The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to certification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-78.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a small business concern organized as a closely held Florida corporation. Fifty-one percent of Petitioner's stock is owned individually by its president, Mr. Jerry Smith ("Smith"). Smith is a black American and a minority for purposes of certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise ("DBE"). All of Petitioner's employees are minorities for purposes of DBE certification. Petitioner's by laws require 51 percent of the vote for any action for which voting approval is needed. Petitioner has no other authorized or outstanding classes of stock, and Smith owns no stock of any kind in any other corporation. Petitioner's remaining stock is owned by P.J. Constructors, Inc. ("P.J."). P.J. is wholly owned by Messrs. Mort Myrick and Paul Guptill ("Myrick" and "Guptill", respectively). Myrick and Guptill served on the board of directors for Petitioner until they resigned on December 18, 1989. Since that time, neither Myrick nor Guptill have functioned in fact as officers or directors for Petitioner; although both are named as officers in various corporate documents executed for specific purposes. Myrick and Guptill were authorized on June 14, 1988, as signatories on Petitioner's bank account at Peoples National Bank of Commerce in Miami, Florida ("Peoples"). Guptill was an authorized signatory as Petitioner's vice president, and Myrick was an authorized signatory as Petitioner's secretary and treasurer. After their resignation from the board of directors on December 18, 1989, no change was made to the form identifying authorized signatories for the bank account at Peoples. Guptill was authorized on July 26, 1990, as a signatory on Petitioner's bank account at First Union in Miami, Florida ("First Union") as Petitioner's vice president. Myrick and Guptill resigned their titles as officers and/or directors for Petitioner on January 8, 1991. Both Guptill and Myrick remain as signatories on the bank account at Peoples, and Guptill remains as a signatory on the account at First Union. Neither Guptill nor Myrick, however, have access to or actual control over Petitioner's checks on either account. Further, it is Smith's clear intent, as communicated to Guptill and Myrick, that the latter two individuals have no actual authority to sign on Petitioner's accounts. Neither Guptill nor Myrick have ever signed checks on behalf of Petitioner or otherwise exercised control over Petitioner's funds. Smith is the only one of the three individuals who actually signs checks and exercises actual control over Petitioner's funds. Petitioner is engaged in the road construction business. Petitioner has its own employees and owns its own construction and office equipment. Petitioner does approximately two percent of its business with P. J. In addition, Petitioner and P. J. occasionally lease equipment to each other at a price that is less than fair rental value. Guptill supervised the so-called "Overstreet Job" for Petitioner in 1990, but has not performed services for Petitioner on any other occasion. Guptill was compensated for his supervisory services. Guptill signed a change order for Petitioner on March 9, 1990, in connection with the Overstreet Job, but neither Guptill nor Myrick have ever signed a contract on behalf of Petitioner. Myrick performed estimating services for Petitioner when Petitioner was without an estimator during 1990. Myrick also performs estimating services for Petitioner in road projects involving large embankments. Road projects involving large embankments comprise about one percent of Petitioner's total business. Myrick is compensated for his estimating services. Petitioner customarily contracts its estimating jobs to outside firms. The work performed by those estimating firms is reviewed and approved by Smith. Smith is Petitioner's president and works full time for Petitioner. Smith has more than eight years experience in the conduct of Petitioner's business. Decisions concerning Petitioner's policies, operation, and management are made solely and exclusively by Smith. Smith does not confer with Petitioner's board of directors before making such decisions. Smith has the exclusive authority and power to hire and fire Petitioner's employees. Smith signs all of Petitioner's checks and makes all decisions regarding bid proposals. Smith shares in Petitioner's profits and losses in accordance with his stock ownership interest. Petitioner's directors act in the best interest of the company. No formal or informal agreements limit Smith's authority and power to conduct the policies, operations, and management of Petitioner. Petitioner's stock is not encumbered. Petitioner does not finance other companies and is not financed by other companies other than by commercial lenders. No other company pays the salaries of Petitioner's officers or employees or the other expenses incurred by Petitioner in the ordinary course of its trade or business. Petitioner was certified by Respondent as a DBE for approximately eight, one-year periods prior to this proceeding. Petitioner was selected as the outstanding DBE for 1986 when Guptill and Myrick were officers and directors for Petitioner. Petitioner is presently certified as a DBE in Dade and Broward counties. Petitioner has consistently disclosed its relationship with P. J. to Respondent during the period of Petitioner's certification as a DBE. On January 3, 1991, Petitioner timely filed a complete application for the certification period from April 3, 1991, through April 2, 1992, with Respondent. Respondent requested additional information not specified in the Florida Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise's Certification Application, Schedule "A", including a financial statement and records of gross receipts for P. J. for 1989 and 1990. Petitioner attempted unsuccessfully to provide the additional information. The information requested by Respondent for P. J. was not within Respondent's possession or control and P. J. refused to provide such information. Respondent's consultant conducted an on-site review of Petitioner on April 16, 1991. Respondent denied Petitioner's application for recertification on two grounds. First, Petitioner failed to provide the additional information requested by Respondent. Respondent, however, would not have requested the additional information if Respondent had known that Guptill and Myrick were not on the board of directors for Petitioner at the time of the denial. Second, Respondent determined that Petitioner is not an independent business entity. Petitioner is an independent business entity based upon the substance of Petitioner's business rather than the form in which Petitioner's business is conducted. Guptill and Myrick terminated their positions as directors and officers for Petitioner in 1989. Any continued involvement in Petitioner's business by Guptill and Myrick since 1989 as officers or directors has been in form only. Guptill and Myrick remained as nominal officers for Petitioner on selected corporate documents executed for specific purposes. Even the nominal involvement by Guptill and Myrick as officers was terminated on January 8, 1991. Guptill and Myrick have been compensated for any other services performed by them. While Petitioner's record keeping has been ambiguous and less than accurate, the preponderance of competent and substantial evidenced adduced at the formal hearing shows that Guptill and Myrick have exercised no actual control over Petitioner and that their involvement in the conduct of Petitioner's business has been de minimis. The ownership and control of Petitioner, in substance, has remained continuously and resolutely in the hands of Smith.