Conclusions Having reviewed the administrative complaint dated January 11, 2011, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“Agency”) has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the other party to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: 1. The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. Respondent shall surrender the home health agency license that has an expiration date of 7/10/2011 and in addition, Respondent shall pay the full fine of $15,000.00 if any of the principles of Respondent applies for a home health agency in the future. 3. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 4. The above-styled case is hereby closed. Filed May 11, 2011 2:54 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 4 DONE and ORDERED this _|! day of Meg ; 20__, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Agency for Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Nelson E. Rodney Andrea Dawes, Administrator Assistant General Counsel Swan Home Care Services Agency for Health Care 2500 Quantum Lakes Boulevard Administration Suite #203 8333 NW 53 Street, Suite 300 Boynton Beach, Florida 33426 Miami, Florida 33166 (U. S. Mail) (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Hon. Claude B. Arrington Agency for Health Care Administrative Law Judge Administration Division of Administrative Hearings 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 The DeSoto Buildin g Tallahassee, Florida 32308 1230 Apalachee Parkway (Interoffice Mail) Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Home Care Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #34 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named PP and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this the ay of Qe , 20// . 7 Richard Shoop, Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, the School Board of Lee County (the "School Board"), has just cause to dismiss Respondent, an educational support employee of the Lee County School District, for theft of school property and smoking on school grounds.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Since October 1983, Respondent has been employed by the Lee County School District. He was initially employed as a trades helper, promoted to furniture repair, and finally to carpenter in the maintenance department of Facilities Management. He worked for the school district continuously until December 3, 1998, when he was suspended with pay and benefits. Following a predetermination conference and a petition by the Superintendent of Schools, the School Board voted to suspend Respondent without pay and benefits on April 20, 1999. Throughout his active employment with the school district, Respondent’s performance evaluations and assessments showed that he met or exceeded all performance criteria, aside from recurring criticism for overuse of leave time. Joe Vaughn, Respondent’s immediate supervisor, described his job performance as above average. On November 23, 1998, Mr. Vaughn teamed Respondent with Gary Stephans, another carpenter, to build bulletin boards and dry erase boards at Tropic Isles. The men were working outside the portables on the Tropic Isles campus. Annette Puckett works in the Title I department of the School Board. Title I is a federally funded program that provides take-home computers to students. Among Ms. Puckett’s duties is cleaning and reprogramming the computers. Ms. Puckett’s main office is at Suncoast Elementary School ("Suncoast"), but her job entails maintaining the computers at all of the Title I schools in the district. On November 23, 1998, Ms. Puckett was cleaning computers in the Family Learning Center portable at Tropic Isles. Ms. Puckett testified that she knew Respondent fairly well, and saw him outside working with Mr. Stephans, with whom she was less familiar. She had a brief conversation with Respondent, during which she told him that he and Mr. Stephans were welcome to come into the portable to get out of the heat when they finished their job. Respondent and Mr. Stephans went into the portable where Ms. Puckett was working and took a break in the air conditioning. With Ms. Puckett’s consent, they then moved their materials into the portable and used one of the inside tables as a work table to build bulletin boards. The portable contained audio-visual equipment, including a television, a stereo, and VCRs used to duplicate tapes for parent training classes. The VCRs were on a stand that also held several neatly stacked piles of blank VHS videotapes. Mr. Stephans recalled that the tapes were in white cardboard sleeves; Ms. Puckett recalled that the tapes had no covers. Because Tropic Isles also used this portable as its "Christmas store," the portable contained boxes of holiday materials, including decorative paper bags for gifts. Both Mr. Stephans and Ms. Puckett testified that as they worked on their respective tasks, Respondent wandered through the portable, looking through its contents. Respondent began looking into the holiday boxes. Ms. Puckett told him that those materials belonged to Tropic Isles, not her program, and that he should not touch those boxes. Ms. Puckett testified that Respondent next walked over to a closet. She told Respondent not to go in the closet. Ms. Puckett stated that Respondent told her that he wanted to see if he could use anything in the closet for his daughter’s upcoming birthday. Respondent’s employment file indicates that his daughter’s birthday is on November 30. Mr. Stephans and Ms. Puckett testified that Respondent took several of the decorative bags and at least two of the videotapes, and walked out of the portable with them. When Respondent returned into the portable shortly thereafter, he was empty-handed. Ms. Puckett testified that, while Respondent was outside the portable, Mr. Stephans said to her that they could all be blamed for Respondent’s theft, because they were the only three people in the portable. Mr. Stephans recalled telling Ms. Puckett that he found it "hard to believe" what Respondent had just done. Ms. Puckett testified that, when Respondent returned to the portable, she confronted him and asked him if he realized he could lose his job over two tapes. Mr. Stephans remembered her statement to Respondent, but recalled that she made it as Respondent was exiting the portable with the tapes and bags. Ms. Puckett testified that Respondent answered that she had given him the tapes. Ms. Puckett stated that she adamantly denied that she had given the tapes to Respondent, who then stated that Ms. Puckett’s Title I program had so much money it would never miss two tapes. Mr. Stephans testified that about ten minutes after returning to the portable, Respondent took at least