STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ACTION WIRE & CABLE )
CORPORATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-5101
) COMMISSION ON MINORITY ECONOMIC ) AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the above-styled matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Daniel M. Kilbride, on July 27, 1995 in Orlando, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Rosemarie N. Branciforte
Vice President-Sales & Marketing Action Wire & Cable Corporation 4802 Distribution Court, Unit 2
Orlando, Florida 32822
For Respondent: Joseph L. Shields, Esquire
Senior Attorney
107 West Gaines Street
201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Action Wire & Cable Corporation should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Petitioner filed an application with the office of Respondent for Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) certification on April 24, 1994. By letter, dated June 27, 1994, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that its application for MBE certification was denied. Petitioner filed a Petition for formal hearing on July 16, 1994. This matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 14, 1994 and placed in abeyance at the request of the Respondent; the case was later reactivated and this proceeding followed.
At the hearing, Rosemarie N. Branciforte, Vice President-Sales & Marketing, testified on behalf of the applicant. Three exhibits were offered in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Mary S. Williams, and two exhibits, including a composite exhibit (consisting of pages R1 through R142) were admitted in evidence. Official recognition was taken of the Respondent's statutes and rules as set forth herein. A transcript of the proceedings was filed on August 18, 1995. Petitioner filed its proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. Respondent did not file proposals. My specific rulings on Petitioner's proposals are set forth in the Appendix attached hereto.
Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
In May, 1993, the Petitioner company was started in New York but incorporated in the State of Florida. Rosemarie Branciforte and Janet Monaco were two of the original incorporators as minority stockholders and three non- minority males held the majority of the stock. The two women incorporators were not named to the original Board of Directors.
At the time of the incorporation, 100 shares of stock were issued as follows: Bert Polte-40 shares, Frank Kleeman-40 shares, Janet Monaco-10 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte-5 shares, and Ken Barry-5 shares.
The company began operations out of the home of Monaco and Branciforte in New York, who contributed their knowledge and labor without compensation. Janet Monaco was appointed President and Rosemarie Branciforte was selected as Vice President-Sales & Marketing. Two of the male stockholders from Germany (Polte and Kleeman) contributed $2,000 which was used for the purchase of fax and computer equipment. Polte and Kleeman are listed as Regional Sales Managers and reside in the Federal Republic of Germany.
On December 29, 1993, Ken Barry, one of the original stockholders, returned his 5 shares to the corporation.
On January 1, 1994, at its annual meeting, the corporation voted to redistribute the shares among its stockholders, as follows: Janet Monaco-26 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte-25 shares, Bert Polte-25 shares, and Frank Kleeman-24 shares. This was based on the contribution of space in the women's house for the corporate offices and supplies, the assumption of risk and the
operation of the company by Monaco and Branciforte without compensation. Monaco and Branciforte were also elected as sole directors of the company, with Monaco as Chair.
In April, 1994, the company relocated to Florida and filed its application for certification with the Commission.
In October, 1994, the corporate records were amended to reflect that Monaco and Branciforte were the sole directors of the corporation.
As sole directors and chief operating officers of the company, the women owners perform the following:
Develop and maintain the customer base, both in the United States and overseas; determine who to sell to depending on credit worthiness;
develop market plans, advertising campaigns and mailings; promote the company at trade shows and community organizations; control bookkeeping; control all monies (including distribution of year end profits; sign all long term leases; select and maintain working relationships with vendors; and sign as guarantors on vendor accounts, as needed.
Polte and Kleeman, stockholders in Petitioner, are owners of a wire and cable distribution business in Europe. As such, they have made a market for Petitioner's American wire in Europe and provide European wire to Petitioner for sale in the U.S. Sales generated by Polte and Kleeman account for approximately
15 percent of Petitioner's sales in Europe and 11 percent of products imported by Petitioner for distribution in the U.S.
For their services, Polte and Kleeman receive an annual stockholders' dividend from the profits of the corporation, which has been designated as a "management fee" in the corporate books. Their combined ownership of stock in the corporation amounts to 49 percent.
Monaco and Branciforte, both American women, are 51 percent owners of the corporation.
