The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's request for exemption from employment disqualification should be approved.
Findings Of Fact In or about December 1998, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) initiated an employment screening pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, incident to Petitioner's application for employment at a child day care center in Delray Beach, Florida. That screening revealed that on September 28, 1998, Petitioner was arrested for exposure of sexual organs, a violation of Section 800.03, Florida Statutes, and unnatural and lascivious acts, a violation of Section 800.02, Florida Statutes. The screening further revealed that on October 20, 1998, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charges; adjudication was withheld; and Respondent was placed on probation for a term of 6 months. Given the screening results, the Department notified Respondent by letter of December 14, 1998, that he was ineligible for continued employment in a position of special trust (working with children or the developmentally disabled), and accorded him an opportunity to request an exemption under the provisions of Section 435.07, Florida Statutes. Petitioner requested such an exemption, and the Department duly-convened a hearing to consider Petitioner's request. Subsequently, the Department advised Petitioner by letter of January 29, 1999, that his request for exemption was denied, and these proceedings ensued at Petitioner's request to challenge the Department's decision. As observed in the preliminary statement, neither Petitioner nor anyone on his behalf appeared at hearing, and no proof was offered to support his claim for exemption. Such failing is dispositive of the case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's request for exemption from employment disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 30th day of July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry C. Cornelius 2315 Southwest 22nd Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33445 Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 111 South Sapodilla Avenue, Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent’s certifications as a Correctional and Law Enforcement Officer should be disciplined and, if so what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Fedrick Williams, was certified as a Correctional and Law Enforcement Officer on June 26, 1992, holding Certificate Numbers 55153 Correctional and 55152 Law Enforcement. He was employed by the Leon County Sheriff’s Office in 1992 as a Deputy. From 1992 until 1996 he served without incident. In 1996, Respondent took a leave of absence for two years. In 1998 he returned to the Sheriff’s Office and served without incident until he was criminally charged with Aggravated Child Abuse by Malicious Punishment, a second degree felony, pursuant to Section 827.02(2), Florida Statutes. The alleged violation of the lesser included offense of child abuse under that statute forms the basis for the discipline sought by the Department in this proceeding. B.B. is the biological son of Lisa Williams and stepson of Respondent. B.B. suffers from a growth hormone deficiency. Because of the deficiency, B.B. is required to take hormones as well as adhere to a special diet to help with his condition. However, even with treatment, B.B. is unusually small for his age and, during the time of these events, B.B. was approximately four feet, four inches tall and weighed approximately 63 pounds. The B.B. and his mother had a history of physical confrontation that, at times, resulted in both Department of Children and Family Services and police intervention. Indeed, in 2001, B.B. received two permanent scars from his mother’s beating him. B.B. was arrested for hitting his mother with a pogo stick. When B.B. was released from the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) his mother refused to pick him up. Respondent picked up B.B. from DJJ. B.B. also stole and forged checks from his mother on at least two occasions. Additionally, he threatened his cousin with a knife when he became angry at him. Things were so strained between B.B. and his mother that after the criminal actions involved with the incident related to this proceeding, B.B.’s mother voluntarily terminated her parental rights and gave up custody of B.B. to a relative. On the other hand, Respondent and B.B. had a good relationship. They did many things together and B.B. often came to Respondent for advice, help or just to talk. The termination of his wife’s parental rights and loss of his stepson greatly distressed Respondent and causes him heartache to this day. In fact, Respondent still communicates with B.B. and wishes he were home with him. Respondent’s disciplinary style was not generally physical. Witnesses described him as a gentle man. In fact, Respondent preferred to talk things out if there was a problem. He rarely utilized corporal punishment and always exercised restraint if he had to resort to such. Indeed, Respondent talked to B.B. and placed him on restrictions when B.B. forged his mother’s checks and threatened his cousin with a knife. On November 8, 2002 at about 6 p.m., B.B.’s mother discovered that B.B was sneaking and hiding candy and junk snack food in his bedroom. There were crumbs and packages from his food stash in his dresser drawers and around his room. As indicated above, the reason B.B.’s behavior was serious was that B.B.’s health required that he adhere to a diet that did not include junk food. B.B. had been warned on multiple occasions about eating candy and other junk foods. He had also been on restriction multiple times for such behavior. On November 8, 2002, B.B was either on or had just gotten off of restriction Respondent had placed him on for eating such junk foods. B.B.’s mother called Respondent into B.B.’s bedroom. Respondent first talked to B.B. and then got his service belt and swatted him at most four or five times across B.B.’s buttocks. There was no injury to B.B. at this time. He then talked to B.B. some more and left the room to take care of B.B.’s younger brother in the living room where the TV was on. Respondent has consistently denied injuring B.B. and has consistently reported the same facts as above. After Respondent left the room, B.B.’s mother entered the room. Respondent’s teenage daughter, who was doing her homework at the dining room table and could hear what was happening in B.B.’s room, heard B.B’s mother yelling and cursing at B.B., things falling off the furniture and loud banging noises around the room. Respondent was not in a position to hear what was occurring in B.B.’s room. B.B.’s mother testified that B.B. was not injured when she left B.B.’s room. Eventually, B.B. was sent to bathe and get ready for bed. Respondent’s daughter did not see any injuries to B.B.’s face when he left his room to bathe. While in the bathroom, B.B. went to the bathroom window and climbed out. The bathroom window was high as it relates to the B.B.’s height of four feet and four inches. The window was not large enough for B.B. to have crawled through in an upright manner so that he could land on his feet once outside. On the outside and under the window there was a three foot wide thorny rose bush and a brick ledge. It is highly likely that B.B. hit both the bush and the ledge on his way down from the window. Both obstacles could have caused long strap-like bruises to B.B.’s body as well as injury to his eye and other abrasions. Respondent’s home was surrounded by fairly thick forest. The forest appears to be thick enough to have also caused bruising or other injuries to B.B. B.B.’s foot prints were found leading away from the house towards the woods. B.B. traveled about six miles through thick forest to the James’ property. He climbed into Mr. James’ truck and went to sleep. At some point, B.B.’s absence was discovered. B.B.’s mother reported B.B. as a runaway on the evening of November 8, 2002. A lengthy search by Respondent and the police ensued which was not successful. B.B. was discovered the next morning by Mr. James when he was leaving for work. Mr. James brought B.B into his home and left him with his wife. Both neighbors observed that B.B. had several bruises on his arms and a very swollen black eye. According to Ms. James, B.B. had an eye that was swollen shut and had red marks above his eye extending to his hairline. One of the James’ called the police to report that they had found a child. When asked by Ms. James’ who had hit him. B.B. reported that his mother had hit him and caused his injuries. B.B. was not present and did not testify at the hearing. The effort used by the Department to secure B.B.’s presence at the hearing was minimal given the importance of B.B.’s role in these events. The Department’s efforts consisted of four telephone calls on Friday, August 25, 2006 that resulted in a message being left. There was no response to these calls. On Monday, August 28th and on Tuesday, August 29th, the Department again unsuccessfully called and left messages. One such call seemed to be interrupted by the phone being picked up and then hung up. Other than that one interruption, the Department offered no proof that anyone actually received the messages left on the answering machine. No subpoena of B.B. was attempted by Petitioner. No certified letter was sent to secure the presence of B.B. by Petitioner. Counsel for the Respondent made Petitioner aware of B.B.’s whereabouts several weeks before the hearing. No one from the Department traveled to that location to try to find B.B. No continuance was requested in order to locate B.B. The Department’s efforts, or lack of effort, to secure B.B.’s presence at the hearing do not demonstrate that B.B. was unavailable for the hearing. Instead the Department offered into evidence the transcripts from B.B.’s deposition taken as part of Lisa Williams’ criminal case, case number 2202 CF 4227-B1. This deposition was taken Tuesday, October 14, 2003, and was offered as Petitioner’s Exhibit numbered three. The deposition indicates that Respondent was responsible for B.B.’s injuries. Although Respondent was criminally charged based on similar fact evidence, the deposition of B.B. was not part of Respondent’s case and Respondent was not a party to