Findings Of Fact Respondent's name was one of about three hundred on a list of public accountants certified in Florida for whom, at the close of the initial period following institution of the requirement, petitioner had no record of the taking of continuing professional education courses or of the passing of a written professional examination. As a result, petitioner mailed respondent a form letter advising him of the situation, in February of 1977. Receiving no reply, petitioner mailed a second letter to respondent on April 28, 1977, stating that he "ha[d] failed to comply with F.S. 473.111(4) and Rule 21A-15" and that his suspension had been recommended to petitioner for that reason. On May 11, 1977, respondent visited petitioner's offices in Gainesville and spoke to George Thomas McCall, at the time petitioner's coordinator for continuing professional education. Mr. McCall gave respondent three reporting forms on which respondent proceeded, without reference to any notes, to list various titles in the column styled "Name of Course or Program," filling in corresponding blanks in columns for the dates of the courses, for their sponsors and for "Credit Hours Claimed." Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. Douglas H. Thompson, Jr., petitioner's executive director, asked Jean P. Finegold, Mr. McCall's successor, to attempt to verify that respondent had taken the continuing professional education courses he had listed. Ms. Finegold wrote respondent requesting documentation. Petitioner sent this letter by certified mail, but it was returned unclaimed. Ms. Finegold also wrote each of the four institutions listed by respondent as sponsors of continuing professional education courses that he had taken. The United States Department of Labor, listed by respondent as the sponsor of 48 hours of course work he had taken in the auditing and accounting category, never replied to Ms. Finegold's inquiry. Because respondent had indicated, on the reporting form for 1974, that he took courses named "Estate Planning" and "Banking" sponsored by the Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants (FICPA), Ms. Finegold wrote FICPA asking, inter alia, for verification of respondent's attendance at those courses. Respondent listed no other courses sponsored by FICPA on any of the reporting forms. Under the supervision of FICPA's assistant Director, John Scharbaugh, Vicki Ware researched the FICPA's records without finding the course names "Banking" or "Estate Planning." Later, after an extended telephone conversation between respondent and Mr. Scharbaugh, the FICPA verified that respondent had attended "Income Taxation of Estates and Trusts" on January 10, 1974; Basic Concepts in Estate Planning" on January 11, 1974; "Workshop on Fiduciary Income Tax Returns" on December 14, 1973; "Seminar on Bank Audits, Accounting, Taxes and Regulations" (Seminar) on November 16, 1973; and another course on May 17 and 18, 1973. The three more recent courses "each qualify for eight hours of other CPE credit," composite exhibit No. 8, deposition of Jean P. Finegold, as did the seminar. The other course "Management Advisory Services Conference" is the course respondent referred to on his 1974 reporting form as "Computer Advisory," mistakenly indicating sponsorship by Florida State University rather than by the FICPA. In response to Ms. Finegold's inquiry, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) indicated that the AICPA had offered no courses entitled "Capital Investments--Long Term Debt," "Tax Reform Act of 1975" or "Tax Course," and Rex B. Cruse, Jr., director of the Continuing Professional Education Division of the AICPA, executed an affidavit to that effect. Composite exhibit No. 7, deposition of Jean P. Finegold. Respondent had indicated on his 1974 and 1976 reporting forms that he had taken courses with such names, sponsored by the AICPA. A subsequent search of the AICPA's bad debt file revealed that respondent had ordered self-study materials for courses named "Capital Structure and Long-Term Objectives," "Ins and Outs of IRS Practice and Procedures" and "Tax Reduction Act of 1975," but respondent "did not officially complete the courses by returning examinations. . .for grading." Composite exhibit No. 6, deposition of Jean P. Finegold. Otha L. Brandon, a certified public accountant in Memphis, Tennessee, first engaged respondent's services in 1975. On four or five occasions thereafter, respondent was in Memphis for orientation and instruction in auditing certain types of accounts, including assignments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Toward the end of 1976, Mr. Brandon entered into a contract with the EPA to audit construction grants to certain municipalities, including eight Florida cities. He hired respondent to perform the Florida audits. On January 3, 1977, Mr. Brendon wrote respondent directing him to go ahead with the work. At the time, Mr. Brandon contemplated completing the job in mid-February, thinking he would send additional manpower to Florida to assist respondent. Unassisted, respondent made submissions to Mr. Brandon on the last of the eight cities in July or August of 1977. Mr. Brandon allocated approximately nine thousand dollars ($9,000.00) to the Florida portion of the project. Upon receipt of respondent's work, people in Mr. Brandon's office revised the reports to make them conform to EPA regulations and directives. This was taken into account when Mr. Brandon paid respondent in excess of seven thousand two hundred dollars ($7,200.00) for his services. Respondent has been a certified public accountant in Florida since 1972.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's certificate for three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: James S. Quincey, Esquire 226 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32602 Thomas B. Calhoun, Esquire 3656 Shamrock Way Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact In October, 1973, the Petitioner filed an application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida with the Board. By letter dated November 21, 1973, the Board, through its Executive Secretary, denied the application stating that the Petitioner lacked the required degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Petitioner requested that his experience be reviewed to determine whether he had training fully equivalent to such a degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). By letter dated August 19, 1974 the Board notified the Petitioner that his educational background was insufficient, and that the application would be denied. Petitioner thereupon filed a Declaratory Judgment Action in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. The court adjudged that the Board was required to consider not only the Petitioner's educational training, but his private study, on-the-job training and other practical experience. A copy of the court's Final Declaratory Judgment was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 12. Petitioner again appeared before the Board and offered evidence respecting his training and practical experience. See: Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 8. On June 11, 1976, the Board entered its order finding the Petitioner to be not qualified and denying the application (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). Petitioner thereupon requested a hearing in accordance with Florida Statutes Section 120.57(1). Petitioner's application for licensure is an administrative adjudicatory proceeding which commenced prior to January 1, 1975. The parties have nonetheless stipulated that the provisions of Section 120.57(1) will hereafter govern the proceeding. The Petitioner received a Bachelor of Science degree from Chicago Technical College, Chicago, Illinois on December 17, 1954. Petitioner's course of study was architectural engineering. The Chicago Technical College was not, during the time that Petitioner attended it, and is not now on the approved list of schools and colleges of architecture adopted and published by the Board. The course of study pursued by the Petitioner at Chicago Technical College was not the same as a program in architecture. The program was a highly technical engineering program. The design studio which is perhaps the major facet of an architectural program was not present in the architectural engineering program pursued by the Petitioner. Following his graduation the Petitioner worked with other architects in the general practice of architecture. His longest periods of employment were with Cabanban and Wasserman, architects, where he worked for four years and eleven months from 1958 until 1963; and with Ohrnstein and Wasserman, with whom he was employed for four years and four months from 1966 through 1971. In each of these jobs the Petitioner performed the sort of work ordinarily performed by architects. A listing of the different projects in which the Petitioner performed design and supervisory functions is set out as a part of Hearing Officer's Exhibit 10. A wide variety of commercial buildings, apartment complexes, and private residences are included. Petitioner served as a partner in Cabanban and Wasserman, and in Ohrnstein and Wasserman. Augustine Cabanban and Earl Ohrnstein were both registered architects during the course of the partnerships. Cabanban and Ohrnstein each testified that the Petitioner performed the full range of architectural services during the course of the partnerships, and that his work was excellent. Architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner to the Board demonstrate that the Petitioner did not achieve a high level of design proficiency from his work experience. The best drawings submitted demonstrated a level of competence of approximately a third year architecture student in a five year program. Other drawings demonstrated a lack of design competence, and were inadequate. During 1972, the Petitioner passed the standard examination offered by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. Petitioner holds a current certificate issued by the National Council, and is registered to practice architecture in the State of Illinois. Schools or colleges of architecture approved by the Board have many common features, and the curricula offered at the schools are fairly consistent. Generally the programs and the curricula have remained consistent since approximately 1955 with minor variations, or changes of a technical sort. There is no real distinction between the sort of program which would have been approved in 1955, and the sort of program which would be approved today. Typically an approved program which operated on a quarter hour academic basis would require approximately 240 quarter hours for graduation. Approximately 75 quarter hours would be in architectural design culminating in a thesis. Approximately 60 quarter hours would be in general education subject matter, with between 30 to 35 hours in social science and humanities. The social science background is important because an architect must bring together all the factors which relate to the building environment, including social factors. The educational program followed by the Petitioner lacked the necessary design courses and social science courses which would be required in an approved architectural program. An architectural engineer is an engineer involved with buildings. The design courses in an architectural engineering program are set up to enable the engineer to work with an architect. Through on-the-job training the Petitioner received considerable design experience; however, drawings which he submitted to the Board did not evidence that he had achieved the level of design competence which would be required of a graduate of an approved architectural program. The fact that the Petitioner passed the National Council's test does not in itself establish that Petitioner reached the necessary level of competence. Petitioner did not offer evidence from which it could be concluded that his studies and experience would substitute for the social science background required of a graduate of an approved program. The Petitioner did not establish that he took social science courses, or engaged in individual study in the social sciences, or engaged in any other activities which would substitute for such an academic background.