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered certifying Petitioner as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. DONE and ENTERED this 1 day of June, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 1 day of June, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-3 Accepted in Finding 11 4-5, 8,9, and 11 Accepted in Finding 12 6-7 Rejected as irrelevant 10, 12 Accepted in Finding 13 13 Accepted in Preliminary Statement 14-17 Accepted in Finding 1 18-22, 27-28 Accepted in Findings 8-9 23-26 Accepted in Finding 10 29 Accepted in Finding 5 30-31 Accepted in Finding 9 32-33 Accepted in Finding 1 34-35 Accepted in Findings 3, 14 36 Accepted in Finding 6 Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Rejected as immaterial 2 Rejected in Findings 3, 14 3-4 Rejected in Finding 3, 4-5, 14 5-6 Rejected in Finding 12 7, 11 Rejected as irrelevant 8 Rejected in Findings 4-5 9 Rejected in Finding 7 10 Rejected in Findings 8-9 12 Accepted in Finding COPIES FURNISHED: Williams H. Roberts, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John O. Williams, Esquire Lindsey & Beck, P.A. 1343 East Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The primary issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be granted certification as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE). Determination of this issue requires resolution of other issues: Namely, whether Respondent's business qualifies as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) as defined by provisions of Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes; and whether Respondent is a minority person as defined by provisions of Section 288.703 (3)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Alfredo Ramos is the sole owner of the janitorial business known as "A Cleaning Crew." Ramos was born in Rio Hondo, Texas, on August 9, 1938, to Martin and Ada Salazor Ramos. Ramos' birth certificate, issued at that time denoting his race as white, was amended on May 21, 1992, to reflect that his color or race was Hispanic. Ramos' father was born in Texas. Ramos' mother was born in Oklahoma. There is no independent or verifiable knowledge of where any of Ramos' grandparents were born. All are now deceased. By letter dated June 5, 1992, Respondent denied Ramos' application seeking to have "A Cleaning Crew" certified as a MBE. The basis for denial recited in the letter was that the business did not meet the requirements of Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, in that Ramos, as sole proprietor, was unable to establish his status as a minority person within the definitional requirements of applicable Florida Statutes and administrative rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. No findings were submitted. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-5. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfredo Ramos d/b/a A Cleaning Crew P.O. Box 10293 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Management Services Suite 309, Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Larry Strong, Acting Secretary Department of Management Services Suite 307, Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Susan Kirkland, Esquire General Counsel Department of Management Services Suite 110, Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Action Wire & Cable Corporation should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1993, the Petitioner company was started in New York but incorporated in the State of Florida. Rosemarie Branciforte and Janet Monaco were two of the original incorporators as minority stockholders and three non- minority males held the majority of the stock. The two women incorporators were not named to the original Board of Directors. At the time of the incorporation, 100 shares of stock were issued as follows: Bert Polte-40 shares, Frank Kleeman-40 shares, Janet Monaco-10 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte-5 shares, and Ken Barry-5 shares. The company began operations out of the home of Monaco and Branciforte in New York, who contributed their knowledge and labor without compensation. Janet Monaco was appointed President and Rosemarie Branciforte was selected as Vice President-Sales & Marketing. Two of the male stockholders from Germany (Polte and Kleeman) contributed $2,000 which was used for the purchase of fax and computer equipment. Polte and Kleeman are listed as Regional Sales Managers and reside in the Federal Republic of Germany. On December 29, 1993, Ken Barry, one of the original stockholders, returned his 5 shares to the corporation. On January 1, 1994, at its annual meeting, the corporation voted to redistribute the shares among its stockholders, as follows: Janet Monaco-26 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte-25 shares, Bert Polte-25 shares, and Frank Kleeman-24 shares. This was based on the contribution of space in the women's house for the corporate offices and supplies, the assumption of risk and the operation of the company by Monaco and Branciforte without compensation. Monaco and Branciforte were also elected as sole directors of the company, with Monaco as Chair. In April, 1994, the company relocated to Florida and filed its application for certification with the Commission. In October, 1994, the corporate records were amended to reflect that Monaco and Branciforte were the sole directors of the corporation. As sole directors and chief operating officers of the company, the women owners perform the following: Develop and maintain the customer base, both in the United States and overseas; determine who to sell to depending on credit worthiness; develop market plans, advertising campaigns and mailings; promote the company at trade shows and community organizations; control bookkeeping; control all monies (including distribution of year end profits; sign all long term leases; select and maintain working relationships with vendors; and sign as guarantors on vendor accounts, as needed. Polte and Kleeman, stockholders in Petitioner, are owners of a wire and cable distribution business in Europe. As such, they have made a market for Petitioner's American wire in Europe and provide European wire to Petitioner for sale in the U.S. Sales generated by Polte and Kleeman account for approximately 15 percent of Petitioner's sales in Europe and 11 percent of products imported by Petitioner for distribution in the U.S. For their services, Polte and Kleeman receive an annual stockholders' dividend from the profits of the corporation, which has been designated as a "management fee" in the corporate books. Their combined ownership of stock in the corporation amounts to 49 percent. Monaco and Branciforte, both American women, are 51 percent owners of the corporation. The gross sales of the company was approximately $350,000 in 1993, $700,000 in 1994 and $500,000 to date in 1995. In 1995, Petitioner sold approximately $180,000 of material through its European sales managers and purchased approximately $27,000 from them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed by Action Wire & Cable Corporation on April 27, 1994, be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 17th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner submitted in letter form proposed findings of fact. However, it contained, in paragraph form, comments on the evidence and argument which can not be specifically ruled upon. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 4 (in part), 5, 7 (in part), 8 (in part), 9. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 3, 4 (in part) 7 (in part), 8 (in part). Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 6, 8 (in part) COPIES FURNISHED: Rosemarie N. Branciforte Vice President-Sales & Marketing Action Wire & Cable Corporation 4802 Distribution Court, Unit 2 Orlando, Florida 32822 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Senior Attorney 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Crandall Jones Executive Administrator Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for certification as a "minority business enterprise" in the area of landscape contracting?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation that was formed and incorporated by Margaret Gordon, who is the corporation's sole shareholder and its lone officer and director. Gordon is an American woman. Before forming Petitioner, Gordon held various jobs. Among her former employers are Florida Maintenance Contractors and Scenico, Inc. She worked for the former from 1984 to 1991, and for the latter from 1984 to 1990. As an employee of Florida Maintenance Contractors and Scenico, Inc., Gordon supervised landscaping projects. As a result of this work experience, Gordon has the managerial and technical knowledge and capability to run a landscape contracting business. Petitioner is such a landscape contracting business, although it has not undertaken any landscaping projects recently. Its last project was completed two years prior to the final hearing in this case. Since that time, the business has been inactive. Gordon's two sons, working as subcontractors under Gordon's general supervision, have performed the physical labor and the actual landscaping involved in the previous jobs Petitioner has performed. Gordon herself has never done such work and she has no intention to do so in the future. Instead, she will, on behalf of Petitioner, as she has done in the past, use subcontractors (albeit not her sons inasmuch as they are no longer available to perform such work.) Petitioner filed its application for "minority business enterprise" certification in the area of landscape contracting in March of 1994.