The Issue Whether Petitioner should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation, established in 1988 and is owned by Barbara Pedone (Pedone). Pedone is the corporation's president and sole stockholder. Michael Pedone, who is married to Barbara Pedone, of the applicant company, is not a minority under Florida law. Pedone has been involved in the construction business since the early 1960's in a administrative capacity. Pedone has been a part owner of certain construction businesses with her husband that involved residential insulation, as well as the installation of pipe and duct insulation material. Michael Pedone is employed by the applicant company as its Vice President. He runs the field operation. He does the field work for the applicant company, gathering materials, supervising the workers and working on proposals for new jobs. He consults on these matters with his wife. The applicant company is a family-run business with shared responsibilities between Barbara and Michael Pedone. Both Mr. And Mrs. Pedone make decisions concerning which jobs to bid on, what equipment to buy and whom to hire and fire. Hiring and firing duties are also shared with the field lead, Alex Uzaga. Pedone concentrates on the management end of the business, and Michael Pedone concentrates more on the technical and field work of the applicant company. The applicant is required to have a license in most of the jurisdictions in which it does business. Michael Pedone carries all the necessary licenses and is the qualifier for the applicant company. Barbara Pedone does not have a license and cannot qualify the applicant company. Barbara Pedone writes most, if not all, of the business checks for the applicant company, performs bidding functions, and administrative responsibilities, visits the various job sites, and, in recent months, has signed most of the job proposals. Barbara Pedone has never performed any work of installing or applying insulations or fireproofing materials. Barbara Pedone draws a weekly salary of $100. Michael Pedone draws a weekly salary of $1,000. The reason given for the disparity in salaries is that this allows Michael Pedone to accrue certain social security retirement credits. Barbara Pedone accrues her credits through her other employment. Barbara Pedone is employed full-time by Collier County and works no less than 40 hours weekly there. Other income and dividends of the corporation are deposited in a joint account. Barbara Pedone has full authority to sell the company or to change its corporate existence in any manner she may determine. Applicant has not established by competent evidence that Barbara Pedone exercises a real, substantial continuing ownership and control of the applicant corporation. Other than her minimum salary, no evidence was introduced to establish that Barbara Pedone receives income commensurate with the percentage of her ownership in the company. Barbara Pedone failed to establish that she shares in all of the risk through her role in decision-making, negotiations, or execution of documents and risk capital as either an individual or officer of the corporation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed by Fire Stop Systems, Inc., on July 30, 1996, be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire 215 Airport Road South Naples, Florida 34104 Joseph L. Shields Senior Attorney Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Veronica Anderson Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000
Findings Of Fact Wanda Forbess is an American woman. She is the president of the Petitioner corporation, Center Office Products, Inc. She owns 5l percent of that corporation's outstanding stock. The stock is full voting stock and there are no agreements in existence or anticipated which would cause any change in the percentage of ownership of Wanda Forbess, nor any change in the voting power of her stock. The Petitioner corporation and Wanda Forbess has no affiliation or relationship with any other business and Wanda Forbess is not an employee of any other business. The net worth of the Petitioner as of the date of hearing is less than one million dollars. It has also been stipulated that the Petitioner, that is, Wanda Forbess, has been performing a useful business function and operating the Petitioner's business since 1981. Wanda Forbess is the mother of Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess and the wife of Thomas D. Forbess. In 1981 her children were almost out of school, with her youngest child being about to enter college. She decided she wanted to start her own business. She had been active as a homemaker, a volunteer and active member of civic organizations. She decided to enter the office supply retail business in 1981 because of the low initial investment required due to the presence of two wholesale suppliers in Jacksonville who could supply goods for inventory on a rapid basis. She also chose to enter this business because there were no particular special skills, training or licenses required and because she knew something about it, since her husband worked for twenty-five years in one phase of the business, that of sales of paper products. This decision being made, Ms. Forbess approached her sons, Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess, to persuade them to enter into the business with her. They agreed to join her in the venture and she set about to form the Petitioner corporation. She desired to incorporate in order to limit the liability which she and her sons would be exposed to in operating the business. She retained an attorney to incorporate the business, but paid no particular attention herself concerning how the shares were to be issued and held or as to the manner of appointment of the members of the board of the directors. She simply followed her attorney's instructions who advised her to do the "standard type" of incorporation. The corporation estab- lished by her attorney provided, in its by-laws, that there would be three directors. Wanda, Ray and Thomas Forbess were each named as directors since they were the only three individuals involved with the Petitioner at its formation. The attorney also issued stock certificates for 200 shares each to the three directors. Wanda Forbess was appointed as president and chief executive officer of the Petitioner corporation. This was because the formation of the business and the company was Mrs. Forbess' idea and she had provided more than five times the amount of capital of each of the other two owners, her sons. In fact, she had provided $11,000 of her own money as initial capital and her two sons provided $2,000 each. Notwithstanding their equal ownership status and the equal vote each of the three has on the Board of Directors, as well as the requirement in the bylaws that a majority vote of the Board is controlling, Mrs. Forbess has been in control of the Petitioner corporation's operations from the day of its inception. Her sons do not question that control and established the fact of it in their own testimony at the hearing. The vice- president is Raymond D. Forbess and the secretary treasurer is Thomas J. Forbess. The bylaws provide that the property and business of the corporation is managed by its Board of Directors and that a majority of those directors shall be necessary and sufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The act of the majority of the directors present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be deemed to be the act of the board. It is also provided in the bylaws that the holders of the majority of shares of stock may remove a director at any time, with or without cause, at a duly called meeting. The president of the Petitioner is empowered to call such a meeting at any time. Any vacancy occurring as a result of removal of any director by the majority shareholders may be filled by the affirmative vote of the majority of remaining directors, even if less than a quorum shall be present. Directors are not required to be shareholders. Therefore, as a holder of 51 percent of the shares of the Petitioner, Wanda Forbess has control over the board of directors by the power to elect or remove any director by voting shares accordingly at a meeting which she may call at any time, with or without notice, as the president of the Petitioner corporation. Replacement directors could then be appointed by her vote alone and could be any person she elects, including, for example, an employee over who she has authority and who she may direct to vote a certain way. In any event, from 1981 through 1987, the Petitioner grew from a company with three employees to a company of 18 employees and more than $280,000 gross monthly sales. During this time, the Petitioner enjoyed some State of Florida contract business. Some