Findings Of Fact Wanda Forbess is an American woman. She is the president of the Petitioner corporation, Center Office Products, Inc. She owns 5l percent of that corporation's outstanding stock. The stock is full voting stock and there are no agreements in existence or anticipated which would cause any change in the percentage of ownership of Wanda Forbess, nor any change in the voting power of her stock. The Petitioner corporation and Wanda Forbess has no affiliation or relationship with any other business and Wanda Forbess is not an employee of any other business. The net worth of the Petitioner as of the date of hearing is less than one million dollars. It has also been stipulated that the Petitioner, that is, Wanda Forbess, has been performing a useful business function and operating the Petitioner's business since 1981. Wanda Forbess is the mother of Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess and the wife of Thomas D. Forbess. In 1981 her children were almost out of school, with her youngest child being about to enter college. She decided she wanted to start her own business. She had been active as a homemaker, a volunteer and active member of civic organizations. She decided to enter the office supply retail business in 1981 because of the low initial investment required due to the presence of two wholesale suppliers in Jacksonville who could supply goods for inventory on a rapid basis. She also chose to enter this business because there were no particular special skills, training or licenses required and because she knew something about it, since her husband worked for twenty-five years in one phase of the business, that of sales of paper products. This decision being made, Ms. Forbess approached her sons, Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess, to persuade them to enter into the business with her. They agreed to join her in the venture and she set about to form the Petitioner corporation. She desired to incorporate in order to limit the liability which she and her sons would be exposed to in operating the business. She retained an attorney to incorporate the business, but paid no particular attention herself concerning how the shares were to be issued and held or as to the manner of appointment of the members of the board of the directors. She simply followed her attorney's instructions who advised her to do the "standard type" of incorporation. The corporation estab- lished by her attorney provided, in its by-laws, that there would be three directors. Wanda, Ray and Thomas Forbess were each named as directors since they were the only three individuals involved with the Petitioner at its formation. The attorney also issued stock certificates for 200 shares each to the three directors. Wanda Forbess was appointed as president and chief executive officer of the Petitioner corporation. This was because the formation of the business and the company was Mrs. Forbess' idea and she had provided more than five times the amount of capital of each of the other two owners, her sons. In fact, she had provided $11,000 of her own money as initial capital and her two sons provided $2,000 each. Notwithstanding their equal ownership status and the equal vote each of the three has on the Board of Directors, as well as the requirement in the bylaws that a majority vote of the Board is controlling, Mrs. Forbess has been in control of the Petitioner corporation's operations from the day of its inception. Her sons do not question that control and established the fact of it in their own testimony at the hearing. The vice- president is Raymond D. Forbess and the secretary treasurer is Thomas J. Forbess. The bylaws provide that the property and business of the corporation is managed by its Board of Directors and that a majority of those directors shall be necessary and sufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The act of the majority of the directors present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be deemed to be the act of the board. It is also provided in the bylaws that the holders of the majority of shares of stock may remove a director at any time, with or without cause, at a duly called meeting. The president of the Petitioner is empowered to call such a meeting at any time. Any vacancy occurring as a result of removal of any director by the majority shareholders may be filled by the affirmative vote of the majority of remaining directors, even if less than a quorum shall be present. Directors are not required to be shareholders. Therefore, as a holder of 51 percent of the shares of the Petitioner, Wanda Forbess has control over the board of directors by the power to elect or remove any director by voting shares accordingly at a meeting which she may call at any time, with or without notice, as the president of the Petitioner corporation. Replacement directors could then be appointed by her vote alone and could be any person she elects, including, for example, an employee over who she has authority and who she may direct to vote a certain way. In any event, from 1981 through 1987, the Petitioner grew from a company with three employees to a company of 18 employees and more than $280,000 gross monthly sales. During this time, the Petitioner enjoyed some State of Florida contract business. Some time in 1987, Mrs. Forbess became aware that she would soon be unable to continue doing business with the state because her business was not a certified minority business enterprise. In fact, however, the Petitioner had been, from its inception, an American woman-controlled corporation in actual practice. On June 1, 1987, Mrs. Forbess directed her sons to convey sufficient stock to her so that she could become a 51 percent shareholder of the Petitioner corporation. This transfer was done to comply with section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, concerning the definition of "minority business enterprise." It was also done to formally reflect what had been the case, as a practical matter, since the inception of the corporation: that Wanda Forbess controlled the Petitioner corporation. The company by that time had significant value reflected in the value of its stock, but neither son required payment for his stock which he conveyed to Mrs. Forbess. They considered that she was the controlling owner of the corporation from its inception anyway due to the fact that the business was her idea and that she had contributed by far the most significant amount of initial capital. Mrs. Forbess spends a majority of her time conducting the financial affairs of the Petitioner. She is more familiar and more involved with the financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation then any other owner, officer, director or employee. In that capacity, she sets all the salaries, including the salaries of her sons and her husband. All salaries are set completely at the discretion of Mrs. Forbess and always have been. She pays her two sons and her husband a higher salary than she pays herself because their financial requirements are greater, but the salient point here is that she is the manager with the discretion to set their salaries. In 1985, after the Petitioner had been operating successfully for four years, Thomas J. Forbess, the husband of Mrs. Forbess, retired from his position with Jim Walter Paper Company after 25 years of employment with that firm. Prior to that time he had no involvement with the formation, operation or management of the Petitioner corporation. He has never had an ownership interest in the Petitioner. He is an employee of the corporation and assists in some of the operations, including preparation and submittal of bids for some of the work the corporation undertakes. Mrs. Forbess controls the purchase of goods, equipment and business inventory and services used and needed in the day- to-day operation of the business. She frequently purchases significant items used in the business, such as computers, trucks, and postage machines, as well as inventory. In addition to this, the major purchases made by the business by any co-owner or employee must be made only with her approval. Evidence was offered showing the lease agreements and notes evidencing that corporate debts related to large purchases were signed by all corporate officers as a basis for an attempt to show that decisions are made by "consensus" or are joint decisions. However, the fact that lenders and lessors require all corporate officers to sign documents evidencing leases or debts does not mean each corporate officer had an equal part to play in making the decision involved. The record is replete with evidence and testimony from employees and the other owners that Wanda Forbess has a veto power on all decisions concerning purchases, loans, leases of real property and every other major business decision the Petitioner confronts. Further, the fact that discussions are had amongst the owners and officers of the business prior to making major decisions is really a sound business practice and does not mean that one of the owners, directors or officers does not have final authority to make a binding decision. The person who has final authority for such major decisions is Wanda Forbess. Mrs. Forbess also has the authority to hire and dismiss employees, a requirement of subsection 3(b) of Rule 13-8.