Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner was formerly employed by Respondent as a Human Services Worker assigned to the Landmark Learning Center, a residential facility located in Dade County. She began her employment on May 10, 1985. On January 13, 1989, Petitioner received the following memorandum from the Residential Services Director of Facility I at Landmark: In reviewing your time and attendance record from August, 1988, I have observed that you are exhibiting excessive absences and/or tardiness. These frequent absences place an unfair burden on your coworkers and interfere with the operations of this center. Therefore they will no longer be tolerated. Effective on the date you receive this communication, the following restrictions will be in effect: As always, you are expected to have all leave time approved in advance by your immediate supervisor. You are expected to submit a doctor's statement justifying your absence prior to the approval of any sick leave, annual-sick leave, or family-sick leave. You will not be allowed to substitute any other type of leave for these absences. Failure to comply with the above restrictions will result in disapproved leave without pay for the dates in question, and a recommendation for disciplinary action based on absence without authorized leave. In addition a continued pattern of excessive absence could result in disciplinary action for excessive absence/tardiness. All disciplinary [action] will be in accordance with HRS-P-60-1, Employee's handbook. I am confident that you will correct this situation in a satisfactory manner. At no time prior to the termination of Petitioner's employment with Respondent were the "restrictions" imposed by this memorandum lifted. In early 1990, Petitioner sustained an on-the-job injury. As a result of the injury, Petitioner was on authorized leave from February 25, 1990, until April 4, 1990. When she returned to work on April 5, 1990, Petitioner was assigned to "light duty" in the field office of which Sylvia Davis, a Senior Residential Unit Supervisor, was in charge. Petitioner's working hours were 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Petitioner was advised that Roberta Barnes would be her immediate supervisor during her "light duty" assignment. On April 5, 1990, Petitioner worked six and a half hours. She was on authorized leave the remainder of her shift. On April 6 and 7, 1990, she worked her full shift. On April 8 and 9, 1990, Petitioner did not report to work. She telephoned the field office before the beginning of her shift on each of these days and left word that she would not be at work because she was experiencing pain in her lower back and right leg; however, she never received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on these days. April 10 and 11, 1990, were scheduled days off for Petitioner. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on April 11, 1990, Petitioner telephoned the field office and gave notice that, inasmuch as her physical condition remained unchanged, she would not be at work the following day. Petitioner did not report to work on April 12, 1990. Although she had telephoned the field office the night before to give advance notice of her absence, at no time had she received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on April 12, 1990. On April 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1990, Petitioner did not report to work because she was still not feeling well. She neither telephoned the field office to give advance notice of her absences, nor obtained supervisory authorization to be absent on these days. April 17 and 18, 1990, were scheduled days off for Petitioner. Prior to the scheduled commencement of her shift on April 19, 1990, Petitioner telephoned the field office to indicate that she would not be at work that day because she had a doctor's appointment, but that she hoped to return to work on April 20, 1990. Petitioner did not report to work on April 19, 1990. Although she had telephoned the field office to give advance notice of her absence, at no time had she received supervisory authorization to be absent from work on that day. On April 19, 1990, Petitioner was sent the following letter by the Superintendent of Landmark: You have not called in or reported to work since April 12, 1990 and therefore you have abandoned your position as a Human Services Worker II and are deemed to have resigned from the Career Service according to Chapter 22A-7.010(2)(a) of Personnel Rules and Regulations of the Career Service System. Your resignation will be effective on the date that you receive this letter or on the date we receive the undelivered letter advising you of your abandonment. You have the right to petition the State Personnel Director, 530 Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 for review of the facts. Such petition must be filed within twenty (20) calendar days after receipt of this letter. At approximately 12:40 a.m. on Friday, April 20, 1990, unaware that she had been deemed to have resigned her position, Petitioner telephoned the field office to give notice that she would be out of work until after her doctor's appointment on Monday, April 23, 1990. On April 23, 1990, Petitioner again telephoned the field office to advise that she had to undergo further medical testing and therefore would remain out of work until the required tests were performed. Petitioner's call was transferred to Elaine Olsen, a Personnel Technician II at Landmark, who told Petitioner about the letter the Superintendent had sent to Petitioner the previous Thursday. Petitioner received the letter on April 30, 1990. Petitioner did not report to work during the period referenced in the Superintendent's letter because she was not feeling well. She did not intend, by not reporting to work on these days, to resign or abandon her position. It was her intention to return to work when she felt well enough to do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order (1) finding that Petitioner did not abandon her career service position, and (2) directing Respondent to reinstate Petitioner with back pay. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of May, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 16th day of May, 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop Work Order issued on July 27, 2007, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were lawful.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. The Department is charged with the administration of portions of the "Workers' Compensation Law." Versa-Tile is a corporation headquartered in Mary Esther, Florida. Versa-Tile is engaged in flooring, which is a construction activity. Michelle Newcomer is an Insurance Analyst II with the working title of Workers' Compensation Compliance Investigator. She maintains an office in Pensacola, Florida. It is her job to travel to work sites and to verify compliance with the Workers' Compensation Law. She is authorized by the Division to issue an SWO and to calculate and assess penalties. On July 24, 2007, Ms. Newcomer was conducting compliance investigations at random sites in the Alys Beach area of Walton County, Florida. While doing so she noticed three individuals in the garage at the rear of a house at 23 Whitby. They were removing tools from a toolbox and "working." Ms. Newcomer identified the men as Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie. The third man on the site was named "Barker." Barker asserted that he was not doing any work, but was there just to give the men a ride. He was deemed not involved in the work being accomplished at the site. Ms. Newcomer interviewed Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie. They both told her that they were exempt officers of Versa-Tile. It is found as a fact that the 2006 For Profit Corporate Annual Report of Versa-Tile signed on April 26, 2006, and filed with the Department of State on May 1, 2006, listed Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie as corporate officers of Versa-Tile. They were not corporate officers of Versa-Tile prior to April 26, 2006. Adrian Womack worked for Versa-Tile from July 29, 2005, until April 25, 2006, as an employee. He was not an officer and was not, and could not be, exempt. Kent Degallerie worked for Versa-Tile from May 6, 2005, until April 25, 2006, as an employee. He was not an officer and was not, and could