The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Spanish-speaking native of Cuba with little or no understanding of the English language. He has resided in Miami-Dade County since coming to this country 18 or 19 years ago. In or around 2006, Respondent decided he wanted to start an air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County, and he went to the downtown Miami location of the Miami- Dade County Code Compliance Office (Compliance Office) to inquire about the licensing requirements with which he would have to comply to legally operate such a business in the county. The Compliance Office is responsible for licensing construction contractors (in various trades) operating in Miami- Dade County. The contractors whom the Compliance Office licenses include mechanical contractors doing air conditioning work. Individuals who desire to go into the air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County must complete and submit to the Compliance Office an eight-page "initial application," accompanied by "letters of experience" and a $315.00 application fee. The application is reviewed by the Miami-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB). If the CTQB determines that the applicant is qualified to take the licensure examination, the applicant is allowed to sit for the examination. Passing the examination is a prerequisite to licensure. If a passing score is attained, the applicant is notified by the Compliance Office and given the opportunity to submit a "business application" and supporting material (including proof of liability insurance and workers' compensation coverage), accompanied by another $315.00 application fee. If the CTQB approves the "business application," the "applicant is issued a contractor's license number" and given a "competency card" (reflecting such licensure) by the Compliance Office. The applicant then must register with the Department before being able to engage in any contracting work in the county. When Respondent went to the Compliance Office's location in downtown Miami, he was approached by a man carrying a clipboard who spoke Spanish. Respondent was led to believe by the man that he worked for the county (although the man did not present any identification verifying his employment status). The man offered to help Respondent apply for a license, an offer Respondent accepted. After obtaining information from Respondent, the man filled out an application form (which was in English) for Respondent and "kept" the completed form. He then collected from Respondent $350.00. The man told Respondent that Respondent would be receiving his license "by mail." Respondent did nothing further (including taking the licensure examination) to obtain a Compliance Office-issued license for his air conditioning contracting business. Given what he was told by the man (whom he trusted) at the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location, Respondent did not think anything else was required of him, and he acted accordingly. Approximately a month after his visit to the Compliance Office, Respondent received what, on its face, appeared to be a Compliance Office-issued "competency card" indicating that his business, G & G Air Conditioning, Inc., had been issued an "A/C UNLTD" license, License No. 05M000987, with an expiration date of September 30, 2007, and that he was the "qualifying agent" for the business. Although Respondent did not realize it at the time, the "competency card" was a "fraudulent document." The Compliance Office had never in fact issued any license to Respondent or his air conditioning contracting business. Indeed, the Compliance Office had not even received a licensure application, or, for that matter, anything else, from Respondent (including the $350.00 he had paid for what he thought was an application fee). Reasonably, but erroneously, believing that the "competency card" was authentic, Respondent, with the assistance of a friend able to read and write English, completed and submitted the paperwork necessary to register with the Department so that he would be able to engage in the business of air conditioning contracting in Miami-Dade County. Respondent had picked up the application packet (the contents of which were in English) when he had visited the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location. Respondent's friend translated the contents of the application materials for Respondent. For each item requiring a response, Respondent told his friend what entry to make. The final page of the application materials contained the following "Attest Statement," which Respondent signed (after it was translated for him by his friend): I have read the questions in this application and have answered them completely and truthfully to the best of my knowledge. I have successfully completed the education, if any, required for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought. I have the amount of experience required, if any, for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought.[1] I pledge to comply with the applicable standards of practice upon licensure, registration, or certification. I understand the types of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings may be initiated. Among the representations Respondent made in his completed application was that he possessed a valid "local competency card" issued by the Compliance Office. He believed, in good faith, but again, incorrectly, that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was such a card. In accordance with the instructions in the application materials, Respondent attached a copy of this card to his application. The Department received Respondent's completed application for registration on April 20, 2006. On May 23, 2006, the Department issued the registration for which Respondent had applied. Had the Department known that the "competency card" Respondent had attached to his application and had falsely, but not fraudulently, claimed to be valid was in fact a counterfeit that did not accurately represent the local licensure status of Respondent and his business, the Department would have denied Respondent's application for registration. Following a police investigation, two Compliance Office employees, along with a former Compliance Office employee, were arrested for selling "fraudulent licenses." The police alerted the Compliance Office of the results of its investigation in or around July 2006 (after the Department had already granted Respondent's application for registration). The Compliance Office thereupon conducted an audit, which revealed that Respondent was among those who had received a "fraudulent competency card" from the arrestees. Respondent was so notified by letter (sent by the Compliance Office). Prior to his receipt of the letter, Respondent had no idea that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was not what it purported to be. Had he known it was a "fraudulent document" he would have never applied for registration with the Department. The total investigative and prosecutorial costs incurred by the Department in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time) was $32.66.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order revoking Respondent's registration and requiring him to pay the Department $32.66 (representing the Department's investigative and prosecutorial costs, excluding costs associated with attorney time) for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, described above that the Department alleged in its Administrative Complaint and subsequently proved by clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 22nd day of October, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Charlie S. Hiers is registered as a Class B air conditioning contractor and qualifier for Hiers Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Orlando, Florida. As of July 1, 1979, his license became delinquent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) In December, 1981, Myrtle D. Harris, who resided at 7505 Ranchero Street, Orlando, engaged the services of Respondent to repair the air conditioning unit at her home. He had performed satisfactory air conditioning work for her on two prior occasions in 1979 and 1980. She had originally contacted him through an ad in the telephone directory under the name "Temp Control Service." On each occasion she had given him a check payable to Temp Control Services which was later endorsed in that name by Respondent. (Testimony of Harris, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-3) Respondent advised Mrs. Harris on December 2, 1981, that the compressor of her air conditioning unit needed to be replaced with a new compressor. She thereupon gave him a check in the amount of $546.00 and he provided her with a bill marked paid in that amount. Her chock, dated December 2, 1981, was made payable to Charlie Hiers, and his bill of the same date merely had his handwritten name at the top. Mrs. Harris later added the words "Temp Control" in the payee portion of the check after it had been endorsed by Respondent and returned after payment. (Testimony of Harris, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5) Respondent proceeded to remove the old compressor and later came by Mrs. Harris' house and told her that he had had to order a replacement part. However, he never came back to her home or performed the work for which he had been paid. Mrs. Harris attempted to reach Respondent by leaving her telephone number at his answering service but received no reply. Later, sometime in January, Respondent telephoned her and stated that he had the compressor on his truck and would install it on a specified date. However, he never fulfilled his promise. Mrs. Harris attempted to reach him on subsequent occasions by telephone, but was unable to contact him. On February 1, 1982, Mrs. Harris had her nephew write a letter to Respondent requesting that he either perform the work or return the payment of $546.00. Several months later, after not having heard from the Respondent, Mrs. Harris purchased a new air-conditioner. Respondent has taken no action to perform his agreement or to return the amount which he was paid. (Testimony of Harris)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John L. Horn, applied for and took the February 22, 1980, examination for a Class B air conditioning contractor's license, having been qualified, and meeting all preliminary requirements to sit for this examination. Mr. Horn answered Question 6 of the exam by selecting multiple choice Answer E. Question 6 of the February 22, 1981, examination was as follows: The contractor for the classroom and office building shown on Drawing AC-3 is required to accurately measure the air flow from each of the air handling units. Which of the following methods should be used? A magnehelic gauge with the high pressure port connected to the supply duct and the low pressure port connected to the return duct. An inclined draft gauge with a pitot tube traverse at several points in the supply duct to determine the mean velocity. An inclined draft gauge with a pitot tube traverse in the centerline of the supply duct to determine the actual velocity. A rotating vane anemometer located in the supply duct air stream. A velometer located at each sidewall outlet. All answers except Answer B were graded as incorrect, including the answer submitted by Mr. Horn. The February, 1980, Class B air conditioning contractor's examination was developed by American