that criminal case. The motive for Respondent to fully and adequately develop the testimony of B.B. was not as vital as it would be had the deposition been conducted for Respondent’s own case. Moreover, B.B.’s accounts of the evening of November 8 vary widely as to which parent was responsible for his injuries. Little credit is given to any of B.B.’s statements regarding the events of November 8, 2002. Deputy Hunter picked B.B. up from the James’ residence. He took B.B. to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital’s emergency room where the child was interviewed and extensively photographed. The photographs showed a variety of bruises and abrasions over B.B.’s body and a very swollen eye. Some of the bruises were long strap-like marks. Crime Scene Detective Patrick Lyons met with B.B., Deputy Hunter, and a member of the Child Protection Team at the emergency room. There were dozens of photos taken by Detective Lyons. One of the interviewers was Cynthia Y. Burns, RN. She stated that B.B. stated that his step father hit him in the eye. B.B. was also interviewed by Elain Sofkis, RN. He made a similar statement to her. The lead investigator was Detective Derek Terry of the Leon County Sheriff’s Department. On November 9, 2002, B.B. variously told Detective Terry that his stepfather beat him with a belt and hit him in the face with the belt, after which his mother immediately jumped on him and punched him in the face 20 or more times. A short time later, B.B. stated that he was hit 20 times with the belt, after which his mother entered his room and punched him in the stomach and chest, but not the face. Detective Terry never went to the house where the alleged abuse occurred. Again, B.B.’s statements are not credible. On November 9, 2002, Respondent was criminally charged with Aggravated Child Abuse of B.B. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was terminated from his position with the Leon County Sheriff’s Office at the recommendation of the Career Services Board. The termination was conditioned upon the Respondent pleading to or being convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse or any lesser included offense in his criminal case. At the conclusion of the criminal case Respondent plead to two counts of disorderly conduct, which are misdemeanors of the second degree. Respondent entered his plea because he could not financially afford to continue the legal process and he wanted to return to work at the Sheriff’s Office. Since disorderly conduct was not a lesser included offense of aggravated child abuse, Respondent was reinstated to his former position without pay for the time missed from work in 2004. In the final analysis, the evidence presented at this hearing did not demonstrate that Respondent committed any acts of aggravated child abuse or child abuse. The more credible evidence demonstrated that Respondent did not cause any injury to B.B. and that the injuries that B.B. had on November 9, 2002, were either inflicted by his mother or B.B.’s encounter with the environment outside the house and his subsequent long trek through the woods in the dark. Moreover, the evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent’s moral character was impaired or diminished by these events. The only thing Respondent did was spank his stepson with a belt. He did not injure him or maliciously punish him. Therefore, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 943.1325(6) or (7), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 6th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Deveron L. Brown, Esquire Brown & Associates, LLC The Cambridge Center 223 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from certain employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, was the state agency responsible for screening the employment of individuals employed in certain occupations within this state. Petitioner, Jose Ramon Arazo, is married to Stephanie Arazo, who at the time and for a number of years prior to the marriage, operated a child day care center in Largo, Florida. Under the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, various positions of trust require screening of federal and state law enforcement records to see if the applicants for such positions have a record of charge or disposition. Various positions have differing requirements for screening. Those positions classified as Level II require a finger print and agency check with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Those positions classified as Level I do not. If the agency check discloses the applicant has been charged with a criminal offense, the Department then determines the disposition of the allegation and obtains court records regarding the court action and verifying any probation imposed. The Department's District V Director has promulgated a policy to be followed in that District that stipulates that an exemption from disqualification will not be granted to any individual who is on probation after conviction of a felony and for three years after release from probation. If probation is not imposed by the court, the same policy provides that an exemption will not be granted within three years of a felony conviction, as is provided for in the statute governing exemptions. Petitioner has been charged with several felonies in the past. On July 18, 1983, he was arraigned on a charge of grand theft, to which he pleaded not guilty. However, on August 29, 1983, he changed his plea to guilty and was placed on probation for three years. Thereafter, in December 1985, a warrant was issued for his arrest alleging various violations of the conditions of his probation, including such offenses as being delinquent in the payment of the cost of his supervision; moving from his residence without the prior consent of his probation supervisor; failing to work diligently at a lawful occupation; and failing to make required restitution. In July 1986, he was again the subject of an arrest warrant for ten further probation violations of a similar nature. No evidence was presented as to what action was taken for those violations, but on April 4, 1986, he pleaded guilty in Circuit Court in Pinellas County to grand theft and was again placed in a community control program for two years. There is also evidence in the record to indicate that in September 1986, he was sentenced to confinement for 18 months as a result of the grand theft in Pinellas County. In May 1989, Petitioner was arrested in Hillsborough County and charged with possession of cocaine, a second degree felony, and with obstructing an officer without violence, a first degree misdemeanor. He entered a plea of guilty to the offenses and on May 2, 1989, was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in Florida State Prison. In an indictment dated December 3, 1991, Petitioner was charged with one count of grand theft in Hillsborough County. He entered a plea of nolo contendere and on October 14, 1994, was sentenced to five years imprisonment. When Petitioner was released from prison in 1998, he was placed on probation for a period of two years and is currently on probation status. He indicates he has successfully participated in this period of probation and was told the probation authorities plan to recommend his release from probation in the near future. No independent evidence to support this contention was offered, though Petitioner presented a statement from correctional officials who supervised him while he was incarcerated at the Tampa Community Correction Center and at the institutional level, that he has shown a significant reformation of character and a good ability to deal with everyday problems in a professional manner. From their joint unsworn statement, it would appear these individuals consider Petitioner a likely candidate to be a productive member of society in the future. Petitioner's wife has been put out of business because Petitioner lives with her in their home which was her place of business. Because of his presence, even though he works outside the home most of the time the children are there, she cannot care for children in the home because of regulations prohibiting it. She has been in business for a number of years and apparently her center has a good reputation in the community. One client, Mrs. Perry, by unsworn written statement commends Mrs. Arazo's performance and indicates that even though she saw Petitioner only a few times, he was one of her daughter's favorite people. He also had a positive influence on her son, preaching the virtue of hard work. Mrs. Perry does not consider Petitioner a threat, and she has no fear of his being near her children. In fact, she is of the opinion it a good thing for the children to see the loving and supportive interplay between Petitioner and his wife. Another client, Mrs. Mineo, has been a foster parent to a number of children over the years, many of whom she has placed in Mrs. Arazo's care, agrees. During the time she has known Petitioner, she has never seen him to be other than very professional. She describes him as a hard worker, well-mannered, and deserving of a chance. She believes him to be trying hard. Mrs. Arazo asserts that Petitioner is no threat to the well-being of any of the children who attend her center. He has, to her knowledge, never hurt a child, and she would have nothing to do with anyone who would. His relationship with the children in her care is very positive, and the children love him when he is there, which is not often. He is not an employee of the center and, in fact, has nothing to do with it. He has made mistakes in the past, has paid for them, and has worked hard to overcome them. In her opinion, he deserves a chance. Petitioner admits he has done wrong in the past on multiple occasions, and he is not proud of the things he has done wrong. He does not believe in rehabilitation except in the physical sense, but he believes in the power of an individual to recognize his wrong ways and reform himself. He believes he has done this. He took the opportunity to learn better life-skills while he was in jail and has reformed his way of thinking and his attitudes. During the total six years he spent in prison, he was given only one disciplinary referral. He learned a trade and has a full-time job. He is doing the best he can and wants a chance to prove himself, so as not to hurt his wife's business.
