The Issue The parties stipulated that the Petitioner's financial responsibility and morals were not an issue. The only basis for the Board's denial was the Petitioner's alleged lack of experience. Petitioner and Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. These proposals are discussed in detail in the Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is presently employed as an electrical inspector for Hillsborough County, Florida. He has held this position for approximately two and one-half (2 1/2) years. He holds a master's electrician's license issued by Hillsborough County but is prohibited by terms of his employment as an electrical inspector from engaging in any electrical contracting activity. Petitioner is technically experienced as an electrician. Prior to his employment as an electrical inspector, Petitioner was employed by Mobil Chemical Company which operates several phosphate mines in central Florida. The Petitioner was employed at its Fort Meade mine. The Fort Meade mine, or plant, is a substantial operation producing approximately four (4) million tons of phosphate per year at the time when Petitioner was employed. The mining area occupies several hundred acres and the working or processing area occupies approximately ten (10) of those acres. The working area comprises of a flotation plant, a washer plant, a sizing section, a shipping area where the rock is loaded on railroad cars, a maintenance area, and an office complex. The plant ran three (3) shifts around the clock and employed approximately one hundred (100) persons. All of the major equipment to include the 30 and 40 yard draglines at the Fort Meade plant alone contained in excess of one hundred (100) electric motors each with its own fuse box and disconnect. The Petitioner was employed by Nobil Chemical Company for twenty (20) years (1962-1982); 16 years as an electrician and four years as supervisor of the electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade plant. He was responsible for all electrical repairs, maintenance, and new construction at the plant for all three shifts. His direct superior was the department chief who was in charge of all the electrical departments at all of Mobil's phosphate mining locations. Approximately twenty (20 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on new construction projects. Approximately forty (40 percent) percent of petitioner's time was spent on regular maintenance and repairs. Fifteen (15 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on emergency repairs. The remainder of petitioner's time was spent on miscellaneous projects. Petitioner supervised a staff of ten (10) men: two (2) crewmen, four linemen, and four (4) electricians. The Petitioner was responsible for estimating the cost of jobs for his immediate superior to include the cost of materials and the number of man hours. The Petitioner was responsible for counting and reporting the number of hours his employees worked in turning this information into the company's payroll section. Petitioner had the power to request overtime work for his employees and made recommendations concerning hiring and firing personnel. On new construction the Petitioner's responsibilities began with doing takeoffs from blueprints provided for the job and supervising the work through to its completion. He was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Fort Meade facility to include small electrical motors, large electrical motors, office lighting, transformers, and the large draglines. Petitioner's experience included experience with three (3) phase electrical power, high voltage electrical service, and lower voltages used in small motors, lights and appliances. The electrical department which the Petitioner headed provided service only to Mobil's Fort Meade plant. Mobil is not an electrical contractor; however, its electrical department provided extensive services which are comparable to those an outside electrical contracting service would have provided. Although the petitioner did not prepare a payroll for those persons who he supervised, he did serve as the clerk for his church for five (5) years during which time he was responsible for preparing the payroll for the church's employees. The petitioner applied in 1982 to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination. His application was approved by the Respondent and the Petitioner sat for the examination on two occasions, failing both examinations. Petitioner reapplied to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination in 1984 and was denied by the Respondent based upon lack of satisfactory experience. The Petitioner held a responsible management position with Mobil at the Fort Meade plant as supervisor of electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade facility for four (4) years. The Petitioner never negotiated a construction contract, was never bonded as a contractor, never obtained insurance to cover his operation as a contractor, and never sought a building permit for any of the electrical work done at the Fort Meade facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board disapprove the application of Cecil U. Lane to sit for the statewide electrical contractor's license. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Jerry W. Hendry Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Electrical Contractors 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric S. Ruff, Esquire Post Office Box TT Plant City, Florida 33566 Arthur C. Wallberg, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint dated June 27, 1988. The Administrative Complaint alleges facts which are asserted to constitute violations of paragraphs (f), (i), and (l) of Section 489.533(1), Florida Statutes. All parties presented evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties were afforded an opportunity to file proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order, which has been considered during the preparation of this recommended order. The Respondent did not file any post-hearing documents. The findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Mr. Kenneth L. Smith, was licensed by the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board and held license number ER 0004954. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was also licensed as a plumbing contractor. The Respondent did not, at any time material to this case, hold any license that allowed him to contract for or perform concrete work. A number of years ago the Respondent formed a corporation named Home Maintenance Corporation and did business under that name. The corporation was dissolved a couple of years ago. The dissolution took place prior to October of 1987. The Respondent never registered the fictitious name Home Maintenance with the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board. In October of 1987, the Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. Eugene J. Dupree, Sr., to do the plumbing rough-in and the electrical rough-in on a residence. In October of 1987, the Respondent also entered into a contract with Mr. Dupree to frame up and pour the concrete slab for the same residence. The Respondent entered into all of these contracts using the fictitious name Home Maintenance. In addition to the fictitious name, Home Maintenance, the business forms used by the Respondent also had his correct name printed on them. The Respondent did the concrete work for which he had contracted with Mr. Dupree and received payment for that work. The concrete work was poorly done. Among other things, the slab was sixteen inches out of square. Because of the slab being out of square, it was necessary for the owner to spend additional money to correct the problems with the slab. The manner in which the slab was poured constitutes both gross negligence and gross incompetence.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board issue a final order to the following effect: Dismissing the charges that the Respondent violated paragraphs (f) and (i) of Section 489.533(1), Florida Statutes; Finding the Respondent guilty of violating paragraph (l) of Section 489.533(1), Florida Statutes; and Imposing a penalty consisting of a reprimand and an administrative fine in the amount of one hundred ($100.00) dollars. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. Michael M. Parrish, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1500 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1989 COPIES FURNISHED: John E. Jordan, Esquire Woolfork, Estes and Keough, P.A. 131 Park Lake Street Post Office drawer 3751 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Kenneth L. Smith Post Office Box 1112 Roseland, Florida 32957 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Pat Ard, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details commenting on the evidence. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, but many proposed details omitted as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraphs 7 and 8: Accepted that the Respondent entered into a contract to form up and pour the slab. The remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance, with most proposed details omitted as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 13: Rejected as irrelevant inasmuch as the Administrative Complaint contains no charges regarding the quality of the plumbing installation. Findings Proposed by Respondent: (None)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that no action be taken against the licenses of K. C. Moore as a registered builder contractor. In addition, the testimony at the hearing revealed that subsequent to the institution of this complaint that Dr. 0. Rao, M.D., did make application to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board for licensure as a contractor, that his application was approved, and that upon successful completion of the Board's examination he was licensed. If K. C. Moore is in fact guilty of aiding or abetting or knowingly combining or conspiring with a person to violate Part II, Chapter 468, the person with whom he combined or conspired or who he aided or abetted was Dr. John 0. Rao. Although the Board may be limited under the statutory provisions in denying Dr. Rao the license, assuming the Board rejects the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law and finds the facts constitute a violation of the statutory provisions, there is an absence of essential fairness to proceed against the licenses of K. C. Moore while licensing the individual with whom he contracted. The disparity in treatment of K. C. Moore and Dr. John 0. Rao is a factor which must be considered by the Board. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 R. Stephen Miles, Jr., Esquire Mile and Cumbie Post Office Box 517 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 Mr. J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner,
