The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent owned, operated, maintained, established, or conducted a barbering business and barber shop for purposes of the requirements delineated in Section 476.194, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with regulating the licensure of barbers, the licensure of barber shop establishments and the practice of barbering, and the operation of barber shops, pursuant to Chapter 476, Florida Statutes (2006). After investigation the Respondent, Chand Harris, was accused in the Administrative Complaint, with practicing barbering or operating, establishing, opening, or conducting a barber shop operation or business without proper licensure. Although properly served with a copy of the Notice of Hearing at his last known address of record, Mr. Harris failed to appear at the hearing. After waiting an appropriate period of time, the hearing was convened and the taking of evidence was initiated. Upon conclusion of the Petitioner's case the Respondent, Mr. Harris, had not yet appeared at the hearing and never did appear at hearing. Consequently, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the Respondent. There has been no communication with the Respondent either before or since the hearing and thus there is no known explanation for his failure to appear at the hearing. Robert M. Johnson is employed by the Department as an inspector. He has been thus employed for approximately three and one-half years. He has a four-year degree from Baptist College of Florida and is currently enrolled in basic law enforcement courses at Lake City Community College. He also received formal training from the Department upon beginning his employment and attends on-going training sessions. Mr. Johnson performs approximately 1,300 inspections annually. On November 3, 9, and 17, 2005, Mr. Johnson inspected the premises of a business known as "Trend Setterz." Mr. Johnson's investigation established, through his testimony, that the Respondent, Chand Harris, owned and controlled the establishment named Trend Setterz. It is located at 289 Marion Oaks Lane, Ocala, Florida 34473. Trend Setterz was not licensed as a barber shop by the Florida Barbers Board, but was operating as a barber shop. Mr. Johnson observed a substantial number of people having hair cuts performed in the Trend Setterz shop. During those inspections, Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Giscard Rousseau performing barbering services inside the Trend Setterz establishment. He specifically observed Mr. Rousseau cutting hair for compensation. He also overheard Mr. Rousseau telling at least one customer not to pay him in the presence of Mr. Johnson so he could not be accused of barbering for compensation without a license. Mr. Rousseau was not licensed as a barber by the Florida Barber's Board at the time of the inspections and with regard to the time period represented by the charges in the Administrative Complaint against the shop owner and operator, Mr. Harris. Later, after the pertinent time period represented by the charges in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Rousseau indeed achieved licensure as a barber by the Florida Barber's Board, on September 12, 2006. That license is current and active through July 31, 2008. Chand Harris, however, as well as Trend Setterz, is not and never has been licensed by the Barber Board respectively as a barber or as a barber shop.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Department of Business and Profession Regulation, Board of Barbers, finding the Respondent guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint and assessing an administrative penalty in the amount of $1,000.00, due and payable to the Barber Board, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date a final order herein is filed with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Tiffany A. Harrington, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Chand Harris 16330 Southwest 17th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34473 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been licensed as a barber and as a cosmetologist for approximately the last 18 years. He holds a bachelor's degree in vocational education from the University of Central Florida. He has taught courses in barbering for a number of years at different schools. The July 1986 barber instructor examination was the first barber instructor examination administered in the State of Florida. Petitioner was eligible to take and did take the July 1986 barber instructor examination. Although he achieved a passing score on the written portion of that examination, he failed to obtain a passing score on the practical portion of the examination. Accordingly, Petitioner is deemed to have failed the entire examination. Approximately 30 days before the examination date, Petitioner received from Respondent a Notice to Appear containing both Petitioner's examination admission slip and detailed instructions and information regarding the administration of the examination and the contents of the examination itself. Regarding the practical portion of the examination, the information within the Notice to Appear advised Petitioner and the other candidates that the practical portion of the examination would consist of the preparation of a lesson plan and actual presentation of that lesson according to the candidate's own lesson plan. The Notice to Appear specified that there are seven categories of instruction as follows: Shampooing and Haircut Shave Permanent Wave Facials Coloring Sanitation and Sterilization Chemical Straightening The Notice to Appear explained that each candidate, before coming to the examination, should prepare at least one lesson plan for each category