The Issue Whether statements issued by the GEO Group, Inc. (GEO), a private company under contract with the Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (Respondent or Department) to operate the FCCC constitute unpromulgated "rules" within the definition of Section 120.52, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact According to Part V of Chapter 394, Florida Statutes (2007), the Legislature determined that sexually violent predators generally have antisocial personality features that are not amenable to mental illness treatment. In response to a finding that such persons are likely to engage in repeated acts of criminal behavior, the Legislature created a civil commitment procedure for the long-term care and treatment of sexually violent predators. The FCCC was created as the appropriate facility to house and treat these individuals. See §§ 394.910 et seq., Fla. Stat. (2007). When a "sexually violent predator" is to be released from the incarceration portion of a criminal sentence, the person is committed to the custody of the Department for "control, care, and treatment until such time as the person's mental abnormality or personality disorder has so changed that it is safe for the person to be at large." See § 394.917, Fla. Stat. (2007). The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO) is a private company that operates the FCCC under a contract with the Respondent. The contract ends on June 30, 2009. The contract dictates that GEO will: . . . fully implement all programs for FCCC residents which shall include a comprehensive sexual offender treatment program and all services necessary, including internal security, to support the full-time residential care of persons living in a secure facility, as described in the Program Description (attached as Exhibit H). The contract also directs GEO to: . . . be responsible for implementing a resident behavior management system that encourages good conduct, corrects misconduct, and generally promotes safety and security (as described in Exhibit H, Program Description). The contract specifies that resident behavior management would allow residents to earn or lose privileges in accordance with their conduct at FCCC; would list specific acts and types of misconduct, with a specific range of consequences associated with each act or type of misconduct; would secure confinement for residents whose conduct endangers the safe and secure operation of the facility; and would have an adequate due process mechanism for residents impacted by a behavior decision. The Respondent did not and does not dictate the specifics of how FCCC internal policies and guidelines are to be worded or developed. Timothy J. Budz, MSW, LCSW, is the FCCC facility administrator. Mr. Budz is responsible for the day-to-day operations at the FCCC and supervises employees and activities at the facility. He is also responsible for the development and implementation of internal policies and guidelines that GEO uses to comply with its contractual obligations with the Department. The Petitioner, Larry Phillips, is involuntarily committed to the FCCC. The record is not clear as to how long Mr. Phillips has resided at the FCCC. The Petitioner has challenged internal operating policies employed at the FCCC. Generally speaking, the operating procedures that are the subject of this proceeding are policies that held over from when the FCCC was operated by another company, Liberty Behavioral Health Corporation (Liberty). GEO took over this facility from Liberty in July 2006 and although it has attempted to revisit some of the policies (to include consideration of input from residents at FCCC, staff at FCCC, and the Respondent), the policies have not been completely reviewed or revised. Implicit in the testimony of Mr. Budz was a recognition that this Petitioner has been at the facility since (at least) July of 2006. The policies left by Liberty are not all enforced by GEO. The Petitioner challenges FCCC policy D-4. The policy (Respondent's Exhibit 9) states: It is the policy of the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) to ensure that residents will be able to send and receive mail and authorized packages. The "purpose" for policy D-4 states: To ensure that FCCC residents can receive and send mail and receive authorized packages in a timely manner while protecting against the introduction of contraband and other prohibited materials into the facility. FCCC policy D-4 was effective July 29, 2005. Attached to the three page policy were forms to be used in connection with mail that is received and sent. The Petitioner did not testify. There is no evidence that the Petitioner has been denied the ability to receive or send mail through the United States Postal Services (all mail and packages must be sent to residents via this method per the policy procedure). The Petitioner also challenged FCCC policy D-13. This policy provides: The Florida Civil Commitment Center will utilize restrictions on, or suspensions of, resident privileges in response to behavior that poses a danger to self, others, or property, or which is disruptive or otherwise interferes with the treatment milieu. The stated purpose of FCCC policy D-13 was: To limit or suspend privileges for residents who exhibit inappropriate or threatening behavior, until it is determined that the resident is able to exercise the privileges in a safe and proper manner. FCCC policy D-13 was effective March 3, 2003. Listed among its procedures are the restrictions and suspensions that are individualized to the resident and circumstance of the behavior reported. The Petitioner did not establish that any restrictions or suspensions of privileges had been enforced against him for any reason. At all times during the hearing of this cause the Petitioner and his qualified representative exhibited appropriate behavior and did not appear to be limited by any of the restrictions noted in policy D-13. The Petitioner challenged FCCC policy D-14. This policy states: The Florida Civil Commitment Center will impose restrictions on a resident's movement in response to inappropriate behavior, which is disruptive to the normal, efficient operation of the facility. The purpose of FCCC policy D-14 is: To limit exposure to external stimulation for residents who are disruptive and/or demonstrate a need to reduce their level of agitation. FCCC policy D-14 was effective March 3, 2003. Among the procedures noted for this policy is a provision of daily visits by a clinical therapist for a resident with movement restrictions. The Petitioner did not establish that he was ever subjected to movement restrictions. The Petitioner did not establish that he was ever denied a visit by a clinical therapist. The Petitioner did establish, however, that certain rooms used for residents whose movements are limited are the equivalent of a locked "cell" as that term is generally understood. The Petitioner challenged FCCC policy D-15. This policy was effective October 27, 2003, and has been identified as "under revision" by GEO. This policy, entitled "Behavior Intervention and Management," is one of the policies GEO is redrafting. In this regard GEO has sought input from the Respondent but is not governed by or dictated to follow any suggestions offered by the Department. Nevertheless, as adopted at the time of hearing, the policy provided: The Florida Civil Commitment Center will intervene when residents behave in a manner that jeopardizes their own safety or the safety of the facility, its staff, and/or residents; disrupts the orderly operation of the facility; and/or is inconsistent with the treatment goals established for the resident. Interventions will be based on the therapeutic and clinical needs of the resident, with due consideration given to the rights, consistent fair treatment, and well being of all residents and facility staff. The purpose of FCCC policy D-15 is: To establish a set of procedures whereby inappropriate behavior can be corrected or controlled in a reasonable and timely fashion, and the resident has a meaningful opportunity to participate in the behavior management process and seek review of the final disposition. The procedure for FCCC policy D-15 recognizes "minor misbehavior" that does not pose a significant threat and denotes its differences from resident behavior that does jeopardize security or safety. The Petitioner did not establish that he committed or was subject to either designation (minor misbehavior or otherwise). It is unknown if the policy has ever been enforced against this Petitioner. At hearing the Petitioner and his qualified representative conducted themselves in an appropriate, respectful manner and did nothing by word or act to suggest either has exhibited conduct within the governance of this policy. FCCC policy D-16 provides: The Florida Civil Commitment Center will utilize Secure Management in response to aggravated misbehavior, which jeopardizes the safety and security of the facility, its staff, and/or residents or seriously and maliciously disrupts the normal operations of the facility. The purpose for FCCC policy D-16 is: To restrict the mobility of a resident whose aggravated misbehavior demonstrates the need for a more secure environment until such time as the resident's mental status has returned to a manageable level and the resident no