The Issue Did respondent fail to properly supervise, direct and manage the contracting activities of the business of which he is the qualifier, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against respondent's contracting license?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the respondent was a certified building contractor licensed by the State of Florida and the qualifying agent for Custom Concrete of Naples, Inc. (Custom Concrete). Rodney Velez was the president of Custom Concrete and licensed only in concrete--concrete forming, placing and finishing. Susan Velez, Rodney Velez's wife, was an officer of Custom Concrete. On April 23, 1983, Custom Concrete, by and through Rodney Velez, entered into a contract with Mark and Penny Paterson to construct a home for $38,550.00. Mrs. Paterson had previously met Rodney Velez in the course of her work, and Velez had told her that he was a builder. Mrs. Paterson had suggested that Velez look at a floor plan that she and her husband had, and after certain negotiations, including a change of floor plan, the contract was entered into. During the course of the negotiations Mrs. Paterson never talked to the respondent and was unaware that the respondent was involved or would be involved in the construction of the home. Mrs. Paterson believed that Rodney Velez was the "builder"; however, the construction of the Paterson home was beyond the scope of Velez's concrete license. The respondent signed the application to secure the building permit for the Paterson residence, although he did not personally appear to procure the building permit. The clerk of the contractor's licensing section of the building code compliance department relied on the signature on the application because it was notarized. The notary was Susan Velez. Respondent did not supervise or direct the construction of the Paterson home. Neal Jackson, president of the company who did the electric work on the home, was unaware that respondent was involved in the project until well after the house was finished. Although it is usual for a supervisor or superintendent to be at the job site some of the time, Jackson never saw the respondent or Velez at the job site. Jeff Allain, the carpenter who did the framing and certain other work, was on the job site five or six days and saw the respondent once during the framing of the structure "just generally looking around." The respondent didn't say anything to Allain. David Isom did drywall work on the house. He had no contact with the respondent and did not see him at the construction site. Mrs. Paterson went by the construction site quite often and realized that the job was not being properly supervised. Velez was rarely there, and Mrs. Paterson never saw the respondent. The workmen on the site would ask the Patersons when Velez would be there because they had questions concerning the work. Neither of the building inspectors saw anyone supervising at the job site, although usually no one is at the job site when an inspection is made. Two days after the Patersons moved into their house, they compiled a "punch list" of the items that needed to be completed or corrected. The list was given to Velez, but the work was not corrected to the Paterson's satisfaction. Although Velez did not give the "punch list" to respondent, Velez discussed the problems with the respondent. Respondent did not take any steps to remedy the problems and said he thought "a lot of it was nonsense." Velez told respondent that he, Velez, would take care of it. Because of the unresolved problems with the house, Mrs. Paterson finally called the licensing board to file a complaint against Rodney Velez. At that time, she was informed that Rodney Velez was not the contractor; the contractor was the respondent. This was the first time that Mrs. Paterson was aware that the respondent was involved with the construction of the house. All of the Patersons dealings had been with Velez, and all checks for construction payments were made out to Velez personally. 2/ Even though the Patersons had not received satisfaction from Custom Concrete for the problems with the house, they signed the closing papers because Velez threatened to evict them. At closing the Patersons received a lien release from Custom Concrete which released all work prior to March 9, 1984. Subsequently, Velez filed a claim of lien against the Paterson property for work completed on February 9, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(j), Florida Statutes, that he be fined $1,000.00, and that his license be suspended for 60 days from the date the Construction Industry Licensing Board enters its final order in this case. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1985.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Ramiro Palma, be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 31, 1981. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's registered building contractor's license be suspended for one year after the date of the final order entered in this proceeding and that Respondent pay a $1000 administrative fine. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1982.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's applications for licensure should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed applications with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) for certifications as a plumbing inspector and electrical inspector. The Board of Building Code Administrators and Inspectors (Board), which is part of DBPR, is the state agency charged with certification of plumbing and electrical inspectors, pursuant to Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Petitioner previously received provisional certification to perform plumbing and electrical inspections as a result of the Board’s failure to take timely action on Petitioner’s applications for provisional licenses. He is currently employed with the City of Deland as a commercial and residential inspector and has been employed there since September 17, 2007. Accompanying his applications was a statement of “experience history”, provided on a Board form. The experience history listed four places of employment covering four periods of time: 1976 to 1986: Job Foreman for Ron Abel Contracting; 2001 to 2005: Standard Inspector for the City of Winter Springs; 2005 to 2007: Standard Inspector for GFA International; and 2007 to present: Standard Inspector for the City of Deland. Accompanying his applications were three affidavits relating to the 1976-1986 employment