The Issue Whether or not the Respondents, Henry Adkins and Sharon Adkins, are guilty of committing an act which constitutes fraud or dishonest dealings, for events on or about February 2, 1976, by charging Joseph Scozzafava for a (1) 1,000 ohm resistor 2 watt, when in fact it was not replaced; in violation of Section 468.159(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Whether or not the Respondents, Henry Adkins and Sharon Adkins, are guilty of committing an act which constitutes fraud or dishonest dealings, for events on or about February 2, 1976, by charging Joseph Scozzafava for a "Rebuilt Tuner", when in fact the work was not performed; in violation of Section 468.159(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Whether or not the Respondents, Henry Adkins and Sharon Adkins, are guilty of committing an act which constitutes fraud or dishonest dealings, for events on or about February 2, 1976,by charging Joseph Scozzafava for replacement of two (2) 6GH8 tubes, when in fact they were not needed; in violation of Section 468.159(1)(d) , Florida Statutes. The charging document in this cause, to wit, the Notice to Show Cause, had originally charged Henry Adkins and Sharon Adkins with the failure to identify the State Registration on invoice #3078 dated January 3, 1976, as required by Rule 7B-2.12(b), Florida Administrative Code. This count of the Notice to Show Cause was voluntarily dismissed by the Petitioner at the commencement of the hearing.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Notice to Show Cause of the Petitioner, which is complaint No. 108000-51 before the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of General Regulation. The complaint is addressed to the Respondents, Henry Adkins and Sharon Adkins, his wife, who trade as Lauderdale Lakes T.V. and is directed to the following business entities owned by Henry Adkins or Henry Adkins and Sharon Adkins. The corresponding numbers which are reported here pertain to the license numbers assigned by the Petitioner to Henry Adkins or Henry Adkins and Sharon Adkins. Those licenses are for All-State T. V., No. 5079; Tower T.V., No. 6108; Lauderdale Lakes T.V., No. 5069; Inter-City T.V., No. 2895; X-Ray T.V., No. 2914; and M & H Electronics., No. 4854. Henry Adkins appears as the owner on all licenses. Sharon Adkins appears as the co-owner on the license for M & H Electronics, No. 4854. Before presenting the case for consideration, the parties entered into these factual stipulations: The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to consider this case. The Notice of Hearing in this cause is timely. Henry Adkins is listed in the six licenses referred to above and each of those licenses have a mailing address of 3504 NW 10th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309. In addition, those licenses referred to above and the ownership stated are correct as to the existence of the entity, the ownership and the number assigned to the various entities by the Petitioner. The invoice of Lauderdale Lakes T.V., No. 3078, is authentic. The State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of General Regulation is the owner of a 1972 RCA color television which is the subject of this case. Three television tubes, to wit: two 6GH8 tubes, and one 6-CB6 tube are the property of the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of General Regulation. Joseph Scozzafava is not the owner of the subject 1972 RCA color television, nor was the money paid for the repair of the said television money of Mr. Scozzafava. The invoice referred to above may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. admitted into evidence. The television set is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence, and the three tubes are Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. In late January, 1976 employees of the Petitioner, operating on complaints, prepared a television set for purposes of ascertaining whether or not the Respondent, Henry Adkins, d/b/a Lauderdale Lakes T.V., was. operating in violation of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. In furtherance of their investigation they took tile 1972 RCA television set which has been mentioned as being Exhibit No. 2, and played the set for a couple of days to determine whether or not it was in good working order. From an observation point of view, there were no malfunctions during the test period. In the color circuit to include all the major components such as the tuner, transformer, and resistors, all items checked out as operating properly. In addition, 15 tubes within the set were checked by tube fester and the tubes proved to be acceptable. (The tube tester had not been certified.) After checking the set out, Frank Butler, an investigator with the Petitioner and Certified Electronics Technician, overloaded a tube within the color circuit. The specific tube is a 6-CB6 burst amplifier. The effect of overloading this tube was to remove the color from the set, such that it would play only in black and white. The created malfunction in this tube did not have an adverse effect on the other components within the set. The employees of the Petitioner also marked a number of the tubes in the set by crimping the connectors on the tubes by way of identification. An operative 6-CB6 burst amplifier was then inserted in the set and the set was played again for two days, within which time it operated successfully. The Petitioner's employees then contacted one Joseph Scozzafava, an employee with the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage. The purpose of the contact with Scozzafava was to allow him to take the television set owned by the State and to contact Lauderdale Lakes T.V. for purposes of having that organization make repairs on the subject television. The idea was that the defective 6-CB6 tube would he left in the set so that the television only played black and white. When they took the set to Scozzafava in late January, 1976, they showed him that the set operated on all local-stations and then removed the operative 6-CB6 tube and replaced it with the inoperative tube and left that tube in the set. The Petitioner's employees then instructed Scozzafava to call Lauderdale Lakes T.V. to have the repairs effected. To achieve this end, Scozzafava was paid $100.00 by the Petitioner and in turn would write a check from his own account for the amount of the total cost of repairs. The set was picked up from Scozzafava on January 27, 1976. The pickup was made by an employee of the Respondent, Henry Adkins, in a truck listed to the license, Inter-City T.V. The television set was repaired under an invoice of Lauderdale Lakes T.V., a license held by Henry Adkins. That invoice is the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. The