longer poses a risk to the safety or efficient operation of the facility. Under the procedures of this policy, the resident's liberty (mobility) and privileges may be limited. Again, as previously stated, the rooms wherein a resident who is subject to this policy may be confined are similar to "cells." Additionally, a resident subject to this confinement may be placed in hand and leg restraints. There is no evidence that the Petitioner has ever been subjected to this policy or is likely to be subjected to the terms of this policy. Further, there is no evidence that the policy would be applied to any resident not governed by the specific terms of the policy, ie. someone who must be placed in a locked room to prevent injury to others, damage to property, or threats to the security or normal operation of the facility. FCCC policy D-16 is currently under revision, but the version applicable to this case became effective March 3, 2003. The Petitioner challenged FCCC policy D-21 but it was not received in evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit H (not in evidence) purported to be this policy but is, on its face, outdated and has been superseded by another policy: FCCC policy D-4. As previously discussed, the receipt of packages by residents is governed by the "Packages and Mail" provision found in FCCC policy D-4. FCCC policy G-10 was also not admitted into evidence. It is entitled "Pornography, Prohibited and Inappropriate Materials." It was marked for identification (but not offered) as Petitioner's pre-filed Exhibit L. The Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding this policy. FCCC policy G-24 was also not admitted into evidence. It is entitled "Resident Computer Lab." It was marked for identification (but not offered) as Petitioner's pre-filed Exhibit N. The Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding how he has been adversely or positively affected by this policy. The Petitioner may have sought to challenge FCCC policy D-5. This policy (admitted into evidence as Respondent's Ex. 12) is entitled "Resident Communications, Complaints and Grievances." FCCC policy D-5 was effective June 23, 2003. The reason it is unclear whether this is the policy Petitioner sought to challenge is due to the numbering of policies. The FCCC policy included with Petitioner's pre-filed exhibits, Petitioner's Exhibit P, was numbered "G-5" however that provision purportedly dealt with "Supervision of Resident Movement." As to either policy, the Petitioner did not present any evidence to establish he had been adversely affected or would likely be affected by the policies. As previously indicated, the Petitioner abandoned his challenge to FCCC policy E-6, Use of Medical Seclusion and Restraints (Petitioner's Pre-filed but not offered Exhibit I). The Petitioner's pre-filed Exhibit K [FCCC policy G-6 entitled "Facility Searches"] was not admitted into evidence. The Petitioner offered no evidence to support a challenge to this provision. The Petitioner also challenged the FCCC Resident Handbook. The handbook was revised August 1, 2005, and portions of it are being revisited by GEO. A copy of the Handbook is provided to the FCCC resident upon arrival. It is also available to FCCC residents within the dormitories. The handbook gives an overview of the various FCCC operational policies and affords the resident a concise, quick reference for topics also addressed during the resident's orientation. One of the problems in this case stems from a general confusion as to what policy will govern a particular situation. In this regard GEO has not provided current editions of policies to the Petitioner or his qualified representative. In some instances it may be that the policy is still under consideration. The Respondent does not have control over the terms of the policies that have been or will become effective. The FCCC internal operating policies are ultimately determined by GEO and its staff. Presumably, GEO will provide updated versions of all policies to the Petitioner (and others at FCCC) when the handbook and policies are completed. The ability of a resident to review internal policies would undoubtedly prove instructive as to the types of behaviors and consequences likely to result from them. Additionally, as a grievance procedure will be provided it should afford residents with an outlet to vent their disagreements with any policy.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive an allocation of affordable housing funds from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation as a result of the alleged improper scoring of another applicant's application during the 2001 funding cycle.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties Petitioner is a Florida limited partnership that is engaged in the business of developing affordable housing projects. FHFC is a statutorily-created public corporation. It is the State's designated "housing credit agency," and it is responsible for the allocation of tax credits and the distribution of other funds for the development of affordable housing projects. FHFC is administratively housed in the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and it is governed by a nine-member board. Eight members of the board are appointed by the Governor; the ninth member of the board is the Secretary of DCA, who serves in an ex officio capacity. FHFC Programs The programs administered by FHFC include the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) Program and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Program (Housing Credits Program). The funds from the SAIL Program are used to provide low-interest loans to developers. The funds come from various sources of state revenue, and the loans are typically secured by a second mortgage on the property on which the affordable housing project is developed. The Housing Credits Program is governed by federal law, namely Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. The program provides dollar-for-dollar federal tax credits to developers that can be used over a 10-year period so long as the related affordable housing project satisfies the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code throughout that period. The tax credits can be, and often are sold or "syndicated" by the developer in order to generate the funds necessary to construct the project. Each state receives an annual allotment of tax credits from the federal government to be used in its Housing Credits Program. For 2001, Florida's allocation of tax credits was approximately $23.9 million, of which approximately $20.7 million was available for allocation. FHFC received requests totaling approximately $81.3 million in the 2001 funding cycle for the available $20.7 million in tax credits Some of the available tax credits are apportioned by FHFC into a "set-aside" for projects in small counties. Only projects located in small counties compete for the tax credits in the small county set-aside. For 2001, the small county set-aside was $1,739,586.90, and FHFC received requests for those funds totaling approximately $5.5 million. FHFC Evaluation Process Because the funds requested from the SAIL Program and the Housing Credits Program typically exceed the available funds (as was the case in 2001), FHFC has established a competitive application process through which the applications are evaluated, scored, and ranked. The applications are first reviewed for all of the "threshold" items identified in the application forms and FHFC’s rules. If an application does not have all of the threshold items, it is rejected. By contrast, the failure to include non- threshold items or the failure to provide complete, consistent, and accurate information in the format and location prescribed in the application forms results in the application not receiving the full amount of points available or the imposition of a penalty that reduces the overall score given to the application. Next, FHFC staff reviews all of the applications that were not rejected for omitting a threshold item. That review results in a “preliminary score” for each application, which is provided to all of the applicants. Then, there is a 10-day period in which applicants may challenge FHFC's preliminary scoring of their application or the preliminary scoring of any other applicant's application. Such a challenge is called a Notice of Possible Scoring Error (NOPSE). FHFC provides each applicant the NOPSEs relating to its application as well as a statement of FHFC's position on the NOPSE. The applicants are then given a period of time -- referred to as the "cure period" -- to submit additional documentation, revised forms or other information they deem appropriate to address the issues raised in the NOPSEs, FHFC's comments on the NOPSEs, and/or FHFC's preliminary scoring of the application. The additional submittals are referred to as "cures." After the cures are submitted, the applicants again have an opportunity to bring deficiencies in competing applications to FHFC's attention. The mechanism for doing so is a Notice of Alleged Deficiency (NOAD). After reviewing the cures and any NOADs, FHFC staff prepares a revised score for each application. This score is referred to as the “pre-appeal score.” Along with the pre-appeal scores, each applicant is given notice of its right to challenge its score