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.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order holding the Respondent guilty as charged, impose a fine in the amount of $2000 and suspend the Respondent's license for one year. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1988.
The Issue Respondents' alleged violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondents received a copy of the Administrative Complaint and Notice of Hearing as evidenced by receipt for certified mail. (Exhibit 1) Respondents Arvle and Malvey Sue Kiser operate Golden Touch Coiffeurs, 901 Fillmore Avenue, Lehigh Acres, Florida under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon No. 20014 issued by Petitioner on May 27, 1974. On June 13, 1975, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondents' establishment and observed Pearl Raulerson Curry washing the hair of a patron. When asked if she had a Florida license to practice cosmetology, Curry responded that she did not have one. At that time Malvey Kiser informed the inspector that Curry was going to take the test for a license. Kiser knew that Curry didn't have one at that time. (Testimony of Rubin) Respondent Malvey Sue Kiser submitted a written statement in which she claims that the law requiring a licensed person to perform specialist duties in a beauty salon is discriminatory because the same requirement is not imposed on persons performing the same services in barber shops. In her statement she acknowledged that she was aware that the employee Curry did not possess a current license when she was permitted to work in the salon, and that she hired Curry only after having made unavailing complaints of discrimination to various state officials and an attorney. The result was that she decided to challenge the law in question. She further states that she did not receive a quick and speedy hearing which, in turn, weakened her defense inasmuch as witnesses were no longer available. She also claims that the Notice of Violation given to her on June 13th was misleading in that it stated that failure to cure the alleged violation might result in additional disciplinary proceedings or other legal penalties. She therefore believed that if she complied by insuring that the employee became licensed there would be no further proceedings. (Statement of Malvey Kiser)
Recommendation That Respondents' Arvle and Malvey Sue Kiser be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Arvle and Malvey Sue Kiser P.O. Box 1752 c/o Golden Touch Coiffeurs Tallahassee, Florida 901 Fillmore Avenue Lehigh Acres, Florida
Findings Of Fact Florida law requires that persons employed to serve in instructional capacities in the public schools hold valid certificates to teach. The Respondent, Florida Department of Education, is charged by statute with the responsibility of issuing such teaching certificates, and with the concomitant responsibility to suspend or revoke teaching certificates under appropriate circumstances. Sections 231.14 - 231.28, Florida Statutes. Purporting to act under authority of this statutory framework, the Respondent has adopted Rules 6A-4.37, and 6B-2.01 through 6B-2.17, Florida Administrative Code, as its rules establishing practices to be followed in suspending or revoking teaching certificates. The Respondent's rules establish a procedure whereby a teacher charged with conduct that would justify suspension or revocation of a teaching certificate is presented with the options of taking no action, which results in informal procedures at which the appropriate penalty is the only issue; or of requesting a hearing. If a hearing is requested, the teacher is permitted to choose between a hearing conducted by a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings as provided in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, or a hearing conducted by a panel of the Professional Practices Council ("PPC" hereafter). Rule 6A-4.37(2) provides in pertinent part as follows: When the commissioner of education finds that probable cause exists, he shall direct a filing of a formal petition against the certificate holder for the revocation or suspension of a teacher's certificate, together with a form permitting waiver of a hearing officer pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, as hereinafter provided. If section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, shall be waived by both the respondent and the chairman of the professional practices council by executing and filing the waiver form with the commissioner of education within twenty (20) days from service of the petition upon the respondent, the commissioner of education shall direct the chairman of the professional practices council to prosecute the matter before a hearing panel of three members of the professional practices council each of whom has not participated in nor was an informed party in any preliminary investigation of the cause. If section 120.57(1) Florida Statutes, is not waived by the parties, the matter shall be prosecuted before a hearing officer of the division of administrative hearings. The professional practices council may retain an attorney to prosecute the cause. The professional practices council may retain a different attorney to advise the hearing committee and act as a law officer for said committee. On completion of the hearing as hereinafter set forth, the hearing panel or officer, shall transmit through the commissioner of education to the state board of education a transcript of the proceedings and a report, which shall contain specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, interpretations of rules and a recommended order. The state board of education shall review the transcript of testimony and the report. The waiver form utilized is as follows: WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A HEARING BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS IN PREFERENCE TO A HEARING BEFORE A PANEL OF THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES COUNCIL In the matter of the revocation of the teaching certificate of and pursuant to the provisions of 120.57, Florida Statutes, I hereby waive my right to a hearing before a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. In the alternative I do hereby request that this matter be heard before a panel of professional educators from the membership of the Professional Practices Council as provided in 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education. DATE RESPONDENT The remaining paragraphs of 6A-4.37 delineate specific procedures to be followed whether the hearing is conducted by a Hearing Officer, or by a PPC panel. The rule was adopted at a May, 1977 meeting of the State Board of Education. Prior to its adoption, public hearings were conducted, and members of the public, including the Petitioner, were allowed an opportunity to comment. