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 issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was subjected to an adverse employment action (termination) for discriminatory reasons, based upon his race, an alleged violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Billy K. Speed was an employee of Premier Hospitality, Management, Inc., doing business as the Grand Seas Resort, for approximately three years prior to the termination of his employment, which resulted in this action. Mr. Speed is a black male. The Respondent operates a resort in Daytona Beach and a substantial portion of its business activities involves conducting sales tours of its properties. A significant part of Mr. Speed's duties as an employee of the resort was to drive the tour buses bringing potential customers to the Grand Seas Resort facility. His duties additionally involved working on the "image team" involving keeping the exterior of the facility and grounds in proper condition. He worked on the maintenance staff and the maintenance manager or supervisor was his immediate superior. Mr. Speed occasionally assisted in cleaning up "the fitness center" in the Grand Seas facility, although this was not part of his regular duties. He was not performing that duty on the day the events in question, described below, unfolded. Mr. Speed had a prior criminal record but the Grand Seas Resort management was aware of that when he was hired. As shown by the testimony of Managers Mr. Rinear and Mr. Cottelli, Mr. Speed was a good employee and was well liked by his fellow employees and by the members of management who testified for the Respondent in this proceeding. He had good evaluations and had good personal relationships with his superiors at the facility. On or about October 23, 2004, a motor cycle wash or "bike wash" was conducted on the grounds of the resort, just outside the fitness facility on the ground floor level. Various employees were helping with the bike wash which was apparently a charitable fund raising event. During the course of the day one of the employees who was helping with the bike wash, Heather Wood, placed her purse (apparently on a shelf) under the receptionist counter in the fitness facility. The fitness facility was open that day and various persons and employees had access to the facility and could move in and out of it, including the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintains that there were five white females who were helping with the bike wash who he saw in the fitness center at various times that day in the vicinity of the receptionist counter. Three of the white females were employees and two of them were former employees. The Petitioner also had access to and did enter the fitness center that day. He contends that sometime around 2:30 in the afternoon of that day, just before he left the resort's premises for the day, he went into the fitness facility to use the telephone. The telephone was kept on top of the counter in the fitness facility. The Petitioner maintains that it was his habit and on this occasion he did squat down or sit down behind and below the level of the counter top while using the phone. There was a bar-type stool behind the counter in the fitness facility. The five white females had access to the fitness facility that day as did an unknown number of employees and non- employees of the resort who were either working at the bike wash event or present on the premises for other reasons. The Respondent employees a substantial number of minority employees as well as Caucasian employees. Many of them, whether or not their work assignment involved their presence in the fitness facility, had access to the fitness facility that day. Heather Wood reported to the Respondent's management that money was missing from her purse which had been behind and underneath the reception area counter in the fitness facility. Upon learning of that occurrence, Mr. Colitelli, a partial owner of the resort and Mr. Rinear, the general manager, viewed a surveillance tape recorded by the security company used by the Respondent, which was taken that day by a surveillance camera located in the fitness facility. Mr. Colitelli and Mr. Rinear viewed the entire tape for that day as well as the portion of the tape which was introduced into evidence.1/ In viewing the tape both Mr. Colitelli and Mr. Rinear observed that the Petitioner had gone behind the counter in the fitness facility that day during a relevant time period before the alleged theft was reported and they observed that he bent down for some substantial period of time behind the counter, out of sight of the camera and where the purses were located. Both Mr. Colitelli and Mr. Rinear maintained in their testimony that no other person who entered the fitness facility during that day was shown on the surveillance tape to be in the area of the purses behind and beneath the counter. The Petitioner maintained in his testimony that the five white females he considers to be similarly situated employees (or former employees) were around and behind the counter at various times that day and, under his theory of the case, would have opportunity to have been suspects in the theft as well. It is also a fact that due to the circumstances of the way the bike wash event was conducted and due to the fact that the fitness facility was open that day to other employees of the resort, as well as persons participating in the bike wash, that other persons both employees and otherwise had access to the fitness facility that day. In any event, according to both Mr. Colitelli and Mr. Rinear, no other person who entered the facility during the day in question was shown on the tape to have been in the immediate area of the purses, including the purse from which money was allegedly taken. Accordingly, they believed that they had a reasonable suspicion that the Petitioner may have been involved in the theft of the missing money. This belief is based upon his presence behind the counter and his bending down out-of-sight behind the counter for a significant period of time where the purses were located. Consequently, the Petitioner was called to a meeting with Mr. Colitelli and Mr. Rinear for them to question him about this occurrence. When they questioned the Petitioner about what he knew concerning the theft incident he denied any knowledge or responsibility for it. Mr. Colitelli's and Mr. Rinear's testimony indicates that the Petitioner offered to take a polygraph to establish that he was not guilty of the theft and the Petitioner maintains that they asked him to take a polygraph. The Respondent had never followed a practice of requiring any employees to submit to a polygraph examination and this was the first such occasion where a polygraph was scheduled for an employee. In fact, as established by Mr. Rinear, in his four years with the Respondent company no employee had ever been required to take a polygraph. He did not even know of a polygraph examiner, but had to look in the yellow pages to locate one when he and Mr. Colitelli decided to schedule a polygraph for the Petitioner. The polygraph was scheduled for two days later Friday, October 26, 2004. The Petitioner told them that he would have to "speak to someone" about whether or not to take the polygraph. The next morning, Thursday morning, he came in and talked to Ms. Thompson about the matter and told her that upon advice of an attorney that he had decided not to take the polygraph. At that point Ms. Thompson recommended to her superiors that he be "laid-off." The Petitioner's employment was terminated that day. The Petitioner admitted that he was in the fitness center on the day the theft occurred and admitted going behind the counter. He admitted stooping down behind the counter for a significant period of time and offered no explanation for doing so other than using the phone. In fact, in order to use the phone it was not necessary to stoop down low behind the counter because the phone was kept on top of the counter. The Petitioner could have access to the phone from in front of the counter, or alternatively, their was a bar stool behind the counter upon which the Petitioner could sit while using the phone. He offered no plausible explanation as to why he had to stoop down low behind the counter where he would not appear on the camera. The management of the Respondent's facility, Mr. Colitelli and Mr. Rinear, did not question other persons who had entered the fitness facility on the day in question because no other person shown on the video tape had been in the immediate area of the purses and squatting down behind the counter, out-of-sight of the camera. The five white females referenced by the Petitioner in his testimony were not questioned, but neither was any other employee or