The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Eugene Boatright, is entitled to licensure as an alarm systems contractor by virtue of a passing grade on the January 26, 1989, examination.
Findings Of Fact Eugene Boatright was an unsuccessful candidate for the alarm systems contractor's licensure examination given on January 26, 1989. Mr. Boatright made a score of 74. A score of 75 was required for licensure. Each correct answer had a grade value of one point. Mr. Boatright originally challenged the answers to questions 22, 95 and At the formal hearing he abandoned his challenge to question 22. Question 95 dealt with standards for the installation, maintenance and use of Remote Station Protective signaling devices. The reference was to N.F.P.A. Chapter 72C, Section 1-3.1. Mr. Boatright contended that telephone exchange was a correct answer. DPR contended that telephone exchange was incorrect because all telephone exchanges do not have personnel on duty at all times trained to receive alarm signals. The reference section contains an exception which states: Exception: Where such an agency is unwilling to receive alarm signals, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to accept another location with personnel on duty at all times trained to receive the alarm and immediately transmit it to the fire department. While a telephone exchange may, under the circumstances set forth in the exception, receive alarm signals, telephone exchange is not a correct answer to question 95. The instructions on the examination specifically advised the candidates that they were to use the general rule and were only to use the exception where it was directly indicated in the question. Question 99 invovled the mounting requirements for all installed fire warning equipment. The reference sections asserted by DPR were N.F.P.A. Chapter 75-1.1.2 and 1.1.3 and Chapter 74-4.1. Chapter 75 refers to "Installation." Chapter 74 refers to "Equipment Performance." Question 99 contains three possible answers: All installed household fire warning equipment shall be mounted so as to be supported independently of its attachment wires. so jaring [sic] or vibration will not cause accidental operation. so that the failure of any non- reliable or short-life component, which renders the detector inoperative shall be readily apparent without the need for a test. Mr. Boatright contends that the correct answer does not include part III of the answer. DPR contends that this portion of the answer is correct and refers to Chapter 74 on equipment performance to support its position. Chapter 75-1.1.2 and 1.1.3, in the chapter relating to installation, states: 5-1.1.2 All devices shall be so located and mounted that accidental operation will not be cause by jarring or vibration. 5-1.1.3 All installed household fire warning equipment shall be mounted so as to be supported independently of its attachment to wires. [Emphasis supplied]. Chapter 74-1, in the chapter relating to equipment performance, states: General. The failure of any nonreliable [sic] or short-life component which renders the detector inoperative shall be readily apparent to the occupant of the living unit without the need for test. Chapter 74-1 is only peripherally related to mounting and relates primarily to performance of the equipment. Question 99 is ambiguous and the answer given by Mr. Boatright is a correct answer. Mr. Boatright is entitled to one additional point on his examination and he therefore should have received a passing grade of 75 on the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order granting the examination challenge of Eugene Boatright and awarding one additional point to the score achieved by Mr. Boatright on the January 26, 1989, examination. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO 89-5207 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Eugene Boatright Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(5); 10(10 & 11); 12(14 & 15); 18(17; and 19(18). Proposed findings of fact 2-6, 8, 11, and 13-17 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 7 is unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 9 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1 & 2); 2(4); and 3(3). Proposed findings of fact 4 and 5 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 6 and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred C. Scott Attorney at Law 125 North Market Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a certified electrical contractor pursuant to the provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner, William Davidson Schaefer (Petitioner), was a licensed electrical contractor, having been issued License No. ER-0008163. This license, issued to Petitioner after he fulfilled the competency requirements of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, allows him to practice electrical contracting in Pinellas County, Florida. To meet the competency requirements of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board necessary to obtain an electrical contracting license, Petitioner had to successfully complete a written examination. In 1981, when Petitioner received his license, the test required by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board was administered by Construction Exams, Inc., the sole test provider for Pinellas County. Petitioner took the Electrical Contractor's Examination administered by Construction Exams, Inc. on June 26, 1981, and earned a passing score of 86.5%. Petitioner has practiced electrical contracting in Pinellas County since 1981 and has been sole owner of Lester Electric, Inc., an electrical contracting company, since 1983. Petitioner's license is active and in good standing. Moreover, during the time that Petitioner has practiced electrical contracting, he has not been the