through a formal administrative proceeding at the Division or through an informal proceeding before a hearing officer appointed by FHFC. Most applicants opt for an informal hearing because, as a result of the time constraints imposed by the funding cycle, those who opt for a formal hearing will not be funded until a subsequent cycle if they prevail at the hearing. After all of the informal hearings are completed and any scoring adjustments are made based upon the results of those hearings, the applications are ranked based upon their “post- appeal scores.” The post-appeal scores and rankings are approved by the FHFC board and are used to award the available funds. The standards and procedures for ranking applications for tax credits are set forth in the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP). The QAP is required by the Internal Revenue Code and it is adopted and incorporated by reference in FHFC's rules. Among other things, the QAP establishes the priority of applications which receive the same scores. That priority is established through two "tie-breakers." The first tie-breaker is whether the application is in Group A or Group B, and the second tie-breaker is a random lottery number assigned to the application prior to the final rankings. The group into which the application falls is determined based upon the Corporation Funding per Set-aside Unit (CFSU) amount identified on Form 10 of the application. Group A includes the 65 percent of the applications that have the lowest CFSU amounts. Applications in Group A receive priority over applications in Group B in the event that the applications receive the same final score. For applications in the same group with the same score, priority is given to the application with the lower lottery number. 2001 Combined Cycle Generally The 2001 funding cycle was referred to as a "combined cycle" because it combined the SAIL Program, the Housing Credits Program, and another program not implicated in this case called the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME Program), into a single application and review process. The application package for the 2001 Combined Cycle included 23 numbered forms, not all of which were applicable to every applicant. The applications submitted in the 2001 Combined Cycle, including those submitted by Petitioner and TWC, were reviewed and scored in accordance with the procedures described above. Relevant Forms Form 1 of the application is entitled "Applicant and Development Data." Page 10 of Form 1 includes the following statements: The Applicant and all Financial Beneficiaries understand and agree that full points will be awarded only in the event that all information required by each form is provided in accordance with the Application requirements. Failure to provide complete, consistent and accurate information in the format and location prescribed by the Application will result in a REDUCTION OF POINTS OR REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION as indicated on each form. Only information contained within the Application will be considered for purposes of points awarded or appealed. . . . . Form 5 of the application is entitled "Local Government Contributions." Page 1 of Form 5 states that: Each applicable verification form must have an Original signature by one of the designated signatories indicated on the appropriate verification form. Zero points will be awarded if Applicant uses the incorrect form or if the form is not signed by one of the designated signatories. Separate verification forms are included in Form 5 for the different types of local government contributions. There are separate verification forms for grants (Form 5, page 6), fee waivers (Form 5, page 7), loans (Form 5, page 8), tax exempt bond financing (Form 5, page 9), “other contributions” (Form 5, page 10), and exemptions from ad valorem taxation (Form 5, page 11). The verification form for fee waivers states that “[n]o credit will be given for fee waivers unless the computations by which the total amount of each waiver is determined accompanies this verification form in the Application.” That same language is not included on the verification form for "other contributions”; however, that verification form includes a sentence stating that “[t]he amount of this contribution was calculated as shown behind the tab labeled ‘Form 5, Exhibit .’” The verification form for “other contributions” also includes the following statement: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED BY THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, COUNTY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATOR, CHAIRPERSON OF THE CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION OR CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. . . . . OTHER SIGNATORIES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE APPLICANT WILL NOT RECEIVE CREDIT FOR THIS CONTRIBUTION IF THE VERIFICATION FORM IS IMPROPERLY SIGNED AND/OR DOES NOT HAVE AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. Form 6 of the application is entitled "Local Government Planning Efforts." Pages 2 and 3 of Form 6 are the verification forms for any affordable housing incentives being offered for the project by the applicable local government. Both pages include the following statement: This form must be signed by the MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, COUNTY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATOR, OR CHAIRPERSON of the CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION OR CHAIRPERSON of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. OTHER SIGNATORIES ARE UNACCEPTABLE. ZERO POINTS WILL BE AWARDED. . . . . The application and all of these forms are adopted and incorporated by reference in FHFC's rules. Applications Submitted by Petitioner and TWC Petitioner submitted an application for an allocation of $561,000 in tax credits and for an award of funding under the SAIL Program for its proposed Ochlocknee Pointe development in Gadsden County. Petitioner's application was designated by FHFC as No. 01-131CS. A competing application for $890,000 in tax credits was filed by TWC for its proposed Windsong II development in Columbia County. TWC's application did not seek funding under the SAIL Program. TWC’s application was designated by FHFC as No. 01-125C. Neither Petitioner nor TWC applied for funds under the HOME Program. Because of their locations, the applications submitted by Petitioner and TWC were competing for the tax credits available in the small county set-aside. There were also seven other applicants competing for the tax credits in the small county set-aside. Alleged Deficiencies in TWC's Application and Initial Scoring by FHFC Staff Form 5 of TWC's original application indicated that the project had not received any local government contributions. As a result, the original application did not include any executed local government contribution verification forms. Form 6 of TWC's original application did not identify any affordable housing incentives being offered by the local governments. As a result, the original application did not include any executed verifications forms for such incentives. As part of its cure submittals, TWC submitted a revised Form 5 and a revised Form 6. The revisions were made because TWC had received verification of local government contributions and affordable housing incentives. The revisions included executed verification forms for Form 5 (page 10)1 and for Form 6 (pages 2 and 3). The verification forms at issue in this proceeding were executed by Dale Williams; the title listed for Mr. Williams was County Coordinator. A letter signed by Mr. Williams was included along with the “other contributions” verification form (Form 5, page 10). The letter was on the letterhead of the Board of County Commissioners of Columbia County and includes the words "County Coordinator" under Mr. Williams name and signature. The letter was designated as and included in the cure submittal behind a tab marked "Form 5, Exhibit A." The letter states that "Columbia County will provide the installation of roadway turn lanes at Branford Highway to service Windsong II Apartments for a contribution equivalent to a total value of $102,000." The letter does not include any calculations showing how the “total value of $102,000” was computed, and no such calculation was included elsewhere in TWC's cure submittals. There is nothing in TWC’s cure submittals that explained the nature of the County Coordinator position or stated that Columbia County does not have a County Manager/Administrator designated as such. TWC was not awarded four points on Form 6 because County Coordinator was not specifically listed along with “City Manager, County Manager/Administrator, or Chairperson of the City Council/Commission or Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners” as an authorized signatory for that form. For that same reason, TWC also was not awarded any points on Form 5 for the $102,000 local government contribution referred to in Mr. Williams' letter. That contribution was worth 7.64 points. TWC was also penalized 1.5 points on Form 5 because no documentation was provided showing how the "total value of $102,000" was calculated for the local government contribution described in Mr. Williams' letter. These scoring determinations