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee of the Florida Legislature reviewed the rule. The rules set out at Chapter 6B-2.01 through 6B-2.16, Florida Administrative Code, establish additional procedures for public hearings conducted by the PPC. These rules pertain to teaching certificate suspension or revocation proceedings and to other matters. They are in large part inconsistent with the provisions of Rule 6A-4.37, and with the Administrative Procedure Act (Ch. 120, Florida Statutes). The rules are no longer followed by the PPC except those provisions which relate to the appointment of a law officer to aid a PPC panel in conducting hearings. The Respondent has been in the process of revising these rules for more than one year. Rule 6B-2.17 relates to probable cause hearings to be conducted by an executive committee. The rule is somewhat vague, but it appears to relate to proceedings under Section 231.57, Florida Statutes, rather than teaching certificate suspension or revocation proceedings. The rule does not relate to the issue of whether a final hearing will be conducted by a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, or a panel of the PPC. During 1977, three-member PPC panels conducted thirteen hearings in teaching certificate suspension or revocation proceedings. Fourteen such hearings were conducted by Hearing Officers. During 1978, eighteen were conducted by PPC panels, and eleven by Hearing Officers. The Petitioner, Florida Education Association/United AFT-AFL-CIO, is a statewide organization composed of persons involved in the field of education. The members are primarily teachers. The Petitioner is a confederation of local affiliates. Its local affiliates serve as collective bargaining representatives for teachers in approximately half of the local school districts in Florida. Among the Petitioner's functions are to protect its members, and members of the teaching profession with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment as teachers. The Petitioner provides services which local affiliates are largely unable to perform, including legal assistance and lobbying assistance. In many instances the Petitioner provides legal counsel to its members in connection with teaching certificate suspension or revocation proceedings. At the Petitioner's October, 1978 convention, its members authorized Petitioner's executive council to examine the status of the PPC, and to take steps to clarify the role of the PPC. The instant rule challenge was authorized by the executive council in accordance with that mandate of the membership. There are approximately 90,000 teachers in Florida. The Petitioner represents approximately 30,000 of them.
Findings Of Fact On December 28, 1995, the Department issued a written notice of intent to suspend the Petitioner, White Construction Co., Inc.'s (White) Certificate of Qualification, pursuant to Section 337.16, Florida Statutes. On April 15, 1995, the Department issued a written notice of intent to suspend the Petitioner, Clark Construction Co., Inc.'s (Clark) Certificate of Qualification, pursuant to that statute. The notices asserted that the allowed time under the Department's contracts with White and Clark had expired and that the contract work had not been completed in the case of each contract with those entities. The notices further stated the Department's intent to suspend the Certificates of Qualification and those of their affiliates, as well as the procedures to be followed and the applicable time limits. Both companies filed timely requests for formal hearings, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and those cases are pending at the present time. Additionally, White and Clark challenged the written notices of intent to suspend as being statements which constitute rules which have not been promulgated in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, in alleged violation of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. In taking action, such as suspension or revocation of a contractor's Certificate of Qualification, pursuant to Section 337.16(1), Florida Statutes, the Department's general practice is to issue a written notice which states its reasons for asserting that unsatisfactory progress is being made on a construction project in accordance with the contract terms or for asserting that the allowed contract time has expired. It also informs the contractor of the Department's intent to deny, suspend, or revoke his or her Certificate of Qualification and informs the contractor of his or her right to a hearing, as well as the procedure which must be followed and applicable time limits. The challenged statements contained in the notices of intent issued to Clark and White are consistent with the Department's general practice of implementing Section 337.16(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by informing a delinquent contractor in writing of the Department's intent to deny, suspend or revoke his or her Certificate of Qualification, informing the contractor of his or her right to a hearing, the procedure which must be followed and the applicable time limits. The challenged statements contained in the notices issued to Clark and White are representative of the language generally included in Department notices of intent to deny, suspend or revoke a Certificate of Qualification. The challenged statements provide as follows: * * * Pursuant to Florida Statute 337.16 and in accordance with this determination, we intend to suspend your Certificate of Qualification and those of your affiliates. This suspension will become conclusive final agency action unless you request an Administrative Hearing within ten (10) days from receipt of this notice. Should your Certificate of Qualifi- cation be suspended or revoked, you shall also be disapproved as a subcontractor on any Department project during the period of suspension or revocation. Your request for a hearing shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Clerk of Agency proceedings, Mail Station 58, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0459 within ten (10) days from receipt of this notice. A copy of the request for hearing shall also be provided to the State Construction Engineer, Mail Station 31, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450. The request for hearing shall include: The name and address of the party making the request; A statement that the party is requesting a formal or informal proceeding; and All specific facts and circumstances which the Contractor believes legally excuses the unsatisfactory progress on the project. * * * Failure to timely request an Administrative Hearing within the specified time will result in the contract being declared delinquent. The Department presented no evidence that rule making is not feasible or is not practicable.
