The Issue What if any, disciplinary action may be taken against Respondent based on alleged violations of Florida Statutes Section 489.531(1) (practicing electrical contracting or advertising one's self or business organization as available to engage in electrical or alarm system contracting without being certified or registered), and Section 455.227(1)(q) (engaging in the practice of unlicensed electrical contracting after previously being issued an Order to Cease and Desist from the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting.)
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed nor had he ever been licensed to engage in electrical contracting in the State of Florida. Mr. George Hammond lives in Inverness, Florida in a single family dwelling with a detached garage. The house is serviced with a water well and electrical pump. On July 25, 2006, Mr. Hammond notified a long-time friend, Dennis Himmel that he had problems with his well and could not get water into his home. Mr. Himmel temporarily ran a wire between the well and garage so Mr. Hammond could get water, and suggested Mr. Hammond hire an electrician to do the permanent work. A few days later, Mr. Hammond told his friend, Craig Zeedick, that his well had been hit by lightening and someone was fixing it. Mr. Zeedick went to Mr. Hammond's house and observed Respondent kneeling down and making an electrical connection with the junction box. Respondent had stripped off the wire connections and made the wire nut connection. A boy was with Respondent, and the boy was burying an electrical cable to the well. The cable in the ground had no tubing or protection around it. At Mr. Hammond's request, Mr. Zeedick counted out approximately $947.00 in cash to Respondent for the electrical work. Sometime in August 2006, Mr. Himmel observed the work done at Mr. Hammond's home. He phoned Respondent to complain because the wire from the garage to the well was buried only four inches underground with no conduit (protective covering) over the wire into the garage. Respondent returned and covered the wire with conduit but then the pump did not work. Later, Respondent corrected the wire box connection, blaming the problems on Mr. Himmel. At some point in these machinations, Respondent succeeded in flooding Mr. Hammond's garage with water. Amy Becker, a license inspector with the Citrus County Building Division performed an investigation of the electrical contracting work done by Respondent at Mr. Hammond's residence, and took photographs. At that time, Mr. Hammond pointed out electrical wiring running from the well to the garage, and Ms. Becker observed there was a conduit and some plastic tubing. Ms. Becker then checked Respondent's licensing status, and found him to be unlicensed as an electrical contractor by either the State or Citrus County. She notified Petitioner, as the State licensing agency. On December 13, 2006, Ms. Becker cited Respondent for unlicensed contracting in wiring the water well pump at Mr. Hammond's residence. Respondent appeared before the County Board on December 13, 2006, and signed the citation signifying he wanted an administrative hearing. On January 24, 2007, Respondent, represented by counsel, was present for testimony before the Board, and the Board upheld the citation against Respondent. Respondent paid the citation on May 29, 2007. Respondent admitted to Petitioner's Investigator, Sharon Philman, during a telephone interview, that he had run wire from Mr. Hammond's garage to the well pump, for which work he charged approximately $940.00. On or about February 13, 2007, Petitioner issued a Cease and Desist Order against Respondent. The instant complaint/case followed. Petitioner put on no evidence concerning a prior 2005 case against Respondent.1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes, on one occasion, and assessing Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00 therefor, as permitted by Section 455.228(2), Florida Statutes. Finding Respondent not guilty of having violated Section 455.227(1)(q) as pled in Count II of the Administrative Complaint herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 19th day of September, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted an application for the certified electrical contractor's examination to the Respondent in January, 1983. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the standards of licensure for electrical contractors, pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21GG, Florida Administrative Code, and with administering and enforcing the licensure and practice standards of electrical contractors in the State of Florida. The application filed by the Petitioner indicated that he had been employed as a Journeyman electrician with Mozart Electric, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, since October, 1978. The application on its face showed no further experience in the electrical contracting trade possessed by the Petitioner, except as a Journeyman electrician for that company. The Petitioner was born in Berlin, Germany, in 1934. In 1950, when he was 16 years old, he became an apprentice electrician, working and learning the trade with a view toward becoming a Journeyman and ultimately a Master electrician. He was licensed in Berlin as a Journeyman electrician on September 12, 1953. He worked in that capacity in Germany until 1955, when he immigrated to the United States. In 1955, he settled in Chicago and was licensed as a Journeyman electrician and joined the Electrical Worker's Union Local 134 in Chicago in that classification. From 1957 to 1958, the Petitioner served as a "Master electrician" in the United States Army. The Petitioner has chosen to maintain his union membership so he was thus precluded from being employed in a job classification with the title of "contractor". Since the mid-1950's, however, the Petitioner has been in charge of and in a supervisory position on electrical contracting jobs. For instance, with Mozart Electric, his present employer since 1978, the Petitioner has typically supervised a crew of eight men in performing the electrical contracting portion of large commercial construction jobs. In that capacity, the Petitioner works in an unsupervised fashion and "lays out" the job, estimates the scope and cost of the work, solely supervises the men on the job, makes shop drawings, and solely inspects the finished job. The Petitioner, although he does not do the bidding himself, often does the estimating upon which bids are predicated. In addition, the Petitioner's activities and duties with Mozart Electric, Inc. include making corrections to blueprints, conferring with architects to work out necessary changes, promulgating time schedules, hiring and laying off electricians, and coordinating the electrical construction work with other trades on a given job. In this, or a similar capacity, he has worked with four electrical contracting companies since coming to the United States. Thus, he spent 17 years with Klorek Electric as a Journeyman, then foreman, then superintendent. The Petitioner spent two years with Gibson Electric Company as a foreman; four years with Midland Electric Company as a superintendent; and five years with his present employer, Mozart Electric, Inc. in performance of the above sort of duties. It has therefore been established that the Petitioner has worked for a substantial portion of the last 28 years in a capacity other than as merely a Journeyman electrical worker an a job site, but rather has typically worked in a supervisory capacity for most of those 28 years. Indeed, for most jobs performed during that time, the Petitioner was superintendent of the job and was solely responsible directly to the president of his company for the quantity and quality of work performed by his men, whom he supervised unassisted by anyone else.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Hans Rossignol to be permitted to take the examination for certified electrical contractors should be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Hans Rossignol c/o Mozart Electric, Inc. 2427 North Claybourne Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60614 Susan Tully, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Florida Electrical Construction Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact By an application dated March 27, 1979, and received by the Board on March 30, 1979, Petitioner, James L. Dentico, applied to the Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board for a license as a certified electrical contractor. The Board has a committee on applications which reviewed Mr. Dentico's application. The committee determined that his application did not evidence sufficient experience in the trade. That determination prompted a letter written May 8, 1979, from Mr. Allen R. Smith, Jr., the Board's Executive Director, to Mr. Dentico. The letter states, in pertinent part, that: Your application failed to evidence to the Board that you had six (6) years' comprehensive experience training as required by 468.185(2). If you can evidence six (6) years as reflected in 468.185(2) in the trade as an electrical engineer, this evidence will be brought before the board. By letter dated May 15, 1979, Mr. Dentico responded through counsel. He contended that his application did evidence sufficient experience since, in his opinion, he had more than the minimum one and one half years of experience in the trade as required by Section 468.185(2), Florida Statutes. Mr. Dentico's attorney reiterated his request originally made on March 27, 1979, with the application that all future communications relating to the application be made directly to him, Philip J. Gouze, Esquire. Mr. Dentico's application was then returned to the Board for further consideration. That review was made at the Board's June 7, 1979, meeting in Tampa. As the result of communications between Mr. Smith's office and Mr. Gouze, Mr. Dentico was under the impression that he could take the electrical contractors' examination scheduled for June 8, 1979, in Tampa. To obtain his admission ticket for the written examination, Mr. Dentico appeared at the Board's June 7, 1979, meeting. Upon entering the room, he was questioned by Board members about his contracting experience in North Carolina and Florida. At the time Petitioner appeared, the Board had before it a seconded motion to accept his application. After the initial questioning, Mr. Borrell stated: Mr. Borrell: O.K., a motion has been made and it has been seconded that we accept this application. Mr. Lenhart: I think we need a little more evidence and based on this discussion, I will have to withdraw my motion. Mr. Isaac (the Chairman): I withdraw my second. Mr. Borrell: Motion made to withdraw it. Mr. Lenhart: And I base it on failure to evidence sufficient experience as an unlimited managing electrical contractor. Mr. Sommerkamp: I second. Mr. Borrell: Is there any discussion on this motion? Mr. Borrell: Let's go back to square one. Mr. Lenhart: Based on what he has said, I think the application is misleading and I would recommend that he reapply. Mr. Isaac: I second. (Vote was unanimous.) Mr. Dentico persisted in urging his qualifications on the Board. He was further questioned about his experience. After the additional questioning, Mr. Morgan said: Mr. Morgan: What is the motion? Mr. Borrell: Reject. The Chairman called for a vote and it was unanimous. Mr. Borrell: The Board does not see fit at this time and if you submit more data, we will be glad to review; but based on the findings we have here the information our decision has to stay and you will be notified of the right to appeal. Mr. Dentico's counsel was not present at the Board meeting and the record does not reflect that he was notified of the Board's action until the denial letter of August 13, 1979. On that date, Mr. Smith wrote to Mr. Dentico to state: The Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board has reviewed your application for examination to be licensed as an electrical contractor, authorized to provide unlimited services, throughout the State. The Board has found that you [sic] application lacks sufficient evidence to qualify you to sit for the examination for the following reason: Your application failed to evidence to the Board at its June 7, 1979, meeting the necessary experience in the field as an electrical contractor authorized to provide unlimited services. Please refer to Sections 468.180 and 468.185, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21GG-2.01(1). The Florida Administrative Procedures Act entitles you to request a hearing on this matter should you choose to do so. Attached you will find an "Election of Rights" form which fully explains the procedures you may follow in requesting a hearing. The Board has not controverted any of the information in Petitioner's application. Mr. Dentico has a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering from the Indiana Institute of Technology. He has a Masters degree in electrical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Between 1969 and 1973, he was an advanced design engineer at Grumman Aerospace Corporation. His responsibilities included research design and development of aircraft and satellite control systems, designing electrical hookup equipment for laboratory experiments and preparing cost estimates and technical writing for bids on government contracts. At Grumman, his time was divided equally into three functions: research, development and engineering. As part of his development responsibility, he was in charge of the construction of apparatus display and testing tables which were a mock-up of the hydraulic and electrical environment in which a prototype component would later operate. Mr. Dentico supervised the electricians who constructed the wiring, ran the conduits, etc., for those apparatuses. Subsequently, Mr. Dentico operated his own business, N. K. Investments of North Carolina, from January, 1975, to February, 1977. He designed and cost estimated an electrical power distribution system for a 320 boat slip marina and for the service building of that marina in New Bern, North Carolina. He also prepared an electrical cost estimate for a four-story office building there. Mr. Dentico also had some experience in doing the general electrical work on a two-story, nine-unit apartment complex building in Miami Shores, during 1977. Under the supervision of Gurney Electric Corporation, the project electrical contractor, he put in conduit, pulled wires and installed appliances. The functions of an electrical contractor are to order the necessary equipment for a given project, to supervise the contractor's employees in constructing the job according to the plans and specifications, to coordinate the work of the contractor's employees with the needs of the general contractor and in accordance with the directions of the project electrical engineer. There are times when a project does not have an electrical engineer and in that case, the design work is expected to be performed by the electrical contractor. Careful consideration has been given to each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. To the extent that they are not contained in this Order they are rejected as being either not supported by competent evidence or as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues for determination here.