STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BAY AREA WINDOW CLEANING, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ) CASE NO. 95-5913 SECURITY, DIVISION OF MINORITY )

BUSINESS ADVOCACY AND ASSISTANCE ) OFFICE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in this case in Tampa, Florida on July 3, 1996, before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Miriam L. Sumpter, Esquire

2700 North MacDill Avenue, Suite 208

Tampa, Florida 33607

For Respondent: Joseph L. Shields, Esquire

Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast

Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner should be certified as a Minority Business Enterprise, (Woman-Owned).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated September 21, 1995, Marsha Nims, Certification Manager of the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Commission On Minority Economic and Business Development (Commission), advised Petitioner that its request for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) was denied because the Petitioner did not meet the requirements for certification as set out in Sections 287.0943 and 288.703, Florida Statutes. The Commission contended that Petitioner was not at least 51 percent owned by a qualified minority, and that the minority ownership in the Petitioner was not real, substantial and continuing. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Petition For Formal Hearing and this hearing ensued.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Hope L. Richeson, President of Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc., and John D. Richeson, her husband. Petitioner also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 5. Respondent presented the testimony of Melissa Leon, a certification officer for the Commission, and introduced Respondent's Exhibits A through L. A transcript of the proceedings was presented, and subsequent to the hearing both counsel submitted Proposed Findings of Fact which have been ruled upon in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Commission On Minority Economic and Business Development, now the Division of Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security, was the state agency in Florida charged with the responsibility for certifying minority and women-owned businesses for most state agencies. It is required, by statute, to ensure that the preference for minority business firms obtained by the certification process are awarded only to those firms for which the benefit is intended.

   
   

2. Petitioner, Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc., is a small business corporation registered in Florida on August 7, 1985. At the time of the original incorporation of the corporation, 1,000 shares of corporate stock were issued of the 7,000 shares authorized in the Articles of Incorporation. Of these, 510 were issued to John D. Richeson, the individual who, with his brother in the late 1970's, started the window cleaning business while a student in college as a means of supporting himself and, later, his wife and family. The remaining 490 shares were issued to Hope L. Richeson, his wife. The funds utilized to start the business and ultimately incorporate were jointly owned by Mr. and Mrs. Richeson. The Articles of Incorporation, as filed initially, list John D. Richeson as incorporator and registered agent, and John D. Richeson and Hope L. Richeson as the Initial Board of Directors.

   
   

3. On January 1, 1986, an additional 500 shares of corporate stock was issued in her name to give her a total of 990 shares out of a total 1,500 shares issued and outstanding. Mrs. Richeson's percentage of ownership, after the issuance of the additional 500 shares, was 66 percent. Share certificates reflect this fact. No additional funds were contributed to the corporate assets by Mrs. Richeson as consideration for the issuance of those shares.

   
   

4. Mrs. Richeson, currently the President of the company, attended Bible College in Kansas for three years, graduating in 1978. She moved to Florida in 1980 where she attended Hillsborough Community College (HCC), taking as many business education courses as she could in pursuit of an Associates Degree in Business. In addition to that, she has taken the Small Business Administration Class offered by the University of South Florida. She married John Richeson in 1982 and they have worked together in the window cleaning business since that time.

   
   

5. After graduating from HCC Mrs. Richeson contacted a family friend, an attorney, for the purpose of incorporating the business. It was at this time she began to run the business. Without asking any questions about the division of duties or the responsibility for leadership in the business, the attorney drafted the incorporation papers making Mr. Richeson the president. Ms. Richeson took the position of vice-president. She admits she did not, at the

   time, understand the ramifications of that action. Had she known the importance of the title, she would not have acquiesced in having her husband made president.

   
   

6. Even though Ms. Richeson was the de-facto head of the business from the time of its expansion from a one-man operation, John D. Richeson served as president of the corporation from inception up to January 1, 1996, when Hope L. Richeson was elected president. At the annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the corporation, held on December 20, 1995, attended by Mr. and Mrs. Richeson, the two directors, the Board recognized Mrs. Richeson's control over the operation of the business since its inception and made her president effective January 1, 1996, when Mr. Richeson, the incumbent, became vice- president

   
   

7. Mrs. Richeson indicates, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that neither she nor her husband had any specific training in order to operate the business. What was most important was a general business sense and a knowledge, gained by reading trade periodicals and from experience, of specific window cleaning products.

