The Issue The threshold issue in this case is whether the decisions giving rise to the dispute, which concern the allocation and disbursement of funds appropriated to Respondent by the legislature and thus involve the preparation or modification of the agency's budget, are subject to quasi-judicial adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act. If the Division of Administrative Hearings were possessed of subject matter jurisdiction, then the issues would be whether Respondent is estopped from implementing its intended decisions to "de- obligate" itself from preliminary commitments to provide low- interest loans to several projects approved for funding under the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program; and whether such intended decisions would constitute breaches of contract or otherwise be erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or abuses of the agency's discretion.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Pasco CWHIP Partners, LLC ("Pasco Partners"); Legacy Pointe, Inc. ("Legacy"); Villa Capri, Inc. ("Villa Capri"); Prime Homebuilders ("Prime"); and MDG Capital Corporation ("MDG") (collectively, "Petitioners"), are Florida corporations authorized to do business in Florida. Each is a developer whose business activities include building affordable housing. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("FHFC") is a public corporation organized under Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, to implement and administer various affordable housing programs, including the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program ("CWHIP"). The Florida Legislature created CWHIP in 2006 to subsidize the cost of housing for lower income workers performing "essential services." Under CWHIP, FHFC is authorized to lend up to $5 million to a developer for the construction or rehabilitation of housing in an eligible area for essential services personnel. Because construction costs for workforce housing developments typically exceed $5 million, developers usually must obtain additional funding from sources other than CWHIP to cover their remaining development costs. In 2007, the legislature appropriated $62.4 million for CWHIP and authorized FHFC to allocate these funds on a competitive basis to "public-private" partnerships seeking to build affordable housing for essential services personnel.1 On December 31, 2007, FHFC began soliciting applications for participation in CWHIP. Petitioners submitted their respective applications to FHFC on or around January 29, 2008. FHFC reviewed the applications and graded each of them on a point scale under which a maximum of 200 points per application were available; preliminary scores and comments were released on March 4, 2008. FHFC thereafter provided applicants the opportunity to cure any deficiencies in their applications and thereby improve their scores. Petitioners submitted revised applications on or around April 18, 2008. FHFC evaluated the revised applications and determined each applicant's final score. The applications were then ranked, from highest to lowest score. The top-ranked applicant was first in line to be offered the chance to take out a CWHIP loan, followed by the others in descending order to the extent of available funds. Applicants who ranked below the cut-off for potential funding were placed on a wait list. If, as sometimes happens, an applicant in line for funding were to withdraw from CWHIP or fail for some other reason to complete the process leading to the disbursement of loan proceeds, the highest-ranked applicant on the wait list would "move up" to the "funded list." FHFC issued the final scores and ranking of applicants in early May 2006. Petitioners each had a project that made the cut for potential CWHIP funding.2 Some developers challenged the scoring of applications, and the ensuing administrative proceedings slowed the award process. This administrative litigation ended on or around November 6, 2008, after the parties agreed upon a settlement of the dispute. On or about November 12, 2008, FHFC issued preliminary commitment letters offering low-interest CWHIP loans to Pasco Partners, Legacy, Villa Capri, Prime (for its Village at Portofino Meadows project), and MDG. Each preliminary commitment was contingent upon: Borrower and Development meeting all requirements of Rule Chapter 67-58, FAC, and all other applicable state and FHFC requirements; and A positive credit underwriting recommendation; and Final approval of the credit underwriting report by the Florida Housing Board of Directors. These commitment letters constituted the necessary approval for each of the Petitioners to move forward in credit underwriting, which is the process whereby underwriters whom FHFC retains under contract verify the accuracy of the information contained in an applicant's application and examine such materials as market studies, engineering reports, business records, and pro forma financial statements to determine the project's likelihood of success. Once a credit underwriter completes his analysis of an applicant's project, the underwriter submits a draft report and recommendation to FHFC, which, in turn, forwards a copy of the draft report and recommendation to the applicant. Both the applicant and FHFC then have an opportunity to submit comments regarding the draft report and recommendation to the credit underwriter. After that, the credit underwriter revises the draft if he is so inclined and issues a final report and recommendation to FHFC. Upon receipt of the credit underwriter's final report and recommendation, FHFC forwards the document to its Board of Directors for approval. Of the approximately 1,200 projects that have undergone credit underwriting for the purpose of receiving funding through FHFC, all but a few have received a favorable recommendation from the underwriter and ultimately been approved for funding. Occasionally a developer will withdraw its application if problems arise during underwriting, but even this is, historically speaking, a relatively uncommon outcome. Thus, upon receiving their respective preliminary commitment letters, Petitioners could reasonably anticipate, based on FHFC's past performance, that their projects, in the end, would receive CWHIP financing, notwithstanding the contingencies that remained to be satisfied. There is no persuasive evidence, however, that FHFC promised Petitioners, as they allege, either that the credit underwriting process would never be interrupted, or that CWHIP financing would necessarily be available for those developers whose projects successfully completed underwriting. While Petitioners, respectively, expended money and time as credit underwriting proceeded, the reasonable inference, which the undersigned draws, is that they incurred such costs, not in reliance upon any false promises or material misrepresentations allegedly made by FHFC, but rather because a favorable credit underwriting recommendation was a necessary (though not sufficient) condition of being awarded a firm loan commitment. On January 15, 2009, the Florida Legislature, meeting in Special Session, enacted legislation designed to close a revenue shortfall in the budget for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Among the cuts that the legislature made to balance the budget was the following: The unexpended balance of funds appropriated by the Legislature to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation in the amount of $190,000,000 shall be returned to the State treasury for deposit into the General Revenue Fund before June 1, 2009. In order to implement this section, and to the maximum extent feasible, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation shall first reduce unexpended funds allocated by the corporation that increase new housing construction. 2009 Fla. Laws ch. 2009-1 § 47. Because the legislature chose not to make targeted cuts affecting specific programs, it fell to FHFC would to decide which individual projects would lose funding, and which would not. The legislative mandate created a constant-sum situation concerning FHFC's budget, meaning that, regardless of how FHFC decided to reallocate the funds which remained at its disposal, all of the cuts to individual programs needed to total $190 million in the aggregate. Thus, deeper cuts to Program A would leave more money for other programs, while sparing Program B would require greater losses for other programs. In light of this situation, FHFC could not make a decision regarding one program, such as CWHIP, without considering the effect of that decision on all the other programs in FHFC's portfolio: a cut (or not) here affected what could be done there. The legislative de-appropriation of funds then in FHFC's hands required, in short, that FHFC modify its entire budget to account for the loss. To enable FHFC to return $190 million to the state treasury, the legislature directed that FHFC adopt emergency rules pursuant to the following grant of authority: In order to ensure that the funds transferred by [special appropriations legislation] are available, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation shall adopt emergency rules pursuant to s. 120.54, Florida Statutes. The Legislature finds that emergency rules adopted pursuant to this section meet the health, safety, and welfare requirements of s. 120.54(4), Florida Statutes. The Legislature finds that such emergency rulemaking power is necessitated by the immediate danger to the preservation of the rights and welfare of the people and is immediately necessary in order to implement the action of the Legislature to address the revenue shortfall of the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Therefore, in adopting such emergency rules, the corporation need not publish the facts, reasons, and findings required by s. 120.54(4)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Emergency rules adopted under this section are exempt from s. 120.54(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and shall remain in effect for 180 days. 2009 Fla. Laws ch. 2009-2 § 12. The governor signed the special appropriations bills into law on January 27, 2009. At that time, FHFC began the process of promulgating emergency rules. FHFC also informed its underwriters that FHFC's board would not consider any credit underwriting reports at its March 2009 board meeting. Although FHFC did not instruct the underwriters to stop evaluating