Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent, Larry A. Moore, was certified as a law enforcement officer and corrections officer in Florida. The Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, (Commission), is the state agency responsible for the certification of law enforcement and corrections officer in Florida. During the months of November and December, 1987, Respondent was employed as a police officer by the City of Riviera Beach, Florida. In December, 1987, Officer Chris Hamori was a traffic officer with the same department. He had been issued certain equipment for his personal use on duty in which he had placed his personal identification mark. The equipment, primarily a windbreaker, a raincoat, a flashlight and other items necessary for traffic accident investigation, was kept in the trunk of the patrol car signed out to him. He was the only operator of that vehicle, though numerous department cars, all of the same make and model, were identically keyed. Therefor, any key for any of the vehicles would open and operate any of the other identical vehicles. On December 8, 1987, Officer Hamori was assigned to teach a class at a junior college in the next county to the south. When he got there, it was raining and he went to the trunk to get his raincoat but found it missing. He had to get to class and so did not search the trunk at that time. During the mid-class break, however, he again went to the car to make a more thorough search and discovered that his trunk had been rifled and not only his raincoat but his windbreaker as well were missing. There was no evidence of breaking into the trunk. Officer Hamori reported the theft the next morning and went to the Department's property custodian to let them know as well. At that time he was issued another raincoat and windbreaker which, according to the property custodian, Ms. Bell, had just been turned in by the Respondent who was leaving employment with the Department. Officer Hamori noted, from the lack of patches on the windbreaker, that it was much like his and upon further checking, noted that his name appeared on the underside of the right sleeve where he had placed it when the garment was initially issued to him. He also noted that the raincoat had his name written on the inside of the placket where he had placed it when the coat was initially issued to him. From this, he determined that these two garments were the ones taken from his car, without his knowledge or permission, the previous day. Ms. Bell was quite certain that the items in issue here had been turned in to her that same day by the Respondent. When he brought them in, she cleared his property account and placed the items off to the side. She had not had time to place them back into stock. Notwithstanding Respondent's urging that other individuals than Ms. Bell had access to the property storage area, she indicated that no one else turned in any items of that nature that day. Respondent was the only one to turn in equipment that day and, as was stated, she had not put it back into stock when Hamori came in to ask for a reissue. It is found, therefore, that the property turned in by Respondent was the property issued to Officer Hamori and was the same property which had been taken from him without permission. Respondent urges that numerous people could have gotten into Respondent's patrol car and taken his property because of the large number of keys out that would fit it. This is true, but the evidence is uncontrovertible that the property turned in by the Respondent was the property taken from Officer Hamori's car the day before and there is some evidence in fact, that Respondent indicated to Sergeant Lobeck, his immediate supervisor, that he needed some equipment, including a raincoat, to turn in when he left the Department's employ. It is found, therefore, that Respondent is the individual who took the property in question from Officer Hamori's car. Had this not been discovered, the Department would have been out the cost of the equipment since, because it had been stolen from Hamori, Hamori would have been released from liability for it. Only the property initially issued to Respondent was not returned, and though he ultimately paid for it, at the time in issue, he took it from Hamori without authority. Toward the end of 1988, Assistant Chief of the West Palm Beach Department, attempted to locate the Respondent, then a patrolman with that agency, due to a schedule change. At that time, Respondent was not where he was supposed to be and had not advised the Department of his whereabouts. He was finally located at the Mt. Vernon Motor Lodge in West Palm Beach. Discussions with the manager of that facility indicated that the Respondent had moved out without paying the full amount of the room rent owed and had left his room in a messy and unclean condition. Abel Menendez was the manager of the Mount Vernon Motor Lodge during the period September through November, 1988. During that time, Respondent, who represented himself incorrectly as an employee of the Sheriff's office, rented a room at the motel, paying a rate therefor of $135.00 per week. Respondent was to pay his rent in advance and at first did so, but after a while, he began to get behind in his payments and Mr. Menendez had trouble finding him. When it became clear that Respondent could not bring his arrears current, Mr. Menendez agreed that he could make partial payments to catch up, but he never did so. Finally, in November, along with Mr. Fishbein, the motel owner, Mr. Menendez told Respondent he would have to pay up or move out. When Respondent first began to fall behind in his rent, Mr. Menendez contacted representatives of the West Palm Beach Police Department and gave them a summary of the charges owed by Respondent. The last payment made by Respondent was $135.00 on November 11, 1988, which left a balance due of $500.00 which was never paid. Respondent is alleged to have left the motel during the night of November 11, 1988. According to Mr. Menendez, Respondent "destroyed" the room before his departure. Some of his clothes and things were left in the room. The room was examined the following day by Sgt. Chappell, also of the Department, who had gone there to look for the Respondent at the direction of Captain Griffin. This officer observed holes punched in the walls, and trash and dirty diapers in the room. He never located Respondent. Chief Bradshaw subsequently spoke with the Respondent about this situation and based on the facts as he determined them, terminated Respondent's probationary status with the Department and discharged him. In their discussion, Respondent indicated he had an arrangement with the motel manager, but this was only partially true. The arrangement was to pay in installments but Respondent abandoned the room without doing so. He was locked out by the management the following day. Even though Respondent agreed with Chief Bradshaw to make payments of the amounts owed, he may not have done so. As a result, criminal charges were filed against him. The criminal charges were subsequently disposed of by a Deferred Prosecution Agreement entered into by the Respondent and the State in June, 1989. By the terms of that agreement, Respondent agreed to pay off the obligation at a rate no less than $100.00 per month. However, Mr. Moore never paid any money to the motel because, due to a total mixup in the motel's paperwork, they were