not be, exempt. Nicholas Womack, who was not present at the Alys Beach site, is listed therein as president of Versa-Tile and has been exempt during all times pertinent. As corporate officers, Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie could be exempt from the usual requirement that workers be covered by workers' compensation insurance even though they were also employees of Versa-Tile who were paid wages. Ms. Newcomer obtained their full names and social security numbers so that she could verify their claimed exemption. She determined from the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System that there were no records of exemption being obtained for them. Ms. Newcomer confirmed with an examiner in the Pensacola office that Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie were not on the list of exempt persons. She issued a Request for Production of Business Records dated July 24, 2007. She personally served these documents on Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie. She issued an SWO, dated July 27, 2007, and personally served it on Nicholas Womack. If a person is a ten percent owner of a corporation or limited liability company they are entitled to obtain an exemption from the Department. An exemption is obtained by completing the "Notice of Election to be Exempt" form. This form when properly completed and accompanied by certain required documents, a $50 application fee, and submitted to the Division, will cause the Division to grant an exemption. If the Department determines that a person is exempt upon receiving a properly submitted form and payment, the Department will issue a card reflecting exemption. Neither Adrian Womack nor Kent Degallerie had such a card on July 24, 2007. During all times pertinent, the Department had no record indicating it had received any payment from Nicholas Womack, Adrian Womack, or Kent Degallerie that would have been tendered on behalf of Adrian Womack or Kent Degallerie. On July 27, 2007, Ms. Newcomer met with Nicholas Womack, president of Versa-Tile in her office in Pensacola and personally served him a Request for Production of Business Records. Later, Nicholas Womack provided employment records to Ms. Newcomer. On July 30, 2007, the Department and Versa-Tile entered into an agreement that permitted Versa-Tile to go back to work. Using workers' compensation class code 5348 for employees Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie, Ms. Newcomer correctly calculated the premium that should have been paid, if they were mere employees, as $8,455.56, and multiplied that figure by the statutory penalty of 1.5. She correctly determined the total to be $12,683.35. The parties stipulated that to the extent the figure applies, it is correct. Nicholas Womack at all times pertinent had an exemption. Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie were granted exemptions by the Department on July 30, 2007. These were the first exemptions from workers' compensation coverage that they had ever received while in a business relationship with Versa- Tile. The Division receives from 90,000 to 96,000 construction exemption applications yearly. They also receive between 30,000 to 35,000 non-construction exemption applications annually. The applications may be provided by applicants to the Department by hand-delivery at a field office or to the Department headquarters in Tallahassee, or by mail to a field office or to the Department headquarters in Tallahassee. Errors may occur in this process because of mistakes or omissions in the applications filed by the applicant or because of data entry errors by personnel in the Department. However, the process is sufficiently simple and automated that usually, when a complete application is filed, the exemption issues, and the applicant is, thereafter, provided a card reflecting the exemption via mail. There are ten field offices in the state to which applicants may file applications for exemptions. The field office in Panama City, Florida, at least the portion that accepted exemption applications, closed in 2005. However, the forms still listed Panama City as an address to which one might mail an application for exemption. The president of Versa-Tile, Nicholas Womack, has filed for and obtained three exemptions since he created Versa- Tile. Prior to incorporating Versa-Tile, he owned another business by the name of Nicholas Womack Flooring, Inc. He previously had two officers, Michael Smith and Mitchell Smedley, working with him at Versa-Tile, but he removed them as corporate officers so that Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie could be corporate officers. Mr. Smith's exemption was revoked April 27, 2006, by the filing of a Notice of Revocation of Election to be Exempt with the Department. This roughly coincided with the naming of Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie as corporate officers. Department of State corporate records, as of May 1, 2006, reflected that Versa-Tile had three officers: Nicholas Womack, Adrian Womack, and Kent Degallerie. In order to obtain a certificate of exemption, Nicholas Womack filed the appropriate form with the Department, along with proof that he held a contractor's license, stock certificates, and $50.00. He followed this process on three occasions while president of Versa-Tile. The evidence of record reveals exemptions granted to Nicholas Womack on January 25, 2005, and May 18, 2006, while president of Versa-Tile. He claims not to ever have received a certificate evidencing exemption from the Department while president of Versa-Tile. Nicholas Womack testified that on only one of the occasions, when he was operating Nicholas Womack Flooring, Inc., did the Department mail him a card reflecting his exemption and stated that occurred in 2001 or 2002. Nicholas Womack understands that by not obtaining coverage under workers' compensation insurance he and the other two corporate officers of Versa-Tile would not be compensated should they be injured on the job. Nicholas Womack explained to Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie that they were eligible for an exemption, and if they got an exemption and were injured, they would not be covered by workers' compensation insurance. Nicholas Womack testified that thereafter he helped the two men fill out the appropriate forms and ensured that all necessary attachments, including two money orders in the correct amount, were present and then mailed the applications, one in each envelope, to the Department's Panama City office. As soon as the applications were mailed, Nicholas continued allowing the men to work for Versa-Tile without waiting for the exemptions to be granted. Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie first received exemption on July 30, 2007. Subsequent to July 30, 2007, Nicholas asked Adrian Womack if he had received an exemption card. Adrian Womack said that he had not. Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie both stated that they had not received an exemption card after filing for exemption in July 2007. Nicholas Womack's testimony that he only received one certificate of exemption in seven years of enjoying an exempt status lacks credibility. Even considering that the Department is large and it annually processes huge amounts of paperwork, it is quite improbable that on six occasions they would fail to send Nicholas Womack a certificate. That being the case, Nicholas Womack's testimony that he mailed completed applications for Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie to the Department's Panama City office and never received any type of response, when considered in concert with his other testimony, is not credible. It is a fact that Nicholas Womack, Adrian Womack, and Kent Degallerie were eligible for an exemption subsequent to April 26, 2006. If exempt, they were responsible for their own expenses should they suffer an injury while on the job. If they failed to get an exemption, they were likewise responsible for their own expenses should they suffer an injury while on the job. This situation is very different from that where an employer fails to obtain coverage for workers not having an ownership interest in the employer, as was the case with Versa- Tile prior to April 26, 2006.