two more tapes and walked out of the portable with them. Mr. Stephans stated that Ms. Puckett was working with her back turned to the two men, and thus he could not be sure that Ms. Puckett witnessed this second incident. Ms. Puckett confirmed that she saw only one such incident. Mr. Stephans testified that during a break from work in the portable, Respondent smoked a cigarette on the school grounds. Respondent admitted to smoking the cigarette. Shortly before 3 p.m., Mr. Stephans and Respondent packed their materials into the School Board van they had driven to the site, and returned to Maintenance headquarters to clock out for the day. Mr. Stephans testified that he saw a plastic grocery bag between the two front seats of the van, and he could see that the tapes were in the bag. Mr. Stephans testified that Respondent drove the van, and that Respondent mentioned a need for caution when driving into the Maintenance parking lot to avoid the security cameras. Respondent parked the van and each man carried his own tools to his own car, walking in opposite directions. Mr. Stephans testified that when he returned to the van after stowing his tools in his car, the plastic grocery bag containing the tapes was no longer in the van. Mr. Stephans testified that he told no one about the incident that afternoon because he thought that Respondent would think about what he had done and correct the situation. The next morning, November 24, 1998, Respondent and Mr. Stephans were again teamed as partners. Mr. Stephans testified that Respondent was concerned and on edge, worried about getting into trouble over what he had done. Mr. Stephans advised him to return the tapes and apologize to Ms. Puckett, and thus perhaps receive a lesser punishment for the theft. Mr. Stephans testified that Respondent answered that he could not return the tapes, as that would constitute an admission that he had taken them. The two men drove to another campus to work and did not discuss the situation again that day. Mr. Stephans did not discuss the matter with anyone else on November 24, 1998. On November 25, 1998, Mr. Stephans and Respondent had another conversation about the tapes. Respondent again voiced his concerns, Mr. Stephans again advised Respondent to return the tapes, and Respondent again declined the advice. Mr. Stephans testified that at this point, he became worried that he might be implicated in the matter if he maintained his silence about Respondent’s actions. Mr. Stephans wanted to discuss the matter with his supervisor, Joe Vaughn, but Mr. Vaughn was not at work that day. Mr. Stephans decided to talk the matter over with another carpenter, Joe Murphy. Mr. Murphy had been Mr. Stephans’ first partner when the latter began with the School Board, and Mr. Stephans still considered him a friend and confidant. Mr. Murphy told Mr. Stephans that, because Mr. Stephans witnessed the incident, he could be found just as culpable as Respondent if he failed to come forward. Mr. Murphy advised Mr. Stephans that he had no choice but to report Respondent’s actions. Mr. Stephans asked Mr. Murphy to accompany him to the office of Donald Easterly, assistant director of maintenance and supervisor to the absent Mr. Vaughn. The two men went to Mr. Easterly’s office and told him the story. Mr. Easterly told them that Rick Gutknecht, the head of Facilities Management, was out that day but that he would discuss the matter with Mr. Gutknecht when he returned. After the men left his office, Mr. Easterly called Marilyn Strong, director of personnel for the School Board, who advised him to call the principal of Tropic Isles and confirm that items were missing from the portable. Cecelia Mattingly was the principal of Tropic Isles. Mr. Easterly phoned her and asked if anything had been reported missing at the school. Ms. Mattingly checked and confirmed that nothing was missing, though she did not check the Family Learning Center portable. Mr. Easterly subsequently suggested she check that portable. Ms. Mattingly spoke with the full-time Title I employee assigned there. The employee confirmed that tapes appeared to be missing from the neat stacks on the television stand. The employee estimated that it would take six tapes to fill the space in the stack. Ms. Mattingly sent Mr. Easterly an electronic mail message confirming that tapes were missing. After leaving Mr. Easterly’s office, Mr. Stephans returned to work, partnered again with Respondent. They drove together to Tropic Isles to continue work on the bulletin boards. Mr. Stephans testified that when they arrived at Tropic Isles, the building supervisor angrily confronted them, asking if they knew anything about tapes missing from the Family Learning Center. Respondent denied any knowledge about tapes. Mr. Stephans remained silent. Mr. Stephans testified that after the building supervisor walked away, Respondent told him to get in the van. Respondent drove the van to Suncoast in search of Ms. Puckett. Mr. Stephans stated that during the drive to Suncoast, Respondent poked him in the chest with his finger and said that if Mr. Stephans turned him in for stealing the tapes, Respondent would say either that Mr. Stephans stole them or that Ms. Puckett gave him the tapes. Mr. Stephans characterized Respondent as "in a frenzy." Mr. Stephans testified that Respondent searched the Suncoast campus for Ms. Puckett. Respondent went to the portable where she worked, but it was locked. Respondent persuaded the custodian to open the portable so that he could attempt to find Ms. Puckett’s home phone number inside. Respondent went inside while Mr. Stephans waited outside. Respondent soon emerged, empty-handed. Mr. Stephans testified that someone on the campus told them that Ms. Puckett had gone for the day. Respondent told Mr. Stephans he could get her phone number from someone at Maintenance who knew Ms. Puckett. Mr. Stephans testified that he and Respondent returned to Maintenance at about 3 p.m., and Respondent began asking around for Ms. Puckett’s phone number. Mr. Stephans went to Mr. Easterly’s office and briefed him on the events of the day, including Respondent’s threat to blame Mr. Stephans or Ms. Puckett if the incident were reported. Ms. Puckett heard from a Suncoast employee that Respondent had been looking for her, saying he had something very important to discuss with her. That evening, Ms. Puckett tried to find Respondent’s phone number. Failing that, she found Mr. Stephans’ number in the phone book and called him. Ms. Puckett testified that she became frustrated because Mr. Stephans would not tell her why Respondent was urgently trying to reach her. She refused to give Mr. Stephans her phone number because she did not want Respondent