The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of contracting and the licensure of those engaged in the practice of contracting of all types, in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent engages in re-modeling and other construction-related work both as his own business and employment by a certified general contractor. This case arose upon a Complaint filed with the Petitioner Agency by Mr. Kenneth Hatin. The Complaint asserted his belief that the Respondent had engaged in a contract to construct an addition on his home, and after being paid substantial sums of money, had wrongfully left the job and never finished it. The residence in question is co-owned by Mr. Hatin and his fiancée, Ms. Beverly White. Ms. White's first cousin is Ms. Julie Crawley. Ms. Crawley is the Respondent's fiancée. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent were introduced by Ms. Crawley and Ms. White. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent thus met socially and as they got to know each other discussed Mr. Hatin's desire to have an addition placed on his home. The addition consisted of a pool enclosure to be constructed on his property located at 33 Botany Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Hatin expressed the desire to have the Respondent assist him in constructing the pool enclosure. The Respondent agreed to do so. The Respondent is employed by his brother, who is a Florida-Licensed General Contractor, but neither the Respondent nor his business, JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., are licensed or certified to engage in contracting or electrical contracting. In accordance with his agreement with Mr. Hatin, the Respondent provided labor and assistance with the renovation project, including digging ditches, picking-up supplies and being present at the work site. In addition to the Respondent, other friends and family members of the protagonists assisted with the project, including the Respondent's son, Ms. Crawley's son, Mr. Hatin's employer, Ms. White's brother-in-law, and Mr. Hatin himself. This was, in essence, a joint family/friends cooperative construction project. Over the course of approximately five months during the construction effort, Mr. Hatin wrote checks to the Respondent in the total amount of $30,800.00. All contractors or workmen on the job were paid and no liens were placed on Mr. Hatin's property. The checks written were for the materials purchased and labor performed by tradesmen or sub-contractors engaged by the Respondent and Mr. Hatin for various aspects of the job such as roofing, tile or block laying, etc. The Respondent received no fee or profit in addition to the amounts paid to the material suppliers, contractors, and laborers on the job. It is not entirely clear from the record who prepared the contract in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four, or the document that the parties treated as a contract. It is not entirely clear who actually signed it, but the document was drafted relating to the work to be done on Mr. Hatin's home (the contract). Mr. Hatin maintained that the Respondent prepared and signed the contract. Ms. Crawley testified that the contract was actually prepared by herself and Ms. White (for "tax purposes"). It is inferred that this means that the contract was prepared to provide some written evidence of the amount expended on the addition to the home, probably in order to raise the cost basis in the home to reduce capital gains tax liability potential at such time as the home might be sold. The term "tax purposes" might mean other issues or consequences not of record in this case, although it has not been proven that the contract was prepared for a fraudulent purpose. Ms. Crawley testified that the Respondent did not actually sign the document himself but that she signed it for him. What was undisputed was that there were hand-written changes made to the contract so as to include exhaust fans, ceiling fans, sun tunnels, a bathroom door and outside electrical lighting. Although there was a change to the contract for this additional scope of work, there was no increase in the amounts to be paid by Mr. Hatin for such work. After the project was commenced and the addition was partially built, Mr. Hatin and Ms. White were involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Work was stopped on the project for a period of approximately seven weeks, with Mr. Hatin's acquiescence, while Ms. White convalesced. The Respondent, during this time, dedicated all of his time to his regular job and other work commitments. It was apparently his understanding, expressed in Ms. Crawley's testimony, that, due to injuries he received in the accident and more particularly the more serious injuries received by his fiancée, that Mr. Hatin was not focused on the project at that time, but let it lapse until the medical emergency was past. After approximately seven weeks of inactivity Mr. Hatin contacted the Respondent requesting that he begin work on the project again. A meeting was set up between Mr. Hatin and the Respondent. The Respondent however, was unable to attend the meeting with Mr. Hatin that day, tried to re-schedule and a dispute arose between the two. Additionally, family disputes over money and interpersonal relationships were on- going at this time leading to a lack of communication and a further dispute between Mr. Hatin, Ms. White, the Respondent, and Ms. Crawley. A threat of physical harm was directed at the Respondent by Mr. Hatin (he threatened to put out the Respondent's "one good eye" if he came on the subject property again). Because of this, the Respondent elected not to return to the project. Inferentially, at that point the process of filing the subject complaint soon ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Garvin