The Issue The central issue in this cause is whether or not Respondent is guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes which prohibits the operation of a cosmetology salon without a current license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Before & After, Inc. d/b/a Design of Miami, is not licensed as a cosmetology salon. Respondent does business at 8200 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. Bernard R. Gaeta is the secretary/treasurer of the Respondent corporation and was present at the business location on or about January 9, 1986. On or about January 9, 1986, Providence Padrick went to the business location (8200 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida) in response to an advertisement for cosmetology services. The purpose of the visit was to inspect the premises regarding the services claimed by the ad. An individual known as Jerry Schrank shared space with Respondent and had been responsible for the ad in question. When Ms. Padrick made the inspection she was attended by Mr. Gaeta who showed her the area used by Mr. Schrank. Additionally, Mr. Gaeta furnished Ms. Padrick with a brochure which outlined the services offered by Respondent. During her inspection of the Respondent's premises Ms. Padrick observed three or four shampoo bowls of the type normally used in cosmetology salons. As a result of her inspection of Respondent's business premises, Ms. Padrick interviewed Carmen Cannizzo to determine what services were being performed by Respondent's employees. Ms. Cannizzo is a licensed cosmetologist employed on a salaried basis by the Respondent. According to Ms. Cannizzo, Respondent sells hairpieces or wigs which are fitted and then attached to the customers' heads. Respondent uses two methods of wig or hairpiece attachment: weaving and taping. The weaving method requires the weaving of an anchor thread through the customer's natural hair which then holds the hairpiece in place once it is similarly secured to the woven thread. Regardless of the method of attachment, the customer's hair must be styled to blend in with the hairpiece. Customer preference and the amount of natural hair available determine which attachment method is used. While it is not part of the fee charged by Respondent, Ms. Cannizzo will also trim a customer's hair or shampoo it upon request. Ms. Cannizzo has been directed not to perform these services but does so to augment the tips she receives. Prior to the inspection of Respondent's business premises Ms. Padrick identified herself and her occupation to Mr. Gaeta. Ms. Padrick inspected the public areas of Respondent's business and, by invitation, an office area used by Mr. Gaeta.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent in violation of Section 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3689 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted in finding of fact paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 is rejected. Whether Respondent has been licensed as a salon in the past is unclear. That Respondent operates as a cosmetology salon is a question of law addressed in the conclusions. Paragraph 3 is accepted. It should be noted, however, that all services described in the brochure may not be offered at the Respondent's business. Only those services found to be performed by Respondent are included in the findings of fact. Paragraph 4 is accepted. See paragraph 3 above. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Respondent does not dispute that it shampoos hairpieces for its customers. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 are accepted. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: None submitted COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 Frank E. Freeman 2930 North East Second Court Miami, Florida 33137 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 William O'Neil General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent's cosmetology license should be suspended, revoked or whether Respondent should be disciplined for conduct, as a licensee, which will be set forth hereinafter in detail.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the proposed memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: Noella C. Papagno (herein sometimes referred to as Respondent) is a licensed cosmetologist under the laws of the State of Florida and has been issued License Number CL 0107656, which license is current through June, 1984. Respondent has been practicing cosmetology for approximately twenty-five (25) years and, prior to being licensed in Florida, was licensed to practice in Rhode Island. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.) Richard Gloss has been employed in the Building and Zoning Department for the City of Dania, Florida, for the past two (2) years. On or about October 12, 1981, Gloss received a complaint that Respondent was operating a salon at one of the ticket booths located at the flea market, 1930 North Federal Highway in Dania Florida. Gloss made a routine inspection through the flea market and observed a sign in front of a ticket booth occupied by the Respondent where upon he approached Respondent and identified himself as an employee of the City of Dania in the Building and Zoning Department. After identifying himself, Gloss inquired of Respondent whether she was properly licensed to conduct a beauty salon. Prior thereto, Respondent had offered to cut his hair. Respondent admits to having offered to cut Gloss's hair and related that she had been cutting hair at that location for approximately two and one half (2 1/2) years and that she charged customers from $.50 to $4.00, depending on the length of their hair and the amount of time it took to cut it. She also explained that she had two (2) licenses -- her cosmetology license and a Broward County Council license -- in order to carry on this business. Respondent described in a very detailed manner her method of water hair cutting and she explained that she used no chemicals and did not attempt to perform any kind of chemical services. Additionally, Respondent testified that she suffers from various allergies and her physician has cautioned her to stay away from dust in beauty salons. (Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 4 and 7.) In mitigation, Respondent offered the fact that she was providing a service which would not be otherwise available and that the equipment that she used is sanitized and that theme was no testimony offered by Petitioner of any ill effects by her operation at the subject facility. Finally, Respondent feels that the Board should grant her a specialty license, although she has not applied for a license based on her feelings that it would not be granted. [Testimony of Respondent and Edmund Gabler, a Broward County resident and customer of Respondent for approximately two (2) years.]
