, and June 30, 1996, inclusive, Respondent held jai alai games for the purpose of conducting pari-mutuel wagering on those games. Respondent's meet for the relevant time period ended on June 30, 1996. One year and sixty days after the end of the State of Florida's (State) fiscal year of June 30, 1996, any "out" tickets that remained uncashed escheated to the State pursuant to Section 550.1645(2), Florida Statutes. Once these tickets or the value thereof escheated to the State, Respondent was required to pay the value of such tickets, as reflected on its outsbook, to the Department no later than August 29, 1997. Pursuant to the outsbook prepared by Respondent, the value of the outs for the 1995-1996 meet was $108,221.20. Nonetheless, Respondent failed to submit to the Department the value of the balance of the outsbook within the prescribed time frame and instead held these funds. On June 2, 1998, the Department served an Administrative Complaint on Respondent, alleging that Respondent had failed to timely submit the value of the outsbook to Petitioner. By letter dated September 4, 1998, Respondent submitted to the Department a check for $109,128.60 as payment for the unpaid value of Respondent's outsbook for the 1995-1996 meet. The Department received Respondent's payment on September 8, 1998. Of the total amount Respondent paid over to the Department, $108,221.20 was credited against the unpaid value of the outsbook for the 1995-1996 meet, resulting in full payment of the outstanding outsbook value. The remaining $907.40 paid by Respondent to Petitioner was an overpayment. Petitioner alleges that Respondent is responsible for interest accrued on the unpaid value of the outsbook for the period of time that amount remained unpaid. According to the Department, the interest owed by Respondent as a result of its failure to timely remit the value of the outsbook, "shall be determined at a rate per annum . . . equal to the State's average investment rate for the preceding month to the month for which interest is being calculated." The average interest rate earned on the investment of State funds as determined by the State Treasurer and/or Comptroller" for the time period of August 1997 through August 1998, was 6.73 percent. The Department determined that the interest "shall accrue on the unpaid aggregate principal amount due the State for the month(s) from the respective due date." Based on its calculations and after deducting Respondent's overpayment of $907.40, the Department asserts that Respondent owes the Department approximately $6,573.85 in accrued interest. Respondent disputes that the Department has authority to collect interest on the unpaid amount of the outsbook and alleges the powers of the Department under Section 550.0251, Florida Statutes, do not include such authority.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that (1) an administrative fine of $1,000.00 be imposed against the Respondent for the violation Section 550.1645, Florida Statutes; and, (2) Respondent shall receive a credit of $907.40 toward payment of the administrative fine. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah R. Miller, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William P. Cagney, III, Esquire 3400 Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Eric H. Miller, Esquire Chief Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Woodyard Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent's teacher's certificate should be suspended or revoked or other appropriate action taken for alleged violations of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 6B, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Petition herein. At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner moved to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 to reflect a correct date of May 5, 1977, in lieu of the date May 5, 1978, stated therein. There being no objection, the Motion was granted and the Petitioner so amended.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomasena W. Owens, holds a Florida Teaching Certificate and has been employed in the Duval County Public School System at Ribault High School, Jacksonville, Florida, since 1979, as a cosmetology teacher (testimony of Respondent). On May 5, 1977, Respondent conducted a fashion show with her students at the high school auditorium for the purpose of raising funds to defray expenses of graduating students to take examinations before the State Board of Cosmetology. Prior to this time, Respondent obtained permission from school authorities to conduct the fund raising activity. Written school policy required that tickets for such events must be prenumbered consecutively by the printer and that a report of tickets sold and funds received must be prepared by the person in charge of the activity (testimony of Davis, Respondent, Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 4). On April 12, 1977, Respondent's husband, Herbert Owens, ordered the printing of 500 tickets for the sum of $15.00 in the name of Ribault High School - Cosmetology Department, at Bill Kight's Copy Center, Jacksonville, Florida. He later received the tickets from the Copy Center without paying for the same and delivered them to his wife's office at