Findings Of Fact Albert Ackerstein is a currently licensed barber holding license number BB 0009065, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Albert's Barber Shop is a currently licensed barber shop holding license number BS 0001976, and was so licensed at all times relevant. Mario Burchianti was hired by Albert Ackerstein as a barber in 1977 when he held a current valid barber license and continued to work as a barber in Albert's Barber Shop until November, 1980, when he was dismissed for not having a current valid barber license. Mario Burchianti's barber license expired in 1978 due to his failure to renew. In order to obtain a new barber's license, he took the barber exam in September, 1980 and passed said barber exam in December, 1980. A license check performed by the Department of Professional Regulation in July, 1980 revealed one violation: Mr. Burchianti was unlicensed. A follow up license check performed by the Department in September, 1980, revealed the same violation. Mr. Ackerstein, who was unaware of the violation, became aware of the problem through the Department in October or November, 1980 and thereupon dismissed Mr. Burchianti. Petitioner's follow up investigation conducted in August, 1981 revealed no violation of any kind.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order fining each Respondent one hundred dollars. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 28th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Adam Kurlander, Esquire Zedeck and Kurlander Post Office Box 600429 North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Barbers Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Except to the extent they are consistent with these Findings of Fact, the Department's proposed findings of fact are rejected as either not supported by competent, substantial evidence, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Linares, a resident of Miami, Florida, has been a licensed barber, having been issued License Number BB 0018163 at least between the dates of July 8, 1983, and March 2, 1984. (The license expires July 31, 1984.) During this time, Linares owned and operated Mr. Larry Hair Studio, located in Miami, under barbershop License Number BS 001515 (which also was in effect on these dates and expires July 31, 1984.) Linares has been licensed in Florida and has practiced barbering in Florida for 18 years. He has no record of ever before having been disciplined. When the Department's investigator appeared at the Barbershop for a routine inspection on July 8, 1983, the hair of approximately three or four customers was on the floor of the Barbershop around the two barber chairs in the shop. Linares was sitting in one of the chairs in the customer waiting area. No customers were being barbered at the time. The Barbers' Board has announced a policy that cut hair should be removed or at least be swept aside after every second customer. But there was no competent substantial and persuasive evidence that Linares' failure to do so constituted either a failure to eliminate all fire hazards or a failure to provide for safe and unobstructed human passage in the premises. The Board's policy was communicated to Linares on July 8, 1983. On July 8, 1983, Linares also had no wet sterilizing agent or any other means of sterilization of equipment available for use and was not sterilizing the equipment he was using. Finally, a combination of dirt and old soap from use over an extended period of time had accumulated on the bathroom fixtures of the bathroom in the Barbershop. The Department inspector advised Linares that the conditions just described were violations of the rules governing licensed barbers and that he would return to reinspect the Barbershop between 30 and 90 days later. The Department inspector returned on August 12, 1983. On his return, there again was hair from approximately four customers on the floor of the shop around the two barber chairs. However, on this occasion, both chairs were in use and there were customers waiting for haircuts. On August 12, 1983, Linares still was not sterilizing his equipment and had no wet sterilizing agent or other means of sterilization available for use. Finally, the bathroom fixtures still had an accumulation of dirt and old soap on August 12, 1983.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board reprimand Respondent, Lazaro V. Linares, d/b/a Mr. Larry Hair Studio, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Lazaro V. Linares 7015 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33138 Myrtle S. Aase, Executive Director Barbers' Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, David Blake (Respondent), violated Subsection 476.194(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), by engaging in the practice of barbering without a license, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed as a barber by the Department's Board of Barbers for the State of Florida. Respondent's last known address of record was 4144 Geranium Lane, Apartment 102, Sanford, Florida 32771. The Division of Administrative Hearings mailed the Notice of Hearing in this case to Respondent on May 10, 2006, at his address of record. That notice was not returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At all times material hereto, the barbershop named Just Blaze Barbershop, located at 2451 East Semoran Boulevard, Apopka, Florida, was licensed by the Florida Board of Barbers. Michelle Peterson is and, at all times relevant to this proceeding, has been employed by the Department as an investigator specialist. Ms. Peterson's job