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. She herself has interviewed employees from time to time and also has final authority to approve all hiring and discharge decisions or to veto them in those instances where she has delegated that authority. She controls which professional services are obtained by the Petitioner corporation, as shown by her decision to discontinue the services of the former company accountant. Indeed, she has delegated some of the hiring processes, given the fact that the Petitioner corporation has grown to be a business with 18 employees. That however, is a normal, acceptable business decision. The delegation of the advertising of a position, the interviewing of prospective employees and the conveying of offers of employment to prospective employees in no way indicates that the delegator does not have the final authority to hire or dismiss the employees. Wanda Forbess also controls all financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation. She thus has unsurpassed knowledge in relation to the other owners, officers and directors, of the financial structure and operations of the business. In fact, the bulk of her time spent working for the Petitioner, corporation since its inception, has been in the field of financial matters. She makes the decisions concerning debt to be incurred by the Petitioner, and approves any major expenditure, without which approval expenditures may not be made. It is significant that Mrs. Forbess has veto authority over the extension of credit to customers and establishment of credit accounts by customers. One instance was described by Jeannine Silcox and Raymond Forbess concerning Raymond Forbess' attempt to open an account to service a particular customer on a credit basis. Mrs. Forbess opposed that procedure and ordered that the account not be opened. The account was not opened. This demonstrates effectively that not only does Mrs. Forbess control the financial affairs of the company, but also wields ultimate authority amongst the co-owners of the Petitioner. Additionally, it is undisputed that Mrs. Forbess writes the vast majority of checks on the Petitioner's two checking accounts, in terms of the requirement, at subsection 3(D) of the above-cited rule, that she control the accounts of the business. She estimates that she writes 97 percent of the checks and there is no evidence to refute that estimate. Thomas J. and Raymond B. Forbess are each authorized signatories on the accounts, but their names are simply there as a matter of convenience and the only instances in which they sign checks are when there is an immediate need for the check to be paid and Mrs. Forbess is unavailable to sign herself. There is no question that Mrs. Forbess is the ultimate authority controlling the Petitioner's bank accounts. In order to comply with subsection 3(e) of the above cited rule, the minority owner must demonstrate capability, knowledge and experience in making decisions concerning the business involved. At the time of the business's inception, neither Mrs. Forbess nor her co-owner sons had the capability, knowledge or experience required to make many of the decisions concerning the retail office supply retail business. Over seven years of operation however, Mrs. Forbess has actively supervised and managed the business of the Petitioner and has developed to a high degree those attributes, in making decisions involved in operating that business successfully. She has delegated certain aspects of the company's business to the supervision of her sons. Thomas J. Forbess, for example, is involved in developing additional retail operations. Raymond B. Forbess is more actively involved in the delivery of merchandise to customers and the monitoring of customer accounts, as well as maintaining and accounting for inventory. Nonetheless, neither of the other owners effects any significant decisions without consulting Mrs. Forbess first and gaining her approval or veto. Through this supervision and control over the past seven years, as well as her current direct involvement in managing the Petitioner's affairs, Mrs. Forbess has developed the capability, knowledge and experience required to make decisions regarding the office supply business involved herein. Her operational and managerial capabilities are demonstrated by the fact that under her leadership the business started with three employees and has grown to an 18 employee business with gross sales in the neighborhood of $280,000 per month in just over seven years. Finally, Mrs. Forbess has displayed independence and initiative in conducting all major operations and details of the Petitioner since its inception, (as required by subsection (f) of the above rule). Although she has done little bid negotiating directly, she has the ability to do so and has some experience in that activity. Further, bid proposals are submitted to her for approval and are not made without her knowledge and assent. Further, she herself negotiates leases and other contracts on behalf of the Petitioner.
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 matters concerned herein, either the Department of Management Services, or its successor, the Commission of Minority Economic and Business Development, was the state agency in Florida responsible for certification of Minority Business Enterprises in this state. Johnston was started by Mrs. Cloversettle's grandfather and operated by him and his three sons, including Conrad Johnston, Mrs. Cloversettle's father, for many years. As a child and young woman, Mrs. Cloversettle worked at the place of business in differing capacities and learned something of the business operation. At some point in time, she married Mr. Cloversettle who was and has been an employee of the firm, and over the years, he operated much of the equipment used in the business. Mrs. Cloversettle is also a licensed cosmetologist, and owns and operates a beauty salon through a corporation she owns with her husband. He does much of the handyman work at that shop and she works, part time, as a cosmetologist. Most of her time, however, is occupied with the affairs of Johnston. There are currently 60 shares of common stock issued in Johnston Lithograph & Engraving, Inc.. Seven and three quarters shares are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Cloversettle. Three and three-quarters shares came from her father, and she acquired four additional shares at the time she bought the business. Three and three quarters shares are owned by Mrs. Cloversettle's aunt, Ms. Sims, who lives in North Carolina; fifteen shares are held in the name of her father, Conrad Johnston; and eighteen and three-quarters shares each are held by his two brothers, Bert and Don. Ms. Sims takes no income from Johnston, does not participate in the management of the company, and plays no role in it other than as share owner. At one point, Mr. Cloversettle owned a one-half interest in the four shares his wife got at the time of purchase, but she considered herself the owner in that they were titled jointly only "for simplicity", just as the house and their bank accounts are also owned jointly. On April 26, 1994, after the initial denial of Petitioner's application for MBE certification, the joint ownership was terminated and the shares registered in Ms. Cloversettle's name only without any exchange of consideration therefor. Much the same pertains to the company bank accounts. Before the denial, both George and Brenda Cloversettle could sign company checks. Since then, however, George Cloversettle has been removed as an authorized signatory on company accounts. The shares owned by Ms. Cloversettle's father and his brothers, Donald, Bertram, are presently held as "security" for the payment of the purchase of Johnston by Mrs. Cloversettle. The shares are not voted and are held in escrow under an escrow agreement. A stock pledge agreement, dated February 7, 1986, to which the Cloversettles were not parties, produced after the hearing, pertains only to the corporation and Conrad and Margaret Johnston. Its terms, somewhat confusing, can best be interpreted as providing that upon default in payment, the stock held in escrow would revert to the original holder as titled on the face of the certificate or, at the option of the original owner, be sold. At the time of denial, the shares owned by Donald and Bertram had not been properly endorsed into the escrow but this was done prior to formal hearing when, by affidavit dated August 1, 1994, the escrow agent indicated both Donald's and Bertram's shares were subject to the 1986 escrow agreement. The 1986 agreement prohibits the issuance of any new or additional shares of stock until the purchase obligation is paid off. This provision may have been violated when the four additional shares were issued to the Cloversettles in 1990. The shares owned by both Bertram and Donald were the subject of a stock sale agreement for $93,000.00 for each block of eighteen and three-quarters shares. Both the date of the agreement and the signatures of the parties are not evidenced on the documents, however, but it appears Bertram deposited fifteen of his shares with the Tampa 1st National Bank in 1975, some fifteen years prior to the Cloversettle's 1990 purchase of the company. Conrad Johnston entered into a purchase agreement in 1985 with the original owners which did not include the Cloversettles. His fifteen shares were signed into escrow on February 6, 1986. These discrepancies in capital ownership were not clarified at hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Cloversettle entered into the agreement to buy the company from the Johnstons in 1990 for a purchase price of $300,000. Though in an earlier deposition, Mrs. Cloversettle indicated only about $3,000 of the purchase price had been paid, which money allegedly came from the proceeds of an insurance policy loan and a mortgage on their home, at hearing, she testified $30,000 had been paid, all of which came from the mortgage on their home. No payments on the obligation are currently being made by the Cloversettles because each of the original owners executed an agreement deferring payment until the company is financially able to make regular payments. The minutes of a special shareholder's meeting held on July 8, 1994, reflect the above-noted Johnston brothers' certificates were surrendered for cancellation in July, 1990. However, the minutes also note that the sale and redemption of the certificates was subject to an escrow pursuant to the February, 1986 escrow agreement which, in November, 1993, was affixed to an amended agreement naming Edward Hill as Escrow Agent, which referred to the Johnston brothers not as stockholders but as secured creditors. Because of the complex manipulation of the shares and their status, it is impossible to determine the relative ownership of the parties. Petitioner has not established with any degree of clarity that Brenda Cloversettle, though a minority owner, has actual and real ownership of at least 51 percent of the company equity free of any residuary or reversionary interest which could divest her of her 51 percent ownership. The shares covered by the escrow agreement, while classified by Petitioners as treasury stock, cannot legitimately be so considered since it is still in the name of the original owners and does not become property of the company until the obligation incurred for its purchase is satisfied. While, as noted previously, no additional payments have been made on the purchase price, the company maintains a life insurance policy on each Johnston which Ms. Cloversettle indicates is to be used to pay off the outstanding debt upon their respective deaths. She