were made by Debra King, the FHFC staff person who reviewed TWC’s application and cure submittals, and they were concurred in by Ms. King’s “scoring partner.” Scoring Appeals by Petitioner and TWC FHFC completed the scoring process for the 2001 Combined Cycle on August 1, 2001, when it advised the applicants of their pre-appeal scores. TWC's pre-appeal score was 608.86, which included the penalty and point reductions described above. Petitioner's pre-appeal score was 620.5, which included a 1.5 point penalty for Petitioner’s failure to specify a unit of measurement on Form 7. TWC and Petitioner both requested informal hearings to challenge their pre-appeal scores. Those hearings, which are commonly referred to as “scoring appeals,” were conducted by hearing officers appointed by FHFC. At the informal hearing on TWC’s scoring appeal, FHFC conceded that Mr. Williams was an authorized signatory for Forms 5 and 6 because, as the "County Coordinator," Mr. Williams was the de facto County Manager/Administrator for Columbia County. FHFC also conceded that documentation relating to the computation of the $102,000 in roadway improvement being contributed by Columbia County was not necessary because it was a lump-sum contribution. FHFC agreed to re-score TWC's application in light of those concessions. The concession that Mr. Williams was an authorized signatory was based upon FHFC staff's review of the job description for the County Coordinator position and the organizational chart for Columbia County attached to TWC's Petition for Informal Administrative Hearing as well as phone calls that FHFC staff made to Columbia County after receiving that information to confirm that the county did not have a County Manager/Administrator designated as such. The concession that a document showing how the local government contribution was calculated was based upon FHFC staff’s review of excerpts from prior applications that were attached to TWC’s Petition for Informal Administrative Hearing. Those applications apparently received full points for their “other contributions” even though they did not include detailed calculations for the contributions; however, almost all of the excerpts showed at least a general breakdown of the items which made up the total shown on the verification form. As a result of FHFC's concessions, the hearing officer concluded that the TWC’s scoring appeal was "moot" and she issued a Recommended Order which contained no findings of fact or conclusions of law. The hearing officer's Recommended Order, which FHFC adopted in toto as its Final Order, recommended that TWC's application "be rescored to reflect the removal of the 1.5-point penalty to Form 5; to add 7.64 points to Form 5; and to add 4 points to Form 6." The net effect of that rescoring was that TWC's application received a post-appeal score of 622. Petitioner did not fare as well in its scoring appeal. The hearing officer made the following findings of fact with respect to the 1.5-point penalty assessed based upon Petitioner's failure to specify the unit of measure on Form 7: Form 7, Page 11, is entitled "Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulation." On Page 11 of Form 7, there is a requirement to state the "Size of Parcel (acreage, number of lots, or square footage)." In its Revised Page 11 of Form 7 [Petitioner], in response to that requirement entered the numbers "9.99" without any accompanying unit of measure. It is clear from a review of other pertinent parts of the application that the appropriate unit of measure to accompany the number "9.99" is "acres." Further, its [sic] reasonable to conclude on the face of [Petitioner's] Revised Page 11 of Form 7, when read in conjunction with the entire application . . . , that the number "9.99" refers to acres. (Citations omitted). Despite those findings, the hearing officer recommended that the 1.5-point penalty be affirmed. That recommendation was based primarily on the following conclusion of law: The instructions on Page 11 of Form 7 require a unit of measure be appended to the number of units placed in the answer blank. While it may be true that such a result is particularly frustrating to the applicant in light of the reality that its omission has created no confusion or inconsistency nor diminished the accuracy of the application, [FHFC] has nevertheless adopted rules requiring strict compliance with regard to providing complete information in the format and location prescribed by the instructions on the forms. That rule cannot be ignored. Thus, the failure of [Petitioner] to include a unit of measure on its Revised Page 11 of Form 7 is an error that does result in a single 1.5-point penalty. FHFC adopted the hearing officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation in toto as its Final Order, and Petitioner did not seek judicial review of the Final Order. As a result, Petitioner's pre-appeal score of 620.5 became its post-appeal score. Petitioner's application was in Group B, and its lottery number was 68. TWC's application was in Group A, and its lottery number was 27. Thus, in the event that Petitioner and TWC received the same final score, priority for funding would be given to TWC. If Petitioner's application had received a higher score than TWC's application, then Petitioner's application would have been in the "funding range" and Petitioner would have received an allocation of tax credits for its project. If Petitioner had received the tax credits, it would have also received SAIL funding. The record does not reflect the total amount of tax credits and SAIL funding that Petitioner would have received; however, if TWC's application was moved below Petitioner's application on the final funding list (Exhibit R2), then $339,164.90 in tax credits would have been available to Petitioner after the higher-ranked applicants were fully funded.2 Additional Facts Established at the De Novo Final Hearing in this Case The $102,000 “total value” for the roadway improvements referred to in Mr. Williams' letter is reasonable. Indeed, the itemized cost-estimate prepared by professional engineer Greg Bailey in the design phase for the improvements was $106,064. The $102,000 in roadway improvements cannot be characterized as a lump-sum contribution. As Mr. Bailey’s cost- estimate shows, the improvements include 16 components such as paving, grading, and drainage; and a cost-per-unit and an estimated quantity is listed for each component. At the time Mr. Bailey prepared the cost-estimate, he was working for C&W Land Trust. Accordingly to one of the documents in TWC’s application (Form 7, Exhibit A), C&W Land Trust was the landowner from whom TWC acquired the property where its Windsong II project will be located. Mr. Bailey provided the cost-estimate to the county engineer for Columbia County for his use in evaluating bids submitted for the construction of the roadway improvements. The county engineer forwarded a memo to Mr. Williams on June 14, 2001, stating that the construction cost for the improvements “is estimated to be $102,000.00.” Requiring documentation to support the calculation of a local government contribution is important because it helps prevent an applicant from “gaming” the system in order gain an advantage in the scoring of its application. For example, where the contribution is based upon a per-unit amount, the calculations help to ensure that the number of units committed by the applicant as a basis for the local government contribution is the same number of units committed by the applicant in the application to FHFC. Documentation showing the calculation of the $102,000 local government contribution referenced in Mr. Williams letter is equally important because without such documentation there was no way for FHFC to determine during its review whether that figure is a reasonable estimate of the cost of the roadway improvements which are being contributed by Columbia County. It is necessary for FHFC to be able to make such a determination because the points awarded to the applicant for the contribution are based in large part on the amount of the contribution. At the time that TWC submitted the verification forms and letter signed by Mr. Williams, Columbia County did not have a position called County Manager or County Administrator. The County Coordinator position was the de facto County Manager/Administrator. The County Coordinator was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to "administer all programs and to ensure that County government operates efficiently and effectively." The County Coordinator reported directly to the Board of County Commissioners and, among other duties, the position supervised all department heads (except the head of Public Works Department) and provided "direction, leadership and supervision to all County Department heads." Presently, Columbia County has a County Manager and Mr. Williams serves in that position. The job duties for the County Manager position are virtually identical to those of the County Coordinator position. Indeed, even though text of the position description no longer excepts the Public Works Department from Mr. William’s supervision, the county’s organizational chart still shows the Public Works Department outside of Mr. Williams chain of command.