never able to establish to whom the money was to be paid. As a result, the matter was ultimately disposed of by the State entering a nolle prosequi in the case. Respondent's public defender, Ms. Kretchmer, remembers Respondent's repeatedly indicating he wanted to pay off the obligation, however. Respondent's wife, with whom he was living in the motel prior to their marriage, recalls having offered Mr. Menendez $300.00 the day before the Moores moved out. Mr. Menendez would not take it, however, indicating he wanted to receive it from Respondent. When Respondent came by, she gave him the money and they went to Menendez to pay him but he would accept only $150.00 and told Moore to keep the rest and not worry about it because, due to the fact he was a policeman, they "needed him around there." Shortly thereafter, however, Mrs. Moore heard Mr. Menendez complaining to the police about the amount owed. She claims Moore tried to make payments several times and whenever he would do so, Menendez would get upset. It was her understanding that Menendez was getting pressure from his boss to collect what was due and get the records straight. He mentioned to her that the motel cash account was short and he was being accused of taking the money. There is some evidence that Moore was not the only one having trouble with rent payments at the motel at that time. When he found that out, he decided to move but Mr. Menendez begged him not to go because his presence as a policeman helped in curbing drugs, gambling and prostitution there. Mrs. Moore absolutely denies that she and Respondent ever hid from Mr. Menendez nor did they sneak out during the night. They checked out in broad daylight at 11:45 in the morning with Mr. Menendez standing by. At that time, Menendez threatened to call the police but, according to Respondent, he, Moore did so instead, but could get no one in authority to listen or help him. Even after they left, Moore called and spoke with Menendez several times but was still subsequently arrested on the defraud charge. According to Mrs. Moore, they at no time damaged the room. At the time they left, the motel was fixing the air conditioner which caused some damage, but that's the only damage in the room when they left. Before they left, she cleaned the room so that it was in the same condition when they left as it was when they moved in. Respondent claims that when he began work with the West Palm Beach Police Department he discussed his rent problems with police officials and told them he had an arrangement with the motel to pay off the arrears. He admits he then got behind and when he tried to pay, the figures kept changing because of the absence of rental records. When he left, his disagreement with the motel was over the amount owed. He called the police to get a witness to his request for a firm bill, but by that time, he had already been terminated and the police would not come out. He had already had his discussion with Chief Bradshaw who, he claims, had told him to take care of the bill whatever the amount. He felt this was unfair, however, because he was told to pay whatever was asked regardless of whether he owed it or not. Respondent was ordained and licensed as a minister by the Church of God, 629 5th Street, West Palm Beach, on January 3, 1992. His minister the Reverend Preston Williams has found him to be a nice person and a well mannered person dedicated to his work, who has served with him in the local ministry since 1985.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case, dismissing the allegation of defrauding an innkeeper as alleged in the original Administrative Complaint, finding Respondent guilty of unlawfully taking the property issued to officer Hamori as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and revoking his certification as a correctional officer and as a law enforcement officer. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of April, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 24th day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Gina Cassidy, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry A. Moore 5100 45th Street, Apt. 1-A West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030 (b) (1) (C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA10-GM-115 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished as indicated to each of the persons listed below on this DW say of , 2010. aula Ford Agency Clerk By U.S. Mail Amy Taylor Petrick, Assistant County Attorney Palm Beach County 300 North Dixie Highway, Suite 359 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel.: (561) 355-2529 Fax.: (561) 255-4324 Email: apetrick@co.palm-beach.fl.us William L. Hyde, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 618 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: (850) 521-1980 Facsimile: (850) 576-0902 Email: whyde@gunster.com James M. Crowley, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. 450 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 713-6416 Facsimile: (954) 523-1722 Email: jcrowley@gunster.com FINAL ORDER NO. DCA10-GM-115 Claudia McKenna, City Attorney City of West Palm Beach 401 Clematis Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 882-1350 Facsimile: (561) 822-1373 Email: cmckenna@wpb.org Keith W. Davis, Esquire Trela White, Esquire Attorney for Village of Royal Palm Beach Corbett & White, P.A. 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 Lantana, FL 33462 Phone: (561) 586-7116 Facsimile: (561) 586-9611 Email: keith@corbettandwhite.com; trela@corbettandwhite.com By Hand Delivery Richard E. Shine Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs By Interoffice Mail The Honorable Donald R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact South Palm Beach Utilities Corporation is a private provider of water and sewer services in Palm Beach County, Florida. It is presently operating within a specified service area according to a certificate issued by the Public Service Commission. The utility is seeking to expand its service area north of the present boundaries, and has filed various notices of its intention with the Public Service Commission. As to some of these notices, no protests were filed, and the utility has commenced preliminary engineering planning activities to provide water and sewer lines to those areas. Palm Beach County has filed timely protests with respect to four off the parcels to which the utility is proposing to extend its certified service area. These four properties have been called the "Atlantic," "Mitchell," "Snow," and "Benson" properties. In its notices, the utility described the "Atlantic" property as follows: Tracts 49 thru 56 inclusive; 73 thru 88 inclusive and 105 thru 120 inclusive, in Section 21; and Tracts 9 thru 24 inclusive; 41 thru 56 inclusive; 73 thru 88 inclusive; and 105 thru 120 inclusive, in Section 28, all as shown on Palm Beach Farms Company Plat No. 1, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Pages 26, 27 & 28, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, together with the West Half of the East Half of Section 21 and the West Half of the East Half of Section 28, all in Township 46 South, Range 42 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. EXCEPTING therefrom the dedicated public right of ways of record, as shown on the said Palm Beach Farms Company Plat No. 1, and the Plat of Delray Roads (containing 10.9500 acres) and the following