Findings Of Fact The policy being challenged provides that: The hearing may be cancelled if a petitioner or intervenor fails to timely file its prehearing statement. This provision is routinely and customarily embodied in the notices issued by Respondent to parties before it in matters arising under Florida Statutes 447.307 and 447.503. The Respondent acknowledges that it did not adopt and promulgate the policy pursuant to Florida Statutes 120.54 or any other relevant provision of Chapter 120. On 12 July 1979 Petitioner filed a petition with Respondent in which Petitioner sought to represent certain employees employed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. This petition was accepted by Respondent and on 30 July 1979 Respondent issued a Notice of Representation Hearing and a Prehearing Order. This Prehearing Order directed the parties to that proceeding to file with Respondent at least seven (7) days prior to the date of the hearing, and serve upon each other, a prehearing statement, identifying: Those fact disputes to be presented for resolution. Any and all legal questions to be presented for resolution. The legal authority to be relied upon by each party in presenting its arguments. Those witnesses to be called at the hearing, except rebuttal witnesses. The approximate time necessary to present the party's case. Any outstanding motions or procedural questions to be resolved. This Pre-Hearing Order then provided: The hearing may be cancelled if a petitioner or intervenor fails to timely file its prehearing statement. Petitioner did not file its prehearing statement within the prescribed 7-day period and on 21 August 1979 Petitioner was notified that the hearing scheduled to commence 23 August had been cancelled. On 22 August Petitioner was advised that a written order cancelling the 23 August hearing had been entered by the Commission. Thereafter Petitioner filed the petition here under consideration contending that the policy of Respondent to enter the cancellation-of-hearing notice in prehearing orders is a rule and invalid by reason of not being promulgated pursuant to Chapter 120. Respondent takes the position that the provision in the prehearing order is not a rule, but even if it could otherwise be considered to be a statement of general applicability, it is exempt from being so found by 447.207(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On February 18, 1992, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rule 33-22.012, 3-12, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rule. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, contains rules governing "inmate discipline." Those rules provide the general policy of the Respondent concerning inmate discipline (Rule 33-22.001), terminology and definitions (Rule 33-22.002), the procedures for taking disciplinary action against inmates (Rules 33-22.003-33-22.010), and the "Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions (the Challenged Rule). Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: 33-22.012 Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions. The following table shows established maximum penalties for the indicated offenses. As used in the table, "DC" means the maximum number of days of disciplinary confinement that may be imposed and "GT" means the maximum number of days of gain time that may be taken. Any portion of either penalty may be applied. "All GT" includes both earned and unearned gain time. In addition to the penalties listed below, inmates may be required to pay for damaged, destroyed or misappropriated property under the provisions of rule 33-22.008(2)(b)13. . . . . Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, includes a table listing of various offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken and the maximum penalty for such offenses. The Challenged Rule provides that "Possession of any other contraband" is an offense for which discipline may be imposed on inmates. The Challenged Rule also provides that the maximum penalty for this offense is 15 days of disciplinary confinement and loss of 30 days gain time. The Challenged Rule does not include a definition of "contraband." Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 to 3-11, Florida Administrative Code, designates the possession of certain specific items of contraband to be a ground for discipline and provides the maximum penalty therefore. The Petitioner has alleged, in part, that the Challenged Rule is invalid because it: . . . constitutes an invalid rule where the rule has exceeded its grant of authority as contain in 944.47, Florida Statutes (1991), in that the rule seeks to define contraband to be "any other contraband" not defined as such by enabling legislation contrary to Section 120.52(8)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). As matter of fact, the rule . . . goes beyond the statutory definition of contraband with the inclusive phrase "any other contraband" without more. . . . The Petitioner also alleged that the Challenged Rule is invalid pursuant to Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes, for essentially the same reason. The Petitioner further alleged that the Challenged Rule is vague and vest unbridled discretion in the Respondent because of the failure to define "any other contraband" in the Challenged Rule. Finally, the Petitioner alleged that the Challenged Rule is arbitrary and capricious because there is "no logical basis in fact to condemn legally lawful material as contraband with the phrase 'any other'. Rule 33-3.006, Florida Administrative Code, provides a definition of the term "contraband." There is, therefore, no reason to further define the term "contraband" used in the Challenged Rule. The reference to "any other" is merely an indication that the penalty provided for in the Challenged Rule is for the possession of any contraband (as defined elsewhere) other than contraband specifically listed in Rule 33-22.012, 3-1 through 3-11.