Findings Of Fact In March of 1987, the Petitioner, Mitchell M. Green, was employed with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a child support enforcement investigator. He had been employed by the Department since 1982. On March 17, 18 and 19, 1987, the Petitioner did not report for work, and did not call in to any of the persons who supervised him to explain his absence. Previously, the Petitioner had not requested leave for March 17-19, and leave had not been authorized. On March 20, 1987, the Department notified the Petitioner that his failure to report for work on March 17, 18 and 19 when he was scheduled to work, without contacting his supervisor, and without authorized leave, constituted abandonment and resignation from the position under Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code, and that his employment was terminated. The Petitioner was aware of the abandonment provision in the Department's rules. He had acknowledged receipt of a copy of the Department handbook containing these rules on July 8, 1986. The testimony of the Petitioner, his father, and his mother established that the Department had given the Petitioner an "Exceeds Performance Standards" rating on his last evaluation, that the Petitioner had been diagnosed as having cancer in February of 1985, that the Petitioner had requested leave in January, 1987, but was refused because he had no more leave, and that the Petitioner was upset about conditions at work. These factors are irrelevant, however, because they do not excuse or justify a failure to report to work without obtaining authorized leave or notification that assigned work will not be performed because of absence.
The Issue Whether the proposed award of Request for Proposal No. P2021 to Psychotherapeutic Services of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter "Psychotherapeutic Services"), is contrary to Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice's (hereinafter "Department"), governing statutes, rules or policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 2007, the Department issued RFP P2021 to solicit proposals for a Department Detention Screening Unit in the Circuit 17 Juvenile Assessment Center. The contract for RFP P2021 was for an initial three-year period, with the possibility of renewal for an additional three-year period. Two prospective providers, Petitioner, Juvenile Services Program, and Psychotherapeutic Services submitted responses to RFP P2021. Sarah Smith (hereinafter "Ms. Smith"), acting as the Department's contract administrator, evaluated the proposals for compliance with the mandatory requirements of RFP P2021. Based on Ms. Smith's review of the proposals and her determination that the proposals met the mandatory requirements of the RFP, the Department accepted both Petitioner's proposal and Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal as responsive to the RFP. The RFP consisted of the following three proposals, all of which were evaluated and scored by the appropriate evaluators: (1) the Technical Proposal, which comprises two sub-parts, Management Capabilities and Program Services; (2) the Financial Proposal, which comprises two sub-parts, Price and Financial Capabilities; and (3) the Past Performance Proposal. The maximum allotted points for each of the proposals were as follows: 160 b. Program Services 400 100 b. Financial Capabilities 100 3. Past Performance (Part I) 200 Technical Proposal Management Capabilities Financial Proposal Price The Technical Proposals were reviewed, evaluated, and scored by three evaluators, Loretta Bright, Lucille Rapale and Terria Flakes. Each evaluator scored each proposal separately and independently without consulting and conferring with the other evaluators. All three evaluators were Department employees who were trained and randomly selected to evaluate the proposals. The scores of the three evaluators who evaluated the Technical Proposal were averaged. Based on those averages, Petitioner was awarded 117.33 points for the Management Capabilities sub-part and 278.33 points for the Program Services sub-part. Psychotherapeutic Services was awarded 108.80 for the Management Capabilities subpart and 276.67 for the Program Services subpart of the Technical Proposal. The Financial Proposal was evaluated by Ms. Smith, an operations and management consultant in the Department's Contract Administration Office, Bureau of Contracts. Based on her evaluation of the Financial Proposals, Ms. Smith awarded 200 points each to Petitioner and Psychotherapeutic Services. The Past Performance Proposals of the RFP were evaluated and scored by Paul Hatcher, a senior management analyst with the Department. Based on Mr. Hatcher's review and evaluation of this section, he awarded 173.75 points to Petitioner and 192.50 points to Psychotherapeutic Services. After calculating the total points awarded for the three proposals/sections of the RFP, Psychotherapeutic Services, with a total score of 777.97, was ranked as the highest scored proposal. Petitioner, with a total score of 769.42, was ranked second. On April 3, 2007, the Department posted the notice of its intended decision to award the contract for RFP P2021 to Psychotherapeutic Services. This decision was based on Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal having a higher point total than Petitioner's proposal. General Instructions for Completing RFP P2021 RFP P2021 is comprised of a one-page transmittal letter and several attachments and exhibits, some of which are in the 47-page printed RFP P2021, and others which, according to the RFP, are available electronically. Relevant to this proceeding are terms contained in the transmittal letter and in Attachments A, B, C, D, G and J. Several provisions in RFP P2021, including the transmittal letter and Attachments A and B, give general instructions for preparation of the proposal. The transmittal letter provides that "prospective providers shall fully comply with the instructions on how to respond to the RFP." Attachment A, General Instructions to Respondents, provides that "respondents to the solicitation are encouraged to carefully review all the materials contained herein and prepare responses accordingly." Attachment B, Section XVIII, "General Instructions for the Preparation and Submission of Proposals," provides in relevant part the following: The instructions for this RFP have been designed to help ensure that all proposals are reviewed and evaluated in a consistent manner, as well as to minimize costs and response time. INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN VARIANCE WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS MAY NOT BE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED. * * * Failure of the prospective Provider to provide any of the information required in either Volume 1 (the Technical Proposal), Volume 2 (the Financial Proposal), or Volume 3 (Past Performance) portions of the RFP proposal shall result in no points being awarded for that element of the evaluation. Attachment B also provides the general instructions for the Technical Proposal, the Financial Proposal and the Past Performance Proposal of RFP P2021. Those instructions are described and discussed below. Notwithstanding the general instructions for completing the RFP, Attachment A, paragraph 15, gives the Department the right to waive any minor irregularities. According to that provision, "[t]he Department reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Department determines that doing so will serve the State's best interests." The RFP deems certain requirements as mandatory. Attachment B, Section V, sets forth those requirements and the consequences for a prospective provider's failing to comply with those requirements. Attachment B, Section V, provides in pertinent part the following: Mandatory Requirements The following requirements must be met by the prospective Provider to be considered responsive to this RFP. Although there are other criteria set forth in this RFP, these are the only requirements deemed by the Department to be mandatory. Failure to meet these requirements will result in a proposal not being evaluated and [being] rejected as non-responsive. [Emphasis supplied.] It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider submit its proposal within the time frame specified in the Calendar of Events (Attachment B, Section IV.) It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider draft and submit a fully completed, originally signed Transmittal Letter that contains all the information required by Section XVIII. A. It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider submit a complete and signed Attachment J that proposes an annual contract dollar amount at or below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. Any proposal without a completed and signed Attachment J or with a proposed annual contract dollar amount exceeding the annual maximum contract dollar amount will be rejected. Attachment D, "Evaluation Criteria," sets forth the evaluation criteria and the scoring methods for proposal. Attachment D also provides that failure to meet the mandatory requirements "that are specified in Attachment B, Section V," will result in the proposal not being evaluated and being rejected as non-responsive. The Financial Proposal Attachment B, Section XVIII, D.1., provides in pertinent part the following: The prospective Provider shall provide a price for the program by returning a completed and signed Attachment J-Price Sheet. The price evaluated is the "proposed Annual Contract Amount." The price must include all services, material and labor necessary to complete the Scope of Services (Exhibit 1) as described in this RFP and the prospective Provider's proposal. A renewal price shall also be entered on Attachment J. It is MANDATORY that the prospective Provider submit a completed and signed Attachment J that proposes an annual contract amount at or below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. Any proposal without a completed and signed Attachment J or with a proposed dollar amount exceeding the annual maximum contract dollar amount will be rejected. RFP P2021 established the "annual maximum contract dollar amount" as $473,594.16 and the "maximum contract dollar amount" as $1,420,782.48 (three times the annual maximum contract amount). Attachment J had three lines on which the prospective provider was to list: (1) the "proposed annual dollar amount"; (2) the "proposed annual dollar amount for each renewal year"; and (3) the "renewal dollar amount proposed."1/ Attachment J also included directions for completing the form and a line for the prospective provider's signature. A pre-printed statement above the signature line indicated that "[b]y submission and signature of this form, the prospective provider agrees to all the terms and conditions of this RFP and commits to the prices stated." In lieu of submitting the Amendment J form that was attached to the RFP, Psychotherapeutic Services submitted its re-created version of Attachment J. The Department recognized that the page titled Attachment J in Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal was re-created by Psychotherapeutic Services. However, the re-created version of Attachment J and submission of that document does not in itself constitute a non-responsive response. In the Department's view, the significant factor is whether the relevant and required information indicated as mandatory in the RFP is provided on the re-created version of the form. By consistent practice, the Department routinely accepts re-created forms and/or attachments in responses from prospective providers for the convenience of respondents. In accordance with this practice, the Department accepted the re-created Attachment J submitted by Psychotherapeutic Services. On the re-created version of Attachment J, Psychotherapeutic Services did not include: (1) the instructions for completion of the form; and (2) the language that by signing and submitting the form, Psychotherapeutic Services agrees to all the terms and conditions of the RFP and commits to the prices stated. However, Psychotherapeutic Services included on the re-created Attachment J all the relevant and required information as indicated by the mandatory requirements in the RFP. The mandatory requirements related to the Financial Proposal are that the provider "submit a completed and signed Attachment J that proposes an annual contract dollar amount that is at or below the maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. See paragraphs 21 and 23 above. The mandatory requirements for the Financial Proposal do not require the "renewal terms" to be included in the re-created version of Attachment J, but require that the proposed annual contract amount be at or below the annual maximum contract amount. Similarly, there is no mandatory requirement that omission of the "renewal terms" must result in a finding that the proposal is non-responsive. At most, if such language were required and not provided, no points should be awarded for that section. Here, the evaluation criteria for the Financial Proposal does not include or require consideration of the "renewal terms" on Attachment J.2/ See Attachment A, paragraph 9(i) and (j); Attachment B, Section XIV; and Attachment G, Part IV, C. The re-created version of Attachment J, as completed by Psychotherapeutic Services, is as follows: ATTACHMENT J - PRICE SHEET JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER SERVICES PROPOSED ANNUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT: $473,593.47 PROPOSED ANNUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH RENEWAL YEAR: $473,593.47 *PROPOSED ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT $1,420,780.41[3/] DOLLAR AMOUNT for all Services in thie [sic] RFP multimplied [sic] by the number of initial years (3) of the contract + [sic] $1,420,782.48 *THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT WILL BE MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER O FYEARS [sic] IN THE INITIAL TERM OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SCORING THE PRICE SECTION OF THIS PROPOSAL. THE PRICE STATED ON THIS SHEET (ATTACHMENT J) WILL BE USED FOR DETERMINIATION [sic] OF POINTS AWARDED TO EACH PROSPECTIVE PROVIDER. TERMS OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR SHALL BE PRO-RATED. RENEWAL TERM DOLLAR AMOUNT PROPOSED: $473,594.16[4/] Psychotherapeutic Services' proposed annual contract dollar amount of $473,593.47 is below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP, $473,594.16. Therefore, it met the mandatory requirement for the price category of the Financial Proposal. Ms. Smith testified credibly that the Department's focus, as reflected in the evaluation criteria, is to ensure that the proposed annual contract dollar amount does not exceed the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP. Ms. Smith evaluated and scored that Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal in accordance with the provisions of the RFP. Based on her evaluation, Ms. Smith properly awarded Psychotherapeutic Services the maximum 200 points for its Financial Proposal. Of those points, 100 points were for the "price" category. Ms. Smith also awarded Petitioner's Financial Proposal the maximum 200 points for its Financial Proposal, including 100 points for the "price" category. Petitioner was awarded 100 points for the "price" category, even though its proposed annual contract amount was higher than that of Psychotherapeutic Services. Ms. Smith determined that this was appropriate because the difference in the price proposed by Petitioner and Psychotherapeutic Services was less than ten percent. Psychotherapeutic Services submitted a signed and completed Attachment J that included a proposed annual contract dollar amount, $473,593.47, which was below the annual maximum contract dollar amount stated in the RFP, $473,594.16. Having met the mandatory provisions of the RFP, related to Attachment J, the Department appropriately did not reject the Psychotherapeutic Services, but instead properly evaluated that proposal. The Technical Proposal The Technical Proposal required prospective providers to prove that they were registered to do business in Florida. The general instructions for preparation of the Technical Proposal of the RFP are set forth in Attachment B, Section XVIII, C.2., which provides in relevant part: a. Management Capability * * * 3) This section shall provide proof that the prospective Provider is registered to do business in Florida evidenced by Articles of Incorporation or Fictitious Name Registration or Business License and, if applicable, a copy of the most recent Certification of Good Standing. (This information may be obtained from the Secretary of State's Office) . . . . Psychotherapeutic Services did not submit as part of its proposal Articles of Incorporation, Fictitious Name Registration, or Business License to prove that it is licensed to do business in the State of Florida. However, Psychotherapeutic Services submitted an untitled document that appeared to be a certificate from the State of Florida, Department of State, which had the electronic signature of the Secretary of State and was dated May 13, 2006. Petitioner submitted its Articles of Incorporation, as well as the untitled document from the Department of State. (The latter document was the same type of certificate Psychotherapeutic Services submitted with its proposal.) That referenced untitled document stated in relevant part the following: I [Secretary of State] certify from the records of this office that PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, authorized to transact business in the State of Florida, qualified on December 4, 1996. * * * I further certify that said corporation has paid all fees due this office through December 31, 2006, that its most recent annual report was filed on May 10, 2006, and its status is active. I further certify that said corporation has not filed a Certificate of Withdrawal. The document was identified at hearing by Petitioner's executive director as a Certificate of Good Standing. However, there was nothing on the document to indicate what the document was. The Technical Proposals were rated on a scale of zero to five, based on criteria established in the RFP. The rating system for the Technical Proposal was as follows: Score Evaluation Description 5 The proposal exceeds all technical specifications and requirements for the component specified. The approach is innovative, comprehensive, and complete in every detail. 4 The proposal meets all technical specifications and requirements for the component specified. The approach is comprehensive and complete in every detail. The proposal approach contains some innovative details for some of the components specified. 3 The proposal meets all technical specifications and requirement for the component specified. 2 The proposal does not meet all technical Specifications and requirements for the component specified, or it does not provide essential information to substantiate the provider's ability to provide the service. 1 The proposal contains errors and/or omissions in the area of the component specified. 0 The provider's proposal fails to demonstrate the ability to provide the service. The evaluation criteria for Criterion No. 2, which relates in part to prospective providers being registered to do business in the State of Florida, required the evaluators to rate the proposal on the following: Does the proposal reasonably, logically, and clearly identify an organizational structure with the capability to perform the services specified and required by the RFP? Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services failed to respond fully to the Technical Proposal by not submitting the Articles of Incorporation, Fictitious Name Registration, or Business License, whichever was applicable. By failing to submit any of the other named documents, Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services' Technical Proposal was non-responsive. The untitled documents submitted by both Petitioner and Psychotherapeutic Services, described in paragraph 42, appeared to be issued by the State of Florida. The evaluators' credible testimony was that they interpreted and considered the certificate from the Department of State as the Business License, and/or one of the other acceptable means of proof that the prospective providers were registered to do business in Florida, as required in the RFP. In light of their review and interpretation of the document from the Department of State, the evaluators awarded Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal and Petitioner's proposal the following scores for Evaluation Criterion No. 2: Psychotherapeutic Services Juvenile Service Program Evaluator Bright 4 4 Evaluator Flakes 3 4 Evaluator Rapale 3 3 Petitioner contends that because Psychotherapeutic Services did not submit its Articles of Incorporation, Fictitious Name Registration, or Business License as required by the RFP,5/ it should not have received scores of three or above for Criterion No. 2. The RFP required the prospective providers' proposals: to include a work plan for the collaboration and coordination of operations with other agencies providing services at the Circuit 17 Juvenile Assessment Center; and to specify procedures for collaboration and coordination with the local Department office in certain cases. Evaluation Criterion No. 3 provides as follows: Does the proposal reasonably, logically, and clearly identify the providers' intended interaction with local service resources as specified and required by the RFP? There is no dispute that both Psychotherapeutic Services' and Petitioner's proposals addressed the issues noted in paragraph 50 above. In addition to complying with those requirements, Petitioner submitted three letters of support to supplement its response to the requirement regarding the involvement of local agencies. As to Evaluation Criterion No. 3, Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal was awarded two scores of three and one score of four. Petitioner's proposal was awarded scores identical to those of Psychotherapeutic Services' scores. Petitioner argues that it should have been awarded more points and/or Psychotherapeutic Services should have been awarded fewer points for Evaluation Criterion No. 3, because it submitted three letters to indicate community support and no such letters were provided by Psychotherapeutic Services to support its bid proposal. The RFP neither prohibited, nor required, prospective providers from submitting letters to supplement their responses related to collaborating and coordinating with local agencies. Accordingly, no points were awarded or required to be awarded based on the submission of letters of support. The three evaluators' scores were based on their individual review and evaluation of the proposals submitted by Petitioner and by Psychotherapeutic Services. No proposal was scored against each other, but rather each proposal was scored separately and not compared to each other. Past Performance The general instructions for preparation of the Past Performance section of the RFP are provided in Attachment B, Section XVIII, E., which states in relevant part the following: 1. The purpose of this section is for the prospective provider to demonstrate its knowledge and experience in operating similar programs by providing information requested on the enclosed Attachment C, Part I, II, and/or III and all required supporting documentation. On the forms provided (Attachment C, Part I, II and/or III), the prospective Provider shall provide, if applicable, information regarding its past performance in the State of Florida, information regarding programs operated by the prospective Provider that have attained professional accreditation, and information regarding past performance in the United States outside of the State of Florida. The prospective Provider shall complete Attachment C and attach dated supporting documentation for Part II and/or III, if applicable. Failure to complete and return Attachment C for this RFP or supporting documentation, if applicable, shall result in a zero (0) score for Past Performance. All documentation provided for Parts II or III of Attachment C must include the start and end dates, be current dated and valid at least through the start date of the Contract that results from this RFP. The documentation must state that the program is a non-residential juvenile [program] and that is run by the prospective Provider. The Department is not responsible for research to clarify the prospective Provider's documentation. Prospective providers shall include the Attachment C, Part I, II and/or III for this RFP and the required supporting documents in Volume III. Failure to include these documents in Volume III shall result in zero (0) points being awarded for Past Performance. Further instructions on how to complete this section may be found in Attachment C. Attachment C provides in relevant part the following: If the prospective Provider has received Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Quality Assurance (QA) Reviews for its Non-Residential programs, that prospective Provider shall complete Parts I and III. Only scores from Parts I and III shall be considered for these prospective Providers. A prospective Provider who is operating or has operated Non-Residential program(s) in Florida must complete Part I of Attachment C. To complete Part I of Attachment C, the prospective Provider shall list all non-residential program information requested for each category. Failure to submit the attached Part I shall result in a score of zero (0) for this section. Part I of other RFP's will not be considered. All other prospective Providers shall complete Parts II and III. . . . The RFP required prospective providers to provide information regarding their past performance of juvenile justice non-residential programs on Attachment C, which consists of the following three parts: Part I, "Data Sheet: Past Performance on Non-Residential JAC [Juvenile Assessment Center] Programs; Part II, "Evaluation Questionnaire for Past Performance in the United States Outside of Florida"; and Part III, titled "Evaluation Questionnaire for Professional Accreditation in the United States." Psychotherapeutic Services was required to complete Attachment C, Part I, because it had experience operating a non-residential juvenile justice program in the State of Florida. However, because the programs Psychotherapeutic Services operated in Florida did not have professional accreditation, it was not required to complete Attachment C, Part III. Attachment C, Part I, required each respondent to provide the following information about non-residential programs it operates, or has operated, in the State of Florida: the program(s) that it had contracts to administer; the contract number(s); the program type; the beginning date of the contract; the ending date of the contract; the most recent quality assurance performance score of the program; and the most recent quality assurance compliance score of the program. For each category on Attachment C, Part I, there was a corresponding footnote, which provided the rationale and/or explanation regarding the requested information. Relevant to this proceeding are the categories contract number, the most recent quality assurance (QA) performance score, the most recent QA compliance score, and the footnotes related thereto. The footnote that corresponds to the category "contract number" provides the following: "This information is only to aid the Department in identifying the program named." The footnote that corresponds to the category "most recent quality assurance performance score," provides the following: "Quality Assurance Performance score for current year. If not evaluated yet and the program was reviewed last year, use last year's score." The footnote that corresponds to the "most recent Quality Assurance compliance score" provides the following: "Quality Assurance compliance score. If not evaluated yet and the program was reviewed last year, use last year's score." Psychotherapeutic Services did not submit the Attachment C, Part I, form that was included in the RFP. Instead, Psychotherapeutic Services prepared a re-created version of that form which was completed and submitted as part of its proposal. Except for a notation explaining its responses to the categories related to QA performance and compliance scores, Psychotherapeutic Services' re-created version of Attachment C, Part I, was almost identical to the Department's Attachment C. On the re-created Attachment C, Part I, Psychotherapeutic Services listed the one non-residential program it was operating in Florida and provided responses to the specified categories as follows: Category Response Program Name Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services (IDDS) Contract Number R601 Program Type Probation/Community Service Contract Begin Date 9/15/2003 Contract End Date 9/14/2009 Most Recent QA Performance Score 90 percent or Above Most Recent QA Compliance Score 90 percent or Above Psychotherapeutic Services included a notation on the re-created Attachment C, Part I, to explain the responses of "90% or above" that were listed as the most recent QA performance score and the most recent compliance score. The notation stated, "To maintain 'deemed status' all scores must be 90 percent or above. We do not have an exact number score." Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services' Past Performance Proposal is non-responsive to the RFP. First, Petitioner contends that Psychotherapeutic Services failed to submit the required information on the Attachment C form that was attached to the RFP, but submitted its information on the re-created version of Attachment C. The Department acknowledged that Psychotherapeutic Services re-created Attachment C, Part I. However, as previously indicated, the Department does not penalize respondents for re-creating required forms for their convenience. Rather, the information required by the forms must be provided in the response to obtain the proper score or evaluation. In response to the category related to the contract number of the program it was currently operating, Psychotherapeutic Services incorrectly listed the contract number as R601. The correct contract number of the non-residential program Psychotherapeutic Services was currently administering is RK601. The Department acknowledged that there was a typographical error or mistake on the re-created Attachment C, Part I, in listing the contract number of the program operated by Psychotherapeutic Services. However, the Department determined that this error was not critical with regard to the information that was to be provided.6/ Attachment C requires a respondent to provide performance and compliance scores for its most recent QA review of any programs currently run by the prospective provider. Instead of providing an exact score for the QA reviews, Psychotherapeutic Services provided and inserted a score of "90% or above" as their most recent QA performance and compliance scores on its Attachment C, Part I form. By way of explanation, Psychotherapeutic Services included a notation that the score was based on its "special deemed status." In accordance with the RFP, Psychotherapeutic Services submitted a report from the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance as supporting documentation for information regarding its QA performance and compliance scores. The report confirmed Psychotherapeutic Services' responses regarding its most recent performance and compliance scores. The report from the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance reflected that Psychotherapeutic Services' program received QA scores in 2003, but had not received any scores since then. As a result of its QA scores in 2003, Psychotherapeutic Services received "deemed status" by the Department. Psychotherapeutic Services had not received QA scores during the current year or the year prior to responding to the RFP. Therefore, Psychotherapeutic Services retained its special "deemed status" every year since 2003. The supporting documentation explained that to retain "deemed status," a provider must obtain a score of 90 percent or above each year at program review. The Department will no longer be using "deemed status" in the future, but that decision does not affect a provider/program currently holding this status. Thus, the status and scores as reported by Psychotherapeutic Services on the re-created version of Attachment C were properly reported at the time the proposal was submitted, verified, and scored. It is the Department's practice to verify the scores provided by the prospective providers who complete Attachment C, Part I, by accessing the information on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. This website is not limited to use by the Department, but is also available for use by the general public. Prior to scoring Past Performance proposals, the evaluator, Mr. Hatcher always verifies the QA information provided by any prospective provider using the official Department QA reports on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. He does not and has never viewed this practice as research, but as verification. The QA scores listed on the Department's official reports are the scores used by Mr. Hatcher in scoring the Past Performance Proposals. Consistent with his usual practice, Mr. Hatcher verified the responses given in Psychotherapeutic Services' proposal by accessing the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. Mr. Hatcher used the scores on the official report posted on that website to evaluate the Past Performance Proposals. The information on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website confirmed that Psychotherapeutic Services' performance and compliance scores were 90 percent or above. Psychotherapeutic Services' performance score was 95 percent, and its compliance score was 100 percent. Mr. Hatcher also utilized the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance to verify the information provided by Petitioner and confirmed that Petitioner's most recent average QA performance and compliance scores were 82.5 percent and 100 percent, respectively. These were the QA scores Petitioner provided on Attachment C, Part I, of its proposal for the average of its most recent QA performance and compliance scores. The "90% or above" figure provided by Psychotherapeutic Services, while accurate, is not a specific numbered percent score that could be used in calculating Psychotherapeutic Services' overall score for its Past Performance Proposal. Therefore, the evaluator appropriately did not use those figures. Instead, he used Psychotherapeutic Services' QA performance and compliance figures, 95 percent and 100 percent, that were on the Department's Bureau of Quality Assurance website. To determine the score for the Past Performance Proposal, the evaluator had to apply the required formula. The formula required that the most recent average performance score be multiplied by 1.5 and the most recent average compliance score be multiplied by 0.5. The score for the Past Performance Proposal is the sum of those numbers. By applying the required formula, Psychotherapeutic Services was awarded 142.5 points for its performance score and 50 points for its compliance score. This resulted in Psychotherapeutic Services being appropriately awarded a total score of 192.50 points for its Past Performance Proposal. By applying the required formula, Petitioner was awarded 123.75 points for its performance score and 50 points for its compliance scores. This resulted in Petitioner's being appropriately awarded a total score of 173.75 points in the Past Performance Proposal. The evaluators for the Technical Proposal, the Financial Proposal and the Past Performance Proposal of RFP P2021 properly and adequately evaluated those proposals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice, issue a final order dismissing the Juvenile Services Program, Inc.'s, Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 31st day of October, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent's conduct evidenced lack of "good moral character" as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent has two certifications: Correctional (No. 188545) issued on December 13, 1999; and Law Enforcement (No. 192621) issued on July 27, 2000. At the times relevant to the allegations of impropriety in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a law enforcement officer with the Kissimmee, Florida, Police Department. On or about July 13, 2007, while sleeping over at the minor victim's father's residence, Respondent picked up S.R., a 15-year-old child, put her into a bed and straddled her, holding her wrists with one hand while sliding his other hand over the side of her body. He then "nuzzled" or "sucked" on her neck and ear while S.R. struggled underneath him. Respondent "jumped" or "flinched back" when S.R.'s younger sister came back into the room, while S.R. continued to struggle with Respondent. The younger sister of S.R. was in the bathroom and heard S.R. call out. When she ran into the bedroom, Respondent jumped off of the bed, and the younger sister saw S.R. jump off of the bed and get into a second bed in the room. The younger sister also noticed that S.R. was "scared." S.R. sat "quietly and cried" while telling Krista Davis, her father's girlfriend that "while her little sister . . . was in the bathroom, . . . Leo had gotten on top of her in her bed and started to kiss her down her neck and on her ear . . . and rubbed the side of her body."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Leonardo Martinez, be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes; and that his certifications as a correctional and law enforcement officer be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 12th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sharon S. Traxler, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Leonardo Martinez
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Respondent's child care facility license should be disciplined for alleged violation of chapter 402, and if so the appropriate penalties. Neither party timely submitted Proposed Recommended Orders.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Donna J. Downing owns and operates a child care facility known as the Downing House, located at 8508 Lorento Street, Panama City, Florida. The child care facility is also her family's residence. She lives with her husband, son, and daughter who help operate the facility and who have been successfully screened by HRS. Ms. Downing was licensed in 1985 and holds a currently valid license. Her license is endorsed to allow her to operate her facility during nighttime hours. In April 1988, HRS became concerned that the operation of the Downing House into the night was proving too much for the husband and wife team, since HRS regulations require an adult to be present and awake during the night. HRS, therefore, inquired of the Downings concerning their proposed arrangements to ensure the presence of an awake adult. In order to continue to operate into the night, Respondent assured HRS that either she or her husband would be awake during the night while children were present on the premises. However, the evidence established that Respondent and her husband did not always live up to Respondent's representation to HRS. A standard mode of operation by Respondent was for both she and her husband to retire in the evening, leaving the front door unlocked so that the children's parents could pick up their children without disturbing the Downings. However, occasionally one of the Downings would stay up with the children. On May 5, 1988 a two year old male child was left at the Downing House by his mother for nighttime caretaking. At approximately 11:00 - 11:15 pm., Mr. and Ms. Downing had gone to bed. There were three children present at the Downing House when the Downings retired, including the two year old male child. The three children were asleep when Ms. Downing left them in the living room. No other adults were present. Ms. Downing had made arrangements for her adult son to look after the children when he got home from work. He was expected home at about 11:30 p.m. The son arrived home at approximately 11:40 p.m. When he arrived there were two children present. No method had been established by Respondent to advise her son of the number of children who should be present when he arrived home. He therefore did not realize that one child was missing. The son laid down on the couch in the living room and went to sleep. Sometime between the Downings going to bed and the arrival of their son, the two year old male child awakened, opened the front door and left the house. The child then unlatched the front yard gate and headed down Lorento Street towards its intersection with Laurie Lane. He then proceeded down Laurie Lane. At approximately 11:15 