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
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner, and if so, what corrective action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a forty-one-year-old black male. He is a 1977 graduate of the University of Florida with a bachelor's degree in Business Administration. His undergraduate major was Finance. Petitioner has approximately 30 credit hours in Accounting from the University of North Florida, which he earned between 1983 and 1988. Petitioner is currently enrolled in the University of North Florida's Masters of Public Administration program. He has completed 30 of the 39 required credit hours in that program. From November of 1979 to March of 1991, Petitioner worked for Occidental Chemical Company as an accountant. After leaving this job, Petitioner was self-employed from April of 1991 to December of 1991. Respondent's District Two office in Lake City, Florida, hired Petitioner on March 6, 1992, as a Purchasing Agent I. Respondent hired Petitioner under administrative rules pertaining to career service employees as promulgated by the Department of Management Services. Petitioner received a copy of Respondent's disciplinary and conduct standards when he was hired. Petitioner worked as a Purchasing Agent I until September of 1992. His salary during that time was $609.00 bi-weekly. In September of 1992, Respondent promoted Petitioner to the position of Accountant II in Respondent's Office of Financial Services. His bi-weekly salary was $752.91, a 23.5 percent increase. As soon as Petitioner became a member of the fiscal section, he received five weeks of intensive training relative to vouchers. This training was necessary because Respondent's central office was beginning to relinquish many functions to its district financial offices, including the vouchering process. Petitioner's direct supervisor in the fiscal section was Faye McClellan. She occupied the position of Accounting Services Supervisor I. Petitioner was indirectly supervised by David Sheffield, District Financial Administrator. On March 1, 1993, David Sheffield hired Karin Davis Charron, a white female, as an Accountant I in Respondent's Office of Financial Services. Her salary was $674.14 bi-weekly, or ten percent above the minimum for an Accountant I. Prior to her employment with Respondent, Ms. Charron had 15 credit hours in Business Administration and Accounting, which she earned at Lake City Community College. Her prior work experience included the following: (a) head cashier at a food store, October of 1983 to June of 1984; (b) accountant/bookkeeper in private business, July of 1984 to September of 1985; (c) Fiscal Assistant I, Department of Corrections, November of 1985 to April of 1987; (d) Secretary Specialist/Cashier, Department of Corrections, April of 1987 to May of 1988; and (e) Fiscal Assistant II, Department of Corrections, May of 1988 to March of 1993. In March of 1993, Petitioner completed his probationary period as an Accountant II. On March 27, 1993, Faye McClellan and David Sheffield gave Petitioner an overall performance rating of "exceeds." On June 1, 1993, Petitioner was promoted to the position of Accountant III. At this time, Petitioner's salary was increased by 10 percent to $828.20 bi-weekly. On August 20, 1993, Respondent hired Ricky Haddock, a black male, as a Fiscal Assistant II at a bi-weekly salary of $549.90. Ricky Haddock testified that soon after he was employed, Ms. Charron told him that "we can make your life a living hell." This statement is not credible due to Mr. Haddock's poor memory concerning the circumstances under which Ms. Charron allegedly made this statement. On or about March 11, 1994, Respondent promoted Ms. Charron to Accountant II with a bi-weekly salary of $766.94, a ten percent increase. Subsequently, Dave Sheffield received a promotion and vacated his position as District Financial Administrator. Linda Green, a white female, took his place. Ms. Green had over ten years of managerial experience when she accepted this position. As manager of the fiscal section, Linda Green became responsible for the direct supervision of Faye McClellan. She was Petitioner's and Ms. Charron's indirect supervisor. On or about March 17, 1994, Faye McClellan gave Petitioner a special performance appraisal. The appraisal form indicates that Petitioner, as an Accountant III, had attended voucher quarterly meetings, SAMAS contract training, payroll training, ADA training, and conduct standards training. The appraisal form described Petitioner as a team player. Of special note was his participation in the Youth Motivator Program in the Columbia County School System. Petitioner received a overall performance rating of "exceeds." Linda Green concurred in Ms. McClellan's assessment of Petitioner's job performance. On September 9, 1994, Respondent promoted Petitioner to the position of Accountant IV. The promotion increased Petitioner's salary by ten percent to $938.36 bi-weekly. Linda Green, as manager of the financial office, recommended Petitioner for this promotion. As an Accountant IV, Petitioner's duties primarily consisted of auditing consultant contracts. These contracts are the most complicated contracts that the financial office processes. Petitioner was also responsible for the payroll and for the supervision of other contract auditors. About two months after Petitioner became an Accountant IV, his immediate supervisor, Faye McClellan, requested and received a position reassignment in Respondent's purchasing office. Petitioner filed an employment application to fill the vacancy created by Ms. McClellan's reassignment. On November 21, 1994, Respondent promoted Petitioner to the position of Accounting Services Supervisor I. The promotion increased Petitioner's salary by 19 percent to $1,161.31 bi- weekly. Linda Green recommended Petitioner for the Accounting Services Supervisor I promotion. She became his direct supervisor. As Accounting Services Supervisor I, Petitioner was responsible for the direct supervision of several subordinate Fiscal Assistants and Accountants, including Ms. Charron. Petitioner was the only black supervisor in Respondent's second district. Historically, the financial section is one of the more racially diverse offices in District Two. From November of 1994 through June of 1995, there were approximately ten people working in the fiscal section. Three of these employees were black. At least two employees were members of other minorities. Petitioner, Ricky Haddock, and two other minority employees were the only employees in the financial office with a college education. On December 23, 1994, Respondent promoted Ms. Charron to Accountant IV. Her bi-weekly salary became $928.50 which was equivalent to the minimum of the pay grade for that position. Linda Green recommended Ms. Charron for the promotion to Accountant IV. Petitioner participated on the panel that selected Ms. Charron as the most qualified candidate to fill Petitioner's former position. In so doing, he reviewed her application and interviewed her for the job. There is no credible evidence to support Petitioner's current allegation that Linda Green allowed Ms. Charron to misrepresent her qualifications for the position of Accountant IV. Ms. Charron's application in February of 1994 for the position of Accountant II, and her application in November of 1994 for the position of Accountant IV, accurately describe all duties and responsibilities that she performed at Stafford's Fire Extinguisher Service in 1984-1985. In 1994, an applicant for the position of Accountant IV was required to have a bachelor's degree in accounting, or a certificate as a Certified Public Accountant, or equivalent work experience in accounting. Neither the Petitioner nor Ms. Charron possessed a bachelor's degree in accounting or a certificate as a Certified Public Accountant when Respondent promoted them to their respective Accountant IV positions. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that they were well qualified for the position of Accountant IV, at the time of their respective appointments, based on a combination of their education and work experience. Petitioner had a bachelor's degree in Finance, over eleven years of accounting experience in private industry, and more than four years of experience in state governmental accounting. Ms. Charron, on the other hand, had less then one year of formal education in business administration/accounting, over one year of accounting experience in private industry, and more than eleven years of experience in state governmental accounting. State employees have to comply with numerous statutes and rules which do not apply to private enterprise. In this case, Ms. Charron's experience in working for the state more than compensated for her lack of formal education. As Accounting Services Supervisor I, Petitioner's supervisory responsibilities increased. In February of 1995, he directly supervised Rick Haddock and three other Fiscal Assistant II positions, two of which were vacant. He also had direct supervision over Ms. Charron. Ms. Charron, in turn, was responsible for the direct supervision of four other Accountant positions. On February 13, 1995, Petitioner signed a Review and Performance Planning (RAPP) form. This was a new form which Respondent began using just prior to implementing a major career service reform within the agency. The form states that from February 1, 1995, through January 31, 1996, Petitioner would be evaluated based on his performance of the following duties: Supervise district vouchering section. Active participation/supervision vouchering section. Coordinate workloads. Provide liaison with personnel, DOT and State Comptroller. Assist in Legislative budget request. Assist with budget preparation for various programs. Assist in formulating budget information into the different entities LBR's. Manage contract section. Manages all contracts. Verifying information and all supporting documentation for payments to vendors. Audit district disbursements. Audit disbursement for accuracy in accordance with GAP and pertinent federal/state/department rules/ regulations/statutes. The RAPP form lists the following as Petitioner's departmental responsibilities: 1. Coaching; 2. Delegation; 3. Management control; 4. Leadership/Influence; 5. EEO/Affirmative Action; 6. Performance goals; 7. Planning and organization; 8. Judgment; Resources; and 10. Safety practices. Linda Green wanted to increase the cross-training of all employees so that work would not become back-logged when one of them took leave. She also wanted to give Petitioner an opportunity to broaden his experience in other functions of the financial office. In order to accomplish her goals, Ms. Green gave Petitioner additional budget responsibility and deleted his property administration duties in February of 1995. Linda Green gave Petitioner's property administration duties to Ms. Charron. From February 1995, through May 1995, Ms. Charron spent a portion of her time working on the inventory. Ms. Charron continued to work on several special projects to supervise other accountants. As Accounting Services Supervisor I, Petitioner's desk was located in a glass enclosed area within a larger office. Petitioner was supposed to be a "working" supervisor. However, Petitioner spent an inordinate amount of time in his office with the door closed. During these times, Petitioner had long social visits with an employee from another office in the building. He discussed personal matters with an auditor from the central office on the phone for extended periods of time. At times Petitioner's door was locked, so staff could not use the computer which was located in his office. Petitioner's subordinates were reluctant to disturb Petitioner during these times even if they had a question they needed to ask him. They began to complain to Linda Green about Petitioner's unavailability. Linda Green observed Petitioner sleeping during meetings. At first she ignored the situation. However, employees from other offices began to complain about Petitioner's sleeping during meetings. Linda Green also received complaints from other employees that Petitioner was misusing state property. They claimed that he was receiving facsimile transmissions not related to department business. Linda Green began taking notes about these complaints on her computer. She did not share these notes with Petitioner. Linda Green discussed the prohibitions against misuse of state property in staff meetings. She also discussed her concerns about Petitioner's sleeping in meetings, talking on the telephone, and entertaining visitors with Petitioner personally. In February of 1995, Respondent initiated a new job classification and pay plan. The 1994 Legislature mandated this new system, which is distinct from the career service rules promulgated by the Department of Management Services. The new system is unique to Respondent as an agency. Under the new system, Respondent's employees retain career service status and benefits. However, Respondent changed position descriptions, job classifications, employment qualifications, and pay scale ranges to create more flexibility in hiring, promoting, and reassigning duties of employees within the department. The new system concentrates on the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for each position rather than a minimum qualification for each class specification. Formal education remains important, but it is not the paramount consideration in deciding