facts repeal that two 6GH8 tubes were replaced by employees of the Respondent, Henry Adkins, and charged to Scozzafava, when it was in fact unnecessary to replace those tubes. Those tubes may be found as part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence, and when tested subsequent to the time the television set was returned to the employees of the Petitioner, were found to be operable over a period of one or more days arid when played during the course of the hearing, were found to be in good operating condition. The charges and the indication of replacement may be found in the invoice and the invoice was executed by an employee of Henry Adkins, the Respondent. That employee was working for Lauderdale Lakes T.V. The invoice also reflects the replacement of one 1,000 ohm 2 watt resister, when in fact no replacement of the resister occurred. Scozzafava was charged for this item which was not replaced. Finally, there is an indication that the tuner within the set was rebuilt and a charge made to Scozzafava for that service. The Petitioner's employees had placed wax and tape across the shield which covers the inner parts of the tuner and that wax and tape had not been disturbed during the pendency of the time which the set was with the employees of the Respondent. The tuner was not rebuilt, notwithstanding the claim by witnesses of the Respondents, to the effect that certain repairs could have been made to the surface of the tuner without the necessity to remove that shield. The evidence leads to the conclusion that the tuner was not rebuilt. In summary, Scozzafava paid $88.45, to Lauderdale Lakes T.V. from funds provided him by the Petitioner. Of that amount paid, $8.40 was paid for two 6GH8 tubes; $6.25 was paid for the one 1,000 ohm 2 watt resistor which was not installed and $21.00 was paid for rebuilding the tuner, when in fact the tuner was not rebuilt. Some portion of the labor charge of $32.50 went toward these items; however, it is unclear what portion of that charge pertains to those items. As briefly mentioned before, the television set was returned to Scozzafava, who in turn gave it to the Petitioner's employees, who kept the set until such time as the case was brought. Employees of the Respondent, Henry Adkins, driving an Inter-City T.V. truck, returned three tubes, one 6-CB6 and two 6GH8; they did not return a 1,000 ohm 2 watt resister. The balance of the $100.00 paid to Scozzafava for the purposes of assisting the Petitioner was returned to the Petitioner. There was no testimony to the effect that either Henry Adkins or Sharon Adkins were directly involved in the pick-up or repair of the television set. Sharon Adkins was involved in the billing process, based upon a cost estimate given to Scozzafava in the amount of $85.00. Both Respondents indicated that they make a background check of all employees hired, for purposes of determining the employees' integrity. The Respondents, through Sharon Adkins, also indicated that they had made attempts to locate all employees who were involved with the pick-up or repair of the television set and were unsuccessful in locating them due to the death of one employee and the inability through use of a private detective to locate the other individuals. Henry Adkins also indicated that he had fired employees in the last two years because those employees put in unnecessary parts or overcharged for parts. The Petitioner has charged the Respondents with committing acts of fraud and dishonest dealings by charging Joseph Scozzafava for the one 1,000 ohm watt resister; charging him for the rebuilt tuner and replacing the two 6GH8 tubes when in fact they were not needed. To the Petitioner, these acts were in violation of Section 468.159(1)(d), Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "In violation of registration; civil penalties.- The Division may refuse to validate or may invalidate temporarily or permanently the registration of a service dealer for any of the acts or omissions related to the conduct of his business done by himself or any employee, partner, officer, or member of the service dealer; (d) Committing any other act which constitutes fraud or dishonest dealing." By charging for the two 6GH8 tubes that were not needed; by failing to replace the one 1,000 ohms 2 watt resister, and charging for such replacement and for charging to rebuild a tuner which was not rebuilt, the employees of the Respondents are guilty of fraud and dishonest dealing. For those violations and under the exact language of the statute, the Respondents would appear to be guilty of a violation of Section 468.159(1)(d), Florida Statutes. However, the law does not contemplate that an employer is the absolute insurer of all the acts of his or her employees. Absent a showing of direct involvement on the part of the Respondents in the acts which constituted fraud and dishonest dealing, the Petitioner must show negligence or a lack of due diligence by the Respondents, In the Respondents' supervision of the employees who have committed the acts of fraud and dishonest dealing. (See Taylor v. State Beverage Department, 194 So.2d 321 (2nd DCA, 1967).) An isolated incident such as the one in the case under consideration does not satisfy the requirement that the Petitioner show negligence or a lack of due diligence on the part of the Respondents. Therefore, the Petitioner has failed to establish a violation on the parts of the Respondents as it pertains to the electronic service dealer registration Nos. 5069, 5079, 2895, 4854, 6108 and 2914, which are held by Henry Adkins and Sharon Adkins and Henry Adkins, solely. Full consideration has been given to the proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law submitted and when appropriate are incorporated in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Notice to Show Cause against Henry and Sharon Adkins, which is recorded as complaint No. 108000-51, pertaining to electronic service deal registration Nos. 5069, 5079, 2895, 4854, 6103 and 2914 be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Gentry, Esquire Staff Attorney State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert D. Hurth, Esquire 2425 East Commercial Boulevard Marwayne Office Plaza, Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
