Findings Of Fact The Petitioner completed an academic program in accounting at the University of South Florida in March, 1976. She applied to sit for the May, 1976 Certified Public Accountant's examination, and paid her fee. There are four sections to the examination: Auditing, Law, Theory, and Practice. At the May, 1976 examination the Petitioner passed the Law section, but failed the sections on Auditing, Theory and Practice. Accordingly, under the Board's rules, the Petitioner was not credited with having passed any sections of the examination, and needed to take the entire test again. She applied to sit for the November, 1976 examination, paid her application fee, and sat for the examination. On this occasion she passed the Theory and Practice sections of the examination but failed the Auditing and Law sections. Under the Board's rules the Petitioner at this juncture was credited with having passed the Theory and Practice sections, and would be allowed to sit for the next three consecutive examinations in order to pass the remaining two sections. She applied to sit for the May, 1977 examination, paid her fee and sat for the examination. She passed the Law section and failed Auditing. At this juncture she needed to pass only the Auditing section, and had two examinations within which to accomplish that. She applied to sit for the November, 1977 examination. The deadline for making application was September 1, 1977. The Petitioner, through her own mistake, was lake in making application, and her application was rejected. She was not permitted to sit for the November examination. She did timely apply for the May, 1978 examination. She again failed the Auditing section with a score of 69. Under the Board's rule her application for certification as a CPA was considered she would need to being again the testing process, without being credited with having passed any sections. She applied for a regrading of the May, 1978 examination. The examination was regraded, but her score was not changed. The Petitioner is seeking, through this proceeding, an opportunity to retake the Auditing section of the examination, while continuing to receive credit for having passed the Law, Theory, and Practice sections. Under the Board's interpretation of its rules, she would not receive credit for having passed the sections, but would need to begin the testing procedure as a new applicant.
Findings Of Fact Leslie H. Roth is a licensed CPA in the State of Florida, holding License No. R0004593. He was employed by the CPA firm of Rachlin & Cohen from December 2, 1974, through August 26, 1977. During that period of employment he was paid a salary plus a commission based upon the number of clients he brought to the firm and the fees he generated. The Respondent left that firm on August 26, 1977, and became an employee of Holiday Inn at Calder Race Course in Miami. Upon leaving the firm of Rachlin & Cohen the Respondent signed acknowledgements disclosing the status of the clients' work to which he had been assigned and the related amount of money owed to the firm. When he left that firm, the firm owed him no additional commissions or salaries. The Respondent failed to remit to Rachlin & Cohen the fees collected from their clients for whom he had performed services and when Rachlin & Cohen attempted to collect those fees some of the clients claimed they had already paid the Respondent. Rachlin & Cohen, therefore, filed suit in circuit court and obtained a judgment against the Respondent in the amount of $550 representing the firm's fees collected by the Respondent. In early 1978, while working as a CPA for Holiday Inn at Calder Race Course, the Respondent prepared some unaudited financial statements in order to help the business maintain or keep a loan with a financial institution. These unaudited financial statements are required to comply with applicable generally accepted accounting principles and auditing standards. They contained a technical deficiency because the Respondent failed to disclose an aggregate future minimum lease payment and a potential deficiency in that the notation that the statements were "before final year-end adjustments" did not disclose whether material adjustment needed to be made. The Respondent also was shown to have performed the service of filing a "1120-SK-1 form" for Pro-Management, Inc., while Pro-Management, Inc., was a client of Rachlin & Cohen. Filing s such a form is normally the duty of the regularly retained accounting firm for that company. The Respondent's "reestablishment period" for his CPA license was 1977 through 1979. He was required to file yearly continuing professional education reports related to his reestablishment period. These were due by January 15, of each following year, reporting on his level of compliance with continuing professional education (CPE) requirements for the preceding year. In 1977, when the period started, the CPE requirements were 30 hours per year, with at least 8 hours of accounting and auditing. If not completed the first year and any time during the 3-year period, he would have to completed 120 hours of CPE courses, including at least 32 hours of accounting and auditing. In October, 1977, the law changed and licensees could choose to complete the old requirements or the new ones which were 24 hours per year including at least 64 hours of auditing and accounting, but licensees could not use a combination of those. If a licensee files such a form substantially late it must be accompanied by a verification of attendance at the subject CPE courses. The CPA is also required to maintain documentation of CPE courses attended for 3 years following his reestablishment period. The Respondent filed a CPE education report for 1977 on January 1, 1978. It was reviewed and returned February 1, 1978, with a letter by the Board explaining that the Respondent had reported one course incorrectly for "accounting and auditing" when it was only half-approved for that category. He also was informed by the Board that he reported 7 hours of accounting and auditing credit for Dade County, Florida Institute of CPA Monthly Meetings, but with no dates and no titles of sessions attended. The Respondent returned the 1977 form to the Board's office January 7, 1980, along with the 1978-1979 CPE report forms, approximately 2 years late with regard to the 1977 form and 1 year late with regard to the 1978 reporting period. The forms filed by the Respondent reflected that in 1977 he had obtained 22 hours of accounting and auditing and 34 hours total CPE. He still supplied no dates for the meetings of the Dade County Chapter of FICPA, nor had he apportioned hours properly. He reported 15 hours accounting and auditing and 37 hours total CPE for 1878, but again he included FICPA monthly meetings for 4 hours of his accounting and auditing requirement and 4 hours for "other." Under the category "Accountants for Public Interest," he reported 3 hours accounting and auditing and 10 hours "other," but with no itemization of the programs attended on his 1979 form. The 1979 form was, however, timely filed. The hours reported by the Respondent which were verified still did not fulfill the continuing professional education requirements imposed by the Board for the years involved. The staff of the Board attempted to notify the Respondent of the deficiencies in his reporting and requested verification of his courses attended. The Board received no response from the Respondent. In view of his lack of response and the deficiency in reporting CPE courses attended, the Continuing Education Committee recommended to the Board of Accountancy that the Respondent's license be reverted to inactive status. The Respondent was accordingly notified on March 1, 1980, that his continuing professional education appeared deficient and he was given 30 days to correct the situation. The Respondent did not respond and on May 1, 1980, he was informed by the Continuing Professional Education Committee that it would recommend to the Board that it relegate his license to inactive status. On July 30, 1980, the Respondent was sent another letter with essentially the same information giving him an additional period of time to resolve his difficulty. Finally, at the August, 1980, meeting of the Board of Accountancy the reversion to inactive status was accomplished. The Respondent's license has thus legally been inactive since August 20 of 1980. Since May of 1980, to the date of the hearing, the Respondent has been employed by Gerson, Preston & Co., a CPA firm, where he has utilized his accounting skills and worked as a staff accountant. He has thus practiced as a CPA since August 20, 1980.