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of James L. Dentico for certification as an electrical contractor be granted subject only to successful completion of an objective written examination about Mr. Dentico's fitness for a certificate as required by Section 468.184(2), Florida Statutes (1977). That $50.00 of Petitioner's application fee be returned to him if Section 21GG-2.09, Florida Administrative Code, is still in effect. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race and sex, and whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for making complaints of discriminatory treatment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent JATC is an apprenticeship program which provides training to persons who desire to become journeymen electricians. JATC is supervised by the United States Department of Labor and a corresponding State of Florida governmental agency. JATC is based in Gainesville, Florida, and is headed by a six-member committee of three contractor representatives appointed by the area's National Electrical Contractors Association and three labor union representatives appointed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 1205. The committee decides disciplinary actions and policy matters involving apprentices. The committee employs a director. JATC's geographical jurisdiction is bounded at Wildwood, Florida, on the south to the St. John's River on the east, cutting across west of Jacksonville through Tallahassee and Panama City, Florida, to the west, and includes three counties in Georgia to the north. An advisory subcommittee deals with routine matters in and for the Tallahassee area, and a similar advisory subcommittee handles routine matters in and for the Panama City area. For matters which are not considered routine and require final action, the subcommittees refer the matters to the full committee at the Gainesville headquarters. JATC does not have actual offices in Tallahassee or Panama City, but utilizes the union halls for the subcommittees' activities. Persons desiring to become journeymen electricians apply to JATC to enter the apprenticeship program and, if selected for the program, are required to enter into an apprenticeship agreement with JATC. In order to complete the program, a person must complete 8,000 hours of on-the-job training, complete 144 hours per year of classroom training, and pass various tests. The apprenticeship program was originally designed as a five-year program, but JATC has condensed the classroom work and the on-the-job training to four years with no summer vacations. JATC is responsible for the selection, placement, and training of the apprentices as work is available. JATC does not employ apprentices. It refers apprentices for employment to participating electrical contractors for positions which provide wages and on-the-job training within JATC's geographical jurisdiction. When a participating contractor needs to hire electrician apprentices, the contractor contacts JATC. In turn, JATC contacts the requested number of apprentices and refers them to the contractor for possible hiring. The decision to hire an apprentice is made by the contractor, who also determines whether to terminate or layoff an apprentice. The duties of the apprentice on the work site are assigned by the contractor and may include such tasks as carrying trash and digging ditches. The policies and standards of JATC do not require an apprentice to be under constant supervision on job sites. Apprentices are provided direct supervision, which allows them the opportunity to have direction from persons who are knowledgeable in the type of work that is being performed by the apprentices. Opportunities for on-the-job training depend on the needs of the contractors. Jobs can last anywhere from two days to four years, and depend on the amount of building construction in the area at any given time. Due to the fluctuation in the number of jobs available in the various areas within JATC's jurisdiction, apprentices have been referred to and have worked on jobs in areas within JATC's geographical jurisdiction that are away from the apprentices' residences. Johnson, a black female, entered into an apprenticeship program with JATC in August 1998. She signed an Apprenticeship Agreement, sometimes referred to as an "Indenture," in which she agreed "diligently and faithfully to perform the work of said trade during the period of apprenticeship, in accordance with the registered standards of [JATC]." The Policy Statements of JATC govern the conduct of the apprentices. Johnson received copies of each Policy Statement in effect during the time that she participated in the apprenticeship program. She signed statements acknowledging that she had read, understood, and would comply with the Policy Statements. The Policy Statements provided: "Violations of J.A.T.C. rules and policy may lead to or result in termination of indenture or other action deemed appropriate by J.A.T.C." Johnson was interviewed and accepted for the first JATC class in Tallahassee. During the interviews of apprentices for the first Tallahassee class, the candidates were specifically asked whether they would be able to travel to other cities for work, away from where they normally resided. During her interview, Johnson did not indicate any problems or difficulty with traveling to work in areas away from her Tallahassee home. On October 16, 1998, Johnson was issued a Notice of Termination from Miller Electric Co. (Miller). She had been employed by Miller on referral from JATC. The reason given on the notice was that Johnson had resigned; however, JATC had actually pulled Johnson away from the job because it understood that Miller was going to terminate Johnson. JATC felt that Johnson had potential as an apprentice so she was referred to another contractor, Raytheon Constructors, Inc. (Raytheon) which had an opening for an apprentice. On March 12, 1999, Raytheon issued a Termination Notice to Johnson, terminating her employment for "failure to meet job site requirement," and indicating that she was not eligible for rehire with Raytheon. Johnson had failed a drug test. Johnson informed JATC of the situation with Raytheon. The Director of JATC advised her to present a clean drug test, which she did. Although the Policy Statements provided that Johnson could be disciplined for being terminated and receiving a "not for rehire," she was not disciplined. She was referred for more job assignments. By letter dated December 17, 1999, Johnson complained to the Director of JATC that she was not being given work when work was available. She requested that JATC force her former employer, Hartsfield Electric, to reemploy her, even though she complained that when she worked for Hartsfield that she was given "the hardest and dirtiest jobs they had." She concluded her letter by stating: "I will do what ever it takes to stay in this program, but I won't leave Tallahassee to do so." Johnson resided in Tallahassee and was unwilling to take assignments outside the Tallahassee area. When the Director of JATC received the December 17, 1999, letter from Johnson, he investigated her allegations, including her work assignments with Hartsfield. He determined that Johnson's assignments were within the duties of an apprentice and, although some of the tasks may have been "crappy work," that was part of being an apprentice. Hartsfield was not satisfied with Johnson's work and was unwilling to rehire her. Johnson received an "unsatisfactory job performance" evaluation from Atkins Electric Co. for the period April 13, 1999, to May 7, 1999. Because of her prior job performance, participating Tallahassee contractors were refusing to hire Johnson. JATC continued to accommodate Johnson's desire not to work outside the Tallahassee area. When a new contractor who did not have previous experience with Johnson would come to Tallahassee, JATC would refer Johnson to that contractor. Apparently Hartsfield changed its position and rehired Johnson at some point, because on May 15, 2000, Hartsfield gave Johnson a Notice of Termination. The notice cited lack of production, the need for constant supervision, and tardiness as the reasons for termination. The notice also indicated that Johnson was not eligible for rehire. The JATC Policy Statements provided that an apprentice who was terminated from a job or received a "not-for-hire" was to appear before the committee to discuss the termination before any disciplinary action would be taken. The Policy Statements also provided that the apprentice would not be reassigned to any job until JATC reviewed the termination. Johnson was noticed to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee, who referred the termination issue to the committee in Gainesville. Johnson was issued a notice to appear before the Gainesville committee. No disciplinary action was taken against Johnson for the termination. The committee gave her the option of going to another location to find employment and, when work became available in Tallahassee, being sent back to Tallahassee to work. By letter dated August 9, 2000, Hartsfield wrote to the Local Union 1205, requesting that Johnson not be referred to Hartsfield and giving as reasons that Johnson did not follow orders well, was not dependable, and was irresponsible. On November 3, 2000, JATC notified Johnson to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee for absenteeism from class. The class attendance sheets showed that Johnson had been absent from class three times from August to October 2000. No disciplinary action was taken against Johnson because of her absences. Around November 16, 2000, the Director got Johnson hired by a new participating contractor in Tallahassee. Johnson was terminated by that contractor for having a bad attitude. The contractor would not rehire Johnson. Johnson appeared before the subcommittee and requested that she be allowed to come up with a plan in which she would wire her home and those hours working on her home would be counted towards her required on-the-job training hours. The Director told her to put the plan in writing so that it could be presented to the committee. Johnson failed to prepare a written plan. After being on the job with Miller Electric for 28 days, Johnson received a poor performance evaluation on March 3, 2001. The evaluation indicated that Johnson needed improvement in her work habits, needed constant supervision, stood around and showed little interest in her job, was resentful and uncooperative, and had very little mechanical aptitude. Johnson was noticed to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee concerning her poor evaluation. The subcommittee referred the issue to the committee in Gainesville. Johnson was notified to appear before the committee in Gainesville, which she did on March 27, 2001. She told the committee that she was getting mixed feelings on what she was expected to do on the job. The committee explained in great detail what was expected of her. Johnson acknowledged that she understood. The committee placed her on one-year probation and advised her in writing that "any further infraction to the policy statement could mean your immediate termination." Johnson filed an appeal of the action placing her on probation. The Director investigated her claims and spoke to anyone he could find on the job site in question. He interviewed the supervisors, who had been on the job with Johnson. Johnson was given the opportunity to provide the committee with the names of witnesses who could support her claim that she should have been given a better evaluation and any other information that she had concerning