TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, Department/, Petitioner, vs. CSGP 06-52VINCENT TUROCY, Grievant/, Respondent
|
|
- Kathleen May
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, Department/, Petitioner, vs. CSGP 06-52VINCENT TUROCY, Grievant/, Respondent Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons This Initial Order by the Administrative Judges of the Administrative Procedures Division, Tennessee Department of State, is a public document made available by the College of Law Library, and the Tennessee Department of State, Administrative Procedures Division. For more information about this public document, please contact administrative.procedures@tn.gov
2 BEFORE THE TENNESSEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT ] OF SAFETY, ] Department/Petitioner, ] vs. ] Docket No J ] (CSGP 06-52) VINCENT TUROCY, ] Grievant/Respondent. ] INITIAL ORDER This contested administrative case was heard on April 19, 2007, in Nashville, Tennessee, before J. Randall LaFevor, Administrative Judge, assigned by the Secretary of State, and sitting for the Civil Service Commission for the State of Tennessee. Ms. Deborah Martin, Staff Attorney for the Department of Safety, represented the Department/Petitioner. The Grievant/Respondent, Vincent Turocy, was represented by his legal counsel, Mr. Fletcher W. Long. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken under advisement pending submission of the hearing transcript. That document was filed on May 18, 2007, and the matter was declared ready for consideration. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety convened a Step IV Disciplinary Hearing on June 21, 2006 to consider possible disciplinary action against the Grievant for alleged violations of various State Statutes and Regulations, and Departmental General Orders. Based on his analysis of the facts, and upon applying the law, the Commissioner suspended the Grievant for ten (10) days without pay, and ordered that he make restitution to the Department of Safety for all profits he received from transactions with the Department. This contested administrative proceeding was a Fifth-Step Disciplinary Hearing convened at the Grievant s request, to consider the sanctions imposed by the Commissioner of the Department of Safety for engaging in certain prohibited conduct, including (1) Violation of Tennessee Code Annotated , (2) Violation of specific
3 Department of Safety General Orders, and (3) Conduct unbecoming an employee in the State service;. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments, and the entire record, it is determined that the Grievant engaged in the prohibited conduct, as charged, and that the proper disciplinary action for those offenses is a ten (10) day suspension without pay and restitution of all profits realized from the Grievant s company s transactions with the Department of Safety. This determination is based on the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Grievant was first employed in July 2000, by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, the law enforcement agency within the Tennessee Department of Safety, and has been continuously employed as a State Trooper with that agency since that date. 2. In January of 2004, the Grievant began an internet business operating under the name of State Trooper Store or Statetrooperstore.com, which sold silk-screened clothing and other novelty items to law enforcement personnel and others. He was soon joined in this venture by another trooper, and profits from the business were divided equally between them. 3. In February 2004, the Grievant sought permission from the Department to operate this business as a secondary employment, by signing and filing a Secondary Employment Memorandum. 1 By signing that document, he verified that The request is in accordance with General Order No This employment will present no conflict of interest and will not bring embarrassment upon the Department. His request was approved with a notation from Colonel Lynn Pitts to make sure this is off-duty time only and never interferes with your Trooper job. 4. In July 2004, the Grievant was contacted by the office of Deputy Commissioner Tom Moore, expressing an interest in purchasing challenge coins for an upcoming 1 See Memorandum dated 2/10/04, included in Collective Hearing Exhibit # 1. 2
4 meeting. The Grievant was informed that such a sale could not occur unless his company was registered with the Tennessee Online Purchasing System ( TOPS ). The Deputy Commissioner s office forwarded a blank Bidder s Application 2 that the Grievant filled out and returned, to complete the TOPS enrollment. The first page of that form displays the following language: NOTE: All Vendors must comply with TCA , Bidding by State Employees Prohibited. 5. In the following months, the Grievant s company sold various items of merchandise to the State on multiple occasions, and received payment from the State for that merchandise in the total amount of $5, From those sales, the Grievant s business realized a profit of $ The Grievant s share was approximately one-half (1/2) of the proceeds, or $ While employed with the Tennessee Highway Patrol, the Grievant received, acknowledged receipt of, and was responsible for reading, Tennessee Department of Safety General Orders, including, inter alia, General Order #216-2, Disciplinary Regulations; General Order #250, Secondary Employment; and General Order #263, Conflicts of Interest. 