STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

A.M.E. OFFICE MACHINES TRAINING ) CENTER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 78-1554

) STATE BOARD OF INDEPENDENT POST- ) SECONDARY VOCATIONAL, TECHNICAL, ) TRADE AND BUSINESS SCHOOLS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on October 11, 1978, in Daytona Beach, Florida.

The following appearances were entered: W. N. Tyus, the managing officer of the Petitioner, A.M.E. Office Machines Training Center, initially appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, but during the course of the hearing elected to retain counsel. Thereafter Horace Hill, Esquire, Daytona Beach, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Gene T. Sellers, Tallahassee, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Respondent, State Board of Independent Post-Secondary Vocational, Technical, Trade and Business Schools.

The Petitioner, A.M.E. Office Machines Training Center, filed an application with the Respondent, State Board of Independent Post-Secondary Vocational, Technical, Trade and Business Schools, for renewal of its license to operate a school for training of students in repair and maintenance of office machines. On August 14, 1978, the Respondent issued a notice of its intention to deny the application. The Petitioner requested a hearing, and the Respondent forwarded the matter to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and the scheduling of a hearing. The final hearing was scheduled by notice dated September 5, 1978.

At the final hearing the Respondent called the following witnesses: Earl

1. Edwards, the Executive Director of the Respondent; Lorraine Meyers, the Project Coordinator for the "CETA Administration" vocational education program in Volusia County, Florida; and Robert M. Fisher, an accountant employed by the Volusia County Finance Department. W. N. Tyus, a Director of the Petitioner, appeared as the Petitioner's only witness. Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4, and Respondent's Exhibits 1-5 were received into evidence. The parties were invited to file posthearing legal memoranda. The Respondent has filed a memorandum of law, and a proposed recommended order.

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. The Petitioner, a nonprofit corporation, was licensed by the Respondent to operate as a vocational, technical, or trade school during 1977. The school was designed to teach business machine repair and maintenance skills to students. The Petitioner applied for a renewal of the license with the Respondent for 1978. By letter dated August 14, 1978, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that it would not reissue the license. The Petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and this proceeding ensued.

      
      

   2. Beginning in January, 1977, the Petitioner was funded by the "CETA Administration" as a service delivery agent. Under this funding, the Petitioner would submit requests for reimbursement based upon its expenditures in providing an educational program to its students, and the Petitioner was funded directly. Petitioner enjoyed this status from January through September, 1977, and received a total of $87,806.07 in direct funding. As of October 1, 1977, the Petitioner's funding status with CETA changed. After that date the Petitioner became what was called a "sub-subgrantee" of the vocational education component of the local CETA Administration. The vocational education component of CETA became the service delivery agent, and was directly funded. The Petitioner thereafter was not able to do its own recruiting of students, and no longer received direct funding from CETA. Rather, CETA would pay to students a stipend adequate to compensate them for tuition, and other costs of the program. On October 1, the Petitioner had eleven students. Despite the Petitioner's efforts to provide the new service delivery agent with the names of persons interested in participating in the Petitioner's program, CETA did not refer new students to the program. The school lost approximately one student per month from October, 1977 through May, 1978. CETA discontinued all funding of the Petitioner on June 7, 1978. Since that date the Petitioner has had no students.

      
      

   3. The financial statement submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent in connection with the renewal application revealed that the Petitioner was operating with a net income loss of $524.76; had total assets of minus $203.57; a fund balance of minus $446.96; and total liabilities of more than two hundred dollars. The projected finances for the period October 1, 1978 through September 30, 1979 indicates that the school will lose approximately ten thousand dollars.

      
      

   4. The Petitioner, in its renewal application, did not reveal that it had had a drastic change in its funding status, and that it had lost all of its students. During the time that it was in operation, only approximately five persons completed the Petitioner's course work.

      
      

   5. The Petitioner submitted with its renewal application, a copy of its school catalog. The catalog revealed that certain persons remained on the school's board of directors, who in fact had resigned from these positions. This failure is excusable. The catalog that was submitted was the same catalog that had been used the year before. Due to the loss of its CETA funding, the Petitioner could not afford to have new catalogs printed.

      
      

      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

      
      

   6. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and over the parties. Sections 120.57(1), 120.60, Florida Statutes (1977).

   7. Section 246.221, Florida Statutes (1977) provides in pertinent part:

      
      

      Any license under Sections 246.201 through

      246.231 may be refused, suspended, or revoked

      by the board for cause... Under Sections 246.201 through 246.231, the board shall have the power to refuse to issue a license and to suspend or revoke a license in any case in which the board finds that the licensee has violated any of the rules and regulations of the State Board of Education pertaining to Sections 246.201 through 246.231.

      
      

      The Respondent's rules are set out at Chapter 6F, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 6F-2.02(4) provides:

      
      

      Financial statement. The application for an original license and for the renewal

      of a license shall be accompanied by a cur- rent financial statement attested to under the penalty of perjury by the chief operating officer for the purpose of showing that the

      financial resources of the school are adequate to fulfill its instructional and business obligations.

      
      

      Rule 6F-2.01(7) provides:

      
      

      Any significant changes, such as, but not limited to, courses, programs, ownership, or method of operation during the period

      of licensure shall be reported by the licensee to the board.

      
      

   8. The financial statement submitted by the Petitioner clearly indicates that it lacks the financial resources to adequately fulfill its instruction and business obligations. It is clear from the evidence that the loss of CETA funding deprived the Petitioner of its only source of income. The Petitioner has no funds with which it could provide the services set out in its catalog. The school has not been operating in any viable sense since June 7, 1978. The Petitioner's lack of financial viability justifies denial of its renewal application. The Petitioner's failure to report its change in CETA funding status further justifies denial of the renewal application.

      
      

   9. The Petitioner's failure to prepare an updated catalog to submit with its renewal application is justified under the circumstances. The Petitioner lacks funds with which it could have paid for the publishing of a catalog.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby,

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be issued by the State Board of Independent Post- Secondary Vocational, Technical, Trade and Business Schools denying the renewal application submitted by A.M.E. Office Machines Training Center.

RECOMMENDED this 27th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

101 Collins Building

Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

COPIES FURNISHED:

Gene T. Sellers, Esquire State Board of Education Office of General Counsel Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Horace E. Hill, Esquire Post Office Box 2194

Daytona Beach, Florida 32015

Mr. W. N. Tyus Director

A.M.E. Office Machines Training Center

725 2nd Avenue

Daytona Beach, Florida 32014

Docket for Case No: 78-001554

Orders for Case No: 78-001554