the performance evaluation. At the April 24, 2001, meeting of the Gainesville committee, the Director advised that he had statements from some of the people he interviewed. Johnson had not supplied the committee with any additional information. Having received no information from Johnson, the committee denied her appeal. On two occasions, Johnson told the Director that she believed the Tallahassee contractors were discriminating against her. On each occasion, the Director investigated her claims, interviewed individuals on the job site, and interviewed Johnson. Based on his investigation, he was unable to conclude that she had been discriminated against. Electricians in North Florida or Tallahassee cannot make a living by limiting their job opportunities to the towns in which they live. The supply of workers is greater than the demand for labor. After Johnson was put on probation, JATC continued to have difficulty finding any contractors in Tallahassee who would hire Johnson. The Director offered her referrals wherever work was available, such as Panama City, Gainesville, and Palatka. She refused the offers, and stated that she would not leave Tallahassee. Around August 7, 2001, JATC committee member and assistant business manager for IBEW Local 1205, Tommy Ward, attempted to contact Johnson by telephone to provide her referrals for on-the-job training work. He continued to attempt to contact her two times by telephone during the following week. Several referrals for jobs were available at that time. On August 13, 2001, Mr. Ward learned that Johnson had changed and updated her address and telephone number. He attempted twice to contact her using her new telephone number. He was unsuccessful, but he left messages for her to contact him. Johnson failed to return Mr. Ward's calls, so he sent her a certified letter dated August 15, 2001, advising her that he had been trying to reach her. She signed for the receipt of the letter on August 18, 2001. He continued to attempt to contact her by telephone after he sent the letter. From August 9, 2001, through September 5, 2001, Mr. Ward attempted to contact Johnson at least ten times, but was unsuccessful. The Policy Statements require that one unexcused absence from class in any semester may result in apprentices being terminated from the program. Johnson had been absent from class two times in August 2001. A certified letter dated September 10, 2001, was sent to Johnson by JATC notifying her that action would be taken at the September 25, 2001, Gainesville committee meeting to terminate her from her indenture with the apprenticeship program for failure to attend classroom training and failure to respond to work assignments. The letter was unclaimed, and the postal service returned the letter to JATC after the September 25, 2001, meeting. The committee was advised that Johnson had called the Interim Apprenticeship Director the day of the meeting, asking for the telephone number for Mr. Ward. Unaware that Johnson had not received the notice of the committee meeting, the committee voted to terminate Johnson from the apprenticeship program. By letter dated October 23, 2001, JATC notified Johnson that the committee had voted to terminate her from the program. The Policy Statements of JATC provide procedures for appealing actions of the committee. The procedure is as follows: APPEAL PROCEDURE If an apprentice feels that he or she has been treated unfairly or canceled without due course, he or she may file an appeal within ten (10) days of receipt of notice of the committee's action. This complaint shall be in writing and signed by the apprentice and shall include his/her name. No reinstatement shall be considered unless a written appeal is received within ten (10) days after receiving cancellation notice from the J.A.T.C. The Policy Statements also require that when an apprentice requests to appear before the committee, the apprentice has the responsibility to make certain that he or she is available at the time assigned by the committee. Johnson appealed the committee's decision to terminate her from the program. By letter dated December 21, 2001, JATC notified Johnson that her appeal would be heard at the Gainesville committee meeting scheduled for January 22, 2002. Johnson advised the committee that she would not be able to attend the January 22 meeting because her house had burned. JATC notified Johnson by letter dated February 13, 2002, that she could present her appeal to the committee at its meeting on February 26, 2002. Johnson received notice of the meeting, but failed to appear at the February meeting. The committee notified her that it would consider her appeal at the March 26, 2002, meeting. Johnson received notice of the meeting, but failed to attend the March meeting. JATC took no further action on her appeal after her failure to appear. Johnson claims that the younger white males in the program were treated differently than she. The only person that she could recall was Mark Hoffman, whom she asserted was absent more than she and was not disciplined for his absences. As revealed by the records of JATC, Mr. Hoffman was terminated from the program in December 2001 for a failing average for the year and for absenteeism. At least three males had been terminated from the program for absenteeism before Johnson was terminated. Johnson also claims that she was treated differently than the younger white males on the job site because she was given tasks such as cleaning up the work site and digging ditches. All apprentices are given tasks such as cleaning up the work site and digging ditches. It is part of the job. When a person progresses from an apprentice to a journeyman, the person is still expected to do work such as cleaning up the site and digging ditches. The evidence does not support Johnson's claim that she was treated differently in the duties that she was being given on the work site. Johnson was involved in an automobile accident in September 1999. As a result, she suffered a torn rotator cuff, which required surgical repair. Johnson brought suit against the other driver in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, Carol Johnson vs. Kone, Inc., and Kirk Kyle Pope, Case No. 01-CA-2412. Her deposition was taken in that case on June 10, 2002. In her deposition, Johnson was asked the following questions and gave the following answers: Q. And I am asking you, okay, do you think, do you think that you would be an electrician today if you didn't have the shoulder problem? A. Yes. Q. Okay, and why do you say that? A. Because eventually I will have to find another career. I have waited all my life to do work in construction. I finally found a job that I like and now I can't, I wouldn't be able to do it much longer. Q. Well, what, why don't you think you are going to be able to continue in your chosen field as an electrician or apprentice or helper? A. Because the pills, the pain pills I take they make me sleepy. They make me tired. I can, I can't get up and do like I used to, so eventually I will have to find a desk job. I won't even probably be able to go back to agriculture because you have to be able to work in the field. I will have to find another career. Part of the duties of an electrician, apprentice, or journeyman, includes being able to lift and carry over 50 pounds and having good motion ability. Johnson admits that during her apprenticeship and as of the final hearing that she had a physical disability that affected her ability to perform in the apprenticeship program. She stated that she would be slowed down in her work, and she would not be able to pick up and handle heavy things like she could do prior to her accident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Gainesville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee did not discriminate against Carol D. Johnson based on race or sex and did not retaliate against her for making complaints of discrimination, dismissing her petition, and denying Gainesville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee's request for attorney fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2003, 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 12th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Donnelly, Esquire Donnelly & Gross Post Office Box 1308 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1308 Laura A. Gross, Esquire Donnelly & Gross Post Office Box 1308 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1308 Carol D. Johnson 1420 North Meridian Road, Suite 108 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent (“Ricky Lee Diemer”) offered to engage in unlicensed contracting as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, matters subject to official recognition, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and chapters 455 and 489, part I, Florida Statutes. The Department initiated an undercover operation by gaining access to a house needing numerous repairs. The Department employees then utilized websites, such as Craigslist and HomeAdvisor, to identify people offering unlicensed contracting services. The Department employees found an advertisement posted by “RLD Handyman Services” on December 26, 2017, offering to perform multiple types of contracting work. This advertisement caught the Department’s attention because it did not list a contracting license number. Section 489.119(5)(b), requires every advertisement for contracting services to list such a number.2/ The advertisement listed a phone number, and the Department utilized the Accurint phone system to ascertain that the aforementioned phone number belonged to Mr. Diemer. The Department examined its records and ascertained that Mr. Diemer was not licensed to perform construction or electrical contracting in Florida. The Department contacted Mr. Diemer and approximately 12 other people offering contracting services and scheduled appointments for those people to discuss contracting work with an undercover Department employee at the house mentioned above. An undercover Department employee told Mr. Diemer and the other prospective contractors that he had recently bought the house and was hoping to sell it for a profit after making some quick repairs. An undercover Department employee met Mr. Diemer at the house and described their resulting conversation as follows: A: We looked at remodeling a deck on the back, the southern portion of the home. We looked at cabinets, flooring and painting that are nonregulated in nature, but also plumbing and general contracting services such as exterior doors that needed to be replaced, and the electrical, some appliances and light fixtures. Q: All right. So was there any follow-up communication from Mr. Diemer after your discussion at the house? A: Yes. We walked around the house. He looked at the renovations that we were asking. He took some mental notes as I recall. He didn’t make any written notes as some of the others had done. He did it all in his head, said that he was working on another project in the Southwood area at the time and just left his work crew there to come and visit with me and was rushed for time. So he was in and out of there in 10 to 15 minutes. It was pretty quick. Q: Okay. A: But he took the mental notes and said that he would go back and write something up and send me a proposal through our Gmail. . . . On February 7, 2018, Mr. Diemer transmitted an e-mail to the Department’s fictitious Gmail account offering to perform multiple types of work that require a contracting license: kitchen sink installation, bathroom remodeling, construction of an elevated deck and walkway, installation of light fixtures, and installation of front and back doors.3/ Mr. Diemer proposed to perform the aforementioned tasks for $13,200.00.4/ The work described in Mr. Diemer’s e-mail poses a danger to the public if done incorrectly or by unlicensed personnel.5/ The Department incurred costs of $118.55 for DOAH Case No. 18-6578 and $91.45 for DOAH Case No. 18-6579. The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Diemer advertised or offered to practice construction contracting without holding the requisite license. The Department also proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Diemer practiced construction and electrical contracting when he transmitted the February 7, 2018, e-mail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order requiring Ricky Lee Diemer to pay a $9,000.00 administrative fine and costs of $210.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 1st day of April, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing in this case, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on stipulations and admissions of the parties The Petitioners, John Eugene Harden and Dova Cauthen, qualified for and were administered the January 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examination. After their examinations were graded and regraded, Petitioners were notified that they had not received a "Passing" score of 75 or more. The Petitioners, John Eugene Harden and Dova Cauthen, qualified for and were administered the July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examination. After their examinations were graded and regraded, Petitioners were notified that they had not received a "Passing" score of 75 or more. Both Petitioners reside in Dade County, Florida. The Respondent Department of Professional Regulation (hereafter DPR or the "Department") is an agency of the State of Florida. The Respondent Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board (hereafter referred to as the "Board") is an agency of the State of Florida statutorily responsible, along with DPR, for licensing certified electrical contractors. The Office of the Executive Director of the Board is located at 130 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The business address of Petitioner Harden is Harden Electric, 311 N.E. 8th Street, Homestead, Florida 33030. The business address of Petitioner Cauthen is 959 N.E. 79th Street, Miami, Florida 33138. 