7. During his tenure with the Tennessee Highway Patrol, the Grievant has received at least ten (10) commendations from the Colonel s Office and the District Office. He was named Trooper of the Month in February 2001, and Trooper of the Year in His employment record contains no previous disciplinary actions. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and ANALYSIS 1. The Tennessee Department of Safety is the Petitioner in this matter, the party that initiated the proceedings, and as such, is assigned the burden of proof. The burden of 2 See Bidder s Application dated 7/13/04, included in Collective Hearing Exhibit # 1. 3
5 proof is the duty imposed upon a party to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an allegation is true, or that an issue should be resolved in favor of that party. A preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of the evidence, or the more probable conclusion, based on the evidence presented. The burden of proof is generally assigned to the party seeking to change the present state of affairs with regard to any issue. See, Rule (7), TENN. COMP. R. & REGS. In the instant case, that means that the Department of Safety must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Grievant engaged in conduct prohibited by State statute, State Departmental Regulations, or in Department of Safety General Orders; and that the appropriate disciplinary response is a ten (10) day suspension without pay and restitution of the profits realized by the Grievant from his improper transactions. 2. Tennessee law (TENN. CODE ANN , et. seq.) provides that it is a criminal act for a State employee to sell merchandise to the State of Tennessee: Bidding by state employees prohibited. It is hereby declared unlawful for any state official or employee to bid on, sell or offer for sale, any merchandise, equipment or material, or similar commodity, to the state of Tennessee during the tenure of such official s or employee s office or employment, or for six (6) months thereafter, or to have any interest in the selling of the same to the state. [Italics added.] Penalty for unlawful transactions. (a) Any person guilty of a violation of shall be liable to the state for any and all sums paid out by the state, together with interest thereon at eight percent (8%), growing out of any such transaction. (b) A violation of is a Class E felony. 3. By selling $5, worth of merchandise to the State during his tenure as a State Trooper, the Grievant violated the terms of TENN. CODE ANN As indicated in , such conduct is a felony, and conviction would require a penalty of one (1) to six (6) years in prison and a fine of up to $3,000. Additionally, the offender is liable to the State, not only for the profits derived from the venture, but for any and all sums paid out by the state, plus interest. In this case, that would amount to $5,322.40, plus interest, not simply the $ that he was ordered to pay by the Commissioner. 4
6 4. In addition to the laws governing all persons in the State of Tennessee, the Department of Safety has promulgated certain General Orders that are binding on, and govern the conduct of its law enforcement officers. All of those General Orders were provided to the Grievant in the course of his employment. He acknowledged receipt of them, and is charged with knowledge of their content. Those orders reflect the Department s determination that, due to the sensitive and highly visible nature of their positions, Highway Patrol officers may, in certain instances, be held to a higher standard of conduct than other State employees. Among those Orders are General Order #216-2, Disciplinary Regulations; General Order #250, Secondary Employment; and General Order #263, Conflicts of Interest. The Department has charged the Grievant with violating those Orders. 5. DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, GENERAL ORDER 263 [30 Jan 2004 & 28 Feb 2006]: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: IV. Procedures: A. Direct Conflict of Interest: 3. An employee shall not own a controlling interest in, or engage in, a financial transaction for personal gain with an entity administered by or doing business with the department. B. Indirect Conflict of Interest: 2. An employee shall not accept or maintain outside employment with a business which receives funds from, or is regulated in any manner by, the department. C. Effect of Conflict of Interest: 4. An employee who violates a statutory conflict of interest is subject to all sanctions provided by law, and may also be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the Department of Personnel rules and regulations. D. Conduct Prohibited by Tennessee Statutes: 6. State Officials or Employees Cannot Sell to the State TCA It is unlawful for any Department of Safety employee to 5