Findings Of Fact The RFP Respondent issued a request for proposals in October, 1988, entitled "Turnpike Bridge Replacement Design/Build Project, State Road 91 (Florida's Turnpike)" (the "RFP"). The RFP solicited technical and price proposals for state Project Nos. 97890-3325 and 97930-3324. The State Projects involved the design and construction of temporary detours and permanent replacement bridges over canal crossings at several locations on Florida's Turnpike. The RFP required bridges to be constructed as permanent structures at each of the project sites. Respondent advised interested parties at the scope of services meeting on October 18, 1988, that detour bridges would also be required at all of the project sites. Local permitting was a key factor in the scope of services required for the projects contemplated in the RFP. Respondent advised interested parties, including Petitioner and Intervenor, at the scope of services meeting that Respondent had done no coordinating with local agencies and that local permitting was the responsibility of each party responding to the RFP ("offeror"). The local agency with responsibility for issuing permits for a majority of the canal crossings in the RFP was the Lake Worth Drainage District ("Lake Worth"). Both Petitioner and Intervenor inquired of Lake Worth while preparing their respective technical proposals to confirm Respondent's representation that bridges would be required for both detours and permanent structures at all project sites. Lake Worth advised Petitioner that vertical clearances and hydraulics required bridges for both detours and permanent structures at all canal crossings subject to Lake Worth's jurisdiction. However, Lake Worth advised Intervenor, on or about October 26, 1988, that culverts would be acceptable for detours at three of the project sites. Kenneth Bryant was the President of DSA Group, Inc. ("DSA"). DSA is a consulting engineering firm that was retained by Intervenor to assist in the preparation of its technical and price proposals. Mr. Bryant asked Lake Worth why culverts would not be acceptable for permanent structures if culverts were acceptable for detours. Lake Worth responded that consultants for Lake Worth would look into the hydraulics of the entire system. Petitioner and Intervenor submitted their respective technical proposals on or about January 11, 1989. 2/ Intervenor used culverts in its technical proposal at those canal crossings where Lake Worth had approved the use of culverts for detours. Intervenor also included documentation of the approvals by Lake Worth. Petitioner included bridges in its technical proposal for all detours and permanent structures. The date for submitting price proposals was changed by Respondent several times. The original date was scheduled for 30 days after receipt of the technical proposals. After several delays, price proposals were timely submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor on June 21, 1989. The opening of price proposals was set for July 6, 1989, pursuant to a letter dated June 23, 1989, from Bill Deyo, Design/Build Coordinator for Respondent. The letter stated in relevant part: ... If approved by the Final Selection Committee the selected team will be posted on July 10, 1989, with the final awarding scheduled for July 14, 1989. Award and execution of this contract is contingent upon approval of budget by the Governor's office. Respondent selected Petitioner's proposal as number one and Intervenor's proposal as number two. The Final Selection Committee issued a "memo" on July 6, 1989, authorizing award of the contract. 3/ Award and execution of the contract was approved by the Governor's office. 4/ Rejection of All Proposals On July 10, 1989, Respondent sent a telegram to each offeror cancelling the posting of "bid" tabulations for that day. On August 31, 1989, the Final Selection Committee issued a memorandum rescinding its authorization to award the contract for the RFP, and requested its Contracts Administration Office to notify all "...Design/Build teams of the decision to REJECT all price proposals." On September 12, 1989, Respondent notified all offerors by certified mail of Respondent's decision to reject all "bids". No reason for Respondent's rejection of all price proposals was stated in the certified letter. At that time, offerors were not otherwise advised by Respondent of the reason for the rejection. Respondent rejected all price proposals based upon a substantial reduction in the scope of services required for the RFP. Between October, 1988, and August 31, 1989, Lake Worth determined that culverts would be acceptable instead of bridges at five of the six project sites within the jurisdiction of Lake Worth. Lake Worth's change in position substantially reduced the scope of services required in the RFP. The value of that reduction in the scope of services was approximately $3.6 million. 5/ Respondent knew or should have known from the technical proposal submitted by Intervenor on January 11, 1989, that the scope of services required in the original; RFP had been reduced to the extent Lake Worth had approved the use of culverts instead of bridges for the detours at some of the project sites. Respondent did not investigate the potential reduction in the scope of services until after the opening of price proposals on July 6, 1989. The parties stipulated at the formal hearing that Respondent's rejection of all price proposals was not at issue. Therefore, the question of whether Respondent's rejection of all proposals was arbitrary, capricious, or beyond the scope of Respondent's discretion as a state agency is not at issue in this proceeding. 