Findings Of Fact The parties to this proceeding were afforded due and proper notice according to law of the final hearing. Petitioner was granted a Mandatory Conditional Release (hereinafter MCR) from a Florida state prison on October 31, 1975. He would have been Supervised in the same manner as a person released on parole until the expiration of his sentence on March 7, 1978. On October 8, 1976, the Petitioner received a directed verdict of acquittal from the Honorable Judge Allen R. Schwartz in Case No. 76-6250, State of Florida v. Walter Thomas, in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Dade County, wherein the Petitioner was charged with the crime of sexual battery against a female in violation of Section 794.011, Florida Statutes. The Respondent Subsequently charged Petitioner with the violation of Condition 8 of his MCR Certificate " . . . by failing to live and remain at liberty without violating the law, in that on or about July 6, 1976, in Dade County, Florida, [he] did unlawfully participate in the involuntarily sexual battery of . . ." a named female. Pursuant to Petitioner's request, Respondent held what it terms a "majority" final revocation hearing on February 4, 1977, with Commissioners Maurice G. Crockett, Ray E. Howard, Annabelle P. Mitchell and Charles J. Scriven present. The Respondent revoked Petitioner's MCR in an Order dated February 10, 1977, signed by Commissioners Roy W. Russell, Ray E. Howard, Maurice G. Crockett and Armond R. Cross. On April 7, 1977, the Commission issued an Amended Order correcting a clerical omission in its original order. Although Respondent had the discretion to grant credit for the time Petitioner spent on MCR no such credit was granted. On July 1, 1977, Petitioner was again released on her to remain thereon until the expiration of his sentence. Since he had not received credit for the time previously spent on NCR his current sentence expiration date has been extended from March 7, 1978 to "November 11, 1978. Section 947.23(1), Florida Statutes, states that: "As soon as Practicable after the arrest of a person charged with violation of the terms and conditions of his parole, such parolee shall appear before the commission [Respondent] in person . . . and a hearing shall be had in which the state and the parolee may introduce such evidence as they may deem necessary and Pertinent to the charge of parole violation." The same section further provides that after the foregoing hearing the Commission shall make findings upon such charge of parole violation and shall enter an order determining whether the charges have been sustained and by that order shall revoke the parole or reinstate the original order of parole or enter such other order as the Commission may deem proper. The evidence in this case establishes that the Respondent has an established procedure and practice by which it implements the foregoing statutory requirement. Rule 23-16.09(3), F.A.C., entitled "Hearings; Revocation of Parole" sets forth, in part, this Procedure and Practice. It does not, however, set forth the complete procedure and Practice. It provides that a parolee can elect to appear either before a majority of the Commission or one Commissioner. Rule 23-16.09(3), F.A.C. Apparently following that Provision Respondent conducts two types of final parole revocation hearings. The great majority of these are referred to as "single member hearings" wherein the alleged violator agrees to have a single member of the Respondent Commission conduct the final hearing. The remainder are referred to as "majority member hearings" where a hearing panel of four members of the Commission conduct the final hearing. The manner in which the foregoing types of hearings are conducted by Respondent and a final order entered pursuant thereto has, by the Practice of the agency, become quite formalized and definite but has not been codified in the Florida Administrative Code. The procedure and practice of Respondent in the conduct of single member parole revocation hearings is well established and inflexible. The single member hearings are held every Friday with one member of the Commission present and conducting the hearing. The Commissioner receives the waiver of the alleged violator to a majority hearing and resolves the question of the alleged violator's right to counsel. The charges are then read, witnesses sworn and permitted to testify, evidence taken and the alleged violator permitted to admit or deny the charges and to testify. The single Commissioner takes notes and fills out a brief one page form which in part contains his recommendation and eight lines for the alleged violator's Statement, mitigating circumstances and witness statements. This form along with all evidence presented at the hearing is placed in the alleged violator's file which is then returned to Tallahassee, Florida, for further action. As soon as possible upon arriving in Tallahassee, usually within the next five (5) working days, the case is placed on the voting panel docket. The Commission maintains a duty roster which requires four members of the Commission to meet in the regularly scheduled voting panel meeting, normally held on Thursday of each week, to review those cases docketed for that panel. This duty roster for the voting panel is compiled without regard to which Commissioner conducted the hearings which are to come before the voting panel. Each Commissioner on the voting panel has had access and opportunity to review individually all information, evidence, recommendations and other matters in the file on the alleged violator and to review the record of the hearing. The evidence, however, establishes that it is rare indeed for any of the members of the voting panel to have read the record of the hearing on which they vote. The evidence further establishes that the Commission has no requirement that those members of the voting panel who did not hear the case read the record. Although a tape recording or court reporter's notes are made of the parole revocation hearing they are seldom transcribed and almost never read by the Commissioners sitting on the voting panel. Usually, the Commissioner who conducted the single member hearing is present at the meeting of the voting panel which is to consider that case. It is further the practice of the agency for that Commissioner who held the hearing to then tell the voting panel the facts as he knew them in addition to the information on the form referred to above. The alleged violator nor his counsel is allowed to appear at the voting panel's meetings. In practice, the members of the voting panel do not read the record of the hearing below nor do they read the entire file made available for their perusal. That file may contain matters not presented in evidence at the parole revocation hearing. After consideration of the file and record as they see fit and having heard the remarks of the Commissioner who conducted the hearing, and engaged in such discussion as they deem appropriate, the voting panel votes on the disposition of the case before it. It is the position of Respondent in considering parole revocations that Section 947.06, Florida Statutes, requires four (4) Commissioners voting together to restore or revoke the alleged violator's mandatory conditional release or to discharge the matter. Therefore, should a split vote occur at the voting panel meeting the Commissioner who held the hearing must then attempt to seek a majority vote from other members of the Commission on whether to restore, revoke or discharge. A typical situation would find four of the seven Commissioners sitting on the voting panel, a fifth Commissioner having conducted the single member hearing, and two remaining Commissioners, who were neither at the parole revocation hearing nor the meeting of the voting panel. If the voting panel is not unanimous in its disposition of the hearing these remaining Commissioners are then lobbied by the Commissioner who held the hearing and perhaps some or all of the Commissioners who sat on the voting panel, to cast their vote in order that there may be four votes together on whether to revoke restore, or discharge. These two members are not required by the practice of the Respondent to read the record of the parole revocation hearing or review the file of Respondent on the alleged violator and, in fact, do not generally read the full record or review the entire file. A majority member parole revocation final hearing is the same as a single member final hearing with the exceptions noted below. Instead of a single member of the Commission being present and conducting the hearing, four members of the Commission are detailed to hold the majority hearings which are held on the first Friday of each month. The four sit and listen to the testimony and evidence, taking notes and filling out a face sheet similar to that form used in a single member hearing. Immediately following the hearing the four members discuss the case and frequently a tentative vote is taken and recorded informally on the face sheet which is then included in the file and returned with the record of the hearing to Tallahassee. Cases which have been heard by four members of the Commission are placed on a voting panel docket just as are cases heard by a single member of the Commission. The voting panel members are rarely, if ever, the same four members of the Commission who attended and held the final revocation hearings, although some members of the voting panel will have sat on the hearing panel. As in a single member hearing coming before the voting panel, the panel discusses and reviews each case on the docket with the file readily available to each member of the Commission at the voting panel meeting. However, just as in the case of the single member hearing reviewed by the voting panel, the members of the voting panel are not required to read the record of the final hearing or fully review the file made available to them on the alleged violator and generally have not done so. Following a review and discussion of the docketed cases a vote is taken by the voting panel. The Respondent takes the position that, pursuant to Section 947.06, Florida Statutes, there must be four votes in agreement to restore, revoke or discharge. Should a split vote occur in the voting panel the remaining three Commissioners are approached by members