Findings Of Fact The Respondent Louis C. Eder (hereafter Respondent) is a registered building contractor holding license number RB 0010762. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was the qualifying agent for Lujack Construction Company. On September 11, 1979, Dennis Ecks, a complainant in this proceeding, entered into a written contract with Abco Contracting and Construction Company, through its agent Jack Greenblatt, for remodeling his residence for the sum of $5,200. The permit for the Ecks job was pulled by the Respondent in the name of Lujack Construction Company. Ecks paid $4,900 to Abco for the job. He withheld $300 to compensate for the failure of Abco to install a screen door. Ecks paid the $4,900 directly to Abco and never met or spoke to the Respondent during the time the contract was being negotiated and executed. After the job was started, the Respondent sent letters to Ecks rescinding the permit for the job and orally communicated his concern that Ecks should exercise caution in his business dealings with Abco. The Respondent received no monies from either Ecks or Abco for the Ecks' job. On January 21, 1980, Dominic Sicilian, the other complainant in this proceeding, entered into a written contract with Abco General Contracting and Construction Company, through its agent, Jack Greenblatt, to enclose a carport for $11,675. The permit for the Sicilian job was pulled by the Respondent in the name of Lujack Construction Company. Sicilian paid $9,000 of the contract sum directly to Abco. This job was abandoned after approximately fifty percent of the construction work was completed, Sicilian, like Ecks, had no discussions with the Respondent before the contract was executed. Approximately one year after the contract was executed, Sicilian spoke to the Respondent concerning his problems with Abco. At that time the Respondent offered to finish the job for the remainder of the contract price. Additionally, shortly after Abco started the job, the Respondent informed Sicilian, both orally and in writing, that he would not be working on the job because he had not been paid by Abco and Sicilian should exercise caution in his business dealings with Abco. Both Ecks and Sicilian believed that they were dealing with Abco and neither had any knowledge of Lujack Construction or its relationship to Abco. The Respondent did not enter into construction contracts with either Ecks or Sicilian. The Respondent began working for Abco in the capacity of foreman. Shortly after commencing employment with Abco, the Respondent was requested by Abco to obtain permits for pending jobs due to a problem Abco encountered in obtaining permits. The problem resulted from Abco maintaining a business in an area zoned noncommercial. Approximately two weeks after commencing employment with Abco, the Respondent's relationship with Abco changed and he became the contractor on the job under the name Lujack Construction Company, a name which the Respondent had used for many years. Shortly after commencing work at Lujack Construction, the Respondent quit when he was not paid from the first draw. The Respondent terminated his relationship with Abco and notified Ecks and Sicilian that he was no longer working on the job due to non-payment and was rescinding the permits which he had pulled. The Respondent attempted without success to as certain the proper procedure to terminate the permits by directing inquiries to the Cooper City Building Department, Broward County Building Department, Palm Beach County Building Department and the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondent has been a licensed general contractor for fourteen years. During that period of time, he has built hundreds of homes in the Palm Beach area. Other than the complaints filed in the instant case, the Respondent has not been the subject of any previous complaint or disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Construction Industry Licensing Board dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Louis C. Eder. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 15th day of March, 1983.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent committed violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school psychologist. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a member of the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) Bargaining Unit. At all times material to this case, Respondent was receiving benefits under a valid claim for Workers' Compensation benefits arising from an accident on January 7, 2000. In conjunction with investigations as to Respondent's eligibility for Workers' Compensation benefits, video surveillance of Respondent's activities was conducted on several occasions. At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, Dr. Laakso worked for Petitioner as a school psychologist in Area 3, and was assigned to Palm Beach Lakes High School, Forest Hill High School, and Conniston Middle School. His immediate supervisor was Mary Kate Boyle, the Area 3 Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Team Leader. On January 7, 2000, Dr. Laakso was working in his car while parked in the Palm Beach Lakes High School parking lot, and when exiting the car, hit his head on the door jamb causing a compression of his spine. He then received a second injury to his back while pulling psychological testing kits out of his car. Dr. Laakso submitted this injury to Petitioner as a workers' compensation injury, and it was covered as such. Christopher Brown, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon and one of Dr. Laakso's workers' compensation physicians, treated Dr. Laakso. On February 8, 2000, Dr. Brown placed Dr. Laakso on a "no-work" status. Dr. Laakso suffers from cervical spinal stenosis, which is a narrowing of the spinal canal. Because Dr. Laakso had underlying spinal stenosis secondary to arthritis, combined with disc herniations, his orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Brown, diagnosed Dr. Laakso's stenosis as severe. Also on February 8, 2000, Ms. Boyle held an investigative meeting with Respondent and his then-attorney, Stephen Fried, to discuss Respondent's continued absences since January 7, 2000 (the date of Respondent's workers' compensation injury) and his work status. In a letter to Dr. Laakso dated February 9, 2000, Ms. Boyle explained what her expectations were with regard to Respondent's absence and work status. On February 9, 2000, Dr. Laakso requested unpaid sick leave for January 11, 2000 to May 31, 2000, which the School Board granted. In March of 2000, Dr. Laakso was released back to light duty work, with restrictions. Some of the physical restrictions placed on Dr. Laakso's activities included no overhead use of the right upper extremity and no heavy use of the right upper extremity greater than 5 pounds. In addition, Dr. Laakso was told to be careful and to try not to hurt himself. Dr. Brown also imposed a 10 mile driving restriction on Dr. Laakso because Dr. Brown believed Dr. Laakso's spinal stenosis placed him at increased risk if he hit his head or was in a car accident. Dr. Laakso argued against the driving restriction because he was capable of driving and believed that the restriction would "mess things