with Ron Abel Contracting; two affidavits relating to his 2001-2005 employment with the City of Winter Springs; one affidavit relating to his 2005-2007 employment with GFA International; and one affidavit regarding Petitioner’s employment with the City of Deland from 2007 to present. The first affidavit relating to the 1976 to 1986 period of time was from Daniel Kittinger, a licensed general contractor, who attests that when working in his father’s construction business, Petitioner “assisted in the home building process, acted as foreman to oversee [sic] the subcontracting was done in a timely manner and that specifications met code requirements for residential buildings.” The second affidavit for the 1976 to 1986 period was from Carleen Abel, Vice President of Ronald E. Abel Contracting, and states the following: Mr. Jay Abel is the son of the owner and worked as a field foreman from 1976-1986. During his tenure with Abel Contracting, Jay provided supervision of the field operation on overseeing trade contractors. His principle responsibilities included hands on supervision of framing, electrical, plumbing and HVAC sub-contractors for both residential and commercial work. He primarily was to assure that the jobs were properly constructed, completed on time and confirmed that the appropriate codes were satisfied. The third affidavit relating to 1976-1986 did not include the license number of the affiant. Therefore, it was not considered, and is not considered herein, as it does not comply with the statutory requirement that a licensed architect, engineer, contractor, or building code examiner affirm an applicant’s experience by affidavit. Regarding Petitioner’s employment with the City of Winter Springs, an affidavit was submitted by a person whose first name is David (last name begins with an “A” but is not legible) which states that Petitioner was employed as a residential inspector under the direction of Dennis Franklin and under supervision of a senior inspector. This affidavit referenced an attached affidavit of Dennis Franklin which states as follows: I have personal knowledge that Jay Abel worked as a residential inspector in Winter Springs during the time of his licensure as per Chapter 468 F.S. One affidavit was submitted relating to Petitioner’s work experience from 2005 to 2007. The affidavit of Jeffrey D. DeBoer states as follows: During Jay’s tenure at CFA International he performed inspections of 1 + 2 family dwellings and was in training to perform plan review of both mechanical, electrical and plumbing disciplines. This training was done under the supervision of other certified plans examiners for each discipline. The affidavit of Joseph R. Crum was submitted regarding Petitioner’s current employment with the City of Deland. It states in pertinent part as follows: Jay Abel is employed with the City of Deland as an inspector. He is required to perform inspections on commercial buildings and structures for Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing and gas installations. He is also required to perform inspections on Residential buildings and structures for all of the trades including, Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing and gas installations. Jay currently holds a standard one and two family dwelling inspector license #BN4928. He also holds provisional licenses as follows: Building #PBI 1573, Commercial Electrical: #PCE 651, Mechanical: #PMI 549 and Plumbing: #PPI 582. Having these licenses means he has met the qualifications for each and should be issued the appropriate license as he passes the individual exams.[1/] In addition to the affidavits submitted by Petitioner, Petitioner’s current supervisor testified at hearing. Matthew J. Adair is the chief building official with the City of Deland. He supervises all of the building division which includes code enforcement and building inspections personnel. He is familiar with the work performed by Petitioner in his current employment with the City of Deland. At hearing, Mr. Adair described Petitioner’s work: Jay is our commercial and residential inspector at this time. He does primarily commercial work for us. I’ve personally overseen the inspections that he conducts on a daily basis. . . [t]o include installation of electrical and plumbing systems in new commercial buildings, main distribution panels, underground electric, overhead, receptacles, feeders. And on the plumbing side the same thing, water, sewer lines, undergrounds, sewer connections even back-load preventers. . . . He’s very competent. He knows the codes, but on top of just knowing the codes he knows how systems are supposed to be installed in the field. He is a competent inspector.. . . He is one of my most valued employees.[2/] Petitioner also submitted an “Educational History” which represents that he holds an associate of arts degree in business. Further, the “Examination History” portion of the form represents that he passed the Florida Principles and Practice Examination. The Board has created an application review committee (committee), consisting of three members of the Board, to review all applications and make a recommendation to the Board as to whether each application should be approved or denied. Dennis Franklin is a member of the Board and the review committee. According to Mr. Franklin, the committee reviews the applications, and makes a determination as to whether an application should be approved or denied. The determination is made by majority vote of the committee. The decision of the committee is then presented to the Board which ratifies the committee’s decision at a Board meeting. The Board generally does not otherwise independently review the applications, but simply ratifies the decision of the committee. The committee met at some point prior to the Board’s April 10, 2009, meeting. The committee reviewed Petitioner’s applications and determined that his applications should be denied. The decision of the committee was ratified by the full Board on April 10, 2009. Robert McCormick is Chairman of the Board and is a member of the committee. According to Mr. McCormick, the Board interprets the statutory requirement of five years’ combined experience to mean that an applicant must demonstrate an equivalent of five years’ full-time experience. Mr. McCormick applied what he described as a “rule-of-thumb,” in which he divided five years into an average of full-time work hours of 2,000 work hours per year and 10,000 work hours for a five-year period of employment. Mr. McCormick determined that Petitioner’s application did not establish that he had worked five years full-time in either the electrical or plumbing trade and, therefore, determined that his applications should be denied. Gary Hiatt is the chief building official of Flagler County and is responsible for the day-to-day management of plumbing and electrical inspectors in that county. He reviewed Petitioner’s applications and is of the opinion that Petitioner “has demonstrated through his background in contracting and licensure as well as his educational background to meet the requirements to be able to sit for that examination.”