Recommendation Based upon the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order requiring Versa-Tile and Marble, Inc., to pay a penalty of $12,683.35. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 25th day of January, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristian E. Dunn, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Michael James Rudicell, Esquire Michael J. Rudicell, P.A. 4303 B Spanish Trail Road Pensacola, Florida 32504 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Proposed transfer of Bernice Ino, as specified in letter of Anthony Ninos, Director of Division of Hotels and Restaurants, dated July 27, 1976. This is an appeal of a career service employee pursuant to Section 110.061, Florida Statutes. The appeal was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Career Service Commission on November 24, 1976.
Findings Of Fact By the General Appropriations act emanating from the 1976 state legislative session, 38 employee positions of the Respondent's Division of Hotel and Restaurants were abolished. Although the specific positions were not identified in the appropriations act, the Division director was informed by a staff representative of the legislative committee on appropriations that 25 Hotel and Restaurant Inspector I positions and six Inspector II positions should be among those eliminated. The Division previously had 103 Inspectors of the two classes. Respondent identified the positions statewide to be eliminated and requested the Secretary, Department of Administration, to approve the concept that the competitive area for layoff of employees be statewide within the Division. Approval of this plan was secured and Respondent proceeded to abolish the positions and to layoff Inspectors in its various districts throughout the state. Since the Division at the time had eight vacancies for Inspector positions only 23 employees were actually eliminated. Layoffs were carried out under a retention point system based on length of service and performance evaluations, computed and applied under the provisions of Department of Administration Emergency Rule 22AER76-1, Subject "Emergency Rule Governing Layoff of Career Service Employees". As to Inspectors I, the 83 such positions in the state were placed on a numerical list, according to total number of retention points of each employee, and those with the lowest numbers were selected for layoff. Seven employees were terminated in District I (Jacksonville) and one in District IV (Ft. Lauderdale). (Testimony of Ninos, Dorn, Exhibits 1, 9-12) As a result of the abolishment of Inspector positions, there was an imbalance in manning levels in the various state districts. In Jacksonville, there had been eight inspector positions. The abolishment of three of these left five vacancies that had to be filled. On the other hand, there were negative vacancies in the Ft. Lauderdale district. The Division director therefore instructed the Respondents' personnel officer, Lee Dorn, to reapportion the state to effectively cover all inspection areas. Specifically, he directed that five Inspector I positions be transferred to Jacksonville, 3 of them to come from the Ft. Lauderdale district. In a Memorandum to Dorn, dated July 15, 1976, the director identified the three positions in Ft. Lauderdale for transfer as those held by A. V. Maloni, Bernice N. Ino, and J. F. Friedman. The retention points of these employees had been calculated respectively at 210, 169, and 165. These three employees, and two others to be transferred to Jacksonville from District V, were those Inspectors who had the lowest number of retention points after those having less retention points had been laid off. It was stipulated by the parties that the number of retention joints calculated for Petitioner is correct based on the criteria set forth in the Department of Administration's Emergency Rule. (Testimony of Ninos, Dorn, Exhibit 2) It thereafter developed that of the three Ft. Lauderdale employees, Petitioner was the only one who would actually have had to take an involuntary transfer to Jacksonville. Mr. Friedman, who had less retention points, secured a new position with another agency. Maloni, who had more retention points than Petitioner, was reassigned to a position in the Ft. Lauderdale district that was vacated when the incumbent, in turn, was reassigned to another position made vacant by the illness and eventual separation of its incumbent, John W. Murray. The person replacing Murray, A. J. Pergament, had 792 retention points. (Testimony of Ninos, Dorn, Smith, Exhibits 4, 6-8, 14-21) Petitioner was orally informed in late June of her proposed transfer by her District Supervisor, Chauncey D. Smith. This was followed by a letter, dated July 27, 1976, from the Division director that formally advised her of the transfer of her position to the Jacksonville district, effective August 1, 1976. The letter gave as a basis for the transfer the fact that legislative abolishment of positions made it necessary for the Division to reapportion its staffing to effectively cover all inspection areas and that the proposed changes were being made to obtain "equity, effectiveness, and efficiency within our districts". The letter further advised Petitioner of her right to appeal the transfer to the Career Service Commission. Although this letter did not reach Petitioner through the mail due to an incorrect address, a copy was personally served on her on July 29. Petitioner acknowledges that the incorrect address was due to her negligence in advising Respondent correctly as to the same. In a memo to Petitioner, dated July 28, Smith had conveyed Division instructions for her to report to Jacksonville on August 2. Petitioner declined to accept the transfer. She filed her appeal by letter of July 31, 1976 and thereafter resigned, effective August 2, 1976. Her appeal letter stated that she had not been given sufficient notice to relocate and that the transfer would be a great financial hardship due to the fact that she had purchased a home in the area recently. (Testimony of Dorn, Smith, Ino, Exhibits 3, 13, 22-23) At a meeting with Smith and the Division's Chief of Enforcement, B. E. Fernandez, in early August, Petitioner was informed that she would be given the next opening in Ft. Lauderdale. In fact, Inspector Murray was not separated until November but his job had been filled on a temporary basis by Maloni. When Murray was finally separated, Maloni stayed in the position. Petitioner had been told by Smith that it would be a hardship for Maloni to suffer a transfer because of family considerations, but would not be so difficult for her because she could obtain unemployment compensation and she need not be concerned because her husband was working. When Murray finally departed, Petitioner called the Division director regarding the promise that she would have the next opening and he wrote her in December, 1976, that, although she was next in line for any vacancy, Maloni had received Murray's job because he had more retention points. Also, during this period, Fernandez and Smith offered Petitioner openings in Gainesville and Daytona Beach, but she declined to accept them because she wished to stay in Broward County. Smith also suggested that she get a job as a hostess or cocktail waitress because she was cute and petite. (Testimony of Ino, Smith, Fernandez, Exhibit 4) Petitioner testified that she was of the opinion her sex was a factor in the matter because nothing was done for her by Division personnel and because of the comments made by Smith concerning her eligibility for unemployment compensation and his comments concerning the possibility of her becoming a cocktail waitress. (Testimony of Ino) Petitioner was employed by Respondent from June 1, 1973 to August 2, 1977. She had performed her duties in an exemplary manner. (Testimony of McCulley)
Recommendation It is recommended that the Career Service Commission deny the appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Winson Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Roger D. Haagenson 800 E. Broward Building Suite 610 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the Hearing Officer recommends that the transfer of John Jackson, Sr., be sustained. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John Jackson, Jr., Department of Environmental Regulation 2551 Executive Center Circle, West Lafayette Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Petitioner’s reclassification and transfer from career service to the selected exempt service pursuant to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001), was valid and lawful. All citations are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated.
