Conclusions This matter is before Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Board of Trustees (“FAMU,” “Petitioner,” or the “University”) for final agency action. By letter dated March 10, 2010, Gerald Grow, Respondent, was notified by the University that it was determined, as a result of an internal payroll audit, that he was overpaid in the amount of $1,165.77 by the University. Pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, Respondent requested a disputed-fact hearing to protest the alleged salary overpayment and the cause was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on or about June 22, 2010. Respondent's request for hearing was assigned DOAH case number 10-003398. The Administrative Law Judge assigned to review the matter scheduled a disputed-fact hearing for September 20, 2010. On or about July 1, 2010, Respondent filed a notice advising that he tendered $1,165.77 to the University, that the tendered amount was accepted by the University, and that he was withdrawing his request for a disputed-fact hearing because the matter had been “settled.” By Order entered July 27, 2010, DOAH closed its file and relinquished jurisdiction to the University. Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged that Respondent's debt obligation to the University of $1,165.77 has been satisfied and further that the instant matter is closed. Respondent may seek judicial review of this Final Order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appeliate Procedure 9.190, applicable to review of quasi-judicial decisions of an administrative body not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, by filing a petition for certiorari review within thirty (30) days of the date this Final Order is filed with the Agency Clerk. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2010. pnts H Cvassate H. Ammons President File with the Agency this day of November, 2010. Agency Clerk Copy: Teresa Hardee, CFO and Vice President, Administrative and Financial Services Avery D. McKnight, General Counsel Linzie F. Bogan, Associate General Counsel, Director of Labor Relations Nellie C. Woodruff, Associate Vice President, Human Resources Ciaudia Liado, DOAH Clerk Gerald Grow, Respondent
Conclusions This matter is before Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Board of Trustees for final agency action. By letter dated August 8, 2011, Chanta Haywood, Petitioner, was notified by the University that her terminal leave payment would not be paid and that restitution in the amount of $5,315.72 was owed to the University. Pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 28-106, Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner requested a disputed-fact hearing to protest the denial of terminal leave payment and restitution and the cause was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on or about October 4, 2011. The Administrative Law Judge assigned to review the matter scheduled a disputed-fact hearing for December 8, 2011. On or about December 6, 2011, Petitioner filed a Notice of Settlement with DOAH. By Order entered December 8, 2011, DOAH closed its file and relinquished jurisdiction to the University. Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged that terminal leave in the amount of $29,209.57 and $6,500.00 for attorney's fees due Petitioner in compliance with the Settlement Agreement, which is attached, has been satisfied by Respondent and further that the instant matter is closed. ORDERED and ADJUDGED this IT say of January, 2012. ge H. Ammons President Filed with the Agency this | ] day of January, 2012. ddar Abigaif V. Raddar Agency Clerk
Other Judicial Opinions Petitioner may seek judicial review of this Final Order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.190, applicable to review of quasi-judicial decisions of an administrative body not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, by filing a petition for certiorari review within thirty (30) days of the date this Final Order is filed with the Agency Clerk. Copy: Cynthia Hughes Harris, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Nellie C. Woodruff, Assistant Vice President, Human Resources Claudia Llado, DOAH Clerk Avery D. McKnight, Esq. Bruce R. Meeks, Esq. Robert E. Larkin, Ill, Esq.
