The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent, as Director of the Florida State Athletic Commission ("Athletic Commission") violated Subsection 112.313(2), Florida Statutes, by soliciting a $100,000 donation from Don King and/or Don King Productions, Inc., on behalf of the Florida State Boxing Foundation ("Foundation") which was established in part by Respondent; (2) Whether Respondent violated Subsection 112.313(4), Florida Statutes, by (a) accepting the $100,000 donation from Don King or Don King Productions, Inc., on behalf of the Foundation, when he knew or should have known that the donation may have been given to influence his official actions relative to his advocating for the acceptance of long-term promotional contracts in Florida by the Athletic Commission and/or the licensing of Don King and/or Don King Productions, Inc., as a promoter despite the existence of a pending indictment in violation of the Athletic Commission rules; (b) soliciting boxing officials for political contributions and donations to the Foundation, and soliciting a boxing official for a loan to Ms. Cathy Reed and travel expenses for Ms. Reed; (3) Whether Respondent violated Subsection 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by (a) soliciting funds for the Foundation from persons or entities regulated by the Athletic Commission; (b) soliciting political contributions from persons regulated by the Athletic Commission; (c) signing a letter prepared by boxing promoter Don King's attorney on Athletic Commission stationery, which indicated the Athletic Commission's interpretation of Section 548.056, Florida Statutes, as stated in letters written by the former Executive Secretary, was the former Executive Secretary's personal opinion rather than the opinion or policy of the Athletic Commission, in order to benefit Don King or Don King Productions, Inc; (d) preparing and reading a position paper opposed to the position taken by the former Executive Secretary of the Athletic Commission relative to the interpretation of Section 548.056, Florida Statutes, and denying that the earlier position was, in fact, the position of the Athletic Commission in order to strengthen the arguments of Don King or Don King Productions, Inc., for the use of exclusive long-term promotional contracts in Florida, when he knew the contrary to be true, or as a reward for the $100,000 contribution to the Foundation; (e) lying to the members of the Athletic Commission who relied on his representations at its November 5, 1998, meeting regarding the preparation of the position paper he read to the commission at its August 13, 1998, meeting; (f) soliciting tickets or complimentary admissions to boxing matches for his or other Athletic Commission members' guests from promoters; (g) soliciting a loan and travel expense payments from Boxing Judge Peter Trematerra; (h) rewarding Mr. Trematerra with an assignment to judge a World Title fight for telling the Athletic Commission what Respondent wanted him to say, despite Mr. Trematerra's allegedly not having the requisite experience to warrant such an assignment; (i) not giving Boxing Judge Paul Herman boxing assignments that his experience may have warranted after he refused to appear and testify as to what Respondent wanted him to say before the Athletic Commission; (j) making judging assignments based on personal considerations of perceived loyalty or disloyalty to Respondent, rather than on the experience levels of judges; directing Athletic Commission staff to remove Mr. Trematerra's and Mr. Herman's names from fight assignments after they provided affidavits concerning Respondent's misconduct to Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Inspector General; (l) representing falsely to the Salvation Army and the public on Athletic Commission stationery that David Walker had completed 16 hours of his obligatory community service; and (4) Whether Respondent violated Subsections 112.3148(3) and (4), Florida Statutes, by soliciting and accepting tickets and free admissions from promoters, and, if Respondent is guilty of any of these alleged offenses, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Morris Michael "Mike" Scionti, was Executive Director of the Athletic Commission from May 6, 1996 through March 11, 1999. During his pre-employment interview with Commissioners of the Athletic Commission, Respondent advanced his vision to establish a foundation to assist boxers in obtaining job training, education, and other benefits. The Athletic Commission, through its Commissioners, gave conceptual approval to the creation of a foundation but did not want the Athletic Commission or Respondent to be directly involved with the foundation. Respondent initiated the formal creation of the Florida State Boxing Foundation, Inc. ("Foundation"), in June 1997. The Foundation obtained 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in December 1997. Respondent was never an employee, officer or trustee of the Foundation. After the formation of the Foundation, there is no evidence of formal involvement of either Respondent or the Athletic Commission in its affairs. Respondent advocated the Foundation to individuals interested in boxing and advised the Athletic Commission of the status