the school. The tickets were unnumbered. Prior to ordering the tickets, Respondent had not submitted a request for purchase approval to the School principal as was required under written school policies (testimony of Thrift, Harms, Davis, H. Owens, Petitioner's exhibit No. 1-2, 4,5). The ticket price for the fashion show was one dollar. Prior to the event, there was an undetermined number of advance ticket sales. The school auditorium has an audience capacity of approximately 700 persons. Tickets were sold at the door at the night of the performance by Emily James, a School clerical employee. The door was the only available entrance to the auditorium. During the course of ticket sales immediately before the performance, some four or five individuals entered the auditorium with passes. Although the auditorium was not completely full, at least 500 persons were present during the show. A short time before the performance had concluded, Mrs. James turned over the cash receipts and unsold tickets in a box to Respondent. On June 9, 1977, Respondent executed a form titled "Report of Monies Collected," which reflected that she had turned in $103.00 in cash to the School bookkeeper on May 5, 1977. It further reflected that 300 tickets had been printed and that 176 tickets were turned in on June 9th. It further showed that the cash balance due of $21.00 had been turned in by Respondent on the same date. The form was countersigned by the school bookkeeper. (Testimony of James, Feagin, Davis, Respondent's exhibit No. 1). In August, 1977, the bookkeeper for Bill Knight's Copy Center noted that the invoice for the tickets had not been paid by the high school. She called Mr. Owens for an explanation. He stated that the reason why the bill had not been paid was that only 300 tickets had been ordered and that in order to pay for the work, he needed another invoice, dated April 12, 1977, showing 300 tickets at the price of $15.00. The revised invoice was picked up by Mr. Owens. It was not until February 14, 1978, that the High School paid the bill for the tickets. (Testimony of Harms, H. Owens, Davis, Petitioner's exhibit No. 2, 6- 8). Respondent received a satisfactory job performance evaluation from the school principal in 1977, although the principal had expressed concerns to her for previous irregular business transactions. Respondent received an unsatisfactory overall evaluation in 1978, which the principal explained was due to the fact that "I wanted to register with Ms. Owens my objections to the fund raising business . . . and I chose this method to do that." Although the principal stated that Respondent expressed positive qualities of demonstration and enthusiasm in her classes, she was concerned about her ability to impart knowledge to students. (Testimony of Davis, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3). Both Respondent and her husband testified at the hearing. Respondent disclaimed any knowledge of the ticket purchase and attributed all events concerning the transaction to her husband. However, when she was interview by Petitioner's security investigator in August, 1978, she told him that she had ordered the tickets and that her husband had picked them up. She also stated to him that, after discovering that she had been billed for 500 tickets even though she had ordered only 300, she went to the printers the next day and obtained a corrected invoice. In a subsequent interview about a week later, Respondent told the investigator that the corrected invoice had been mailed to her and that her husband had paid for the tickets and picked them up. At the hearing, Respondent testified that her husband had ordered that tickets because she was "busy." Although she had told the investigator that there had been advance ticket sales, at the hearing Respondent testified that she could not remember if there had been such sales. Her testimony indicated that students had counted the tickets before the performance and placed them in stacks of 25 each and that there were only 300 tickets. She further testified that Mrs. James had handed her a locked bag containing the door ticket sale receipts and unsold tickets, had placed the bag in the truck of Respondent's care, and that Respondent turned the money over to the bookkeeper the next day without knowing what was in the bag. She denied keeping any of the sales receipts or any wrong doing. She admitted that she was aware of school procedures to be followed in purchasing materials, but said that the principal an bookkeeper had authorized her to purchase the tickets. Her husband testified that he had ordered 300 tickets from the printer and picked them up when they were ready, but did not pay for them at that time. He admitted having the conversation with the printer's bookkeeper and requesting a revised invoice to reflect that only 300 tickets had been printed and delivered. He testified that he told his wife that he had paid for the tickets because he did not want her to have any "foul-ups" with the principal in regard to the bill being paid. He further testified that he viewed the crowd attending the fashion show and that there were approximately 200 spectators present. In view of the inconsistencies and conflicts of the above testimony of Respondent and Mr. Owens between themselves and with the testimony of other witnesses, the demeanor of all witnesses, and the circumstances surrounding the transaction in question, the testimony of Respondent and her husband as summarized above in pertinent respects, is not deemed credible. Based on the foregoing findings, it is further found that Respondent failed to properly account either for funds received for the sale of 200 tickets, or otherwise to satisfactorily account for the disposition of 200 missing tickets.