of the voting panel and their vote recorded to revoke, restore or discharge. This vote is not generally done at a regularly scheduled meeting of any sort and these Commissioners are not required to and generally have not read the record nor fully reviewed the file in the matter. Once four members of the Commission are in agreement to revoke, restore, or discharge, the staff is directed to prepare a final order which order informs the violator of the charges alleged, the decision of the Commission, a brief summary of the evidence relied upon and the effective date of said action. The order further contains the signatures of the members of the Commission who took the action. It is the announced practice of Respondent that when the Commissioners consider and determine whether the alleged violator is guilty of the charges they do not consider information outside the record of the final revocation hearing, although the agency file, which is generally not introduced at the hearing, is available to the Commissioners. However, it is also the announced practice of the Respondent that after determination by the Commission that the alleged violator is guilty of the charges, but before the entry of any final order, the Commissioners will consider matters outside the record of the final revocation hearing. The Respondent does not give the alleged violator or his counsel notice of this evidence or an opportunity to respond to it. This evidence is considered by the Commission after a determination of guilt for the purpose of deciding whether to restore MCR even though the violator was guilty of the charges, to simply revoke, or to grant credit for time on MCR even though it is revoked. The testimony of the Commissioners appearing in this proceeding establish that those Commissioners voting on these revocation matters who were not present at the final hearing get to know the facts presented at the hearing Primarily by word of mouth from the Commissioner or Commissioners who were present at the final hearing. It further establishes that the Commissioners who vote on these revocation matters and who were not present at the final hearing do not generally, though in some cases they may, review all of the evidence presented at the final revocation hearing. Respondent Presently brings revocation charges against a conditional releasee who has been tried for a criminal offense while on conditional release. Further, even though the conditional releasee is found innocent by reason of a directed verdict of acquittal, or a jury verdict of not guilty, or a verdict of not guilty in a non-jury trial, Respondent charges and may revoke said conditional release on the same or similar facts and matters raised at the criminal proceeding if Respondent finds that the terms and conditions of the releasee's MCR were violated. Petitioner has attempted to prove that it is the rule of Respondent to issue final orders affecting substantial interests which do not include findings of fact and conclusions of law separately stated. The evidence presented establishes that, although there may be genuine disagreement on whether a certain final order affecting substantial interests contain proper findings of fact and conclusions of law, nevertheless, it is the policy of the agency to include such findings and conclusions in its final orders. Respondent argues that it has formally promulgated as rules Chapters 23-16 and 23-17, Florida Administrative Code, which chapters establish the practices and procedures utilized by Respondent in the granting and revocation of conditional releases. Further, Respondent points out that Rule 23-16.09, Florida Administrative Code, entitled "Hearings; Revocation of Parole" is the formally promulgated rule dealing with parole revocation hearings. The evidence establishes that the practices and procedure set forth in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 above are not formally codified by the Respondent and have not been promulgated in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The evidence further establishes that these practiced and procedures apply, without exception, to all final parole revocation hearings and are the practices and procedures used by the Respondent to implement its statutory responsibilities under Chapter 947, Florida Statutes, and specifically Section 947.23, Florida Statutes. These practices and procedures have been in effect for several years and, although not formally codified, the Commissioners, by their testimony and responses to discovery, have stated these practices and procedures to be those of the agency applicable to all final revocation hearings.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(b) and (kk), Florida Statutes (2010), and if so, what penalty should be imposed for the violations proven.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of medical doctors pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME94098. During all times relevant to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent also held a license to practice medicine in the State of California. On September 7, 2010, Linda Whitney, the Executive Director of the California Board of Medicine, filed an Ex Parte Petition for Interim Suspension Order (Ex Parte Petition) in Case No. 06-2007-187158, seeking to suspend, pending a full hearing on the merits, Respondent’s physician’s and surgeon’s certificate in the State of California. On September 9, 2010, Administrative Law Judge Samuel Reyes of the California Office of Administrative Hearings entered an Ex Parte Interim Suspension Order, stating that the Ex Parte Petition had come up for hearing, with both the Executive Director (through counsel) and Dr. Fenton appearing and submitting documents and presenting argument. Judge Reyes granted the Ex Parte Petition; suspended Respondent’s California Physician’s and Surgeon’s certificate; scheduled a hearing on September 30, 2010; and set a deadline for submitting additional affidavits and other documents. After the hearing on September 30, 2010, Judge Reyes entered an Interim Suspension Order, containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Interim Suspension Order indicates that it was entered pursuant to California Government Code section 11529, which, as stated in the Interim Suspension Order, authorizes licensure suspension and the imposition of other conditions pending a resolution of underlying disciplinary allegations. Subdivision (a) of the statute provides that: “[i]nterim orders may be issued only if the affidavits in support of the petition show that the licensee has engaged in, or is about to engage in, acts or omissions constituting a violation of the Medical Practice Act . . . and that permitting the licensee to continue to engage in the profession for which the license was issued will endanger the public health, safety, or welfare.” Subdivision provides: “[t]he administrative law judge shall grant the interim order where, in the exercise of discretion, the administrative law judge concludes that There is a reasonable probability that the petitioner will prevail in the underlying action. (2) The likelihood of injury to the public in not issuing the order outweighs the likelihood of injury to the licensee in issuing the order.” The Interim Suspension Order granted the Petition and suspended Respondent’s license in accordance with Government Code section 11529. On May 8, 2012, the Medical Board of California adopted a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order as the Decision and Order of the Medical Board of California (Board Order), effective June 7, 2012. The Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, which was signed by Dr. Fenton, states in pertinent part: Respondent does not contest that, at an administrative hearing, complainant could establish a prima facie case with respect to the charges and allegations contained in SAA No. 06-2007-187158, and that he has thereby subjected his license to the disciplinary action. Respondent admits the truth of paragraph 31C. in SAA No. 06-2007-187158. SSA No. 06-2007-187158 refers to the Second Amended Accusation, which is the charging document in the underlying California case, akin to an administrative complaint in Florida. The SAA alleges that Respondent is subject to discipline based upon impairment because of physical or mental illness affecting competency in violation of the California Business Code, section 822; conviction of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of the medical profession in violation of section 2236; and general unprofessional conduct, in violation of section 2234. The Board Order revoked Respondent’s Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate. The revocation was stayed, however, and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of seven years, subject to terms and conditions outlined in the Board Order. Those terms and conditions included abstinence from the use of any controlled substances and any drugs requiring a prescription other than those lawfully prescribed by another practitioner; abstinence from alcohol use; biological fluid testing; completion of a professionalism program; submission to a psychiatric evaluation; psychotherapy by a California-licensed, board-certified psychiatrist or licensed psychologist; monitoring of Respondent’s practice while on probation; and a prohibition against supervising physician assistants during the course of probation. Respondent did not report the Interim Suspension Order dated September 9, 2010, to the Florida Board of Medicine within 30 days of the Interim Suspension Order. Respondent also did not update his practitioner profile to include the discipline in the State of California. The Board received notice from the State Federation of Medical Boards that another state had taken action, i.e., that the Interim Suspension Order had been issued by the State of California. There is no allegation, nor was any evidence presented, that Respondent has violated the terms of the Board Order entered in California. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent has ever been disciplined previously, in Florida or in California. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was not practicing medicine. He testified at hearing that he has enrolled voluntarily in the Florida Physicians’ Resource Network (PRN). However, no contract with PRN was entered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated subsections 458.331(1)(b) and (kk), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent’s license in Florida be suspended until such time as Respondent demonstrates the ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety, followed by probation with such terms as the Board deems appropriate. Respondent’s demonstration of the ability to practice with reasonable skill and safety shall include an evaluation by a board-certified psychiatrist approved by PRN and compliance with any recommendations PRN may make as a result of that evaluation. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 29th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of trust, pursuant to sections 408.809 and 435.07, Florida Statutes,1/ should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is authorized to conduct certain background screenings for employees providing specific types of services within health care facilities licensed under chapters 400, 408, and 429, Florida Statutes. § 408.809, Fla. Stat. Petitioner seeks employment in a position providing direct services to residents of a health care facility licensed under chapter 429 and, as such, is required to participate in Respondent’s background screening process pursuant to section 408.809. Petitioner submitted to the required background screening, which revealed that in 1999, Petitioner pleaded guilty to Felony Grand Theft/Bank Fraud in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division, Case No. 5:99CR165PM. This conviction is akin to a felony grand theft conviction under chapter 812, Florida Statutes. The above-referenced criminal conviction makes Petitioner ineligible to provide a service in a health care facility licensed by Respondent unless Petitioner receives an exemption from Respondent, pursuant to section 435.07. Petitioner was also arrested in 2001 for Felony Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon. On that charge, Petitioner pled guilty to a lesser included charge of simple assault, in Leon County Circuit Court, Case No. 01-1020AM. In addition, Petitioner was arrested in 2009 for felony charges of larceny/grand theft and exploitation of the elderly, charges which were ultimately dismissed due to the alleged victim’s death. Petitioner submitted an application for exemption to Respondent in accordance with sections 408.809 and 435.07 on or about April 30, 2014, and attended a telephonic hearing conducted by Respondent on June 17, 2014. The results of the June 17, 2014, teleconference are not at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner submitted another application for exemption to Respondent in accordance with section 435.07 on or about September 29, 2014. A telephonic hearing was conducted by Respondent on that second application for exemption on December 9, 2014, during which Respondent and Petitioner agreed to utilize the information obtained in the June 17, 2014, hearing regarding the 1999 Grand Theft/Bank Fraud and the 2001 Assault convictions, and to only discuss the circumstances surrounding the 2009 allegations of Grand Theft and Exploitation of the Elderly. A panel consisting of Respondent’s Operations and Consulting Manager for the Background Screening Unit, Sherry Ledbetter, and Respondent’s Health and Facilities Consultants, Kelley Goff and Zack Masters, also attended the telephonic hearing. Exhibit A-1, Respondent’s file for Petitioner’s exemption request, contains the exemption denial letter; internal Agency notes; panel hearing notes from both the June 17, 2014, and the December 9, 2014, teleconferences; Petitioner’s criminal history; Petitioner’s exemption application; arrest affidavits; conviction records; probation records; court records; and several letters in support of Petitioner’s requested exemption. Exhibits A-2 and A-3 are audio recordings of Petitioner’s teleconferences from her exemption hearings from June 17, 2014, and December 9, 2014. After the telephonic hearing, Respondent denied Petitioner’s request for an exemption, and Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. At the administrative hearing, Sherry Ledbetter testified that Respondent considered Petitioner’s entire case file, including all submissions received from Petitioner, and her explanations during the teleconferences when it determined that Petitioner’s request for an exemption should be denied. Respondent is legally authorized to consider all subsequent arrests or convictions, even if those arrests or convictions are not disqualifying offenses. Respondent considered Petitioner’s subsequent arrests and convictions during the review of Petitioner’s application for exemption. Respondent also considered the circumstances surrounding Petitioner’s most recent arrest, 2009 Grand Theft and Exploitation of the Elderly, even though the charges were dismissed. Petitioner admitted during the December 9, 2014, teleconference that the alleged victim made payments toward Petitioner’s bills while Petitioner was employed as her caregiver. Petitioner did not see any ethical issues with taking payments from a patient for whom she is caring, when she was already being paid by her employer for the services she rendered. Respondent explained, and it is found, that Petitioner did not appear to be totally candid and honest in her responses to the panel’s questions during the teleconferences and did not take responsibility for any of the criminal offenses. Although Respondent allows exemption applicants to have people speak on the applicants’ behalf at the teleconferences, Petitioner did not choose to have anyone speak on her behalf. Respondent considers any training, education, or certificates that an exemption applicant submits, but Petitioner did not have any such submissions, aside from Petitioner’s statement that she attended a budget class after her 1999 conviction. Based on Petitioner’s entire file and her responses during the teleconferences, Respondent determined that Petitioner did not satisfy her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence of demonstrating rehabilitation from her disqualifying offense. Respondent maintains that Petitioner still poses a risk to the vulnerable population she would serve if employed at another health care facility. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Mutaqee Akbar, her criminal defense attorney for her 2009 charges of Grand Theft and Exploitation of the Elderly, who testified that the 2009 charges against Petitioner were dismissed by the prosecutor. On cross examination, Mr. Akbar admitted that the prosecutor cited the death of the alleged victim as the reason for the case’s dismissal. Mr. Akbar also admitted that law enforcement records reflect that the alleged victim made a statement to law enforcement prior to her death that she did not give her consent for the payments made toward Petitioner’s bills. In her testimony at the final hearing, Petitioner discussed how she is a changed person and has overcome a great deal of adversity to get to where she is now. Petitioner is presently involved in her community, specifically with her church and children’s schools, and takes care of her goddaughter and four children. Petitioner has a daughter who attends community college and Petitioner has been striving to set a good example for her daughter. Petitioner’s daughter, Sierra Thomas, who is in community college, gave credible testimony that she always favored her mother and did not believe the 2009 allegations against her mother. One of Petitioner’s good friends, Sheria Hackett, testified that Petitioner is a good person and deserves to be granted the exemption. Petitioner’s Exhibit P-1 is a composite exhibit consisting of additional information relating to Petitioner’s criminal cases and a letter from her probation officer. Petitioner’s Exhibit P-2 consists of a letter from Respondent dated May 22, 2014, requesting additional information from Petitioner during the exemption application process. Petitioner’s Exhibit P-3 consists of Petitioner’s petition for formal hearing. Although Petitioner appeared remorseful for her criminal convictions, considering all of the facts, circumstances, and evidence presented to AHCA and at the final hearing, it cannot be said that she proved by clear and convincing evidence that she is rehabilitated and should not be disqualified from employment. Moreover, AHCA’s intended action of denying Petitioner’s request for exemption was not an abuse of discretion. Therefore, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of showing that she is entitled to the exemption she seeks from Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification for employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2015.
Findings Of Fact 14. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 29, 2004, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on October 14, 2004, the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on January 20, 2005, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 25, 2010, attached as “Exhibit A”, “Exhibit B”, “Exhibit C“, and “Exhibit F”, respectively, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the request for administrative hearing received from Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On September 29, 2004, the Department of Financial Services, Division of _ Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”), issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 04-590-D1 to Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On September 29, 2004, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On October 14, 2004, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $30,844.10 against Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting was. advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 4. On May 27, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On January 20, 2005, the Department issued a second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. The second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $104,044.10 against Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. The second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28- 106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 6. On May 27, 2010, the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. A copy of the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. On June 8, 2010, Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting filed a petition for administrative review (“Petition”) with the Department. Pursuant to Sections 120.54(5)(b) and 120.569(2), Florida Statutes, the Department carefully reviewed the Petition to determine if it was in substantial compliance with Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit D”. 