subject of any complaints filed with, or discipline imposed by, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board. On or about May 8, 2000, Petitioner applied to the Electrical Contractors' Board (Board) for certification as an electrical contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes. On or about May 26, 2000, the Board denied Petitioner's application for certification as an electrical contractor because he did not provide information upon which the Board could determine that the examination administered by Construction Exams, Inc. is substantially similar to the state examination. The exam administered by Construction Exams, Inc. contained a technical section and a general business section. However, Petitioner does not recall if the examination included a section or questions on safety. On the Examination Verification Form submitted to the Board as part of Petitioner's application, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board verified that the examination taken by Petitioner in 1981 included a technical section and a general business section. However, in response to a question on the form asking if the examination had included "fire alarm questions," the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board marked the response, "Not sure." The company, Construction Exams, Inc., that administered the examination that Petitioner took in 1981 is no longer in business. Petitioner sought to obtain a copy of the examination from the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, but learned that the local board did not have a copy of the examination. Except for the time he was taking the examination, Petitioner never had nor has he been able to obtain a copy of the examination from any source. Although Petitioner does not recall if the examination that he took in 1981 included questions on safety and/or fire alarms, he was able to obtain information about some of the areas covered on the examination. Based on the document Petitioner was able to obtain, it appears that the examination he took included questions relative to the mechanics' lien law, workers' compensation law, first aid, OSHA regulations, federal tax law and the national electrical code. The state's Certified Electrical Contractor Exam includes a technical section, a general business section, and a safety section. The examination consists of 150 multiple choice questions, is an open-book test, and includes both a morning session and an afternoon session. Given that Petitioner took the examination more than 20 years ago, it is understandable that he can not recall all the questions and/or sections that were covered on the examination, and that he was unable to obtain a copy of the examination from any source. However, without a copy of the examination or other documents which sufficiently detail the contents of the examination Petitioner took in 1981, it is impossible to determine if that examination is substantially similar to the state examination. Petitioner failed to provide the Board with any information upon which it could make a determination that the examination he took is substantially similar to the state examination required for certification as an electrical contractor.
Recommendation Base on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified electrical contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Decker, Esquire Decker Beeler, P.A. 25 Second Street, North, Suite 320 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Barbara R. Edwards Assistant General Counsel Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor and took the electrical contractor examination given July 26, 1983. Petitioner's initial grade was 70 percent. Additional credit was given based on certain objections and Petitioner's grade was raised to 73.5 percent. The minimum passing score on this examination is 75 percent. See Rule 21GG- 6.01(4), F.A.C. Respondent concedes that Petitioner's answer to question #11 should be credited since the .80 multiplier utilized by the Board in its calculation was not correct pursuant to note 10A of Table 310-16 of the National Electrical Code. Petitioner's grade is thereby further raised to 74.5 percent. Question #13 involves the calculation of electrical service for a lobby room of an apartment house. There was no listing for a lobby on the Table 220- 25 of the National Electrical Code and since this lobby is found in an apartment building, the service should be the same as a residence which is three watts. Furthermore, Petitioner made mistakes on the percentage he utilized on both motor loads and incorrectly multiplied the fire alarm service by 1.25. Petitioner incorrectly answered question #16, in part because he utilized two watts instead of three watts for the lobby computation. As noted above, the lobby was in an apartment house and should have been assigned the residential rate. Question #23 reads as follows: The owner is thinking of taking 2400 square feet of the lobby and adding a barber shop with 120/208 single phase panel. There would be a 9 KW hot water heater (at 125 percent) and 15 other receptacles, a reverse cycle air conditioner, 3 HP, 208 volt. How many amps would this add to the service? The accepted answer to the above question is computed by adding the additional current requirements to the existing lobby area. Petitioner followed this procedure but went one step further. He deducted the current required for the 2400 feet of lobby space which would no longer exist if the barber shop were added. Question #23 clearly contemplates removal of 2400 feet of lobby space. Therefore, the best answer to the question is derived by following Petitioner's procedure rather than Respondent's. Petitioner should be given credit for his answer to this question, thus raising his grade to 75.5 percent. Petitioner marked the wrong answers on his answer sheet for questions 49 and 60. He was not given credit for his correct calculations on his work sheet since the Board does not grant credit for any information which is not reflected on the answer sheet. This has been a consistent Board policy.