The Issue Whether petitioner suffered age discrimination for which Black & Veatch is answerable, when an employee of Black & Veatch objected to petitioner's becoming the safety engineer for M. A. Mortenson Company, the general contractor on a project for the Orlando Utilities Commission for which Black & Veatch was construction manager?
Findings Of Fact Since 1940, petitioner Jack Keels has been in the construction business, "95 percent of it would be . hydroelectric dams along the Columbia and Snake Rivers." (T.13) He has worked as a laborer, carpenter, an iron worker, a craft superintendent, a shift superintendent, a general superintendent, a craft foreman, a shift foreman and a general foreman. Aside from a wealth of practical experience, he has taken "probably 200 or 250 hours of classes on safety and first aid." (T. 13, 14) He has "been acting safety director on five or six jobs" (T.14) and once was responsible for the safety of 300 men. When he began work for M.A. Mortenson Company (Mortenson), however, on the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center job (Stanton) , a coal-fired plant Mortenson was building for the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC), Mr. Keels was a crane Coordinator without "assigned responsibility for safety." (T.93) But Mr. Keels offered suggestions about how to improve safety and spoke to Mortenson's Bill King regularly on such topics as safety latches for the hooks, proper nets, electrical splices, man baskets that were not regulation, and the like. When a new crane arrived on the site, Mr. Keels asked the general superintendent where the blocks were to test the crane and was told there were none and they had not been testing the cranes. There were other "flagrant violations" of safety regulations including widespread disregard for the rules requiring workmen to wear hard hats and forbidding them to bring glass containers onto the construction site. Although another contractor at Stanton, Babcock & Willcox, seemed to be doing worse as far as safety, Mortenson's practices were below average in Mr. Keels' opinion. This was also the impression key personnel at Black & Veatch had of Mortenson's performance. As the owner's representative at Stanton, Black & Veatch had invoked OUC's right under "option BC. 4. 1. of the . . . contract," Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, to require Mortenson to appoint a full-time safety engineer, in May of 1984. Bill King was Mortenson's safety director or designated safety engineer, when Mr. Keels started. Bill King left the job in February of 1985, and Mortenson's Mr. Barbato suggested replacing him with petitioner Keels. Mortenson did not propose this formally in writing, but Mr. Barbato explained to Richard F. King, Black & Veatch's project loss control manager at Stanton, that the work had reached a point that Mr. Keels' services as crane coordinator were no longer needed and that naming him safety engineer would make it possible to keep him on. He never told anybody at Black & Veatch about Mr. Keels' considerable background in construction safety. Petitioner and Black & Veatch's Paul William Weida had twice differed with each other on issues of safety: Once Mr. Weida objected to work on a generator pedestal going forward without a handrail in place. At the time, carpenters working for Mortenson were installing concrete forms on top of the pedestal, some distance above ground. Mr. Keels pointed out that they were wearing safety belts, and argued that a handrail could constitute a hazard as they moved around bolting and nailing the forms. The other dispute about which both men testified had to do with a bent crane lattice. The lessor of the crane told petitioner there was no need to replace that section of the lattice, but a representative of the manufacturer told Mr. Weida replacement would be best. Over petitioner's strenuous objection, Mr. Weida insisted that the damaged lattice be replaced. These confrontations left Mr. Weida with the impression that petitioner would be difficult to work with and also made him skeptical about petitioner's commitment to safety, a skepticism to which petitioner vehemently and perhaps justifiably objects. Under the contract between OUC and Mortenson, Black & Veatch had the right, as OUC's representative, to veto any candidate for safety engineer. The agreement provided, "During the life of the contract, replacement personnel will also be subject to interview and approval by the Owner." Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. Weida objected to Mr. Keels, and Richard F. King backed him up. Neither Mr. Weida's nor Mr. Richard King's opposition to Mr. Keels' being named safety engineer was in any way related to Mr. Keels' age, which, incidentally, was not proven with any specificity. After receiving indications from Black & Veatch that Mr. Keels would not be an acceptable safety engineer at Stanton, Mortenson laid him off, in February of 1985. By November of 1985, Mortenson had finished its work at Stanton.