The Issue Whether Respondent aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting by pulling permits for the unlicensed contractor; whether Respondent failed to qualify a firm for whom he was acting as licensed contractor; whether Respondent acted in the capacity of a contractor other than in his own name; and, whether Respondent violated local building codes as alleged in Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed 6-30-89, and Administrative Complaint filed 7-26-89.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Fred S. Petersen was licensed as a general contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (FCILB) and issued License Nos. CG C023928 and CB CA23929 (Exhibit 1). Neither American Weatherall Industries Inc. (AWI), Mel C. Wyatt, nor Steven C. Wyatt were licensed as contractors by the FCILB (Exhibit 2). Prior to mid-August 1987, Kirk Evenstad was the qualifying general contractor for AWI. By letter dated August 20, 1987, AWI proclaimed Kirk Evenstad to be no longer working for AWI because of mismanagement (Exhibit 3). Mel Wyatt, President of AWI, testified that Everstad had stolen between $30,000 and $50,000 of materials from AWI, leaving AWI in a precarious financial situation. In order to continue in business to work out of the financial hole created by Everstad, AWI, through one of its employees, Danny O'Brien, introduced Mel Wyatt to Respondent. Respondent had known O'Brien for some 20 years and, for the proposed reason of helping O'Brien, Respondent agreed to act as qualifying contractor for AWI. To carry out this project, Respondent entered into a contract (Exhibit 4) or Employment Agreement dated July 31, 1987, in which Respondent agreed to supervise construction of projects contracted for by AWI, but the latter was to provide all material and handle all financial aspects of the contracts. Respondent received $1000 for signing this agreement and was to receive a percentage of the gross proceeds of future contracts entered into by AWI. Respondent authorized O'Brien to pull permits for AWI pursuant to Respondent's contractor's license. Although Respondent testified he gave O'Brien authorization for each specific permit pulled and did not believe he signed Exhibit 11, dated August 11, 1987, a copy of General Authorization for O'Brien to pull permits for AWI under Respondent's license, it is found as a fact that Respondent signed the original of Exhibit 11 which is a copy. Within a short period of time after executing Exhibit 4, Respondent became aware of the financial difficulties facing AWI and ceased his efforts to qualify AWI. In the latter part of 1987 (believed to be November-December), AWI reached the point that it could no longer remain solvent and filed for bankruptcy leaving several contracts unfinished for which AWI had received partial payment. Of the four contracts entered into between AWI and homeowners for additions to their houses (Exhibits 7-9 and 14), all were entered into under a printed document showing Everstad's license number; however, the building permits for Exhibits 7-9 were pulled under Respondent's license. By agreement dated August 10, 1987 (Exhibit 7), Alfred and Marjory Hauk contracted with AWI to convert a garage at their home into an office. Hauk made payments of $1000 and $2300 to AWI, the permit for the work was pulled by O'Brien under Respondent's license, but no work was ever done under this contract. AMI subsequently went out of business, and Hauk received no refund of the monies he had paid to AMI. Hauk never met Respondent. On June 12, 1987, John Davis contracted with AWI to convert an existing garage to bedroom and bath and add a garage to his home. The initial permit for this work was pulled by Kenn Covicc as contractor on June 21, 1987, and a subsequent permit was pulled by O'Brien using Respondent's license. Although Davis paid over $6000 to AWI for this work, the work stopped after the footing for the garage addition was poured. On June 2, 1987, Albert Charette entered into a contract with AWI to add a room to his house. Charette paid some $9300 of the $34,400 contract amount during the progress of the work. Differences arose between Charette and AWI involving whether the construction was being done in accordance with the plans and specifications. In September, 1987, Respondent met with Charette and submitted a proposal (Exhibit 15) to Charette to complete the project in accordance with the plans and specifications. About one week after Exhibit 15 was signed, all work stopped on the project, and Respondent never received compensation or commenced work on this contract, which he had entered into in his own name and not as a representative of AWI.
Recommendation It is recommended that Fred S. Petersen be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(e), (f) and (g), Florida Statutes, and assessed a monetary fine of $3000. ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 June, 1990. APPENDIX Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted, except: Finding #7, penultimate sentence which is rejected as uncorroborated hearsay. Finding #11, that portion stating the purpose of Petersen's visit to Charette was to change the licensure on the permit to Petersen is rejected. See HO #13. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted, except: Finding #4, Accepted, except with regard to Respondent's notification of termination of his association with AWI. No documentation of this act was submitted and, even though Respondent may have ultimately revoked O'Brien's authority to pull permits, this was done well after the permits were pulled. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Brian A. Burden, Esquire Post Office Box 2893 Tampa, FL 33601 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, in which the only disputed issues concern whether the Petitioner is a small business party and whether the Respondent was substantially justified in bringing the underlying proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The findings of fact which follow are based on “the pleadings and supporting documents, and the files and records of the Division of Administrative Hearings.” See Rule 60Q-2.035(7), Florida Administrative Code.1 In DOAH Case No. 96-4290, the Commissioner of Education filed an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Brown. By means of that Administrative Complaint, the Commissioner sought to take disciplinary action against Mr. Brown on the basis of allegations of misconduct by Mr. Brown in connection with his employment as a coach with the Dade County School System. An investigation was conducted prior to filing the Administrative Complaint and at the time the Administrative Complaint was filed, the agency had in its possession affidavits and other evidence which, if believed, were sufficient to establish the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Prior to filing the Administrative Complaint, the evidence collected during the investigation was reviewed by agency legal counsel for the purpose of determining whether there was probable cause to file an Administrative Complaint. Upon review, the evidence appeared to be sufficient to warrant the issuance of an Administrative Complaint. Following discovery in the underlying case, the agency re-evaluated its position and, on the advice of counsel, decided to file a voluntary dismissal of the Administrative Complaint. The decision to dismiss the Administrative Complaint was based on the fact that, following discovery, the agency had serious doubts that it could prove its case by the required “clear and convincing” standard. At the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Brown was the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business. His principal office was in this state. He was domiciled in this state. He had fewer than twenty-five employees and a new worth of less than two million dollars. At the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Brown was not an employee of the Dade County Public School System. Rather, he was performing part-time coaching services essentially as an independent contractor.