Petitioners' projects, the looming reductions in allocations, coupled with the board's decision to suspend the review of credit reports, effectively (and not surprisingly) brought credit underwriting to a standstill. Petitioners contend that FHFC deliberately intervened in the credit underwriting process for the purpose of preventing Petitioners from satisfying the conditions of their preliminary commitment letters, so that their projects, lacking firm loan commitments, would be low-hanging fruit when the time came for picking the deals that would not receive funding due to FHFC's obligation to return $190 million to the state treasury. The evidence, however, does not support a finding to this effect. The decision of FHFC's board to postpone the review of new credit underwriting reports while emergency rules for drastically reducing allocations were being drafted was not intended, the undersigned infers, to prejudice Petitioners, but to preserve the status quo ante pending the modification of FHFC's budget in accordance with the legislative mandate. Indeed, given that FHFC faced the imminent prospect of involuntarily relinquishing approximately 40 percent of the funds then available for allocation to the various programs under FHFC's jurisdiction, it would have been imprudent to proceed at full speed with credit underwriting for projects in the pipeline, as if nothing had changed. At its March 13, 2009, meeting, FHFC's board adopted Emergency Rules 67ER09-1 through 67ER09-5, Florida Administrative Code (the "Emergency Rules"), whose stated purpose was "to establish procedures by which [FHFC would] de- obligate the unexpended balance of funds [previously] appropriated by the Legislature " As used in the Emergency Rules, the term "unexpended" referred, among other things, to funds previously awarded that, "as of January 27, 2009, [had] not been previously withdrawn or de-obligated . . . and [for which] the Applicant [did] not have a Valid Firm Commitment and loan closing [had] not yet occurred." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67ER09-2(29). The term "Valid Firm Commitment" was defined in the Emergency Rules to mean: a commitment issued by the [FHFC] to an Applicant following the Board's approval of the credit underwriting report for the Applicant's proposed Development which has been accepted by the Applicant and subsequent to such acceptance there have been no material, adverse changes in the financing, condition, structure or ownership of the Applicant or the proposed Development, or in any information provided to the [FHFC] or its Credit Underwriter with respect to the Applicant or the proposed Development. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67ER09-2(33). There is no dispute concerning that fact that, as of January 27, 2009, none of the Petitioners had received a valid firm commitment or closed a loan transaction. There is, accordingly, no dispute regarding the fact that the funds which FHFC had committed preliminarily to lend Petitioners in connection with their respective developments constituted "unexpended" funds under the pertinent (and undisputed) provisions of the Emergency Rules, which were quoted above. In the Emergency Rules, FHFC set forth its decisions regarding the reallocation of funds at its disposal. Pertinent to this case are the following provisions: To facilitate the transfer and return of the appropriated funding, as required by [the special appropriations bills], the [FHFC] shall: * * * Return $190,000,000 to the Treasury of the State of Florida, as required by [law]. . . . The [FHFC] shall de-obligate Unexpended Funding from the following Corporation programs, in the following order, until such dollar amount is reached: All Developments awarded CWHIP Program funding, except for [a few projects not at issue here.] * * * See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67ER09-3. On April 24, 2009, FHFC gave written notice to each of the Petitioners that FHFC was "de-obligating" itself from the preliminary commitments that had been made concerning their respective CWHIP developments. On or about June 1, 2009, FHFC returned the de- appropriated funds, a sum of $190 million, to the state treasury. As a result of the required modification of FHFC's budget, 47 deals lost funding, including 16 CWHIP developments to which $83.6 million had been preliminarily committed for new housing construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FHFC enter a Final Order dismissing these consolidated cases for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 18th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of marital status in terminating his employment.
Findings Of Fact For several years, Petitioner was employed as the Fire Marshall and Fire Inspector for Respondent. He worked in Respondent's Fire Department where he had been employed for some time. His responsibilities included a variety of fire safety matters, including actual firefighting. In April, 1990, the Code Enforcement Officer became ill, and the then- City Manager asked Petitioner to assume these duties. This job required the inspection of properties in the City and issuance of warning and citations for unsafe conditions, such as dilapidated buildings, abandoned cars, and overgrown vegetation obstructing traffic visibility. Petitioner assumed the Code Enforcement duties and typically worked 60 hours per week in discharging all of his responsibilities. A promised raise never materialized, so when a new Fire Chief was hired, Petitioner asked him to try to obtain a raise for Petitioner. By this time, the City had also hired a new City Manager, George Von Drok. Petitioner performed his job duties in an outstanding manner. He got along well with the Fire Chief and Mr. Von Drok, although he may have created some opposition in the community through his vigorous, but fair, enforcement of the City Code. During 1990, Mr. Von Drok lost his administrative assistant due to budgetary pressures. Possibly in response to the Fire Chief's raising the issue of a salary increase for Petitioner, Mr. Von Drok discussed with Petitioner the possibility of a salary raise concurrent with the creation of a new Department of Code Enforcement. Mr. Von Drok was thinking about possibly having Petitioner serve part-time as Mr. Von Drok's administrative assistant. Petitioner agreed to head the new Code Enforcement Department, which was established by act of the City Council on February 24, 1991. Petitioner's typical workday now ran from 8:00 am to 6:00 or 7:00 pm, plus firefighting on weekday nights and weekends. Nothing unusual occurred during the first 60 days of the new department's existence. Although the City was facing budget problems, Mr. Von Drok discussed with Petitioner ideas about making his one-man department more efficient, but he never mentioned the possibility of eliminating the new department. On April 24, 1991, when Petitioner arrived at work, he received a notice of suspension. Petitioner had just discovered that he had been named as a defendant in a civil action alleging that his wife had embezzled $130,000 from a bank where she had worked and alleging that Petitioner knew or reasonably should have known about the embezzlement. Petitioner had learned from the authorities of the alleged embezzlement only a day or two earlier. In fact, Petitioner had no knowledge about any embezzlement committed by his wife, who had suddenly disappeared. His wife had embezzled the money, which Petitioner helped to find and return to the bank. Petitioner himself was never criminally prosecuted, but his wife was convicted of the charges. Mr. Von Drok suspended Petitioner because of the civil charges against him. The suspension was without pay. Mr. Von Drok assured Petitioner that, if the allegations against him were cleared up, he would be reinstated to his job with back pay. In the next few days, it became apparent that Petitioner had had no knowledge of his wife's activities and was entirely innocent. On the afternoon of May 9, 1991, Mr. Von Drok, the Fire Chief, and Petitioner met and discussed the duties of the Fire Marshall, Fire Inspector, and Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Von Drok indicated that he wanted to move Petitioner back into the Fire Department and transfer the Code Enforcement duties elsewhere. Petitioner responded that that was fine with him. The suspension was lifted May 10, 1991. But when Petitioner returned to work on the morning of May 10, he found that his department had been eliminated and his employment with Respondent terminated. Pursuant to the latest directive of Mr. Von Drok, Petitioner received full pay through that date, so that the suspension was effectively with pay. Mr. Von Drok testified that Petitioner was terminated for budgetary reasons. Mr. Von Drok assigned the Code Enforcement responsibilities to the Police Department and the Fire Marshall and Fire Inspector duties to the Fire Department. The Fire Chief has had to assume the Fire Marshall and Fire Inspector duties because only the Fire Chief and Petitioner had the necessary training and certification to perform these duties. Mr. Von Drok's testimony concerning why he eliminated Petitioner's department is not credible. The department was only created in late February, 1991. Mr. Von Drok testified that another department head, the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, was terminated due to fiscal pressures on March 7, 1991. If fiscal pressures were already dictating the termination of department heads by the first week of March, it is unrealistic that Mr. Von Drok would have been creating new departments just a couple of weeks earlier. Respondent offers no evidence of unexpected financial pressures suddenly appearing in the two weeks between the creation of Petitioner's new department and the termination of the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation or later March, when Mr. Von Drok testified that he first considered the elimination of Petitioner's new department. In fact, the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation was terminated because of unsatisfactory job performance. He had left keys to a City truck in the ignition. He had failed to open park restrooms before a major event. He had played basketball on City time. And he had never finished his two-year degree as he had promised when he took the job. Likewise, Mr. Von Drok terminated Petitioner for reasons having nothing to do with