Findings Of Fact Respondent, Avenel Cesaire, holds commercial driving school instructor's certificate number 6027. Respondent, Avenel Cesaire d/b/a Cesaire's Driving School, holds commercial driving school license 2256. Respondent's chauffeur license number C260-000-53-363-459 is currently under suspension. Each license was issued by the Department. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a driving instructor and engaged in the business of instructing persons in the safe operation of motor vehicles so they might be licensed by the State of Florida. During October and November 1984, former driver license examiner Mary Louise Smith (Smith), at the insistence and request of Respondent, issued driver licenses to Respondent's students without them having passed the required written or oral examination. Ms. Smith and Respondent were intimate. Ms. Smith first met Respondent at her place of employment: the Department's driver license examination station at 3095 Northwest 79th Street, Miami, Florida (the station). The parties began dating in June 1984 and continued to date until late November 1984, when she was discharged from her employment. During the course of their relationship, Respondent gave Ms. Smith $50-100, as frequently as twice a week. Prior to his students reporting to the station for testing, Respondent provided Ms. Smith with the names, and identification, of those students who needed "assistance." Ms. Smith issued or caused to be issued, driver licenses to such students without examination or, if examined, without regard to their failure to pass the examination. By aiding or assisting persons in obtaining driver's licenses without having first demonstrated their knowledge of the skills mandated by Section 322.12, Florida Statutes, and Rule 15A-1.12, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent caused to be licensed persons not deemed competent to operate motor vehicles upon the roads of the State of Florida. Such acts constituted a clear and serious danger to the public health, safety and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order permanently revoking Respondent's commercial driving school license number 2256 and commercial driving instructor's certificate card number 6027. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Suzanne H. Printy, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric William Hendon, Esquire 8011 Northwest 22nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 Leonard R. Mellon, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for alleged acts involving moral turpitude, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1) (c), Florida Statutes (2003).1 Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for being convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or other criminal charge, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for a plea guilty or a decision of guilt in any court, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(2), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for failure to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(5)(a). Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for submitting fraudulent information on a document in connection with professional activities, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(h).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carolyn Stewart, holds Florida Educator Certificate 747243, covering the area of Guidance and Counseling, which was valid through June 30, 2005. Respondent was employed as a guidance counselor at Sea Breeze Elementary School, in the Manatee County School District, during the 2003/2004 school year, until she resigned sometime in the fall of 2003. On or after October 1, 2003, Respondent was arrested and charged with two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to those charges, both third degree felonies, in the Circuit Court for Manatee County, Florida, Case Nos. 2003-CF-3150 and 2003-CF-4094, on May 18, 2004. Adjudication was withheld, and Respondent was sentenced to credit for time served in the county jail, court costs, and facility fee. On or about March 18, 2004, following the issuance of an Information, Respondent was arrested and charged with the felony offense of filing fraudulent insurance claims, between October 1, 1999, and September 12, 2003, with her employer, the Manatee County School Board. Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendre to the charge of filing fraudulent insurance claims for less that $20,000, a third degree felony, in the Circuit Court for Manatee County, in Case No. 2004-CF-1067, on May 24, 2005. Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years probation. On April 15, 2004, Respondent was charged, by Information, with the offense of Poisoning Food or Water of Michael Skoyec, which occurred between August 31, 2003, and/or September 1, 2003. Respondent pled not guilty to the charge, a first degree felony, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial before the Circuit Court for Manatee County, Case No. 2004-CF- 1787. Prior to the trial, the State Attorney amended the Information by adding a second count, charging Respondent with Attempted Second Degree Murder, a second degree felony. Following the trial which concluded on February 11, 2005, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the first count, Poisoning Food and Water, and a verdict of guilty on the lesser count included offense of Battery (a first degree misdemeanor), as to the second Count. At the sentencing hearing on April 19, 2005, Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 15 years in the custody of the Department of Corrections, and costs, followed by five years' probation. Respondent was committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections on April 19, 2005, and is at present serving her sentence in the Gadsden Correctional Institution. Following her conviction and sentence, Respondent appealed her convictions to the Second District Court of Appeal. The conviction was affirmed on March 3, 2006, and the Mandate issued on May 18, 2006. In each of the criminal cases in which she entered a plea of guilty or no contest, Respondent, through her attorney, stipulated that there was a factual basis for the charge, or the facts