Findings Of Fact Prior to July 1, 2001, Petitioner was a career service employee of Respondent, for whom she had worked since 1988. On that date, Petitioner was involuntarily reclassified as a selected exempt employee of Respondent. Both before and after her reclassification, Petitioner’s job required her to act as a liaison and contract administrator for technical consulting contracts relating to Respondent’s information technology systems. Respondent contends that it reclassified Ms. Georgalis to selected exempt service in July 2001 as a result of amendments to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statues. Consequently, the Section then read, in pertinent part, as follows: (2) EXEMPT POSITIONS.--The exempt positions that are not covered by this part include the following: * * * (x) Effective July 1, 2001, managerial employees, as defined in s. 447.203(4), confidential employees, as defined in s. 447.203(5), and supervisory employees who spend the majority of their time communicating with, motivating, training, and evaluating employees, and planning and directing employees' work, and who have the authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline subordinate employees or effectively recommend such action, including all employees serving as supervisors, administrators, and directors. Respondent reclassified all persons who were "Level VI managers and Level 5 supervisors" to select exempt service as a result of the content of Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes. Respondent did not confirm that the responsibilities and duties of the position occupied by Petitioner necessitated reclassification to select exempt employee status. Petitioner’s job duties were substantively different from other persons within the DP Level VI occupational group.1 Petitioner did not primarily oversee the work of Respondent's employees as required by the career service exemption. Moreover, she did not even oversee the work of non-governmental supplemental or augment persons who were providing services that could otherwise be provided by departmental employees, assuming such oversight is relevant to the statutory exemption. Petitioner's role was primarily that of liaison and coordinator between Respondent's management and end users of Respondent’s planned technology services, including Respondent's employees who would use the technology that was being developed, as well as construction companies and engineers outside Respondent's department who would ultimately use such technology in working on department's construction projects in the future. Another part of her duties was the administration of contracts between the Department and outside contractors, and in doing so she dealt with independent subcontractor technical consultants who had subcontracts with those outside contractors. These technical subcontractor consultants were not augment employees, and Petitioner was not knowledgeable enough to supervise them on a technical basis. In Petitioner's words, "They spoke an entirely different language." She presented them with broad goals formulated by higher management and served as the conduit to inform them as to whether their work product was acceptable to Respondent and other end users. Petitioner’s job description, both before and after her transfer, confirmed that her position was a “senior level career service data processing position.” She was not required to spend the majority of her time “communicating with, motivating, training, and evaluating employees, and planning and directing employees’ work.” Petitioner was only expected to spend approximately 10 percent of her time overseeing the work of the two state employees working in her area. As established by her testimony, Petitioner never spent more than 3 percent of her time supervising those state employees. Furthermore, the two state employees assigned to specialized technologies were supervised by another employee after the Summer of 2001. At hearing, Respondent's only witness, suggested that Petitioner spent 60 percent of her time supervising “employees,” but he did not know what percentage of that time was spent overseeing the work of career service employees. Testimony of Respondent's witness, Nelson Hill, in this regard is not credited in view of his admission that he was not housed in the Rhynne Building in 2001, where Petitioner was located, and thus had no first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day activities of Petitioner or the other persons working at that building. In any event, a majority of the persons which Hill contends were “supervised” by Petitioner (six out of eight) were not employees of Respondent, but were rather independent subcontractors whose services Respondent retained through contracts with outside third parties. These technical consultants were subcontractors under state approved contracts. They were not “hired” by Respondent. Further, they were not paid by the State, but were rather compensated pursuant to their agreement with the third party state contractor. They were not provided with any insurance, pension, unemployment or worker’s compensation benefits, but were instead treated as true independent contractors; and, most importantly, they were not protected by career service protections, as would have been required if they were indeed state employees. In sum, Respondent's position, as expounded by Hill at the final hearing, is that the application of the exemption provided in Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes, may be justifiably applied to Petitioner due to Petitioner's alleged oversight of the independent subcontractors even though they were not “employees” of Respondent.2 The evidence does not support a conclusion that Petitioner spent a majority of her time “supervising” anyone. Petitioner’s position description confirms that her contract administration activities consumed no more than 35 percent of her time. By that description, Petitioner was required to provide “daily direction of consultant activities” and “manage, direct, and supervise technical and administrative staff." In actuality, Petitioner spent less than 25 percent of her time in such activities. Petitioner spent the vast majority of her time gathering and transmitting information regarding technological and budgetary needs and facilitating the flow of information from the end users (i.e., Respondent's employees or outside construction contractors and engineers who would use the proposed technology) to Respondent management and back again. Any oversight provided by Petitioner to the technical consultants was exactly the same as that provided to other third-party companies with which Respondent had contracts. These outside companies and technical consultants were engaged by Respondent because they had the skill to achieve the goals that were presented to them within the budget that was established by Respondent. Petitioner's interaction with these persons was not “supervision” of a state employee, but rather “contract administration.” Petitioner’s position descriptions specifically confirm that she was not a “managerial” or “confidential” employee as that term is defined in Section 447.203(4) and (5), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, based on the duties and responsibilities contained in Petitioner’s position description and the actual duties she performed, there is no basis for concluding that Petitioner was subject to exemption from career service as concluded by Respondent in July 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Department of Transportation should enter a final order finding that the position held by Petitioner Mavis R. Georgalis on July 1, 2001, was not properly classified into the selected exempt service. Petitioner was, and should continue to be, classified as a career service employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 2nd day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Andrea Bateman, is a female. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Bateman was 41 or 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman is an attorney. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was a member of The Florida Bar during the period of time at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. Ms. Bateman's Employment by the Department. In October of 1990, the Department employed Ms. Bateman as an attorney in the Department's Office of Child Support Enforcement. Ms. Bateman was required to be a member of The Florida Bar. Ms. Bateman's position with the Department was classified as a "Select Exempt Service" position. Pursuant to Chapter 22SE-1.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, and Part V, Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, persons employed in select exempt service positions may be terminated from employment without cause. Ms. Bateman's immediate supervisor was Chriss Walker. Mr. Walker is a Senior Attorney with the Department and, at the time Ms. Bateman was hired, also served as the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement. As of December 4, 1991, the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement, and Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor was Anne F. Donovan. At all times relevant to this proceeding, William H. Bentley was an Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Department with supervisory authority over the Department's Assistant Secretary's, including Mr. Walker and Ms. Donovan. "Productivity Enhancement" at the Department. During 1991, the Department was required to evaluate all employment positions at the Department and to reduce those positions in an effort to improve the productivity of the Department. Generally, all positions at the Department and the work performed by the persons filling those positions were considered and decisions were made as to which positions could be eliminated. The Department referred to the elimination of positions as "red-lining". The Department also made efforts to insure that any person affected by the elimination of their position would be placed in another position. Ms. Bateman's attorney position with Child Support Enforcement was identified for elimination. Another attorney position in Child Support Enforcement and Mr. Walker's Senior Attorney position were not identified for elimination. The decision to eliminate one of the attorney positions was based upon conclusion that the administrative duties of the two attorney positions could be handled by a paralegal position and the legal duties could then be handled by one attorney. Efforts to assist Ms. Bateman to find another position were not successful. Ultimately, the Department decided to find a position in which to continue to employ Ms. Bateman rather than to terminate her position and release her. The Department reclassified another vacant position so that Ms. Bateman could continue to be employed as an attorney for Child Support Enforcement. Mr. Walker was directed to create an attorney position for Ms. Bateman by the Assistant Secretary for Human Services. This decision was made during the early Fall of 1991. The Department's decision to continue to employ Ms. Bateman was based in part on the Department's concern about terminating an employee of the Department. The evidence failed to prove that the Department acted unreasonably with regard to the red-lining of Ms. Bateman's position. Ms. Bateman's Performance. During the year after Ms. Bateman began her employment with the Department, Mr. Walker, Ms. Bateman's supervisor, began to develop concerns about the adequacy of her work product. Ms. Bateman also began to evidence behavior which was not acceptable for an attorney of the Department. As a result of Ms. Bateman's odd behavior, Mr. Walker became concerned about Ms. Bateman's mental well-being. Mr. Walker memorialized his concerns about Ms. Bateman in a memorandum to Mr. Bentley dated December 2, 1991. The memorandum was revised December 19, 1991 to eliminate references to a counselor that Ms. Bateman had informed Mr. Walker she was seeing. Ms. Bateman's work deteriorated to an extent which necessitated other employees carrying out some of her duties. Among the difficulties experienced with Ms. Bateman which formed a reasonable basis for terminating her employment were the following: Ms. Bateman had difficulty communicating with other employees and her supervisor. As an attorney, Ms. Bateman was required to communicate orally and in writing. She was unable to do so in an adequate manner. Ms. Bateman failed to demonstrate good judgment and trustworthiness and, therefore, her supervisors were unable to rely upon her judgment as an attorney of the Department. Ms. Bateman's appearance was unacceptable for an employee of the Department who was required to meet and communicate with the public. Ms. Bateman's hair was unkempt and dirty, her clothes were often soiled and wrinkled, she failed to brush her teeth and she appeared not to be bathing based upon her appearance and her strong body odor. Although required to do so by Department policy, Ms. Bateman refused to give her supervisor a permanent home address or phone number. On one occasion Ms. Bateman was found asleep in the offices of the Department at night and on one occasion she was found asleep during working hours. Based upon the inadequacy of Ms. Bateman's performance, the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment. Mr. Walker's Evaluation of Ms. Bateman. On December 18, 1991, Mr. Walker presented Ms. Bateman with a Professional Employee Performance Appraisal form he had completed on her performance. The Appraisal was reviewed by Ms. Bateman and signed by her on December 18, 1991. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance a rating of "effective" on the Appraisal. Of the factors evaluated on the Appraisal, Mr. Walker judged Ms. Bateman's performance as "excellent" on one factor, "effective" on eleven factors and "needs improvement" on nine factors. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance an "effective" rating despite his conclusion that her work product was not acceptable and despite his concerns about her inappropriate behavior. He did so because he had recently been directed to create a position to keep Ms. Bateman as an employee of the Department and in an effort to avoid litigation over Ms. Bateman's termination. Mr. Walker did not believe that his supervisors wanted to avoid any difficulties concerning Ms. Bateman employment. Mr. Walker failed to follow Department procedure in presenting the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman. The Appraisal was required to be reviewed and approved by Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor, Ms. Donovan, before it was given to Ms. Bateman. Mr. Walker, contrary to Department policy, presented the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman before Ms. Donovan had seen and approved it. Ms. Donovan was aware of the problems with Ms. Bateman's performance and would not have approved an "effective" rating. Upon receiving the Appraisal, Ms. Donovan discussed the Appraisal with Mr. Walker and rejected it, as it was her right to do. Ms. Donovan, consistent with Department policy, specified that Ms. Bateman would be evaluated again in sixty days. The Department's Request that Ms. Bateman Undergo a Psychological Evaluation. Although the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment by the end of 1991 and in early 1992, the Department decided to attempt to discover the cause of Ms. Bateman's decline in performance and the onset of her odd behavior rather than terminate her employment. The Department made this decision in an effort to determine what assistance Ms. Bateman might need. Ultimately, the Department was attempting to determine what work, if any, Ms. Bateman was capable of performing. The Department's decision was based upon a number of incidents involving Ms. Bateman. Those incidents are included in Mr. Walker's Chronology of December 2, 1991 and his Revised Chronology of December 19, 1991 and are hereby incorporated herein. Although not all the incidents described in the chronologies were proved during the final hearing to have occurred, the Department's consideration of the incidents reported by Mr. Walker was reasonable. Due to the Department's concerns about Ms. Bateman, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman voluntarily participate in the Department's employee assistance program. Ms. Bateman refused. In order to determine what could be done to help Ms. Bateman, and to determine what duties and responsibilities she was capable of