8. On March 20, 1981, Rules 21GG-6.01 (2), 21GG-6.01 (3), 21GG-6.01 (4), of the Rules of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, were amended. Rule 21GG-6.01 (2) altered the format of the licensing examination so that the formerly entirely open book examination became a part open book, part closed book examination. Rule 21GG-6.01 (4) raised the passing grade on the licensing examination from 70 to 75. Rule 21GG-6.01 (3) altered the technical format. On December 3, 1981, Susan Tully, counsel to the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, caused a change to be made in Rule 21GG-6.01 (1) (c) of the Rules of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. This change was made without formal notice or informal notice to the public and without a vote of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, although the change was discussed at a Board meeting. None of the procedures set forth in Section 120.54 of the Florida Statutes were followed in amending this Rule. Liz Cloud was the Bureau Chief of the Division of Elections, Bureau of Administrative Code, Department of State. The address of the Bureau is Room 1802, The Capitol Building, Tallahassee, Florida. The change in Rule 21GG-6.01 (1)(c) eliminated parts 72 A, B, C and D and indicated that the entire Fire Safety Code (and not just the aforementioned parts) would be a subject of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examinations. In fact, the reason for the alleged "technical change" was that the Board intended and tested examinees in the January and July 1982 Licensing Examinations on materials in parts of the Fire Safety Code in addition to those contained in 72 A, B, C and D of the Fire Safety Code. Petitioner Harden specifically requested to review his January and July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examinations. On March 25, 1982, Petitioner Harden went to Tallahassee, Florida to review his January 1982 Licensing Examination papers, but although he requested an "examination review" he was never provided with his own examination booklet or a copy thereof. During this alleged "examination review" Mr. Harden wrote written objections to the January 1982 examination on the forms provided to him based on the master copy of the examination provided to him. On August 31, 1982, Petitioner Harden went to Tallahassee, Florida to review his July 1982 Licensing Examination papers, but although he requested an "examination review" he was never provided with his own examination booklet or a copy thereof. During this alleged "examination review" Mr. Harden wrote written objections to the July 1982 examination on the forms provided to him based on the master copy of the examination provided to him. Petitioner Cauthen specifically requested an "examination review" with respect to her January and July 1982 Licensing Examination papers. On March 17, 1982, Petitioner Cauthen went to Tallahassee, Florida to review her January 1982 Licensing Exami-nation papers, but although she requested an "examination review" she was never provided with her own examination booklet or a copy thereof. During this alleged "examination review" Ms. Cauthen wrote written objections to the January 1982 examination on the forms provided to her based on the master copy of the examination provided to her. On August, 19, 1982 Petitioner Cauthen went to Tallahassee, Florida to review her July 1982 Licensing Examination papers, but although she requested an "examination review" she was never provided with her own examination booklet or a copy thereof. During this alleged "examination review" Ms. Cauthen wrote written objections to the July 1982 examination on the forms provided to her based on the master copy of the examination provided to her. Petitioners Harden and Cauthen sought Board review of their January and July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examinations. Petitioners were advised in July 1983 that no copies of their actual booklets exist; Petitioners were advised in October 1983 that their actual booklets were shredded. At the November 8, 1982, meeting of the Board, Ms. Ida Cameron representing DPR, presented to the Board a package of information (assembled in package form) for the Board to consider during the examination review. With regard to Question Number 71 on the afternoon portion of the July 1982 Licensing Examination, two of the four possible responses, "A" and "C" were credited. Candidates like Petitioner Cauthen who answered "B" received no credit for the question. Petitioners Harden and Cauthen have requested Chapter 120.57 hearings with respect to their January and July 1982 licensing examinations and the review, grading and agency action with respect to same. Although request for production was specifically made for said packages of information with respect to the January 1982 and July 1982 licensing examinations in February, 1983, no packages have been produced to date. DPR destroyed the Petitioners' examination booklets before the end of the two year period immediately following each of the 1982 examinations. That Section 455.217 of the Florida Statutes requires the Board "by rule" to designate areas of competency to be covered by each licensing examination. That Section 455.217 states that the Board shall "by rule specify the general areas of competency to be covered by each examination, the relative weight to be assigned in grading each area tested, and the score necessary to achieve a passing grade." That the amendment of Rule 21GG-6.01 (2) required candidates to commit to memory portions of the electrical code, accounting, law, worker's compensation rules, federal employer's tax guide, A1A General Conditions, business practices; legal and insurance requirements. In the July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examination candidates were given one hour more time in which to take the examination than was given during the January 1982 examination. Rule 21GG-6.01 (4) was amended in conjunction with Rules 21GG-6.01 (1)(a), (2) and (3) at a board hearing in March, 1981. Rule 21GG-6.01 (4) raised the passing score on the January 1982 Electrical Contractors' Examination and the July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Examination from 70 to 75. The amendment to Rule 21GG-6.01 (4) required that electrical contractors pass the certification examination with a score of 75 percent, whereas all other construction industry licensing board contractors licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation (13 other categories) were merely required to achieve a 70 percent pass score. That Section 455.217 of the Florida Statutes provides that "The board shall make rules providing for reexamination of any applicants who have failed the examination." That DPR did not and has never provided Petitioners, their attorneys or agents with their own examination booklets for the January and July 1982 Electrical Contractors' Licensing Examinations. DPR has provided Petitioners only with copies of "master" examinations for their review. That Section 455.217 of the Florida Statutes provides that the Board shall make available an examination review procedure for applicants. That the Respondents produced Notice of Destruction of Examination Booklets and Other Examination Materials dated April 14, 1982, which allegedly evidences destruction of Petitioners' examination booklets for the January 7, 1982, Examination on April 14, 1982. That the Respondents produced Notice of Destruction of Examination Booklets and Other Examination Materials dated October 15, 1982, which allegedly evidences destruction of Petitioners' examination booklets for the July 13, 1982, Examination on October 15, 1982. The findings in paragraphs 1 through 33, immediately above, are based directly on the stipulations of the parties, most of which stipulations were memorialized at the beginning of the hearing. The findings in the following paragraphs are based primarily on testimony and exhibits, but some of them are also based in whole or in part on stipulations. In the findings which follow there are certain to be at least some repetitious findings in the course of putting matters into context and making additional findings which are related to some of the stipulated findings. I have tried to avoid all unnecessary repetition, but a certain amount is necessary for clarity and a certain amount is unavoidable due to the sheer size of the task at hand. Findings on background matters and on matters relating to more than one rule Both of the Petitioners in this rule challenge proceeding are individuals who have applied to the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board for licensure as certified electrical contractors. Both of them have been approved to sit for the licensure examination. Petitioner Harden took the Board's licensure examination on each of the following occasions: July 1981, January 1982, July 1982, and January 1983. The Board has not given him a passing grade on any of those' four examinations. Petitioner Cauthen took the Board's licensure examination on two occasions: January 1982 and July 1982. The Board has not given her a passing grade on either of those two examinations. The grade notifications received by these Petitioners show, inter alia, that Petitioner Cauthen received a grade of 73 on the July 1982 examination. Both of these Petitioners have presently pending formal proceedings under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, in which they are challenging various matters related to the preparation of, administration of, scoring of, and inherent validity of the Board's January 1982 and July 1982 licensure examinations. The Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board certification examination is different from a master electrician examination. However, the two examinations are in many ways similar because of the overlap in the nature of the subject matter to be tested on both examinations. The passing score or cut score on the local master electrician examination administered by Dade County is 70 percent. Most of the questions on that examination are about the National Electric Code. Part of the Dade County master electrician exam is closed book. Prior to 1972, persons wishing to engage in electrical contracting in the state of Florida were required to be licensed by the local governments in the areas in which they sought to operate. Since 1972, persons wishing to engage in electrical contracting in the state of Florida must be licensed by a unit of local government or by the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. Persons who are licensed by the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board are known as certified electrical contractors. A certified electrical contractor can engage in electrical contracting anywhere in the state of Florida without local licensure. Persons who are licensed by one or more local governments (typically a municipality or a county) are known as registered electrical contractors. Registered electrical con-tractors are licensed to engage in electrical contracting only in the geographic areas encompassed by the boundaries of the local government entities that issued their local licenses. There is, however, a certain amount of reciprocity from one local government to another. Certification as a state certified electrical contractor does not authorize the electrical contractor to work as an electrician, although a certified electrical contractor can pull permits. A person does not have to be a licensed electrician in order to become a state certified electrical contractor, although many electrical contractors are also licensed as journeyman or master electricians. Candidates for the electrical contractor licensure examination have a great $ variety in the nature and scope of their background and experience. This variety in background and experience is among the reasons which cause testing for minimum competence as an electrical contractor not to be an exact science. As between certification and registration, certification by the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board is not a major factor in the ability to compete for business. A person who has a statewide certification can save some money by avoiding the expense of obtaining local competency cards, but as a general rule a registered electrical contractor can work just about anywhere in the state due to reciprocity. Especially, a person who has passed a Block master electrician examination or a Block local electrical contractor's examination can work just about anywhere in the state because most counties in Florida accept the Block examination. Registered electrical contractors regularly compete for business with certified electrical contractors. For example, Petitioner Cauthen's company is presently licensed in Monroe, Dade, and Broward counties, where it does a considerable amount of business. Petitioner Cauthen's company bids on lots of contracts and submits bids in competition with both registered and certified