The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact In response to petitioner's first request for admissions, respondent conceded that he has been licensed at all pertinent times as a registered general contractor, and that he now holds license No. RG 0016059. New Veep At one time, Alachua County building officials allowed Donald Russell, who owns Gator Aluminum, Inc. and serves as its president, to secure building permits for aluminum carport roofs and similar jobs that Gator Aluminum, Inc. performed in the county. Mr. Russell holds an aluminum specialty contractor's license. After June 5, 1986, however, the Alachua County authorities no longer allowed Mr. Russell's license to qualify his company for this work. As a result of this change, Mr. Russell sought out respondent Bruce Kirby, whom he had known for some 15 years. Mr. Kirby had spent "20 years around the aluminum business," but he worked for the University of Florida as a refrigerator mechanic at the time. Mr. Kirby became vice-president of Gator Aluminum, Inc., while continuing his employment with the University. He agreed to work for the company by reviewing applications for building permits; alerting Mr. Russell or Bob Baxter, another Gator Aluminum, Inc. employee, to any problems he saw with the plans; applying or authorizing his wife to apply and secure a building permit; and by looking over the work after it was done, before calling for inspection by a building official. For these services he was paid $50 to $100 for each job. Remodeling On March 12, 1987, Arthur and Doris Jones signed a contract with Gator Aluminum, Inc. to pour a concrete slab, install a carport roof, hang awnings, cover the roof of the main house with aluminum, and do miscellaneous other work at the Jones' residence in Archer, which is in Alachua County. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Work began a week later. No building permit was posted before the concrete was poured, and none was obtained until April 6, 1987, five days after Bruce Kirby's wife applied for the permit on his behalf. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Pouring the concrete slab before posting a building permit did not violate the building code, which requires no permit for such work. Only after the permit was posted did aluminum work begin. On May 11, 1987, construction completed, the Jones paid the balance due under the contract. Dry Clothes Wet Mrs. Jones was folding clothes in the new carport on May 18, 1987, when it began raining. Her husband had hardly finished remarking on the fact that none of the rainwater collecting on the carport roof was flowing through the downspouts when the roof creaked, then buckled, spilling gallons of water and damaging vehicles, lawn chairs and clay pots. Mrs. Jones escaped unscathed, but part of the roof hit Mr. Jones a glancing blow on the shoulder. The rain on the 18th was the first that anybody recalled since the carport's completion a week earlier. Experts agreed that the weight of the rainwater brought the roof down; water weighs eight pounds a gallon. But the evidence did not show why such a quantity of water accumulated on the roof. Perhaps the roof was installed without the requisite pitch, although a preponderance of the credible evidence put the vertical drop at nearly a half inch for every horizontal foot, which should have been sufficient. Debris left by workmen may have clogged the drains. No trees stood nearby. In the collapse, the carport roof pulled away from the fascia board to which it had been attached. In keeping with industry standards, the workmen had used three-inch screws in the rafter tails and three one-inch screws per pan elsewhere along the fascia board. The fascia board itself was old and riddled with dry rot, which careful inspection might have revealed, but the significance of this is unclear. Apparently, the three-inch screws pulled out of the rafters, which were sound. When Mr. Russell heard what had happened, he came promptly, and offered to replace the roof. Mr. and Mrs. Jones turned him down, however, and instructed him and all other employees of Gator Aluminum, Inc. to stay off the premises. Eventually, Gator Aluminum's insurer paid to replace the roof and for the damages the collapse had occasioned. Inspection and Supervision In the spring of 1987, Mr. Kirby's father-in-law was dying of leukemia up the country, and his own mother, who also lived out of state, had a heart attack. Even when he was in town, moreover, he was not accustomed to look over the work Gator Aluminum, Inc., performed under the authority of permits he obtained until aluminum mechanics, many of whom he had known for several years and in all of whom he had confidence, had finished the project. At no time before the roof collapsed had respondent Bruce Kirby ever set foot on the Jones job site. He never talked to Mr. Russell or anybody else about the job while it was in progress. Whether this lack of supervision contributed to the untimely demise of the carport roof was not clear from the evidence. In Mr. Kirby's experience and in the industry generally, a delay of a week or even much longer between completion of a job and the contractor's call for final inspection is not uncommon. Many jobs, including the job Gator Aluminum, Inc. undertook for the Jones, require only a final inspection. Nobody told Mr. Kirby that work at the Jones' house had finished. After Mr. and Mrs. Jones barred Gator Aluminum, Inc.'s employees from the premises, Mr. Kirby was no longer in a position to inspect the work to determine whether the job met building code requirements. He never called for a final inspection by the building official, although Mr. Russell asked that the roof be inspected, in December of 1987.
