STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CENTER OFFICE PRODUCTS, INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 88-1991
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, this cause came on for hearing before P. Michael Ruff, duly designated Hearing Officer in Jacksonville, Florida, on September 23, 1988.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Christopher C. Hazelip, Esquire
Rogers, Towers, Baily, Jones and Gay 1300 Gulf Life Drive, Suite 800
Jacksonville, FL 32207
For Respondent: Sandra D. Allen, Esquire
Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building
200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0955
BACKGROUND
Wanda Forbess, the president and chief executive officer of Center Office Products, Inc. (Center) filed a request for certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE) with the Respondent, the Department of General Services (DGS). An investigation was commenced by the Department and an "on site review" of the Petitioner's business was conducted in Jacksonville at the offices of the Petitioner on March 7, 1988. The request for certification was ultimately denied, by letter, after the investigation was complete. The cause was ultimately transferred to the undersigned Hearing Officer for conducting formal proceedings pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1987) as a result of the Petitioner disputing that initial agency action.
The cause came on for hearing, as noticed, at which the Petitioner presented the testimony of Thomas D. Forbess, Wanda B. Forbess, Jeannine Silcox, Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond M. Forbess. The Petitioner also offered eleven exhibits which were identified as exhibits A-K and which were admitted into evidence. The Respondent called one witness, Marsha Nims to testify and offered one exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit A, which was admitted into evidence.
Additionally, joint exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence by agreement.
The parties have also filed a joint stipulation as to certain findings of fact numbered one through seven, which stipulation was accepted. The parties timely filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of proposed recommended orders, after receiving a transcript of the proceeding subsequent to the hearing. Those findings of fact are addressed herein and in the appendix attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether certain criteria contained in the operative rule, 13- 8.005(3), Florida Administrative Code, have been complied with and, therefore, whether Wanda Forbess possesses sufficient control over the management and daily operations of the Petitioner corporation and business to justify its certification as a minority business enterprise. In consideration of the testimony and evidence the following findings of fact are made.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Wanda Forbess is an American woman. She is the president of the Petitioner corporation, Center Office Products, Inc. She owns 5l percent of that corporation's outstanding stock. The stock is full voting stock and there are no agreements in existence or anticipated which would cause any change in the percentage of ownership of Wanda Forbess, nor any change in the voting power of her stock. The Petitioner corporation and Wanda Forbess has no affiliation or relationship with any other business and Wanda Forbess is not an employee of any other business. The net worth of the Petitioner as of the date of hearing is less than one million dollars. It has also been stipulated that the Petitioner, that is, Wanda Forbess, has been performing a useful business function and operating the Petitioner's business since 1981.
Wanda Forbess is the mother of Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess and the wife of Thomas D. Forbess. In 1981 her children were almost out of school, with her youngest child being about to enter college. She decided she wanted to start her own business. She had been active as a homemaker, a volunteer and active member of civic organizations.
She decided to enter the office supply retail business in 1981 because of the low initial investment required due to the presence of two wholesale suppliers in Jacksonville who could supply goods for inventory on a rapid basis. She also chose to enter this business because there were no particular special skills, training or licenses required and because she knew something about it, since her husband worked for twenty-five years in one phase of the business, that of sales of paper products.
This decision being made, Ms. Forbess approached her sons, Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess, to persuade them to enter into the business with her. They agreed to join her in the venture and she set about to form the Petitioner corporation. She desired to incorporate in order to limit the liability which she and her sons would be exposed to in operating the business.
She retained an attorney to incorporate the business, but paid no particular attention herself concerning how the shares were to be issued and held or as to the manner of appointment of the members of the board of the directors. She simply followed her attorney's instructions who advised her to do the "standard type" of incorporation. The corporation estab- lished by her attorney provided, in its by-laws, that there would be three directors. Wanda, Ray and Thomas Forbess were each named as directors since they were the only three individuals involved with the Petitioner at its formation. The attorney
also issued stock certificates for 200 shares each to the three directors. Wanda Forbess was appointed as president and chief executive officer of the Petitioner corporation. This was because the formation of the business and the company was Mrs. Forbess' idea and she had provided more than five times the amount of capital of each of the other two owners, her sons. In fact, she had provided $11,000 of her own money as initial capital and her two sons provided
$2,000 each.
