Findings Of Fact Shechet holds Certificate No. R-0573 as a certified public accountant practicing in the State of Florida, which he received by virtue of reciprocal status, having previously practiced in the State of Ned York. Shechet began his accounting career in 1924 and has practiced his profession continuously for the fifty-three years since that time. The records of the Board reflect that Shechet provided no evidence of the completion of any courses or studies that would give him credits towards the reestablishment of his professional competency in the period between January 1, 1974, and April 2, 1977. On September 15, 1975, Shechet sat for an examination which was approved by the Hoard and given to practicing certified public accountants pursuant to applicable law requiring reestablishment of professional competency. Shechet received a score of 3 out of a possible score of 100. The established passing grade for the examination is 75. The examination consisted of 100 multiple choice questions, each with 4 responses. The approved method of answering the questions was to select one response and then, on the answer sheet, darken the circle corresponding to the letter assigned to the selected response. If more than one circle is darkened in a given set of responses, the answer is marked wrong. In each of the 100 answers, Shechet marked more than one response either by darkening, check mark or "X". On May 13, 1977, the State Board of Accountancy suspended Shechet's certificate R-0573 as a certified public accountant for failing to comply with requirements for the reestablishment of his professional knowledge and competency to practice public accounting.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Paul E. Flasher, II, was certified as a certified public accountant by the Florida Board of Accountancy under License No. 4739 in 1975. His license reverted to inactive status on January 1, 1982, for failure to meet continuing professional educational requirements. On May 31, 1979, Respondent was charged under a direct information for fraud license (seven counts) and grand theft in the second degree (seven counts) in the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, alleging his improper taking or using various sums of cash from the Terrace Village Apartments Partnership by which he was employed during the period July 5, 1977, through October 10, 1978. On February 15, 1980, the Direct Information was amended in an action which dismissed the first seven counts (grand larceny) and recharged the seven counts of grand theft in the second degree. Respondent was tried on the remaining seven counts and convicted of four separate counts, which alleged grand theft in the second degree on February 3, 1978; April 10, 1978; June 13, 1978; and October 10, 1978, respectively. He was thereafter sentenced to be imprisoned for the term of five years on each of the four counts of which he was convicted, each count to run concurrently. The conviction was affirmed on appeal to the District Court of Appeal for the Second District in an opinion filed November 25, 1981. A petition for review to the Supreme Court of Florida was dismissed on January 27, 1982. The crimes of which the Respondent was convicted arose out of his use of partnership monies for his personal purposes. Mr. Flasher indicated that the partnership monies he utilized by purchasing items for his personal use and then writing a partnership check in payment were in fact owed to him as payment for his managerial services and that he paid by partnership check to take advantage of the partnership quantity discounts. Mr. Flasher also contended that at the times he converted the monies in question, he was acting as a manager/partner in the organization, and not in the capacity as a certified public accountant. The documents to support this managerial relationship were never drafted, nor was the partnership ever legally constituted, however, Therefore, his relationship to the other principals was not as a partner, but as an employee, the primary entree to which was his certified public accountant status for his former client, Mr. Ed Roseman. On February 4, 1982, Respondent offered to make restitution in the amount of $1,469.74.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of repeated violations of the statutes cited in the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent's license to practice as a certified public accountant be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of February, 1983. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs (fees and costs), pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2003), as the prevailing party in DOAH Case No. 02-1659.
Findings Of Fact Sometime in February 2002, Respondent filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and DOAH Case No. 02-1659 ensued (the underlying case). Respondent admits that Petitioner was the prevailing party in the underlying case. The Recommended Order in the underlying case recommended that the agency enter a Final Order finding the facility not guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Final Order adopted the findings and conclusions in the Recommended Order. Respondent does not contest that fees and costs in the amount of $10,889.00 are reasonable. Petitioner incurred fees of $6,890.00 and $3,760.00, respectively, in the underlying case and in this proceeding. Petitioner incurred costs of $239.00 in the underlying case. Petitioner submitted the only evidence concerning the amount of fees and costs and the reasonableness of that amount. Respondent defends the request for fees and costs on two grounds. Respondent contends that Petitioner is not a small business party and that the agency had substantial justification for initiating the underlying case. Petitioner is a small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner is a closely held corporation with its principal office in the state. The record in this proceeding and that in the underlying case clearly show that Petitioner has only one place of business. When the agency initiated the underlying case, the facility operated by Petitioner had no more than 25 full-time employees and had a net worth of less than $2 million. The facility contained 34 beds and 17 residents in 2002. The fair market value on May 1, 2003, was $1,840,000. Thereafter, the facility expanded by eight rooms and 16 beds and has a projected fair market value of $2,150,000 in May 2004. Contrary to the assertion in Respondent's PFO, the testimony of the sole shareholder is not the only evidence of the net worth of the facility. Documentary evidence includes two written appraisals and a federal income tax return for the 2002 tax year. The tax return reports total assets and liabilities, respectively, of $1,295,010 and $501,088. Respondent was substantially justified in initiating the underlying case. Respondent had a solid basis in fact for the position that it took in the underlying case. On June 27, 2002, the facility transferred a resident to a hospital for a urinary tract infection. The hospital treated the resident intravenously for five days with an antibiotic identified in the record as Tequin, until the resident was asymptomatic, and discharged the resident to the facility. The discharge summary directed the resident to continue Tequin orally, but the hospital did not issue a prescription slip for Tequin. The facility did not administer Tequin to the resident, the infection recurred, and the hospital readmitted the resident. The allegations in the Administrative Complaint and survey findings did not state a legally correct basis for initiating the underlying case. The Administrative Complaint alleged, in relevant part, that the facility violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 58A-5.0185(7)(f) by failing to ensure that prescriptions are "refilled." It was undisputed in the underlying case that a prescription for Tequin did not exist before the date of discharge from the hospital. The agency alleged that the facility failed to "refill" the prescription either by overlooking the prescription slip provided by the hospital or by failing to review the discharge summary to determine that the hospital had failed to include a prescription slip for Tequin. The agency alleged that in either event the facility failed to "refill" an existing prescription. The agency never produced the prescription slip for Tequin that the agency alleges the hospital included with other prescriptions on the date of discharge. The facility "filled" or "refilled" the other prescriptions provided by the hospital. The absence of a prescription slip for Tequin raises an issue of whether the facility received adequate notice of its duty to "fill" or "refill" a prescription for Tequin. The agency's proposed resolution of the notice issue was legally incorrect. The agency alleged that the facility failed to note "either the Resident's discharge instructions or the prescription slip." In the absence of a prescription slip, the failure to note the discharge instructions may have violated a rule of the agency, but the failure to note the discharge summary did not violate the rule requiring Petitioner to take appropriate steps to "refill" a prescription. Respondent's expert witness in this proceeding contradicted the charge in the underlying case that distinguished discharge instructions from a prescription slip. Respondent's expert testified that the agency was substantially justified in initiating the administrative action because the hospital "discharge instructions" constituted a "prescription." Respondent's expert attempted to explicate his administrative interpretation of the relevant rule by stating that the pharmacist would need to telephone the prescribing physician to "verify the prescription" in the discharge summary, but would not need to do so if the hospital had issued a prescription slip. The testimony of Respondent's expert conflicts with the statutory definition of a prescription in Section 893.02(20), Florida Statutes (2003), and is neither credible nor persuasive. The statute defines a prescription, in relevant part, to include a physician's order for drugs that is transmitted by telephone. A pharmacist that telephoned a physician to "verify a discharge summary" notation would actually fill the order for medication that the physician transmitted by telephone to the pharmacist. For reasons stated in Findings 8 and 9, the agency was substantially justified in initiating the administrative action. However, the agency charged the facility with committing acts that, if proven, did not violate the rule cited in the Administrative Complaint. For reasons stated in the Recommended Order in the underlying case, an agency cannot charge the facility with violating one rule and prove that the facility violated a rule not cited in the Administrative Complaint. To do so, would violate fundamental principles of due process as well as essential requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice as a certified public accountant in the state of Florida based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 473, Florida Statutes, set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaints filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed to practice as a certified public accountant ("CPA") in the state of Florida, having been issued license number AC0001638. Respondent's most recent business address was 224 North Federal Highway, Suite #4, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. Petitioner has presented evidence of a number of Final Orders entered by the Florida Board of Accountancy (the "Board") against Respondent as a result of prior disciplinary action initiated by Petitioner. While the records presented are somewhat confusing and bear several different case numbers, it appears that, as a result of the various cases, Respondent has been on probation for approximately the last 12 years. According to the records presented, the first action taken against Respondent's license is reflected in a Final Order dated December 31, 1981 and filed on February 8, 1982 in DPR Case Number 0000499. That Final Order indicates that a stipulation executed by Respondent "as to facts, law and discipline" was accepted by the Board "with no changes." The stipulation referenced in that Final Order was not included with the exhibits entered into evidence in this proceeding. Thus, the "facts, law and discipline" are not of record in this case. Next, the Board entered a Final Order dated May 11, 1982 and filed on May 17, 1982 in DPR Case Numbers 16369, 16370 and 15399 imposing a $1,000 fine against Respondent and suspending his license for eighteen (18) months. An Amended Final Order dated September 3, 1982 was filed in DPR Case Numbers 16369, 16370 and 15399 on September 15, 1982. That Amended Final Order accepted a signed stipulation dated July 30, 1982 and modified the Final Order entered on May 11, 1982. In lieu of the fine and suspension imposed in the May 11 Final Order, the Amended Final Order placed Respondent on probation for five years with a requirement for a review of Respondent's practice at the end of each year by a CPA selected by the Department at Respondent's expense. The independent certified public accountant was supposed to submit written and oral reports to the Board and the Department regarding Respondent's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules governing the accounting profession. The Stipulation which was incorporated into the Amended Final Order specifically required Respondent to comply "with all provisions of Chapter 455 and 473, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto." The Stipulation provided in part as follows: The Board shall determine at a public hearing whether [Respondent] has complied with Chapters 455 and 473, F.S. and the rules promulgated thereto. The Board may restrict or prohibit [Respondent's] practice of public accountancy during his period of probation as it deems necessary to protect the public safety and welfare. It is clearly understood and agreed that, in the event the DEPARTMENT, the BOARD or the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel find sufficient evidence to believe reasonable cause exists that [Respondent] has violated any of the conditions of probation as outlined above, a notice of said violation shall be sent to [Respondent], by certified mail, setting forth the nature of the alleged violation and an emergency hearing will be held by the BOARD or the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel, and upon a find [sic] of probable cause, [Respondent's] probation may be vacated and his license to practice accountancy in the State of Florida, subject to automatic suspension, with further disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to Chapters 455 and 473, F.S. If Respondent has not complied with all the terms and conditions of this joint stipulation and final order of the BOARD, the BOARD shall enter an Order imposing such further terms and conditions of probation pursuant to the statutory powers set forth in 473.323(1)(3), F.S., and shall further cause said matter to be referred to the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel or such other jurisdictional authority as may be established for purposes of determining probable cause and initiating further administrative and/or judicial action against the Respondent. * * * [Respondent] expressly waives