up" if he was unable to use his car. Dr. Laakso neither asked for the driving restriction nor represented that he needed the restriction.4 Dr. Laakso conveyed the driving restrictions to both Ms. Boyle and Linda Meyers in Risk Management. On March 21, 2000, Dr. Laakso was given a light duty placement in which he was assigned to Atlantic High School watching the school's security cameras. This assignment was for Dr. Laakso's regularly scheduled 7.5 hours a day, and was within the physical and driving restrictions imposed by Dr. Brown. While on light duty assignment at Atlantic High School, Dr. Laakso reported to Assistant Principal, Marshall Bellin. Dr. Laakso also submitted his time sheets to Mr. Bellin for Mr. Bellin's verification and signature. After Mr. Bellin signed the light duty time sheets, Dr. Laakso faxed them to Ms. Boyle for payroll purposes. Around this time period, in approximately April of 2000, the third party administrator, FARA, who handles the School Board's Workers' Compensation claims, hired private investigator Richard Mains to conduct surveillance of Dr. Laakso. Mains observed Dr. Laakso at various times from April 3, 2000 through October 2, 2000. Mains documented Respondent's driving to and from his Matlacha home and the activities in which he engaged while there. Mains did not know whether Dr. Laakso was taking pain or anti-inflammatory medication, or whether Dr. Laakso was under the influence of these types of medications at the times Mains observed him. On May 17, 2000, Ms. Boyle held another investigative meeting regarding Respondent's absences while on light duty. The minutes from that meeting indicate that Ms. Boyle expressed her concern to Dr. Laakso regarding his absences, discussed his light duty assignment at Atlantic High School, and directed him to call her beeper if he was going to be absent. He was also directed to provide a doctor's note if he was absent. Dr. Laakso remained in the light duty assignment at Atlantic High School for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year. On Wednesday, August 9, 2000, the first day of the 2000-2001 school year, Dr. Laakso again reported to Atlantic High School to resume his light duty placement. On August 15, 2000, Marshall Bellin signed Respondent's light duty sign-in sheet, which covered Dr. Laakso's work attendance for August 9, 10, 11, and 14, 2000. Around August 14 or 15, 2000, Dr. Laakso received verbal notification that because his driving restriction had been lifted, he was being taken off light duty assignment and was to report to Area 3. Prior to this verbal notification, Dr. Laakso had not been advised by his physicians that his driving restriction had been lifted. However, he subsequently learned through someone at the Risk Management Department that, in fact, the driving restriction had been lifted. Upon hearing the news, Dr. Laakso contacted Dr. Brown. When he went to see Dr. Brown, Dr. Brown explained to Respondent that the Board had sent him a questionnaire asking whether he believed that Dr. Laakso could drive a car as opposed to whether he should drive a car. Dr. Brown further explained that he responded that Dr. Laakso could drive a car, but felt he had made a mistake as he felt it was still dangerous for Dr. Laakso to drive. Accordingly, on August 17, 2000, Dr. Brown reinstated Dr. Laakso's driving restriction of no more than 10 minutes. On August 17, 2000, Dr. Laakso sent a memo to Ms. Boyle indicating that his driving restriction had been reinstated. A copy of the note from Dr. Brown was attached to this memo. Because of her continuing concern regarding Respondent's absences, on October 2, 2000, Ms. Boyle held another "investigative meeting" regarding Dr. Laakso's absences. This meeting resulted in Boyle's issuing Dr. Laakso a written reprimand for unacceptable and unexcused absences, failure to call in intended absences as required, and insubordination. The written reprimand specifically addressed Dr. Laakso's absences on August 9, 10, 11, 22, and September 20, 27, 28, and 29. Ms. Boyle believed her issuance of the written reprimand dated October 2, 2000, was consistent with the progressive discipline policy. At the time that Ms. Boyle wrote the reprimand, she also notified the District's Professional Standards Department and requested a formal investigation of Respondent's absences. Ms. Boyle then contacted Ray Miller in Professional Standards to be sure that she was following appropriate procedure. In October of 2000, Ray Miller received Respondent's case for investigation, and the investigation was assigned case number 101. Specifically, Miller investigated allegations involving Respondent's misuse of leave, unauthorized absence, failure to call in and report absences as required, and insubordination for the time period of January 2000 through December 2000. At the time of his interview with Respondent, Miller had a surveillance video and a report of Respondent's activities for April of 2000. Respondent neither denied that he was the subject of the video nor that he failed to report and call in his absences. Shortly before December 4, 2000, Miller signed off on the investigative report for case number 101, and on December 4, 2000, Paul Lachance issued a letter to Dr. Laakso indicating that the investigation was complete, and that a determination of probable cause had been made. The investigative report was then reviewed by the Case Management Review Committee to determine whether there was just cause to recommend discipline and, if so, provide a discipline recommendation. The Committee found just cause and recommended Dr. Laakso's termination. A number of meetings were held in December 2000 with representatives of Petitioner, Dr. Laakso, and his then- attorney, Mr. Fried. As a result of these meetings, an informal settlement was reached; Dr. Laakso's employment was not terminated, but rather he was transferred to the Area 1 ESE office. By a letter to the file dated January 8, 2001, Paul Lachance, Director of Professional Standards, administratively closed case number 01-101 against Dr. Laakso with "no action." While assigned to Area 1, Dr. Laakso was under the supervision of Area 1 ESE Team Leader, Paul Sayrs. As supervisor, Mr. Sayrs was responsible for keeping track of Respondent's attendance. Accordingly, Sayrs directed Respondent to call and notify secretary Judy Fabris if he was going to be absent, who in turn would notify Mr. Sayrs. While assigned to Area 1, Dr. Laakso missed work for several days in January and February 2001, and was also out for most of March and April 2001. On April 4, 2001, Mr. Sayrs sent Dr. Laakso a letter listing the dates of his absences and directing him to submit a doctor's note for the dates listed, as well as for any future absences. The next day, April 5, 2001, Mr. Sayrs sent another letter to Dr. Laakso advising him he was currently absent without approved leave. Mr. Sayrs advised Respondent further that due to an absence of correspondence from Respondent, Mr. Sayrs would assume Respondent had decided to discontinue working for Petitioner and Respondent's name would be submitted to the School Board for acceptance of Respondent's resignation. Dr. Laakso immediately contacted Dr. Sachs regarding Mr. Sayrs' request for medical