Findings Of Fact Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, provides for licensing of child care facilities by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "HRS"). It mandates minimum standards for personnel, physical facilities, sanitation and safety, nutritional practices, admissions and record keeping, transportation safety, child discipline, and plans of activities. Section 402.306, Florida Statutes, allows counties whose licensing standards meet or exceed state minimum standards to perform child care facility licensing in that county rather than HRS performing that activity. Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, was originally enacted in 1974 to provide minimum standards for the growing number of commercial day care facilities. In the definitional section of that Chapter, the legislature specifically defined a child care facility and further specified those programs and facilities exempted from the child care facility licensing laws. Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes, provided as follows: "Child care facility" includes any child care center or child care arrangement which provides child care for more than five children unrelated to the operator and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit. The following are not included: public schools and non- public schools which are in compliance with the Compulsory School Attendance Law, chapter 232; summer camps having children in full-time residence; summer day camps; and Bible Schools normally conducted during vacation periods. [Emphasis supplied.] Due to extensive publicity involving certain abuse incidents by personnel at child care facilities and public opinion, the child care facility licensing laws were revisited in 1984. In a special session, the Legislature strengthened some requirements of Chapter 402 and provided for screening and background checks of personnel in child care facilities and for reasonable parental access to children in those facilities. Chapter 84-551, Laws of Florida. Due to the insistence of HRS and certain counties performing their own child care facility licensing that pre- kindergarten programs in schools required those schools to obtain licensure as child care facilities, Chapter 402 was further amended in 1985 to clarify the exclusion of schools. As amended, the statutory definition of child care facility now provides: "Child care facility" includes any child care center or child care arrangement which provides child care for more than five children unrelated to the operator and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit. The following are not included: public schools and non- public schools and their integral programs; summer camps having children in full-time residence; summer day camps; and Bible Schools normally conducted during during vacation periods. [Emphasis supplied.] Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes 1985. The Senate Staff Analysis and Economic Impact Statement regarding the amendment of Chapter 402 provides that this change is a "Technical amendment which clarifies that public and non-public school programs are not subject to licensure as child care facilities." Respondent's Exhibit numbered 6. Following the 1985 amendments to Chapter 402, HRS and the Palm Beach County Health Department (which was responsible for child care facility licensing in Palm Beach County) jointly requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General regarding the scope of the statutory exclusions from child care licensing laws for public and nonpublic schools and their integral programs. The specific question posed was as follows: Do the exemptions under s. 402.302(4), F.S., as amended, and s. 9, Ch. 77-620, Laws of Florida, apply to public and nonpublic schools which offer: Prekindergarten classes during regular school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? Infant care during regular school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? School age child care services before and after school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? In a lengthy analysis of the statutory exclusion of schools from child care facility licensing requirements, the Attorney General concluded: In sum, then, and unless and until legislatively or judicially determined otherwise, it is my opinion that the exemptions under s. 402.302(4), F.S., as amended by Chs. 84-551 and 85-54, Laws of Florida, and s. 9, Ch. 77-620, Laws of Florida, apply to public and nonpublic schools which offer prekindergarten classes or infant care during regular schools hours or school age child care services before and after school hours. . . . AGO 55-74, p. 7. Attorney General Opinion 85-74 also provides at page 3 as follows: Thus, public schools and nonpublic schools and their integral programs are not "child care facilit[ies]" for purposes of ss. 402.301-402.319, F.S., as amended. The term "integral programs" is not defined within ss. 402.301-402.319, F.S., as amended, or Oh. 85-54, Laws of Florida; however, the word "integral" has generally been defined as "[c]onstituting a completed whole; . . . lacking nothing of completeness." See, 46 C.J.S. Integral p. 1100; Ballentine's Law Dictionary 645 (3rd ed. 1969). And see, Random House Dictionary of the English Language Integral p. 738 (unabridged ed. 1967) (pertaining to or belonging as a part of the whole; constituent or component; necessary to the completeness of the whole); Webster's Third International Dictionary Integral p. 1173 (1966) (composed of constituent parts; making up a whole). Of., Matezak v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 299 F.Supp. 409, 413 (D.C.N.Y. 1969)("integral" means part of constituent component necessary or essential to complete the whole). Whether a particular child care center or arrangement constitutes an integral program for purposes