Findings Of Fact Prior to May 9, 1979, the Respondent held a rank III teacher's certificate issued by the Respondent. The Respondent met, and continues to meet, all requirements for rank III certification. The Respondent was employed in an instructional capacity with the Pinellas County School System from 1970 through June, 1980. The Respondent consistently received excellent evaluations during his tenure with the Pinellas County School System. On February 5, 1979, the Respondent made application to the State Department of Education, Teachers Certification Section, for a rank II teacher's certificate. While it does not appear that the Respondent actually filed the application, it was filed on his behalf and with his knowledge, and he was responsible for its being filed. The application included a transcript of course work which reflected that the Respondent had received a Masters of Education Degree from Florida A&M University on December 15, 1978. The transcript was a forgery. The Respondent had completed some course work toward a Masters Degree, but not nearly sufficient hours of courses to entitle him to a Masters Degree. A friend of the Respondent who was employed at Florida A&M University prepared the false transcript for the Respondent. The Respondent paid this individual $300.00, loaned him $700.00, and provided him with seafood, free lodging and football tickets as compensation for the forged transcript. The Respondent's testimony that the money, loan, and other items were not related to the forged transcript ha been found not credible. The Respondent signed the application, which was supported by the forged transcript. The following statement is set out above his signature: I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means... I further certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct. The signature is notarized as having been sworn to and subscribed. On May 9, 1979, the Department of Education issued a rank II teacher's certificate to the Respondent. The Respondent was not eligible for rank II certification, and he obtained the certificate by fraudulent means. The Respondent filed the rank II certificate with his employer, the Pinellas County School Board, on or about June 13, 1979. As a result, the Respondent obtained an increase in pay retroactive to December 15, 1978. While the Respondent never held any position with the Pinellas County School Board that he would not have been eligible to hold under his rank III certification, he received a total of $1,606.85 in additional compensation based upon the rank II certification. The Respondent would not have received this additional income without submitting the rank II certificate to his employer. During July, 1980, state prosecuting authorities questioned employees of the Pinellas County School Board and the Respondent with respect to his rank II certificate. The Respondent confessed to having received the rank II certificate by fraudulent means. Following the confession the Respondent made full restitution of the $1,606.85 to the Pinellas County School Board. The Respondent was thereafter arrested and charged with grand theft in Pinellas County, Florida, and with forgery and bribery in Leon County, Florida. The charges in Leon County were dropped after the Respondent entered a plea of no contest to the Pinellas County charges. He was adjudicated guilty of the felony of grand theft on October 27, 1980, and placed on three years' probation. The Respondent had been suspended from his employment, and he resigned following his conviction. Several newspaper articles appeared relating to the charges filed against the Respondent and his conviction. The Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Pinellas County School System, and as a teacher, has been seriously reduced as a result of his misconduct. The Respondent was cooperative with authorities in connection with the criminal investigation. The Respondent is remorseful, realizes the gravity of his misconduct, and is susceptible of rehabilitation. The Respondent has not been subject to any disciplinary action as a teacher, or through any criminal prosecutions prior to this incident. It does not appear likely that the Respondent will engage in such conduct in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking the rank II teaching certificate that had been issued to the Respondent, Particus B. Blackshear, Jr.; and that the Respondent's eligibility for any teaching certificate be revoked for a period of five years, subject to reinstatement only in accordance with the provisions of Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of July, 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly 700 Lewis State Bank Building Post Office Box 1548 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Howard P. Rives, Esquire Suite 1000 600 Cleveland Street Clearwater, Florida 33515 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 1981.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner's application for a Florida Teacher's Certificate should be granted or denied. The Respondent contends that Petitioner's Teacher's Certificate was permanently revoked in 1978, and that the Respondent has not presented evidence that would justify the reissuance of a Teacher's Certificate. Petitioner contends that permanent revocation was not originally justified, and that his past conduct does not justify his being permanently removed from the teaching profession.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has submitted an application for a Florida Teacher's Certificate. His application was denied by the Department of Education, and he has appealed that denial to the Education Practices Commission. Petitioner is qualified by age and academic background for certification as a teacher. The Department of Education contends that his application for certification should be denied because he is not of good moral character and has committed acts which would authorize the revocation of his Teacher's Certificate. On or about September 21, 1971, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty by the County Court in Duval County, Florida, of contempt of court. He was fined fifty dollars. The contempt adjudication related to the Petitioner's failure to pay numerous parking fines. On or about July 2, 1973, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed firearm, breach of the peace, and public intoxication. On September 5, 1973, Petitioner entered a plea to the offense of breach of the peace. The other charges were dismissed, and Petitioner was placed on unsupervised probation for a period of six months. On or about September 20, 1976, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of the offense of driving while intoxicated and ordered to serve