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order assigning Petitioner a grade of 75.5 percent on the July, 1983 electrical contractor examination. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 22nd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David G. Budd, Esquire 660 Ninth Street, North Naples, Florida 33940 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry W. Hendry, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Hoard 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent should receive a passing grade on the Alarm Systems I Contractor Examination administered January 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating electrical contractors, including alarm systems contractors, in the State of Florida. Sections 489.511, .515, and .533, Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Perez sat for the Alarm Systems I Contractor Examination on January 30, 1998. He disputes the Department's determination that the answers he gave to questions 21, 58, and 59 are incorrect. These three questions are objective, multiple- choice questions, and the examination candidate is to choose the correct answer from among four possible answers. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 21 is "A"; Mr. Perez chose answer "C." Question 21 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer is found in the Specifications for Plans which, together with a set of blueprints, was provided to the examination candidates with the examination booklet. On the back of the Specifications for Plans, the examination candidates were told that the document was to be used with the examination for licensure. Several of the questions on the examination were based on information contained in the specifications and blueprints. Although the examination candidates had not seen the specifications and blueprints prior to the examination, the requirement that the candidates use these documents in answering questions on the examination is not unfair. The Department could have had the legitimate purpose of testing the candidates' ability to read blueprints and specifications. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 21 because, according to the information contained in the specifications, the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 58 is "C"; Mr. Perez chose answer "A." Question 58 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from information found in the reference material Mr. Perez was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Although the correct answer could not be found in the reference material word-for-word, it was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to use the information provided to calculate the correct answer to the question. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 58 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 59 is "D"; Mr. Perez chose answer "A." Question 59 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from both text and a schematic found in the reference material Mr. Perez was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Although the correct answer could not be found in the reference material word-for-word, it was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to derive the correct answer from the information available in the materials. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 59 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Juan Carlos Perez's petition challenging the subject examination questions. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Illa Jones, Executive Director Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 R. Beth Atchinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Rgulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32300-1007 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Juan Carlos Perez 7451 Southwest 161st Place Miami, Florida 33193
The Issue Whether Respondent Indiana House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-48.003, 61C- 1.004(9)(b), 61C-1.004(11), and 61C-3.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. Whether Respondent Illinois House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 61C-1.004(5) and 4A-48.003, Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the operation of hotel establishments pursuant to Section 210.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondents, at all times material to these proceedings, have been licensed or otherwise subject to the Department's jurisdiction. The last known business address of Indiana House is 1114 Indiana Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. The last known business address of Illinois House is 820 Illinois Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. Both Indiana House and Illinois House are transient rooming houses. The tenants pay rent for the rooms they occupy. On January 26, 2001, an inspector for the Department inspected the Indiana House and noted numerous deficiencies, including a lack of a fire alarm system. The inspector returned to Indiana House on May 1, 2001, but was unable to get into the building. She made a call-back inspection on May 22, 2001, and found that certain violations had not been corrected, including the lack of a fire alarm system. On June 5, 2001, the inspector returned to Indiana House. No fire alarm panel had been installed, and the owner, Thomas Griffin, did not have keys to the property so the inspector did not have access to the building. On February 12 and 18, 2002, an inspector for the Department