to know it. Mr. Stephans testified that he did not want to discuss the matter with Ms. Puckett because he wanted to leave the matter in Mr. Easterly’s office and not become further involved. He told Ms. Puckett about the confrontation with the Tropic Isles building supervisor, but not about his conversations that day with either Respondent or Mr. Easterly. Mr. Stephans gave Respondent’s home phone number to Ms. Puckett so that she could speak directly to Respondent. Ms. Puckett phoned Respondent, who also told her about the confrontation with the building supervisor, and that he had said to the supervisor that he knew nothing about the tapes. Ms. Puckett testified that Respondent told her that if he knew nothing about the tapes, and Mr. Stephans knew nothing about the tapes, and she knew nothing about the tapes, then they would all have the same story. Ms. Puckett testified that Respondent asked her if she was recording their conversation. She said she wasn’t. Respondent again asserted that Ms. Puckett had given him the tapes. Ms. Puckett again stated that she did no such thing. Respondent told her that he could lie about her and about Mr. Stephans, and suggested she do the same about what he had done. Ms. Puckett responded that she had no reason to lie. The next day, November 26, 1998, was Thanksgiving Day. Nothing of relevance to this case occurred over the Thanksgiving weekend. Both Mr. Stephans and Ms. Puckett testified that their most recent conversations with Respondent made them worried and apprehensive over the weekend, because they both feared that Respondent would attempt to convince school authorities that one or both of them stole the tapes. Ms. Puckett testified that she was still scared on the following Monday, November 30, 1998. She hesitated to come forward because she was afraid she would not be believed. On that morning, Mr. Easterly told Mr. Stephans to report to Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Stephans reported to Mr. Gutknecht’s office and told him his version of events. Mr. Gutknecht requested that Mr. Stephans place his statement in writing. Mr. Stephans resisted producing a written statement. Mr. Stephans testified that, before writing a statement, he wanted assurances that he would not get into trouble. He testified that Mr. Gutknecht became angry at his refusal to write a statement, and refused to make any promises that he would not suspend either or both Mr. Stephans and Respondent. Mr. Gutknecht essentially confirmed Mr. Stephans’ testimony on this episode. Mr. Gutknecht observed that Mr. Stephans believed his obligation was over once he had informed management of the situation. Mr. Gutknecht testified that he told Mr. Stephans that the investigation would go forward whether or not Mr. Stephans gave a written statement. Mr. Gutknecht told Mr. Stephans that as of that moment, all he had were fingers pointing both ways regarding the tapes. Mr. Gutknecht would not rule out any course of action, depending on the facts revealed by his investigation. Mr. Stephans implored Mr. Easterly to intervene, but Mr. Easterly told Mr. Stephans that he should do the right thing and be honest about what happened. Mr. Stephans also talked to Mr. Vaughn, who told him that Mr. Gutknecht would eventually learn the facts and that Mr. Stephans would be wise to go along and provide a written statement. Mr. Vaughn agreed to write the statement at Mr. Stephans’ dictation, because of Mr. Stephans’ poor handwriting. Both Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Stephans testified that the latter was the sole author of the statement, and that Mr. Vaughn simply wrote down what he was told by Mr. Stephans. Three drafts of the statement were written. Messrs. Gutknecht, Stephans, and Vaughn all confirmed that when the first two drafts were discussed, additional information came up that caused Mr. Gutknecht to tell Mr. Stephans to rewrite the statements to include that information. Only the final draft was presented in evidence. On Tuesday, December 1, 1998, Ms. Puckett came forward and told her immediate supervisor about the events at Tropic Isles. The supervisor advised her to wait and see what Facilities Management was going to do about the situation, because the supervisor was aware that Respondent’s supervisor knew about the incident. On December 2, 1998, Ms. Puckett took it upon herself to call Mr. Vaughn, mainly to complain about Respondent’s trying to get her home phone number and having himself let into her office at Suncoast. Mr. Vaughn transferred the call to Mr. Gutknecht, who advised her to call him immediately if Respondent contacted her. Ms. Puckett testified that during the conversation she told Mr. Gutknecht that she had seen Respondent take some tapes out of the portable at Tropic Isles. Soon thereafter, Ms. Puckett went to Mr. Gutknecht’s office to meet him in person and give him the details of events. Ms. Puckett did not produce a written statement until she was contacted by Gail Williams, the School Board’s investigator. Ms. Puckett’s written statement was admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf. He agreed that on November 23, 1998, he and Mr. Stephans were working outside at Tropic Isles and that Ms. Puckett invited them to work in the Family Learning Center portable. Respondent disputed the testimony that he loafed while Mr. Stephans worked, stating that he worked the entire time they were in the portable except during their afternoon break. Respondent admitted to admiring the audio-visual equipment in the portable, and testified that there were videotapes in white cardboard sleeves stacked on the video stand. Respondent denied taking any of the tapes or holiday bags in the portable and said he had no idea what happened to them. Respondent testified that, during their break, Mr. Stephans initiated a conversation with Ms. Puckett about the movie, "Armageddon." Mr. Stephans had just bought the tape on sale at Wal-Mart, and offered to lend her the tape or even make a copy of it for her. Ms. Puckett confirmed that this conversation occurred, though she could not definitely recall Mr. Stephans offering to copy the tape. However, Respondent also testified that he found the box full of holiday bags, took one of the bags from the box, and, as a joke, put two of the videotapes in the bag and handed it to Ms. Puckett, saying that now she had the blank tapes to copy "Armageddon." Respondent testified that Ms. Puckett and he laughed at his joke. Respondent stated this was the only time he placed his hands on the tapes or the bags. Having denied taking the tapes and bags, Respondent obviously also denied much of the testimony by Mr. Stephans and Ms. Puckett as to subsequent