8. After reviewing the Petition, the Department determined that the Petition was not in substantial compliance with the requirements of 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code, in that the Petition did not contain a statement identifying the material facts in dispute, or a statement indicating that there were no material facts in dispute. Accordingly, on June 24, 2010, the Department issued an Order Dismissing Petition for Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, Proceeding Without Prejudice. In the Order Dismissing Petition for Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, Proceeding Without Prejudice, Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting was given an opportunity to file, within 21 days, an amended petition curing the defects in the original Petition. 9. On August 9, 2010, Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting filed an amended petition for administrative review (“Amended Petition”) with the Department, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-7312. A copy of the Amended Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit E”. 10. On August 25, 2010, the Department filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings a Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment with an attached 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $103,958.56 against Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. A copy of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 11. On August 25, 2010, Administrative Law Judge W. D. Watkins entered an Order Granting Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment. 12. On October 12, 2010, Bill Veczko informed the Department that Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting did not wish to proceed to an administrative hearing in DOAH Case No. 10- 7312. 13. On October 12, 2010, the Department filed a Joint Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction with the Division of Administrative Hearings. As a result, Administrative Law Judge W. D. Watkins entered an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit G”.
Findings Of Fact On April 19, 1985, an Order Withholding Adjudication Of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation was entered in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County in Case Number 84-5138CFA02, State of Florida vs. Zedekiah Clayton (hereinafter referred to as the "Felony Order".) The Petitioner was the defendant in that criminal case. According to the Felony Order, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to aggravated battery without a firearm, a third degree felony. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Petitioner was placed on three years probation and ordered to pay restitution and court costs. Petitioner contends that he did not plead guilty as reflected in the Felony Order, but, instead, entered a plea of nolo contendere. His contention is supported by the Commitment Form which accompanied the Felony Order. This Commitment Form includes the handwritten notations of the deputy clerk who was apparently present at the time the plea was entered. According to this Form, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere. While the Commitment Form and Felony Order are in conflict, Petitioner's testimony is credited and it is found that he entered a plea of nolo contendere rather than guilty. On May 22, 1986, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor battery count in Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case Number 86-4501CFA02, State of Florida vs. Zedekiah Clayton (the "1986 case"). The initial charge in this case was false imprisonment as reflected on the arrest record dated May 4, 1986. However, the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor battery count. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty and ordered to pay a fine of $125.00. The court specifically directed that Petitioner's probation from the earlier Felony Order should not be violated as a result of this charge. On December 19, 1989, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent for a Class "D" security guard license and a Class "G" statewide gun permit. Section 13 of the application requires the applicant to list any and all arrests and informs the applicant that falsification of the answer "... may be grounds for denial of your license." In response to this question, Petitioner listed the arrest which led to the entry of the Felony Order. However, Petitioner did not list his arrest in the 1986 Case under this section of the application. Petitioner contends that he did not know that he was ever formally placed under arrest in the 1986 Case because he voluntarily accompanied the police officer to the station. He also stated that his attorney advised him that he did not have to disclose the incident because it was a misdemeanor. However, the application form refers to all arrests, not just felony arrests. Petitioner clearly understood that he had to appear in court and he also paid the $125.00 fine assessed against him in that case. There is no acceptable excuse for Petitioner's failure to disclose the 1986 case on his application form.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for a Class "D" security guard license and a Class "G" gun permit. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of June, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 15th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX Case Number 90-1409S Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. To the extent tht the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. 1-5. Incorporated in the preliminary statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Rejected as constituting legal argument. The subject matter of this proposal is covered in part in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as constituting legal argument. Rejected as constituting a conclusion rather than a proposed Finding of Fact. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in the preliminary statement and adopted in part in Finding of Fact 4. Incorporated in the preliminary statement. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: James K. Green, Esquire 250 Australian Avenue Suite 1300 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol (MS #4) Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is rehabilitated from his disqualifying offense, and if so, whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 32-year-old male who seeks to qualify for employment in a position of trust having direct contact with children or developmentally disabled persons served in programs regulated by the Agency. The Agency is the state agency responsible for regulating the employment of persons in positions of trust for which Petitioner seeks to qualify. In a letter dated February 20, 2015, the Agency's Director, Barbara Palmer, notified Petitioner that his request for exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust was denied. The letter advised Petitioner that this decision was based upon "the serious nature of the offense(s), the lack of sufficient evidence of rehabilitation, and [his] failure to sustain [his] burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that [he] should not be disqualified." Resp. Ex. C. Before Director Palmer made her decision, Petitioner's request for an exemption was reviewed by a Department of Children and Families (DCF) screener who compiled a 120-page report entitled "Exemption Review" dated November 17, 2014. See Resp. Ex. B. The Exemption Review did not make a recommendation one way or the other, but simply compiled all relevant information that would assist the Director in making her decision. The report was first given to the Agency Regional Operations Manager in Orlando, who reviewed it and then made a preliminary recommendation to the Director. The Agency decision was triggered after Petitioner applied for a position of special trust on October 24, 2014. To qualify for the position, Petitioner was required to undergo a level 2 background screening performed by the DCF. The screening revealed that Petitioner had six disqualifying offenses between 1995 and 2005. Those offenses are listed below: May 17, 1995 -- burglary of a dwelling; Petitioner pled guilty and adjudication was withheld; April 10, 1997 -- robbery; Petitioner pled guilty and adjudication was withheld; May 9, 1997 -- robbery; Petitioner pled guilty, adjudication was withheld, and he was placed on probation; June 17, 1997 -- battery by detainee in a detention facility; Petitioner pled nolo contendere, was adjudicated delinquent, and placed on probation; January 18, 2001 -- possession of cocaine with intent to sell; Petitioner pled nolo contendere, was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation, and ordered to serve 86 days in the County Jail; and February 1, 2005 -- possession of cocaine; Petitioner pled guilty, was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation, and ordered to serve six months in the County Jail. Besides the disqualifying offenses, Petitioner has a number of arrests and/or convictions for non-disqualifying offenses beginning in 1995. Two offenses, disorderly conduct and trespass on a property or conveyance, occurred in July 2012, or seven years after his last disqualifying offense. For that offense, he pled nolo contendere and was adjudicated guilty. He was also ordered to serve one day in the County Jail and required to complete a four-hour anger management class. The Exemption Review shows that in May 2000, Petitioner earned his high school diploma. In June 2009, he earned an associate's degree in Network Administration from the TESST College of Technology in Baltimore, Maryland. In May 2014, he earned a bachelor's degree in psychology from Morgan State University located in the same city. The Exemption Review also shows: from January 2008 through September 2008, Petitioner worked as