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, M.B. Doral, is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes (2019); and, if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 2018, Petitioner MB Doral filed a Petition Challenging Validity of Existing Rule 61A-4.020 and Determination Regarding Unadopted Rule, in DOAH Case Number 18-6768RX. On January 25, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Bifurcate and Stay Proceedings, which stayed MB Doral’s unadopted rule challenge pending the proposed rulemaking that would promulgate ABT Form 6017. On October 16, 2019, amendments to rule 61A-4.020 became effective, which promulgated ABT Form 6017. On November 6, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order Dismissing Unadopted Rule Challenge and Retaining Jurisdiction, which dismissed MB Doral’s remaining unadopted rule challenge and retained jurisdiction to consider a request for attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b). On December 3, 2019, MB Doral filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Motion), seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the unadopted rule challenge pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b). The Motion alleges that MB Doral advised the Department, in writing on at least seven occasions prior to filing the rule challenge petition, and beginning on May 19, 2015, that the Department’s failure to adopt ABT Form 6017 constituted an unadopted rule. The Motion also alleges that the Department did not file a notice of rulemaking until January 28, 2019. The Motion further alleges that the Department has never alleged that the federal government required ABT Form 6017 to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition to receipt of federal funds. On December 10, 2019, the Department filed its Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for an Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. On February 11, 2020, the Department filed a Notice of Filing Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, which included the Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The Joint Stipulation states that the Department agrees to the entry of a final order assessing the sum of $7,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs in the unadopted rule challenge, which the undersigned bifurcated from the existing rule challenge in DOAH Case No. 18-6768RX, which is currently pending before the First District Court of Appeal in Case Number 1D19-0820. The Joint Stipulation further states that the parties agree that this Final Order should direct the Department to seek immediate approval for payment within 30 days of this Final Order, and that the undersigned retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Final Order.
Findings Of Fact One of some 10,000 American-born Sikhs, Harimandir Kaur Khalsa originally became involved with Sikhism, said to be one of the eight major religions of the world, in 1979. Several years ago she took vows to cover her hair, not to cut her hair, and to adhere to a daily spiritual practice called sadhana. An Armidary Sikh, she was ordained a Sikh minister Christmas Day 1991. The parties stipulated to the sincerity of petitioner's religious beliefs. In part, her religious beliefs find expression in her attire. Orthodox Sikhs wear turbans and churidars, a type of legging; and their clothing is white. This mode of dress has symbolic religious significance for Sikhs generally. Turbans are "mandatory." T.93. Dressed as an orthodox Sikh, petitioner Khalsa appeared for a job interview with Putnam County's sanitation director, Joseph Battillo, on or about August 23, 1990. The interview had been arranged after Mrs. Khalsa responded to a newspaper advertisement seeking a "Recycling Director for Putnam County." T.119. Even before she saw the advertisement, she had read about the job and telephoned to inquire. In the interview, Mrs. Khalsa did not tell Mr. Battillo that all the clothes she owned were white, but she did tell him that the way she was dressed was "always the way I dress." T.41. One of Ms. Khalsa's references told the young lady in the Putnam County personnel department who called to inquire about her that "Harimandir always dresses in white . . . because of her religion." T.22. Mr. Battillo understood that Mr. Khalsa wore a turban for religious reasons, although he originally testified that he did not understand (T.122) that the remainder of her outfit was also religiously compelled. (T.111) He eventually conceded that she indicated she wore mostly white "in the context of the conversation that she was a