financial pressures. Respondent terminated Petitioner due to his marital status. If Respondent had not been married to an embezzler, he would not have been terminated. There was no legitimate business reason for the termination of Petitioner. Petitioner lost gross wages and benefits of $88,434.44 and received in other employment and unemployment compensation a total of $16,794.11 for a net loss of $71,640.33. However, these figures are somewhat overstated. The claim for $2500 per year for two years for the loss of the use of a City-supplied car is not allowable because the City-supplied car would have been available only for City business or commuting--neither of which affected Petitioner following his termination. The claim for $9225 in retirement benefits is not allowable because Respondent shall reinstate Petitioner with full credit, in terms of accrued benefits and vesting, under the City retirement plan for the time lost. The claim for $584.44--evidently in uncovered medical expenses--is not allowable because Petitioner has failed to show that these expenditures would have been covered under a medical policy or, if covered, would not have represented deductible amounts. The claims for $300 for school and $2225 in mileage expenses in searching for work are not allowable as they are not a component of back pay. Last, the claim for an additional $1500 in salary for the second year is not allowable given the absence of evidence of such an across-the-board salary hike during the time in question. The allowable claim for back pay is therefore $52,805.89. Petitioner also obligated himself to pay his attorney a reasonable hourly rate plus costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order determining that the City of Avon Park committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner, prohibiting the commission of such a practice, awarding back pay of $52,805.89, requiring that Petitioner be hired for the next available job in the Avon Park fire department with pay and responsibilities generally commensurate with either of the last two jobs that Petitioner held with the City of Avon Park (or such lesser-paying, less responsible job that becomes available until such higher-paying, more responsible job becomes available), and awarding attorneys' fees and costs in the prosecution of the above-styled case. ENTERED on April 26, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 26, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Robert H. Grizzard, II P.O. Box 992 Lakeland, FL 33802-0992 Michael M. Disler Trombley, Lobozzo, et al. 329 South Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870
The Issue Whether Florida Power & Light Company (hereinafter referred to as "FPL") properly refused the request of Globe International Realty & Mortgage, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Globe") to supply electric service to the premises located at 808 Northeast Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Kenneth V. Hemmerle, Sr., is a real estate developer. Matthew Renda is a real estate and mortgage broker. Hemmerle and Renda have known each other since about 1986. At the suggestion of Hemmerle, in February of 1993, Renda, along with Hemmerle, formed Globe. At the time, Hemmerle was involved in a development project on the west coast of Florida and he wanted Renda, through Globe, to handle "the selling and so forth for the project." Globe was incorporated under the laws of Florida. The articles of incorporation filed with the Department of State, Division of Corporations (hereinafter referred to as the "Division of Corporations") reflected that: Renda was the president of the corporation; Hemmerle was its secretary; Renda and Hemmerle were the incorporators of the corporation, owning 250 shares of stock each; they also comprised the corporation's board of directors; and the corporation's place of business, as well as its principal office, were located at 808 Northeast Third Avenue in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "808 Building"). Globe is now, and has been since its incorporation, an active Florida corporation. Annual reports were filed on behalf of Globe with the Division of Corporations in both 1994 (on April 19th of that year) and 1995 (on March 23rd of that year). The 1994 annual report reflected that Renda and Hemmerle remained the officers and directors of the corporation. The 1995 annual report reflected that Renda was still an officer and director of the corporation, but that Hemmerle had "resigned 9-2-93." Both the 1994 and 1995 annual reports reflected that the 808 Building remained the corporation's place of business and its corporate address. The 808 Building is a concrete block building with a stucco finish housing eight separate offices. The entire building is served by one electric meter. At all times material to the instant case, Southern Atlantic Construction Corporation of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "Southern") owned the 808 Building. Southern was incorporated under the laws of Florida in June of 1973, and administratively dissolved on October 9, 1992. Hemmerle owns a majority of the shares of the corporation's stock. The last annual report that Southern filed with the Division of Corporations (which was filed on June 10, 1991) reflected that: Hemmerle was the corporation's president and registered agent; he also served on the corporation's board of directors; Lynn Nadeau was the corporation's other officer and director; and the corporation's principal office was located in the 808 Building. From 1975 until September 6, 1994, FPL provided electric service to the 808 Building. Charges for such service were billed to an account (hereinafter referred to as the "808 account") that had been established by, and was in the name of, Hemmerle Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "HDC"). HDC was incorporated under the laws of Florida in 1975, and administratively dissolved on October 9, 1992. At the time of HDC's incorporation, Hemmerle owned 250 of the 500 shares of stock issued by the corporation. The last annual report that HDC filed with the Division of Corporations (which was filed on June 10, 1991) reflected that: Hemmerle was the corporation's president and registered agent; he also served on the corporation's board of directors; Lynn Nadeau was the corporation's other officer and director; and the corporation's principal office was located in the 808 Building. Following the administrative dissolution of the corporation, Hemmerle continued to transact business with FPL in the corporation's name, notwithstanding that he was aware that the corporation had been administratively dissolved. At no time has Renda owned any shares of HDC's stock or served on its board of directors. He and Hemmerle have served together as officers and directors of only two corporations: Globe and Hemmerle's Helpers, Inc. The latter was incorporated under the laws of Florida as a nonprofit corporation in March of 1992, and was administratively dissolved on August 13, 1993. Its articles of incorporation reflected that its place of operation, as well as its principal office, were located in the 808 Building. Pursuant to arrangements Renda and Hemmerle had made (which were not reduced to writing), Globe occupied office space in the 808 Building from March of 1993, through September 6, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "rental period"). Renda and Hemmerle had initially agreed that the rent Globe would pay for leasing the space would come from any profits Globe made as a result of its participation in Hemmerle's Florida west coast development project. Renda and Hemmerle subsequently decided, however, that Globe would instead pay a monthly rental fee of $300 for each office it occupied in the building. 1/ Globe (which occupied only one office in the building during the rental period) did not pay in full the monies it owed under this rental agreement. The office Globe occupied in the 808 Building was the first office to the right upon entering the building. It was across the lobby from the office from which Hemmerle conducted business on behalf of his various enterprises. Globe voluntarily and knowingly accepted, used and benefited from the electric service FPL provided to its office and the common areas in the building during the rental period. Under the agreement Renda and Hemmerle had reached, Globe was not responsible for making any payments (in addition to the $300 monthly rental fee) for such service. On July 26, 1994, the 808 account was in a collectible status and an FPL field collector was dispatched to the service address. There, he encountered Hemmerle, who gave him a check made out to FPL in the amount of $2,216.37. Hemmerle had noted the following on the back of the check: "Payment made under protest due to now [sic] owning [sic] of such billing amount to prevent discontinuance of power." The check was drawn on a Sunniland Bank checking account that was in the name of Florida Kenmar, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Kenmar"), a Florida corporation that had been incorporated in May of 1984, 2/ and administratively dissolved on November 9, 1990. (The last annual report that Kenmar filed with the Division of Corporations, which was filed on June 10, 1991, reflected that: Hemmerle was the corporation's president and registered agent; he also served on the corporation's board of directors; and the corporation's principal office was located in the 808 Building.) Hemmerle told the field collector, upon handing him the check, that there were no funds in the Kenmar checking account. Nonetheless, the field collector accepted the check. FPL deposited the check in its account at Barnett Bank of South Florida. The check was subsequently returned due to "insufficient funds." On the same day that he was visited by the FPL field collector, Hemmerle telephoned Sandra Lowery, an FPL customer service lead representative for recovery, complaining about, among other things, a debit that he claimed had been improperly charged to the 808 account. As a result of her conversation with Hemmerle, Lowery authorized the removal of the debit and all late payment charges associated with the debit from the 808 account. Following the July 26, 1994, removal of the debit and associated late payment charges, the balance due on the account was $1,953.91, an amount that Hemmerle still disputed. In an effort to demonstrate that a lesser amount was owed, Hemmerle