7 bid on, sell, or offer to sell, any merchandise, equipment, or material [or] similar commodity, to the State of Tennessee during the tenure of his/her office or employment, or for six (6) months thereafter, or to have any interest in the selling of the same to the state. DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, GENERAL ORDER 250 [28 Feb 1999 & 15 May 2005]: SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT: IV. Departmental Provisions and Conditions of Employment: C. An employee shall not own a controlling interest in, or engage in, a financial transaction for personal gain with an entity administered by or doing business with the Department. In February 2004, when the Grievant sought the Department s permission to engage in secondary employment, he submitted a Memorandum to Colonel Pitts. In that document, he certified that his secondary employment with State Trooper Store met the requirements of General Order 250, and that it would present no conflicts of interests. The Grievant in this case established and operated a business that sold over $5,000 worth of merchandise to the Department of Safety. That conduct violated the conditions imposed on his secondary employment by General Order 250, IV, C, and created both a direct and indirect conflict of interests, as defined by General Order 263 IV,A,3 and IV,B,2. That General Order also restates the statutory prohibition against State employees selling merchandise to the Department [General Order 263 IV,D,6], and makes clear that the Department may seek administrative disciplinary sanctions against an offending employee in addition to any criminal penalties [General Order 263 IV,C,4]. 6. DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, GENERAL ORDER [15 Aug 1999]: DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS: II. Policy: It is the policy of the Department of Safety to warn, suspend, demote or dismiss any employee whenever just or legal cause exists. When off duty, no employee shall commit any act that would reflect discredit upon themselves or the Department, or which would hamper their ability to perform their duties. 6
8 IV. Causes for Disciplinary Action: B. It is not feasible to itemize every cause in which disciplinary action may be taken. The following causes are examples of those considered for disciplinary action and should not be considered the only causes. 1. Violations of a regulation or policy. (a) Violation of any written rule, regulation, policy, or procedure including all rules of the Tennessee Department of Personnel. (b) Willful disobedience of the rules and regulations or a negligent disregard thereof. (c) No employee shall plead ignorance of the rules and regulations or offer same as a defense in a charge of omission or commission. 3. Violation or conviction of any criminal offense. (a) Criminal laws of the United States and any state, city and county ordinances are included... (b) Employees are expected to be an example to the public in abiding by and complying with all traffic laws, rules and regulations, and other laws. It was clearly the intention of Department of Safety General Order to place all Departmental employees on notice that they would be subject to disciplinary sanctions for Violations of a regulation or policy, [General Order 216-2,IV,B,1] such as a Departmental General Order or a Department of Personnel Rule or Regulation, and for Violation or conviction of any criminal offense [General Order 216-2,IV,B,3]. The latter provision specifies that a conviction of a criminal offense is not required, but simply a finding that the employee committed an act that would be a violation of the law is sufficient to trigger the imposition of sanctions. In the instant case, even though there was no evidence that a criminal prosecution was initiated, it is clear that the Grievant violated the provisions of a criminal statute [TENN. CODE ANN ]. 7. Additionally, The Rules of the Tennessee Department of Personnel, Disciplinary Action, Chapter , TENN. COMP. R. & REGS, describe certain prohibited conduct for all State employees that may result in disciplinary action being taken against them. As a State employee, the Grievant knew, or should have known, of the application of those Rules to his conduct. Those Rules contain the following provision: 7
9 EXAMPLES OF DISCIPLINARY OFFENSES. The following causes are examples of those considered for disciplinary action and should not be considered the only causes of action. (8) [C]onduct unbecoming an employee in the State service. When the Tennessee Highway Patrol employs an individual as a Trooper, and entrusts the safety of its citizens to him, the State has a right to expect that employee to obey the laws that apply to all other citizens of the State, and to adhere to all regulations specifically addressing the behavior of employees of the Department of Safety. In this case, by acting in violation of both the State s criminal statutes and the Department of Safety s General Orders, the Grievant engaged in conduct unbecoming an employee in the State service. 