other person who had access to the fitness facility that day. This is because the witnesses for the Respondent saw no other persons on the tape they viewed who were in the vicinity of where the purse was kept behind the counter and who behaved in such a way as to arouse suspicion that they might have been capable of taking the money. The Petitioner offered no witnesses in support of his contention or version of events other than his own testimony. The Petitioner admitted that he had a good relationship with his manager, Mr. Rinear, who made the decision to lay him off. They had always had friendly relations and he did not ever feel discriminated against by Mr. Rinear or other Grand Seas employees or managers, except with regard to the termination incident at issue. The Petitioner also admitted that it would have not have been necessary to go behind the counter to use the phone and that he had no employment business in the fitness center that day. He offered no reason why he was there on that date other than the stated need to use the telephone. The Respondent clearly had a reasonable suspicion that the Petitioner might have taken the money. The Respondent candidly acknowledges that the suspicious nature of the Petitioner's behavior depicted on the tape does not prove that, in fact, the Petitioner took the missing money. It terminated him because of its suspicion that he took the money not because it had proof that he took the money. The Respondent elected not to make any record of the Petitioner being terminated, as a termination for cause, because of any misconduct related to this incident. Rather, it entered the reason for his termination on employment compensation filing documents as being that the Petitioner was the subject of a lay-off that it carried out with regard to some forty-five or forty-six other employees. This was due to hurricane damage to the resort suffered during the 2004 hurricanes. Ms. Thompson, the personnel director, testified that the Petitioner was selected to be part of the lay-off because he did not have alternative skills such as plumbing, painting, or electrician skills, which might have enabled him to assist in the repair work being done on the facility due to the hurricane damage. It is determined, however, that such was a reason given by the Respondent in order to insure that the Petitioner would not have a firing for cause on his record, would be able to obtain a good employment reference upon leaving the Respondent's employ, and would be able to obtain his unemployment compensation benefits. It is found that the real reason he was terminated was due to the Respondent's suspicion of his involvement in the theft. The Respondent's witnesses established that they and the Petitioner had always had a good relationship and that, by showing his departure as being as a result of a lay-off due to a reduction in employees because of hurricane damage, they would be doing him a favor by preserving his right to unemployment compensation benefits and to a good reference for other employment. There was no testimony elicited by the Petitioner or the Respondent which indicated that the employment decision was affected by or based upon the Petitioner's race. The Respondent has employed substantial numbers of minorities of several categories. In fact, the percentage of black employees was approximately double the percentage of blacks available in the community labor market for employment. The lay-off due to hurricane damage of approximately 46 persons did not disproportionately consist of minorities either. In fact, the majority of the persons laid off in this effort were Caucasian. The only incident of racial discrimination during his employ with the Respondent, testified to by the Petitioner, was an incident that had occurred approximately 1 1/2 years before when an unknown person had written a racial epithet on a newspaper in the work area where Mr. Speed worked at the time, while he was away from the area. The Petitioner admitted that he had no idea who had done it but he reported it to his superiors and Ms. Thompson, the personnel director. She vigorously investigated the incident and interviewed all employees who had reasonable access to the area where the newspaper was found. She was unable to determine if anyone who worked for Grand Seas, or any other person, might have been guilty of committing that act. Whether or not the Petitioner requested the polygraph or Mr. Rinear and Mr. Colitelli requested that he take the polygraph makes little difference. The Petitioner maintains that he was discriminated against because of being black because the five white females he postulated as comparative employees were treated more favorably than he with regard to the incident (no questioning and no polygraph.) This theory fails to take into account the fact that it has not been demonstrated that the Petitioner and those five white females were the only persons who had access to the fitness facility when the purported theft occurred during that day. No other employees, whether white females or other minority or Caucasian employees were questioned or scheduled for a polygraph. The Petitioner was questioned because of the above-referenced behavior, witnessed by management on the video tape on the day at issue, which caused them to focus their suspicions on him. Since they felt they had no reasonable suspicion of any other employee whether minority or not, who had access to the fitness facility that day, they had a plausible reason for not attempting to schedule a polygraph or questioning of such other employees or persons.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2006.
The Issue The issues as alluded to in the Statement of Preliminary Matters and as will be more completely described in the course of this Recommended Order concern the question of whether the Respondent has committed offenses as a tenured instructor with the Petitioner, Daytona Beach Community College, which would cause disciplinary action to be taken against her, to include termination?
Findings Of Fact Background Facts Petitioner, Daytona Beach Community College, is an educational institution within the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of providing post-secondary education. To that end, it operates in accordance with the rules of the State Board of Education and State Board of Community Colleges and such rules, procedures and policies as its board of trustees would deem appropriate. Among the responsibilities of that board of trustees would be the hiring and firing of employees, to include instructional staff. See Section 240.319, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Amanda Leavitt, is an employee of the Daytona Beach Community College. She is a tenured faculty member. She holds the position of instructor and has been in a continuing contract position since August 17, 1981. Respondent, in addition to being an instructor, is the program manager in the Dental Assisting Program within the Division of Health, Human and Public Service Occupations of the Daytona Beach Community College. She had been an active member of the faculty until October 8, 1987, when she was suspended based upon the allegations that form the basis of this dispute. That suspension has remained in effect pending the outcome of the proceedings involving the charges at issue. The description of the procedural events that brought about the hearing in this case as set forth in the preliminary matters statement within this Recommended Order are incorporated as facts. The Petitioner, through its charges of October 12 and 23, 1987, has given sufficient notice to the Respondent to allow her to prepare and defend against those accusations. Respondent made a timely request for formal hearing in this case. This case began following complaints made by a number of students undergoing training in the Dental Assisting Program in the academic year 1986- 1987. Specifically, on June 11, 1987, these students, approximately twelve in number, met with the chairman of the Allied Health Department and program manager for the Respiratory Therapy Program, Charles Carroll, to describe their sense of dissatisfaction with certain circumstances within the Dental Assisting Program. Out of that conference, Carroll pursued the matter with Respondent Leavitt, and the Petitioner employed the offices of its internal auditor, Tom Root, to ascertain information about the contentions made by the students. Among other matters being examined by the auditor, was a question concerning the collection of money from the students within the Dental Assisting Program in that academic year, unrelated to the normal fee collections associated with enrollment at the Daytona Beach Community College. In furtherance of his task, the auditor prepared Internal