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a "minority business enterprise" in the area of landscape contracting. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of October, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 9th day of October, 1995.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner’s certification as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Locker Services, Inc., is a business owned by Kimberly Gates and her husband, James Gates. Kimberly Gates is a Caucasian female. There is no evidence that James Gates is within a protected classification under the minority business enterprise certification program. Kimberly Gates is the president of the corporation and owns 60 percent of the stock. James Gates is the vice-president of the corporation and owns the remaining 40 percent of the stock. The bylaws on record for Locker Service, Inc., establish that the Board of Directors directs the corporation’s business affairs. The Board of Directors consists of Kimberly Gates and James Gates. According to the by-laws, both Mrs. and Mr. Gates manage the business. Both Kimberly Gates and James Gates are authorized to sign checks on the corporate checking account. A General Indemnity Agreement underwrites the corporation’s bonding requirements. James Gates is a signatory on the agreement and is personally liable as an Indemnitor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order denying the Petitioner’s application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 27th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Gates, President Locker Service, Inc. 2303 Bayshore Drive Belleair Beach, Florida 33786 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Sheri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 303 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Are Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, valid exercises of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1991, the Respondents made amendments to Rules 60A- 2.001 and 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code, related to the certification of a "minority business enterprise" to engage in business with the State of Florida. With the amendments, a definition for the term "regular dealer" was created, which states in pertinent part: 60A-2.001 Definitions. . . . (10) 'Regular dealer' means a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the material or supplies required for the performance of the contract are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold to the public in the usual course of business. To be a regular dealer, the firm must engage in, as its principal business and in its own name, the purchase and sale of products. . . . The amendments included other requirements that a "minority business enterprise", as defined at Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, must meet to be certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program. (The definition of "minority business enterprise" was changed by Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). The change does not effect the outcome in the case.) As promulgated December 22, 1991, Rule 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code states in pertinent part: The applicant business shall establish that it is currently performing a useful business function in each specialty area requested by the applicant. For purposes of this rule, "currently" means as of the date of the office's receipt of the application for certification. The applicant business is considered to be per- forming a useful business function when it is responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work of a contract and carrying out its responsibilities in actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. The useful business function of an applicant business shall be determined in reference to the products or services for which the applicant business requested certification on Form PUR 7500. When the applicant business is required by law to hold a license, other than an occupational license in order to undertake its business activity, the applicant business shall not be considered to be performing a useful business function unless it has the required license(s). In determining if an applicant business is acting as a regular dealer and that it is not acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non- minority business, the Office shall consider the applicant's business role as agent or negotiator between buyer and seller or contractor. Though an applicant business may sell products through a variety of means, the Office shall consider the customary and usual method by which the majority of sales are made in its analysis of the applicability of the regular dealer require- ments. Sales shall be made regularly from stock on a recurring basis constituting the usual operations of the applicant business. The proportions of sales from stock and the amount of stock to be maintained by the applicant business in order to satisfy these rule requirements will depend on the business' gross receipts, the types of commodities sold, and the nature of the business's operations. The stock maintained shall be a true inventory from which sales are made, rather than by a stock of sample, display, or surplus goods remaining from prior orders or by a stock main- tained primarily for the purpose of token compliance with this rule. Consideration shall be given to the applicant's provision of dispensable services or pass-through operations which do not add economic value, except where characterized as common industry practice or customary marketing procedures for a given product. An applicant business acting as broker or packager shall not be regarded as a regular dealer absent a showing that brokering or packaging is the normal practice in the applicant business industry. Manufacturer's representatives, sales representatives and non-stocking distributors shall not be considered regular dealers for purposes of these rules. In passing the rules amendments, the Respondents relied upon authority set forth in Sections 287.0943(5) and 287.0945(3), Florida Statutes. Those statutory sections are now found at Sections 287.0943(7) and 287.0945(6), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). Those provisions create the general and specific authority for the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office to effectuate the purposes set forth in Section 287.0943, Florida Statutes, by engaging in rule promulgation. As it relates to this case, the law implemented by the challenged rules is set forth at Section 287.0943(1)(e)3, Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.), which establishes criteria for certification of minority business enterprises who wish to participate in the Minority Business Program contemplated by Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. That provision on certification was formerly Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes. In assessing a minority business enterprise application for certification, the Respondents, through that statutory provision: [R]equire that prospective certified minority business enterprises be currently performing a useful business function. A 'useful business function' is defined as a business function which results in the provision of materials, supplies, equipment, or services to customers other than state or local government. Acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non-minority business does not constitute a useful business function unless it is done so in a normal industry practice. Petitioners, Expertech and Mechanical, had been certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program, but were denied re- certification through the application of Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code. Marsha Nims is the Director of Certification for the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office. In her position, she develops policy on minority business enterprise certification. As such, she was principally responsible for developing the subject rules. In particular, as Ms. Nims describes, the purpose in developing the rules was to address the meaning of a "conduit" set forth at Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes, in an attempt to insure that improper advantage was