inspected the Indiana House and found the following deficiencies: (1) a gang plug was being used in a bedroom, (2) wires were dangling from a fan light, (3) the air conditioner faceplate was missing, exposing the filters and coils, and (4) no service tag was on the fire extinguisher. A gang plug is an adapter that is put into the electrical outlet on a wall so that more than one electrical plug can be used with that outlet. The gang plug found at Indiana House on the February 12 and 18, 2002, inspections would allow the use of six electrical plugs at one time. On January 26, 2001, an inspector from the Department inspected Illinois House and found that there was no fire alarm system. Another inspection was made on May 1, 2001, and it was noted that the outside door was locked. A call-back inspection was made on May 22, 2001, and no fire alarm had been installed. On June 5, 2001, a call-back inspection was made. The owner of the property stated that he did not have keys to the building; thus, the inspector could not access the premises. The owner advised at the time of the inspection on June 5, 2001, that no fire alarm system had been installed. On February 18, 2002, an inspector for the Department inspected Illinois House and found that none of the bedrooms had smoke detectors. On February 25, 2002, a call-back inspection was made, and a battery operated smoke detector in a bedroom did not work when tested. The Department considers a critical violation to be one that is an immediate health hazard. The failure to have a fire alarm system is a critical violation because the buildings are transient rooming houses and most of the people residing in the buildings at any given time will be strangers to one another. If a fire occurs, the consistent and reliable means of notifying the tenants would be through the use of a fire alarm system. The failure of the smoke detector to work is also a critical violation. If a fire occurs, an inoperable smoke detector will not warn the tenant, and, since no fire alarm has been installed, it is likely that the tenant may not have sufficient warning in time to escape from the fire. Both Illinois House and Indiana House have applied to the Homeless Service Network for a grant to make renovations to the buildings to bring them up to whatever code is necessary in order for the properties to be used as transient housing. When the money becomes available, it is anticipated that the renovations will be made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Indiana House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-48.003, 61C- 1.004(9)(b), 61C-1.004(11), and 61C-3.001(5), Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a $2,500 fine on Indiana House and requiring the owner of Indiana House to attend a Hospitality Education Program. Finding that Illinois House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-48.003 and 61C- 1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a $1,500 fine on Illinois House and requiring the owner of Illinois House to attend a Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2002, 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 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Griffin Indiana House 1221 12th Street St. Cloud, Florida 34769 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue whether Respondent violated subsections 489.533(1)(m)3., and/or 489.533(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2010),1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner or DBPR). At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Steven Scott Clark, was a certified alarm systems contractor one, holding Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board's License Number EF1255. As a licensed contractor, Clark was the person who possessed the required skills, knowledge, and experience to be responsible for an alarm systems business or, in other words, to serve as its qualifying agent.2 Clark was the qualifying agent for E.A.S. Industries (E.A.S.), d/b/a A.B. Fire Systems (A.B. Systems). On January 23, 2006, A.B. Fire Equipment, Inc., (A.B. Equipment) submitted a proposal, signed on its behalf by Dick Sorbye, for work on fire alarm equipment at Crosswinds Apartment at 1300 N. Ocean Boulevard in Pompano Beach (Crosswinds). None of the three license numbers listed on the proposal is the same as Clark's. A.B. Equipment is not a licensed or qualified alarm contractor. Below the name of A.B. Equipment, which is checked on the proposal form, is the name of "A.B. Fire Systems/ALARM DIVISION" which is, in fact, the same company as A.B. Systems. The proposal for a total contract cost of $6,610.00, included the following language: We hereby propose to furnish the material necessary for completion of the following: Repair wiring short and replace the following devices. 9 weather proof horn strobes @ $95.00 ea. -- $855.00 A horn strobe is the small red rectangular-shaped, wall-mounted device which emits the siren sound and flashes a strobe light when a fire alarm is triggered. Because A.B. Equipment is not a licensed fire alarm contractor, it subcontracted with A.B. Systems, based on a verbal agreement, to perform work at Crosswinds. Employees of A.B. Systems wear shirts identifying them as employees of "A.B. Fire Systems." Crosswinds is located within 500 feet of the ocean and, because of that, regularly experiences substantial salt corrosion of metal. Horn strobes have metal parts and must be replaced regularly due to corrosion. As required in the proposal, half of the total contract cost or $3,305.00 was paid by Crosswind's representative on January 24, 2006, to A.B. Equipment. The receipt from A.B. Equipment with the same date has the name of A.B. Systems on the form and Respondent's license number next to that name. On January 31, 2006, Crosswinds