Audit #83, which is constituted of the majority of Petitioner's exhibits. The audit was concluded on September 24, 1987, and contained twelve specific findings. Those findings, which were not favorable to the Respondent, formed the basis of her suspension on October 8, 1987, and underlie the five charges dating from October 12, 1987. Further investigation was done by the auditor subsequent to September 24, 1987, and that continuing investigation and certain conduct by the Respondent which the Petitioner regarded as actionable led to the two supplemental charges of October 23, 1987. Mr. Carroll had given the Respondent certain instructions concerning the allegations made by the students in which he sought the Respondent's assistance in clarifying what had occurred within the program and rectifying any problems that might exist. He was not satisfied with her response, as to the timeliness or the comprehensiveness of her reply to his instructions. The internal auditor in the face of Respondent's remarks about the funding dispute related to the payment of monies by the students sought to verify those observations by the Respondent by contact with members of the Dental Assisting Class in the academic year 1986-1987 and met with a considerable difference of opinion between those students and the Respondent. This led the auditor to believe that the Respondent was being less than candid in her relation of vents, so much so that the audit critical of the Respondent ensued. There is now related a discussion of the specific charges made against the Respondent: Charges 1 and 2 (October 12, 1987) Misconduct in office in the form of collecting and allowing those under your supervision to collect funds from students under false pretenses (i.e. claiming that these funds were lab fees) also the sale by you and those under your supervision of college program supplies, class handouts, and textbooks during the 1985-86, and 1986-87 school years. These collections were in violation of college policies and procedures and also violated the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, principle one, concerning instructor's responsibilities for dealing justly and considerately with each student and avoiding exploitation of professional relationships with students. Misconduct in office in the form of the existence of a cash shortage of approximately $400.00 together with a total lack of records as to the disposition of these funds which were collected from dental students during the Fall semester 1986-87 and the improper depositing of some of these funds in an off-campus account during the Fall semester 1986-87. The academic year 1986-1987 was constituted of the Fall semester in 1986, the Winter semester in 1987 and a shortened semester described as a Spring semester in 1987. In that school year Respondent was issued contracts for the period August 18, 1986 through May 1, 1987 and May 5, 1987 through June 29, 1987. This included approximately one week of employment prior to the students coming on campus in the Fall 1986 and two weeks beyond the time of their final exams in the Spring term of 1987. The 1986-1987 Daytona Beach Community College Catalog describing the Dental Assisting Program had a reference to an estimated cost for a "lab kit" as being $50. This was the first time that any such reference had been made in the college catalog. In addition, within the Dental Assisting Student Handbook related to the Dental Assisting Program published for the Fall of 1986, there was a similar reference to the "lab kit .....$50" fee. This had not been referenced in the student handbook for the academic year 1985-1986. The reference for "lab kit.....$50," was again stated in the student handbook for the Winter term 1987. These remarks in the publications concerning the "lab kit $50. " were placed under the auspices of the Respondent. The origins of the reference to the $50 amount came about when the Respondent and another employee of the Daytona Beach Community College, Sharon Mathes, had visited Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida, and observed that the students in a similar dental assisting program to that of the Daytona Beach Community College program had individual laboratory kits. Respondent and Mathes then discussed that it might be beneficial to have individual laboratory kits for the students in the Daytona Beach Community College program. This individual disbursement in their mind might assist in the preservation of the school's property and teach responsibility on the part of the students. The materials that were to be placed in the kit for the academic year 1986-1987 were purchased through the ordinary purchase order process for the provision of supplies for the Dental Assisting Program at school expense. This was a process in which an inventory check was made and necessary implements to fill out kits for an anticipated student enrollment of 25 participants were purchased. In this planning, a discussion was entered into between Respondent and Mathes concerning the question of whether the students should repurchase those materials that had been paid for through the ordinary expenditures associated with the program. Specifically, Respondent had made mention of the fact of the students buying the contents. However, it was never decided that they would buy those materials based upon a decision made between the Respondent and Mathes. Mathes surmises that it was not decided because the cost of those materials would be in excess of $70-75, an amount which exceeded the "lab kit. $50." The students did purchase the container or art box into which the materials were placed. This purchase was made from the campus bookstore and was not part of the $50 fee. At the commencement of the academic year 1986-1987, their uncertainty remained as to the use of any $50 amount to be collected from each student, reference the "lab kit." Respondent and Mathes had discussed the fact that, if the students returned laboratory kit items and some were missing or broken, that some of the money that had been gained from the students might be used to replace those items and avoid having to issue further purchase orders to be paid for by the Daytona Beach Community College for the replacement of those items that were no longer available for use. It was also discussed that the money might be used to offset other expenses such as costs of graduation, to send a student to a seminar, or possibly establishing a fund for students that may become financially stricken and might not be able to complete the program without financial assistance directed toward their tuition. There had also been discussion of reimbursement of monies not used for these general purposes, but no amount was arrived at concerning reimbursement. In the final analysis, the impression that Mathes was given out of these discussions was that the money would be used in the program and dispensed however it might be needed. In any event, it was determined by the Respondent and Mathes that $50 additional money over and above other fees authorized by the Daytona Beach Community College would be collected for each student participating in the Dental Assisting Program in the 1986-1987 academic year. It was explained to the students the $50 additional cost, a product of the Respondent and Mathes unrelated to authorized collections through the Daytona Beach Community College, was an additional cost item. The students were told that if it were a fee that was too much, they would have the opportunity to drop out of the program. Thus, the fee was presented as a mandatory fee. At the orientation at the beginning of in the academic year 1986-1987, Respondent, and Mathes, participated in the explanation about the $50 charge. The presentation by the Respondent and Mathes pointed out to the students that the $50 extra cost described as "lab kit-$50" was related to materials such as plaster that the students would employ in their course work and to defray expenses associated with graduation. The impression given to the students was that the materials were being rented or leased. The explanation given was that the $50 amount must be paid before graduation. In furtherance of this purpose, Respondent and Mathes continued to pursue the collection of this $50 amount from the students throughout the Fall term 1986. Laboratory fee amounts were collected from 16 students. Nine students paid the amount by check and seven through cash payments. The checks totalling $450 and cash in the amount of $50 was deposited in an off-campus bank account, unauthorized by the Daytona Beach Community College. This account was described with the Sun Bank of Volusia County, Daytona Beach, Florida, as DBCC Student Dental Assistants' Association. Checks by the students were made over to the Dental