Findings Of Fact At all time material hereto, Respondent, Ronald J. Gurney, has been registered as an electrical contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ER0004532, and held certificates of competency as an electrical contractor issued by Dade County and Broward County, Florida. By letter of July 25, 1989, Metropolitan Dade County charged the respondent with violating various sections of Chapter 10, Dade County Code. Specifically, such letter charged that between August 22, 1988, and June 16, 1989, with regard to jobs at 1520 Euclid Avenue and 531-41 16th Street, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida, the respondent did: . . . violate Section 4505.5(a) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to obtain the mandatory rough inspection of work performed under Permit . . . said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative conditions of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. . . . unlawfully violate Section 10-22(b) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County . . . [by] abandon[ing] without legal excuse . . . [such] . . . electrical job[s]. . . . . . . unlawfully violate Section 10-22(g) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County . . . [by] fail[ing] to fulfill . . . [his] . . . contractual obligation to complete . . . [such] . . . electrical job. . . . Such letter further advised respondent that a formal hearing would be held on September 5, 1989, before the Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB) to consider such charges, and what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken. On September 5, 1989, respondent appeared for the hearing, as scheduled, however, because the complaining witnesses did not appear, the CTQB continued the hearing. Thereafter, the hearing was rescheduled for November 21, 1989, and respondent did not appear. Notwithstanding, the CTQB proceeded with the hearing, and following its consideration of the evidence found that respondent had violated Sections 10-16(a), 10-22(b) and 10-22(g), Dade County Code, and issued a reprimand, fined respondent $2,500.00, suspended his certificates for three years, and revoked his certificates. By letter of December 1, 1989, Dade County advised respondent of the foregoing decision, and advised him of his right to appeal the decision of the CTQB. Respondent did not appeal such decision but, rather, filed a motion, through counsel, with the CTQB to vacate its decision based on respondent's contention that he did not receive notice of the November 21, 1989, hearing. Such motion was denied on January 9, 1990, and respondent did not appeal or otherwise seek review of such decision. At hearing, respondent offered proof, which is credited, that as a consequence of the action taken by Dade County he lost his position as Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Hialeah; a position that paid $50,000.00 a year. Here, there was no suggestion or proof that respondent had previously been the subject of any prior disciplinary proceeding. To the contrary, the only proof of record on this issue was offered by respondent, and demonstrated that the action brought by Dade County was his first offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds the respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 489.533(1)(n), Florida Statutes, which imposes an administrative fine against him in the sum of $250.00, and which places his license on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of November 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 15th day of November 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. Addressed in paragraph 1. 3-7. Addressed in paragraph 2, otherwise rejected as unnecessary detail. Addressed in paragraph 3. Rejected as not supported by competent proof. 10-14. Addressed in paragraph 3. 15-19. Addressed in paragraph 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Harris, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1620 Medical Lane, Suite 148 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Ronald J. Gurney 11201 Southwest 55th Street Box 79 Miramar, Florida 33025 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to this case, the Respondent, William Cooper, was licensed as an electrical contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number ER 0007444. In October 1986, Dr. and Mrs. Gadi Gichon contracted with a general contractor named Construction Pros in connection with the remodeling of the Gichon residence in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent was hired by Construction Pros as the subcontractor for the electrical work on the residence. Respondent completed a portion of the electrical work pursuant to his subcontract. Prior to July 16, 1987, the Gichons fired Construction Pros as their general contractor. On July 16, 1987, the Respondent contracted in writing with the Gichons to complete the work he had started as the electrical subcontractor for Construction Pros and to do certain additional work specified by the contract. The Gichons agreed to pay Respondent the sum of $5,345.54 to complete the work he had started as a subcontractor and to do the additional work. The contract price included labor and materials. The Gichons paid Respondent $4,500.00 on July 16, 1987, and agreed to pay Respondent the balance of the contract price upon completion of the job. Respondent's work on the Gichon residence progressed very slowly after July 16, 1987, despite repeated telephone calls to Respondent by the Gichons. In response to the telephone calls Respondent would send one or two men to placate the Gichons by making a brief appearance at the Gichon residence. These men did not do any meaningful work on the project. On October 1, 1987, the Gichons sent Respondent a certified letter demanding that Respondent complete the work in 10 days. Respondent telephoned Dr. Gadi Gichon at his office in response to the letter of October 1, 1987. Respondent told Dr. Gichon that he had not returned to complete the project because he had not been paid for certain fixtures by the fired general contractor. Respondent made no further effort to complete the work. The Gichons hired another electrical contractor to complete the work started by Respondent and to do additional work. The second electrical contractor found Respondent's work incomplete but ready for a punchlist inspection. The second electrical contractor received its takeover permit on November 24, 1987, and completed the work started by Respondent in less than a week. Palm Coast Electrical charged the Gichons approximately $200.00 more than the Gichons would have paid had Respondent completed his contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.533(1)(f) and (p), Florida Statutes, and which imposes an administrative fine of $1,000.00 against Respondent and which further issues a reprimand to Respondent for his violations of Section 489.533(1)(f) and (p), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-738 The findings of fact contained in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 16 of Petitioner's proposed findings are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in Paragraphs 5, 13, 15, 17, and 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings are immaterial. The finding of fact contained in Paragraph 8 of Petitioner's proposed findings is unsubstantiated by the evidence. The finding of fact contained in Paragraph 9 of Petitioner's proposes findings that the Gichons had live electrical wires in their home is unsubstantiated by the evidence. The finding of fact contained in Paragraph 9 of Petitioner's proposed findings that the Gichons had incomplete work in their home is adopted in substance. The finding of fact contained in paragraph 12 of Petitioner's proposed finding that Respondent did not complete the Gichon's job is adopted. The finding of fact contained in Paragraph 12 of Petitioner's proposed findings that Respondent did not respond to the letter of October 1, 1989, is rejected as being contrary to the evidence. The finding of fact contained in Paragraph 19 of Petitioner's proposed findings is subordinate. Respondent's statement in his letter filed May 8, 1989, is rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 William Cooper 4400 Northwest 15th Street Lauderhill, Florida 33313 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Pat Ard, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is General Manager and President of Modern Air Conditioning, Inc., (hereafter "Modern Air" or "Corporation"), and R. L. Anderson, Inc., Mechanical Contractors. He has held these positions with Modern Air since April 1965. The Petitioner has held journeyman's cards in air conditioning, as well as union structural iron worker's, competency and electrical journeyman szzz cards. The Petitioner has been a member of several municipal and county licensing boards and is presently serving a third term on the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Modern Air is or has been licensed as an electrical contractor in Lee, Charlotte, Glades, Collier, Hendry, and Sarasota counties and the cities of Sanibel, Naples, and Punta Gorda. Modern Air employs six full-time and three part-time journeymen electricians. Among the representative electrical contracting jobs which the Corporation has performed over the past three years are wiring schools, homes, condominiums, and small commercial businesses. In addition to air conditioning and rewiring, the Corporation employs individuals to perform plumbing and insulating work. Modern Air is a solvent corporation with assets in excess of one and a half million dollars. Its net income for 1978 was $118,967.00. Corporate retained earnings for March 31, 1977 through 1978 were $463,936.00. The Corporation is bonded with the American Insurance Company for one million dollars per single occurrence with a three million dollar maximum limit. Modern Air and Petitioner have high credit ratings and enjoy excellent reputations in the community. On December 18, 1978, Petitioner submitted an application to the Florida Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board to sit for the state electrical contractors examination in his capacity as qualifying agent for Modern Air. By letter dated March 15, 1979, the Board, upon the advice of its application committee and through its executive director, denied Petitioner's application. The denial was due to Petitioner's failure to demonstrate "unlimited" experience in the field of electrical contracting. At the hearing Petitioner