were stated on the record for the court to determine the factual basis. Following these incidents, Respondent resigned her position with the Manatee School District in the fall of 2003. There was adverse publicity in the newspaper about the charges against Respondent, including the poisoning charge. There was no dispute that as a result of these incidents Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously, if not totally, reduced. The honesty of educators is relied upon by administrators. Respondent's actions, including her fraudulent acts, prevented administrators from relying on her honesty. Fellow employees rely on an educator's honesty, and Respondent's actions similarly prevent that reliance in the future. On October 18, 2004, Respondent was charged by Information, with one felony count of falsifying records, on September 22, 2003, of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). She entered a plea of no contest, was adjudicated guilty, and placed on five years' probation for that offense on May 24, 2005. Although the avenue of direct appeal of her conviction has been exhausted, Respondent has retained legal counsel to explore the possibility of filing post-conviction relief in the courts in regard to those charges, where she has been adjudicated guilty by the court. Although Respondent acknowledged that grounds existed to revoke her teaching certificate, she testified that she was very good at what she did as a guidance counselor and desired the opportunity to seek reinstatement of her teaching certificate in the future. Respondent offered no evidence to support this assertion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: A final order be issued finding that Respondent did violate the provisions of Subsections 1012.795(1) (c), (e) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6b- 1.006(5) (a), and (h). Count 4 of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. If is further RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of January, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Teaching Certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Petitioner presented the testimony of Linda Rondone, Jane E. Vowell, Susan C. Vassilev, Kyril P. Vassilev, III and Johnny B. McKenzie. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-5 were admitted in evidence. Official recognition, pursuant to Section 90.202, Florida Statutes, was taken of the statutes and violations charged in the case of State of Florida v. Jeffrey Siegfried, 85-1568 MMA02, and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, Section 6B--1.01, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent, Jeffrey W. Siegfried, failed to appear for the formal hearing despite notice to him personally and to his former counsel who was granted leave to withdraw. Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent held Teaching Certificate Number 440229, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. The Respondent's Teaching Certificate covers the areas of English and Reading. On or about June 13, 1978, the Respondent applied for a teaching certificate for the State of Florida. The Respondent filled out the application and answered "No" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" The Respondent signed the application in front of a notary on June 13, 1978, certifying that all information pertaining to the application was true and correct. Petitioner presented charging documents from the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, in which the Respondent was charged with three crimes alleged to have occurred on June 7, 1975, to wit: Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance, Corruption of Minors and Disorderly Conduct. Further, the documents indicated that the Respondent was sentenced on December 4, 1975, to the Program of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition on the charges of Possession of Marijuana and Corruption of Minors. The program involved a twenty four (24) month probationary period and payment of $350.00 restitution. The charge of Disorderly Conduct was nolle prossed. On July 20, 1979, the Respondent filled out an Application of Instructional Position for Palm Beach County, Florida. The Respondent in said application again made no mention of his criminal history. He again checked off "No" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" The Respondent signed the application certifying that all the answers given were true. In the fall of 1980, the Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School District. On January 24, 1986, an Information was filed in the County Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, charging the Respondent with Possession of Marijuana on January 15, 1985 and Child Abuse on December 23, 1984. Susan C. Vassilev, mother of Kyril Vassilev, testified that she had been friends with the Respondent for 3 or 4 years preceding December of 1984. Throughout their acquaintance, the Respondent was employed as a full time teacher for the Palm Beach County School Board. Mrs. Vassilev's son, Kyril, occasionally did yard work and odd jobs for the Respondent. On December 23rd of 1984, Mrs. Vassilev reminded her son about a Christmas Eve dinner invitation at the Respondent's house. He answered her, "No, I'm not going there. He's a fag. I don't want anything to do with him." Mrs. Vassilev than testified as to what her son told her which was again reiterated by her son when he testified later in the hearing. In November and December, 1984, Kyril Vassilev was thirteen (13) years old. He had met the Respondent through his mother and knew the Respondent to be a teacher in Palm Beach County. Kyril went to the Respondent's house in late November or early December of 1984 to do some yard work for the Respondent. The Respondent picked Kyril up and while in the Respondent's van, the Respondent suggested that he knew a way for Kyril to earn a lot of money and only work two hours a day, 2 or 3 times a week. After Kyril mowed the Respondent's yard, he came into the Respondent's house for a drink. He asked the Respondent how he could make such easy money. The Respondent told him it was called child pornography and explained that it involved Kyril posing for nude photographs. The Respondent