all further procedural steps and expressly waives all rights to seek judicial review of, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of a joint stipulation of facts, conclusions of law and imposition of discipline, and the final order of the BOARD incorporating said stipulation. At a meeting on January 21, 1985, the Florida Board of Accountancy reviewed a report from the consultant hired to conduct the inspection and review of Respondent's public accountancy practice in accordance with the terms of the Amended Final Order entered on September 15, 1982. Based upon its review of the consultant's report, the Board imposed an additional condition of probation that all audits, reviews and compilations prepared by Respondent were to be reviewed prior to their issuance by a CPA selected by Respondent at Respondent's expense. This additional aspect of Respondent's probation was incorporated in a Final Order dated February 15, 1985 and entered on February 28, 1985 in DPR Case Number 0016369. In an Administrative Complaint dated December 4, 1985, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating the terms of his probation by issuing compilations without prior review by another CPA. This Administrative Complaint was assigned DPR Case Number 0063064. As reflected in a Final Order dated February 23, 1987 and filed on March 10, 1987 in DPR Case Number 0063064, Respondent's probation was extended until September 1988 based upon a signed Stipulation dated November 16, 1986 which was accepted by the Board during its meeting on January 30, 1987. As a result of the March 10, 1987 Final Order extending Respondent's probation, Respondent was required to continue to obtain review and approval by an independent CPA prior to issuance of any audited financial statements, reviewed financial statements and compiled financial statements and related accountant's reports. In an Administrative Complaint dated December 7, 1989 in DPR Case Number 0063064, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating Section 473.323(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as a result of his issuance of financial statements without prior review by a CPA as required by the previous Final Orders entered against Respondent. The Complaint did not specify any date(s) or specific financial statements involved. At a meeting on February 22, 1990, the Board accepted a Counter- Settlement Stipulation signed by Respondent on March 26, 1990 in Case Number 0063064. The Board entered a Final Order dated April 4, 1990 and filed on April 10, 1990 confirming its acceptance of the Counter-Stipulation. 2/ The Counter- Settlement Stipulation incorporated in the April 1990 Final Order extended Respondent's probation "until the terms of probation have been met." The terms of probation were stated to be: That the Respondent shall not violate the provisions of Chapters 455 or 473, Florida Statutes or the rules promulgated pursuant thereto or the terms and conditions of this joint stipulation. A Department of Professional Regulation Certified Public Accountant consultant shall interview the Respondent's clients to determine the type of work product they are receiving from the Respondent. A Department of Professional Regulation Certified Public Accountant Consultant shall conduct a review of the Respondent's tax practice along with work papers at the Respondent's expense. The Counter-Stipulation further provided that: Respondent and the Department fully understand that this Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Board and/or Department against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detailed in the investigative findings of the Department upon which a finding of probable cause was made. Respondent and the Department expressly waive all further procedural steps, and expressively waives [sic] all rights to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of the joint stipulation and the Final Order of the Board, if said stipulation is accepted by the Board and incorporated in the Final Order.... In early 1991, Marlyn Felsing, a CPA retained as a consultant to conduct a review of Respondent's work pursuant to the terms of his probation, met with Respondent and reviewed financial statements, work papers and various tax returns prepared by Respondent for his clients. Felsing reviewed the financial statements and/or business tax returns for approximately four of Respondent's business clients and reviewed the personal income tax returns for approximately three of Respondent's clients who were business owners. He also reviewed all of the related work papers and discussed his review with Respondent. Felsing prepared a report dated April 23, 1991 detailing several problems and deficiencies he found during his review. A copy of Felsing's report was offered into evidence in this case and he testified at the hearing regarding many of those findings. This evidence was offered in support of the charges in the First DOAH Complaint (DOAH Case Number 92-3421) as amended. Neither Felsing's report nor any of his findings are specifically alleged in the First DOAH Complaint. That Complaint referenced a probation report which "revealed deficiencies which were brought before the Probable Cause Panel, and it was determined that Respondent had violated the terms of the Final Order." As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the First DOAH Complaint was filed on January 23, 1992. As reflected in a Final Order dated June 19, 1991, and filed on July 1, 1991 in DPR Case Number 0063064, the Board reviewed a probation report during its meeting on May 21, 1991 and approved a settlement stipulation extending the probation imposed by the April 4, 1990 Final Order for a period of one (1) year. The settlement stipulation referenced in this July 1, 1991 Order has not been offered into evidence in this proceeding. As best can be determined from the evidence presented in this case, the Final Order entered in DPR Case Number 0063064 on July 1, 1991, was entered after review of the probation report prepared by Marlyn Felsing on April 23, 1991. Thus, it appears that the Board has already taken final action with respect to the deficiencies found in Felsing's report. During the Board Meeting on May 21, 1991, the Board also considered whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent with respect to another Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent on January 7, 1991. That new Administrative Complaint was assigned DPR Case Number 95979 and contained allegations that Respondent "was associated with personal financial statements for Michael Raybeck which did not meet the appropriate standards." As reflected in a Final Order dated June 19, 1991 and filed on July 1, 1991 in DPR Case Number 95979, the Board during its May 21, 1991 meeting accepted a settlement stipulation signed by Respondent on April 15, 1991. In that settlement stipulation, Respondent admitted the allegations in the Administrative Complaint in DPR Case Number 95979. The Settlement Stipulation provided as follows: * * * Stipulated Disposition 2. Respondent's license to practice public accounting is currently on probation in case number 63064. Probation in this case shall run concurrently with the probation in case number 63064. The same CPA consultant who is assigned to review the Respondent's practice in Case Number 63064 shall also review the personal financial statements the Respondent's office prepares. The consultant shall also review the Respondent's records to determine whether he is accepting commissions. These additional terms shall also be paid for by the Respondent. * * * 5. Respondent and the Department fully under- stand that this Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Board