admits however, there is no document requiring the insurance proceeds to be used that way, and no independent evidence of the policies' existence was forthcoming. The primary business of Johnston is commercial printing/graphics. Ms. Cloversettle is the sole director of the corporation whose bylaws, as of July 8, 1994, require all directors to be minority persons. She has asserted, and it was not disproved by evidence to the contrary, that she has the primary role in decision-making concerning the company's business transactions and she is the sole person required to execute any transaction related documents. She has final authority as to all corporate decisions and is not required to consult with anyone else when corporate decisions are being made, though she may do so. Johnston does not keep inventory on hand but purchases supplies necessary on a job driven basis. According to Ms. Cloversettle, she controls the purchase of inventory and determines the need and appropriateness of equipment rentals or purchases. She seems to be familiar with and to understand the use of the products utilized by the company in its daily operations. She has a fundamental knowledge of the equipment used in the company's operation and, though she may not be fully qualified to operate every piece, can operate some of it. Though she periodically consults with her husband regarding business operations, she is not required to do so and has the responsibility for the hiring and management of employees. She alleges she sets employment policies, wages, benefits, and employments conditions at the company without the need to coordinate her actions with anyone. However, in a phone interview with the Department's representative, in February, 1994, Ms. Cloversettle had difficulty correctly answering many of the technical questions she was asked at hearing. Mr. Cloversettle, who has worked with the firm for approximately twenty years, is its key employee in computer graphics and serves as production manager and vice-president. Without doubt, along with Mr. Ezell, the firm's printer, he is primarily responsible for the daily plant operations, supervising the other employees, planning daily work flow, and insuring the vendors who supply the needed raw materials do so in a timely fashion. Ms. Cloversettle is college trained and, as noted previously, a licensed cosmetologist. She has done bookkeeping for the firm and acted as office manager, but has no formal training in printing, or graphics, other than years of observation as she grew up with the operation when it was operated by her father. Her primary hands-on experience is in book bindery and shop cleaning but she can run some of the smaller, less exotic equipment. She is not familiar with all the terms and duties involved in the operation of this business and could not accomplish them all. She acknowledges she spends most of her time in the office. She claims to be solely responsible for the financial affairs of the company and is the only one currently authorized to sign company checks. This situation, as has been noted, is of but recent origin, however. Nonetheless, Mr. Cloversettle continues to remain subject to equal debt responsibility with Ms. Cloversettle because of his prior co-signing of risk documents relative to loans taken by the company prior to the application, denial and hearing. Ms. Cloversettle's testimony regarding her method of evaluating the company's ability to perform potential jobs creates the impression that she is aware of the company's limitations and its abilities. She does not run the cameras or the presses and she need not do so. She does not solicit business but she hires a salesperson to do so and has the authority and capability to evaluate and accept or reject the work brought in. In the last two quarters of 1993, according to company payroll records, Mr. Cloversettle was paid approximately $6,426.00 while Ms. Cloversettle was paid only $2,650.00. However, after the application was denied, the ratio was changed dramatically to where she now earns $180.00 per week, and he, only $52.95.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Johnston Lithograph & Engraving, Inc.'s request for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1994, 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 15th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes 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: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted as to the shares of Ms. Cloversettle and Ms. Sims. However, this does not indicate acceptance of the proposition that there are no other shareholders, or that the transfer of shares from Mr. Cloversettle to his wife was bona fide. 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted. However, as noted in the body of the Recommended Order, it is impossible to clearly define the actual status of the brothers' and father's retained shares or whether they have the potential to dilute Ms. Cloversettle's shares. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Not proven. 9. Not proven. 10. - 12. Accepted, but based entirely on unsupported testimony of Ms. Cloversettle. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted, but based entirely on unsupported testimony of Ms. Cloversettle. 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 22. & 23. Accepted. 24. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 25. Not an appropriate Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: First four sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance accepted as a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Not a proper Finding of Fact but more a comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted but more as a comment on the state of the evidence. - 12. Accepted and incorporated more briefly herein. More a comment on the evidence and a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance more a comment on the meaning and effect of the basic fact. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. First three sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance comment on the evidence. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23. & 25. This is a restatement of testimony by both sides. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire Langford, Hill, Trybus & Whalen, P.A. Post Office Box 3277 Tampa, Florida 33601-3277 Wayne H. Mitchell, Esquire Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building, Suite 201 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John Thomas Interim Executive Director Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should certify Petitioner as a minority business enterprise ("MBE").
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for granting or denying applications for MBE certification in accordance with Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes,1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 60A-2.001 and 60A-2.005.2 Petitioner is an applicant for MBE certification. Petitioner is engaged in the business of installing traffic signal devices. Petitioner is a closely held Florida corporation that was organized in 1990. Minority Ownership All of Petitioner's stock is owned by Ms. Burita Allen. Ms. Allen is a minority person within the meaning of Section 288.703(3) (the "minority owner" or "minority shareholder"). The minority shareholder is majority shareholder. She owns at least 51 percent of Petitioner's stock within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(2)1. Financial Risk And Control The minority ownership of Petitioner is real, substantial, and continuing within the meaning of Rule 60A- 2.005(3)(d)3. The minority owner provided all of the $100,000 used for Petitioner's initial capitalization on April 4, 1995.3 Petitioner was inactive from 1990 until it began its first job on May 11, 1995. Petitioner now has completed or started a total of eight jobs. The minority owner has knowledge and control of Petitioner's financial affairs. She has sole control of the day to day operations of the company and its profit and loss. She contributed all of its initial capital, writes the checks, and contracts with employees, subcontractors, and customers. Operating And Management Control The minority owner has operating control of Petitioner and is technically qualified to manage and operate Petitioner's business. She has generated significant growth for Petitioner. Operating revenues have increased from zero to $170,736.28 in less than two years. Petitioner has another $90,268.08 in work performed but not billed. Petitioner's clients include the Florida Department of Transportation, the United States Navy, and Nassau County, Florida. Petitioner has also performed jobs for private companies such as Georgia Pacific, Target, and Haynes & Sons Inc. Affiliation Petitioner's minority owner gained the knowledge and experience needed to operate Petitioner successfully as an employee of J.W. Buckholz Traffic Engineering, Inc. ("Buckholz Engineering"). Buckholz Engineering is a closely held Florida corporation owned by five individuals. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. She owns 52 percent of the stock of Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner shares office space, equipment, and staff with Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner's minority owner allocates approximately 40 percent of the 70 to 102 hours she works each week to Petitioner. The remainder of her work week is allocated to Buckholz Engineering. The affiliation between Petitioner, its minority owner, and Buckholz Engineering does not impair the minority owner's ownership and control of Petitioner. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner's minority owner has an unimpeded legal right to share Petitioner's income, earnings, and other benefits in proportion to her stock ownership within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(2)(b). Neither the exercise of discretion by Petitioner's minority owner, her financial risk, nor her equity position in Petitioner is subject to any formal or informal restrictions within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(3)(a). There are no provisions in any purchase agreement, employment agreement, voting rights agreement, or the corporate by-laws that vary or usurp the minority owner's discretion. Buckholz Engineering assisted Petitioner in obtaining greater bonding limits than Petitioner could obtain on its own. Petitioner was capable of obtaining bonding on its own but increased the amount of bonding by adding Buckholz Engineering as co-applicant. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. Buckholz Engineering is a professional service corporation that provides design services by licensed professional engineers. Buckholz Engineering utilizes professional liability insurance. It is not a construction company and has no need to be bonded. Petitioner derived its name in part to benefit from the goodwill of Buckholz Engineering. However, the two companies are not engaged in the same business. Buckholz Engineering is a professional engineering firm that performs professional services including the design of traffic control systems. Petitioner installs traffic signal devices. Unlike Buckholz Engineering, Petitioner does not need a professional engineering license to conduct its business. Electrical License Petitioner does not offer a trade or profession to the state which requires a trade or professional license within the meaning Section 287.0943(1)(3)1.4 Unlike the professional engineers in Buckholz Engineering, no state statute requires the minority owner to be licensed in a particular trade or profession in order for Petitioner to install traffic signals. Petitioner's minority owner satisfies all certification requirements that are generally required for Petitioner to conduct its business. The minority owner is certified by the International Municipal Signal Association ("IMSA") and by the American Traffic and Safety Association ("ATSA"). In a particular job, Petitioner's customer may require that a licensed electrician pull the necessary permits for the job or that a licensed electrician approve the job. This customer requirement comprises only a de minimis portion of Petitioner's business. Of the eight jobs contracted by Petitioner, only one customer has required the permit to be pulled by a licensed electrician. Petitioner can satisfy these occasional customer requirements by subcontracting with a licensed electrician at a cost that is a small portion of the job cost.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein GRANT Petitioner's application for MBE certification. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 18th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The Company, Al Raska Contractors, Inc., located at 503 South MacDill Avenue, Tampa, Florida, is a contractor which specializes in installing highway guardrails, rip rap, slope pavement, and signs. Between 1970 and 1980, it was owned by Al Raska and operated as a sole proprietorship. In February, 1980, it was incorporated by Al Raska, Jack Williams, and Dan Fisher, with Al Raska as president. (Testimony of Raska, R-1.) The Company began to experience financial difficulties. Mr. Raska concluded that it needed additional capital and new leadership. He realized that he "was not the one to carry the leadership of it. . . ." (Tr. 39.) Mr. Raska looked to Eugenio Ramos for help. (Testimony of Raska.) They reached an agreement. As a result, Eugenio Ramos -- an Hispanic residing in Texas -- became president and majority (51 percent) owner of the Company in September, 1980. In exchange, Mr. Ramos contributed $25,000 to the Company and established an additional $25,000 letter of credit. (The Company used the $25,000, in cash, to purchase equipment and defray operating expenses.) Mr. Raska became vice-president: . . . I stepped aside [to] do what I could do best, work in the field rather than run [the Company]. . . (Tr. 39.) Jack Williams remained as secretary-treasurer of the Company. (Testimony of Raska, Ramos, Williams.) II. Since September, 1980, Eugenio Ramos, 506 Lake Park, Waxahachie, Texas, has possessed the power to direct the management and policies of the Company, including the power to make day-to-day as well as major business decisions. In practice, he delegated authority to Mr. Raska and, to a lesser extent, to Mr. Williams to supervise and carry out the day-to-day operations of the Company. Mr. Raska, as the supervisor of field operations, corks at the Company's job sites, trains employees, does drawings, develops job estimates, signs payroll, schedules jobs, and maintains close contact with prime contractors. Because of Mr. Raska's years of experience and expertise, Mr. Ramos relies heavily on his advice. Mr. Williams also supervises the various job sites and assists in preparing estimates. (Testimony of Raska, Ramos, Williams.) All major business decisions, however, are made by Mr. Ramos, ordinarily after considering the advice of Mr. Raska. While job estimates are prepared by Mr. Raska, the decision to bid on a project is made by Mr. Ramos. No written contracts are signed without Mr. Ramos' approval. Mr. Raska and Mr. Williams, who Supervise field operations, were hired by and serve at the pleasure of Mr. Ramos. No heavy equipment may be purchased without Mr. Ramos' approval. (Testimony of Ramos, Raska.) Mr. Ramos communicates with Mr. Raska and Mr. Williams frequently, despite Mr. Ramos' residence in Texas. He visits the Company seven or eight times a year to meet with his Supervisors and discuss ongoing work. He spends approximately 97 percent of his time in Texas. But he communicates by telephone with the Company office on almost a daily or weekly basis. During one month, his telephone bill was $900. (Testimony of Raska, Ramos; P-5.) The Company has, under contract, jobs worth more than two million dollars. There are three projects now under construction. Although at hearing Mr. Ramos was familiar with the projects under construction, he could not recall some of the pertinent details. (Testimony of Ramos.) Sunil B. Nath administers the Department's Minority Business Enterprise Liaison Office. Chapter 14-78 is the Department's rule governing certification of minority business enterprises. Mr. Nath interprets this rule as requiring the minority owner to carry out the day-to-day operations of a company; in his view, a minority owner cannot delegate day-to-day management and retain eligibility for Minority Business Certification. (Tr. 150.) No basis was presented for this conclusion other than the language of the rule. (Testimony of Nath.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Company's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise be granted. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 12th day of October, 1982.
The Issue Whether Gwenda J. Haas-Amey has control of the management and daily operations of Barton S. Amey Company, Inc.?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Barton S. Amey Company, Inc., began operating in November, 1983. The Petitioner is a Florida corporation. The primary business of the Petitioner is the construction and renovation of commercial buildings. Gwenda J. Haas-Amey and Barton S. Amey are the only stockholders of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey are husband and wife. Mr. Amey holds a bachelor's degree and master's degree in building construction. Mr. Amey holds a class-A contractor's license from the State of Florida. He is the qualifying agent of the Petitioner. Mr. Amey has over 10 years of experience in construction prior to the formation of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey holds a B.S. degree, a master's degree and a doctorate degree in early childhood education. Dr. Haas-Amey has taken 30 hours of courses in administration at the doctorate level. Dr. Haas-Amey is not licensed in construction and has no direct work experience in construction prior to 1983. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey are directors of the Petitioner. They have been the only directors of the corporation. Mr. Amey is the president of the Petitioner. Mr. Amey has always been the president of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey is the secretary/treasurer of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas- Amey has always been the secretary/treasurer of the Petitioner. From November, 1983, until approximately April 1986, Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey each owned 50 percent of the stock of the Petitioner. In approximately April, 1986, Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey decided that Dr. Haas-Amey would own 60 percent of the stock of the Petitioner and Mr. Amey would own 40 percent of the stock of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey first testified that she decided how the stock would be owned. Dr. Haas-Amey later testified that the decision as to the ownership of the stock was made by the directors of the Petitioner. No evidence was presented to explain how 10 percent of the stock of the Petitioner was transferred from Mr. Amey to Dr. Haas-Amey, i.e., gift, sale, exchange, corporate reorganization, redemption. Also in April of 1986, the directors appointed Dr. Haas-Amey as chief executive officer of the Petitioner. No evidence was presented to explain what the legal duties or powers of the chief executive officer of the Petitioner are, i.e., by-laws, articles of incorporation, minutes of directors' meetings. Dr. Haas-Amey did testify that the president reports to the chief executive officer. In June of 1986 the request for certification as a minority business enterprise was filed by Dr. Haas-Amey. The request is based upon Dr. Haas- Amey's minority status as a woman and her ownership of more than 51 percent of the stock of the Petitioner. In the request for certification there was no indication that Dr. Haas-Amey is the chief executive officer of the Petitioner. It is only indicated that she is the secretary of the Petitioner. Section VI(1) of the request for certification includes the following request: Minority owners Possess Control over the Management and Daily Operation of the Business Identify the person(s) responsible for the day to day management and operation of the company. List the major responsibilities for each person after their name. In response to Section VI(1) of the request, the following answer was given: Dr. Gwenda J. Haas-Amey - public relations, marketing, personnel, bidding review Barton S. Amey - estimating, bidding/negotiations, production. Either Dr. Haas-Amey or Mr. Amey can sign checks on the Petitioner's accounts. Both have signed checks. Dr. Haas-Amey signs most of the checks. The Petitioner does not own much equipment. Dr. Haas-Amey has purchased a copier and a warehouse for the Petitioner. She is also purchasing a dump-lift truck for the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey's knowledge of the construction business has been obtained as a result of her marriage to Mr. Amey for the past 9 and a half years and 3 and a half years working for the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey's knowledge of business has been obtained in part from her experience as the manager of two day-care centers. The Petitioner's business has grown since Dr. Haas-Amey became more active in the business. Dr. Haas-Amey works full-time for the Petitioner and has no other full-time employment. Mr. Amey is the technical construction expert of the Petitioner. Prior to April, 1986, Mr. Amey made the construction decisions and Dr. Haas-Amey made the management decisions for the Petitioner. After April, 1986, Mr. Amey still makes many of the construction decisions. Although Mr. Amey testified that generally Dr. Haas-Amey does not consult with him or vice versa, the weight of the evidence proves that they do consult with each other. When questioned about specific instances, Mr. Amey testified that they consulted. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey consult with other persons working for the Petitioner, including the secretaries, sub-contractors, laborers and field supervisors. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey spend about the same amount of time in the Petitioner's office and in the field. The vast majority of their time is spent in the office. The Petitioner's office is located in Dr. Haas-Amey's and Mr. Amey's residence. Dr. Haas-Amey owns the residence. Mr. Amey is a co-signor of the mortgage on the residence. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey review daily progress reports from the field and verify whether progress payments should be made. Since the 60-40 split of the stock of the Petitioner, Dr. Haas-Amey has signed contracts on behalf of the Petitioner. Prior to the split of stock, Mr. Amey signed, as president of the Petitioner, sub-contractor agreements and owner/contractor agreements on behalf of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey reviews requests for bids, looks at competitors and decides whether to submit a bid. Mr. Amey estimates the cost of projects to be bid on. Dr. Haas-Amey reviews Mr. Amey's cost estimates and can make adjustments. Dr. Haas-Amey then submits the bid and conducts any negotiations. Dr. Haas-Amey negotiates with sub-contractors and decides who to hire and fire. The Petitioner has two part-time secretaries. They do the typing for the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey interviewed persons applying for the secretarial positions. Dr. Haas-Amey made the ultimate decision on who was hired. Mr. Amey testified that a Mr. Hicks was hired as a field supervisor by the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey interviewed Mr. Hicks and the other applicants. Mr. Amey testified that Dr. Haas-Amey made the ultimate decision to hire Mr. Hicks. The problem with this testimony is that Mr. Hicks was hired in August of 1985. This was before the stock of the Petitioner was held 60-40 and before Dr. Haas-Amey was elected as the chief executive officer of the Petitioner. At that time the stock was owned 50-50 and Mr. Amey was the president of the Petitioner. The evidence did not prove that Dr. Haas-Amey controls the purchase of goods, equipment, business inventory or services, the financial affairs of the Petitioner or the Petitioner's business accounts or that she has the authority to hire and fire. The Board of Directors of the Petitioner controls (has the power or right to act) the purchase of goods, equipment, business inventory and services, the financial affiars of the Petitioner and the Petitioner's business accounts, and has the authority to hire and fire. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey are members of the Board of Directors of the Petitioner. Although Dr. Haas-Amey has been making some of the decisions concerning these corporate functions, she has done so as one of two directors of the Petitioner. A single director does not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the entire Board of Directors. Therefore, her decisions have been made either with the tacit approval of the other director of the Petitioner, Mr. Amey, or her decisions were invalidly made because they were not made with the approval of both directors of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey has knowledge of the finanical structure of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey has the capability, knowledge and experience necessary to make some decisions with regard to commercial construction. The evidence did not prove that Dr. Haas-Amey has displayed independence and initiative in conducting all major aspects of the Petitioner's business.
Recommendation Based upon on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's request for certification as a minority business enterprise be denied. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 5th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3954 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance or of Fact Number Reason for Rejection 1 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 41. 2 RO 24. 3 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 41. 4 RO 37, 39 and 40. Dr. Haas-Amey does have knowledge of the financial structure of the Petitioner (see RO 42) but the weight of the evidence does not support a finding of fact that she controls the financial affairs of the Petitioner. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 23 and 41. 7 RO 23. 8 9, 10 and 12 Hereby accepted. These proposed findings of fact are too 11 broad. See RO 43. RO 9. 13 RO 29. 14 RO 36 15 RO 37. 16 17 Not supported by evidence. RO 17. the weight of the 18-19 RO 28. 20 RO 38. 21 Irrelevant. 22 Not supported by evidence. the weight of the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 RO 3-4 and 15. 2 RO 2. 3 RO 3 and 14. 4 RO 5-7. 5 RO 8 and 10. 6 RD 11. 7 RO 12-13. 8 RO 15 and 17. 9 RO 19-20. 10 RO 21-22. 11 Hereby accepted. 12 RO 30-31. 13 RO 23. 14 15 RO 33. The home/office is not by Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey. RO 36. "owned" 16-17 RO 35. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Room 133, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sandar E. Allen, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lee L. Haas, Esquire Baxter, Rinard and Winters, P.A. Post Office Drawer 2636 Clearwater, Florida 33517
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are: (1) whether the Respondent properly rejected the lowest bid because the bid did not comply with the requirements set forth in the Project Manual, and (2) whether the Respondent properly awarded the bid to the second lowest bidder.
Findings Of Fact Findings Based Upon Stipulation of All Parties The Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, issued a Call For Bids, as published in Vol. 16, No. 7, February 16, 1990, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, for project number BR-183, Life Safety and Fire Code Corrective Work, J. Hillis Miller Health Center, University of Florida., Gainesville, Florida. Sealed bids were received on March 15, 1990, at which time they were publicly opened and read aloud. Petitioner, Anglin Construction Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Anglin"), submitted the lowest monetary bid for the project; and Charles R. Perry (hereinafter referred to as "Perry") submitted the second lowest monetary bid on the project. By letter dated March 19, 1990, the University of Florida notified Anglin that its bid proposal, submitted on March 15, 1990, had been found to be in non-compliance with the Project Manual and rejected by the University of Florida. The specific reason for non-compliance was that Anglin's advertisement for Minority Business Enterprise ("MBE") participation, as part of its demonstration of good-faith effort, did not appear in the media at least seven (7) days prior to bid opening. On March 23, 1990, the contract for this project was awarded to Perry by the Chancellor of the Florida Board of Regents. By letter dated March 26, 1990, Anglin filed a notice of protest in regard to the award of this contract to Perry. Anglin timely filed a formal bid protest in regard to this action, which was received by the Florida Board of Regents on April 4, 1990. A representative from Anglin and Perry attended the required pre- solicitation/pre-bid meeting scheduled for March 1, 1990 for this project. Mr. Larry Ellis, Minority Purchasing Coordinator, University of Florida, was present at the pre- solicitation/pre-bid meeting and distributed a handbook entitled "Minority Business Enterprise Requirements for Major and Minor Construction Projects Survival Handbook" to those in attendance. Anglin and Perry obtained or examined the Project Manual for BR-183. By letter dated March 6, 1990, Anglin requested the Gainesville Sun newspaper to run an advertisement for seven (7) consecutive days to solicit bids from qualified MBE/WBE companies for BR-183. The advertisement in the Gainesville Sun was initially published in the March 9, 1990 edition and ran consecutively through the March 15, 1990 edition. The Project Manual, at page L-2 of L-13 pages, Special Conditions section, paragraph 1.7.2.2, provides that advertisements for minority business enterprises must run or be published on a date at least seven (7) days prior to the bid opening. Findings Based Upon Documentary Evidence The Call for Bids provided that at least fifteen percent (15%) of the project contracted amount be expended with minority business enterprises certified by the Department of General Services and if fifteen percent (15%) were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good- faith efforts by the bidder (Jt. Ex. 1). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 1) provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their bid proposal in accordance with the Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2, at page 9 of the Project Manual (Jt. Ex. 2) provided, in pertinent part, that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Special Conditions, paragraph 1.1 at page L-1 sets forth the MBE requirements. Paragraph 1.1.2 provides that evidence of good- faith efforts will be required to be submitted to the University Planning Office within two working days after the opening of the bids. Paragraph 1.1.2 further provides that incomplete evidence which does not fully support the good-faith effort requirements shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be non- responsive. Subparagraph 1.7.2.2 of the Special Conditions section in the Project Manual at page L-2 (Jt. Ex. 2) provides that a contractor, as part of meeting the good-faith efforts for this project, should advertise to inform MBEs of contracting and subcontracting opportunities, through minority focus media, through a trade association, or one local newspaper with a minimum circulation of 25,000. Subparagraph 1.7.2.3 provides for required documentation and provides for a copy of the advertisement run by the media and the date thereof. The copy of the tear sheet from The Gainesville Sun for Anglin regarding BR-183 and the affidavit from the Gainesville Sun reflect that Anglin's advertisement ran or was published beginning March 9, 1990, which was six (6) days prior to bid opening, through March 15, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 9 at section 1- 7.2). Anglin's advertisement did not run in the Gainesville Sun seven (7) days prior to the bid opening (Jt. Ex. 9 at section 1-7.2, and Jt. Ex. 8). The Respondent interprets paragraph 1.7.2.2 to require that advertising through minority focus media, through a trade association or one local newspaper with a minimum circulation of 25,000 to be run on at least one day, seven (7) days prior to the day the bids are opened. Anglin ran an otherwise qualifying advertisement for seven (7) consecutive days, the seventh of which was the day the bids were opened. Anglin sent letters to fourteen (14) minority businesses qualified for participation in state contracts inviting participation and providing information about the program. These letters indicated that Anglin would subdivide work to assist in their participation and invited them to inspect the drawings. Anglin sent followup letters to the same fourteen (14) minority businesses. Anglin apparently divided portions of the electrical work between two minority businesses and included their estimates totaling $288,000.00 in the bid which is at issue (see Jt. Ex. 9 at section 1-7.7). A representative of Anglin, Dennis Ramsey, attended the pre- solicitation/pre-bid meeting on March 1, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 4). One of the purposes of the pre-solicitation/pre-bid meeting is to invite MBEs to attend to become familiar with the project specifications and to become acquainted with contractors interested in bidding the project. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-23 at page 16 (Jt. Ex. 2) provides that the contract award will be awarded by the Respondent for projects of $500,000.00 or more, to the lowest qualified bidder, provided it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the provisions of Section 287.0945, Florida Statutes, and the demonstration of "good-faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than fifteen percent (15%) participation in the contract by MBEs. The contract award will be made to the bidder who submits the lowest responsive aggregate bid within the pre-established construction budget. Sealed bids for BR-183 were opened on March 15, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 1). Anglin's bid of $1,768,400.00 was the lowest monetary bid (Jt. Ex. 5). Perry was the second lowest monetary bidder (Jt. Ex. 5). Anglin submitted its bid proposal (Jt. Ex. 6) and documentation of good-faith efforts for BR-183 (Jt. Ex. 9). Anglin was notified by letter dated March 19, 1990 that its bid proposal had been found to be in noncompliance with the requirements of the Project Manual and was, therefore, rejected. The specific reason for Anglin's noncompliance was that the advertisement for MBE participation did not appear in the media at least seven (7) days prior to the day the bids were opened (Jt. Ex. 10). By letter dated March 19, 1990, the Project Manager from the architectural and planning firm responsible for BR-183 recommended to Respondent that the contract be awarded to Perry (Jt. Ex. 11). By letter dated March 20, 1990, the University of Florida recommended to the Director of Capital Programs for Respondent that Perry be awarded the contract for BR-183 for the base bid and alternates #1 through #5 in the amount of $1,789,400.00 (Jt. Ex. 12). The Respondent awarded the contract to Perry on March 23, 1990 (Jt. Ex. 14). The MBE award to electricians of $288,000.00 is 16.29% of the $1,768,400.00 Anglin bid.
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 the Board of Regents award the contract to Anglin. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX "A" TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2652BID Anglin and Perry's proposed findings of fact were adopted as paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Recommended Order. The Board of Regents' proposed findings of fact, which duplicated the stipulation, were adopted as paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Recommended Order, and otherwise ruled upon as follows: Adopted as paragraph 11. Adopted as paragraph 12. Adopted as paragraph 20. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted as paragraph 19. Adopted as paragraph 13. Adopted as paragraph 14. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted as paragraph 21. Adopted as paragraph 22. Adopted as paragraph 15. Adopted as paragraph 23. Adopted as paragraph 24. Adopted as paragraph 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Reed Chancellor of Florida State University System 325 W. Gaines Street Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950 Gregg Gleason, Esquire General Counsel Board of Regents 107 W. Gaines Street Room 210-D Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Mostoller, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Board of Regents 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950 William B. Watson, III, Esquire Watson, Folds, Steadham, Christmann, Brashear, Tovkach & Walker P.O. Box 1070 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Raymond M. Ivey, Esquire Rakusin, Ivey, Waratuke, Solomon & Koteff, P.A. 703 North Main Street Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32601 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Vedder and Associates Incorporated's (VAI's) application for minority certification dated January 22, 1992 was received by the Department of Management Services on January 27, 1992. Petitioner's application for minority certification was denied by the Department of Management Services in a letter dated May 22, 1992. VAI was established in October of 1991 and offers as its principal service "land surveying." VAI is licensed to do business in Florida and is fifty-one percent (51 percent) owned by Kathleen Vedder, a Caucasian female, and forty-nine percent (49 percent) owned by John Vedder her husband, a Caucasian male. Kathleen A. Vedder and John F. Vedder were the sole directors of the corporation at the time of certification denial, with Kathleen A. Vedder serving as president/secretary and John F. Vedder serving as vice-president/treasurer. On September 16, 1992, after the denial of certification, John Vedder resigned as a director of VAI. No business reason was offered for this decision. Kathleen Vedder, the minority owner, is presently the sole director of the corporation. As sole director, she represents a majority of the board of directors. She continues to serve as president and secretary. John Vedder continues to serve as treasurer. It is not clear if he still serves as vice- president. (See Findings of Fact 5-11 and 28-29). At all times material, Kathleen Vedder has owned 51 percent of the stock through a greater monetary investment than John Vedder, who owns 49 percent of the stock. At all times material, Kathleen Vedder has served as the principal officers, president and secretary. At all times material, Kathleen Vedder has made up at least 50 percent of the board of directors. Since September 16, 1992, she has made up 100 percent of the board of directors. At all times material, John Vedder has served as a principal officer, treasurer. Up until September 16, 1992, John Vedder made up 50 percent of the board of directors. Thereafter, he did not serve on the board. At all times material, Article VII of VAI's Articles of Incorporation have permitted an increase or decrease in the board of directors as permitted by the bylaws, but never less than one director. At all times material, Item III of VAI's bylaws have provided that corporate officers hold office at the "satisfaction" of the board of directors; that the president shall be the chief executive officer; and that subject to any specific assignment of duties by the board of directors, the vice-president, the secretary, and the treasurer act under the direction of the president. VAI was formed by the purchase of assets from the Perry C. McGriff Company, which had employed Kathleen and John Vedder. Kathleen Vedder began her career with the surveying firm of Keith & Schnars, P.A., in Fort Lauderdale in 1976. She was the administrative assistant to the President. In 1981 she and John Vedder moved to Gainesville to manage the Perry C. McGriff Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Keith & Schnars. John Vedder handled the surveying aspects of the business, and Kathleen Vedder handled most of the management of the company other than the surveying portion, including purchasing, handling business accounts and financial affairs, client relations, insurance, and correspondence. This continued until 1991 when the assets of the Perry C. McGriff Company were sold to VAI. Kathleen Vedder now performs for VAI basically the same functions as she did for the predecessor company with certain additions. John Vedder served as the director of survey for the Perry C. McGriff Company which employed both Mr. and Mrs. Vedder prior to the formation of VAI. In his position as director of survey at Perry C. McGriff Company, he was responsible for all contracts and negotiations and coordination of personnel to ensure timely completion of contracts. His background by education, training, and experience is extensive in the technical applications to perform land surveying. The business of VAI essentially began on December 6, 1991. Prior to that date, husband and wife had discussed the purchase of the McGriff assets. Kathleen Vedder discussed the purchase of the business with her husband and informed him that she wanted to run the business. He accepted this relationship and her role as "boss" because he hated working in the office and wanted nothing to do with running the business. Kathleen Vedder contacted the old Perry C. McGriff clients