of the Foundation at Athletic Commission meetings. Early in 1997, at the request of Don King ("King"), a successful and controversial boxing promoter, he and Respondent met at King's office in South Florida. Prior to this meeting the parties had not known each other. During the discussion of their common interest, boxing, King advised that he was moving his entire boxing operation to Florida. In the discussion, Respondent mentioned his vision of a foundation to assist boxers. King indicated that he thought the foundation was a wonderful idea and offered to donate $100,000 to get the foundation started. The evidence presented clearly demonstrates that Respondent did not solicit the donation from King. Knowing that the Athletic Commission had instructed him to "stay at arms length from the Foundation," Respondent did not initially accept King's offer; he reported the offer at the next Athletic Commission meeting where a cautious, tacit approval was received. Respondent testified that he would have refused the donation had the Athletic Commission voiced disapproval. It was not inappropriate for Respondent, as Executive Director of the Athletic Commission, to advocate and publicly support a foundation chartered to provide job training, education and other benefits to boxers. On January 12, 1998, shortly after the Foundation received 501(c)(3) status, Don King Productions, Inc., tendered a $100,000 check to the Florida State Boxing Foundation, Inc. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent directly or indirectly benefited from King's $100,000 donation to the Foundation or that the donation was made based upon any understanding that Respondent's judgement or any official action would be influenced by the donation. Nor is there any evidence that Respondent should have known that the donation was given to influence any official action by Respondent. Boxing promoters, who do business in Florida, must apply for an annual license. Don King and/or Don King Productions, Inc., had been licensed in Florida in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. The license application dated January 13, 1998, fails to reveal a Federal indictment for insurance fraud in March 1997, although it improperly lists a license suspension for wire fraud in New Jersey. Relying on the 1998 license application (which did not reveal the March 1997 insurance fraud indictment), the Athletic Commission staff in the Tallahassee office issued Don King Productions, Inc., a 1998 promoter's license. In August 1998, after the discrepancy was discovered, the Athletic Commission issued King a Rule to Show Cause as to why his 1998 license should not be suspended or revoked for failure to report the 1997 insurance fraud indictment. The 1998 license renewal was handled through the Athletic Commission's Tallahassee office. Respondent's office was in Tampa; he was not directly involved in issuing the 1998 license. At the Rule to Show Cause hearing, Respondent blamed the Tallahassee office staff for not finding King's omission. "Exclusive" or "long-term" promotional contracts between boxers and promoters, although a standard in the boxing industry and widely accepted, have been a source of controversy in Florida. Apparently, there was a division of opinion among Commissioners of the Athletic Commission as to the appropriateness of such contracts. Although the Athletic Commission had not taken a formal position on the subject, Respondent's predecessor, who was personally opposed to such contracts, authored several letters indicating that such contracts were not enforceable under Florida law. Respondent did not share his predecessor's negative opinion of "exclusive" or "long-term" promotional contracts, to the contrary, he believed such contracts to be beneficial to boxing. Respondent sought the advice of individuals involved in boxing, including employees of King, on the subject. Don King Productions, Inc., and other promoters would benefit if "exclusive" or "long-term" promotional contracts were recognized and enforceable in Florida. On June 19, 1998, Respondent sent a letter on official state stationery to Charles Lomax, attorney for Don King Productions, Inc., advising him that the prohibition on "exclusive" or "long-term" promotional contracts in Florida was merely his predecessor's personal opinion. He stated he would keep Mr. Lomax updated on the progress of this matter. During the August 8, 1998, meeting of the Athletic Commission, Respondent presented a memo which advocated promotional contracts, clearly indicated his disagreement with the position taken by his predecessor on the subject and recommended that the Athletic Commission permit such contracts subject to reasonable regulation. Subsequent to the meeting, Commissioner Terry James had occasion to examine the Athletic Commission's file on promotional contracts. When Commissioner James reviewed the file, he noticed the computer tags on the documents in the file were the same as the tags he had seen on Sonny Holtzman's documents. Mr. Holtzman represented King on matters before the Commission. Although Don King Productions, Inc., and other promoters benefited from Respondent's support of "exclusive" or "long-term" promotional contracts, no evidence was presented that