events. He agreed that the building supervisor at Tropic Isles approached them the next day about missing items from the portable. However, he testified that he and Mr. Stephans mutually agreed to drive to Suncoast and find Ms. Puckett, to find out what was going on. Respondent testified that he and Mr. Stephans made inquiries at Suncoast about her whereabouts and home phone number. Respondent agreed that he spoke to both Mr. Stephans and Ms. Puckett on the phone that evening. He testified that Mr. Stephans called him first, to tell him that Ms. Puckett had just called and was scared and nervous about the tapes. Respondent testified that Mr. Stephans stated, "If I know nothing, and you know nothing, then nobody knows nothing." Respondent stated that he really didn’t know anything, and didn’t want to know anything. Respondent testified that he was concerned, because he had been in the portable and had his hands on the tapes. In his written statement, Respondent admitted telling Ms. Puckett that they should all say they knew nothing, but also stated that he was merely repeating Mr. Stephans’ statement to him. Respondent testified that he did not know why Mr. Stephans and Ms. Puckett would accuse him of theft. He stated that it made no sense to steal with people there watching him, given all the opportunities he’d had over the years to steal unseen. He noted that he has keys to all the portables in the school system, that he has often been left alone to do work in classrooms, yet until now has never been credibly accused of theft. Several witnesses testified as to Respondent’s rocky relationships with fellow workers, including Mr. Stephans. Several years prior to the events of this case, Respondent blew the whistle on theft of materials in Maintenance, which ultimately resulted in the forced retirement of one employee. Since that time, Respondent has had a reputation as a "snitch" among some of his fellow workers. Respondent testified that there were strains in his working relationship with Mr. Stephans due to the ostracism Mr. Stephans felt from being partnered with Respondent. Respondent also encountered problems due to the fact that he was promoted to carpenter despite a lack of training in the field, but used his seniority to avoid certain jobs and resist taking orders from his more skilled equals. Respondent’s attitude led to resentment from fellow workers. Two years prior to these events, Respondent complained to his union about a policy enacted by Mr. Gutknecht regarding parking spaces at the Maintenance facility. Mr. Gutknecht made it clear to Respondent that he did not appreciate Respondent’s taking the complaint outside of the department before discussing it with him. Respondent testified that Mr. Gutknecht would not discuss the Tropic Isles incident with him or ask him about the written statement he submitted on December 3, 1998. Respondent stated that he learned Mr. Gutknecht was investigating the matter from a co-worker, not from Mr. Gutknecht himself. In summary, Respondent attempted to demonstrate that Mr. Gutknecht and those working for him had reason to seize upon these allegations as a pretext for firing him, despite the inconsistencies in the stories told by his two accusers and despite the fact that no accounting was ever made to demonstrate that any tapes were in fact missing from the Family Learning Center portable at Tropic Isles. There is no question that Mr. Stephans’ and Ms. Puckett’s testimony varied on some points. Mr. Stephans recalled that the tapes had white cardboard covers, while Ms. Puckett testified they had no covers. Mr. Easterly recalled that Mr. Stephans told him that Respondent took three tapes on each trip out of the portable, and that Mr. Stephans made no mention of holiday bags. Ms. Williams’ investigative report states that Mr. Stephans told her that Respondent took two tapes on each trip, and that Mr. Stephans discussed the theft of the bags. In his testimony at the hearing, Mr. Stephans could not say definitely how many tapes Respondent took. However, it is found that the testimony of Ms. Puckett and Mr. Stephans was essentially consistent and credible, considering that their statements were made at various times over a period of more than one year. The slight variations in details establishes that Ms. Puckett and Mr. Stephans plainly did not collaborate to concoct a story, but were providing their own honest, independent recollections of events. Respondent’s version of events was less credible than the version related by Ms. Puckett and Mr. Stephans. Respondent’s story regarding "Armageddon" appears less an honest recollection than an effort to anticipate an investigation and explain why his fingerprints were on the items in the portable. It also strains credulity that Respondent and Mr. Stephans would set off on a frantic search for Ms. Puckett at Suncoast simply out of curiosity, without any reason to believe Ms. Puckett knew more about the situation than they did. Mr. Stephans’ version of the trip to Suncoast is inherently more credible. Respondent is also correct that no inventory was taken of the tapes in the Family Learning Center portable to establish how many tapes were missing. However, Mr. Stephans and Ms. Puckett both testified that the tapes were neatly stacked in even rows, filling the video stand. Missing tapes would create an obvious space in the stacks, and that is precisely what the Title I employee reported to Ms. Mattingly, the principal of Tropic Isles. Given these facts, along with two eyewitnesses to the theft, there was no need to take an inventory to establish that Respondent took some number of tapes. It is not necessary to address Respondent’s argument that it made no sense for him to steal tapes and bags in front of witnesses, because the facts established that he did steal tapes and bags in front of witnesses. Respondent contends that over his 17 years as a School Board employee, he has had access to any number of buildings and all manner of opportunities to steal property unseen. Surely, he would not jeopardize his job by stealing such trifling items in front of two fellow employees. It would be as plausible to contend that the trifling nature of the items led Respondent to believe that no one would seriously pursue the matter. Ms. Puckett testified that Respondent nonchalantly told her that the tapes would not be missed. In any event, the facts established that Respondent took the items. His rationale or motive for doing so is irrelevant. It is also not necessary to address Respondent’s theory that Mr. Gutknecht and others disliked Respondent and wanted a reason to get rid of him. Even if this theory were accepted, Respondent’s own actions gave his perceived opponents sufficient justification to act against him. Finally, Respondent argues that he is being singled out for harsher punishment than his offense merits. He argues that the School Board has retained employees who admitted taking School Board property and paid restitution. This argument was borne out by the testimony of John Hennebery, the director of employee relations for the School Board. However, in this case, Respondent has neither admitted the theft nor offered restitution. Thus, the cited examples of more lenient treatment are inapplicable. In conclusion, it is found that Respondent stole School Board property, attempted to coerce witnesses to cover up the theft, and continued to deny the theft up to and including the final hearing in this matter.