of instruction. At the examination site, each candidate would be assigned one of those seven categories of instruction. The candidate would then submit a lesson plan for a 30-minute lesson for the category assigned to that candidate at that time. The candidate would then present the lesson according to the lesson plan which that candidate submitted. The lesson could be either a demonstration or a lecture, and the candidate would be evaluated on the candidate's use of audio/visual aids during the lesson presentation. The Notice to Appear also includes a blank sample grade sheet so that the candidate is advised as to the specific 20 criteria by which the examiners judge the lesson plan and its presentation. The team of three examiners for the July 1986 barber instructor examination consisted of two licensed barber instructors and one educator, since the barber instructor examination is a teaching examination rather than a barbering examination. The examiners are prohibited from conferring or collaborating with each other in marking their individual grade sheets. When Petitioner arrived at the examination site for the practical portion of the examination, he was assigned the first category of instruction: Shampooing and Haircut. He turned in the lesson plan which he had previously prepared. His lesson plan covered only the topic of haircutting and stated that the time necessary for the lesson was one hour. All examiners agreed that Petitioner started his presentation at 3:05 p.m. and concluded it at 3:19 p.m. The percentage of agreement among the three examiners as to whether Petitioner met each of the 20 criteria in the practical portion of the examination is within the normal range of expectation for three evaluations performed independently.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing grade on the practical portion of the July 1986 barber instructor examination. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 10th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Frank Capostagno 3344 South Orange Blossom Trail Orlando, Florida 32207 Chester G. Senf, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Barbers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether the Master Barber Certificate and the City Barber Shop Certificate of Registration held by the Respondent W. R. Griffis should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on the 22nd day of November, 1976, by P. W. Barker, Executive Director, Florida Barber Sanitary Commission, alleging: That Respondent allowed a dog in the barber shop in violation of Section 476.22(1)(g), Florida Statutes. The Respondent's shop had dirty floors in violation of Section 476.22(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The laboratories were dirty in violation of Section 476.22(1)(i), Florida Statutes. The supply storage room was dirty in violation of Section 476.22(1)(j). The shop was being operated with dirty neck dusters in violation of Section 476.22(1)(1)(6) and (8). Inspector Gordon N. Patterson, an employee of the Florida Barber Sanitary Commission had warned the Respondent on previous occasions that he must clean up his shop. The Administrative Complaint alleged that during the period July, August and September, 1976, the Respondent had been drinking intoxicating beverages and had performed unsatisfactory haircuts on customers as a result of this drinking. An affidavit of the Chief of Police confirms the allegations. At the hearing the Respondent admitted that he does drink, but that he never goes to the barber shop until several days after he has been drinking. The Respondent admitted that he had been ill and that his shop floors, laboratories and storage room had been dirty at times but that he intends to and at present is keeping his place very clean. The Respondent denied that he allowed a dog in his shop stating that a dog ran into his shop but was ejected shortly thereafter.
Recommendation Suspend the Master Barber Certificate No. 8195 and Shop Certificate of Registration of the City Barber Shop No. 2096 held by the Respondent for a period of time not to exceed six (6) months. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: A. Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32304 P. Wayne Barker, Executive Director Barber Sanitary Commission 108 West Pensacola Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Warren R. Griffis c/o City Barber Shop 127 West Broadway Fort Meade, Florida 33841
The Issue The issues in these cases concern several administrative complaints brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Respondent. In DOAH Case No. 89-4454/DPR Case No. 0093417, Respondent is alleged to have employed a number of individuals to practice as barber instructors who have not been licensed by the State of Florida. In addition, allegations were placed that Respondent had not met sanitation standards required by law; that barbering students and instructor trainees were not under the constant supervision of a licensed instructor; that insufficient numbers of instructors were provided based upon the preceding months' average daily attendance; that a current inspection rating sheet, as well as a copy of the sanitation rules were not displayed; that a full-time instructor statement of employment was not available; that students/school contracts were not available and that a drinking fountain of bottled water needed to be refilled, as revealed in an inspection of January 7, 1988. In DOAH Case No. 89-4453/DPR Case No. 0097551 pertaining to an inspection of April 8, 1988, Respondent is said to have employed a Calvin Gates to practice as a barber instructor without Gates having been issued a license from the State of Florida. Finally, DOAH Case No. 89- 4452/DPR Case No. 0108179 