demonstrated that Respondent's support was a result of King's donation to the Foundation. The advocate presented three witnesses, Peter Tremetera, Paul Herman, and Shelly Bradshaw, who through their actions during Respondent's tenure as Executive Director of the Athletic Commission and their demeanor while giving testimony at the final hearing, demonstrated such a negative bias toward Respondent that much of their testimony is not credible. The solicitation and acceptance of free tickets and misuse of "pass lists" to boxing events by Commissioners and staff of the Athletic Commission has historically been a problem. This is evidenced by a 1991 Ethics Commission case involving a former chairman of the Athletic Commission [In re: James Resnick, 14 F.L.A.R. 1001 (1991)], a March 26, 1997, inquiry response from a Ethics Commission staff attorney on the subject, and specific direction on the subject from the Athletic Commission staff attorney. It is clearly appropriate for Commissioners and staff who have a legitimate function associated with a boxing event to be admitted to the event without paying an admission fee. It is similarly clear that it is inappropriate for relatives, friends, political associates, and other individuals who have no legitimate Athletic Commission function to gain free admission to a boxing event as a result of an association with the Athletic Commission. Respondent gave Peter Trematerra free tickets to several boxing events. Respondent placed an attorney who had no Athletic Commission involvement on the pass list "all the time." Respondent solicited free tickets from a promoter in the Lou Duva organization. Respondent signed a receipt for twenty 75-dollar tickets and thirty 50-dollar tickets for a January 31, 1998, boxing event at the Ice Palace in Tampa. During his tenure as Executive Director, Respondent solicited and accepted free tickets to boxing events from event promoters, or caused the names of individuals who had no legitimate function related to the Athletic Commission to be placed on "pass lists" which allowed free admissions to boxing events. Evidence was presented that indicated that not only Respondent but others associated with the Athletic Commission solicited and accepted tickets or passes for individuals who had no legitimate function with particular boxing events. In September 1997, David Walker performed 16 hours of community service at the Tampa office of the Athletic Commission Two documents were signed by Respondent, one, a letter dated September 21, 1997, indicating that David Walker had performed 16 hours of community service; the second, a memo indicating that David walker had completed the 16 hours of community service on two Saturdays, September 6 and 13, 1997. David walker testified that he had completed the community service on weekdays.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order and public report be entered finding that Respondent, Morris Michael "Mike" Scionti, violated Subsection 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, to the extent that Respondent solicited and accepted tickets or complimentary admissions to boxing matches as represented in the Order Finding Probable Cause; imposing a civil penalty of $1,000; and issuing a public censure and reprimand; and that the remainder of the violations alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 4th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Donnelly, Esquire Veronica E. Donnelly, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Julie A. Reynolds, Esquire 4612 North 56th Street Tampa, Florida 33610 Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phillip C. Claypool, General Counsel Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the several violations of Sections 489.129(1)(h)2.,(h)3.,(j),(k), and (n), Florida Statutes (1997), for the reasons stated in the respective Administrative Complaints and, if so, what, if any, penalties should be imposed. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting. Respondent is licensed as a certified general contractor pursuant to license number CG C059414. At all relevant times, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Fred T. Garrett Construction, Inc. ("FTG"). As the qualifying agent, Respondent was responsible for all of FTG's contracting activities in accordance with Section 489.1195, Florida Statutes. Respondent failed to obtain a certificate of authority for Fred T. Garrett Construction, Inc., as required by Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes. The St. Cyr Case On or about August 21, 1998, Respondent entered into a contract with Louis L. St. Cyr to construct an addition to the residence located at 201 South Bel Air Drive, Plantation, Florida. The contract price was $50,000. Although Mr. St. Cyr paid $2,500 to Respondent, Respondent failed to commence work and canceled the project, thereby abandoning it without just cause and without proper notification to Mr. St. Cyr. The contract did not permit Respondent to keep the $2,500 paid by Mr. St. Cyr, and Respondent failed to refund the payment within 30 days after abandonment. Out of the $2,500 he received from Mr. St. Cyr, however, Respondent paid $1,600.00 to the architect before abandoning the project. Thus, the