performing, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological, or other, evaluation. Ms. Bateman refused. After discussing the matter with Ms. Bateman and legal counsel she had retained, the Department notified Ms. Bateman that her continued employment was conditioned upon her undergoing a psychological evaluation or some other evaluation which would allow the Department to determine what work she was capable of performing. In a letter of February 12, 1992, Ms. Bateman, through her representative, was informed of the following: As you also know, we are attempting to help Andrea address a problem which we believe exists and has been well documented over the past 16 months. In return, we need Andrea's help and cooperation. If Andrea chooses to agree to our request that she undergo a psychiatric evaluation and authorize the release to us of the psychiatrist's prognosis, diagnosis and recommendation for treatment, we will be glad to schedule an appointment for her with a psychiatrist, and will pay for such an evaluation. We will use the evaluation to determine an appropriate course of action. Ms. Bateman's Termination from Employment. Ms. Bateman continued to refuse to undergo any evaluation or to suggest any alternative course of action. Consequently, based upon Ms. Bateman's inadequate and unacceptable work performance, the Department terminated Ms. Bateman's employment with the Department on or about February 13, 1992. Ms. Bateman's termination from employment was effective February 28, 1992. Ms. Bateman was terminated from employment due to the fact that she was not adequately performing her job and she refused to cooperate with the Department to find out what could be done to help her become an effective employee. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department's reason for terminating her employment was a pretext. Ms. Bateman's Charge of Discrimination. On or about September 15, 1992, Ms. Bateman filed a Charge of Discrimination against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Bateman alleged that she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex and a perceived handicap. On February 10, 1993, the Commission issued a "Determination: No Cause" finding "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred " Ms. Bateman filed a Request for Redetermination on March 4, 1992. On April 12, 1993, the Commission issued a "Redetermination: No Cause" affirming its decision. On May 12, 1993, Ms. Bateman filed a Petition for Relief seeking a formal administrative hearing. In the petition Ms. Bateman alleged that the Department had discriminated against her on the basis of sex, a perceived handicap and, for the first time, age. The Commission requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing requested by Ms. Bateman. Alleged Sex Discrimination. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any action of the Department was based upon Ms. Bateman's sex: she was not held to any standard or requirement based upon her sex, she was not terminated because of her sex and the Department's efforts to determine the cause of Ms. Bateman's problems was not based upon her sex. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any Department policy or standard had a disparate impact on female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a male attorney. Ms. Bateman's grooming habits were discussed with her. Some of those discussions concerned the wearing of panty hose and her makeup. It must be inferred that such discussions were not carried on with male employees. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Ms. Bateman's termination was based upon these matters. Although grooming played a part in the decision to terminate Ms. Bateman's employment, it was grooming related to basic cleanliness and neat appearance required of all employees and not just female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, female. Alleged Age Discrimination. At the time that Ms. Bateman was hired she was 41 years of age, and at the time she was terminated she was 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that age played any part in her treatment by the Department. This finding is supported, in part, by the fact that the difference between Ms. Bateman's age when she was hired and when she was terminated was only one year. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a younger person. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the persons who made the decision to terminate her employment were aware of her age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her age. Alleged Perceived Handicap. The Department did believe that Ms. Bateman was suffering from some mental problem. This belief was based upon Ms. Bateman's odd behavior and a concern that Ms. Bateman was "homeless". It was for this reason that the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological evaluation. Ms. Bateman failed to prove, however, that the Department treated her differently from the manner other employees of the Department were treated under similar circumstances. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department's request that she undergo a psychological or other evaluation to determine how to assist her to meet the requirements of her employment was made for a discriminatory reason. Under the circumstances, the Department's request of Ms. Bateman was reasonable. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that she was terminated from employment because of any perceived handicap. The evidence proved that she was in fact terminated from employment due to her inability to satisfactorily carry out her job responsibilities. Ms. Bateman also failed to allege or prove that she has a handicap based upon her mental condition. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of a handicap or a perceived handicap.
The Issue The matter presented here for consideration concerns the termination of the Petitioner, George Nelson, from his employment with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, premised upon the purported authority set forth in Rule 22A-13.04, Florida Administrative Code, following the Petitioner's alleged decision to qualify as a candidate for office in the State of Florida, without first gaining permission of the appropriate authorities as set forth in Subsection 110.233(4)(a), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 22A-13, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, George Nelson, was a permanent status Career Service employee on July 14, 1980, working for the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry. His specific employment was a firefighter. On the subject date, by correspondence directed to an official within the Division of Forestry, namely, Larry Wood, the petitioner notified the Respondent of his intention to run for a School Board seat, District IV, in Wakulla County, Florida. A copy of that notification may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. As stated in the correspondence, Nelson had made an attempt to determine the necessary steps to gain the approval of his agency before taking the oath of candidacy for the aforementioned position. (This request was made following a conversation with the same Larry Wood held on July 10, 1980, on the subject of Nelson's candidacy. On July 10, a letter was sent addressed only to "Larry" and at Mr. Wood's instigation the subsequent letter of July 14, 1980, was dispatched referring to Wood as "Mr. Larry Wood", for appearance sake.) As set forth in the Nelson correspondence, the last date for qualifying for the School Board position was July 22, 1980, at 12:00 Noon. Prior to that date, the Petitioner's request to run was forwarded through the decision-making channels within the Division of Forestry. At the time Nelson dispatched his letter of July 14, 1980, there was some concern expressed by Wood to the effect that there might be some scheduling conflict between Nelson's primary employment duties as a forest ranger and his duties as a School Board Member; however, Wood indicated that the scheduling matter could probably be accommodated. Wood offered no guarantee to the petitioner that the request to run for office would be approved by the appropriate agency officials. On July 18, 1980, and again on July 21, 1980, officials with the Division of Forestry orally indicated to the petitioner that he would not be allowed to run for the School Board. In