Recommendation That Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Tallahassee, Florida Kenneth Vickers, Esquire 437 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1979.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner, Raymond J. Holmes, is entitled to the entire $5,000.00 won by him in the Florida Lottery or whether a portion thereof should be withheld for reimbursement of public assistance payments previously paid for the support of his child.
Findings Of Fact On May 7, 1993, a Judge of the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit In and For Collier County, Florida, entered, in case No. 93-1327, an Order Determining Obligation And Repayment of Public Assistance for the repayment of support and repayment of foster care payments, made on behalf of Petitioner's child, Allen J. Holmes, against Petitioner, "Ray" Holmes and his wife, Rachel Holmes, in the amount of $5,439.46 plus costs in the amount of $88.20 and attorneys fees of $176.40, This amount was to be paid at a rate of $80.00 plus $3.20 clerk's fee ($83.20) per month, beginning on June 1, 1993, payments to continue until "all prior public assistance has been completely repaid." This Order was acknowledged in writing by both Petitioner and his wife. The Order also provided: ... the State of Florida, or any political subdivision thereof, or the United States, is directed to deduct from all moneys due and payable to the Respondent [Petitioner, Holmes] the amount of child support ordered above. This income deduction shall be effective immediately, and shall become binding on ... [a] comptroller or disbursing officer, the State of Florida, ... two weeks after receipt of service of this order. None of the money called for under the Court's Order has been repaid. Petitioner's one-half of the joint obligation was $2,807.93. On or about August 2, 1993, Petitioner purchased a scratch-off lottery ticket which carried a prize of $5,000.00. Petitioner immediately submitted a claim form for the award of the prize. He listed his social security number as 144-53-7433 on the form. The social security account card issued in his name reflects the correct number to be 144-52-7433 but there is no doubt the Petitioner was the individual who purchased the winning ticket. The claim form was submitted for payment to Lottery headquarters in Tallahassee. In the course of routine coordination between agencies to determine if any obligations to the state were owing by a lottery winner, the above-noted Court Order was identified and when the Petitioner's winnings were transmitted to the Department of Banking and Finance for payment, his half of the obligation was withheld and only the net amount of $2,192.07 forwarded. Thereafter, by state warrant 4-02 909 875, dated August 20, 1993, this net amount was paid to Petitioner. This figure was arrived at by deducting the amount owed by Petitioner, ($2,807.93) from the gross winnings, ($5,000.00). Petitioner was notified by letter dated August 24, 1993 accompanying the warrant of the reason for the deduction. Petitioner thereafter demanded hearing and this hearing ensued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner, Raymond J. Holmes' request for payment of $2,807.93 withheld from his lottery prize of $5,000.00 by the Department of Banking and Finance. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 9th day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond J. Holmes 3397-2 Sacramento Way Naples, Florida 33942 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking & Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Marcia Mann, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact On September 20, 1977, Victor Sosa, at the time an employee of petitioner, and Leroy Patten, then as now a field agent for the Department of Commerce, visited respondent's premises. A Mr. Chavez told the investigators that Jose Isidro Guillamo, respondent's sole corporate officer, was not on the premises and could not be reached. In response to Mr. Patten's questions, Mr. Chavez said he was ignorant of details about respondent's workmen's compensation insurance. Mr. Sosa asked Mr. Chavez to produce invoices reflecting purchases of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Chavez replied that most of the invoices were at an accountant's office, but joined Mr. Sosa in looking for invoices behind a counter at which customers sat. In the course of the search, Mr. Sosa noticed a clipboard hanging from a nail. The clipboard contained guest checks used as lottery slips. Nearby drawers yielded paper napkins similar employed. The search never uncovered any invoices on the premises. At no time did petitioner give respondent permission to store invoices off the premises. On September 20, 1977, and continuously until March 20, 1978, respondent did not maintain in force workmen's compensation insurance for its employees. On September 20, 1977, no notice of workmen's compensation insurance coverage was posted on the premises.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for thirty days and thereafter until respondent shall secure compensation for its employees in accordance with Section 440.38 (1), Florida Statutes (1977). DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 La Dominicana Corporation d/b/a La Dominicana Restaurant c/o Jose Isidro Guillama and Mario Cartas 1416 San Marco Coral Gables, Florida 33134