whether to hire or promote employees. The focus of the new system is to ensure that employees can perform the required functions and duties of the specific positions which they occupy or for which they apply. Under the new system, Respondent can reward employees for productivity by increasing their salary without having to promote them to a new position or reclassify their existing positions. Respondent can increase or decrease salaries within a new classification, depending upon the actual duties assigned and performed by the employees. The new plan reduced the number of career service job classes from over 52 occupational groups with 1700 job classifications to 16 occupational groups divided into six levels. Respondent uses the fourth and fifth levels within an occupational group to recognize the distinctive, but equivalent, value of technical and managerial expertise. For example, each occupational group embraces a Level IV and Level V which corresponds to technical and managerial expertise respectively. A reassignment from a Level V managerial position to a Level IV technical position, or vice versa, is not a demotion or promotion, respectively. The new Level IV and Level V positions allow Respondent to reassign employees to different duties to meet the demands of the changing work load and work force without adversely affecting their work status, employment records, or incomes. Thus, Respondent can shift employees from obsolete duties to new and viable tasks where they are more productive. When Respondent initiated the new system, and for one year thereafter, Respondent's central office had to approve every reassignment from an old career service position "title" to the corresponding new title. In performing this duty, Respondent's central office verified the salary for each position to ensure that the salary corresponded to the duties assigned to that position. The initial reassignments in the new system were effective February 24, 1995. At that time, Linda Green, Ms. Charron, and Petitioner were reassigned to the new Accounting, Audit, and Tax occupational group with no change in their respective salaries. Linda Green was assigned to Level VI, as District Financial Services Manager. Petitioner was assigned Level V, Accounting Services Supervisor I, which required that Petitioner spend over 51 percent of his time supervising other employees. Ms. Charron was assigned to Level III as an Accountant IV. Petitioner continued to be Ms. Charron's direct supervisor. A personality conflict developed between Petitioner and Ms. Charron after she became an Accountant IV in December of 1994. Ms. Charron did not want the employees that she supervised to seek or receive assistance from Petitioner, even though he was her supervisor. If Ms. Charron disagreed with Petitioner, she would go over Petitioner's head to Linda Green to resolve the conflict. Petitioner resented not having total control over all of the employees under his direct and indirect supervision. His attitude became confrontational with other employees when they asked a question or made a comment that he perceived as undermining his authority. At times he was overly assertive in an effort to prove that he was right on one point or another. Linda Green did nothing to open lines of communication between Petitioner, as supervisor, and Ms. Charron, as his subordinate. Petitioner did not seek Ms. Green's assistance in resolving the conflict with Ms. Charron. As the power struggle between Petitioner and Ms. Charron ensued, dissension and poor morale became a problem in the fiscal section. On one occasion, Debbie Williams and Laura Kennon were working with the central office to correct an invoice error on one of Petitioner's consultant contracts. Petitioner questioned the method they were using to correct the problem. He wanted them to correct the error without involving the central office or the State Comptroller's office. Ms. Williams wanted to leave a proper audit trail. Before the situation was resolved, all three employees became angry and confrontational. Around the end of February 1995, a member of the financial services staff requested a meeting to discuss the problems the office was having as a result of the dissension between Petitioner and Ms. Charron. Jean Jones, District Two's Director of Administration attended the meeting. Linda Green and Jean Jones advised the staff that they could go to either Petitioner or Ms. Charron for answers to any questions about their work. Linda Green did not tell her staff in this meeting, or any other meeting, that education did not mean anything in Respondent's financial section. After the meeting was over, Jean Jones told Linda Green that some changes had to be made to better define the lines of communication within the office. Ms. Jones instructed Ms. Green to do some research and develop a solution to the problem. A large part of Ms. Charron's duties included working on special projects. These projects necessitated frequent consultations between Linda Green and Ms. Charron. There is no persuasive evidence that Linda Green showed favoritism to Ms. Charron by conspiring with her against Petitioner in private meetings and conversations. To the contrary, the dissension that existed in the office was the result of a personality conflict between Petitioner and Ms. Charron. Ms. Green's inability to establish a clear chain of command aggravated the situation. Prior to November of 1994, Respondent provided Petitioner with an abundance of training in technical and management subject areas. Some of the technical seminars included consultant procedures and negotiation, contract fund approval and encumbrance, and contractual services training. Other training programs included office staff skills enhancement, employee selection, conduct standards and discipline, district budget development, supervisory decision making, employee performance appraisal, fundamental skills of communication, fundamental skills of management, and Certified Public Management Level I. After November of 1994, Petitioner continued to receive training to enhance his career. Some of the programs he attended included review and performance planning, how to supervise people, managing change, presentation skills, budget and budget orientation, federal aid training, records retention, and management problems of the technical person in a leadership role. Linda Green encouraged Petitioner to participate in the training programs. She gave him the opportunity to develop the skills necessary to enhance his career. In the spring of 1995, Linda Green worked on training plans for all personnel in the fiscal section including Petitioner. On April 7, 1995, Ms. Green discussed Petitioner's training plan with him. On April 25, 1995, a copy of Petitioner's training plan was discovered on his desk with the word "bullshit" written across the bottom. Petitioner admits that he wrote this expletive on his training plan in the presence of Ms. Charron. In April of 1995, the State Comptroller's office rejected and returned a great number of invoices to the financial office. Linda Green responded by assigning Petitioner the responsibility of handling the returns and correcting the errors. In order to stay apprised of the situation, Ms. Green required that all mail relating to returns be directed to her before being delivered to Petitioner. She did not review Petitioner's mail unrelated to the returns. In April of 1995, Linda Green became aware that certain work assigned to Petitioner and/or Petitioner's subordinates was not being performed in a timely manner. Ms. Green had to enlist the help of other personnel to complete the work. In April of 1995, Linda Green initiated the procedure to issue reprimands to Petitioner concerning his continued misuse of the office telephones and facsimile machines, his sleeping on duty, and his social visits that wasted time. However, this procedure was delayed because Petitioner was hospitalized for surgery. Petitioner was out of work on sick leave from April 27, 1995, to May 30, 1995. During his illness, Linda Green extended Petitioner's probationary period for his Accounting Services Supervisor I position. In the 1992-93 fiscal year, the financial services office had approximately 12 primary responsibilities. The financial office gained 10 additional duties in the 1993-94 fiscal year and 18 new duties in the 1994-95 fiscal year. During this time, the number of positions in the financial office doubled. In May of 1995, Linda Green began to plan the reorganization of the financial section. She discussed the reorganization with her supervisor, Jean Jones. They made a decision to divide the responsibilities in the financial services office between Petitioner and Ms. Charron, the two established supervisors. They based the decision in part on a need to accommodate the increased work load. They also decided to split the supervision duties in an effort to improve the lines of communication within the office and to eliminate dissension. Officials in Respondent's central and district offices approved the reorganization. Under the reorganization plan, Ms. Green decided to give Petitioner responsibility for the following: supervising the concentration account; processing purchase orders, local purchase orders, local charge accounts, and utility invoice transmittals; processing travel and individual reimbursements; handling deposits; supervising warrant distribution; and processing mail. Ms. Green deleted Petitioner's duties relative to payroll and contracts. Ms. Charron's duties under the reorganization included supervision of the following: contracts, reconciliations, compliance reports, interest payments, and journal transfers. She assumed supervision of the payroll at the express request of Jean Jones. Additionally, Ms. Charron was assigned numerous special projects. When Petitioner returned to work from sick leave on June 1, 1995, Linda Green discussed the reorganization with Petitioner and Ms. Charron. She advised them that Ms. Charron would supervise four Level Two positions, one of which was vacant. Petitioner would supervise five Level One positions, all of which were occupied. Petitioner and Ms. Charron would report directly to Linda Green. Linda Green decided to have Petitioner supervise the Level One positions because they needed more supervision than the Level Two positions. Petitioner was better qualified than Ms. Charron to supervise the five entry level positions occupied by minority and non-minority employees. On June 15, 1995, Linda Green promoted Ms. Charron to Accounting, Audit, Tax Level V. Her salary was increased by 20 percent to $1,114.20 bi-monthly. The promotion was effective before the expiration of Ms. Charron's probationary period as an Accountant IV. The decisions to reorganize the section and promote Ms. Charron were made while Petitioner was absent on sick leave. Linda Green did not deliberately choose to promote Ms. Charron without consulting Petitioner as her supervisor. Moreover, Ms. Green, as manager, had no duty to consult with Petitioner before reorganizing the office. On June 16, 1995, Linda Green issued two official written reprimands against Petitioner. The first written reprimand involved a violation of Respondent's Conduct Standard 14-17.012(4)(a)6., Florida Administrative Code, for sleeping on duty. The reprimand documented the following occasions that Petitioner violated this conduct standard: November 30, 1994; December 1, 1994; January 5, 1995; March 13, 1995; March 20, 1995; March 21, 1995; March 30, 1995; June 5, 1995; and June 7, 1995. Prior to June of 1995, numerous employees were observed sleeping in meetings. The record contains no evidence that any of them were given written reprimands for sleeping on duty. Except for one of these employees, there is no evidence that their respective supervisors were aware that they were sleeping on duty. One employee, Jim Spencer, was observed sleeping on duty by his direct supervisor, Jean Jones. He was not on permanent career status at the time. Jean Jones decided to extend Mr. Spencer's probationary status rather than issue him a written reprimand. Ms. Jones made a conscious decision to give Mr. Spencer an opportunity to correct his behavior before dismissing him from employment. The second official written reprimand charged Petitioner with violating Respondent's Conduct Standard 14-17.012(4)(a)25., Florida Administrative Code, for unauthorized use or misuse of state property, services, equipment or personnel, and Respondent's Conduct Standard 14-17.012(4)(a)7., Florida Administrative Code, for loafing. This reprimand was the result of Petitioner's continued abuse of telephone privileges from January through June of 1995, misuse of the facsimile machines from February through May of 1995, and extended social visits with an employee from another office from January through March of 1995. Petitioner's alleged misuse of Respondent's facsimile machine was due to his involvement with the Safe and Drug-free Schools Advisory Council sponsored by the Columbia County School Board. Petitioner was cautioned in staff meetings on February 13, 1995, and February 21, 1995, against using state property for personal reasons. After those meetings, he received announcements of advisory council meetings on February 27, 1995, and April 26, 1995. He received a third fax transmission from the school board on May 16, 1995, while he was on sick leave. The school board solicited Petitioner's participation in the advisory council during one of Respondent's staff