a cashier and sales consultant at a retail store; from May 2009 through January 2010, he worked as an activities coordinator; from June 2011 through August 2013, he worked as a youth counselor; from February 2014 through May 2014, he worked as a records and registration clerk at the university from which he received his degree; and from June 2014 through August 2014 he worked as a behavior technician. At hearing, he testified that he is currently employed by Quest Diagnostics in the Orlando area. Most of Petitioner's disqualifying offenses occurred at a very early age. For example, in May 1995, while in middle school and just before he turned 12 years of age, he committed his first disqualifying offense, burglary of a dwelling. When he was arrested for his last disqualifying offense in February 2005, possession of cocaine, he was 21 years old. Petitioner attributes his criminal conduct to immaturity, peer pressure, and what he characterized as "environmental exposure." He expressed remorse, he takes full responsibility for his actions, and he acknowledges he could have handled his life better. He is currently in a committed relationship, has a new-born child, and serves as a mentor in the community. In short, Petitioner says he has changed his life for the better. Besides two witnesses who spoke highly of his recent volunteer work with children, an Orlando City Commissioner submitted a letter of recommendation. If his application is approved, Petitioner has a pending job offer with Lodestone Academy in Orlando, which works with Agency clients. An Agency representative testified that the Agency's clients are at a heightened risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation because of their developmental disabilities and inability to self-preserve. They often have severe deficits in their abilities to complete self-tasks and communicate their wants and needs. For this reason, the Agency undertakes a heightened scrutiny of individuals seeking an exemption. In explaining the Agency's rationale for denying the application, the Regional Operations Manager listed the following factors that weighed against a favorable disposition of Petitioner's request: the frequency of the criminal offenses; criminal behavior that has consumed one-half of his life; the limited time (three years) since his last arrest, albeit for a non-disqualifying offense; and Petitioner's lack of specificity and accountability in his Exemption Questionnaire and testimony regarding the disqualifying offenses. As to the last factor, Petitioner could recall very few facts regarding his early arrests, saying they occurred at a very young age. He also denied that there were any injuries to his victims. However, one offense involved battery on a detainee in a juvenile facility, and in another, he ripped two gold chains from a victim's neck.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 17th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether the Department of State, Division of Licensing, should revoke Respondent's license to carry concealed weapons or firearms for the reason set forth in the Administrative Complaint, to wit: that "Respondent is ineligible for licensure pursuant to Sections 790.06(2)(d) and 790.23, Florida Statutes."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent currently holds a concealed weapons or firearms license (license number W96-09874, effective June 14, 1996). On September 21, 1981, in the Superior Court of Cochise County, Arizona, Respondent was adjudicated guilty (based upon a guilty plea that he had previously entered) of two counts of forgery, a class 4 felony under the laws of the State of Arizona, and placed on probation for a period of three years under the supervision of the Cochise County Adult Probation Department. He had no prior criminal record at the time of his convictions. As a condition of his probation, Respondent was required to "pay restitution through the Adult Probation Department in the amount of $1,617.19, less the $350.00 payment he ha[d] already made, such amount payable in monthly installments of $100.00, beginning with the month of October 1981." On September 11, 1984, Respondent's probation was "extended for three (3) years to provide additional time for full payment of restitution." Respondent made such "full payment of restitution" on or about September 8, 1987. By court order issued September 24, 1987, Respondent was "discharged absolutely" from his probation. The order contained the following advisement: The defendant is advised that rights may be restored as provided in the following statutes: 13-912 Restoration of civil rights; automatic for first offenders. 2/ 13-905 Restoration of civil rights; persons completing probation 13-907 Setting aside judgment of convicted person upon discharge; making of application; release from disabilities; exceptions. 13-908 Restoration of civil rights in the discretion of the Superior Court Judge. Because he was a "first offender," Respondent was under the impression that, following his discharge from probation, he enjoyed the same rights that he had enjoyed prior to his convictions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order revoking Respondent's concealed weapons or firearms license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of February, 1997. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The following facts are stipulated by the parties and are incorporated herein: The Respondent has been the clerk of court for Collier County since June of 1986. The Respondent was the clerk of court at all times material to this complaint. In July of 1990, the Respondent's wife was issued a citation for having glass bottles on the beach, a violation of municipal ordinance No. 16.30, City of Naples. On August 21, 1990, upon failure to timely pay the fine for the violation of the above-described ordinance or to appear in court on this date, an arrest warrant for Theresa Giles was issued. On August 30, 1990, on or about 4:30 p.m., police officers arrived at the Respondent's residence to arrest Ms. Giles for her failure to appear or to pay fine. The officers allowed Ms. Giles to make a telephone call to her husband at the clerk's office. The Respondent went to one of his deputy clerks, Lorraine Stoll and discussed the situation with her. As a result, Ms. Stoll called the officers at the Respondent's home and informed them that the bench warrant for Ms. Giles was recalled. Ms. Giles was not taken into custody as a result of Ms. Stoll's action. These facts are derived from the evidence presented, weighed and credited: Respondent, James Giles was the Collier County finance director, performing the pre-audit function for the county, when he was appointed county clerk to finish a two year term in 1986. He was then elected to a four year term ending in January 1993, and was not reelected. His prior employment experience was as a private certified public accountant, an employee of St. Johns County, and an auditor for the State of Florida. On August 30, 1990, when Theresa Giles called her husband, she was very upset. He had promised to pay the fine, but had forgotten. She was home alone with her young child and her elderly mother when the deputies came to serve the warrant and arrest her. The ticket, or "Notice to Appear" issued to Ms. Giles for her infraction plainly provides notice that if the fine is not paid or the person fails to appear in court at the appointed time, an arrest warrant shall be issued. (Advocate Exhibit No. 2) James Giles immediately called his misdemeanor division and Kathleen Heck answered the phone. After he briefly explained the situation, she went to find the supervisor, Lorraine Stoll. As the two women were at Ms. Stoll's desk, bringing Ms. Giles' case up on the computer, Mr. Giles appeared in person. This was a very unusual situation because the clerk rarely came back to the misdemeanor office. He was Lorraine Stoll's immediate supervisor. He asked if there was anything that could be done and Ms. Stoll responded that the warrant could be recalled. Before she could explain any further, he handed her a paper with his home phone and asked her to make the call. Ms. Giles answered the phone and put the deputy on; Ms. Stoll told him the warrant was recalled, and Ms. Giles was not arrested. Ms. Stoll then told Mr. Giles that the fine and court costs had to be paid. He said the whole thing was ridiculous, that he could not believe a warrant could be issued for such a minor offense. By this time it was after 5:00 p.m. and the cashier's office was closed. Giles paid the $36.50 fine the next day and paid the $100.00 court costs on September 13, some two weeks later. (Respondent's exhibits nos. 1 and 2). James Giles admits being upset at the time that the phone call was made, but was trying to calm down because he knew Lorraine Stoll to be excitable. He was flabbergasted that someone could be arrested for having bottles on the beach. He denies that he pressured Ms. Stoll, but claims he was trying to be rational and get sound advice. He wanted her to make the call because he felt it would "look bad" if he did. James Giles did not raise his voice but both Ms. Stoll and Ms. Heck perceived he was upset and in a pressure situation. Ms. Stoll had never been involved in a circumstance where the warrant was recalled while the deputies were getting ready to make an arrest. She has worked in the misdemeanor section of the clerk's office for eleven and a half years, as deputy clerk. No ordinary citizen could have received the advantage that the clerk and his wife received. Judge Ellis, a Collier County judge, has a written policy providing that a bench warrant may be set aside after payment of costs and fine. Another county judge, Judge Trettis, requires that his office or the State's Attorney be called, and does not have a written policy. Ms. Stoll does not have the authority to recall a warrant without following the proper procedure. This situation was out of the ordinary. She made the telephone call because her boss told her to, and their main concern was that the warrant needed to be recalled so Ms. Giles would not go to jail. On the other hand, Ms. Stoll did not tell Mr. Giles that he was pressuring her, nor did she have the opportunity to tell him the proper procedure before making the telephone call. James Giles' explanation that he was simply seeking advice of his staff and then acting on it without wrongful intent is disingenuous. Whatever his actual knowledge of proper procedures for recalling a warrant, he knew or should have known that what he was doing was not an opportunity available to other citizens. His experience in the clerk's office and in prior public service should have clued him that no one else could simply get a deputy clerk to intercept an arrest with a telephone call.