The gross sales of the company was approximately $350,000 in 1993,
$700,000 in 1994 and $500,000 to date in 1995. In 1995, Petitioner sold approximately $180,000 of material through its European sales managers and purchased approximately $27,000 from them.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding, and the parties thereto, pursuant to subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development is required, by statute, to ensure that the preferences for minority business firms obtained by the certification process are awarded only to those firms for which the benefit is intended. Petitioner, as applicant for minority business enterprise status, has the burden of proving its entitlement to certification. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Subsection 288.703(2) Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), defines MBE as follows:
(2) "Minority business enterprise" means any small business concern as defined in subsection (1) which is organized to engage in commercial transactions, which is domiciled in
Florida, and which is at least 51-percent-owned by minority persons who are members of an insular group that is of a particular racial, ethnic, or gender makeup or national origin, which has been subjected historically to disparate treatment due to identification in and with that group resulting in an under-
representation of commercial enterprises under the group's control, and whose management and daily operations are controlled by such persons.
Subsection 288.703(3), Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1994) defines a minority person as follows:
(3) "Minority person" means a lawful, permanent resident of Florida who is:
(e) An American woman.
The Department of Management Services has promulgated rules to be followed in determining the certification of eligibility of applicants for MBE status, which rules have been transferred to the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development.
Rule 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code defines the eligibility requirements for MBE certification. In substance, to be considered 51 percent minority owned, and thereby eligible for MBE certification, the applicant must establish real, substantial, continuing ownership of the firm by (a), owning 51 percent of the issued stock of the company; (b), receiving income commensurate with the percentage of her ownership from any means; (c), demonstrating that she shares in all of the business and financial risks through her role in decision- making, negotiation and execution of documents as either an individual or officer of the firm, and (d), not being subject to rights of others which would dilute the minority's ownership below 51 percent. In addition, as paraphrased here, the rule requires the minority owners to exercise unfettered discretion in the control over the management and daily operation of the business; constitute a majority of the board of directors, if the entity is a corporation; exercise sufficient management and technical responsibilities to maintain control of the business; and, if a family business, control the purchase of goods, equipment, and services needed, the hiring and firing of personnel and the setting of all employment policies. The minority owner must demonstrate knowledge and control of the financial affairs of the business, and have managerial and technical capability, knowledge and training, and display independence and initiative in seeking and negotiating contracts and in conducting all operations of the business. Further, the minority owner shall exercise substantive personal direction and actual involvement with all major aspects of the business - those tasks essential to accomplish all business objectives and operations.
Petitioner does meet the requirements of 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code, because a majority of the Directors were women at the time the application was filed. The two women clearly control the day-to-day operations of the applicant business, and the control of the business is real, substantial and continuing. Majority ownership of the corporate stock goes beyond mere pro forma ownership because the applicants demonstrated that the stock transfer in January, 1994 was based upon the women being completely responsible for the operation of the company and for operating it out of their residence in 1993 without compensation. The two women share income, earnings and other benefits from the applicant business to a greater extent than are afforded Polte and Kleeman, since they only receive their "management fee" at the end of the year if the company receives a profit. On the contrary, only the women officers and directors are responsible for meeting payroll, signing checks, signing leases, and guaranteeing loans needed by the business for operating capital. Therefore, the women owners control all financial affairs of the applicant business as required by 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code.
Petitioner has demonstrated that it is not affiliated with a non- minority business which is in the same or associated field by common ownership, directors and management. Although Polte and Kleeman contributed $2,000 seed money for the start up of the company for which they received stock in the company, they are not officers or directors of the company and do not participate in the management, facilities or financial operation of the company. They are simply good trading partners with Petitioner. Such association is not a violation of 60A-2.005 (4)(b), Florida Administrative Code.
Section 14, Chapter 94-322, Laws of Florida (Supp. 1994) substantially revised Section 287.0943, Florida Statutes, Certification of minority business enterprises, which in pertinent part added the requirement that "[i]f present ownership was obtained by transfer, require the minority person on whom eligibility is based to have owned at least 51 percent of the applicant firm for a minimum of two years, when any previous majority ownership interest in the firm was by a nonminority who is or was a relative, former employer, or current employer of the minority person on whom eligibility is based. . ." (Sec. 287.0943(1)(e)2, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994). This revision to the law became effective on May 31, 1994. Petitioner's application for certification was filed with the Respondent on April 27, 1994 and the initial determination was made by Respondent on June 27, 1994. The revised statute does apply to this application. However, no evidence was introduced which indicated that the prior nonminority ownership was a "relative, former employer, or current employer of the minority person on whom eligibility is based." Therefore, the two year ownership provision does not apply to Petitioner in this case.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed
by Action Wire & Cable Corporation on April 27, 1994, be GRANTED.
DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
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 17th day of October, 1995.
APPENDIX
The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties.
Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner.
Petitioner submitted in letter form proposed findings of fact. However, it contained, in paragraph form, comments on the evidence and argument which can not be specifically ruled upon.
Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent.
Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 4 (in part), 5, 7 (in part), 8 (in
part), 9.
Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 3, 4 (in part) 7 (in part), 8 (in part).
Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 6, 8 (in part)
COPIES FURNISHED:
Rosemarie N. Branciforte
Vice President-Sales & Marketing Action Wire & Cable Corporation 4802 Distribution Court, Unit 2
Orlando, Florida 32822
Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Senior Attorney
107 West Gaines Street
201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005
Crandall Jones Executive Administrator
Collins Building, Suite 201
107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the 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 consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning their 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.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ACTION WIRE & CABLE )
CORPORATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-5101
) COMMISSION ON MINORITY ECONOMIC ) AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, )
)
Respondent. )
)
CORRECTED RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the above-styled matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Daniel M. Kilbride, on July 27, 1995 in Orlando, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Rosemarie N. Branciforte
Vice President-Sales & Marketing Action Wire & Cable Corporation 4802 Distribution Court, Unit 2
Orlando, Florida 32822
For Respondent: Joseph L. Shields, Esquire
Senior Attorney
107 West Gaines Street
201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Action Wire & Cable Corporation should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Petitioner filed an application with the office of Respondent for Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) certification on April 24, 1994. By letter, dated June 27, 1994, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that its application for MBE certification was denied. Petitioner filed a Petition for formal hearing on July 16, 1994. This matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 14, 1994 and placed in abeyance at the request of the Respondent; the case was later re-activated and this proceeding followed.
At the hearing, Rosemarie N. Branciforte, Vice President-Sales & Marketing, testified on behalf of the applicant. Three exhibits were offered in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Mary S. Williams, and two exhibits, including a composite exhibit (consisting of pages R1 through R142) were admitted in evidence. Official recognition was taken of the Respondent's statutes and rules as set forth herein. A transcript of the proceedings was filed on August 18, 1995. Petitioner filed its proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. Respondent filed its proposals on September 6, 1995. My specific rulings on the parties' proposals are set forth in the Appendix attached hereto.
Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
In May, 1993, the Petitioner company was started in New York but incorporated in the State of Florida. Rosemarie Branciforte and Janet Monaco were two of the original incorporators as minority stockholders and three non- minority males held the majority of the stock. The two women incorporators were not named to the original Board of Directors.
At the time of the incorporation, 100 shares of stock were issued as follows: Bert Polte-40 shares, Frank Kleeman-40 shares, Janet Monaco-10 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte- 5 shares, and Ken Barry-5 shares.
The company began operations out of the home of Monaco and Branciforte in New York, who contributed their knowledge and labor without compensation. Janet Monaco was appointed President and Rosemarie Branciforte was selected as Vice President-Sales & Marketing. Two of the male stockholders from Germany (Polte and Kleeman) contributed $2,000 which was used for the purchase of fax and computer equipment. Polte and Kleeman are listed as Regional Sales Managers and reside in the Federal Republic of Germany.
On December 29, 1993, Ken Barry, one of the original stockholders, returned his 5 shares to the corporation.
On January 1, 1994, at its annual meeting, the corporation voted to redistribute the shares among its stockholders, as follows: Janet Monaco-26 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte- 25 shares, Bert Polte-25 shares, and Frank Kleeman-24 shares. This was based on the contribution of space in the women's house for the corporate offices and supplies, the assumption of risk and the operation of the company by Monaco and Branciforte without compensation. Monaco and Branciforte were also elected as sole directors of the company, with Monaco as Chair.