alleges that by inspection of November 17, 1988, it was revealed that Joseph Kaufmann had been employed to teach barbering by Respondent and was operating on an expired barber instructor's license, which had expired approximately August 1, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed barber school in the State of Florida which operated at 5863 University Boulevard W. and 4416 Brentwood Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida, at times significant to these administrative complaints. On January 7, 1988, Gail Hand, an inspector for Petitioner, inspected the Brentwood Avenue facility. This inspection was a routine quarterly inspection. The Jacksonville, Florida, operations of the Roffler Hair Design College are 50% owned by Stewart Arnett Smith, Sr. and 50% owned by Stewart Arnett Smith, Jr., his son. On January 7, 1988, Hand was accompanied in her inspection by Cheryl Baker, whom she understood to be the manager based upon Baker's remarks. In fact, Baker was a secretary; and the actual manager of the facility was an individual named Mattz, who was out ill on this date. Mattz, at that time, was a licensed barber instructor. Neither of the owners were in attendance at the commencement of the inspection. Arnett Smith, Jr. had left to go to his other facility on University Boulevard. He was summoned back to the Brentwood Avenue barber school to participate in the inspection. He arrived approximately 20 to 40 minutes later. During the inspection, Velma Chambers was observed by Hand to be seated in a classroom while a student spoke to the class. At this time, Chambers was an instructor trainee. She had entered into a contract with Respondent on May 14, 1987 to be completed by November 14, 1987 pertaining to 600 hours of course instruction directed toward her becoming a barber instructor. Nonetheless, beyond the date of November 14, 1987, she was still at the school in a capacity, which was other than a licensed instructor in Florida, and under these facts is found to have been a barber instructor trainee on this date. In addition, a work schedule for instructors at the facility, be they licensed barber instructors or instructor trainees, showed Chambers to be filling the role of instructor at the school. Although this schedule had not been prepared by the owners, it was provided to Hand by the younger Smith upon his arrival at Brentwood Avenue on the inspection date. Baker had also pointed Chambers out as being one of the instructors in the facility. Calvin Gates, who was on the floor in the Brentwood Avenue facility, was pointed out by Baker as the instructor on the floor. The floor is where services are given to the public, as distinguished from the classroom, where theory is taught. Gates was not a licensed barber instructor in Florida on the date in question. He, too, had entered into a contract to receive course work toward his instructor's license. His contract with Respondent commenced on September 15, 1987 to be consummated on March 15, 1988. A Dave Dison was found in a room where mannequins are kept and the students are allowed to practice. Dison was pointed out by Baker as being certified for the new students, and Baker commented that Dison's license was at the University Boulevard facility. This is taken to mean that Dison was a licensed barber instructor, whose license was not available at the Brentwood Avenue facility. Having considered the remarks of Baker made to Hand and the testimony of the younger Smith at hearing, it is unclear whether his employment was that of licensed instructor or as instructor trainee waiting a license examination to become a barber instructor. In either case, he had not been licensed by the State of Florida as a barber instructor on the date of the inspection. His name does not appear in the schedule of instructors; but on the date of inspection, he was observed instructing new students using mannequins. According to the investigative report, which comments are credited, the younger Smith admitted to Hand that Dison did not have a Florida license and that Dison had commented to Smith that he, Dison, was having problems with his license in Mississippi. Subsequent to the time of inspection, Dison was dismissed as an employee of Respondent. Terry B. Collier and Patricia Frances Wilson were shown on the schedule to have instructor duties related to the floor duty for Collier and classroom duty for Wilson. Shirley Johnson was shown as having unspecified duties from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Thursday. None of these persons were in attendance on the date of inspection, nor did they have barber instructor licenses at that time. It can be fairly inferred that they were considered by Respondent to be instructor trainees. It cannot be fairly inferred that any knowledge which they might impart on some date other than the inspection date would be in a setting in which the ratio of students to licensed instructors was not in keeping with legal requirement or that they were allowed to pursue their duties as trainee instructors without appropriate supervision from licensed instructors. The process of teaching people to become instructors contemplates the opportunity for those persons to also instruct while undergoing their training. To be successful in an allegation of impropriety by Respondent, proof has to be offered that these persons were, on some date, allowed to instruct without appropriate supervision and in a situation in which the ratio of licensed instructors to students was inadequate. That was not shown as it pertains to the three trainee instructors not in attendance at the time of inspection. The fact that the younger Smith told Hand that he thought the instructor trainees could teach students and be counted as