   
   

8. Most of the major business contracts obtained by Petitioner come from bids to government entities and corporations. Other than herself, several employees, namely those who were brought into the business because of their experience with large cleaning projects, evaluate prospective jobs and prepare proposals. This proposal is then brought to her for approval before it is submitted to the potential client. These individuals are her husband and the Van Buren brothers. Based on a job costing formula learned in school, Mrs. Richeson then evaluates the bid to determine if it is too low or too high. She determines if the company can do the job for the price quoted.

   
   

9. In addition to bidding, Ms. Richeson claims to oversee every aspect of the business. These functions range from buying office supplies to costing jobs. No one but she has the authority to purchase supplies or equipment other than minor items in an emergency. She also supervises the finances of the operation, determining how earnings are to be distributed and how much corporate officers and employees are to receive as compensation. By her recollection, on several occasions, due to a shortage of liquid funds, she has waived her right to be paid for a particular work period. She claims not to have taken a withdrawal from the corporation for a year, but the corporation's payroll documents reflect otherwise.

   
   

10. The salary of each employee is set by Mrs. Richeson. Employees are paid on a percentage of job income. Those employees who do the high-rise jobs receive 40 percent of the income from those jobs. From her experience in the business, this arrangement for paying washers works far better than paying a straight salary. On the other hand, office personnel are paid on an hourly basis.

    
    

11. In the event the business were to be dissolved due to insolvency, Mrs. Richeson would lose her 66 percent stock interest in the corporation and her husband would lose his 34 percent interest. There are no other owners of the company, and no one other than the Richesons would bear any loss.

    
    

12. Not only can no one but Mrs. Richeson make purchases for the company, even Mr. Richeson cannot sign company checks by himself nor can he pay bills or make any major business decisions. Only she has the authority to borrow money in the name of the corporation. This was not always the case, however. In

    1994, Mr. Richeson purchased a new vehicle for the corporation, signing the finance arrangement as president of the company, but even then, Mrs. Richeson signed as co-buyer. Also, the 1994 unsigned lease agreement for the company's use of real property owned by the Richesons calls for Mr. Richeson to sign as president of the company.

    
    

13. Mrs. Richeson is the only one in the company who has the authority to hire or fire employees. While she believes the company would go out of business if she were not the president, she also believes she would be able easily to hire someone to replace Mr. Richeson if he were to leave the company. These beliefs are confirmed and reiterated by Mr. Richeson who claims that his role in the company from its very beginning has been that of services rather than management.

    
    

14. On August 14, 1995, Mrs. Richeson, who at the time owned 990 of 1,500 shares of corporate stock, filed an application for certification as a minority business enterprise. The application reflected Mrs. Richeson as the owner of a

    66 percent interest in the corporation, but also reflected Mr. Richeson as president. This was before the change mentioned previously

    
    

15. Melissa Leon reviewed this application as a certification office for the Commission in September 1995. She recommended denial of the application on several bases. The Articles of Incorporation submitted with the application reflect the Director of the corporation as John D. and Hope Richeson and list only John Richeson as incorporator in August 1985. The corporate detail record as maintained in the office of the Secretary of State also reflects the resident agent for the corporation is John Richeson.

    
    

16. The corporation's 1993 and 1994 federal income tax returns show John Richeson as 100 percent owner. No minority ownership is indicated. Income tax returns are afforded great weight by the Commission staff in determining ownership. Though Mrs. Richeson claims to own the majority interest in the corporation in her application, the tax returns do not reflect this.

    
    

17. In addition, the corporation payroll summaries for February 28, 1995, March 31, 1995 and April 30, 1995 all show John Richeson receiving more income from the business than did Hope Richeson. In the opinion of Ms. Leon, Mrs. Richeson's salary was not commensurate with her claimed ownership interest. The same records for the last three months of 1995 and through April 1996 reflect Mrs. Richeson as receiving more than Mr. Richeson, however.