not taken by persons using certified minority businesses to enter into contractual opportunities with the State of Florida. In promulgating the rule, the Respondents spoke to representatives who were involved with unrelated minority business enterprise certification programs. One person from whom the Respondents had obtained ideas was Hershel Jackson, who processed certifications for the Small Business Administration in its Jacksonville, Florida office. This individual indicated that the Small Business Administration had developed a "regular dealer rule" that required individuals who sought minority certification from the Small Business Administration to make sales from existing inventory. This conversation led to the utilization of federal law as a guide to establishing the rules in question. At 41 CFR 50-201.101(a)(2), the term "regular dealer" is defined as: A regular dealer is a person who owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. It can be seen that the definition of "regular dealer" set forth in Rule 60A-2.001(10), Florida Administrative Code, is very similar to the federal definition. In addition, the Respondents used the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act Interpretations at 41 CFR 50-206 for guidance. The provision within the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act that was utilized was 41 CFR 50-206.53(a). It states: Regular Dealer. A bidder may qualify as a regular dealer under 40 CFR, 50-201.101(b), if it owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the commodities or goods of the general character described by the specifi- cations and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. . . . The Petitioners presented witnesses who established the manner in which their respective industries carried out normal industry practices involving fund transfers to non-minority businesses from minority and non- minority businesses. Joseph H. Anderson is the President of Suntec Paint, Inc. (Suntec), which does business in Florida. Suntec is a non-minority corporation. It manufactures architectural coatings (house paints). Suntec sells and distributes its paint products through its own stores, through other dealers who have stores, and through sales agents. The sales agents would also be considered as manufacturers' representatives. Suntec's relationship with its manufacturer's representatives is one in which Suntec has an agreement with the representatives to sell the paint products to the representatives at negotiated prices which may be discounted based upon volume of sales. The representatives then sell the products to end users at a price that may be higher than the price between Suntec and the representatives. The representatives are responsible for marketing the product to customers. The products manufactured by Suntec are inventoried for distribution, or in some instances, made to order for distribution. The maintenance of inventory is principally for the benefit of the retail outlets controlled by Suntec. Suntec prefers not to maintain inventory because it ties up raw materials, warehousing space, and requires personnel to be engaged in the management and shipment of those products. If the product is "picked up" more than once in the process, it costs more money. Therefore, Suntec distributes inventory through the representatives by direct shipping from the manufacturer to the end user. Suntec's arrangement with its representatives is one in which the customer pays the representative for the product and the representative then pays Suntec. The representatives for Suntec do not ordinarily maintain inventory of the paint products, because this avoids having the representatives handle the product and then reship the product to the end user. By the representative handling the product, it would add expense to the transaction. Suntec, in selling its products through representatives and shipping directly from the manufacturer to the end user, is pursuing a practice which is normal in its industry. Suntec's arrangement with dealers unaffiliated with Suntec who have stores, provides the independent dealers with inventory. Nonetheless, there are occasions in which the independent dealer will place a large order with Suntec; and Suntec will ship the product directly to the end user. That practice is a frequent practice and one that is standard in the industry. Suntec has two minority businesses who serve as manufacturers' representatives and other manufacturers' representatives who are non-minorities. The minority representatives are Expertech, located in Gainesville, Florida, and All In One Paint and Supply, Inc. (All In One), also located in Gainesville. The two minority representatives for Suntec maintain some stock of paint. The inventory amount which All In One maintains was not identified. Within a few months before the hearing, Expertech had purchased 60 gallons of paint from Suntec. It was not clear what the intended disposition was for the paint. Thomas Rollie Steele, the Branch Manager for Bearings and Drives, serves as Sales Manager for that company in its Florida operations. Bearings and Drives has its corporate offices in Macon, Georgia. The company has thirty locations throughout the southern United States, with five different divisions. It specializes in industrial maintenance products and some services. Bearings and Drives is a non-minority firm. In its business Bearings and Drives has manufacturing arrangements or agreements to represent other manufacturers. As representative for other companies who manufacture the products which Bearings and Drives markets, Bearings and Drives is expected to solicit sales. The agreements with the manufacturers which Bearings and Drives has, establish price structures, terms and conditions, and shipping arrangements. Bearings and Drives serves as representatives for the manufacturers in a distinct service area. Bearings and Drives buys products from the manufacturers and resells the products to Bearings and Drives' customers. Bearings and Drives derives compensation by selling to customers at a price higher than the product was sold to them. The price at which products are resold by Bearings and Drives is controlled by market conditions. Bearings and Drives maintains some product inventory; however, in excess of 50 percent of the products sold are shipped directly from the manufacturer to the customer. The direct shipment improves the profit margin for Bearings and Drives by not maintaining an inventory and saving on additional freight expenses, taxes paid on existing inventory and labor costs to be paid warehouse personnel. Bearings and Drives uses a direct delivery system to its customers that is scheduled around the time at which the customer would need the product sold by Bearings and Drives. This arrangement is a standard industry practice. Aileen Schumacher is the founder, President, and sole owner of Expertech. This Petitioner had been certified through the Minority Business Program prior to the rule amendments in December, 1991. When the Petitioner, Expertech sought to be re-certified, it was denied certification in some business areas for failure to maintain sufficient levels of inventory. Expertech sells and distributes technical supplies, such as pollution- control equipment, laboratory equipment, hand tools, and other technical supplies. It specializes in the sale and distribution of safety equipment. Expertech does not provide services. The areas in which Expertech has been denied re-certification relate to the sale of laboratory supplies, paint, and pollution-control equipment. In marketing products Expertech buys directly from manufacturers, except in the instance where they cannot access the manufacturer directly and must operate through a distributor. Expertech tries to maintain as little inventory as possible and to have the commodities it sells shipped directly from the manufacturer to the end user. In addition to ordinary sales, Expertech takes custom orders for products not maintained in inventory by the manufacturer, which are directly shipped from the manufacturer to the customer. In Expertech's business dealings as a manufacturer's representative, wherein it arranges for direct shipments, it is performing in a manner which is standard in the industries in which it is engaged. Otto Lawrenz is the sole proprietor of Mechanical. Prior to the rules changes in December, 1991, Mechanical had been certified as a minority business enterprise. The attempt to re-certify was denied based upon the fact that Mechanical did not stock products and was serving as a manufacturer's representative in selling heating and ventilation equipment. Mechanical sells to mechanical contractors and sheet-metal contractors as a representative for the manufacturer. Mechanical bids on construction jobs and "takes off" the amount of equipment needed in setting its price quotes. If the submission of the price quotation is successful, Mechanical receives a purchasing order from the contractor, as approved by the project engineer. The equipment is then ordered by Mechanical, and delivered by the manufacturer to the job site or the contractor's home office. Mechanical does not maintain a warehouse or a store. The end user pays Mechanical within 30-60 days from the time that the equipment is delivered to the end user. Mechanical then pays the original manufacturer an agreed upon price. Generally, Mechanical sells special-order equipment. This type of equipment would be difficult to inventory since it is being custom-ordered and the units that are ordered are large in size. In addition, the variety of parts involved in these projects makes it difficult to stock them.