sent Lowery copies of cancelled checks that, he claimed, had been remitted to FPL as payment for electric service billed to the 808 account. Some of these checks, however, had been used to pay for charges billed to other accounts that Hemmerle (or corporations with which he was associated) had with FPL. As of August 29, 1994, the 808 account had a balance due of $2,387.47. These unpaid charges were for service provided between March of 1993 and August 10, 1994. On August 29, 1994, Hemmerle showed Renda a notice that he had received from FPL advising that electric service to the 808 Building would be terminated if the balance owing on the 808 account was not paid within the time frame specified in the notice. Hemmerle suggested to Renda that, in light of FPL's announced intention to close the 808 account and terminate service, Renda should either apply for electric service to the 808 Building in Globe's name or relocate to another office building. Renda decided to initially pursue the former option. Later that same day, Renda telephoned FPL to request that an account for electric service to the 808 Building be opened in Globe's name. Gigi Marshall was the FPL representative to whom he spoke. She obtained from Renda the information FPL requires from an applicant for electric service. During his telephone conversation with Marshall, Renda mentioned, among other things, that Globe had been a tenant at the 808 Building since the previous year and that it was his understanding that FPL was going to discontinue electric service to the building because of the current customer's failure to timely pay its bills. Renda claimed that Globe was not in any way responsible for payment of these past-due bills. From an examination of FPL's computerized records (to which she had access from her work station), Marshall confirmed, while still on the telephone with Renda, that the 808 account was in arrears and that FPL had sent a disconnect notice to the current customer at the service address. Marshall believed that, under such circumstances, it would be imprudent to approve Globe's application for electric service without further investigation. She therefore ended her conversation with Renda by telling him that she would conduct such an investigation and then get back with him. After speaking with Renda, Marshall went to her supervisor, Carol Sue Ryan, for guidance and direction. Like Marshall, Ryan questioned whether Globe's application for service should be approved. She suggested that Marshall telephone Renda and advise him that FPL needed additional time to complete the investigation related to Globe's application. Some time after 12:30 p.m. on that same day (August 29, 1994), Marshall followed Ryan's suggestion and telephoned Renda. Ryan was on the line when Marshall spoke with Renda and she participated in the conversation. Among the things Ryan told Renda was that a meter reader would be dispatched to the 808 Building the following day to read the meter so that the information gleaned from such a reading would be available in the event that Globe's application for service was approved. At no time did either Marshall or Ryan indicate to Renda that Globe's application was, or would be, approved. Ryan referred Globe's application to Larry Johnson of FPL's Collection Department, who, in turn, brought the matter to the attention of Thomas Eichas, an FPL fraud investigator. After completing his investigation of the matter, which included an examination of the Broward County property tax rolls (which revealed that Southern owned the 808 Building), as well a search of the records relating to Globe, HDC and Southern maintained by the Division of Corporations, Eichas determined that Globe's application for service should be denied on the basis of the "prior indebtedness rule." Eichas informed Johnson of his decision and instructed him to act accordingly. Electric service to the 808 Building was terminated on September 6, 1994. As of that date, the 808 account had a past-due balance that was still in excess of $2,000.00. Although he conducted his business activities primarily from his home following the termination of electric service to the 808 Building, Hemmerle continued to have access to the building until March of 1995 (as did Renda). 3/ During this period, Hemmerle still had office equipment in the building and he went there on almost a daily basis to see if any mail had been delivered for him. It was his intention to again actively conduct business from his office in the building if electric service to the building was restored. Hemmerle (and the corporations on whose behalf he acted) therefore would have benefited had there been such a restoration of service. After discovering that electric service to the 808 Building had been terminated, Renda telephoned FPL to inquire about the application for service he had made on behalf of Globe. He was advised that, unless FPL was paid the more than $2,000.00 it was owed for electric service previously supplied to the building, service to the building would not be restored in Globe's name. Thereafter, Renda, on behalf of Globe, telephoned the PSC and complained about FPL's refusal to approve Globe's application for service. FPL responded to the complaint in writing. In its response, it explained why it had refused to approve the application. On or about November 15, 1994, the Chief of PSC's Bureau of Complaint Resolution sent Renda a letter which read as follows: The staff has completed its review of your complaint concerning Florida Power & Light's (FPL) refusal to establish service in the name of Globe Realty, Inc. at the above- referenced location. Our review indicates that FPL appears to have complied with all applicable Commission Rules in refusing to establish service. Our review of the customer billing history indicates that the past-due balance is for service at this location and not attributable to the judgment against Mr. Hemmerle for service at another location. The interlocking directorships of Globe International Realty & Mortgage, Inc. and Hemmerle Development, Inc. suggest that the request to establish service in the name of Globe Realty is an artifice to avoid payment of the outstanding balance and not a result of any change in the use or occupancy of the building. Thus, FPL's refusal to establish service is in compliance with Rule 25-6.105(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Please note that this determination is subject to further review by the Florida Public Service Commission. You have the right to request an informal conference pursuant to Rule 25-22.032(4), Florida Administrative Code. Should that conference fail to resolve the matter, the staff will make a recommenda- tion to the Commissioners for decision. If you are dissatisfied with the Commission decision, you may request a formal Administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. After receiving this letter, Renda, on behalf of Globe, requested an informal conference. The informal conference was held on November 30, 1994. At the informal conference, the parties explained their respective positions on the matter in dispute. No resolution, however, was reached. Adopting the recommendation of its staff, the PSC, in an order issued January 31, 1995, preliminarily held that there was no merit to Globe's complaint that FPL acted improperly in refusing to provide electric service to the 808 Building pursuant to Globe's request. Thereafter, Renda, on behalf of Globe, requested a formal Section 120.57 hearing on the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the PSC enter a final order dismissing Globe's complaint that FPL acted improperly in refusing to provide electric service to the 808 Building pursuant to Globe's request. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of December, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 4th day of December, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Robert A. Cirnigliaro was employed during the summer of 1972 as an assistant manager and new business development officer at Security National Bank in Brentwood, New York. At that time a friend of his, John Laura, was selling franchises in a Golden Products distributorship. His friend sent prospective franchisees to Mr. Cirnigliaro at Security National Bank to apply for loans to finance the franchise purchases. Initially Mr. Laura said that for each loan application approved he would give Mr. Cirnigliaro $100.00 out of his commission for selling the franchises. Mr. Cirnigliaro accepted a total of $900.00. He later discovered that the $100.00 was not coming out of Mr. Laura's commission, but was being paid directly by the loan applicant and then forwarded to Mr. Cirnigliaro via Mr. Laura. After this discovery Mr. Cirnigliaro did not accept any more payments. Subsequently one of the loans for which the applicant paid $100.00 went into default and the applicant disclosed that he had paid a kickback to Mr. Cirnigliaro. A criminal information was filed against Mr. Cirnigliaro by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. It charged him with violating 18 U.S.C. Section 656, by knowingly and willfully embezzling abstracting, purloining and misapplying less than $100.00 of the bank's money during the months of June and July, 1972. Mr. Cirnigliaro pled guilty as charged. On April 10, 1973, he was adjudged guilty and convicted. His sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for one (1) year. He met all the terms of his probation which expired on April 9, 1974. In March of 1973, Mr. Cirnigliaro moved to Florida and began working at the Homosassa Springs Bank as a vice president. He did not disclose his prior conviction at the time of his employment. Later in 1975, the Citrus County Sheriff told the bank of Mr. Cirnigliaro's conviction and he was allowed to resign from the bank because of the bank's belief that under Florida Law he could no longer be a bank officer with that type of conviction. Even before he came to Florida, Mr. Cirnigliaro had an interest in being a police officer. He did not pursue that interest because of his less than perfect eyesight. Upon his arrival to Florida he saw police officers wearing glasses. He then sought sponsorship to obtain police training. Between October 1973 and March 1975, John A. Matthews was Chief of the Crystal River Police Department. Mr. Cirnigliaro contacted him at the first of 1975 about becoming a policeman. He explained to Chief Matthews