documentation, but was unable to get an appointment with Dr. Sachs until April 20th. However, prior to his April 20th appointment, Dr. Laakso forwarded to Dr. Sachs a copy of the District's letter, which indicated he would be terminated if he did not provide the requested documentation prior to his appointment on April 20th. In response, Dr. Sachs accounted for Dr. Laakso's absences, noting they were due to his symptoms and cervical condition. Additionally, Dr. Laakso followed through by faxing his Request for Leave of Absence without Pay form with his signature, dated April 18, 2001, directly to Dr. Sachs for his signature. The leave was ultimately granted retroactive to March 8, 2001, prior to Dr. Laakso's being terminated by the District. On April 18, 2001, Dr. Laakso sent a handwritten note to Dan McGrath explaining his absences. Dr. Laakso attached to his note to Mr. McGrath two documents from Dr. Sachs, one dated April 15, 2001, and the other dated April 6, 2000. On May 18, 2001, Paul Sayrs evaluated Dr. Laakso's performance. The evaluation sheet indicated that Dr. Laakso was "presently on a medical leave of absence." Dr. Laakso has a second home in Matlacha, located on the other side of Cape Coral. Matlacha is located in the Fort Myers area and is approximately 150 miles from the West Palm Beach area, roughly a three-hour trip using country roads. Because he had not been feeling well, Dr. Laakso had not been taking care of his property in Matlacha. As a result, he received notices from the county telling him he needed to clear up the property or face a potential daily fine of $225. Specifically, the county informed Dr. Laakso that he needed to mow the grass, move a boat, register a pickup truck, and park the truck somewhere where it was not in open view. He asked for an extension in which to do these things, which was granted. However, the county advised Dr. Laakso that if he did not get the work done by the date established, the daily fine would be imposed. Although while at his Matlacha home Dr. Laakso did work outside of the restrictions imposed on him by his physician, he could work for 20 or 30 minutes and then go inside and rest, unlike when he was at work for the School Board, which required he work a full eight-hour day. While he was on his Matlacha property, he continued his daily swimming as part of his physical therapy, which he had discussed with, and received approval for, from Dr. Brown. At no time did Dr. Laakso attempt to hide the fact that he drove to the Matlacha property or that he worked in his yard while there. In fact, he disclosed this information when deposed in his workers' compensation case, and he discussed it with his doctor. While the doctor did not give Dr. Laakso permission for this type of conduct, Dr. Laakso did discuss it with him.5 Following the closing of the first investigation numbered 101, the office of Professional Standards received a memo from Diane Howard, Director of Risk Management, dated January 9, 2001. Ms. Howard was requesting a reinvestigation of Dr. Laakso's absences. In response to this memo, Miller did not interview Respondent, but instead viewed surveillance videotapes from August 11 through October 1 or 2, 2000. In addition to the videos, Miller reviewed memos from Nancy Patrick, Mary Kate Boyle, and Paul Sayrs. Miller testified that the difference between this investigation and the previous one was that it involved a different period of time, both for the videos and regarding issues of Respondent's attendance in January, February, and March of 2001. The allegations against Respondent for this investigation were that he was obtaining leave due to sickness or illness and that he was performing actions that were inconsistent with his alleged illness or sickness. This second investigation followed the same pattern as the first and was sent to the Committee for review. The Committee again recommended Dr. Laakso's termination. Dr. Laakso timely requested an administrative hearing, and these proceedings followed. The collective bargaining agreement describes procedures for discipline of employees, including this: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. The collective bargaining agreement also requires progressive discipline (reprimand through dismissal) . . . [e]xcept in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the district or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in this case dismissing all charges in the Administrative Compliant, reinstating Respondent to his position of employment with the School Board, and providing Respondent with such back pay and attendant benefits as are authorized by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2003.
Findings Of Fact A Backdrop to the Charges At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Tom F. Brewer, was a teacher at Crestwood Middle School (CMS) in Royal Palm Beach, Florida. He is employed by petitioner, The School Board of Palm Beach County (Board). Respondent, who is now fifty-four years old, is certified as a middle school teacher with a specialty in the area of mathematics. He has taught in the Palm Beach County school system since August, 1973 and has consistently received satisfactory evaluations. Most recently, he was assigned to CMS to teach mathematics to seventh and eighth graders. Since CMS is ten miles from his home, Brewer left for work each school day around 7:50 a.m. and returned around 4:20 p.m. In addition, until September, 1985 he spent two weekends a month at National Guard drills where he was the unit first sergeant. From November, 1982 until March, 1984 he worked on his other weekends as a security guard at a local country club. Forest Estates Drive in West Palm Beach, Florida is the focal point of this proceeding. In November, 1978 respondent moved into a home in the 300 block on Forest Estates Drive. Other residents on the street at that time were James H. Williams, Sandra Cownden and her daughter, Tina Luciano (Tina), Margaret Hill and her daughter and stepdaughter, Robin Mahoney (Robin) and Kim McKenna (Kim), and Hilda Barrett. Shortly after Brewer moved into the neighborhood, the Pecks moved in next door. Mr. Peck is a uniformed deputy sheriff with a marked patrol car. In 1982, Helen Happ moved with her family into a home on the same block. In 1985, Stephen Erickson moved into the home previously occupied by Hilda Barrett and which was directly across the street from Brewer. All of the above neighbors testified at final hearing or gave deposition testimony and are a part of this neighborhood drama. Some lived there only part of the time since 1978 while a few were neighbors for the entire nine year period. Respondent is divorced and lives by himself at his home on Forest Estates Drive. He has three grown children, a girl and two boys, living in the West Palm Beach area. The children, who are now 28, 26 and 25 years of age, regularly visited Brewer several times a week during the years in question. As might be expected, Brewer became reasonably acquainted with all of his neighbors since moving to Forest Estates Drive almost ten years ago. They became aware of the fact that he was a school teacher. The principal prosecution witness is Tina, who lived with her divorced mother two houses away from