responsibilities include conducting inspections of barbershops. On October 8, 2005, the Department, through its employee, Ms. Peterson, inspected the premises of Just Blaze Barbershop. During the inspection, Ms. Peterson observed Respondent performing barbering services on a customer. Specifically, Respondent was cutting a customer's hair. At Ms. Peterson's direction, another Department inspector who was at the inspection took a photograph of Respondent while he was cutting the person's hair. During the inspection, Ms. Peterson issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation to Respondent for the unlicensed activity. The citation was signed by both Ms. Peterson and Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent, David Blake, engaged the unlicensed practice of barbering, an act proscribed by Subsections 476.194(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and (2) imposing an administrative fine of $500.00 for the violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 1st day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicole M. Webb, Certified Law Clerk Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David Blake 4144 Geranium Lane, No. 102 Sanford, Florida 32771 John Washington, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent's licenses, as a barber and for a barbershop in the State of Florida, should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for alleged violation of Chapter 476, Florida Statutes; violation of Section 476.204(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21C-19.012, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to meet the minimum standards in the operation of a barbershop, as follows: Garbage not kept in closed container (Rule 21C-19.011(2)(b). Equipment not kept clean and sanitary (Rule 21C- 19.011(2)(e). Equipment not stored in clean, closed containers or cabinets (Rule 21C-19.011(11)(d).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed barber and barbershop owner in the State of Florida, license numbers BB 19606 and BS8827. The Respondent is the owner of Ribault Barbershop, 6712 Van Gundy Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32208. (P-2; T- 8) On July 26, 1990, Gail Hand, a DPR inspector, inspected the Respondent's barbershop. At that time, she found the shelves, fixtures and counter tops at the barber stations were coated with black dust, dirt and hair, which, over time, had been scattered throughout the barbershop. In addition, the Respondent had two (2) combs, a pick and four (4) clipper attachments which were coated with a scum or a dark residue in a dirty liquid in a tray on the counter top. (P-3; T-8-9, 30) During the aforementioned inspection, Ms. Hand also found that the barbering equipment in the Respondent's barbershop, such as combs, brushes and picks, were not stored in a closed container. The Respondent had combs, clipper attachments, scissors, a brush and a pick on the counter top. Ms. Hand found no closed cabinet for storing tools. The Respondent indicated that he was unaware of this requirement. (P-3; T-9-10, 23 and 59) During this inspection, Ms. Hand noted the garbage was not kept in a closed container as required by Board rule. (P-3; T-10-11, 58). The fact that the Respondent's bathroom had an objectionable odor and that the Respondent failed to post the previous inspection sheet were not charged as violations. (P-3; T-10-12, 17-18, 20-21, 37) Ms. Linda Mantovani, another DPR inspector "informally" reinspected the Respondent's barbershop prior to Christmas of 1990. Ms. Mantovani checked the deficiencies Ms. Hand had noted in July of 1990. She found that the Respondent's barbershop still had no closed cabinet for storage of tools. Ms. Mantovani reviewed the inspection report with the Respondent and discussed his correction of the continuing violations. The windowsills and fans were cleaned, and the garbage was kept in a closed container. (T-38, 40-42, 46-47, 50-51)
Recommendation Regarding the last charge, the Respondent indicated that he had received conflicting guidance on this requirement from prior inspectors. It appeared that there may be some confusion about this requirement; however, after the initial inspection, the Respondent clearly was on notice. Because of the Respondent's interest and candor regarding the events and because some of the deficiencies were corrected, the fine proposed by the Department is reduced to $100 per violation. Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Barbers enter a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a $300.00 administrative fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Barbers Board Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Laura P. Gaffney, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael Herrington 6712 Van Gundy Road Jacksonville, FL 32208