The Issue The issue is whether J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. qualifies as a socially and economically disadvantaged business enterprise under Rule 14- 78.005(c), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact J. P. Electrical Contractors is a Florida corporation which has been in business for approximately 17 years. It was founded and owned by Jacques Paul- Hus. The firm currently employees approximately 58 people. Its strengths are in contracting for highway lightning systems, traffic signals, and navigation lighting systems for airport runways. The firm has done a substantial amount of business. Its gross receipts for recent years are as follows: 1984 - $8,961,845 1985 - $7,881,440 1986 - $7,900,000 Mr. Mario Avin has been employed at J. P. Electrical since 1975, and has been a project manager for cost control. He has functioned as the controller or chief financial officer for the company. He is well experienced in the management of electrical contracting firms. Mr. Avin is black. About 1985, J. P. Electrical Contractors found itself in financial difficulty because of a contract it had with the Dade County Airport Authority. It had installed a shipment of runway lighting from Westinghouse Corporation which turned out to be defective. Due to the problems with those lights, a substantial portion of the contract price was retained by Dade County pending resolution of the lighting problem. This adversely affected the business' cash flow and required it to enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The company filed suit against Westinghouse Corporation and has received a favorable judgment at trial, which is on appeal. The business received an infusion of 200,000 invested by David E. Graham, a lawyer not experienced in contracting. To secure the loan, a transaction was structured by which Graham obtained indirect ownership of 1/2 of the stock of J. P. Electrical Contractors, a lien on the remaining stock of the company and became the lessor of the building occupied by J. P. Electrical Contractors. At about this time, Mario Avin began thinking of opening his own contracting company, based on his substantial experience in the contracting business, and on the assistance he could receive from the disadvantaged business enterprise programs of various governments due to his minority status. Jacques Paul-Hus suggested to Mr. Avin that he become an owner as well as manager of J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. Mr. Paul-Hus understood that if J. P. Electrical Contractors obtained minority status, it could enhance sales. As the result, the stock in J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. was divided as follows: Mario Avin 25,500 shares Jacques Paul-Hus 24,400 shares Louise Paul-Hus 100 shares David E. Graham ceased to own any stock in the company. Graham was most interested in recovering his investment and a profit, but was not interested in running a contracting company, which was outside his expertise. He also wished to be released from the guarantees which he, as a shareholder, had to provided to the surety company which underwrote the various construction bonds which J. P. Electrical Contractors had. Graham maintained, however, a lien in the form of a pledge and hypothecation agreement on the shares of J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. The first application of J. P. Electrical Contractors to the Florida Department of Transportation for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise was disapproved on January 5, 1988, due to the pledge and hypothecation agreement. In view of the Department certification review committee, Mr. Avin, who was chairman of the board of the company and held the majority of the stock, still did not have functional control over the company due to the pledge encumbering his stock. A new application was submitted on February 4, 1988, by J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. After the first disapproval, the affairs of the corporation were restructured. The pledge held by David E. Graham was cancelled and Mr. Avin owned outright the 25,500 shares of stock which represented 51 percent ownership without any encumbrance. Mr. Avin did not pay cash for his shares. The contribution to the enterprise which justified the transfer of the stock to him was the value of his experience in the financial management of electrical contracting business. As a chief financial officer, Mr. Avin is well experienced in estimating, in accounting systems, and in keeping track of the business' cash flow. This is essential in determining whether the company's position will permit it to bid and handle new work profitably. There is no doubt that, in part, the majority ownership was transferred to Mr. Avin by the former owners because of his minority status. With his majority ownership of the corporation, Mr. Avin also took on substantial personal liabilities. He became personally liable to Southeastern Causality and Indemnity Insurance Company on the performance bonds which J. P. Electrical Contractors has. He is now also personally liable to the Internal Revenue Service for payroll taxes due on the salary of all the company employees, because he is the corporate officer in charge of payroll. While Mr. Avin handles the day-to-day financial affairs and planning for the company, Mr. Jacques Paul-Hus still handles supervision of the field work of the company on a day-to-day basis. Given Mr. Avin's experience in financial matters, and Mr. Paul-Hus' experience in field supervision, this division of responsibility is appropriate. In return for taking on the additional responsibilities of becoming both the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the company, and assuming the personal liabilities explained above, Mr. Avin now receives a 51 percent portion of the profits of the company. The remaining 49 percent of any profits goes to Jacques Paul-Hus and his wife Louise. Mr. Graham's interest is limited to the ownership of indebtedness of the company. The second (current) application of J. P. Electrical Contractors for certification as a minority business enterprise was disapproved by the Department of Transportation on March 7, 1988. The certification review committee had been troubled by the restructuring of the affairs of J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. to meet the departmental objections which had resulted in the first disapproval of minority certification. The Department is wary of changes in corporate control as indications of improper manipulation of disadvantage business enterprise requirements. Here, Mr. Avin actually owns the majority of the stock of the contracting company and he shares both the risks of ownership as well as profits in proportion to his ownership. He has managerial authority commensurate with his majority ownership and has substantial experience in electrical contracting. He has the power to set the policies of the business, and his authority is not subject to any restriction, whether by a pledge of his stock or otherwise. While Mr. Paul-Hus is responsible for field supervision, Mr. Avin's experience and authority in planning and financial matters, as well as his ability to set overall policy, places Mr. Avin in charge of the business. Mr. Avin's testimony that he is responsible and empowered to make business decisions without the concurrence of Mr. Paul-Hus is accepted. While it is appropriate for the Department to be concerned about the restructuring of the corporation to meet the requirements of its program for disadvantaged business enterprises, the structure of J. P. Electrical Contractors is such that Mr. Avin does have ownership and control of the firm.