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission on Ethics enter its final order finding that James Giles violated Section 112.313(6), F.S., and recommending a civil penalty of $250.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 27th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4942EC The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Advocate's Proposed Findings 1. Adopted as stipulated facts in paragraphs 1-5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12. 8.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. A.-E. Adopted as stipulated facts in paragraphs 1-5. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 8 and 12. Rejected as the sequence suggested is contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as misleading. The evidence shows the process was incorrect and both staff knew it was incorrect. The clerk was informed about the correct procedure after the phone call. The procedure is set out in paragraph 13. The evidence is not clear that the fine and costs could not have been paid the same day. By the time Mr. Giles finished complaining, it was after 5:00. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence, considering the totality of Ms. Stoll's testimony as well as Ms. Heck's. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as immaterial. 3. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. More specifically, this proposed finding suggests that the culpability was Ms. Stoll's rather than Respondent's. That suggestion is supported only by Ms. Stoll's timid admissions that she should not have made the phone call without having received the payment from her boss. Ms. Stoll's acceptance of blame does not relieve the Respondent of his responsibility. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig B. Willis Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1502 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Raymond Bass, Jr., Esquire Bass & Chernoff 849 7th Avenue, South - Suite 200 Naples, Florida 33940-6715 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue Whether Rule 33-7.005, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Richard Charles Gaston, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent stipulated that the Petitioner has standing to institute this proceeding. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Rule 33-7.005, Florida Administrative Code. Section 944.292, Florida Statutes, provides that the civil rights of persons convicted of a felony as defined in Section 10, Article X of the Constitution of the State of Florida, are suspended "until such rights are restored by a full pardon, conditional pardon, or restoration of civil rights granted pursuant to s. 8, Art. IV of the State Constitution." Section 8, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Florida, authorizes the Governor to grant pardons restoring civil rights with approval of three members of the Cabinet. The initiation of the process for consideration of whether an inmate should have his or her civil rights restored pursuant to Section 8, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Florida, is governed by Section 944.293, Florida Statutes (1989). Section 944.293, Florida Statutes (1989), provides the following: Initiation of restoration of civil rights. --With respect to those persons convicted of a felony, the following procedure shall apply: Prior to the time an offender is discharged from supervision, an authorized agent of the department shall obtain from the Governor the necessary application and other forms required for the restoration of civil rights. The authorized agent shall insure that the application and all necessary material are forwarded to the Governor before the offender is discharged from supervision. In implementing Section 944.293, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has promulgated Rule 33-7.005, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rule"). The Challenged Rule provides, in pertinent part: Discharge of an Inmate. When an inmate has completed all combined sentences imposed upon him or is released by parole, pardon or court order, the Secretary or his designated agent shall furnish such inmate with a certificate of discharge upon his release from custody. All qualified inmates shall be given the opportunity at the time of their release to complete an application for restoration of civil rights, Form DC4-322, Restoration of Civil Rights. Form DC4-322 is hereby incorporated by reference. A copy of this form may be obtained from any institution or from the Bureau of Admission and Release, Department of Corrections . . . . The Respondent releases approximately 40,000 to 45, 000 inmates each year. The release of an inmate, including an inmate convicted of a felony, involves a somewhat lengthy process and the completion of a number of forms, including a form for restoration of civil rights. The date upon which an inmate is to be released from prison becomes "frozen" seven days prior to the inmate's release. Even after the release date is determined and considered "frozen", however, that release date may be modified because of conduct of the inmate after the date is "frozen" but before the inmate is actually released. The completion of the forms necessary to institute a determination of whether an inmate's civil rights should be restored begins approximately 120 days prior to the inmate's projected release. Pursuant to the Challenged Rule, the Respondent has designated an employee of the Respondent at Marion Correctional Institute to interview inmates to be released and provide a Form DC4-322, Restoration of Civil Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), to inmates to be released. A completed Application is mailed by the Respondent to the Florida Parole Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") on the date that the inmate is released from prison. The Respondent does not send the completed Application until the day the inmate is actually released from prison because the release date may change at any time prior to the actual time the inmate is released. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, that the Respondent cannot inform the Commission after it has forwarded an application that the inmate's proposed release date has been modified or that the Commission would not ignore an application upon such notification. Some, but not all, inmates convicted of felonies may not be eligible for restoration of their civil rights at the time of their release from prison; these inmates are subject to supervision after leaving prison. Some inmates convicted of felonies, such as the Petitioner, have, however, completely served their sentences and are released from all supervision at the time they are released from prison. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that such inmates are not eligible for restoration of their civil rights immediately upon their release from prison.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offenses; and, if so, whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from employment disqualification would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact APD serves clients with disabilities such as autism, intellectual disabilities, Downs Syndrome, and Prader-Willi Syndrome. APD's clients range from those needing total care to those who can live on their own with minimal assistance. The services APD provides to its clients include personal care, respite care, adult day training, supported living, and a wide variety of other services. The aforementioned services are provided by APD's vendors in individual homes, group homes, and supported living arrangements. Petitioner is seeking to work as a direct service provider in a group home for persons with developmental disabilities. Section 435.06(2), Florida Statutes, mandates that an employer may not hire someone for a position requiring contact with any "vulnerable person" until a completed background screening "demonstrates the absence of any grounds for the denial or termination of employment." The Department of Children and Families ("DCF") administers the background screening process for APD. APD's Action Petitioner's background screening identified three felony counts that are disqualifying criminal offenses, and all for resisting an officer with violence to his person. On November 14, 2016, DCF notified Petitioner that she was disqualified from employment due to her criminal history and specifically because of the three counts of resisting an officer with violence to his person from a November 26, 1975, Miami Dade incident. On or around December 1, 2016, Petitioner submitted a request for exemption, which included the exemption application and questionnaire to DCF. The instructions provided: "[f]or EACH criminal offense appearing on your record, please write your DETAILED version of the events and be specific. Attach extra pages as needed and please type or write legibly. When Petitioner filled out the questionnaire, she provided the following answers to each question on the exemption questionnaire: Question #1 asked for "disqualifying incident(s)." Petitioner responded "3 Counts of Resisting Arrest with Violence." In response to Question #2 "Non-disqualifying Offenses(s)," Petitioner again provided none of the details surrounding these offenses. She listed two non-disqualifying offenses, "Battery" and "Petit Theft" to which she had criminal dispositions. Question #3 asks, "What is the current status in the court system?" Petitioner responded, "N/A." In Response to Question #4 on her Exemption Questionnaire, regarding "the degree of harm to any victim or property (permanent or temporary), damages or injuries," Petitioner indicated "N/A." In answering Question #5, about whether there were "any stressors in [her] life at the time of the disqualifying incident," Petitioner again indicated "N/A." Question #6 asked whether