net amount that Respondent owes to Mr. St. Cyr is $900. Petitioner incurred a total of $1,092.28 in investigative costs relating to the St. Cyr case. The Forney Case On May 22, 1998, Respondent, who was doing business as FTG, entered into a contract with Mr. Warren Forney for the construction of a two-bedroom, one-bath addition to the residence located at 1698 Northeast 33rd Street, Oakland Park, Florida. The contract price was $32,500. The contract with Mr. Forney did not contain a written statement explaining the customer’s rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes. On July 7, 1998, Respondent obtained permit number 98-050297 from the Oakland Park Building Department. Construction commenced on or about July 7, 1998, and continued sporadically until October 29, 1998, when Mr. Forney dismissed Respondent for failure to timely complete the project. The Oakland Park Building Department issued notices of violation against the project on August 3, September 11, and October 14, 1998, for various building code violations. Mr. Forney was forced to obtain a homeowner’s permit and subsequently hired a subcontractor to complete the work. Mr. Forney paid Respondent approximately $29,250 before relieving Respondent of his duties. To complete the project, Mr. Forney paid a total of $48,746.52, which was $15,396.52 over and above the original contract price. Petitioner incurred a total of $2,190.78 in investigative costs relating to the Forney case. The Kong Case In or around January 1998, a contractor named Lakeview Concepts hired Respondent to perform demolition work for the Kong dry cleaning store project on the property located at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida. On or about June 17, 1998, permit 98-00002349 was issued to Respondent to perform alterations on commercial property located at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida. Respondent, however, did not yet have a contract with the owner for this work. The next month, on or about July 30, 1998, Respondent, who was doing business as FTG, entered into a contract with Shek Kong to complete the dry cleaning store project at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida, for the contract price of $22,300. Shek Kong made payments to Respondent totaling $16,000. Respondent’s work was of poor quality, however, and on or about November 6, 1998, he ceased work, though the project had not been completed. On or about November 14, 1998, Douglas Frankow, license number CB C052960, gave Mr. Kong an estimate of $20,562 to complete the project. Thereafter, on or about June 30, 1999, Mr. Kong contracted with George Settergren, another licensed contractor, to complete the project for a contract price of $27,956. On December 9, 1999, in Case No. 98-020065 08, the Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, rendered a Final Judgment against Respondent and in favor of Mr. Kong. This judgment awarded Mr. Kong the total amount of $28,693.30, plus 10 percent interest per annum. Petitioner incurred a total of $2,502.78 in investigative costs relating to the Kong case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(h)2., (h)3., (j), (k), and (n), Florida Statutes, imposing administrative fines in the aggregate amount of $3,700, assessing investigative costs in the aggregate amount of $5,785.84, placing Respondent's license on probation for a period of four years from the date the Final Order is entered by the Board, and awarding payment of restitution to each customer as follows: (1) to Warren Forney, the amount of $15,396.52; (2) to Shek Kong, satisfaction of the unpaid civil judgment in the amount $28,693.30, plus 10 percent interest accrued thereon; and (3) to Louis L. St. Cyr, the amount of $900. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of February, 2002.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(i) and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a Certified Plumbing Contractor, holding License No. CF C056847. Respondent has maintained an active license since October 19, 1995. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent conducted his business under the name of Ron Price Plumbing and Tile. On May 18, 2000, Respondent's business was located at 2043 Mike Street, South Daytona, Florida. On May 18, 2000, Respondent gave Edward Carlson a written proposal to perform some repair work in a bathroom at Mr. Carlson's residence, which was located in Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida. The letterhead on the written proposal indicates that Respondent's business address was 2043 Mike Street, Daytona Beach, Florida. The written proposal states that for the sum of $1,200, Respondent would perform the following work : (a) remove floor and bottom two rows of tile; (b) install PVC pan and drain; (c) install dura rock to walls; (d) install four-by-four wall tile; (e) install second floor; (f) install two-by-two floor tile; (g) use white grout; and (h) haul away refuse. Mr. Carlson accepted this proposal. Respondent did not pull a permit from the City of Daytona Beach Building Department before commencing the work in Mr. Carlson's bathroom. The City of Daytona Beach, Florida, requires a permit for the type of work performed by Respondent, even though very