Lake Worth Drainage District right of ways: LWDD Canal L-34: Beginning at a point where the Southerly line of a public right of way, 120.0 feet wide known as Del Ray West Road (State Road 806) intersects the North & South Quarter Line of Section 21, Township 46 South, Range 42 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, said point being S 1 degree 54' 34" E, 34.13 feet from the North Quarter Corner of said Section 21; run thence along said Quarter Section Line S 1 degree 54' 34" E, 90.02 feet; thence N 89 degrees 18' 11" E, 1342.63 feet to the East line of the West Half of the East Half of said Section 21; thence along said East Line N 2 degrees 06' 02" W, 90.03 feet to the South Line of said Del Ray West Road; thence along said South Line S 89 degrees 18' 11" W, 1342.33 feet to the Point of Beginning, Containing 2.7737 acres; LWDD Canal L-35: The South 10.0 feet of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter; the North 80.0 feet of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter; the South 15.0 feet of the Northwest Quarter (less the West 55.0 feet); and the North 75.0 feet of the Southwest Quarter (less the West 55.0 feet), in Section 21, Township 46 South Range 42 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, Contain- ing 8.2207 acres; LWDD Canal L-36: The South 15.0 feet of the West Three-Quarters of Section 21 (Less the West 55.0 feet); and the North 75.0 feet of the West Three-Quarters of Section 28 (less the West 40.0 feet); all in Town- ship 46 South, Range 42 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, Containing 8.2672 acres; LWDD Canal L-37: The South 40.0 feet of the North Half of the West Three-Quarters; and the North 50.0 feet of the South Half of the West Three-Quarters of Section 28, Township 46 South, Range 42 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, (Less the West 40.0 feet Thereof), Containing 8.1733 acres; LWDD Canal L-38: The South 105.0 feet of the West Three-Quarters of Section 28, Township 46 South, Range 42 East, Palm Beach County, Florida (less the West 40.0 feet thereof), containing 9.6120 acres; and LWDD Canal E-3: The West 55.0 feet of the South Half, and the West 55.0 feet of the South 664.91 feet of the North Half of Section 21; and the West 40.0 feet of Section 28, all in Township 46 South, Range 42 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, con- taining 9.2135 acres. Containing a net acreage of 816.1290 acres. The utility described the "Mitchell" property as follows: All of Tracts 65 to 128 inclusive, Section 29, Township 46, South, Range 42 East, (less 30.59 acres sold to Florida State Turnpike Authority and more particularly described in Deed Book 1104, Page 577), The Palm Beach Farms Co. Plat No. 1, according to the Plat thereof on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, recorded in Plat Book 2, Pages 26 to 28. The "Snow" Property is described as follows: The North half of Sections 31 & 32, Town- ship 46 South, Range 42 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, and also known as Tracts 1 through 60, Block 71 and Tracts 1 through 64 of Block 70, Palm Beach Farms Company, Plat No. 3, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 52, Palm Beach County, Florida. At the hearing, the utility amended its notice with respect to the "Snow" property to withdraw its intention to provide service to the north half of Section 32, or that property east of Lyons Road. As to the property west of Lyons Road, being the north half of Section 31, the utility maintains its intention. The "Benson" property has been described by the utility as follows: Tracts 65 through 70, 91 through 102, and 123 through 128, Block 70, Palm Beach Farms Company, Plat No. 3, Plat Book No. 2, as recorded on Page 52 wholly within the South Half of Section 31, Township 46 South, Range 42 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. [This finding is determined from a stipulation of the parties as stated on the record at the final hearing, and from Exhibit 1.] The South Palm Beach Utilities Corporation is a fit provider of water and sewer service. No issue has been raised with respect to the quality of the service provided by the utility, and it is under no citations from any government agency. The utility has the financial integrity and engineering capability to provide service to the four properties involved in this proceeding. With respect to each of the four properties, the utility has provided the notices required by statute. Extension of the utility's service area to include the four properties would not result in a duplication of any existing facilities. No other utility is providing service to the area. In its long-range plans, the County envisions providing service to the area, but it does not provide service now, and would not be in a position to provide service for at least three to five years. The owners of the four proporties have proposed developments which would require provision of water and sewer service. [This finding has been determined from stipulations stated by the parties on the record at the final hearing.] In accordance with the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975" (Florida Statutes Section 163.3161, et seq.), Palm Beach County has promulgated a comprehensive plan which includes a "sewer, potable water, drainage and solid waste element" and a "land use plan element." The land use element of the comprehensive plan provides that the areas where South Palm Beach Utilities Corporation is seeking to expand its territory will be set aside for low density development. The County contends that expansion by the utility into these areas would allow for a level of development which is not in harmony with the land use element of the comprehensive plan. The evidence does not support this contention. No specific evidence was presented as to development densities proposed by developers, and it does not appear that allowing the utility to expand its service area would as a factual or legal matter allow for development of any kind. [This finding is determined from the testimony of the witnesses Garbrick and King, and from Exhibits 3, 4 and 5.] Extension of the South Palm Beach Utilities Corporation service area into the four properties at issue would conflict with the "sewer, potable water, drainage and solid waste element" of the County's comprehensive plan. Under this element of the comprehensive plan, which is in harmony with an overall management plan to treat wastewater pollutants that the County has developed in accordance with Federal funding requirements ("201 Plan"), the County envisions that it would provide sewer service to the "Atlantic" and "Mitchell" properties through a central wastewater treatment facility. Plans for providing such service have been made on a long-range basis, and the County is in the process of refining the plans so that it can obtain Federal funding. Removal of the "Atlantic" and "Mitchell" tracts from the area that the County proposes to serve through the central facility would not be in accordance with the "201 Plan." Removal of the properties would reduce the service area of that central facility, and could affect the size of the central facility, and funding. Removal of the properties would furthermore be contrary to the plans because of the introduction of a wastewater treatment facility other than the central facility. Both the "sewer, potable water, drainage and solid waste element" of the County's comprehensive plan and the "201 Plan" are long range. The County is not presently prepared to offer service to the properties at issue, and will not be prepared to do so for some time. This finding is determined from the testimony of witnesses Garbrick and King, the stipulation of the parties stated on the record at the final hearing, and Exhibits 2, 3 and 5.] While the evidence establishes that extension of the South Palm Beach Utilities Corporation's service area would on its face conflict with the County's comprehensive plan, the evidence does not establish that the conflict would adversely affect the plan. The evidence does not reveal that provision of services by facilities other than the County's central system would render the central system less feasible. While it was speculated that the central system might need to be reduced in size as a result, and that the rate base for it would be lessened in an unspecified amount, no competent evidence to these effects has been presented. [This finding is determined from the record as a whole.]