meetings. Respondent's employees did not have to request leave to attend the meeting. Nevertheless, Respondent did not give its employees permission to use its facsimile machines to receive notices about advisory council meetings or other volunteer work. Petitioner contacted the school board staff to tell them not to send him notices using Respondent's facsimile machines. The record is not clear as to when Petitioner made this request. Petitioner did not receive facsimile transmissions from the school board after he received the reprimand in June of 1995. The record contains evidence of four written reprimands for employee misuse of state property from December 1994, through May 1995. From February 1996, through June 1996, six employees were given written reprimands for misuse of state property. The reprimands of other employees included misuse of telephone privileges, computers, and agency stamps and stationary. These reprimands, together with competent evidence that Petitioner abused his long-distance telephone privileges as set forth below, eliminate any concern that Petitioner received disparate treatment regarding his reprimand for misuse or unauthorized use of state property. There is no evidence that Respondent has ever cited anyone but Petitioner for loafing. Nevertheless, the record supports this charge against Petitioner. Juanita Aiken works in Respondent's central office as an Disbursement Services Analyst. She testified that she often discussed personal matters with Respondent's employees in long- distance telephone conversations before she addressed the business purpose of her call. Linda Green personally informed Petitioner in January of 1995 that he needed to confine his long-distance telephone conversations with Ms. Aiken to department business. Petitioner did not heed her verbal warning. Ms. Aiken's personal telephone conversations with Petitioner did not cease until Linda Green and Jean Jones contacted her supervisor in Tallahassee. In the spring of 1995, Linda Green solicited Debra Williams' help in monitoring Petitioner's personal telephone calls. Ms. Williams declined to become involved and requested that her desk be relocated to another area. Linda Green assigned Ms. Charron a desk in Petitioner's private office in April of 1995. Ms. Charron complained to Ms. Green that Petitioner was talking on the phone for 30 to 45 minutes everyday and sometimes twice a day. The personal nature of the calls made Ms. Charron feel uncomfortable. Olu Olyewole worked for Respondent as a Distributor Computer Systems Analyst. He was responsible for connecting personal computer terminals to the networking system. He visited Petitioner regularly for extended periods of time until Ms. Green complained to his supervisor. When Mr. Olyewole visited Petitioner, the door to Petitioner's private office would often be closed. Early in 1995, Wanda Jean Hills desk was located in the glass-enclosed office with Petitioner's desk. On one occasion she could not get to her desk because she believed Petitioner and Mr. Olyewole were having a private conversation. The long social visits with Mr. Olyewole wasted time in an office that was overburdened with work. The visits interfered the performance of work by Petitioner and his subordinates. Petitioner was unavailable to his subordinates during these visits because they were reluctant to disturb his conversations, even when they needed his assistance. Linda Green did not reprimand any of her subordinates except Petitioner for misuse of state property, sleeping on duty, or loafing. However, there is no evidence that other employees under her authority violated the same conduct standards that Petitioner violated. There is evidence that Linda Green sold Amway products to employees on Respondent's property over a two-month time span. The record does not reflect the exact period of time in which Ms. Green engaged in this activity. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Linda Green passed out Amway brochures and delivered merchandise before work in the mornings. At times, her co-workers would place an order with Ms. Green during work hours because they were familiar with Amway products and knew that she was an Amway representative. Occasionally, Respondent's employees would hand Ms. Green a check or leave one in her desk during work hours. Linda Green did not aggressively pursue her private enterprise during work hours. There is no evidence that Ms. Green's private business activities interfered with her duties or usurped a significant portion of her time as manager of the financial section. Respondent did not give Linda Green a written reprimand for conducting private business on Respondent's property. The record does not reflect whether Ms. Green was verbally reprimanded. It does not appear that her supervisor, Jean Jones, was aware that Ms. Green was involved in selling Amway products on department property. The record does not contain evidence of any written reprimand based solely on unauthorized solicitation on state property. It does contain evidence that Respondent issued a written reprimand to an employee for conducting personal business while using a state vehicle. The employee's actions, like Ms. Green's, were incidental to the performance of his duties. The employee's supervisor did not require the employee to reimburse the agency for any cost. On June 16, 1995, Linda Green gave Petitioner a special performance appraisal to evaluate his performance as a supervisor since November 21, 1994. To conduct this evaluation, Ms. Green used the performance appraisal form for supervisors and managers that was in effect when Petitioner was promoted to Accounting Services Supervisor I in November of 1994. Linda Green admits that she did not conduct the required initial review of the relevant performance standards with Petitioner within two weeks of his promotion. Nevertheless, Petitioner's claims that he was not familiar with the performance standards used by Ms. Green to evaluate his performance is not persuasive. Petitioner attended at least two seminars in performance appraisal and performance planning. Petitioner was familiar with the performance standards for a supervisor, which became effective after Respondent initiated its career service reform in February of 1995. He signed the RAPP form on February 13, 1995. The standards contained on the new appraisal form are substantially similar to the performance standards listed on the older appraisal form. Linda Green gave Petitioner an overall performance rating of "below" standards. The record supports her determination that Petitioner's work performance began to fall short of expectations after he assumed the position as an accounting supervisor. Linda Green determined that Petitioner's performance in two categories deserved the highest rating of "achieves." These two categories were EEO/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and SAFETY PRACTICES. Linda Green determined that Petitioner's performance was substantially below expectations in at least one area of each of the remaining six categories for the following reasons: PLANNING, CONTROLLING AND ORGANIZING WORK Petitioner failed to operate his work areas efficiently. He did not notify his supervisor of job related problems. Petitioner did not take necessary and appropriate action on performance and shortcomings of subordinate employees. SUPERVISION/LEADERSHIP OF PEOPLE Petitioner failed to delegate effectively. Petitioner demonstrated dissension toward other staff members. PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS Petitioner did not take necessary and appropriate action on performance shortcomings of subordinate employees. PROBLEM ANALYSIS/DECISION MAKING Petitioner failed to inform and/or consult with necessary persons during the decision- making process. SELF DIRECTION/PERSONAL SKILLS Petitioner failed to use his work time effectively. He abused his telephone privileges. He wasted time visiting with an other employee. JOB PERFORMANCE Petitioner failed to perform specific job assignments as outlined on his position description or as assigned by appropriate management. A job applicant claimed that he earned 2400 credit hours in a U.S. Army finance school within a two-month period. Petitioner offered the applicant a job without verifying this information. Linda Green subsequently determined that the applicant had misrepresented his qualifications and withdrew the job offer. Based on this incident alone, Petitioner did not meet the standard for job performance in general. In December of 1995, Rick Haddock received a promotion to a Level II accountant. His salary increased by 20 percent to $715.27 bi-monthly. In March of 1996, Petitioner had a confrontation with Mary Caldwell, a white female accountant. Petitioner's voice was loud; he sounded very angry and threatening. The disturbance alarmed several employees who were in the vicinity. Ms. Caldwell and Petitioner went into a private office where the argument continued. Petitioner's behavior toward Ms. Caldwell was totally inappropriate. On March 22, 1996, Linda Green gave Petitioner a written reprimand for violation of Respondent's Conduct Standard 14-17.012(4)(a)16., Florida Administrative Code, involving rudeness, display of uncooperative or antagonistic attitude, actions or behavior. That same day, Ms. Green gave Petitioner a mandatory Employee Assistance Program Referral. In June of 1996, Linda Green deleted Petitioner's duties involving the budget and supervision of the vouchering section. Linda Green gave Patsy Green, a white female, Petitioner's budget responsibilities. Linda Green took this initiative because of the increased work load resulting from continued decentralization. The central office initiated a process in 1996 to conduct a periodic formal Quality Assurance Review (QAR) in each district office. The purpose of the QAR was to ensure that all vouchers were correct before they were sent to the billing office of the State Controller. Ms. Green wanted Petitioner to focus his energy on making sure that District Two's vouchers were in compliance with all state regulations. In June, 1996, Linda Green gave Petitioner additional duties including financial audits and investigations, quality assurance reports, reconciliations, comptroller returns, and liaison with the State Comptroller's office. His new duties were in-depth auditing and accounting responsibilities involving job cost reporting and making sure that the accounting system stayed in balance. Petitioner's salary was not decreased when his job description changed. At the same time, Linda Green gave Ms. Charron additional duties including contract funds management, joint participation agreements, settlement agreements, management reports, training, and numerous special projects. Ms. Green deleted Ms. Charron's supervisory responsibilities over the contract section. Linda Green received information in June 1996, that the central office intended to audit the supervisory positions in District Two. The central office wanted to make sure that all Level V positions in the Accounting, Audit, and Tax occupational group were held by employees spending at least 51 percent of their time in supervision. Petitioner and Ms. Charron were not spending 51 percent of their time in supervising the work of other employees. Accordingly, both of them were reassigned on June 14, 1996, to Level IV of the Accounting, Audit, and Tax occupational group. The working title for each of them became Accounting Services Administrator. This change was not a demotion and did not effect their respective salaries. Instead, the reassignments accurately reflected the actual duties of their positions. After Petitioner filed his Charge of Discrimination, Michael Klump, from Respondent's Minority Program Office in Tallahassee, Florida, was assigned to furnish all information requested by FCHR and to prepare the agency's response to the complaint. Mr. Klump's duties did not involve investigating the alleged charges on behalf of FCHR. Respondent's Minority Program Office prepared a letter dated September 11, 1995, addressed to Petitioner. The purpose of the letter was to advise Petitioner that the agency had received the complaint. It states that Petitioner should contact Mr. Klump if Petitioner had any additional information or questions regarding this matter. There is no competent evidence to indicate whether Petitioner received the letter from the Minority Program Office. Mr. Klump visited Respondent's District Two Office in Lake City to gather the information requested by FCHR. He did not interview Petitioner while he was there. Respondent's Minority Program Office does not routinely interview complainants who file a charge of employment discrimination with FCHR unless the complainant responds to a letter similar to the one addressed to Petitioner. There is no credible evidence that Respondent prepared its response and/or position statement to FCHR with the intention of misrepresenting material facts. Linda Green gave Petitioner a copy of her computer notes relative to dissension in the office when he first requested them. However, she edited the notes to delete the names of employees that had complained about Petitioner. At the hearing, Ms. Green produced an unedited copy of the notes which had been updated beyond the time relevant here. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent intentionally discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race or gender or retaliated against him for filing his Charge of Discrimination.
