STANLEY MCINTYRE, APPELLANT,
v.
GLORIA H. TUCKER, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A school superintendent appealed his termination by the Franklin County School Board, alleging procedural errors. The court reversed, finding that the Board violated the Florida Administrative Procedure Act by failing to address McIntyre's proposed findings of fact and that McIntyre was denied a fair hearing because the School Board's attorney acted as both prosecutor and legal advisor.
The School Board violated the Florida Administrative Procedure Act by failing to include a ruling on each proposed finding of fact and a statement of grounds for denial in its final order. The appellant was denied a fair hearing because the School Board's attorney's dual role as prosecutor and legal advisor, particularly his presence and proffering of advice at the final Board meeting, violated principles of fair play and impartiality.
[1] An agency's final order must rule upon each of a party's proposed findings of fact and written applications, providing a brief statement of the grounds for denial.
[2] An agency commits procedural error by failing to address a party's proposed findings of fact in its final order.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 120.59(2) specifically mandates that when a party submits proposed findings of fact or files any written application in connection with the proceeding, the order shall include a ruling upon each and a brief statement of the grounds for denying the application or request.”
Establishes the statutory requirement violated by the School Board's failure to address proposed findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Franklin County School Board recommended terminating McIntyre's employment. McIntyre submitted exceptions and proposed findings of fact in respons…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appeal From Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge..
This is an appeal from a final order by the Franklin County School Board terminating McIntyre’s employment. McIntyre contends the School Board committed procedural error by failing to mention any of his proposed findings of fact in its final order. He further urges this court to find that he was denied a fair hearing because, among other things, the School Board’s attorney acted as both legal advisor and prosecutor in the same hearing. We reverse.
In response to the School Board’s recommended order of termination, McIntyre submitted to the Board a list of exceptions and proposed findings of fact. However, the School Board’s final order was absolutely silent as to the exceptions and proposed findings, and as such, is in clear violation of the Florida Administrative Procedure Act. Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1984); Rule 28.405(3), Fla.Admin.Code.
Section 120.59(2) specifically mandates that when a party submits proposed findings of fact or files any written application in connection with the proceeding, the order shall include a ruling upon each and a brief statement of the grounds for denying the application or request. In case after case, this court has remanded final agency orders which failed to address an appellant’s proposed findings of facts. Wong v. Career Service Commission, 371 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Pelham v. Superintendent of School Board of Wakulla County, 436 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Island Harbor Beach Club, Ltd. v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
At the hearing in question, the School Board’s attorney acted as both prosecutor, representing the interests of his client the School Board, and legal advisor, advising the Board in its capacity as hearing officer. In practice, impartiality and zealous representation are inherently incompatible in the same person at the same time. As the court in Metropolitan Dade County v. Florida Processing Company, 218 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), stated:
[I]t is sufficient for us to point out that it would be in closer accord with traditional notions of justice and fair play for a quasi administrative board to designate one person to act as its legal advisor and a different person to act as its prosecutor. In the only other Florida appellate decision on point, Ford v. Bay County School Board, 246 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), this court explicitly agreed with the above-cited language. In Ford, it was held that the petitioner’s due process rights were not violated since the School Board’s attorney did not proffer legal advice during the hearing and was not present at the separate hearing wherein the final judgment was rendered. In contrast, the School Board attorney in the instant case was present at the final meeting of the Board and he did proffer legal advice. Consequently, we find error was committed and McIntyre was denied a fair hearing.
We have considered the remaining points urged by McIntyre on appeal; however, in view of the conclusions reached on the above issues, they do not merit our discussion.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the School Board’s final order and remand with directions that it grant McIntyre’s request for a new hearing.
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Life Care Ctrs. OF Am., Inc. v. Sawgrass Care Ctr., Inc., 683 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…a. v. Department of Transp., 340 So. 2d 119, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (“Enforcement of statutory procedural guaranties [in former section 120.59(2) ] remains a judicial function under the review procedures of § 120.68.”). See also McIntyre v. Tucker, 490 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (reversing where Franklin County School Board “committed procedural error by failing to mention any of [McIntyre’s] proposed findings of fact in its final order”). Ehrenzeller v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,…
-
Forehand v. Sch. Bd. OF Gulf Cnty., 600 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…board conducting disciplinary proceedings to designate one person to act as its legal advisor and a different person to fulfill the role of prosecutor. Edgar v. School Board of Calhoun County, 549 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); McIntyre v. Tucker, 490 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Ford v. Bay County School Board, 246 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). In McIntyre v. Tucker, 490 So. 2d 1012, a case involving facts quite similar to the case before us, we held that a teacher was denied a fair hearing before the…1 / 3
-
Buckner v. Sch. Bd. of Glades Cnty., 718 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…t also to act as “prosecutor” in that proceeding. Since it appears that special counsel offered legal advice to appellee during the proceedings as well as acting as its prosecutor, appellant was thereby denied a fair hearing. See McIntyre v. Tucker, 490 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). This court considered a similar case in Von Stephens v. School Board, 338 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). In Von Stephens, we stated: The responsibility of a school board has always been to appoint personnel recommended and nom…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gladyce Inez Ford v. BAY Cnty. Sch. Bd., 246 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Wong v. The Career Serv. Comm'n & the Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 371 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Island Harbor Beach Club, Ltd. v. Dep't OF Natural Res., 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Lifschitz v. Filomena Troccoli and Emilio Troccoli, 436 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Battis v. State, 218 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Fla. Processing Co., 218 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)