Brewer. Tina, who was born on March 16, 1969, was not bashful or shy, and at the age of nine, began going to Brewer's house when he first moved in the neighborhood. As she frequently did with other neighbors, Tina asked Brewer for money and favors. Brewer responded by giving Tina odd jobs to do around his house such as washing his car, mowing the yard or cleaning windows. Therefore, over the years it was not unusual to see Tina going to and from Brewer's house. As she grew older, Tina began using Brewer's telephone to call friends and to watch Brewer's widescreen television set which was wired for cable. It should be noted here that Tina has a reputation as being an untruthful person. Against this backdrop, respondent was arrested by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office in March, 1987 for contributing to the delinquency of a seventeen year old minor (Tina), a misdemeanor charge. He was subsequently acquitted after a three day jury trial in March, 1988. After learning that respondent had been arrested, the Board suspended Brewer without pay on November 17, 1987. This action was formalized by a petition for dismissal issued on December 3, 1987. Respondent has remained suspended without pay pending the outcome of this proceeding. As amended, the petition for dismissal alleges that on January 1, 1987 respondent "allowed two females, then 16 and 17 years old, to visit him at his home," that he "supplied and/or permitted the females to consume liquor in his home," and that he "requested and received back rubs from both females and requested sex from the 16 year old." In addition, the amended petition charges that respondent allowed "other males and females in the neighborhood" to visit his home "on a regular basis for the past nine (9) years" and "to drink alcohol in his presence," and that he "regularly loaned money to the neighborhood children and gave them rides to various locations in the vicinity," all without the knowledge or consent of the parents. Finally, it is alleged that in June, 1987 respondent "used profanity in the presence of a minor . . . and engaged in other inappropriate conversation." These allegations will be examined separately hereinafter in the order in which they are raised in the petition. The Criminal Arrest and Attendant Notoriety In March, 1987 respondent was arrested and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor. The charges stemmed from an incident that allegedly occurred on January 1, 1987 at Brewer's home and involved Tina, then seventeen years old, and her sixteen year old friend, Angie. After school resumed in January, 1987 Brewer reported to his principal that he was involved in a "run in with the law" on New Year's Day. This information was conveyed to the deputy Superintendent who advised that no action should be taken until "something official happened." For some reason, the school either failed to learn of Brewer's arrest in March or did nothing at that time. In any event, the arrest was eventually reported in articles published in a local newspaper on November 8 and 19, 1987. Brewer's three day trial in March, 1988 received even more widespread newspaper and television coverage. After the articles appeared in the local newspaper in November, 1987, the superintendent of schools was contacted by one parent whose child was a student in respondent's classroom. Other than this one contact, the Superintendent had no other personal knowledge of any parent concern over respondent's arrest. However, based upon his review of the matter, and having assumed the charges herein to be true, the superintendent concluded that the resulting notoriety attendant to respondent's arrest impaired his effectiveness as a teacher. He further opined that respondent is now vulnerable to accusations of similar improper behavior in the future, and he believes that parents would object if respondent was reassigned to the classroom. Also believing the charges to be true, several neighbors reported that they were concerned with respondent's behavior, and they did not wish their children to be around him. Finally, after the arrest became public, one witness in this proceeding was contacted by several CMS students inquiring about the charges. The January 1, 1987 Incident Angela (Angie) is a girlfriend of Tina who had just turned sixteen on December 18, 1986. At that time she was enrolled as a student at a local high school but was not attending classes. She was also on probation for burglary and grand theft and has a reputation of being an untruthful person. She stayed overnight with Tina on December 31, 1986 to celebrate the holiday, and the two spent New Year's Eve partying with friends until dawn. During the course of the evening Angela consumed a great deal of whiskey and got very drunk. The whiskey was bought for Angie by an undisclosed third party. On January 1, 1987 Tina and Angie spent most of the day at Tina's house with Tina's mother and grandparents. Around 5:00 or 5:30 p.m., the two went to Brewer's house so that Tina could use his telephone to call her boyfriend, Matt. Angie, who was recuperating from a substantial hangover, just wanted to stretch out on Brewer's couch. They found Brewer watching the football bowl games on television. Tina made several calls, including one to Matt, and another to Tommy, who had just broken up with Angie. After the calls were completed, Tina returned to her house to eat dinner. Angie remained on Brewer's couch, still nursing her hangover. After finishing her meal, Tina returned to Brewer's house. Angie then departed to Tina's house to shower and change clothes. Tina also returned to her home a short while later to see what was taking Angie so long. The two eventually returned to Brewer's house around 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. Tina then asked Brewer for a ride to pick up Matt and bring him back to her house. Brewer agreed and the two left leaving Angie watching television. When Tina, Brewer and Matt returned to Brewer's house around 8:00 p.m., they found Angie gone. According to Tina's mother, Angie returned to Tina's house while Tina and Brewer were gone and had left with two male friends. Not knowing this, Tina and Matt left Brewer's house to find Angie but returned about twenty minutes later, by now Brewer's twenty-six year old son, Chuck, had arrived to watch the Orange Bowl football game with his father. A while later, two male friends of Matt showed up at the doorstep and were invited in to watch television. Tina, Matt and his two friends stayed for about 45 minutes watching the football game and then left. Around 10:30 p.m. that evening, a disturbance occurred in the street in front of Tina's house. Brewer's next door neighbor, George Peck, III, who happens to be a uniformed deputy sheriff, observed a girl "screaming and crying" in the middle of the street. The girl (Angie) was with a young man. When the two would not tell him what was the matter, the deputy told the two to leave the neighborhood. In contrast to the testimony of both Tina and Angie that Angie was intoxicated that evening, the deputy did not detect any odor of alcohol on Angie's breath and she did not appear to be intoxicated. Further, the deputy's testimony that the above event occurred around 10:30 