showed Kyril photographs of a nude boy in a magazine and claimed that he had helped the boy earn money by arranging for him to pose nude. Kyril told the Respondent that he wasn't interested and went back outside to continue staining the backyard fence. After a while, Kyril went back inside for another drink. The Respondent at that point told Kyril that the photographers had called and were willing to pay him $200.00 for posing nude. Kyril again told the Respondent that he was not interested. After finishing work, Kyril again came into the house and the Respondent told him the photographers had called again and upped the price to $500.00. Kyril told the Respondent no again. The Respondent sent Kyril to buy camera film at Eckerds. Kyril testified that he was afraid, but he went and got the film and brought it back. Again the Respondent asked Kyril if he would reconsider. Kyril, again, declined. Before Kyril left, the Respondent informed him that he couldn't tell his mother or anyone else. The Respondent told Kyril that he need not worry about his mother finding out, because the Respondent would open a secret bank account for him, where he could keep the money. Before leaving for the day, Kyril testified that, the Respondent told him "they" had called and were now willing to pay up to $1,000. The Respondent took Kyril home and enroute again tried to talk him into posing nude. Kyril again declined. The Respondent indicated that Kyril could make even more money doing things with other boys in front of the camera. Kyril was waiting until after Christmas to tell his mother, but because of the invitation to the Respondent's residence for Christmas Eve dinner, he decided to tell his mother on December 24, 1984. Mrs. Vassilev confronted the Respondent with her son's allegations and he claimed to be working undercover for school security to infiltrate a child pornography ring. Johnny B. McKenzie testified that as Director of Security for Palm Beach School Board that he had no knowledge of the Respondent working for school security. On July 11, 1985, the Respondent pled no contest to Count I, Possession of Marijuana less than 20 grams and Count II, Child Abuse. Judge Karen Martin, County Court Judge in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, withheld adjudication as to Count I and adjudicated the Respondent guilty of Count II. The Respondent was placed on twelve (12) months probation with special conditions that he: (1) make no contact with any child under the age of 18 years without another adult being present; (2) make no contact with the mother of the victim and/or the victim, himself; (3) undergo substance abuse evaluation and treatment if needed; and, (4) undergo psychological evaluation and counseling if needed. Ms. Jane E. Vowell, then acting as Assistant Superintendent, testified that on or about January 17, 1985, the Respondent was called into her office and she informed him of the charges against him, and told him that she would recommend to the Superintendent that he be suspended with pay and given an opportunity to resign. The Respondent resigned on February 4, 1985. Ms. Vowell testified that the Respondent's teaching certificate should be permanently revoked because he lacked the moral character needed to be a teacher responsible for children. On March 6, 1985, the Respondent submitted an Application for Instructional Position to the Broward County School Board. The Respondent again answered "No" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" He again signed the application certifying that all the information given on the application was true and correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking the teaching certificate of Jeffrey W. Siegfried. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2020 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Proposed findings of fact 1-33 are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1-33. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Street, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey W. Siegfried Post Office Box 172 Truro, Massachusetts 02666 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Virtual School's intended decision to award a contract, challenged by All Florida Safety Institute, LLC, is contrary to Florida Virtual School's governing statutes, rules, policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Virtual was created by statute to develop and deliver online distance learning in the State of Florida. § 1002.37, Fla. Stat. Florida Virtual is governed by a board of trustees appointed by the Governor. § 1002.37(2), Fla. Stat. Florida Virtual issued the RFP on October 14, 2019, seeking responses from qualified proposers interested in providing hands-on, "Behind the 1 On April 20, 2020, Petitioner filed exceptions to the proposed recommended orders submitted by the other parties. These exceptions were filed at DOAH, before the Recommended Order was issued. Exceptions to proposed recommended orders are not authorized by statute or rule and have not been considered. Wheel" driver education courses to Florida Virtual's driver education students. Florida Virtual received proposals from two qualified vendors, All Florida and United Safety Council, the current Behind the Wheel course provider. The RFP established the following scoring criteria: Criteria No. Step 1: Main Criteria Description Weight 1. Compliance 10% 2. Qualifications, Experience of Team Members and References 24% 3. Contractor Methodology 20% 4. Demonstrated Ability to Meet or Exceed Stated Requirements and Responses to Questionnaire 25% 5. Price Proposal 20% 6. Acceptance of Invoice Payments via FLVS Visa Purchasing Card 1% TOTAL 100% The six categories were to be scored using a 1 to 20 scale. The contract was to be awarded to the respondent that received the highest total weighted score. The RFP required that the proposals be scored by the Proposal Evaluation Committee (Committee). Florida Virtual appointed four of its employees to serve on the Committee: Debbie Adams, the instructional leader over Florida Virtual's driver education program; Janet Conway, an accounting manager; Martin Kelly, the senior director of curriculum development; and Kevin Locke, the director of project management. On November 14, 2019, the