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the application of J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise be GRANTED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 30th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Mario Avin J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. 877 Northwest 61st Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 James W. Anderson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting and electrical contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Lamar "Marty" Campbell was not licensed nor had he ever been licensed to engage in contracting as a State Registered or State Certified Contractor in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Mr. Campbell readily acknowledges that he has not had training or education in construction or contracting and has never held any licenses related to any type of construction or contracting. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Johnston Handyman Services did not hold a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Respondent, Lamar Campbell, resides in Gulf Breeze, Florida. After Hurricane Ivan, he and his roommate took in Jeff Johnston, who then resided in Mr. Campbell's home at all times material to this case. Mr. Johnston performed some handywork in Respondent's home. Mr. Johnston did not have a car, a bank account, or an ID. Mr. Campbell drove Mr. Johnston wherever he needed to go. At some point in time, Mr. Campbell drove Mr. Johnston to obtain a handyman's license in Santa Rosa County. Mr. Campbell did not apply for the license with Mr. Johnston and Mr. Campbell's name does not appear on this license. The license is in the name of Johnston's Handyman Services. Mr. Campbell is a neighbor of Kenneth and Tracy Cauley. In the summer of 2005, which was during the period of time when Mr. Johnston resided in Mr. Campbell's home, the Cauleys desired to have repairs done on their home to their hall bathroom, master bathroom, kitchen and laundry room. With the help of Mr. Campbell and others, Mr. Johnston prepared various lists of repairs that the Cauleys wanted performed on their home. In August 2005, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Campbell went to the Cauley's home and the proposed repairs were discussed with the Cauleys. There are documents in evidence dated August and October, 2005, which the Cauleys perceive to be contracts for the repairs to be done in their home. However, these documents are not contracts but are estimates, itemizing both materials and labor. The documents have the word "Estimate" in large bold type at the top and "Johnston Handyman Services" also at the top of the pages. The list of itemized materials includes electrical items, e.g., light fixtures and wiring. Also in evidence are documents dated August and October, 2005, with the word "Invoice" in large bold letters and "Johnston Handyman Services" at the top of the pages. Both Mr. and Mrs. Cauley acknowledge that Mr. Johnston performed the vast majority of the work on their home. However, at Mr. Johnston's request, Mr. Campbell did assist Mr. Johnston in working on the Cauley residence. Between August 5, 2005, and October 11, 2005, Mrs. Cauley wrote several checks totaling $24,861.53. Each check was written out to Marty Campbell or Lamar Campbell.1/ Mr. Campbell acknowledges endorsing these checks but asserts that he cashed them on behalf of Mr. Johnston, who did not have a bank account or identification, and turned the cash proceeds over to Mr. Johnston. Further, Mr. Campbell insists that he did not keep any of these proceeds. The undersigned finds Mr. Campbell's testimony in this regard to be credible. Work on the project ceased before it was finished and Mr. Johnston left the area. Apparently, he cannot be located. The total investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $419.55 regarding the allegations relating to Case No. 06-2764, and $151.25 regarding the allegations relating to case No. 06-3171, for a total of $570.80.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,000 for a violation of Section 489.127(1), Florida Statutes; imposing a fine of $500 for a violation of Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, and requiring Respondent, Lamar Campbell, to pay $570.80 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 9th day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent provides “handyman” services through BK and H Corporation. Respondent is not licensed by the Department as a contractor or an electrical contractor, and his corporation is not licensed by or registered with the Department in those fields. Respondent’s corporation has an occupational license from Collier County. The classification listed on the license is “handyman repair service (no contracting).” The occupational license includes the notation “HIGHLY RESTRICTED” in bold type. The license also states that it “is not a certification that the licensee is qualified” and that it “does not permit the licensee to violate any existing regulatory zoning laws of the state, county or cities nor does it exempt the licensee from any other license or permits that may be required by law.” On or about April 11, 2005, Respondent presented a written “Estimate” to Robert Brown for a variety of work that Mr. Brown wanted done to his home. The Estimate was on the letterhead of Respondent’s corporation. Respondent testified that the Estimate was not a proposal for work to be performed, but rather was an itemized list of the work that he and others hired by Mr. Brown had already performed and that Mr. Brown had already paid for. Respondent’s testimony regarding the purpose of the Estimate was not credible. First, if, as Respondent claims, the Estimate was intended to be an itemization of work that had already been performed and that Mr. Brown had already paid for, there would have been no reason for Mr. Brown to pay additional money to Respondent after April 11, 2005, as he did (see Findings of Fact 12 and 13), and there would also have been no reason for Mr. Brown to execute a power of attorney after that date to give Respondent authority to “pull” building permits on Mr. Brown’s behalf (see Findings of Fact 15 and 16). Second, Respondent’s