view of the fact that the last day for qualifying was July 22, 1980, the petitioner determined to offer his candidacy without the permission of his agency head, and on that date he took the loyalty oath for public office for the School Board, District IV, Wakulla County, Florida, as may be seen by a Joint Exhibit No. 4, which is a copy of the Loyalty Oath and the Oath of Candidacy and Statement of Candidacy. On July 23, 1980, Larry Wood, District Forester and supervisor to the Petitioner, contacted the petitioner to inquire why the petitioner had offered his candidacy without permission of the agency. The petitioner responded that he did so because he did not feel that there was any conflict between school board duties and that of forest ranger. Wood informed him that he would hear from the Division of Forestry on the subject. Following the conversation with Wood, on July 24, 1980, the petitioner received two items in response to his request. One of those items was dated July 21, 1980, from John M. Bethea, Director, Division of Forestry, addressed to Larry Wood, in which the subject of the Petitioner's candidacy was discussed and the indication given that it would not be approved due to scheduling problems and conflict and controversies "that are generated by any local governmental political body". The memorandum went on to say, "These controversies might affect the Forestry Division's ability to carry out the responsibilities with the very segments of the public." A copy of this memorandum may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. The second item received by the Petitioner on July 24, 1980, was dated on that date, and addressed to George Nelson from Larry Wood, indicating a denial of the petitioner's request to run for public office. This correspondence may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 3, a copy of which has been admitted into evidence. After the Petitioner had received the memoranda discussed herein, there ensued a series of meetings between the Petitioner and various officials within the agency in which the agency tried to persuade him to withdraw his candidacy in view of the fact that he had not gained their permission to run for the School Board. Throughout these discussions, the Petitioner continued to assert the conviction that unless some conflict of interest could be shown to him, he did not intend to withdraw as a candidate. In the discussions, the agency further stated that the choices open to the petitioner were ones of resignation from his position as Forest Ranger or withdrawal from the School Board race. They also stated that if he were caused to resign, there could be no rights to appeal beyond that point. In the course of the process, the Petitioner met with Director Bethea, who explained the Director's position on the Petitioner's right to run for office and reiterated his opposition, based upon his problems of scheduling to accommodate the needs of the Division of Forestry and the needs of the School Board of Wakulla County and also -he concern of possible conflicts and controversies arising out of the necessity for forest rangers to go on the property of the citizens of the several counties in the State of Florida and the fact that this might create a problem in view of the nature of the functions of a school board member. Although the Director generally held the philosophy that employees in positions such as the Petitioner's should not normally be allowed to run for local office, he did not absolutely foreclose the possibility that someone might persuade him to the contrary and thereby cause him to allow them to seek a local office. Each case would be reviewed on its own merits. The matter was also presented before representatives of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services, who took the same position as had been taken by the other authorities within the Department, and again the Petitioner indicated that he would decline to withdraw as a candidate. Following the meeting with the Department officials, Wood made one other contact to ascertain if the petitioner had changed his mind about withdrawing his name as a candidate and the Petitioner indicated that he had not. Subsequent to that latter conversation with Wood, the petitioner was hand-delivered a letter dated August 12, 1980, which may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 5. This letter informed the petitioner that he was deemed to have resigned his position as Forest Ranger effective August 15, 1980, and offered as a statement of authority Subsection 110.233(4)(a), Florida Statutes. That correspondence from Carl T. Dierking, Chief of Personnel Management and Employee Relations for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, went on to say that in view of the Petitioner's decision to qualify as a candidate being made after the request to allow him to run had been initially denied by the Department and in keeping with Rule 22A-13.032, Florida Administrative Code, that the Petitioner could request an administrative hearing "toward obtaining an additional review of your situation." This request was to be forwarded through Robert Chastain, Esquire, General Counsel, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. After August 15, 1980, the petitioner was removed as a permanent party Career Service employee with the Respondent. On August 27, 1980, the Petitioner corresponded with Mr. Chastain through a letter which stated, "I would like to have an appeal of my dismissal of August 15, 1980, reason, not just cause." A copy of this petition letter may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. In turn Mr. Chastain contacted the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting that a Hearing Officer be assigned and a hearing be set. A copy of that correspondence addressed to the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings may be found as Joint Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. Through that correspondence, Mr. Chastain expressed his opinion that Rule 22A-13.032(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that an employee has the right to a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing. Subsequent to the case assignment herein, the Petitioner through his counsel has filed a rules challenge to the Rules 22A-13.04 and 22A-7.10(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which may be found in the Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 80-1925R. In addition, the Petitioner in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 80-2049R has attacked the Joint Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, by contending that those aforementioned exhibits constitute invalid rules for reason that they were not duly promulgated. In fact, the Petitioner's duty assignment as a forest ranger would conflict at times with his function so School Board Member, in that some of the meetings of the School Board would be held at times when the Petitioner was actively on duty. In addition, the Petitioner is also on call and required to be available in his off-duty time should an emergency arise requiring his assistance as a forest ranger. The petitioner continued to work beyond August 15, 1980, and was eventually reinstated as a probationary employee with the Division of Forestry and holds the position of probationary forest ranger at this time.