of s. 402.302(4), FS., as amended, would appear to present a factual question which can only be reached on a case-by-case basis. [Emphasis supplied.] During the special session in 1984 and the regular session in 1985, the Legislature increased funding for HRS' child care facility licensing activities and also created 48 additional staff positions for those licensure activities. Several HRS employees determined that (1) the Attorney General's Opinion was confusing, (2) it was too difficult to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a program was an integral part of a school or a child care facility, and (3) the exclusion of schools from child care facility licensing requirements was inconsistent with legislative intent of protecting children. Accordingly, HRS drafted an amendment to Rule 10M-12.001, Florida Administrative Code, to define the term "integral program". The "rule package" prepared by HRS in compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, commences with the following language: Reason rule is being filed or amended: Chapter 402.302(4), Florida Statutes, provides the definition of a child care facility. Public and non public schools and their integral programs are precluded from this definition as a child care facility and therefore are not subject to licensure. . . . The term "integral programs", which is not defined by statute, is ambiguous and has been the subject of various interpretations by public and non public schools. For purposes of licensure, this rule amendment is necessary in order to clarify which specific child care programs in the public and non public schools are required to be licensed. Without the rule amendment, some schools will continue to interpret their "integral programs" as meaning their infant and preschool programs, or before and after school programs, thereby avoiding licensure and resulting in no regulation by the department . . . Rule 10M-12.001, Florida Administrative Code, as proposed, would provide as follows: (1) Child Care Standards and Licensure. Child Care Standards included in this chapter were adopted by the department to protect the health, safety and well being of the children of the State who receive child care in child care facilities as defined in Section 402.302, Florida Statutes, and to promote their emotional and intellectual development and care. Public and nonpublic schools and their integral programs are not child care facilities as defined in Section 402.302(4) Florida Statutes, and are not subject to licensure. The term "integral programs" includes school activities which are directly related to the educational component of the school for 5 year old kindergarten programs through grade 12, and extra curricular activities, such as sport teams, school yearbook, school band, meetings, and service clubs. The term also includes child care programs administered directly by the school to care and supervise children from 5 year old kindergarten through grade 12 before and after the school day. The term "integral program" does not include child care programs for children below 5 year old kindergarten, such as infants and preschoolers, and child care programs which are contracted by the school to provide care and supervision for children from 5 year old kindergarten through grade 12 before and after the school day. The proposed rule as published and noticed by HRS, although defended by HRS vigorously in this proceeding, is not in fact the rule that HRS intends to adopt. HRS now admits that it has no authority to regulate any program in a public school since only the Florida Department of Education can regulate public schools. HRS intends, therefore, to delete the reference to public schools in its proposed rule and to only regulate nonpublic schools although it admits that such regulation of only nonpublic schools would therefore be discriminatory. HRS further intends to amend its proposed rule so as to clarify that those nonpublic schools which are religious in affiliation will continue to enjoy the additional exemption from child care facility licensure given to them by Section 402.316(1), Florida Statutes, which provides: The provisions of ss. 402.301-402.319, except for the requirements regarding screening of child care personnel, shall not apply to a child care facility which is an integral part of church or parochial schools conducting regularly scheduled classes, courses of study, or education programs accredited by, or by a member of, an organization which publishes and requires compliance with its standards for health, safety, and sanitation. However, such facilities shall meet minimum requirements of the applicable local governing body as to health, sanitation, and safety and shall meet the screening requirements pursuant to ss. 402.305 and 402.3055. Failure by a facility to comply with such screening requirements shall result in the loss of the facility's exemption from licensure. Petitioner Florida Association of Academic Nonpublic Schools (hereinafter "FAANS") is comprised of approximately 25 associations of schools. Additionally, archdioceses, which are separate corporate entities, and which own and operate schools, are direct members as are county organizations and the Florida Catholic Conference. The organization itself represents nonpublic schools in the state of Florida before state agencies, including the Legislature which it actively lobbies. It has a direct relationship as a state representative, one of only five in the country, with the United States Department of Education. It is involved in accreditation and has a code of ethics with which all schools (both direct members and indirect members) must comply. FAANS presently represents 943 schools with approximately 230,000 students, out of the approximate 1,750 nonpublic schools in the state of Florida. A majority of the schools represented by FAANS