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order finding that Respondent committed theft of School Board property, and ordering that Respondent be dismissed from employment with the Lee County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 26th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Victor M. Arias, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Dr. Bruce Harter, Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner's facility was established in the 1950's as a nursing home for welfare clients in Riviera Beach. In 1979, the facility was changed to an ACLF. At that time, a physician and a nurse from the County Health Department examined all residents and transferred those out who needed continuing nursing care. One resident from the nursing home continues as an ACLF resident. Mrs. Davis, the current administrator, has been employed at the facility since 1960 and lives on the premises. The current staff of the ACLF includes several family members: Mrs. Sutton's daughter, Sabrina; Mrs. Davis' daughter, Christie; the son of a former long-time employee, "Jr."; Amon Shaw and Patricia Roach, another long-time employee. The neighborhood where the ACLF is situated is a high crime area and the ACLF has been burglarized on several occasions. When the facility is burglarized, the typical burglary involves broken windows, food items are stolen, files are ransacked, and petty cash is taken. The ACLF is licensed for a census of 35 residents. Based on surveys conducted by respondent on August 3, 12, and September 9, 1987, several deficiencies were noted, including the unavailability of records to reflect that the facility was being administered on a sound financial basis; no assurances that the facility maintained an admission/discharge roster of residents containing all information required including records for residents receiving self-administered medications; no records of personnel policies for employees employed by the facility including work assignments for each employee; no work schedule of staff and for relief staff; no time sheets; no disaster preparedness plan available for review; no assurance that staff were free from communicable disease or; that there was present at all times, at least one staff member certified in an approved first-aid course, missing diet orders for residents, missing physical assessments for patients. The diet menu reviewed showed deficiencies in Vitamin A and did not have adequate servings from the meat, milk, vegetable and fruit groups. The facility was not providing a variety of foods, nor did it have standardized recipes for all items on the menu. The menus were not dated and planned one week in advance, or readily accessible for review by the residents. Menus and corrections were not kept on file for six months, mice and other rodent droppings were observed in the kitchen, the kitchen was not clean and there was no effective pest control program instituted. No management employee had completed a food service management course. One freezer did not contain a thermometer, and the meat was not properly stored in the freezers (ribs stored in a garbage bag). The fan in the kitchen was dusty and greasy, the ovens were dirty and contained food spills, the can opener was not clean and had dried food residue, the silverware holder was not clean and contained dirty silverware which was stored together with money, keys and other items. Drip pans were grease laden. The facility did not provide sanitary housing in that the showers were laden with mildew, areas occupied by residents were not climatically controlled in a manner conducive to the comfort of residents in that there were no cooling devices. Residents were not provided adequate space for hanging clothes, the beds were not in good repair with mattresses free from odor, stains or lumpy stuffings, showers did not have non-slip safety devices on the floor, and the building was not kept in good repair in that the front doors of the men's dormitory were rotting. There were torn and loose screen windows and doors, and torn and loose linoleum throughout the facility. The outside walls contained peeling paint. Clothing and mops were hung on fences and the inside walls and doors needed painting. Furniture in the dormitories was not kept in good repair in that cushions on the sofas in the living rooms were torn, the arms and backs of the sofas were torn, and the drawers in chests were broken or missing. The facility was not free of accumulations of possessions in that clothing bags were being kept on the residents' beds, old baskets, bottles, tin and other junk and debris was strewn over the back yard, the fire alarm test did not include testing of the smoke detectors. There was no documentation of the quarterly automatic sprinkler tests, and waste containers were not constructed of noncombustible material. The generator for the emergency lighting was not load-tested on a monthly basis, and the door between the boiler room and the exit access door was not self- closing. Exit signs were not illuminated. The rear yard contained debris, including a refrigerator which was not being used with doors attached which presented a safety hazard and an unsealed septic tank which was not being maintained. Follow up visits by respondent's staff revealed that while there have been correction of some deficiencies, numerous deficiencies continue at the facility and petitioner's staff has been counseled repeatedly with suggestions about curing problems and/or deficiencies which were documented on six times by Nan McDermitt, to wit: May 31, August 2, August 5, August 18, September 8, and September 19, 1988. A moratorium on placements was issued by Respondent on June 30, 1988, based on repeated deficiencies which were not corrected during follow-up visits, inspections and surveys of the facility by respondent's staff. Cecie M. Davis admits that there are ongoing deficiencies which were reflected in respondent's