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered granting Petitioner's applications for standard certification as a plumbing and electrical inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate for the General Contractor Examination given in February, 1990, (the "examination"). Petitioner passed part three but failed parts one and two. Petitioner subsequently passed part one in June, 1990. Petitioner received a score of 69 percent on part two of the examination and needs only one point to pass part two and the entire examination. 1/ Question 37 is worth one point. Respondent gave credit for answer "(D) 10" in response to question 37. Petitioner selected answer "(A) 0" in response to question 37. Question 37 requires a candidate to apply Section 713.12, Florida Statutes, to the facts provided in the stem to question 37. Section 713.12, in relevant part, gives a spouse 10 days after learning of a contract to object to the signing of a contract by his or her spouse. Question 37 requires a candidate to determine how many days a wife has to object to a contract entered into by a contractor and both spouses but signed only by her husband with her knowledge. Question 37 is not ambiguous. There is only one correct response to the question challenged by Petitioner. The correct response to the question is answer "(D) 10." Petitioner did not choose the correct answer for question 37. The wife is not deemed to waive any objection she has if she does not make it at the time of the signing. The time that the wife learned of the contract and its signing is clear and unambiguous from the facts in the stem of the question. The contract was entered into by both the husband and wife and was signed by the husband with the wife's knowledge. The ordinary and plain meaning of the term "with" connotes "at the same time as." The only type of property that is reasonably contemplated in question 37 is real property. Of the 649 candidates who took the examination, 81 percent selected answer "(D) 10." Of the candidates who scored in the upper 27 percent on the examination, 92 percent selected answer "(D) 10." Only two percent of the candidates selected answer "(A) 0."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to question 37. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of April 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administration Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April 1991.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a professional engineer in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency responsible for the licensing of professional engineers in this state. Respondent, James B. Whittum, was licensed as a professional engineer by the Board under License No. PE 0027689, dated March 9, 1979. He is a consulting engineer dealing primarily in aluminum structures - mostly pool enclosures. Starting in 1990, Respondent did a number of designs, some thirty to fifty a year, for Paglino Aluminum, an aluminum contractor located in Tampa, which might also have had offices in Miami. The company is now out of business. Sometime in 1992 Respondent approved plans for Paglino for a residence for Mr. and Mrs. Marrero. These drawings were for an aluminum enclosure. He did not personally make the drawing which had been done by Mrs. Paglino. He did not know where the Marrero residence was but claims that at no time did he do or approve any drawings which he believed would be utilized for construction in Miami. In order to save clients money, Respondent had established a practice with Paglino and with a number of other clients by which he would train them in how to design and draw the pool cages. Respondent would provide the clients with a design booklet and instruction on how to use it. The client would bring drawings to the Respondent who would check them over to make sure that everything was done according to the design basis. A copy of the design guide was furnished to Paglino. Once Respondent received the drawings from the client, he would go through the whole design procedure himself to be sure that the drawings conformed to the code. In order to place his signature and seal on drawings, he had to have an identification of the site (either the name of the owner or the address of the site), the dimensions of the slab on which the structure is to be built, and the orientation of the structure with reference to the existing building to which it was to be attached. With regard to the specific plans in issue, Mr. Whittum did not know the structure was to be built in Dade County. The plans he saw bore the Marreros' name but not their address. He never spoke to the Marreros except for one call from Mrs. Marrerro, after the structure was built, complaining about it. Before signing the plans, Respondent checked in the Tampa phone book for listings for Marrero and found twenty-five or thirty listings for that name. He assumed the Marreros for which these plans were drafted were one of those families listed. It is not Respondent's practice to know the street address for every design he signs and seals. He inquired of several other engineers designing aluminum structures to see if they did the same as he proposed before signing and sealing these plans. He found that they have either the name of the owner or the street address, but not necessarily both. Included in those with whom Respondent spoke concerning this issue were engineers in Sarasota and Cape Coral. This testimony by Mr. Whittum as to the practice of other engineers is hearsay, however. Most counties in Florida, except Pinellas County, do not allow the use of standard plans as submittals for the purpose of permitting. However, an engineering firm has drawn a set of master drawings for the design of aluminum structures. These drawings were done for the Pinellas Chapter of the Aluminum Association of Florida, and each aluminum contractor in that