Notwithstanding their equal ownership status and the equal vote each of the three has on the Board of Directors, as well as the requirement in the bylaws that a majority vote of the Board is controlling, Mrs. Forbess has been in control of the Petitioner corporation's operations from the day of its inception. Her sons do not question that control and established the fact of it in their own testimony at the hearing. The vice- president is Raymond D. Forbess and the secretary treasurer is Thomas J. Forbess.
The bylaws provide that the property and business of the corporation is managed by its Board of Directors and that a majority of those directors shall be necessary and sufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The act of the majority of the directors present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be deemed to be the act of the board. It is also provided in the bylaws that the holders of the majority of shares of stock may remove a director at any time, with or without cause, at a duly called meeting. The president of the Petitioner is empowered to call such a meeting at any time. Any vacancy occurring as a result of removal of any director by the majority shareholders may be filled by the affirmative vote of the majority of remaining directors, even if less than a quorum shall be present. Directors are not required to be shareholders. Therefore, as a holder of 51 percent of the shares of the Petitioner, Wanda Forbess has control over the board of directors by the power to elect or remove any director by voting shares accordingly at a meeting which she may call at any time, with or without notice, as the president of the Petitioner corporation. Replacement directors could then be appointed by her vote alone and could be any person she elects, including, for example, an employee over who she has authority and who she may direct to vote a certain way.
In any event, from 1981 through 1987, the Petitioner grew from a company with three employees to a company of 18 employees and more than $280,000 gross monthly sales. During this time, the Petitioner enjoyed some State of Florida contract business. Some time in 1987, Mrs. Forbess became aware that she would soon be unable to continue doing business with the state because her business was not a certified minority business enterprise. In fact, however, the Petitioner had been, from its inception, an American woman-controlled corporation in actual practice.
On June 1, 1987, Mrs. Forbess directed her sons to convey sufficient stock to her so that she could become a 51 percent shareholder of the Petitioner corporation. This transfer was done to comply with section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, concerning the definition of "minority business enterprise." It was also done to formally reflect what had been the case, as a practical matter, since the inception of the corporation: that Wanda Forbess controlled the Petitioner corporation. The company by that time had significant value reflected in the value of its stock, but neither son required payment for his stock which he conveyed to Mrs. Forbess. They considered that she was the controlling owner of the corporation from its inception anyway due to the fact that the business was her idea and that she had contributed by far the most significant amount of initial capital.
Mrs. Forbess spends a majority of her time conducting the financial affairs of the Petitioner. She is more familiar and more involved with the financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation then any other owner, officer, director or employee. In that capacity, she sets all the salaries, including the salaries of her sons and her husband. All salaries are set completely at the discretion of Mrs. Forbess and always have been. She pays her two sons and her husband a higher salary than she pays herself because their financial requirements are greater, but the salient point here is that she is the manager with the discretion to set their salaries.
In 1985, after the Petitioner had been operating successfully for four years, Thomas J. Forbess, the husband of Mrs. Forbess, retired from his position with Jim Walter Paper Company after 25 years of employment with that firm.
Prior to that time he had no involvement with the formation, operation or management of the Petitioner corporation. He has never had an ownership interest in the Petitioner. He is an employee of the corporation and assists in some of the operations, including preparation and submittal of bids for some of the work the corporation undertakes.
Mrs. Forbess controls the purchase of goods, equipment and business inventory and services used and needed in the day- to-day operation of the business. She frequently purchases significant items used in the business, such as computers, trucks, and postage machines, as well as inventory. In addition to this, the major purchases made by the business by any co-owner or employee must be made only with her approval. Evidence was offered showing the lease agreements and notes evidencing that corporate debts related to large purchases were signed by all corporate officers as a basis for an attempt to show that decisions are made by "consensus" or are joint decisions. However, the fact that lenders and lessors require all corporate officers to sign documents evidencing leases or debts does not mean each corporate officer had an equal part to play in making the decision involved. The record is replete with evidence and testimony from employees and the other owners that Wanda Forbess has a veto power on all decisions concerning purchases, loans, leases of real property and every other major business decision the Petitioner confronts. Further, the fact that discussions are had amongst the owners and officers of the business prior to making major decisions is really a sound business practice and does not mean that one of the owners, directors or officers does not have final authority to make a binding decision. The person who has final authority for such major decisions is Wanda Forbess.