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 Petitioner's claims of racial and gender discrimination and retaliation. Recommended this 15th day of October, 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 15th day of October, 1997.
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified public accountant licensed by the Board of Accountancy, violated provisions of the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code as alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued to him by the Board on March 14, 1996. If so, what is the appropriate discipline?
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Petitioner is the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy. The Board, "created in the department [of Business and Professional Regulation], Section 473.303, Florida Statutes," is charged with powers and duties under the Public Accountancy Act, Chapter 473, Florida Statutes. Among these is the authority to enter an order imposing penalties up to license revocation whenever it finds "any licensee guilty of any of the grounds set forth in subsection (1). . . [of Section 473.323, Florida Statutes, the '[d]isciplinary proceedings' section of the Act]." Section 473.323(3), Florida Statutes. William David Herron is a certified public accountant, licensed as such by the Board since 1987, having been certified in August of that year. His license number is AC0018690. The offices for Mr. Herron's busy practice are in Sarasota. He describes his practice as unique, "in that most of my clients are elderly, and I still make house calls." (Tr. 277) Approximately 150 clients of Mr. Herron's are senior citizens, that is, over the age of 65. Excluding real estate holdings, Mr. Herron conservatively estimates the net worth of his senior citizen clients to be around 110 million dollars. Among his well-heeled clients (that is, until late 1994 when the Lutheran Ministries of Florida, Inc., was appointed guardian of her person and property and terminated Mr. Herron's professional relationship with her) was an elderly resident of Plymouth Harbor, a Sarasota County retirement center: Florrie Alderson. Florrie Alderson By commencement of final hearing, Florrie Alderson had passed away. At the time of her death, she was in her early 90’s and had been a long-time resident of Plymouth Harbor. When she first began to reside at Plymouth Harbor, where residents are described as a "very affluent group of people," (Tr. 39) Ms. Alderson lived in an individual apartment on the fourth floor. In the first few years of this decade, however, the needs of Ms. Alderson, then in her late 80's, grew more pronounced. She was moved to Plymouth Harbor’s Callahan Center. The Callahan Center is designed for residents in need of a higher level of care than the residents of the area in which Ms. Alderson first resided. Comprised of ten apartments on the second floor, the Callahan Center is close to the nurse's station. Each of the ten apartments is equipped specially to take into account the resident's impairment. (Tr. 45) At the same time, precautions are taken for the protection of the resident. For example, the doors to the rooms automatically close in case of fire. To prevent fires in the first place, none of the Callahan Center apartments have stoves. As an added protection for its residents, the center is equipped with an intercom system. The purpose of the system is self-evident. It is both a communication device, allowing the nurses at their nearby station to interact directly with the residents, as well as a monitoring device, allowing them from time-to-time to hear what is happening inside the apartment of a resident whose needs for assistance and care are numerous and diverse. Part of the intercom system is a red light situated on one of the walls of the resident's room. Whenever the intercom is in use the red light is illuminated. In the case of Ms. Alderson, the intercom system was used for more than just communication and monitoring purposes. It was used to remind her to come down to the dining room. "She did walk to the dining room, but she needed to be reminded." (Tr. 82) In her case, therefore, the intercom system was often in use and, over the years she was in the Callahan Center, it was used "[m]any times." Id. When Ms. Alderson was on the fourth floor of Plymouth Harbor the nurses visited her if she called. When she moved to the Callahan Center, however, and for the two years or so that she lived there prior to January 13, 1994, the nurses "did what they call total care. We did her showers; we assisted her dressing; we combed her hair." (Tr. 84) Ms. Oma Horan, a licensed practical nurse and the person closest to Ms. Alderson with the possible exception of Mr. Herron, described Florrie Alderson and the intimacy with which her care was administered in these words: "Many times I put a little bit of rouge and lipstick [on Florrie]. She was absolutely adorable. She was easy to love, easy to care for." (Tr. 84) Florrie Alderson was also compliant. She was that way with everyone, even other residents of Plymouth Harbor. If someone asked her to do something, she would do it. Oma Horan attributed her compliancy to the sweetness of her nature. Of all the residents "that I cared for" (Tr.85), "she was one of the sweetest." Id. Other than sporadic visits by her attorneys and regular visits by Mr. Herron, Ms. Alderson did not have visitors in the many years she resided at Plymouth Harbor. She had no immediate relatives. The remainder of her family, whom she heard from by letter only on occasion, resided in Great Britain, Florrie Alderson's country of origin. More Than an Accountant-Client Relationship In 1982, prior to being licensed as a certified public accountant, Mr. Herron had a tax and personal bookkeeping practice known as Personal Financial Services of Sarasota. In late 1984, Florrie Alderson was recommended to him as a client. At first their relationship was one of accountant- client. They retained that relationship until Mr. Herron’s dismissal in late 1994. During that time, Mr. Herron on occasion discussed with Ms. Alderson investment options presented by her trustee, Sun Bank. But Mr. Herron did not manage her money. That fell to her trustee, the bank. In contrast, Mr. Herron provided Ms. Alderson with services such as insurance claim filing, balancing her checkbook, preparation of bill payments, reviewing her trust account statements, and preparation of her individual tax returns. But, in Mr. Herron's own words, the relationship grew beyond more than just one of accountant/client. “[I]t evolved into more than that. It evolved into a personal and social relationship over the years. . . ." (Tr. 279) Tea and Bon Bons Sometime in the 1980's, Ms. Alderson invited Mr. Herron to have lunch with her in the dining room at Plymouth Harbor. On later occasions, both Mr. Herron and his wife were invited. Still later, Mr. Herron began seeing Ms. Alderson in her apartment on the fourth floor where "she insisted on making a cup of tea for both of us and having some cookies." (Tr. 279) As might be expected of someone of British origin, Ms. Alderson greatly enjoyed tea. When she moved into the Callahan Center and was without cooking facilities, Mr. Herron purchased a small hot pot with which to heat water to make tea for Ms. Alderson. Ms. Alderson insisted on reimbursing Mr. Herron for the purchase. The two continued to enjoy tea together on a regular basis for as long as Ms. Alderson was at Plymouth Harbor. Ms. Alderson also enjoyed chocolate petit fours. She asked Mr. Herron to order two boxes from a catalog at a cost of $50. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Herron found the same chocolates at a local gourmet grocery store at a cost of only $18 for two boxes. He began buying them for her at a rate of about two boxes twice a month or so until asked by the nursing staff to stop. The chocolate had become too much for Ms. Alderson at her age. During the time Mr. Herron was bringing Ms. Alderson chocolates, however, she insisted on seeing the receipt, reimbursing him and rounding up the reimbursement $5 or so for Mr. Herron's time and gas. At first, Mr. Herron visited Ms. Alderson once a month. Around 1990, he began to visit her twice a month and then in 1991 he began to visit her nearly every week. The increase in the number of Mr. Herron's visits were not far in time from a remarkable gift made by Ms. Alderson to Mr. Herron and a subsequent augmentation of the gift. The gift concerned a revocable trust. Ms. Alderson's Revocable Trust On December 17, 1970, Ms. Alderson executed a Revocable Trust Agreement. Between April 1, 1980 and February 15, 1985, amendments to the trust were executed, numbered the first through fourth. In December 1988, Mr. Herron's wife Sandy, then his office manager, contacted Camden Theodore French, Ms. Alderson's attorney, to advise him of Ms. Alderson's wish to amend the trust a fifth time. Among the changes to the trust to take place by virtue of the fifth amendment, was to name William Herron as a ten per cent (10%) beneficiary of the trust assets. On February 16, 1989, Ms. Alderson executed the fifth amendment. Mr. Herron was now a ten per cent (10%) beneficiary of the trust assets (a value of approximately $30,000,), to be received upon dissolution of the trust, that is, upon the death of Ms. Alderson. Now a beneficiary of a trust of one of his clients, Mr. Herron had concerns about his ethical obligations. His own research into the law and rules governing certified public accountants in Florida revealed only broad standards without specific guidance as to his situation. Feeling that the research failed to provide a satisfactory answer, Mr. Herron consulted an attorney. He was told his concerns were unfounded. He received the same advice from a second attorney. In neither case, however, did Mr. Herron receive an opinion letter. (Nor were the identities of the attorneys revealed at hearing.) In June of 1992, Mr. Herron contacted Mr. French of Ms. Alderson's wish to amend the trust to increase Mr. Herron's interest. On July 8, 1992, Mr. Alderson executed the sixth amendment making Mr. Herron the beneficiary of a 30 per cent (30%) interest, a value of approximately $90,000. In February of 1993, Mr. French received a letter from Ms. Alderson advising him of her wish to amend the trust yet again, this time to increase Mr. Herron's interest to sixty per cent (60%). Questions of Testamentary Capacity Mr. French had been the attorney who had prepared the fifth and sixth amendments to Ms. Alderson's revocable trust and who had assisted her in the execution of the documents reflecting the amendments. When the sixth amendment was executed, Mr. French took pains to ensure that the amendment was, in fact, the will of Ms. Alderson. Although out of the ordinary, Mr. French took another lawyer with him from his office to Plymouth Harbor for its execution. In the presence of this additional lawyer, Mr. French asked Ms. Alderson a series of questions regarding her testamentary capacity. Aside from her advanced age, part of Mr. French’s motivation in asking these questions was his understanding that Mr. Herron was not the natural object of Ms. Alderson’s bounty. In addition to questions about those who would be the natural object of her bounty, he asked her questions about the composition of her assets, their value, and how much she spent a month. The purpose of the questions (asked outside the presence of Mr. Herron to ensure that no "undue influence" was at work,), was so that Mr. French could be satisfied that Ms. Alderson was capable