B. Bowden, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated an order of the Board of Professional Engineers (Board) previously entered in a disciplinary proceeding, and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed professional engineer in Florida and holds license PE 20638. He has held the license continuously since 1979. In 2000, Petitioner brought a disciplinary action against Respondent, styled FEMC v. John B. Benson, III, P.E., Department of Business and Professional Regulation Case No. BPR- 2000-04871, for alleged negligence in preparing a deficient electrical plan and related misconduct in connection with the construction of an addition to a church. The case terminated with the Board's Final Order Approving Settlement Stipulation ("2000 Final Order"). In the parties' Settlement Stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a fine and to be permanently prohibited from practicing electrical engineering. On September 17, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for electrical inspection of the "rough-in"2 electrical work associated with construction at 4915 26th Street, West, Building A, in Bradenton, Florida. On September 17, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for electrical inspection of the rough-in electrical work associated with construction at 4915 26th Street, West, Building J. On December 1, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for final electrical inspection of the electrical work associated with construction at 4915 26th Street, West, Building A. On December 3, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for final electrical inspection of the electrical work associated with construction at 13411 Blythfield Terrace, Bradenton, Florida. No allegation was made, or evidence introduced to show, that the inspection reports referred to in paragraphs 4 through 7 contained errors or that the inspections were deficient. Mr. Ooten, an expert in electrical engineering and building inspections, testified that building officials usually require an electrical plan to be included in building plans, but the electrical plan does not have to be signed and sealed by an electrical engineer. On December 17, 2004, the Board received a complaint from the chief building official for Manatee County, regarding Respondent's signing and sealing electrical inspections in 2004, contrary to the Board's 2000 Final Order prohibiting Respondent from practicing electrical engineering. This complaint and the Board's subsequent investigation led to the Administrative Complaint which is the subject of this case. Respondent's defense to the charges in the Administrative Complaint is that he understood the Board's 2000 Final Order to prohibit him from designing an electrical plan. He did not think he was prohibited from signing and sealing electrical inspections, or from signing and sealing construction plans that included electrical components. On March 25, 2005, the Board received another complaint from the chief building official for Manatee County, who claimed that Respondent signed and sealed an electrical plan for a building for the Lemur Conservation Foundation. In response to this second complaint, Respondent informed the Board that he had placed a disclaimer statement on the building plans that "These plans have been reviewed for adequacy of structural components and systems only in compliance with FBC 01 Section 1606 130 MPH." Respondent placed this statement only on the first page of the building plans. As a consequence of this second complaint and investigation, Respondent was issued a "Letter of Guidance." No Letter of Guidance, clearly identified as such, is contained in the record. Respondent's Exhibit 1 includes a "Closing Order" of Petitioner, dated August 8, 2005, which may constitute the Letter of Guidance. It contains a statement directed to Respondent: The panel cautions the Subject that when he signs any page of plans he is responsible for all engineering depicted on the page unless the limitation of his analysis and approval appears clearly on the same page. Respondent asserts that, until the Letter of Guidance was issued, he did not understand that his inspection of electrical components and systems was the practice of electrical engineering. The Letter of Guidance, however, did not address the issue of the propriety of Respondent's four electrical inspections. The Letter of Guidance was a response to the second complaint about Respondent's signing and sealing an electrical plan, and his defense that he used a disclaimer statement to indicate that his signature and seal was not a representation about the electrical plan. The essence of the Board's "guidance" to Respondent was to make his disclaimer regarding the electrical components more explicit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 471.031(1)(k), Florida Statutes, for violating an order of the Board previously entered in a disciplinary proceeding, and imposing a penalty of license suspension for a period of four months and a fine of $4,000, plus the costs of these proceedings, as determined by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 June, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a certified electrical contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Armstrong is a specialty electrician who operates a business named Sound Planning Distributors, Inc. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Armstrong holds a local license (called a Certificate of Competency) from the Broward County Central Examining Board of Contractors that authorizes him to engage in specialty electrical contracting in Broward County. Armstrong's local license was issued on November 14, 1989. To obtain it, Armstrong had been required to pass a written examination prepared, proctored, and graded by Block and Associates, a prerequisite which he had accomplished on October 28, 1989. Armstrong's local license is active and in good standing; he has not been the subject of any complaints filed with, or discipline imposed by, the local licensing authority. In 1996, Armstrong learned that he needed to become state-registered as a specialty contractor pursuant to Section 489.513, Florida Statutes. He applied to the Department, which in due course issued him a license as a registered specialty contractor, originally effective December 9, 1996. Armstrong has renewed his state registration from time to time as required by law. His state registration is currently active and valid through August 31, 2001. On December 11, 2000, Armstrong applied for certification as a specialty contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes. (Registration and certification are distinct forms of licensure under Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, which deals with the regulation of electrical and alarm system contractors.) On February 6, 2001, the Board denied Armstrong's application for certification solely because he lacked five years of experience as a registered contractor, which is a condition of licensure pursuant to Section 489.514(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G6-5.0035, Florida Administrative Code.1
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted an application for the certified electrical contractor's examination to the Respondent in January, 1983. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the standards of licensure for electrical contractors, pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21GG, Florida Administrative Code, and with administering and enforcing the licensure and practice standards of electrical contractors in the State of Florida. The application filed by the Petitioner indicated that he had been employed as a Journeyman electrician with Mozart Electric, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, since October, 1978. The application on its face showed no further experience in the electrical contracting trade possessed by the Petitioner, except as a Journeyman electrician for that company. The Petitioner was born in Berlin, Germany, in 1934. In 1950, when he was 16 years old, he became an apprentice electrician, working and learning the trade with a view toward becoming a Journeyman and ultimately a Master electrician. He was licensed in Berlin as a Journeyman electrician on September 12, 1953. He worked in that capacity in Germany until 1955, when he immigrated to the United States. In 1955, he settled in Chicago and was licensed as a Journeyman electrician and joined the Electrical Worker's Union Local 134 in Chicago in that classification. From 1957 to 1958, the Petitioner served as a "Master electrician" in the United States Army. The Petitioner has chosen to maintain his union membership so he was thus precluded from being employed in a job classification with the title of "contractor". Since the mid-1950's, however, the Petitioner has been in charge of and in a supervisory position on electrical contracting jobs. For instance, with Mozart Electric, his present employer since 1978, the Petitioner has typically supervised a crew of eight men in performing the electrical contracting portion of large commercial construction jobs. In that capacity, the Petitioner works in an unsupervised fashion and "lays out" the job, estimates the scope and cost of the work, solely supervises the men on the job, makes shop drawings, and solely inspects the finished job. The Petitioner, although he does not do the bidding himself, often does the estimating upon which bids are predicated. In addition, the Petitioner's activities and duties with Mozart Electric, Inc. include making corrections to blueprints, conferring with architects to work out necessary changes, promulgating time schedules, hiring and laying off electricians, and coordinating the electrical construction work with other trades on a given job. In this, or a similar capacity, he has worked with four electrical contracting companies since coming to the United States. Thus, he spent 17 years with Klorek Electric as a Journeyman, then foreman, then superintendent. The Petitioner spent two years with Gibson Electric Company as a foreman; four years with Midland Electric Company as a superintendent; and five years with his present employer, Mozart Electric, Inc. in performance of the above sort of duties. It has therefore been established that the Petitioner has worked for a substantial portion of the last 28 years in a capacity other than as merely a Journeyman electrical worker an a job site, but rather has typically worked in a supervisory capacity for most of those 28 years. Indeed, for most jobs performed during that time, the Petitioner was superintendent of the job and was solely responsible directly to the president of his company for the quantity and quality of work performed by his men, whom he supervised unassisted by anyone else.