county files them with the Pinellas Building Department. Thereafter, when plans are submitted, the Department official examines the plans with reference to the standard and decides whether or not to issue the permit. If the plans submitted by the contractor conform to the master design no engineer's signature or seal is required. This procedure has no bearing on any other county in Florida, however, and Respondent does not contend he believed at the time that the plans he signed would be used for construction in Pinellas County. It was not Respondent's practice to require a street address for the plans he signed and sealed for Paglino Aluminum. It was his understanding, however, that the instant structure was to be built in Hillsborough County because all the other jobs he had done for that company were, without exception, built in Hillsborough County. At no time did Paglino ever seek Respondent's permission to transfer these drawings to Dade County. By the same token, nobody asked him if the design he drew would be appropriate for Dade County. Had they done so, he would have told them the drawings were not suitable to meet the South Florida Building Code where the structural design standards are, in many ways, more stringent than in the Standard Building Code. As a result of this incident, Respondent has changed the procedure he follows. He now requires the drawings include a statement of who purchased the plans and who the proposed permitting authority is. This is not required by rule but is a precaution he takes. In his opinion, the drawings in issue were site specific. They showed the dimensions of the slab the structure was to be built on which determines the design for the size of the beams and their spacing. They also showed the orientation to the house where the structure would be connected. This was, he contends, all he needed to know to do the calculations for construction under the Standard Building Code. These calculations generally do not vary from county to county, with the exception of Dade and Broward County, where the South Florida Building Code is used. The plans Respondent signed and sealed did not indicate where the structure was to be built at the time he signed and sealed them. The plans called for a structure that could be put up anywhere in the state, except for Dade and Broward Counties. The fact remains, however, that at the time he signed and sealed these plans, Respondent did not know where the structure was to be built. His supposition that it would be built in Hillsborough County, while perhaps reasonable for a lay person, was not reasonable for a licensed professional engineer. According to James O. Power, a consulting structural engineer and expert in the practice of engineering, a structural engineer, in signing and sealing plans, accepts responsibility for the integrity of the design, certifies that the plans are good for their intended purpose, and asserts that the structure will be safe. A sealed plan may be necessary, depending on the building code and enforcement agency. The code leaves it up to the building official to require what he feels is necessary. Depending on the agency, permits may be issued on the basis of non-sealed plans. The seal carries with it the added imprimatur of the engineer's expertise. Properly sealed plans should: (1) identify the project; (2) identify the drafter; (3) identify the Code used; and (4) indicate limitations on responsibility the engineer has taken. Aluminum screen enclosures are generally similar and simple. Standard drawings can be developed for them. However, the standard plan, by itself, will not support a permit. To support the issuance of a permit, the plan must be site specific. This is a universal concept. For that purpose, additional drawings must be accomplished which consider and treat the specifics of that project. Frequently, plans are issued with a statement by the engineer limiting the degree of his or her responsibility, such as "only treating one issue" or "plans are standard and not site specific." No such limiting language was placed on the drawing in issue except, "This design is specific to this job. It is not valid if filed as a standard." In July, 1994, Mr. Power was contacted by the Department to evaluate the allegations against the Respondent in this case. In doing so, he reviewed the investigative report, portions of the transcript of the meeting of the Probable Cause Panel, the drawings in issue, and affidavits by Respondent and by the Dade County building official, but did not speak with any of them. Respondent's plans in issue bear the notation that the design is "job specific" and not valid if filed as a standard. This means that the plan should identify the job for which the plans were drawn and bear details pertinent to it. Here, the Respondent's plans refer to the "Marrero" job, and who the contractor was. In Power's opinion, this is not complete and it is not enough for the engineer to say he had the specifics in his mind. The plans must be complete and stand by themselves. Mr. Power admits he has not designed any pool enclosures. He also did not inquire whether Respondent had an office in Dade County or what the permit requirements of counties in the state are. However, in his opinion, it is universal that standard plans do not support the issuance of a permit. Respondent's design includes connection details, slab details and wind load requirements. However, the name of the owner, alone, is not site specific information. While the exact street location is not required, an identification of the area in which the project is to be built, at the very least by county, is. Respondent's expert, Mr. Sterling, is less critical of Mr. Whittum's performance. In his opinion, it is not common within the profession for signed and sealed drawings to have an address or a name or contractor's name on them. Having reviewed Respondent's drawings, Mr. Sterling does not see anything else he would need to know to properly design the structure. He does not agree with Mr. Power with respect to having the address on each and every drawing. To him, what is important in looking at the drawing from a structural point of view are the design criteria that were applied to that particular structure. To his knowledge there is no professional requirement, statute or regulation that would oblige one to provide additional information. He admits, however, that there may be different practices or rules being applied in Dade and Broward Counties with respect to structure of this type. By Final Order dated April 3, 1992, the Board disciplined Respondent's license for negligence in the practice of engineering by signing and sealing plans for an aluminum screened pool enclosure which the Hillsborough County Building Department found failed to meet acceptable engineering standards. The penalty imposed included an administrative fine of $500, a reprimand, and probation for one year under conditions designed to insure technical and professional enhancement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding Respondent guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering; imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and revoking his license, but that so much of the penalty as provides for revocation be suspended for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2 - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted, but primarily a restatement of testimony. 