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year, during which time she must comply with all provisions of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder, specifically including the proviso that she not practice cosmetology in an unlicensed location. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 11th day of August, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex (Salon), a cosmetology salon located at 1442 Northeast 163rd Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. The Salon was first licensed by the Department on December 19, 1990. Respondent has never been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Her application for licensure is currently pending. Charles E. Frear is an inspector with the Department. On May 16, 1990, Frear went to 1442 Northeast 163rd Street with the intention of inspecting a licensed cosmetology salon operating under the name "Hair to Hair." When he arrived at the address, Frear noticed that the sign outside the establishment reflected that Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex now occupied the premises. The Salon was open for business. Upon entering the Salon, Frear observed Respondent removing curlers from the hair of a customer who was seated in one of the chairs. 1/ Frear asked Respondent to show him her license to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent responded that she did not have such a license yet, but that she was scheduled to take the cosmetology licensure examination later that month. After learning from Respondent that she was the owner of the Salon, Frear asked to see the Salon's license. Respondent thereupon advised Frear that the Salon had not been licensed by the Department. Although she told Frear otherwise, Respondent was aware at the time that a Department-issued cosmetology salon license was required to operate the Salon. Frear gave Respondent an application form to fill out to obtain such a salon license. Respondent subsequently filled out the application form and submitted the completed form to the Department. Thereafter, she received License No. CE 0053509 from the Department to operate the Salon.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations of law alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 for having committed these violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of April, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent Nancy Moss' cosmetology instructor's license should be suspended or revoked, or whether other disciplinary action should be taken by Petitioner against Respondent for alleged violation of Section 477.025(1), Florida Statutes (1980 Supplement), and Section 477.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979).
Findings Of Fact On May 28, 1981 Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology filed an Administrative Complaint seeking to suspend or revoke or take other disciplinary action against Respondent Nancy Moss as licensee and against her license as a cosmetology instructor. The complaint charged Respondent Moss with three (3) counts of misconduct for holding herself out as a cosmetologist and a cosmetology instructor and for operating a cosmetology salon without being duly licensed. Respondent holds an inactive cosmetology instructor's license #1C 0083468. The inactive receipt was dated July 31, 1980 and expired June 30, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Respondent was the owner and operator of the American Hairstyling Academy, a barber school duly licensed by the State Board of Independent Post- Secondary Vocational, Technical, Trade and Business Schools during the time pertinent to this hearing. The school ceased operation on July 1, 1981. The Director of the State Board of Independent Post-Secondary Vocational, Technical, Trade and Business Schools, a witness for Petitioner, made an official visit to the American Hairstyling Academy on January 21, 1981. He saw a woman sitting in one (1) of the six (6) or seven (7) chairs in the facility with rollers in her hair and saw Respondent Moss performing a service on the woman's hair. After the Director had identified himself, Respondent gave him the American Hairstyling Academy school records to examine and then proceeded to complete her work on the woman's hair. The Director noticed a room with clothes hanging on racks and trinkets in a counter with a sign, "Boutique," near the door. The room had been previously designated as a classroom for the barber school. Before the Director left, one (1) other person entered the premises. (Transcript, pages 12 through 34.) The Supervisor I, Office of Investigative Services, Jacksonville, Region II, made an appointment for a shampoo and set with Respondent Moss on February 4, 1981 at the American Hairstyling Academy. She appeared at the designated time, and Moss performed the shampoo and set. The Supervisor saw a room in which clothes were hanging and saw an area beyond that room which was separated with a cloth curtain. Before the Supervisor left, one (1) other person entered the premises. The Supervisor paid for the hair service and left the school. (Transcript, pages 34 through 