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Hans Rossignol to be permitted to take the examination for certified electrical contractors should be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Hans Rossignol c/o Mozart Electric, Inc. 2427 North Claybourne Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60614 Susan Tully, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Florida Electrical Construction Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application to qualify two additional business entities should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, David Rheaume, has been an electrician since about 1960. Petitioner is a certified electrical contractor, holding Florida license number EC 13003139. Petitioner currently serves as the primary qualifier for two companies, David's Electric Service, Inc. (David's Electric), in Fort Myers, and Primary Electric of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Primary Electric), in Cape Coral. As the primary qualifier for David's Electric and Primary Electric, Petitioner is responsible for the supervision of all operations of the business organization, for all field work at all sites, and for financial matters, both for the organization in general and for each specific job. § 489.522(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). David's Electric is wholly owned and operated by Petitioner. He is the sole officer and employee. On average, Petitioner works three-to-four hours per day, five or six days per week, doing mostly service work and upgrades. He gets most of his work from the local pennysaver-type advertising circular, and his schedule depends on the number of calls he receives from customers. He may work for six hours on one day, and not at all on the next. Petitioner considers himself semi-retired, and no longer undertakes new home installations. Petitioner is able to make his own flexible schedule as the owner/operator of David's Electric, and believes that he will be able to supervise the operations of the additional entities for which he seeks to act as qualifier. Primary Electric performs electrical service work and the wiring of newly constructed houses. Petitioner spends a "couple hours a week at the most," supervising the electrical contracting work of Primary Electric. The owner/operator of Primary Electric calls Petitioner when a job is ready for inspection. Petitioner then goes to the job site and checks to make sure the job has been done properly before the county inspector arrives. The owner/operator consults Petitioner if he has a problem understanding the blueprints on a job. The staff of Primary Electric consists of the owner/operator and two helpers. Petitioner is officially the vice president and owns ten percent of the company. He serves in a consulting capacity, and performs no physical work for Primary Electric. At the hearing, Petitioner identified the owner/operator of Primary Electric as "Don," and could not, with confidence, recall "Don's" surname. Don supervises the business on a day-to-day basis. Petitioner knew that Don's wife "signs all the checks," but was not certain whether she has an official position in the company. The checkbook and financial records are forwarded to the office of Petitioner's CPA, where Petitioner checks them. Don, the owner/operator of Primary Electric, is not a licensed electrical contractor. Petitioner allows Don to hire and supervise the helpers who work on Primary Electric's job site. Petitioner readily conceded that he knows nothing about the hiring or qualifications of the helpers, and that he relies on Don to address any problems with faulty work performed by the helpers. Primary Electric has pulled permits and performed electrical contracting jobs without Petitioner's prior knowledge. Petitioner testified that he allowed Don to go to local building departments and pull permits for electrical contracting jobs without prior consultation with Petitioner, because "I have that much faith in him." Petitioner acknowledged that on some smaller jobs, such as additions or service work, the owner/operator of Primary Electric has finished the jobs and gone through final inspections without ever notifying him. In response, Petitioner told Don to "at least call me." Petitioner applied to serve as the primary qualifier for Dolphin Electric of SW Florida, Inc. (Dolphin Electric), a start-up company based in Cape Coral. Vincent Sica is the president of Dolphin Electric, and Petitioner is the vice president and ten percent owner. Mr. Sica is a friend of Petitioner, and formerly worked for Petitioner at David's Electric. Mr. Sica was denied an electrical contractor's license by the Board, then asked Petitioner to serve as his qualifier, thereby allowing Dolphin Electric to work in the field of electrical contracting. Dolphin Electric, if approved as an additional business under Petitioner's license, would operate as an electrical contracting business focusing primarily on wiring new custom houses built by Mr. Sica's brother, who is a general contractor. Mr. Sica and his son would perform the work. Petitioner will perform no physical work for Dolphin Electric. Petitioner intends to supervise Dolphin Electric in the same manner that he supervises Primary Electric, including allowing Mr. Sica to pull permits for electrical jobs without first consulting Petitioner. According to Petitioner, Mr. Sica was an electrician in New Jersey and is very qualified. Petitioner stated that he would likely supervise Dolphin Electric a little more closely, if only, because he and Mr. Sica are friends and spend a lot of time together. Petitioner applied to serve as the primary qualifier for Mill Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Mill Electric), a start- up company based in Fort Myers. Terry Gaschk is the president of Mill Electric, and Petitioner is the vice president and ten percent owner. Mr. Gaschk is a friend of Petitioner, and worked for Petitioner at David's Electric during a busy time. Although he has only known Mr. Gaschk for one year, Petitioner testified that Mr. Gaschk is "like a brother" to him and is a better electrician than Petitioner. When Mr. Gaschk wanted to start his own company, Petitioner was willing to serve as his qualifier. Mill Electric, if approved as an additional business under Petitioner's license, would probably operate as an electrical contracting business focusing primarily on wiring newly constructed houses. Petitioner was not sure of Mr. Gaschk's intentions, because of the current softness of the residential