operate educational programs for children under 5 years of age. For the most part, these school programs are not licensed as child care facilities although some of the schools have licensed their programs under duress rather than have their programs closed by the child care facility licensing agencies. All of the nonpublic schools represented by FAANS comply with the Florida Department of Education requirement that they annually submit statistical information including the number of students and faculty in their prekindergarten programs for the Department of Education's Nonpublic School Data Base. Petitioner Jacksonville Country Day School presented no evidence in this proceeding. Petitioner The Cushman School is a nonpublic school in Miami, Florida, and is an indirect member of FAANS. It has been in operation for 62 years and has operated educational programs for children under 5 since it was founded. It begins enrolling students at the age of 3 years (and on rare occasion 2 years) and offers education through grade 6. It is not presently licensed as a child care facility. Under the proposed rule as published in the June 6, 1986, Florida Administrative Weekly, The Cushman School would be required to obtain a child care facility license, the economic impact of which would be significant. First, it would lose its exemption from property taxes as an educational institution at a speculated cost of approximately $10,000. Structural modifications would need to be made to the school for bathing and sleeping facilities. Additional requirements, such as fencing and child-staff ratios, would come into play imposing more costs on the school. The Cushman School possesses historic site status which means even minor repairs, let alone structural modifications, have extensive restrictions imposed as to how they can be done and the materials that can be used. The end result is that if the proposed rule goes into effect, The Cushman School will have to discontinue its educational programs for children under 5 years of age. The economic impact of compliance with child care facility licensing requirements by schools is not unique to The Cushman School. Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, requires each agency proposing or amending a rule to provide a detailed economic impact statement. The purpose of an economic impact statement is to promote informed decision-making by ensuring an accurate analysis of economic factors, and those factors an agency must consider are clearly specified. An agency must also consider the impact of a proposed rule on small businesses as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. There are nonpublic schools throughout Florida which fit the statutory definition of small business. It is clear from the economic impact statement for proposed rule 10M-12.001 that HRS did not consider the impact of the rule on small business nonpublic schools. Also to be considered is the cost to an agency of implementing the rule. According to HRS' impact statement, actual implementation statewide will only cost $31. There is no consideration of additional staff time and paperwork to process applications, issue additional licenses, or conduct additional inspections. There is no comment in the economic impact statement of the impact on competition and the open market for employment, or any indication that such an analysis is inapplicable; rather, the agency's estimate of effect on competition speaks to potential cost savings from deregulation of before and after school care programs. Similarly, the required analysis of the costs or economic benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule speaks in terms of deregulation and substantial savings and is, accordingly, deceptive. An agency is also required to provide a detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the estimates required in the economic impact statement. The only detailed statement in HRS' economic impact statement refers to the costs of printing and mailing, publication of the proposed rule in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and conducting a public hearing on the proposed rule. There is no hint of the data and method used, if any, in reaching other conclusions contained within the economic impact statement. The economic impact statement accompanying proposed rule 10M-12.001 is inadequate. Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes, further requires that an agency proposing a rule give notice of its intended action and the specific legal authority under which its adoption is authorized. As set forth above, the rule proposed by HRS does not reflect its intended action since the rule purports to apply to both public and nonpublic schools and HRS intends to further amend the rule so as to exclude its application to public schools and its application to religious nonpublic schools. As to the specific legal authority under which the proposed rule is authorized, HRS cites, at the end of the proposed rule, as its rulemaking authority Section 402.301, Florida Statutes. That section is entitled "Child care facilities; legislative intent and declaration of purpose and policy". Nowhere in that legislative intent section is HRS authorized to promulgate rules. The proposed rule thus fails to fulfill that requirement.