Assisting Program of DBCC or Daytona Beach Community College. There were $300 in funds collected from the students which had not been deposited into the bank account, and the exact whereabouts of those funds has not been established. The money collected and deposited and that which is unaccounted for had been held in an area of the physical plant related to the Dental Assisting Program to which faculty and students had easy access. Placement of the $50 fees on the grounds of the Daytona Beach Community College included placement in a cigar box in a file drawer and one $50 cash payment was kept or maintained separately in Respondent's desk drawer for what is described on the receipt given to that student as "...for cash." That student was Susan Woodstock. That $50 was part of the $300 which has not been explained in terms of its ultimate disposition. Respondent has contended that these $50 collections were in the way of club dues similar to those that had been collected in years previous for students participating in the Dental Assisting Program, as recently as the academic year 1985- 1986. In that year and other years as well which predate 1986- 1987, the students had paid incremental dues, usually $5 per month, for participation in a club. On the occasion of the academic year 1986-1987, collections for participation in a student club were not made. Therefore, the $50 amounts paid were unrelated to club dues. Having considered the facts in this case, it is evident that the Respondent was aware that the $50 collections from the 16 students were not associated with club dues. Respondent also participated in and condoned the unauthorized sale of X-ray film and pencils to the students in the academic year 1986-1987 and in other school years. These monies were collected in the way of petty cash maintained in envelopes in the Respondent's desk or in a cigar box maintained in another area. No receipts were given concerning the collection of these monies and no records were maintained. Mary Reep, a dental assisting student at Daytona Beach Community College in the academic year 1985-1986 paid $5 for the student handbook associated with that coursework. This handbook should have been provided without paying her program instructors. The payment was made to the Respondent and Mathes who were participating in the sale of the handbook. Reep also observed other people purchase the student handbook in that year. Mathes participated in other sales of handbooks than the transaction with Reep in the academic year 1985-1986, Fall semester. On this occasion, Respondent remarked to Mathes that if the community college knew of this collection of $5 for the handbooks, Respondent would be "fired." This practice of the sale of the handbooks continued in the academic year 1986-1987, at which time a number of students purchased the Fall 1986 student handbook from the Respondent and Mathes. During the time that Mathes had been working in the Dental Assisting Program, this had been the common practice, i.e. the collection of funds for the student handbook. On every occasion, the students had been entitled to be provided a student handbook without charges beyond those authorized by the Daytona Beach Community College. The community college had not allowed for additional charges by faculty placed against the students when distributing the student handbooks. Charge 3 (October 12, 1987) Misconduct in office for your intentional overpayment of assistants for work not performed by them during December 1985 and January 1986. On August 28, 1985, Respondent wrote to Charles Carroll, her supervisor, and asked, among other things, that two instructors be hired to help manage and oversee 24 students. This related to making available two persons who had a familiarity with the University of Florida's dental school, at which the students would be involved in an externship program commencing in January, 1986, or the Winter term of the academic year 1985-1986. In turn, Carroll referred this to his superior, Dr. Lynn O'Hara, describing the transport and involvement in the Winter term. This memo to Carroll from O'Hara is of September 9, 1985. On September 16, 1985, O'Hara wrote a memo to Carroll in which it was indicated that one position could be approved to be shared by two persons, if the hiring did not commence during the Fall term. Nonetheless, Respondent arranged for and took Denise Dorne and Kim Rockey to the dental school in Gainesville, Florida on December 18, 1985, during the Fall semester. No indication was made in the Respondent's request for leave that she would intend to take Dorne and Rockey. Respondent followed this trip by including eleven hours of paid time for the December 18, 1985 trip for Dorne and Rockey on their initial pay request for the month of January, 1986, which was signed by the Respondent. In effect, these two individuals had, contrary to the instructions of the Respondent's superior, been allowed to undertake activities at a time which they were not authorized to participate as employees in the Dental Assisting Program at Daytona Beach Community College. Dorne and Rockey were paid for eight trips made for class participation in the Winter term of 1986 in the externship at the dental school in Gainesville, Florida, as shown in pay requests that were signed and submitted by the Respondent for the benefit of those employees. This action by the Respondent was taken knowing that the two individuals had not attended one of the sessions in Gainesville. This circumstance is mitigated by the fact that the Respondent had the two individuals undertake other assignments of equal value to make up for the nonattendance at the externship session. Charge 4 (October 12, 1987) Willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office for your absence without authorized leave and failure to perform your duties on January 23, 1986 for which you received pay; your failure to teach all classes as indicated on your Load Letter as your teaching responsibility during the Fall semester 1986; and Absence without Leave and failure to fulfill prescribed duties for the period of June 22 through June 29, 1987, for which you received pay. On January 15, 1986, Respondent made request for annual leave for January 24 and 27, 1986, which was approved. She also determined to take leave and was absent on January 23, 1986, without authorization. On January 23, 1986, she was on a ski trip in North Carolina. The fact of her being away from the Daytona Beach Community College is acknowledged in a slip found within the Petitioner's Exhibit 32 in which she says, "I had leave on 1/23/86." This references the reason why she is not seeking to collect money for participation in the externship at the dental school in Gainesville, Florida on that date as discussed in Petitioner's Exhibit 32. Related to this nonattendance, Respondent has been less than forthcoming. Only when confronted with details by way of evidence demonstrating her whereabouts on January 23, 1986, that is, Bannerelk, North Carolina, did she reluctantly acknowledge not being at her job on January 23, 1986. The impression given is that she deliberately took time off from her employment on January 23, 1986 without permission. An item referred to as a Load Letter forms the basis of describing the requirement of an instructor with the Daytona Beach Community College to teach the number of hours and the courses, at the prescribed times as set out in that document. This is the bargain which the instructor makes with the community college. The Fall semester 1986 Load Letter indicates that the Respondent was to teach Class #1671 on Monday morning at 11:00 to 11:53 and Class #1669 on Monday afternoon from 1:00 to 4:53. Contrary to her obligation, Respondent did not teach those classes. Instead, she used Sharon Mathes to teach Class #1671 (dental anatomy) on Wednesday morning and Class #1669 (biomedical sciences) on Monday afternoon at its scheduled time. The reason for changing the dental anatomy class slot was to accommodate the students by not causing them to be confronted with too much in the way of difficult material on Monday, and which would have also placed them in the position of not being prepared for a Tuesday afternoon laboratory which needed a lecture class by way of predicate. Sharon Mathes was paid as an instructor in the Fall 1986 term in her dental materials class, taught on Monday morning. She received a different classification of pay at a lesser rate for the classes taught which had appeared on the Respondent's Load Letter, Class #1671 and Class #1669. Respondent was also paid as the instructor teaching those classes listed on Respondent's Load Letter. The student evaluations forms related to Class #1671 and Class #1669 taught by Mathes in the Fall term 1986 show