time in 1987, Mrs. Forbess became aware that she would soon be unable to continue doing business with the state because her business was not a certified minority business enterprise. In fact, however, the Petitioner had been, from its inception, an American woman-controlled corporation in actual practice. On June 1, 1987, Mrs. Forbess directed her sons to convey sufficient stock to her so that she could become a 51 percent shareholder of the Petitioner corporation. This transfer was done to comply with section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, concerning the definition of "minority business enterprise." It was also done to formally reflect what had been the case, as a practical matter, since the inception of the corporation: that Wanda Forbess controlled the Petitioner corporation. The company by that time had significant value reflected in the value of its stock, but neither son required payment for his stock which he conveyed to Mrs. Forbess. They considered that she was the controlling owner of the corporation from its inception anyway due to the fact that the business was her idea and that she had contributed by far the most significant amount of initial capital. Mrs. Forbess spends a majority of her time conducting the financial affairs of the Petitioner. She is more familiar and more involved with the financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation then any other owner, officer, director or employee. In that capacity, she sets all the salaries, including the salaries of her sons and her husband. All salaries are set completely at the discretion of Mrs. Forbess and always have been. She pays her two sons and her husband a higher salary than she pays herself because their financial requirements are greater, but the salient point here is that she is the manager with the discretion to set their salaries. In 1985, after the Petitioner had been operating successfully for four years, Thomas J. Forbess, the husband of Mrs. Forbess, retired from his position with Jim Walter Paper Company after 25 years of employment with that firm. Prior to that time he had no involvement with the formation, operation or management of the Petitioner corporation. He has never had an ownership interest in the Petitioner. He is an employee of the corporation and assists in some of the operations, including preparation and submittal of bids for some of the work the corporation undertakes. Mrs. Forbess controls the purchase of goods, equipment and business inventory and services used and needed in the day- to-day operation of the business. She frequently purchases significant items used in the business, such as computers, trucks, and postage machines, as well as inventory. In addition to this, the major purchases made by the business by any co-owner or employee must be made only with her approval. Evidence was offered showing the lease agreements and notes evidencing that corporate debts related to large purchases were signed by all corporate officers as a basis for an attempt to show that decisions are made by "consensus" or are joint decisions. However, the fact that lenders and lessors require all corporate officers to sign documents evidencing leases or debts does not mean each corporate officer had an equal part to play in making the decision involved. The record is replete with evidence and testimony from employees and the other owners that Wanda Forbess has a veto power on all decisions concerning purchases, loans, leases of real property and every other major business decision the Petitioner confronts. Further, the fact that discussions are had amongst the owners and officers of the business prior to making major decisions is really a sound business practice and does not mean that one of the owners, directors or officers does not have final authority to make a binding decision. The person who has final authority for such major decisions is Wanda Forbess. Mrs. Forbess also has the authority to hire and dismiss employees, a requirement of subsection 3(b) of Rule 13-8.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. She herself has interviewed employees from time to time and also has final authority to approve all hiring and discharge decisions or to veto them in those instances where she has delegated that authority. She controls which professional services are obtained by the Petitioner corporation, as shown by her decision to discontinue the services of the former company accountant. Indeed, she has delegated some of the hiring processes, given the fact that the Petitioner corporation has grown to be a business with 18 employees. That however, is a normal, acceptable business decision. The delegation of the advertising of a position, the interviewing of prospective employees and the conveying of offers of employment to prospective employees in no way indicates that the delegator does not have the final authority to hire or dismiss the employees. Wanda Forbess also controls all financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation. She thus has unsurpassed knowledge in relation to the other owners, officers and directors, of the financial structure and operations of the business. In fact, the bulk of her time spent working for the Petitioner, corporation since its inception, has been in the field of financial matters. She makes the decisions concerning debt to be incurred by the Petitioner, and approves any major expenditure, without which approval expenditures may not be made. It is significant that Mrs. Forbess has veto authority over the extension of credit to customers and establishment of credit accounts by customers. One instance was described by Jeannine Silcox and Raymond Forbess concerning Raymond Forbess' attempt to open an account to service a particular customer on a credit basis. Mrs. Forbess opposed that procedure and ordered that the account not be opened. The account was not opened. This demonstrates effectively that not only does Mrs. Forbess control the financial affairs of the company, but also wields ultimate authority amongst the co-owners of the Petitioner. Additionally, it is undisputed that Mrs. Forbess writes the vast majority of checks on the Petitioner's two checking accounts, in terms of the requirement, at subsection 3(D) of the above-cited rule, that she control the accounts of the business. She estimates that she writes 97 percent of the checks and there is no evidence to refute that estimate. Thomas J. and Raymond B. Forbess are each authorized signatories on the accounts, but their names are simply there as a matter of convenience and the only instances in which they sign checks are when there is an immediate need for the check to be paid and Mrs. Forbess is unavailable to sign herself. There is no question that Mrs. Forbess is the ultimate authority controlling the Petitioner's bank accounts. In order to comply with subsection 3(e) of the above cited rule, the minority owner must demonstrate capability, knowledge and experience in making decisions concerning the business involved. At the time of the business's inception, neither Mrs. Forbess nor her co-owner sons had the capability, knowledge or experience required to make many of the decisions concerning the retail office supply retail business. Over seven years of operation however, Mrs. Forbess has actively supervised and managed the business of the Petitioner and has developed to a high degree those attributes, in making decisions involved in operating that business successfully. She has delegated certain aspects of the company's business to the supervision of her sons. Thomas J. Forbess, for example, is involved in developing additional retail operations. Raymond B. Forbess is more actively involved in the delivery of merchandise to customers and the monitoring of customer accounts, as well as maintaining and accounting for inventory. Nonetheless, neither of the other owners effects any significant decisions without consulting Mrs. Forbess first and gaining her approval or veto. Through this supervision and control over the past seven years, as well as her current direct involvement in managing the Petitioner's affairs, Mrs. Forbess has developed the capability, knowledge and experience required to make decisions regarding the office supply business involved herein. Her operational and managerial capabilities are demonstrated by the fact that under her leadership the business started with three employees and has grown to an 18 employee business with gross sales in the neighborhood of $280,000 per month in just over seven years. Finally, Mrs. Forbess has displayed independence and initiative in conducting all major operations and details of the Petitioner since its inception, (as required by subsection (f) of the above rule). Although she has done little bid negotiating