ten days in the Duval County Jail. On March 15, 1977, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of the offense of driving with a revoked driver's license and fined the sum of one hundred dollars plus court costs. On December 6, 1977, Petitioner entered a plea of no contest to the offense of "consuming alcohol where sold on lot" and was placed on unsupervised probation for a period of one month. On August 24, 1973, Petitioner submitted an application for employment with the Duval County School System. The following question was set out on the application: "Have you ever been arrested for any offense other than minor traffic violations?" Petitioner responded that he had not been. This response was untrue. He had in fact been arrested and adjudicated guilty of contempt of court and, less than a month prior to submitting the application, had been arrested on other charges that were not minor traffic offenses. Petitioner's explanation for responding to this question in the negative was that he considered the contempt citation to be for minor traffic offenses and that he had not yet been adjudicated guilty with respect to the other arrest. The explanation is not worthy of being credited. Petitioner was employed with the Duval County School System based upon his application. On September 19, 1973, Petitioner submitted an application for a State of Florida Teacher's Certificate to the Department of Education. The following question was set out on the application: "Have you ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation?" The Respondent answered "No." The answer was false. A teaching certificate was issued to the Petitioner based upon the application. While he was employed with the Duval County School System, the Petitioner falsified a request for leave. He submitted a leave request stating that his daughter was ill on September 20, 1976. In fact, Petitioner's daughter was not ill. He needed leave in order to appear in traffic court for sentencing for the criminal offense of driving while intoxicated. By Order entered July 19, 1978, the State Board of Education permanently revoked Petitioner's Florida Teacher's Certificate. The revocation was based upon Petitioner's criminal convictions, Petitioner's falsifying his employment application, Petitioner's falsifying his application for a Florida Teacher's Certificate, and Petitioner's falsified leave request form. On April 1, 1981, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the offense "unemployment compensation fraud" in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence were withheld, and Petitioner was placed on probation for a period of one year. Petitioner's personal conduct as set out above seriously reduces his effectiveness as a teacher. It does not appear that the Petitioner has in any way rehabilitated himself since his Teacher's Certificate was revoked in 1978. Indeed, he has since that time committed a crime involving moral turpitude.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby,
Findings Of Fact Because the Division is accepting certain of the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, and rejecting others in part or in total, each Finding of Fact in the Recommended Order will be considered separately. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted in part. Mrs. Kauffman was hospitalized for surgery in 1981 and 1982. There is no evidence that she had been hospitalized during the prior five open enrollment periods. It was after the 1983-84 school year that she decided to make some changes in her retirement system (T. 110) Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in part. Mr. Kunkel accepted the concept that the termination must be a "bona fide termination." He further stated that the acceptance of Ms. Meadows' resignation and her reemployment could be accomplished at the same school board meeting. Paragraph 7: Accepted in part as being only partially correct. The Division rejects the portion as being an incomplete statement of the correspondence in this case between the school board and the Division. Respondent's Exhibit #2, Item 9, states as follows (letter from Joseph E. Cahill to Marilyn Peters, dated December 11, 1985): Your attention is invited to the means of proving actual termination, i.e., a copy of the member's resignation, a copy of the advertised vacancy, evidence of payments for unused annual and sick leave or evidence of loss of unused annual and sick leave, etc. The point to be made is that there must have been an actual termination, not merely a paper transaction purporting to reflect a "termination" and concurrent "reemployment" -- for the purpose of circumventing the spirit and intent of the pertinent statute. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Rejected. In reviewing the facts of a particular fact to determine if there has been a bona fide termination, the Division reviews several factors; a copy of the resignation, a coy of the advertised vacancy for the member's position and "evidence of payments for unused annual and sick leave, or of the loss of unused annual and sick leave due to termination." The review is multi-factoral and not based on any one indicia (Wooten's Deposition Exh. 1 and Exh. 2). Paragraph 11: Accepted in part. Both Meadows and Kauffman had consulted with Mr. Kunkel for legal advice and had had meetings with Dr. Pierce soliciting his cooperation in securing the transfers. Their principals had been contacted concerning whether or not the teachers would be accepted back into their prior positions. The Superintendent had also expressed his willingness to recommend the Petitioners for their former positions. While the school board does the actual hiring and the Superintendent does the recommendations for the hearing, Petitioners had done everything within their power to ensure that they would be hired into their prior positions. Paragraph 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: Accepted in part. While the Petitioners proceeded with the game plan as agreed to in their meeting with Dr. Pierce in September, 1987, it is evident that the plan was proceeding in spite of statements from the Division that there must be a clear termination and not merely a paper transaction done solely for the purpose of circumventing the spirit and intent of the law (see Respondent's Exhibit 2, Item 9) Paragraph 14: Accepted in part and rejected in part. While the statement of the Hearing Officer is correct that the Petitioners missed two pay periods from December 5, 1987 to January 3, 1988, it is also irrelevant to the issues of the case. While Petitioners apparently terminated employment for the two pay periods, the interest of the Division concerns itself with membership in the retirement systems, either TRS