the Respondent's name as the instructor providing contact hours with the students in those two classes. Moreover, in a part-time instructional monthly report and salary voucher related to Class #1671, Respondent indicates that she taught this course on Monday morning, when in fact it was taught on Wednesday morning by Sharon Mathes. This part-time instructional report relates to an overload payment beyond the basic salary structure associated with Respondent's duties under contract, which are to teach a load of 15 hours. The first 15 hours of that 17 hours tame under her normal salary structure and included Class #1669. Respondent's protestations that this arrangement in the Fall of 1986 in which Mathes taught classes on the Respondent's Load Letter, Mathes was paid at a rate not commensurate with service as an instructor, evaluations were made by students related to an instructor who did not teach them, Respondent was paid for her normal teaching load and an overload for classes not taught were items contemplated by an accreditation arrangement with the American Dental Association and countenanced by the Daytona Beach Community College are unavailing. These arrangements which Respondent made concerning her responsibilities for teaching in the Fall 1986 were misleading, unauthorized and contrary to her employment agreement with the community college. Charge 5 (October 12, 1987) Gross insubordination for your failure to comply with DBCC Procedure #1091 which requires your cooperation with the College as it attempted to determine the accuracy of the various allegations made against you by the students and the additional matters described above which were discovered by the College Administration during its investigation. In the afore-mentioned meeting of June 11, 1987 between students in the Dental Assisting Program and Charles Carroll, a discussion was entered into concerning the payment of the $50 fees which has been described as the "lab kit- $50." Other complaints were aired as well, leading Carroll to focus on the overall program and the "lab kit" cost in particular. To this end, Carroll contacted the Respondent on the same date and discussed his concerns with her. Following that meeting, among the instructions given by his memorandum of June 15, 1987, Carroll told Respondent to immediately dissolve the student association and to provide a detailed accounting of the disposition of club assets as he had had those described to him by the Respondent. He informed the Respondent that she should operate student club activities under the guidelines established by the Student Government Association on campus. In addition, he asked the Respondent to meet with him before the school year concluded, that is the school year 1986-1987, so that they might review the student handbook and grading policies. Respondent was instructed to bring copies of those materials for his records. Related to the checking account which was associated with the Sun Bank, Respondent explained to Carroll in the June 11, 1987 meeting that checks were outstanding and although she did not indicate that checks would have to be written to conclude other expenses within the academic year, she did describe that those expenses were forthcoming. This discussion about expenses pertains to a check written to K-Mart on June 9, 1987 in the amount of $19.89 for Cross pens for two dentists associated with the Dental Assisting Program in recognition of that association; a check written in the amount of $52.30 to the Belleview Florist on June 9, 1987 for flowers for the graduation dinner for the students in the 1986-1987 class, and a check that would be written to Marker 32 in the amount of $155.35 for costs of the graduation dinners, that check being written on June 12, 1987. The checks of June 9, 1987 cleared the bank on June 11, 1987, and the June 12, 1987 check cleared the bank on June 16, 1987. Ultimately, a balance was left in the account of $127.18. Following the June 11, 1987 meeting, Respondent informed Carroll that she was waiting for the last bank statement before closing out the account. Petitioner's Exhibit 115 is the last bank statement rendered with an ending balance of $130.18 from which $3 was deducted, leaving the balance at $127.18. The ending balance reflects the date June 30, 1987. Prior to the rendering of this bank statement, on June 23, 1987, Carroll had written to the Respondent and told her that it was unacceptable for her to wait for the normal statement of ending balance and expressed his belief that the bank would provide a final accounting upon closure of the account. In this case, the proof is missing on whether the bank would have provided an accounting at the closure of the account following the clearing of the last check on June 16, 1987. As of June 30, 1987, when the account ending balance was established, Respondent was between school years and not under active employment by the Petitioner. She did not take any action to close the account in June and July, 1987. Nor did the Respondent provide a copy of the student handbook; instead, she excerpted three pages from that handbook and gave those to Carroll. Carroll was unable to find the Respondent on campus during the work week June 22 through June 25, 1987, and wrote a memorandum on June 29, 1987 referring to the fact that he had made several attempts to contact her and noting that she was unavailable in her office and not subject to contact at her home. He admonished her about not being in attendance or on authorized leave, and by his remarks referred to the need to discuss urgent matters. In fact, Respondent, as alluded to in Charge 4, was not at her work place June 22 through June 25, 1987 and had not been granted permission to miss that time. On July 15, 1987, beyond the contract year, Respondent was written by Carroll in which he references his correspondence of June 15 and 23, 1987, and complains about the failure to provide evidence that the Student Dental Assisting Association has been dissolved, and that an accounting has been made related to what he refers to as "club assets." He also indicates that he did not feel that the Respondent was cooperating in providing requested information. On July 23, 1987, Charles R. Mojock wrote to the Respondent referring to the fact that he did not believe that the bank account related to the Student Dental Assisting Association was legal, and that he believed it was contrary to State statute and to community college policy, based upon his discussion with others in the administration at the community college. As a consequence, he reminded the Respondent that, the sooner the funds were removed from that account, the easier it would be to settle the matter. He recounts in this memorandum what he believed to be a problem with the Respondent's compliance with the requests related to the account. The memorandum is basically conciliatory indicating that it was not intended to make accusations, but to resolve the problem. Eventually on August 3, 1987, Respondent wrote to Tom Root, the auditor at the community college, and apprised him of her willingness to provide information that he sought upon his return from leave. This return to his job was supposed to occur on August 12, 1987. On August 13, 1987, the Respondent turned over to Root the balance of the funds in the Sun Bank account by cashier's check which was credited to the Community College Foundation account and a receipt given to the Respondent. Those funds were left to be used for the benefit of needy dental assisting students. The amount of cash found within the instructional area of the Dental Assisting Program, was $15.08. Respondent also provided the auditor with an item dated August 3, 1987, on stationary of the Daytona Beach Community College, referred to as a Student Dental Assistant 1986-1987, listing officers and the comment that dues were collected in the amount of $5 per month as the source of revenue. This reference too $5 dues as already found is false. It goes on to state that no fund-raising had been undertaken. It states, "I do not think there were any fund-raising activities." This is taken to mean what the Respondent asserted, according to this document. Under "expenditures," there is a reference to open house refreshments, Halloween party, buffet lunch, gifts for speakers, flowers and cards for classmates, reference books from the book rack, donation of a magnifying glass, graduation flowers and dinners. On August 18, 1987, the internal auditor wrote to the Respondent requesting additional information related to receipts for the funds paid by the students in the 1986-1987 year and bank statements. He opines in this memorandum that the Respondent either was misunderstanding his request or was misrepresenting the way the funds were