directly, she has the ability to do so and has some experience in that activity. Further, bid proposals are submitted to her for approval and are not made without her knowledge and assent. Further, she herself negotiates leases and other contracts on behalf of the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's application for certification as a Women Business Enterprise be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Diann Criss Atkinson, Qualified Representative Shurly Contracting, Inc. P. O. Box 15267 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation is the state agency charged with the responsibility to develop and adopt criteria for a DBE program, and administer the DBE program. Burkett is a Florida corporation whose sole stockholder is a white female American. She meets the criteria of a socially and economically disadvantaged individual. Burkett applied for certification as a DBE on July 12, 1991, and on October 1, 1991, the Department denied Burkett certification. Burkett submitted additional information and made changes in its internal organization to better conform to the Department's requirements; however, the Department has denied Burkett the designation based upon the owner's lack of expertise in the critical areas of the firm's operation, to wit; she does not possess education or experience in engineering. The parties stipulate that Burkett is substantially effected by the rules being challenged, and possesses standing to bring this rule challenge. In determining the qualifications of an applicant for DBE status, the Department utilizes Sections 334.044(2), 337.137, 339.05, and 339.0805, Florida Statutes; 49 CFR Part 23; the United States Department of Transportation administrative decisions; guidelines and training manuals from USDOT or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and its own rules. At the recommendation of a representative from FHWA, the Department amended the rules being challenged regarding qualifications for DBE certification to explicate the requirement for ownership control, as required by Section 339.0805(1),(c), supra, and 49 CFR Part 23.53, to include the concept of "expertise in critical areas of operation of the business" which is required by the USDOT. The terms "expertise" and "critical areas of operation" are not defined in the Florida Statutes or DOT's rules. The DOT interprets "critical areas of operation" to mean the technical area in which the DBE certification is being sought. Management limited to the day-to-day normal business operations is not considered to be a "critical area of operation." The DOT's evaluation of "expertise" changes from business to business based upon the applicant's type of work. The department expects to see education and experience on the part of the disadvantaged owner in the technical area of operations of the business. The Department denied the Petitioner DBE certification because the disadvantaged owner did not possess engineering experience or education.
The Issue Whether Action Wire & Cable Corporation should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1993, the Petitioner company was started in New York but incorporated in the State of Florida. Rosemarie Branciforte and Janet Monaco were two of the original incorporators as minority stockholders and three non- minority males held the majority of the stock. The two women incorporators were not named to the original Board of Directors. At the time of the incorporation, 100 shares of stock were issued as follows: Bert Polte-40 shares, Frank Kleeman-40 shares, Janet Monaco-10 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte-5 shares, and Ken Barry-5 shares. The company began operations out of the home of Monaco and Branciforte in New York, who contributed their knowledge and labor without compensation. Janet Monaco was appointed President and Rosemarie Branciforte was selected as Vice President-Sales & Marketing. Two of the male stockholders from Germany (Polte and Kleeman) contributed $2,000 which was used for the purchase of fax and computer equipment. Polte and Kleeman are listed as Regional Sales Managers and reside in the Federal Republic of Germany. On December 29, 1993, Ken Barry, one of the original stockholders, returned his 5 shares to the corporation. On January 1, 1994, at its annual meeting, the corporation voted to redistribute the shares among its stockholders, as follows: Janet Monaco-26 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte-25 shares, Bert Polte-25 shares, and Frank Kleeman-24 shares. This was based on the contribution of space in the women's house for the corporate offices and supplies, the assumption of risk and the operation of the company by Monaco and Branciforte without compensation. Monaco and Branciforte were also elected as sole directors of the company, with Monaco as Chair. In April, 1994, the company relocated to Florida and filed its application for certification with the Commission. In October, 1994, the corporate records were amended to reflect that Monaco and Branciforte were the sole directors of the corporation. As sole directors and chief operating officers of the company, the women owners perform the following: Develop and maintain the customer base, both in the United States and overseas; determine who to sell to depending on credit worthiness; develop market plans, advertising campaigns and mailings; promote the company at trade shows and community organizations; control bookkeeping; control all monies (including distribution of year end profits; sign all long term leases; select and maintain working relationships with vendors; and sign as guarantors on vendor accounts, as needed. Polte and Kleeman, stockholders in Petitioner, are owners of a wire and cable distribution business in Europe. As such, they have made a market for Petitioner's American wire in Europe and provide European wire to Petitioner for sale in the U.S. Sales generated by Polte and Kleeman account for approximately 15 percent of Petitioner's sales in Europe and 11 percent of products imported by Petitioner for distribution in the U.S. For their services, Polte and Kleeman receive an annual stockholders' dividend from the profits of the corporation, which has been designated as a "management fee" in the corporate books. Their combined ownership of stock in the corporation amounts to 49 percent. Monaco and Branciforte, both American women, are 51 percent owners of the corporation. The gross sales of the company was approximately $350,000 in 1993, $700,000 in 1994 and $500,000 to date in 1995. In 1995, Petitioner sold approximately $180,000 of material through its European sales managers and purchased approximately $27,000 from them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed by Action Wire & Cable Corporation on April 27, 1994, be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 17th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner submitted in letter form proposed findings of fact. However, it contained, in paragraph form, comments on the evidence and argument which can not be specifically ruled upon. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 4 (in part), 5, 7 (in part), 8 (in part), 9. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 3, 4 (in part) 7 (in part), 8 (in part). Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 6, 8 (in part) COPIES FURNISHED: Rosemarie N. Branciforte Vice President-Sales & Marketing Action Wire & Cable Corporation 4802 Distribution Court, Unit 2 Orlando, Florida 32822 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Senior Attorney 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Crandall Jones Executive Administrator Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner is qualified for designation and certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact At the hearing, it became apparent that the reasons for denial were principally lack of independence and affiliation with a non-qualifying company. The parties stipulated to the following: Ms. Wendy Stephens, President and Secretary of WPS and sole stockholder WPS, possess the authority to, and does in fact, exercise complete control over the management, daily operations and corporate affairs of WPS. Ms. Stephens possesses the technical capability, managerial qualifications and expertise to operate WPS. The following facts were proven at hearing: Ms. Stephens is a white, female and is qualified as a minority person under the statute. In 1991, Charles Perry, Ms. Stephen's father and a white male, provided $7,000 for start up capital and a lease of 3 acres on his farm to house Alachua Greenery, a wholesale/retail nursery which Wendy Stephens began with assistance from Perry. Ms. Stephens has never made payments on the aforementioned lease. Charles Perry and