17. - 22. Accepted, but these are primarily restatements of witness testimony. FOR THE RESPONDENT: - 4. Not Findings of Fact but statements of procedure followed. Unknown. - 9. Not Findings of Fact but comments of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 13. Accepted. 14. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as surmise of witness, not knowledge. - 25. Accepted. - 28. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the issue. & 31. Not Findings of Fact but restatements of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. - 37. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the evidence. & 40. Not Findings of Fact but restatements of testimony. - 44. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of testimony. More a comment by one witness on the testimony of another witness. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Mary Ellen Clark, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles S. Stephens, Esquire 1177 Park Avenue, Suite 5 Orange Park, Florida 32073 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Raymond D. Simmons, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC 0055320 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed as a roofing contractor since November 1987. The Board's official records reflect that on July 1, 1991, the license was placed on the delinquent status for non-renewal and is now considered "invalid." 1/ When the events herein occurred, respondent was the qualifying agent for Simmons and Sons Plumbing and Roofing, Route 1, Box 191 (County Road 225), Waldo, Florida. Except for this action, there is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board. On May 3, 1988, respondent submitted a proposal to Charles and Thea Ansman to repair the roof on their home located at 5132 N. W. 29th Street, Gainesville, Florida. With minor modifications, the proposal was accepted by the Ansmans on May 10, 1988. According to the agreement, respondent was to perform the following services: Tear off old shingles dry-in with 15 lb. felt and replace with Corning Owens 20 year fungus resistant shingles. Replace all plumbing stacks and ease drips. Will replace back porch with 3-ply build-up roof will coat it with roof coating 10 year warranty on workmanship 20 year manufactor [sic] on shingles and build-up roof. Will replace all wood that needs to be replaced. Although the agreement does not specifically refer to ridge vents, the parties also agreed that respondent would install a ridge vent on the home. On May 16, 1988, respondent made application for a building permit from the City of Gainesville to "reroof" the Ansman's home. The permit was issued on May 20, 1988, in the name of Simmons & Sons Plumbing and Roofing. Respondent commenced work on the project on May 16 and continued the work over a period of several days. During this period of time, respondent was frequently on the job site overseeing the work. Indeed, Thea Ansman said respondent was at her home approximately half of the time while the repairs were being made. Thus, while respondent undoubtedly supervised the job, for the reasons stated in findings of fact 6 and 7, he nonetheless failed to "properly" supervise the work. On May 20, 1988, Thea Ansman paid respondent in full for the work. Although the job was not finished, respondent told Mrs. Ansman he would return the next day to complete the work. When respondent failed to return, the Ansmans repeatedly telephoned him during the next few months, but respondent either refused to speak with the Ansmans or told them he would return within a few days. However, the work was never finished and respondent never returned to the job site. While inspecting the roof one day, Charles Ansman noted that the roof trusses, an intregal part of the load bearing capacity of the structure, were cut at their peaks. The depth of the cuts was between one and two inches and was apparently the result of a saw-blade not set at the proper height when the ridge vent was installed. Sometime in July or August 1988 Charles Ansman discussed the damage with respondent and requested that respondent repair the same. Respondent refused to do so on the ground he was not responsible for the damage. Ansman then filed a complaint with the City of Gainesville Building Department. On September 9, 1988, a city building inspector inspected the home and confirmed that virtually every truss was cut and that the integrity of the roof was in jeopardy. He also observed that the soffits were improperly installed in some cases, and in others, were missing altogether. A notice of violation was then issued by the city on October 3, 1988, charging respondent with violating the Standard Building Code in two respects. More specifically, it was charged that respondent's workmanship violated sections 1701.1.1 and 1708.2.1 of the 1985 Standard Building Code, as amended through 1987. These sections pertain to the quality and design of wood trusses and the design of trussed rafters, respectively. At a hearing before the city's Trade Qualifying Board, respondent admitted his workers had violated the cited sections and caused the damage to the trusses. However, respondent denied liability on the theory that the workers, and not he personally, had negligently damaged the house. Respondent was thereafter issued a letter of reprimand for his actions. In order to recover their damages, which included the replacement of all damaged trusses, the Ansmans filed suit against respondent in Alachua County small claims court. On April 18, 1989, they received a judgment in the amount of $1,050. The judgment was eventually