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation issue a final order which determines that Petitioner is entitled to an allocation/award of tax credits and SAIL funds in the next available cycle. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 30th day of March, 2004.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from January 1, 2000, through June 13, 2002, on the basis of his employment with Florida Community College at Jacksonville (FCCJ).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert Burns, has been employed as an adjunct instructor of FCCJ since March 1989. FCCJ is a member employer under FRS. Adjunct instructors traditionally have been employed by FCCJ on a class-by-class, semester-by-semester basis, and have no expectation of employment beyond any single semester. Petitioner knew this from his date of first hire. When Petitioner began work with FCCJ, all adjunct instructors were given a contract for each term and each course. This practice continued for all instructors and classes until the year 2000. Despite the semester-to-semester, repetitive contracts, occasionally Petitioner's courses were of a duration longer than one semester, and Petitioner was sometimes evaluated only on an annual basis. These evaluations were for purposes of certifying Petitioner and similarly situated adjunct instructional personnel for further semester contracts. At all times material, Petitioner taught on three campuses and taught college courses in biology and earth science; acted as a facilitator in the laboratory; and taught Adult Studies courses. At all times material, sixty percent of Petitioner's time was spent teaching Adult Studies courses. From 1989 until January 1, 2000, Petitioner was provided semester contracts for each of the three foregoing functions: college courses, lab facilitation, and Adult Studies courses. Every contract clearly acknowledged, in pertinent part, 3. This contract shall at all times be subject to any and all laws, Florida State Board of Education Rules and Florida Community College at Jacksonville Board of Trustees rules and regulations now existing or hereinafter lawfully enacted or promulgated. In furtherance thereof, the Contractor expressly agrees to become aware of and comply with all such applicable regulations, including but not limited to those addressing discrimination/affirmative action and sexual harassment. * * * The Contractor agrees and understands that he/she is not entitled to receive benefits made available by the College to its full-time employees. The Contractor further agrees and understands that his/her services are of a temporary nature, and that the College does not agree to provide the Contractor with any future employment or contract whether temporary, permanent or otherwise. The relationship hereby created between the Contractor and the College shall be deemed to have been voluntarily terminated by the Contractor upon the termination or expiration of this agreement. The Contractor agrees and understands that the compensation described herein is the entire compensation due to Contractor for performance of services pursuant to this contract. Specifically, Contractor agrees and understands that he/she shall not be entitled to wages or hours similar to those provided to College employees. * * * 9. The Contractor and the College understand and hereby agree that this contract does not and shall not be deemed to create an employment relationship. From January 1, 2000, through June 2002, Petitioner was not provided individual contracts for his Adult Studies classes, but was provided contracts for his other courses and lab facilitation work. In 2000, FCCJ began implementing a new computer system and, as a result, some adjunct instructors were not given individual contracts for each course. Adult Studies was one program area where time cards, rather than individual contracts, were used. No one at FCCJ ever told Petitioner that he had become a full or part-time employee, as opposed to an adjunct instructor. At various times during the period after January 1, 2000, Petitioner and other adjunct instructors approached Dean of Adult Studies, Lloyd Watkins, and asked him where their contracts were. The Dean inquired of FCCJ's Human Resources Department and was told there were too many contracts to do and so they would not be issued. It is not certain that Dean Watkins ever conveyed this information to Petitioner. However, throughout the period at issue, Petitioner used the time cards and understood that his employment was on a class by class, semester by semester basis. The issue of FRS benefits vis-á-vis independent contractor status did not arise until after Petitioner had been terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to participate in FRS from January 1, 2000, through June 13, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Al Millar, Esquire 4627 Ocean Street Mayport, Florida 32233 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Simone Marstiller, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact There are no issues of material fact in dispute. Respondent, Department of Children and Families (Department), pursuant to section 394.9151, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ has contracted with a private entity, Wellpath, LLC (Wellpath), to use and operate a facility, Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC), to comply with the requirements of chapter 394, part V (entitled “Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators”). Petitioners are persons subject to chapter 394, part V, and are confined in the FCCC. Petitioners allege that the FCCC Resident Handbook and internal memorandum are unpromulgated rules which are imposed on FCCC residents, and that the same are an improper exercise of delegated legislative authority as de facto agency rules that have not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking procedures of section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for her answers to questions 55 p.m. and 56 p.m. on the Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination given on April 15, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The examination for licensure of an engineer in the State of Florida is administered by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation, a not-for-profit corporation, created under Section 471.038, Florida Statutes. A written examination is authorized by Rule 61G15-21.001, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent contracts with the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying to provide engineering licensure examinations. This practice is approved by Section 455.217, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G1 5-21.005, Florida Administrative Code. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying develops standardized tests given for licensure throughout the United States and ensures that the questions are not ambiguous through a number of methodologies. A candidate for licensure as an engineer intern must attain a "scaled" score of 70 to pass the examination. On the examination taken by Petitioner, the minimum "raw" score required to attain a "scaled" score of 70 was 107; Petitioner's "raw" score was 105. Petitioner had initially challenged five questions; at the hearing, Petitioner withdrew her challenge to three questions; the two remaining challenged questions (55 p.m. and 56 p.m.) were "ethical" questions, i.e., they dealt with questions of engineering ethics. The challenged questions were multiple-choice questions. The test gives the following directions: "Each of the questions or incomplete sentences below is followed by four suggested answers or completions. Select the one that is the best in each case and then fill in the corresponding space on the answer sheet." (Emphasis added.) The challenged question 55 p.m. deals with an engineer hired to prepare a report on the design, manufacture, and assembly of a structure. The report contains references to "shoddy workmanship." Petitioner states that while she agreed that answer A [the graded "correct" answer] is correct, she believed that the inclusion of the word "also" in answer B included answer A in answer B by reference and therefore she chose B as her answer. Petitioner acknowledges that the word "also" in answer B could be referring to language in the question rather than in answer A. Answer A specifically refers to "engineering issues" which the engineer is "qualified to assess"; answer B indicates that the references to "shoddy workmanship" are "personal opinions" and "not professional opinions". An engineer is obligated by his license not to give an opinion for which he does not have expertise. An engineer should not render a personal opinion in a report in which the engineer gives a professional opinion. The challenged question 56 p.m. deals with an engineer who lacks expertise dealing with space frames but designed structures which included same. Regarding challenged question 56 p.m., the Petitioner acknowledged that answer A (the graded "correct" answer) could have been the correct answer as well as the answer she chose, answer D. Answer D indicates that the engineer was unethical because he did not refer that matter to the Registration Board. An engineer should not contact the Registration Board and report to the Board that someone has asked him to do something unethical; it is incumbent upon an engineer to practice engineering ethically without the input of the Board. In both instances in answering the challenged questions the Petitioner failed to provide the "best" answer and at hearing acknowledged that the graded "correct" answer by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveyors was a "correct" answer even though she chose a different answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Engineers Management Corporation enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to questions 55 p.m. and 56 p.m. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Yvette Bowman 3401 North Lakeview Drive Apartment 216 Tampa, Florida 33618 Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioners " . . . provide[d] direct services in a local fiscal agent's area (so that they may) . . . receive the same percentage of undesignated funds as a percentage of designated funds they receive . . . ", Section 110.181 (2)(e), Florida Statutes (2006), in relation to the 2006 Florida State Employees' Charitable Campaign (the 2006 Campaign).