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves an appeal by petitioner, Marline Lewis, challenging the score she received on the September 1993 barber licensure examination. The examination is administered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation on behalf of respondent, the Barbers' Board (Board). According to the examination grade report issued on September 29, 1993, petitioner received a grade of 69 on the practical portion of the examination. The Board requires a grade of at least 74.5 in order to be licensed. The barber examination consists of two parts: written and practical. The practical portion of the examination is in issue here and has five categories: haircut, permanent wave, shampoo, sanitation and technique. As clarified at hearing, petitioner contends that the examiners who assessed her performance did not assign a proper score on the haircut category, and that one examiner improperly gave her no credit on one item of the sanitation category. She also contends that there were conversations between two examiners during the examination that disrupted her concentration, and that other individuals entered the examination room and momentarily congregated around her work area. Petitioner took the practical portion of the examination on the afternoon of September 20, 1993, at Lively Vocational/Technical Center in Tallahassee, Florida. The examination room contained four work areas, one in each corner of the room, with each area having four work stations consisting of a mirror, chair, cabinet, counter and sink. Each candidate was assigned to one of the work stations. When petitioner took the examination, there were fourteen candidates, including herself. Each candidate was required to be accompanied by a model on whom the procedures could be performed. Petitioner brought her husband as a model. Four examiners were assigned the task of grading the fourteen candidates. The room was divided in half for testing purposes, and two examiners graded seven candidates at two work areas while the other two examiners graded the remaining seven candidates. Each set of examiners circulated around their assigned work areas so that they could observe and monitor the skills of the candidates. Thus, it was not possible for an examiner to observe a candidate for every moment during the entire examination. In petitioner's case, her examiners were Roland Bordelon and Jeri Scott, two licensed barber stylists with nine and eleven years experience, respectively, in grading the examination. According to examiner Scott, she always gave the benefit of the doubt to the candidate. On the other hand, examiner Bordelon said he tended to grade more rigidly. Before the examination, all examiners were given standardization training, which was designed to insure that the examiners graded in a "standardized" or consistent fashion. This training included the grading of live models during a simulated or mock examination. In addition, they reviewed a grader's manual which provided criteria and instructions on how to grade the examination. The examiners were told to grade independently of one another, and they were not to confer on the grades to be given a candidate. After the grading was completed, the two grades were compiled, and an overall grade was given the candidate. The haircut category contains nine separate items to be rated by the examiner. A maximum of forty-five points can be attained in this category. The sanitation category contains ten items with a maximum of twenty-five points. The examiner was required to give a "yes" or "no" score on each category, with a "yes" meaning full credit and a "no" meaning zero credit. This rating was then recorded contemporaneously on a scoring sheet. In the event a "no" score was given, the examiner was required to fill in a comments section on the scoring sheet which identified the basis for the negative rating. Finally, if one examiner gave a "yes" and the other a "no," the candidate received one-half credit on the item. In the haircut portion of the test, examiner Bordelon gave a "no" on items B-8, B-9, B-10, B-12, and B-14 while examiner Scott gave a "no" on items B-11, B-12, and B-15. In all other respects, the two were consistent in their grading. Their combined scores resulted in petitioner receiving a total grade of 24 out of 45 points. Petitioner contends that she successfully completed a taper haircut on her model and did not deserve to receive a "no" on so many items. She also questions the consistency of the examiners' grading. The more credible and persuasive evidence, however, is that the items were graded in a fair manner and that a number of deficiencies were noted in her performance. They included sides not proportional, holes in the sides and back, side burns not shaven, holes in the top, blending problems, and uneven outlines. Although the two examiners disagreed on several items, such inconsistencies were not shown to be unreasonable or illogical. Moreover, the scores are averaged to adjust for any potential bias by the examiners. In other words, the averaging process reduces the subjectivity of the examiner's scoring and takes into account the fact that one examiner may grade too leniently or too severe. Therefore, the grade given in the haircut category should not be changed. In the sanitation category of the examination, petitioner contests the "no" grade she received from examiner Bordelon on item B-1. That item requires a candidate to wash her hands before beginning the haircut. Examiner Scott stated that she did not see petitioner wash her hands, but since she did not observe petitioner every moment before the haircut began, she gave her the benefit of the doubt. Examiner Bordelon stated he did not observe petitioner wash her hands and thus gave her a "no." Since petitioner stated that she washed her hands prior to the beginning of the haircut, and examiner Bordelon did not testify that he had petitioner in his eyesight for every moment prior to the time she began cutting hair, it is found that petitioner should be given a "yes" rating on item B-1 and an additional two points. After adjusting her score, her total score is 71, or still less than the required 74.5. Besides her own testimony, petitioner presented the testimony of her former instructor, Terry Collier, who is a licensed barber stylist. Collier suggested that the examiners did