electrical contractors. Thus, the company is already in competition with certified electrical contractors. Similarly Board Member Isaacs, whose certified company does 90 percent of its work in Duval County, has regular competition from registered electrical contractors. Board Member Isaacs competes with approximately 250 electrical contractors. Of that 250, approximately 175 are registered and the others are certified. A much bigger factor in competition than the registration versus certification issue is the cost of doing business in more than one area or the cost of doing business at a location that is distant from one's primary base of operations. Only about fifty electrical contracting firms regularly compete for business over the entire state of Florida. Accordingly, a restriction on the number of persons licensed by the Board as certified electrical contractors would have minimal, if any, limitation on the competition faced by those members of the Board who are certified electrical contractors. The Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board admin-istered its own certification licensure examination from 1972 through 1980. During that period of time the Board administered the examination a total of twenty-two times. During those twenty-two sessions of Board administered examinations, a total of 824 candidates sat for the examination, of which 392 were successful. Although the percentage of candidates who were successful on a particular Board administered examination ranged from a low of 20.7 percent to a high of 78.8 percent, the average passing rate of all candidates on all twenty- two of the Board administered examinations was 47.57 percent. (By way of comparison, it is interesting to note that the percentage of candidates who are successful on the Block master electrician examination is between 30 percent and 35 percent of those who take the examination.) Further, on fifteen of the twenty-two occasions on which the Board administered the examination, the percentage of candidates who were successful was 50 percent or less. In 1979, the regulation of professions and occupations was reorganized. The Department of Professional Regulation (the Department) was created as an umbrella agency over numerous boards, including the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board and the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The responsibility for examining applicants, which in the case of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board had been handled by the Board members themselves, was taken over by the Office of Examination Services (O.E.S.). Toward the end of 1980 and the beginning of 1981, O.E.S. did not like what the Board was doing and the Board did not like what O.E.S. was doing. There was a general lack of trust between the two entities, there was poor communication between the two entities, and the relationship between them at that time might best be described as estranged. Although both entities made efforts at cooperation with the other, such efforts were not always effective or well received. As a result of the poor communication between the two entities, certain personal concerns over Board actions by individuals within the O.E.S. were never communicated to the Board (and therefore could not be answered. 4/ The first examination administered by the O.E.S. was in January 1981. Of the fifty candidates who took the January 1981 examination, forty-six were successful. This was a passing rate of 92 percent. In view of the Board's experience when it was administering its own examination, the Board was understandably surprised and concerned when the percentage of candidates passing the first O.E.S. administered examination was almost twice the average passing percentage on the Board administered examinations. The Board had no evidence that the overall qualifications or capabilities of the applicants examined by O.E.S. at the January 1981 examination were any higher than the capabilities of those examined previously. To the contrary, a review of their qualifications based on the information in their applications indicated that their qualifications were substantially the same as those of previous candidates tested by the Board. Also, the admission standards for the January 1981 examination were the same as those for prior examinations. The Board concerns about the O.E.S. administered January 1981 examination included the following matters, among others, memorialized at a Board meeting discussing the examinations: The candidates had been allowed to take any reference material desired into the exami- nation. Previously the Board had allowed only reference books listed as part of the application form. There was a very high pass rate in compar- ison to all past examinations. There appeared to be too few calculation questions. The questions had been placed on the paper in sequence with the reference book materials. There was a possibility that notes were taken into the examination which would have given advantage to the candidates. The Board's Examination Committee had been under the assumption that the entire examination would be presented for review of the questions. Instead the only questions presented were ones questionable under Department criteria for measuring competency. It was explained, from past experience, that persons conducting the seminars for exams had obtained the entire exam content from persons taking the examination in the past. It had been done with a camera which was taken into the examination. The Board, when administer- ing the examination, had been very strict on what was used in performing the examination. In the last exam the security was very poor. The Board felt there were so few calculation questions on the O.E.S. administered examination in January of 1981 that the examination was not a proper or sufficient examination. This was due at least in part to the fact that O.E.S. had difficulty covering all areas of the examination with the desired number of questions because the O.E.S. bank of questions was very limited at that time. Previous Board examinations were open book with certain reference material allowed. When the Office of Examination Services took over the administration of the January 1981 exams, it sent to the candidates a form letter adapted from the Construction Industry Licensing Board. This form letter instructed the candidates that they would be able to bring into the examination any notes and other materials desired. This was contrary to the past practice of the Board and contrary to the Board's wishes. The Board was very frustrated and concerned about the circumstances which led up to the January 1981 examination because the O.E.S. had refused to allow the Board to have any input into the examination and the Board thought the O.E.S. had come up with an apprentice level examination. In the Board's opinion, the January 1981 examination prepared by O.E.S. clearly tested at a level less than that of minimum competency. And, although O.E.S. did not agree with the Board that the January examination was invalid, O.E.S. did agree that the examination was a lot easier than they had thought it would be. The Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board did not conduct any formal studies or formal analysis prior to making the 1981 amendments to Rule 21GG-6.01 changing the format of the examination and the cut score. However, the Board's Rules Committee did a great deal of work on the matter and the matter was discussed extensively at Board meetings. In this regard it is important to keep in mind that the Board members (with the exception of the two lay members) were all experienced practicing electrical contractors who were familiar with the requirements of day-to-day electrical contracting. The Board's decision to change part of the examination to closed book was due to a concern that people with no electrical knowledge could become licensed if the examination was all open book and had a low percentage of technical questions. The Board felt that more than half of the examination should be technical questions. The closed book National Electrical Code questions were for the purpose of testing what a person with experience in the field of electrical contracting should know about everyday matters. The primary, if not the sole, motivation for the Board's 1981 amendments to Rule 21GG-6.01 was the Board's concern about the quality of the O.E.S. administered examination and the Board's feeling that, due to its estranged relationship with O.E.S., the only vehicle through which it could effectively influence the quality of future examinations was through rule- making. Those amendments were not motivated by any desire on the part of the Board to restrict competition in the field of electrical contracting. During the past few years the job requirements of an electrical contractor have remained substantially the same. Block and Associates (hereinafter "Block") is a company based in Gainesville, Florida, that writes licensure examinations for contractors in various trades. Block writes such examinations for cities, counties, and states. Block has prepared electrical contracting licensure examinations for the states of Florida, Georgia, and Oklahoma, as well as for St. Johns County, Florida. Block prepares licensure examinations for just about anything that involves electricity, including such things as electrical contracting, electrical journeyman, electrical-master, low voltage, elevator, burglar alarm and fire alarm Block prepares master electrician examinations for over one hundred governmental entities. The Block electrical master exams and the Block electrical contractor exams use some of the same questions. Subsequent to the 1982 examinations which form the gravamen of these Petitioners' related proceedings under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, the ECLB has contracted with Block and Associates to prepare the Board's certification licensure examination. The Board has never said anything to Block about wanting to achieve any particular passing rate or wanting to have any particular percentage of the candidates taking the examination achieve a passing score. The Board has never interfered with Block's autonomy in the preparation of the electrical contractor exam. All of Block's electrical contractor examinations include business questions. It is important to test for business skills because an electrical contractor who gets into business trouble may start cutting corners and cutting corners is a hazard to the public. Some of Block's electrical contractor examinations also have specific sections on safety. Block always does a post-administration statistical analysis of the examinations questions it uses. The reason for this is to find out if anything is wrong with the questions; in other words, to determine whether the questions are valid. The computer program used by Block to check the validity of its tests was prepared for Block by a professor in the College of Education at the University of Florida. Block uses a computer to conduct a validity analysis of each test it administers. Findings regarding Rule 21GG- 6.01(1)(c) of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board Rule 21GG-6.01(1)(c) of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board reads as follows (with the portion challenged by the Petitioners underscored): The areas of competency to be covered by the certification examination shall be as follows: (a) *** (c) Safety, which shall include but not be limited to, OSHA regulations, life safety codes, and the Fire Safety Code (NFPA). Prior to the December 1981 amendment which is challenged here, Rule 2100-6.01(1)(c) read as follows: The areas of competency to be covered by the certification examination shall be as follows: (a) *** (c) Safety, which shall include but not be limited to, OSHA regulations, life safety codes, and the fire safety code (NFPA 72A, B, C and D). The Board's purpose in amending the rule to delete the reference to "72A, B, C and D" was to make it clear to candidates for examination that the Board' intended to include in the safety portion of its examinations questions from portions of Volume Seven of the NFPA other than Chapters 72 A, B, C, and D of that volume. Volume Seven of the NFPA contains quite a bit of material in addition to the material included in Chapters 72 A, B, C, and D of that volume. In view of the modifying phrase "shall include but not be limited to," the amendment to delete the reference to Chapters 72 A, B, C and D was not a necessary prerequisite to the use of examination questions based on other portions of Volume Seven of the NFPA. The Board could ask the same examination questions before and after the amendment. Several weeks before each examination, the Department of Professional Regulation sent all candidates for examination, including these Petitioners, a notice to appear for the examination. The notice to appear included a list of reference books on which the examination was to be based. That list of reference books contained a specific reference to Volume Seven of the NFPA. All sixteen volumes which comprise the entire NFPA were not listed as reference books. Neither of these Petitioners demonstrated that he or she was genuinely confused or misdirected by the amendment to Rule 21GG-6.01(1)(c). Neither Petitioner contended he or she had studied all sixteen volumes of the NFPA. Instead, both Petitioners studied from the books on the reference list. Neither Petitioner has an application for the