STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PINELLAS COUNTY CONSTRUCTION ) LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 98-1284

)

WILLIAM L. CRUMP, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in this case in Largo, Florida, on June 30, 1998, before Arnold H. Pollock, an Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: William J. Owens

Executive Director

Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board

11701 Belcher Road

Suite 102

Largo, Florida 33773-5116

For Respondent: William L. Crump, pro se

2112-J Sunnydale Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33765

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s certification as an electrical contractor should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

By Administrative Complaint dated February 26, 1998, William J. Owens, Executive Director of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, advised the Respondent, William L. Crump, Jr., of the Board’s intention to discipline his certification as an electrical contractor, because he did

electrical work which required the obtaining of a permit from the City of St. Petersburg without obtaining the required permit, in violation of Sections 24(2)(d)(j),(m) and (n), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended. Respondent demanded formal hearing on the allegations and this hearing ensued.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Jay B. Windsor, owner of the property where the work in issue was done; and Melvin E. Hill, a supervisor of inspections, construction services and permitting division, for the City of St. Petersburg. Petitioner also introduced Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 3.

Respondent testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of his son and business associate, Todd William Crump. Respondent also introduced Respondent’s Exhibit A.

No transcript was furnished. Subsequent to the hearing, both parties submitted matters in writing which were carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the

   Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board was the county agency responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, William L. Crump, Jr., was certified as an electrical contractor under license C-1217 (ER003415), and was on record as qualifying contractor for Crump Electrical Service, which he owned.

2. On September 25, 1997, a representative of Crump Electrical Services submitted a Proposal to Mrs. Christina Windsor, wife of the complaining witness herein, for the upgrading of the electrical panel in the Windsor’s home to 200 amperes. The price quoted for this service was $875.00. Small print on the proposal form indicates that permit fees, if required, are in addition to the cost cited. That same day, September 25, 1997, Mrs. Windsor authorized the work to be done.

3. The work was done as called for. Respondent claims the proposal was made and the work done in response to an emergency call from the Windsors. September 25, 1997, was a Thursday. The city permitting office was open and a permit could have been obtained. No permit for the work was pulled at the time by either the Windsors or Respondent. Mr. Crump was of the opinion that because the Windsors had no power, the work should be done immediately without the delay of getting a permit. Though, he claims, he did not know of it at the time, he has subsequently learned that at the time in issue, the city had a policy whereby, in an emergency situation, a contractor could call in and get

   oral permission to do work requiring a permit, subsequently paying for and receiving the written permit. This was not done by either the Windsors or the Respondent.

4. Mr. Crump did not pull the required permit after the work was done, or cause it to be pulled by an employee, because of the provision in the proposal form that the property owner was responsible for the cost of the permit. He claims to have advised the Windsors of the need for the permit and believed they had pulled it. The Windsors did not provide him with the extra funds for the permit and did not advise him they had not, or would not, obtain the permit. Though required, at no time was the permit pulled.

5. Mr. Crump’s son and business associate, Todd Crump, contends that the real dispute in this issue relates not to whether the required permit was obtained, but to the Crumps’ failure to provide a statement as to the actual cause of the fire which necessitated the placement of the new electrical panel in the Windsor’s house. Todd contends that after talking with Mr. Dennison, the company’s representative who obtained the purchase order, shortly after the work was done, he got the impression the Windsors were going to obtain the permit. He did not find out that the permit had not been pulled until a month or so after he turned the request for the above-mentioned cause statement over to his father. Todd admits he should have followed up to see if the permit was pulled, but did not.

6. Subsequent to the hearing, Mr. Crump filed a statement denying any intentional wrongdoing, and indicating his intent to give up his “personal business.” It is not known just what the term “personal business“ means. He claims that over the years he has donated significant amounts of professional service to the homeless and other needy persons in his area, but has ceased doing so because of the actions of the Board in attempting to discipline him. He contends the charges against him are unjustified and unwarranted and he implies there is a vendetta against him by the Executive Director of the Board. No independent evidence of this was presented.

7. In a submittal subsequent to hearing, the Board Director recommended imposition of the maximum administrative fine of

   $1,000, a reprimand, and a one-year probation period with the requirement to file monthly reports on all work contracted.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

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

9. In a one-count Administrative complaint, dated February 26, 1998, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board seeks to discipline Respondent’s certification as an

   electrical contractor because, it is alleged, he contracted with a homeowner to do electrical work which required the issuance of a permit from the city, did the work required by the contract and

   was paid therefor, and failed to obtain the required permit before beginning work, as required by Sections 24(2)(d),(j),(m), and (n), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended.

10. The cited provision lists as bases for disciplinary action:

    (d) Willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, this board, or of any municipality or county of this state;

    
    

    (j) Failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this part;

    
    

    1. Being found guilty of fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting;

       
       

    2. Proceeding on any job without obtaining local building permits and inspections.

    
    

11. The burden of proof in this matter rests with the Petitioner which must establish Respondent’s guilt of the offenses by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

12. In the instant case the evidence shows, and Respondent admits, he did not obtain the required permit from the City of St. Petersburg either before starting or immediately after completing the work on the Windsor’s property. Because the work was of an emergency nature, Respondent could have called in advance to secure verbal authority to proceed, accomplished the required work, and then obtained the required permit immediately after the work was completed. His reliance on the fine print

    provision of the work order that obtaining the permit would be at a cost in addition to the work performed does not relieve him of responsibility as the construction professional to insure that the work was properly permitted. He could have obtained the permit and billed the homeowner afterwards.

13. Petitioner seeks to impose the maximum allowable penalty for the proven infraction. Ordinarily the maximum penalty is reserved for those cases in which serious violations are shown to have occurred, and this is not such a case.

1. Respondent’s failure to obtain the required permit constituted a violation of Sections 24(d),(j),(m), and (n), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended.

2. Were the issue one only of Respondent’s failure to obtain a permit, clearly the maximum penalty would not be appropriate. Here, however, it appears Respondent tried to obtain funds in addition to those to which he was legally and reasonably entitled for the work accomplished. This constitutes aggravation of the offense and justifies a more serious penalty.

3. Respondent is entitled to recognition for the pro bono work he has done in the past. However, those good deeds do not offset the serious nature of the misconduct here. A penalty, including an administrative fine and the other elements sought by Petitioner, is appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order imposing on Respondent William L. Crump, Jr., an administrative fine of $500.00 and a reprimand, and placing Respondent’s license on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as the Board may proscribe.

DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6947

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1998.

COPIES FURNISHED:

William J. Owens Executive Director

Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board

11701 Belcher Road

Suite 102

Largo, Florida 33773-5116

William L. Crump, Jr.

2112-J Sunnydale Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 34625

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of 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: 98-001284

Orders for Case No: 98-001284