41.) An investigator for Petitioner saw two (2) women at the academy, one having her hair serviced and one (1) waiting for Moss. The investigator was told by Respondent that teaching was done at the school and that there were two students enrolled, but no student records were produced for her to examine. She saw no blackboards or what she recognized as a classroom. (Transcript, pages 41 through 51.) A witness for Respondent had his hair washed, conditioned and cut many times in Respondent's barber school by students. He has had the same service done by the Jacksonville Barber College. (Transcript, pages 62 through 67.) A former student stated that she attended the American Hairstyling Academy for two (2) months, and Respondent Moss supervised the work done by the students. She attended classes with five (5) other students in a classroom at the American Hairstyling Academy and checked out books from the library, but she did not complete the course. (Transcript, pages 67 through 71.) Respondent called another witness who had had students at the barber school work on her hair on approximately ten (10) different occasions, but Respondent Moss did not work on her hair. (Transcript, pages 71 through 74.) The Hearing Officer finds that the licensed barber school owned and operated by Respondent Moss prior to July 1, 1981 had a few students, six (6) or seven (7) chairs, a small area that was used by students and Respondent for instruction and a minimal library. The testimony and evidence presented by both parties show that Respondent Moss was a practicing barber in a licensed barber school. Her acts could also be classified as practicing cosmetology although she said she practiced barbering.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent Nancy Moss be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley B. Gelman, Esquire 207 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent practice cosmetology without being licensed and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: The Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology in Florida. On December 8, 1987, Leonard Baldwin, inspector for Petitioner, inspected a cosmetology salon known as "The Hairstylist" which is located at 8672 Griffin Road, Cooper City, Florida. During inspector Baldwin's routine inspection at that time, Respondent was working at the Hairstylist as a cosmetologist. Respondent had been so employed for approximately two weeks. Respondent was not licensed as a cosmetologist at the time of inspector Baldwin's inspection on December 8, 1987, nor was she licensed at the time of Petitioner's official records search on March 18, 1988. Respondent did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise refute the charges that she had engaged in the practice of cosmetology without a license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) payable to Petitioner within 30 days of issuance of its Final Order. Respondent be issued a letter of reprimand by Petitioner with guidance instructions. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Famiglia, Inc., of which David F. Petrano is president, doing business as Family Hair Care Center, held certificate of registration #BS 7401 to operate a barbershop. (Exhibit 1). On August 3, 1987, an inspector from DPR visited the Family Hair Care Center for a routine inspection and observed Verious Benjamin Smith working as a barber. Smith held no valid barber's license in Florida. (Exhibit 3). Respondent did not dispute the fact that Smith was operating as a barber without a current license, but contended that August 3, 1987 was the first day the shop had opened as Ebony Hair Style. A lot of promotional activities, including free services, was taking place, there was a lot of turmoil; reliance had been placed on Smith's assertion that he was licensed, and this was not verified before he was hired.
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 64B8-50.003(2) and 64B8-56.002(2)(a) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority in violation of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2014). Whether the following four statements are unadopted rules as defined by section 120.52(20): (i.) The Electrolysis Council is a de facto party to a petition for declaratory statement filed with the Board of Medicine concerning the practice of electrology and need not intervene in the proceeding before the Board when considering rules and statutes related to the practice of electrology; (ii.) The Electrolysis Council is a de facto party to a petition to adopt, amend, or repeal an agency rule filed with the Board of Medicine concerning the practice of electrology and need not intervene in the proceeding before the Board when the rules concern the practice of electrology; (iii.) No additional materials can be submitted to the Board of Medicine prior to the meeting of the full Board for consideration of a draft order on a petition for declaratory statement; and (iv.) The Board of Medicine will not consider any materials submitted for consideration within 48 hours of a full Board of Medicine meeting unless the Board Chair allows their distribution to the members.