Findings Of Fact In early 1984, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in its Fingerprint Identification Section decided to replace some equipment used for purposes of analyzing finger prints. That equipment was three Kodak PR-1's, known as readers. The reason for the replacement concerned the fact that these machines had been in operation since 1969 and Kodak was no longer willing to undertake the service of the machines through a service agreement. Initially, the staff favored the idea of replacing the Kodak equipment with other Kodak equipment, having in mind the idea that Kodak was the only manufacturer that could meet the needs of this function within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. If this suggestion had been accepted, then it would have been on the basis of a request to the Department of General Services to be given permission to enter into a contract with a sole source, namely Eastman Kodak. Indeed, preliminary steps were taken to purchase the Kodak IMT-50 reader-printer to substitute for the three PR-1's, as a noncompetitive purchase from the single source, Kodak. There had also been some discussion about the purchase of Kodak IMT-100's, a reader-printer which allowed multilevel blipping. That type of feature, i.e., multilevel blipping, was determined not to be necessary. Ultimately, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement determined to meet their needs for replacement of the PR-1 machines through a' competitive bidding, Bid No. 83-50. A copy of the invitation to bid may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 14. This particular item is a response on the part of Lanier Business Products to the invitation to bid. Among the instructions in the invitation to bid was general condition Number 7 which reminded the prospective vendors to direct questions concerning the conditions and specifications set forth in the bid invitation to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement no later than ten days prior to the bid opening. Bid opening was scheduled for May 31, 1984. None of the vendors who offered bid responses questioned the meaning of any of the general conditions or specifications set forth in the invitation to bid related to the purchase of microfilm reader-printers as contemplated in the bid invitation. Eastman Kodak Company also submitted a bid. The bid response by Lanier Business Products was for the provision of a reader-printer known as the 900 Page Search manufactured by 3M. The Kodak product which was bid was the IMT-50 reader-printer. Another prospective bidder, Office Systems Consultants, submitted a "no bid," signifying the inability to meet the specifications of the invitation to bid. On May 31, 1984, the bid opening was held and a tabulation was made as to the bid responses offered by Lanier and Kodak. The unit price for each of the three microfilm reader-printers was $8,650 by Lanier and $9,040 by Kodak. Therefore, Lanier was the apparent low bidder on the project. Within the bid specifications are requirements which set forth specific needs for this project. One of those items pertains to film retrieval capability, and that provision states: Unit will retrieve, by automated means, 100 feet 16mm rolls of 5.4 mil film or 215 feet 16mm rolls of 2.5 mil film (such as Recordak AHU microfilm). Retrieval unit must be able to read, randomly, and ANSI standard document reference (Blip), and must have an advance-- return transport speed of 12 feet per second minimum. Related to lens requirements, the bid specifications indicated: Lens magnification must be 24:1 to be compat- operation. ible with present standards and be designed so that additional lens can be interchanged without interrupting the reader-printer Under the heading of general requirements the invitation to bid stated: By nature of the work requirements and pro- duction schedule, the equipment may be gener- ally described as a 16mm reader-printer capable of retrieving microfilm images by means of ANSI Standard Blips, and will be compatible with existing system. Prior to bid consideration, potential bidders will review, on site, typical production required as part of the overall routine of the finger- print section. Appointment for this inspec- tion will be made by calling (904) 488-9953. The Department will not alter the current production system. After bid opening and prior to award, vendors will conduct tests and provide demonstrations to personnel of the Department to assure a quality product compatible with the existing system. Where applicable, the film retrieval unit will conform to Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 1A-26. At the time the decision was made to replace the three PR-1 microfilm readers, the Identification Section within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement had four other machines which had reading capability. Those machines were also Kodak and are referred to as Starvue. As can be seen, neither the PR-1 nor the Starvue referred to had the capability to print. A review of Petitioner's Exhibit 3 reveals that the ability to print identification cards was accomplished through another Starvue type machine in operation prior to the bid invitation. When processing fingerprint cards within the Identification Section of the Respondent agency, the task of fingerprint identification and verification is addressed. Over and above this reading function, prints are sometimes made of fingerprint identification cards