Sikh." T.132. Asked whether it was his "reasonable understanding that the reason she wore white is because she was a Sikh," he answered, "I guess you could assume that." Id. The day after the interview she was surprised to be told over the telephone that the job was hers. (Of six interviewees, she was Mr. Battillo's second choice for the position.) Her experience with graphic arts was an important qualification. Mr. Battillo felt there was some urgency in filling the position: certain deadlines had to be met if grant moneys available to Putnam County were not to be forfeited. Petitioner started working for respondent on August 30, 1990, at an annual salary of $14,400. On her first day on the job, Mr. Battillo summoned her to his office, asked her to shut the door, and told her she would "have to make a few changes" (T.45) in her appearance because "people would have a problem with the way," id., she looked. She told him she did not believe it would be a problem. In her job interview, she had suggested she "would have instant recognition and people would be reminded when they saw [her] to recycle." T.41. When she was hired, Mrs. Khalsa bought an off-white suit, which she wore the second day on the job. The following day, Mr. Battillo thanked her for not wearing all white, again after summoning her to his office and ordering the door closed. He told her she "look[ed] fine from the knees up . . . [but] that the leggins had to go." T.48. He said that she needed to wear colors and that "if you don't change the way you dress, you're not going to be allowed to do your job." T.49. She told him she planned to get new shoes. After leaving his office, she cried. Mrs. Khalsa worked closely with Diane Shoeman, a high school teacher who served as an educational consultant, for about ten hours, developing curriculum on recycling for the Putnam County schools. They enjoyed a good working relationship, which Mrs. Shoeman told Mr. Battillo at the time. On September 18, 1990, when she was in his office on business, Mr. Battillo told her she could not continue dressing as she had been, that it was the same "as if an employee didn't wear a bra to work and he had to tell her to wear a bra." T.52. He told her that, when he had worked in Sarasota, the Mennonite women dressed plainly "but that they wore pastel colors. And couldn't [petitioner] dress that way?" T.53. Mr. Battillo was adamant, and petitioner left his office in tears. He granted her request for a half day off to shop for clothes. The day after she acquired a new pair of shoes, white hose and a blue dress, Mrs. Khalsa wore them to work. When Mr. Battillo asked her if she was comfortable dressed like that, she said she "could live with it" (T.69) even though she felt she was compromising her practice as a Sikh. From then on, she wore white hose rather than churidars as long as she worked for Putnam County, afraid she would lose her job otherwise. The blue dress she wore every few days, even though her mother-in-law was shocked when she first saw it. Mrs. Khalsa met her September 30, 1990, deadline for purchasing certain audiovisual equipment, and for completing numerous other assignments. She drew on her experience as a graphic artist in designing or doing the layout for bookcovers for school children, an educational activities book on recycling, sun visors, bookmarks, decals, magnets, information posters and brochures for which she both wrote the text and "d[id] the art work." T.64. On October 2, 1990, the Monday after meeting the deadline (so avoiding forfeiture of the grant), she was fired by Mr. Battillo, who explained, "I don't like you and I don't like your turban." T.71 Mrs. Khalsa's manner of dress was an important motivating factor for her discharge. During calendar year 1991, Petitioner and her husband together earned approximately $6,000. When he terminated her employment, Mr. Battillo also mentioned friction with the printers with whom Mrs. Khalsa had been dealing. They supposedly resented her asking for proofs, apparently a departure from past practice under County contracts; and were perhaps embarrassed when she pointed out that they had billed for work never done. T.94 When she began work, she was told she "had six months to learn procedures." T.100. Mrs. Khalsa conscientiously sought to comply with County purchasing policies, despite some confusion about just what the policies were in certain particulars. The only "changes" she insisted on without processing change orders were to assure that the county received what the printer had originally agreed to supply, or the equivalent. T.105, 108-9. At hearing, Mr. Battillo testified to complaints about music Mrs. Khalsa listened to at work, but other employees listened to radios at work, and the only other employee in the building where Mrs. Khalsa worked told her at the time that he could not hear music from her office. Mr. Battillo once entered her office to find incense burning, which she extinguished at his request, never to rekindle on the premises. Once, she and her building mate disagreed on the thermostat's setting, she closed her door, shut the cooling vents and opened her windows, until told not to, when she promptly complied.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations order Putnam County to reinstate petitioner and pay her back wages, along with reasonable attorney's fees and costs. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of facts Nos. 1-11, 13, 15, 33 and 34 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 12, 14 and 35 pertain to subordinate matters. Respondent's proposed findings of fact were not numbered. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew P. Farmer, Esquire Farmer & Fitzgerald, P.A. 2910 Bay to Bay Boulevard Suite 214 Tampa, FL 33629 Ronald E. Clark, Esquire P.O. Box 2138 Palatka, FL 32178-2138 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F. Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is rehabilitated from his disqualifying offense, and if so, whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 32-year-old male who seeks to qualify for employment in a position of trust having direct contact with children or developmentally disabled persons served in programs regulated by the Agency. The Agency is the state agency responsible for regulating the employment of persons in positions of trust for which Petitioner seeks to qualify. In a letter dated February 20, 2015, the Agency's Director, Barbara Palmer, notified Petitioner that his request for exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust was denied. The letter advised Petitioner that this decision was based upon "the serious nature of the offense(s), the lack of sufficient evidence of rehabilitation, and [his] failure to sustain [his] burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that [he] should not be disqualified." Resp. Ex. C. Before Director Palmer made her decision, Petitioner's request for an exemption was reviewed by a Department of Children and Families (DCF) screener who compiled a 120-page report entitled "Exemption Review" dated November 17, 2014. See Resp. Ex. B. The Exemption Review did not make a recommendation one way or the other, but simply compiled all relevant information that would assist the Director in making her decision. The report was first given to the Agency Regional Operations Manager in Orlando, who reviewed it and then made a preliminary recommendation to the Director. The Agency decision was triggered after Petitioner applied for a position of special trust on October 24, 2014. To qualify for the position, Petitioner was required to undergo a level 2 background screening performed by the DCF. The screening revealed that Petitioner had six disqualifying offenses between 1995 and 2005. Those offenses are listed below: May 17, 1995 -- burglary of a dwelling; Petitioner pled guilty and adjudication was withheld; April 10, 1997 -- robbery; Petitioner pled guilty and adjudication was withheld; May 9, 1997 -- robbery; Petitioner pled guilty, adjudication was withheld, and he was placed on probation; June 17, 1997 -- battery by detainee in a detention facility; Petitioner pled nolo contendere, was adjudicated delinquent, and placed on probation; January 18, 2001 -- possession of cocaine with intent to sell; Petitioner pled nolo contendere, was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation, and ordered to serve 86 days in the County Jail; and February 1, 2005 -- possession of cocaine; Petitioner pled guilty, was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation, and ordered to serve six months in the County Jail. Besides the disqualifying offenses, Petitioner has a number of arrests and/or convictions for non-disqualifying offenses beginning in 1995. Two offenses, disorderly conduct and trespass on a property or conveyance, occurred in July 2012, or seven years after his last disqualifying offense. For that offense, he pled nolo contendere and was adjudicated guilty. He was also ordered to serve one day in the County Jail and required to complete a four-hour anger management class. The Exemption Review shows that in May 2000, Petitioner earned his high school diploma. In June 2009, he earned an associate's degree in Network Administration from the TESST College of Technology in Baltimore, Maryland. In May 2014, he earned a bachelor's degree in psychology from Morgan State University located in the same city. The Exemption Review also shows: from January 2008 through September 2008, Petitioner worked as a cashier and sales consultant at a retail store; from May 2009 through January 2010, he worked as an activities coordinator; from June 2011 through August 2013, he worked as a youth counselor; from February 2014 through May 2014, he worked as a records and registration clerk at the university from which he received his degree; and from June 2014 through August 2014 he worked as a behavior technician. At hearing, he testified that he is currently employed by Quest Diagnostics in the Orlando area. Most of Petitioner's disqualifying offenses occurred at a very early age. For example, in May 1995, while in middle school and just before he turned 12 years of age, he committed his first disqualifying offense, burglary of a dwelling. When he was arrested for his last disqualifying offense in February 2005, possession of cocaine, he was 21 years old. Petitioner attributes his criminal conduct to immaturity, peer pressure, and what he characterized as "environmental exposure." He expressed remorse, he takes full responsibility for his actions, and he acknowledges he could have handled