surveys provided by staff. Davis has placed thermometers in the refrigerator, although they are at times removed by employees who store meat in the refrigerator. The screen doors are cut by burglars during break-ins. Missing lights have now been installed, and they are all operating properly. Vinyl flooring has been repaired, and there are new rugs on the living room floors. The unsealed septic tank has been repaired and cots have been purchased for the storage of linen. The refrigerator which was not stored in the back yard has been moved and exterminators have been employed to eradicate the rodent problems. The ladies shower has been painted and new mattresses were bought to replace those which were lumpy or stained. Despite all these corrections, there are numerous deficiencies that remain uncorrected at the ACLF. In trying to correct all of the deficiencies, Administrator Davis points out that the building is old, located in a high crime area and is subject to repeated burglaries. She admits that a gas odor which emanates from the kitchen is not corrected. A large segment of the patient census is old and disoriented, and male patients, at times, urinate on the floors. Administrator Davis is making efforts to cope with the problems with the limited resources available, however numerous deficiencies remain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order sustaining the denial of the license renewal of petitioner's adult congregate living facility, Sutton Home For The Aged, based on repeated and multiple violations of the minimum standards. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1989.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Tern Bay Community Development District (Petition), dated December 18, 2003. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondents, Pamela Sue and Karle Simmons, are guilty of violating section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility to license and regulate real estate professionals pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent Pamela Simmons was a licensed real estate sales associate issued license number 695141. The last license issued was as an active sales associate with Atlantic Partners Realty, LLC, 4116 3rd Street, Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent Karle Simmons was a licensed real stated sales associate, issued license number 3106888. The last license issued to Karle Simmons was as an inactive sales associate at 4045 Lionheart Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. Sometime in 2005, Pamela Simmons sold a home to David and Patsy Bickel located at 1613 Rain Bird Court, Jacksonville, Florida. After living in the home for approximately a year, Mr. Bickel was offered a job in North Carolina, and the Bickels decided to sell the Rain Bird Court home. They were able to stay at a home owned by Ms. Bickel's father in North Carolina and planned to do so until the Rain Bird Court home sold. The listing agreement to sell the Rain Bird Court home lists Pamela Simmons as the listing sales agent for Prudential Network Realty, and the term for the listing was September 1, 2006, through March 1, 2007. The Bickels believed that their stay in Mrs. Bickel's father's home would be short, and they left their personal belongings, such as furniture, linens, china and kitchenware, intact at the Rain Bird home. The items remaining at the home included personal financial information, which the Bickels would not have left if someone else would be living in their home. While cable and phone had been disconnected, the Bickels continued to pay for water and electricity at the home. The house did not sell during the listing period. Mrs. Bickel kept in contact with the Simmons through phone calls and e-mails. Her primary contact was with Pamela Simmons. After several months, the Bickels discussed options for dealing with the home, including the possibility of a lease purchase arrangement. They were hesitant to go in this direction, however, because of the potential for damage to their home. Moreover, they never agreed to rent the home and never were presented with a lease of any kind for any tenant. On or about July 9, 2007, the Bickels returned to Jacksonville to check on their home and see how to proceed in terms of relisting it. When they arrived at the Rain Bird Court home, it was after midnight. Upon approaching the house, they could see lights on inside and it appeared that the house was occupied. Mr. Bickel got out of the car and approached the house. He saw that there was a missing pane on the garage door, and he could hear the washer and dryer running. At this point, Mr. Bickel called the police. The police verified that the Bickels owned the home and then spoke to the man and woman who were in the house. The man represented that the realtor, "Karle," had rented the house to him, but that while he had been in the home for approximately two weeks, he had paid no rent and had no lease agreement. The officer called Karle Simmons, who then spoke briefly to Mr. Bickel. Karle apparently attempted to remind Mr. Bickel that permission to obtain a renter had been obtained verbally, but Mr. Bickel was not interested in entertaining such a suggestion. The Bickels were very disturbed by finding someone in their home, among their belongings, and filed a complaint with the Northeast Florida Association of Realtors (NEFAR) and with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. After a hearing which both the Bickels and the Simmons attended, NEFAR imposed a fine and required the Simmons to attend ethics classes. During DBPR's investigation into the Bickels' complaint, Karle and Pamela Simmons spoke to the investigator, Robert Krantz. They also submitted two joint, unsigned letters, one during the investigation and one in response to the Administrative Complaint. In both letters, consistent with their statements to Mr. Krantz, Respondents indicated that they had rented the Rain Bird Court home to Mr. Moffett, the man found there on July 9, 2007, on a month-to-month basis, but that they believed the Bickels had given them verbal authorization to do so. They acknowledged that they had no written authorization to rent the property; had collected no rent or security deposit; did not have a lease signed by Moffett or the Bickels; and had no property management agreement with the Bickels. Clear and convincing evidence indicates that the Bickels neither authorized the pursuit of having a tenant in their home, nor agreed to have this specific tenant. Clear and convincing evidence was also presented that the Bickels received no compensation for Mr. Moffett's use of their home.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondents, Pamela Sue Simmons and Karle Simmons, violated section 475.25(1)(b), imposing fines of $1,000 each and revoking each Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 14th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Pamela Sue Simmons Karle John Simmons 2417 Brook Parkway Jacksonville, Florida 32246 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a proposed activity by Cayo Costa Island Partnership is exempt from permitting.