Mrs. Forbess also has the authority to hire and dismiss employees, a requirement of subsection 3(b) of Rule 13-8.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. She herself has interviewed employees from time to time and also has final authority to approve all hiring and discharge decisions or to veto them in those instances where she has delegated that authority. She controls which professional services are obtained by the Petitioner corporation, as shown by her decision to discontinue the services of the former company accountant. Indeed, she has delegated some of the hiring processes, given the fact that the Petitioner corporation has grown to be a business with 18 employees. That however, is a normal, acceptable business decision. The delegation of the advertising of a position, the interviewing of prospective employees and the conveying of offers of employment to prospective employees in no way indicates that the delegator does not have the final authority to hire or dismiss the employees.
Wanda Forbess also controls all financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation. She thus has unsurpassed knowledge in relation to the other owners, officers and directors, of the financial structure and operations of the business. In fact, the bulk of her time spent working for the Petitioner, corporation since its inception, has been in the field of financial matters. She makes the decisions concerning debt to be incurred by the Petitioner, and approves any major expenditure, without which approval expenditures may not be made. It is significant that Mrs. Forbess has veto authority over the extension of credit to customers and establishment of credit accounts by customers. One instance was described by Jeannine Silcox and Raymond Forbess concerning Raymond Forbess' attempt to open an account to service a particular customer on a credit basis. Mrs. Forbess opposed that procedure and ordered that the account not be opened. The account was not opened. This demonstrates effectively that not only does Mrs. Forbess control the financial affairs of the company, but also wields ultimate authority amongst the co-owners of the Petitioner.
Additionally, it is undisputed that Mrs. Forbess writes the vast majority of checks on the Petitioner's two checking accounts, in terms of the requirement, at subsection 3(D) of the above-cited rule, that she control the accounts of the business. She estimates that she writes 97 percent of the checks and there is no evidence to refute that estimate. Thomas J. and Raymond B. Forbess are each authorized signatories on the accounts, but their names are simply there as a matter of convenience and the only instances in which they sign checks are when there is an immediate need for the check to be paid and Mrs. Forbess is unavailable to sign herself. There is no question that Mrs. Forbess is the ultimate authority controlling the Petitioner's bank accounts.
In order to comply with subsection 3(e) of the above cited rule, the minority owner must demonstrate capability, knowledge and experience in making decisions concerning the business involved. At the time of the business's inception, neither Mrs. Forbess nor her co-owner sons had the capability, knowledge or experience required to make many of the decisions concerning the retail office supply retail business. Over seven years of operation however, Mrs. Forbess has actively supervised and managed the business of the Petitioner and has developed to a high degree those attributes, in making decisions involved in operating that business successfully. She has delegated certain aspects of the company's business to the supervision of her sons. Thomas J. Forbess, for example, is involved in developing additional retail operations. Raymond B. Forbess is more actively involved in the delivery of merchandise to customers and the monitoring of customer accounts, as well as maintaining and accounting for inventory. Nonetheless, neither of the other owners effects any significant decisions without consulting Mrs. Forbess first and gaining her approval or veto. Through this supervision and control over the past seven years, as well as her current direct involvement in managing the Petitioner's affairs, Mrs. Forbess has developed the capability, knowledge and experience required to make decisions regarding the office supply business involved herein.
Her operational and managerial capabilities are demonstrated by the fact that under her leadership the business started with three employees and has grown to an 18 employee business with gross sales in the neighborhood of
$280,000 per month in just over seven years. Finally, Mrs. Forbess has displayed independence and initiative in conducting all major operations and details of the Petitioner since its inception, (as required by subsection (f) of the above rule). Although she has done little bid negotiating directly, she has the ability to do so and has some experience in that activity. Further, bid proposals are submitted to her for approval and are not made without her
knowledge and assent. Further, she herself negotiates leases and other contracts on behalf of the Petitioner.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject master of these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida statutes, (1987).