not have sufficient experience and training in cutting the hair of African-Americans. From this premise, he drew the conclusion that the examiners likewise were insufficiently trained to judge the merits of a haircut given to a black model. The evidence shows, however, that during the past decade both examiners have graded numerous candidates who used black models. This is confirmed by the fact that approximately one-half of all test candidates and models are black. In addition, both examiners operate barbershops serving African-American clients. Finally, both Collier and the Board's witnesses agreed that subjective judgment calls must be made by the examiners while grading a candidate. Therefore, petitioner's contention regarding the qualifications of the examiners is deemed to be without merit. Finally, petitioner claims she was distracted by conversations between the two examiners during the examination. Both examiners denied discussing the merits of the candidate's skills, but admitted they made have engaged in "small talk" at various times, particularly during the permanent wave part of the examination, a category not in issue here. Also, petitioner stated that four or five unidentified persons came into the examination room during the examination and stood behind her for a few moments. This was confirmed by her husband. Even if these events occurred, however, all candidates would have been subjected to the same testing conditions and thus no candidate would have received an unfair advantage during the examination process. Moreoever, petitioner concedes that during the examination she never complained that she was being distracted. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to relief on this ground.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board enter a final order changing petitioner's grade on the September 1993 barber stylist examination from 69 to 71. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6792 Petitioner: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 9-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 12-13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 25-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 27-29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 30-31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 32. Rejected as being unnecessary. 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Respondent: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Rejected as being unnecessary. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 13-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 18-22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 23-24. Rejected as being unnecessary. 25-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 29. Rejected as being unnecessary. 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. NOTE: Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Suzanne Lee, Executive Director Barbers' Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0769 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Leatrice E. Williams, Esquire 604 Hogan Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 W. Frederick Whitson, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in these cases concern several administrative complaints brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Respondent. In DOAH Case No. 89-4454/DPR Case No. 0093417, Respondent is alleged to have employed a number of individuals to practice as barber instructors who have not been licensed by the State of Florida. In addition, allegations were placed that Respondent had not met sanitation standards required by law; that barbering students and instructor trainees were not under the constant supervision of a licensed instructor; that insufficient numbers of instructors were provided based upon the preceding months' average daily attendance; that a current inspection rating sheet, as well as a copy of the sanitation rules were not displayed; that a full-time instructor statement of employment was not available; that students/school contracts were not available and that a drinking fountain of bottled water needed to be refilled, as revealed in an inspection of January 7, 1988. In DOAH Case No. 89-4453/DPR Case No. 0097551 pertaining to an inspection of April 8, 1988, Respondent is said to have employed a Calvin Gates to practice as a barber instructor without Gates having been issued a license from the State of Florida. Finally, DOAH Case No. 89- 4452/DPR Case No. 0108179 alleges that by inspection of November 17, 1988, it was revealed that Joseph Kaufmann had been employed to teach barbering by Respondent and was operating on an expired barber instructor's license, which had expired approximately August 1, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed barber school in the State of Florida which operated at 5863 University Boulevard W. and 4416 Brentwood Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida, at times significant to these administrative complaints. On January 7, 1988, Gail Hand, an inspector for Petitioner, inspected the Brentwood Avenue facility. This inspection was a routine quarterly inspection. The Jacksonville, Florida, operations of the Roffler Hair Design College are 50% owned by Stewart Arnett Smith, Sr. and 50% owned by Stewart Arnett Smith, Jr., his son. On January 7, 1988, Hand was accompanied in her inspection by Cheryl Baker, whom she understood to be the manager based upon Baker's remarks. In fact, Baker was a secretary; and the actual manager of the facility was an individual named Mattz, who was out ill on this