examination pending; neither claims an intention to take the examination again. Findings regarding Rule 21GG- 6.01(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board At the time of the examinations which are the subject of these Petitioners' related cases under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, Rule 21GG- 6.01(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board read as follows, in pertinent part: The areas of competency to be covered by the certification examination shall be as follows: Technical, which shall include, but not be limited to, electrical calculations, estimating, designs, and electrical schematics; and which shall be divided into two (2) separate areas, one containing electrical calculations, the other containing Code-related questions not requiring calculations. General business, which shall include but not be limited to, problems relating to accounting, law, insurance, workers' compen- sation and social security; The format of the examination shall be as follows: The portions of the examination con- taining the electrical calculations and $ safety questions shall be open book. The applicant is responsible for bringing and may.. use during these portions the applicable code books, reference materials as approved by the Board, and noiseless mechanical or non- mechanical instruments he wishes to use. The portions of the examination con- taining the noncalculation technical questions and all business questions shall be closed-book. The applicant will not be permitted to use the reference materials listed in 2(a) or any other reference materials. Security measures as set forth by the Department shall be followed during both portions of the examination. The relative grading weight to be assigned to each area of competency shall be approximately as follows: Technical - 60 percent Electrical Calculations-40 percent of Test Code-related questions-20 percent of Test General business - 30 percent Safety - 10 percent An applicant shall be required to achieve a score of a general average of not less than seventy-five percent (75 percent) in order to pass the examination and be certified for licensure. There shall not be a practical or clinical examination. The language quoted above is the language of the relevant portions of the rule as it read after the March 1981 amendments to the rule. The principal amendments in March of 1981 may be summarized as follows: (1) changes which divided technical questions on the examination into two separate areas, (2) changes which made part of the examination open book and part closed book [it was previously all open book, and (3) a change in the minimum passing score from 70 percent to 75 percent. These Petitioners challenge the validity of all three of the principal amendments. As originally proposed, the March 1981 amendments to subsection (2)(a) of Rule 21GG-6.01 would have permitted a candidate to bring "any notes" to the open book portion of the examination. During the adoption process the words "and any notes" were deleted from the amendment by the Board. The words "and any notes" did not appear in Rule 21GG-6.01 prior to the 1981 amendments. Nor was it the practice of the Board prior to 1981 to permit candidates for examination to take any notes into the examination when it was administered by the Board. Findings regarding examination content and relative grading weights In November of 1983 the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board again amended Rule 21GG-6.01(3) to change the relative grading weights of the areas of competency to be tested. After November of 1983 the relative grading weights of the areas of competency were as follows: Technical increased from 60 percent to 65 percent; electrical calculations increased from 40 percent to 45 percent; code related questions remained 20 percent of the examination; general business was decreased from 30 percent to 25 percent of the examination; and safety remained 10 percent of the examination. 5/ The licensing examination given by the Board has historically contained materials testing knowledge of electrical work and also materials testing the business qualifications of the applicants. Since the inception of the Board's licensing exam, the electrical work portions have contained electrical calculations. Throughout the time the Board has been administering licensure examinations for certification, the percentages of the examination devoted to particular subject areas have been based upon the Board's belief as to the appropriate levels of knowledge needed by a certified electrical contractor. The weighting of the examination was equitable when it was weighted 60 percent technical, 30 percent business, and 10 percent safety, and it is still equitable now that it is weighted 65 percent technical, 25 percent business, and 10 percent safety. The Board changed to the current percentages at the suggestion of Block and Associates. The Board's examination has had similar ratios for a long time, at least as far back as 1971. The proportions of the examination devoted to each particular subject matter did not change due to the March 1981 amendments. With the exception of the January 1981 examination put together by O.E.S., electrical calculations had historically been 40 percent of the test. Since the Board felt this percentage should be maintained, and since it was necessary to divide those calculations from the other portion of the technical section (since one would be tested in the closed book portion and the other in the open book portion), the division of the technical part of the exam was set out in the rule. On an electrical contractor licensure examination it is appropriate to include in the area of "technical" questions, questions dealing with the following subjects: electrical calculations, parts of estimating, and designs and electrical schematics. In the "business" portion of an electrical contractor examination, it is appropriate to include questions dealing with the following: accounting, worker compensation, and social security. Findings regarding closed book versus open book examinations Local licensing examinations had, in 1981, included a closed book portion. Local licensing examinations and state licensing examinations given in other states still include such a closed book portion. The basic Block examination has always included a closed book portion. Closed book examinations are not all that unusual in occupational and professional licensure testing. The CPA an Nursing examinations are closed book. Also, virtually all of the electrical examinations administered by Block and Associates include a closed book portion. The advantage of a closed book examination technique is that it is easier to identify the candidates who have had practical experience in the subject matter being tested. A closed book examination is a better test for field experience and for general knowledge of the subject matter being tested. Certain questions known as "anchor" questions was given both in the open book examination before the format change and in the closed book section after the format changed. The relative performance by candidates on the same questions in the two formats shows the format change not to have prejudiced the candidates. Further, an examination analysis of the results of the closed book portions of the ECLB examinations reveals that, based on candidate performance, the closed book portion of the examinations was easier than the open book portion. This also shows that the format change did not prejudice the candidates. Findings regarding "cut scores" From 1972 until the rule changes in 1981, the minimum passing score, or "cut score," set by the Board for the certification licensure examination was 70 percent. Cut scores of both 70 percent and 75 percent are very common cut scores for licensure examinations in the fields of electrical contracting, journeyman electrician, and master electrician, as well as licensure examinations in other occupations and professions. Many local licensure examinations have a 75 percent cut score. Standing alone, the cut score to be applied to a future examination is somewhat lacking in specific significance. A cut score must be considered in relation to the content of the examination to which it is to be applied. All of the testing experts who testified at the hearing agreed that setting an examination cub score is an inherently arbitrary decision. In the final analysis it is a judgment call that cannot be made with scientific exactitude and is unavoidably arbitrary to a certain extent. As explained by one of the Petitioners' testing experts, even though statistical methodology is available for the determination of cut scores, to a large extent the cut score is a random decision, the validity of which can be assessed only in relationship to the specific testing instrument to which it is applied. For example, during the course of Block's preparation of its first licensure examination in 1958 for the City of Ormond Beach, when it came time to decide what cut score to use, the five experts who were preparing the examination talked it over and decided that 75 percent was the equivalent' of a good. "C" when compared to academic grades, and they decided to use 75 percent as their cut score. It is not possible to be much more scientific or precise than that in setting cut scores, especially when one has a group of candidates of varied experience and background taking the examination. A skilled test preparer can construct an examination of equal validity within a range of cut scores from 65 percent to 80 percent if the test preparer knows at the time of constructing the examination what the cut score will be. With any cut score in that range, a skilled test preparer can raise or lower the percentage of candidates who will actually pass the examination by careful selection of the questions to be used on the examination. By using easy questions, the person preparing the examination can insure that more people will pass a test with a high cut score. Similarly, by using hard questions, the person preparing the examination can insure that fewer people will pass an examination with a low cut score. On some standardized licensure examinations the cut score is determined after the examination results are examined. In other words, the examination results are "curved" based on the performance of the group of candidates who take a particular session of the examination and the actual cut score is determined in relationship to the raw scores achieved by each particular group of candidates. This flexible method of setting cut scores seems to work well on standardized examinations which are administered to large numbers of candidates, but it is questionable whether it would work very well with small groups of candidates. The Board's examinations have historically been administered to small groups of candidates. Findings regarding the effects of changes on testing instruments. In order for a licensure examination to accomplish the purpose for which it is administered, it should, of course, be valid and reliable. Several of the Petitioners' expert witnesses described what might be characterized as the best way to make changes to an examination or as the ideal way to make changes to an examination. Nevertheless, the manner in which the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board went about making the changes to the examination which were incorporated in the March 1981 rule changes was a reasonable and logical response to the circumstances faced by the Board. It was perhaps not the best way to have resolved matters, but it was a reasonable response. The Board's action in this regard was not arbitrary or capricious. Even the Petitioners' most persuasive expert in the field of testing conceded that if the content experts (in this case the Board members) felt that given a specific content domain and given a specific item bank the testing instrument measured less than minimum competency, a logical response would be to raise the cut score. Another logical reaction to that situation would be to change a portion of the examination from open book to closed book. Both actions would be reasonable and logical responses to that type of problem. Where there has been a modification in the format of a testing instrument, an accepted methodology for analysis of the effects of format modification is the use of repetitive questions from prior testing instruments. These repetitive questions are known as "anchor" questions. If a statistically significant deviation in performance on the anchor questions is demonstrated, the format modification requires further analysis through other statistical tools. However, if an analysis of the anchor questions shows inconclusive or mixed results on the anchor questions (such as equal or improved candidate performance on those questions), it may then be concluded that the format change is not significant to candidate performance and may be an appropriate format change relative to the profession or occupation being examined. Content validity is the most practical' measure of the validity of a licensure examination. The content validity of an examination depends on the extent to which the questions on an examination may be accepted as representative of performance within a specifically defined content domain of which the examination instrument is a sample. Content validation would be the best way to determine the validity of the examinations which were administered in 1982 pursuant to the March 1981 