Wendy Stephens were the sole stockholders in Alachua Greenery, each holding 50 percent of the shares in the corporation. Perry has contributed nothing more to the operation of the corporation, and has never exercised any control over the corporation, although he was initially a director. WPS is a Florida corporation, domiciled and doing business in the state. WPS is worth less than $3,000,000 and has three employees. Ms. Stephens is and always has been the sole stockholder of WPS, and has served as its President and Secretary since its incorporation. Ms. Stephens husband, Gary Stephens, was once a director of WPS upon the advice of counsel; however, he exercised no control over the corporation and resigned as a director on April 12, 1996. Gary Stephens sold a Bobcat tractor to Wendy Stephens upon which he has deferred payments. This Bobcat is used by WPS and Alachua Greenery. Gary Stephens has no other financial or other interest in WPS or Alachua Greenery. WPS was formed for the purpose of engaging in the retail landscaping business, which is a logical business expansion from the wholesale nursery business. WPS has engaged in the retail landscaping business for several customers. WPS shares equipment, land, vehicles, and employees with Alachua Greenery. There is no evidence that WPS, which has performed a number of contracts, has been a conduit of money to Alachua Greenery. On May 13, 1996, Perry gifted his share of Alachua Greenery to Wendy Stephens.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for minority business status be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 96-0023 Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. References to numbered paragraphs in Petitioner's findings includes all letter subparagraphs unless otherwise noted. PETITIONER'S RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraphs 1,2 Statement of Case Paragraph 3 Irrelevant Paragraphs 4-6 Statement of Case Paragraph 7a Paragraph 9 Paragraph 7b Subsumed in Paragraph 6 Paragraph 7c Subsumed in Paragraphs 6 & 8 Paragraph 7d Contrary to best evidence Paragraph 7e Irrelevant Paragraph 7f Subsumed in Paragraph 9 Paragraph 7g Irrelevant Paragraphs 7h,i Paragraph 7 Paragraphs 7j,k,l Subsumed in Paragraph 8 Paragraphs 7m,n,o,p Paragraph 4 Paragraph 7q Subsumed in Paragraph 12 Paragraph 7r Paragraph 11 Paragraphs 7s,t Irrelevant RESPONDENT'S RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraph 1,2 Subsumed in Paragraph 8 Paragraph 3 Subsumed in Paragraph 10 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraph 10 Paragraph 6 Not necessary Paragraph 7,8 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 9 Not necessary COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Worthy, Esquire Peter A. Robertson and Associates 4128 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32609 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development 107 West Gaines Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Veronica Anderson, Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000
The Issue Whether Gwenda J. Haas-Amey has control of the management and daily operations of Barton S. Amey Company, Inc.?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Barton S. Amey Company, Inc., began operating in November, 1983. The Petitioner is a Florida corporation. The primary business of the Petitioner is the construction and renovation of commercial buildings. Gwenda J. Haas-Amey and Barton S. Amey are the only stockholders of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey are husband and wife. Mr. Amey holds a bachelor's degree and master's degree in building construction. Mr. Amey holds a class-A contractor's license from the State of Florida. He is the qualifying agent of the Petitioner. Mr. Amey has over 10 years of experience in construction prior to the formation of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey holds a B.S. degree, a master's degree and a doctorate degree in early childhood education. Dr. Haas-Amey has taken 30 hours of courses in administration at the doctorate level. Dr. Haas-Amey is not licensed in construction and has no direct work experience in construction prior to 1983. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey are directors of the Petitioner. They have been the only directors of the corporation. Mr. Amey is the president of the Petitioner. Mr. Amey has always been the president of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey is the secretary/treasurer of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas- Amey has always been the secretary/treasurer of the Petitioner. From November, 1983, until approximately April 1986, Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey each owned 50 percent of the stock of the Petitioner. In approximately April, 1986, Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey decided that Dr. Haas-Amey would own 60 percent of the stock of the Petitioner and Mr. Amey would own 40 percent of the stock of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey first testified that she decided how the stock would be owned. Dr. Haas-Amey later testified that the decision as to the ownership of the stock was made by the directors of the Petitioner. No evidence was presented to explain how 10 percent of the stock of the Petitioner was transferred from Mr. Amey to Dr. Haas-Amey, i.e., gift, sale, exchange, corporate reorganization, redemption. Also in April of 1986, the directors appointed Dr. Haas-Amey as chief executive officer of the Petitioner. No evidence was presented to explain what the legal duties or powers of the chief executive officer of the Petitioner are, i.e., by-laws, articles of incorporation, minutes of directors' meetings. Dr. Haas-Amey did testify that the president reports to the chief executive officer. In June of 1986 the request for certification as a minority business enterprise was filed by Dr. Haas-Amey. The request is based upon Dr. Haas- Amey's minority status as a woman and her ownership of more than 51 percent of the stock of the Petitioner. In the request for certification there was no indication that Dr. Haas-Amey is the chief executive officer of the Petitioner. It is only indicated that she is the secretary of the Petitioner. Section VI(1) of the request for certification includes the following request: Minority owners Possess Control over the Management and Daily Operation of the Business Identify the person(s) responsible for the day to day management and operation of the company. List the major responsibilities for each person after their name. In response to Section VI(1) of the request, the following answer was given: Dr. Gwenda J. Haas-Amey - public relations, marketing, personnel, bidding review Barton S. Amey - estimating, bidding/negotiations, production. Either Dr. Haas-Amey or Mr. Amey can sign checks on the Petitioner's accounts. Both have signed checks. Dr. Haas-Amey signs most of the checks. The Petitioner does not own much equipment. Dr. Haas-Amey has purchased a copier and a warehouse for the Petitioner. She is also purchasing a dump-lift truck for the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey's knowledge of the construction business has been obtained as a result of her marriage to Mr. Amey for the past 9 and a half years and 3 and a half years working for the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey's knowledge of business has been obtained in part from her experience as the manager of two day-care centers. The Petitioner's business has grown since Dr. Haas-Amey became more active in the business. Dr. Haas-Amey works full-time for the Petitioner and has no other full-time employment. Mr. Amey is the technical construction expert of the Petitioner. Prior to April, 1986, Mr. Amey made the construction decisions and Dr. Haas-Amey made the management decisions for the Petitioner. After April, 1986, Mr. Amey still makes many of the construction decisions. Although Mr. Amey testified that generally Dr. Haas-Amey does not consult with him or vice versa, the weight of the evidence proves that they do consult with each other. When questioned about specific instances, Mr. Amey testified that they consulted. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey consult with other persons working for the Petitioner, including the secretaries, sub-contractors, laborers and field supervisors. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey spend about the same amount of time in the Petitioner's office and in the field. The vast majority of their time is spent in the office. The Petitioner's office is located in Dr. Haas-Amey's and Mr. Amey's residence. Dr. Haas-Amey owns the residence. Mr. Amey is a co-signor of the mortgage on the residence. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey review daily progress reports from the field and verify whether progress payments should be made. Since the 60-40 split of the stock of the Petitioner, Dr. Haas-Amey has signed contracts on behalf of the Petitioner. Prior to the split of stock, Mr. Amey signed, as president of the Petitioner, sub-contractor agreements and owner/contractor agreements on behalf of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey reviews requests for bids, looks at competitors and decides whether to submit a bid. Mr. Amey estimates the cost of projects to be bid on. Dr. Haas-Amey reviews Mr. Amey's cost estimates and can make adjustments. Dr. Haas-Amey then submits the bid and conducts any negotiations. Dr. Haas-Amey negotiates with sub-contractors and decides who to hire and fire. The Petitioner has two part-time secretaries. They do the typing for the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey interviewed persons applying for the secretarial positions. Dr. Haas-Amey made the ultimate decision on who was hired. Mr. Amey testified that a Mr. Hicks was hired as a field supervisor by the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey interviewed Mr. Hicks and the other applicants. Mr. Amey testified that Dr. Haas-Amey made the ultimate decision to hire Mr. Hicks. The problem with this testimony is that Mr. Hicks was hired in August of 1985. This was before the stock of the Petitioner was held 60-40 and before Dr. Haas-Amey was elected as the chief executive officer of the Petitioner. At that time the stock was owned 50-50 and Mr. Amey was the president of the Petitioner. The evidence did not prove that Dr. Haas-Amey controls the purchase of goods, equipment, business inventory or services, the financial affairs of the Petitioner or the Petitioner's business accounts or that she has the authority to hire and fire. The Board of Directors of the Petitioner controls (has the power or right to act) the purchase of goods, equipment, business inventory and services, the financial affiars of the Petitioner and the Petitioner's business accounts, and has the authority to hire and fire. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey are members of the Board of Directors of the Petitioner. Although Dr. Haas-Amey has been making some of the decisions concerning these corporate functions, she has done so as one of two directors of the Petitioner. A single director does not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the entire Board of Directors. Therefore, her decisions have been made either with the tacit approval of the other director of the Petitioner, Mr. Amey, or her decisions were invalidly made because they were not made with the approval of both directors of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey has knowledge of the finanical structure of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey has the capability, knowledge and experience necessary to make some decisions with regard to commercial construction. The evidence did not prove that Dr. Haas-Amey has displayed independence and initiative in conducting all major aspects of the Petitioner's business.
Recommendation Based upon on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's request for certification as a minority business enterprise be denied. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3954 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance or of Fact Number Reason for Rejection 1 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 41. 2 RO 24. 3 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 41. 4 RO 37, 39 and 40. Dr. Haas-Amey does have knowledge of the financial structure of the Petitioner (see RO 42) but the weight of the evidence does not support a finding of fact that she controls the financial affairs of the Petitioner. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 23 and 41. 7 RO 23. 8 9, 10 and 12 Hereby accepted. These proposed findings of fact are too 11 broad. See RO 43. RO 9. 13 RO 29. 14 RO 36 15 RO 37. 16 17 Not supported by evidence. RO 17. the weight of the 18-19 RO 28. 20 RO 38. 21 Irrelevant. 22 Not supported by evidence. the weight of the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 RO 3-4 and 15. 2 RO 2. 3 RO 3 and 14. 4 RO 5-7. 5 RO 8 and 10. 6 RD 11. 7 RO 12-13. 8 RO 15 and 17. 9 RO 19-20. 10 RO 21-22. 11 Hereby accepted. 12 RO 30-31. 13 RO 23. 14 15 RO 33. The home/office is not by Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey. RO 36. "owned" 16-17 RO 35. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Room 133, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sandar E. Allen, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lee L. Haas, Esquire Baxter, Rinard and Winters, P.A. Post Office Drawer 2636 Clearwater, Florida 33517
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be certified by Respondent as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc. (Jupiter), is an environmental testing laboratory established in October 1995. The services performed by Jupiter include testing samples of water, oil, soil, and waste water in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency standards. Jupiter also tests for inorganic and organic compounds by mass spectrography and gas chromatography. Jupiter is owned 70 percent by Glynda Russell, a female, and 30 percent by her husband, Edward Dabrea, who is a non- minority. Prior to forming Jupiter, Ms. Russell had not worked in a laboratory such as Jupiter. Her work experience had been in real estate and selling women's apparel. According to Ms. Russell she did gain some knowledge and experience in environmental testing because she was a customer of testing laboratories while she was in the real estate business. She became familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency's requirements while she was investigating environmental impacts when she was a realtor. Mr. Dubrea has a degree in earth science (geology) and has done post graduate studies in geoscience (organic geochemistry). He has extensive work experience in environmental testing laboratories. Both Ms. Russell and Mr. Dabrea are jointly liable for a $50,000 loan from the Small Business Administration and a $15,000 line of credit. Ms. Russell has also incurred debt of over $100,000 on her personal credit card for Jupiter's expenses. The company has three equipment leases which Ms. Russell signed and indicated she was personally liable. Ms. Russell also signed the lease for the space occupied by the business. Ms. Russell is the president of the corporation. Her duties include directing all marketing, sales, and financial operations. She is responsible for recruiting and hiring personnel, maintaining state certifications, prioritization of work flow (sample pick-up, sample log-in and report generation), bid pricing, selection of subcontracting laboratories, customer service and purchasing of supplies. Mr. Dabrea is the Technical Director for the company. In addition to working for Jupiter, he does freelance research. His resume states that his work at Jupiter includes the following: Planned and organized all technical details for new laboratory, including equipment requirements and analytical supplies. Received and setup instrumentation, performs necessary calibrations. Coordinates information with Laboratory Director and QA/QC Officer. Develops new methods and provides research assistance to clients with unusual assessments. Coordinates between laboratory and governmental agency to ensure compliance. Submits performance evaluation studies to E. P. A. for certification on quarterly basis. Responsible for ensuring adequate instrument capacity for continued growth of the company. Cliff Ross, a non-minority, is the Laboratory Director and works part-time for Jupiter. Start-up funds for Jupiter were contributed by Ms. Russell and Mr. Dabrea. Ms. Russell contributed $25,000 in cash, and computer equipment worth approximately $8,000. Mr. Dabrea contributed an $11,000 truck and $5,000 in computer equipment. Ms. Russell contributed 67 percent and Mr. Dabrea contributed 32 percent. Jupiter is certified in certain categories of environmental water testing by the State of Florida, Department of Health, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. In order to acquire such certification, tests must be performed in the laboratory by qualified technical personnel with the proper educational credentials. In order to acquire the certification for Jupiter, the tests were performed by Mr. Dabrea and Mr. Ross. Ms. Russell is not technically or educationally qualified to perform the tests required for certification. It is not necessary to have the certification to operate an environmental laboratory, but many companies acquire the certification as a marketing tool. Ms. Russell indicated in her response to the denial of her certification that "current market conditions make it all but impossible to get work without it." (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Ms. Russell can perform the extractions. Once the extractions are done for certain types of testing, the testing is automated. She cannot do chromatography. The Quality Assurance Director for Jupiter is Pamela Shore-Loeb. Her duties include responsibilities for all quality assurance and quality control requirements to ensure continued State of Florida laboratory certifications and project management to a growing client list. She, along with Ms. Russell, developed the quality assurance manual used by the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner, Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc., meets the requirements of Rule 38A-20.