that he had been convicted of a misdemeanor involving "about a $100.00 in dealing with a bank" as the chief remembers the conversation. Chief Matthews spoke with someone named Ken at the Petitioner's headquarters in Tallahassee about Mr. Cirnigliaro's conviction, and asked him if he could become a police officer. Ken said to send his prints (fingerprints) in and he, Ken, would take it from there. Chief Matthews did as he was instructed. lie also sent in an application form on which he checked a box indicating that the applicant "is of good moral character and has not been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. A thorough background investigation has been conducted and is attested to by John A. Matthews, Chief of Police, Crystal River police Department." At the completion of Mr. Cirnigliaro's police training, certificate #02-13832 was issued to him on May 27, 1975. At the time of Mr. Cirnigliaro's application for certification, the Commission did not conduct independent background investigations on the applicants' good moral character. It relied on the sponsoring police agency to conduct those investigations. Mr. Cirnigliaro's application was accompanied by a set of his fingerprints as required by the Commission. While still employed at the Homosassa Springs Bank, Respondent began to work part-time for the Crystal River Police Department. He was also deputized by the Sheriff of Citrus County and went on patrols with the Sheriff's deputies without pay. Subsequent to his resignation at the Homosassa Springs Bank, Mr. Cirnigliaro was hired as a full-time deputy by the Cirtus County Sheriff, Burton R. Quinn. It was Sheriff Quinn's policy to fingerprint all his new deputies and to check the prints with the FBI. In that way he heard of Mr. Cirnigliaro's conviction, but hired him anyway. Numerous witnesses testified that Mr. Cirnigliaro enjoys a reputation in Citrus County for good moral character. The following are examples of that testimony: Burton R. Quinn-Citrus County Sheriff: His reputation for honesty and fairness in the community is excellent. Robert Horton-Deputy, Citrus County Sheriff's Department: "I have never, never beard or seen anything that was deroga- tory toward his reputation or anything that would take away from it. Its always been of the utmost character and profes- sionalism." Charles Prochaska-Deputy, Citrus County Sheriff's Department: His reputation for honesty and fair dealing is above reproach. Its the finest. Willy Post-Deputy, Citrus County Sheriff's Department: "what I indicated to Mr. Russell is what--the part I know about Bob Cirnigliaro--that my belief of Bob Cirnigliaro is that he was one of the few people that would get out and work hard and really put forth that extra effort, and is fearless and courageous and doesn't back down from crime and corruption or threats, and that's the way I see Bob Cirnigliaro." William F. Edwards-Circuit Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit: "Yes, and in my opinion, he was probably not one of the best deputies that this county has ever had, but the best deputy this county ever had, in my estimation." Ronald Mayer-Executive Vice President and Cashier, Homosassa Springs Bank: Mr. Cirnigliaro was an honest and conscientious employee at the bank. His reputation is excellent. A total of nineteen (19) people, including Highway Patrolmen, a newspaper reporter, the Director of Recreation for Citrus County and the President of the Chamber of Commerce and other community citizens testified in behalf of Mr. Cirnigliaro's good moral character. From the foregoing, it is therefore found that Mr. Cirnigliaro does in fact have good moral character.
Recommendation It is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Police Standards and Training Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Complaint against Robert A. Cirnigliaro. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The underlying case for which attorneys fees in the undisputed amount of $2,775.00 are sought involved a 1992 application by Union Trucking, Inc. for recertification by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) as a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE). Union Trucking, Inc. had originally been certified by FDOT in 1988, and upon successive applications for certification, had been recertified by FDOT in 1989, 1990 and 1991. Recertification was applied for on July 20, 1992 and denied on December 14, 1992. A request for formal hearing followed on January 15, 1993 and the case proceeded before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) until FDOT recertified Union Trucking, Inc. on October 15, 1993. On November 17, 1993, DOAH hearing officer P. Michael Ruff entered an order relinquishing jurisdiction, which resulted in FDOT's December 17, 1993 final order. FDOT's final order was entered on the grounds that certification had been granted, did not alter the recertification terms, and dismissed the request for formal hearing. On February 14, 1994, less than sixty days after entry of the FDOT final order, Petitioner filed its original "Application for Award of Attorneys Fees Pursuant to F.S. 57.111," hereafter "petition." On March 2, 1994, FDOT filed a response, which, although no motion to dismiss was filed, addressed assorted insufficiencies of the petition. FDOT's response did not raise any timeliness bar. An order of dismissal with leave to amend within fifteen days was entered by the undersigned hearing officer on April 21, 1994. The amended petition was filed May 11, 1994, and FDOT filed its response on May 26, 1994, still not asserting any timeliness bar. At formal hearing, the parties stipulated that the only issue for consideration was whether or not FDOT had been substantially justified in denying the 1992 recertification. Otherwise, it was undisputed that Petitioner is a small business party; that FDOT was not merely a nominal party; that the employment, amount of fee, and hours worked by Petitioner's counsel were as stated in the pleadings, and that there were no "unusual circumstances" as contemplated within the applicable statute and rule. The undersigned hearing officer suggested that the parties include in their post-hearing proposals arguments directed to timeliness, vel non, of the attorney's fee and costs petition, and thus, whether or not DOAH has jurisdiction of this case. With regard to the "substantial justification" issue, it is necessary to review the DBE process since 1991. Union Trucking, Inc.'s 1991 application for recertification was received by FDOT on April 30, 1991. Documents submitted to FDOT by Union Trucking, Inc. in conjunction with the 1991 application revealed that Petitioner corporation had undergone an ownership change on April 1, 1991, approximately 29 days prior to submittal of the 1991 application, which ownership change had transferred 49 percent of Union Trucking, Inc.'s corporate stock from Denise Willis to Robin P. Wilson; that the new owner, Robin P. Wilson, did not list any employment on her resume other than at Pritchett Trucking, Inc.; that Union Trucking, Inc. had a business relationship with Pritchett Trucking, Inc.; and that the new 49 percent owner of Union Trucking, Inc., Robin P. Wilson, is the daughter of Marvin Pritchett, owner of Pritchett Trucking, Inc. Marvin Pritchett is a white American male. Robin Pritchett Wilson is a white American female. Denise Willis, who previously owned the 49 percent of Union Trucking, Inc. stock which was transferred to Robin Wilson is also a white American female, and the stepdaughter of Marvin Pritchett. From Union Trucking, Inc.'s inception and at all times material, 51 percent of Union Trucking, Inc.'s stock has been owned by Warren Lee, a black American male. At all times material, Union Trucking, Inc. has been 100 percent owned by disadvantaged classes (female and black). At all times material, FDOT did not break down its disadvantaged certifications as to "black" versus "female" for purposes of categorizing DBE status, but only looked to whether or not at least 51 percent of the stock was owned by a member(s) of a disadvantaged class. FDOT has no rule specifically requiring that all owners work in the business, only that day to day control be in the hands of the disadvantaged class. FDOT conducted an on-site visit to Union Trucking, Inc. on July 22, 1991, at which time FDOT requested additional information as to Robin Wilson's employment with Union Trucking, Inc. and was notified that Robin Wilson spent approximately one to two hours per day working for Union Trucking, Inc. FDOT also inquired about Union Trucking Inc.'s business relationship with Pritchett Trucking, Inc. and received the explanation that the relationship was "like any lease owner with the company they lease with." DBE personnel at FDOT did not understand what this response meant, but they did not inquire further in 1991. Instead, the FDOT DBE certification committee voted to recertify Union Trucking, Inc. with a special monitor, because there were undefined "concerns" and unidentified "feelings" about the eligibility of Union Trucking, Inc. At formal hearing, FDOT personnel were very clear that recertification in 1991 with a "special monitor" meant that when Union Trucking, Inc. came up for recertification in 1992, an on-site review must be conducted. Prior to receiving Union Trucking, Inc.'s July 20, 1992 application for recertification, FDOT was notified by the Department of General Services (DGS) that DGS also had "concerns" about Union Trucking, Inc. On September 10, 1992, DGS notified FDOT that DGS had denied Union Trucking, Inc.'s application to DGS for Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) certification, that the DGS denial had been upheld at a DOAH hearing, and that FDOT would be provided a copy of the DOAH hearing officer's recommended order. FDOT subsequently received a copy of that recommended order which had been entered September 9, 1992. FDOT's Minority Programs Office Manager testified that, in his opinion, the recommended order in the DGS case (Exhibit DOT 9) "verified" the FDOT "concerns" expressed during the 1991 FDOT recertification process, but he defined those concerns as independent financing. The FDOT DBE certification committee chairperson testified that the recommended order addressed concerns expressed during the 1991 FDOT recertification process, but he defined the concerns differently, as lack of independency from familial relationships, i.e. control, and