construction business. Petitioner guessed that Mill Electric would stay a one-man operation doing service jobs until the market improves. Petitioner intends to supervise Mill Electric in the same manner that he supervises Primary Electric, including allowing Mr. Gaschk to pull permits for electrical jobs without first consulting Petitioner. Petitioner did not demonstrate intent to adequately supervise the operations of the proposed additional entities, Dolphin Electric and Mill Electric. At Petitioner's application request hearing, the Board's chief concern was the appearance that Petitioner was engaged in a "license selling" scheme with his friends. At the de novo hearing before the undersigned, Petitioner did little to put this concern to rest. Petitioner's intent is to continue working part-time for his own company, and to allow his friends to run the day-to- day operations of the two start-up companies, including the hiring and supervision of employees, the pulling of permits for electrical work, and the performance of that work without the direct supervision of a certified electrical contractor. In general, Petitioner would be consulted when there is a problem with the work, or when his presence is required for an inspection. The undersigned does not find that Petitioner had any conscious bad intentions in making his applications. Petitioner sincerely believes that Mr. Sica and Mr. Gaschk are at least as proficient in the field as is he, and is confident enough, in his opinion, to risk his license on their behalf. However, Petitioner's casual manner of supervising the work of his friends, coupled with the sheer volume of supervisory work that he proposed to undertake for a total of three companies plus his own, caused reasonable doubts in the mind of the Board. Unfortunately, Petitioner was unable to dispel those doubts in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A final order be entered denying Petitioner's applications to qualify Dolphin Electric of SW Florida, Inc., and Mill Electrical Contractors, Inc. as additional business entities. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Reginald D. Dixon, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Howard Andrew Swett, Esquire Knott, Consoer, Ebelini, Hart & Swett, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to the "Principles and Practice" portion of the electrical engineer examination administered by Respondent in October 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the electrical engineer licensing examination administered by Respondent in October 1996. Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida with the duty to regulate the practice of electrical engineering in Florida. Pursuant to Section 471.015, Florida Statutes, an applicant for licensure as an electrical engineer is required to successfully pass both parts of a licensure examination.1 The electrical engineer licensure examination at issue in this proceeding was developed and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). Following the initial grading of the "Principles and Practice" section of the exam, Petitioner was awarded a score of 68. A total score of 70 was required to pass that portion of the examination. Petitioner thereafter timely challenged the grading of two questions on the "Principles and Practice" portion of the exam. His challenge was limited to Questions 130 and 132. Petitioner did not specifically challenge Question 131. In response to that challenge, Respondent sent Petitioner’s examination package back to NCEES to have the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination re-graded. NCEES re-graded all of Petitioner's answers to the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination, including his responses to Questions 130, 131, and 132. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 2 points for his answer to Question 130. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was not awarded any additional credit for his answer to Question 130. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 130 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional credit for his response to Question 130. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 2 points for his answer to Question 132. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 4 points for his answer to Question 132. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 132 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 4 points for his answer to Question 132. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 8 points for his answer to Question 131. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 6 points for his answer to Question 131. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 131 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 points for his answer to Question 131. Petitioner is not entitled to a score of 8 for his answer to Question 131. Each of the three questions at issue in this proceeding is a problem that requires multiple steps and computations to solve. If a candidate correctly answers all parts of the question a score of 10 points is awarded. Partial credit can be awarded based on how many of the parts of the question are correctly answered. There is no allegation that the three questions involved in this proceeding are ambiguous or otherwise inappropriate for a licensure examination. The record is not clear when Respondent notified Petitioner of its position following the re-grading of the questions at issue. It is clear that Petitioner was aware of Respondent's position prior to the start of the formal hearing. During the formal hearing and in his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner challenged Respondent's right to re-grade Question 131 since he had not specifically challenged that question. Petitioner has not asserted that he was provided insufficient notice of Respondent's position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that awards Petitioner a score of 68 on the "Principles and Practice" portion of the October 1996 licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1997.