7. A State employee may be disciplined for (1) causes relating to performance of duty, or (2) causes relating to conduct which may affect an employee s ability to successfully fulfill the requirements of the job. [See, Department of Safety General Order 216-2,IV,A, and Rule , TENN. COMP. R. & REGS.] A career employee may be warned, suspended, demoted or dismissed by his appointing authority whenever just or legal cause exists. The degree and kind of action is at the discretion of the appointing authority... Rule , TENN. COMP. R. & REGS. Although the law prescribes implementation of progressive discipline for State employees, it also provides that disciplinary action must be administered at the step which is most appropriate for the misconduct. (See, Tennessee Code Annotated ; and Rule , TENN. COMP. R. & REGS.) As the courts have recognized in other cases dealing with these provisions,... the key word in the statute is appropriate.... (T)he language of these provisions does not mandate application of discipline in a routine fashion without regard to the nature or severity of the behavior it is intended to address. The supervisor has discretion to determine what punishment fits the offense. Berning v. State, 996 S.W.2d 828, 830 (Tenn. App. 1999). 8
10 8. When the Commissioner considered the issue of punishment in this case, he had a wide range of options at his disposal. (See, Rule , TENN. COMP. R. & REGS.) Suspension without pay is one of those options. Rule (4), TENN. COMP. R. & REGS. Pursuant to that regulation, After minimum due process is provided, a suspension without pay may be issued by the appointing authority 3 for one (1) to thirty (30) days. Rule (4)(a), TENN. COMP. R. & REGS. The record establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Grievant s conduct violated provisions of the State Code, Departmental General Orders, and Rules of the Department of Personnel. His conduct was unacceptable, and warranted a significant disciplinary response. However, the record also reflects that, prior to this episode of inappropriate activity, the Grievant had been employed by the Department for nearly four years without a disciplinary action, he had received several commendations, and he had been named Trooper of the Month [February 2001] and Trooper of the Year [2001]. Given the gravity of the Grievant s action, violating a criminal law and multiple General Orders, the lesser sanctions of a verbal or written warning (See, Rule (2) & (3), TENN. COMP. R. & REGS.) failed to convey the seriousness of the situation. On the other hand, in light of his unblemished, albeit short, tenure with the Department, the harsher sanctions of transfer, demotion or termination (See, Rule (5) & (6), TENN. COMP. R. & REGS.) would have been too severe. The disciplinary sanction imposed by the Commissioner struck a responsible balance between those two extremes. 9. Counsel for the Grievant argued that disciplinary action against the Grievant should be withheld or reduced because he was only one person involved in the purchase and sale of merchandise to the State, and that the Department employees who ordered the merchandise shared his culpability, but received lesser or no punishment for their involvement. He referred specifically to the Deputy Commissioner who requested some of the merchandise, and his executive administrative assistant, who relayed his interest to the Grievant. The record contains testimony indicating that the Deputy Commissioner retired or left the Department around the time of the investigation into this incident. However, it contains no details of other actions that may have led to his departure, or any 3 In this case, the appointing authority was the Commissioner of the Department of Safety. 9
11 conditions that may have attached to his leaving. Testimony also indicated that the Deputy Commissioner s executive administrative assistant received a verbal warning for her involvement in the purchase of merchandise from the Grievant s company. The record reflects that she told the Grievant that the Deputy Commissioner was interested in purchasing challenge coins to distribute during a meeting, and that she provided the Grievant with a form that he could fill out to request that his company be added to the TOPS vendor list. Other than that limited involvement in a single transaction, there is nothing in the record, such as length of employment, performance evaluation ratings, prior disciplinary actions and/or commendations, etc., which may have influenced the Commissioner s disciplinary decision in her case. Therefore, even if it had been established that this was a case where consideration of comparative culpability and disparate disciplinary measures was appropriate, there is insufficient evidence in the record from which to make such an analysis. Thus, the Grievant s argument is not supported by the proof. 10. The issues presented for consideration in this case are (1) whether the Department has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Grievant engaged in conduct prohibited by The Rules of the Tennessee Department of Personnel and/or the Department of Safety General Orders; and (2) if so, whether the disciplinary sanction imposed by the Commissioner was appropriate. With respect to both issues, the Department has met its burden of proof. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Tennessee Department of Safety has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Grievant, Vincent Turocy, engaged in conduct prohibited by the Tennessee Code, The Rules of the Tennessee Department of Personnel and Department of Safety General Orders, by selling merchandise to the Department of Safety while he was employed by the Department. 10