6/ Respondent's Existing Rule The legislature required Respondent to adopt by rule procedures for administering combined design/build contracts. Section 337.11(5)(b), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, Respondent adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 91.006 on March 13, 1988 ("Rule 14-91.006"). 17. Rule 14-91.006(5) provided: The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technical Policy and Engineering Services, jointly with the Deputy Assistant Secretary representing the District in which the project is located, may determine it is in the best interest of the state to provide funds to firms selected for preparation of technical and price proposals in response to the Design Criteria Package. Each firm selected shall receive identical fixed fees for this work. Specific Authority 334.044(2) 337.11(5)(b) F.S. Law implemented 337.11(5) F.S. History-New 3-13-88. (emphasis added) Rule 14-91.006(5) was adopted to facilitate competitive responses to a request for proposals by paying fixed fees to firms selected by Respondent to prepare technical and price proposals. Rule 14-91.006(5) was also adopted so that Respondent could compensate offerors, retain their technical proposals, and use the design concepts on similar projects. Rule 14-91.006 was amended on June 13, 1990, in relevant part, by repealing Rule 14-91.006(5). The repeal of Rule 14-91.006(5) occurred approximately 33 days after the date of the formal hearing but before the entry of a final order in this proceeding. 7/ Request for Payment After Respondent notified offerors of the rejection of all price proposals, Petitioner and Intervenor requested Respondent to make a determination of whether it was in the best interest of the state to provide funds to Petitioner and Intervenor for the preparation of their respective technical and price proposals in accordance with Rule 14-91.006(5). Petitioner and Intervenor requested on several occasions that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technical Policy and Engineering Services jointly with the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Turnpike convene a meeting to make the determination authorized in Rule 14-91.006(5) Informal conferences with Respondent's representatives were requested on at least four occasions to discuss the issue of Petitioner's compensation for its technical and price proposals. Respondent's representatives met with Petitioner a few days before the formal hearing on May 10, 1990. Respondent stated that it had no statutory authority to compensate Petitioner for Petitioner's technical and price proposals in the absence of a contract. Respondent neither contracted with Petitioner and Intervenor to pay for their technical and price proposals nor offered to enter into such a contract. Petitioner offered to enter into such a contract and also offered to provide computer tapes containing plans and specifications required in the RFP if Respondent would agree to compensate Petitioner. Repeal of Respondent's Existing Rule Sometime between March 13, 1988, and October, 1988, Respondent considered the payment of funds pursuant to Rule 14-91.006(5) in a design/build project that preceded the RFP. 8/ Respondent requested funds from the comptroller but was advised by the comptroller that no funds could be provided pursuant to Rule 14-91.006(5) in the absence of a contract. Respondent's general counsel confirmed that there was no statutory authority to provide funds pursuant to Rule 14-91.006(5) in the absence of a contract. Respondent took no public action to repeal Rule 14- 91.006(5) until March 16, 1990, approximately two years after the earliest date Respondent could have received the directives from its comptroller and general counsel advising Respondent that Rule 14-91.006(5) exceeded its statutory authority. Instead of formally repealing Rule 14-91.006(5), Respondent followed the comptroller's recommendation to obtain legislative authority to pay funds pursuant to Rule 14- 91.006(5). Respondent unsuccessfully proposed such legislation to the House Transportation Committee during the 1989 legislative session. In November, 1989, Respondent drafted an amendment to Rule 14-91.006 which, in relevant part, repealed Rule 14-91.006(5). Notice of the proposed formal repeal of Rule 14- 91.006(5) was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 16, 1990. The amendment to Rule 14-91.006 was adopted and Rule 14-91.006(5) was formally repealed through appropriate rulemaking procedures on June 13, 1990. During 12 design/build projects, Respondent never paid funds to any firm for technical and price proposals when the firm had not been awarded a contract pursuant to a request for proposals. Respondent never adopted standards for determining the proper timing for payment of funds pursuant to Rule 14-91.006(5). Respondent never adopted standards for determining when it would be in the best interest of the state to provide funds pursuant to Rule 14- 91.006(5). Respondent refused to apply Rule 14-91.006(5) and refused to determine if it would be in the best interest of the state to provide funds to Petitioner and Intervenor for their respective technical and price proposals. The sole reason given by Respondent for its refusal to apply Rule 14-91.006(5) was the lack of statutory authority to provide funds