STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BOBBY SEROTA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 81-1433

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) FLORIDA ELECTRICAL ) CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above styled case on 22 July 1981, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Bobby Serota, pro se

2040C Tigertail Boulevard Dania, Florida 33004

For Respondent Susan Tully, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

By Election of Rights form dated 11 May 1981, Bobby Serota, Petitioner, seeks a formal hearing to contest the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board's (FECLB), Respondent denial of his application to sit for the examination for licensure by the FECLB. By letter dated 1 April 1981, the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board advised Serota that his application had been denied because of a lien against him filed by the Internal Revenue Service.

At the hearing Serota testified on his own behalf, one witness was called by Respondent and two exhibits were admitted into evidence. There were no disputed issues of fact. Proposed findings not included below were not supported by competent evidence or were deemed immaterial to the result reached.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Bobby Serota is licensed as an electrical contractor in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties and is fully qualified by experience and training to take the FECLB examination.

2. Petitioner is presented of Serota and Maggi Electrical Company, Inc. In 1979, the company failed to remit to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) payroll taxes when due, and the IRS placed a lien against the company for some

   $24,000 for taxes, penalties and interest.

   
   

3. Serota entered into an agreement with the IRS to repay this indebtedness at the rate of $1500 per month and is current on those payments. If this scheduled is maintained the lien will be satisfied in January, 1982.

   
   

4. The examination for which Serota has applied is given twice per year. The next examination will be given in December, 1981, or January, 1982.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

5. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

   
   

6. Section 489.511, Florida Statutes, establishes qualifications for licensure by the FECLB, and Subsection (3) thereof provides in pertinent part:

   
   

   The board shall investigate the financial responsibility and credit and business reputation of the applicant, as well as the education and experience as provided

   in s. 489.521 of the applicant's qualifying agent. The board shall adopt rules defin- ing financial responsibility based upon the applicant's credit history, ability to be bonded, and any history of bankruptcy or assignment of receivers. Such rules shall specify the financial responsibility grounds on which the board may refuse to qualify

   an applicant for certification. . . .

   
   

7. Rule 21GG-5.05(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides:

   
   

   For the purposes of this rule, the phrase "financial responsibility" is defined as the ability to insure that the public, the laborers, the materialmen, the suppliers and other parties with whom

   the applicant will do business as an electrical contractor, will not sustain economic losses resulting from the electrical contractor's inability to pay his obligations to them.

   
   

8. Paragraph (2) of this rule enumerates financial grounds upon which the Board may refuse to qualify an applicant. These include:

   
   

   (d) The existence of any liens of record by the United States Internal Revenue Service (USIRS) or the State of Florida Corporation Tax Division (SFCTD) against the applicant or any of its corporate officers.

9. The evidence presented clearly shows that Serota and Maggi Electrical Company, Inc. is an ongoing electrical contracting business and is financially sound. The lien filed against the company by the IRS is being liquidated at the rate of $1500 per month and will be eliminated, or nearly so, by the time the next examination is given; provided only Petitioner continues to maintain the schedule of payments. It is unlikely that any person with whom Petitioner does business will suffer economic loss because of the IRS lien against Serota and Maggi Electrical Company, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION

From the foregoing it is concluded that Petitioner is fully qualified to sit for the next examination but for the IRS lien filed against his company. This IRS lien will be liquidated by the time the next examination is given provided Petitioner keeps his payments to the IRS current. It is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED that Bobby Serota be qualified to sit for the next electrical contractors examination provided that he submits to the Board by 1 December 1981, a statement showing his payments to the IRS are current.

ENTERED this 14th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1981.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mr. Bobby Serota

2040C Tigertail Boulevard Dania, Florida 33004

Susan Tully, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD

BOBBY SEROTA,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 81-1433

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the above-styled case came on to be heard at 7:00 p.m. on November 5, 1981 in Tampa, Florida. Petitioner, Bobby Serota, was not present.

Upon counsel for Respondent entering into evidence returned signed receipts from copies of the notice of hearing forwarded to Petitioner by certified mail, and in absence of Petitioner at the noticed time, the hearing was conducted in default.

Counsel for Respondent, Susan Tully, Esquire, presented the circumstances of the case to the Board, and requested that the Proposed Recommended Order, the Recommended Order, the Exceptions to the Recommended Order, and the Notice of Hearing be accepted into evidence. Upon acceptance of these pleadings into the record, counsel for Respondent presented her Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed in response to the Recommended Order issued by the Hearing Officer on August 14, 1981. The conclusions of law in the Recommended Order to which counsel took exception are:

1. That the evidence presented clearly shows Serota & Maggi Electrical Company, Inc., to be financially sound; l/ (2) That the lien filed against the Company by the IRS will be eliminated by the date of the next licensing examination and; 2/ (3) That it is unlikely that anyone with whom the Company does business will suffer economic loss as a result of the lien having been filed. 3/

Counsel for Respondent requested that the Board reject the above conclusions of law and interpose those set forth in the Exceptions as filed.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Board hereby: accepts the Findings of Fact as contained in the Recommended Order issued by the Hearing Officer, accepts the Conclusions of Law with the exception of the three conclusions enumerated above, substitutes for the rejected Conclusions of Law, the Conclusions of Law as set forth by Respondent in the Exceptions to the

Recommended Order; and rejects the recommendation of the Hearing Officer in toto, with the result that Petitioner's application for examination as a certified electrical contractor is DENIED. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: That Petitioner's application for examination as a certified electrical contractor is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of November, 1981.

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD

By: ERNEST ISAAC, Chairman

ENDNOTES

1/ Recommended Order, page three. 2/ Ibid.

3/ Ibid.

cc: Bobby Serota, Petitioner Susan Tully, Esquire

K.N. Ayers, Hearing Officer

Docket for Case No: 81-001433

Orders for Case No: 81-001433