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, but does not meet the requirements of Rules 38A- 20.005(3)(c), (d)1, 4 and (6) and (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Consequently, the final order should deny Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc.'s application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 1st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Glynda E. Russell, President Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 220 Venus Street, Suite 16 Jupiter, Florida 33458 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Are Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, valid exercises of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1991, the Respondents made amendments to Rules 60A- 2.001 and 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code, related to the certification of a "minority business enterprise" to engage in business with the State of Florida. With the amendments, a definition for the term "regular dealer" was created, which states in pertinent part: 60A-2.001 Definitions. . . . (10) 'Regular dealer' means a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the material or supplies required for the performance of the contract are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold to the public in the usual course of business. To be a regular dealer, the firm must engage in, as its principal business and in its own name, the purchase and sale of products. . . . The amendments included other requirements that a "minority business enterprise", as defined at Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, must meet to be certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program. (The definition of "minority business enterprise" was changed by Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). The change does not effect the outcome in the case.) As promulgated December 22, 1991, Rule 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code states in pertinent part: The applicant business shall establish that it is currently performing a useful business function in each specialty area requested by the applicant. For purposes of this rule, "currently" means as of the date of the office's receipt of the application for certification. The applicant business is considered to be per- forming a useful business function when it is responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work of a contract and carrying out its responsibilities in actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. The useful business function of an applicant business shall be determined in reference to the products or services for which the applicant business requested certification on Form PUR 7500. When the applicant business is required by law to hold a license, other than an occupational license in order to undertake its business activity, the applicant business shall not be considered to be performing a useful business function unless it has the required license(s). In determining if an applicant business is acting as a regular dealer and that it is not acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non- minority business, the Office shall consider the applicant's business role as agent or negotiator between buyer and seller or contractor. Though an applicant business may sell products through a variety of means, the Office shall consider the customary and usual method by which the majority of sales are made in its analysis of the applicability of the regular dealer require- ments. Sales shall be made regularly from stock on a recurring basis constituting the usual operations of the applicant business. The proportions of sales from stock and the amount of stock to be maintained by the applicant business in order to satisfy these rule requirements will depend on the business' gross receipts, the types of commodities sold, and the nature of the business's operations. The stock maintained shall be a true inventory from which sales are made, rather than by a stock of sample, display, or surplus goods remaining from prior orders or by a stock main- tained primarily for the purpose of token compliance with this rule. Consideration shall be given to the applicant's provision of dispensable services or pass-through operations which do not add economic value, except where characterized as common industry practice or customary marketing procedures for a given product. An applicant business acting as broker or packager shall not be regarded as a regular dealer absent a showing that brokering or packaging is the normal practice in the applicant business industry. Manufacturer's representatives, sales representatives and non-stocking distributors shall not be considered regular dealers for purposes of these rules. In passing the rules amendments, the Respondents relied upon authority set forth in Sections 287.0943(5) and 287.0945(3), Florida Statutes. Those statutory sections are now found at Sections 287.0943(7) and 287.0945(6), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). Those provisions create the general and specific authority for the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office to effectuate the purposes set forth in Section 287.0943, Florida Statutes, by engaging in rule promulgation. As it relates to this case, the law implemented by the challenged rules is set forth at Section 287.0943(1)(e)3, Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.), which establishes criteria for certification of minority business enterprises who wish to participate in the Minority Business Program contemplated by Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. That provision on certification was formerly Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes. In assessing a minority business enterprise application for certification, the Respondents, through that statutory provision: [R]equire that prospective certified minority business enterprises be currently performing a useful business function. A 'useful business function' is defined as a business function which results in the provision of materials, supplies, equipment, or services to customers other than state or local government. Acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non-minority business does not constitute a useful business function unless it is done so in a normal industry practice. Petitioners, Expertech and Mechanical, had been certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program, but were denied re- certification through the application of Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code. Marsha Nims is the Director of Certification for the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office. In her position, she develops policy on minority business enterprise certification. As such, she was principally responsible for developing the subject rules. In particular, as Ms. Nims describes, the purpose in developing the rules was to address the meaning of a "conduit" set forth at Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes, in an attempt to insure that improper advantage was not taken by persons using certified minority businesses to enter into contractual opportunities with the State of Florida. In promulgating the rule, the Respondents spoke to representatives who were involved with unrelated minority business enterprise certification programs. One person from whom the Respondents had obtained ideas was Hershel Jackson, who processed certifications for the Small Business Administration in its Jacksonville, Florida office. This individual indicated that the Small Business Administration had developed a "regular dealer rule" that required individuals who sought minority certification from the Small Business Administration to make sales from existing inventory. This conversation led to the utilization of federal law as a guide to establishing the rules in question. At 41 CFR 50-201.101(a)(2), the term "regular dealer" is defined as: A regular dealer