and/or Department against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detained [sic] in the investigative findings of the Department upon which a finding of probable cause was made. * * * 8. This Settlement Stipulation is [sic] an admission of any liability on behalf of the Respondent and is being entered into merely to resolve a dispute. It shall not be admissible in any court of law or any subsequent adminis- trative proceeding for any purpose. As reflected in an Order dated September 29, 1992 and filed on September 30, 1992 in DPR Case Number 90-95979, the Board reviewed a probation report during its September 24, 1992 meeting and determined "that the probation imposed upon Respondent by the Final Order dated July 1, 1991, shall be extended and/or modified as follows: extend probation and defer action until Case Number 90-13254 is resolved." Case Number 90-13254 is the Second DOAH Complaint, which was filed on July 6, 1992 (DOAH Case Number 92-5696). The Second DOAH Complaint includes specific allegations against Respondent based upon his purported preparation of misleading financial statements for American British Enterprises, Inc. and Federal Restaurants, Inc. The Second DOAH Complaint The evidence presented in this case established that Respondent provided a number of accounting services to American British Enterprises, Inc. and Federal Restaurants, Inc. The exact nature and scope of the services provided by Respondent are not entirely clear. Respondent's records of his engagement include a balance sheet of Federal Restaurants as of August 17, 1987; Consolidated Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc. as of August 25, 1987; Interim Compiled Financial Statements, American British Enterprises, March 31, 1988; Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc. November 30, 1988; and Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc., December 31, 1988. The Second DOAH Complaint, as amended, alleges that the financial statements referenced in paragraph 19 above were included in due diligence packages for American British Enterprises and were distributed to broker- dealers. No persuasive evidence was presented regarding any such distribution. The Second DOAH Complaint also alleges that "Respondent distributed misleading financial statements to brokers with the purpose of driving up the price of the stock so they could sell shares they controlled at a profit." No evidence was presented to support this allegation. Respondent's counsel suggested that all of the financial statements in question were simply drafts and were not intended to be issued. The evidence established that Respondent executed a letter in connection with the August 17, 1987 Balance Sheet of Federal Restaurants which provided as follows: I have examined the accompanying Balance Sheet of Federal Restaurants, Inc., as of August 17, 1987 whose sole Assets are Cash and [sic] Purchase Deposit. My examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and accordingly, included such procedures as I considered necessary in the circumstances. In my opinion the enclosed Balance Sheet represents the financial position of Federal Restaurants, Inc., as of August 17, 1987 in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals. Similarly, Respondent's records include a signed letter to the Board of Directors of American British Enterprises in connection with the August 28, 1987 Consolidated Balance Sheet. That letter provides that Respondent conducted an examination "in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as I considered necessary in the circumstances." The letter further opines that the financial statements "present fairly the Consolidated Financial Position...[of the companies] in conformity with generally accepted accounting principals." Respondent's records also include a signed letter regarding both the November, 1988 and December, 1988 Financial Statements for American British Enterprises indicating that Respondent had conducted an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and that, in his opinion, the financial statements "present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position" of the company as of the stated date. There is no indication on any of these financial statements that they were drafts that were not to be issued. Aside from the letters noted in paragraph 22, the only evidence presented that any of the financial statements listed in paragraph 19 above were issued was the testimony of one of Petitioner's experts who suggested that the statements had to have been issued since they were found in the SEC's files. However, no direct evidence was presented to establish that any investors or potential investors received the financial statements. Moreover, no evidence was presented that any such investors suffered a loss as a result of their reliance upon the financial statements. Certified public accountants are required to utilize specific guidelines in the performance of accounting services. Those guidelines are codified in the Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services ("SSARS"). The failure to abide by the SSARS guidelines constitutes performance below acceptable accounting standards. Petitioner has presented testimony from two experts regarding the deficiencies in the various financial statements referenced in paragraph 19 above. Many of the problems cited by Petitioner's experts relate to alleged deficiencies in Respondent's work papers. Respondent's expert has challenged some of those alleged deficiencies. Because the work papers have not been offered into evidence, it is impossible to resolve some of the conflicts in the experts' opinions. Nonetheless, the evidence was sufficient to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Respondent's work was not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals in several respects and the financial reports identified in paragraph 19 failed to comply with the SSARS in several ways. The August 17, 1987 balance sheet of Federal Restaurants indicates that the only assets of the company were cash and a purchase deposit on a contract to acquire a restaurant. The balance sheet of Federal Restaurants as of August 17, 1987 has no notes to it. Accounting Principals Board ("APB") Opinion 22 provides that a description of all significant accounting policies of the reporting entities should be included as an integral part of the financial statements. In this particular instance, the omission of accounting policies is of minor importance since the balance sheet only reflects two assets: cash being held in escrow and a deposit on a contract to purchase a restaurant (the "Purchase Contract"). As discussed below, none of the financial statements prepared by Respondent disclosed the terms of the Purchase Contract. Furthermore, it appears from other documents in Respondent's records that the corporation is wholly owned by American British Enterprises and/or is jointly controlled, but there is no disclosure of that relationship in the financial statements. These omissions are significant deficiencies which have not been explained. Statement of Auditing Standards ("SAS") 41 requires work papers to support the conclusions of an audit. According to SAS 41, the work papers constitute the principal record of the work that the auditor has done and the conclusions that he has reached concerning significant matters. Respondent's records do not include work papers for the August 17, 1987 audit. SAS 22 provides guidance to an independent auditor making an examination in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards on the considerations and procedures applicable to planning and supervision, including preparing an audit program, obtaining