explained the experience portion of his application and particularly the method which he used to demonstrate the value of each particular job listed. For example, as to one job, Collier County Public Schools, the value listed on the application was $33,000 yet the actual value of the total job to Modern Air was in excess of a quarter of a million dollars. The $33,000 was solely electrical with the rest being subcontracted while Modern Air remained prime contractor. The job information furnished which included auditoriums, cafeterias, gymnasiums, industrial arts labs, and homes was noted on the application as being indicative or representative of the corporate activity over the preceding three years. During the hearing, the Board's expert witness stated that if he had served on the application committee he would have returned the application and requested additional information in order to determine qualifications rather than simply deny the application.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Donald J. Jernigan, possessed Florida Electrical Contractor's License No. ER0007589. Kenneth L. Smith is a general contractor in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent worked for him on occasion as a subcontractor in the electrical area. In early March 1983, Smith hired Respondent to do some electrical work on a duplex he owned which had been damaged by fire. At the time, the apartment was under contract for sale, and Mr. Smith had until April 1, 1983, to fix it up for transfer. Mr. Smith emphasizes that he had an express understanding with Respondent that all work had to be done by April 1, 1983, or he would lose the sale. Respondent, in a late-filed exhibit, presented a letter from William S. Chambers, III, a real estate agent who was involved in the proposed sale of the property in question. Mr. Chambers acknowledges that the sale was not consummated but, while not detailing the actual reason for the sale falling through, contends that at no time was the fact that the repairs were not completed given or used as a reason for the failure of the sale to go through by either party. This does not alter the fact that Mr. Smith requested that the repairs be completed by April 1, 1983. Smith called Respondent several times prior to April 1 to insure that the electrical work was done on time. At a point late in the sequence of events, he understood that the dry wall was due to be installed and the required electrical inspection had not been accomplished. When he pointed this out, Respondent told him to go ahead and hang the dry wall, as the City could inspect from up in the ceiling. Mr. Smith did this based on the representation of the Respondent; and when the final inspection was done, the inspector would not pass the property because preliminary inspection had not been accomplished. He indicated that a different electrical contractor would have to examine the work and certify that it was done properly before it could be passed without pulling out all the dry wall for a visual inspection. At this point, Mr. Smith hired Lamar Smith of Southeastern Electric to accomplish this inspection and discharged the Respondent. When Lamar Smith arrived at the apartment and turned on the power, the only things that worked in the entire apartment were the dishwasher, the disposal, and two kitchen receptacles. In the course of his inspection, he found that several home runs were left out (several feeder lines were not present) ; numerous junction boxes in the attic were not made up properly (wires were left out and not put in the boxes as required); no junction boxes in the attic were grounded; some breakers were left out in the master panel; and the door bell did not work. According to Mr. Smith, at first glance from the inside of the apartment, the electrical work looked as though it were complete; but in reality, all the rough-in had not been accomplished, and it took him two days to do the work properly. According to Mr. Meeks, the electrical inspector for the City of Lakeland and the individual who wrote the permit for this particular work, Respondent called in for the rough-in inspection on March 31, 1983. When Meeks went out to the property to conduct the inspection, he found that the dry wall was already in and he could not accomplish it. Meeks told Respondent at that time he would have to either remove the dry wall or have another registered electrician certify the wiring before they would permit that work to continue. When an apartment or any property is damaged by fire, a permit is required to rewire the damaged premises for power. This permit is required by Lakeland City Ordinance. Meeks also indicated that if a remodeling job required added wiring without tearing out the wall, the inspectors would inspect by going into the attic and crawlways if possible. However, if they were called to inspect the area that was previously open for inspection and was improperly closed in prior to inspection, they would not go up into the attic or into the crawlways to accomplish the inspection. That is policy of the Inspectors' Office. In that regard, according to Harold G. Brooks, a city permit inspector who inspected the property in question immediately after the fire to see if power in the unburned area could be turned on, the majority of damage