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In September of 1979, John Williamson, an undercover police agent with the Department of Law Enforcement, was involved in narcotic investigations in the Pensacola area. Mike Abbott, who is the brother of respondent Thomas Abbott, and Williamson negotiated for the purchase of one kilo of cocaine in October of 1979. The transaction was to occur in West Palm Beach. On or about October 15 or 16, 1979, Mike Abbott and Robert Covington came from Pensacola to West Palm Beach and stayed at the home of respondent Thomas Abbott. Mike Abbott came to West Palm Beach for the purpose of introducing "one person to another person for the sale" of the cocaine. Apparently, the two people who were to be introduced were Robert Covington and Duane Hutchins. For this degree of involvement in the transaction, Mike Abbott was to receive $7,000.00. On October 16, 1979, Duane Hutchins came to the respondent's West Palm Beach residence for the purpose of meeting Mike Abbott and Robert Covington. The meeting lasted approximately thirty to forty minutes, during most of which time respondent Thomas Abbott was sleeping on the living room floor. Respondent did awaken several minutes before Hutchins left and was introduced to him. At some point after this meeting at respondent's home, Mike Abbott returned to Pensacola with the understanding that his $7,000.00 fee would be delivered to him after the sale of cocaine was consummated. Covington remained at respondent's home, and he and respondent went out for drinks that evening. According to Hutchins, Mike Abbott told him that he had to return to Pensacola and that respondent Thomas Abbott, Mike's brother, would be the person to contact in absence. It was arranged that Hutchins would call respondent's house the following day and speak to either respondent or Mr. Covington to determine the details of the meeting with the purchasers. Undercover agent John Williamson arrived in West Palm Beach on October 17, 1979, and met with Jack Maxwell, a vice officer with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department. Williamson placed a telephone call to the respondent's residence, but he did not know to whom he spoke. Arrangements were made to meet at Victoria Station, a local restaurant and lounge in West Palm Beach, at approximately 4:30 that afternoon. When respondent returned to his residence after school at about 3:00 p.m. on October 17, 1979, Covington and Hutchins were there. They invited respondent to go to Victoria Station with them. Respondent drove back to school to ask a student to fill in for him on a part-time job that evening, and Covington and Hutchins followed respondent in another car. Respondent then left his car at school and rode to Victoria Station with Covington and Hutchins. Covington, Hutchins and respondent arrived at Victoria Station at about 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. on October 17, 1979. Shortly thereafter, agents John Williamson and Jack Maxwell arrived. The five men sat at one table, conversed and ordered several rounds of alcoholic beverages which were made of double strength. It was Hutchins plan to view the money to be used for the cocaine purchase and then place a telephone call to a Mr. Cunningham who was to join them for the purpose of finalizing the location of the transaction. After spending approximately forty-five minutes at the table, agents Maxwell and Williamson took Hutchins across the street to their Sheraton Motel room in order to show him the cash money. Hutchins was shown a briefcase containing some $100,000.00 in cash. He then returned to Victoria Station and placed a phone call to Cunningham. Hutchins left to pick up Cunningham in his car and then returned to Victoria Station with Cunningham. The six men then had discussions as to the location of the transaction. During these conversations, respondent Thomas Abbott offered the use of his house as the location for the exchange of the money for the cocaine. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Hutchins left Victoria Station for another engagement. Agents Maxwell and Williamson returned to their motel room for the purpose of waiting for information as to the location of the final transaction. Respondent Abbott and Covington left Victoria Station with Cunningham and went to Cunningham's apartment. While there, Cunningham made several phone calls. Thereafter, Cunningham drove Covington and respondent to respondent's house and dropped them off. Cunningham then went over to the Sheraton Motel room where final plans were made with agents Maxwell and Williamson for the purchase to occur in Miami. Thereafter several persons, not including the respondent, drove to Miami and completed the purchase and sale of cocaine. Those participants were arrested, and nearly one kilo of 43 percent to 52 percent pure cocaine was confiscated. Agent Williamson returned to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Department during the early morning hours of October 18, 1979. At approximately 4:30 a.m. he placed a telephone call to Mike Abbott in Pensacola for the purpose of obtaining instructions as to how he was to be paid for his part of the transaction. The telephone conversation was recorded on tape. After determining that Mike Abbott expected $7,000.00 for his part of the transaction, Williamson asked Mike Abbott "Do you want me to bring the $7,000.00 to you or do you want me to give it to your brother." "Give it to my brother," was Mike Abbott's response. Later in the same conversation, Williamson told Mike that what he was going to do was "see your brother now, and then I'll lay the seven on him." Mike responded, "Okay, that'll be excellent." After that taped telephone conversation between Williamson and Mike Abbott, law enforcement officers went to the respondent's residence and arrested respondent Thomas Abbott and Robert Covington. Mike Abbott testified that his brother knew nothing about the purchase and sale of cocaine until he was arrested on October 18, 1979. Respondent testified that he knew nothing about the drug deal and that he was too intoxicated to realize what the conversation concerned while in Victoria Station. Agent Maxwell testified that while they all were drinking alcoholic beverages at Victoria Station, respondent appeared to be cognizant of occurring events and conversation. Some three to four weeks after respondent was arrested, he went to the residence of Deputy Sheriff Robert C. Anderson whom he had known since 1969. When Anderson asked him why he had gotten involved in drugs, respondent replied that he thought it was exciting, very professional and that he wanted to be in big money. Respondent went on to describe the excitement of talking of $50,000.00, throwing money around and everybody buying drinks for each other. Anderson and respondent discussed the morality of dealing with drugs and respondent stated that he did not feel it was morally wrong since drugs had been accepted by society. During the same conversation, respondent later told Anderson that the reason be became involved was for his brother. Two administrative officials of the Palm Beach County School Board testified that, in their opinion, respondent's effectiveness as a teacher would be diminished if the charges of conspiracy to sell or traffic cocaine were sustained.