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation, established in 1988 and is owned by Barbara Pedone (Pedone). Pedone is the corporation's president and sole stockholder. Michael Pedone, who is married to Barbara Pedone, of the applicant company, is not a minority under Florida law. Pedone has been involved in the construction business since the early 1960's in a administrative capacity. Pedone has been a part owner of certain construction businesses with her husband that involved residential insulation, as well as the installation of pipe and duct insulation material. Michael Pedone is employed by the applicant company as its Vice President. He runs the field operation. He does the field work for the applicant company, gathering materials, supervising the workers and working on proposals for new jobs. He consults on these matters with his wife. The applicant company is a family-run business with shared responsibilities between Barbara and Michael Pedone. Both Mr. And Mrs. Pedone make decisions concerning which jobs to bid on, what equipment to buy and whom to hire and fire. Hiring and firing duties are also shared with the field lead, Alex Uzaga. Pedone concentrates on the management end of the business, and Michael Pedone concentrates more on the technical and field work of the applicant company. The applicant is required to have a license in most of the jurisdictions in which it does business. Michael Pedone carries all the necessary licenses and is the qualifier for the applicant company. Barbara Pedone does not have a license and cannot qualify the applicant company. Barbara Pedone writes most, if not all, of the business checks for the applicant company, performs bidding functions, and administrative responsibilities, visits the various job sites, and, in recent months, has signed most of the job proposals. Barbara Pedone has never performed any work of installing or applying insulations or fireproofing materials. Barbara Pedone draws a weekly salary of $100. Michael Pedone draws a weekly salary of $1,000. The reason given for the disparity in salaries is that this allows Michael Pedone to accrue certain social security retirement credits. Barbara Pedone accrues her credits through her other employment. Barbara Pedone is employed full-time by Collier County and works no less than 40 hours weekly there. Other income and dividends of the corporation are deposited in a joint account. Barbara Pedone has full authority to sell the company or to change its corporate existence in any manner she may determine. Applicant has not established by competent evidence that Barbara Pedone exercises a real, substantial continuing ownership and control of the applicant corporation. Other than her minimum salary, no evidence was introduced to establish that Barbara Pedone receives income commensurate with the percentage of her ownership in the company. Barbara Pedone failed to establish that she shares in all of the risk through her role in decision-making, negotiations, or execution of documents and risk capital as either an individual or officer of the corporation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed by Fire Stop Systems, Inc., on July 30, 1996, be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire 215 Airport Road South Naples, Florida 34104 Joseph L. Shields Senior Attorney Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Veronica Anderson Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department had the authority to certify those firms who qualified as MBE's for the purpose of contracting with it under the provisions of Chapter 13-8, F.A.C. When an application for MBE status is received at the Department's certification office in Tallahassee, it is assigned to one of five certifying officers who reviews it and determines whether it is complete as submitted or requires additional documentation. This is called a desk audit review. In the event all required documents have not been submitted with the application, they are requested in writing and the applicant has thirty days to provide them. Failure to do so results in denial of the application. If, on the other hand, all the required documentation is present, a decision is then made as to whether an on-site visit of the applicant's operation is necessary. If so, Department personnel go to the site and look to see if the business can qualify as an MBE. If an on-site visit is appropriate, but for some reason cannot be made, Department personnel try to get the required information by phone. The decision to approve or deny certification is made, based on the reviewing certifying officer's recommendation, by the certification manager who, before making a decision, personally reviews the file and, if appropriate, sends it to the Department's legal staff for additional review. Once the legal staff has made its recommendation, if the decision is made to deny the application, a letter of denial is sent to the applicant who may then appeal that decision. An application must meet all criteria set out in Rule 13-8, F.A.C. to be certified as an MBE. Each application is looked at on a case by case basis to see if those criteria are met. In the instant case, the denial was based on the Department's concern over several factors. These are related to Rule 13- 8.005(3), F.A.C. and included A question as to whether the business was actually controlled by Ms. Hogan. The nature of the corporate structure. The application of Chapter 47, F.A.C., dealing with the construction industry. The ability of both Hogan and Perretta to sign business checks. Whether Ms. Hogan had the technical and mechanical capability, skills and training to run a construction company, and Whether Ms. Hogan could effectively control such areas as financing, purchasing, hiring and firing, and the like. In arriving at its decision to deny Petitioner's application, the Department relied only on those matter submitted with the application. It did not ask for or seek any information about the company and its operation beyond that initially provided. Notwithstanding her recommendation in this case, Ms. Freeman has previously recommended the certification of numerous woman owned businesses as MBEs. On April 6, 1990, Ms. Hogan, as owner of E.C. Construction, Inc., a licensed general contractor qualified under the license of Carmen M. Perretta, applied to the Department for certification as a woman owned MBE. The application form reflected Ms. Hogan as the sole owner of the business, a corporation created under the laws of Florida. Ms. Hogan was listed on both the Articles of Incorporation, (1989), and the application form in issue here as the sole officer and director of the corporation, as well. Mr. Perretta was to be merely an employee of the firm, E.C. Construction, Inc.. In that regard Ms. Hogan claims, and it is so found, that the letters, "E. C." in the corporate name do not stand for Elinor and Carmen. Instead, they stand for Elite and Creative. Ms. Hogan is a 63 year old widow who professes a long-standing interest in building, design and decorating. In 1950, she and her husband started a floor covering business in another state which they operated for nineteen years. In 1969 they moved to Florida where her husband started a lawn maintenance business in Sarasota. She worked full time as a nurse at a local hospital and still found time to assist her husband in every aspect of their business including marketing, bookkeeping, public relations, etc. Her husband took ill in early 1986 and from that time on and after