12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appropriate disciplinary sanction for the Grievant s conduct is a ten (10) day suspension without pay, and repayment of all profits that he derived from the sale of merchandise to the State, in the amount of $ IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Grievant s appeal of the Commissioner s decision is hereby DISMISSED. Entered and effective this 12th day of July, J. Randall LaFevor, Administrative Judge Filed in the Administrative Procedures Division, Office of the Secretary of State, this 12th day of July, Thomas G. Stovall, Director Administrative Procedures Division 11
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Department/, Petitioner, vs. CSGP-07-14DOYLE WITCHER, Grievant/, Respondent
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-26-2007 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, Department/, Petitioner, vs. CSGP 07-50THOMAS IRWIN, Grievant/, Respondent.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 10-8-2007 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Petitioner, vs. LINDA A. JOHNSON, Grievant
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 6-2-2008 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN S SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. DARREN BIVINGS, Grievant.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 8-10-2011 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationGloria Sanchez vs. DHS
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law September 2013 Gloria Sanchez
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 11-4-2009, DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
More informationSamuel Outlaw vs. Dept. of Safety
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 12-17-2013 Samuel Outlaw vs. Dept.
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 8-24-2010 Terry Lynn Pennix Follow
More informationTennessee Department of Financial Institutions, Compliance Division, Petitioner, vs. Charlton Hildreth, Respondent
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 6-24-2009 Tennessee Department
More informationTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, Petitioner, vs. KYLE CANTWELL, Grievant
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 12-16-2008 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION (BOPP), Department, vs. BARBARA DATTULO, Grievant
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 4-16-2013 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationMETRO NASHVILLE GOVERNMENT (Metro Nashville Police Department), Petitioner/ Department vs. JONATHAN SMITH, Respondent/Grievant
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 3-21-2012 METRO NASHVILLE GOVERNMENT
More informationBOARD OF EDUCATION vs. NATASHA KRUITHOF, Respondent.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 12-7-2011 BOARD OF EDUCATION vs.
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 4-21-2009 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
More informationValorie D. Thacker vs. Department of Safety
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-22-2013 Valorie D. Thacker vs.
More informationDavidson County Sheriff s Office, Petitioner, vs. William Howell
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 1-6-2010 Davidson County Sheriff
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 11-5-2009 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 6-17-2009 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
More informationTENNESSEE INSURANCE DIVISION, Petitioner, vs. Docket No.: J JAMES MICHAEL FOLEY, Respondent
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 12-4-2008 TENNESSEE INSURANCE
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 5-26-2009 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
More informationAnderson Hutsell vs. Dept. of Health
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 12-20-2013 Anderson Hutsell vs.
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 11-24-2009 Joyce Allen Follow
More informationCUMBERLAND MANOR NURSING HOME, Petitioner, vs. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF HEALTH LICENSURE AND REGULATION, Respondent
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-17-2008 CUMBERLAND MANOR NURSING
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 2-29-2012 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY,
More informationTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, COMPLIANCE DIVISION, Petitioner, vs. FIRST CHOICE FUNDING, INC., Respondent
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 6-15-2011 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationMark Singer vs. Commerce and Insurance
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law February 2015 Mark Singer vs.