p.m. is accepted as being more credible than Angie's testimony that Peck spoke with her some two and one- half hours earlier. Another disturbance occurred in front of Tina's house around midnight involving Tina, Angie and several male teenagers. The police were called and an investigation was begun. As a result of accusations by Tina and Angie, Brewer was later arrested and charged with contributing to Tina's delinquency. At no time during the day or evening of January 1, 1987 did Brewer offer or furnish alcoholic beverages to Tina and Angela nor did the two girls consume alcoholic beverages at his home. He did not ask the girls to give him a back rub, engage in a sexual activity or make any improper overtures towards the girls. Testimony by Tina and Angela to the contrary is rejected as not being credible. Neighborhood Saint or Sinner? The amended complaint alleges that Tina, "along with other males and females in the neighborhood, under the age of 18, have visited Respondent at his home on a regular basis for the past nine (9) years," and that such minors were unchaperoned and consumed alcoholic beverages in his home. As to this allegation, the Board has stipulated that none of the minors were students from Crestwood Middle School. There were numerous confirmed visits by Tina to Brewer's house over the years. She was accompanied on several visits by Robin, who once lived on the street and later lived with Tina for a short time in 1984, and by Angie. In addition, Tina would sometimes bring a boyfriend or another girlfriend, including Theresa, Diane or Kim, who either lived for brief periods of time with Tina or who happened to be in the neighborhood to visit her. Neighbors on the street observed Tina and other similarly aged females visiting Brewer's house from time to time. Except for Robin, the neighbors could not identify the girls and were nonspecific as to the dates and frequency of such visits. None of the neighbors knew the purpose of the visits or what occurred once the visitors entered his home. Most did not know if the guest might be Brewer's daughter, a teenager during part of this period, and who visited him several times a week. While they suspected sinister motives on the part of Brewer, none had any proof of this. There is no competent, credible evidence that Brewer ever furnished alcoholic beverages to minors or allowed them to consume the same at his house. At hearing both Angie and Tina claimed that Brewer often either purchased beer for or gave it to their friend, Rob. However, this assertion was denied by Rob, and his testimony is deemed to be the most credible. Angie claimed that during the last few months of 1986 Brewer would frequently furnish her and Tina with wine coolers or beer. However, she later testified that, except for the January 1, 1987 incident, she never drank an alcoholic beverage at Brewer's home. Her testimony is not deemed to be credible. There was further testimony by neighbor Erickson that he saw a girl (who he did not know) leaving Brewer's house one day during the summer of 1986 carrying what he thought was a can of beer. He thought the girl carrying the can was accompanied by Tina. Erickson also occasionally saw persons of Tina's age leaving Brewer's house carrying brown paper bags. He did not know what the bags contained. Neighbor Barrett reported that in 1978, when she was thirteen, she frequently saw Tina and Robin, then nine years old or so, with sacks of beer and cigarettes after leaving Brewer's house. This testimony is rejected as being incredible. Neighbor Happ reported seeing Tina and a friend leaving Brewer's house around 7:30 a.m. one day and assumed they had spent the night. However, other testimony revealed that the two had actually spent the night at Tina's home before going to Brewer's house that morning. All other testimony in favor of the allegation has either been rejected as not being credible or has been disregarded since it is based solely on hearsay and rumor. Robin is one year older than Tina and once lived in Forest Estates Drive. She also lived with Tina for a few months in 1984. To avoid honoring a subpoena compelling her attendance at this hearing, Robin temporarily left the State of Florida. However, over objection of respondent, her deposition was received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 5. According to Robin's deposition, she and Tina visited Brewer's home when Robin was around fourteen or fifteen years of age and would drink beer given to them by Brewer. Claiming a lack of recollection, she was unable to give any other details concerning these incidents. Other allegations made by Robin were even more vague and distant. Tina's mother stated that around midnight one evening in 1985 she drove her car to Brewer's house (two doors away) to pick up Robin. Robin's statement as to why she needed a ride is either irrelevant to the charges or discredited. Robin's testimony was contradicted by Brewer who acknowledged that Robin and Tina came over a number of times in 1984 when Robin lived with Tina but only to watch cable TV. This testimony is accepted as being the most credible. It is accordingly found that at no time did Brewer ever offer or furnish alcoholic beverages to Robin or allow her to bring them into his home for consumption. Tina's many visits to Brewer's home are confirmed in the record. Indeed, she regularly visited Brewer's house from the time he moved into the neighborhood in 1978 through 1986. While Tina's mother permitted Tina and her friends to drink in her own home, testimony by Tina that she occasionally drank a beer or wine cooler at Brewer's home is rejected as not being credible. Giving Money and Rides to Neighborhood Children It is alleged that Brewer "regularly loaned money to the neighborhood children and gave them rides to various locations in the vicinity." Much of the testimony relating to this allegation comes from Tina who had a reputation for approaching any and all neighbors for "loans" or "rides." Indeed, practically every neighbor was aware of Tina's habits, and each had been approached by her for favors at one time or another. The other "neighborhood children" are not identified in the petition, but Brewer acknowledged that he occasionally transported not only Tina but also some of her friends. Except for Brewer's voluntary admission that he gave approximately $20 to Kim, a friend of Tina, during the last year, there is no evidence of any other "neighborhood children" receiving loans from Brewer. As to Kim, she is not a resident of the neighborhood, and her age and address are unknown. Brewer readily acknowledged that during recent years, he occasionally gave Tina a few dollars and bought her meals since he felt sorry for her, and she always appeared to be hungry and broke. Prior to that, he had also given her money for odd jobs around his house. He readily acknowledged that he gave her rides to or from various places since she had no transportation. This was because her mother refused to provide transportation once she dropped out of school. There were no sinister motives in providing this assistance since he thought of her as a daughter who had a very troubled childhood. Finally, while the mothers of both Tina and Robin disapproved of Brewer and