Committee met at a public meeting to score the proposals. The meeting was audio-recorded. Ms. Conway, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Locke were physically present at the meeting. Ms. Adams attended the meeting remotely with an audio connection. Karen Stolarenko is Florida Virtual's senior solicitation specialist. Ms. Stolarenko and her supervisor, Nathaniel Askew, facilitated the Committee's deliberation at the public meeting as representatives of Florida Virtual's procurement department. One or more representatives of United Safety Council attended the public meeting and observed the Committee's deliberations. All Florida was aware of the public meeting but did not send a representative to attend. The proposals were provided to the Committee before the meeting for review, but the scoring was done at the public meeting. The evaluators' individual scores were tabulated at the conclusion of the public meeting. Ms. Adams gave All Florida the highest weighted score, but the other three evaluators all gave United Safety Council the highest weighted score. United Safety Council had the higher total weighted score of 72.40, compared to All Florida's total weighted score of 70.48. At the conclusion of the public meeting, the Committee voted unanimously to award the contract to United Safety Council as the respondent receiving the highest total weighted score. PROTEST GROUNDS Class A v. Class E License Requirements for Instructors Section A.2(1) of the RFP includes the following minimum requirement for instructors: Class A license with a refresher every five (5) years or retest required as a result of passing examinations and road test approved by Bureau of Driver Education prior to issuance of certificate. Must possess 3 years of experience with a Class A CDL and no conviction on record within the last five years in order to be qualified. A Class A license is a commercial driver's license that is unrelated to the driver education course sought by the RFP. Although there was no testimony directly on point, Florida Virtual essentially conceded that the RFP's reference to a Class A license was an error. All Florida did not protest the RFP's Class A license requirements after the RFP was issued, to argue those requirements make no sense for the services sought by the RFP. Instead, it committed in its proposal to meet all qualifications for a Class E license, the license sought by students who attend the Behind the Wheel driver education course. While this is a logical response to what appears to be an error in the RFP, it was risky because it did not comply with the letter of the RFP. United Safety Council took the safe route, responding by confirming that its instructors would meet the requirements of section A.2(1). At the public meeting, before the proposals were scored, Ms. Adams (the instruction leader for Florida Virtual's driver education program) told the other evaluators that a Class A license was inapplicable to the course services sought in the RFP. No evidence was presented to prove that any evaluator scored All Florida lower because it committed to meet Class E—as opposed to Class A—license requirements for instructors. Committee's Deliberation at the Public Meeting At the conclusion of the public meeting, the evaluators were allowed to take a break and move around the room while their scores were handed to Ms. Stolarenko to be tabulated. The break was approximately 20 minutes long. This break was not recorded, but was not required to be under any governing statute, rule, policy, or RFP specification. Following this break to tabulate the scores, there was an interruption of the recording of the meeting. When the audio recording resumed, Ms. Stolarenko can be heard stating: This is Karen Stolarenko, November 14th 2019, 3:24 p.m. We are reconvening to go over the scores and rankings for the Behind the Wheel Driver Education RFP. Our network went down, and we did have our prior recording interrupted. So there will be two separate recording sessions for today's meeting. I'll do a quick—since we did have an interruption just do a quick roll call so everybody knows who is in the room. Thereafter, the evaluators can be heard on the audio recording confirming their unanimous recommendation to award the contract to United Safety Council as the highest-ranked respondent, a decision consistent with the tabulation of the evaluators' score sheets and the RFP's award specifications. There is no evidence that the interruption in the audio recording was intentional or in bad faith, or that it violated any governing statute, rule, policy, or specification of the RFP. The meeting was public; there is no evidence that anyone was excluded from this portion of the meeting. All Florida could have sent one or more representatives to attend the meeting but chose not to. Corrections to Evaluator Scoresheets The evaluators were provided individual scoresheets to record their scores. The evaluators who attended the meeting in person—Mr. Locke, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Conway—were provided paper scoresheets and pens to handwrite their scores. Ms. Adams, who attended the meeting remotely, was provided a digital scoresheet and typed her scores. Mr. Kelly's scoresheet included two scores that were scratched out and rewritten. Under the category labeled "Compliance," Mr. Kelly's final rewritten score for All Florida was 19. Under the same category for United Safety Council, Mr. Kelly's final, rewritten score was 18. Mr. Kelly testified that he scratched out his original scores and replaced them with the rewritten final numbers listed above. He further testified that he could not recall why he scratched out the original scores before turning in his scorecard to Ms. Stolarenko other than that he changed his mind. Mr. Kelly's testimony was credible and is accepted here. Ms. Conway testified that she initially erred in the manner in which she scored the proposals; that is, she assigned scores based upon the total weight instead of using the 1 to 20 scale she should have applied to score the respondents for each of the six categories. For example, the "Compliance" category was weighted 10 percent, and Ms. Conway mistakenly applied a 1 to 10 scale (instead of a 1 to 20 scale) when