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 4-11-2012 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 1-10-2011 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationTENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE, Petitioner, vs. NIKEISHA ROYSTON, Grievant
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 3-1-2006 TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION
More informationCommerce and Insurance vs. KEITH ODENE DODD, Respondent
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 12-4-2012 Commerce and Insurance
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 1-18-2006 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY,
More informationHumphreys Flowers, Inc. vs. AGRICULTURE
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law March 2015 Humphreys Flowers,
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-27-2009 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationAzam Mani Khwaga dba Hickory Hollow Wine and Liquor vs. Alcoholic Beverage Commission
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 4-2-2014 Azam Mani Khwaga dba
More informationTENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE vs. VALARIE SWEATT, Grievant
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 8-10-2011 TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 6-6-01 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 10-6-2006 Shane Quinn Follow this
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-31-2008 One 2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer,
More informationWilliam K. Bryant vs. Safety
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law September 2013 William K. Bryant
More informationBEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between MILWAUKEE DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION. and
BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between MILWAUKEE DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION and MILWAUKEE COUNTY (SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT) Case 546 No. 63374 Appearances: Eggert Law
More informationCHAPTER Council Substitute for House Bill No. 1543
CHAPTER 2008-296 Council Substitute for House Bill No. 1543 An act relating to the Jackson County Sheriff s Office; providing permanent status for certain employees of the Sheriff; specifying rights of
More informationDEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, COMPLIANCE DIVISION, Petitioner, vs. FIDELITY HOME MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Respondent
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 3-2-2010 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 6-18-2008 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY,
More informationBen Miller dba Miller Enterprises vs. COMMERCE AND INSURANCE
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law November 2014 Ben Miller dba Miller
More informationTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT vs. $ in U.S. CURRENCY, SEIZED FROM: MOISES SILVA, SEIZURE DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2009 CLAIMANT: MOISES SILVA
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 12-9-2010 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 12-8-2009 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-2-2008 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 12-2-2008 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY,
More informationTITLE 3 MUNICIPAL COURT CHAPTER 1 1 TOWN COURT ADMINISTRATION 2
3-1 TITLE 3 MUNICIPAL COURT CHAPTER 1. TOWN COURT ADMINISTRATION. 2. TOWN JUDGE. 3. TOWN COURT CLERK. 4. TRAFFIC SCHOOL. CHAPTER 1 1 TOWN COURT ADMINISTRATION 2 SECTION 3-101. Establishment of full-time
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 10-16-2006 Department of Safety,
More informationState Law reference Police force and departments, W. Va. Code, et seq.; powers and duties of law enforcement, W. Va. Code,
Chapter 46 LAW ENFORCEMENT ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL ARTICLE II. - POLICE ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Secs. 46-1 46-18. Secs. 46-1 46-18. ARTICLE II. POLICE [1] DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY DIVISION 2. - ORGANIZATION
More informationArticle IX DISCIPLINE By-Law and Manual of Procedure
NOTICE 10-01-13 The following By-Laws, Manual and forms became effective August 28, 2013, and are to be used in all Disciplinary cases until further notice. Article IX DISCIPLINE By-Law and Manual of Procedure
More informationTerry W. Rankin vs. COMMERCE AND INSURANCE
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 3-10-2014 Terry W. Rankin vs.
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 1-12-2011 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 25, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 25, 2008 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BRIAN EUGENE STANSBERRY, ALIAS Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No.
More informationTennessee Insurance Division, Petitioner, vs. John Porter Franklin, Jr., Respondent
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law November 2012 Tennessee Insurance
More informationRhode Island False Claims Act
Rhode Island False Claims Act 9-1.1-1. Name of act. [Effective until February 15, 2008.] This chapter may be cited as the State False Claims Act. 9-1.1-2. Definitions. [Effective until February 15, 2008.]