The Issue Should Petitioner levy an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 against Respondent, pursuant to an administrative complaint drawn in accordance with Sections 402.305(12) and 402.310(1)(a), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Bobbie Potter owns and operates Ms. Bobbie's Flutterby Child Care Center (the Center), in Lake City, Florida. The Center is a child care facility licensed by Petitioner in accordance with Chapter 402, Florida Statutes. During late January and early February 2001, S.S. left her child, J.S., to be cared for by Respondent and others in her employ at the Center. At the time J.S. was approximately two years and two months old and weighed approximately 40 lbs. or 15.2 kilograms. He was born on December 21, 1998. J.S. attended day care at the Center on January 29 through 31 and February 5 through 7, 2001. On his first day at the Center J.S. cried and was resistant to the placement but became more acclimated. During that week J.S. did not try to escape the premises. By contrast, during the second week J.S. threw tantrums and tried to leave the Center. To thwart his attempts, a bench was placed to bolster the interior gate designed to control the movement of children within the facility. When confronted with the gate standing alone J.S. had tried to get through the gate. When he was told "No" to stop his progress, J.S. would throw himself on the floor. During tantrums J.S. would bang his head on the floor and the wall. Respondent had to put her hand up to stop him from banging his head. In the second week when J.S. was more vigorously reacting to his placement, he would be carried around by the Center staff to try to calm him down when he had tantrums. The other staff members who were involved with care provided J.S. at times relevant were Sue Misinec and Lilly Beckelheimer. Caregivers at the Center had to constantly remove J.S. away from the door to the outside, as well as away from the gates on the inside to keep him from fleeing the building. They were especially concerned when other parents came into the facility that J.S. might take advantage of that situation and leave. When J.S. would attempt his flight, he had to be picked up bodily and brought back. If J.S. had gotten outside he would have had access to a roadway. One other attempt to control J.S.'s movement within the Center was to use the lower half of a two-piece door to prohibit his movement within the Center but he climbed over the lower half of the door separating rooms. At times J.S. hit or kicked other children at the Center and kicked and hit caregivers. Eventually staff at the Center determined to place J.S. in a highchair when he threw tantrums as a means to try and calm him. This involved one teacher picking him up and placing him in the chair. Once in the chair, one person would hold him secure in the chair while another person snapped the safety strap and placed and locked the tray on the chair. This effectively restricted J.S.'s movement. J.S. did not like being placed in the chair. He would scream, kick, and claw when put in the chair. Ordinarily, J.S. would be left in the chair from two to five minutes until he calmed down, although on one occasion he was left in the chair for 15 minutes. While in the chair J.S. would be upset about his predicament. The use of the highchair as a means to confine J.S. took place on February 6 and 7, 2001. On Wednesday, February 7, 2001, the staff placed J.S. in the highchair against his will more than once but no more than three times. On one occasion on that date when J.S. attempted to follow Respondent out the door and the other employees were busy with other duties, Respondent said, "If he gets out the door you are not going to catch him," in comments offered to the staff members. As a consequence J.S. was placed in the highchair. J.S.'s placement in the highchair as a means to control him did not interfere with his toileting. He was not being "potty" trained at the time. His placement in the highchair did not interfere with his breakfast and lunch. His placement in the highchair for meals was with his cooperation. Sometime on Wednesday, February 7, 2001, when J.S. was being forcibly placed and detained in the highchair, he received bruises on his left side, right side, hip and back as evidenced in photos taken by S.S. on February 7, 2001. See Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2A through 2G. When seen on February 13, 2001, by the University of Florida Child Protection Team, the bruises were still in evidence. On that date the bruise on the left side of J.S.'s abdomen, about two inches from his umbilicus, was one centimeter to one and one-half centimeters in length. The bruise on the right side of his abdomen just above the hip area was small and faint. It was about one and one-half centimeters in length. The bruises appeared yellow in color indicating that they were at least a couple of days old, according to Linda Cox Ebbeling, A.R.N.P., who examined J.S. on that date. Her opinion on the age of the bruises is credited. Photos taken at the time Ms. Ebbeling examined J.S. are attached as part of Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1. Notwithstanding the presence of the bruises at the time Ms. Ebbeling examined J.S., the abdomen appeared non-tender, with no hepatosplenomegaly. Ms. Ebbeling did not observe any bruising on J.S.'s back as had been detected by S.S. on February 7, 2001. The confinement of J.S. to the highchair against his will is discipline that was frightening to the child. The discipline was severe and humiliating. It was a form of physical punishment.