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Leslie H. Roth, be found guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint herein and that his License No. ROOO4593 be placed in a suspended status for 3 months from the date of the final order herein; that his licensure then be returned to active status, but that he be placed on probation for 3 years and be required to complete 120 hours of continuing professional education, including at least 32 hours of accounting and auditing and that he be fined the sum of $1,000. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of October, 1981. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Leslie H. Roth Post Office Box 9174 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33024
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a certified public accountant licensed in the State of Pennsylvania, having been licensed in 1961. The Petitioner is seeking licensure as a certified public accountant in Florida pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.308(3)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21A-29.01(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, that is, he seeks licensure in Florida by endorsement based upon his Pennsylvania licensure without the necessity for taking the Florida examination. At the time of the Petitioner's initial licensing in the State of Pennsylvania in 1961 he met Florida's requirements in the areas of education and experience. The Petitioner currently holds a valid license in Pennsylvania and is licensed in other states. The Board of Accountancy reviewed the Petitioner's application and determined that he met the Florida requirements for education and experience and that he was administered the same examination in Pennsylvania in 1961 that was administered in Florida in 1961, the uniform certified public accountancy examination administered by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The Board determined, however, in its non-final order, that the Petitioner did not receive grades on that examination administered in Pennsylvania that would have constituted passing grades in Florida and denied his application. The rules of the Board require that an applicant for licensure as a certified public accountant receive a grade of 75 or above on all parts of an examination administered by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. See Rule 2IA-28.05(2)(3), Florida Administrative Code. The rules in effect in 1961 also required that a grade of 75 or above be received on all four subjects of the examination in order to achieve licensure in Florida. See Rules of the State Board of Accountancy Relative to Examinations and the Issuance and Revocation of Certificates, Rule 1(f). See also Section 473.10, Florida Statutes (1961). The requirement that applicants for licensure by endorsement receive grades on all four areas of the AICPA Exam of 75 or better has been enforced in Florida since the 1930's and has been a requirement embodied in the rules of the Board since 1949. In February, 1961, the Pennsylvania Board of Accountancy, pursuant to a resolution enacted for insular reasons of its own, determined to accept as passing the Petitioner's and other candidates' scores in the Law and Practice portions of the AICPA licensure examination, even though those grades were below the score of 75. The Board thus deemed that the Petitioner passed the examination for purposes of licensure in Pennsylvania with a score of "75" by fiat, even though in fact the Petitioner did not receive an actual score of 75 in those two subject areas as determined by the AICPA which administered and graded the examination. The acceptance of the lower grade on the part of the Pennsylvania Board was not done pursuant to a regrading of the Petitioner's exam in an attempt to correct mistakes or errors in the AICPA's finding regarding his score, but was rather simply due to an arbitrary determination by the Pennsylvania Board that for the Petitioner and certain other Pennsylvania applicants the lower grade in that particular instance would be considered as passing. The Petitioner had no knowledge that the Pennsylvania Board had taken this action in arbitrarily upgrading his scores on two portions of the exam so that he passed the entire exam until he began his application process with the Florida State Board of Accountancy in September, 1980. During its investigation of the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement, the Florida Board of Accountancy ascertained that the Petitioner had in fact received grades of 65 in the Law and Practice pertions of the Uniform AICPA Examination which were then subsequently arbitrarily raised by resolution of the Pennsylvania Board. The Florida Beard has at no time accepted as passing grades for a licensure examination those grades by applicants of less than 75 on the AICPA examination. It is true that prior to the Florida Board's becoming aware, in 1973, of the fact that Pennsylvania had arbitrarily raised some grades of its applicants, it did in fact accept some similarly situated candidates for licensure by endorsement in Florida. After becoming aware at that time of this arbitrary grade-raising process, the Board has consistently refused licensure to applicants from other states who actually received less than 75 on the AICPA Examination as determined by the AICPA. For considerations of equity and fairness the Board did, however, allow candidates who had already been licensed in Florida by endorsement prior to the Board's becoming aware of this anomaly to retain their licenses. Since the Petitioner failed to meet the AICPA examination requirement of a grade of 75 or better on all portions of the examination which was set forth and adopted in the Florida rules and statutes in effect at the time of his licensure in Pennsylvania in 1961, his request for licensure by endorsement was denied by the Board's non-final order on December 8, 1980.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED that the denial of the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement by the Board of Accountancy of the State of Florida be upheld and that the petition be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 22nd day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 5, 1999, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The Respondent maintains that the instant action is barred by laches and violates Section 455.225, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of certified public accountants licensed within the state. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Robert Jarkow, has been licensed in Florida as a certified public accountant, license number AC0010963. On or about December 1996, the Respondent orally agreed to provide accounting services for an individual named Kasman who was doing business as Traditions Workshop, Inc. (Traditions). Traditions manufactured uniforms and listed the federal government among its clients. Revenues to the company from the sale of uniforms were presumably posted in accordance with written contracts. Although the Respondent participated in the monthly completion of financial records for the company, the exact description of his responsibilities for the company and the individual are not known. It is undisputed that Ms. Kasman asked the Respondent to provide a financial statement for the company as part of an effort to secure a line of credit from a bank in New York. It is also undisputed that Ms. Kasman refused to pay for the statement. According to the Respondent, based upon that refusal, he declined to prepare the instrument. Nevertheless, a document entitled "Financial Statements" was generated with a notation "MANAGEMENT USE ONLY-NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION." The Respondent maintains that the document was not prepared as a financial report and that if generated using his data disk it was done without any intention on his part for the product being used to secure a line of credit. The document did not comply with provisions of accounting practice. The Respondent admitted that when his relationship with the party deteriorated, and payment for services was not rendered, he did not release information to a succeeding accountant. Ms. Kasman needed the information, depreciation schedules, in order to accurately complete tax records for Traditions. The Respondent attempted to locate Ms. Kasman and her bookkeeper for hearing but was unable to do so. Ms. Kasman filed a complaint with the Petitioner against the Respondent that was not investigated until several months after it was filed. The Respondent obtained a civil judgment against Traditions for unpaid accounting fees. The Administrative Complaint filed in this case was submitted over a year after the consumer complaint. Neither party presented testimony from the complainant, her bookkeeper, or her succeeding accountant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding the Respondent violated Rule 61H1-23.002, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in Count II of the Administrative Code; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000; and placing the Respondent on probation for one year subject to terms as may be specified by the Board of Accountancy. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 4th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Victor K. Rones, Esquire Law Offices of Rones & Navarro 16105 Northeast 18th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Martha Willis, Division Director Division of Certified Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 240 Northwest 76 Drive, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1993).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1993). Respondent employed Petitioner, a black female, in March of 1980 as a Clerk-Typist II. Over the years, Petitioner worked in the position of Secretary II, Clerk-Typist Specialist, and Secretary Specialist. Petitioner held the position of Administrative Secretary when she filed her Petition for Relief in September of 1996. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was working as a Staff Assistant. In September of 1992, Otto Hough became the Accounting Services Director in Respondent’s Office of Financial Management. He was responsible for several sections including General Accounting, Accounts Receivable, Accounting Systems and Procedures, and Contract Administration. The Office of Financial Management lost eleven (11) of eighty-eight (88) employees due to reorganization of the agency in the early months of 1993. One of the positions that Respondent eliminated was the Staff Assistant position assigned directly to Mr. Hough’s office. As Accounting Services Director, Mr. Hough had the authority to recommend position reclassifications and pay additives for employees in the Office of Financial Management. One of his initial objectives was seek higher pay classifications for as many positions as possible. In 1993, Petitioner worked as an Administrative Secretary in the General Accounting section of Respondent’s Office of Financial Management. Her direct supervisor was the Finance and Accounting Director, a position held by a career service employee. Mr. Hough developed a job reclassification package that impacted about sixty (60) full time positions in the spring of 1993. As a part of that package, Mr. Hough recommended an upgrade of Petitioner’s position from Administrative Secretary to Staff Assistant. He made similar requests for two other Administrative Secretaries. Linda Ball, a black female, worked as an Administrative Secretary in the Accounts Receivable section. Rita Cook, a white female, worked as an Administrative Secretary in the Accounting Systems and Procedure section. The agency’s Comptroller, Personnel Office, and Program Advisory Council approved Mr. Hough’s recommendations to reclassify most of the positions. However, they declined to upgrade the Administrative Secretary positions because the agency’s rules required a select exempt employee to supervise Staff Assistants. In this case, a career service employee supervised all three Administrative Secretaries. Mr. Hough advised the Administrative Secretaries that he would seek a special pay increase for them. Linda Ball subsequently vacated her position as an Administrative Secretary when she transferred to Respondent’s office in Tampa. Her transfer left only Petitioner and Rita Cook occupying the positions of Administrative Secretary. In late 1993 or early 1994, Mr. Hough physically relocated Ms. Cook to his work area. He moved her work station into his office because he lacked secretarial support. At the time, he was officially serving as Accounting Services Director. However, he also acted as Accounting Staff Director for Revenue Management, Financial Support Director, and Comptroller. Except for the position of Accounting Services Director, all of these positions were vacant from March through June of 1994. After her relocation, Ms. Cook continued to occupy the position of Administrative Secretary in the Accounting Systems and Procedure section. She performed eighty (80) percent of her work for that section. The rest of her time was spent providing secretarial support to Mr. Hough. Ms. Cook’s relocation made her position eligible for reclassification from Administrative Secretary to Staff Assistant because Mr. Hough was a select exempt employee. Petitioner had more seniority in time than Ms. Cook. Nevertheless, Ms. Cook was more qualified than Petitioner to work in the office of the Accounting Services Director because of her prior experience in the Accounting Systems and Procedure section. Ms. Cook possessed more expertise and knowledge about Respondent’s district offices. She was familiar with the interaction between the district fiscal offices and the central office in Tallahassee. Mr. Hough was aware that Petitioner did not want to relocate from General Accounting to Accounting Systems and Procedure before he relocated Ms. Cook to his office. In February and May of 1994, Mr. Hough gave Petitioner the opportunity to move upstairs to work in the Accounting Systems and Procedures section. A lateral transfer to a position in that office would have allowed Petitioner to gain knowledge and experience similar to Ms. Cook’s. However, Petitioner declined the offer. She decided to stay downstairs in General Accounting and wait for a position reclassification or a special pay increase. The work environment in the General Accounting section was less stressful than the Accounting Systems and Procedures section. The latter had the additional pressure of interacting with the Deputy Secretary of Administration and Budget. It also was involved with the flow of information to the Legislature. Toward the end of the 1993-1994 fiscal year, Respondent’s Deputy Secretary of Administration selected Glenda Guess as the new Comptroller. The Deputy Secretary directed Mr. Hough to arrange for Ms. Guess to have the level of staff that she was expecting when she came "on