More informationILLINOIS STATE POLICE MERIT BOARD
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE MERIT BOARD POLICY NUMBER POLICY MB01 SUBJECT BOARD MEETINGS UPDATED 09/01/99 REVISION NO. REVISION DATE I. Authority 20 Illinois Compiled Statutes Section 2610/7. 2 Illinois Administrative
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 10-27-2009 HYATT CORPORATION d/b/a
More informationCivil Service Commission vs. SHAWN VALENTINE
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 9-30-2009 Civil Service Commission
More informationTrey & Michael Torres vs. Safety
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 5-13-2014 Trey & Michael Torres
More informationGregory Candebat vs. Commerce And Insurance
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law November 2014 Gregory Candebat
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 4-28-2010 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationPOST SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION OR LEGION FAMILY
POST SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION OR LEGION FAMILY Of late, there have been many posts, within the Department of Texas, which have imposed suspensions of various individuals from the post
More informationCHAPTER Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights
CHAPTER 42-28.6 Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights 42-28.6-1 Definitions Payment of legal fees. As used in this chapter, the following words have the meanings indicated: (1) "Law enforcement officer"
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 17, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 17, 2005 Session CITY OF MORRISTOWN v. REBECCA A. LONG Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamblen County No. 2003-64 Ben K. Wexler, Chancellor
More informationCHAPTER House Bill No. 601
CHAPTER 2004-404 House Bill No. 601 An act relating to Palm Beach County; amending chapter 93-367, Laws of Florida, as amended; revising provisions relating to employees of the Palm Beach County Sheriff;
More informationRULES OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
RULES OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL CHAPTER 0465-03 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TABLE OF CONTENTS 0465-03-.01 Appeals Generally
More informationTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY vs. One 1996 Honda Accord Vin Number 1HGCE1822TA , Date of Seizure: October 21, 2010, Claimant: Lesile Frazier
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 9-11-2011 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationCommerce and Insurance vs. MEMPHIS SECURITY, INC., Respondent
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 1-24-2006 Commerce and Insurance
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 6-2-2008 James R. Edens Sr Follow
More informationThe Responsible Vendor Act of 2006
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange MTAS Publications: Hot Topics Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) 5-31-2007 The Responsible Vendor Act of 2006
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 4-22-2008 Tennessee Department
More informationSession of SENATE BILL No By Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance 1-10
Session of 0 SENATE BILL No. By Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance -0 0 0 0 AN ACT concerning crimes, punishment and criminal procedure; relating to expungement; requiring disclosure of
More informationDistrict of Columbia False Claims Act
District of Columbia False Claims Act 2-308.03. Claims by District government against contractor (a) (1) All claims by the District government against a contractor arising under or relating to a contract
More informationChapter 19 Procedures for Disciplinary Action and Appeal
Chapter 19 Procedures for Disciplinary Action and Appeal Bargaining unit refer to contract 19.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS ON DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 19.1.1 DISCIPLINARY ACTION ONLY PURSUANT TO THIS RULE: A permanent
More informationWORLD BANK SANCTIONS PROCEDURES
WORLD BANK SANCTIONS PROCEDURES As adopted by the World Bank as of April 15, 2012 ARTICLE I INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS Section 1.01. Legal Basis and Purpose of these Procedures. (a) Fiduciary Duty. It is
More informationDECISION AFFIRMING FOUR-DAY SUSPENSION I. INTRODUCTION
HEARING OFFICER, CAREER SERVICE BOARD CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Appeal No. 37-12 DECISION AFFIRMING FOUR-DAY SUSPENSION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF: MELISSA SIGALA, Appellant, vs. DEPARTMENT
More informationGa Comp. R. & Regs Legal Authority. Ga Comp. R. & Regs Title and Purposes.