part of the required number of instructors does not change this impression. In addition to Mattz, who was out ill, an individual whose name is Parks was scheduled to work at the Brentwood Avenue facility on the inspection date. Parks was a licensed instructor at the time. He had left the building for some undisclosed reason before the time of the inspection. A Mr. Lewis was also a licensed instructor, who was scheduled to work at the Brentwood Avenue facility on that date; but he was not due in the facility until 1:00 p.m. and had not arrived at the time of the inspection. Although the younger Smith has an instructor's license, he was not performing the function of instructor on the inspection date and was not listed on the schedule of instructors. Effectively, this meant that although students were undergoing instruction, that instruction was being provided by persons who were not licensed instructors and under the supervision of licensed instructors. On the date of the inspection, Baker calculated the average daily attendance to be 105 students. She had some difficulty in arriving at this figure. The younger Smith spoke to Hand on January 11, 1988 by telephone in which he suggested that that figure of 105 should be corrected to 56, based upon some mistake made by the secretary. On January 15, 1988, a letter bearing the signature of Cheryl Baker was written concerning the average daily attendance in which it was reported that she had stated the attendance as 90 and that the correct daily attendance should be 59. Whatever the true figure, students were in attendance and they were not receiving instruction from licensed barber instructors. The inspection also revealed that the current inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules had not been posted or displayed. The explanation by Smith was that the facility had been recently painted and that they had not been put back in their usual place. Hand asked for a copy of the missing inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules but does not recall whether she was shown a copy of these items. The reason why the items pertaining to the current inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules were not produced, based upon Hand's recollection, was that they could not be found. On April 8, 1988, Hand returned to the Brentwood Avenue facility for further inspection and observed Gates teaching. On that occasion, he was introduced by Mattz as the other instructor on duty, with Mattz being one of the two instructors. Seventeen students were present at that time. Two instructors would have been needed to offer instruction to that many students. The average daily attendance on that date was 72 students. On that date, Gates was not licensed by the State of Florida as a barber instructor. On a later date, Hand spoke to the younger Smith about the inspection. On this occasion, Smith changed his point of view from the situation in which he had commented at the first inspection of January 17, 1988. In that earlier inspection, he had stated that he thought that trainees could teach students and be counted as the required number of instructors. In the discussion regarding the April 8, 1988 inspection, he indicated that he did not count instructor trainees as instructors and that Hand must have misunderstood his comments during the previous inspection. On the occasion of the inspection of April 8, 1988, Hand was provided confirmation of Gates' employment, which stated that he was employed as an instructor at the school. The younger Smith tried to explain the circumstance with Gates on the basis that Gates had already taken his barber instructor test and that he had been notified that he had failed and that he had to retake the test and had appealed it with success. All of this information is hearsay and not subject to use for fact finding. Regardless of the true situation of Gates' attempt to gain his barber instructor license, he did not have a license on April 8, 1988 and should not have been allowed to instruct and be counted in the census of licensed instructors. On November 17, 1988, Hand conducted a routine inspection of the University Boulevard West facility. She found Joseph Kaufmann practicing with an expired instructor's license which was displayed. Kaufmann told Hand that he had renewed his license in August of 1988 but that it was returned with a request for an additional $50.00 late fee. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence is a form dated August 2, 1988 pertaining to this license and states that the renewal and fee had been postmarked after the expiration date of July 31, 1988. As a consequence, the basic fee of $50.00 was being returned with the expectation that the request for relicensure should be resubmitted with a total amount of $100.00 being paid, $50.00 for the basic license and $50.00 for a penalty and for reinstatement. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3A admitted into evidence is another form dated December 1, 1988 from Petitioner which states that the renewal and check in the amount of $100.00 was being returned because the request was being processed and the enclosed check was, not required. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence is a copy of postmarks of August 1, 1988 purportedly from Kaufmann, and November 29, 1988, again, purportedly from Kaufmann. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence is a letter from Mr. Tunnicliff, as chief attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation, addressed to Kaufmann, in which it is indicated that any action against Kaufmann was being dismissed associated with the complaint that Kaufmann was practicing with an expired instructor's license. It indicates that although probable cause was believed to exist, that Kaufmann had violated practice standards, in light of the circumstances, it was determined to dismiss the action. This is said to have been based upon the perception that while Kaufmann was practicing with an expired license because of miscommunication between Kaufmann and the Barbers Board, there had been a delay in the renewal of the license. Respondent was notified by telephone on November 22, 1988 concerning the Kaufmann situation. The younger Smith told Hand in that telephone conversation that Kaufmann had renewed his license and had shown Respondent's representative, the younger Smith, a copy of a money order received. Kaufmann had told Hand that on August 1, 1988, he had resubmitted his basic fee with an additional $50.00. Kaufmann showed Hand a copy of a money order receipt with no date. He did not have any correspondence available that he had received from Petitioner concerning his renewal. Hand checked with the office of the Barbers Board on November 21, 1988 and was told that the license had not been renewed and no money had been received. Kaufmann told Hand on the inspection date that because of some problems with mail, they received his money and sent it back because it was late and said that he owed another $50.00 which coincides with the remarks of Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. By contrast, in the conversation of November 21, 1988 between Hand and the Barbers Board, Hand was being told that the Barbers Board had received no money. The younger Smith, with the indication of a money order being sent by Kaufmann to renew his barber instructor license and a remark that he had sent his money in and that he had not received the license renewal back, assumed that things were acceptable. The younger Smith also took solace in the fact that there are problems at times with license renewals, which have to be rectified. Nonetheless, it is evident that Kaufmann was operating as a licensed instructor on November 17, 1988 without having received his license renewal and under the auspice of a license that was being displayed and clearly showed that it was no longer in effect.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts and the Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines Respondent in the amount of $1,250.00 and entering a letter of reprimand in the disciplinary file associated with DOAH Case No. 89-4452/DPR Case No. 0108179. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 89-4452, 89-4453, 89-4454 The following disposition is made of the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found, except for its reference to the inspection date as being April 13, 1988. The inspection date was April 8, 1988. Paragraph 5 is subordinate to facts found as far as it is stated in the unnumbered page 4. It appears that some of the Proposed Recommended Order is missing to include the balance of the fact finding at an unnumbered page 5. Respondent's Facts The facts pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4452 are subordinate to facts found. The facts pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4453 are rejected. The documented information related to the Calvin Gates contract, which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence, shows the conclusion of his training on March 15, 1988, before the inspection of April 8, 1988. The relevant fact is that Gates was not a licensed instructor on April 8, 1988. The comments pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4454, which refer to a letter of September 1, 1988 from Robert C. Kent, Esquire, have been taken into account in the fact finding in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Stewart Arnett Smith, Jr. 5110 University Boulevard West Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Samuel L. Ferguson, Executive Director Department of Education State Board of Independent Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Trade and Business Schools 209 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Barbers Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert C. Kent, Esquire 1532 Atlantic Boulevard Post Office Box 10174 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner holds a license to practice barbering which expired on July 31, 1978. At the time of the expiration of Petitioner's license Section 476.154, Florida Statutes was in effect which permitted licensees who retired from the practice of barbering to have their licenses restored upon the payment of a required restoration fee. Pursuant to Rule 21C-7.01, Florida Administrative Code, "retirement was defined to require written notification to the Barber Board and acknowledgement by the Board of said retirement. Rule 21C-7.01, Florida Administrative Code was promulated in conjunction with Rule 21C-7.02, Florida Administrative Code. rule 21c-7.02, Florida Administrative Code, encountered difficulties when questions were raised by the staff of the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee concerning the statutory authority of the Board to enact the rule. Both rules were filed with the Secretary of State on October 23, 1978, but never published in response to a request by the Board. Subsequent to the filing of the rules, the Board attempted to resolve the conflict between the Committee and the board over the rule. As a result of the Board's inability to resolve the conflict, the rules were repealed in June, 1980 without having been published in the Florida Administrative Code. At the time of the expiration of his license, Petitioner was of the belief that if he retired he could have his license reinstated upon payment of a restoration fee. The Petitioner did not notify the Board of his retirement nor did he receive notification from the Board that subsequent changes in Chapter 476, Florida Statutes would be interpreted by the Board to require reexamination of barbers holding expired licenses. The Petitioner has been a practicing barber for approximately 20 years and desires to again actively pursue his profession.