knowledge of the entity's business, and dealing with differences of opinion among firm personnel. While there is conflicting evidence as to what was included in Respondent's work papers, the evidence was clear that Respondent's records for the August 17, 1987 audit do not comply with the requirements of SAS 22, because there was no clearly identified planning memos or audit programs. In fact, there is not even an engagement letter. SAS 19 requires an independent auditor to obtain certain written representations from management as part of an examination made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and provides guidance concerning the representations to be obtained. Petitioner's experts contend that Respondent's work papers do not include an appropriate representation letter from management for any of the Financial Statements. Respondent's expert contends there was such a letter with respect to the August 27, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements. While it is not clear what is contained in the records, it is clear that the records do not clarify conflicting documentation in Respondent's work papers regarding the relationship between Federal Restaurants and American British Enterprises. Furthermore, Respondent's records do not include a clear statement from management regarding the terms of the Purchase Contract and the apparent contingencies involved with that Contract. Consequently, Respondent has failed to comply with SAS 19 and SAS 45 (which addresses related-party disclosures). The August 27, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements are not properly consolidated in accordance with Accounting Research Bulletin ("ARB") 51. In addition, the consolidated Financial Statements do not include the disclosures required by Accounting Principals Board Opinion 22. Respondent's expert contends that the statements were mistakenly entitled and they should have been captioned as "combined" rather than consolidated financial statements. Even if this after the fact justification is accepted, the statements do not adequately disclose the relationship between the companies. Respondent's expert suggests that the August 25 Consolidated Financial Statement for American British Enterprises and Federal Restaurants reflects a voidable acquisition of Federal Restaurants by American British Enterprises. If this interpretation is accepted, the August 17, 1987 Balance Sheet for Federal Restaurants was not necessarily misleading for failure to disclose its relationship with American British Enterprises. However, the August 25, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements are incomplete since the transaction is not fully explained. Moreover, there is no disclosure that the companies were apparently under common control or ownership. With respect to the November, 1988 balance sheet of American British Enterprises, the evidence established that there was a discrepancy between the amount reflected in the financial statement for a note receivable which was the major asset of the corporation and the confirmation in the work papers regarding that asset. While this discrepancy may have been due to a discount and/or accrued interest, no explanation is provided. The discrepancy constitutes a violation of SAS 1, Section 331, which addresses the appropriate background information for receivables, and SAS 1, Section 530 which addresses the dating of the auditor's report. If the discrepancy is due to a discount, Respondent failed to comply with APB Opinion 6, paragraph 14 which requires unearned discounts to be shown as a deduction from the related receivable and/or APB Opinion 21, paragraph 16 which provides for the discount or premium to be reported on the balance sheet as a direct deduction from or addition to the face amount of the note. The work papers for the November audit do not include a reconciliation between the 1982 financial statements of the predecessor corporation and the 1987 statements. There is no documentation of efforts to communicate with the prior auditor nor is there any discussion of the consistency of application of accounting principals between the two statements. As a consequence, the statements do not conform with SAS 7 which addresses communications with a prior auditor. The work papers fail to reflect any audit work being performed on the appraisal for the equipment collateralizing the note. In addition, the work papers include a confirmation from the stock transfer agent that doesn't agree with the number of shares reflected on the financial statement. There is no explanation for this discrepancy nor is there any clear indication of the audit work performed. The financial statements also include a footnote referencing a joint venture agreement. Respondent's records do not include any evidence of audit work performed with respect to this venture agreement. The deficiencies noted in paragraph 33 also appear in the December 31, 1988 financial statements for American British Enterprises. Furthermore, Respondent's records do not contain an audit file for this December statement. The November 30, 1988 and the December 31, 1988 audits of American British Enterprises do not contain a segregation between current and noncurrent assets. This deficiency is relatively insignificant since the company was essentially just a holding company. However, it does constitute a violation of ARB 43. Similarly, the cash flows in the financial statements were not presented in the appropriate format or style required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 95. However, it appears that all of the necessary information was present. The deficiencies found in the financial statements prepared for Federal Restaurants and American British Enterprises constitute negligence on the Respondent's part and establish a failure to exercise professional competence and due professional care in the performance of accounting services. On or about June 14, 1990, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent and three other defendants alleging the preparation of false and misleading financial statements for American British Enterprises, Inc. On August 5, 1991, Respondent executed a Consent of Edwin Tunick to the Entry of a Final Judgement of Permanent Injunction in the civil action initiated by the SEC. On September 2, 1991, a Final Judgement of Permanent Injunction as to Edwin Tunick was entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Fort Lauderdale Division) in Case Number 90-6483CIV-ZLOCH. That Final Judgment "permanently restrained and enjoined" Respondent from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77q(a) and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C 78 (j)b and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Final Judgment did not include any specific findings of any violations of the federal securities laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Accountancy enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case Number 92-3421 (DPR Case Number 91-09729); finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 473.323(1)(a), (g) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21A-22.0001, 21A-22.0002, and 21A-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case Number 92-5696 (DPR Case Number 90-13254) and dismissing the other charges in that Complaint. As penalty for the violations, Respondent should be fined $1,000, and his license should be suspended for three years. Before resuming practice, Respondent should be required to complete such mandatory continuing education courses as may be mandated by the Board and he should be placed on probation for three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 14th day of November, 1994.