instructed their daughters not to see him, they knew what Brewer was doing but never personally told Brewer to stop allowing their daughters into his home or, in the case of Tina, to stop giving her rides or occasional financial assistance. Using Profanity in the Presence of a Minor The amended complaint alleges that Brewer used profanity in the presence of a minor and engaged in "other inappropriate conversation." This charge stems from a visit by Tina to Brewer's home in June, 1987. Tina admitted that Brewer never used profanity in her presence prior to that visit. However, by June 25, 1987 Brewer had been charged with a misdemeanor and was extremely upset at Tina, who was responsible in part for police filing charges against him after the January 1, 1987 On incident. June 25 Tina briefly visited Brewer's home where the two discussed the criminal charges. Tina was told by Brewer that their conversation was being taped. A transcription of the conversation has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 4. Brewer proceeded to question Tina about the January 1 incident. During the course of the conversation Brewer used the words "bullshit," "dammit," "damn," and "shit." However, Tina was then an adult (eighteen years of age) and was not a student since, according to her mother, she had not "officially" attended school since she was thirteen. Miscellaneous Despite Tina's continued truancy from school, Brewer attempted to persuade Tina to stay in school and to obtain an education. However, if he spoke with her for any length of time on this subject, she would simply leave the room. She ignored all of his advice. Tina was observed driving Brewer's car around the block on one occasion when she was fifteen years old which was prior to her receiving a driver's license. However, it was done without Brewer's knowledge and consent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended petition for dismissal filed against respondent be dismissed, with prejudice, and that respondent be reinstated retroactive to November 17, 1987 with all attendant back pay. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 1988.
The Issue The issues in this instance are promoted in keeping with an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent, charging violations of Sections 943.13 and 943.145, Florida Statutes. These allegations relate to the claim that Respondent was involved in a liaison with a prostitute in which he exchanged Valium for sex. The encounter between the Respondent and the prostitute is alleged to have occurred while the Respondent was on duty. This Valium was allegedly obtained from an automobile which was examined as part of the Respondent's duties as a law enforcement officer. It is further alleged that the Valium should have been turned in as part of his responsibilities as a law enforcement officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a holder of a certificate as law enforcement officer, Certificate No. 98-10527. That certificate is issued by the State of Florida, Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, and Respondent has held that certificate at all relevant times in this proceeding. Respondent has been employed as a police officer by the Daytona Beach, Florida, Police Department in the relevant time period and it was during that tenure that Respondent is accused of having committed the offense as set forth in the administrative complaint. Debbie Ofiara is the only witness to the Respondent's alleged indiscretion while on duty. Ms. Ofiara is an admitted prostitute, who has drug problems so severe that she required specific program treatment to address them. In particular, that drug difficulty relates to the drug Dilaudid. In addition, Ofiara has served six months in jail for grand theft, a felony conviction. At the time of the alleged incident with the Respondent she was under the influence of drugs and was under the influence of drugs when she reported that incident to a police investigator in the Daytona Beach Police Department. When testimony was given at the hearing, Ofiara was attending a drug program while awaiting a sentence for a drug offense related to cocaine. She had pled guilty to that drug charge, a felony. Ofiara has been arrested for prostitution, arrests made by the Daytona Beach Police Department on three different occasions. She had been arrested for hitchhiking by Officer Cadenhead prior to the incident which underlies the administrative charges and indicates that she "took offense" at the arrest. Moreover, she acknowledges some past concern about her treatment in encounters with Officer Gary Gallion of the Daytona Beach Police Department in his official capacity. Ms. Ofiara claims that sometime in November 1982, in the evening hours, the Respondent, while on duty as a police officer, in uniform and driving a marked patrol car, approached Ofiara and made arrangements to meet her. She further states that this rendezvous occurred in Daytona Beach, Florida, and that in exchange for Valium tablets which the Respondent had obtained from an examination of a car he had been involved with in his police duties, which tablets were not turned in, Ofiara performed oral sex for Respondent's benefit. Some time later, Ofiara related the facts of the encounter with Officer Cadenhead to an internal affairs investigator with the Daytona Beach Police Department, Lieutenant Thomas G. Galloway. She also gave Galloway a bottle which she claimed was the bottle in which the Valium was found. The vial or container was not examined for any residue of the substance Valium or examined for fingerprints of the Respondent. Following Galloway's investigation of the allegations, the Daytona Beach Police Department determined to terminate the Respondent from his employment. That termination was effective February 11, 1983. Respondent was subsequently reinstated after service of a four-week suspension without pay by order of the City of Daytona Beach Civil Service Board, effective March 9, 1983. Having considered the testimony of Ms. Ofiara and the testimony of the Respondent in which he denies the incident with her, and there being no corroboration, Ms. Ofiara's testimony is rejected for reasons of credibility. As a prostitute, drug user, felon and person with a certain quality of animosity toward the Respondent and in consideration of the demeanor of the accusing witness and Respondent, her testimony is rejected.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent. The Respondent, Charles Polk, served as the President of Daytona Beach Community College from 1974 to 1990. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk resigned as President of Daytona Beach Community College in 1990. Mr. Polk's Purchase of Real Estate from Anargyros N. Xepapas. In November, 1985, Mr. Polk and his wife purchased a life estate and one-half interest in a condominium unit from Anargyros N. Xepapas. Mr. Xepapas owned the other one-half interest in the condominium unit. [Stipulated Fact.] The purchase price of the life estate and one-half interest in the condominium unit was $150,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this price was not the fair market value or that the transaction was not an arms-length transaction. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Polk and his wife were required to pay $30,000.00 immediately. They subsequently executed and delivered to Mr. Xepapas a note and mortgage for the remaining $120,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk was a mortgagor and Mr. Xepapas was a mortgagee. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Polk was required to pay maintenance fees of approximately $5,000.00 per year, taxes, insurance and all other expenses of the unit, which totaled approximately $14,000.00 per year. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas agreed to maintain the payments on the first mortgage. [Stipulated Fact.] Following the closing, Mr. Polk paid Mr. Xepapas an additional $60,000.00 on the mortgage, reducing the principal balance to $60,000.00. [Stipulated Fact.] A warranty deed was provided to Mr. Polk for the purchase of the property. [Stipulated Fact.] Neither the deed nor the mortgage were recorded. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk and his wife used the condominium as their residence. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas action in selling the condominium to Mr. Polk and his wife was a business transaction. Mr. Xepapas. Mr. Xepapas is an architect and developer who designs, builds, and sells property in the Daytona Beach area. [Stipulated Fact.] At the time Mr. Polk purchased the one-half interest in the condominium unit from Mr. Xepapas, Mr. Xepapas was the owner of the condominium building in which the unit was located. [Stipulated Fact.] In addition to being the owner of the condominium building at issue, Mr. Xepapas was the architect, developer and contractor for the condominium and for other condominium buildings in the areas. Mr. Xepapas was trying to sell the condominium units as part of his business because of cash-flow problems. [Stipulated Fact.] The condominium sales market was "soft" and Mr. Xepapas was trying to eliminate the carrying costs for unsold units. Mr. Xepapas sold a total of four condominium units pursuant to an arrangement similar to the arrangement by which he sold the condominium unit to Mr. Polk. Mr. Xepapas had made offers to sell one-half interests in condominium units to various other persons besides Mr. Polk. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas was a sole proprietor. He entered into his relationship with Mr. Polk in his capacity as a sole proprietor. Mr. Xepapas has known Mr. Polk for ten to fifteen years and considers himself a friend of Mr. Polk. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas' Business with Daytona Beach Community College. In 1987, the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College decided to expand the College's educational facilities by obtaining a new center in the Deltona area. [Stipulated Fact.] In September, 1987, the Board of Trustees instructed staff to develop a request for proposal for the design and construction of the facility which would be leased to the College. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Polk was involved to some extent in the decision as to whether the new center should be purchased or constructed, and whether it should be acquired through a long-term lease/purchase agreement. In response to the advertisement of the request for proposal in September, 1988, Mr. Xepapas submitted a proposal. [Stipulated Fact.] There were a total of nine persons or businesses that responded to the request for proposal for the Deltona facility. Mr. Polk knew that Mr. Xepapas had picked up a bid proposal package and, therefore, believed that Mr. Xepapas would submit a proposal. Mr. Polk appointed the committee which reviewed the proposals. This committee ultimately narrowed the acceptable proposals to two, including Mr. Xepapas, and directed that those two proposers submit final proposals. In January, 1989, Mr. Xepapas, in his capacity as a sole proprietor, was the successful bidder on the contract; however, there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Polk abused his position in order to ensure this result. [Stipulated Fact.] Mr. Xepapas and Mr. and Mrs. Polk were co-owners of the condominium prior to and at the time that Mr. Xepapas was awarded the Daytona Beach Community College contract. Ultimately, Mr. Xepapas was not able to fulfill his obligations under the contract with Daytona Beach Community College. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polk asserted any influence over the decision to award the contract to Mr. Xepapas, Mr. Polk was involved to some small degree in the award of the contract to Mr. Xepapas. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polk disclosed his co-ownership of the condominium with Mr. Xepapas to the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College, that he refused to participate in any way in the bidding process or that he attempted to take the more drastic step of severing his relationship with Mr. Xepapas while the bidding process was going on. In May, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Polk ultimately quit claim deeded the property to Mr. Xepapas. The evidence failed to prove why. They, therefore, lost their investment in the property. Mr. Polk also resigned as President of Daytona Beach Community College as a result of the allegations concerning his relationship with Mr. Xepapas.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report finding that the Respondent, Charles Polk, violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Complaint No. 89-80. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Polk be subjected to public censure and reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3-11. 3 13. 4 14-16. 5 16 and 18. 6 4, 12 and 19-20. 7 Hereby accepted. 8 3, 21, 27-28 and 30. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 2 13. 3 3, 11 and 14. 4 20. 5 16. 6 4 and 17-18. 7 5 and 8-9. 8 6-7. 9 21. 10 22. 11 24. 12 26 and hereby accepted. See 23, 27 and 30. 13 27 and 30. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 David A. Monaco, Esquire Post Office Box 15200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Bonnie J. Williams Executive Director Commission on Ethics The Capitol, Room 2105 Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue The Issues are whether Petitioner violated Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(b), 11B- 27.0011(c), and 11B-27.005(3), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held the following certifications: (a) Auxiliary Law Enforcement Officer, Certificate No. 94223 issued on August 6, 1987; (b) Law Enforcement Officer, Certificate No. 94221 issued on April 19, 1990; and (c) Correctional Officer, Certificate No. 94222 issued on September 5, 1991. Respondent possesses an Associate of Arts (A.A.) degree in Criminal Justice Technology and an A.A. in Law Enforcement and Correctional Management. He has nearly completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in Legal Studies. He has approximately 2,500 hours of law enforcement training. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was working for a law firm as a paralegal. Respondent's relevant work history, full and part-time, is as follows: (a) police officer for Jacksonville Sheriff's Office (6/5/87-4/17/88); (b) Florida State Prison (3/3/89- 3/23/89); (c) Starke Police Department (4/5/90-6/27/90); (d) Lawtey Police Department (9/15/90-10/22/90); (e) Hampton Police Department (12/17/93-5/9/94); (f) Lawtey Correctional Institution (9/5/91-7/21/92); (g) Union Correctional Institution (10/2/92-4/6/94); (h) Green Cove Springs Police Department (11/19/92-6/14/93); (i) Hampton Police Department (12/17/93- 5/9/94); (j) Department of Corrections (9/23/94-10/6/94); Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) (10/17/94-1/24/95); Springfield Police Department (2/13/95-9/22/95); (m) Port St. Joe Police Department (4/8/96-10/9/96); (n) Springfield Police Department (10/10/96-10/10/97); (o) Escambia County Solid Waste Department (4/21/98-7/16/98); and (p) Mexico Beach Department of Public Safety (11/12/98-11/17/98.) In 1994, Respondent used force on an inmate at the Bradford County Jail. Thereafter, Respondent was served with a summons to appear in court on a charge of battery. On February 28, 1995, Respondent pled nolo contendere to battery in the County Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit for Bradford County, Florida. The Judgment and Sentence entered by the County Judge withheld adjudication of guilt but ordered Respondent to pay a fine in the amount of $141.25. As a result of the battery conviction, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent. After a hearing conducted pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, Petitioner entered a Final Order on July 22, 1998. Petitioner suspended Respondent's criminal justice certification for 12 days to be served within the first six months of his probation. Petitioner placed Respondent on probation for two years beginning August 6, 1998. On May 29, 1998, Respondent submitted an application for employment with the City of Mexico Beach for a position as a patrolman. On this application, Respondent indicated that he had never had "a job connected disease or injury" and that he had never been arrested or charged with any criminal violation. Regarding his work history, Respondent listed only six of the above-referenced jobs. He did not list any former employment unrelated to law enforcement work. Respondent was not selected for the patrolman position in May 1998. However, Respondent's job application was still on file with the City of Mexico Beach when another patrolman position became available in the fall of 1998. Mitchell Pollock was Chief of Police for the City of Mexico Beach in the fall of 1998. Chief Pollock invited Respondent to meet with a five-member committee to interview for the new patrolman position. During the interview, Respondent was asked if he had ever been disciplined by one of his employers. Respondent replied, "I've been in the work force 17, 18 years, and of course I've had disciplinary action taken against me." No one on the interview committee elicited a more specific response and Respondent did not elaborate. Chief Pollock subsequently called a couple of Respondent's former employers. Chief Pollock then had a one-on- one interview with Respondent. During the one-on-one interview with Chief Pollock, Respondent admitted that the City of Springfield sent him to a school in South Florida where he experienced some trouble and was sent home. Respondent told Chief Pollock that he had resigned from the Springfield Police Department due to political pressure. During the interview, Chief Pollock asked Respondent if he had been involved in a racial discrimination situation while he was employed by the Port St. Joe Police Department. Respondent told Chief Pollock that he had no knowledge of such allegations. After the one-on-one interview, Chief Pollock decided to recommend that the City of Mexico Beach hire Respondent as a patrolman. The City Council of Mexico Beach accepted Chief Pollock's recommendation on November 10, 1998. Respondent reported to work on November 12, 1998. One of Respondent's first responsibilities was to fill out a new job application for insurance purposes and to update his status. He was given the May 29, 1998, job application to use as reference. On the November 12, 1998, application, Respondent indicated that he had never had a job-connected disease or injury. He correctly indicated that he had never been convicted of a felony. Unlike the May 29, 1998, application, the November 12, 1998, application did not contain a question related to prior arrests and/or charges of criminal violations. Respondent did not update his employment history on the second application. After filing out the second application, Respondent advised Chief Pollock that his FDLE certification was on probation. Respondent revealed for the first time that he had pled nolo contendere to battery for hitting a prisoner in the Bradford County Jail. On or about November 12, 1998, the Mexico Beach Police Department received a copy of Respondent's Officer Profile Sheet from FDLE. The background check revealed that Respondent had ten more former employers than the six he listed on his May 29, 1998, job application. The background check also revealed discrepancies in Respondent's dates of employment as reported in the Officer Profile Sheet and as listed in the May 29, 1998, application. The FDLE background check revealed negative employment history that Respondent had not disclosed. During the hearing, Respondent admitted the following: (a) he quit his job at Florida State Prison without giving notice and began working for Starke Police Department, calling in sick everyday at the prison until he used up leave time to which he believed he was entitled; (b) he left his job at CCA knowing that he was going to be terminated for violating security procedures (taking an inmate out of a secure area without requesting assistance,) and being late for work on two occasions; (c) he was asked to resign from the Starke Police Department during field training; (d) he was asked to resign from the Green Cove Springs Police during field training due to allegations of excessive force; (e) the mayor of the City of Springfield asked Respondent to resign his job as code enforcement officer; (f) he was terminated by the Department of Corrections for abandoning his position; and he quit his job with the Hampton Police Department knowing that he would be fired due to use of force at the Bradford County Jail. The Mexico Beach Police Department also learned that Respondent had filed two worker's compensation claims for work- related injuries. The first injury occurred on April 9, 1999, while Respondent was working for Lawtey Correctional Institution. The second injury occurred on December 16, 1995, while Respondent was working for Department of Juvenile Justice, Bay Regional Juvenile Detention Center. He received compensation and/or medical benefits in both cases. Respondent did not reveal information related to these two injuries on either of his job applications. Chief Pollock suspended Respondent on November 16, 1998. The Mexico Beach City Council subsequently terminated Respondent's employment on November 17, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gabrielle Taylor, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Charles A. Costin, Esquire Post Office Box 98 Port St. Joe, Florida 32457-0098 A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