financial relationships of family corporations. Both men considered FDOT's and DGS' rules to be substantially similar. In fact, the September 9, 1992 recommended order to DGS involved a different agency (DGS) than FDOT, a different statute (Section 287.0943 F.S.) than the one authorizing FDOT's DBE program and different rules (Rules 13A- 2.005(4)(a) and (b) and 13A-4 F.A.C.) than the ones administered by FDOT. FDOT is required to operate under Section 337.135 F.S. and administer Rules 14-78.002 and 14-78.005 F.A.C. Also, the recommended order focused on a legal conclusion that Union Trucking, Inc. was financially dependent, or at least at the time of its corporate "start-up" in 1986 was financially dependent, upon Pritchett Trucking, Inc. The recommended order stated, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . co-owner of the applicant is Pritchett's daughter and a natural subject of his goodwill and generosity, such a relationship is prohibited by the statute, [referring to Section 287.0943 F.S.] Similarly, her service as a director of Pritchett corporation, carrying on Union's business from her desk at Pritchett Trucking is natural, but estab- lishes a prohibited relationship. [Bracketed material added her for clarification]. Upon receipt of the DGS recommended order, FDOT did not seek further explanatory information from the applicant, as was FDOT's standard procedure under its normal operation. Further, FDOT did not follow its own specially prescribed procedure for certified DBEs with "special monitor" status, in that FDOT did not conduct a new 1992 on-site review. Instead, two months later, FDOT sent its December 14, 1992 denial letter. The FDOT employee who prepared the letter testified that the letter denial was based on her review of all the information already in FDOT's DBE file on Union Trucking, Inc., upon the audio tape of the old 1991 on-site review interview, and upon corporate records of the Secretary of State. The FDOT letter, however, closely tracked the DGS recommended order but denied recertification by FDOT on the basis of FDOT Rules 14-78.005(7)(c)1. and 2.c. and 14-78.005(7)(a) F.A.C. It also stated that Union Trucking, Inc. was not an independent business entity or a small business concern and that there was an "affiliate" relationship under FDOT rules due to "Susan [sic] Wilson." It renamed Robin Wilson and also extrapolated a great deal of financial information that appears to come directly from the DGS recommended order. As a result of FDOT's denial of its 1992 recertification application, Union Trucking, Inc. requested a formal hearing. During the progress of that case before DOAH, FDOT received a copy of an affidavit by Robin Wilson in which she stated that Union Trucking, Inc. only purchased parts and fuel from Pritchett Trucking because Pritchett's Lake Butler terminal was the least expensive and most convenient source. Ms. Wilson also stated that Union Trucking, Inc. had not received any loans from her father's companies in four to five years, and that there were no current outstanding loans. In an effort to negotiate the issues and resolve matters without formal hearing before DOAH, FDOT finally conducted an on-site review in July 1993. Documentation was provided by Union Trucking, Inc. to show that all recent transactions with any of Marvin Pritchett's companies were properly invoiced "arm's length" transactions and that Union Trucking, Inc. dealt with many other companies as well; that Union Trucking, Inc.'s old debts to Marvin Pritchett's companies had been retired with zero balances prior to Union Trucking, Inc.'s 1992 recertification application to FDOT; and that Union Trucking, Inc. had three trucks and trailers normally being used full-time in its business. Random samplings by FDOT's consultant during this on-site review confirmed the information in the possession of FDOT prior to the 1992 application for recertification, most of which had been provided and was already in FDOT's possession as early as April 30, 1991. If FDOT had inquired concerning any loans at the time it received the recommended order in September 1992, it would have determined that all loans to Union Trucking, Inc. from any of Marvin Pritchett's various enterprises had been paid off prior to Union Trucking, Inc.'s 1992 recertification application to FDOT. FDOT's consultant's report after the 1993 on-site review determined that there currently were no "affiliated" firms under FDOT rules. It also appears from the report that FDOT then accepted that Robin Wilson split her time between office management for Union Trucking, Inc., running her own company named "Robin Pritchett Trucking Inc.," and working for her father's "[Marvin] Pritchett Trucking Inc." Having clarified these matters, FDOT no longer had problems or concerns with such an arrangement. Union Trucking, Inc.'s records on file for contract work with FDOT through other contractors also reflected use of owned trucks and drivers employed by Union Trucking, Inc. FDOT then recertified Petitioner effective October 15, 1993. At the attorney's fee and costs hearing herein, FDOT presented evidence that it did not have the correct location address for Union Trucking, Inc. when its personnel went to the July 1993 on-site review. This evidence does not justify FDOT's 1992 denial. Union Trucking, Inc.'s corporate office had moved a few weeks previous to the 1993 on-site review. Since Union Trucking, Inc. and its lawyer had been in constant communication with FDOT during the litigation phase of the recertification denial case, consistently urging an on-site inspection, any failure by Union Trucking, Inc. to clarify the geographical relocation of its office in 1993 was either an oversight or an innocent miscommunication. This change of address was not noted in Union Trucking, Inc.'s 1992 reapplication because the move had not yet occurred when that reapplication was submitted in July of 1992. Obviously, FDOT did not use the 1993 failure to notify the agency of a change of address as a reason to deny recertification in 1992, and FDOT also did not consider it a sufficiently serious flaw to withhold recertification after the July 1993 on-site review. FDOT also presented evidence that Robin Wilson did not tell the agency that she owned 100 percent of another corporate entity, "Robin Pritchett (her maiden name) Trucking, Inc." until the July 1993 on-site review. FDOT's two on- site reviewers concurred that "Robin Pritchett Trucking," consisting of one truck, which was sporadically used to haul wood chips, was never any cause for FDOT's concern. Apparently, FDOT considers hauling wood products to be an entirely different industry than the hauling of highway aggregates, which is the type of work done on FDOT contracts and the type of work done by Union Trucking, Inc. While Robin Pritchett Wilson's "affiliation" with her own independent corporation, "Robin Pritchett Trucking, Inc.," possibly was the type of "affiliation" which she should have disclosed, pursuant to FDOT's DBE rule, on Union Trucking Inc.'s 1992 application for recertification by FDOT as a DBE, it is clear that FDOT did not know of this nondisclosure when the agency denied recertification in December 1992. FDOT did not deny recertification at that time for that reason. FDOT also did not consider such nondisclosure to be a sufficiently serious flaw so as to withhold recertification after the disclosure at the July 1993 on-site review. Also, FDOT never asserted that its personnel had been confused in 1992 between "Robin Pritchett Trucking, Inc." and "[Marvin] Pritchett Trucking, Inc." Therefore, this late disclosure does not justify FDOT's 1992 denial of certification. In its July 1993 on-site review, FDOT investigated but found no barrier to recertifying Union Trucking, Inc. under the statutes and rules FDOT administers. There were no barriers related to familial relationships, related to Robin Wilson's being an owner of her own corporation, related to her being a director of any corporation, related to her owning a nominal number of stock shares in Marvin Pritchett's several businesses, related to her use of Pritchett's desk or office equipment, related to Pritchett loans to Union Trucking, Inc., related to Mr. Lee's use of a special account, or related to any other factual reason cited in either FDOT's December 14, 1992 denial letter or the September 9, 1992 recommended order affecting DGS. Nonetheless, FDOT's consultant's closing comments in the 1993 on-site report sum up FDOT's continuing overall approach to Union Trucking, Inc., both before the 1993 on-site review and thereafter. This approach is to "continue to question" successful DBEs whose principals have successful families and successful corporate investments. He wrote: Because of the close family relationships and multiple companies owned or operated, this firm will continue to be questioned as to eligibility for the DBE program. Any concerns I have remaining can only be resolved through the actual job perform- ance and compliance on future projects. I strongly recommend a continued compliance report be addressed with detailed concerns to support the next certif- ication provided the firm is recertified.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Miami-Dade Community College, has adopted a statement of agency policy in violation of Florida law.