or FRS, and the requirements of the Division necessary to be considered a terminated member of either of those systems. The Division's Interest is not whether the Petitioners are or have terminated employment with the School Board. In this proceeding, the Division has not made a determination as to the validity of the "terminations" or "resignations." Paragraph 15: Accepted. The personnel action forms were initiated by the principals of the two schools in which the Petitioners taught. Ms. Sandra Russell, the principal for Ms. Kauffman signed the personnel action form on December 1, 1987, before the effective date of the resignation. She stated that she would not have signed the form had she not heard from the personnel office that her signing the form was the appropriate thing to do (Tr. 154). Paragraph 16: Accepted. Paragraph 17: Accepted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered effectuating the transfer of Petitioners from TRS to FRS commencing with their reemployment by the county school board. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 21st day of February, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioners' Proposed Findings Of Fact 1.-19. Adopted in substance. 20.-22. Unnecessary. 23.-52. Adopted in substance. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact 1.-2. Adopted in substance. Not supported by direct evidence. Addressed. Unnecessary. 6.-7. With exception of proposed finding #7 following the first sentence, adopted in substance. 8.-14. Addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie Holland, Esq. 208 West Pensacola St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Stanley M. Danek, Esq. Department of Administration 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esq. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dan Gardener, is a teacher in the State of Florida, licensed with the Department of Education, holding certificate number 228351. His certificate authorizes him to teach in the areas of guidance, science, elementary education, junior college and mathematics. At the time of his arrest, described below, the Respondent was employed by the Collier County School Board as a teacher at Immokalee Middle School, in Immokalee, Florida. On or about January 4, 1983, the Respondent was employed at the Immokalee Middle School in Collier County. He had in his possession approximately one gram of cocaine and transferred and sold that cocaine to one John Wesley Riley, a confidential informant for law enforcement authorities. At the tie of this sale, the Respondent also offered to sell Riley more cocaine on the following Friday, after school hours, on or near school premises in an area where school buses were parked. As a consequence of these activities, the Respondent was arrested and charged on May 6, 1983, in the Collier County Circuit Court with the crime of selling cocaine. On May 17, 1983, he was suspended from his teaching position indefinitely, without pay, by the Collier County School Board. The fact of and the circumstances of the Respondent's arrest were known to students, parents and the Respondent's colleagues in the Immokalee community. The fact of the arrest was published in newspapers of general circulation in the Immokalee community and in Collier County. On December 12, 1983, the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida, adjudicated the Respondent guilty of the crime of "sale of cocaine," a second degree felony in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. The Respondent was fined and sentenced to a 30-month imprisonment in the state prison, to be followed by 5 years probation. Respondent is currently serving that prison sentence. In August, 1970, the Respondent submitted an application for a teacher's certificate to the Florida Department of Education. In that application he was asked if he had ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. The Respondent replied in the negative on his application and certified thereon that all information in the application was true and correct. In August, 1978, Respondent submitted an application for an extension of his certificate to the Florida Department of Education. On that application he was asked if he had ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense, other than a minor traffic violation. The Respondent replied in the negative, and certified that all information on his application was true and correct. Indeed, the Respondent's replies were deceptive and failed to include any information or reference to past criminal convictions. In this connection, on April 14, 1958, the Respondent, after entering a guilty plea in the Criminal Court of Record in Polk County, Florida, was convicted of the offenses of reckless driving and using profane, vulgar and indecent language. He was ordered to pay a $50 fine or serve 60 days in the county jail. On August 8, 1960, the Respondent entered a guilty plea to a charge of arson involved in the burning of his own automobile and the filing of a false insurance claim for insurance proceeds from his insurance company. Upon his conviction of this offense of arson, the Respondent was placed on ten years probation by the court and ordered to make full restitution to the insurance company. The Respondent having comformed to the terms of this probation, the court terminated the probation on April 28, 1966. The information which Respondent failed to disclose was material and pertained to the issue of the Respondent's fitness to receive and hold a teacher's certificate. It could have resulted in the denial of the certificate or the denial of the extension of it, had the Department been informed of the past criminal convictions. The Respondent certified his replies were true and correct, when he knew they were not. Samuel Ramey Lee, Assistant Superintendent of Schools for Collier County, was qualified as an expert witness in the fields of education and personnel administration, as well as standards of teacher effectiveness as they relate to both Collier County and the State of Florida. The fact of the Respondent's conviction for the cocaine sale was communicated and published to his colleagues in the Collier County school system and to students of that school system and their parents, and to the Immokalee community by newspapers of general circulation. Because of the great public awareness of the fact of the Respondent's conviction for the sale of cocaine, his effectiveness as an employee of the school board in Collier County has been substantially reduced. Parents in that community no longer desire the Respondent to teach their children. Because the Respondent's record of conviction by the court and disciplinary action by the school board will remain a part of his permanent record, should