initially scoring this category. She made the same mistake for both respondents. Ms. Stolarenko brought this error to Ms. Conway's attention when she handed in her scoresheet for tabulation at the public meeting. Ms. Conway testified that she corrected the error in her scoresheets without changing the intent behind her original scoring. Two of the categories required no alteration, because they were weighted 20 percent, and Ms. Conway therefore applied the correct 1 to 20 scale when she originally scored those categories. Ms. Conway's testimony was credible and is accepted here. Ms. Conway did not change the intent behind her original scores when she corrected her scores to apply the correct 1 to 20 scale, and this correction did not disadvantage All Florida or provide a competitive advantage to United Safety Council in any way. In fact, Ms. Conway's correction to her score sheet was required to comply with the RFP's specifications on the evaluation of responses. Evaluator Comment Regarding Tesla Fleet All Florida committed to include new Tesla vehicles in its fleet for the Behind the Wheel student drivers' use. When this commitment was discussed by the Committee, Evaluator Mr. Kelly can be heard on the audio recording making a statement that sounds like "[w]hat a bunch of idiots." All Florida argues that this comment shows bias against it and that it caused the other evaluators to view its proposal through a negative lens. That was not proven here. Mr. Kelly testified that he did not recall making the "idiots" comment, but that it sounds like something he might have said because he recalled thinking it was "silly to give those types of cars, that are quite expensive," to student drivers.2 Mr. Kelly went on to testify that his opinion regarding All Florida's Tesla commitment had no bearing on his scoring. Mr. Kelly's testimony was credible and is accepted. Although Mr. Kelly could have chosen better words to express himself, the use of the term "idiots" in this context does not suggest that he was biased. The other evaluators denied hearing Mr. Kelly's "idiots" comment; there is no evidence that this comment influenced any of the scores the other evaluators assigned to All Florida. Qualification and Experience Scores All Florida contends that the evaluators failed to consider the "real numbers" of teen drivers served by All Florida as compared to those served by United Safety Council when they scored the respondents in the category for "Qualifications, Experience of Team Members and References." All Florida offered no evidence to support this protest ground. The evaluators testified at the final hearing but were not questioned on this issue. United Safety Council failed to prove that the scores assigned by the evaluators for "Qualifications, Experience of Team Members and References" were arbitrary or capricious. United Safety Council's Proposal Irregularities Section B.1 of the RFP, entitled "Respondent Questionnaire," contains 14 questions the respondents were instructed to answer in their proposals. United Safety Council's proposal included answers to questions 1 through 5 but omitted the answers to questions 6 through 14. All Florida's proposal included answers to the entire questionnaire. United Safety Council's omission caught Ms. Stolarenko's attention; at the public meeting, she advised the evaluators that United Safety Council 2 The audio recording of this comment from Mr. Kelly is very faint and difficult to hear. But given Mr. Kelly's testimony that it "sounds like something he might have said," the inference is that he did make the "idiots" comment. failed to answer questions 6 through 14. Most, but not all, of the information answering questions 6 through 14 can be found elsewhere in United Safety Council's proposal. Ms. Stolarenko correctly advised the evaluators that they were to score United Safety Council's proposal based on the information contained in its proposal. The RFP required the respondents to consecutively number all pages of the proposal. United Safety Council did not consecutively number all pages of the proposal. All Florida does not allege that United Safety Council's proposal should have been deemed non-responsive—and thus ineligible for a contract award—due to these proposal irregularities.3 Instead, All Florida alleges that it should have received a higher score because its proposal did not contain the same deficiencies. All Florida failed to prove that the evaluators' scores were arbitrary or capricious because United Safety Council received overall higher weighted scores, notwithstanding these two irregularities in its proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Florida Virtual School dismissing the protest of All Florida Safety Institute, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRIAN A. NEWMAN 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 4th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jeffrey D'Agata, General Counsel Florida Virtual School 2145 Metrocenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32835 (eServed) Samuel P. Garrison, Esquire Bradley, Garrison & Komando, P.A. 1279 Kingsley Avenue Orange Park, Florida 32073-4603 (eServed) Jessica Beecham, Board Clerk Florida Virtual School 2145 Metrocenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32835 Keith A. Graham, Esquire Marchena & Graham, P.A. 976 Lake Baldwin Lane, Suite 101 Orlando, Florida 32814 (eServed) Shannan Collier Stalvey, Esquire The Law Office of Shannan S. Collier, P.C. 100 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Dr. Barbara M. Jenkins, Superintendent Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Orlando, Florida 32801-0271