The Petitioner is seeking approval of its certification as a minority business enterprise. The burden of proving the entitlement to that certification rests on the Petitioner according to Rule 28-6.008, Florida Administrative Code and Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (1st DCA 1981)
"A minority business enterprise" is defined in section 288.703, Florida Statutes, as:
ny 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 and whose management and daily operations are controlled by such persons".
In this case, there is no dispute that Wanda Forbess is a "minority person" as that status is defined in section 288.703(3)(f), Florida Statutes, (1987). It is also undisputed that she owns at least 51 percent of the stock of the corporation. The issue really concerns whether Mrs. Forbess controls the management and daily operations of the Petitioner, as provided by the above quoted statute.
The Respondent has promulgated Rule 13-8.00(5)(3), Florida Administrative Code which provides factors to be considered in determining who controls the management and daily operations of a business. That rule provides in pertinent part as follows:
An applicant must establish that the minority owners possess control over the management and daily operations of the business. The Department will consider the following factors:
Whether the minority owners have control over the purchase of goods, equipment, business inventory and services needed in the day to day operation of the business.
Whether the minority owners have the authority to hire and fire employees.
Whether the minority owners have a knowledge of the financial structure of the business and control over all financial affairs.
Whether the minority owners control business accounts - checking, savings, and other financial affairs.
Whether the minority owners have the
capability, knowledge, and experience required to make decisions regarding that particular type of work.
Whether the minority owners have displayed independence and initiative in seeking and negotiating contracts, accepting
and rejecting bids and in conducting all major aspects of the business.
Whether the minority owners are current employees of a non-minority business corporation or individual, or partnership which has a significant ownership interest in the business firm applying for certification.
Whether the directors and/or management
of the applicant are substantially the same as in an affiliated non-minority firm.
Whether the applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary or affiliate of a non-minority firm.
No statutory or rule provisions require that any of the criteria set forth in the above rule should be weighted as to their applicability in determining whether an MBE certification should be granted. Nor is there any demonstrable requirement that every factor enumerated in the above rules should be complied with fully in order to demonstrate adequate control of a Petitioner corporation by a minority member. In the Respondent's denial letter to the Petitioner and at the hearing in this cause, the Department maintains that Mrs. Forbess does not control the management or daily operations of the Petitioner in than her position and duties with the company allegedly fail to meet the requirements of subsections (a), (b), (e), and (f) of the above rules. The parties agreed, by joint stipulation, that subsections (g), (h), (i), have been met by the Petitioner and Mrs. Forbess and are not in dispute. Additionally, subsection (c) remains at issue because it was not a subject of a stipulation.
Concerning the disputed criteria, it has been established that Wanda Forbess controls the purchase of goods, equipment, business inventory and services needed in the day to day operation of the Petitioner's business. She frequently purchases significant items such as computers, trucks, business machines and the like. No major purchase is made without her consent. Although the Respondent's evidence tended to couch Mrs. Forbess' decisions as being made jointly or through a consensus arrangement with the other owners, the Respondent's only evidentiary support for these assertions was through documentary evidence in the form of corporate debt instruments and lease agreements. It has been shown to be standard business practice to require the signature of all corporate officers on such documents especially with regard to debt instruments which financial institutions typically want under taken by all corporate officers. This evidence standing alone, however, does not establish that each of the owners had equal say in the corporate decisions related to the undertaking of debt or the leasing of real property. The record is replete with testimony of employees and the owners to the effect that Wanda Forbess had veto power on all decisions concerning purchases, incurring debt, leasing space for the business as well as every other major decision the business undertook. It is simply sound business practice to have discussions amongst the owners of the business prior to making these decisions.
The above findings of fact, based upon uncontroverted evidence of record, clearly show that she also has authority to hire and discharge employees
as required by subsection 3(b) above. She herself has interviewed a number of employees and made the hiring decisions with regard to their job applications, but she also approves and has the authority to veto all delegated hiring and firing decisions made by the other owners or managerial employees. Some delegation of the hiring process in an organization with 18 employees and two other owners is certainly reasonable and does not belie the fact that Mrs.