Findings Of Fact On February 21, 1980, petitioner, as president and chief executive officer of Crown Financial Services was fined $500 and censured by NASD for violating SEC, NASD and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board regulations. Crown Financial, a holding company under the direction and control of Petitioner, became a member of the NASD in 1977. At the time Crown Financial employed the services of a large accounting firm, knowledgeable of NASD regulations, to set up their accounts so as to comply with NASD regulations. During the first audit of crown Financial by NASD in 1979-80 it was noted that Crown was including accounts receivable from subsidiaries as cash which was contrary to NASD regulations and Crown and Petitioner were fined and censured for this infraction. Crediting such receivables as cash was the procedure established by the accounting firm hired by Crown Financial Services. On December 30, 1982 the Massachusetts Securities Division issued a Summary Order Denying Exemption from Registration and a temporary Cease and Desist Order naming Petitioner and others based upon the offering of limited partnerships in Energy Exchange Corporation which had been founded by Petitioner. Although Petitioner founded Energy Exchange in February 1981 and was its president and chief operations officer, he resigned from these positions in November 30, 1982 shortly after Energy Exchange went public. Thereafter, Swain remained an outside director and was unaware of management decisions, one of which involved the issuance of questionable (or fraudulent) securities in December 1982, which led to the actions taken by the Massachusetts Securities Division. Petitioner was unaware these securities were issued until he read of the Massachusetts Securities Division's actions in the newspaper and he had nothing to do with their issuance. On April 23, 1983, NASD fined and censured Swain in the amount of $12, 000 as a result of limited partnerships set up by Crown Financial Corporation of which Swain was Chief Operations Officer and principal owner. The violation alleged Crown Financial was engaged in a continuous and integrated offering in connection with the development of four condominiums were built (and to which limited partnerships were sold) he was unaware any other parcel of property nearby was or would be for sale, and that each of these developments was independent of the other and in no wise integrated alleged. An investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed no integrated operation. Petitioner concluded it was prudent to enter into a consent order without admitting any violation and pay the fine rather than go to the expense of defending against the allegations. Civil actions alleged to have been brought against Petitioner and which were listed as another basis for denying registration were contained in paragraph 5 of the Exhibit 21. At the hearing Respondent stipulated to a dismissal of these grounds as a basis for denying registration. Despite the charges by NASD Petitioner' s registration with NASD remains in good standing. Petitioner produce one witness who is registered with Respondent and with NASD who testified that fines and censures for violation of NASD regulations are an every day occurrence with NASD. This witness ,was recently found in violation of NASD regulations because he had included accounts receivable for more than 30 days as assets. According to NASD regulations these accounts receivable or more than 30 days cannot be included as an asset although the vast majority will be paid.
Findings Of Fact Tooze holds certificate number R-0434 as a Certified Public Accountant practicing in the State of Florida and held such certificate in good standing on January 1, 1974. At that time, Tooze was subject to professional certification requirements set forth in Chapter 473, Florida Statutes. The records of the Board reflect that Tooze provided no evidence of the completion of any courses or studies that would give him credits toward the reestablishment of his professional competency in the period between January 1, 1974, and April 2, 1977. On October 15, 1976, Tooze sat for an examination which was approved by the Board and given to practicing Certified Public Accountants pursuant to applicable law requiring re- establishment of professional competency. Tooze received a score of 64 out of a possible score of 100. The established passing grade for the examination is 75. Tooze received nine credit hours for the examination he took. On May 13, 1977, the Board suspended Tooze's certificate R-0434 as a Certified Public Accountant for failing to comply with requirements for the reestablishment of his professional knowledge and competency to practice public accounting. The questions to be answered in the uniform written professional examination administered to Tooze on October 15, 1976, were based upon "Current Authoritative Literature" which included Accounting Principles Board's Opinions, Accounting Research Bulletins, Statements and Interpretations of the Financial Accounting standards Board, Statements on Auditing standards, and the Laws and Rules of the Florida State Board of Accountancy. Tooze challenges sixteen of these one hundred questions on the grounds that the approved answers are incorrect and that the answer selected by Tooze is the proper choice. The questions attacked by Tooze are numbers 13, IS, 18, 51, 56, 61, 63, 67, 72, 74, 78, 80, 82, 95, 96 and 99. The title of the uniform written professional examination is "Examination of Current Authoritative Accounting and Auditing Literature and Rules of the Florida State Board of Accountancy. The approved answer to each of the questions on the examination is that which is mandated by the "Current Authoritative Literature." The examination does not purport to seek answers outside of the requirements of the Current Authoritative Literature. Each of the approved answers in the sixteen questions listed above are consistent with the demands of the Current Authoritative Literature. Each of Tooze's answers is contrary to the provisions of the Current Authoritative Literature. Accordingly, the answers selected by Tooze are not the best answers and were properly graded incorrect on his examination answer sheet.
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop Work Order issued on July 27, 2007, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were lawful.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. The Department is charged with the administration of portions of the "Workers' Compensation Law." Versa-Tile is a corporation headquartered in Mary Esther, Florida. Versa-Tile is engaged in flooring, which is a construction activity. Michelle Newcomer is an Insurance Analyst II with the working title of Workers' Compensation Compliance Investigator. She maintains an office in Pensacola, Florida. It is her job to travel to work sites and to verify compliance with the Workers' Compensation Law. She is authorized by the Division to issue an SWO and to calculate and assess penalties. On July 24, 2007, Ms. Newcomer was conducting compliance investigations at random sites in the Alys Beach area of Walton County, Florida. While doing so she noticed three individuals in the garage at the rear of a house at 23 Whitby. They were removing tools from a toolbox and "working." Ms. Newcomer identified the men as Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie. The third man on the site was named "Barker." Barker asserted that he was not doing any work, but was there just to give the men a ride. He was deemed not involved in the work being accomplished at the site. Ms. Newcomer interviewed Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie. They