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of barbering and the inspection of barbershops in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 476, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Archibald was licensed as a barber in the state of Florida under license number BB8890016. At all times material hereto, Fresh Cut Barbershop ("barbershop") was licensed as a barbershop in the state of Florida under license number 1077801. At all times material hereto, Archibald was an owner and operator of the barbershop. On February 9, 2012, the barbershop was located within a shopping plaza at 6574 Northwest Selvitz Road, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On February 9, 2012, a routine inspection of the barbershop was conducted by Ms. Yvonne Grutka, a trained and experienced inspector employed by Petitioner. Ms. Grutka has been employed by Petitioner as an Environmental Health Specialist for approximately 17 years, performing approximately 1,200-1,400 annual inspections. Due to the nature of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, the physical layout of the barbershop, including the specific locations of the front entrance, work stations, and waiting area, is important to a clear understanding and resolution of the issues. However, insufficient evidence was presented at hearing in this regard. Moreover, insufficient evidence was presented as to the number of barbers who worked at the barbershop (and thus number of personal licenses); the identities of the barbers; where specifically within the barbershop they worked; and whether the barbers who worked at the barbershop were independent contractors or employees of the business. The scant evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that on February 9, 2012, the premises upon which the barbershop was physically located was leased from the owner of the shopping plaza. A separate beauty supply business, which was owned by Archibald's ex-wife, was located at the front of the leased premises. The barbershop was located in a smaller area at the back of the leased premises. Both businesses were accessible to customers through a single entry door at the front of the leased space where the beauty supply store was located. Petitioner failed to clearly and convincingly establish that the barbershop was open for business during the February 9, 2012, inspection. During Ms. Grutka's February 9, 2012, inspection, the only persons present at the barbershop were Archibald and another unidentified barber. No evidence was presented that this "other barber" was affiliated with the barbershop in any way. No physical description of this person or his/her clothing was provided. It could be that this barber was just visiting, and was unaffiliated with the barbershop. No customers were present. The time of commencement and duration of the inspection is unknown. On the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, the property upon which the barbershop was located was in foreclosure. As a result, Archibald was planning to vacate the premises and move the barbershop to another location. During the inspection, boxes of items were on the floor, and other items were removed from walls, evidencing Archibald's intent to vacate the premises. Archibald was present on the date of the inspection. Archibald testified he is unsure whether the barbershop was open for business on February 9, 2012, because of his intent to vacate the building. On rebuttal, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" whether she "saw boxes or not." When asked specifically whether she recalled Archibald saying that he was in the process of moving, Ms. Grutka merely replied: "No. He may have. I really don't recall."1/ With respect to the allegation regarding the improper display of personal licenses, Ms. Grutka testified on direct examination that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe personal licenses posted with both the photograph and lamination. She testified that the licenses had the photograph or the lamination on "it, but one of the items was missing." However, no evidence was presented by Petitioner on direct examination as to the specific location of the alleged lack of personal licenses, or the number or identities of the licensees for which personal licenses were purportedly not properly displayed. It was only on cross-examination that Ms. Grutka referred to Archibald's personal license, at which time she testified merely that she recalled seeing his personal license located in the "back" of the premises. Archibald testified that he believes the license was displayed in the barbershop area, which was located in the "back end" of the building. Importantly, Ms. Grutka never testified specifically that Archibald's license was improperly displayed in any way. In sum, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's personal license, or, for that matter, the personal licenses of any other barbers who worked at the barbershop were improperly displayed. With respect to the issues of the display of the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, and most recent inspection report, Ms. Grutka testified that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe a barbershop license displayed visibly within view of the "front door," or the rules of sanitation, health, and safety visibly within view of the "front door" or "waiting area." Nor did Ms. Grutka observe the most recent inspection form prior to the February 9, 