In April, 1994, the company relocated to Florida and filed its application for certification with the Commission.
In October, 1994, the corporate records were amended to reflect that Monaco and Branciforte were the sole directors of the corporation.
As sole directors and chief operating officers of the company, the women owners perform the following:
Develop and maintain the customer base, both in the United States and overseas; determine who to sell to depending on credit worthiness; develop market plans, advertising campaigns and mailings; promote the company at trade shows and community organizations; control bookkeeping; control all monies (including distribution of year end profits; sign all long term leases; select and maintain working relationships with vendors; and sign as guarantors on vendor accounts, as needed.
Polte and Kleeman, stockholders in Petitioner, are owners of a wire and cable distribution business in Europe. As such, they have made a market for Petitioner's American wire in Europe and provide European wire to Petitioner for sale in the U.S. Sales generated by Polte and Kleeman account for approximately
15 percent of Petitioner's sales in Europe and 11 percent of products imported by Petitioner for distribution in the U.S.
For their services, Polte and Kleeman receive an annual stockholders' dividend from the profits of the corporation, which has been designated as a "management fee" in the corporate books. Their combined ownership of stock in the corporation amounts to 49 percent.
Monaco and Branciforte, both American women, are 51 percent owners of the corporation.
The gross sales of the company was approximately $350,000 in 1993,
$700,000 in 1994 and $500,000 to date in 1995. In 1995, Petitioner sold approximately $180,000 of material through its European sales managers and purchased approximately $27,000 from them.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding, and the parties thereto, pursuant to subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development is required, by statute, to ensure that the preferences for minority business firms obtained by the certification process are awarded only to those firms for which the benefit is intended. Petitioner, as applicant for minority business enterprise status, has the burden of proving its entitlement to certification. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Subsection 288.703(2) Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), defines MBE as follows:
(2) "Minority business enterprise" means any small business concern as defined in subsection
(1) which is organized to engage in commercial transactions, which is domiciled in Florida, and which is at least 51-percent-owned by minority persons who are members of an insular group that is of a particular racial, ethnic, or gender makeup or national origin, which has
been subjected historically to disparate treat- ment due to identification in and with that group resulting in an under-representation of
commercial enterprises under the group's control, and whose management and daily operations are controlled by such persons.
Subsection 288.703(3), Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1994) defines a minority person as follows:
(3) "Minority person" means a lawful, permanent resident of Florida who is:
(e) An American woman.
The Department of Management Services has promulgated rules to be followed in determining the certification of eligibility of applicants for MBE status, which rules have been transferred to the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development.
Rule 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code defines the eligibility requirements for MBE certification. In substance, to be considered 51 percent minority owned, and thereby eligible for MBE certification, the applicant must establish real, substantial, continuing ownership of the firm by (a), owning 51 percent of the issued stock of the company; (b), receiving income commensurate with the percentage of her ownership from any means; (c), demonstrating that she shares in all of the business and financial risks through her role in decision- making, negotiation and execution of documents as either an individual or officer of the firm, and (d), not being subject to rights of others which would dilute the minority's ownership below 51 percent. In addition, as paraphrased here, the rule requires the minority owners to exercise unfettered discretion in the control over the management and daily operation of the business; constitute a majority of the board of directors, if the entity is a corporation; exercise sufficient management and technical responsibilities to maintain control of the business; and, if a family business, control the purchase of goods, equipment, and services needed, the hiring and firing of personnel and the setting of all employment policies. The minority owner must demonstrate knowledge and control of the financial affairs of the business, and have managerial and technical capability, knowledge and training, and display independence and initiative in seeking and negotiating contracts and in conducting all operations of the business. Further, the minority owner shall exercise substantive personal direction and actual involvement with all major aspects of the business - those tasks essential to accomplish all business objectives and operations.
Petitioner does meet the requirements of 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code, because a majority of the Directors were women at the time the application was filed. The two women clearly control the day-to-day operations of the applicant business, and the control of the business is real, substantial and continuing. Majority ownership of the corporate stock goes beyond mere pro forma ownership because the applicants demonstrated that the stock transfer in January, 1994 was based upon the women being completely responsible for the operation of the company and for operating it out of their residence in 1993 without compensation. The two women share income, earnings and other benefits from the applicant business to a greater extent than are afforded Polte and Kleeman, since they only receive their "management fee" at the end of the year if the company receives a profit. On the contrary, only the women officers and directors are responsible for meeting payroll, signing checks, signing leases, and guaranteeing loans needed by the business for
operating capital. Therefore, the women owners control all financial affairs of the applicant business as required by 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code.
Petitioner has demonstrated that it is not affiliated with a non- minority business which is in the same or associated field by common ownership, directors and management. Although Polte and Kleeman contributed $2,000 seed money for the start up of the company for which they received stock in the company, they are not officers or directors of the company and do not participate in the management, facilities or financial operation of the company. They are simply good trading partners with Petitioner. Such association is not a violation of 60A-2.005(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code.
Section 14, Chapter 94-322, Laws of Florida (Supp. 1994) substantially revised Section 287.0943, Florida Statutes, Certification of minority business enterprises, which in pertinent part added the requirement that "[i]f present ownership was obtained by transfer, require the minority person on whom eligibility is based to have owned at least 51 percent of the applicant firm for a minimum of two years, when any previous majority ownership interest in the firm was by a nonminority who is or was a relative, former employer, or current employer of the minority person on whom eligibility is based. (Sec.
287.0943(1)(e)2, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994). This revision to the law became effective on May 31, 1994. Petitioner's application for certification was filed with the Respondent on April 27, 1994 and the initial determination was made by Respondent on June 27, 1994. The revised statute does apply to this application. However, no evidence was introduced which indicated that the prior nonminority ownership was a "relative, former employer, or current employer of the minority person on whom eligibility is based." Therefore, the two year ownership provision does not apply to Petitioner in this case.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed
by Action Wire & Cable Corporation on April 27, 1994, be GRANTED.
DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
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 20th day of October, 1995.
APPENDIX
The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties.
Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner.
Petitioner submitted in letter form proposed findings of fact. However, it contained, in paragraph form, comments on the evidence and argument which can not be specifically ruled upon.
Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent.
Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 4 (in part), 5, 7 (in part), 8 (in
part), 9.
Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 3, 4 (in part) 7 (in part), 8 (in part).
Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 6, 8 (in part).
COPIES FURNISHED:
Rosemarie N. Branciforte
Vice President-Sales & Marketing Action Wire & Cable Corporation 4802 Distribution Court, Unit 2
Orlando, Florida 32822
Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Senior Attorney
107 West Gaines Street
201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005
Crandall Jones Executive Administrator
Collins Building, Suite 201
107 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the 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 consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning their 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.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Nov. 08, 1995 | Final Order filed. |
| Oct. 20, 1995 | Corrected Recommended Order sent out. (corrected to reflect that Respondent filed his proposed recommended order on 9/6/95) |
| Oct. 17, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 7/27/95. |
| Sep. 06, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order W/tagged exhibits filed. |
| Aug. 18, 1995 | Hearing on Designation as Minority Business w/cover letter (Transcript) filed. |
| Aug. 16, 1995 | Letter to Hearing Officer from Rosemarie N. Branciforte Re: Summary of proceedings filed. |
| Jul. 27, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jul. 24, 1995 | Amended Order Continuing Hearing by Video sent out. (Video Hearing set for 7/27/95; 1:00pm; Orlando) |
| Jul. 05, 1995 | Order Continuing Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 7/27/95;1:00pm; Orlando) |
| Jun. 28, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion to Continue filed. |
| May 23, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 7/14/95; 9:00am; Orlando) |
| Dec. 16, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Oct. 17, 1994 | Order of Abeyance sent out. (Parties to file status report by 11/15/94) |
| Oct. 12, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Withdrawal/Motion for Abeyance filed. |
| Oct. 10, 1994 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 12/9/94; at 11:00am; in Orlando) |
| Sep. 21, 1994 | Joint Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Sep. 19, 1994 | Initial Order issued. |
| Sep. 15, 1994 | Agency referral letter; Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, Letter Form filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 07, 1995 | Agency Final Order | |
| Oct. 17, 1995 | Recommended Order | Women applicants meet requirements for Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) certification; Foreign stock-holders not related; not affiliated. |