    
    

18. Other factors playing a role in Ms. Leon's determination of non- qualification include the fact that the purchase order for the truck reflected Mr. Richeson as president; the lease agreement shows him signing as president; the bank signature card reflects him as president in 1994 and the corporate detail record shows Mrs. Richeson as resident agent by change dated May 14, 1996, after the filing of the application.

    
    

19. Upon receipt of the Petitioner's application, Ms. Leon reviewed the documents submitted therewith and did a telephone interview with Mrs. Richeson. Based on this information and consistent with the guidelines set out in the agency's rules governing certification, (60A-2, F.A.C.), she concluded that the application did not qualify for certification. Not only was the required 51 percent minority ownership not clearly established, she could not determine that the minority owner contributed funds toward the establishment of the business. Ms. Leon determined that the payroll records, reflecting that from February through April 1995, Mrs. Richeson drew less than Mr. Richeson, were not

    consistent with the same records for the period from October 1995 through April 1996, which reflected that Mrs. Richeson was now earning more than her husband. Further, the amount Mrs. Richeson earned constituted only 53.2 percent of the salary while her ownership interest was purportedly 66 percent. A further factor militating toward denial, in Ms. Leon's eyes, was the fact that there were only two directors. Since Mrs. Richeson was one of two, she could not control the Board, and minority directors do not make up a majority of the Board.

    
    

20. While the documents played an important part in Ms. Leon's determination, the telephone interview was also important. Here Ms. Leon found what she felt were many inconsistencies between what was stated in the interview and Mrs. Richeson's testimony at hearing. Therefore, Ms. Leon concluded at the time of her review that the business was jointly owned and operated. It was not sufficiently controlled by the minority party, to qualify for certification. Nothing she heard at hearing would cause her to change her opinion.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

21. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

22. The burden of proof in this matter rests upon Petitioner, Bay Area, which must establish its entitlement to certification by a preponderance of the evidence. Florida Department of transportation v. J. W. C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

    
    

23. The minority business certification program of the State of Florida is controlled by the provisions of Chapter 60A F.A.C. Rule 60A-2.001(14) provides:

    
    

    "Control" means to direct with primacy or cause the direction of all phases of the management and daily operations of the business, including, but not limited to, standard management practices and principles such as policy development, establishment

    of personnel reporting lines and operational procedures, problem solving, etc.

    
    

24. The Department claims that Mrs. Richeson shares major functions with her husband. The uncontroverted evidence of record, however, indicates that Mrs. Richeson makes all major decisions regarding the operation of the business, including the pricing of contracts, the determination of what jobs to bid on and take, the sole discretion to hire and fire, and the purchase of all products for the operation with the exception of minor purchases needed on an emergency basis.

    
    

25. At Rule 60A-2.005(3)(a) and (b), the code provides:

    
    

    An applicant must establish that the minority owners possess the authority to control and exercise dominant control over the management and daily operations of the business.

    1. The discretion of the minority owners shall not be subject to any formal or informal restrictions (including, but not limited to,

       by-law provisions, purchase agreement, employment agreements, partnership agreements, trust agreements or voting rights, whether cumulative or otherwise), which would vary or usurp managerial discretion in the industry.

    2. If the applicant business is a corporation and the business and affairs of the corporation are managed under the direction of a board of directors as provided by the Articles of Incorporation or by-laws of the corporation

       or Section 607.0824, Florida Statutes, a majority of the directors must be minority owners, notwithstanding whether directors

       are required to be elected by a majority vote of the outstanding shares of the corporation.

       
       

26. In this case, the By-laws of the corporation, at Article III, state that the business and affairs of the corporation shall be managed by its Board of Directors. Both Mr. Richeson and Mrs. Richeson are the sole directors of the corporation. It would appear, then, that it would be impossible for Mrs. Richeson, who makes up only 50 percent of the power of the Board, to exercise control over the actions of the Board.