few plumbers or contractors actually take the time to pull one. Specifically, City of Daytona Beach Ordinance 104.1.4.1 requires a permit for minor repairs exceeding $500. Respondent, subsequently, completed the work in Mr. Carlson's bathroom. Mr. Carlson inspected the work and paid Respondent $1,200 as agreed. There is no credible evidence that Respondent's work was substandard or that he damaged Mr. Carlson's property in any respect. Thereafter, Respondent moved his business to 6089 Airport Road, Port Orange, Volusia County, Florida. As of September 1, 2000, Petitioner's records correctly reflect Respondent's current address of record at the new business location. Petitioner expended $312.48 in total cost, excluding attorney's fees, for investigating, filing, and pursuing the complaint against Respondent through the administrative complaint process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500, and assessing investigative costs in the amount of $312.48. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 8th day of November, 2001.
The Issue The issues in this matter are those raised by an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent charging the Respondent with violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In particular, these allegations pertain to services performed by the Respondent as a roofing contractor, for the benefit of one Dale Weich. These offenses are more completely described in the Conclusions of Law section to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times to this case, Respondent Rex Alaniz was a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC0042021 by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. Within that time sequence, Alaniz also served as the qualifying agent for Rex Alaniz Roofing and Remodeling Co. On July 27, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract with Dale Weich to effect repairs to Weich's home. That residence was located in Jacksonville Beach, Florida. The substance of the repairs primarily dealt with leaks in a built- up flat room over the garage at the Weich residence, as it joined the house. The main part of the house had a pitch roof covered with terra-cotta tiles. Work was also to be done on the terra-cotta roof. The work on the garage area, where the flat roof was found, included the placement of tar and gravel and the replacement of certain timbers in the garage structure. The roof was leaking in four distinct locations. A copy of the contract may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 7 admitted into evidence. That contract is in the amount of $860.00 which has been paid to the Respondent in exchange for the work. The work was warranted, per the contract, for a period of one year. On July 28, 1983, Respondent commenced work. When the Respondent showed up for work and began the process, he had not obtained a building permit from the City of Jacksonville Beach. A permit was obtained before the work was completed on July 28, 1983. In failing to obtain the permit initially, Respondent was knowingly or deliberately disregarding the requirements to obtain it, in that he had frequently done work at Jacksonville Beach and was aware of the need to pull the permit before commencing the work. Under the circumstances, the failure to obtain the permit before commencing the work is not found to be an oversight by Respondent. On the same date the work was done, it rained and the roof leaked in the same places it had leaked before repairs were made. There ensued a number of trips on the part of Respondent and his employee to attempt to correct the circumstance. This included adjusting the tiles on the roof to the main house; placing additional tar on the built-up roof over the garage; placing water on the roof by the use of a garden hose, at which time the roof did not leak, and plugging up a small opening at the edge of the roof. On one of the visits by the Respondent following the work of July 28, 1983, it was raining and the roof was leaking and these leaks were observed by the Respondent. Weich tried to contact the Respondent after the events described immediately above, in an effort to get the Respondent to correct the problems. He received no response from Alaniz. Sometime around September 1983, Weich saw the Respondent in a store and told the Respondent that the roof was still leaking and asked that the Respondent return to fix the leaks. Respondent agreed to return to the job, but has yet to honor that agreement. This discussion in the store was not one in which Weich agreed to pay the Respondent additional money to return to the job, as was testified to by the Respondent in the course of the final hearing. At the time of the final hearing, the roof still leaked in those places for which Respondent had contracted to complete repairs.