Findings Of Fact Coflin was a permanent Career Service Employee, in Employment Office Supervisor (EOS) III Position. Coflin was "bumped" from his position by another permanent Career Service employee (Mr. Reddy), whose EOS III position was abolished by virtue of the failure of Hillsborough County to renew a contract for service with the Department of Commerce in November, 1975. Coflin was "bumped" on April 1, 1976 because pursuant to Department guidelines approved by the State Personnel Director as required by the State Personnel Rules, Coflin had fewer retention points than Reddy. Coflin, pursuant to the guidelines and rules and regulations, was in turn entitled to "bump" either the incumbent of an EOS III position who was not permanent in the position of EOS III or the employee within the State with the least retention points. This right and the positions available to him were communicated to Coflin; however, because he would have had to move to another area of the State to assume either of these positions, Coflin elected under protest to take the third alternative, demotion to another class in which he held permanent status in his immediate geographical area. Coflin appealed the resulting demotion, asserting that he had been wrongfully demoted. The demotion was solely the result of Coflin having been "bumped" in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Commerce and not because of Coflin's job performance and conduct which were above average. The Department's guidelines were not adopted as rules in the manner prescribed in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Coflin be reinstated to his position as EOS III, the personnel action taken having not been for good cause. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day September, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Division of Personnel and Retirement Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., Esquire 401 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Brian Duffy, Esquire Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue This matter concerns the Petitioner's attack on Rules 22A-13.04 and 22A- 7.10(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, on the grounds that they are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, George Nelson, was a permanent status Career Service employee on July 14, 1980, working for the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry. His specific employment was a firefighter. On the subject date, by correspondence directed to an official within the Division of Forestry, namely, Larry Wood, the Petitioner notified the Respondent of his intention to run for a School Board Seat, District IV, in Wakulla County, Florida. A copy of that notification may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. As stated in the correspondence, Nelson had made an attempt to determine the necessary steps to gain the approval of his agency before taking the oath of candidacy for the aforementioned position. (This request was made following a conversation with the same Larry Wood held on July 10, 1980, on the subject of Nelson's candidacy. On July 10, a letter was sent addressed only to "Larry" and at Mr. Wood's instigation the subsequent letter of July 14, 1980, was dispatched referring to Wood as "Mr. Larry Wood", for appearance sake.) As set forth in the Nelson correspondence, the last date for qualifying for the School Board position was July 22, 1980, at 12:00 Noon. Prior to that date, the Petitioner's request to run was forwarded through the decision-making channels within the Division of Forestry. At the time Nelson dispatched his letter of July 14, 1980, there was some concern expressed by Wood to the effect that there might be some scheduling conflict between Nelson's primary employment duties as a forest ranger and his duties as a School Board Member; however, Wood indicated that the scheduling matter could probably be accommodated. Wood offered no guarantee to the Petitioner that the request to run for office would be approved by the appropriate agency officials. On July 18, 1980, and again on July 21, 1980, officials with the Division of Forestry orally indicated to the Petitioner that he would not he allowed to run for the School Board. In view of the fact that the last day for qualifying was July 22, 1980, the Petitioner determined to offer his candidacy without the permission of his agency head and on that date he took the loyalty oath for public office for the School Board, District IV, Wakulla County, Florida, as may be seen by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, which is a copy of the Loyalty Oath and the Oath of Candidacy and Statement of Candidacy. On July 23, 1980, Larry Wood, District Forester and supervisor to the Petitioner, contacted the Petitioner to inquire why the Petitioner had offered his candidacy without permission of the agency. The Petitioner responded that he did so because he did not feel that there was any conflict between school board duties and that of forest ranger. Wood informed him that he would hear from the Division of Forestry on the subject. Following the conversation with Wood, on July 24, 1980, the Petitioner received two items in response to his request. One of those items was dated July 21, 1980, from John M. Bethea, Director, Division of Forestry, addressed to Larry Wood, in which the subject of the Petitioner's candidacy was discussed and the indication given that it would not be approved due to scheduling problems and conflict and controversies "that are generated by any local governmental political body". The memorandum went on to say, "These controversies might affect the Forestry Division's ability to carry out the responsibilities with the very segments of the public." A copy of this memorandum may be found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. The second item received by the Petitioner on July 24, 1980, was dated on that date, and addressed to George Nelson from Larry Wood, indicating a denial of the petitioner's request to run for public office. This correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, a copy of which has been admitted into evidence. After the Petitioner had received the memoranda discussed herein, there ensued a series of meetings between the Petitioner and various officials within the agency in which the agency tried to persuade him to withdraw his candidacy in view of the fact that he had not gained their permission to run for the school Board. Throughout these discussions, the Petitioner continued to assert the conviction that unless some conflict of interest could be shown to him, he did not intend to withdraw as a candidate. In the discussions, the agency further stated that the choices open to the Petitioner were ones of resignation from his position as A Forest Ranger or withdrawal from the School Board race. They also stated that if he were caused to resign, there could be no rights to appeal beyond that point. In the course of the process, the Petitioner met with Director Bethea, who explained the Director's position on the Petitioner's right to run for office and reiterated his opposition, based upon his problems of scheduling to accommodate the needs of the Division of Forestry and the needs of the school Board of Wakulla County and also the concern of possible conflicts and controversies arising out of the necessity for forest rangers to go on the property of the citizens of the several counties in the State of Florida and the fact that this might create a problem in view of the nature of the functions of a school board member. Although the Director generally held the philosophy that employees in positions such as the Petitioner's should not normally be allowed to run for local office, he did not absolutely foreclose the possibility that someone might persuade him to the contrary and thereby cause him to allow them to seek a local office. Each case would be reviewed on its own merits. The matter was also presented before representatives of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services, who took the same position as had been taken by the other authorities within the department, and again the Petitioner indicated that he would decline to withdraw as a candidate. Following the meeting with the Department officials, Wood made one other contact to ascertain if the Petitioner had changed his mind about withdrawing his name as a candidate and the Petitioner indicated that the had not. Subsequent to that latter conversation with Wood, the Petitioner was hand-delivered a letter dated August 12, 1980, which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. This letter informed the Petitioner that he was deemed to have resigned his position as Forest Ranger effective August 15, 1990, and offered as a statement of authority Subsection 110.233(4)(a), Florida Statutes. After August 15, 1980, the Petitioner was removed as a permanent party Career Service employee with the Respondent. Following his dismissal, the Petitioner through his counsel in the subject case has attacked the Joint Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, by contending that those aforementioned exhibits constitute invalid rules for reason that they were not duly promulgated. The Petitioner continued to work beyond August 15, 1980, and was eventually reinstated as a probationary employee with the Division of Forestry and holds the position of probationary Forest Ranger at this time.