satisfied but only after the Ansmans threatened to levy on respondent's real property located in Alachua County. In preparation for the suit, the Ansmans obtained an engineering report which corroborates the findings made by the city building inspector concerning the damage and negligence on the part of respondent's work crew. By allowing the work to be performed in that manner, respondent was incompetent and committed misconduct in his practice of contracting. However, there is no evidence that respondent was grossly negligent during his supervision of the job. Respondent did not appear at hearing. However, prior to hearing he spoke to the city building inspector and acknowledged that the roof trusses were damaged as the result of negligence on the part of his crew. He also admitted this during the final hearing on the small claims action. At the same time, he denied that his workers had ever touched the soffits. This assertion, however, is rejected as not being credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987), and that he pay a $1000 fine and his license be suspended for one year. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for answers to any one or all of five challenged questions on the structural I engineering examination that Petitioner took in April 1997 (the "structural engineering examination").
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the structural engineering examination given in April 1997. Respondent administered the examination. The minimum passing score for the structural engineering examination is 70. Respondent earned a score of 69. By Examination Grade Report dated July 29, 1997, Respondent notified Petitioner that he had failed the structural engineering examination. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner's test results were re-scored by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying ("NCEES"). The re-score did not increase Petitioner's original score. Credit for an answer to one additional question will result in a score of 70 on examination. Petitioner challenges questions 270-273 on the morning part of the exam and question 572 on the afternoon part of the exam. The maximum score available for question 270 is 10 points. Petitioner received eight points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 270. Petitioner incorrectly calculated the point where "stirrups may be discontinued." The maximum score available for question 271 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 271. Petitioner did not complete the procedure for two of the required items. Petitioner completed only two items in question 271. He received a correct score of two points because he incorrectly calculated the point where "stirrups may be discontinued." The maximum score available for question 272 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 272. Petitioner did not provide a correct analysis of the "forces perpendicular and parallel to the grain" or "determine the allowable force at an angle to the grain." The maximum score available for question 273 is 10 points. Petitioner received two points. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for question 273. A higher score would require Petitioner to calculate two items correctly. Petitioner calculated only one item correctly. Question 572 has two parts. Part 2 is a multiple choice format. The correct answer to Part 2 of Question 572 is answer "C," or 1.25. Petitioner chose answer "B," or 2.25. Petitioner incorrectly assumed that the structure was a mixed steel/concrete frame. If Petitioner's assumption had been correct, then answer "B," or 2.25, would have been the correct answer. Petitioner failed to show that Respondent did not utilize the scoring plan correctly. The examination provided enough information for a candidate for licensure to answer the problems correctly. The examination was properly designed to test a candidate's competency. The challenged questions are questions that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer correctly.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge to questions 270-273 and 572. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 R. Beth Atchison Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carl A. Brown, pro se 9313 Sonoma Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Licensing Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors Licensing Board, appropriately denied Petitioner's, Kevin Harrington, application to take the examination for licensure as an electrical contractor.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is the state agency vested with the authority to test applicants seeking certification as electrical contractors. Petitioner is seeking certification (licensure) as an electrical contractor. On December 12, 2001, Respondent received Petitioner's application to take the Electrical Contractors Unlimited examination. On December 24, 2001, Respondent mailed Petitioner a letter requesting additional information. The letter requested that the additional information be received by Respondent no later than January 4, 2002. This date was later extended to January 8, 2002. On January 4 and January 7, 2002, Petitioner, through his attorney, forwarded the requested additional information to Respondent. Petitioner's application was complete on January 10, 2002. Respondent, Electrical Contractors Licensing Board("Board"), met on January 16 and 17, 2002. The Board delegates initial consideration of applications to take certification examinations to an Applications Committee consisting of members of the Board who make recommendations to the full Board on each application. Each application is examined by at least two Applications Committee members; if both recommend "denial of the application," or, if one recommends "approval of the application" and one recommends "denial of the application," the application is reviewed by a third Applications Committee member. Each member of the Applications Committee is provided a worksheet as a part of the application package which lists reasons for denial drawn from Subsection 489.511(2)(a)(3), Florida Statutes. After each application is considered by members of the Applications Committee, the application with the Applications Committee's recommendations, reasons for denial (if applicable), and other comments are given to a staff employee who prepares an approved/denial list which is presented to the full Board for consideration. The foregoing procedure was followed in the instant case. On January 16, 