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an employment relationship existed between Petitioner and Respondent, which would permit Petitioner to seek an administrative remedy for alleged unlawful discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent L.S.P. Officials, Inc. ("LSPO"), is a Florida profit corporation, formed in October 2013 by Freddie Williams, who has been the company's president at all times. Since 2013, Mr. Williams has been the Supervisor of Basketball Officials ("Supervisor") for the Sun Conference, an athletic conference of small colleges in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics ("NAIA"). As Supervisor, Mr. Williams assigns referees and umpires, whom he also recruits, to officiate at Sun Conference basketball games. Officials work the games in three-man crews, and each man is paid a flat, per-game fee for his performance. Compensation for the officials comes from the conference, which collects money for this purpose from the member schools, and is paid to the officials through LSPO. After becoming Supervisor, Mr. Williams incorporated LSPO, at the behest of the Sun Conference, to serve as the clearinghouse for distributing officials' fees. LSPO conducts no other business and, according to Mr. Williams, has never had any employees——a matter presently in dispute. Petitioner Joseph Quinn ("Quinn") is a full-time employee of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in south Florida. His avocation is officiating basketball games, which he has done on the side since at least 2003. During this time, Quinn has officiated at the high school level and for small college programs. He worked Sun Conference games from the 2008-09 season through the 2013-14 season (the latter being Mr. Williams's first season as Supervisor). On August 24, 2013, before the beginning of the 2013-14 season, Quinn signed the following agreement (the "Officials Contract"): Quinn must establish the existence of an employment relationship because FCHR does not have jurisdiction to hear claims involving alleged discrimination against independent contractors. Not surprisingly, therefore, Quinn's current litigating position is that he was not an independent contractor, but an employee of LSPO——which, awkwardly for Quinn's theory, had not yet come into being as of August 24, 2013. The Officials Contract is obviously a major stumbling block for Quinn inasmuch as it clearly describes him as an independent contractor and conspicuously makes no mention of LSPO. Mr. Williams, moreover, is identified in the Officials Contract as "Supervisor of Basketball Officials," his Sun Conference title, and——for all that appears in the agreement——he seems to have been acting as an agent of the Sun Conference and not in his personal capacity or as an officer of LSPO. Based solely on the Officials Contract, the most reasonable and natural conclusion is that Quinn agreed to provide basketball officiating services for one season to the Sun Conference as an independent contractor. Other facts bear out this conclusion. The 2013-14 basketball season began in October or November of 2013 and lasted until March 2014. During that season, Quinn was assigned five games in the Sun Conference, and he officiated each of them, declining none. (As is customary in this line of work, a sports official for the Sun Conference may "turn back" an assignment for any reason, but doing so is frowned upon.) For each game, regardless of the amount of time involved, Quinn received a fee of $175.00, which, as mentioned, was paid by the colleges in the conference, through LSPO. LSPO did not charge any fee to the officials for its role as middleman. Nor did LSPO (or the Sun Conference) withhold federal income, Social Security, or Medicare taxes from the officials' fees. As an official, Quinn was responsible for purchasing his own uniforms, which needed to comply with the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") and NAIA rules, as applicable. At a preseason meeting, Mr. Williams gave the officials a whistle bearing the Sun Conference logo, which they could use for games if they wanted, and a conference polo shirt, which could be worn off court. Quinn received no reimbursement for travel expenses, including food and lodging, incurred while working as a Sun Conference official——just the flat fee of $175.00 per game. During the course of a basketball game, the three officials on the court had the exclusive authority to call fouls, stop and resume play, and otherwise control the conduct of the contest. Officiating is a specialized skill that requires not only thorough knowledge of the game and its rules, but also an ability to exercise good judgment on the fly. Neither Mr. Williams nor anyone else exerted control over Quinn's on-court performance, either in regard to the means he should employ or the results to be obtained. As Supervisor, Mr. Williams gave Quinn and the other Sun Conference officials a high degree of autonomy. He instructed them to arrive at the game site 60 minutes before a contest and to dress professionally on the job when not in uniform. In addition, at the preseason meeting mentioned previously, Mr. Williams reviewed NCAA rules, noted points of emphasis from the conference's standpoint, provided some guidance regarding the mechanics of officiating, and highlighted differences between NCAA and NAIA rules. Otherwise, however, he left the officials largely to themselves. Quinn was not precluded by his relationship with the Sun Conference from officiating in other leagues. Quinn did not receive an IRS Form W-2 from LSPO or the Sun Conference. Following the 2013-14 season, Mr. Williams, as Supervisor, elected not to renew Quinn's contract as a conference official. Mr. Williams informed Quinn of this decision in the following letter: Notably, nothing in the foregoing letter suggests that Mr. Williams acted in any capacity other than Supervisor, e.g., as president of LSPO, nor does the letter support the notion that LSPO (which is not mentioned) terminated Quinn's employment. Ultimate Factual Determinations It is determined that Quinn was not an employee of LSPO. Rather, Quinn was an independent contractor of the Sun Conference, and, in that capacity, he officiated five basketball games during the 2013-14 season, receiving a fee of $175.00 per game for his services as a sports official.