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: That portion of the "Petition for the Revocation of the Teacher's Certificate" charging that respondent conspired to traffic cocaine in his home on or about October 16, 1979, be DISMISSED; Respondent be found guilty of conspiracy to sell cocaine while drinking in the Victoria Station in West Palm Beach on or about October 17, 1979; The conduct described in paragraph (2) above constitutes gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude and seriously reduces respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board; and Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of three (3) years. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 Hearing this 6th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson Ruffolo and Wilson 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas Abbott, Jr. and Thomas Abbott, Sr. Route 9, Box 514D Jasper, Alabama 33501 Robert C. Apgar Peeples, Earl, Smith, Moore and Blank 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Juhan Mixon Professional Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Educational Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION RALPH D. TURLINGTON COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-002-RT DOAH CASE NO. 80-1515 THOMAS H. ABBOTT, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue in this case is the appropriate penalty to impose on the Respondent for: proceeding on a job without obtaining the applicable local building department permits and inspections, in violation of section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes1/; failing to notify a customer of the Florida Homeowners’ Construction Recovery Fund, in violation of section 489.1425; and failing to place his license number on a construction contract, in violation of section 489.119(5)(b).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the construction industry pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes.2/ At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license CGC 12754. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was the primary qualifying agent of Charles Boyd Construction, Inc. (“Charles Boyd Construction”). The Respondent’s license is current and active. The Respondent has been subject to prior discipline. On September 21, 1988, the Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB) issued a Final Order against the Respondent in case 78033 that imposed an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for violating sections 489.129(1)(j) and (m), 489.105(4), and 489.119, Florida Statutes, in 1983 and 1984. On or about December 3, 2012, Joanie Miller Drobnie entered into a contract with Respondent, d/b/a Charles Boyd Construction, for renovations to her residence located at 452 Banana River Boulevard, Cocoa Beach, Florida. The original contract price was $173,000. Charles Boyd Construction accepted $175,000. The additional funds represented amounts for extras on the job. On or about January 2, 2013, the Respondent, d/b/a Charles Boyd Construction, obtained Building Permit 13-0366 from the City of Cocoa Beach Building Department for the installation of new windows. Charles Boyd Construction proceeded on interior renovations and performed additional construction contracting services requiring proper licensure without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspections. The contract at issue failed to contain a statement notifying Ms. Drobnie of her rights under the Florida Homeowner’s Construction Recovery Fund. The Respondent’s license number does not appear on the contract. The Petitioner and Respondent agree, based on the facts and circumstances in this case, that discipline should not exceed an administrative fine of $7,000, payment of the Petitioner’s costs of $487.93, and completion of a live, approved seven-hour continuing education course.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: finding that the Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(o) and, by failing to comply with sections 489.1425 and 489.119(5)(b), violated 489.129(1)(o); imposing an administrative fine of $7,000; assessing costs in the amount of $487.93; and requiring the Respondent to complete an approved, live seven-hour continuing education course in addition to any otherwise-required continuing education, with an emphasis on chapter 489 and the rules implementing it. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2016.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent committed violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school psychologist. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a member of the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) Bargaining Unit. At all times material to this case, Respondent was receiving benefits under a valid claim for Workers' Compensation benefits arising from an accident on January 7, 2000. In conjunction with investigations as to Respondent's eligibility for Workers' Compensation benefits, video surveillance of Respondent's activities was conducted on several occasions. At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, Dr. Laakso worked for Petitioner as a school psychologist in Area 3, and was assigned to Palm Beach Lakes High School, Forest Hill High School, and Conniston Middle School. His immediate supervisor was Mary Kate Boyle, the Area 3 Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Team Leader. On January 7, 2000, Dr. Laakso was working in his car while parked in the Palm Beach Lakes High School parking lot, and when exiting the car, hit his head on the door jamb causing a compression of his spine. He then received a second injury to his back while pulling psychological testing kits out of his car. Dr. Laakso submitted this injury to Petitioner as a workers' compensation injury, and it was covered as such. Christopher Brown, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon and one of Dr. Laakso's workers' compensation physicians, treated Dr. Laakso. On February 8, 2000, Dr. Brown placed Dr. Laakso on a "no-work" status. Dr. Laakso suffers from cervical spinal stenosis, which is a narrowing of the spinal canal. Because Dr. Laakso had underlying spinal stenosis secondary to arthritis, combined with disc herniations, his orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Brown, diagnosed Dr. Laakso's stenosis as severe. Also on February 8, 2000, Ms. Boyle held an investigative