his life better. He is currently in a committed relationship, has a new-born child, and serves as a mentor in the community. In short, Petitioner says he has changed his life for the better. Besides two witnesses who spoke highly of his recent volunteer work with children, an Orlando City Commissioner submitted a letter of recommendation. If his application is approved, Petitioner has a pending job offer with Lodestone Academy in Orlando, which works with Agency clients. An Agency representative testified that the Agency's clients are at a heightened risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation because of their developmental disabilities and inability to self-preserve. They often have severe deficits in their abilities to complete self-tasks and communicate their wants and needs. For this reason, the Agency undertakes a heightened scrutiny of individuals seeking an exemption. In explaining the Agency's rationale for denying the application, the Regional Operations Manager listed the following factors that weighed against a favorable disposition of Petitioner's request: the frequency of the criminal offenses; criminal behavior that has consumed one-half of his life; the limited time (three years) since his last arrest, albeit for a non-disqualifying offense; and Petitioner's lack of specificity and accountability in his Exemption Questionnaire and testimony regarding the disqualifying offenses. As to the last factor, Petitioner could recall very few facts regarding his early arrests, saying they occurred at a very young age. He also denied that there were any injuries to his victims. However, one offense involved battery on a detainee in a juvenile facility, and in another, he ripped two gold chains from a victim's neck.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Everett S. Rice, Sheriff of Pinellas County, is a constitutional officer for the State of Florida, responsible for providing law enforcement and correction services within Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Gina Hubbard, was a classified employee of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) where she worked as a certified detention deputy for approximately nine years until her termination on May 19, 1998. The incident that gave rise to Respondent's termination occurred on the evening of October 30, 1997, at Respondent's residence. On that date, at least three officers with the Pinellas Park Police Department responded to a call and went to Respondent's residence for a check on her welfare. Two of the officers positioned themselves outside the residence near the garage, where they believed that Respondent was located. The third officer was stationed across the street from Respondent's residence. Shortly after the officers arrived at Respondent's residence and while stationed at their posts, the officers heard a gunshot from inside the garage. After the gunshot, the officers maintained their positions for approximately five minutes, apparently listening for any activity in the Respondent's residence or garage. After hearing no activity, one of the officers banged twice on the garage door with a flashlight in an effort to determine Respondent's condition. Immediately thereafter, a shot was fired from Respondent's garage and exited through the garage door near the area where the officer had banged the flashlight. This shot came within two feet of the two officers standing immediately outside the residence. It was later determined that Respondent Hubbard was the person who discharged a firearm twice within her residence on the evening of October 30, 1997. Based on the aforementioned incident, Respondent was arrested on November 10, 1997, for aggravated assault, even though she was never charged or convicted of this offense. However, as a result of the October 30, 1997 incident, on April 24, 1998, Respondent pled nolo contendere to violating Section 790.10, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon and is a misdemeanor. In connection with this incident, Respondent also pled nolo contendere to violating Section 790.19, Florida Statutes, which prohibits shooting into a building and is a felony. The court withheld adjudication, but as a result of her plea, Respondent was placed on four years probation and prohibited from carrying a firearm. Based on the aforementioned incident and matters related thereto, the PCSO conducted an internal investigation. As a part of the investigation, Respondent gave a sworn statement. As a part of her sworn statement, Respondent admitted that she was guilty of the above-cited criminal offenses. Moreover, during her sworn statement, Respondent also admitted that she violated PCSO Rule C-1, V, A, 005 obedience to laws and ordinances and Rule C-1, V, C, 060, relating to standard of conduct. After completion of the PCSO internal affairs investigation, the Chain of Command Board considered the evidence and based on its findings, recommended that Petitioner charge Respondent with engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant and violating rules of the PCSO and terminate her employment. Specifically, Respondent is charged was violating the following PCSO rules: Rule C-1, V, A, 005, relating to obedience to laws and ordinances (Level Five Violation); Rule C-1, V, C 060, relating to