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' August 15, 2008, Joint Status Report:2 The Broward County School Board (School Board) is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Fort Lauderdale High School (FLHS)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Respondent is now, and has been since the late 1990s, employed as a classroom teacher by the School Board. He holds a professional services contract. Respondent is currently under suspension pending the outcome of these disciplinary proceedings. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent taught at FLHS and was the SGA (Student Government Association) advisor at the school. Among the classes he taught was an SGA leadership class. As the SGA advisor, Respondent oversaw the SGA's sale of tickets for the FLHS homecoming dance that was held every year, the proceeds of which were to go to the SGA. In 2007, the annual homecoming dance was held at the Bahia Mar Beach Resort on November 10, 2007. FLHS contracted with Randy Smith Enterprises, Inc. (RSE) to take photographs at the 2007 homecoming dance. As part of its contractual responsibilities, RSE provided to FLHS, free of charge, printed, consecutively numbered, homecoming dance tickets. The tickets arrived at FLHS on Friday, October 12, 2007. They were delivered in a sealed box to the office of Denise Nonamaker, who has been the school's bookkeeper for the past 13 years. The box contained two shrink-wrapped packages of tickets and an "invoice." The "invoice" was in the form of a letter, dated October 10, 2007, from Roland Smith, Jr., the president of RSE. The letter, which was addressed to Respondent, read as follows: Enclosed are the tickets numbered 001-550 for your 2007 homecoming dance. These tickets are supplied to you at NO CHARGE. I want you to know that I truly appreciate your patronage. Please feel free to call on me whenever I can be of assistance to you. As the school's bookkeeper, Ms. Nonamaker was responsible for ensuring that the tickets were handled in accordance with the School Board's "audit rules." This required that she first determine and document the number of tickets that had been received and were in the school's official "inventory." Respondent was in his classroom, waiting for his SGA leadership class to start, when he found out that Ms. Nonamaker had received the homecoming dance tickets. He immediately went to Ms. Nonamaker's office. When he arrived, Ms. Nonamaker was in the "walk-in safe" adjacent to her office "counting money." She had not yet opened the box containing the homecoming dance tickets and the "invoice." After letting himself into Ms. Nonamaker's office (by "reach[ing] over" and unlocking the lock on the office's "half- door"), Respondent took it upon himself to open the box while Ms. Nonamaker was still in the "walk-in safe" and could not see him. One of the students in Respondent's SGA leadership class, S. S., the SGA treasurer, had followed Respondent to Ms. Nonamaker's office. When S. S. entered the office, the "box of tickets was open," and S. S. saw Respondent "going through" the tickets. After Ms. Nonamaker had finished "counting [the] money" in the "walk-in safe" and returned to her office, she prepared two "audit rules"-required "inventory sheets" for the homecoming dance tickets. The first "inventory sheet" (Official Inventory Sheet) was intended to show, among other things, what numbered tickets Ms. Nonamaker had received from RSE (or, as she put it in her testimony at hearing, the "total amount of tickets that [she had] for sale"). Ms. Nonamaker enlisted Respondent's assistance in preparing this document. She asked Respondent to give her the last numbered ticket, which, according to the "invoice" that had come with the tickets, was ticket numbered 550. In response to Ms. Nonamaker's request, Respondent handed her ticket numbered 550. Ms. Nonamaker made a photocopy of the ticket, which, in accordance with the School Board's "audit rules," she attached to the Official Inventory Sheet. Consistent with what had been represented in the "invoice," Ms. Nonamaker wrote on the Official Inventory Sheet that she had received tickets numbered 001 through 550. In fact, although she did not realize it at the time,3 RSE had actually sent more tickets than just these 550 to the school, as Mr. Smith subsequently "confirm[ed]" in an October 16, 2007, letter he wrote to Respondent, wherein he indicated that RSE had "sent Ft. Lauderdale High 700 Homecoming tickets" in response to two separate orders, the first for 550 tickets (which order was filled by sending the school