he transfer to any other school system in the state, his effectiveness as a teacher in the State of Florida will have been substantially reduced as to his colleagues in the teaching profession in whatever school system he should attempt to become employed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the teacher's certificate of the Respondent, Dan Gardener, be permanently revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire Lewis State Bank Building Suite 616 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linnes Finney, Jr., Esquire GARY, WILLIAMS and WALKER Post Office Box 3747 Fort Pierce, Florida 33448 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1984. Donald Griesheiiner, Executive Director Education practices Commission Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 190841, covering the areas of elementary education and reading, which is valid through June 30, 1993. The Respondent has applied for renewal of her teaching certificate, and her renewal application is being held pending a resolution of this matter. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Seminole Middle School in the Pinellas County School District. On or about August 19, 1979, the Respondent was arrested in Sylva, North Carolina, and charged with driving while intoxicated. On or about December 20, 1979, the Respondent was convicted and her driver license was revoked for 12 months. The Respondent submitted an Application for Teacher's Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on September 7, 1982. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. The Respondent submitted an Application for Name Change and/or Duplicate Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on March 2, 1983. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. The Respondent submitted an Application for Extension of Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on March 1, 1984. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. On or about February 26, 1985, a Madeira Beach Police officer observed the Respondent driving her vehicle in an erratic manner. The Respondent failed several roadside sobriety tests and refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. On or about April 29, 1985, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in the Pinellas County Court to the charge of driving under the influence. The court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced her to serve 12 months probation. The court further ordered the Respondent to pay a $500.00 fine, enroll in a DUI school, and revoked the Respondent's driver license for six months. On or about October 30, 1986, a Madeira Beach Police officer observed the Respondent driving her vehicle in an erratic manner. The Respondent failed several roadside sobriety tests. The Respondent's blood alcohol level was found to be in excess of the legal limit. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. On or about March 6, 1987, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty in the Pinellas County Court to the charge of driving under the influence. The court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced her to serve 10 days in the jail, to be served in the "Weekend/Daywatch Program", to be followed by one year of probation. The court further ordered the Respondent to enroll in DUI school, attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and revoked the Respondent's driver license for 10 years. The Respondent submitted an Application for Extension of Certificate and Application for Addition and/or Upgrade to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on June 23, 1987. The applications each included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations? In her sworn response to each question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. The Respondent submitted an Application for Educator's Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on June 13, 1988. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. The Respondent submitted an Application for Name Change and/or Duplicate Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on February 24, 1989. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. On or about January 5, 1993, the Respondent was observed driving a vehicle in Pinellas County, Florida while her driver license was revoked. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving with a revoked license. On or about February 24, 1993, the Respondent entered a plead of guilty to the charge of driving with a revoked license in Pinellas County Court. The court adjudicated her guilty and ordered her to pay $500.00 in fines and court costs. The Respondent has been an effective classroom teacher for 36 years, mostly teaching sixth grade. The Respondent's evidence was that she resorted to alcohol in response to three successive traumatic events in her life: (1) the death of her husband in 1976, which required her to become independent and the sole parent of her son and four daughters and to return to graduate school to enable her to become the sole support for her family; (2) the murder of her son in 1982; and (3) the cancer death of her mother in 1986. Despite her alcohol problem, the Respondent was able to be an effective school teacher through the years and did not allow her personal problems to seriously adversely affect her work. Her last alcohol-related incident was in October, 1986. The Respondent's principal from approximately 1987 through 1992, a man named Bill Mock, had a well-deserved reputation for administering the Respondent's school through intimidation and threat of punishment. Since applications for teacher certificates routinely were processed through the school administration offices, the Respondent was afraid that the principal would learn of her DUI arrests and convictions from reading the Respondent's teacher certificate applications and that he would fire her or impose conditions on her continued employment at the school that would be intolerable for her. In order to protect her job and livelihood, and ultimately her family, the Respondent rationalized to herself that it was not necessary to disclose those arrests and convictions on her teacher certificate applications. When Mock retired at the end of the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent reported her violations to her new school principal, and on or about March 31, 1993, received a written reprimand, but no suspension or dismissal, for her failure to acknowledge her arrests to the Department of Education. The Respondent has continued to be an effective middle school teacher. The Respondent's arrest and conviction for driving with a revoked driver license may have been "set up." Her ride to school cancelled at the last minute, leaving the Respondent without enough time to walk. She drove herself straight to school, and there was a policeman waiting for her in the school parking lot at the end of the school day. Otherwise, she did not drive with a revoked driver license. The Respondent's driver license is revoked until March, 1997, but she is eligible for a work permit upon completion of a driver education class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty as charged and suspending her teacher certificate for one year, to be served beginning at the end of the current school year. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 17th day of August, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 2121 Killarney Way Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 650 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 34640-3625 (Copies furnished, continued) Karen B. Wilde Executive Director The Florida Education Center, Room 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue presented is what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent based upon the conduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against her.
Findings Of Fact Respondent removed the computer from the school at the beginning of the 1988-89 school year, only a few days after she began her employment with the School Board of Broward County. Although Respondent contends that she was authorized to take the computer home, no authorization has been located, and school officials were not aware of such authorization when they conducted the inventory at the end of the school year and determined that the computer was missing. Respondent did not return the computer to the school at the end of that school year. Moreover, she did not advise anyone that she had the computer at home. When she was rehired each subsequent year at the same school, she did not advise anyone at the school that she still had the computer at home. The computer was in Respondent's possession without the knowledge of the administrators at Parkway Middle School from August of 1988 until March 7, 1992, when she traded it at the pawn shop. The forms completed at the pawn shop indicate that Respondent provided not only her thumb print but also her name, address, telephone number, date of birth, physical description, signature, and her driver's license as identification. The name used by Respondent at the pawn shop was her then- married name. The property form appears to have been changed. It appears that initially someone checked the word "pawn" as the type of transaction, then crossed off that selection and instead marked that the type of transaction was a trade. Even if the transaction had been a pawn, Respondent would have been required to re-purchase the property within 60 days. Respondent did not do so. Rather, the computer was traded on March 7, 1992, and remained at the pawn shop until August 11, 1992, when it was recovered by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing her from her employment with the School Board of Broward County. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 27th day of April, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Moldof 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. Art Kennedy 1631 N.W. 24th Terrace Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 10th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue Whether the Respondent, a teacher under contract with the Orange County School Board, should be terminated from his employment based on misconduct in office, which occurred on January 12, 1989. Whether the Respondent, a teacher under contract with the Orange County School Board, should be terminated from his employment based on gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty for failure to follow a prior directive from his principal not to physically touch a student, except under very limited conditions. Whether such actions of Respondent are so violative of the legitimate expectations of professional conduct of a teacher as to impair the effectiveness of service to the school district by the Respondent and to pose a serious danger to the continued safety, health and welfare of the students of Orange County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a licensed teacher, having taught in the Orange County School System for 21 years and at Conway Middle School for over 19 years. Respondent's classroom evaluations over the years were satisfactory and higher. Respondent was a school representative for the teachers' association for approximately 16 years. Respondent is a large man, 6 feet, 3 inches tall and weighs 300 pounds. On January 12, 1989, Respondent was teaching his regular sixth-period American History class. The bell had rung, signaling the beginning of the class period, but some students were still coming into the classroom. The Respondent was preparing to show the class a filmstrip. Peyton Dickson, a student in the class, walked from his seat in the rear of the classroom to the light switch at the front of the classroom and turned the light switch on and off several times. Respondent told him to stop and to sit down. He remained standing and "talked back" to Respondent. Dickson's conduct angered the Respondent who then walked to where Dickson was standing, grabbed him by the arms and shoved him up against the wall. Respondent called Dickson a "punk." Dickson then angrily returned to his seat. Shortly thereafter, during the same class period, Todd Ray, another student in the class, walked over to use the pencil sharpener. On the way back to his seat, he stopped to help another student with a bookcover. The Respondent grabbed Ray, walked him a short distance back to the student's desk and pushed him down into his seat. The class continued without further interruption. The Respondent did not contact the school office concerning the incidents at the time that they occurred. After class was over, several students, including Peyton Dickson and Todd Ray, approached the school principal, Beth Provancha, in the hall and told her about the actions of the Respondent. Later that same day, the principal, through Mr. Nelms, directed the Respondent to prepare a written account of what had occurred in the classroom. The Respondent submitted his written version of the facts the next day, January 13, 1989. (School Board Exhibit 14). On January 29, 1989, the Respondent received a letter relieving him of duty effective January 30, 1989, because of "serious" allegations of misconduct. In the case of a student who disrupts a classroom, School Board policy directs that a student should be verbally directed by the teacher to cease disruptions. If that does not resolve the situation, the office should be "buzzed" and an administrative person summoned to remove the disruptive student from the classroom. It is not permissible for a teacher to physically abuse a student except in the case of an emergency, and no emergency existed in Respondent's classroom on January 12, 1989. Respondent had been directed by the principal, personally, as well as in the Faculty Handbook, not to physically touch students, except for friendly gestures or in emergencies. At the time of the January 1989 incidents, the Respondent knew he had been directed not to "touch" students. In spite of this knowledge, the Respondent deliberately grabbed and shoved or "touched" the two students who had been disruptive in class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Orange County find Respondent guilty of misconduct in office, and not guilty of gross insubordination. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent be suspended, without pay, from the date of the incident January 12, 1989, until the end of the School Year 1988-89; and the Respondent receive counseling in stress management prior to returning to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4 (in part), 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 (in part). Rejected: Paragraph 13 and a portion of 14 - not relevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: In view of the fact that Respondent's proposals are not numbered, they will be referred to by page and paragraph number as they appear in the proposed finding starting on page 3 thereof. Accepted in substance: second full paragraph on page 3 Rejected as argument: first full paragraph on page 3 third full paragraph on page 5 second full paragraph on page 6 Rejected as not supported by the evidence: third full paragraph on page 3 (continuing on page 4) first full paragraph on page 4 (except the phrase: ... "and was aware of the previous reprimands at the time the Respondent sought to control the two students' actions.) second full paragraph on page 5 Rejected as a conclusion of law which is ruled on in the Preliminary Statement or Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order: second full paragraph on page 4 first full paragraph on page 5 fourth full paragraph on page 5 first full paragraph on page 6 fifth full paragraph on page 5 (concluding on page 6) APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraphs 10 and 12. Adopted in part in paragraph 9, although the identification of the Respondent at the party is discredited as improbable. Rejected as unsubstantiated by the weight of evidence. Even if the smell had been marijuana smoke, it was not established that the odor existed prior to Respondent's departure the evening of the 18th, or that he could identify the odor as marijuana. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 18. Adopted in substance in paragraph 15. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. & J. Rejected. The testimony of these witnesses was essentially credible. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as immaterial. The conduct was not proven. Respondent's Findings of Fact Respondent's 18 numbered Findings of Fact include multiple sub- parts containing findings mixed with argument and summary of evidence. The findings of fact are generally adopted and are incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire William E. Curphey, Esquire Parker, Johnson, Owen, McGuire, Michaud, Lang and Kruppenbacher, P.A. Post Office Box 640 Orlando, Florida Michael Barber, Esquire Post Office Box 1928 Kissimmee, Florida James L. Schott Superintendent Orange County Public Schools Post Office Box 271 434 N. Tampa Avenue Orlando, FL 32802 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John C. Rodriguez, is a 27 year old male whose current mailing address is 9174 Northwest 30th Court, Miami, Florida. Petitioner filed an application on March 31, 1981, for licensure as an unarmed/armed security guard (Class D and G) with Respondent, Department of State. Question 13 on the application asks if the applicant has ever been arrested. Petitioner answered that he had not (Respondent's Exhibit 1). A subsequent Federal Bureau of Investigation check revealed Petitioner had been arrested on January 22, 1976, for attempted larceny, loitering and prowling and was con victed of attempted larceny and loitering (Respondent's Exhibit 3). For this he paid a $254 fine but was not incarcerated. Petitioner explained that he answered the question in the negative since he believed he was not guilty of the charges although he was ultimately convicted by the courts. Petitioner is now unemployed. His employment record in the past has been spotty, and has consisted primarily of part-time jobs or jobs on a one-time basis. He has no permanent domicile and has lived for a number of years with friends or acquaintances. A background investigation of the applicant by an investigator reached the conclusion that applicant has insufficient stability and emotional maturity to carry a firearm. This conclusion was based upon applicant's failure to hold a job for any period of time, or to maintain a permanent domicile. Moreover, applicant has access to attack dogs which the Department believes may be used improperly if a license is granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner, John C. Rodriguez, for a Class G license (statewide gun permit) be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner for a Class D license (watchman, guard or patrolman) be DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner submitting an amended application with a proper response to question 13 and the signature of an employer who has approved the applicant for hiring. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John C. Rodriguez 9174 Northwest 30th Court Miami, Florida 33147 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary L. Gast, Chief Bureau of License Issuance Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent in this proceeding is William M. Kenny. He was initially employed by Petitioner on an annual contract basis in a non-instructional capacity as a "trades helper" on July 16, 1985, for the 1985-86 school year. He was subsequently re-employed pursuant to an annual contract in this position for the 1986-87 school year. He was thereafter employed by Petitioner on an annual contract as a roofer in the maintenance department during the 1987-88 school year. Petitioner's employees who are roofers are required to travel to various school sites to perform repair services for roofs of the schools. These employees have access to equipment and supplies owned by Petitioner during duty hours. After hours, most of the equipment and supplies are secured by locking shops, vehicles and storage yards. However, Petitioner is unable to secure all areas where equipment is located. Thievery and