and facilitated the transition from the old company to the new company. The Perry C. McGriff Company was purchased for $100,000 with a $15,000 down payment and the remainder to be paid over 7 years. Funds for the original purchase price of the assets were obtained by cashing Kathleen Vedder's 401K plan, two IRA's, and by loans against her life insurance policies for an investment of $57,185.62 by Kathleen Vedder and $25,682.25 of marital assets held with her husband, John Vedder. John Vedder participated in the negotiations to buy Perry C. McGriff Company. John Vedder provided input and expertise regarding the assets of Perry C. McGriff Company which were to be purchased, whether survey equipment was acceptable, and the vehicles to be purchased. John Vedder discussed and consulted with Kathleen Vedder regarding the financial aspects of the purchase of Perry C. McGriff Company. He discussed with her the starting salaries of employees to be hired/transferred to VAI, and the leasing and location of business premises for VAI and purchase of furniture. Kathleen Vedder established the corporate policies, the accounting procedures, the job costing, and the standard management practices of the new company. Kathleen Vedder, as VAI president, made all of the final decisions regarding implementation of the new business such as renting the office, moving the assets purchased from the old Perry C. McGriff Company, establishing lines of insurance, determining the manner and location of the survey records purchased, and hiring the staff. Kathleen Vedder and John Vedder made it clear to all of the employees from the beginning of the company that she was the "boss". The takeover of Perry C. McGriff Company by VAI was explained to former employees during a field visit by John Vedder. His explanation was made at Kathleen Vedder's direction and took place while these employees were already in the field, during a time of transition, in a spirit of damage control when Kathleen and John Vedder were concerned that rumors might affect the new company's ability to retain good personnel from the old company and over concern that some might have trouble working for a woman. Kathleen Vedder hired six employees initially from the old Perry C. McGriff Company. Kathleen Vedder set the initial pay scale for the employees of the company and maintained the documentation relevant to this function. The additional four persons hired by the company since it began were Robert Henderson, Tom Crossman, George Gruner, and Doug Zimmerman, each of whom were hired by Kathleen Vedder who interviewed them, who set their wages and benefits, and who described their job functions to them as new employees. VAI has a business license posted on its premises issued by the City of Gainesville, Florida, in the name of John Vedder, authorizing the performance of land survey services. VAI currently employs eight permanent employees and the qualifying agent is John F. Vedder, who serves as a principal officer, treasurer. He holds a land survey license issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Land Surveying Board. In order to be qualified as a licensed land surveying corporation, a principal officer must be a licensed land surveyor. The participation of John Vedder or another duly-licensed land surveyor is required to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 472 F.S., for a qualifying agent. Under that statute, the qualifying agent must have a license as a land surveyor and hold a position as a principal officer in VAI. If John Vedder were to lose his professional land surveyor license, there would be three licensed land surveyors remaining with the company, and it would be possible for VAI to continue if one of these were designated as a principal officer. Kathleen Vedder holds no license or certification other than a notary public. In terms of any special needs or requests, such as medical needs, all employees are required to report to Kathleen Vedder. Kathleen Vedder earns $14.50 per hour. The survey party chiefs, including John Vedder, now earn $13.00 per hour. These amounts are commensurate with Kathleen Vedder's percentage of VAI ownership of fifty-one percent (51 percent). The evidence is conflicting as to whether another crew chief earned more than John Vedder in one year due to a higher rate of pay or more hours worked in that period. No one in the company draws any bonus, commission or has any particular insurance coverage as a benefit of employment. The company has not posted any dividends or distributed any proceeds from business investments or engaged in any profit sharing. The corporation has, as a risk of doing business, the liability connected with its $85,000.00 promissory note to Keith & Schnars, P.A. It also has the risk associated with premises liability, with motor vehicle liability, with general errors and omissions liability, and with professional liability. Kathleen Vedder has procured insurance to cover all these risks. These premiums are paid by the corporation. There has been no additional ownership interest acquired by anyone since the inception of the corporation. There are no third party agreements. There are no bonding applications. The company has not at any time entered into an agreement, option, scheme, or created any rights of conversion which, when exercised, would result in less than fifty-one percent (51 percent) minority ownership and minority control of the business by Kathleen Vedder. Kathleen Vedder controls the purchase of the goods, equipment, business inventory and services needed in the day-to-day-operation of the business. Kathleen Vedder expressly controls the investments, loans to and from stockholders, bonding, payment of general business loans, and payments and establishment of lines of credit. The corporate business account of VAI contains the signatures of John Vedder and Kathleen Vedder on the bank signature card. Only one signature is required to transact business. Of the 823 checks issued by VAI since it began, John Vedder signed one at Kathleen Vedder's direction when it was not possible for her to be in two places at once, and Kathleen Vedder signed 822 checks. Although he is treasurer, John Vedder professed to know nothing of VAI's finances and deferred to Kathleen Vedder in all matters of financing from the very beginning. Nonetheless, the corporate documents list the treasurer as the chief financial officer in ultimate charge of all funds. Kathleen Vedder has knowledge of only the minimum technical standards required for a survey. In her certification interviews, Mrs. Vedder did not know how to establish true north or how a line survey would establish true north. She lacks basic survey knowledge and could not identify Polaris as the north star or state the standard measurement (length of a chain) for a surveyor. Identifying Polaris is not particularly important in modern surveying. Kathleen Vedder is capable of doing the necessary paper search and telephone call regarding underground utilities for surveyors in the field. Kathleen Vedder has extensive experience in the production of a surveying product and is able to manage the surveyors who perform the technical aspects of the business. Upon acquisition of the assets and formation of the new company, Kathleen Vedder began directing the two field crews newly employed by VAI to the various projects and work which she had scheduled. This direction has primarily been in the timing and coordination of projects and is commensurate with some of the work previously done by John Vedder when he was director of survey for the predecessor company, Perry C. McGriff Company. (See Finding of Fact 14). Technical problems involving a particular site do not arise very often so as to require a discussion among the land surveyors of the company but if they do, the professional land surveyors jointly or singly make all technical surveying decisions. Surveys must be signed by a registered land surveyor pursuant to Chapter 472 F.S. John Vedder provides Kathleen Vedder technical advice, coordinates field crews' work, makes decisions pertaining to technical work which is not within Kathleen Vedder's abilities, consults with Kathleen Vedder once a week concerning the general financial picture of VAI, and does some job estimating and quality control. Kathleen Vedder rarely visits work sites in the field. Employees in the field report to John Vedder whenever they have a problem and report to Kathleen Vedder if the problem is in the nature of project coordination. John Vedder is responsible for training and working with employees and providing technical training required for the performance of land surveys. He does computer aided drafting (CAD) and provides technical assistance to the CAD operator, which Kathleen Vedder cannot do, however she works it afterward on her computer. Kathleen Vedder does not work in the field, and of the two, John Vedder performs the majority of work in the field. Kathleen Vedder defers to John Vedder to handle technical matters because he has more experience. Party Chief John Vedder supervises his crew. Party Chief Louis Crosier supervises his crew. Kathleen Vedder supervises Louis Crosier and John Vedder and a third crew chief when one is used, usually Robert Henderson. Kathleen Vedder established a fee schedule for the company and a method of formulating the estimates and bids which the company would propose to prospective clients. John Vedder is not knowledgeable in this area. When a job comes in, the prospective client initially contacts Kathleen Vedder. If a client calls requesting a survey, Kathleen Vedder does the research and provides the estimate or bid without further input from any surveyor if the survey requested is a standard routine survey. If the job is complex, Kathleen Vedder requires man hour estimates from two land surveyors, one of whom is often John Vedder. She takes these estimates and applies previous histories, experience, and adjustments in order to prepare the final bid or survey estimate. Once she has received the man-hour estimate, Kathleen Vedder reviews it, compares it with previous surveys, applies a job costs analysis to it, applies any other known costs to it, and presents the final estimate or bid. There is a difference between compiling the work hours necessary for the estimate and compiling the estimate itself. Kathleen Vedder has the ultimate responsibility for finalizing complex estimates and bids. Kathleen Vedder makes presentations as a part of her function which involve technical presentations of the survey services rendered by VAI. In the fourteen month period since the business began, Kathleen Vedder has given approximately eight presentations of a technical nature to prospective clients, including the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). Kathleen Vedder is capable of complying with DOT bid specifications to submit material on a DOS disc. DOT has qualified VAI under its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. Petitioner's witnesses skilled in land surveying consistently testified that without Kathleen Vedder's skilled contributions to the firm, technical land surveying could be accomplished but the firm would not show a profit. Rule 13A-2.005(3)(d)(4), requires minority owners to have managerial, technical capability, knowledge, training, education and experience to make decisions regarding the business. In interpreting this rule, the Respondent agency relies on Barton S. Amey v. Department of General Services, DOAH Case No. 86-3954, (RO 3/5/87; FO 4/21/87), aff'd Fla. DCA February 11, 1988, No. 87-235. The agency has no further refinement by way of rule or policy which applies specifically to the land surveying industry. It does not require the minority owner to have a land surveying license per se. It does not require the minority business owner to have an extensive knowledge of surveying.