tickets numbered 001 through 550) and the second for an additional 150 tickets (which order was filled by sending the school tickets numbered 551 through 700). Ms. Nonamaker first became aware of this October 16, 2007, letter only after the dance had been held and the investigation that led to Respondent's suspension had commenced. The second "inventory sheet" Ms. Nonamaker prepared was a Perpetual Ticket Inventory Sheet used to document what numbered tickets were "issued" (that is, released by Ms. Nonamaker for sale) to whom and when. Before he left Ms. Nonamaker's office, Respondent signed the Perpetual Ticket Inventory Sheet that Ms. Nonamaker had prepared, acknowledging that Ms. Nonamaker had "issued" him tickets numbered 001 through 070. Ms. Nonamaker placed these tickets (numbered 001 through 070), along with "petty cash" and a receipt book signed out to Respondent, in a "cash box" that was to be picked up when ticket sales started on Monday, October 15, 2007.4 The "cash box" was to be used to store the money collected from ticket sales, and it was to be returned to Ms. Nonamaker's office (containing the money collected, plus the "petty cash," the receipt book, and any unsold tickets) after the completion of sales each day. After signing the Perpetual Ticket Inventory Sheet, Respondent left Ms. Nonamaker's office. Although he did not leave with the "cash box," Respondent did take 2007 homecoming dance tickets with him. Unbeknownst to Ms. Nonamaker, Respondent had taken a "stack" of tickets from one of the shrink-wrapped packages, put them in an envelope, and placed the envelope in his back pocket. This ticket-filled envelope was still in his pocket when he left Ms. Nonamaker's office. Homecoming dance tickets numbered 551 through 700 were found sometime the following week in an envelope in an unlocked drawer in Respondent's classroom desk by a student, N. R., the SGA president, who discovered them while "looking for Wite-Out." These tickets were not in the school's official "inventory," although they should have been. While Ms. Nonamaker had not seen Respondent take these tickets, S. S. had. After Respondent had left Ms. Nonamaker's office, S. S. told Ms. Nonamaker what she had seen Respondent do with these tickets and asked Ms. Nonamaker if she had seen the same thing. Ms. Nonamaker responded to S. S. that she had "not see[n] anything." Ms. Nonamaker reported to FLHS's head of security, David Martin, what S. S. had told her about Respondent's furtively pocketing a "stack" of homecoming dance tickets. Mr. Martin advised Ms. Nonamaker to telephone RSE to verify how many tickets RSE had actually sent the school. Ms. Nonamaker followed Mr. Martin's advice and telephoned RSE. During her telephone conversation, Ms. Nonamaker requested, and the RSE representative with whom she spoke promised to send her, a copy of the "invoice" for the tickets that RSE had sent FLHS. Four days later, Mr. Smith, RSE's president, wrote the October 16, 2007, letter (referred to above) indicating that 700 tickets had been sent to the school. A "few minutes" after Ms. Nonamaker had gotten off the telephone with the RSE representative, Respondent came into Ms. Nonamaker's office and demanded to know why she had called RSE.5 Ms. Nonamaker was taken aback by Respondent's "aggressive[ness] toward[s] [her]." She had "never" seen him be "that way" before. In response to his inquiry, she told him that she had merely "lost" the "invoice" for the tickets (which was not true) and therefore had asked RSE for a "duplicate copy." This seemed to satisfy Respondent. He left without pressing the matter any further. Before the start of homecoming dance ticket sales, Ms. Nonamaker, as she had done in previous years, went to Respondent's SGA leadership class and made a presentation to Respondent and the students in the class about the "whole" ticket-selling process, including the need for a receipt to be written for each ticket sold and for the proceeds of each sale to be turned in to her. In her presentation, Ms. Nonamaker emphasized that "everything ha[d] to go through [her] office." She also mentioned that this year the principal of the school was "under a special ticket audit." Homecoming dance tickets in the school's official "inventory" were sold each school day in the school auditorium during the A and B lunch periods starting on Monday, October 15, 2007, and ending on Friday, November 2, 2007. The tickets sold for $55.00 each the first week of ticket sales and for $60.00 each there afterwards. Tickets numbered 001 through 450 were released for sale by Ms. Nonamaker,6 but not all of these released tickets were sold. The tickets were sold in sequential numeric order. Ticket sales activity took place at two windows in the auditorium. Behind each window were two students from Respondent's SGA leadership class. S. S. and K. E., Respondent's chief of staff, were behind the first window (Window One).7 They had with them the "cashbox" that was picked up from Ms. Nonamaker's office each day. D. H. and A. H. were behind the second window (Window Two). Students wanting to purchase a ticket or tickets to the homecoming dance walked up to Window One and gave their money to one of the students behind the window (S. S. or K. E.), who