date. Mattz, at that time, was a licensed barber instructor. Neither of the owners were in attendance at the commencement of the inspection. Arnett Smith, Jr. had left to go to his other facility on University Boulevard. He was summoned back to the Brentwood Avenue barber school to participate in the inspection. He arrived approximately 20 to 40 minutes later. During the inspection, Velma Chambers was observed by Hand to be seated in a classroom while a student spoke to the class. At this time, Chambers was an instructor trainee. She had entered into a contract with Respondent on May 14, 1987 to be completed by November 14, 1987 pertaining to 600 hours of course instruction directed toward her becoming a barber instructor. Nonetheless, beyond the date of November 14, 1987, she was still at the school in a capacity, which was other than a licensed instructor in Florida, and under these facts is found to have been a barber instructor trainee on this date. In addition, a work schedule for instructors at the facility, be they licensed barber instructors or instructor trainees, showed Chambers to be filling the role of instructor at the school. Although this schedule had not been prepared by the owners, it was provided to Hand by the younger Smith upon his arrival at Brentwood Avenue on the inspection date. Baker had also pointed Chambers out as being one of the instructors in the facility. Calvin Gates, who was on the floor in the Brentwood Avenue facility, was pointed out by Baker as the instructor on the floor. The floor is where services are given to the public, as distinguished from the classroom, where theory is taught. Gates was not a licensed barber instructor in Florida on the date in question. He, too, had entered into a contract to receive course work toward his instructor's license. His contract with Respondent commenced on September 15, 1987 to be consummated on March 15, 1988. A Dave Dison was found in a room where mannequins are kept and the students are allowed to practice. Dison was pointed out by Baker as being certified for the new students, and Baker commented that Dison's license was at the University Boulevard facility. This is taken to mean that Dison was a licensed barber instructor, whose license was not available at the Brentwood Avenue facility. Having considered the remarks of Baker made to Hand and the testimony of the younger Smith at hearing, it is unclear whether his employment was that of licensed instructor or as instructor trainee waiting a license examination to become a barber instructor. In either case, he had not been licensed by the State of Florida as a barber instructor on the date of the inspection. His name does not appear in the schedule of instructors; but on the date of inspection, he was observed instructing new students using mannequins. According to the investigative report, which comments are credited, the younger Smith admitted to Hand that Dison did not have a Florida license and that Dison had commented to Smith that he, Dison, was having problems with his license in Mississippi. Subsequent to the time of inspection, Dison was dismissed as an employee of Respondent. Terry B. Collier and Patricia Frances Wilson were shown on the schedule to have instructor duties related to the floor duty for Collier and classroom duty for Wilson. Shirley Johnson was shown as having unspecified duties from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Thursday. None of these persons were in attendance on the date of inspection, nor did they have barber instructor licenses at that time. It can be fairly inferred that they were considered by Respondent to be instructor trainees. It cannot be fairly inferred that any knowledge which they might impart on some date other than the inspection date would be in a setting in which the ratio of students to licensed instructors was not in keeping with legal requirement or that they were allowed to pursue their duties as trainee instructors without appropriate supervision from licensed instructors. The process of teaching people to become instructors contemplates the opportunity for those persons to also instruct while undergoing their training. To be successful in an allegation of impropriety by Respondent, proof has to be offered that these persons were, on some date, allowed to instruct without appropriate supervision and in a situation in which the ratio of licensed instructors to students was inadequate. That was not shown as it pertains to the three trainee instructors not in attendance at the time of inspection. The fact that the younger Smith told Hand that he thought the instructor trainees could teach students and be counted as part of the required number of instructors does not change this impression. In addition to Mattz, who was out ill, an individual whose name is Parks was scheduled to work at the Brentwood Avenue facility on the inspection date. Parks was a licensed instructor at the time. He had left the building for some undisclosed reason before the time of the inspection. A Mr. Lewis was also a licensed instructor, who was scheduled to work at the Brentwood Avenue facility on that date; but he was not due in the facility until 1:00 p.m. and had not arrived at the time of the inspection. Although the younger Smith has an instructor's license, he was not performing the function of instructor on the inspection date and was not listed on the schedule of instructors. Effectively, this meant that although students were undergoing instruction, that instruction was being provided by persons who were not licensed instructors and under the supervision