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Dennis G. Hair, Respondent, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission) on December 1, 1979, and issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 90968. At all times relevant to this proceeding Respondent was employed as a sergeant with the Palmetto Police Department. Jennifer Devers first met Respondent while she was employed at a Mobile Station that was frequented by Respondent. Over time Ms. Devers and Respondent developed a casual platonic relationship. Both Ms. Devers and Respondent often made sexually oriented jokes with each other. However, there was never any sexual contact between them, nor did Ms. Dever indicate that there ever would be such contact. To the contrary, Ms. Devers specifically told Respondent there never would be any sexual contact between them. In or about April 1994, Ms. Devers was dating an officer employed by the Palmetto Police Department. About this time Respondent began paying an inordinate amount of attention to the daily personal business of Ms. Devers, by parking near her apartment and observing people who visited her apartment, noting their arrival and departure times. In or about April 1994, Respondent’s conversations with Ms. Devers started to increase in vulgarity. Moreover, Respondent’s comments implied that he believed Ms. Dever was sexually involved with another police officer and, consequently, she should be available to Respondent. In or about April or May 1994, when Ms. Devers was working at the Mobile Station and Respondent was at the station, Ms. Devers received a phone call from a third party with whom she was romantically involved. During the telephone conversation, the person terminated his relationship with Ms. Dever. After the call was completed, Ms. Devers was very distraught. Respondent hugged Ms. Devers in what she perceived to be an effort to comfort her. This hug was with her permission. During the hug, Respondent lowered his hands on Ms. Devers body and began to rub his body against her in a sexual manner. This part of the embrace was offensive to Ms. Devers and was done without her permission. However, at the time, due to her emotional state about the break-up of her romantic relationship with a third party, she did not focus on Respondent’s conduct and said nothing to him about it. In or about April or May 1994, while dressed in his police uniform and on duty, Respondent, entered the Mobil Station when Ms. Devers was there working. Respondent and Ms. Devers had a conversation during which Respondent asked Ms. Devers if her breasts were real. When she responded affirmatively, Respondent told her to prove it. Ms. Devers said no in an emphatic manner. Almost immediately thereafter, Respondent “grabbed” Ms. Devers’ breasts and squeezed them. This touching by Respondent was unexpected, unwelcome, and offensive to Ms. Devers, and was done without her permission. Respondent’s actions surprised and shocked Ms. Devers, and were a source of distress for her. Ms. Devers did not attempt to defend herself or confront Respondent about his touching and squeezing her breasts. Because Respondent was in uniform and on duty of the time of the incident, Ms. Devers felt especially intimidated and afraid. Initially, Ms. Devers was reluctant to officially report the touching incident involving Respondent because she was afraid that no one would believe her. Moreover, Ms. Devers was afraid that she might lose her job because Respondent was a friend of her boss and that Respondent might retaliate against her. Approximately two or three weeks after the incident involving Respondent’s touching Ms. Devers' breasts, she confided in two people, both officers with the Palmetto Police Department, on separate occasions and asked for their advice on how to proceed. Shortly after discussing the matter with these officers, on or about May 14, 1994, Ms. Devers filed a police report on this incident. Kenneth Bright, then a detective with the Palmetto Police Department, was assigned to investigate the incident involving Respondent and Ms. Devers. During the initial stage of the investigation, Ms. Devers agreed with Detective Bright to have a conversation with Respondent, while using a recording device, in an effort to verify that the second touching incident had occurred. On or about May 24, 1994, Ms. Dever went to an area grocery store where Respondent was working a security detail. At that time, unbeknown to Respondent, Ms. Dever had a recording device on her person. At one point during the conversation, Respondent admitted that he touched her breasts and further stated that he would grab her breasts anytime he thought he would not be slapped for doing so. The State Attorney's Office filed criminal charges against Respondent for two counts of simple battery, based on the two incidents involving Respondent’s touching Ms. Devers. Respondent pled nolo contendere to both counts of simple battery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order revoking the law enforcement certificate of Respondent, Dennis G. Hair.DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy J. Bardill Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Dennis G. Hair, Pro Se 1910 49th Avenue East Bradenton, Florida 34203 Michael Ramage General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice, Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by refusing to comply with repeated requests from a law enforcement officer, who then arrested Respondent for resisting an officer without violence and disorderly intoxication.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held Florida educator certificate 642187, which covers the area of welding. At the time of the alleged incident, the Miami-Dade School District employed Respondent as a welding instructor at Miami Lakes Technical School. On April 3, 1998, Respondent left school at the conclusion of his work day, which was about 3:10 p.m. He drove to a nearby restaurant at a strip mall to have lunch. He arrived at the restaurant at about 3:25 p.m. He consumed his lunch inside the restaurant, which was owned by a friend. About an hour after arriving at the restaurant, Respondent departed. He overheard the owner's wife telephoning the police about a disturbance in the parking area, although Respondent never saw any commotion. Respondent stood outside of the restaurant talking with the restaurant owner and a couple of friends. In a few moments, a police car entered the parking lot, and two police officers exited the car. One of the officers approached Respondent and his friends, who were standing just outside the restaurant. The other officer approached a small group of men, who had congregated a short distance from the restaurant. However, these men, who had been consuming beer, ran away at the approach of the officer. As the other officer approached