collected. Respondent replied to the memorandum of August 18, 1987 by a memorandum of August 20, 1987 and through a phone conversation with the auditor. In the memorandum by the Respondent, she indicates that she was unaware that funds were collected by Mathes until after the fact, meaning the $50 collection and that the students had been misled about the intent of the funds in their student account. This contention in the memorandum of August 20, 1987 is patently false and is seen as thwarting the efforts on the part of the auditor to discern the true facts of the matter. Respondent was aware of the $50 fee collection. Other suggestions within the memorandum refer to the fact that she had been told that part of the funds were to be used for replacement of lost items in the lab kit pertaining to the students, and from there came the phrase "lab kit rental." She talks in terms of the fact that the students were aware that the money was being used for name tags, open house, doctor's gifts and graduation. She states that this strongly suggests that the dues were mandatory. She goes on to describe that Ms. Mathes, once she left, had no records of who had or had not paid, and no effort was made to collect unpaid dues, and the fact that this was the obligation of the student treasurer. All of these comments were apparently designed to deflect the attention away from the true status of the matter, which included the fact that no student dues were collected in the amount of $5, that the Respondent was thoroughly acquainted with the collection of the $50 fee amounts for use of laboratory materials and graduation, and that the student treasurer had no part to play in the collection of these $50 fees or the deposit of those sums. By contrast, Respondent had been involved in the collection of fees and the endorsement of checks and payment of those fees which were deposited. Furthermore, her disclaimer of having knowledge of what was on the front of the checks she endorsed in terms of the reason for the $50 checks being written, five in number and that she only endorsed the backs without a knowledge of the reason for the checks is incredulous. The facts of this case lead to the conclusion that Respondent did know what those five checks were for. The Respondent was also in possession of Exhibit 42 offered by her at the hearing which showed a list of student signatures reflecting both those who had not paid and subsequent dates of when the students had paid. This exhibit was not revealed to the auditor during his investigation, though such information was sought by the auditor. It only became a matter within his knowledge on February 8, 1988. The memorandum of August 20, 1987 by the Respondent indicates having discussions with the students concerning ways to use the money that had been given for the laboratory kits or fee and the fact that it was decided that a certain workbook referred to as a Core Packet should not be assigned, meaning in the future, but be used as a reference in the future. This Core Packet had been purchased by the students for course work in the amount of approximately $40 and ordered from an off-campus bookstore. Additional copies remained from the order that had been placed with that bookstore, and these were purchased from that store known as the Campus Bookrack, six Core packets in all at the expense of $178.08 taken from the Student Dental Assisting account at the Sun Bank. Contrary to the memorandum and her testimony, the students had no knowledge of this purchase and did not condone it. Neither did the students condone the purchase of a magnifying glass to be used for the sharpening of dental instruments in one of the classes related to this program. The memorandum says the students agreed that a lighted magnifying glass would help them in sharpening instruments, and discussion between Respondent and the students led to the students donating that magnifying glass. No discussion of this nature was held with the students as outlined in the memorandum of August 20, 1987, and described in testimony by the Respondent at hearing. Respondent did spend $47.20 in the purchase of the magnifying light. In summary, Respondent had been involved with the establishment of the $50 extra fee as listed in the 1986-1987 college catalog and in the Fall 1986 and Winter 1987 student handbooks, but she failed to advise the auditor about this or that she was present while it was being discussed with the students at orientation in the Fall of 1986 or that she had endorsed checks comprising the initial deposit of the $50 collections in the bank account. This together with other items as described greatly impeded the efforts of the college at determining the reason for the $50 charge, who was responsible for placing the charge and who among the students had paid the money. The principal manifestation of the impediment was experienced by the internal auditor when all sixteen students who paid the $50 fee held a different and generally consistent viewpoint from that of Respondent concerning the fee and its usage. This lead to additional effort by the auditor in ascertaining the true facts. Charge 6 (October 23, 1987) Gross Insubordination for your willfully altering information related to the College's investigation, which is in violation of DBCC procedure #1091. In support of this charge, the following witnesses; Mr. Robert Schreiber, Mr. Charles Carroll, Mr. Tom Root, Ms. April Pulcrano, and Mr. Charles R. Mojock will testify that they were present (or in telephone contact) during the discussion regarding the possibility of your tendering your resignation. They will refute your statement that you were informed that if you did not resign, "the case would be turned over to the State Attorney for a theft prosecution." They will further refute that you were told "that this was extremely important so that the College could cover the alleged fund shortage from detection by state auditors." On October 8, 1987, counsel for the Respondent wrote to the Board of Trustees of the Daytona Beach Community College and discussed his interest in reconciling the differences between the parties amicably. In that correspondence, there is found the following reference "...Early in the school year, Mrs. Leavitt was notified by several of her superiors that, if she did not resign, her case would be turned over to the State Attorney for a theft prosecution. In addition, she was told that this was extremely important so that the college could cover the alleged fund shortage from detection by state auditors." This is an attorney's attempt to state his client's position and from this event the prosecution seeks to have the Respondent found insubordinate. Having considered the testimony of Charles Carroll, Robert Schreiber and Chuck Mojock, together with the Respondent, there is clearly a difference of opinion about what was said in various meetings between the Respondent and administration officials within the community college. On balance, the exact facts may not be found which describe insubordination for remarks found within correspondence by counsel for the Respondent attributable to his client. Charge 7 (October 23, 1987) Misconduct in office for your use of part- time employees and a student teacher to teach a substantial portion of your assigned instructional load during the Winter of 1987. Specifically, the College will show that the externship program (Section 1667) with local dentists' offices, was conducted totally by Ms. Elizabeth Switch and Ms. April Pulcrano. In addition, Ms. Switch taught Practice Management (Section 1664) and Ms. Pulcrano taught Preventive Dentistry and Nutrition (Section 1665). Ms. Pulcrano will testify (and students enrolled in the Externship course will confirm this fact) that only she and Ms. Switch made visits to the local externship sites, and that Ms. Pulcrano had responsibility for writing up the reports, meeting with students, and assigning grades for this course. Ms. Pulcrano will further testify that you approached her during the first week of the Fall term in this academic year and asked her to teach the Dental Anatomy and Physiology course, but to be paid at the staff assistant pay rate instead of the appropriate adjunct instructional pay rate. The numbers of hours on the Load Sheet pertaining to the Respondent for the Winter term 1987 showed 14 semester hours for which courses are set out. Respondent routinely taught only one of those classes, Chairside Assisting II, on Fridays from 10:00 a.m. until noon. This was two lecture hours and two hours of contact. The remaining four contact hours for laboratory, which equated to two semester hours of the four total hours associated with Chairside Assisting II, Course #1666, were not done by the Respondent. As the Load Letter contemplates, the