Ga Comp. R. & Regs. 290-1-6-.01 290-1-6-.01. Legal Authority. These rules are adopted and published pursuant to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) Sections 31-2-6; 31-7-1, 31-13-1, 31-22-1,
More informationCOQUILLE INDIAN TRIBAL CODE
COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBAL CODE Index Subchapter/Section 610.010 General 1. Purpose 2. Background 3. Definitions 610.100 Establishment of Court 610.200 Jurisdiction and Powers 610.300 Judges 610.400 Court
More informationInvestigations and Enforcement
Investigations and Enforcement Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 24.1.2 Last Revised January 26, 2007 Prepared by City Ethics Commission CEC Los Angeles 200 North Spring Street, 24 th Floor Los Angeles,
More informationDEPARTMENT OF SAFETY vs. $6, in US Currency, Seized from: Todd Walters, Date of Seizure: August 21, 2008, Claimant: Todd Walters
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-14-2009 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
More informationCHILD CARE CENTER Regulations GENERAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS (Cont.) Article 4. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
Daycare.com LLC CHILD CARE CENTER Regulations GENERAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS 101193 (Cont.) Article 4. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS 101192 DENIAL OF A RENEWAL LICENSE 101192 Repealed by Manual Letter No. CCL-98-11,
More informationWashington County, Minnesota Ordinances
Washington County, Minnesota Ordinances Ordinance No. 149 Administrative Ordinance Date Approved: 03/31/2000 Date Published: 04/05/2000 Table of Contents Section 1 Purpose and Title Section 2 Application
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,928. In the Matter of ELIZABETH ANNE HUEBEN, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 113,928 In the Matter of ELIZABETH ANNE HUEBEN, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 30,
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 2-20-2008 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationTENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED 2012 by The State of Tennessee All rights reserved *** CURRENT THROUGH THE 2011 REGULAR SESSION ***
TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED 2012 by The State of Tennessee All rights reserved *** CURRENT THROUGH THE 2011 REGULAR SESSION *** Tenn. Code Ann. 49-5-503 (2012) 49-5-503. Tenure. Any teacher who meets all
More informationI. CMP Disciplinary Policy & Procedures. A. Objectives
I. CMP Disciplinary Policy & Procedures A. Objectives The fundamental objectives of these CMP Disciplinary Policy and Procedures (hereafter also collectively referred to as Rules ) are to protect the public
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 12-8-2008 Tennessee Department
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 10-13-2009 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationKenneth Z. Briggle (92019) Officer in the Classified Service of the Denver Police Department FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, DECISION AND ORDER
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Case No. 11 CSC 14 In the matter of: Kenneth Z. Briggle (92019) Officer in the Classified Service of the Denver Police Department Petitioner.
More informationDSCC Uniform Administrative Procedures Policy
DSCC Uniform Administrative Procedures Policy 01: Mission, Purpose and System of Governance 01:07:00:00 Purpose: The purpose of these procedures is to provide a basis for uniform procedures to be used
More informationSubstitute for HOUSE BILL No. 2159
Substitute for HOUSE BILL No. 2159 AN ACT concerning driving; relating to driving under the influence and other driving offenses; DUI-IID designation; DUI-IID designation fund; authorized restrictions
More informationVanessa Quilantan vs. Safety
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law January 2015 Vanessa Quilantan
More informationPRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE Table of Contents Section 1.0 Objective Page 1 Section 2.0 Coverage of Personnel Page 1 Section 3.0 Definition of a Grievance
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 4-29-2010 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JANUARY 18, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JANUARY 18, 2007 Session CITY OF MEMPHIS v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MEMPHIS and RICHARD LINDSEY Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court
More informationCITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT STUDENT SERVICES
CITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT STUDENT SERVICES AP 5520 References: STUDENT DISCIPLINE PROCEDURES Education Code Sections 66017, 66300, 72122, 76030 et seq., and 76120; California Penal Code Section
More informationESCAMBIA COUNTY FIRE-RESCUE
Patrick T Grace, Fire Chief Page 1 of 5 PURPOSE: Personnel that fail to follow established ECFR rules, policies, or guidelines will be subject to disciplinary action. OBJECTIVE: To provide personnel with
More informationChicago False Claims Act
Chicago False Claims Act Chapter 1-21 False Statements 1-21-010 False Statements. Any person who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in violation of any statute, ordinance or
More information