of executing the amendment and fully understood its import. Following this question and answer session, and satisfied that Ms. Alderson possessed testamentary capacity, Mr. French assisted her in the execution of the sixth amendment. When Ms. Alderson sent word to Mr. French in early 1993 that she wanted to amend the trust agreement again to make Mr. Herron a sixty per cent (60%) beneficiary, Mr. French undertook to ascertain her testamentary capacity in much the same manner as he had done with the sixth amendment. On three separate occasions in 1993, the standard questions were asked. On each of the three occasions, it appeared to Mr. French that Ms. Alderson lacked testamentary capacity, so the amendments were not executed. In the interest of caution, Mr. French checked with others. He found that the SunBank trust officer who dealt with the corpus of Ms. Alderson’s trust and her personal physician shared his concern. On each of the three occasions in 1993, when Mr. French visited Ms. Alderson to inquire about her capacity to make Mr. Herron a 60 per cent beneficiary, he made sure that Mr. Herron was not present. By 1993, Mr. French feared that Mr. Herron might have acquired undue influence over Ms. Alderson. Mr. French was also aware that Ms. Alderson, at her advanced age, had good days and bad and that it was possible he had caught her on three of her bad days. He planned to make one final attempt to determine whether she possessed testamentary capacity necessary to execute the seventh amendment to the trust agreement in order to make Mr. Herron a sixty per cent beneficiary. If he were not satisfied at this final inquiry, in all probability he would have concluded that Ms. Alderson was not capable of regaining testamentary capacity. The attempt was scheduled for the day of January 13, 1994. January 13, 1994 Oma Horan, in her capacity as a licensed practical nurse, was with Ms. Alderson almost every day for the years she was a resident of the Callahan Center prior to January 13, 1994. During this period, she observed Ms. Alderson's mental capacity to be failing. Ms. Alderson had begun to dress inappropriately. Left to herself she would not have administered necessary personal care. She had no idea how much money she had or where it came from. Ms. Alderson typically did not know what day it was, even after Ms. Horan showed her the date at the top of the newspaper while reading it to her because, "she was incapable of really reading the newspaper." (Tr. 91) January 13, 1994, was a few days before Ms. Alderson's ninetieth birthday. As Ms. Horan and another nurse, Sally Eisner, emerged from the break room near the nurse's station where they had just finished lunch, they observed Mr. Herron cross the hall from the stairway and enter Ms. Alderson's room. Within a short time, Ms. Horan and Ms. Eisner entered the nurse's station. Ms. Horan pushed down the intercom button to talk to Mr. Herron and Ms. Alderson about plans for the upcoming birthday celebration. The nurses at the Callahan Center are trained to announce themselves immediately whenever they use the intercom system unless they hear conversation in the room. If they hear people talking, out of common courtesy, they wait for a lull in the conversation before announcing themselves. Upon pushing down the intercom button and before she could announce it was in use, Ms. Horan heard Mr. Herron, in a loud voice, explaining to Ms. Alderson how much money she had in her trust. As she listened she heard him also explain to Ms. Alderson what the percentages were of some of the beneficiaries, how much Mr. Herron was now entitled to, and "what it was going to go to." (Tr. 92) Mr. Herron also told Ms. Alderson that there would be people coming to visit her, and she needed to remember what he had told her. Ms. Eisner heard the same thing. It sounded like Mr. Herron was "coaching her. She was to remember exactly the amount of monies that she had because he quoted $300,000; and he was telling her specifically to remember this because there were people coming in for her to sign some papers and that she needed to remember what he was telling her." (Tr. 118) Ms. Horan and Ms. Eisner were alarmed by what they heard. Ms. Horan told Ms. Eisner to call their supervisor, Mrs. Stratton, "because I felt that Florrie was not competent enough to sign anything or -- or to have this change that he wanted changed in the will." (Tr. 93) Ms. Eisner called Ms. Stratton. Ms. Stratton told Ms. Eisner to call the administrator of services. Ms. Stratton then left to go directly to Ms. Alderson's apartment. In the meantime, Ms. Horan and Ms. Eisner left the intercom button down so they could hear Mr. Herron and Ms. Alderson in the room. At no time did Ms. Horan or Ms. Eisner hear Mr. Herron do anything other than speak to Ms. Alderson in a loud voice about her trust assets, beneficiaries' percentages and the impending visit by her attorney, Mr. French. They did not hear Mr. Herron threaten Ms. Alderson. Other than what they interpreted to be "coaching," they did not hear Mr. Herron say anything that could be characterized as coercive. Nor did they hear him promise her anything or seem to be trying to persuade her to do anything. Aside from the effect of whether Mr. Herron was "coaching" Ms. Alderson or simply reviewing her trust documents with her, Mr. Herron's version of the events of January 13, 1994, squares for the most part with Ms. Horan's and Ms. Eisner. Mr. Herron did not threaten, coerce, or make promises to Ms. Alderson. Nor did he attempt to persuade her to do something she did not of her own free will intend. Mr. Herron spoke to her in a loud voice because she was hard of hearing. He reviewed Ms. Alderson’s trust documents with her in order to prepare her for the impending visit by Mr. French. There are, however, some discrepancies in Mr. Herron's versions of what happened that day so fateful to this case when compared with other evidence. In a letter dated March 16, 1995, Mr. Herron related the background and his perspective as to what happened on January 13, 1994, to Daniel J. Hevia, Investigating Officer for the Board of Accountancy and one of the Board's two expert witnesses at hearing. Differing with the evidence establishing that the fifth amendment to the trust was initiated by Mr. Herron’s wife’s telephone call to Mr. French is one of the statements in the letter: The first knowledge I had of being a beneficiary came when Miss Alderson's attorney, Ted French forwarded a copy of the fifth amendment to her trust to Miss Alderson. Miss Alderson told me after she had taken care of all the paperwork. The letter goes on to describe the events of January 13, 1994, and background: As time went along, I saw Miss Alderson on a weekly basis. I would often sit in the early afternoon and have a cup of tea with her as we talked and reviewed whatever business we had. * * * It was clear that she enjoyed the attention and my companionship as much as I enjoyed hers. Miss Alderson would often ask me where her money went when she died. I would review the list with her. One day she decided that the list wasn't right. She said that she didn't want one church to have any, that she hadn't seen her old neighbor in quite a while, and she thought I should have more. I was flattered that she felt such kindness for me. She asked what I would do with the money if she left me more. I told her that my wife and I had a piece of property which we hoped to build a house on one day when we had saved enough money. Miss Alderson said she wanted us to have more to make our dream come true. I was honored. As time went along, Miss Alderson would often ask me where her money was going when she died. I would review the list with her whenever she asked. I began to do this almost weekly. Miss Alderson began saying that I wasn't getting enough. We continued to review the list. Finally she said that she wanted to make a change. Miss Alderson's trust officer left Sun Bank in late February, 1993, and we had not been notified of her replacement. Therefore, when Miss Alderson again decided to change the beneficiaries and prepare a seventh amendment to the trust agreement, she did not know who to contact at the bank. She asked me to arrange for it. She hand wrote a list of beneficiaries for me to keep and sent another list to her attorney, Ted French in February, 1993 . . . Mr. French prepared this amendment and made arrangements to visit Miss Alderson. However, when he did so, he did not feel Miss Alderson was oriented, and he left without her signature. When Miss Alderson again began asking what would happen to her money when she died, we determined that she had not signed the amendment. She asked to do so. She even joked that she might die before she signed! Mr. French again came to Plymouth Harbor to obtain Miss Alderson's signature. Again he left without it since he did not feel she was oriented. This would all happen a third time. At this point I spoke at length to Mr. French because Miss Alderson kept insisting that she wanted to make this change and we better get it done. I was concerned that my continuing to call Mr. French might be misinterpreted; however, Mr. French assured me that he understood that elderly people sometimes had good days when everything was clear and some not so good days when they were confused. At Miss Alderson's request, I agreed to visit with her prior to Mr. French's visit to refresh her memory. Apparently I was overheard during this conversation. Miss Alderson has difficulty hearing, and I had to speak loudly for her to hear me. I had nothing to hide, so the door was open, as it was most every time I visited her. I understand from the petition that the person who overheard me was a nurse, Oma Horan. I know Ms. Horan although I do not recall seeing her on January 19, [sic] 1994. If I had, it would not have seemed unusual to me. Mr. French arrived with two witnesses from his office. I have since discovered that these two people were attorneys in Mr. French's firm. Therefore, three attorneys visited Miss Alderson on January 19, [sic] 1994 to facilitate the signing of this amendment. I had no knowledge of whether or not the seventh amendment had even been signed. I did not pursue the matter any further to determine if it had been signed because Miss Alderson did not ask me to. I had no reason of my own to find out. Petitioner's No. 10, Section F, pgs. F-3 and F-4. When Mr. French arrived with his assistants, Mr. Herron departed. Mr. French conducted his routine inquiry. He determined both that the increase for Mr. Herron represented Ms. Alderson's wishes and that she was competent to execute the amendments. But, Mr. French did not know, although he might have surmised, that Mr. Herron had just gone over with Ms. Alderson the information necessary for her to answer Mr. French's questions. He did not know because Mr. Herron had not told him so. Expectation of Privacy: Behind Closed Doors? While Mr. Herron's letter discloses that he knew his communication to Ms. Alderson on January 13, 1994, had been overheard by Nurse Horan, it appears that at the time of the letter, he did not know it had been heard through the intercom. The letter makes no mention of the intercom. It simply states that, "I understand that the person who overheard me was a nurse, Oma Horan." Id., p. F-4. Indeed, Mr. Herron did not learn that he had been overheard through the intercom until he read the administrative complaint (Tr. Vol. III, pg. 288) issued on March 14, 1996, one year after writing the letter to Mr. Hevia. The letter differs with testimony elicited from Ms. Horan and