both told her that they were exempt officers of Versa-Tile. It is found as a fact that the 2006 For Profit Corporate Annual Report of Versa-Tile signed on April 26, 2006, and filed with the Department of State on May 1, 2006, listed Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie as corporate officers of Versa-Tile. They were not corporate officers of Versa-Tile prior to April 26, 2006. Adrian Womack worked for Versa-Tile from July 29, 2005, until April 25, 2006, as an employee. He was not an officer and was not, and could not be, exempt. Kent Degallerie worked for Versa-Tile from May 6, 2005, until April 25, 2006, as an employee. He was not an officer and was not, and could not be, exempt. Nicholas Womack, who was not present at the Alys Beach site, is listed therein as president of Versa-Tile and has been exempt during all times pertinent. As corporate officers, Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie could be exempt from the usual requirement that workers be covered by workers' compensation insurance even though they were also employees of Versa-Tile who were paid wages. Ms. Newcomer obtained their full names and social security numbers so that she could verify their claimed exemption. She determined from the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System that there were no records of exemption being obtained for them. Ms. Newcomer confirmed with an examiner in the Pensacola office that Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie were not on the list of exempt persons. She issued a Request for Production of Business Records dated July 24, 2007. She personally served these documents on Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie. She issued an SWO, dated July 27, 2007, and personally served it on Nicholas Womack. If a person is a ten percent owner of a corporation or limited liability company they are entitled to obtain an exemption from the Department. An exemption is obtained by completing the "Notice of Election to be Exempt" form. This form when properly completed and accompanied by certain required documents, a $50 application fee, and submitted to the Division, will cause the Division to grant an exemption. If the Department determines that a person is exempt upon receiving a properly submitted form and payment, the Department will issue a card reflecting exemption. Neither Adrian Womack nor Kent Degallerie had such a card on July 24, 2007. During all times pertinent, the Department had no record indicating it had received any payment from Nicholas Womack, Adrian Womack, or Kent Degallerie that would have been tendered on behalf of Adrian Womack or Kent Degallerie. On July 27, 2007, Ms. Newcomer met with Nicholas Womack, president of Versa-Tile in her office in Pensacola and personally served him a Request for Production of Business Records. Later, Nicholas Womack provided employment records to Ms. Newcomer. On July 30, 2007, the Department and Versa-Tile entered into an agreement that permitted Versa-Tile to go back to work. Using workers' compensation class code 5348 for employees Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie, Ms. Newcomer correctly calculated the premium that should have been paid, if they were mere employees, as $8,455.56, and multiplied that figure by the statutory penalty of 1.5. She correctly determined the total to be $12,683.35. The parties stipulated that to the extent the figure applies, it is correct. Nicholas Womack at all times pertinent had an exemption. Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie were granted exemptions by the Department on July 30, 2007. These were the first exemptions from workers' compensation coverage that they had ever received while in a business relationship with Versa- Tile. The Division receives from 90,000 to 96,000 construction exemption applications yearly. They also receive between 30,000 to 35,000 non-construction exemption applications annually. The applications may be provided by applicants to the Department by hand-delivery at a field office or to the Department headquarters in Tallahassee, or by mail to a field office or to the Department headquarters in Tallahassee. Errors may occur in this process because of mistakes or omissions in the applications filed by the applicant or because of data entry errors by personnel in the Department. However, the process is sufficiently simple and automated that usually, when a complete application is filed, the exemption issues, and the applicant is, thereafter, provided a card reflecting the exemption via mail. There are ten field offices in the state to which applicants may file applications for exemptions. The field office in Panama City, Florida, at least the portion that accepted exemption applications, closed in 2005. However, the forms still listed Panama City as an address to which one might mail an application for exemption. The president of Versa-Tile, Nicholas Womack, has filed for and obtained three exemptions since he created Versa- Tile. Prior to incorporating Versa-Tile, he owned another business by the name of Nicholas Womack Flooring, Inc. He previously had two officers, Michael Smith and Mitchell Smedley, working with him at Versa-Tile, but he removed them as corporate officers so that Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie could be corporate officers. Mr. Smith's exemption was revoked April 27, 2006, by the filing of a Notice of Revocation of Election to be Exempt with the Department. This roughly coincided with the naming of Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie as corporate officers. Department of State corporate records, as of May 1, 2006, reflected that Versa-Tile had three officers: Nicholas Womack, Adrian Womack, and Kent Degallerie. In order to obtain a certificate of exemption, Nicholas Womack filed the appropriate form with the Department, along with proof that he held a contractor's license, stock certificates, and $50.00. He followed this process on three occasions while president of Versa-Tile. The evidence of record reveals exemptions granted to Nicholas Womack on January 25, 2005, and May 18, 2006, while president of Versa-Tile. He claims not to ever have received a certificate evidencing exemption from the Department while president of Versa-Tile. Nicholas Womack testified that on only one of the occasions, when he was operating Nicholas Womack Flooring, Inc., did the Department mail him a card reflecting his exemption and stated that occurred in 2001 or 2002. Nicholas Womack understands that by not obtaining coverage under workers' compensation insurance he and the other two corporate officers of Versa-Tile would not be compensated should they be injured on the job. Nicholas Womack explained to Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie that they were eligible for an exemption, and if they got an exemption and were injured, they would not be covered by workers' compensation insurance. Nicholas Womack testified that thereafter he helped the two men fill out the appropriate forms and ensured that all necessary attachments, including two money orders in the correct amount, were present and then mailed the applications, one in each envelope, to the Department's Panama City office. As soon as the applications were mailed, Nicholas continued allowing the men to work for Versa-Tile without waiting for the exemptions to be granted. Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie first received exemption on July 30, 2007. Subsequent to July 30, 2007, Nicholas asked Adrian Womack if he had received an exemption card. Adrian Womack said that he had not. Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie both stated that they had not received an exemption card after filing for exemption in July 2007. Nicholas Womack's testimony that he only received one certificate of exemption in seven years of enjoying an exempt status lacks credibility. Even considering that the Department is large and it annually processes huge amounts of paperwork, it is quite improbable that on six occasions they would fail to send Nicholas Womack a certificate. That being the case, Nicholas Womack's testimony that he mailed completed applications for Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie to the Department's Panama City office and never received any type of response, when considered in concert with his other testimony, is not credible. It is a fact that Nicholas Womack, Adrian Womack, and Kent Degallerie were eligible for an exemption subsequent to April 26, 2006. If exempt, they were responsible for their own expenses should they suffer an injury while on the job. If they failed to get an exemption, they were likewise responsible for their own expenses should they suffer an injury while on the job. This situation is very different from that where an employer fails to obtain coverage for workers not having an ownership interest in the employer, as was the case with Versa- Tile prior to April 26, 2006.
Recommendation Based upon the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order requiring Versa-Tile and Marble, Inc., to pay a penalty of $12,683.35. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 25th day of January, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristian E. Dunn, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Michael James Rudicell, Esquire Michael J. Rudicell, P.A. 4303 B Spanish Trail Road Pensacola, Florida 32504 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 5, 1999, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The Respondent maintains that the instant action is barred by laches and violates Section 455.225, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of certified public accountants licensed within the state. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Robert Jarkow, has been licensed in Florida as a certified public accountant, license number AC0010963. On or about December 1996, the Respondent orally agreed to provide accounting services for an individual named Kasman who was doing business as Traditions Workshop, Inc. (Traditions). Traditions manufactured uniforms and listed the federal government among its clients. Revenues to the company from the sale of uniforms were presumably posted in accordance with written contracts. Although the Respondent participated in the monthly completion of financial records for the company, the exact description of his responsibilities for the company and the individual are not known. It is undisputed that Ms. Kasman asked the Respondent to provide a financial statement for the company as part of an effort to secure a line of credit from a bank in New York. It is also undisputed that Ms. Kasman refused to pay for the statement. According to the Respondent, based upon that refusal, he declined to prepare the instrument. Nevertheless, a document entitled "Financial Statements" was generated with a notation "MANAGEMENT USE ONLY-NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION." The Respondent maintains that the document was not prepared as a financial report and that if generated using his data disk it was done without any intention on his part for the product being used to secure a line of credit. The document did not comply with provisions of accounting practice. The Respondent admitted that when his relationship with the party deteriorated, and payment for services was not rendered, he did not release information to a succeeding accountant. Ms. Kasman needed the information, depreciation schedules, in order to accurately complete tax records for Traditions. The Respondent attempted to locate Ms. Kasman and her bookkeeper for hearing but was unable to do so. Ms. Kasman filed a complaint with the Petitioner against the Respondent that was not investigated until several months after it was filed. The Respondent obtained a civil judgment against Traditions for unpaid accounting fees. The Administrative Complaint filed in this case was submitted over a year after the consumer complaint. Neither party presented testimony from the complainant, her bookkeeper, or her succeeding accountant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding the Respondent violated Rule 61H1-23.002, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in Count II of the Administrative Code; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000; and placing the Respondent on probation for one year subject to terms as may be specified by the Board of Accountancy. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 4th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Victor K. Rones, Esquire Law Offices of Rones & Navarro 16105 Northeast 18th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Martha Willis, Division Director Division of Certified Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 240 Northwest 76 Drive, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has alleged that the Respondent in administering grants under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) failed to comply with the applicable rules and regulations. As a result thereof, a total of $1,644.00 was spent in violation of applicable rules and regulations. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Hearing Officer as set out in the Recommended Order are hereby accepted and adopted, except the finding in paragraph 4 of the findings and paragraph 2 of the conclusions. The undersigned makes these supplemented findings and conclusions. In a post-hearing exchange of information, the respondent related that it is not able to demonstrate that the total of $180 disallowed for a lack of proper documentation was restored to the account of the funds granted under the contract between the parties. I therefore conclude that the amount of $180 is disallowed for the Respondents inability to produce a financial record to properly account for the $180, contrary to the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-102, attachment C. It is further found that Respondent did not present adequate evidence to refute the findings of its failure to comply with applicable regulations: WHEREFORE, it is Ordered: That Respondent immediately repay $1,644.00 spent in violation of applicable regulations. In the event either party disagrees with this determination, an appeal can be filed with Mr. Lawrence Weatherford, Regional Administrator, United States Department of Labor, 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Room 405, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. The provisions pertaining to the appeal process, 20 C.F.R. 676.88 et. seq., are attached hereto. Dated this 7th day of July, 1982 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES R. RUSSELL, Director Division of Employment and Training COPIES FURNISHED: Wayne Peacock P.O. Box 1591 Pensacola, Florida 32597 Chad Motes Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry Warren Internal Audit Division of Employment and Training Atkins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent repay Petitioner $1,375 in grant funds improperly spent under Contract No. 79MP-1C-01-27-01. All other costs under said contract should be allowed. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Chad J. Motes, Esquire Suite 131-Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wayne Peacock O. Box 1591 Pensacola, Florida 32597 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-859 ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Respondent. /