is a person who owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. It can be seen that the definition of "regular dealer" set forth in Rule 60A-2.001(10), Florida Administrative Code, is very similar to the federal definition. In addition, the Respondents used the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act Interpretations at 41 CFR 50-206 for guidance. The provision within the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act that was utilized was 41 CFR 50-206.53(a). It states: Regular Dealer. A bidder may qualify as a regular dealer under 40 CFR, 50-201.101(b), if it owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the commodities or goods of the general character described by the specifi- cations and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. . . . The Petitioners presented witnesses who established the manner in which their respective industries carried out normal industry practices involving fund transfers to non-minority businesses from minority and non- minority businesses. Joseph H. Anderson is the President of Suntec Paint, Inc. (Suntec), which does business in Florida. Suntec is a non-minority corporation. It manufactures architectural coatings (house paints). Suntec sells and distributes its paint products through its own stores, through other dealers who have stores, and through sales agents. The sales agents would also be considered as manufacturers' representatives. Suntec's relationship with its manufacturer's representatives is one in which Suntec has an agreement with the representatives to sell the paint products to the representatives at negotiated prices which may be discounted based upon volume of sales. The representatives then sell the products to end users at a price that may be higher than the price between Suntec and the representatives. The representatives are responsible for marketing the product to customers. The products manufactured by Suntec are inventoried for distribution, or in some instances, made to order for distribution. The maintenance of inventory is principally for the benefit of the retail outlets controlled by Suntec. Suntec prefers not to maintain inventory because it ties up raw materials, warehousing space, and requires personnel to be engaged in the management and shipment of those products. If the product is "picked up" more than once in the process, it costs more money. Therefore, Suntec distributes inventory through the representatives by direct shipping from the manufacturer to the end user. Suntec's arrangement with its representatives is one in which the customer pays the representative for the product and the representative then pays Suntec. The representatives for Suntec do not ordinarily maintain inventory of the paint products, because this avoids having the representatives handle the product and then reship the product to the end user. By the representative handling the product, it would add expense to the transaction. Suntec, in selling its products through representatives and shipping directly from the manufacturer to the end user, is pursuing a practice which is normal in its industry. Suntec's arrangement with dealers unaffiliated with Suntec who have stores, provides the independent dealers with inventory. Nonetheless, there are occasions in which the independent dealer will place a large order with Suntec; and Suntec will ship the product directly to the end user. That practice is a frequent practice and one that is standard in the industry. Suntec has two minority businesses who serve as manufacturers' representatives and other manufacturers' representatives who are non-minorities. The minority representatives are Expertech, located in Gainesville, Florida, and All In One Paint and Supply, Inc. (All In One), also located in Gainesville. The two minority representatives for Suntec maintain some stock of paint. The inventory amount which All In One maintains was not identified. Within a few months before the hearing, Expertech had purchased 60 gallons of paint from Suntec. It was not clear what the intended disposition was for the paint. Thomas Rollie Steele, the Branch Manager for Bearings and Drives, serves as Sales Manager for that company in its Florida operations. Bearings and Drives has its corporate offices in Macon, Georgia. The company has thirty locations throughout the southern United States, with five different divisions. It specializes in industrial maintenance products and some services. Bearings and Drives is a non-minority firm. In its business Bearings and Drives has manufacturing arrangements or agreements to represent other manufacturers. As representative for other companies who manufacture the products which Bearings and Drives markets, Bearings and Drives is expected to solicit sales. The agreements with the manufacturers which Bearings and Drives has, establish price structures, terms and conditions, and shipping arrangements. Bearings and Drives serves as representatives for the manufacturers in a distinct service area. Bearings and Drives buys products from the manufacturers and resells the products to Bearings and Drives' customers. Bearings and Drives derives compensation by selling to customers at a price higher than the product was sold to them. The price at which products are resold by Bearings and Drives is controlled by market conditions. Bearings and Drives maintains some product inventory; however, in excess of 50 percent of the products sold are shipped directly from the manufacturer to the customer. The direct shipment improves the profit margin for Bearings and Drives by not maintaining an inventory and saving on additional freight expenses, taxes paid on existing inventory and labor costs to be paid warehouse personnel. Bearings and Drives uses a direct delivery system to its customers that is scheduled around the time at which the customer would need the product sold by Bearings and Drives. This arrangement is a standard industry practice. Aileen Schumacher is the founder, President, and sole owner of Expertech. This Petitioner had been certified through the Minority Business Program prior to the rule amendments in December, 1991. When the Petitioner, Expertech sought to be re-certified, it was denied certification in some business areas for failure to maintain sufficient levels of inventory. Expertech sells and distributes technical supplies, such as pollution- control equipment, laboratory equipment, hand tools, and other technical supplies. It specializes in the sale and distribution of safety equipment. Expertech does not provide services. The areas in which Expertech has been denied re-certification relate to the sale of laboratory supplies, paint, and pollution-control equipment. In marketing products Expertech buys directly from manufacturers, except in the instance where they cannot access the manufacturer directly and must operate through a distributor. Expertech tries to maintain as little inventory as possible and to have the commodities it sells shipped directly from the manufacturer to the end user. In addition to ordinary sales, Expertech takes custom orders for products not maintained in inventory by the manufacturer, which are directly shipped from the manufacturer to the customer. In Expertech's business dealings as a manufacturer's representative, wherein it arranges for direct shipments, it is performing in a manner which is standard in the industries in which it is engaged. Otto Lawrenz is the sole proprietor of Mechanical. Prior to the rules changes in December, 1991, Mechanical had been certified as a minority business enterprise. The attempt to re-certify was denied based upon the fact that Mechanical did not stock products and was serving as a manufacturer's representative in selling heating and ventilation equipment. Mechanical sells to mechanical contractors and sheet-metal contractors as a representative for the manufacturer. Mechanical bids on construction jobs and "takes off" the amount of equipment needed in setting its price quotes. If the submission of the price quotation is successful, Mechanical receives a purchasing order from the contractor, as approved by the project engineer. The equipment is then ordered by Mechanical, and delivered by the manufacturer to the job site or the contractor's home office. Mechanical does not maintain a warehouse or a store. The end user pays Mechanical within 30-60 days from the time that the equipment is delivered to the end user. Mechanical then pays the original manufacturer an agreed upon price. Generally, Mechanical sells special-order equipment. This type of equipment would be difficult to inventory since it is being custom-ordered and the units that are ordered are large in size. In addition, the variety of parts involved in these projects makes it difficult to stock them.