Findings Of Fact Prior to August 2, 2002, the Respondent employed the Petitioner, Lonny Ohlfest. At the time of his termination, the Petitioner filed a request for a due process hearing with the Respondent to challenge his termination from employment. The Petitioner challenged the basis for his termination as he wanted to clear his name regarding some unflattering allegations but, equally important, he wanted to keep his job with MDC. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's request for an administrative hearing and found that the Petitioner was not entitled to a hearing. More specifically, the Respondent concluded that since the Petitioner did not have a contract of employment he was not entitled to an administrative hearing. The Petitioner disputed the Respondent's claim and argued that he did have a contract, that he had a reasonable expectation that his employment would continue, and that the Respondent unlawfully refused to afford him regress through the administrative process. When the Petitioner's appeal of his request for an administrative hearing failed, he filed the instant case to challenge the Respondent's policy of not referring administrative cases for formal hearing. The delays in the appeal process explain and support the Petitioner's delay in filing the instant challenge to the agency's alleged rule. To understand the historical perspective of this case, the following findings are made pertinent to the Petitioner's employment with the Respondent: The Petitioner began employment with the MDC on or about April 4, 2001. He was hired as a part-time, hourly worker within the school of allied health technologies. The position he assumed was funded and operated within the "Health Careers Opportunities Program" or HCOP. The HCOP was funded by a federal grant. The monies coming from the grant were renewable each year and ran concurrent with the school's fiscal year (July 1-June 30). All employees paid through the HCOP grant were considered "temporary" as the grant monies were necessary to assure continued employment. In January 2002 the Petitioner was given a full-time position within the HCOP. He was designated "Program Leader/Student Services" for the upcoming summer bridge program. At all times material to this case, all parties knew that absent federal funding the HCOP would not continue to operate. Moreover, the Petitioner knew, or should have known, that his employment with the Respondent would run only until June 30, 2002. Thereafter, it was expected that if and when the federal funding came through, the HCOP employees (including the Petitioner) would continue to work within the scope of the program. At the end of the summer program in 2001, the HCOP employees took leave until the school year started and the funding of the program was assured. Accordingly, after the summer bridge program was completed, the Petitioner expected to be on leave during the summer of 2002 until called back to work. Instead, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner from employment. The 2002 summer bridge program had not finished well for the Petitioner. Amid allegations of sexual harassment (unsubstantiated and not at issue in this proceeding) the Petitioner's working relationship within the HCOP floundered. The Petitioner was aghast that unsubstantiated claims had been reported, he wanted the accusations resolved, he wanted his name cleared, and he was disappointed by the process that failed to timely and fully resolve the issues. When the Petitioner left the campus for what he believed would be the break (similar to the one they had taken the prior year), he was uncertain as to his employment status. In fact, when he left the campus he cleaned out his desk and returned his keys. Nevertheless, on July 26, 2002, Dr. Miller directed the Petitioner to present for work on July 29, 2002. He did not do so. On July 29, 2002, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor directed him to appear for work on July 30, 2002. He did not do so. In fact, the Petitioner did not return to the office until July 31, 2002. The Petitioner did not understand that his attendance was mandatory for the two days that he did not appear for work. When the Petitioner did check in with the HCOP office on the 31st he came to understand the gravity of the situation. As a result of the absences, the Respondent cited the Petitioner with insubordination and terminated his employment with MDC. The Petitioner timely challenged the termination but the Respondent ruled he was not entitled to an administrative review of the decision. The Petitioner filed for, and received, unemployment compensation. The termination was not justified by the standards applicable to that forum. The rules governing unemployment compensation do not, however, govern the administrative process regarding whether or not one's employment constitutes a property interest that is protected by law. Upon receipt of the Petitioner's petition seeking an administrative review, the Respondent declined to afford the Petitioner with a hearing. The Respondent does not forward petitions filed by non- contract employees when such individuals seek to challenge their termination of employment. The Respondent maintains that, as a matter of law, they are not required to forward such petitions for formal review. The Respondent does not have a written rule or policy stating that non-contract employees are not entitled to administrative review when their employment is terminated. Conversely, the Respondent does not have a written rule or policy stating that non-contract employees are entitled to an administrative review when their employment is terminated. The Petitioner was not a full-time, contract employee of the Respondent. The Respondent's policy affords full-time contractual personnel a right to an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to secure worker’s compensation coverage for seven employees who worked from February 28, 2006, to March 3, 2006, in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and whether, as a result, Petitioner should be assessed a penalty in the amount of $1,115.52.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation ("the Division"), is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers provide workers' compensation coverage for their employees. Subsection 440.107, Florida Statutes (2006). Petitioner, Boudreau Concrete, Inc. (BCI), was, at all relevant times, an employer and engaged in concrete construction work in Florida. John Cipyak is a vice president with Builders Plus, a Boynton Beach Company hired to work on a Westview Office Building Site, in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Builders Plus subcontracted with BCI to perform pre-concrete form carpentry work at the site, including construction of the foundation and panels into which the concrete slab would be poured. Near the end of February 2006, Mr. Cipyak told Mr. Boudreau that the Westview project was falling behind schedule and that BCI needed more laborers on the job. Mr. Cipyak testified that Mr. Boudreau specifically agreed that his company, BCI, would hire sufficient additional manpower and would not use subcontractors. That agreement was not reduced to writing. In response to the need for additional laborers, the Division claims that BCI violated the applicable statutes and the insurance code by hiring seven carpenters, who worked at the Westview site from February 27, 2006, through March 3, 2006, as employees of BCI without providing workers' compensation insurance coverage for them. The seven carpenters are Dimas Zelaya, Francisco Figueroa, Gerardo Nava, Hector Sevilla, Jeremias Martinez, Carlos Quevedo and Jesse Hernandez. BCI claims that the seven carpenters were employees of a subcontractor, J. A. J. Construction Company, owned by Jose Alfredo Jiminez, and that Mr. Jiminez, BCI believed, carried the required workers' compensation insurance. The arrangements to have the additional workers on the project were made during a telephone call between Mr. Boudreau, Mr. Jiminez and Mr. Zelaya, who got the other six men to come with him and once they reported to the job, served as a translator for them. On March 2, 2006, Lynn Cornelius, a manager with Woodland Construction Company, Inc. (“Woodland”), sent an e-mail to Thomas Puglis, of the Division, listing the names of seven former employees of Woodland who had left Woodland’s employment, on February 24, 2006, to work for a subcontractor on another project. He named the same seven people who started work on the Westview site on the following Monday, February 27, 2006. On March 3, 2006, Mr. Puglis and Lieutenant Vance Akins, both investigators for the Division, visited the construction site where the seven former Woodland employees were working. With the assistance of an interpreter over the telephone, because no Spanish speaker was available for the site visit, the investigators instructed the seven workers to fill out Spanish language questionnaires for public works contractor licensing, provided by St. Lucie County. The investigators also tape recorded a statement from the only one of the seven men who spoke some English, Dimas Zelaya, during which, at best, he could be understood to have recognized and identified a picture of Mr. Boudreau. Lieutenant Akins telephoned another Division investigator Robert Barnes from the work site. Mr. Barnes testified that he telephoned someone who identified himself as Todd Freeman, a BCI employee, from whom he got the name of William Yocum of First Financial Employee Leasing, Inc., as the leasing company that provided workers' compensation coverage for BCI. Although he had no personal knowledge about where the seven carpenters were working from February 27 through March 3, 2006, Mr. Yocum noted that they were not covered on the policy for BCI and that the failure of BCI to report the names of all of its employees to the leasing company would violate the agreement between those two companies. Mr. Boudreau, on behalf of BCI, wrote a check dated March 10, 2006, to J. A. J. Construction Services, Inc., for $3860.00, with the notation "7 men - 2/27-3/3." BCI had no evidence of a written agreement with J. A. J. and the compensation to J. A. J. was solely for the wages earned by the carpenters. The Division's case is essentially based on the inference, without corroborating evidence, that Mr. Boudreau fabricated the subcontractor relationship and furthered that deception by writing the check after he knew BCI was being investigated for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance. The Division based its assertion on the fact that Mr. Boudreau could not name the subcontractor during his first interviews by Mr. Barnes, saying that he was dealing with the subcontractor through Mr. Zelaya. The Division also presented evidence to demonstrate that the nature of the working relationship between BCI and the seven men was that of employer and employee, not independent contractors. That evidence was inconclusive. Although Mr. Boudreau kept their time sheets and personally supervised the work at the job site everyday from Monday through Thursday, with the assistance of Mr. Zelaya, as a translator, the carpenters brought their own tools and used materials and supplies provided by Builders Plus. The argument that J. A. J.'s role was administrative in nature is not convincing, since the same can be said of the leasing company, with which the Division asserted BCI should have obtained coverage. Mr. Barnes testified that he reviewed records of J. A. J., that someone from his office