p.m., Denise Albert was driving down Laurie Lane. About two tenths of a mile from the Downing House, at 2414 Laurie Lane, Ms. Albert saw the missing child walking down the unlit and unpaved road. He was barefoot and in his pajamas. Ms. Albert stopped and questioned the child for 15 or 20 minutes. She could not obtain any information. She therefore called the Sheriff's office. Officer Troy Johns was dispatched at 11:30 p.m. The officer picked the child up from Ms. Albert and drove him around the neighborhood, including Lorento Avenue. The child could not or would not identify where he had come from and would not give his name. The child was more interested in the officer's gun and vehicle than in his surroundings. The officer took the child to the Sheriff's station and called HRS. Debra Young an HRS protective services investigator took the call and picked the child up from the Sheriff's office. She also could not establish the child's identity or address. She placed the child in a foster home. At 4:11 a.m. the Sheriff's office received a phone call in reference to a missing male child from the Downing House. The missing child was the child the Sheriff's office had turned over to Ms. Young. The Sheriff's office contacted Ms. Young. Mother and child were reunited the next morning. The call to the Sheriff's office from the Downing House had been prompted when the child could not be found after a search. The search ensued when, at approximately 3:00 a.m., the mother arrived to pick up her son. She discovered his absence and woke Respondent's son who in turn woke Mr. and Ms. Downing. One child remained. A second child had been picked up at approximately 2:30 a.m. by that child's mother. The son did not awaken and was not aware that the second child had been taken from the room in which he was asleep. The Downings searched the neighborhood for the missing child, including checking the Lagoon which is within a few blocks of the Downing House. The call to the Sheriff's office located the child. From 1985 until May 1988, Respondent was cited for the following violations of chapter 402, F.S. and the rules related thereto: September 3, 1985 Two gates in the play yard were left unlocked making it possible for children to have access to the road, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, in that this was an obvious hazard. Medicine was left on the kitchen cabinet within the children's reach, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(1) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. April 22, 1986 Cleaners were on the washer and dryer within the children's reach and Lysol and Windex were on the kitchen cabinet with food within the children's reach, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(1)(b) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. No fire drills, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code. October 1, 1987 Clorox, detergent, charcoal, briquettes, pliers, plastic bags, cigarette and cough drops were out at several locations throughout the facility and within the children's reach, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(1)(b) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. An iron was left with the cord hanging over the table within the children's reach making it possible for the iron to be reached and pulled down on top of a child, in violation of Rule 10M- 12.003(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. March 23, 1988 A medicine bottle containing medicine and tanning accelerator within the children's reach were located inside the facility and rose dust, Progreen, Spectracide ant killer and touch up paint were at several locations on the porch at the main entrance within the children's reach, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(1)(b) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. Suntan lotion and tanning accelerator and three sand filled milk cartons, all located on the patio at the back of the house leading to the play yard and all within the children's reach, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003 (1)(b) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. The gate to the play yard was unlocked allowing children access outside the play area, in violation of Rule 10M- 12.003(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The store room containing a lawn mower and other tools and hazardous materials was left unlocked, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(4)(b) , Florida Administrative Code in that it was an obvious hazard, with the children having access to said store room. A throw rug was on the steps leading to the patio and was not secure making an obvious hazard, in violation of Rule 10M-12.003(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. To Respondent's credit, all of the above violations were corrected within the time frames established by HRS. No fines were ever levied on the Respondent for the above violations. Also, to Respondents credit, the evidence disclosed that Respondent is generally a good caretaker of children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services revoke the nighttime operation endorsement on Respondent's license and impose an administrative fine of $1000. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March 1989, in Tallahassee, Lean County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 14th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna J. Downing 8508 Lorento Street Panama City, Florida 32407 R. S. Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from working with children.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) was responsible for administration of a program whereby Departmental employees were screened for employment with the Department to ensure that only persons qualified though training, experience, and behavior had direct contact with clients of the Department. Petitioner, Brian Reed, was employed by ACTS as a drug laboratory technician on the alcohol, drugs, and mental health, (ADM), side of Bradlee Manor, a residential facility operated by the DJJ. Bradlee Manor also operates a program for the DJJ for children between the ages of 10 and 13 who have been convicted of felony offenses. Mr. Reed also worked on the department’s side of the facility for about six months when the facility first opened, but found that he did not like it. His preference was to work with children with a substance abuse problem, and as a result, he was transferred to the ADM side of the facility. He does not want to work on the Department’s side but instead wants to continue working with the substance abuse residents because he is good at it and he likes it. However, as a part of his job it is necessary for him to come into contact with the DJJ residents from time to time for such things as lab work, and serving as a driver when no one else is available. Throughout his five and a half years of employment at the institution, Petitioner has received periodic performance appraisals. At first, admittedly, he had some minor problems with the accomplishment of his duties, but as he learned the requirements of his job, his difficulties disappeared. At no time were any of his problems related to his discipline or inappropriate behavior, and only on one report was his performance classified as conditional. On all other reports he has been rated either satisfactory or above satisfactory. There are no recorded instances of inappropriate behavior recorded in Petitioner’s employment file. In fact, the supervisor who at one time rated him lower than satisfactory later requested Petitioner be reassigned with him to a new facility. Petitioner has a criminal record. In June 1983, when he was a young man, he was arrested for car theft and for stealing a radio from the car and pawning it. At the time of this offense, Petitioner was 18 years old and almost consistently under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and he admits to having committed the offense to get money to support his habit. He was, at the time, living with his father who was also a drunk. As a result of this offense, adjudication was withheld and Petitioner was placed on two years probation which he subsequently violated in October 1983 by stealing his step- father’s truck. Again adjudication was withheld, but in February 1984, Petitioner was arrested for grand larceny and dealing in stolen property. Though the grand larceny charge was dropped, he was convicted on dealing in stolen property and was incarcerated. He claims that during this period, he was still on drugs and his offenses related to his habit. On October 13, October 15, and November 5, 1985, Petitioner was arrested on a total of 12 counts of burglary and grand larceny and was found guilty of all counts. He was sentenced to four and one half years confinement with a recommendation by the sentencing judge that he be confined in a facility where drug rehabilitation treatment was available. Petitioner remained in prison until he was released in July 1987. While in prison, Petitioner contends he realized he must change his life and weaned himself from drugs and alcohol, both of which were available in prison. On his release he entered a 12-step program for help with his alcohol and drug problem and is still enrolled. It is a life-time commitment, and he attends meetings two or three times a week. He has been drug and alcohol free since January 1988, when he had two glasses of wine on his wedding anniversary. He has not had any adverse involvement with the law since his discharge from prison, and is currently engaged to be married a second time. He owns a home and has a three-year-old son. He owns animals, fishes for a hobby, and associates only with people who do not drink or take drugs. When Petitioner was first hired by the DHRS, the predecessor agency to the DJJ, he made a complete disclosure of his criminal record and was cleared for employment by the Department’s screening process. By letter of August 19, 1993, James E. Thomas, the District Screening Coordinator for DHRS’s District Six, advised ACTS Inc., Petitioner’s employer, that the screening background check on Petitioner had been completed and had found nothing which would disqualify him from working in the ACTS program. The screening was considered to be valid for five years. Between 