there are any current stressors in her life, Petitioner responded: "[D]ivorced living at home with my 3 minor children. I am a spokes-person for the SEIU union. Fight for Fifteen. I feed the homeless in my community." As confirmed at hearing, Petitioner listed educational achievements and training as the following: Fla College of Business – Certified Nursing Assistant (1985) National School of Technology – Surgical Tech (1998) Food Service – Brevard C.C. Under Question #8 of the Exemption Questionnaire, in response to the question whether she had ever received any counseling, Petitioner indicated "N/A." Question #9 of the Exemption Questionnaire asks, "Have you ever used/misused drugs and alcohol? Please be specific and list the age at which you started and how you started." Petitioner again responded "N/A." Question #10 of the Exemption Questionnaire asks whether Petitioner was involved in any community activities. Petitioner responded, "I have volunteered with Senator Dwight Bullard, Fla. State Rep. McGhee, Mayor Woodard, Joe Garcia, etc." Question #11 asks the applicant to "Document any relevant information related to the acceptance of responsibility for disqualifying and non-disqualifying offenses." Petitioner responded as follows: "Yes. I accept responsibility at the time of this offense I was 17 years of age and trying to fit in with my friends. I have learned when you know better you do better." The Exemption Questionnaire also requested Petitioner to provide her three prior years' work history. Petitioner provided detailed information about her 18-year work history in the health care field, which included care of the vulnerable community. Petitioner has worked in a hospital, nursing home, private home, and with both mental health and hospice patients. Petitioner's answer also outlines how she had performed some of the same job responsibilities as a direct service provider for the following employers: JR Ranch Group Home LLC: C.N.A 10/3/16 to present-Companion to individual bathing, feeding, dressing, grooming, etc. Nurse Plus Agency: C.N.A. 3/12/08 to 9/7/15- Working in private homes with hospice patients bathing, feeding grooming, shaving, R.O.M. T.C.C. vital signs, doctor's appointments, etc. Gramercy Park Nursing Home: C.N.A. 2/15/05 to 3/12/08-Working in skilled nursing facility doing patient care, vitals, charting, lifting, bathing, feeding, dressing, physical therapy, etc. Jackson M. Hospital: C.N.A. 1/7/98 to 5/8/2001-Working on HIV unit, patient care, R.O.M., bed making, bathing, feeding, dressing, shaving, oral care, transferring, lifting, etc. On December 15, 2016, DCF sent a letter to Petitioner requesting additional documentation to complete the exemption application. Petitioner was asked to "provide the arrest report (from arresting agency) and CERTIFIED court disposition JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE" for the following offenses appearing on [her] criminal history screening report: 05/20/2013 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BW DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED 5/11/2002 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 5/11/2002 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 12/22/2001 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, COUNTY ORD VIOL 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BATTERY 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATTERY 1/13/1998 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BATTERY 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGGRAV BATT-POL OFF 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESISTING OFFICER 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BATTERY 9/28/1996 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESISTING OFFICER 4/11/1994 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGG ASSLT - WEAPON 4/11/1994 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AGG ASSAULT –WEAPON 01/14/1991 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SHOPLIFTING 11/07/1981 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ASSAULT 11/07/1981 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESISTING OFFICER 11/07/1981 MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISORDERLY CONDUCT The DCF letter also instructed Petitioner that if she could not obtain the arrest report and/or court disposition, she might submit a notarized written "detailed statement on each arrest explaining why you were arrested. You must include the victim's age and relationship to you and the sentence you received (probation, jail, prison, etc)." Additionally, the letter requested proof of income, an affidavit of good moral character, two to five letters of recommendation, and a personal history explaining what happened with each arrest, current home life, education, training, family members, goals, and community involvement. The letter provided Petitioner a 30-day deadline and notified Petitioner "[n]o further action [would] be taken on [her] application for exemption until we receive the requested information." (emphasis added). On or about December 21, 2016, Petitioner complied with the DCF letter and provided 99 pages of documents including Florida Criminal History Record requested, certified police arrest reports, notarized printed dockets of her criminal offenses with court dispositions, notarized document from the Clerk of Circuit and County Court Harvey Ruvin listing all Petitioner's criminal charges and court dispositions available in Miami-Dade, certificate of parole, 2009 certificate of restoration of civil rights, taxes, nursing assistant certification, certificate of liability insurance, continuing education certificates, program certificates, June 13, 2015, White House Conference on Aging program listing Petitioner as a speaker at the White House, 2015 newspaper articles detailing Petitioner's substantive work in minimum pay raise advocacy nationwide for the Fight for Fifteen campaign, letters of recommendation, driving history records, ACHA exemption to work in the healthcare field as a Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA"), and a personal statement. Petitioner's personal statement and testimony at hearing provided a comprehensive history of how she has been a caregiver since 1982 "working [i]n hospitals, nursing homes, mental health, hospice, private homes, SLF, etc." Petitioner's statement further detailed that she became a Certified Nursing Assistant in 1985 after the disqualifying offense incident and became a surgical technician in 1997. Petitioner also provided the requested following explanations for each of her arrests: 1.) 11/26/1975: I was arrested for (3) counts of resisting arrest with violence. At the time I was 17 years of age hanging with the wrong crowd. 2.) 11/07/1981: Was at a party drinking got in fight with boyfriend. No case action. 3.) 01/14/1991: In store buying groceries didn't realize there were a pair of socks in my buggy charged with petty theft no way I would have stolen a pair of one dollar socks. Judge was dumbfounded. 4.) 04/11/1994: Got into argument with my mother in which she was drinking she called police to say I had a gun. In which was not true. Office[r] ask me had I ever been to jail I stated yes he then said put your hands behind your back then placed me under arrest. My Mom was there next morning to bond me out. Case No Action. 5.) 09/28/1996: I was witness to a murder I told officer what I seen but didn't want to speak in front of people, also did not want to be labeled as a snitcher. I told the officer I would come to talk but I would not walk with him. I proceeded to walk away the officer grabbed me by the back of my hair, the officer and I proceeded to fight at that time other people got involved. The lead detective asked the officer why he did that. The lead detective promise me he would come to court with me in which he did case was dismissed. Case No Action. 6.) Boyfriend and I got into argument he was drinking and he wanted to drive I told him no he wouldn't give me my keys, so I proceeded to knock head lights out. Case No Action. 7.) 01/13/1998: Got in fight with boyfriend. Case No Action. Petitioner responded to the best of her ability to each of DCF's requests for information. DCF summarized Petitioner's 99 document submission in an Exemption Review Summary ("summary") and forwarded the application, questionnaire, and supporting documents to APD for review. The summary correctly identified Petitioner's 1975 acts of resisting an officer as the disqualifying offenses. The summary outlined twelve non-disqualifying offenses with which Petitioner was charged. However, the summary categorized one non-disqualifying offense as a driving charge and outlined an additional nine non-disqualifying offenses as dismissed or dropped, as Petitioner had reported in her personal statement when she said "no action" was taken. The summary only listed a 1991 shoplifting charge and a 2001 county ordinance violation for which Petitioner was prosecuted. On March 17, 2017, Agency Director Barbara Palmer advised Petitioner by letter that her request for an exemption from the disqualification has been denied. The basis for the denial was that Petitioner failed to submit clear and convincing evidence of her rehabilitation. On May 1, 2017, Petitioner requested to appeal APD's denial. Hearing At hearing, as well as in the exemption package, Petitioner took full responsibility for her disqualifying offenses. At hearing, Cunningham also showed remorse. In her personal statement she stated she "paid her debt to society . . . learned from [her] mistakes." Petitioner also credibly explained the circumstances at hearing for her 1975 disqualifying convictions and testified that she was 17 years old when she broke into the neighbor's empty house across the street and was hanging out there. When she was arrested they were handling her roughly. She was originally charged with burglary, larceny and resisting arrest. The burglary and larceny charges were dropped and she pled to three counts of resisting an officer with violence to his person. Petitioner was sentenced to a youth program but left it, was bound over as an adult, and was sentenced to prison where she served three and a half years. Petitioner successfully completed her parole on August 23, 1981, and her civil rights were restored on May 8, 2008. Petitioner