characterization of the Estimate is inconsistent with that of his fiancée, Kimberly Frye, who credibly testified that she prepared the document “based on some handwritten notes after Mr. Brown and [Respondent] first initiated [sic] at the home, and they made a list of items that Mr. Brown solicited from [Respondent] to do services.”1 The more persuasive evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the Estimate was a proposal by Respondent to perform the work listed on the Estimate at Mr. Brown’s home for compensation. The work listed on the Estimate included electrical work (e.g., installation of a 200 Amp service outlet box and two lights in the front yard); structural work (e.g., repairs to Mr. Brown’s roof and the removal and replacement of a pool deck); and other miscellaneous remodeling work inside and around Mr. Brown’s home. The price listed on the Estimate was $8,500. That amount did not include the cost of materials, which according to the Estimate, were to be paid for by Mr. Brown. On April 25, 2005, Mr. Brown paid Respondent $2,000 in cash “toward labor” and $500 in cash “toward materials.” Mr. Brown paid Respondent an additional $2,000 in cash on May 15, 2005, and another $2,000 by check on June 16, 2005. Respondent acknowledged receiving $6,000 from Mr. Brown related to the work listed on the Estimate.2 Respondent claimed that he was only serving as a conduit for the money and that he paid the money to other people that Mr. Brown had hired to perform work on his home at the same time Respondent was working there. Respondent did not present any evidence to corroborate this self-serving testimony, and it is not found credible. On April 25, 2005, Mr. Brown executed a document titled “Specific Power of Attorney for Collier County and City of Naples.” The document purports to give Respondent “power of [Mr. Brown’s] signature for any and all necessary permits, inspections and permit pick up” related to the work on Mr. Brown’s home. According to Respondent, the document was prepared and given to him by Mr. Brown so that he could “pull” owner-builder permits from the Collier County and/or the City of Naples on Mr. Brown’s behalf. An owner-builder permit allows the work to be performed by or under the direct onsite supervision of the owner of the building. It does not allow the work to be delegated by the owner (through a power of attorney or otherwise) to an unlicensed contractor, such as Respondent. Mr. Brown testified that he asked Respondent whether he was a licensed general contractor and Respondent told him that he was. Respondent testified that he told Mr. Brown on several occasions that he was not a licensed contractor. Respondent’s testimony was corroborated by Ms. Frye. Mr. Brown’s testimony on this issue was not credible, and it is more likely than not based upon the totality of the circumstances -- cash payments, preparation of the power of attorney, Mr. Brown’s overall demeanor while testifying, etc. -- that Mr. Brown knew, or had reason to believe, that Respondent was not a licensed contractor. Respondent testified that the only work that he personally performed at Mr. Brown’s house was the installation of flooring, drywall, and closet doors. He claimed that the other work listed on the Estimate, including the electrical work, was performed by other persons hired by Mr. Brown. Respondent denied that he was responsible for supervising the other persons that he contends were working on Mr. Brown’s home, although he testified that Mr. Brown gave him money to pay those workers. Respondent did not identify any of the other workers who, according to him, performed work on Mr. Brown’s home and that he allegedly paid on Mr. Brown’s behalf. Mr. Brown was at work while Respondent was working on his home. He did not provide direct on-site supervision of Respondent. Mr. Brown did not observe other persons working with Respondent on his home, except for one occasion that Respondent had a “helper” with him. The identity of that person, and the work that he or she performed, is unknown. Mr. Brown did not personally see Respondent performing all of the work listed on the Estimate. He did, however, see Respondent working on the water heater, an electrical switch in the laundry room, and the ceiling fans. Respondent’s testimony regarding the limited scope of the work that he performed on Mr. Brown’s home was not credible or persuasive, and the totality of the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent offered to perform and did perform contracting and electrical contracting work at Mr. Brown’s home. At some point after Respondent stopped working at Mr. Brown’s home, Mr. Brown was advised by an electrical contractor that some of the electrical work needed to be redone because it posed a fire risk. Mr. Brown had the work redone by an electrical contractor, which cost him $2,400. He was also required to pay $400 to Florida Power and Light for some reason. Thereafter, Mr. Brown filed complaints against Respondent with the Department and with Collier County. After investigating the complaints, Collier County issued two citations to Respondent and imposed fines totaling $900. The fines were not based upon the performance of unlicensed contracting or electrical contracting, but rather were based upon Respondent advertising his ability to provide those services through the Estimate. Respondent did not contest the fines imposed by Collier County. He paid the fines in full. The Department provided its investigative file related to this incident to the State Attorney’s Office (SAO) in Collier County, as it was required to do by Section 455.2277, Florida Statutes. The SAO makes the decision whether to file criminal charges against an individual for unlicensed contracting. The Department is not involved in that decision. The SAO brought criminal charges against Respondent for the unlicensed contracting that he performed at Mr. Brown’s home, but the case was “nol prossed” by the SAO. Respondent is in the process of applying for a general contractor’s license from the Construction Industry Licensing Board. He testified that he took and passed the licensing exam on August 16, 2006. The Department incurred investigative costs of $296.99 related to Complaint No. 2005-042280, which is DOAH Case No. 06-1929. The Department incurred investigative costs of $307.45 related to Complaint No. 2005-042281, which is DOAH Case No. 06-1934.