Forbess has the ultimate authority over who is hired or fired from the business. The delegation of the advertising of a position, the interviewing of prospective employees and the conveying of offers to prospective employees does not belie the fact that the delegator has ultimate authority to decide.
Subsection 3(C) requires the minority owner to have control of the financial affairs of the Petitioner. There is no double, given the evidence of record underlying the above findings of fact, that Mrs. Forbess has thorough knowledge and control of financial structure, affairs, and accounts of the Petitioner business. In fact, the majority of her duties with the Petitioner business since its inception have involved control of its financial affairs.
Criterion (3)(d) concerns whether the minority owner controls the business accounts of the applicant, such as the checking and savings accounts, and other financial matters. The above findings of fact, based upon the unrefuted, preponderant evidence of record show that Mrs. Forbess writes the vast majority of checks on the Petitioner's two checking accounts, and otherwise controls them. Although Thomas J. and Raymond E. Forbess are each authorized signatories on the accounts, this is a necessary diffusion of check signing authority in a business the size of the Petitioner's. The fact remains that Mrs. Forbess ultimately controls both accounts, as well as the financial affairs of the business.
In the seven years that Mrs. Forbess has operated the company, she has actively supervised and managed its business. In that process, she has delegated certain portions of the company's operations to the supervision of her sons. Mrs. Forbess oversees these operations, including bidding and contracting and is peculiarly responsible for the financial operations of the business. Mrs. Forbess has developed the capability, knowledge and experience required to make decisions regarding the office supply retail business. This is shown graphically by the steady growth and success of her business, since its inception under her leadership. Thus the Petitioner had complied with subsection (3)(e) of the above-quoted rule.
Mrs. Forbess also displayed considerable independence and initiative in conducting all major aspects of the Petitioner's business for purposes of subsection (3)(f), above. While it is true that she has done very little of the direct bid negotiating by which contracts are gained for the business, she has demonstrated her ability to do so and some experience in doing so. Further, and most importantly, she exercises supervision over the elements that go into bid proposals her company makes and has final approval authority over bid proposals which are to be submitted to potential customers. Further, the evidence establishes that she herself negotiates lease contracts and other contracts on behalf of the business, which is an important part of the business's operations, although not necessarily related to bidding customer jobs.
In addition to the above considerations, it is undisputed that the minority owner is not a current employee of a non-minority business corporation, individual or partnership which has any significant ownership interest in the Petitioner here. None of the directors or other managers of the Petitioner serve in a similar capacity or the same capacity with any affiliated non-
minority firm. There has been no evidence that there is any affiliated non- minority firm at all. Neither is the applicant a wholly owned subsidiary or affiliated in any way with any non-minority firm.
Respondent's salient contention is that by-law provisions require the Board of Directors to be made up of three persons, with the majority vote of that board being required to effect corporate decisions and that, given that Mrs. Forbess is only one of three votes on the Board of Directors, she cannot really control the operation of the business. This position overlooks a very important consideration, which is that the daily activities of the corporation, (and any corporation) are run by the president or chief executive officer, which is Mrs. Forbess in this case. Secondly, the Respondent's position overlooks the fact that the Board of Directors can be changed, that is, the Directors can be removed by vote of the majority of shareholders. It is undisputed that Mrs. Forbess owns the majority of the corporation's stock, with full voting power. She can convene a meeting of the board of directors on her own motion as president of the company. Even if, as Respondent points out, sufficient stock was transferred to Mrs. Forbess in the recent past in order to give her 51 per cent majority interest merely for the purpose of applying for the subject certification, the fact remains that indeed she actually holds the majority of outstanding stock and therefore the majority of voting power on the board of directors. It is not important that she has not historically exercised that power to alter the board. The point is that she has authority to do so, and that authority carries with it the most important element and indicator of control of the operation and ownership of this business. By controlling the majority of the outstanding shares of the corporation, Mrs. Forbess can remove and replace the members of the board at will and replace them with directors who will vote in accordance with her wishes. Thus, notwith- standing her position as a chief executive officer and president of the Petitioner corporation, with all the attendants authority to control the operations of the business, she can independent of that ability, exercise controlling authority over the board of directors. Recognition of this power of a majority stockholder has been considered pivotal in the case of Aguiar Defense v. Department of General Services, DOAH 87-5552 (June 20, 1988); Final Order entered June 29, 1988, a case involving minority business certification very similar to this one.