2012, inspection displayed within view of the "front entrance" or the "waiting area." According to Ms. Grutka, she did not observe the barbershop license and rules of sanitation, health, and safety, anywhere at the barbershop on the day of the inspection. However, Ms. Grutka's testimony is unreliable and cannot be credited because of insufficient evidence of the physical layout of the premises. In fact, Ms. Grutka testified that she could not recall whether the "waiting area" was in the front of the building, the back of the building, or in both areas. Moreover, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" if the most recent inspection report was posted anywhere else in the barbershop. The unreliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is further demonstrated through the following exchange, which occurred during Archibald's cross-examination of her: Q: Questions for - - You said you never seen any of our license or anything in the back end? A: Yes, they were up - - not in the back. Your personal licenses I remember, you know, were in the back, but I don't recall the inspection sheet and stuff being moved to the back of the shop " Further undercutting the reliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is her statement that the rule regarding the display of a barbershop license requires that the license be visibly within view of the front door. Contrary to Ms. Grutka's testimony, rule 61G3-19.009(2) states that "[t]he shop license shall be displayed within view of the front entrance or in the waiting area." Apparently, Ms. Grutka did not even consider whether the license was displayed in the "waiting area," because she could not identify the location of the "waiting area." Moreover, Ms. Grutka testified that she wrote in the report that the shop license was not "anywhere to be found in the shop." However, a review of the inspection report does not support her testimony. In fact, a section within the inspection report titled: "Remarks," was left blank. Nothing was written in the inspection report indicating that the shop license was nowhere in the barbershop. In sum, there is insufficient clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, or most recent inspection report were not properly displayed. Finally, during the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka testified she did not observe a recent sticker on the portable fire extinguisher indicating that it had been inspected. According to Ms. Grutka, portable fire extinguishers must be inspected on an annual basis, "as per the Fire Marshall, and they would have a sticker on them indicating that they had been inspected." At hearing, Archibald did not admit to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rather, Archibald persuasively explained that if personal and business licenses and the rules of sanitation and most recent inspection report were not displayed during the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was because the property was in foreclosure, items had been removed from the walls, items were placed in boxes, and he was planning on moving the barbershop to another location. In fact, the barbershop vacated the premises sometime in 2013, and relocated to another shopping plaza. At the conclusion of the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka prepared and signed an inspection report indicating the violations noted in the report, and she informed Archibald of the alleged violations. Archibald acknowledged his receipt of the report. No evidence was presented indicating that a follow-up inspection of the barbershop was ever scheduled or occurred. No citation has ever been issued for the February 9, 2012, inspection. No evidence was presented establishing a prior history of persistent or flagrant violations of the same nature as those alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The evidence at hearing established that even if personal and business licenses, the rules of sanitation, and the most recent inspection report were not properly displayed on the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was an isolated incident.2/ Importantly, the facts adduced at hearing do not clearly and convincingly establish that Archibald personally engaged in any misconduct resulting in the five charges which are the subject of the Administrative Complaint. The evidence failed to establish, clearly and convincingly, that Archibald personally committed, or is personally culpable for, a disciplinary offense which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty on all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2014.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent practiced barbering without a current active license in violation of Sections 476.204(1)(a) and (h), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of barbering pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapter 476, Florida Statutes. Ricardo Blanco, Respondent herein, during times material hereto, was not licensed to practice barbering in Florida. On September 30, 1988, Steve Yovine, an inspector employed by Petitioner, Board of Barbers, made a routine inspection of Vic's Barber Shop located at 9010 Hickory Circle in Tampa, Florida. At that time, Respondent was practicing barbering and had been so doing since approximately September 29, 1988. 1/ Since Inspector Yovine's inspection of Vic's Barber Shop on September 30, 1988, Respondent has not practiced barbering without a license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions - of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $100 which shall be payable within 30 days of entry of the Final Order entered herein. 2/ DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 18th day of July, 1989.