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order that: finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed contracting in violation of Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.13, Florida Statutes, and imposes an administrative fine of $1,000, with $500 payable upon entry of the final order and the other $500 payable one year from that date unless Respondent provides satisfactory evidence to the Department that he obtained a state contractor’s license within that period; finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed electrical contracting in violation of Sections 455.228 and 455.531, Florida Statutes, and imposes an administrative fine of $1,000; and requires Respondent to pay the Department’s investigative costs of $604.44. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 9th day of October, 2006.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent for alleged violations of Sections 489.127(1) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, is the sole owner of Expeditior’s Home Improvement Agency. Expeditor’s represents various contractors in the area and markets various home improvement products and services to a homeowner. Respondent is not licensed and has never been licensed to engage in construction or electrical contracting in the State of Florida. Nor did Petitioner’s business possess a certificate of authority to practice as a qualified business in contracting. In the past the company was paid by the homeowner for a construction project and would subsequently hire licensed contractors to do the work. However, that type of arrangement constituted contracting for which Respondent was not licensed. After a complaint for unlicensed contracting by Petitioner in November 2003, Respondent changed his manner of doing business in order to comply with the licensure statutes. Currently, Respondent solicits business for a contractor for which the contractor pays Respondent. The contractor is paid by the homeowner for the work the contractor performs. At about the same time, Respondent revised his forms and business cards to reflect the contractor who will be doing the work, and a disclosure statement stating that Expeditor’s is not a licensed contractor and is acting as a sales agent for the contractor listed in the contract. References to contracting activities were removed from the face of the contract. In December, 2003, Respondent through Expeditor’s employed Saleem Ahmad as an independent contractor/salesman for the company. Respondent had known Mr. Ahmad through a company, similar to Expeditor’s, that they had both been employed by. As a sales representative of Expeditor’s, Mr. Ahmad was given Expeditor’s form proposals/contracts and business cards. At the top of the contract forms were the words “Vinyl Siding, Security Replacements Windows, Sunrooms . . . New Home Construction.” At the bottom of the forms were the words, “Networking Qualified Licensed & Insured Contractors.” Similarly, Mr. Ahmad possessed a business card indicating Expeditor’s engaged in work that included vinyl siding, sunrooms, windows, roofing, fencing, and new home building. Mr. Simmons also had a similar business card. The forms and cards possessed by Mr. Ahmad were the forms that Expeditor’s current forms replaced. The evidence was not clear whether Mr. Ahmad had been given the new forms. Around February 9, 2004, Mr. Ahmad, acting as an apparent agent of Expeditor’s contracted with Mr. Clarence Gavin to, inter alia, replace two windows, install a kitchen counter top and cabinets, four ceiling fans, and remount a water heater. The contract price for the work was $19,875. Such work required a licensed contractor. The contract was written on an Expeditor’s proposal form and listed Calvin Hall as the Architect. The evidence was not clear whether Mr. Hall was an architect. However, the evidence did demonstrate that Mr. Hall was a licensed contractor and was the contractor against who Mr. Gavin was filing the complaint. Mr. Simmons never saw the contract Mr. Ahmad had written for the Gavin job. Likewise, he never saw any money Mr. Gavin may have paid for the job. Indeed, Mr. Simmons was unaware of the Gavin contract or job until the investigation in this matter. Apparently, Mr. Ahmad was defrauding Mr. Simmons and misusing old Expeditor’s business forms. However, the evidence was clear that Respondent did not intentionally engage in unlicensed contracting. Therefore, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 489.127 (1) (f) and 489.531 (1), Florida Statutes (2004), and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 3rd day of May, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 C. Erica White, Esquire 327 Office Plaza Drive, Suite 211 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Washington, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner's application for a commercial telephone seller license pursuant to provisions of Chapter 501, Part IV, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Gerovicap Pharmaceutical Corporation, Inc., a Nevada Corporation. Petitioner was incorporated in 1988. Petitioner has no offices in any state other than Nevada. Petitioner has been operating telemarketing services for a period of approximately 10 years. Respondent is the state agency charged with the enforcement of state regulation of telemarketing businesses in accordance with provisions of Chapter 501, Part IV, Florida Statutes. The application submitted by Petitioner to Respondent for licensure as a commercial telephone seller listed three legal actions taken against Petitioner in the states of Florida, Oregon and Wisconsin. Petitioner entered into an Agreed Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit for Dade County, Florida, on October 5, 1992. At that time, Petitioner accepted responsibility for running a mail advertisement promotion in Florida, advising potential customers to call a toll free number to place orders although Petitioner had not met the State of Florida's registration requirements. As a part of the settlement, Petitioner agreed to refrain from advertising and promoting sweepstakes in Florida in violation of state requirements and paid a total of $2,500 to cover a civil penalty, as well as attorney fees and costs. Petitioner entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance in Circuit Court in Marion County, Oregon, on August 7, 1992. Petitioner agreed at that time to refrain from engaging in telephone solicitations in the state of Oregon and to pay $7,500 in investigative costs and attorney fees to the Oregon Department of Justice. On September 11, 1992, a Consent Judgment was entered in the Circuit Court for Waukesha County, Wisconsin. Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the judgment enjoined Petitioner from engaging in certain sweepstakes activities and ordered Petitioner to pay a civil forfeiture to the state of Wisconsin in the amount of $10,000 for various violations of that state's telemarketing regulations. In accordance with provisions of Section 501.612(1)(c), Florida Statutes, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for licensure in the State of Florida as a commercial telephone seller as a result of the Florida, Oregon and Wisconsin legal actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 20th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings, pursuant to requirements of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Accepted in substance. 