the "walking off" of construction materials is a recurring problem for Petitioner's facilities department even though the area where such materials are stored is usually lighted and fenced. Three incidents in the last two years resulted in the removal of certain employees from Petitioner's facilities department as the result of thievery. Respondent's work performance as a "trades helper", an assistant to tradesmen such as carpenters and roofers, was satisfactory. His later performance as a roofer also met performance standards with the exception of deficiencies in his employment attendance. In conjunction with his attendance record, he was reprimanded in September of 1986 for abuse of Petitioner's employee sick leave policy and required to furnish a doctor's excuse for any further absences. Respondent was reprimanded again for his failure to call on January 25, 1988, prior to commencement of the work day and inform his supervisor that he would be unable to work aue to sickness. Employees are directed to call, in the event of illness, before the commencement of work. Petitioner's supervisory employees consider the attendance records of subordinate employees such as Respondent in determining whether to recommend that an annual contract be offered to the employee for the subsequent year. Respondent's unsatisfactory attendance record would have resulted in a recommendation from Petitioner's director of facilities that Respondent not be rehired for the 1988-89 school year; however, before that recommendation could be formally made, Respondent was suspended from his employment pending judicial disposition of criminal charges against him. The criminal charges against Respondent arose when he and three other individuals were arrested by law enforcement officers on February 12, 1988, and charged with burglary and grand theft. Respondent and the other persons were apprehended on that date at a construction site where several trailers, housing quantities of various construction materials, had been illegally entered. The other persons involved in the burglary had agreed to pay Respondent $100 to assist in the theft and use his expertise to determine the materials to be taken. At the time of his arrest, Respondent had entered the trailers and physically removed boxes of wire. When police officers arrived, Respondent fled to a nearby pond to escape the officers' police dogs. Respondent received a number of dog bites in the incident. A bandaged Respondent reported to his work supervisor on Monday, February 15, 1988, to explain his inability to work and the reason for his absence from work on February 12, 1988. Due to his injuries, Respondent did not work during the period February 15, 1988, to February 26, 1988. Respondent's physician release authorized his return to work effective February 25, 1988. Respondent returned to work a day later on February 26, 1988. Petitioner conducted an investigation of Respondent's arrest. In the course of that investigation, on March 4, 1988, Respondent admitted his guilt of the charged offenses to Petitioner's Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Relations. Respondent was suspended without pay, effective March 16, 1988, from his employment pending disposition of the criminal charges lodged against him. On August 8, 1988, an order was entered in Circuit Court Case Number 88-1901CFDO2 accepting Respondent's guilty plea to two counts of burglary and two counts of grand theft. The order withheld formal adjudication of guilt, but required Respondent to serve 10 days in the Palm Beach County jail and successfully complete a two year period of probation. Petitioner's supervisory personnel have impressed upon subordinate personnel in Respondent's category that there is an expectation that employees will refrain from stealing. To support this strong work ethic among employees, Petitioner has removed from employment in the past those employees involved in the theft of Petitioner's property. Increased supervision of Respondent would be required and morale of Respondent's coworkers would be adversely affected should Respondent be returned to employment in his position within the facilities department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Respondent from employment pursuant to the annual contract for the 1987-88 school year, such dismissal to be effective March 16, 1988. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 6th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1441 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1. Conclusion of law, not fact. 2.-11. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings Respondent's proposed findings were submitted in the form of a document entitled "Respondent's Brief." Numbered paragraphs containing proposed findings are not present. Respondent's representative seeks to make the point that failure of the sentencing court to formally adjudicate Respondent guilty of the charged offenses nullifies any action by Petitioner. This proposed legal conclusion is rejected as a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Abbey G. Hairston, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida 3323 Belvedere Road Building 503, Room 232 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Dawn Bonard Qualified Representative Post Office Box 449 Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Respondent is entitled to back pay following reinstatement to employment after suspension without pay.
Findings Of Fact At the final hearing, the parties stipulated to adopting the Findings of Fact from DOAH Case No. 17-4220, which are incorporated herein as follows: Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Escambia County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the statutory responsibility to prescribe qualifications for positions of employment and for the suspension and dismissal of employees subject to the requirements of chapter 1012. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent is a noninstructional support employee, who has been employed as a Custodial Worker I by the School Board since October 13, 2014. Mr. Warren worked 40 hours a week at Pine Forest High School. Mr. Warren’s position with the School Board is annual, rather than based on the academic school year calendar. During the regular school year, students are required to be on campus from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. After the school day, there are students who remain at the school for various activities with clubs and organizations. While students are present, custodial workers complete their duties and work assignments throughout the school. On a regular school day students may be present at the school for clubs and organizations until as late as 9:00 p.m. Respondent works the 2:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. shift and would be present when students are present. The background regarding Respondent’s arrest arises from a dispute where it was alleged that he forged a quitclaim deed, transferring property from his uncle to himself. On May 9, 2017, Respondent was arrested. Thereafter, an information was filed against Respondent by the State Attorney’s Office alleging that he knowingly obtained or endeavored to obtain certain property of another valued at $20,000.00 or more, but less than $100,000.00, in violation of section 812.014(1)(a) and (1)(b), and (2)(b)1., a second degree felony. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent’s criminal case was pending final disposition. On May 18, 2017, Superintendent of the School Board, Malcolm Thomas, provided written notice to Respondent that he was suspended “with pay effective immediately . . . pending the outcome of an arrest for §812.014.2b1 [sic], F.S., a disqualifying offense.” The Superintendent’s letter did not provide authority for the Superintendent’s action. The Superintendent also cited no authority for his position that the alleged offense was a “disqualifying offense.” Also, on May 18, 2017, the Superintendent notified Respondent of his intent to recommend to the School Board that Mr. Warren be placed on suspension without pay beginning June 21, 2017. In his request to the School Board, the Superintendent stated that his recommendation was “based on conduct as more specifically identified in the notice letter to the employee.” Similar to the notice regarding the intended recommendation, the Superintendent cited no authority for his recommendation, nor his position that the alleged offense was a “disqualifying offense.” By letter dated June 21, 2017, Dr. Scott advised Respondent that the School Board voted to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation placing him on suspension without pay, effective June 21, 2017. As cause for Mr. Warren’s suspension without pay, Dr. Scott’s letter stated that it is “based on conduct as more specifically identified in the [Superintendent’s] notice letter to the employee.” Dr. Scott’s letter did not use the term “disqualifying offense,” nor did it cite any authority for the School Board’s action. Respondent had no history of disciplinary action during his employment by the School Board. In addition, Ms. Touchstone testified that Respondent “has been a good employee for us.” Additional Findings of Fact While DOAH Case No. 17-4220 addressed the issue of whether the School Board had authority to suspend Mr. Warren without pay until final resolution of the criminal charge alleging a violation of section 812.014(2)(b)1., Florida Statutes, the issue of reinstatement and back pay were not at issue in that case. There was no evidence offered at hearing that the School Board offered Mr. Warren the opportunity to work in a location that does not have direct contact with students until the charges were resolved. Nearly five months after the Final Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 17-4220, the criminal charges, which served as the basis for Mr. Warren’s suspension without pay, were dismissed. As a result, the School Board reinstated Mr. Warren to his same position as a custodial worker, effective November 17, 2017. The School Board denied Mr. Warren back pay for the period he was suspended without pay. The School Board relied on its Rules and Procedure rule 2.04 (2017), when it approved the recommendation to suspend Mr. Warren without pay for the pending criminal charge. Rule 2.04 provides that “a record clear of disqualifying offenses as defined in section A . . . is required for employment or continued employment.” However, rule 2.04 fails to address the method of reinstatement or the condition upon which an employee would receive back pay if criminal allegations related to a potentially disqualifying offense were resolved favorably for the employee. The School Board has refused to award back pay to Mr. Warren on the basis that his criminal charges resulted from actions outside the scope of his employment. There is no written policy in rule 2.04 or otherwise that an existing employee who is suspended without pay for conduct that occurred outside the scope of his or her work environment is not entitled to back pay upon reinstatement. It is simply general practice. The assistant superintendent of human resources for the School District (Dr. Scott) and the general counsel (Ms. Waters) testified regarding the policy of not awarding back pay to reinstated employees after suspension without pay. Dr. Scott, who has served as the assistant superintendent of human resources for the School District since 2005, testified that “[g]enerally, if an employee is suspended without pay based on criminal charges or investigation of misconduct but in the scope of the employee’s position . . . and the employee is subsequently exonerated and reinstated, back pay will be awarded.” By contrast, “if an employee is suspended without pay pending criminal charges and/or investigation, potentially, unlawful conduct unrelated to the employee’s performance of their duties in his or employment, in the event the employee is reinstated, back pay is generally not award[ed].” Dr. Scott also testified that the District’s practice “can be a substitute” for a properly adopted rule. He acknowledged that the policy has not been approved by the School Board. Moreover, he acknowledged that the policy is not based on any adopted rule. Ms. Waters also testified about the policy of not awarding back pay. She testified that she “was not able to answer the question in the abstract” regarding whether the policy was generally applicable. She stated that it would be “a fact kind of question.” In this case, Mr. Warren was deprived of wages that he would have earned but for the suspension without pay for criminal charges that were later dismissed. There was much discussion at hearing regarding whether the School Board’s action of suspending Mr. Warren without pay should be considered discipline. Ms. Spika testified that the action of suspending Mr. Warren without pay is considered disciplinary action. Discipline is defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) as including suspension without pay. Discipline is also defined as corrective action to improve behavior. Here, the School Board did not consider Mr. Warren’s suspension without pay as disciplinary action as it was not intended to correct his work performance or work place conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that to the extent there is authority to do so, Mr. Warren should be reinstated and awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 16th day of May, 2019.