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered certifying Vedder Associates, Incorporated as a Minority Business Enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 7th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 92-3763 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: The so-called "stipulated facts" is accepted, as stipulated, but not as to the inserted conclusion of law/argument. 1-19 Accepted except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 20-21 Accepted, but not dispositive, subordinate. Rejected as a conclusion of law or argument. Accepted, but not dispositive, subordinate. Rejected as a conclusion of law or argument. 25-33 Accepted as modified to more closely conform to the record, and to eliminate mere leal argument, conclusions of law, and unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material. Also testimony was to 823 checks. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence. Accepted, except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate or cumulative. Rejected as out of context, a conclusion of law, or argument. 37-46 Accepted, as modified, except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 47-48 Rejected as out of context, a conclusion of law, or argument. 49-53 Covered to the degree necessary in Finding of Fact 65, otherwise irrelevant and immaterial to a de novo proceeding under Section 120.57(1) F.S. 54-56 Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 57 Rejected as out of context, a conclusion of law, or argument. 58-60 Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Petitioner's "factual conclusions" are rejected as proposed conclusions of law not proposed findings of fact. Respondent's PFOF: 1-10 Accepted except to the degree unnecessary or cumulative. 11 Rejected as subordinate. 12-14 Rejected as stated as argument. Covered in Findings of Fact 27-30, absent argument, conclusions of law, and erroneous statements not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent evidence. Rejected as argument. Mostly accepted except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate or cumulative. However, the job estimating as stated is not supported by the record nor the argument of "day-to-day business." 17-19 Accepted as modified to conform to the record evidence, and except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 20 Rejected as argument. 21-22 Accepted but incomplete, irrelevant and immaterial in a de novo Section 120.57(1) F.S. proceeding. Also, the footnote is rejected as mere argument. 23-24 Rejected as argument. Accepted, but not complete or dispositive; unnecessary and cumulative. Accepted to the degree stated except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. She also did more. Rejected as partially not supported by the record; other parts are rejected as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative or not supported by the record. Accepted in part and rejected in part upon the greater weight of the credible, competent record evidence. Rejected as argument. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible, competent record evidence, also unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Accepted except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Rejected as argument 34-35 Accepted in part. Remainder rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible, competent record evidence, and as a conclusion of law contrary to Mid State Industries, Inc. v. Department of General Services, DOAH Case No. 92-2110 (RO 9/14/92). 36 Rejected as argument. 37-38 Accepted in part, and rejected in part because not proven as stated. Rejected as argument. Rejected as stated because out of context or not supported as stated by the greater weight of the credible, competent record evidence. Rejected as argument. Accepted, except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate or cumulative. Rejected as argument. 44-46 Rejected as subordinate. 47,(No #48),49 Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 50-55 Rejected as subordinate or unnecessary or as conclusions of law or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter C. K. Enwall, Esquire Post Office Box 23879 Gainesville, FL 32602 Terry A. Stepp, Esquire Department of Management Services Koger Executive Center Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of Management Services Koger Executive Center Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be certified as a minority business enterprise (MBE) by the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security (Department).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, All Kinds of Blinds, was incorporated in the State of Florida on January 15, 1999, as All Kinds of Blinds of So. Fla., Inc. The President of the Petitioner is Angela Conroy, a female. Mrs. Conroy owns 51 percent of the company. The remaining 49 percent of the company is owned by Phillip Conroy, Angela’s husband. Mr. Conroy also serves as the company’s vice president and secretary. On June 2, 1999, Mrs. Conroy executed a Florida Statewide and Inter-local Minority Business Enterprise Certification Application that was filed with the Department. The application identified Angela Conroy as the person who makes policy, financial decisions, signs payroll, signs surety bonds and insurance, and makes contractual decisions for the Petitioner. The application also identified Phillip Conroy as the person who makes personnel decisions and signs payroll for the Petitioner. Mr. Conroy is authorized to sign checks on behalf of the company. According to the application, the Petitioner performs various functions regarding the sales, consultation, service, and installation of all types of window coverings. Mrs. Conroy sought MBE certification as an American woman with majority ownership of the Petitioner. Mrs. Conroy has ten years of experience in this type of business but was reluctant to let her former employer know that she was opening her own business. Accordingly, Mrs. Conroy authorized Mr. Conroy to execute applications and various papers on behalf of the Petitioner. She relied on his business experience to guide her through the start-up process. An initial loan in the amount of $4,000 from the couple’s joint bank account was the start-up funds for the Petitioner. Mr. Conroy does the installations for the Petitioner. He performs other functions for the company as may be necessary. He also owns and operates an air conditioning filter company that leased a vehicle also used for the Petitioner’s business. Mr. Conroy maintained that his name appears on records pertaining to the Petitioner as a convenience for his wife. Mr. Conroy is a white male.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office, enter a final order denying the Petitioner’s application for MBE certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 28th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela Conroy All Kinds of Blinds 123 North Congress Avenue Suite 328 Boynton Beach, Florida 33426 Joseph L. Shields, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 301, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue Should Petitioner be certified as a minority business enterprise (MBE) by the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a sole proprietor seeking certification as an MBE under the minority status of Native American (Indian). Also in his application seeking MBE certification, Petitioner claimed the category of Hispanic American but did not attempt to prove this category at the hearing. Petitioner is seeking certification as an MBE qualified to perform building maintenance, grounds maintenance, painting, cleaning, landscaping, and clearing and grubbing. Petitioner’s great-grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee Indian (Native American) who lived her life as an Indian. However, Petitioner presented no evidence that his great-grandmother was a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe, as that term is defined by Rule 38A-20.001(17), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner was at one time a member of the American Cherokee Confederacy of Georgia. However, Petitioner resigned from the American Cherokee Confederacy of Georgia and no longer claims any ties to that group. The American Cherokee Confederacy of Georgia is not a federally recognized Indian Tribe as that term is defined by Rule 38A-20.001(17), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner is not a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe as that term is defined by Rule 38A-20.001(17), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent stipulated at the hearing that its denial was based solely on the fact that Petitioner had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he was a minority person as that term is defined in Section 288.703(3)(d), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner's application for Minority Business Enterprise status be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin W. "Bill" Wood 10577 Schaefer Lane Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 303 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida