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The Florida Legislature created the Florida State Employees' Charitable Campaign in 1993 ("Campaign"). § 110.181(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). The Act requires the Department to "establish and maintain" an annual Campaign, which "is the only authorized charitable fundraising drive directed toward state employees within work areas during work hours, and for which the state will provide payroll deduction." § 110.181(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). State employees are provided annually with a pledge card that allows them to direct their donations to particular charities. Each employee is given a booklet containing a list of those charities that have qualified to participate in the Campaign. Each employee can either pick from the pre-qualified list, or the employee can give "undesignated funds" that go to no particular charity. The Act requires the creation of a Statewide Steering Committee ("Committee") of seven members appointed by the Administration Commission, and two members appointed by the Department Secretary, all serving staggered terms. § 110.181(4), Fla. Stat. In addition to the Committee, the Act calls for the creation of several other steering committees, one "in each fiscal agent area," whose purpose is to "assist in conducting the campaign and to direct the distribution of undesignated funds" ("local steering committees"). § 110.181(2)(d), Fla. Stat. The Department is required to select through the competitive procurement process a "fiscal agent" or agent whose duties are limited to "receiv[ing], account[ing] for, and distribut[ing] charitable contributions among the participating charitable organizations." § 110.181(2)(a), Fla. Stat. United Way of Florida, Inc., served as the state wide fiscal agent during the 2006 Campaign. Petitioners are 21 charities that were approved by the Committee and participated in the 2006 Campaign. Petitioner Community Health Charities is a "federation" or "umbrella" agency within the meaning of Rule 60L-39.0015(j), Florida Administrative Code, representing each of the other Petitioners in the 2006 Florida State Employees' Charitable Campaign ("2006 Campaign" or "FSECC"). Each Petitioner is either a charity or a federation within the meaning of the Act that participates in the annual statewide campaign and has a direct interest in the proper administration of the Act, including the distribution of designated and undesignated charitable funds generated thereby. Additional Facts Section 110.181(3), Florida Statutes, grants rulemaking authority to the Respondent in association with the time and manner for charitable organizations to participate in the Campaign. This process is undertaken upon the recommendations of the Committee. In accordance with those opportunities Respondent had adopted administrative rules to implement Section 110.181, Florida Statutes. Among the rules in the Florida Administrative Code were the following: 60L-39.001 (scope and purpose); 60L- 39.002 (general requirements); 60L-39.003 (Statewide Steering Committee); 60L-39.004 (Eligibility Criteria for Participation by Charitable Organizations); 60L-39.005 (Application Procedures); and 60L-39.006 (Duties and Responsibilities of the Fiscal Agent). None of these rules defined the term "direct services" in a "local fiscal agent's area", referred to in Section 110.181(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2006), as that statute controls the opportunity for a charitable organization to receive undesignated funds from the 2006 Campaign. This has been explained as the "first tier distribution" of undesignated charitable contributions made by state employees. After the 2006 Campaign commenced, Respondent adopted a rule that defined the term "direct services." Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-39.0015(1)(i) provided that definition. The rule was effective January 23, 2007. It defined the term "direct services" as: Direct services. Identifiable and specific services available in the local fiscal agent's area without any intervention between the services offered and persons served. The 2006 Campaign began in the summer of 2006. December 22, 2006, was the deadline for applying for first tier undesignated funds. Application was made upon a form created for use in the 2006 Campaign. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. On October 17, 2006, by e-mail, Petitioners were made aware of the direct local services certification form and its guidelines, contained in one document, Petitioners' Exhibit numbered 2. Explanations were provided. The e-mail came from John Kuczwanski, Committee Chairman. This document referenced distribution of the first tier undesignated funds for the 2006 Campaign. It said in pertinent part: As a result of recent changes to the FSECC Law (s. 110.181(2)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes), the Statewide FSECC Steering Committee is in the process of implementing rules and a process by which federations and unaffiliated/independent organizations will submit information, regarding provision of direct local services in each fiscal agent United Way area, in order to receive a pro- rata share of undesignated funds. The final process and rules will take effect in 2007, and will become a part of the 2007 FSECC application cycle and are a result of input during our rules promulgation process. Because these formal rules will not be implemented until 2007, an interim process will be in place for the 2006 FSECC. As such, the following process will be utilized by federations and unaffiliated/independent organizations to determine where direct local services are being provided, and thereby eligibility for a pro-rata share of 2006 undesignated funds. Attached is a spreadsheet, which you must complete and submit to the Statewide FSECC Steering Committee no later than close of business on Friday, December 22, 2006. Instructions for Federations: On the attached spreadsheet, please enter the requested information for your federation and each of your member agencies (that have been approved to participate in the 2006 FSECC) that provide direct local services in the appropriate Fiscal Agent United Way sections. Each section identifies which county(ies) are included in that fiscal agent area. Only enter agencies in the fiscal agent section(s) in which that agency provides direct local services, as defined on the spreadsheet. The attached spreadsheet (form), in relevant part contained the following: 2006 Florida State Employees' Charitable Campaign Direct Local Services Certification Form GuidelinesDEADLINE: December 22, 2006 [Forms received after the deadline will result in ineligibility for a pro-rata share of undesignated funds.] Federation Name: OR Unaffiliated/Independent Organization Name: Contact Person: Email Address: Telephone Number: INSTRUCTIONS: Please enter the requested information below for each of your federation's member agencies (that have been approved to participate in the 2006 FSECC) that provide direct local services in the appropriate United Way Fiscal Agency sections below. Unaffiliated/independent organizations should provide the requested information in the appropriate sections for the areas in which your organization provides direct local services. Name of Organization Organization Address Address(es) where the direct service(s) were delivered in the previous calendar year (2005) Description of the type of direct service(s) delivered ["Direct services" is defined as identifiable and specific services available in the local fiscal agent's area without any intervention between the services offered and persons served.] # of people served/Population served * * * The form goes on to describe the areas served by the United Way fiscal agents, as examples United Way of the Big Bend, with its respective counties and the United Way of Brevard County, with its respective counties. It was contemplated that the charities seeking participation in distribution of first tier undesignated funds identify the organization by name, its address, addresses where direct services were delivered in the previous calendar year, etc., in relation to all of the United Way fiscal agent areas. Petitioners and other charities seeking