board." Pursuant to this directive, Mr. Hough realigned the duties of staff in the offices of the Comptroller and the Accounting Services Director. On June 8, 1994, Mr. Hough approved a reclassification of Ms. Cook’s position from Administrative Secretary to Staff Assistant. Mr. Hough signed the Request for Payroll Action form as the Respondent’s Acting Comptroller. On June 10, 1994, Glenda Guess became Respondent’s Director of Financial Management/Comptroller. The "promotion due to reclassification" resulted in a five (5) percent pay raise for Ms. Cook. She began to devote one hundred (100) percent of her time to duties within the office of the Accounting Services Director. In 1994 and 1995, the agency was in the process of decentralizing its functions. In the short run, this process required the central office to perform additional functions until the district offices could assume those responsibilities. In 1995, Respondent closed the Jacksonville office, phased out twenty-nine (29) positions, and brought the child welfare voucher system into General Accounting at the Tallahassee office. When this change occurred, Petitioner assumed the additional duty of controlling the inflow of documents for the child welfare vouchering system from all the districts. As Petitioner’s responsibilities increased, she and Mr. Hough discussed the possibility of changing her classification from Administrative Secretary to some type of accounting position. However, Petitioner preferred to remain in the secretarial/clerical niche and not seek a position with an accounting orientation. In April of 1995, Mr. Hough sent Ms. Guess a memorandum requesting a ten (10) percent "pay additive for additional duties" for Petitioner. Ms. Guess denied the request because it was not in the correct format. Additionally, she thought a three-to-five percent increase was a more appropriate raise for employees assuming additional duties. At that time, Respondent’s ability to provide pay increases for additional duties was a new concept. Ms. Guess was not aware of a precedent for a ten (10) percent pay increase for additional duties. In May of 1995, Mr. Hough revised Petitioner’s position description to reflect Petitioner’s additional duties. On May 16, 1995, Mr. Hough again requested a ten (10) percent pay additive for Petitioner. He felt the salary increase was justified because Petitioner handled the Child Welfare Vouchering System input documents, as well as the reconciliation documentation from the districts each month. According to Mr. Hough, these additional duties were beyond the scope of Petitioner’s normal tasks as an Administrative Secretary. On May 25, 1995, Petitioner wrote Mr. Hough a memorandum to advise that she would not be satisfied with a three-to-five percent raise. She demanded a ten (10) percent salary increase. Petitioner sent Ms. Guess a copy of the memorandum. On May 31, 1995, Ms. Guess properly denied the second request for Petitioner’s salary additive for the following reasons: (a) the additional duties were of a clerical nature; (b) the additional duties did not require Petitioner to work overtime except for her involvement in year-end closing; (c) Petitioner’s salary was in line with other clerical positions in the Office of Financial Management; (d) funds for pay increases were insufficient to raise the salary of every employee in the Office of Financial Management who were performing additional duties; and (e) a raise of three-to-four percent was more in line with raises given to employees in Respondent’s Office of General Services for assuming additional duties. On or about June 25, 1995, Ms. Guess learned that funds were available for pay increases based on added duties and/or sustained superior achievement. The next day, Ms. Guess sent the Deputy Secretary for Administration a request for pay increases for the following: (a) Melissa Pugh, white female, 7.5 percent for sustained superior achievement and added duties; Beverly Smith, white female, 5 percent for added duties; Kimmie Canfield, white female, 10 percent for added duties and superior performance; (d) Gail Kruger, white female, 5 percent for superior performance; (e) Cindy Philips, white female, 5 percent for superior performance; (f) Barbara Huskey, white female, 5 percent for superior performance; (g) Sonja Bradwell, black female, 5 percent for superior performance; and (h) Petitioner, 5 percent for additional duties. Ms. Canfield worked for Respondent as Staff Assistant to the Financial Support Director for approximately seven months as of June 26, 1995. Her 10 percent raise was due in part to her salary being substantially below the salary of other support staff. Petitioner’s salary remained higher than Ms. Canfield’s even though she was in a more responsible position. Petitioner’s performance evaluations for 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 indicate that she was an above-average employee. She performed her duties in a timely manner with little or no supervision. She willingly assisted her co-workers when they needed help. However, Petitioner’s performance was not superior. Therefore, Ms. Guess properly did not consider awarding Petitioner more than a five (5) percent pay increase for sustained superior performance in June of 1995.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Curley R. Doltie, Esquire Post Office Box 1325 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sandra R. Coulter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 1 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following factual findings. Respondent, at times material hereto, was actively licensed to practice public accounting in the State of Florida, such license issued by the Petitioner, Board of Accountancy, Department of Professional Regulation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondent has been issued license number AC 5470. After becoming licensed as a certified public accountant, Respondent met Ronald Demon, another CPA, while both were employed with a national "Big 8" public accounting firm in Miami--Pete, Marwick and Mitchell. Thereafter, they became social friends and worked for each other at various times performing per diem work for each other. (TR 165, 167) Respondent's first contact with the Housing Authority for the City of Dania was in 1981 when he performed the two-year audit for the Authority on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), thereafter becoming the fee accountant for that Authority on a monthly retainer. For the succeeding two years as fee accountant, Respondent provided the Authority's monthly accounting information, posting to the general ledger, cash disbursements, bank reconciliations and filing the required reports to HUD. Respondent had limited involvement with classifying bank checks for purposes of posting to the general ledger. In 1983, another two-year audit of the Dania Housing Authority was required to be performed and Respondent submitted a proposal to the Housing Authority to perform same. That proposal was rejected by HUD on the basis of contract and rule provisions that the contracting CPA not have provided accounting or bookkeeping services for the Housing Authority during the period covered by the audit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pages 8, 10) Upon HUD' s rejection of his engagement proposal on behalf of the Housing Authority, Respondent contacted another CPA, Bernard Koon, seeking his submission of an engagement proposal to HUD. Koon's proposal was rejected by HUD based upon the high price quoted for his audit services. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pages 8-11) Koon and Respondent had agreed to an arrangement whereby Koon would sign the accountant's report and financial statements of the audit in question, after performance of the work by Respondent and his staff for an agreed fee of $1000. (TR 60; Petitioner's Exhibit 2, pages 11-12) When Koon's engagement proposal was rejected, Respondent contacted Ronald Demon concerning the audit engagement for the Dania Housing Authority. Ronald Demon was then working as a full-time accountant with the City of Miami. At the time, Demon was performing 4 other audit engagements other than his full- time position with the City of Miami, a practice which appears to be fairly common among accountants. Demon was asked by Respondent to contact the Executive Director of the Housing Authority, Frank W. Peterman. Respondent also related to Demon his availability to assist him (Demon) in performing the audit engagement, if Demon needed, which offer was based upon the fact that Respondent knew that Demon was working in a full-time employment relationship. Respondent told Demon that the contract amount would be approximately $4500 which was $500 less than the amount Respondent had proposed, and which proposal had been rejected by HUD. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pages 7, 10-15) Respondent advised Demon that to earn a stated portion of that fee, $500 of the $4500, he would merely have to sign the audit report. Respondent would be in charge of conducting all field work, preparation of the audit report and all other related work with Demon having no day to day involvement concerning preparation of the accountant's report and related financial statements. After Demon contacted the Authority's Executive Director, Respondent prepared for his (Demon's) signature, the engagement proposal which was signed in the parking lot of a Denny's Restaurant at 36th Street and Biscayne Boulevard in North Miami and Respondent later either mailed or hand-delivered the engagement proposal to the Housing Authority offices. Respondent admits that he informed the Executive Director of the Authority of Demon's availability, the fact that he was a CPA and that he was black. Unknown to Respondent, Demon was an inactive licensee at that time. Shortly after Demon's contract proposal was submitted to the Authority, it was awarded to him and, at that time, Demon and Respondent had reached an agreement wherein, as stated earlier, the field work in preparation of the audit report and related finances would be prepared by Respondent and his staff for subsequent signature by Demon. Respondent characterized their agreement as one whereby he was the "orchestrator" of the engagement for financial review and approval of the reports by Demon. (TR 170; Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pages 22-24) Respondent's accounting firm employed two accountants, who were not CPAs, to perform the field work for the subject audit report. Respondent's involvement consisted initially of planning the audit with the staffers and providing them a copy of HUD's Audit Guide. These employees of Respondent were not known by Demon nor did he (Demon) engage in any of the initial planning of the field work; provided no written instructions, audit programming or scheduling of the work plans for completion of the field work. Respondent's supervision of his staff for the subject audit was limited, consisting primarily of being available to answer specific questions they had, a visit to the job site and performed the initial review of work papers that were generated by the staff. After his initial review of the work papers, Respondent submitted the work papers and a draft of the financial statements and accountant report to Demon for his approval and signature. After at least a two-week period, Respondent contacted Demon to ask if there were any problems with his submittal to him whereupon Demon signed and returned the papers to Miller with only grammatical changes in the management letter which accompanied the report and finances, and the submittal was typed in final form on Demon's letterhead by Respondent's office staff. Respondent was unaware that Demon did not review the accountant's report or related financial statements. Demon considered that his agreement for the fee with Miller did not entail that duty and he relied upon Respondent's prior knowledge and experience, supervision and review of the work performed to correct any problems with the report. Upon submission of the audit report to HUD, a check was sent payable to Ronald Demon for $2250 or half of the $4500 engagement fee, with the remainder of the fee to be remitted when the audit report was approved by the client. That fee was first obtained by Miller who called Demon and arranged to meet him at Respondent's bank for negotiation of the check. Respondent had already stamped the check payable to Demon with his deposit stamp and Demon signed above the stamp and Respondent thereafter deposited that check into his (Respondent's) account. Respondent then gave Demon a check for $250 which represented half of the agreed fee. (Deposition testimony of Ronald Demon) HUD rejected the audit report signed by Demon and engaged the services of a public accounting firm--Deloitte, Haskins and Sells to perform another audit. Upon rejection of the audit report, but prior to the employment of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, Respondent, Demon and Executive Director Peterman met to confer on the matter to seek a resolution of the situation. Neither Respondent nor Demon corrected the deficiency cited in the HUD report requiring HUD to employ another public accounting firm to complete the audit. Respondent did not return to HUD the monies received by him. Demon remitted to HUD all the monies paid to either him or Respondent. (TR 49, 51) Marlyn Felsing, CPA, was received as an expert in these proceedings in the areas of public accounting with specific emphasis on audited financial statements and related accountant's reports and work papers. Felsing has had extensive experience in auditing and has been engaged on behalf of the Petitioner and others in numerous peer reviews of accounting firms. Without regard to the arrangement between Respondent and Demon, both individuals, as certified public accountants, are responsible for practicing public accounting in accordance with generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting. Respondent was required to comply with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted accounting standards in preparation of the audit report for Dania Housing Authority. Rules 21A-20.07; 20.08 and 21A-21.02 and 21A-21.03, Florida Administrative Code. (TR 88, 92, and 94) As an assistant to the auditor (Demon), Respondent, as required by the standards on auditing services, was responsible for the work performed. Respondent acknowledged his accountability under published standards and generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice. (TR 204- 206) Felsing completed an investigative report and analysis of the field audit conducted by Respondent's staff and noted specific departures from generally accepted accounting principles and auditing standards and generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice within the questioned audit report. They are, in summary, as follows: Violation of the "independence" requirements; Failure to exercise professional care respecting his review of staff work; Failure to adequately plan and assist staff in completion of field work and the supervision thereof; Failure to maintain safety of the work papers (the work papers have disappeared); Failure to refer to prior years' audit reports demonstrating a lack of consistency; and Failure to delineate footnote disclosures, improper labeling of financial statements, failure to disclose conflicts between the re- quirements of the HUD Audit Guide and generally accepted and prevailing standards of account- ing practice including the published generally accepted accounting principles and auditing standards. Felsing found it especially troublesome and a violation of the HUD requirements on independence based on Respondent's conduct based