In summary, the allocation of specific tasks and duties amongst the owners of the Petitioner, as well as Mrs. Forbess' husband, Thomas D. Forbess, does not indicate a lack of control by the president and chief executive officer, Mrs. Forbess, over the manner in which those tasks are performed, including the bidding, done to a great extent by Thomas D. Forbess. It can only be concluded, on the unrefuted evidence of record, that Wanda Forbess is indeed an active administrator of the business, concentrating on specific tasks within the business, but who wields ultimate authority on any major decision made by any co- owner or other employee of the Petitioner. Regardless of the fairly recent change in ownership by which Mrs. Forbess acquired a majority stockholder interest, this control has been true, in actual fact, since the inception of the Petitioner's corporate existence. She has been president and chief executive officer of the Petitioner since its inception and has, in fact, controlled the daily operation of the Petitioner's business for the duration of its existence.
The burden of proof is on the Petitioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it qualifies as a minority business enterprise. Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977);J. W.C. supra. The Petitioner here has clearly sustained that burden as to the requirements of the operative rule.
Accordingly, from the foregoing, it is concluded that the majority shareholder of Center Office Products, Inc., Mrs. Wanda Forbess, is a woman and minority member, who exercises control over the management and daily operations of that corporation. It is also concluded that the petitioner/Applicant employs less than 25 persons and has a net worth of less than one million dollars. It is, therefore,
That a Final Order be entered certifying Center Office Products, Inc. as a minority business enterprise.
DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida.
P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st
day of February, 1989.
ENDNOTE
1/ The operative rule cited below contains, at criteria 3(a) an allowance for such discussion among the owners or officers of a business, because that criteria hinges on who has final authorization to make purchases or approve purchases of goods, services, inventory or real property.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1991
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case.
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, CENTER OFFICE PRODUCTS, INC.
1-7. Accepted.
8-13. Accepted.
14. Accepted but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter.
Accepted but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter.
Accepted but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter.
Accepted.
Accepted.
20-23. Accepted.
24-25. Rejected as not truly material to the issues involved in this proceeding.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, State of Florida, Department of General Services
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject.
Accepted, but not, standing alone, dispositive of all material issues presented.
Accepted in a general sense, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of material issues.
Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of material issues presented.
Accepted.
Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of material issues presented and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of material issues presented and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of material issues presented and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Accepted, but not dispositive of material issues presented, standing alone, and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Rejected as not totally in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as not being, in itself, dispositive of material issues presented and as being subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not
in accord with the preponderant evidence of record.
Rejected as not in accordance with the
preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of material issues presented and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of material issues presented and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Rejected as to its overall import and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact on the subject matter.
Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact on this subject matter.
Accepted, but not as to its material import and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. It was not only claimed that Wanda Forbess sets the salaries of all employees for these reasons, it was proven to be so.
Accepted.
Accepted, but not in the sense that Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond Forbess had equal authority in financial affairs with Wanda Forbess; otherwise rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence of record and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence of record and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.
Rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence of record and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact on this subject matter.
Rejected as not directly material to the relevant issues before this forum for adjudication on the question of whether certification should be granted or not.
Rejected as irrelevant in this de novo proceeding.
Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of material issues presented in this de novo proceeding.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Christopher C. Hazelip, Esquire Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay 1300 Gulf Life Drive, Suite 800
Jacksonville, Florida 32007
Sandra D. Allen, Esquire Office of General counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building
200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director
Department of General Services
133 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 21, 1989 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 12, 1989 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 21, 1989 | Recommended Order | Petitioner should be certification as Minority Business Enterprise because minority (woman) is Certified Executive Officer and majority stockholder therefore runs bus has majority voting power, has control to comply with rule |