his death in May, 1988, until the business was sold almost a year later, she exercised complete control. She still runs a wedding supply and stationery business from her home. She sold the lawn business because she wanted to break the emotional links with the past and since she had some experience in construction, design and remodeling of her own home, went into the construction business establishing the Petitioner firm. In the few preceding years, she had designed and supervised several construction projects in the area in which she attended to financing, hiring the1 subcontractors, and supervision of the work. She also took some courses in design and has taken other courses and seminars in financing, accounting, marketing, advertising and operating a small business. Ms. Hogan and her husband met Mr. Perretta in 1987 when they put an addition on their house and she was impressed by his talents. When she decided to look into going into the construction business, she turned to him for advice and ultimately recruited him as the corporation's qualifying agent. Notwithstanding the fact that neither the corporate documents nor the application for MBE status so reflect, Ms. Hogan's lawyer now indicates that Perretta was also made a Vice-President of the firm, but his authority was limited to those actions necessary to meet the minimum compliance requirements of Florida law. When confronted with this discrepancy, Ms. Hagan claimed that the corporate papers and the application were in error and that she didn't know what they meant when she signed them. Ms. Hogan claims to be in full and complete control of all corporate activities, and to delegate to Mr. Perretta those responsibilities and functions, relating to the actual construction, that he is best qualified to carry out. She claims she does not share dominant control of the daily business activities of the firm though the evidence indicates both she and Mr. Perretta can individually sign corporate checks. In that regard, she claims he has signed only 19 of more than 500 checks issued by the firm since its inception. They have an understanding he will sign checks only for the purchase of materials, and then only in an emergency situation. He claims to no longer use that authority. The Department introduced no evidence to the contrary. Ms. Hogan admits to not having formal construction training or experience but, based on her other experience, believes she is qualified to run a business. Under her leadership the company has reportedly secured over one million dollars in contracts and for the most part, has performed them successfully. Under oath she claims to negotiate the contracts, prepare the estimates and deal with contracting customers in all the projects in which the company is engaged. She claims to have made those contractual decisions independent of Mr. Perretta to whom she is not accountable. Yet, as was seen, the Articles of Incorporation wrongfully indicate her as the only officer when Mr. Perretta was actually a Vice-President, and she claims not to have known that. This gives rise to some doubt as to her business credentials. In reality, Mr. Perretta actually directs and supervises the actual construction work at all job sites and schedules the subcontractors and materials to insure their presence at the job when needed. When changes are required, Mr. Perretta gives the necessary information to Ms. Hogan who prepares the change orders, including the typing, and forwards them as appropriate. Ms. Hogan has also entered into an agreement, dated June 25, 1989, with Mr. Perretta whereby, in lieu of salary as qualifying agent and field superintendent for the company, he is to receive 40% of the gross profits of each construction project. He gets a periodic draw against that percentage. In addition, in May, 1989, Ms. Hogan, as President, and Mr. Perretta, as Vice- President, entered into an agreement with Raymond Meltzer to retain him as general manager of E.C.'s Designer Structures division. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Meltzer was to have "absolute, unlimited and exclusive authority" to conduct all affairs of the division, except to incur debt other than short term debt to subcontractors. Mr. Meltzer was to have the right to draw checks on a separate E.C. account in a bank of his choosing, and was to receive 95% of all monies received as a result of the activities of that division. E.C. was to obtain the required permits or licenses for projects and to provide such supervision as is required by law. Though Petitioner did not incorporate under the name Designer Structures, nor did it register that name under the fictitious name statue, it continues to do business under that name. When it does, business is not conducted out of E.C.'s office, but from Meltzer's office instead. This is not consistent with Petitioner's MBE application which reflects only one office. Petitioner submitted at the hearing a notarized statement dated December 8, 1990, from Mr. Meltzer in which he admits to seeking to originally use Mr. Perretta and E.C. primarily as a qualifying agent for his own construction activities. The terms of the agreement referenced above tend to confirm that arrangement. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion that Ms. Hogan possess excellent business acumen and administrative abilities, and, he claims that, based on his initial meeting with her, he abandoned his plans to set up his own business and went into a business relationship with her. The evidence indicates he develops the work for the division and gets 95% of the fee. Ms. Hogan claims to be considering terminating the arrangement since it has not proven to be a lucrative one. She is apparently not aware the agreement specifically states it is for a three year term and carries options to renew. Though both Petitioner's application for MBE status and its bonding application indicate E.C. has no employees, Ms. Hogan testified that both Mr. Perretta and Mr. Meltzer are employees. She claims to use only subcontractors in the accomplishment of company projects and this appears to be so. She claims to have the strength of character and the will. to manage, hire and fire subcontractors as required. There is other evidence in the record, however, to indicate that Mr. Perretta actually schedules the subcontractors and materials to insure their presence at the job site when needed. It is found that there are no other employees who do direct, hands on contracting work, but while there may be a question of word meaning, it is clear that both Perretta and Meltzer qualify as employees. E.C.'s application for MBE status also indicates that it had not executed any promissory notes, yet there is a note for $3,500.00 from E.C. to Mr. Perretta, dated May 10, 1989, on which no payments have been made. Though Ms. Hogan claims to be fully in charge of running the business side of the operation, she is apparently also unaware of certain basic facts other than those previously mentioned. In addition to the inconsistencies regarding the office structure and her mistake concerning the employee status of Mr. Perretta and Mr. Meltzer, as well as her error regarding the loan, she was also in error as to the company's net worth. Whereas she indicated it was set at about $30,000.00, the company's most current financial statement reflects net worth at just above, $6,000.00, revealing her estimate to be 80% off. She also did not know the character of Mr. Perretta's license, (Class E.C. owns very little construction equipment and Ms. Hogan rents all needed equipment as indicated to her by Mr. Perretta. The lack of ownership is not significant, however. The one piece of equipment the company owns is a transit level which was purchased at Mr. Perretta's insistence. He has also donated to the company some used office equipment from his prior business as a contractor. He was not paid for it. Other equipment, in addition to office space, was furnished by Mr. Meltzer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case denying E.C. Construction, Inc.'s application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-5217 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. & 10. Accepted 11. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as to her prior experience though it was limited. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 24. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. & 29. Accepted. Not proven. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. & 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. Unknown but accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Guy Brisson, Personal Representative E. C. Construction, Inc. 105 Island Circle Sarasota, Florida 34232-1933 Dannie L. Hart, Esquire Joan V. Whelan, Esquire Department of General Services Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Knight Building Koger Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 3399-0950 Susan Kirkland General Counsel DGS Suite 309, Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Commission, was the state agency responsible for the certification of Minority Business Enterprises in Florida. Petitioner, Computer Service, was founded by Ronald E. Willett in January, 1987. It is a computer maintenance and repair company of which Brenda Willett is currently President and Chairman of the Board and owner of a 51 percent share of the capital stock issued on December 15, 1993. Ronald E. Willett is the Executive Vice-president, a Director, and owner of a 49 percent share of the capital stock. Mr. Willett was the sole owner and Chairman of the Board until May, 1994, at which time he gave 51 percent of the stock to his wife, Ms. Willett, and the Board elected her Chairman. Ms. Willett has been in the data processing field for 13 years. Before she began working with the Petitioner, she was a computer programmer for the State Attorney's office. She uses computer software to help with managing the affairs of the company, but she is neither a programmer nor a technician. She does not do any repair work for the company because she is not trained to do it. Most of the repair work is done by her husband and two computer engineers employed by the company. A fifth employee works in the warehouse and repairs printers. Of the non-family employees, Ms. Willett interviewed one and hired another. Now she is responsible for all interviewing and hiring. Because of the technical nature of the work, however, she does the initial screening interview after which either Mr. Willett or one of the engineers evaluates the candidates' technical qualifications. She completes the evaluations of her employees' performance by relying on her customers to evaluate the employees' technical performance. In addition, she notes when an employee orders an inordinate amount of parts for a job instead of doing repair work because that generally indicates the employee is not performing properly. Ms. Willett is paid $1,500 every two weeks. Her husband is paid $6,500 per month, and each of the engineers is paid $40,000 per year. Ms. Willett is primarily in charge of the business administration. The inventory of repair parts is maintained at the company warehouse and at the various work sites where the company has contracts to maintain the equipment. Each repairman notifies her of the parts needed. She gets prices and orders the needed parts. The company does not have a line of credit with suppliers. Ms. Willett has, in the past, personally signed for a line of credit which was used for the company. The company presently owes $18,000 to a power supply company under a contract which she negotiated. For the past year, she has been the only company official to sign to commit the company on loans. In addition, Ms. Willett negotiates the company's contracts with customers and she works as a team with the engineers on pricing. The company works on a basis of 35 - 50 percent off IBM prices for similar service. Though her husband helps her decide on what machines the company can buy and repair, she would not need to replace him if he should retire. He is currently working only 18 -20 hours per week. The company submitted its application for minority business enterprise certification on April 18, 1994. Ms. Willett indicated she did not know about the program until it was mentioned to her by an instructor in a course she was taking, and she felt it would help her secure business. As a woman, she was finding it difficult to be taken seriously by the male business officers and managers she dealt with in soliciting business, and she understood that the minority certification would help her qualify for state contracts. The initial review of Petitioner's application was accomplished by Mr. DeLaO, who requested and received from Petitioner matters needed in clarification or amplification of the information contained in the application. Mr. DeLaO also conducted a telephone interview with Ms. Willett to determine how the business was operated and to reaffirm the accuracy of the documentation. Mr. DeLaO did not look elsewhere for information. Based on the information listed above, he recommended denial of the Petitioner's certification. Mr. DeLaO's recommendation was based on several factors, all of which are listed in the recommendation submitted in writing to his supervisor. The problems he found included: The risk of the minority owner, as weighed against the risk of the non-minority owner indicated Ms. Willett, who had received her shares as a gift, had no investment in the corporation to lose. Mr. DeLaO felt the risk of the minority owner should be greater than that of the non-minority owner. Risk was defined as the amount of investment capital put in to start the company or to purchase ownership. The minority owner's wages were not commen- surate with her percentage of ownership. Here, Mr. Willett, the non-minority owner, was making more than she was, as were both engineers. The Board of Governors of the corporation was not controlled by the minority owner. At the time of the review, only Mr. Willett was on the Board. Now that she is on the Board, she still does not control it because she one of only two Directors. Ms. Willett does not appear to have the technical expertise and capability to control the business of the company. She does not appear to have the technical education or experience to do the work of the company herself or to properly evaluate how her employees are performing it - computer repair. Her contribution appeared to be only administrative. Ms. Willett admits her ownership of the 51 percent of the shares of the company was a gift from her husband who felt she deserved it. She claims, however, that the initial cash infusion to the company, when it was first started, came from jointly owned funds utilized to purchase the necessary tools to start Mr. Willett in business. From that initial investment the corporation grew. It should be noted, however, that the actual transfer of stock ownership to Ms. Willett took place just four months prior to the filing of the application for certification, and Ms. Willett's election to the Board came in May, 1994, after the application was filed. The allegation regarding Ms. Willett's salary relative to that of her husband and two of the three other employees is correct. By the same token, the comments regarding her Board membership are also correct. In addition, it is clear her technical competence is insufficient to permit her to accomplish a majority of the computer repair functions completed by her employees. Whether she must be qualified to perform all tasks done by each employee is debatable. She must, however, have a general knowledge of the business which would make her supervision and management meaningful, and it is not at all clear she possesses either those skills or that knowledge. She is quite correct in her claim, however, that if she did not get the contracts, the workmen would have no work to do. Mr. DeLaO's supervisor, to whom his recommendation for denial of certification was addressed, on August 24, 1994 concurred with his recommendation and notified Ms. Willett, on behalf of the Petitioner, that the request for certification as an MBE was denied. The letter of denial contained the Commission's basis for denial.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order in this case denying Computer Service Concepts, Inc.'s request for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda J. Willett, pro se Computer Service Concepts, Inc. 7616 Industrial Avenue, Suite 3 New Port Richey, Florida 34668 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Suite PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Crandall Jones Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2727 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 General Counsel Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2727 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to certification as a minority business enterprise. The primary area of dispute relates to whether Katherine A. Pernini, who owns 51 per cent of the stock in the Petitioner corporation, actually controls the management and daily operations of the Petitioner corporation. At the final hearing the Petitioner presented the testimony of several witnesses and also offered several exhibits which were received in evidence. The Respondent did not call any additional witnesses, but did offer several exhibits which were received in evidence. Subsequent to the hearing a transcript of the proceedings at hearing was filed with the Hearing Officer, and thereafter both parties filed timely proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the preparation of this recommended order and specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the attached Appendix.