Respondent's group, she demanded to see identification. The owner said that he worked at the restaurant and went back inside. Respondent and his two other friends produced identification. Respondent's identification was his school identification badge that he was still wearing around his neck. When the officer demanded additional identification, Respondent replied that his driver's license was in the glove compartment of his car. Some disagreement between Respondent and the officer ensued over who would get the license. At some point, the officer obtained the driver's license and ran checks on all three men. Possibly while the background checks were being processed, the police officer demanded to know what the three men had been talking about. Respondent refused to tell her, saying only that it had been a personal conversation and that he had rights. Eventually, the officers ordered Respondent and his friends to move from the vicinity of the restaurant. Respondent refused to do so. A heated exchange followed between the officers and Respondent, who offered his hands in a gesture of submitting to handcuffing, if the officers wanted to arrest him. The officers never intended to arrest Respondent, but, given his recalcitrance, they decided to go ahead and do so. They charged him with resisting arrest without violence and disorderly intoxication. The charges were later dropped after Respondent completed an anger-management course. The evidence fails to establish that Respondent had consumed any alcoholic beverages on the day of the incident. Respondent's principal testified at the hearing. Following the incident, the principal conducted a conference for the record and required Respondent to report to his office once weekly until July and inform the principal of the disposition of the criminal case. The principal testified that Respondent is vocal, but not belligerent, although he may seem to be so to persons who do not know him. The principal also testified that Respondent's behavior did not rise to gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 22nd day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mark Herdman Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent Agency is a Florida-licensed (Class "A" license number A88- 00297 private investigative agency. Respondent Foreman is the owner of the Agency. He is a Florida-licensed (Class "C" license number C00-02486) private investigator. He has been licensed for approximately the past 20 years. At no time during the period of his licensure has the Department taken any disciplinary action against him. At around 10:00 a.m. on the morning of September 30, 1994, Foreman interrupted his work schedule to drive a male tenant living in an apartment that he owned (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenant") to the Henderson Mental Health Clinic, an outpatient mental health facility located in Broward County, Florida. The Tenant needed to receive treatment at the clinic. After parking his vehicle, Foreman escorted the Tenant to the reception area of the facility. Foreman was wearing a gun belt and a holster. A loaded firearm was encased in the holster. It was a warm day and Foreman did not have on a jacket. 2/ Consequently, the holstered firearm was in plain view. At the time, Foreman had a Department-issued Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License, but he did not have a Class "G" Statewide Firearm Permit. 3/ Detective Joel Maney of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was working a uniformed off-duty security detail at Henderson Mental Health Clinic that morning. From his position behind the reception counter, Detective Maney observed Foreman enter the reception area with the Tenant and noticed that Foreman was carrying a firearm. Not wanting to cause a disturbance inside the facility, Detective Maney did not immediately confront Foreman. He did, however, monitor Foreman's activity. After informing the receptionist that the Tenant had arrived and was waiting to be seen, Foreman left the facility. Detective Maney followed Foreman outside. As Foreman was walking on the sidewalk toward his vehicle, Detective Maney approached him and asked for identification. Foreman responded to the request by stating that he was a detective/investigator and that he did not have time to talk inasmuch as he was in the middle of an investigation. Eventually, Foreman produced his Florida driver license, his Class "C" Private Investigator License, and his Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License for Detective Maney. He also showed Detective Maney a five-pointed, star-shaped badge. In the center of the badge was a replica of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. The words, "Special Investigator Foreman Investigative," were inscribed around the seal. When Detective Maney first saw the badge, he thought it was a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge because of its shape and because it bore the Great Seal of the State of Florida. Unlike a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge, however, Foreman's badge did not have a map of Florida superimposed on the seal. Moreover, the written inscription on the badge was different than that found on a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge. Throughout the period that he has been licensed, Foreman has used this badge as a means of identifying himself in connection with the performance of his duties as a private investigator.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent Foreman committed the violations alleged in Counts II and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, disciplining Respondent Foreman him for having committed these violations by imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 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 12th day of October, 1995.