to the burned area was in the kitchen ceiling and in the hall. This description is consistent with that of Mr. Ken Smith, the owner, who indicated that the dry wall was required in the kitchen and dining room. For some reason, the dry wall was also replaced on the living room ceiling and the back room ceiling. Respondent contends that he was trying to do this job as quickly as possible consistent with the work load he had at the time. He agrees that it was in early March when he agreed to take on the job. He looked at the house the day after it burned and presented a proposal for repairs that afternoon or the next day. He started work on the project right away and stayed on the project from the time he started work up until the inspection problem. Respondent does not recall Mr. Smith setting any deadline for completion, only a need to finish the job as quickly as possible. Mr. Jernigan admits he did not request a roof end inspection when the basic wiring was completed before dry wall. He states that this house is the type of house that may have had boxes already installed that could not be found. He does not feel that it was his responsibility to give authority to cover up the walls or the ceiling and that that decision was made by Mr. Smith, the owner. The work that he did, he contends, could have been checked through the attic shuttle, and he claims he would have corrected any deficiencies found. He further claims he was never given an opportunity to remove the dry wall for inspection prior to the final inspection and the requirement to have another electrician certify the work. Whatever the delay, it was occasioned by Respondent's failure to get the roof end inspection performed. According to Ordinance No. 2304 of the City of Lakeland, Florida, a master electrician (Respondent was a master electrician), shall request any required inspections. By Subsection (2), an inspection is required prior to wiring being concealed, and failure to timely request such an inspection constitutes a violation of the City Code. This inspection was not requested by Respondent as required by the ordinance. At a special meeting of the Building Code Board of Examiners for the City of Lakeland, Florida, held on April 25, 1983, a complaint against Respondent was considered. Respondent was charged by the electrical inspectors with negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the doing of electrical work and a willful and deliberate disregard in violation of the City's Electrical Code. On May 24, 1983, the Chairman of the Board, on behalf of the Board, entered an Order finding that the Respondent was guilty of negligence in the performance of electrical work and willful and deliberate disregard in violation of the City of Lakeland Electrical Code. The Board went on to suspend for 90 days the Respondent's Certificate of Competency issued by the City of Lakeland and required that he pass an appropriate examination at the end of the 90-day period prior to receiving a new Certificate of Competency.
Findings Of Fact By an application dated March 27, 1979, and received by the Board on March 30, 1979, Petitioner, James L. Dentico, applied to the Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board for a license as a certified electrical contractor. The Board has a committee on applications which reviewed Mr. Dentico's application. The committee determined that his application did not evidence sufficient experience in the trade. That determination prompted a letter written May 8, 1979, from Mr. Allen R. Smith, Jr., the Board's Executive Director, to Mr. Dentico. The letter states, in pertinent part, that: Your application failed to evidence to the Board that you had six (6) years' comprehensive experience training as required by 468.185(2). If you can evidence six (6) years as reflected in 468.185(2) in the trade as an electrical engineer, this evidence will be brought before the board. By letter dated May 15, 1979, Mr. Dentico responded through counsel. He contended that his application did evidence sufficient experience since, in his opinion, he had more than the minimum one and one half years of experience in the trade as required by Section 468.185(2), Florida Statutes. Mr. Dentico's attorney reiterated his request originally made on March 27, 1979, with the application that all future communications relating to the application be made directly to him, Philip J. Gouze, Esquire. Mr. Dentico's application was then returned to the Board for further consideration. That review was made at the Board's June 7, 1979, meeting in Tampa. As the result of communications between Mr. Smith's office and Mr. Gouze, Mr. Dentico was under the impression that he could take the electrical contractors' examination scheduled for June 8, 1979, in Tampa. To obtain his admission ticket for the written examination, Mr. Dentico appeared at the Board's June 7, 1979, meeting. Upon entering the room, he was questioned by Board members about his contracting experience in North Carolina and Florida. At the time Petitioner appeared, the Board had before it a seconded motion to accept his application. After the initial questioning, Mr. Borrell stated: Mr. Borrell: O.K., a motion has been made and it has been seconded that we accept this application. Mr. Lenhart: I think we need a little