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner, R. R. Pernini, Inc., is a Florida corporation, having been incorporated under the laws of Florida in 1985. The principal place of business of R. R. Pernini, Inc., is 605 Northwest 53rd Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. The corporation engages in the business of commercial electrical and plumbing contracting. The corporation has fewer than 25 permanent full-time employees. The only stockholders of the Petitioner corporation are Katherine A. Pernini and Richard R. Pernini, her husband. Katherine A. Pernini is a minority person and is the owner of 51 per cent of the stock of R. R. Pernini, Inc. Richard R. Pernini is a non-minority person and he owns the remaining 49 per cent of the stock of the Petitioner corporation. Richard R. Pernini was the sole incorporator of R. R. Pernini, Inc., when it was initially incorporated. It was decided he would be the sole incorporator because, as explained by Katherine A. Pernini, ". . . if we wanted to get any work, and we wanted to have any credibility, then a man had-to run the construction business," and, as explained by Richard R. Pernini, ". . . we both felt that it would be to our advantage as a business to maintain the male image. " Richard R. Pernini is the president of R. R. Pernini, Inc. Katherine A. Pernini is the vice-president, secretary, and treasurer of R. R. Pernini, Inc. Richard R. Pernini and Katherine A. Pernini were the initial board of Directors of R. R. Pernini, Inc. They are currently the only directors of the Petitioner corporation and are the only directors the Petitioner corporation has ever had. Prior to the incorporation of R. R. Pernini, Inc., in 1985, the two owners were engaged in the same business, operating as a partnership. The business was started in 1972. Prior to incorporation of the business, Katherine A. Pernini worked with Richard R. Pernini in various capacities performing duties such as drafting, sales, bookkeeping and accounting. Richard R. Pernini's duties consisted primarily of building contracting and supervision of building. Katherine A. Pernini also performed field work in the electrical and plumbing areas for approximately three and a half years prior to the incorporation of the Petitioner corporation. Since incorporation, all of the electrical and plumbing work has been performed by persons other than Katherine A. Pernini and Richard R. Pernini. R. R. Pernini, Inc., presently employs five licensed electricians and three licensed plumbers who perform the actual electrical and plumbing work for the corporation. Richard R. Pernini is licensed by the State of Florida as a general contractor, as an electrical contractor, and as a plumbing contractor. Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes (1987), requires that a corporation that engages in the business of contracting must apply for a license through a "qualifying agent." Richard P. Pernini is the qualifying agent for R. R. Pernini, Inc. He obtained these licenses at the urging of Katherine A. Pernini. Katherine A. Pernini is not licensed by the State of Florida as a general contractor, as an electrical contractor, or as a plumbing contractor, nor does she hold journeyman or master certificates as either a plumber or an electrician. She does, however, have practical experience in performing the work of both a plumber and an electrician under the supervision of Richard R. Pernini prior to the incorporation of the business. Katherine A. Pernini participates in the interviewing of prospective employees. However, the evidence is insufficient to establish that she controls the hiring and firing of employees or that she has the authority to hire and fire employees. The Petitioner corporation has two estimators, an electrical estimator and a plumbing estimator, who prepare bids for the Petitioner along with either Richard R. Pernini or Katherine A. Pernini. Richard A. Pernini oversees and supervises the work of the corporation's two estimators. Katherine A. Pernini and Richard R. Pernini both personally guarantee many, if not all, of the loans made to the Petitioner corporation. Both Katherine A. Pernini and Richard R. Pernini are authorized to sign checks for the Petitioner corporation. Both Katherine A. Pernini and Richard R. Pernini supervise the corporation's purchasing agent. Katherine A. Pernini is a general manager, primarily responsible for administrative activities of the Petitioner corporation's business activities. She performs and supervises administrative and office duties regarding the Petitioner corporation's business activities. Richard R. Pernini is a general manager of building construction for the Petitioner corporation. Katherine A. Pernini does not supervise the actual electrical or plumbing work of the Petitioner corporation. She does not independently control the corporation's contracting activities, nor does she independently control the financial affairs of the corporation. Article IV, Section 3, of the Bylaws of R. R. Pernini, Inc., provides, among other specified duties and powers, that the president shall execute bonds, mortgages, and other contracts on behalf of the corporation. That same provision of the bylaws also provides that the president shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation, shall have the general powers and duties of supervision and management usually vested in the office of president of a corporation, and shall have general supervision, direction, and control of the business of the corporation. Article IV, Section 4, of the Bylaws of R. R. Pernini, Inc., provides that during the absence or disability of the president, the vice-president, if one be elected, or if there are more than one, the executive vice-president, shall have all the powers and functions of the president. It further provides that each vice-president shall perform such other duties as the board shall prescribe. Article VI of the Articles of Incorporation of R. R. Pernini, Inc. provides that initially the corporation would have two directors, but further provides that the directors may be increased or decreased from time to time by vote of the stock- holders, but in no case shall the number of directors be less than two. Article III, Section 1, of the Bylaws of R. R. Pernini, Inc., provides that the business of the corporation shall be managed and its corporate powers exercised by a hoard of two directors. And Article III, Section 6, of those bylaws provides that a majority of the directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for minority business certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1371 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 3: All but last sentence accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted in part and rejected in part; rejected portion is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 6: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as not fully supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance with a number of unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance with some details omitted a subordinate or unnecessary. Paragraphs 14 and 15: Accepted. Paragraph 16: Accepted in part and rejected in part; rejected portions are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in some instances and irrelevant or subordinate details in others. Paragraph 17: Accepted in substance, with some additional findings. Findings proposed by Respondent: All of the findings proposed by the Respondent are accepted in substance, with some additional findings in the interest of clarity, except as specifically noted below: Paragraphs 29 and 30: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond M. Ivey, Esquire Rakusin and Ivey, P.A. 703 North Main Street, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32601 Deborah S. Rose, Esquire General Counsel's Office Department of General Services 452 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services Room 133, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