Ms. Eisner by Mr. Herron's attorney at trial and from testimony given by Mr. Herron under oath at trial. All three testified that the door must have been closed to Ms. Alderson's room during the time that Mr. Herron was reviewing her trust documents with her. Ms. Horan testified that the door closed behind Mr. Herron when he entered the room. (Tr. Vol. I, pg. 96.) Ms. Eisner did not see the door close behind Mr. Herron when he entered but she assumed that the door closed behind him because "[i]t automatically closes." (Tr. Vol. II, Pg. 10.) In describing his visit to Ms. Alderson on January 13, 1994, Mr. Herron testified, "The doors automatically close, so it did close behind me." (Tr. Vol. III, pg. 284.) There is no question that the door was closed. Mr. Herron offered an explanation at hearing of the discrepancy between the testimony and his letter. The reference to the door being "open" in the letter is that he meant that the door was "unlocked." (Tr. Vol. III, pg. 295.) Mr. Herron’s testimony about the door to the room was offered in hopes of establishing that both he and Ms. Alderson had expectations of privacy when the overheard communication about the trust took place. His expectation of privacy is bolstered by the content of the communication: matters related to Ms. Alderson’s trust documents, that is, content normally within the scope of Mr. Herron’s and Ms. Alderson’s accountant- client relationship. But, despite Mr. Herron's claim that he had an expectation of privacy when he was conferring with Ms. Alderson within the bounds of their accountant-client relationship, he has continued to maintain long after his March 1995 letter to Investigator Hevia that he did not have any fear of being overheard. (Tr. Vol. III, p. 325.) Mr. Herron maintains this stance because, in his view, his intent in meeting with Ms. Alderson on January 13, 1994, was to do nothing other than assist her in making sure that her wishes were carried out. Mr. Herron’s written indication, contrary to his testimony, that he did not care whether the meeting was private is supported by what one would expect would have been Ms. Alderson’s expectation (if she were capable of forming an expectation) with relation to the privacy of the communication. As a Callahan resident receiving total care, Ms. Alderson was accustomed to staff coming in and out of her room with regularity. She had been aware for some time that that the intercom could come on at any time whether for a nurse to speak to her, to check on her, or as a reminder to come to the dining facilities. In fact, after the red light came on and remained on in her room as the nurses listened in on January 13, 1994, Ms. Alderson, whether aware of it or not, did not protest that the nurses or others may have been listening through the intercom. There is a legal gloss to whatever Ms. Alderson’s privacy expectations may have been or would have been had she been capable of forming them. The “Residents Bill of Rights,” applicable to residents of facilities such as Plymouth Harbor, states as follows: [E]very resident of a facility shall have the right to unrestricted private communication, including receiving and sending unopened correspondence, access to a telephone, and visiting with any person of his choice. . . . Section 400.428(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Events After January 13, 1994 Six months after the fateful meeting between Mr. Herron and Ms. Alderson to prepare her for the questions of Mr. French, an Examining Committee appointed by the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County determined that Florrie Alderson was suffering from senile dementia, rendering her incapable of making decisions as to her finances or care. The committee made its determination as part of a guardianship proceeding. The proceeding had been initiated not as the result of further deterioration of Ms. Alderson’s condition after January of 1994, but rather in direct response to the actions of Mr. Herron and her attorney in allowing her to execute the seventh amendment to her trust. (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 10, C-4; Finding No. 30, Respondent’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Order.) The response was the result of the judgment of Plymouth Harbor personnel that Ms. Alderson “was not competent to understand the significance of any documents she executed.” (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 10, p. C-4.) On August 18, 1994, based upon the findings of the Examining Committee, the Circuit Court issued Letters of Plenary Guardianship of Person and Property to the Lutheran Ministries of Florida, Inc., with relation to Ms. Alderson. Mr. Herron was dismissed from Ms. Alderson’s employ, and the guardian asked the Department to review Mr. Herron’s conduct in connection with the case. Nearly one and one-half years later, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed an administrative complaint against William David Herron. The Administrative Complaint The Administrative Complaint was filed On March 14, 1996. It charges William Herron with statutory violations under two specific provisions of Section 473.323(1). They are found in subparagraphs (g) and (h): The following acts constitute grounds for which . . . disciplinary actions . . . may be taken: Committing an act of fraud or deceit, or of negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of public accounting. Violation of any rule adopted pursuant to this chapter or chapter 455. Section 473.323, Florida Statutes. The rules with which Mr. Herron is charged to have violated are Rules 61H1-36.001(1), (17) and (20), Florida Administrative Code: Discipline. The following acts shall constitute grounds for which authorized and appropriate actions may be taken by the Board: A licensee has made misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of public accounting; * * * A licensee is guilty of fraud or deceit or of negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of public accountancy; A licensee has performed a fraudulent act while holding a license to practice public accounting. After receipt of the complaint, William David Herron requested a formal hearing and this administrative proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Accountancy suspend the license of William David Herron for a period of one year to be followed by a probationary period of two years with reasonable conditions of probation to include completion of a course in accountancy ethics preferably involving conflicts of interest and gifts from clients. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 15th day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Vezina Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. Suite 1850 500 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Paul L. McKean, Esquire 3671 Webber Street, Suite B Sarasota, Florida 34232 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Martha Willis, Executive Director Division of Certified Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 4001 Northwest 43rd Street, Suite 16 Gainesville, Florida 32606
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Bans N. Persaud, should be awarded a passing grade on the "Financial Accounting" part of the Certified Public Accounting examination given on May 7-8, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Bans N. Persaud, took the Certified Public Accountant Exam in May of 1997. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by Examination Grade Report dated August 4, 1997, that he had earned a score of 75.00 which was a passing grade on three parts of the exam: Audit, Accounting & Reporting, and Law Exam. The report informed him that, "CREDIT ON PASSED PARTS HAS BEEN GRANTED." The report also informed Mr. Persaud that he had failed the Financial Accounting Part of the exam. On that part, he received a score of 62.00 when a minimum passing score was 75. Petitioner, "very certain that [he] passed this examination," filed a letter of appeal with the Department, treated by the Department as request for a formal administrative hearing. During the course of pre-hearing procedures, Mr. Persaud requested that he be allowed to audit the grading of the examination. The Department responded by pointing to Section 455.217(2), Florida Statutes, which states in pertinent part, The board . . . shall make available an examination review procedure for applicants . . . . Unless prohibited or limited by rules implementing security or access guidelines of national examinations, the applicant is entitled to review his examination questions, answers, papers, grades, and grading key . . . and the following language of Rule 61-11.012(6), Florida Administrative Code: In order to preserve the security and integrity of the examination, such candidate shall be permitted to review only the questions and answers missed on the examination. Furthermore, the Department pointed to the following excerpt of Section 119.07(3)(a), a provision of the public records law, Examination questions and answer sheets of examinations administered by a governmental agency for the purpose of licensure, certification, or employment are exempt from the provisions of subsection (1) and s.24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution [provisions which require disclosure of public record]. In light of the response, the ruling was made at hearing that the Department was not required to allow Petitioner to conduct the requested audit. In fact, it was determined that the requested audit was a prohibited act under the force of law through the operation of Rule 61-11.012(6), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Persaud claimed that without an audit, he would not be able to prove that he had, in fact, passed the examination. The examination was developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a national organization of certified public accountants whose function it is to develop, prepare and grade the "in-force CPA exam." (Tr. 74). As such, the exam is considered a "national examination," id., developed by a national organization. About such exams, the following is stated in the rules of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Bureau of Testing: If the examination being challenged is an examination developed by or for a national board, council, association or society, (hereinafter referred to as national organization) the Department shall accept the development and grading of such examination without modification. Rule 61-11.012(1), Florida Administrative Code. The examination consisted of six questions, two of which (Questions five and six) were essays. Mr. Persaud received 36 points out of the 60 points available for question one, 2.15 out of five points available for question two, 4.38 out of five available for question three, 3.68 out of five for question four, 8.5 out of ten for question five, and 5.5 out of ten for question six, for a total of 62 points. Mr. Persaud pointed to his background as a person of Indian descent (that is, from the subcontinent of India) who immigrated from Georgetown, Guyana, to the United States where, in 1984, he received U.S. citizenship. Mr. Persaud felt that lack of points on the essay for English composition, grammar and expression were due to prejudice and incorrect because of the excellent state of his English. During the hearing, it was obvious that Mr. Persaud's spoken English, although at times difficult to understand because of pronunciation, is otherwise of high quality. Whatever the state of his written English, however, had he received all