Findings Of Fact SCMHR is an international non-profit organization with members that include persons licensed as electrologists in the State of Florida. There are currently 177 certified electrologists in the State of Florida who are also members of SCMHR. SCMHR supports all methods of hair removal and is dedicated to the research of new technology that will keep its members at the pinnacle of their profession, offering safe, effective hair removal to their clients. SCMHR advocates for its members. SCMHR also serves the public by providing information on the newest technology in hair removal. SCMHR offers the only national certification for electrologists to gauge and/or show their knowledge of electrology including the use of laser and light-based devices for hair removal and reduction. SCMHR offers four certifications to qualified practitioners. Pertinent to its Petition for electrologists licensed in Florida, there are two certifications: (1) the “Certified Clinical Electrologist” (“CCE”), for those electrologists using the needle modality in hair removal and reduction; and (2) the next certification, to which the CCE is a prerequisite, the “Certified Medical Electrologist” (“CME”), for those using laser and light-based devices for hair removal and reduction. SCMHR also offers two other certifications: “Certified Laser Hair Removal Professional” (“CLHRP”) and the “Certified Pulse Light Hair Removal Professional” (“CPLHRP”). Both of these certifications are designed for allied health practitioners; including physicians, nurses, electrologists and others authorized in the jurisdiction where they reside to practice either laser or light-based hair removal. These certifications are for practitioners who may not personally practice electrology using needle hair removal modalities or who may practice in jurisdictions where an electrology license is not required to use the lasers or light-based devices. An individual electrologist is not required to be a member of the Society in order to obtain certification or maintain certification. Membership in the Society is voluntary. As of December 4, 2014, there were 954 electrologists who hold certification through the Society but are not members of the Society. One hundred and forty-six of the Florida electrologists who are members of the Society hold CCE/CME certification. Members of the Society who are licensed in Florida who wish to use laser and light-based devices in their practices must comply with rule 64B8-56.002. As an organization that advocates for its members, the Society will from time to time seek guidance on the rules and regulations affecting the practice of electrology for its members. It will also seek to lobby on behalf of its members’ interests. Petitioner Walton is a Florida licensed chiropractic physician, a licensed practical nurse, a licensed massage therapist, and a licensed electrologist under the provisions of chapters 456, 460, 464, 478, and 480, Florida Statutes. Walton was issued License Number EO2363. She is a CME/CCE and holds a current certificate with the Society. She is also a member of the Society. As part of her electrology training, Walton asserts that she took the 30-hour course in laser and light-based hair removal set forth in rule 64B8-56.002(2)(a) and completed the course on or about October 25, 2011. She claims, however, to be uncertain as to whether she has to take the aforementioned 30-hour course again despite the fact that no one from the Council or the Board has ever told her, verbally or in writing, that she has to take the course again, nor has she attempted to ask anyone from the Council or the Board if she has to take the course again. Council staff routinely advises callers that the 30-hour course in laser and light-based hair removal only has to be taken once. As of the date of the hearing, Walton had neither performed permanent hair removal on any person with an epilator or laser, did not possess a hair reduction laser, nor did she have any electrology clients. She also did not have immediate plans to perform such services. Respondent is the Board of Medicine (“Board”). The Electrolysis Council (“Council”) is statutorily created by chapter 478 under the Board. Council members are appointed by the Board. On March 5, 2014, the Society filed a Petition for Declaratory Statement with the Board on behalf of its membership and pursuant to section 120.565. It was scheduled to be heard by the Board at their meeting scheduled for April 4, 2014. On March 6, 2014, the Society filed an Amended Petition for Declaratory Statement with the Board. At the Board’s meeting of April 4, 2014, the Board took up both the March 5, 2014, Petition for Declaratory Statement and the March 6, 2014, Amended Petition for Declaratory Statement. The Board determined that pursuant to its rule 64B8-50.003(2), the Petition for Declaratory Statement could not be heard at its meeting. Instead, the Board decided that pursuant to Board rule, the