meeting with Respondent and his then-attorney, Stephen Fried, to discuss Respondent's continued absences since January 7, 2000 (the date of Respondent's workers' compensation injury) and his work status. In a letter to Dr. Laakso dated February 9, 2000, Ms. Boyle explained what her expectations were with regard to Respondent's absence and work status. On February 9, 2000, Dr. Laakso requested unpaid sick leave for January 11, 2000 to May 31, 2000, which the School Board granted. In March of 2000, Dr. Laakso was released back to light duty work, with restrictions. Some of the physical restrictions placed on Dr. Laakso's activities included no overhead use of the right upper extremity and no heavy use of the right upper extremity greater than 5 pounds. In addition, Dr. Laakso was told to be careful and to try not to hurt himself. Dr. Brown also imposed a 10 mile driving restriction on Dr. Laakso because Dr. Brown believed Dr. Laakso's spinal stenosis placed him at increased risk if he hit his head or was in a car accident. Dr. Laakso argued against the driving restriction because he was capable of driving and believed that the restriction would "mess things up" if he was unable to use his car. Dr. Laakso neither asked for the driving restriction nor represented that he needed the restriction.4 Dr. Laakso conveyed the driving restrictions to both Ms. Boyle and Linda Meyers in Risk Management. On March 21, 2000, Dr. Laakso was given a light duty placement in which he was assigned to Atlantic High School watching the school's security cameras. This assignment was for Dr. Laakso's regularly scheduled 7.5 hours a day, and was within the physical and driving restrictions imposed by Dr. Brown. While on light duty assignment at Atlantic High School, Dr. Laakso reported to Assistant Principal, Marshall Bellin. Dr. Laakso also submitted his time sheets to Mr. Bellin for Mr. Bellin's verification and signature. After Mr. Bellin signed the light duty time sheets, Dr. Laakso faxed them to Ms. Boyle for payroll purposes. Around this time period, in approximately April of 2000, the third party administrator, FARA, who handles the School Board's Workers' Compensation claims, hired private investigator Richard Mains to conduct surveillance of Dr. Laakso. Mains observed Dr. Laakso at various times from April 3, 2000 through October 2, 2000. Mains documented Respondent's driving to and from his Matlacha home and the activities in which he engaged while there. Mains did not know whether Dr. Laakso was taking pain or anti-inflammatory medication, or whether Dr. Laakso was under the influence of these types of medications at the times Mains observed him. On May 17, 2000, Ms. Boyle held another investigative meeting regarding Respondent's absences while on light duty. The minutes from that meeting indicate that Ms. Boyle expressed her concern to Dr. Laakso regarding his absences, discussed his light duty assignment at Atlantic High School, and directed him to call her beeper if he was going to be absent. He was also directed to provide a doctor's note if he was absent. Dr. Laakso remained in the light duty assignment at Atlantic High School for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year. On Wednesday, August 9, 2000, the first day of the 2000-2001 school year, Dr. Laakso again reported to Atlantic High School to resume his light duty placement. On August 15, 2000, Marshall Bellin signed Respondent's light duty sign-in sheet, which covered Dr. Laakso's work attendance for August 9, 10, 11, and 14, 2000. Around August 14 or 15, 2000, Dr. Laakso received verbal notification that because his driving restriction had been lifted, he was being taken off light duty assignment and was to report to Area 3. Prior to this verbal notification, Dr. Laakso had not been advised by his physicians that his driving restriction had been lifted. However, he subsequently learned through someone at the Risk Management Department that, in fact, the driving restriction had been lifted. Upon hearing the news, Dr. Laakso contacted Dr. Brown. When he went to see Dr. Brown, Dr. Brown explained to Respondent that the Board had sent him a questionnaire asking whether he believed that Dr. Laakso could drive a car as opposed to whether he should drive a car. Dr. Brown further explained that he responded that Dr. Laakso could drive a car, but felt he had made a mistake as he felt it was still dangerous for Dr. Laakso to drive. Accordingly, on August 17, 2000, Dr. Brown reinstated Dr. Laakso's driving restriction of no more than 10 minutes. On August 17, 2000, Dr. Laakso sent a memo to Ms. Boyle indicating that his driving restriction had been reinstated. A copy of the note from Dr. Brown was attached to this memo. Because of her continuing concern regarding Respondent's absences, on October 2, 2000, Ms. Boyle held another "investigative meeting" regarding Dr. Laakso's absences. This meeting resulted in Boyle's issuing Dr. Laakso a written reprimand for unacceptable and unexcused absences, failure to call in intended absences as required, and insubordination. The written reprimand specifically addressed Dr. Laakso's absences on August 9, 10, 11, 22, and September 20, 27, 28, and 29. Ms. Boyle believed her issuance of the written reprimand dated October 2, 2000, was consistent with the progressive discipline policy. At the time that Ms. Boyle wrote the reprimand, she also notified the District's Professional Standards Department and requested a formal investigation of Respondent's absences. Ms. Boyle then contacted Ray Miller in Professional Standards to be sure that she was following appropriate procedure. In October of 2000, Ray Miller received Respondent's case for investigation, and the investigation was assigned case number 101. Specifically, Miller investigated allegations involving Respondent's misuse of leave, unauthorized absence, failure to call in and report absences as required, and insubordination for the time period of January 2000 through December 2000. At the time of his interview with Respondent, Miller had a surveillance video and a report of Respondent's activities for April of 2000. Respondent neither denied that he was the subject of the video nor that he failed to report and call in his absences. Shortly before December 4, 2000, Miller signed off on the investigative report for case number 101, and on December 4, 2000, Paul Lachance issued a letter to Dr. Laakso indicating that the investigation was complete, and that a determination of probable cause had been made. The investigative report was then reviewed by the Case Management Review Committee to determine whether there was just cause to recommend discipline and, if so, provide a discipline recommendation. The Committee found just cause and recommended Dr. Laakso's termination. A number of meetings were held in December 2000 with representatives of Petitioner, Dr. Laakso, and his then- attorney, Mr. Fried. As a result of these meetings, an informal settlement was reached; Dr. Laakso's employment was not terminated, but rather he was transferred to the Area 1 ESE office. By a letter to the file dated January 8, 2001, Paul Lachance, Director of Professional Standards, administratively closed case number 01-101 against Dr. Laakso with "no action." While assigned to Area 1, Dr. Laakso was under the supervision of Area 1 ESE Team Leader, Paul Sayrs. As supervisor, Mr. Sayrs was responsible for keeping track of