Community Testing Services, located in Jacksonville, pursuant to a contract with the Department of Professional Regulation. Question 6 was prepared by Mr. Larry Simmons for the testing service. This question seeks multiple Choice Answer B as the correct answer. Each examination question is written by an expert in the field, and is then checked by another expert for accuracy. The questions are then reviewed by a consultant to the testing service who is a professor of mechanical engineering. These internal review procedures are utilized to minimize the existence of errors. Prior to the time an examination question is used, it is subjected to Departmental review to assure that any grammatical errors are corrected. Subsequent to the examination, Question 6 and the various answers given by examinees were analyzed. Based upon testing criteria, Answers C and D in Question 6 were judged to possibly be correct, in addition to Answer B. Based on this same testing criteria, however, Answers A and E were not possibly correct. A discrimination index disclosed that Question 6 was a difficult question. Nevertheless, every examinee is qualified by experience to sit for the examination, which is designed for competition among peers. The post-examination review procedures used by the Department are for the purpose of assuring that there is not another correct answer. This review is performed by the writer of the question and an expert in the field being reviewed. The preferred method for measuring air flow is to use a pitot tube traverse, as suggested by Answer B. Other methods are available alternatives, but are not given as choices in the answers to Question 6. Answer A is incorrect because it measures static pressure and not air flow. Answer D is not correct because of the large hole that would have to be cut in the duct in order to insert the instrument, and after sealing the duct no reading could be taken. Answer E is also incorrect because it would allow air to flow into the room. Answer C could be correct in a small duct, but not in the duct shown on the drawing accompanying Question 6. The question seeks the best answer among the five choices; Answer B is the only acceptable choice and the correct answer. Twelve of the 14 persons who scored in the upper 27 percent on the examination answered Question 6 correctly, by choosing Answer B. Only 7 of the 19 persons who scored in the lower 27 percent on the examination answered this question correctly. This difference produced a discrimination index of .47 percent, which is within professional testing standards as an accurate measure of the validity of the question. This evidence was not controverted. Thus, based upon generally accepted testing criteria, the discrimination index shows Question 6 to be a valid question, and Answer B to be the correct answer. Mr. Horn's contentions are not supported by the weight of the evidence presented. The burden of proof is upon an applicant for a license to demonstrate that he meets all standards for eligibility. Mr. Horn did not present sufficient evidence to meet this burden of proof, and the Board established by substantial, competent evidence the validity of Question 6 and the correctness of Answer B.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of John L. Horn for a license as a state certified Class B Air Conditioning Contractor be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 15th day of April, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 15th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Horn 114 Willow Branch Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia R. Gleason, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Steven Ary, was a licensed air conditioning contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CA CO36888. On October 20, 1987, a company named Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., entered into a contract with Lauderhill Mall, Lauderhill, Florida, to install three 3 1/2 ton air conditioning units for the sum of $7,875. Jenni Temp was to provide the three separate permits required by the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the installation. Joseph Roturra, the owner of Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., and Respondent had, prior to October 20, 1987, entered into negotiations whereby Respondent would become employed by Jenni Temp as its qualifying agent so that Jenni Temp could engage in air conditioning contracting. Those negotiations ended before any formal efforts were made to have Jenni Temp licensed with Respondent as the qualifying agent. In late 1987, before his negotiations with Jenni Temp broke down, Respondent signed three blank application forms for electrical and air conditioning permits. Respondent then gave the three signed application forms to Joseph Roturra. Respondent knew that neither Joseph Roturra nor his company was licensed for air conditioning work. Joseph Roturra completed the signed blank application forms he received from Respondent and made application with the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the three permits required for the job at Lauderhill Mall. The name of the applicant on the applications as completed by Joseph Roturra was All Star Service, Inc. Respondent served as the qualifying agent for All Star Service, Inc. The City of Lauderhill did not issue the permits for which Roturra applied using the forms signed by Respondent because permits had been previously issued to another company for the same job. Jenni Temp completed the Lauderhill Mall job without the permits required by local law and without further assistance from Respondent. Respondent did not supervise the job at Lauderhill Mall. There was no final inspection of the work as required by local law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(e) and (m), Florida Statutes and which imposes an administrative fine on Respondent in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that there not be a separate fine for the violation of Section 489.129(1) (m), Florida Statutes, because the conduct that establishes that violation is the same conduct which constitutes the violation for which the administrative fine is recommended. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, l0, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Steven Ary 1217 N. E 4th Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33306