placed the money in the "cash box." The other student behind the window wrote out a receipt in the receipt book8 (that was signed out for that purpose) and gave the white, student copy of the receipt to the purchasing student.9 The number (001, 002, etc.) of the ticket(s) the student purchased was written on the receipt. To obtain the actual ticket(s), the purchasing student had to go to Window Two and show the copy of the receipt obtained at Window One. Along with the ticket(s), at Window Two the purchasing student also received a "picture packet" (containing forms to order photographs taken at the dance), written directions to the Bahia Mar Beach Resort, and a set of homecoming dance rules (for which the student had to sign). The students behind Window Two (D. H. and A. H.) asked each purchasing student for the name of the person, if any, who would be coming to the dance as his or her "date." From the information that they obtained from the purchasing students, D. H. and A. H. compiled a list containing the names of those persons who would be attending the dance, their ticket numbers, and the names of their dates, if any. S. S. and/or K. E. relinquished control of the "cash box" each day after B Lunch, but not before counting the money in the "cash box" that had been collected that day and comparing it to receipts that had been written to make sure there was no shortage or overage. At no time (including on November 1 or 2, 2007) did either of them discover that the money and receipts did not "match." When the "cash box" was returned to her office, Ms. Nonamaker "would [also] count the money" and check it against the receipts. The money and receipts "always balance[d]." After verifying that the money and receipts "balance[d]," Ms. Nonamaker deposited the money in the SGA's bank account. Ms. Nonamaker was absent from school on the last two days of ticket sales, Thursday, November 1, 2007, and Friday, November 2, 2007, due to a death in the family. When she returned to school from leave on Tuesday, November 6, 2007, "the cash box and the receipt books were locked in the safe right where they should have been." She "counted all the money" and examined the receipt books. "[E]verything balanced perfectly." In the end, all of the money paid for the tickets sold by the students in the school auditorium from October 15, 2007, to November 2, 2007, wound up in the SGA's bank account, and all unsold tickets in the school's official "inventory" were accounted for. These ticket sales that took place in the school auditorium, however, were not the only 2007 homecoming dance ticket sales that were consummated from October 15, 2007, to November 2, 2007. Respondent also sold 2007 homecoming dance tickets during this period (and continued to do so up until the day before the dance), but the tickets he sold were not in the school's official "inventory" and he did not voluntarily turn in to Ms. Nonamaker (for deposit in the SGA's bank account) the proceeds from these sales. During the first week that tickets were on sale in the auditorium, Respondent sold (in his classroom) two tickets to G. G., a student in one of his classes. G. G. made the purchase after Respondent had announced to the class that students who purchased tickets from him would receive "ten points extra credit towards [their] grade[s]." G. G. paid Respondent $55.00 each for the two tickets, money which Respondent kept for himself. He did not give G. G. a receipt or anything else other than the two tickets she purchased from him. The tickets Respondent gave G. G. were tickets numbered 606 and 607. On or about October 22, 2007,10 at a time during the school day when tickets in the school's official "inventory" were on sale in the auditorium, G. G. walked up to Window One and asked for a receipt for her tickets. She explained that she had purchased the tickets from Respondent, who had not given her a receipt, and that she understood, from her friends, she needed a receipt to get a "picture packet." Instead of being given a receipt, G. G. was told to go see Ms. Nonamaker. G. G. immediately went to Ms. Nonamaker, who asked to see the tickets G. G. had purchased. G. G. did not have the tickets with her. G. G. brought the tickets to Ms. Nonamaker the following day. Ms. Nonamaker could see that these tickets "were not in [her] inventory." She therefore made photocopies of the tickets before returning them to G. G. G. G. was not the only student claiming to have purchased a ticket from Respondent who went to Window One during ticket sales in the auditorium to request a receipt. T. H. also did so. She walked up to the window on November 2, 2007, the last day of ticket sales, when K. E. was by herself behind the window. During her conversation with K. E., T. H. showed K. E. the ticket she had bought from Respondent, which was ticket numbered 611. Not wanting "to get in trouble," K. E. refused to give T. H. the receipt she had requested. As K. E. and T. H. were talking, Respondent came by the window, and he and T. H. began "arguing about [T. H.'s] getting a receipt." The dispute was ultimately resolved when Respondent wrote a receipt for the ticket "on a newspaper" and gave it to T. H., telling her, "If you really need a receipt, this is my receipt to