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Quinn was not an employee of LSPO. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2017.
Findings Of Fact A letter of denial from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services upon the application of Petitioner, Bob Walker Trailer Park, for a trailer park permit filed by Bob Walker for the Bob Walker Trailer Park, a/k/a the Cherry Pocket Fish Camp was introduced into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and stated in part: "1. That the Petitioner had not complied with Section 10D-26.05 F.A.C. which requires that a permit application should be on forms furnished by the Division of Health and should be submitted through the local health depart- ment. The Petitioner was in violation of Section 10D-26.07(3)(a) F.A.C. because the minimum square footage requirement of 2,400 square feet for each independent mobile home space is not being met at his trailer park. The Petitioner was in violation of Section 10D-26.08 F.A.C. in that he is not providing at his trailer park an accessible, adequate, safe and potable supply of water. Further, the water provided the residents of the trailer park is not in compliance with Section 17-22 F.A.C. in that the plan submitted by the Petitioner does not show or specify chlorination equipment as required by Section 17-22.11(2) F.A.C. because the well at the trailer park is in prohibited proximity to a septic tank for which the Peti- tioner has never received a permit as required by Chapter 10D-6 F.A.C. The water supply plan submitted by the Petitioner cam not be approved by the local health unit of the Department because the Petitioner has not indicated the physical and chemical parameters of the water as required by Section 17.22.03(7), (9), (11) F.A.C. The Petitioner was in violation of Section 10D-26.09 F.A.C. because he does not have at his trailer park an adequate and safe method of sewage collection, treatment and disposal in compliance with Chapter 17-6 F.A.C. or 10D-6 F.A.C. The septic tanks installed at the Petitioner's trailer park were installed in violation of 10D-6 F.A.C. without any permits having been secured. The Petitioner is required to have a central sewage system installed and in operation in his trailer park before a trailer park permit can be granted. Section 10-6.21(9) F.A.C. provides that total waste flow from any one establishment, whether a single structure or group of structures except residences shall be centrally collected for treatment and disposal in compliance with Chapter 17-6 F.A.C. when the established daily flow exceeds 2,000 gallons." Petitioner acknowledges the accuracy of the facts contained in the letter but contends: that the required forms were not sent him; that his trailer park had been in operation for a long period of time and he had always intended to comply with the numerous permits and regulations and felt that he had so complied; that the requirements of the Respondent particularly as to a central sewage system is unnecessary and confiscatory in effect. Respondent contends: that it had no alternative but to issue a letter of denial; that it followed the requirements of Chapter 381 and 514, Florida Statutes; and that the rules promulgated under those statutes and cited in its letter of denial are the requirements of the statutes and the rules, and it has no alternative but to enforce those provisions. Petitioner's proposed order was considered in the preparation of this order including the references to the current numbering of the applicable rules.
Recommendation Deny the application without prejudice to Petitioner to complete a study and arrive at a settlement satisfactory to the Respondent. Allow the Petitioner sixty (60) days from date hereof to re-submit an application for a trailer park permit. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Dell McPherson, Esquire Department of HRS Post Office Box 20007 St. Petersburg, Florida 33742 Andrew R. Reilly, Esquire Post Office Box 2039 Haines City, Florida 33844
The Issue The issues in this cause are those promoted by the filing of an Administrative Complaint by the Department of Professional Regulation accusing the Respondent of various violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Should the Respondent be found guilty, this action contemplates the imposition of a penalty against Respondent's license as a commercial pool contractor in Florida.