    
    

27. Two other pertinent rule provisions, Rule 60A-2.005(3)(c) and (d) provide:

    
    

    1. The minority owners must exercise sufficient management and technical respon- sibilities and capabilities to maintain control of the business. If the owners of the business who are not minority persons are disproportionately responsible for the

       operations of the business, then the business is not controlled by minority owners.

    2. The control exercised by the minority owners shall be real, substantial and con- tinuing . . .

       1. The minority owners shall control the purchase of goods, equipment, business inventory and services needed in the day-to-day operation of the business. The minority owners' control of purchasing shall be evidence of their know- ledge of products, brands, manufacturers, types of equipment and products and their uses, etc. rather than merely reflective of the minority owner's ministerial execution of the ordering/ acquisition of goods.

    
    

28. Respondent claims Mrs. Richeson does not demonstrate that she exercises sufficient management and technical responsibilities and capabilities to control the business, and that she failed to substantiate that her control is real, substantial and continuing. Only Ms. Leon, the Department's evaluator, who performed her evaluation based on a review of the application file and a telephone interview with Mrs. Richeson, indicated her opinion that Mrs. Richeson did not exercise the requisite control over the business to support certification. Respondent did not in any way offer evidence to refute the testimony of both Mrs. and Mr. Richeson regarding her control of the daily

    operations of the business. Mrs. Richeson admitted that when it came to the contracts for cleaning the windows of high rise buildings she sought the counsel of her husband and their associate who had experience with that type of work.

    
    

29. However, she clearly maintained, and her husband agreed, that the ultimate decision on what work to take, what price to charge, what equipment to buy, what people to hire and fire and every other facet of the corporation's business activity was within her scope of authority and hers alone. She indicated, and there was nothing shown to contradict her, that she read the trade publications relating to window cleaning and through them kept herself abreast of new equipment and products for that work.

    
    

30. With regard to the actual ownership of the business, Rule 60A-2.005(2) provides:

    
    

    An applicant business must satisfy paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) below in order to be considered 51 percent owned by minority persons. The ownership exercised by minority persons shall be real, substantial, and continuing,

    and shall go beyond mere pro forma ownership of the firm as reflected in its ownership documents. In its analysis, the Office may also consider the transferral of ownership percentages with no exchange of capital at fair market value.

    
    

31. From its inception as a corporation in 1985, some six years after Mr. Richeson started the business as a sole proprietorship, ownership of the corporate stock was 51 percent in the name of Mr. Richeson and 49 percent in the name of Mrs. Richeson. The money for the incorporation came from the Richesons' joint assets. In 1986, however, additional stock was issued which resulted in Mrs. Richeson holding a 66 percent ownership interest with Mr. Richeson owning only 34 percent. Even with that change, however, for which no evidence was admitted to indicate any additional capital was provided in consideration by Mrs. Richeson, Mr. Richeson continued as president of the corporation. At hearing, Mrs. Richeson indicated that was an ego salve for Mr. Richeson and did not mean he was actually in control of the business. However, after the application for MBE certification was filed, it became evident that if there was to be any realistic hope of gaining that award, Mrs. Richeson would have to have the title as well as the ownership and authority. The Federal Income Tax Return forms for the corporation for 1993 and 1994 for some reason reflect that Mr. Richeson was 100 percent owner of the shares. These returns were signed by Mrs. Richeson as vice-president. Respondent contends in its Proposed Recommended Order that these tax forms are legally binding, but that is not so.

    
    

32. Respondent refers to the language of Rule 60A-2.005(2)(b) which provides:

    
    

    The minority owners must demonstrate that they share income, earnings and any other benefits from the business concern which

    are accorded to any other owner. The minority owner's share of income, earnings and benefits shall be commensurate with the percentage of their ownership in the business concern, including, but not limited to, salaries,

    draws, bonuses, commissions, insurance coverage, proceeds from business investments

    and properties, profit-sharing, and other benefits.

    
    

33. Payroll records from the company for the months of February through April 1995 reflect that each month Mrs. Richeson received somewhat less than did Mr. Richeson in salary. During the first two months, hers was 86.2 percent of his and in April it was 94.4 percent of his. In July 1995 they both drew the same salary, and starting with October 1995, her salary became more than his, and it remained that way for the rest of the year. Hers became 113.6 percent of his. In December 1995, both drew a bonus of $10,000 each. Since Mrs. Richeson's ownership interest at 66 percent is 194 percent of her husband's 34 percent interest, Respondent claims her salary, at no more than 113.6 percent of his is not commensurate with her ownership percentage. From a strictly percentage standpoint, this is so.

    
    

34. Rule 60A-2.005(2)(c) requires that the minority owner share in all the risks assumed by the firm as demonstrated by her primary role in decision-making and related transaction documents. The sharing in business risk must be commensurate with ownership percentage and the source of investment capital for the firm. In this case, the Richesons indicated the original "bucket and brush" operation Mr. Richeson started in 1979 to put himself through school before they were married required minimal investment. When the corporation was formed in 1985, the money invested in the business as that time came from both. No additional funds of a major nature have been invested since. Consequently, if the business fails, Mrs. Richeson, as 66 percent owner, looses her entire 66 percent. Mr. Richeson looses his entire 34 percent.

    
    

35. Even though, for the purchase of the truck in 1994 Mr. Richeson signed the purchase order as President of the corporation, the bill of sale reflected the corporation and both Richesons as purchaser, and Mrs. Richeson signed as co- buyer. Further, the lease agreement for the property from which the business is carried on, proposed to be executed in 1994 by Mr. Richeson as lessor/landlord, shows the corporation as lessee/tenant. Respondent makes much of the fact that Mr. Richeson was to sign as lessor, yet the unsigned document reflects that both he and Mrs. Richeson were identified as landlords. In any case, it matters not at all who is landlord. The point in issue is who controls the corporation, and the unsigned proposed lease does nothing to clarify that issue since no-one signed for the corporation nor does the document indicate who was to sign for it.

    
    

36. Respondent contends that the provisions of Rule 60A-2.005(3)(d), which provides, in the case of family operated businesses, that where duties, responsibilities and decision-making occurs either jointly and mutually among owners or severally along managerial and operational lines between minority and non-minority owners, the minority owner shall not be considered as controlling the business, prevent Bay Area from qualifying as an MBE. Respondent claims, in the face of the evidence presented by Petitioners and the lack of evidence to contradict it by Respondent, that duties, responsibilities and decision-making occurs jointly and mutually between the Richesons, and that she depends upon him as much as he depends on her for expertise in their respective duties and responsibilities.

    
    

37. As evaluated here, the evidence seems to clearly demonstrate that Mr. Richeson concerns himself with the washing of windows, while Mrs. Richeson is concerned with the operation of the business. She has the technical business training. He has the on-the-job operational experience. It matters not that

    they consult on day to day operations. What is clear is that she runs the business and makes the decisions which he implements. That is what is required.

    
    

38. Rule 60A-2.005(3)(d)1-3 requires that the minority owner control the purchase of goods, equipment, inventory and services; control the hiring and firing of all employees and the setting of employment policies and other employment conditions; and have knowledge and control of all financial affairs of the business. In the instant case, Mrs. Richeson's control of purchasing and the hiring and firing of employees has been shown by the Richesons' uncontroverted testimony. They both have also testified to the fact that she controls the business aspects of the operation, and the two incidents relied upon by Respondent to contradict that, the truck purchase and the lease, fail to do so. To be sure, Mr. Richeson was an authorized signatory on corporation checks until just before the hearing. The bank signature card reflects that a third party, the bookkeeper, Tammi, was also an authorized signatory. The test is who actually controls the business, not who can sign a check.

    
    

39. Respondent also relies upon Rule 60A-2.005(3)(d)5, which requires a minority owner to display independence and initiative in seeking and negotiating contracts to establish that Mrs. Richeson is not in control. It claims her reliance on the advice of her husband and Mr. Van Buren before executing contracts fatally diminishes her authority to operate the business. The evidence of record, however, indicates that she solicits that advice only in the high-rise contracts where Mr. Van Buren's experience and expertise is invaluable. To conclude that the head of a business who is not an attorney cannot seek the advice of counsel, or the head of a major corporation seeking to expand into a new product line cannot seek the advice of a consultant is ingenuous and absurd. A good executive will seek the best counsel wherever it can be found, and to preclude Mrs. Richeson from seeking expert advice when she makes her decisions on soliciting new business at the risk of losing her opportunity for MBE certification is baseless.