Findings Of Fact Cayo Costa Island is a bridgeless barrier island situated between Gasparilla Island to the north and Captiva Island to the south. East of Cayo Costa Island is Pine Island, and east of Pine Island is Cape Coral. In the 1960s, Travis Gresham subdivided and commenced development of a portion of Cayo Costa Island. Development included the dredging of canals. Eventually, one or more plat maps were recorded in the public records of Lee County, so that warranty deeds for residential lots referred to such recorded plat maps. There is also a subdivision sales plat map, which may not have been recorded. Not all of the land was subdivided into lots. The sales plat map reserves a considerable amount of land and canals for future development. One of the reserved areas is to the east of the subdivided lots. The location of the proposed dock is in the extreme southwest corner of this unplatted area. The dock would be located at the western end of a relatively wide manmade canal, which measures 2000 feet long and 105 feet wide. The east end of the canal terminates in Pine Island Sound. Petitioner and her late husband purchased from Mr. Gresham lot 16 in block 1 over 30 years ago, and they moved onto the island almost 20 years ago. The lot does not abut the canal, nor the upland adjacent to the subject dock. She has permanently resided on the island continuously since 1976. In 1984, she and her husband conveyed their property by warranty deed to the State of Florida, reserving a life estate. Petitioner's husband and some friends constructed the subject dock at the end of the canal in September 1978. A couple of years later, another nearby resident named Carl Noah substantially enlarged the dock. On March 16, 1993, Mr. Noah conveyed by warranty deed his real property to Paul Faust. At the same time, Mr. Noah gave Mr. Faust a quitclaim deed for "boat docks constructed by [Mr. Noah] to be used with the [residential] structure." After purchasing the property from Mr. Noah, Mr. Faust was contacted by Petitioner, who told him that she had previously owned the dock and that Mr. Noah had shared it with her. Mr. Faust agreed to share the dock with her, for as long as he owned it. There are no recorded easements concerning the use of the dock. On the sales plat map, the west end of the canal is clearly separated from the subdivided area by a road, which is named Harbor Drive. However, Harbor Drive was never constructed and there is no physical evidence of the proposed road. Petitioner's late husband and his friends who helped build the dock mistakenly believed that the west end of the canal terminated at Harbor Drive. Undoubtedly, other persons were similarly confused, including the property assessor, who had never assessed the property that separates the west end of the canal from Harbor Drive. However, in May 1993, Noel Andress, one of the partners of Cayo Costa Island Partnership, obtained a warranty deed from Mr. Gresham for a triangular- shaped piece of land running north just to the existing dock from the intersection of Harbor Drive and an actual road known as La Costa Drive. Mr. Andress quitclaimed the triangular-shaped parcel, which is described by metes and bounds, to Cayo Costa Island Partnership on January 13, 1994. After Mr. Andress acquired the triangular-shaped parcel, he directed his attorney to write Petitioner and Mr. Faust and inform them to remove their personal property from the real property that Mr. Andress had recently acquired. Mr. Faust is contesting this matter in court. Unfortunately, the record does not include the application or applications submitted by Cayo Costa Island Partnership. Mr. Andress testified that he submitted an application in February or March of 1993. The proposed dock, which would replace the dock built by Mr. Sellars and Mr. Noah, would serve a single family. The proposed dock would consist of two sections: a 5' by 92' main section and a 6' by 10' walkway to the upland area. Thus, the total area of the dock would be 520 square feet. The application reportedly provides that Cayo Costa Island Partnership would use turbidity barriers during construction. The location of a 92-foot dock running parallel to the end of a 2000- foot long undeveloped canal presents no impediment to navigation. There is no reason to infer an adverse impact to flood control or, as long as turbidity barriers are used, a violation of water quality standards. By letter dated June 15, 1994, the Department of Environmental Protection acknowledged receipt of the application, as well as additional drawings and documents submitted on April 8, 1994. Based on these materials, the letter states that the proposed project "appears to qualify as an activity which is exempt from the need for a Department wetland resource permit under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-312.050(1)(h)."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of Petitioner. ENTERED on November 22, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on November 22, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings A-C: rejected as not findings of fact. A1: rejected as not finding of fact and irrelevant, except for last sentence, which is adopted or adopted in substance. A2-end: rejected as irrelevant, recitation of evidence, subordinate, and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Cayo Costa's Proposed Findings 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16-23: rejected as subordinate, recitation of testimony, and unnecessary. 24-31: adopted or adopted in substance. 32-33: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Barbara Mathews Trescott Pepper Law Firm 1505 S.E. 40th St. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Mary F. Smallwood Ruden, Barnett P.O. Box 10888 Tallahassee, FL 32302 John Chaves Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent. The Respondent, Charles Polk, served as the President of Daytona Beach Community College from 1974 to 1990. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk resigned as President of Daytona Beach Community College in 1990. Mr. Polk's Purchase of Real Estate from Anargyros N. Xepapas. In November, 1985, Mr. Polk and his wife purchased a life estate and one-half interest in a condominium unit from Anargyros N. Xepapas. Mr. Xepapas owned the other one-half interest in the condominium unit. [Stipulated Fact.] The purchase price of the life estate and one-half interest in the condominium unit was $150,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this price was not the fair market value or that the transaction was not an arms-length transaction. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Polk and his wife were required to pay $30,000.00 immediately. They subsequently executed and delivered to Mr. Xepapas a note and mortgage for the remaining $120,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk was a mortgagor and Mr. Xepapas was a mortgagee. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Polk was required to pay maintenance fees of approximately $5,000.00 per year, taxes, insurance and all other expenses of the unit, which totaled approximately $14,000.00 per year. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas agreed to maintain the payments on the first mortgage. [Stipulated Fact.] Following the closing, Mr. Polk paid Mr. Xepapas an additional $60,000.00 on the mortgage, reducing the principal balance to $60,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] A warranty deed was provided to Mr. Polk for the purchase of the property. [Stipulated Fact.] Neither the deed nor the mortgage were recorded. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk and his wife used the condominium as their residence. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas action in selling the condominium to Mr. Polk and his wife was a business transaction. Mr. Xepapas. Mr. Xepapas is an architect and developer who designs, builds, and sells property in the Daytona Beach area. [Stipulated Fact.] At the time Mr. Polk purchased the one-half interest in the condominium unit from Mr. Xepapas, Mr. Xepapas was the owner of the condominium building in which the unit was located. [Stipulated Fact.] In addition to being the owner of the condominium building at issue, Mr. Xepapas was the architect, developer and contractor for the condominium and for other condominium buildings in the areas. Mr. Xepapas was trying to sell the condominium units as part of his business because of cash-flow problems. [Stipulated Fact.] The condominium sales market was "soft" and Mr. Xepapas was trying to eliminate the carrying costs for unsold units. Mr. Xepapas sold a total of four condominium units pursuant to an arrangement similar to the arrangement by which he sold the condominium unit to Mr. Polk. Mr. Xepapas had made offers to sell one-half interests in condominium units to various other persons besides Mr. Polk. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas was a sole proprietor. He entered into his relationship with Mr. Polk in his capacity as a sole proprietor. Mr. Xepapas has known Mr. Polk for ten to fifteen years and considers himself a friend of Mr. Polk. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas' Business with Daytona Beach Community College. In 1987, the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College decided to expand the College's educational facilities by obtaining a new center in the Deltona area. [Stipulated Fact.] In September, 1987, the Board of Trustees instructed staff to develop a request for proposal for the design and construction of the facility which would be leased to the College. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk was involved to some extent in the decision as to whether the new center should be purchased or constructed, and whether it should be acquired through a long-term lease/purchase agreement. In response to the advertisement of the request for proposal in September, 1988, Mr. Xepapas submitted a proposal. [Stipulated Fact.] There were a total of nine persons or businesses that responded to the request for proposal for the Deltona facility. Mr. Polk knew that Mr. Xepapas had picked up a bid proposal package and, therefore, believed that Mr. Xepapas would submit a proposal. Mr. Polk appointed the committee which reviewed the proposals. This committee ultimately narrowed the acceptable proposals to two, including Mr. Xepapas, and directed that those two proposers submit final proposals. In January, 1989, Mr. Xepapas, in his capacity as a sole proprietor, was the successful bidder on the contract; however, there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Polk abused his position in order to ensure this result. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas and Mr. and Mrs. Polk were co-owners of the condominium prior to and at the time that Mr. Xepapas was awarded the Daytona Beach Community College contract. Ultimately, Mr. Xepapas was not able to fulfill his obligations under the contract with Daytona Beach Community College. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polk asserted any influence over the decision to award the contract to Mr. Xepapas, Mr. Polk was involved to some small degree in the award of the contract to Mr. Xepapas. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polk disclosed his co-ownership of the condominium with Mr. Xepapas to the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College, that he refused to participate in any way in the bidding process or that he attempted to take the more drastic step of severing his relationship with Mr. Xepapas while the bidding process was going on. In May, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Polk ultimately quit claim deeded the property to Mr. Xepapas. The evidence failed to prove why. They, therefore, lost their investment in the property. Mr. Polk also resigned as President of Daytona Beach Community College as a result of the allegations concerning his relationship with Mr. Xepapas.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report finding that the Respondent, Charles Polk, violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Complaint No. 89-80. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Polk be subjected to public censure and reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 13th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3-11. 3 13. 4 14-16. 5 16 and 18. 6 4, 12 and 19-20. 7 Hereby accepted. 8 3, 21, 27-28 and 30. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 2 13. 3 3, 11 and 14. 4 20. 5 16. 6 4 and 17-18. 7 5 and 8-9. 8 6-7. 9 21. 10 22. 11 24. 12 26 and hereby accepted. See 23, 27 and 30. 13 27 and 30. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 David A. Monaco, Esquire Post Office Box 15200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Bonnie J. Williams Executive Director Commission on Ethics The Capitol, Room 2105 Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