to firms selected for preparation of technical and price proposals in the absence of a contract. Respondent's representatives never considered applying Rule 14- 91.006(5). When Respondent's representatives met with Petitioner shortly before May 10, 1990, they stated that they would like to provide the requested funds and that such funds should be provided, but that no statutory authority existed for providing such funds in the absence of a contract. The signatories to the memorandum from the Final Selection Committee, dated August 31, 1989, never met until after the meeting that took place shortly before May 10, 1990, to discuss payment for the technical and price proposals submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. When they did meet, it was determined that no statutory authority existed to provide funds pursuant to Rule 14-91.006(5) in the absence of a contract. Respondent never intended to compensate either Petitioner or Respondent for their respective technical and price proposals in the absence of a contract. Respondent never conducted any review of the technical and price proposals prepared and submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor for the purposes described in Rule 14-91.006(5). Two significant factors to be considered in making such a determination, however, would have been the benefit derived by Respondent from the technical and price proposals submitted and the effect that the provision of such funds would have on competition. Best Interest of the State Payment of funds to Petitioner and Intervenor would have been in the best interest of the state within, the meaning of Rule 14-91.006(5). 9/ Respondent derived substantial benefit from the technical and price proposals submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor including a reduction in the cost of State Project Nos. 97890-3325 and 97930-3324 in the approximate amount of $3.6 million. The fair market value of the proposals submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor was between $500,000.00 and $700,000.00 for each of the two proposals. All of the plan sheets and drawings were completed. The plans were prepared in accordance with Respondent's criteria for plan preparation. Every detail was followed and a complete maintenance of traffic plan was included. Where bridges were designed, the bridge calculations were included. Very little work was left to be done. In order to price out a project of the magnitude and scope required in the RFP, the technical proposals had to be very close to final design. Petitioner's technical proposal for both projects contemplated in the RFP was recorded on magnetic media in Petitioner's computer automated drawing machine. The magnetic media files could be easily transferred to Respondent. Petitioner at all times was ready, willing, and able to make such a transfer if Respondent had agreed to provide funds to Petitioner pursuant to Rule 14- 91.006(5). A great deal of valuable information was contained in the technical proposals prepared and submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Eighty to 90 percent of the engineering decisions were made and depicted either on the preliminary drawings or within the calculations included in the technical proposals. Information gathering and coordination with local permitting agencies, including Lake Worth, was a major component of designing and building the projects described in the RFP. Those kinds of activities required a good deal of time from higher level personnel in each organization. Respondent derived benefit from the technical proposals prepared by Petitioner and Intervenor irrespective of whether bridges or culverts are ultimately used at the canal crossings in the RFP. The only change that would be required would be to erase the bridges and insert details for a culvert crossing. Respondent derived benefit from the technical proposals prepared by Petitioner and Intervenor with respect to the projects contemplated in the RFP and similar projects in the future. Respondent can "relet" the project in the future and intends to do so. 10/ Respondent has retained the technical and price proposals submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor pending the outcome of this proceeding. Respondent's unwritten policy is to either return technical and price proposals to their offerors or destroy such proposals upon the concurrence of the, appropriate offeror. After this proceeding is concluded, Respondent intends to either return or dispose of the technical and price proposals submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor in a manner consistent with its unwritten policy. Reliance On Respondent's Existing Rule Petitioner and Intervenor were aware of Rule 14-91.006(5) in preparing and submitting their respective technical and price proposals. Neither Petitioner nor Intervenor, however, presented evidence of the extent to which they may have relied on Rule 14-91.006(5). Petitioner and Intervenor did not demonstrate that they were induced by Rule 14-91.006(5) to respond to the RFP or that Rule 14-91.006(5) was even a material or significant consideration to them. Payment of funds pursuant to Rule 14-91.006 (5) was neither addressed in the RFP nor discussed by the parties prior to Respondent's rejection of all price proposals. The record leaves open to speculation whether Petitioner and Intervenor would not have responded to the RFP in the absence of Rule 14- 91.006(5).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's written formal protest should be DENIED; Respondent should return the respective technical and price proposals to Petitioner and Intervenor; Respondent should not provide funds to either Petitioner or Intervenor pursuant to former Rule 14-91.006(5). DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of January, 1991. DANIEL MANRY 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 10th day of January, 1991.