on his engagement with Demon in performing the auditing services in violation of generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting and auditing practice. Rule 21A-22.01, Florida Administrative Code. Finally, Felsing noted that the deficiencies and departures from generally accepted and prevailing standards were not simply matters of professional judgment but were deficiencies which were objective and clear-cut in nature. (TR 143, 147, 148, 154, 156, and 158) Respondent's major contention was that his level of responsibility was limited inasmuch as Demon, as signatory of the audit report, owed a greater duty and responsibility for the statements and the report in question. As found herein, and as pointed out by Mr. Felsing, as licensees sharing in the performance of the accounting engagement, both were liable for the deficiencies found in the statement and the audit report for the Dania Housing Authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's licensure as a certified public accountant be suspended for a period of six (6) months, with reinstatement under such probationary terms and conditions as shall be established by the Board of Accountancy, including continuing professional education in the areas of accounting and auditing in monitoring of his professional practice under such terms and conditions as shall be established by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Test Anxiety at the February 1994 General Contractor's Examination The General Contractor's Examination used in the licensing of individuals as general contractors is divided into three parts, each of which may be passed separately. Credit for passing any one portion of the examination is good for a period of only one year. An applicant for a license as a General Contractor is limited in taking any part of the examination to three times per year. If an applicant fails to pass all three parts of the examination in one year, therefore, the applicant must commence the examination process anew, as if none of the portions of the examination had been passed. On February 17, 1994, William T. Davenport, sat for the Contract Administration portion of the exam for the third time within a one-year period. At each of the two examinations taken earlier, he had passed one portion. The Contract Administration portion was the only part he had not yet passed. Mr. Davenport was anxious as he waited to take the exam. He fully realized that if he did not pass the Contract Administration portion he would have to start the examination process all over again. His concern was generated not only from the perspective of delay and inconvenience attendant to having to repeat the entire exam process, but also from the perspective of cost. Repeating the process would require him to pay the full exam fee after having paid already a full examination fee for each of three examinations in the year of his attempt to successfully complete the examination requirements for licensure. Different Approved Reference Lists The Construction Industry Licensing Board approves reference materials that applicants may use during the examination and issues a list of those materials periodically. The Reference List for the February examination covered the period between November 1, 1993 and February 28, 1994. On that list was a book Mr. Davenport brought with him to the examination: Practical Mathematics, 3rd Edition, Copyright 1972. As Mr. Davenport sat nervously awaiting commencement of the exam, a proctor removed Practical Mathematics from his desk indicating that use of the book was not allowed. Mr. Davenport relates his response to the incident in this way, (Tr. 26.) The anxiety was very high at that point. My concern was try to get through the exam and, when the book was taken away from me, I panicked, to be blunt. I just totally panicked. Unlike the testing period from November 1, 1993 to February 28, 1994, Practical Mathematics was not on the Reference List for the next period of testing, from March 1, through June 30, 1994. The later list, issued January 13, had been out for over a month at the time of the exam. It is likely the proctor removed the book in mistaken reliance on the later list. As it turned out, the proctor returned the book to Mr. Davenport either shortly before the examination commenced. As he did so, the proctor commented, "Well, I don't know." (Tr. 25.) Mr. Davenport did not use the book during the exam because, "[a]t that point, I was reluctant to use the book ... I didn't want the test to be invalidated and I didn't want to be challenged." Id. Not using the book proved to be critical to whether Mr. Davenport passed the Contract Administration portion of the exam. He scored a 68. A passing grade is 70. Had Mr. Davenport answered correctly question number 3, which was worth four points, he would have received a 72, a passing grade. The question involves applying a percentage. Mr. Davenport could not remember whether in obtaining a percentage it is necessary to multiply or divide. Practical Mathematics has a chapter on percentages. The chapter teaches that multiplication is the arithmetic method to use when obtaining a percentage. But Mr. Davenport guessed that division should be used. He divided by the percentage and, therefore, chose an incorrect answer. Question number 3 on the exam is one of the questions that Mr. Davenport challenged originally: A 2-man crew has consistently worked at a labor performance standard ratio of 0.85 to 1. They are selected for a job requiring 60 (standard time) man-hours to perform. They will NOT work more than 8 hours per workday. NO work will be done on Saturdays or Sundays. There are NO holidays during the time the work will be performed. According to Builder's Guide to Accounting, if the job must be finished NO later than Friday afternoon at 5:00 p.m., what is the last day that they could be scheduled to start the job? Thursday of the previous week Friday of the previous week Monday of the same week Tuesday of the same week Respondent's. Ex. No. 2. The correct answer is "(D) Tuesday of the same week." The Department's expert witness explained that the correct answer is reached by way of an algebraic formula. The formula is: "the labor performance standard ratio = x (the unknown) divided by the standard time man hours" and then that answer is divided by 2 since the crew is a 2 man crew. Applied to the problem, the formula is: .85/1 = x/60, with x, once known, divided by 2. Using the formula, the calculation goes as follows: .85/1 = x/60; multiplying both sides of the equation by 60, .85(60) = x; carrying out the arithmetic calculation, x equals 51; 51/2 = 25.5. It takes 25.5 hours, therefore, for the crew to complete the job. If, as the problem states, the job must be completed by Friday at 5 p.m. and the crew works 8 hours a day, then it will take the crew 3 full days and 1.5 additional hours to complete the job. Working backward from Friday, the crew will work 8 hours on Friday, 8 hours on Thursday, and 8 hours on Wednesday for a total of 24 hours. The crew must start on Tuesday of the same week to work the additional 1.5 hours required to complete the job. One does not need to use algebra, however, to solve the problem. One can simply obtain the number of actual hours needed to complete the job by applying 85 percent (the crew's labor performance standard) to the number of standard time manhours called for by the job, in this case, 60. Here is where Mr. Davenport needed Practical Mathematics. Not knowing whether to obtain the actual hours by multiplying .85 times 60 or dividing .85 into 60, he guessed, in error, division. Through the use of division, it appears incorrectly that the number of manhours needed is 70.588. Divided by two, to take into account that there are two members of the crew, it would take the crew 35.294 hours. If it took the crew 35 hours and a fraction to complete the job on