Findings Of Fact These Findings of Fact are based on the undisputed facts asserted and agreed to by the parties in the course of the motion hearing. Petitioner, the Cone Corporation (Cone), was the low bidder in a bid letting for Project No. 29170-3418, on December 2, 1987. The Department of Transportation (DOT) rejected all bids because they exceeded the estimate of DOT for the project. Cone did not file a protest of DOT's decision to reject all bids and relet the project. DOT relet Project No. 29170-3418 on June 6, 1988. Cone submitted a bid which was third lowest, with Jasper Construction Company (Jasper) being the low bidder. Cone's bid was higher than the one it submitted in the first letting. Jasper's bid in the second letting was higher than Cone's bid in the first letting, which had been rejected by DOT. DOT posted its intent to award the project to Jasper on June 6, 1988. Cone timely filed its Formal Protest on June 16, 1988. Cone is not asserting that either Jasper or the second low bidder are not responsive or responsible. Cone is asking either 1) that its low bid in the first letting be considered in the second letting and that it then be considered the low bidder or 2) that DOT reject all bids again and relet the bid a third time. The apparent basis for Cone's second argument is that if all bids were unacceptably high in the first letting and if Jasper's bid in the second letting is higher than Cone's bid in the first letting, then it stands to reason that Jasper's bid and all bids on the second letting are also higher than DOT's estimate and should be rejected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order dismissing the Formal Protest filed by the Cone Corporation. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 8th day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. Campbell Senior Litigation Attorney Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 W. Crit Smith, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1695 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Conclusions This matter is before Florida A&M University Board of Trustees (hereinafter “FAMU” or “Respondent”) for final agency action. Pursuant to FAMU Regulation 10.206, Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing on or about August 4, 2011. Petitioner's request for administrative hearing was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter “DOAH”) on August 8, 2011. The Administrative Law Judge assigned to review the matter scheduled a disputed-fact hearing for October 26 through 28, 2011. On August 28, 2011, Petitioner submitted her Withdrawal for Request for Formal Administrative Hearing. By Order entered August 29, 2011, DOAH closed its file and relinquished jurisdiction to FAMU. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing in this matter is dismissed in its entirety. Filed August 31, 2011 4:27 PM Division of Administrative Hearings St day of August, 2011. ames H. Ammons President Florida A&M University Suite 400, Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307 (850) 599-3225 DONE and ORDERED this 2! Filed with the Agency this 3]? "day of August, 2011. Aig \eAaddes Abigaji V. Raddar Agency Clerk
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Lee Hall, Suite 300, Tallahassee, Florida 32307, and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the First District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date this Final Order is filed with the Agency Clerk. Copies to: Jennifer Smith, Petitioner Cynthia Hughes Harris, Provost and Vice President, Academic Affairs LeRoy Pernell, Dean, College of Law Nellie C. Woodruff, Assistant Vice President, Human Resources Claudia Llado, DOAH Agency Clerk Robert E. Larkin, Ill, Esquire Jason E. Vail, Esquire Avery D. McKnight, Esquire