The Issue This case concerns the charges made by the Petitioner, City of Clearwater, Florida, against its employee Cleven Wyatt, Respondent, which lead to his termination and dismissal as an employee of that municipality. In particular, through charge one, the Respondent has been accused of violating Rule 14, Section 1(e) of the Civil Service Rules of Clearwater, Florida, by being offensive in his conduct toward a fellow employee. Through charge two, the Respondent is accused of committing a level five offense, within the meaning of the Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, City of Clearwater, Florida, in that he had an unauthorized possession of a knife on City property.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action is a City of Clearwater, Florida, a municipality in the State of Florida which provides governmental services to the citizens within that community. Among its powers is the power to hire and dismiss employees and in keeping with that authority, the City has enacted Ordinance No. 1831 pursuant to Chapter 21153, Special Laws of Florida, 1941. This Ordinance deals with the Career Civil Service System for employees of the City of Clearwater and it sets forth the rights which an employee would have if that employee had been accused of misconduct. In this instance, the Respondent, Cleven Wyatt, has been charged and dismissed from his employment within the Career Civil Service System of the City of Clearwater under the alleged authority set out in the Issues statement of this Recommended Order, pertaining to charges one and two. In association with charge one, it has further been specified that, "at approximately 8:45 a.m., September 25, 1980, Mr. Wyatt, during a verbal exchange between himself and Billy Harbuck, heavy equipment operator, struck Harbuck in the face with his hands and thereafter pulled a knife and threatened Harbuck physically with the knife by using the words, 'I will cut you.'" Further, the specification to charge two states that, "at approximately 8:45 a.m., September 25, 1980, Mr. Wyatt pulled a knife and threatened Mr. Harbuck physically by using the words, 'I will cut you.'" Having been charged with these violations and in keeping with the remedy afforded, the Respondent, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1831, Section 2-38, of the City of Clearwater, Florida, he elected to have a Hearing Officer conduct a formal hearing to determine the accuracy of those charges placed against him. In turn, the City of Clearwater forwarded the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration. This arrangement was concluded pursuant to the contract between the Division of Administrative Hearings and the City of Clearwater, to provide a Hearing Officer for proceedings of this type. See Subsection 120.65(6), Florida Statutes. On December 15, 1980, the hearing was conducted. The facts in this case reveal that on the morning of September 25, 1980, the Respondent brought his sanitation truck to the transfer station to dump the contents of that vehicle. When he arrived at the transfer station he was approached by another employee, Billy Harbuck, who stepped up to the truck and began a conversation with Wyatt, in which he accused Wyatt of stealing watermelons that were planted in the area of the transfer station. Wyatt then got out of his truck and continued to engage in this conversation which became heated and in the course of the exchange, Wyatt accused Harbuck of "making love" with Harbuck's girlfriend while in the "break-room" of the transfer station. In addition to the verbal intensity of this dispute, there had been finger pointing by both parties and when Wyatt made his remark about Harbuck's alleged amorous adventures, Harbuck struck Wyatt on the shoulder and Wyatt in turn slapped Harbuck in the face. (It was not proven that Wyatt stole the watermelons. The facts did establish that Wyatt's claim related to Harbuck's social life with his girlfriend was a false claim, in that his visit with his companion did net involve sexual intercourse.) Following the physical encounter, the combatants armed themselves. The sequence of their arming was the subject of testimony in this cause in which there was extreme diversity of opinion among the several witnesses who gave testimony. Having reviewed that testimony at length with a view toward the interest in this case held by those witnesses and in particular the combatants and the resulting effect this has had on their creditability, it is unclear which individual armed himself first. However, it is certain that shortly after the blows were struck, Harbuck grabbed a metal stool from the ground. The stool was approximately three feet high and ten inches in diameter. It was also shown that Wyatt took a knife from his pocket and opened it and brandished the knife in the direction of Harbuck. At the time the Respondent and Harbuck took up their weapons, another employee, James Cheatum, stepped between them and grabbed the stool which Harbuck held in his hands and pushed Wyatt away from the affray. When he