of licensed instructors. On the date of the inspection, Baker calculated the average daily attendance to be 105 students. She had some difficulty in arriving at this figure. The younger Smith spoke to Hand on January 11, 1988 by telephone in which he suggested that that figure of 105 should be corrected to 56, based upon some mistake made by the secretary. On January 15, 1988, a letter bearing the signature of Cheryl Baker was written concerning the average daily attendance in which it was reported that she had stated the attendance as 90 and that the correct daily attendance should be 59. Whatever the true figure, students were in attendance and they were not receiving instruction from licensed barber instructors. The inspection also revealed that the current inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules had not been posted or displayed. The explanation by Smith was that the facility had been recently painted and that they had not been put back in their usual place. Hand asked for a copy of the missing inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules but does not recall whether she was shown a copy of these items. The reason why the items pertaining to the current inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules were not produced, based upon Hand's recollection, was that they could not be found. On April 8, 1988, Hand returned to the Brentwood Avenue facility for further inspection and observed Gates teaching. On that occasion, he was introduced by Mattz as the other instructor on duty, with Mattz being one of the two instructors. Seventeen students were present at that time. Two instructors would have been needed to offer instruction to that many students. The average daily attendance on that date was 72 students. On that date, Gates was not licensed by the State of Florida as a barber instructor. On a later date, Hand spoke to the younger Smith about the inspection. On this occasion, Smith changed his point of view from the situation in which he had commented at the first inspection of January 17, 1988. In that earlier inspection, he had stated that he thought that trainees could teach students and be counted as the required number of instructors. In the discussion regarding the April 8, 1988 inspection, he indicated that he did not count instructor trainees as instructors and that Hand must have misunderstood his comments during the previous inspection. On the occasion of the inspection of April 8, 1988, Hand was provided confirmation of Gates' employment, which stated that he was employed as an instructor at the school. The younger Smith tried to explain the circumstance with Gates on the basis that Gates had already taken his barber instructor test and that he had been notified that he had failed and that he had to retake the test and had appealed it with success. All of this information is hearsay and not subject to use for fact finding. Regardless of the true situation of Gates' attempt to gain his barber instructor license, he did not have a license on April 8, 1988 and should not have been allowed to instruct and be counted in the census of licensed instructors. On November 17, 1988, Hand conducted a routine inspection of the University Boulevard West facility. She found Joseph Kaufmann practicing with an expired instructor's license which was displayed. Kaufmann told Hand that he had renewed his license in August of 1988 but that it was returned with a request for an additional $50.00 late fee. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence is a form dated August 2, 1988 pertaining to this license and states that the renewal and fee had been postmarked after the expiration date of July 31, 1988. As a consequence, the basic fee of $50.00 was being returned with the expectation that the request for relicensure should be resubmitted with a total amount of $100.00 being paid, $50.00 for the basic license and $50.00 for a penalty and for reinstatement. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3A admitted into evidence is another form dated December 1, 1988 from Petitioner which states that the renewal and check in the amount of $100.00 was being returned because the request was being processed and the enclosed check was, not required. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence is a copy of postmarks of August 1, 1988 purportedly from Kaufmann, and November 29, 1988, again, purportedly from Kaufmann. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence is a letter from Mr. Tunnicliff, as chief attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation, addressed to Kaufmann, in which it is indicated that any action against Kaufmann was being dismissed associated with the complaint that Kaufmann was practicing with an expired instructor's license. It indicates that although probable cause was believed to exist, that Kaufmann had violated practice standards, in light of the circumstances, it was determined to dismiss the action. This is said to have been based upon the perception that while Kaufmann was practicing with an expired license because of miscommunication between Kaufmann and the Barbers Board, there had been a delay in the renewal of the license. Respondent was notified by telephone on November 22, 1988 concerning the Kaufmann situation. The younger Smith told Hand in that telephone conversation that Kaufmann had renewed his license and had shown Respondent's representative, the younger Smith, a copy of a money order received. Kaufmann had told Hand that on August 1, 1988, he had resubmitted his basic fee with an additional $50.00. Kaufmann