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered imposing a $500.00 administrative fine against Bobbie Potter, owner/operator of Ms. Bobbie's Flutterby Child Care Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 20th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Sort 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602-0390 Stephen M. Witt, Esquire Post Office Box 2064 Lake City, Florida 32056 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Parties HRS receives federal funds through the Social Services Block Grant for the purpose of purchasing child day care services for certain clients of the agency. HRS District V issued its RFP for those services for fiscal year 1986/1987 on March 28, 1986. The statement of purpose for the RFP provides: The Department is requesting proposals to provide child day care services in Pasco and Pinellas Counties through one or more central agencies as defined in the Rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Chapter 10M-11, Section 11.02[sic] and HRSM 175-14. It is the Department's intent to contract with no more than three (3) central agencies. A potential provider may submit a proposal to provide services in any or all of the following components: The development and provision of infant care, preschool care and school age care in predominantly rural Pasco County. The provision of preschool care and school age care in predominantly urban Pinellas County. The provision of infant care in Pinellas County that is compatible with the unique county licensing program requiring the care of infants in family day care homes. Since only two infants may be in care in each home, a minimal percentage of pre- schoolers will be allowed in this com- ponent. * * * [Respondent's Exhibit #1, p3-4] On April 29, 1986, proposals were received as follows: Project Playpen proposed providing infant and some preschool care in Pinellas County with administrative costs of 4 percent. Latchkey proposed to provide all three components with administrative costs of 12 percent. RCMA proposed providing infant, preschool and school age care in Pasco County with administrative costs of 11 percent. Project Playpen has been providing infant and some preschool care in Pinellas County since 1972. Latchkey has provided after school and some preschool care in Pinellas County for seven years, and has provided after school care in Pasco County for two years. Also for two years Latchkey has provided the infant and preschool care in Pasco County through a subcontract with RCMA. Latchkey is a central agency in District V. After the proposals were received, the HRS evaluation committee met to distribute evaluation sheets and copies of the proposals to its five members. The members then individually reviewed the proposals. On May 5, 1986, the committee met again to resolve areas of doubt and determine the final score for each proposal. As to the Pasco County component the total score derived for RCMA was 384 points; the total score for Latchkey was 355.4; the total available score was 410. Signature Authority The RFP addresses the need for an appropriate signature on the proposal in two places: On page 16, Paragraph L., "Required Copies of the Proposal", sub- paragraph 2. provides, All copies must bear the original signature of an official of the provider agency who is authorized to bind the Provider to the proposal. If the signature is that of an agency, individual other than the President or Chief Executive Officer of the Board, the proposal must be accompanied by a written delegation of authority from the governing board. On page 23, in the proposal evaluation check list, paragraph 1., "Proposal Requirements" provides "(Any one 'No' statement for the following items will automatically disqualify the proposal)." Subparagraph C, on page 24, asks, "Is the proposal signed by a duly authorized officer of the applicant organization?" [Respondent's Exhibit #1] The RCMA proposal was signed by Wendell N. Rollason as Executive Director. He is not a member of the RCMA state board of directors and the proposal did not include a separate board statement of authority. The organizational chart and position description included in the proposal indicate that the Executive Director alone is responsible directly to the Board of Directors. Through delegation or directly, he supervises all RCMA staff. He must keep the RCMA Board fully informed but must [A]ssume and accept full responsibility for all activities, planned or not of the Redlands Christian Migrant Association and its several subdivisions." [Respondent's Exhibit #5, pp. 187-188] The evaluation committee assumed that Mr. Rollason was the chief executive officer, as there was nothing to indicate otherwise and the position description defined a very authoritative position. [tr. - 70] After Latchkey's protest raised the issue of signature authority, the President of the RCMA board, Wm. H. Krome, executed an affidavit stating: May 27, 1986 To Whom It May Concern: For much of the past twenty years I have been associated with Redlands Christian Migrant Association, Inc. as a Board Member. For the last six years I have served as President. I have participated in each writing or rewriting of the Corporation's By-Laws, the latest being two years ago. In 1966 , we employed Mr. Wendell N. Rollason as our corporation's chief executive officer, with the appropriate title Executive Director. It seems unnecessary to add that he is the chief executive officer of the Board, of the senior staff, of the programming and any and all functions and appendages of the Corporation. That is exactly what the use of "Corporation" in the below quoted R.C.M.A. By-Laws means: Article IV Section 2 Paragraph (b) Select or dismiss the Executive Director of R.C.M.A. who shall have responsibility of the day-to-day operations of said Corp- poration without interference by State Board or Directors or its individual members. I might add in all of R.C.M.A.'s dealings with agencies, colleges, or local, state, and federal authorities this is the first time Mr. Rollason's full authority as chief executive officer of the R.C.M.A. and its Board of Directors has ever been challenged. [Petitioner's Exhibit #1] The RCMA by-laws provide for the Board to approve a maximum dollar amount for contracts which may be negotiated and executed by the Executive Director without prior approval, and the Board may authorize the Executive Director to sign contracts annually for ongoing renewable contracts. [Pet. Ex #3, p3] Central Agency The RFF sought proposals from central agencies as defined in HRS rule 10M-11.002 Florida Administrative Code. That rule provides that "central