laboratory was done by an adjunct instructor. On the Load Letter for Winter 1987 and in keeping with the continuing contract entered into on August 17, 1981 and at subsequent times Respondent should have taught the remaining courses reflected on her Load Letter for the Winter semester 1987. One of those courses was Course #1664, Practice Management, a course for which she was entitled to receive an overload payment, according to the Load Letter. Respondent turned in the overload pay sheet for that course certifying that she had taught the class, when in fact Elizabeth Switch, a part- time instructor, taught that class and was paid for her work. In this same term, Winter 1987, April Pulcrano, a student from the University of Central Florida, served as a student teacher in the Dental Assisting Program. She was hired by the Respondent to teach Chairside II laboratories on Monday afternoon and on Wednesday afternoon. She also was made responsible for the externship of students during the Winter semester consisting of her visitations to dental offices where the students had been placed to gain clinical experience as part of their studies at' the community college. Pulcrano's involvement in the externship included administrative paperwork, involving forms of evaluation which the dental offices made of the performance of students who were externed. She summarized and provided grades to the externship students in this program. These activities by Pulcrano were done on a routine basis in which she was primarily responsible for the externship program with assistance one day a week on the part of Elizabeth Switch. The externship program involving six semester hours and 12 contact hours per week in Course #1667 was the responsibility of the Respondent, according to her Load Letter in the Winter term 1987. Respondent had initial contact with this responsibility on the first day that the students were dispatched to various dental offices throughout Volusia County, Florida, and some occasional contact beyond that point. This involvement by the Respondent did not approach the kind of responsibility contemplated by the assignment in her Load Letter. A course on the Load Letter of Winter 1987 related to the Respondent was what is referred to as Prevention and Nutrition, Course #1665. This is a two hour course with two contact hours. This course was taught by Pulcrano and not the Respondent. Respondent did not assist Pulcrano in the laboratory portion of a Chairside Assisting II class, and the Respondent placed Pulcrano into the class without introduction or explanation. As with the circumstance related in Charge 4, the failure to teach courses on the Load Letter pertaining to the Fall semester 1986, Respondent had not been relieved of the necessity to teach her courses reflected in the Load Letter pertaining to the Winter semester 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the full consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered terminating Amanda Leavitt's employment with the Daytona Beach Community College and providing for the forfeiture of her pay received for January 23, 1986 and January 22, 1987 through January 29, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 15th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4937 Petitioner has offered fact finding in its proposed recommended order. Respondent gave argument but declined to offer fact proposals. Petitioner's facts have been used as subordinate facts with the exception of the following which are rejected for reasons described: Charges 1 and 2: Paragraph 9 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 17 is rejected because the evidence was not sufficient to find violations in the years contemplated in Charge 1. Paragraph 18 describes facts which are not contemplated within the charging documents. Charge 6: Paragraphs 3-7 are contrary to facts found. Charge 7: Paragraph 1 is not relevant. Paragraph 3 is not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Dana Fogle, Esquire FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A. Post Office Box 817 DeLand, Florida 32721-0817 Jason G. Reynolds, Esquire COBLE, BARRIN, ROTHERT, GORDON, MORRIS, LEWIS & REYNOLDS, P.A. 1020 Volusia Avenue Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020 Dr. Charles Polk, President Daytona Beach Community College Post Office Box 1111 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Board of Trustees Daytona Beach Community College c/o J. Dana Fogle, Esquire FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A. Post Office Box 817 DeLand, Florida 32721-0817
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent, Walter Pressley, should be expelled as a student from the Palm Beach County Public School System.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Walter Pressley, whose date of birth is August 6, 1970, was enrolled as a ninth grader at Lake Worth High School during the 1985-86 school year. On February 12, 1986, Respondent Pressley was suspended from Lake Worth Community High School for violation of Student Conduct Code 5.18 possession and selling drugs on campus. During January, 1986, Officer Jay Spencer was assigned by Lieutenant Ericson as an undercover officer and he (Spencer) was enrolled as a twelfth grade student for the Lake Worth Police Department at Lake Worth High School. On Monday, January 27, 1986, at approximately 11:40 a.m., Officer Spencer asked Respondent if he knew where he could get some "sensebud" (street name for a particular kind of marijuana). Respondent advised Officer Spencer that he did not have any on his person, but offered to take him to someone who did. Officer Spencer and Respondent attempted to locate the other student who supposedly had the sensebud but he could not be found. The time was drawing near for Officer Spencer's fifth period class to begin and he told Respondent that if he found any sensebud that he would be in his fifth period class whereupon Respondent asked him where was his fifth period class. Approximately fifteen minutes later, Respondent appeared at Officer Spencer's class and beckoned for him to come outside into the hallway. Once out in the hallway, Respondent told him that he had some sensebud. Officer Spencer and Respondent went to a bathroom located on the second floor of the south building at the school and Respondent presented a clear sandwich bag containing suspected marijuana. Officer Spencer conducted a field test of the substance which tested positive for the drug marijuana. Respondent told Officer Spencer that "he could have it for free" inasmuch as he was just establishing a business and he wanted to form a good reputation among other students and build a clientele. Officer Spencer refused to accept the suspected marijuana without payment and asked Respondent if $2.00 would cover it. Respondent agreed and Officer Spencer gave him $2.00 in U.S. currency in return for the marijuana. Officer Spencer then left the Lake Worth High School campus and returned to his home with the suspected marijuana. Once at home, Officer Spencer tested the suspected marijuana for the presence of Delta 9-THC with the Duguenois Reagent Test. After testing the suspected marijuana, it was positive for the presence of Delta 9-THC. At approximately 8:00, Officer Spencer met with Lieutenant Ericson at the Lake Worth Police Department and gave him the suspected marijuana which was thereafter placed into the evidence locker. On February 12, 1986, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Officer Spencer and Lieutenant Ericson arrested Respondent at the Lake Worth High School for the sale of 1.25 grams of marijuana. After Respondent was arrested, he was taken to the Lake Worth Police Department for processing and thereafter transported to the Division of Youth Services (DYS). Respondent was found guilty on March 25, in juvenile court, on a charge of sale and possession of a controlled substance; was placed on probation and given 50 hours of community service. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). Richard Cahill is a guidance counselor at Lake Worth Community High School. Counselor Cahill reviewed Respondent's achievement record and noted that Respondent performed satisfactorily during his eighth grade, passing all of his classes (during the eighth grade) except math. During his first semester of ninth grade, Respondent again passed all of his classes except math. However, during the second semester, he only passed one subject and in all of his remaining classes Respondent earned F's and one incomplete grade. Once Respondent was enrolled in tenth grade, he commenced compiling a record of excessive absences and he was counseled by Counselor Cahill. Counselor Cahill spoke to Respondent's teachers who related that Respondent expended some effort during the first nine weeks of tenth grade, however, during the second semester, Respondent put forth very little effort and began to be disruptive in class. On November 1, 1983, Respondent was suspended for two days for using abusive language. On February 21, 1984, Respondent was suspended for three days for chronic tardiness. On March 27, 1984, Respondent was suspended for three days for excessively reporting tardy to class. On March 7, 1985, Respondent was suspended for seven days for being an accomplice to a robbery of another student. Finally, Respondent was initially suspended on February 12, 1986 based on the instant charge of possession and selling drugs on the campus of Lake Worth Community High School. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). David Cantley is the principal at Lake Worth. Principal Cantley provides all students at Lake Worth with a copy of the student handbook at the beginning of each school year. Petitioner goes to great pains to advise students of the ill-effects resulting from the usage of drugs. The student handbook contains Petitioner's disciplinary procedures for the possession or sale of mood altering drugs. Petitioner considers the possession and/or selling of drugs on campus to be a serious infraction of the code of student conduct. (Student Code of Conduct, Section 5.18). Students found guilty of either possession, use or sale of drugs on campus are subject to disciplinary measures including expulsion. (Page 66, Student Handbook). Rich Mooney, an intake counselor for Youth and Family Services, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, has been involved in assisting the Respondent since March of 1985 when Respondent was charged with being an accessory to the robbery of another student at Lake Worth Community High School. Since the more recent charge of the sale and possession of marijuana while on the campus of Lake Worth Community High School, Counselor Mooney has enrolled Respondent at the Tri-Center Training and Rehabilitation Day Program (Tri- Center) which is a rehabilitation program operating Monday through Friday during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. under the auspices of Petitioner's Alternative School System. Respondent has been enrolled at Tri-Center since he was recommended for suspension on February 12, 1986. During the first week of Respondent's enrollment at Tri-Center, he presented a few problems adjusting to the structured environment at Tri-Center, however, he is conforming and Counselor Mooney has expressed his opinion that Respondent should do well during the remainder of his enrollment at Tri-Center. Respondent's mother, Mrs. Ryna Pressley, has diligently tried to curb Respondent's disruptive conduct since he has been enrolled at Lake Worth Community High School. Her efforts appear to have failed based on the numerous suspensions of Respondent from Lake Worth commencing in November, 1983 through February, 1986.
Conclusions The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties thereto. The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, has reviewed and adopts the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law, Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), Florida Statutes, and also adopts the recommendation for expulsion but only in conformance with School Board Policy, D-5.241 (3) which states: "Expulsion prevents a student from enrolling in any school programs offered by the school system for the effective date of the expulsion." and rejects the Hearing Officer's suggestion that an alternative program be provided during expulsion. This Order may be appealed within thirty days by filing a notice of appeal with the district court of appeal. Except in cases of indigency, the court will require a filing fee and payment for preparing the record on appeal. For further explanation of the right to appeal, refer to Section 120.63, Florida Statutes (1985), and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Respondent, Walter Pressley, is hereby expelled effective this date, from attendance from all programs of the Palm Beach County School System through the end of the 1986/87 school year. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of July 1936. Louis J. Eassa Chairman School Board of Palm Beach County (SEAL) Filed with the Clerk of, the School Board this 23rd day of July, 1986. Clerk
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be expelled from the regular program at Petitioners School Board of Palm Beach County and that he be provided an education in Petitioner's alternative educational program in an appropriate school setting such as the Tri-Center Training and Rehabilitation Day Program. Recommended this 11th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 11th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Bernard Shulman, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Mrs. Ryna Pressley 2073 N.W. Second Street Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner General Counsel Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent’s statement contained in June 4, 2004, correspondence to the controller of the Daytona Beach Kennel Club, Inc., constitutes a rule of the agency which has not been adopted by the rule making procedures provided in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Statutory references are to Florida Statutes, 2004, absent contrary indication.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are St. Petersburg Kennel Club, Inc; West Flagler Associates, Ltd. (Flagler Greyhound Track); Washington County Kennel Club, Inc. (Ebro Greyhound Track); Daytona Beach Kennel Club, Inc. (Daytona Beach Kennel Club); and Southwest Florida Enterprises, Inc. (Bonita-Ft. Myers Greyhound Track). Respondent is the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering, an agency created by Section 20.165(2)(f), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, Respondent is vested with general regulatory authority over Petitioners and the operation of cardrooms at licensed and permitted pari-mutuel facilities. Each Petitioner is the holder of a pari-mutuel waging permit and a license issued by Respondent pursuant to provisions of Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, for the conduct of pari-mutuel wagering on greyhound races. Each Petitioner also holds a licensed issued by Respondent pursuant to Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, for conduct of a cardroom at its pari-mutuel facility. Each Petitioner is authorized to conduct a “meet” consisting of live racing. Each authorized meet includes evening performances generally consisting of 14 races. One or more of those races can take place after midnight but before 1:30 a.m. on the next calendar day. Each Petitioner is authorized to accept pari-mutuel wagers on each such race. Petitioner Daytona Kennel Club, by correspondence of May 27, 2004, provided a revised cardroom calendar to Respondent for approval. Respondent, in reply correspondence of June 4, 2004, pointed out that proposed day-long cardroom operation on Sunday as a result of Saturday live racing events that extended into Sunday morning, was not permissible under provisions of Section 849.086(7)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent’s correspondence, in pertinent part, reads as follows: [Y]ou contend that if at least one Saturday race will occur after 12:00 midnight, then Sunday cardroom operation would be permitted, without any additional pari-mutuel events being held that day, under Section 849.086(7)(b), Florida Statutes. The foregoing statutory section states, “[a] cardroom may be operated at the facility only when the facility is authorized to accept wagers on pari-mutuel events during its authorized meet.” A plain reading of this language makes it evident that the Legislature intended that cardrooms be considered an adjunct to live racing, not a replacement or a substitute. As it stands today, you have not been authorized to conduct a pari- mutuel event on Sundays. Respondent’s letter of June 4, 2004, to Petitioner Daytona Beach Kennel Club, was a specific response to matters raised by that Petitioner in its letter of May 27, 2004. A final declaratory judgment issued on July 26, 2004, in the Second Judicial Circuit in Case No. 2002-CA-2971 invalidates changes to Section 550.615(6), Florida Statutes, resulting from passage of Chapter 96-364, Laws of Florida. Presently under appeal and stayed pending further decision, that ruling also invalidates Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, due to the non-severability language contained in Section 550.71, Florida Statutes. In the event of an appellate decision affirming that ruling, Respondent’s authority to regulate the hours of cardroom operation would be rendered inoperative.