Standard of Conduct (Level Three Violation). Respondent's violations were found to constitute Level Three and Level Five infractions and resulted in a cumulative point total of 65. At this point total, the recommended disciplinary range is from a seven-day suspension to termination. As a result of these violations and the underlying conduct which is the basis thereof, Respondent's employment with the PCSO was terminated on May 19, 1998. In the instant case, termination is an appropriate penalty, is within the PCSO guidelines, and is consistent with the long-standing policy of the PCSO and state law. There is an absolute policy at the Sheriff's Office to not hire applicants or retain any employees who are on probation for felony offenses, whether or not adjudication is withheld. The policy is applied to correctional officers, as well as civilian personnel of the PCSO.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Board enter a Final Order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant and violating PCSO Rules C-1, V, A, 005 and C-1, V, C, 060; and, (2) upholding the termination of Respondent's employment as detention deputy with the PCSO. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 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 2nd day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard J. Dietzen, III, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler, Evans & Dietzen Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 Robert W. Pope, Esquire 2037 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 B. Norris Rickey Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 William Repper, Chairperson Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board Post Office Box 539 Clearwater, Florida 33757
The Issue Whether proposed Rules 69O-175.003, 69O-170.005-007, 69O- 170.013, 69O-170.0135. 69O-170.014, 69O-170.0141, 69O-170.0142, and 69O-170.0155 are valid exercises of delegated rulemaking authority.
Findings Of Fact Section 20.05, Florida Statutes, addresses the structure and powers of the Department. Section 20.05 provides as follows, in pertinent part: 20.05 Heads of departments; powers and duties.-- (1) Each head of a department, except as otherwise provided by law, must: * * * (b) Have authority, . . ., to execute any of the powers, duties, and functions vested in the department or in any administrative unit thereof through administrative units . . . designated by the head of the department, . . . unless the head of the department is explicitly required by law to perform the same without delegation. * * * (e) Subject to the requirements of chapter 120, exercise existing authority to adopt rules pursuant and limited to the powers, duties, and functions transferred to the department. The Financial Services Commission (Commission) was created within the Department pursuant to Section 20.121, Florida Statutes. However, the Commission is not “subject to control, supervision or direction by the Department of Financial Services in any manner.” § 20.121(3), Fla. Stat. The Commission is composed of the Governor and Cabinet, who collectively serve as the agency head of the Commission. Action by the Commission can only be taken by majority vote “consisting of at least three affirmative votes.” Id. OIR is a structural unit of the Financial Services Commission. Section 20.121(3) states in relevant part, as follows: Structure.— The major structural unit of the commission is the office. Each office shall be headed by a director. The following offices are established: 1. The Office of Insurance Regulation, which shall be responsible for all activities concerning insurers and other risk-bearing entities . . . * * * * Organization.-- The commission shall establish by rule any additional organizational structure of the offices. It is the intent of the legislature to provide the commission with the flexibility to organize the offices in any manner they determine appropriate to promote both efficiency and accountability. Powers.— Commission members shall serve as the agency head for purposes of rulemaking . . . by the commission and all subunits of the commission. . . . (emphasis supplied) Clearly, under the Department’s, the Commission’s and the OIR’s organizational structures, only the Commission may promulgate rules for both itself and OIR. The Department does not have rulemaking authority over areas that have been given to the Commission. On the other hand, nothing in the statute prohibits OIR, as directed by the Commission, to perform steps, preliminary to proposing a rule, that often occur in the rule development process prior to the actual Notice of proposed rulemaking. See also § 120.54, Fla. Stat. To that end, the Commission, by non-rule policy, has delegated authority to OIR to engage in rulemaking activities on behalf of the Commission. However, this delegation is not limited to rule development activities that occur prior to the Notice of proposed Rules, but authorizes publication of the Notice prior to approval by the Commission of any proposed language or policy statement. As indicated, the Notices for the proposed Rules were published in the Florida Law Weekly in November 2004, with various changes made thereafter. The proposed Rules were published as OIR rules. Disturbingly and misleadingly, all the