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to provide proof of workers' compensation coverage or exemption, and proof of having completed 14 hours of approved continuing education in response to an audit conducted by the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board for the biennium commencing September 1, 1996, and terminating on August 31, 1998, in violation of Subsection 489.533(1)(o), Florida Statutes, by violating Subsections 489.515(3) and 489.517(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G6- 9.011, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), the state agency charged with regulating the practice of electrical contracting in Florida and those licensed under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Section 20.165, and Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, an electrical contractor licensed by the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board. From 1987 until 2000, the Respondent was a registered electrical contractor, holding license number ER 0010816. Since August of 2000 the Respondent has been a certified electrical contractor holding license number EC 0002356. The Respondent's practice pursuant to his registered license was a prerequisite to issuance of his certified license. All insurance and continuing education requirements for renewal of a license issued by the ECLB are set forth in Sections 489.515 and 489.517, Florida Statutes, as well as Rule 61G6-9.004, Florida Administrative Code, and are identical for certified and registered electrical contractors. In March of 1999 the ECLB conducted a random audit of the insurance and continuing education requirements established in Rule 61G6-9.004, Florida Administrative Code, for the biennium commencing September 1, 1996, and terminating August 31, 1998. The Respondent was one of the licensees randomly chosen for this audit. In response to the initial audit letter sent to the Respondent on March 17, 1999, the Respondent submitted insurance and continuing education documentation. This documentation reflects: no evidence of workers' compensation coverage or exemption for the audit period; no evidence of approved continuing education for the audit period; and no evidence of required liability insurance for the audit period. The continuing education documentation submitted by the Respondent was for the prior biennium, in February 1996. On July 19, 1999, the ECLB forwarded the Respondent a follow-up letter, indicating that he was still lacking the documents enumerated in Finding of Fact Number 5. In response to this letter, the Respondent submitted documentation of the required liability insurance and of workers' compensation for May 1, 1997 through June 22, 1999. At hearing, the Respondent produced a document similar to those previously provided to the DBPR documenting his workmen's compensation insurance from March 1, 1995 to May 1, 1997. The date of this document was the same as the date on the materials previously furnished to DBPR. The Respondent testified that his insurance agent had faxed the requested documents to DBPR and sent copies to him. He received all of the documents substantiating his insurance from May 1, 1997 until June 22, 1999. His agent presumably forwarded or faxed the same documents to DBPR. DBPR produced all the documents except the one for the period of March 1, 1995 until May 1, 1997. The Respondent provided enough information to raise a genuine question whether this document was lost by DBPR. It is concluded that it is as likely DBPR lost the record as it is the record was not sent. There was no additional documentation of the required continuing education submitted at hearing. Subsequent to the completion of the audit, the ECLB initiated a complaint with the Bureau of Consumer Services at DBPR. This complaint alleges that the Respondent failed to document required workers' compensation coverage or exemption for the entire audit period and failed to document required continuing education within the audit period. The Respondent was initially issued citations for resolution of the alleged violations herein. Each of these citations provided for a $500 administrative fine. The continuing education violation was documented as DBPR case number 2000-08338 and the workers' compensation violation was documented as 2000-05654. The Respondent chose to dispute these citations, and as a result, this matter was handled pursuant to the provisions of Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. The Respondent has failed to document completion of hours of board approved continuing education between September 1, 1996 and August 31, 1998. The Respondent failed to obtain any board approved continuing education between September 1, 1996 and August 31, 1998. In DBPR case number 2000-08338, the Petitioner incurred non-legal costs in the amount of $31.70. In DBPR case number 2000-05654, the Petitioner incurred non-legal costs in the amount of $42.47. However, this cost may not be recovered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $500 against the Respondent for Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Respondent be required to pay the non-legal costs incurred by the Petitioner in both agency cases totaling $31.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2001, 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 14th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David Karably Post Office Box 12 Earleton, Florida 32631 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