or documents related to a given subject. These prints either are made from the positive film being reviewed, the copy appearing as a negative image of that film, or in the alternative, the positive film is replaced with negative film and a positive print is made through the copying process. Copies were reproduced on the separate printer which the agency had available to it, prior to bidding for the purchase of three reader-printers contemplated by the invitation to bid under discussion. This required removing the film from the reader or substituting the film before printing. In addition, some lens changes within the readers would be necessary, on average a couple of times a day. The PR-1 machine had a telescoping lens which would allow magnification without lens replacement. The Starvue reader requires the replacement of the lens to gain greater magnification. This Kodak machine, following the lens substitution, would not lose contact with the image which had been on the screen prior to the substitution. The fingerprint analysis operators or technicians, at the time that the bid was prepared, used a 30:1 lens in performing their function of reading the fingerprint microfilm image. A 24:1 lens was needed for printing. Under these circumstances the Respondent indicates that in the bid specifications reference should have been made to a 30:1 lens as opposed to a 24:1 lens in describing lens requirements. The PR-1 machines that were being replaced did not have the capability to read blips on the given frames or images within the microfilm cartridges, thus automatic access of the roughly ten per cent of microfilm cartridges that contained the blips was not possible. Both the 3M 900 Series and the IMT-50 microfilm reader-printers allow for automatic retrieval of the image within the microfilm cartridge, as stated before, a required feature set forth in the invitation to bid. The operation of the Fingerprint Identification Section at the time of the bid invitation dealt with approximately forty-eight hundred reels of microfilm, 90 per cent of which could only be accessed manually. Most of the microfilm cartridges contained one hundred feet of microfilm. When reference is made in the bid document to the fact that the proposed equipment should allow for the changing of lenses without interrupting the operation of the reader-printer, this is a literal impossibility. While the first lens is being removed and the second lens is being placed, no reading or printing may occur. As a consequence, when officials with Lanier read this requirement, they perceived it as being some form of inconsequential mistake and did not seek clarification as contemplated by clause Number 7 of the general conditions to the invitation to bid. While it is not apparent from the reading of this requirement, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement intended this provision pertaining to lenses to mean that once the second lens had been placed in the machine, the image that had been being examined prior to the lens replacement would be immediately available for reading or printing. The IMT-50 Kodak equipment allows for that, the Starvue equipment by Kodak allows for that, and the PR-1 did not require lens replacement. By contrast, either in the manual mode or in the automated mode, the 3M 900 Series equipment might require a slight adjustment to recapture the image once the lens had been changed. This adjustment would take approximately two seconds to achieve. The reason for the differences between the 3M equipment and Kodak equipment concerns the fact that the power source in the 3M equipment is turned off when the lens is out of the machinery and the power source within the Kodak equipment remains constant even when the lens is removed. When the lens requirement is considered in the context of the idea expressed in the general requirements, that the Department did not intend by the replacement of its equipment to alter its current production system, use of the 3M equipment at times of lens interchange is not found to be out of compliance with that general requirement or condition. That determination is made realizing that the lens requirement was ambiguous, at best, and the more important fact that the amount of delay caused in using the 3M equipment in a lens change posture amounts to three operators x two occasions per day x two seconds per occasion or 12 seconds per day. This delay is inconsequential. On this topic, in its position in justifying its choice to reject Lanier's equipment as not complying with the lens requirement, suggestion has been made by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement that eight to ten lens changes per hour might be necessary in the "hard" identification of prints. This comment as offered as a justification for rejecting the Lanier bid as nonresponsive to the lens requirement is not borne out in the record of the hearing by competent proof. This information was imparted in Petitioner's Exhibit 45 which is information that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement submitted to the Department of General Services, having determined that the Lanier bid was not responsive because of a failure to comply with the lens requirement and the requirement for film retrieval capability, which will be discussed subsequently. That information in the exhibit was hearsay and was contradicted by the comments by two of the operators who utilized the reader-printers in the Fingerprint Identification Section. They are the source of the idea that lens changes occur once or twice a day, and their position has been accepted