STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ISAAC SASSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-1767

) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, ELECTRICAL ) CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on August 14, 1991, before Michael M. Parrish, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

Appearances at the hearing were as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Mr. Isaac Sasson, pro se

2501 Northeast 195 Street

North Miami Beach, Florida 33180

For Respondent: Clark R. Jennings, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner has had sufficient experience to be eligible to take the examination for licensure as an electrical contractor.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

At the formal hearing in this case, the Petitioner was assisted by his business partner, Mr. Ronald Wray. The Petitioner and Mr. Wray both testified in support of the Petitioner's application. The Petitioner also offered one exhibit, which was received in evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses, Mr. James C. Lenhart and Mr. James P. Williams, both of whom were members of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board at the time of initial consideration of the subject application. The Respondent also offered one exhibit, which was received in evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing all parties waived the right to file proposed recommended orders, and none have been filed. On August 21, 1991, a transcript of the proceeding at the formal hearing was filed with the Hearing Officer.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In February of 1990, the Petitioner filed an application to take the unlimited electrical contractor examination. To be eligible to take the examination, it was necessary for the Petitioner to demonstrate that he had at least three years of management experience in the field of electrical contracting.

   
   

2. The information in the application and the evidence submitted at the hearing demonstrate that the Petitioner has had more than three years of experience in the field of electrical contracting. However, the information in the application and the evidence submitted at hearing are insufficient to demonstrate how much, if any, of that experience was "management experience in the trade." 1/

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

3. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.

   
   

4. In a case of this nature, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating his entitlement to sit for the licensure examination. See Rule 28-6.08(3), Florida Administrative Code, and Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). If the proof is insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to sit for the examination, the application to take the examination must be denied.

   
   

5. Pursuant to Section 498.511(2)(c)1., Florida Statutes, the Petitioner in this case must meet the following eligibility requirement:

   
   

   [Have] at least 3 years' proven management experience in the trade or education equiva- lent thereto, or a combination thereof, but not more than one-half of such experience may be educational equivalent.

   
   

6. The trade of electrical contracting or unlimited electrical contracting is defined at length at Section 489.505(12), Florida Statutes. The nature of the required experience is further described in the definition of "responsible management" at Rule 21GG-5.001, Florida Administrative Code, and in the language of Rule 21GG-5.003, Florida Administrative Code, which addresses the experience required of "qualifying agents." Reading all of the statutory and rule provisions together and applying them to the facts in this case compels a conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's entitlement to take the subject licensure examination, because the evidence fails to show that the Petitioner's prior experience constitutes "responsible management" and it also fails to show that the Petitioner meets all of the experience criteria described in Rule 21GG-5.003, Florida Administrative Code.

RECOMMENDATION

On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board enter a Final Order in this case denying the Petitioner's application to take the licensure examination.

RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of September 1991.

MICHAEL M. PARRISH

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 30th day of September 1991.

ENDNOTES

1/ The Petitioner has difficulty explaining some things in English, and it may be that the insufficiency of the evidence is due in large part to the Petitioner's failure to communicate effectively. I have not found that the Petitioner is unqualified; only that the evidence is insufficient to support an affirmative finding that he is qualified. In a future more carefully prepared application, the Petitioner may be able to show that he is qualified.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mr. Isaac Sasson, pro se 2501 Northeast 195 Street

North Miami Beach, Florida 33180

Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Dan O'Brien Executive Director

Board of Electrical Contractors Department of Professional

Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Jack McRay General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 91-001767

Orders for Case No: 91-001767