The Issue The primary issue in this proceeding is whether Gulf Coast is entitled to certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise under DOT rule 14-78.05 Florida Administrative Code. Ancillary issues include 1) the sufficiency of proof of Bernard Crooke's membership in a designated group, (i.e. "Hispanic Americans"); and 2) the criteria, if any, that DOT may utilize, other than an individual's membership in a designated group, to determine eligibility of that individual's firm for certification.
Findings Of Fact Gulf Coast and Traffic Engineers, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Escambia County, Florida. Its address is 8203 Kipling Street, Pensacola, Florida, 32513. (Stipulation of the parties: Petitioner's Exhibit #la, tab 2) Gulf Coast is a "small business concern" as required by Rule 14-78.05, Florida Administrative Code. (Stipulation of the parties). The Florida Department of Transportation receives federal highway funds and administers the program for certification of disadvantaged business enterprises. (T-6,92) Bernard E. Crooke is President of Gulf Coast and sixty- percent owner. He directs the management policies and operations of Gulf Coast. (Stipulation of the parties; Petitioner's Exhibit la, tab 2) Cameron Villar is a remote blood relative of Bernard E. Crooke. He and a cousin did some genealogical research on the Villar family history. He obtained a list of names of genealogical societies in Spain from the American embassy in Madrid. After contacting all the societies on the list, he retained one, and obtained from it a picture of the Villar family crest and a brief history of the family name. The Villars originated in Galicia, Spain. Cameron Villar also prepared a genealogical chart tracing his family (and Bernard Crooke's) back to one of two brothers who came from Spain to the United States. The brothers, Augustus and Emmanuel, were sons of Don Jose de Villar, who is mentioned in the family history provided by the genealogical society. (T-22-24, 30-35; Petitioner's Exhibits #2-#5) Paula Margaret Davidson is related to Bernard Crooke through a common great grandmother. She has known Bernard and his family all her life. She also conducted genealogical research and prepared a chart tracing the family back to Spain. (T-45, 6, Petitioner's Exhibit #6) Joseph Davidson (known as "Buddy" Davidson) was raised by Bernard Crooke's aunt, whom "Buddy's" father married after his first wife died. It was common knowledge in the family and in the Pensacola community that the Villars, including the branch in which "Buddy" and Bernard were raised, were of Spanish heritage. There was a community of Spanish harbor pilots in the Old Warrington Woolsey area. Later the city of Warrington was displaced and was moved to New Warrington. (T-71, 74-75) Bernard's grandfather was one of the bar and harbor pilots. (T-56). The Villar family and its various branches celebrated the Bicentennial with their first family reunion. Seven hundred and fifty members participated, including Bernard Crooke. The family was recognized as playing a significant part in the founding of Pensacola, as the two Villar brothers sailed into Pensacola with General Galvez and received land there as a reward from the King of Spain and as an incentive to create a Spanish colony in Pensacola. A booklet was published for the Bicentennial celebration, "Your Heritage," based upon the research of the family members. (T-64, 83, Petitioner's Exhibit #11). Until the Bicentennial in 1975-76, and the resultant public recognition of the family, being Spanish was not a subject of pride and there was concern about discrimination in the community. ( T- 6 9, 77, 82). Neither Bernard Crooke, nor any of the family members who testified on his behalf, could say for certain whether, as an individual, Bernard Crooke was the subject of bias or discrimination by virtue of his Hispanic cultural heritage. (T- 50, 53, 69, 73, 83). Bernard Crooke was one of nine children in a poor family. He started his construction business approximately twenty years ago with five hundred dollars and two partners. He helped support his business in the early days by delivering papers to rack stands. He put himself through Pensacola Junior College and obtained no further formal education. He eventually bought out the two partners who had other interests and were just helping him get started. (T-80-85). The business has gradually grown to one with gross annual receipts (year ending 9/30/84) of $1,761,117.37. (Petitioner's Exhibits #la, tab 2).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued finding Petitioner, Gulf Coast, eligible for certification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 3rd day of June, 1986. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Paragraphs #1 and #3. Addressed in Background; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Paragraph #11. Adopted in Paragraphs #3-6. Adopted in substance in Paragraphs #3-7. Rejected as unnecessary. Discussion of criteria for certification is found in the Conclusions of Law. Adopted in Conclusions of Law, Paragraph #10. Adopted in Conclusions of Law, Paragraph #10. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph #1. Addressed in Background. Rejected as summary of evidence rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in part in Paragraph #4. The statement that Mr. Villar is not a genealogist is rejected as unsupported by the record. Adopted in part in Paragraph #4; otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial, except that the Villar Spanish origins are addressed in paragraphs #4 and #7. Adopted in part in Paragraph #5, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in Paragraph #10. Rejected as being immaterial since Petitioner has also been denied loans. See Conclusion of Law, Paragraph #9. Rejected as unnecessary and while an accurate restatement of an isolated portion of testimony, the out-of-context testimony does not reflect the substantial weight of the evidence. See Conclusion of Law, Paragraph #9. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles C. Sherrill, Esquire 435 East Government Street Post Office Box 12316 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Brant Hargrove, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