as factually correct. In summary, Lanier is found to have complied with the specific requirements for lens compatibility with existing needs of the Fingerprint Identification Section and future needs of that section. An official within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement had been informed by Kodak that the Starvue equipment in use by the Fingerprint Identification Section at the time that the bid invitation was prepared had a capability of performing the retrieval function at a pace of twelve feet per second. This pertained to both the forward and the return phase of that operation. Having this in mind, the previously described requirement for film retrieval capability was included within the bid specifications. Again, it was the intention of the Department, as expressed in that provision and the general requirements, that the replacement equipment maintain the same efficiency of production as existed. The manufacturers of the equipment which was offered in response to the bid have described their equipment in this fashion: The Kodak IMT-50 is described as having a speed advance of up to fourteen feet per second. The 3M 900 Series which was offered by Lanier carried a "rating" of twelve feet per second. The author of the bid specifications pertaining to film retrieval speed included within that section the phrase ". . . advance--return transport speed " This phrase is not used in the microfilm industry to describe film retrieval capability. Officials at Lanier perceived this as a manufacturer's speed "rating." Officials with Kodak who offered testimony at the hearing had various ideas about what advance and return transport speed meant, which opinions were not constant. Likewise, the author of this provision within the bid specifications offered variety in his explanation of the meaning of that phrase, that variety ranging from the idea of maximum speed when the machine was operating at full capacity in terms of the advancement or return of the microfilm within the machine, to the idea of maximum speed as ascertained shortly after the machine had started to advance or return the microfilm. In any event, he states that it did not mean transport speed as an average of time for a given length of film to move through the machine. Nothing about the specifications suggests that return transport speed equates to the idea of average speed, meaning the amount of time necessary to transport a given length of film through the machine either in the forward or reverse mode. When this requirement of transport speed is seen as a function of protecting against the acquisition of equipment that would not be as efficient as existing equipment, a further dilemma is presented. Edward E. Ricord, author of the specification related to film retrieval speed testified that testing had been done, unrelated to the present hearing, with the intention of describing the transport capabilities of preexisting equipment within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The recount of that testing was not offered as evidence by way of documentation. Nonetheless, the equipment that was existing is depicted as having the capability of transporting a ninety-six foot length of microfilm through the older machine, Starvue, in a shorter length of time than could be achieved by the 3M 900 Series. The Starvue was four seconds faster in the forward mode and ten seconds faster in the reverse or rewind phase than the 3M 900 Series, according to Ricord. The old machine was also described as being slower at one end and a little bit faster at the other end in transporting the ninety-six foot length of microfilm when contrasted with the IMT-50 Kodak. (The transport of ninety-six feet of film becomes significant in a later paragraph describing the basis for rejecting the Lanier bid offering as being unresponsive.) On the other hand, Carl Durian, one of the operators or technicians who has used the PR-1, the Starvue, the 3M 900 Series and the IMT-50 machines had these observations, in terms of a subjective analysis of speed. He felt that the Kodak IMT-50 was a subjectively faster operating machine when performing the retrieval function related to the movement of the microfilm through the machine when compared to the 3M 900 Series; however, the 3M 900 Series was found to be subjectively faster than either the Starvue or the PR-1. Finally, Durian felt that the Starvue was faster than the PR-1 when considering the retrieval capabilities of the various machines. Again, this firsthand information, though subjective, is of a better quality than the information offered by Ricord who recounted test results not produced at hearing. Looking at this problem in the most favorable light, there is conflict within the agency as to the issue of whether the 3M 900 Series equipment is as capable in the retrieval of microfilm, as a function of speed, as existing equipment within the Fingerprint Identification Section at the time that the bid invitation went out. This is significant, because, having no industry standards related to return transport speed and having no clear indication of what that term meant at the point of the preparation of the bid specification which is separate and apart from the capabilities of existing machines, it is taken to mean the capabilities of those existing machines, and the uncertainty about those capabilities must be resolved in favor of Lanier. Moreover, on this occasion the Florida Department of Law Enforcement cannot point to Lanier's obligation to ask the question about the meaning of return transport speed as a reason to reject the bid response, in