issued a check for $1,650.00 to A.B. Equipment. The back of the first check was stamped for deposit in the account of E.A.S., the parent company of A.B. Systems. Another check designated "final payment" in the amount of $1,655.00 was dated February 8, 2006, but it was not deposited until March 9, 2006. That check was apparently held up by the then-president of the Crosswinds Board, Patricia Abujar, who questioned the need for an inspection of the alarm system by the fire department. Once the check was tendered, it was deposited, as directed by hand-written instructions on the back of the check, in the same account number as that for E.A.S. On February 28, 2006, Crosswinds received an invoice that had three license numbers on it, including Clark's. The invoice from A.B. Equipment was for an additional $704.90 for replacement of wires, a conduit, and the panel that was damaged by a shortage. The damage was caused by a construction company that was simultaneously making repairs at Crosswinds. Crosswinds had sustained substantial damage from Hurricane Wilma in October 2005. On February 28, 2006, Crosswinds also received an invoice from A.B. Equipment for one additional corroded horn strobe for $95.00 plus $5.70 for the sales tax. The invoice was identical to the one for damage by the construction company and also included Clark's license number. On March 15 and 18, 2006, respectively, Clark and Oakley Blevins, who was then the Crosswinds Board president, signed a City of Pompano Beach Building Permit Application for an after-the-fact permit for the replacement of a fire alarm panel at Crosswinds. Until the panel had to be replaced, no permit had been required. On the line on the form for the name of the contractor, "A. B. Fire Systems, Inc." was crossed out and the name "E.A.S. IND." was written. The application was not accepted by the building department until October or November 2006. The City delayed receipt of applications and issuance of permits because it was inundated after the hurricane. In the meantime, on October 6, 2006, Clark returned to Crosswinds in response to a service call. At the time, he replaced a corroded horn strobe, as he had done on an ongoing basis since beginning work at Crosswinds in 2004. Clark had a disagreement with Blevins, apparently over who from A.B. Systems would be providing service to Crosswinds in the future and over where a worker parked a company truck. Clark never returned to the site. A City of Pompano Beach document dated November 20, 2006, entitled "Plan Review Corrections Report," was transmitted by facsimile from A.B. Systems to Crosswinds' representative on December 14, 2006. Having last had a fire alarm inspection in February 2006, Crosswinds received a proposal dated February 19, 2007, from another company, Bass Fire & Security Systems, Inc. (Bass), to "trouble shoot and repair fire alarm system short program, test and certify" for $340.00. The work by Bass would qualify as the annual inspection for 2007. On March 30, 2007, Bass billed Crosswinds $726.05 for replacement of an outdoor horn strobe. In addition to trip and labor charges, there was also a charge for a mini-monitor module, a device used to identify each "pull station" that will cause a shortage if it becomes defective. Crosswinds paid Bass for its inspection work and subsequent repairs in a single check in the amount of $1,086.45 on April 10, 2007. Bass, on April 6, 2007, offered to "replace (seven) [corroded] weatherproof horn strobe units @ $89.00 ea[ch], [with] installation labor and misc[ellaneous] hardware" for a quoted total cost of $1156.00 plus tax. For that, Crosswinds paid Bass $1225.36 on April 23, 2007. On May 27, 2008, Crosswinds was inspected by a City fire inspector who noted on his report that it was an inspection of a new fire alarm system and that "A.B. Fire System is unlicenses [sic] contractor" and "Note ESA Industries Inc. will be the only person on jobsite to complete the test." On June 5, 2008, Crosswinds received anther quote from Bass to "make necessary repairs for fire dept. final inspection" for a total of $1905.00 plus tax. The quote included a "change of contractor fee [for the] (Pompano Beach Building Department)" and installation of a horn strobe on the first floor breezeway. Clark was still listed with the City as the only authorized alarm systems contractor at Crosswinds. Following City-mandated procedures, then-president of the Crosswind Board, Cheryl Deats, notified Clark by certified letter of a change of contractors in June 2008. She received no response from Clark. Deats testified that she believes that Clark's company, A.B. Systems performed work incompetently or negligently prior to having obtained a permit, causing financial harm to Crosswinds in the amount of $2,311.81 (1,086.45 plus 1,225.36) that it had to pay Bass to make repairs before time for the next inspection. Other than Deats' assumption that the work done by Bass was the result of Clark's company's negligence or incompetence, there is no evidence to support that finding. In fact, the evidence tends to support a finding that work done in March and April 2007, more than a year after Clark's work, was necessitated by corrosion due to the proximity of Crosswinds to the ocean. There is no evidence that the Crosswinds' Board was deceived and not aware that Clark was the subcontractor working on the fire alarm system. Regardless of whether they knew the name of his parent company, E.A.S., at least two previous Board presidents had direct interactions with him and saw his employees wearing shirts identifying A.B. Systems.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint filed on June 3, 2010, against Steven Scott Clark, d/b/a E.A.S. Industries, Inc., d/b/a A.B. Fire Systems. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 2011.