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should deny Petitioner the right to take the state air conditioning contractor examination for lack of good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The National Assessment Institute ("NAI") provides examinations to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, including the examination given for certification as a state air conditioning contractor. Petitioner has unsuccessfully taken the state air conditioning contractor examination approximately four times in the past. Petitioner has reviewed previous examinations and is familiar with procedures imposed pursuant to Section 455.229(2), Florida Statutes. No part of the examination may be copied, including any part of the questions or answers. Loose-leaf student manuals purchased from NAI may be taken into a review and retained by the student after the review is completed. Scratch paper provided by NAI officials during a review must be turned in at the conclusion of the review. On April 23, 1993, Petitioner reviewed a recent state air conditioning contractor examination. Petitioner reviewed the examination at a branch office of the NAI. Prior to April 23, 1993, Petitioner purchased a student manual. Petitioner placed one piece of carbon paper over one piece of blank paper and inserted the carbon set between two pages of the student manual. Petitioner taped closed the two pages of the student manual and tabbed the taped pages of the student manual ("altered pages"). Petitioner inserted three more carbon sets inside the student manual in identical fashion, producing a total of four altered pages. During the examination review on April 23, 1993, Petitioner placed a blank sheet of scratch paper on top of the first altered page of the student manual. Petitioner wrote the answers to the first part of the examination on the scratch paper. The answers were copied on the carbon set underneath the scratch paper. In a similar manner, Petitioner copied answers to each of the remaining three parts of the examination on the carbon sets inside each of the remaining altered pages in the student manual. Petitioner used a numeric code of "1-4" to represent answers "a-d" on each part of the examination. Petitioner used arithmetic symbols and other lines to disguise his effort by making it appear he was writing down mathematical formulas. However, the sequence of numbers "1-4" correspond to the correct answers "a-d" for each part of the examination reviewed. Petitioner copied 200 examination answers. During his testimony at the formal hearing, Petitioner explained: I did do something wrong. Transcript at 47. What I was trying to do was take down all the different letters. . . . I wanted to see if there was some kind of sequence where there were more A's, B's, more C's or more D's used. Transcript at 49. I was desperate. My whole life is air conditioning and refrigeration. * * * I've been trying to pass that test for at least the last two years, maybe more. . . . I believe it's been at least four times, maybe more. Transcript at 47. NAI representatives monitoring the examination review telephoned local police, and Petitioner was arrested pursuant to Section 455.2175, Florida Statutes. The materials used by Petitioner to copy examination answers were confiscated by police. Criminal charges were dismissed without conviction. Each examination question costs the state approximately $200. The 200 questions corresponding to the 200 answers copied by Petitioner will no longer be used by the state. Petitioner testified that he has dyslexia and attention deficit disorder. However, Petitioner has never requested additional time for an examination, never notified Respondent of Petitioner's disability, and never requested Respondent to provide special examination facilities or procedures.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request to take the state air conditioning contractor examination for the reasons stated herein. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of October, 1994. DANIEL MANRY 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 26th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1766 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in substance Rejected as conclusion of law 3.-8. Accepted in substance 9.-12. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 13. Accepted in substance 14.-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 16. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 17.-18. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial and as recited testimony Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-8. Accepted in substance Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 11.-13. Accepted in substance COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James W. Kline, Esquire P.O. Drawer 30 180 South Knowles Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32790-0030 Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Deptartment of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section Suite PL-01, The Capitol Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