that such a theoretical inquiry would not have elicited a satisfactory answer to the question and alerted Lanier that it was potentially incapable of satisfying the bid specifications related to microfilm retrieval. In accordance with the bid document, the vendors Lanier and Kodak were required to present one of their machines to the Department following the bid opening for purposes of evaluation. Once the machines were in place, some concerns were expressed about the difference in operating capabilities in the retrieval function of the two machines. To gain some understanding of those differences, a test was devised to measure the responsiveness of the two machines. The test, by its terms, measured the average time necessary to move ninety-six feet of microfilm through the machines in a forward and reverse mode. The tests were conducted, forward and reverse on each machine, by using a person holding a wrist watch and gaining an average of the time necessary to accomplish the functions, after an operator switched the machine into the fast forward and reverse positions to commence the test. The tests forward and reverse were executed three times. It was revealed that in the forward mode, the best performance by the 3M 900 Series was a speed of 5.99 feet per second and in the reserve mode 8.30 feet per second. By contrast, the speed of the Kodak IMT-50 was, at best, 12.80 feet per second in the forward mode and 16.16 feet per second in the reverse mode. No comparison was made at the time of that testing between the two proposed machines and the existing Starvue or PR-1 equipment. For that reason it is not graphically depicted whether the 3M 900 Series machine would slow down the operation of the Fingerprint Identification Section because of its inability to comply with the requirement for film retrieval. A description of the testing that was done between the 3M 900 Series and the IMT-50 cannot be found as a requirement within the bid specifications, nor does it comport with any expressed statement of what transport speed meant as described in the bid specification document. While it does point out a remarkable difference between the film retrieval capabilities of the Kodak IMT-50 and the 3M 900 Series, it does not establish that Lanier failed to comply with the bid specification related to film retrieval when offering the 3M 900 Series machine in response to the bid invitation. Lanier has met the requirement for film retrieval. In support of this finding, the scope of this inquiry as stipulated to between the parties does not allow for the discussion of the implications of the greater film retrieval capability of the Kodak IMT-50 when compared to the 3M 900 Series as it might pertain to work efficiency within the Fingerprint Identification Section. More significantly, even should it be demonstrated that this difference in film retrieval speed has a profound influence on work efficiency, it could not be said that the Lanier bid failed to meet specifications. The only consequence of this revelation might be that the agency would rebid the project, when examined in the abstract. Given what the agency considered to be a lack of responsiveness on the part of Lanier related to the lens requirement and film retrieval requirement, it was determined to seek permission from the State of Florida, Department of General Services to obtain the IMT-50 equipment from Kodak as a sole source. This is under the theory that in a competitive bid setting where only one responsive bidder has responded, a sole source purchase opportunity must be sought from the Department of General Services. Following some explanation, that authority was granted. When the authority was granted, the Department of General Services did not realize that Lanier had not been given a point of entry to question the rejection of its bid. When this circumstance was discovered, the Department of General Services recanted its stated permission pending the opportunity for Lanier to have due process concerning its claim of compliance with bid specifications. The decision by Department of General Services to change its position on permission for sole sourcing occurred on October 2, 1984. In the face of that statement and the advice by the Department of General Services that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement should give a point of entry to Lanier to contest the question of a determination that Lanier's bid was unresponsive, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on December 17, 1984, officially noticed Lanier of the choice to award the contract to Eastman Kodak. Given this notification, a letter of protest was filed by counsel for Lanier on December 21, 1984. Kodak had been awarded the contract through the issuance of a purchase order from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement at a time when the Department of General Services had initially indicated the acceptability of a sole source arrangement, but before the October 2, 1984, decision by Department of General Services to rescind its permission to go sole source. As a part of the arrangement with Eastman Kodak, $262 per machine was allowed in the way of trade-in of the three PR-1 machines which were being replaced. The IMT-50 equipment is presently in place in the Fingerprint Identification Section of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Had Lanier placed the 3M 900 Series machines with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, it would have made a profit of $5,700. This is offset by the cost of $4,080 which would have been necessary to convert the existing