testified to her other non-disqualifying offenses as she had detailed in her personal statement. She explained that the 1981 criminal charge was dropped and stemmed from a fight with her boyfriend while at a party where she had been drinking. In 1994, her mom, who was a drinker, was acting out and called the police on Petitioner. Her mother lied and told the police Petitioner had a gun, which she did not. The police asked Petitioner if she had been to jail previously and she answered yes and was arrested. Her mother came and got her out of jail the next morning and the case was dismissed. Petitioner verified that in 1996, she would not tell the police officer what she saw regarding a murder because she was going to the police station to report it privately. The officer grabbed her from behind, they fell to the ground, and she was arrested for Battery on an Officer. The next day the lead detective came to court and testified on Petitioner's behalf that the officer's behavior was inappropriate and Petitioner was released and the charges were dropped. Petitioner also explained that she received another arrest because her boyfriend was drunk and took her car keys and was going to drive. Petitioner testified she could not stop him so she knocked the headlights and windows out of her car to prevent him from driving and ultimately the charges were dropped. Petitioner confirmed at hearing that at least nine of the criminal charges she obtained were either dismissed or dropped and she had not been arrested in over 10 years. Petitioner's credible detailed testimony during the hearing was information that APD did not have the benefit of having while reviewing her application. Petitioner affirmed that she had a July 1999 public assistance fraud case on which adjudication was withheld for her trading food stamps to pay her light bill. DCF failed to ask Petitioner about the case in the request letter with the list of other charges. Petitioner admitted that the public assistance fraud case was the only case in which Petitioner had to make restitution. She paid back the total amount of food stamps she sold and then her food stamps were reinstated. Evelyn Alvarez ("Alvarez"), APD Regional Operations Manager for the Southern Region, made an independent review of Petitioner's Request for Exemption, Petitioner's Exemption Questionnaire, and documentation submitted on December 21, 2016. Among the factors identified by Alvarez as a basis for the recommendation of denial of the exemption was the perception that Petitioner's application was incomplete. Alvarez determined Petitioner did not take responsibility for her arrests or show any remorse. Alvarez testified that APD needs to be able to rely on the answers provided by the applicant in the Exemption Questionnaire to get the information needed to decide whether to grant an exemption. Although she relied on other information gathered as well, what the applicant stated in the Exemption Questionnaire is very important. Alvarez explained that she considered both Petitioner's disqualifying and non-disqualifying offenses, the circumstances surrounding those offenses, the nature of the harm caused to the victim, the history of the applicant since the disqualifying incident, and finally, any other evidence indicating whether the applicant will present a danger to vulnerable APD clients if employment is allowed. Alvarez also testified that she looked for consistency in the applicant's account of events in her Exemption Questionnaire, whether or not the applicant accepted responsibility for her actions and whether the applicant expressed remorse for her prior criminal acts. Alvarez concluded that there were inconsistencies between Petitioner's account of her disqualifying and non-disqualifying offenses compared with those found in the police reports. Alvarez further testified she was concerned that Petitioner had numerous traffic citations. Alvarez explained the citations concerned her because individuals who are granted exemptions would potentially be in positions to transport clients and an applicant that maintains a good driving record demonstrates an ability to ensure the health and safety of clients being served. At hearing, Petitioner testified that her driving record "was not the best." The summary detailed that the 2008 infractions included failure to pay required tolls, improper left, and lack of proof of insurance. Petitioner also had other driving offenses, such as a DWLS and Driver License in 2007 and a safety belt violation in 2006. After her review, Alvarez decided that Petitioner had exhibited a continuing pattern of criminal offenses over an extended period of time, many of which were violent and involved fights, and she concluded Petitioner had not demonstrated rehabilitation. At hearing, Tom Rice ("Rice"), APD Program Administrator for Regional Supports/Licensing, testified that an individual's good character and trustworthiness is important for individuals who provide direct care for APD because service providers are frequently responsible for assisting individuals in making decisions of a financial, medical, and social nature. APD must weigh the benefit against the risk when considering granting an exemption. Rice explained that APD's clients are susceptible to abuse because they are reliant on others to assist with intimate tasks, such as getting dressed, going to the bathroom, feeding, medicine, and funds. Direct service providers need to care and keep clients safe. Rice verified that Petitioner was eligible to work in an APD group home as a CNA. Rice also testified that APD was concerned with Petitioner's failure to disclose details in her accounts regarding her criminal offenses because it calls into question her trustworthiness. He further testified such factors demonstrate a pattern of poor judgment and decision-making and provide cause for APD to question Petitioner's fitness for providing services to the vulnerable individuals for which it is responsible and that is why Petitioner was denied. Findings of Ultimate Fact Upon careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offenses of resisting an officer with violence to his person and that she will not present a danger to disabled or otherwise vulnerable persons with whom she would have contact if employment in a group home were allowed. Petitioner has shown she is a responsible individual by successfully holding jobs in the health field for approximately 18 years. Her employment has been in positions where she cared for vulnerable persons and no evidence was presented that Petitioner was a danger while doing so. Instead, Petitioner's exemption package mirrors her credible testimony of her previous employment serving as a companion, bathing, feeding, dressing, grooming, taking vital signs, transporting patients to doctor's appointments, and working in a private home, which are personal care services that some direct service providers also supply. Petitioner was honest and forthright about her past and supplied 99 pages detailing her past to comply with DCF's request to complete her application. Petitioner testified convincingly that she has turned her life around. Petitioner's only disqualifying offenses occurred over 40 years ago. Even though she was arrested at least twelve times since then, nine of the charges were dismissed and Petitioner's last criminal arrest was 2002. Petitioner also obtained three certificates after her disqualifying offenses. Petitioner received licensure as a CNA and she has been successfully practicing under her license with an ACHA exemption in the health care field. Some of Petitioner's work has even been with vulnerable adults in both a hospital and nursing home. The undersigned further finds that denial of Petitioner's exemption request would constitute an abuse of discretion. As discussed above, it appears Respondent relied heavily on the initial application submitted, hearsay in the police reports, and traffic infractions, and failed to adequately consider the 99 pages and nine dismissed charges Petitioner provided regarding her rehabilitation. In doing so, Respondent failed to properly evaluate Petitioner's disqualifying offenses having occurred over 40 years ago and the last non-disqualifying criminal arrest being at least 15 years ago and the majority of the charges being dismissed. The evidence also indicates that Petitioner has performed successfully in a healthcare work setting, including some care of vulnerable individuals. Additionally, Petitioner has gone above and beyond to contribute in the community. She volunteers with the homeless and also volunteers with legislators and a mayor, and advocated nationally for a minimum wage increase in the Fight for Fifteen campaign, serving as the spokes-person. In 2015, the White House also extended an invitation to Petitioner to speak because of her advocacy, and Petitioner passed the background check and screening that the secret service conducted. As Petitioner testified at hearing, had she been any type of threat or been dangerous or violent based on her previous arrests, she would not have passed the high security screening and been allowed in the White House to speak. Petitioner also testified she does not have anything to hide. She demonstrated, by credible and very compelling evidence, that she made wrong decisions and took the initiative to turn her life around. For these reasons, it is determined that no reasonable individual, upon fully considering the record in this proceeding could find that Petitioner is not rehabilitated. The concerns expressed by Respondent in formulating its intended action, without the benefit of hearing testimony, particularly with those regarding her untruthfulness and lack of remorse for her actions, were effectively refuted by the credible testimony at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter a final order granting Petitioner, Molita Cunningham's, request for an exemption from disqualification from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 13th day of September, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Kurt Eric Ahrendt, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Molita Cunningham 12437 Southwest 220th Street Miami, Florida 33170 (eServed) Jada Williams, Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 335E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