questioned Mr. Jiminez, and that they determined that the seven carpenters were not covered by J. A. J.'s workers' compensation policy during the time that they were working for Mr. Boudreau, based on some sworn statement made by Mr. Jiminez to the investigators. Mr. Jiminez did not appear as a witness in this case. The Division's investigator conceded that the Division did not determine whether or not the seven workers should have been on the J. A. J. policy. Mr. Zelaya testified that he spoke to Mr. Jiminez about getting more pay and understood that he would ". . . work with the license and insurance of Jose Jiminez. Mr. Boudreau was going to pay Jose and Jose was to pay me." Further, he stated that "Jose gets the workers, Jose makes a dollar off of the pay that we make. Mr. Boudreau was to give Jose a check, and Jose was to pay us, but Jose never paid us." Before he paid Mr. Jiminez, Mr. Boudreau requested and received from J. A. J. a workers' compensation policy, but that certificate of insurance was dated March 6, 2006, and did not appear to cover BCI for the prior week. At the same time, Mr. Boudreau added some of the workers to his own lease company policy, in an apparent attempt to continue the job, but was unable to do so after the stop work order was issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order rescinding the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 8th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Mary Morris, Esquire Morris & Morris, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 300 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether Respondent’s, State Board of Administration (Respondent or SBA), use of a telephonic hotline to allow eligible public employees to transfer their Florida Retirement System (FRS) assets from the FRS Pension Plan (Pension Plan) to the FRS Investment Plan (Investment Plan) constituted an “unadopted rule” in violation of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (2009), interpreting the statutory phrase “electronic means” found in Section 121.4501, Florida Statutes (2002).1 Whether the SBA’s interpretation of the statutory phrase “electronic means,” allowing FRS eligible public employees to enroll in the Investment Plan by telephone and without completing and/or signing any form, is within the powers, functions, and duties delegated to the SBA by the Florida Legislature, or exceeded the SBA’s statutory authority, and enlarged, modified, or contravened the specific provisions of Subsection 121.4501(4)(a), Florida Statutes, in violation of Subsections 120.52(8) and 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether Petitioner, Sharon R. Huberty (Petitioner or Huberty), is entitled to an award of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an employee of the Florida Department of Corrections and is assigned to the Hendry County Corrections Institute. Huberty has been employed as a corrections officer with the Florida Department of Corrections since 1997 and was so employed as a corrections officer in 2002. Huberty is substantially affected by the SBA’s interpretation of the term “electronic means” in Subsection 121.4501(4)(a)1.a., Florida Statutes. When Huberty petitioned the SBA to return her to the FRS Pension Plan without penalty, the SBA responded that Huberty had effected a valid election to switch from the Pension Plan into the Investment Plan. As a result of Huberty’s enrollment into the Investment Plan, Huberty has lost substantial pension and retirement benefits to which she would otherwise have been entitled under the FRS Pension Plan. As such, Huberty is substantially affected by the SBA’s interpretation and application of Subsection 121.4501(4)(a)1.a., Florida Statutes, and has standing to petition for a determination that the SBA’s interpretation and application of Subsection 121.4501(4)(a)1.a., Florida Statutes, is an invalid unadopted rule. The agency affected by Huberty’s rule challenge is the SBA. In the summer of 2002, state employees became eligible to enroll in the newly created Public Employees Optional Retirement Program (PEORP) known as the “Investment Plan.” The Investment Plan is a defined contribution plan. The member bears the risk of loss of the investments he or she chooses. In contrast, the existing Pension Plan is a defined benefit plan, wherein retirement benefits are calculated based upon a fixed formula, not the performance of the investments, which are selected by the state. Thus, the state, not the member, bears the risk of loss of the Pension Plan investments. Section 121.4501, Florida Statutes, describes the standards by which the SBA must administer PEORP or Investment Plan. Subsection 121.4501(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: 1. With respect to an eligible employee who is employed in a regularly established position on June 1, 2002, by a state employer: a. Any such employee may elect to participate in the Public Employee Optional Retirement Program in lieu of retaining his or her membership in the defined benefit program of the Florida Retirement System. The election must be made in writing or by electronic means and must be filed with the third-party administrator by August 31, 2002, or within 90 days after the conclusion of the leave of absence whichever is later. This election is irrevocable, except as provided in paragraph (e). . . . Thus, state employees electing to transfer from the Pension Plan into the Investment Plan must do so “in writing or by electronic means.” Further, the election must be “filed” with the third-party administrator. Following the adoption into law of Section 121.4501, Florida Statutes, under the auspices of Subsection 121.4501(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes, the SBA adopted a form (“MyFRS Your Plan Choice Form”), which FRS-eligible public employees could complete in order to elect the transfer of their FRS retirement assets out of the elector’s Pension Plan into the Investment Plan. This form was made available to FRS-eligible public employees as a paper version and as an electronic version on the MyFRS.com website. Under the provisions of Subsection 121.4501(4)(a)1., Florida Statutes, the SBA also implemented a telephone hotline (the “MyFRS Guidance Line”), which allowed for FRS-eligible public employees to effect a “first enrollment” into the Investment Plan by transferring their FRS retirement assets out of their Pension Plans into private equity accounts managed under the Investment Plan. The SBA contracted with a third party for the administration of the telephone hotline and the administration of the Investment Plan. Thus, during the 2002 “initial election” enrollment period, the SBA implemented three ways for a Pension Plan member to elect to join the Investment Plan: (1) by submitting a hard copy of the MyFRS Your Plan Choice Form, (2) by logging into the MyFRS.com website and completing the MyFRS Your Plan Choice Form electronically, or (3) by calling the MyFRS Financial Guidance Line and enrolling verbally over the telephone. In August 2002, Huberty sought to transfer her retirement assets from the Pension Plan to the Investment Plan. Huberty’s deadline to elect membership in the Investment Plan was August 31, 2002. At that time, the SBA utilized the telephone hotline as an alternate procedure by which to “enroll” FRS eligible public employees into the Investment Plan. Huberty’s initial election to transfer into the FRS Investment Plan was made orally by telephone to the third-party administrator on August 27, 2002. The SBA did not, thereafter, require Huberty to complete or sign any form following her “election” to transfer into the Investment Plan by telephone and no form was “filed” with the third-party administrator. Following her “election” to transfer into the Investment Plan by telephone, Huberty did not complete any form that met the requirements of former Florida Administrative Code Rule 19-10.001, 19-10.002, or 19-10.003, which were in effect at the time of Huberty’s election. Former Florida Administrative Code Rule 19- 10.001(2)(d), in effect at the time of Huberty’s election to transfer into the Investment Plan, stated: “‘Effective enrollment in PEORP’ means that the employee has completed the enrollment form; that the TPA [third-party administrator] has entered the employee into its recordkeeping system; and that the TAP has informed the division and the employee’s employer of the employee’s effective date of enrollment in PEORP.” However, the FRS telephone hotline by which FRS- eligible public employees “enrolled” into the Investment Plan did not require that the employee complete an enrollment form in order to effect the transfer of their Pension Plan assets into the Investment Plan. The FRS-eligible employee’s “election” was recorded by the third-party operator during the telephone call, and the FRS-eligible employee’s “election” was thus entered into the third-party administrator’s recordkeeping system. Former Florida Administrative Code Rule 19- 10.001(3)(a)6., in effect at the time of Huberty’s election to transfer into the Investment Plan, stated: “It shall be the TPA’s obligation to ensure that the form in toto is complete and more particularly that the election is clearly indicated.” The MyFRS telephone hotline used to enroll FRS- eligible public employees into the Investment Plan did not require that the third-party administrator ensure that a “form in toto” was complete, as FRS-eligible employees using the telephone hotline were not required to complete a form. Former Florida Administrative Code Rule 19- 10.001(3)(b), in effect at the time of Huberty’s election to transfer into the Investment Plan, stated: “Upon receipt of the completed form by the TPA, the TPA enrolls the employee in the PEORP.” The MyFRS telephone hotline used to enroll FRS- eligible public employees into the Investment Plan did not require that the third-party administrator receive “completed form[s]” from the employee before the SBA enrolled the employee into the Investment Plan. The SBA did not formally “adopt” the MyFRS Guidance Line as a rule, and there were no rules of the SBA in effect at the time of Huberty’s “election” to transfer her FRS assets into the Investment Plan that described the process by which the telephone hotline would be created or administered. Thus, the SBA’s policy and practice of allowing FRS-eligible employees to elect to transfer into the Investment Plan by telephone is an unadopted rule.