microfilm reels to fit the 3M equipment. With that deletion, the total profit from the sale becomes $1,620. The effective life of the 3M 900 Series of equipment is five years, and service revenues from those three reader-printers averages $2,940 per year x five years = $14,700 as total service revenues. The loss of revenues over the five-year span for the three reader-printers related to paper supplies is $24,300 based upon three reader-printers $4,860 per year. The figures given relate to gross charges for paper supplies. That paper has not been supplied, and no indication has been given on the difference between the vendor's cost for producing the paper and the retail price of the paper, giving a net figure as to profit. In view of the fact that the paper has not actually been delivered and in the absence of some indication as to the amount of net profit, this item of damages is not allowed. Finally, no indication was made as to the amount of labor cost and net profit related to the overall service charge, and, as with the paper supplies, this claim is disallowed. These items of damages are disallowed because the Petitioner would only be entitled to claim net profits, having never actually offered the services or supplies. An additional $810 is lost in interest income at a rate of ten per cent per year over the five-year effective life of the equipment, pertaining to use of the profits realized in selling the machines. The proven total damages to Lanier is $2,430. Claims by Lanier for loss of future earnings related to the sale of unrelated machines are not found to be convincing, in that they are too speculative in nature. The related claim for past damages if the 3M machines are installed is rejected in that the effective life of the machines starts from the time of their installation. Therefore, profits for sale, supplies and service would commence at that moment. Lanier is the lowest responsive bidder on Bid No. 83-50.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to these proceedings, the Respondents were licensed as real estate brokers in Florida. In March, 1979, a Ms. Stockton contacted Respondent Rappaport and proposed renting a small wood-frame house which he owned and was then using as a storage facility. Rappaport verbally agreed to rent the premises for nine months, giving Stockton an option to purchase at the end of that period. Monthly rental payments of $100, plus $75 in tenant repairs, were to constitute partial down payment on the purchase price of $25,000. However, at the conclusion of the nine month period in December, 1979, Ms. Stockton made a counter offer that would have required Rappaport to make substantial improvements or accept a reduced price of $20,000. Since Rappaport did not accept the counter offer, there was no valid contract. Around December, 1979, Respondent Rappaport became a 50 percent stock owner of Respondent Mike Novak Realty Corporation. Respondent Michael T. Novak retained 50 percent stock ownership in this corporation and, as part of the merger, acquired a 50 percent interest in certain properties previously owned solely by Rappaport. The residential parcel discussed above, along with an adjacent office building, were included in this transaction. On January 30, 1980, the Respondents contracted to sell the above described residence and office building to a group of investors for $175,000. The contract required that termite inspections and any fumigation would be provided by the sellers. The required termite inspections were provided, but the inspector furnished a certificate only on the office building since the wood-frame house was found to have termites. He reported this fact to Mike Novak Realty, but nothing was done to correct the problem prior to closing. The termite infestation was discovered by the purchasers after they had closed on the property. Respondent Rappaport was aware of the termite problem prior to closing since it had been called to his attention by the Stocktons in mid-1979. After being confronted by the purchaser subsequent to the closing, Respondents agreed to pay the fumigation costs which amounted to $300. They did not, however, reimburse the buyers for these expenses on demand, but did so only after this Administrative Complaint was filed. Although these omissions by Respondents leave much to be desired in terms of broker reliability, there was no evidence of intentional concealment of the termite infestation or willful withholding of the $300 fumigation payment. Rather, this negligence by Respondents resulted, at least partly, from the minimal interest shown by the contracting parties in the condition of the wood- frame house. Respondents had reached their valuation of this property virtually without consideration for the wood-frame house. The buyers were primarily interested in the office building and the land occupied by the house. They expressed their intention to tear down or move this house so they could develop the underlying land. Even though two members of the purchasing group had real estate experience and all were represented by counsel, none of them noticed the missing termite inspection report. Furthermore, none of the buyers had even entered the wood-frame house to determine its condition prior to closing.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1983, in 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 23rd day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Grover C. Freeman, Esquire 4600 West Cypress Avenue Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 Peter J. Kelly, Esquire Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