2002, Board members, Roger Lange and Kim DeBerry, who were members of the Applications Committee, considered Petitioner's application; both recommended denial of the application. Because there were two recommendations of denial, the application was considered by a third Applications Committee member, Dawn Johnson; she, too, recommended denial. Petitioner's application and the recommendations, reasons for denial, and comments of the Applications Committee were then given to a staff employee who prepared a summary list of all applicants with the recommendations for approval or denial by the Applications Committee with reasons given for denial for submission to the full Board. The full Electrical Contractors Licensing Board considered Petitioner's application on January 17, 2002, and unanimously denied the application. Petitioner was advised of the denial by letter dated February 8, 2002. Petitioner's Applicant's Affidavit dated November 16, 2001, indicates that he was seeking a license under Subsection 489 .511(2)(a)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The Applicant's Affidavit specifically states: 489.511(2)(a)(3)(a), F.S. Has, within the six (6) years immediately preceding the filing of the application, at least three (3) years proven "management experience" in the trade or education equivalent thereto, or a combination thereof, but not more than one- half of such experience may be educational. (Please submit at least three (3) years of W- 2 Forms) The occupational skills and responsibilities of an electrical contractor are unique and require experience and understanding which are typically acquired by extensive, direct "on-the-job" training in the electrical contracting trade. Petitioner is an experienced General Contractor's project manager. His credentials as a General Contractor's project manager are impressive and the projects he has supervised are extensive. Petitioner has little or no direct supervisory experience in the electrical contracting trade. Petitioner's construction management experience is as a General Contractor project manager, not an Electrical Contractor project manager or similar position, and, as a consequence, he does not meet the "'management experience' in the trade" statutory requirement. Petitioner has an enviable academic record: an Associate of Science Degree With Honors from Miami-Dade Community College (1990), a Bachelor of Science in Building Construction from University of Florida (1993), 21 hours of graduate studies at Florida International University leading towards a Master of Building Construction degree. Petitioner's academic credentials have little direct application to the electrical contracting trade and, as a consequence, do not meet the "educational equivalent" to management experience statutory requirement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application to take the Certified Electrical Contractor's Licensure Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Rosemary Hanna Hayes, Esquire Hayes & Associates 3117 Edgewater Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner may be granted provisional certification as a plumbing inspector and provisional certification as a mechanical inspector.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Florida Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board (Board) is the executive branch agency, within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, charged, among other duties, with administering Part XII, Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, and issuing standard and provisional certification of plumbing inspectors and mechanical inspectors. The Board denied Petitioner’s applications for provisional licensing as a plumbing inspector, and as a mechanical inspector, because his application(s) “does not demonstrate, affirmed by affidavit signed by an architect, engineer, contractor, or building code administrator, that you have the required experience for the certification sought.” At all times material, Robert McCormick was Respondent Board’s Chairman. The Board considers applications for, and licenses applicants as, building inspectors, plans examiners, and building code administrators. Such personnel usually work with municipal, county, or state entities, although in some places private contractors provide such services. Licensees review proposed construction plans of both residential and commercial projects as well as monitor the progress of construction to assure that all building code standards are met. Each construction trade has a specific and complex code of regulations. Inspectors in each category must assure compliance with that respective trade’s regulations. Most of the work of an inspector is performed in the field at a job site. Plumbing and mechanical inspectors must be versed in both residential and commercial construction codes. The mechanical trade is, at minimum, concerned with heating, air- conditioning, and ventilation systems. The plumbing trade is, at minimum, concerned with water systems, drains, pipes, and gas. At hearing, Petitioner submitted no information whatsoever about his experience in these areas, and relied exclusively upon his application affidavits. Petitioner is employed by a public entity, the City of Deland. The Board has issued him a provisional license as a building inspector. As a building inspector, Petitioner reviews structural and non-structural aspects of construction for one- and two-family dwellings, as well as means of egress and accessibility, but he does not address specific systems or codes, such as plumbing and mechanical, within the structure to assure compliance with the Florida Building Code. Petitioner has already taken and passed both the Florida-required test for standard plumbing inspector certification and for standard mechanical inspector certification. Mr. McCormick, testifying on behalf of the Board, acknowledged Petitioner’s successful test results, but considered Petitioner’s passing the examination to be the last statutory requirement time-wise (or just one of the statutory prongs) for obtaining the standard license. For provisional licenses, the Board still requires five years’ experience as specified by statute for each specialized field (plumbing and mechanical) to be attested-to by adequate affidavits. (TR-69) By virtue of having a provisional building inspector certification issued by the same Board involved with the present applications, Petitioner has already demonstrated, via affidavit, five years’ experience in general