looked from Harbuck to the direction of Wyatt, he saw the knife in Wyatt's hand. Harbuck being unable to further pursue this circumstance by using the stool, he then grabbed a shovel which was in his vicinity, but was again unable to take further action because he was restrained by Cheatum and a second employee, Grover Wilson. At the time that Harbuck was attempting to pick up the shovel, Respondent still had his knife drawn. Both of the combatants expressed malice through their demeanor at the point where they were armed with the knife, stool and shovel, and both combatants were in fear of their opponent at that juncture. Neither individual attempted to strike the other individual with a weapon. Furthermore, the knife which the Respondent had possession was not a knife which he carried with him as a matter of course. It was a knife given to him by an employee of the City of Clearwater to make repairs on the Respondent's sanitation truck. After that aspect of the circumstance involving the shovel had occurred, the fight ended and at the insistence of the supervisor at the transfer station, the Respondent departed the area. He was later charged with the alleged acts of misconduct.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Malcolm T. Watkins, violated sections 455.227(1)(t) and 471.033(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers (the Board), is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes (2016). The Florida Engineers Management Corporation (the Corporation) is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board pursuant to section 471.038, Florida Statutes. The Complaint at issue was filed by the Corporation on behalf of the Board. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a Florida licensed professional engineer, having been issued license number 64064. On July 17, 2015, Respondent was found guilty on the following criminal counts by the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, in Case 2011- CF-002890-01: (1) Traveling to meet a Minor for Unlawful Sexual Conduct; (2) Use of Computer for Child Exploitation; (3) Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Battery; and (4) Unlawful Use of a Two-Way Communications Device. Respondent was sentenced to 10 years’ incarceration followed by five years’ probation. On Count 2, Respondent was sentenced as a Sex Offender. The sworn assertions in the April 25, 2011, Polk County Sheriff’s Affidavit (the Affidavit), and the allegations in the 4th and 6th Amended Information (the Informations) filed by the State Attorney in Case 2011-CF-002890-01, set out the facts supporting Respondent’s conviction. The allegations were grounded in Respondent’s having contacted, via the internet, a fictitious 24-year-old person posing as the custodian of a 13-year-old girl. Respondent arranged a meeting with the supposed 13-year-old, through her “custodian,” at which Respondent would have sexual relations with the 13-year-old. Respondent was arrested on April 25, 2011, at a location in Polk County where he had arranged to meet the “custodian” along with the female minor. On December 21, 2015, five months after Respondent’s conviction, Petitioner’s Investigator, Wendy Anderson, received a written complaint from Kyle Cartier, P.E., notifying Petitioner of the fact of Respondent’s conviction. Upon receipt, Petitioner opened Corporation Case Number 2016000255 (the Complaint). On January 4, 2016, Ms. Anderson notified Respondent via U.S. Mail of the opening of the Complaint. On January 21, 2016, Respondent replied to the Complaint and directed Petitioner to Respondent’s counsel. Respondent subsequently sent two letters to Petitioner, both dated March 11, 2016. The letters were provided to Walton Correctional Institution for mailing on March 18, 2016, and were received by Petitioner on March 23, 2016. The first letter notified Petitioner of Respondent’s conviction, and alleged that the conviction was not final because it had been appealed. The second letter claimed that the conviction did not relate to the practice of engineering and reiterated that Respondent’s conviction was not final because it had been appealed. Respondent’s March 11, 2016, letter notifying Petitioner of the conviction was received 238 days after Respondent’s conviction. Following her investigation of the Complaint, which commenced on December 21, 2015, and concluded on July 28, 2016, Ms. Anderson presented her investigative report to the Board. The Board filed the instant two-count Administrative Complaint against Respondent on September 23, 2016. Count I alleges that Respondent violated section 471.033(1)(d), which includes as grounds for disciplinary action, being convicted or found guilty of a crime “which directly relates to the practice of engineering or the ability to practice engineering.” Count II alleges that Respondent violated section 471.033(1)(a), which includes as grounds for disciplinary action, failing to report in writing to the Board within 30 days after the licensee is convicted or found guilty of a crime in any jurisdiction. Pursuant to section 455.227(2), the Board may impose any one in a range of penalties against Respondent for violating the cited provisions, including license suspension or revocation, practice restrictions, administrative fines, reprimand, and probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding that Malcolm Watkins violated sections 455.227(1)(t) and 471.033(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 2nd day of May, 2017.