rule amendments. One method of establishing content validity is to have a group of experts identify the domains of knowledge that are applicable to the profession or occupation being tested. The establishment of content validity relies heavily on the opinions and judgments of people who are experts in the relevant profession or occupation. Expert judgment plays a integral part in developing the definition of the content domain to be tested. To the extent that the content domain of Boar examinations was established by the March 1981 amendments to Rule 21GG-6.01(3), the content domain was established on the basis of the expert judgment of persons who were experts in the field of electrical contracting, namely, the members of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. The relative grading weights established in the 1981 amendments to Rule 21GG-6.01(3) have at least a possible correlation to electrical contractor competence. In fact, the persuasive expert testimony establishes that those relative grading weights did bear a reasonable relationship to electrical contractor competence. The current slightly different relative grading weights also bear a reasonable relationship to electrical contractor competence even though there has been no recent change in the nature of the responsibilities of electrical contractors. In this regard it must be remembered that testing is not an exact science and no test for minimum competency can ever be expected to be an exact model of actual work experience. The best that can be expected is a reasonable model. There are various accepted methodologies for the creation of standardized examinations, adherence to which tends to enhance the likelihood that the examination instrument finally produced will be valid and reliable. However, adherence to those accepted procedures is not a necessary prerequisite to creation of a valid and reliable examination. This is particularly true when one is going to be testing small groups of people with varied backgrounds instead of the massive groups of people with similar backgrounds for whom standardized tests are more typically designed. In the final analysis the only practical and reliable measure of the validity of an examination is by statistical analysis of the examination after it has been administered. Given the nature of the circumstances faced by the Board at the time of the March 1981 amendments to the examination format and cut score, given the nature of the pool of candidates to be examined, given the nature of the changes contemplated by the Board, and given the very nature of the process of testing for minimum competency--which involves perhaps as much art as it does science-- there is no study or data which would have been particularly useful to the Board in helping to determine exactly what the effect of their changes would be. Such effects can only be determined or measured with any degree of accuracy after the administration of an examination that incorporated the changes. Following the administration of such an examination, it is possible to perform a statistical analysis of all questions used on the examination and to eliminate or give credit for any questions which are shown by statistical analysis to be invalid or unreliable. This is precisely the process that is used by Block in the validation of their examinations and is an accepted testing procedure. It would have served no useful purpose to have conducted a trial run of an examination using licensed certified electrical contractors as a test group for the new examination format. First, it would be virtually impossible to try to put together an accurate cross-section of certified electrical contractors to use as a test group. Second, one would expect them all to pass the examination, so when they did so nothing of value would have been learned. Finally, the administration of such a trial run would risk the possibility of compromising examination question security. One aspect of accepted methodology for the preparation of standardized examinations is the definition of the content domain of the examination, i.e., a determination of what knowledge is essential to demonstrate that the candidates for licensure are minimally competent. This aspect of examination preparation is often accomplished by performing a formal job analysis, which is, in essence, a study of all of the usual tasks performed by a person engaged in the occupation or profession to be tested, including an evaluation of the relative importance of each of those tasks to minimum competence. The content domain can also be defined on the basis of the judgment of a group of experts in the occupation or profession to be tested. With the exception of the lay members who were added in recent years, all of the members of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board are, and have been, persons certified to engage in electrical contracting in the state of Florida and actively engaged in the electrical contracting business. Therefore, at all relevant times all of the professional members of the Board had extensive personal knowledge of what was involved in the practice of electrical contracting, which personal knowledge was as useful in defining content domain as would have been a formal job analysis. (In this regard it is important to note that even with the addition of lay members to the Board in recent years, the experienced professional members have continued to constitute a substantial majority of the Board.) Findings regarding Rule 21GG-6.0 of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board Rule 21GG-6.03 of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board reads as follows: An examinee is entitled to review his examination questions, answers, papers, grades and grading key used in the certification examination; however, no applicant may copy any materials provided for his review. Such review shall be conducted during regular business hours, in the presence of a representative of the Board at the Board's official headquarters. If, following the review of his exami- nation, an examinee believes that an error was made in the grading of his examination, or in the evaluation of his answers, he may request the Board to review his examination. Requests for Board review must be in writing, state with specificity the reason why review is requested, and be received within thirty (30) days after the examinee received notice that he failed the examination. (3) Upon receipt of a request for Board review, the examination shall be reviewed by the Board at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting. If it is found that an error was made, the grade received by the examinee may be adjusted to reflect the correction. The examinee shall be notified of the final decision. The Petitioners' only challenge to Rule 21GG-6.03 is predicated upon their concern that it may be misapplied to them by the Board. Findings regarding Rule 21-11.11(3) of the Department of Professional Regulation as it existed prior to the October 1982 amendments Prior to the October 1982 amendments, Rule 21-11.11(3) of the Department of Professional Regulation read as follows: (3) Examination grade reviews shall be conducted at a site designated by the Department. The candidate and his/her attorney or other qualified representative shall be allowed to attend the examination grade review. A candidate may attend only one review per examination administration. The above quoted version of the rule was in effect at the time of the Petitioners' reviews of their January and July 1982 examinations. Findings regarding Rule 21-11.11(3) of the Department of Professional Regulation, as amended in October of 198 Rule 21-11.11(3) of the Department of Professional Regulation, as amended in October of 1982, reads as follows, in pertinent part: A candidate taking a Department exam- nation may request and receive an appointment for review until such times as the exam- ination records are destroyed in accordance with Chapters 455, 119 and 267, Florida Statutes. However, unless otherwise provided by a rule of the appropriate Board within the Department, candidates may review their exam- ination for the purpose of filing objections to the examination for the Board's consideration under the following conditions and time frame: Within thirty (30) days of the date of the grade notification letter the candidate shall notify the Department of his/her desir to review the examination for the purpose of filing objections for consideration. Such review shall have been completed within the next thirty (30) days after the first thirty (30) days defined in (a) above. At the examination review, the candi- date shall be permitted to record on forms provided by the Department any and all objections to the examination the candidate desires the appropriate Board to review. Such forms shall remain in the custody of the Office of Examination Services for presen- tation to the appropriate Board at the next available Board meeting as an official agenda item. The candidate shall not copy" questions from the test booklet. The candidate may write on a separate paper in the presence of the Office of Examination Services employee, any objection or question he/she has to the written examination. The candidate shall leave the written objections and questions with the Office of Examination Services employee when he/she leaves the review room but she/she shall be permitted to leave with a form listing the question numbers he/she finds to be controversial. In the instance of a written exami- nation, all objections will be presented to the appropriate Board for consideration. Upon completion of the Board's review of written examination items the Department shall notify the reviewing candidate of the Board's decision. If the Board does not concur with the candidate's objections then the candidate will be notified in writing of this and the thirty (30) day appeal time per- iod shall begin to run from the date of this notice. Findings regarding Rule 21- 11.11(13) of the Department of Professional Regulation (later renumbered as Rule 21-11.11(3)(1)j Rule 21-11.11(13) of the Department of Professional Regulation, which was later renumbered as Rule 21-11.11(3)(1), reads as follows: If the consultant finds that the original grade was not rendered in accordance with the grading criteria, then he/she twill regrade that portion, or the entire examination, whichever is appropriate, pursuant to appli- cable statutes and rules. If it is not possible to regrade the examination, the candidate will be allowed to retake the examination at no charge. It is clear from the text of Rule 21-11.11(3)(j) that the language of Rule 21-11.11(3)(1) quoted immediately above is intended to apply only to practical examinations. It does not purport to apply to written examinations. These Petitioners took only written examinations, they have not taken any practical examinations. Findings regarding Rule 21-11.14 of the Department of Professional Regulation Rule 21-11.14 of the Department of Professional Regulation reads as follows, in pertinent part: Unless otherwise provided by a rule of the appropriate board within the Department, Security and Monitoring procedures shall be as follows: (10) Disposition of Test Booklets. Secured processing of Answer Sheets Test booklets for the state devel- oped examinations shall be disposed of and filed in accordance with the following procedure: 1. Ten copies of the examination book- lets shall be retained for ninety (90) days. This procedure shall insure that there are adequate copies of the booklets available for the board to review in their review of preliminary analysis of the examination and review sessions if review responsibilities are retained by the board. After the above defined ninety (90) day period the retention schedule shall change from ten copies to four copies. In the event any irregularity occurs during the examination with any state developed booklet, it shall be the examination supervisor's responsibility to prepare a detailed report of such irregularity and to retain the booklet in question in the secured files for a period of ninety (90) days. Destruction of examination booklets and related materials described in B.2.b., above: When in accordance with procedure, it is appropriate to destroy test booklets, it shall be the Archives's responsibility to schedule such destruction. In all instances there shall be evidenced in writing by the examination supervisor and a witness on a form which shall evidence the date of destruction and the official in charge of such destruction and a witness. When examination booklets are being prepared by the Department of Professional Regulation prior to an examination, the booklets are carefully inspected to make sure that all of the booklets are identical. Following that inspection the booklets are sealed and stored in a secure place in order to insure, among other things, that no changes are made to any of the examination booklets before they are handed out to the candidates. After an examination is given, the Department of Professional Regulation retrieves all of the examination booklets, including all booklets that were used by all of the candidates, and retains them in a secure place until the excess booklets can be destroyed. The examination supervisor selects the booklets which are to be retained from among the booklets that were not handed out to the candidates at the examination. In the normal course of events all of the examination booklets that were actually handled by