building construction. As part of his application(s) for the plumbing and mechanical inspector provisional licenses, Petitioner submitted two affidavits of his current employer and six affidavits from others with knowledge of his work experience. Some of these affidavits also had been used by Petitioner in applying for his building inspector license. The affidavits were signed by engineers, building code administrators, and/or licensed contractors, and account for Petitioner’s work experience from 1988 to the present, most of which experience occurred in Ohio. The affidavits purport to describe, in general terms, Petitioner’s experience, job duties, and overall knowledge of the plumbing and mechanical trades during that time frame. The Board has created an Application Review Committee, consisting of Board members, to review all applications and make a recommendation to the Board as to whether each application should be approved or denied. Mr. McCormick was on the Application Review Committee which reviewed Petitioner’s application on October 14, 2008, and recommended against Petitioner’s provisional licensure in the plumbing and mechanical trades. There is no persuasive evidence that the Application Review Committee made any direct inquiries of Petitioner’s affiants to supplement their affidavits or that it was required to do so. There is no evidence that Petitioner was notified of the Application Review Committee’s meeting or that the law requires that Petitioner be notified of it. However, Petitioner was notified, according to law, of the Board’s meeting on October 17, 2008, when a vote was taken and his pending mechanical and plumbing applications were denied, effective with the Board’s October 30, 2008, Intent to Deny. There is no evidence that Petitioner was present or offered any additional information at the Board’s meeting to support his application(s). According to Mr. McCormick, Petitioner’s affidavits did not describe Petitioner’s work experience in sufficient detail for the two respective categories of inspector. Overall, Mr. McCormick felt all of Petitioner’s affidavits for plumbing and mechanical provisional certification were not specific in the two categories chosen. The Application Review Committee and the Board were looking for affidavits that showed discrete and significant expertise in each trade category, not just experience as a general contractor overseeing other experts in those trades and systems. Petitioner previously had been a general contractor and a licensed Ohio Real Estate Corporate Salesperson. Petitioner’s status as a general contractor in Ohio was insufficient, according to Mr. McCormick, because nothing in the affidavits correlated the licensure of general contractors in Ohio with licensure of general contractors in Florida for purposes of trade category licensing and because Petitioner had already received credit for his prior general contracting experience via his Florida provisional building inspector license. (See Finding of Fact 9.) Mr. McCormick specifically addressed some of these affidavits at hearing. He indicated that the affidavit of Matt Adair, a building official in Deland, Florida, was vague as to five years of the necessary mechanical or plumbing experience, but that it had been accepted by the Application Review Committee as the public employer’s intent to utilize Petitioner for commercial plumbing and mechanical inspections if Petitioner were provisionally licensed in those categories. An affidavit by Jim Ziegler, an Ohio building official, spanned 20 years, and addressed Petitioner’s success in commercial plumbing, masonry, and HVAC (an air-conditioning/mechanical trade), only because of Petitioner’s “hands on” workmanship and supervisory skills as a general contractor in Ohio. The affidavit of Frank Pirc covered 1996-2006, and only described Petitioner as a supervising general contractor with good knowledge of commercial and residential cooling systems. The affidavit of John Bogert, a general contractor, was very specific for plumbing for 1995- 2006, but in Mr. McCormick’s view, Mr. Bogert’s affidavit was unacceptable because it conflicted with an employment history submitted by Petitioner in the same application file. (See affidavits for correct name spellings, rather than the Transcript, which uses phonetic spellings.) Mr. McCormick further stated that no affiant actually identified the period of full-time employment that Petitioner worked in each trade category. Mr. McCormick acknowledged that Petitioner had demonstrated 20 years’ experience in general building, which encompasses some plumbing and some work in the mechanical trade, spread out over that 20-year time frame. However, he testified that the Committee and Board were looking for evidence, via affidavit, that the applicant had a minimum of five years solely dedicated to each trade or five years of full-time work experience in plumbing and five years of full-time work experience in a mechanical trade, not just five years’ total experience based on the applicant’s time in both trades added together. Moreover, in his opinion on behalf of the Board, 20 years as a building contractor had already been acknowledged with the granting of Petitioner’s provisional building inspector’s license. To illustrate his foregoing analysis, Mr. McCormick divided five years into average full-time work hours of 2,000 work hours per year and 10,000 work hours for a five-year long period of employment, but he did not specify that the Committee or Board was adding up full-time work hours to otherwise modify the five years per category requirement of the statute or to alter any Administrative Code rules. Mr. McCormick summed-up problems the Committee and the Board had with Petitioner’s affidavits, saying they showed that Petitioner “did a lot of things over 20 years . . . [but] It is not incumbent on the Board to figure out which part of those 20 years to assign to which trade.” (TR-65) Mr. McCormick acknowledged that, added together, the affidavits submitted by Petitioner covered 20 years of employment, but he further testified that the Committee and Board were looking for affidavits which showed an applicant’s specific duties by trade category, covering specific times/dates, which specific times/dates amounted to five years for each category of building trade.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Building Code Administrators and Inspectors enter a Final Order denying Petitioner’s applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2009.