showed Hand a copy of a money order receipt with no date. He did not have any correspondence available that he had received from Petitioner concerning his renewal. Hand checked with the office of the Barbers Board on November 21, 1988 and was told that the license had not been renewed and no money had been received. Kaufmann told Hand on the inspection date that because of some problems with mail, they received his money and sent it back because it was late and said that he owed another $50.00 which coincides with the remarks of Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. By contrast, in the conversation of November 21, 1988 between Hand and the Barbers Board, Hand was being told that the Barbers Board had received no money. The younger Smith, with the indication of a money order being sent by Kaufmann to renew his barber instructor license and a remark that he had sent his money in and that he had not received the license renewal back, assumed that things were acceptable. The younger Smith also took solace in the fact that there are problems at times with license renewals, which have to be rectified. Nonetheless, it is evident that Kaufmann was operating as a licensed instructor on November 17, 1988 without having received his license renewal and under the auspice of a license that was being displayed and clearly showed that it was no longer in effect.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts and the Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines Respondent in the amount of $1,250.00 and entering a letter of reprimand in the disciplinary file associated with DOAH Case No. 89-4452/DPR Case No. 0108179. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 89-4452, 89-4453, 89-4454 The following disposition is made of the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found, except for its reference to the inspection date as being April 13, 1988. The inspection date was April 8, 1988. Paragraph 5 is subordinate to facts found as far as it is stated in the unnumbered page 4. It appears that some of the Proposed Recommended Order is missing to include the balance of the fact finding at an unnumbered page 5. Respondent's Facts The facts pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4452 are subordinate to facts found. The facts pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4453 are rejected. The documented information related to the Calvin Gates contract, which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence, shows the conclusion of his training on March 15, 1988, before the inspection of April 8, 1988. The relevant fact is that Gates was not a licensed instructor on April 8, 1988. The comments pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4454, which refer to a letter of September 1, 1988 from Robert C. Kent, Esquire, have been taken into account in the fact finding in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Stewart Arnett Smith, Jr. 5110 University Boulevard West Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Samuel L. Ferguson, Executive Director Department of Education State Board of Independent Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Trade and Business Schools 209 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Barbers Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert C. Kent, Esquire 1532 Atlantic Boulevard Post Office Box 10174 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent owned, operated, maintained, established, or conducted a barbering business and barber shop for purposes of the requirements delineated in Section 476.194, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with regulating the licensure of barbers, the licensure of barber shop establishments and the practice of barbering, and the operation of barber shops, pursuant to Chapter 476, Florida Statutes (2006). After investigation the Respondent, Chand Harris, was accused in the Administrative Complaint, with practicing barbering or operating, establishing, opening, or conducting a barber shop operation or business without proper licensure. Although properly served with a copy of the Notice of Hearing at his last known address of record, Mr. Harris failed to appear at the hearing. After waiting an appropriate period of time, the hearing was convened and the taking of evidence was initiated. Upon conclusion of the Petitioner's case the Respondent, Mr. Harris, had not yet appeared at the hearing and never did appear at hearing. Consequently, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the Respondent. There has been no communication with the Respondent either before or since the hearing and thus there is no known explanation for his failure to appear at the hearing. Robert M. Johnson is employed by the Department as an inspector. He has been thus employed for approximately three and one-half years. He has a four-year degree from Baptist College of Florida and is currently enrolled in basic law enforcement courses at Lake City Community College. He also received formal training from the Department upon beginning his employment and attends on-going training sessions. Mr. Johnson performs approximately 1,300 inspections annually. On November 3, 9, and 17, 2005, Mr. Johnson inspected the premises of a business known as "Trend Setterz." Mr. Johnson's investigation established, through his testimony, that the Respondent, Chand Harris, owned and controlled the establishment named Trend Setterz. It is located at 289 Marion Oaks Lane, Ocala, Florida 34473. Trend Setterz was not licensed as a barber shop by the Florida Barbers Board, but was operating