3.-5. Rejected, relevance. 6.-8. Subordinate to HO findings on this point. Rejected, unnecessary. Accepted, but not verbatim. 11.-12. Rejected, argument, relevancy. Accepted. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevancy. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-7. Accepted in substance. Rejected, recitation of statute. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry Fleischer, President Gerovicap Pharmaceutical Corporation 1785 East Sahara Ave., Suite 160 Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 Jerome A. DePalma, Esquire 3201 South Maryland Parkway Suite 326 Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 John S. Koda, Esquire Office of General Counsel Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Richard Tritschler General Counsel 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Rm 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2003),1 by engaging in the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed or had ever been licensed to engage in electrical contracting in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Sundance Home Remodeling, Inc., did not possess a certificate of authority to practice as an electrical contractor qualified business. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the sole owner/operator of Sundance Home Remodeling, Inc. Respondent has an occupational carpentry license from Hillsborough County, Florida, and uses the general contractors’ licenses of others. In April 2003, Respondent contracted with Phyllis Price to do the following work at Ms. Price's residence in Riverview, Florida: enclose her back porch, add on a screened room, change the French doors in some of the bedrooms, and install electric ceiling fans, an electric outlet, and an exterior light. On or about April 17, 2003, Respondent contracted with Ms. Price to install and hook up four electric ceiling fans and install one exterior light for $130.00. On or about April 26, 2003, Respondent submitted a proposal to Ms. Price for the installation of one electric outlet at her residence for $25.00. Respondent completed the work that he contracted to do for Ms. Price, including the electrical work. Ms. Price paid Respondent at least $5,240.00 for the work that he performed. Of that amount, Ms. Price paid Respondent a total of $180.00 for the electrical work he performed at her residence. The electrical work contracted and performed by Respondent required a permit. No evidence was presented that, prior to this time, Respondent has been subject to disciplinary action for the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting. The total investigative costs to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $313.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that (1) finds Respondent not guilty of the charges alleged in Count One of the Administrative Complaint; (2) finds Respondent guilty of the charges in Count Two and Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; (3) imposes on Respondent an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for each violation, for a total administrative fine of $2,000; and (4) assesses Respondent costs of $313.00, for the investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2006.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner's application for a commercial telephone seller's license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Stanley Sarentino, Jr. (Sarentino) is the owner and president of the The A/C Guy, Inc. (The A/C Guy) an air-conditioning service business based in Pompano Beach, Florida. The A/C Guy was incorporated in 1996, and serves residential and business customers in Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Respondent Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the Department) is the state agency charged with the enforcement of state regulation of telemarketing businesses in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Telemarketing Act, Chapter 501, Part IV, Florida Statutes (2000) (the Telemarketing Act). Sarentino has worked in the air-conditioning business in South Florida for over ten years. Both as an employee of other companies and since he formed The A/C Guy, Sarentino works exclusively as an air-conditioning mechanic. Sarentino has no expertise in, and has never been involved with, the daily running of the business, nor in the marketing of services, at the A/C Guy. Neither has Sarentino worked in the business side of any of the prior companies in which he was employed. Sarentino is assisted in managing The A/C Guy by his wife of 10 years. The Sarentinos have three children, and the family is well regarded in the community. Prior to the marriage, Sarentino's life was less exemplary. In 1991, Sarentino was charged with felony transportation of stolen stock certificates. Close in time to the stock charges, Sarentino was charged with unlawfully purchasing cocaine. Both incidents were disposed of by plea agreements which spared Sarentino a jail sentence. Since then, Sarentino has devoted himself to “turning his life around” by attending church, providing for his growing family, and otherwise occupying himself with lawful pursuits. Recently, Sarentino has made efforts to grow his small business. Those efforts included hiring John Frank Aiello, Jr. (Aiello) as full-time General Manager of The A/C Guy in the spring of 2001. Sarentino and Aiello came to believe that The A/C Guy had grown about as much as it could via word of mouth and print media advertising. They desired to expand the customer base for the business through telemarketing. Under the provisions of the Telemarketing Act, individuals who wish to have their business engage in telemarketing are required to be licensed (the Department). Aiello prepared a telemarketing license application for Sarentino in accordance with the instructions contained in the application package provided by the Department. Before commencing to prepare the application, Sarentino and Aiello carefully reviewed the licensing criteria. They paid special attention to the requirement that any criminal background be disclosed, and acted in good faith to disclose Sarentino’s history with as much precision as Sarentino’s 10-year-old memory would allow. The Department’s independent investigation corroborated that Sarentino had truthfully provided all requested information. Since his successful