points available for the essay questions he still would have failed the Finance and Accounting part of the exam with a score of 68 when a passing score of 75 was necessary. It was therefore incumbent on Mr. Persaud to show more than just that improper grading of English (which he did not show) in the essay portion of the exam led to the failing grade. Mr. Persaud made no attempt to do so. To the contrary, Mr. Persaud did not show that the examination was faulty, or that it was arbitrarily worded, or that the answers to challenged questions were capriciously graded or that he was arbitrarily denied credit through a grading process of the challenged questions devoid of logic or reason. In fact, Mr. Persaud does not appear to have ever identified the questions among those that he missed that were under challenge. He simply insisted that he had passed the exam. Rather than challenge specific questions for which he was not given credit or the grading of the answers to those questions, Mr. Persaud took a different tack. He testified that immediately after passing parts 3 and 4 of the CMA in 1996, he was suddenly bombarded on a daily basis by the noise of planes from the international Airport who were assisted in some way by a Village Inn not far from his house. When he complained to the authorities, they stated that they did not fly anywhere near his house. He complained of other noises and pressures to which he was subject while trying to study and identified them as "[p]lanes at four o'clock," (Tr. 48) and a "12 part air conditioner." Id. He also complained that his computer had been sabotaged and produced documents he had composed where the word "and" appeared in a sentence when his choice, and the more appropriate word, would have been "but." (Tr. 55). After this line of the challenge to the exam had been exhausted at hearing, Mr. Persaud was asked to identify the questions among those he missed that he now challenges as well as any of their answers. Aside from testimony about written English on the Essay questions, Mr. Persaud made no reference to individual questions. He chose to maintain his position that he had passed the test.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's challenge to the grade he received on the Financial Accounting part of the CPA Exam administered in May of 1997. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Bans N. Persaud 310 Ninety-Second Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Martha Willis, Executive Director Division of Certified Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 4001 Northwest 43rd Street, Suite 16 Gainesville, Florida 32606
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Favret held public accounting license number 0001424 with the State of Florida. Respondent's license to practice public accounting reverted to inactive status by operation of law on January 1, 1980, due to his failure to demonstrate to the Department of Professional Regulation and the Board of Accountancy compliance with the continuing education requirements imposed on licensed public accountants pursuant to Section 473.312, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21A-33, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent was aware that his license reverted to inactive status on January 1, 1980, due to his failure to meet professional continuing education requirements. Respondent chose not to comply with the continuing education requirements because he did not wish to maintain an active license and did not feel that formal continuing education was of benefit to him. Between January 1, 1980, and August, 1981, Respondent continued to perform tax advisory services for approximately twenty-five (25 ) clients. His services included the preparation of personal federal income tax returns and all necessary supporting tax schedules. Respondent explained the tax services he provided as including the accumulation of raw data brought in by a client in categories, summarizing the information and then preparing the necessary tax forms. Although the Respondent signed all the tax forms as the preparer, he ceased using the professional designation, "C.P.A." when he received formal notice of the inactive status of his license. To prepare the income tax returns for his clients, knowledge of the present tax laws and regulations, tax accounting and arithmetic were utilized by the Respondent in the tax advisory and preparation services for which he received compensation. The preparation of personal income tax returns involves the use of accounting skills which includes the ability to make a determination of what items need to be recognized and included7 the reasonableness of the items, the proper categorization of the items and whether to apply certain accounting functions such as allocation to the items. 1/
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
The Issue Did Respondent, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners (County), discriminate against Petitioner, Annette Whitner, on account of her age?
Findings Of Fact At the time of the alleged discrimination, Ms. Whitner was 71 years old. Ms. Whitner claims that the County discriminated against her by not interviewing her for its business services director position due to her age. Ms. Whitner claims that she was discriminated against because the position required an applicant to be a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). She argues that older people are less likely to hold a CPA certification. The weight of the credible evidence did not establish this claim. Ms. Whitner did not establish any connection between possessing a CPA certification and age. On November 10, 2014, the County posted the position online. It was a newly created position, established as part of a reorganization by the County. Because of previous audit errors and the departments the position would oversee, the County determined the minimum qualifications for the position should be: Bachelor’s degree with major course work in public administration, business administration, accounting, finance or related field and possession of Certified Public Accountant (CPA) professional certification or equivalent is required. Master degree in business administration, finance management, public administration, or related discipline is preferred. In determining the equivalent to a CPA, the County referred to the Guide for Certifications for Accounting, Finance and Operations Management (Guide). This was a reasonable non- discriminatory decision. Based on the Guide, the County determined a Certified Government Auditing Professional, Certified Governmental Financial Manager, and Certified Internal Auditor would constitute an equivalent to a CPA certification. The certifications were deemed equivalent because they required similar education, experience, and completion of an examination, similar to one taken for a CPA certification. The closing date for all applicants was December 15, 2014. Ms. Whitner submitted her application near midnight of December 15. Ms. Whitner is not a CPA. In addition, Ms. Whitner did not follow the instructions on the application. She scratched out the instructions on the application and wrote “first” above where it read “current or most recent employer.” Ms. Whitner’s application contained typed and handwritten information. Ms. Whitner’s application did not provide her complete work history as the application instructed. In one of the fields of employment, after 1992, Ms. Whitner wrote “various employers.” Ms. Whitner’s application left an unexplained gap in work history, from 1992 to the present. Ms. Whitner’s application included copies of her Bachelor of Science in Business Administration degree, Master of Public Affairs degree, certification as a Certified District Manager, Certificate of Recognition from the Indiana Executive Program, and a letter of reference from Al Grieshaber, General Manager at Sun ‘N Lake of Sebring, dated February 8, 2010. Ms. Whitner’s application indicated she had a certification as a Certified Professional Government Accountant. Ms. Whitner asserts that a certification as a Certified Professional Government Accountant should be equivalent to a CPA certification. However, the Guide does not include a certification for a Certified Professional Government Accountant as a CPA equivalent, nor does the County consider it equivalent. Additionally, Ms. Whitner did not attach a copy of her certification or provide persuasive evidence of the certification criteria and their similarity to CPA criteria. The County could not determine if Ms. Whitner had worked since 1992. Ms. Whitner argues that her letter of reference from Al Grieshaber demonstrated her employment since 1992. However, the letter did not include the dates Ms. Whitner worked, the position held, or her duties and the type of work she performed at Sun ‘N Lake of Sebring. Randal Vosburg, Assistant County Administrator, was involved in the hiring and selection process for the position. The primary criteria he was looking for when reviewing the applications was whether the applicant had a CPA. Mr. Vosburg did not have any contact with Ms. Whitner and did not know her age when reviewing her application. Mr. Vosburg did not consider Ms. Whitner’s age when reviewing her application. The County did not select Ms. Whitner for an interview because she was not a CPA and did not possess a certificate that is equivalent to a CPA certification. Additionally, Ms. Whitner presented an unprofessional application, did not provide a complete work history so that there appeared to be more than a twenty-year gap in employment, and did not follow the instructions on the employment application. These were all reasonable non-discriminatory bases for deciding not to interview Ms. Whitner. On January 5, 2015, Ms. Whitner submitted an addendum to her employment application. This was after the application deadline and after the County had selected candidates to interview. Ms. Whitner’s addendum did not provide documentation or certification that she possessed a CPA certification or the equivalent. The County selected Tanya Cannady and Stanoil Raley for interviews. Both possessed CPAs. Both were reasonably deemed to be more qualified than Ms. Whitner. A panel of three people interviewed Ms. Cannady and Mr. Raley. Randal Vosburg, June Fisher, County Administrator, and Mark Hill, then-Development Services Director, served on the panel. Ms. Cannady performed much better than Mr. Raley during the interview. Additionally, Ms. Cannady’s work experience was more relevant to the position than Mr. Raley’s work experience. The County selected Ms. Cannady for the position because she met the requirement of having a minimum of five-years of progressively responsible relevant experience, was a CPA, and was more qualified than Mr. Raley and the other applicants. The County offered the position to Ms. Cannady. She did not accept the offer and withdrew her application. On August 5, 2015, the County re-posted the position online. The county changed the CPA requirement from “required” to “preferred” because the County was having trouble finding CPA applicants. Ms. Whitner did not reapply for the position. The County conducted additional interviews and selected Tasha Morgan. Ms. Morgan was female and was a CPA. The preponderance of the credible, persuasive evidence did not establish that the County discriminated against Ms. Whitner due to her age. The preponderance of the credible, persuasive evidence established that the County had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for not interviewing Ms. Whitner.