    
    

40. Finally, Respondent claims Petitioner has failed to comply with the terms of Rule 60A-2.005(3)(d)6, which requires that the minority owner exercise substantial personal direction and actual involvement with all major aspects of the business. It asserts that Mrs. Richeson's admission that Mr. Richeson and the other corporate employees "function as a small team", is a disqualifying admission that she depends upon them to handle the technical aspects of the business, and that she "does not have any involvement or oversight in the delivery of services." This contention has been alluded to in the discussion above and is without merit.

    
    

41. From the evidence of record, recognizing that consists mainly of the self-serving declarations of the applicant, uncontroverted by any independent evidence by the Respondent, it appears that Mrs. Richeson clearly owns and operates the Petitioner business. She owns in excess of 51 percent of the stock, the funds for which came from her assets as well as those of her husband; she controls the day to day operation of the business relying, when necessary, upon the counsel and advice of those whose expertise in a specific area is greater than hers; she stands the risk of losing her entire investment should the business fail; and she has the authority to commit the corporation to business contracts and purchases when no-one else has that authority.

    
    

42. However, review of the evidence of record demonstrates some troubling inconsistencies. The statute and the rules of the Department define a minority ownership as 51 percent control. The evidence shows that at the time of incorporation, Mr. Richeson got 51 percent of the corporate stocke and Mrs.

    Richeson only 49 percent. This was corrected several years later when, without any indication of a further investment of capital by Mrs. Richeson or a recognition of past services through identification of stock as compensation, she was awarded additional stock to bring her ownership to 66 percent. Had some consideration for that issue been shown, less question would exist as to the validity of the transaction. Questions of its validity are compounded by the unexplained fact that the tax returns of the corporation for 1994 and 1995 both reflect Mr. Richeson as 100 percent owner.

    
    

43. This inconsistency is further compounded by the fact that there are only two directors and only two officers. Mrs. Richeson's stock ownership does not guarantee her ability to control the corporation where there are only two directors and neither is afforded primacy. Though Mrs. Richeson clearly operates the business of the company, the inconsistencies cited above raise substantial questions regarding compliance with the requirements of the statute and rules for certification as an MBE. Taken together, therefore, it cannot be said that Petitioner has carried its burden to establish itself as a minority owned business by a preponderance of the evidence.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order denying Minority Business Enterprise status to Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc.

DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 22nd day of August, 1996.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5913

To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1. Accepted and incorporated herein.

1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein.

1. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the last sentence which is rejected as a legal conclusion. Accepted that she ran the operation.

2. Accepted and incorporated herein.

3. Accepted as a restatement of the testimony of Mrs. Richeson and a generalized agreement with the comments made.

4. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein,

11. - 12. Accepted.

13. - 14. Accepted.

15. - 17. Accepted.

18. - 19. Not proper Finding of Fact, but accepted as a restatement of witness testimony.

20. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein.

22. - 25. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein.

1. Rejected as contradicted by the evidence.

2. Accepted and incorporated herein.

3. Accepted that until after the application was filed, Mr. Richeson was paid more than Mrs. Richeson, but the difference was not great.

4. Accepted and incorporated herein.

5. Accepted and incorporated herein.

6. Rejected as not consistent with the evidence of record except for the allegation concerning Mr. Richeson's authority to sign corporate checks, which is accepted and incorporated herein.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Miriam L. Sumpter, Esquire

2700 North Dale Mabry Avenue, Suite 208 Tampa, Florida 33607

Joseph L. Shields, Esquire

Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast

Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189

Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary

Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast

Hartman Building, Suite 303 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152

Edward A. Dion, General Counsel

Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast

Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189

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.

Docket for Case No: 95-005913

Orders for Case No: 95-005913