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (“Petitioner”) may properly terminate its contract with Perotte Driving and Traffic School, Inc. (“Respondent”), on the basis of failure to comply with the provisions of the contract, pursuant to section 322.56(3)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the State agency authorized to enter into contracts with driving schools to administer driving and skills portions of examinations for driver licenses, pursuant to section 322.56. Petitioner regulates third-party administrators for compliance with contract provisions in furtherance of Petitioner’s mission to ensure safe roads in the State of Florida. Section 322.56 authorizes Petitioner to contract with private sector entities to conduct services in the same manner Petitioner conducts services at both its driver license offices and tax collector offices. Respondent is a third-party administrator under contract with Petitioner to conduct Class E Knowledge Examinations for State of Florida driver licenses. Ms. Dume is employed as a Regulatory Program Specialist for Petitioner. Her duties include visiting third-party administrators and monitoring their activities to ensure that they are abiding by the terms of their contracts with Petitioner. Assistance by Misrepresentation On October 8, 2020, Ms. Dume was present at Respondent’s school conducting an on-site inspection. She left at 5:45 p.m., having been informed by Mr. Perotte that the school closed at 6:00 p.m. Ms. Dume returned to continue her inspection on October 9, 2020, arriving at 10:20 a.m. She monitored the school from the parking lot before entering at 11:20 a.m. Then, Ms. Dume observed Mr. Perotte entering information into his computer showing that a student had completed the four-hour Traffic Law Substance Abuse Education course (“TLSAE”). The TLSAE is a requirement to earn a Florida driver license. The course must be taken in one consecutive four-hour period. Ms. Dume obtained the certificate for TLSAE course completion for the student, which reflected a completion date of October 9, 2020. However, based on Ms. Dume’s credible testimony, it would have been impossible for the student to have completed the four-hour TLSAE course on the date that Mr. Perotte entered into the computer because Ms. Dume was present up until 15 minutes prior to the school closing and did not observe the student taking the course. Mr. Perotte’s claim that the student took the course after Ms. Dume left was not credible. His credibility was further diminished by his inconsistent and illogical testimony that he entered the erroneous date of course completion by mistake. Although it was established that the same student did complete the TLSAE in 2013, that fact is immaterial to Mr. Perotte’s clear misrepresentation of the course completion date. Ensuring Only Applicants Allowed in Examination Area During Ms. Dume’s on-site inspection on October 8, 2020, she observed an applicant inside the testing room taking the knowledge exam with an instructor also inside the testing room. The instructor explained to Ms. Dume that she was inside the testing room to have the applicant sign paperwork, but Ms. Dume believed that the reason was pretextual based on her observations. On October 14, 2020, during another on-site inspection of Respondent, Ms. Dume observed Mr. Perotte inside the testing room standing over a customer who was sitting down taking the knowledge exam. Mr. Perotte testified that he was inside the testing room while a test was in progress to fix a technical issue with the computer. He also testified, however, that in the event of a technical issue, he would ask the examinee to exit the testing room while a staff member addressed the issue. Mr. Perotte’s testimony was unconvincing and inconsistent. Allowing the Department to Conduct Random Inspections Ms. Dume testified that for each of her on-site inspections that are relevant to this proceeding, on October 8, 9, and 14, 2020, she entered Respondent’s facility through an unlocked door. During her October 14, 2020, inspection, Ms. Dume observed that there were a number of customers present when she arrived at 12:30 p.m. A few minutes later, all of the customers were gone, and Mr. Perotte stopped others from entering the school. Ms. Dume believed that the customers were discouraged by Mr. Perotte from patronizing the school while Ms. Dume was present. Ms. Dume left around 2:30 p.m., due to the school being empty. The reasons why customers may have left or decided not to enter the school in Ms. Dume’s presence were based on assumptions and were not conclusively established.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Elana J. Jones, Esquire Roberto R. Castillo, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Respondent: Matthew E. Ladd, Esquire Matthew E. Ladd P.A. Suite 301 4649 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found in violation of the contract, as alleged in the Complaint, and that the contract be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Elana J. Jones, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Joseph R. Gillespie, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432, MS02 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Terry L. Rhodes, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-443 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Christie S. Utt, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Matthew E. Ladd, Esquire Matthew E. Ladd P.A. Suite 301 4649 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a non- instructional employee, and, if not, what penalty is reasonable.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent as a bus operator on May 17, 2001. The employment is governed by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Support Association of Lee County (SPALC). Respondent is an educational support employee, defined in Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008).1 On March 26, 2009, a jury convicted Respondent of burglary of a dwelling, a second degree felony, and one count of battery. Respondent unlawfully entered the home of her husband and, while remaining inside without permission, committed battery on another individual who was there with her husband's permission. School Board Policy 5.04 prohibits the employment of an individual who has committed burglary within the past 10 years. The policy also prohibits the employment of an individual who has committed battery within five years. Respondent is not employable under either guideline, and Respondent presented no evidence in mitigation of either policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 26th day of February, 2010.