petition should have been first presented to the Council for its recommendation on the petition. Consequently, the Society withdrew its request. On April 29, 2014, the Society filed its Petition for Declaratory Statement with the Board along with a Petition for Variance or Waiver of rule 64B8-50.003(2) that were both copied to the Council. On June 6, 2014, at the Board meeting, the Board considered SCMHR’s Petition for Variance or Waiver and denied SCMHR’s request. At the same meeting, the Board then declined to hear the April 29, 2014, Petition for Declaratory Statement relying on its rule 64B8-50.003(2), and referred the Petition for Declaratory Statement to the Council for consideration and recommendations. The Council considered the April 29, 2014, Petition for Declaratory Statement at its meeting of July 7, 2014. Assistant Attorney General Marlene Stern (“Stern”), who appeared on behalf of the Council, attended the April 3-4, 2014; June 6, 2014; August 1, 2014; and October 10, 2014, meetings of the Board and the April 14, 2014, and July 7, 2014, meetings of the Council where the Petition for Declaratory Statement was either considered or discussed by the Board or Council. At the August 1, 2014, Board meeting, the Council’s attorney, Stern, at the direction of the Council provided the Council’s recommendation to the Board verbally in person. The Board ruled on the Society’s April 29, 2014, Petition for Declaratory Statement and directed Board counsel to draft a final order reflecting the Board’s decision, which was to be presented for approval at the Board’s October 2014 meeting. On August 4, 2014, SCMHR filed a request for it to be permitted to withdraw the request for declaratory statement, which Board staff failed in error to include in the original meeting materials for October 10, 2014. On September 24, 2014, SCMHR submitted via electronic correspondence additional materials for consideration by the Board at its October 10, 2014, meeting. The same day, Board staff placed the additional information SCMHR submitted into the addendum materials for consideration by the Board at their meeting of October 10, 2014. The materials included the transcript of the April 3, 2014, Rules and Legislative Committee discussion regarding electrolysis rules and the issue of certification by SCMHR. Crystal Sanford (“Sanford”), the Board’s Program Operations Administrator, who works in the Board’s office is responsible for preparing and coordinating the agenda materials. Sanford follows the time frame for website electronic agenda deadlines of seven days before the board meeting as set forth in section 120.525(2). If materials are received after the deadline, the protocol is to submit the request to the Board counsel for a recommendation and then to the Board Chair for a determination as to whether the materials should be placed on the agenda and disseminated to the Board members. On October 3, 2014, SCMHR submitted via electronic correspondence more materials for consideration by the Board consisting of a letter from an insurance carrier and a journal article on laser claims. On October 6, 2014, SCMHR sent the Board Staff office another request to withdraw the Petition for Declaratory Statement by electronic correspondence after being informed that the original request provided on August 4, 2014, was not included in the materials. For the October 10, 2014, Board meeting, on the recommendation of Board Counsel and the Chair’s decision, SCMHR’s materials submitted on October 3, 2014, were not disseminated to the members of the Board for consideration because the Board had already ruled on the Society’s Petition for Declaratory Statement on August 1, 2014, and the record was closed on that matter. The draft order was being presented to the Board for approval as previously instructed. At the October 10, 2014, Board meeting, the Board considered SCMHR’s request to withdraw the Petition for Declaratory Statement and denied the request. The Board also denied the request by SCMHR to table consideration of the draft order, and then approved the draft order on the Petition for Declaratory Statement. At or prior to the Board’s October 10, 2014, meeting, the Society did not submit either a written or an ore tenus motion seeking rehearing or reconsideration of the Board’s August 1, 2014, ruling on the Petition for Declaratory Statement. At the October 10, 2014, Board meeting, the Board also had a lengthy discussion about materials regarding PRN and certification being difficult to review and prepare because of last-minute submissions. The Board voted to preclude the submission of additional Board materials submitted within 48 hours prior to the Board meeting. However, if submissions come in within 48 hours, Sanford still checks with the Chair to determine whether to distribute the late-submitted materials. The Order on the Petition for Declaratory Statement was filed on October 20, 2014, and SCMHR took a timely appeal of that Order.