more evidence and based on this discussion, I will have to withdraw my motion. Mr. Isaac (the Chairman): I withdraw my second. Mr. Borrell: Motion made to withdraw it. Mr. Lenhart: And I base it on failure to evidence sufficient experience as an unlimited managing electrical contractor. Mr. Sommerkamp: I second. Mr. Borrell: Is there any discussion on this motion? Mr. Borrell: Let's go back to square one. Mr. Lenhart: Based on what he has said, I think the application is misleading and I would recommend that he reapply. Mr. Isaac: I second. (Vote was unanimous.) Mr. Dentico persisted in urging his qualifications on the Board. He was further questioned about his experience. After the additional questioning, Mr. Morgan said: Mr. Morgan: What is the motion? Mr. Borrell: Reject. The Chairman called for a vote and it was unanimous. Mr. Borrell: The Board does not see fit at this time and if you submit more data, we will be glad to review; but based on the findings we have here the information our decision has to stay and you will be notified of the right to appeal. Mr. Dentico's counsel was not present at the Board meeting and the record does not reflect that he was notified of the Board's action until the denial letter of August 13, 1979. On that date, Mr. Smith wrote to Mr. Dentico to state: The Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board has reviewed your application for examination to be licensed as an electrical contractor, authorized to provide unlimited services, throughout the State. The Board has found that you [sic] application lacks sufficient evidence to qualify you to sit for the examination for the following reason: Your application failed to evidence to the Board at its June 7, 1979, meeting the necessary experience in the field as an electrical contractor authorized to provide unlimited services. Please refer to Sections 468.180 and 468.185, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21GG-2.01(1). The Florida Administrative Procedures Act entitles you to request a hearing on this matter should you choose to do so. Attached you will find an "Election of Rights" form which fully explains the procedures you may follow in requesting a hearing. The Board has not controverted any of the information in Petitioner's application. Mr. Dentico has a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering from the Indiana Institute of Technology. He has a Masters degree in electrical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Between 1969 and 1973, he was an advanced design engineer at Grumman Aerospace Corporation. His responsibilities included research design and development of aircraft and satellite control systems, designing electrical hookup equipment for laboratory experiments and preparing cost estimates and technical writing for bids on government contracts. At Grumman, his time was divided equally into three functions: research, development and engineering. As part of his development responsibility, he was in charge of the construction of apparatus display and testing tables which were a mock-up of the hydraulic and electrical environment in which a prototype component would later operate. Mr. Dentico supervised the electricians who constructed the wiring, ran the conduits, etc., for those apparatuses. Subsequently, Mr. Dentico operated his own business, N. K. Investments of North Carolina, from January, 1975, to February, 1977. He designed and cost estimated an electrical power distribution system for a 320 boat slip marina and for the service building of that marina in New Bern, North Carolina. He also prepared an electrical cost estimate for a four-story office building there. Mr. Dentico also had some experience in doing the general electrical work on a two-story, nine-unit apartment complex building in Miami Shores, during 1977. Under the supervision of Gurney Electric Corporation, the project electrical contractor, he put in conduit, pulled wires and installed appliances. The functions of an electrical contractor are to order the necessary equipment for a given project, to supervise the contractor's employees in constructing the job according to the plans and specifications, to coordinate the work of the contractor's employees with the needs of the general contractor and in accordance with the directions of the project electrical engineer. There are times when a project does not have an electrical engineer and in that case, the design work is expected to be performed by the electrical contractor. Careful consideration has been given to each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. To the extent that they are not contained in this Order they are rejected as being either not supported by competent evidence or as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues for determination here.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of James L. Dentico for certification as an electrical contractor be granted subject only to successful completion of an objective written examination about Mr. Dentico's fitness for a certificate as required by Section 468.184(2), Florida Statutes (1977). That $50.00 of Petitioner's application fee be returned to him if Section 21GG-2.09, Florida Administrative Code, is still in effect. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