the candidates at the examination are destroyed within a very few months of the date of the examination. With the exception of the examination booklet of one other candidate (which exception is not relevant to the disposition of this rule challenge proceeding), all of the examination booklets which were handed out to candidates during the examinations taken by these two Petitioners were destroyed approximately 90 days after each of the examinations. When such destruction took place, the Department retained copies of the examination booklets which had not been used by any candidate, which copies were identical to the copies that had been handed out to the candidates during the examination. As part of the examination instructions, all candidates for examination are advised not toe write anything in their examination booklets because all of the booklets used by the candidates will be shredded. They are specifically told to do all of their computations on sheets of work paper that are provided to them at the examination. All candidates are specifically told that the only things they turn in that will be saved are their answer sheets and their sheets of work paper. Findings regarding "unwritten" and "unpublished" rules of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. The findings of fact immediately below relate to the eight "unwritten" and "unpublished" alleged rules of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board which are described in subparagraphs (F), (O), (P), (V), (X), (Y), (Z), and (FF) at pages 1 through 5 of the Petition. (The descriptions of these alleged rules are quoted at pages 2 through 6 of this Final Order.) One of these "unpublished" rules is alleged to be a rule to the effect that the Board requires more than minimum competency in order for a candidate to receive state certification and licensure as an electrical contractor. The other seven "unwritten" or "unpublished" rules of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board alleged in the Petition are all related in one way or another to the Board's alleged free form actions in the course of its review of the two examinations which have been challenged by these Petitioners in related proceedings under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. None of the evidence regarding these matters proved the existence of an agency statement of general applicability purporting in and of itself to have the direct and consistent effect of law. For reasons which are explained in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Final Order, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board has any "unwritten" or unpublished5? rules such as those described in subparagraphs (F), (O), (P), (V), (X), (Y), (Z), and (FF) of the Petition. 6/ Findings regarding "unwritten" and "unpublished" rules of the Department of Professional Regulation The findings of fact immediately below relate to the six "unwritten" and "unpublished" alleged rules of the Department of Professional Regulation which are described in subparagraphs (G), (J), (1), (L), (Q), and (R) at pages 1 through 5 of the Petition. The descriptions of these alleged rules are quoted at pages 2 through 6 of this Final Order.) These six "unwritten" or "unpublished" alleged rules of the Department of Professional Regulation are all related in one way or another to actions of functionaries of the Department in the course of performing the Department's role in the administration and review of the two examinations which have been challenged by these Petitioners in related proceedings under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. None of the evidence regarding these matters proved the existence of an agency statement of general applicability purporting in and of itself to have the direct and consistent effect of law. For reasons which are explained in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Final Order, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Department of Professional Regulation has any "unwritten" or "unpublished" rules such as those described in subparagraphs (G),(J), (I), (L), (Q), and (R).7 Findings regarding "unwritten" and "unpublished" rules of both the E1Electrical -Contractors' Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation The findings of fact immediately below relate to the ten "unwritten" and "unpublished" alleged rules of both the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation which are described in subparagraphs (M), (N), (S), (T), (U), (AA), (BB), (CC), (DD), and (EE) at pages 1 through 5 of the Petition. (The descriptions of these alleged rules are quoted at pages 2 through 6 of this Final Order.) These ten "unwritten" or "unpublished" alleged rules of both the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation are all related in one way or another to actions allegedly taken by the Board and the Department in the performance of their respective functions related to the administration and review of the two examinations which have been challenged by these Petitioners in related proceedings under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. None of the evidence regarding these matters proved the existence of an agency statement of general applicability purporting in and of itself to have the direct and consistent effect of law. For reasons which are explained in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Final Order, the evidence is insufficient to establish that both the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation have any "unwritten" or "unpublished" rules such as those described in subparagraphs (M), (N), (S), (T), (U), (AA), (BB), (CC), (DD), and (EE) of the Petition.8
Findings Of Fact Bobby Serota is licensed as an electrical contractor in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties and is fully qualified by experience and training to take the FECLB examination. Petitioner is presented of Serota and Maggi Electrical Company, Inc. In 1979, the company failed to remit to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) payroll taxes when due, and the IRS placed a lien against the company for some $24,000 for taxes, penalties and interest. Serota entered into an agreement with the IRS to repay this indebtedness at the rate of $1500 per month and is current on those payments. If this scheduled is maintained the lien will be satisfied in January, 1982. The examination for which Serota has applied is given twice per year. The next examination will be given in December, 1981, or January, 1982.
Recommendation From the foregoing it is concluded that Petitioner is fully qualified to sit for the next examination but for the IRS lien filed against his company. This IRS lien will be liquidated by the time the next examination is given provided Petitioner keeps his payments to the IRS current. It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Bobby Serota be qualified to sit for the next electrical contractors examination provided that he submits to the Board by 1 December 1981, a statement showing his payments to the IRS are current. ENTERED this 14th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Bobby Serota 2040C Tigertail Boulevard Dania, Florida 33004 Susan Tully, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a certified contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of section 489.514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner held a Registered Electrical Contractors license, No. 13012890, and a Registered Alarm System Contractors I license, No. 12000229, that authorized him to engage in the same in Broward County, Florida. Petitioner's licenses are active and in good standing; he has not been the subject of any complaints filed with, or discipline imposed by, the local licensing authority. Petitioner operates a business named "D" Electrician Technical Services, Inc., in Pompano Beach, Florida. In the case styled State v. Terrance Davis, Case No. 082026CCFICA, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, Petitioner was charged with burglary of a structure with assault or battery and felony battery. Petitioner's unrefuted testimony was that after his arrest in October 2008, he was detained without bond pending his trial.1/ On November 17, 2009, the Florida Department of Revenue ("DOR") issued to Petitioner a Notice of Non-Compliance with Support Order and Intent to Suspend License for the nonpayment of a previously existing child support order. The notice was sent to 7906 Southwest Seventh Place, North Lauderdale, Florida 33068. At the time the notice was sent, Petitioner claims to have been detained in the Broward County jail. The criminal charge of felony battery was nol prossed on December 14, 2009. On December 15, 2009, Petitioner proceeded to trial on the remaining charge and was acquitted by a jury. On December 27, 2009, DOR issued a Notice to Suspend License for Nonpayment of Support to the Division of Professions. Said notice provided that, "[w]e gave [Petitioner] notice of nonpayment and intent to suspend license(s) more than 30 days ago. [He has] not complied with the support order, a written agreement if there is one, or timely contested the action." The notice further directed that, "[u]nder section 409.2598(5)(b), Florida Statutes, you must suspend the license, permit or certificate that allows the person to engage in an occupation, business or recreation." In January 2010, during the course of a traffic stop, Petitioner was advised by a law enforcement officer that his Florida driver's license was suspended. On February 8, 2010, Petitioner entered into a Written Agreement for Past Due Support with DOR wherein he agreed to make a lump-sum payment and additional monthly payments. DOR agreed that it would not suspend or deny his driver's license as long as Petitioner complied with the terms of the agreement. Petitioner credibly testified that thereafter, when he "resumed his Articles of Incorporation," he realized his professional licenses had also been suspended. On February 25, 2010, DOR issued a Request to Reinstate License to the Division of Professions. Said request provided as follows: The license(s) of the parent named below, was suspended for nonpayment of support. Please reinstate the license(s). The parent is paying as agreed or ordered, the circuit court has ordered reinstatement, or the parent is otherwise entitled to have the license(s) reinstated under section 409.2598(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Court Case Number: 060015893CA-06 Parent's Name: TERRENCE A DAVIS Mailing Address: 7905 SW 7th Pl, North Lauderdale, FL 33068-2123 License Number(s) and Type(s): 12000229 Reg. Alarm System Contractors I (EY), 13012890 Reg. Electrical Contractors (ER) On or about July 23, 2013, Petitioner applied for certification as an electrical contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of section 484.514, Florida Statutes.2/ Included with Petitioner's application, was a personal financial statement wherein Petitioner itemized his assets and liabilities. Petitioner's personal financial statement concluded that his personal net worth was $56,400.00. Also included in Petitioner's application was a business financial statement for "D" Electrician Technical Services, Inc., that similarly itemized Petitioner's business assets and liabilities. Petitioner's business financial statement concluded that the business's net worth was $35,945. By a Notice of Intent to Deny, dated October 18, 2013, the Board denied Petitioner's application for two reasons: within the previous five years, Petitioner's contracting license was suspended for failure to pay child support; and Petitioner's application failed to demonstrate that he had the requisite financial stability as required by rule 61G6- 5.005(3) and requisite net worth as required by rule 61G6-5.004. Petitioner credibly testified as to the figures supporting the itemization of both his personal and business assets and liabilities and respective net worth contained in the application. Petitioner conceded that a credit report, dated July 8, 2013, documents that he had a late mortgage payment in April 2010; that in 1997, his child support arrearage was placed in collection; and that an account, with a current balance of $3110.00, was placed for collection. Petitioner contends said account concerned a one-year lease that he was unable to satisfy at the time due to his detainment for the above-noted criminal charges. Respondent presented the testimony of Clarence Kelly Tibbs. Mr. Tibbs is a state-certified electrical contractor who served on the Board for approximately 13 years. Mr. Tibbs was not on the Board at the time the Board considered and rejected Petitioner's application. The undersigned deemed Mr. Tibbs as an expert in electrical contracting. Mr. Tibbs did not testify concerning the areas of his expertise (electrical contracting), but rather, offered opinions on the propriety of the Board's denial of Petitioner's application. Mr. Tibbs testified that, "as an ex-Board member," looking at Petitioner's personal and business financials, there were several problems. After itemizing his concerns, Mr. Tibbs concluded that, "[h]owever, looking at the financials that you've got in front of me, although I have some problems with them, I could probably go ahead and approve them."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board, enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified electrical contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 7th day of May, 2014.