Notices for the proposed Rules state that the agency head approved the Rule that is the subject of the Notice on September 3, 2004 or November 2, 2004. However, none of the proposed Rules were approved by the Commission, the agency head, prior to their publication as a proposed rule in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The specific agency authority listed in the Notices for promulgating the proposed Rules was Section 624.308(1), Florida Statutes. Section 624.308(1) grants the Department of Financial Services (Department) and the Financial Services Commission (Commission) the general authority to adopt rules, pursuant to Sections 120.536(1) and 120.54 in order to implement laws that confer duties upon them. The statute does not confer the authority on the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) to adopt rules. See § 624.05, Fla. Stat. The statutes that confer a specific grant of rulemaking authority over the areas of the laws implemented in the proposed Rules are Sections 627.0651 and 627.331, Florida Statutes. These two statutes confer specific rulemaking authority over certain areas of insurance ratemaking only to the Commission; specific rulemaking authority is not granted to the Department or to OIR. Other than rulemaking authority, the various duties assigned in the laws implemented by proposed Rules are given to OIR.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Darryl James McGlamry, is an inmate under the supervision of the Respondent. The Petitioner is incarcerated at Dade Correctional Institution. The Respondent is the Department of Corrections, an agency of the State of Florida. The Petitioner has challenged Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code. The Challenged Rule governs the visitation privileges of unmarried inmates. The Petitioner has alleged that the Challenged Rule "impairs the Petitioner's substantial interest in that it restricts the Petitioner's First Amendment Right of Freedom of Association, as it substantially limits the number of female visitors that the Petitioner may have." The Petitioner has also alleged that the Challenged Rule is invalid because the restriction on visitation of the Challenged Rule is: . . . contrary to the Civil Rights Act of Florida, Chapter 760.01, Florida Statutes. 11. As such, it is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority". The Respondent does not have the authority to pass rules that are contrary to other statutes. This amounts to vesting unbridled discretion to the agency in violation of Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes. The Amended Petition is devoid of any alleged facts which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rule is invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation with its business located in Tampa, Florida. Respondent is a stated agency charged with responsibility for investigating and resolving unlawful employment practices. Its duties and powers are enumerated in Chapter 23, Florida Statutes, the Human Rights Act of 1977. 2. Respondent has adopted Rules 9D-8.06, 8.22(2), 9.03(4), and 9.03(7), Florida Administrative Code. These rules authorize Respondent to issue subpoenas, serve them by registered mail, and enforce them through judicial proceedings. The rules specifically authorize issuance, service, and enforcement of subpoenas in connection with investigations of unfair employment practices. They provide that inferences may be drawn from the failure of a person to provide requested information. . . Linda Parties filed a complaint against Petitioner with the Respondent, alleging sex discrimination by Petitioner. Based upon the complaint, Respondent initiated an investigation. It formally requested information from Petitioner on July 13, 1979. On April 7, 1981, Respondent issued a subpoena in connection with the investigation and served it by registered mail in accordance with its rules. Petitioner objected to the subpoena and has not provided the requested information. Respondent has sought to enforce the subpoena through a "Petition for Enforcement" filed in Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida. Circuit Judge Donald O. Hartwell has entered an Order which provides: This cause came to be heard on the Motion To Dismiss Petition For Enforcement of Investigatory Subpoena filed by the Human Development Center, Respondent. Both parties were represented by Counsel who presented argument to the court. The court being otherwise fully advised enters this its order; therefor it is, Ordered that the service of an investigatory subpoena served by certified mail pursuant to Rule 9D-8.22, Florida Administrative Code is valid service. Such service is not required to be served in accordance with Florida Statutes 48.031 or Rule 1.410(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. It is further, Ordered that the Motion To Dismiss Petition For Enforcement of Investigatory Subpoena is denied. It is further, Ordered that further proceedings to enforce the investigatory subpoena in this cause are stayed pending the ruling of Hearing Officer G. Steven Pfeiffer in Case No. 81-2101RX now set for hearing on October 21, 1981. Respondent has made no determination of reasonable cause to believe that Petitioner has engaged in any unlawful employment practice.