as a barber shop. Mr. Johnson observed a substantial number of people having hair cuts performed in the Trend Setterz shop. During those inspections, Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Giscard Rousseau performing barbering services inside the Trend Setterz establishment. He specifically observed Mr. Rousseau cutting hair for compensation. He also overheard Mr. Rousseau telling at least one customer not to pay him in the presence of Mr. Johnson so he could not be accused of barbering for compensation without a license. Mr. Rousseau was not licensed as a barber by the Florida Barber's Board at the time of the inspections and with regard to the time period represented by the charges in the Administrative Complaint against the shop owner and operator, Mr. Harris. Later, after the pertinent time period represented by the charges in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Rousseau indeed achieved licensure as a barber by the Florida Barber's Board, on September 12, 2006. That license is current and active through July 31, 2008. Chand Harris, however, as well as Trend Setterz, is not and never has been licensed by the Barber Board respectively as a barber or as a barber shop.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Department of Business and Profession Regulation, Board of Barbers, finding the Respondent guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint and assessing an administrative penalty in the amount of $1,000.00, due and payable to the Barber Board, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date a final order herein is filed with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Tiffany A. Harrington, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Chand Harris 16330 Southwest 17th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34473 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Should the Petitioner be licensed in Florida as a barber as a result of the examination for licensure given in December of 1987?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the examination for licensure as a barber in December of 1987. Although she achieved a passing score on the written portion of the examination, she did not obtain a passing score on the practical portion of the examination. The practical portion of the examination is divided into five parts. The Petitioner challenges the grade she received in the scoring of the haircut. The maximum number of points a licensure candidate can receive on a haircut is 45 points. A review of Respondent's Exhibit B shows that the Petitioner received 18 points for her performance on Sections 2-k, 2-o, and 2-p of the exam. She does not contest the examiners' ratings on Sections 2-j and 2- m. She is concerned only with the scores she received on Sections 2-l and 2-n. When the Petitioner took the examination, John E. Lewis was the model she used to demonstrate her ability to give a "styled" haircut. During the hearing, John E. Lewis explained the following characteristics of his head and scalp line: Mr. Lewis' ears are not symmetrically located. One ear is placed significantly higher on his head than his other ear, which gives them different heights in relation to his facial features. In addition, the hair on the left side of his head grows much thicker than the hair on the right side of his head. As a result of these characteristics, an optical illusion is created which makes hair of identical length on both sides of the head appear to be longer on the left side. During the barber examination, two examiners checked the style line of the haircut under Section 2-l. On the criteria rating sheets, they commented that the left side of the style line appeared longer. In rating the hair on each side as to evenness and balance (Section 2-n), the examiners each noted that the left side was either longer or fuller. Because of these evaluations, the Petitioner did not receive any points in categories 2-i or 2-n in the examination. Cathy Maynard Frank, a Florida licensed barber who was awarded a silver medal in the 1986 World Championship of Barbers and who has placed second nationally, testified as an expert witness on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. Frank had an opportunity to observe and professionally review the haircut a few hours after the examination. In her opinion, the hair on both sides (under Section 2-n) was as close as a barber could get them. If the Petitioner had cut the left side shorter to avoid the optical illusion of unevenness, the thicker hair on the left side would have stuck straight out. Ms. Frank generally agreed with the examiners' evaluations in the other categories which contributed to her credibility as an expert witness. Ronald Max Young testified as an expert witness on behalf of the Respondent. Mr. Young is a barber who has been licensed in Florida since 1972. He is a lead examiner for the state and has participated in the examination process for the last five years. Mr. Young testified that the examination contains the standard criteria necessary to meet the minimum requirements for licensing. The examiners look for an even haircut, evenly balanced all the way around. If a model is not fitting, that is the candidate's problem, not the examiners' problem. Mr. Young did not have an opportunity to examine the haircut given by the Petitioner during the practical examination. He was unable to comment on the specifics which had been commented upon by Ms. Frank. However, he did vouch for the qualifications and abilities of the two examiners who independently rated the Petitioner's performance.