Respondent's attendance. Accordingly, Sayrs directed Respondent to call and notify secretary Judy Fabris if he was going to be absent, who in turn would notify Mr. Sayrs. While assigned to Area 1, Dr. Laakso missed work for several days in January and February 2001, and was also out for most of March and April 2001. On April 4, 2001, Mr. Sayrs sent Dr. Laakso a letter listing the dates of his absences and directing him to submit a doctor's note for the dates listed, as well as for any future absences. The next day, April 5, 2001, Mr. Sayrs sent another letter to Dr. Laakso advising him he was currently absent without approved leave. Mr. Sayrs advised Respondent further that due to an absence of correspondence from Respondent, Mr. Sayrs would assume Respondent had decided to discontinue working for Petitioner and Respondent's name would be submitted to the School Board for acceptance of Respondent's resignation. Dr. Laakso immediately contacted Dr. Sachs regarding Mr. Sayrs' request for medical documentation, but was unable to get an appointment with Dr. Sachs until April 20th. However, prior to his April 20th appointment, Dr. Laakso forwarded to Dr. Sachs a copy of the District's letter, which indicated he would be terminated if he did not provide the requested documentation prior to his appointment on April 20th. In response, Dr. Sachs accounted for Dr. Laakso's absences, noting they were due to his symptoms and cervical condition. Additionally, Dr. Laakso followed through by faxing his Request for Leave of Absence without Pay form with his signature, dated April 18, 2001, directly to Dr. Sachs for his signature. The leave was ultimately granted retroactive to March 8, 2001, prior to Dr. Laakso's being terminated by the District. On April 18, 2001, Dr. Laakso sent a handwritten note to Dan McGrath explaining his absences. Dr. Laakso attached to his note to Mr. McGrath two documents from Dr. Sachs, one dated April 15, 2001, and the other dated April 6, 2000. On May 18, 2001, Paul Sayrs evaluated Dr. Laakso's performance. The evaluation sheet indicated that Dr. Laakso was "presently on a medical leave of absence." Dr. Laakso has a second home in Matlacha, located on the other side of Cape Coral. Matlacha is located in the Fort Myers area and is approximately 150 miles from the West Palm Beach area, roughly a three-hour trip using country roads. Because he had not been feeling well, Dr. Laakso had not been taking care of his property in Matlacha. As a result, he received notices from the county telling him he needed to clear up the property or face a potential daily fine of $225. Specifically, the county informed Dr. Laakso that he needed to mow the grass, move a boat, register a pickup truck, and park the truck somewhere where it was not in open view. He asked for an extension in which to do these things, which was granted. However, the county advised Dr. Laakso that if he did not get the work done by the date established, the daily fine would be imposed. Although while at his Matlacha home Dr. Laakso did work outside of the restrictions imposed on him by his physician, he could work for 20 or 30 minutes and then go inside and rest, unlike when he was at work for the School Board, which required he work a full eight-hour day. While he was on his Matlacha property, he continued his daily swimming as part of his physical therapy, which he had discussed with, and received approval for, from Dr. Brown. At no time did Dr. Laakso attempt to hide the fact that he drove to the Matlacha property or that he worked in his yard while there. In fact, he disclosed this information when deposed in his workers' compensation case, and he discussed it with his doctor. While the doctor did not give Dr. Laakso permission for this type of conduct, Dr. Laakso did discuss it with him.5 Following the closing of the first investigation numbered 101, the office of Professional Standards received a memo from Diane Howard, Director of Risk Management, dated January 9, 2001. Ms. Howard was requesting a reinvestigation of Dr. Laakso's absences. In response to this memo, Miller did not interview Respondent, but instead viewed surveillance videotapes from August 11 through October 1 or 2, 2000. In addition to the videos, Miller reviewed memos from Nancy Patrick, Mary Kate Boyle, and Paul Sayrs. Miller testified that the difference between this investigation and the previous one was that it involved a different period of time, both for the videos and regarding issues of Respondent's attendance in January, February, and March of 2001. The allegations against Respondent for this investigation were that he was obtaining leave due to sickness or illness and that he was performing actions that were inconsistent with his alleged illness or sickness. This second investigation followed the same pattern as the first and was sent to the Committee for review. The Committee again recommended Dr. Laakso's termination. Dr. Laakso timely requested an administrative hearing, and these proceedings followed. The collective bargaining agreement describes procedures for discipline of employees, including this: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. The collective bargaining agreement also requires progressive discipline (reprimand through dismissal) . . . [e]xcept in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the district or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in this case dismissing all charges in the Administrative Compliant, reinstating Respondent to his position of employment with the School Board, and providing Respondent with such back pay and attendant benefits as are authorized by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 21st day of November, 2003.
Findings Of Fact In May 1979, Respondent issued invitation for bids for office space in West Palm Beach, Florida, for the purpose of establishing a combined claims, tax, and appeals unemployment compensation office in the West Palm Beach area. The lease on the present office in West Palm Beach expires in December, 1979. Two prior invitations for bids on the required office space had failed to result in the receipt of any bids. The invitation for bids provided that Respondent reserved the right to reject any and all bids and to make the award deemed to be in the best interests of the State of Florida. (Testimony of Bradner, Exhibit 15) On May 30, 1979, Petitioner Richard S. Weinstein submitted the sole bid in response to the May 1979 invitation. He proposed to lease his building located at 1814 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, and to meet all bid specifications and requirements. At the time of bid submission, Petitioner was leasing the building in question to a tenant who operated a used furniture store on the premises. In order to meet the specifications of the bid, the property required considerable renovation and improvement which Petitioner agreed to accomplish. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) A bid selection committee composed of four departmental employees in Respondent's Tallahassee headquarters was appointed to consider Petitioner's bid and arrive at appropriate recommendations. On June 7, 1979, one of the committee members, accompanied by several officials of the West Palm Beach Office, inspected Petitioner's building and the surrounding area to determine its suitability for the proposed unemployment compensation office. Based upon statements made by those officials and the building's tenant that the area was unsafe and subject to frequent vandalism and theft, the committee member thereafter recommended to the selection committee that the bid be rejected and that the Department should readvertise for new bids. The committee unanimously accepted the recommendation and, on June 13, 1979, Petitioner was advised in a letter from the Respondent's support services director that his bid had been rejected based on the "inability of the building to meet our programmatic needs." Petition thereafter protested the decision and, as a result, the Secretary of the Department, Wallace E. Orr, directed the entire committee to make an on-site evaluation of the property and surrounding area. Thereafter, on July 18, 1979, the committee visited the site. At this time, each committee member, together with one of the officials of the local office, inquired of various businessmen in the surrounding area as to local criminal activity and solicited their opinion as to safety and security problems. One of the committee members also telephoned a city police desk sergeant concerning crime statistics in the area. (Testimony of Petitioner, Lowhorn, Orr, Bradner, Exhibits 3-4, 12) Petitioner gave the committee members a petition from a number of local businessmen supporting his bid, and a letter from the nearby Good Samaritan Hospital advising that it may construct a medical office building adjacent to the hospital in the future. Letters were also sent to the Department by the manager of an apartment building adjacent to Petitioner's premises stating that the area was safe and that there had been no break-ins in more than four years, and from the Mayor of West Palm Beach to the Secretary of the Department describing the area and asserting that it was making a resurgence in character as a result of city improvements and that it was no more unsafe than most of the areas of the city. Another letter, dated July 20, 1979, was sent to the Department from the West Palm Beach Downtown Development Authority Executive Director stating that the area was growing, new buildings were being developed, and that the downtown area generally was becoming a "hub" for governmental facilities. Upon return to Tallahassee, each member of the bid committee rendered a report and recommendations concerning Petitioner's bid. They applied weighted criteria in its consideration, and concluded that the bid was unacceptable because it failed to meet the two criteria of "condition of immediate vicinity of location" and "security of the facility." In these respects, they basically found that (a) the various businesses in the area were essentially "fortified" against burglary and vandalism, (b) the proposed office would be subjected to break-ins and possible loss of valuable office equipment and unemployment compensation checks, (c) the local departmental employees would be fearful of working in an unsafe area and (d) an office located at Petitioner's premises would be "depressing" to members of the public who utilized the departmental services. No mention was made in the various reports of the petition or letters sent to the Department by civic officials. The committee again recommended rejection of the bid and, by letter of August 1, 1979, Petitioner was advised of this fact and that new calls for bids would be made in the near future. Secretary Orr had viewed the premises himself and agreed with the committee recommendations that the site was unsuitable for the establishment of a local office. He felt that placement of the office in the area where Petitioner's building was located would be inconsistent with departmental goals to upgrade their state offices and improve their "image." He had not been made aware of most of the various letters and the petition provided to the committee, but had considered the letter of the West Palm Beach Mayor prior to arriving at his decision. (Testimony of Butler, Frisch, Radner, Baker, Orr, Lowhorn, Renfroe, Quigg, Petitioner, Exhibits 6-10, 11-12, 16) The street on which Petitioner's building is located is commercial in nature, although it is on the fringe of a residential community. It is an older part of the city and, until about five years ago, was in a rundown and depressed condition. In recent years, however, there has been an upgrading of the character of the downtown area of West Palm Beach which extends northerly to encompass the businesses in Petitioner's vicinity. The establishment of governmental facilities in the downtown and adjacent areas have been encouraged and a state office building is located in the area. A Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services "halfway house" has been erected approximately two blocks from Petitioner's building. Additionally, a branch banking facility, professional offices, several quality restaurants, and other modern business establishments are in the near vicinity. A laundry plant is across the street from Petitioner's building and at the present time presents an unsatisfactory appearance. It is intended, however, by the owners to expand and remodel the building in the near future. The City of West Palm Beach has the second highest crime incident rate in the state based on population. The city is divided into ten zones for police purposes, and during 1978, the zone in which Petitioner's building is located was average from the standpoint of crime statistics. In the opinion of the City Chief Police Inspector, it is typical of the various commercial areas located along U.S. Federal Highway No. 1, and as safe an area in the daytime as any in the city. He is of the further opinion that a burglar alarm would be a sufficient security precaution for nighttime safety, and that with such protection, a building would have adequate security. The highest crime rate in the city is located in the zone where the city hall, police station and other governmental buildings are located. Although business and professional individuals in the area near Petitioner's building have experienced minor vandalism and occasional illegal entries in the past, they uniformly are of the opinion that the area is safe with normal security precautions, such as a burglar alarm. A local boat sales establishment has a fence around the premises and a watch dog, but no burglar alarm. These precautions are designed to protect the expensive boats which are located out- side the building. The apartment building next to Petitioner's premises has not experienced break-ins in recent years although some of its elderly patrons have been exposed to occasional purse snatching on the street. The laundry plant across the street from Petitioner's building experiences various window breakage by youths on the weekends, and had a break-in recently in the nighttime through a poorly secured door in the rear of the premises. (Testimony of Lowhorn, Stackhouse, Hauser, Hodges, Lee, Lunney, Eddy, Ring, Eaton, DeSanti, Witt (Deposition - Exhibit 1), Exhibits 12-14).
Recommendation That Petitioner's bid be accepted by Respondent and recommended for approval to the Department of General Services. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Moyle, Esquire 707 North Flagler Drive Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Kenneth H. Hart, Jr. and Chad J. Motes, Esquires Department of Labor and Employment Security 2561 Executive Center Circle E. Suite 131 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