you." Friday, November 9, 2007, was a "very busy day" at FLHS, particularly for the SGA. It was the day of the SGA- hosted pep rally and the day before the homecoming dance. Shortly before the pep rally was to begin, S. S. and N. R. went to Respondent's classroom to retrieve a print-out of a list, "saved on [Respondent's] computer," of those who would be attending the dance. Respondent was not there. While in the classroom, S. S. looked in an unlocked drawer in Respondent's desk, where she found a "lost" receipt book that had been signed out to Respondent during the 2005-2006 school year and subsequently reported missing, as well as a white envelope containing 2007 homecoming dance tickets. The envelope contained some, but not all, of the tickets (numbered 551 through 700) that were in the envelope that N. R. had found in Respondent's desk several weeks previous. S. S. informed Ms. Nonamaker of what she had found in Respondent's desk. Ms. Nonamaker contacted Bennie Brown, an assistant principal at the school, who, in turn, notified the school principal, Dr. Gina Eyerman, that homecoming dance tickets had been "stolen or [were] missing." After hearing from Mr. Brown, Dr. Eyerman went to Ms. Nonamaker's office and "asked her what was going on." While Dr. Eyerman was in Ms. Nonamaker's office, S. S. and N. R. telephoned Ms. Nonamaker from Respondent's classroom. Ms. Nonamaker handed the phone to Dr. Eyerman, who instructed S. S. and N. R. to bring the lost" receipt book and the tickets S. S. had found, as well as the list they had printed out, to Ms. Nonamaker's office immediately. S. S. and N. R. complied with Dr. Eyerman's request. Dr. Eyerman examined the tickets S. S. and N. R. had brought her and determined which tickets (from tickets numbered 551 through 700) were missing. (It was not until later on that she would become aware that tickets numbered 551 through 700 were not in the school's official "inventory.") Dr. Eyerman called Respondent to Ms. Nonamaker's office in the hopes that he would be able to shed some light on the matter. She also summoned Brian O'Toole, another assistant principal at the school. When asked about the tickets Dr. Eyerman had determined to be missing, Respondent told Dr. Eyerman that a student must have stolen them, a representation that Respondent knew was not true. He made no mention at this time of his selling these tickets. Dr. Eyerman next turned her attention to the "lost" receipt book that had been retrieved from Respondent's desk. Among the receipts written by Respondent that were in this receipt book were five receipts for 2007 homecoming dance tickets, each indicating that $60.00 had been paid for the ticket that had been purchased. Two were dated November 2, 2007: receipt numbers 1909974 and 1909975. The former had no student/purchaser name nor ticket number on it. The latter indicated the T. M. R. had purchased the ticket and that 610 was the number of the ticket she had been given. The remaining three receipts were dated November 9, 2007: receipt number 1909978, issued to B. P. for having purchased ticket numbered 624; receipt number 1909979, issued to J. S. P., for having purchased ticket numbered 625; and receipt number 1909980, issued to S. H. for having purchased ticket numbered 626. When asked by Dr. Eyerman about the tickets referenced in receipt numbers 1909974 and 1909975, Respondent told Dr. Eyerman that these two tickets "were complimentary" and he had not collected any money for them (which was inconsistent with the representations he had made in the receipts themselves that he had received $60.00 for each ticket). With respect to the receipts for tickets numbered 624, 625, and 626, Respondent said to Dr. Eyerman, "I just must have picked up the wrong receipt book and wrote the receipts in the wrong book." Dr. Eyerman informed Respondent that he "need[ed] to pay for those tickets now." Respondent took out from his pocket $180.00 (the amount he had received for these three tickets) and gave the money to Ms. Nonamaker for deposit in the SGA's bank account. Ms. Nonamaker had Respondent re-write the receipts for these three tickets in the correct receipt book. Although Respondent sold other tickets (numbered above 550) to the 2007 homecoming dance, the $180.00 that he gave to Ms. Nonamaker for these three tickets (only after he had been directed to so by Dr Eyerman) was the only ticket sales money that he turned in. He kept the rest. A plan was devised at this impromptu November 9, 2007, meeting Dr. Eyerman had convened in Ms. Nonamaker's office to find out who had taken the tickets that Respondent had reported (at the meeting) as stolen. Respondent and Mr. O'Toole were "directed by Dr. Eyerman to check in individuals at the dance." Anyone checking in with a ticket numbered 551 or above was to be questioned by Mr. O'Toole and asked, among other things, from whom he or she had purchased the ticket. Mr. O'Toole was to record the information provided by the ticket holder on a pre- printed form that he would prepare for that purpose. Respondent was present when this plan was formulated. He knew that, pursuant to the plan, it would be his responsibility, when checking in students at the dance, to direct those with tickets numbered 551 or above