agencies" are "...agencies which operate or subcontract to [sic] three or more centers and render administrative, supervisory, training and technical assistance activities necessary to insure the provision of services at the required level of standards." HRS considers RCMA a central agency. It operates as a central agency in several areas of the state and operates far more than three child care centers throughout the state. It also provides administrative, supervisory, training and technical assistance activities. [tr. - 105, Respondent's Ex #5] School Age Child Care Component RCMA's discussion of school age child care in Pasco County was minimal and the proposal lost points accordingly. [tr - 49]. However, the component is addressed in the proposal. The preference of RCMA was that Latchkey continue its existing school programs as part of Latchkey's proposal, but if that were not feasible RCMA would seek to continue the established programs. [Respondent's exhibit #5, p. 12] Under program objectives, RCMA states that it will expand types of child care services to include school age care as necessary as need is determined by waiting lists. [Respondent's Exhibit #5, p. 18] Data from the 1985 waiting lists indicates that the need for expanded school age care is miniscule (5 percent), compared to preschool (64 percent) and infant Care (31 percent). [Respondent's exhibit #5, pp 40-43] Evaluation of Latchkey: Component vs. Overall The RFP is explicit with regard to HRS' intent to enter into up to three contracts for child care in District V. Its instructions to bidders provide that complete proposals are not necessary for each component but that certain portions of the RFP must be addressed separately for each component. [Respondent's Exhibit #1, pp3, 17] At the bidders' conference attended by Linda Morelock, Latchkey's Executive Director, HRS' representative did not indicate the Department was soliciting an overall proposal rather than the components called for in the RFP. [tr. - 63] At the conference Linda Morelock asked whether the submittals had to be separate packages or could they be included in one notebook for more than one proposal. She was referred to page 17 of the RFP, and was told that the proposals could be packaged together so long as the sections within the package were clearly indicated. [tr. - 44,45] HRS does not, in any district in the state, limit its contracts for child care to a single central agency. There are three central agencies in Palm Beach County alone. [tr. - 106] Latchkey characterized its proposal as an "overall" proposal for all three components in the RFP. It contends that its proposal should have been scored as a whole, rather than by each component.
The Issue Whether the after school child care program operated by the YMCA on the campus of Keeth Elementary School under a contract approved by the Seminole County School District, exclusively for children ages 5 Kindergarten and older, is required to be licensed as a child care facility, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 402.301-402.319, FLORIDA STATUTES(1988 SUPP.).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is charged with the responsibility to enforce the statewide minimum standards for the care and protection of children in child care facilities, as set forth in Secticns 402.301-402.319, Florida Statutes (1987). Petitioner, YMCA of Central Florida, Inc. (YMCA), is a not-for-profit corporation licensed in Florida. The YMCA is a local membership organization affiliated with the national YMCA whose primary purpose is to provide activities that contribute to the development of good character and good sportsmanship of children and other family members in Seminole County. For several years, the YMCA has operated an after school child-care program for children five years old and older on the campus of Keeth Elementary School. The program is staffed by a YMCA counselor who participates in the program as the child-care counselor. The program was licensed as a child day care facility under the name YMCA/Keeth School Age Child Care by HRS, License Number 987-1. Their current license to operate this facility expired in 1988. Keeth Elementary School is a public elementary school owned and operated by the Seminole County School District. The YMCA operates the program under an oral year-to-year agreement with the School Board of the Seminole County School District. On August 22, 1988, an inspection of the facility (the buildings and grounds of the Keeth Elementary School) by an HRS inspector revealed that the facility failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Chapter 10M-12, Florida Administrative Code, which would be sufficient to sustain the denial of the license renewal. By letter dated September 12, 1988, Respondent advised the Petitioner that their application for relicensure was denied. Petitioner was directed to cease operation within 15 days of receipt of this letter unless the cited deficiencies were corrected and Petitioner re-applied for a license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's after school child-care program continue to operate without the requirement of a license from HRS, so long as they continue under contract with the School Board with the same terms and conditions as presently exist. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 18th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order does not contain specific findings of fact but consists primarily of legal argument which has been adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Ruffier, Esquire Sanders, McEwan, Mims and Martinez, P.A. Attorneys at Law 108 East Central Boulevard Post Office Box 753 Orlando, Florida 32802-0753 James A Sawyer, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 7 Legal Office 400 West Robinson, Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