time, the crew would need to start on Monday of the same week. "(C) Monday of the same week," is the answer chosen by Mr. Davenport. Other Distractions and the Site of the Exam The examination was conducted in the Tallahassee office of the National Assessment Institute (NAI). The NAI was under contract to the Department as the vendor to conduct the exam. At the time of the examination, the exam site was a room approximately forty feet by thirteen feet four inches in size. It contained nine tables, each 18 inches by eight feet. The tables were spaced 35 inches from each other. At each table were two straight-backed chairs. There were seven candidates present for the examination. The first and last tables were unoccupied. Each of the seven candidates were allotted 34 square feet of floor space to be occupied by the candidate, the chair, the table and materials used in the exam. On the east wall of the exam room were three plate glass fixed windows. Two of the windows are 48 inches long by 36 inches tall and one is 36 inches long by 31 inches tall. The glass is one-eighth inch thick non- commercial grade. The windows are acceptable under NAI guidelines. On the other side of the windows is a workroom that measured 15.25 by 17.5 feet. Through these windows the examination supervisor seated in the work room can monitor the performance of the proctors in the exam room and see the candidates as they take the exam. The candidates, seated to the left of the workroom, do not face the workroom. Rather, their right side is exposed to the workroom. If the tables are numbered 1 through 9 on Respondent's Ex. No. 1, beginning with 1 on the side of the room marked on the exhibit as "N" or north, candidates who were seated at tables 4 through 8 were directly exposed to the workroom windows. Mr. Davenport was seated at one of the tables exposed to the workroom windows, most likely table 3, 4 or 5, that is, one of the center 3 tables. During the exam, he could see employees through the windows moving in the workroom and hear noise from the workroom. There were four employees who were present at one time or another in the workroom. Three of these employees were also engaged in proctoring the examination. In addition to the visual diversion posed by the four employees in the workroom, Mr. Davenport could hear sounds emanating from the room. The doors to the workroom, open so that the exam supervisor seated in the workroom could hear what occurred in the exam room, also allowed sounds from the workroom into the exam room. The source of the sound was the printer working, the four workers conversing from time to time and other noises associated with an office work environment. Sight of the employees and noise from the workroom prevented petitioner from fully concentrating on the exam. Mr. Davenport was also distracted by the activities of the proctors while in the exam room. During the four hours he sat for the exam, three of the four employees he observed in the workroom were also acting as proctors. They left the workroom in a rotation in order to spell each other. During their shifts as proctors, the three monitored the exam room. Mr. Davenport felt distracted by the coming and goings of the three as they rotated in and out of the room. Although there was a table designated for the proctors at a corner outside the workroom across from table 3, they rarely sat there. They sat at one of the empty tables or walked beside the seated candidates, all the time carrying out the function of a proctor: observing the candidates during examination. The FCILB Examination Administration Manual, applicable to the February General Contractor's exam, details the responsibilities of proctors in sixteen separate counts. No. 13 reads: Proctors observe at all times and move quietly about the room. Proctors do not disturb or distract candidates during the examination. If speaking is necessary, a proctor needs to be quiet and brief as possible. Proctors avoid asking candidates to move chairs to get around them, standing too close or directly behind candidates, or rustling papers and talking to other proctors in the vicinity. Petitioner's Ex. No. 2, FCILB Examination Administration Manual, p. 2-5. Movement of the proctors was necessary during the exam because of its open-book format. It is incumbent on the proctors of an open-book exam to insure that candidates do not copy questions form the examination into their reference materials. Other Candidates Reactions to the NAI's Tallahassee Office Among the three proctors the day of the exam was Ms. Jean Love. Ms. Love is also the Office Manager of the NAI's Tallahassee Office. She has worked for NAI for over two years. Before that she worked for eight and one-half years with the Department in examination services, during which she administered exams, including acting as a proctor for exams. In addition to the daily operations of the office, she oversees the administration of examinations, a function she fulfilled at the February General Contractor's exam this year. Ms. Love did not see any unusual or distracting activities on the part of the other two proctors and did not undertake any activities, in her opinion, that would have violated any of the responsibilities of proctors, including those quoted, above, from the FCILB Examination Administration Manual. The activities during the exam in the workroom, undertaken under Ms. Love's supervision, were normal activities undertaken every day at the NAI Tallahassee Office during and outside of times of examinations. Aside from typical office activities, such as conducting telephone conversations, scheduling candidates for tests, and doing paperwork that included hand-folding documentation, there was no unusual activity the day of the exam. The only event in the workroom that contributed at all to the sound of normally quiet office activity was the validation of a single candidate's check. No complaints about noise in the workroom during the February General Contractor's Exam were registered with the NAI Tallahassee Office. Nor did any of the candidates that day complain about the activities of the proctors. Ms. Love did not learn of Mr. Davenport's complaint until after he filed his challenge to the examination questions. While a proctor may have from time to time stood near Mr. Davenport as he took the exam, none of the proctors hovered over him or, in Ms. Love's opinion, did anything that would distract the average candidate. No complaint during the examination was made by Mr. Davenport. He did not complain about inability to concentrate on the exam until after he received the exam results. During Ms. Love's two years at the NAI Tallahassee office, no candidate, prior to Mr. Davenport, had ever complained about the testing environment for any reason. The comments she has received from candidates following exams have been solely complimentary. Over the last two years, the office has administered between 15 and 20 tests per month. Complimentary comments are made, on average, by one candidate per test. In the last two years the office has received, at a minimum, well in excess of 350 compliments on the testing environment from candidates. In contrast, Mr. Davenport's complaint stands alone as the only complaint about the office testing environment in the last two years at the NAI's Tallahassee Office.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, in the alternative: That petitioner's request for reexamination or a passing grade on the "Contract Administration, Division I" portion of the General Contractor's examination administered in February 1994 be DENIED; or, in the alternative, If the Construction Industry Licensing Board is willing to overlook the petitioner's failure to challenge his grade specifically on the appropriation of the book before the examination in the petition for formal hearing and the Department's legitimate objection to the presentation of evidence on the issue, that petitioner be allowed to sit for reexamination and, if he passes the Contract Administration portion of the exam, be credited with passing the other two portions of the exam as well as if all three portions had been passed in one year. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1994. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 1st day of December, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 1, the first and last sentences are adopted. The remainder of the proposed finding, and in particular the reference to Linda Chaffin, test proctor, is rejected because it is either not supported by the evidence or argumentative in nature rather than factual. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2 is rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact Nos. 7 and 8 are rejected as unsupported by the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the reference to Linda Chaffin is rejected. Ms. Chaffin was not identified by the evidence as the proctor who removed the book from petitioner prior to the exam. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted, in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: William T. Davenport 336 14th Avenue, North Jacksonville, FL 32250 William W. Woodyard Assistant General Counsel D B P R 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Richard Hickok, Executive Director C I L B 7960 Arlington Expy., Ste. 300 Jacksonville, FL 32311-7467 Jack McRay General Counsel D B P R 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact 1. Mrs. Dunham began her employment with the Respondent School Board in 1959. When she began her first position was Accounting Clerk, Pay Grade 12. Presently, she holds the position of Accountant, Pay Grade 23. In August of 1972 the Petitioner was promoted to the position of Accounting Contract Specialist. The individual who had held this position, Mr. Ray Groseclose resigned and Petitioner was promoted to that position. While Mr. Groseclose was in that position it was classified as Pay Grade 26 with a salary of $3.90 per hour. When the Petitioner was promoted to that position she had been classified as Pay Grade 15. Shortly after the Petitioner's promotion to the Accounting Contract Specialist the position was downgraded from a Grade 26 to a Pay Grade Actually, the Petitioner was never paid at the Grade 26 level and her first increased pay check reflected the Grade 21 classification. The Petitioner contends that the failure to promote her into this position at the same pay grade that was enjoyed by her male predecessor indicates sexual discrimination against her for which she should be granted relief in the form of back pay due. The Accounting Contract Specialist position required one holding that position to monitor contracts entered into by the school board and determine that payments were made when required and that a bookkeeping system was maintained to keep track of the status of school board contracts. Ray Groseclose, who held the position prior to the Petitioner's appointment, had no formal education in the field of accounting or bookkeeping, however, he did receive some training in that area while with the Armed Forces. Likewise, the Petitioner had no accounting background, but her experience and initiative were enough for her to perform very satisfactorily in this position. All witnesses who testified regarding the Petitioner's ability stated that she did equally well, if not better, than Mr. Groseclose and assumed more duties than he had in that position. The Petitioner testified that she did not learn until September of 1973, a year after her promotion, that the position was previously classified as a Grade 26. However, when receiving her appointment papers in September of 1972, the Petitioner did sign a notice of reclassification for which indicated that the job was being downgraded. On behalf of the Respondent, testimony was received from Dr. D.J. Harrison, who was now the superintendent of the Savannah-Chatham School Board, Savannah, Georgia. Previously, between 1971 and 1973, he was employed by the Brevard County School Board and among his duties he was supervisor over the Accounting Contract Specialist. Dr. Harrison testified that while Ray Groseclose held that position he had intended to downgrade it, but had not done so before Ray Groseclose resigned. He stated that the position as originally assigned, included the administration of contracts. After Groseclose resigned it was decided to limit the job to accounting and that a Mr. Campbell would handle the administration of contracts. Other testimony, however, indicated that Ray Groseclose never handled the administration of contracts and that the Petitioner actually performed more responsibilities than were assigned to Ray Groseclose. In any case, it appears that the school board came to a realization that the Accounting Contract Specialist position could be filled by a competent individual at a Pay Grade 21 rather than Pay Grade 26 and that when Ray Groseclose resigned it appeared to be a convenient opportunity to downgrade the position. The evidence presented at this hearing does not affirmatively establish discrimination against the petitioner. It is possible the position in question was downgraded because of the petitioner's sex, but a finding of fact cannot be based on a mere possibility. All the evidence presented at this proceeding is consistent with valid administrative practiced on the part of the school board. No evidence was presented on behalf of the petitioner to indicate other examples of possible sexual discrimination on the part of the School Board which could establish a coarse of conduct. In fact, evidence was presented that the U.S. Department of Labor investigated the respondent school board and concluded, with the possible exception of the petitioner, there were no examples of sex discrimination evident. If there was any sexual discrimination practiced against the Petitioner, none was proven. All that is indicated by the evidence taken in this case is that the Petitioner was promoted from a position with the Brevard County Board from a Grade 15 to a Grade 21. The position to which she was promoted was downgraded at approximately the time of her promotion but it does not appear that the Petitioner's sex had anything to do with the downgrading of this position.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is not a graduate of at least a four-year accredited college or university course, and has not qualified for a degree with a major in accounting. The Petitioner has not completed such courses as would constitute a major in accounting. The Petitioner has not satisfied all of the legal requirements to take the Florida examination or to receive a Reciprocal Certificate from the Respondent. The Petitioner has practiced accountancy for more than fifty years, and he holds Certified Public Accountant Certificates from the state of New York and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Petitioner has also been admitted to practice before the United States Treasury Department and the United States Tax Court. The Petitioner has performed meritorious work as a Certified Public Accountant, and as also performed many important civic services.
Recommendation That the application of Philip M. Percus for a Reciprocal Certificate allowing him to practice as a Certified Public Accountant in Florida be denied. Recommended this 6th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Laurence J. Marchbanks, Esquire 301 W. Camino Gardens Boulevard Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Attorney for Petitioner James S. Quincey, Esquire P.O. Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Attorney for Respondent Douglas N. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director Florida State Board of Accountancy Post Office Box 13475 Gainesville, Florida 32604