1993 and 1998, the Florida Legislature changed the statute to include misconduct of the nature committed by Petitioner among the bases for disqualification. By letter dated April 1, 1998, Priscilla A. Zachary, Background Screening Unit Supervisor for the DJJ, advised Petitioner that he was ineligible for continued employment in a position of special trust because of his prior criminal record. The record relied upon for this determination was identical to that made known to the DHRS when Petitioner was first hired and cleared by that agency. No additional of different misconduct was involved. Petitioner was also advised of his right to request an exemption from disqualification and he did so. By letter dated April 16, 1998, Jenny Spence, the ACTS program supervisor for the program in which Petitioner was employed, supported Petitioner’s continued employment, pointing out that one of the main concepts under which the organization operates is to support the employment of individuals who have made unfavorable choices in the past, have been rehabilitated, and are now leading productive lives. Petitioner is a prime example of such an individual, and was considered to be of good moral character now. Ms. Stone also pointed out that Petitioner had made full disclosure of his background and had been cleared for employment by the predecessor agency. On April 21, 1998, a District Screening Committee was appointed to consider Petitioner’s request for exemption. One of the members of the committee was Donald W. Lewis, a senior management analyst II, who has served on numerous exemption committees. As was pointed out in the letter of appointment, Mr. Lewis indicated the role of the committee is to look at the material presented, to listen to the evidence presented, and to make a determination if there is sufficient evidence to indicate the applicant’s employment should be continued, consistent with the guidelines provided by the Department. The committee met on April 28, 1998, and heard the Petitioner’s presentation. Petitioner testified in person, describing his offenses, his previous problems and how he had dealt with them, and his rehabilitation efforts. Petitioner also presented testimony from others by telephone and introduced documentary evidence in his behalf. He was completely forthcoming and gave the committee all the information it requested. The open session of the committee meeting lasted approximately one and a half hours. Petitioner did not ask for additional time nor did he ask to submit additional information. After Petitioner was excused, the committee immediately deliberated in closed session and, after considering all the information which had been presented, concluded unanimously that Petitioner should not be granted the exemption. The factors on which the committee relied in its decision were, in the main: the fact that Petitioner’s criminal record was so extensive as to both gravity and repetition. (Even while on probation, and after release from [the first] incarceration, Petitioner committed additional offenses.) the fact that Petitioner was twice incarcerated. Petitioner’s violation of probation. All of the above factors were not the characteristics that were desired in the DJJ programs contracted to ACTS. Mr. Lewis sees a difference between ADM residents and DJJ residents. In his opinion, Petitioner should not be in direct supervision of DJJ residents with his criminal background, but could work in other programs with children for other agencies. He is of the opinion that DJJ residents, themselves felony offenders, should have role models who do not have criminal backgrounds. According to Mr. Lewis, the committee found some degree of rehabilitation in Petitioner, but not enough evidence to show total rehabilitation. Such evidence would include presentations from people to show no likelihood of relapse, notwithstanding the extended period of time which has already elapsed since his last offense without relapse, and Petitioner’s successful and continuing participation in the 12-step program. Mr. Lewis was unable to state what objective information would be enough. He compares Petitioner with other employees who have not been convicted or incarcerated, but admits there are no objective definitions of what would be enough evidence to demonstrate complete rehabilitation. The committee took the position that Petitioner’s moral character has been good recently, but contrasted that with his youthful record. This was enough, it was believed, to give a legitimate concern about his relapsing. Another concern expressed by Mr. Lewis, but which was not raised by any of the evidence presented, is that Petitioner might have learned conduct while in prison which might make him a danger to children. No evidence to give rise to that suspicion was presented and it is pure speculation. The Department’s Inspector General, Mr. Perry Turner, pointed out that the number one goal of the Department is to improve the environment so that citizens can have a reduction in fear of crime and a better quality of life as a result of a reduction in juvenile delinquency. In hiring employees, both departmental and contract, the Department applies three priorities. The first is the public safety. The second is cooperation with communities. The third is accountability by offenders and the Department. Employment screening standards are applicable to both the Department and contractor employees. The screening process is overseen by the Inspector General who sits as action officer on exemption requests after the screening by the exemption committee. In the instant case, Mr. Turner reviewed the Petitioner’s file and the record of the committee, and based on the entire package, decided to deny the request for exemption. His reasons for doing so rest on Petitioner’s extensive criminal record, the severity of the acts committed, his double incarceration, and his violations of probation along with all the information submitted by Petitioner. The issue is whether Petitioner should be allowed to work with the special needs clients of the DJJ, and whether he could be a good role model for children already involved with the criminal justice system. Considering the criminal justice purpose of the agency, as opposed to its social service purpose, and consistent with the dictates of the enabling statute, Mr. Turner concluded the exemption should be denied. Petitioner disagrees with the position taken by Mr. Turner. In his opinion, he would be an appropriate role model for the young people incarcerated in the department’s facility. His success and rehabilitation would, he claims, show that an individual who was on drugs and alcohol, who gave up those substances, and who applied himself to making a better life for himself, can, with appropriate help, guidance, and assistance, make good. Ms. Loretta Longworth, an administrative assistant in personnel management for ACTS, is the individual who submitted the screening request for Petitioner. She recalls that when Petitioner was hired in 1993, he disclosed his complete criminal history which was forwarded to the DHRS. That agency approved him without restriction. Since that time, Petitioner has worked successfully for ACTS in a number of different positions, including serving as a direct care worker for children and as a shift supervisor. Based on their experience with Petitioner, ACTS has no reason to believe he is not of good moral character. He has demonstrated no problems, nor has he received any bad reports, and there is no reason to believe he would be a danger to children who would come into contact with him. Much the same opinion is held by Kenneth Hogue, Petitioner’s long-time supervisor at Bradley Manor, and the individual who hired Petitioner at ACTS more than five years ago. Petitioner made him aware of his criminal background at that time, and over the several years he has supervised Petitioner, has found his performance to be above satisfactory. In fact, he asked Petitioner to go with him from one facility to another. Though his experience with Petitioner is purely work- based, Mr. Hogue finds Petitioner to be of good moral character and has no reason to believe Petitioner would pose any danger to children. Mr. Hogue does not believe a criminal record by itself should be disqualifying. The individual is the issue, and Petitioner’s story is a prime example of learning from mistakes and succeeding. Mr. Hogue has no reservations at all about Petitioner working with DJJ residents. Based on his day-to-day observation of Petitioner, he finds Petitioner to be a positive role model for young people. In Hogue’s opinion, it is important to have both reformed malefactors and individuals with clean records working with children in the juvenile justice system. Lawrence Douglas, a personal friend and prior co-worker, and himself a recovering alcoholic, works as an addiction counselor at another facility. He found Petitioner to be very good with clients who gave orderly directions and never posed a threat to the clients. According to Mr. Douglas, it is not unusual for recovering substance abusers to work in counseling, and they are usually good at it. Petitioner is, and Hogue does not believe Petitioner, who he finds to be of good moral character, would pose any threat to his clients. Nadine Griffith, a teacher in Hillsborough County, met Petitioner at a Narcotics Anonymous meeting about 12 years ago and sees him weekly at their home group sessions. She has observed Petitioner in the company of juveniles in their recovery group, and from those repeated observations does not believe he would be any danger to juveniles. Juveniles seem to like Petitioner and come to him for guidance. He passes his substantial recovery experience on to these juveniles, and this is helpful to their recovery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a Final Order granting Brian Reed an exemption from disqualification from employment to work in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary L. Greenwood, Esquire Greenwood & Associates Law Group, P.A. 2130 West Brandon Boulevard Suite 101 Brandon, Florida 33511 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Inspector General’s Office 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
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.