completion of probation for the decade-old incidents revealed on his telemarketing application, Sarentino has been a law abiding citizen. All applications for a telemarketer's license must be accompanied by a non-refundable $1500 processing fee. Applicants must also provide proof that they have paid the premium and have otherwise fulfilled the requirements to obtain a $50,000 bond from a private bonding company. The bond premium in this case was $1000.00. It is also necessary for applicants to provide extensive information about the business in whose name telemarketing will be conducted, along with information about individuals affiliated with the business, so that the Department may investigate their backgrounds for the public’s protection. Sarentino spent in excess of $350.00 in accounting fees for the preparation of financial statements required for the application. Prior to investing the time and incurring the expense associated with the application process, both of which are considerable, Sarentino carefully considered the question of whether he had a realistic chance to obtain a license. At the time he submitted his application, Sarentino reasonably believed, based upon the information provided by the Department itself, that his application would not be automatically rejected on account of his decade-old legal difficulties. After Sarentino’s application was submitted, Aiello, in his capacity as The A/G Guy general manager, had telephone conversations with the Department’s Regulatory Consultant Tom Kenny (Kenny) to follow-up on the status of the application. During the course of such conversations, Kenny revealed that the plea to the stock charge as well as the plea to the cocaine charge---each, by itself---would trigger the denial of the license application once the Department had independently confirmed that Sarentino had indeed truthfully disclosed the pleas. The evidence established and the Department conceded that there is an informal, unwritten practice enforced by Kenny's supervisor, James R. Kelly (Kelly), the Department’s Director of the Division of Consumer Services, that a plea of guilty to a felony charge, no matter what the felony, no matter how remote in time, no matter whether the applicant was rehabilitated or not will automatically result in the denial of a license application. The Department has no written rules, policies, or guidelines to which a citizen may refer in order to be apprised that the applications of individuals like Sarentino, and those similarly situated, are, in fact, dead on arrival. The Department's interpretation of the law is directly contrary to the discretionary language of the statute, which plainly does not foreclose all possibility that mitigating factors would be taken into account by Department officials in evaluating an applicant's criminal history. Sarentino has fulfilled all the statutory criteria for licensure. The Department would have granted the license were it not for its unwritten policy that the statute requires that any plea to a criminal charge mandates automatic denial.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Department granting a commercial telephone seller's license to Stanley Sarentino, Jr. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: James Curran, Esquire 633 Southeast Third Avenue Suite 201 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William N. Graham, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 515 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 541 East Tennessee Street India Building Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Honorable Terry L. Rhodes Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit on the challenged examination for licensure.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John R. Maroney, is a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor low voltage applicant. He sat for examination in January 1999. His candidate number is 240024. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Electrical Contractors, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing applicants such as Petitioner. On the examination challenged, Petitioner received a score of 73.00, which was designated a failed status. In order to achieve a pass status Petitioner was required to obtain a score of 75.00. Petitioner timely challenged the results of two questions on the January 1999 examination. First, as to question 49, Petitioner maintained that his answer was reasonable as none of the answers given were correct. Question 49 required applicants to perform a mathematical computation and to select the best answer from those offered. The answer selected by Petitioner was $6.59 from the correct answer. The answer, the one that was given credit, was $4.77 or $1.47 from the correct answer, depending on whether the individual was paid for over-time at a higher rate. In either case the Department’s "correct" answer while not being mathematically accurate was the closer answer to a properly computed answer. The instructions on the examination directed applicants to choose the best answer to each question posed. Thus, while not mathematically accurate, Respondent’s answer to question 49 was the best from those offered. Choosing the best answer was also the issue in question 84 as none of the answers given on the examination accurately describes the cause of the problem. In making his selection, Petitioner admitted he had guessed, as he could not determine how any of the provided answers could decipher the problem he was to solve. Petitioner’s argument in this regard is well made since none of the answers given are attributable to the conditions described. Nevertheless, by process of elimination, an applicant could rule out the options offered by recognizing that two choices related to relay 1 could not contribute to the problem described. As Petitioner selected one of these clearly erroneous options, he cannot be given credit for the choice. As to the two remaining options, while inaccurate, the option that received credit was more likely related to the problem as the stop switch (stop 3) being faulty could cause the described problem if the circuit were to continue to be closed. Petitioner’s answer that described the problem on a relay unrelated to stop 3 would not be the best answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors’ Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the examination for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, 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 15th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John R. Maroney 9641 Northwest 39th Court Cooper City, Florida 33024 Ila Jones, Executive Director Board of Electrical Contractors Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