to Mr. O'Toole. After thinking about the matter overnight (and evidently realizing that the truth concerning the tickets he had sold would be discovered when the purchasers of those tickets were questioned by Mr. O'Toole), the following morning (Saturday, November 10, 2007, the day of the dance), at 8:00 a.m., Respondent telephoned Dr. Eyerman on her personal cell phone and acknowledged that he had not been truthful with her the day before when he had told her that the missing tickets had been stolen. He informed her that he had actually sold these tickets, which was the truth. He went on, however, to offer a fabricated excuse for his conduct. He falsely claimed that he had sold the tickets in order to replace the money "the students had stolen" from the "cash box" the first day of Ms. Nonamaker's absence (on November 1, 2007),11 nine days earlier.12 According to what Respondent told Dr. Eyerman, he had sold the tickets, rather than report the alleged theft of the money, because he "didn't want the get the kids in trouble."13 There was no credible evidence presented at hearing, however, that S. S., K. E.,14 or anyone else stole money from the "cash box."15 Dr. Eyerman decided that, notwithstanding that Respondent had changed his story about what had happened to the missing tickets, it would be best "to follow the [dance check in] procedures that [she] had already put into place" and have Mr. O'Toole question the students who had tickets numbered 551 or above. Mr. O'Toole and Respondent were both informed of Dr. Eyerman's decision. That evening at the dance, Mr. O'Toole and Respondent stationed themselves at a table in front of the Commodore Ballroom in the Bahia Mar Beach Resort and checked in students as they arrived. Twelve students with tickets numbered 551 or above were questioned by Mr. O'Toole in accordance with the plan that had been devised the previous day,16 and Mr. O'Toole filled out a form for each student that he questioned. T. M. R. was one of these students. She told Mr. O'Toole that she had purchased her ticket (numbered 610) for "cash" from Respondent (which was inconsistent with the representation that Respondent had made the day before to Dr. Eyerman about the ticket's being "complimentary"). The total number of tickets held by the students questioned by Mr. O'Toole was less than half the number of tickets that had been determined to be missing from the "stack" found in Respondent's desk. G. G. was among the students with a ticket numbered 551 or above who attended the dance. Respondent checked her in, but did not direct her to Mr. O'Toole, contrary to the instructions he had been given. The "first day back to school after the dance," Tuesday, November 13, 2007,17 a meeting was held at which Dr. Eyerman, Mr. O'Toole, and Ms. Nonamaker reviewed the forms containing the information Mr. O'Toole had obtained from the students he questioned at the dance. When Ms. Nonamaker looked at the forms, she noticed that G. G. was not among the students from whom Mr. O'Toole had obtained information. Ms. Nonamaker knew that G. G. had two tickets numbered above 551,18 and brought the matter to the attention of Mr. O'Toole, who "called [G. G.] down to the office" and "spoke with her." In response to Mr. O'Toole's questions, G. G. told Mr. O'Toole that Respondent had "waived [her] in" to the dance. Mr. O'Toole proceeded to get additional information from G. G. so that he could fill out a form for her like he did for the students he interviewed the evening of the dance. Among the things that G. G. related to Mr. O'Toole and that Mr. O'Toole wrote down on the form was that G. G. had purchased her tickets (numbered 606 and 607) "for $55 each" from Respondent "during class" the "1st week of sales" (which was the week of October 15, 2007). This contradicted the story Respondent had told Dr. Eyerman on the morning of November 10, 2007, that he had sold tickets only to recoup the money that had been stolen from the "cash box" on November 1, 2007 (which was a different story than the one he had told Dr. Eyerman at the November 9, 2007, meeting in Ms. Nonamaker's office). Upon learning of the information Mr. O'Toole had obtained from the students, particularly from G. G., it became "clear" to Dr. Eyerman that Respondent, once again, had not been "truthful with [her]." Consequently, Dr. Eyerman immediately requested in writing that the School Board's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigate the matter. Robert Spence was the SIU investigator assigned the case. On February 21, 2008, after completing his investigation, Mr. Spence issued his Investigative Report. The Professional Standards Committee (made up of 14 members appointed by the Superintendent) reviewed Mr. Spence's report and determined that there was probable cause to take disciplinary action against Respondent. The committee recommended that Respondent be terminated. The Superintendent concurred that Respondent's employment should be terminated, and he subsequently issued the Administrative Complaint that is the subject of this disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a professional service contract teacher with the School Board for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 5th day of May, 2009.