Findings Of Fact 1. Respondent, at all times relevant to this inquiry, was a registered commercial pool contractor having been issued license number RP0041725. This is a license issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. 2..On November 18, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract under the name Kennedy Pool and Construction Co., an entity for whom Respondent serves as a qualifying agent in the commercial pool contracting business. This contract was with one Marie Robertson; however, the contract was not for the purpose of construction of a pool. It was for construction of a 20' by 24' block garage. This structure was to be free-standing and would be located adjacent to Ms. Robertson's residence, which is also used in her business. Petitioner's exhibit number 2 is a copy of the contract and reflects the $4,800.00 contract price. Robertson has paid the full amount of the contract and the garage construction was completed in January, 1984. Respondent personally built the garage. Respondent built the garage without obtaining a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent also failed to submit plans and specifications to the City of Jacksonville, which set forth the design and placement of this garage structure. Having failed to request a permit or to submit plans and specifications, Respondent made no request of the City of Jacksonville Building Department to inspect the construction related to the garage. Finally, Respondent in his licensure with the State of Florida, and license recognition with the City of Jacksonville, was not authorized to serve as a building contractor engaging in the construction of structures such as the garage in question. The project at issue entailed the pouring of a foundation; the erection of block walls the erection of a roof truss system and the installation of a roof covering of shingles. All of these items were beyond the license recognition which respondent held with the State of Florida and the City of Jacksonville. When the City of Jacksonville discovered the existence of the garage, it made the owner aware that the structure was in violation of the City of Jacksonville Building Code related to the need for obtaining a building permit, and the fact that the garage structure violated the city's set-back requirement. This later item pertained to the fact that given the commercial utilization of the property, on the part of Ms. Robertson, the garage was too close to the city street. As a consequence, Robertson was put to the inconvenience of obtaining and paying for a building permit and gaining a variance from the set-back requirements mentioned. Had the City of Jacksonville been presented with building plans and specifications, this would have alerted the city to the fact that the placement of the garage was too close to the street. When confronted with her difficulty, Ms. Robertson contacted the Respondent to gain his assistance in obtaining a building permit. The Respondent indicated that it was her problem and said that he could not get a permit because the property was business property and not private property. The Respondent was charged by the City of Jacksonville through a notice of violation of local zoning requirements related to the failure to obtain a building permit and the fact that the Respondent was not licensed by the City of Jacksonville to construct a garage at the Robertson residence. Attempts at serving the violations were not successful in that calls to the Respondent and issuance of notice of violations through certified mail, return receipt requested, were not acknowledged by the Respondent.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding and should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact At no time material to the allegations was Respondent licensed or certified as a contractor of any type by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or about June 2000, Respondent entered into a written contractual agreement with Harold Knowles to construct a swimming pool at Mr. Knowles' residence located at 235 North Rosehill Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. The contract price for the swimming pool was $18,650.00. Mr. Knowles paid directly to Respondent $9,400.00. Respondent performed some work on the pool project and then stopped work on the project. Respondent failed to return to Mr. Knowles any monies received for the project. The homeowner was forced to pay out-of-pocket expenses to have a second, licensed pool contractor finish the pool that Respondent left unfinished. These expenses total in excess of $24,000.00. Respondent acknowledges that he had no license. Respondent testified at hearing along with his wife. It was clear that Respondent was sorry for his actions. He was unaware of the gravity of his acts. He does not have any financial resources, and a significant fine will not benefit Mr. Knowles. A substantial fine adversely impact Respondent's family more than Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be fined $500.00, together with the investigation and prosecution costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick Creehan, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Robert Footman 2702 Lake Mary Street Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Gail Scott-Hill, Esquire Lead Professions Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0771 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