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1991, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rules 33-22.005(5) and 33- 22.007(2)(c), 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 Rules. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent 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. Rule 33-22.005(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Section III. Report of Investigation. Upon receipt of the Disciplinary Report, the Senior Correctional Officer shall review the report and, when the facts suggest that the alleged violations is significant, he shall cause the report to be forwarded to the Correctional Officer Chief. Upon approval of the Correctional Officer Chief, or in his absence the Senior Correctional Officer, an impartial investigation of the charge against the inmate shall be conducted. This investigation shall be completed without unreasonable delay. Any delay at any state must be justified in the report. The Correctional Probation Supervisor shall review the report and cause an impartial investigation to be conducted for inmates participating in the Supervised Community Release Program. The investigating officer is responsible for obtaining the inmate's version of the offense as well as contacting the charging officer and any other staff members or inmates who have information pertaining to the allegation and the charge. The inmate charged shall be offered staff assistance and asked if he has any material witnesses to offer in his behalf. If the inmate has no witnesses, it must be noted in the report. If names of witnesses are given, the investigating officer shall then interview both inmate and staff witnesses and, if appropriate, have the Witness Statement Form DC4-856 completed. If inmate witnesses or staff witnesses are not contacted, a statement as to why they were not contacted must be included. Opinions as to innocence or guilt shall not be made by the investigating officer. The investigator shall sign and date the report. Rule 33-22.007(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (2) The Hearing Officer or Disciplinary Team can request further investigation or evidence, the appearance of additional witnesses or the statements of unavailable witnesses. . . . . Witnesses shall not be called or certain information disclosed if doing so would create a risk of reprisal, undermine authority or otherwise present a threat to the security or order of the institution. The inmate witnesses must be willing to testify but may offer an oral or written statement to the investigating officer in lieu of personal appearance. Notations shall be made in the report with reasons for declining to call requested witnesses or for restricting any information. The Petitioner has alleged that the Challenged Rules are invalid because the rules are "contrary to due process contained in enabling legislation. Section 20.315, Florida Statutes (1989)" and are vague, arbitrary and capricious. The Petition does not include any alleged facts supporting the Petitioner's assertion that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious."
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a restricted barber and operating under the name of Miracles in Motion, located in Tampa, Florida. On May 9, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006030590 in the amount of $400. The fine, due to be paid by July 9, has not been paid. On October 13, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006058259 in the amount of $250. The fine, due to be paid by December 24, has not been paid. Also on October 13, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006058271 in the amount of $250. The fine, due to be paid by December 24, has not been paid. On October 24, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006063364 in the amount of $400. The fine, due to be paid by December 24, has not been paid. Respondent did not dispute the facts contained in these four Citations. Under the terms of the Citations, they, therefore, automatically became final orders 30 days after they were issued. Since Respondent has not paid those fines, he fails to be in compliance with four final orders of the Department. The total amount of fines not paid by Respondent pursuant to the four Citations involved in this proceeding is $1,300.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent is not guilty of violating Section 476.204(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 11th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Barbers' Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Philip F. Monte, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Elvis O'Neil Crooks 7117 Wrenwood Circle Tampa, Florida 33617