participation in the first tier distribution of undesignated funds were expected to proceed without further direction from the Committee or Respondent when completing the 2006 Direct Local Services' Certification Form. Concerning the rule adoption process referred to in the e-mail, on October 16, 2007, the Committee had met to review proposed rules under consideration that supported the process of charitable campaigns recognized in Section 110.181, Florida Statutes. Prior to that date, the Respondent had held meetings and conducted workshops related to rule development. As a result, Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-39.015, and an amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-39.005, were adopted and became effective January 23, 2007. The amendment within Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-39.005(5), incorporated by reference Form DMS-ADM-102, effective January 23, 2007, the same date the overall Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-39.005 was amended. The incorporated form differed in appearance when compared to the 2006 Direct Local Services Certification Form with guidelines that had been provided in relation to the 2006 Campaign. The difference was that the Form incorporated by reference was titled "Agency Direct Local Services Certification Form". It spoke of a March 1 deadline with no specific year. It spoke of a need to provide the federation name, contact person and telephone number. It carried the same headings in the five columns related to the provision of the information about direct services in the 27 United Way fiscal agent areas. In its instructions it stated: Each federation is required to submit this form for all member agencies that provide direct local services, as defined in Rule 60L-39.0015(i), Florida Administrative Code, in the appropriate local fiscal agent sections below and provide with their annual application package. Independent or unaffiliated agencies must provide this form with their annual application. Gwen Cooper, president and CEO of Community health Charities of Florida (CCH), helped the members of the federation, the other Petitioners in this cause, complete the 2006 Direct Local Services Certification Form with guidelines. This included contacts by telephone and e-mails to address the proper response to the form on the part of the member charities. In addition, Ms. Cooper prepared a different form, designed to assist the member charities in presenting needed information. That form called for a deadline of December 5, 2006, for submission to her of information provided by the member charities on the form prepared by Ms. Cooper. The return information was then edited and utilized in her preparation of the 2006 Campaign Direct Local Services Certification Form with guidelines that had been made available by the Committee on October 17, 2006. An example of the instructions for a member charity as filled out by the charity on the form created by Ms. Cooper is Respondent's Exhibit numbered 6 pertaining to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Palm Beach Chapter. The completed Direct Local Services Certification Forms with guidelines for the 2006 Campaign for all CHS member charities is Petitioners' Exhibit numbered 12A. Importantly, the instructions provided in the Cooper form directed to the CHC member charities, stated: INSTRUCTIONS: Please enter the requested information below for each fiscal agent regional area where your agency provides direct local services. Simply recording the office in that region is not enough. Please keep your descriptions concise and general. There is no need to give lengthy details for each region. If you know the number of people served in that region, please record it. If not, please provide an estimate or put NA. If you do not provide services in a particular regions (sic), please put NA in the Description column. If you have more than one office in a particular region, please list all the offices. We will review all submissions and call with questions. Feel free to add lines as needed. This record is for services rendered in Calendar Year 2005. As can be seen, this was a departure from the instructions provided by the Committee in the 2006 Campaign Direct Local Services Certification Form with guidelines previously described, Petitioners' Exhibit numbered 12A representing the completed form for all CHC member charities. The Committee met on February 14, 22, and 28, 2007, to consider the 2006 Campaign Direct Local Services Certification Forms with guidelines completed by Petitioners and other charitable groups. Dr. Kenneth Armstrong, Jr., Executive Director of the United Way of the Big Bend, attended the February 14, 2007, Committee meeting. At the meeting he presented the Committee members with a document intended to express his opinion concerning the basis for deciding whether Petitioners and other charitable organizations were entitled to receive first tier undesignated funds. Petitioners' Exhibit numbered 4. In this document, Dr. Armstrong critically comments on the entitlement of Petitioners, unaffiliated and independent charitable agencies to receive first tier undesignated funds. In his written remarks, he opposes the right for some Petitioners to receive the first tier undesignated funds, while explaining his reasons. These suggestions were favorably received by Respondent's counsel who advised the Committee during the meeting. In particular, counsel stated that he found Dr. Armstrong's approach created an " . . . incisive analysis of the kind of activities that could not reasonably be considered direct services . . . ". While the Committee was left to arrive at its own decision concerning Petitioners' entitlement to receive first tier undesignated funds, Dr. Armstrong's ideas given credence by Respondent's counsel were accepted as part of that process. The work was not completed on February 14, 2007, and the Committee reconvened on February 22, 2007, to continue consideration of the 2006 Campaign Direct Local Services Certification Forms. The Committee met again on February 28, 2007, to consider the 2006 Campaign Direct Local Services Certification Forms. By then the forms had been divided among the Committee members, with each Committee member being responsible for review and recommendation in relation to his or her part of the assignment. The discussion in the session was at best abbreviated concerning the decision to include or reject a charity in a locale in relation to receiving first tier undesignated funds. One Committee member left the meeting and his portion of the assignment was dealt with by the remaining Committee members reviewing the annotations of the missing member indicating denial or approval of a given charity. There were other notes as well on these materials assigned to the Committee member who left the meeting. The remaining Committee members approved the recommendations by the missing Committee member. On March 8, 2007, the Committee made its decision and e-mailed Petitioners concerning its position on the "2006 FSECC Direct Local Services Certification" spreadsheets (forms). The e-mail is Petitioners' Exhibit numbered 10. The reference line in the e-mail is "Distribution of 2006 FSECC undesignated funds -- Direct Local Services Certification". The reason for this preliminary decision was: After three meetings, the FSECC Statewide Steering Committee has completed its review and voted on all 2006 FSECC Direct and Local Service Certification spreadsheets previously submitted for its consideration. Attached is the final spreadsheet that lists all charitable organizations that were approved by the Committee and deemed, based on the information submitted, to be providing direct local services in at least one United Way fiscal agent area. Charitable organizations not included on the attached list were not deemed to be providing direct local services, based on the information submitted. Direct local services, as defined on the certification form and in Rule, are "identifiable and specific services available in the local fiscal agent's area without any intervention between the services offered and persons served." The 59 charitable organizations included on the attached list will receive a pro-rata share (based on their local designation percentages in 2006) of the 2006 undesignated funds, in the Fiscal Agent United Way areas within which they were deemed to be providing direct local services, as indicated on the attached by an "X" in specific United Way fiscal agent columns. Thank you, The FSECC Statewide Steering Committee The above-quoted language in the e-mail notification that refers to the certification form is understood to mean the 2006 Campaign Direct Local Services Certification Form with guidelines. The comment in the e-mail concerning the "rule" where it says "identifiable and specific services available in the local fiscal agent's area without any intervention between the services offered and persons served" is taken directly from Florida Administrative Code Rule 60-39.0015(1)(i), effective January 23, 2007, with its definition of "direct services." As the March 8, 2007, e-mail summarizes, CHC had 16 member originations approved. At the time the preliminary decision was communicated, the Committee had approved approximately 18.64 percent of Petitioners' individual submissions. The basis of the denial of the remaining submissions seeking receipt of first tier undesignated funds was not explained. This led to the original petition challenging the decision to deny rights to receive first tier undesignated funds filed on March 30, 2007. The history of the case beyond that point has been explained in the Preliminary Statement, to include the basis for proceeding before DOAH. On August 24, 2007, after the case had been referred to DOAH for hearing, Respondent published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 33 No. 34, to this effect: The Florida Department of Management Services announces a public meeting to which all persons are invited. DATE AND TIME: September 10, 2007, 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 Noon PLACE: 4050 Esplanade Way, Room 101, Tallahassee, Florida GENERAL SUBJECT MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Review and Approval of Local Steering Committee Members. Community Health Charities lawsuit and re-visit on direct services determinations. A copy of the agenda may be obtained by contacting: Erin Thoresen, Department of Management Services, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 235, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950, (850)922-1274. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, he/she will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence from which the appeal is to be issued. * * * Respondent's Exhibit numbered 24. The notice by its terms did not explain in any detail what might be achieved during the course of the meeting to consider the pending "lawsuit" and revisit issues in relation to direct services determinations. The "lawsuit" related to the pending administrative proceeding in DOAH Case No. 07-3547. Barton Cooper, CHC Director of Corporate Development, attended the meeting with Petitioners' counsel. No presentation was made by Petitioners, as they were uncertain of Respondent's intentions when the meeting was advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and understood that litigation was ongoing before DOAH. Nonetheless, Mr. Cooper expressed his appreciation for the Committee's willingness to revisit the issue of the remaining Petitioners' entitlement to receive first tier undesignated funds. On this occasion the Committee conducted an additional review of material provided by Petitioners. Those materials were constituted of Petitioners' Exhibit numbered 12A, the original December 22, 2006, Direct Local Services Certification Forms for the rejected applicants for first tier undesignated funds and Exhibit 2 to the Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed March 30, 2007, with the Respondent. (Exhibit 2 became Petitioners' Exhibit numbered 12B, admitted at the final hearing.) This exhibit provides additional information concerning member charities within CHC and supporting argument for their inclusion in the distribution of first tier undesignated funds. As a consequence of the Committee's efforts, approximately 77 percent of Petitioners' applications made originally were approved, leaving 21 Petitioners denied the ability to receive first tier designated funds in one or more of the United Way fiscal agent areas. On September 12, 2007, the Committee made known its "Amended and Revised FSECC Direct Services Determinations for the 2006 Campaign" in correspondence directed to Petitioners. Petitioners' Exhibit numbered 13. In explanation, the written communication stated: On September 10, 2007 the Statewide Steering committee decided to re-visit issues on direct services determinations. In accordance with Exhibit 2 of the Second Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, the participating Community Health Charities, within the fiscal area listed, were revisited. The Direct Local Services Certification Forms submitted on behalf of your organization and/or your member agencies were reexamined for compliance with the eligibility criteria for a receipt of undesignated funds based upon the provision of direct services. Direct services are defined as "[i]dentifiable and specific services available in the local fiscal agent's area without any intervention between the services offered and persons served." Rule 60L-39.0015(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Applicant organizations named above that did not meet the criteria for direct services were denied by the FSECC Statewide Steering Committee. This explanation referred to the definition of direct services found within Florida Administrative Code Rule 60-39.0015(1)(i), effective January 23, 2007. It also mentioned reliance upon Exhibit numbered 2 to the Second Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Exhibit 2 accompanied the Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing as well). The memorandum decision pointed out a spreadsheet attached describing those charities whose application forms had been reexamined on September 10, 2007, noting approvals and disapprovals. The attachment to the September 12, 2007, amended revised FSECC Direct Local Services determination for the 2006 Campaign breaks out the agencies approved as to locations within United Way fiscal agents areas, those approved earlier and those approved by actions taken on September 10, 2007. Those approvals are noted by marking the letter "X" in the column for each agency earlier approved or approved on September 10, 2007, as to each charity and every United Way fiscal agent area. Concerning the remaining requests to receive first tier undesignated funds by those 21 Petitioners, information necessary to decide entitlement is found within the 2006 Campaign Direct Local Services Certification Form with guidelines (Petitioners' Exhibit numbered 12A); the explanations found within Exhibit 2 to the Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, which became Petitioners' Exhibit numbered 12B and a series of exhibits admitted at hearing, Petitioners' Exhibit numbered 21 through 38. Those latter exhibits provide explanations pertaining to the 21 disappointed Petitioners, expanding what is known about the charities, their services, the manner that the services are provided, who receives the services and where the services are received, together with the address(es) of the respective organizations. In addition, the depositions of Paul Andrew Ledford of Florida Hospice and Palliative Care (Joint Exhibit numbered 2); Susanne Homant, National Association of Mentally Ill in Florida (Joint Exhibit numbered 3); Deborah Linton, Association for Retarded Citizens of Florida, Inc. (Joint Exhibit numbered 4); Suzanne Earle, Children's Tumor Foundation (Joint Exhibit numbered 5); Pamela Byrne, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (Joint Exhibit numbered 6) and Tracy Tucker, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (Joint Exhibit numbered 7) afford additional insight on the subject of who is served, where they are served etc., pertaining to the subject. Without recounting the details from the various sources previously described, all that information is accepted for purposes of this Recommended Order, as to the facts represented in the exhibits. Based upon information provided in the aforementioned exhibits, the Association for Retarded Citizens/Florida, CHC, Florida Hospices and Palliative Care and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Florida do not provide direct services in fiscal agent areas without intervention between the services offered and persons served in any location. Based upon information provided in the aforementioned exhibits, ALS Association provides direct services in the Heart of Florida United Way fiscal agent area, contrary to the impression held by the Committee before the final hearing. Based upon information provided in the aforementioned exhibits, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation provides direct services in the United Way fiscal agent areas in Lake and Sumter, Okaloosa-Walton, Santa Rosa, and Volusia-Flagler, for reasons comparable to the practice of the Committee when making its earlier determinations. Based upon information provided in the aforementioned exhibits, the Lupus Foundation of America, Southeast Florida Chapter, provides direct services in the United Way fiscal agent areas in Broward and Palm Beach counties. Of the unapproved requests for first tier undesignated funds made by remaining Petitioners in other specific United Way fiscal agent areas, the facts do not support those requests.
Recommendation Upon consideration, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered that allows Petitioners to receive first tier undesignated funds in relation to the 2006 Campaign to the extent identified and denies any additional relief requested in the Third Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 29th day of February, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: David C. Hawkins, Esquire David C. Hawkins, PLLC 3141 Brockton Way Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Matthew F. Minno, Esquire Gerard York, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 David Andrew Byrne, Esquire Phillips Nizer LLP 666 5th Avenue New York, New York 10103-0001 James A. Peters, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Linda South, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
