The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on his examination for certification as an electrical contractor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the electrical and alarm system contractor examination in January, 1989. Petitioner failed the examination. Petitioner timely challenged one question of relevance. The question that Petitioner challenges is question 34. If he were to receive a passing grade on this question or if the question were discarded, Petitioner would pass the examination. The challenged question is: All cut ends of rigid nonmetallic conduits shall be inside and outside to remove rough edges. trimmed reamed shaped sanded Petitioner answered "(B)." The answer for which Respondent gave credit is "(A)." The National Electrical Code describes the finishing processes for rigid nonmetallic conduit and rigid metal conduit as follows: Section 347-5. Trimming. All cut ends shall be trimmed inside and outside to remove rough edges. Section 346-7(a). Reamed. All cut ends of conduits shall be reamed or otherwise finished to remove rough edges. The National Electrical Code also uses the phrase "reamed or otherwise finished" with respect to intermediate metal conduit and electrical metallic tubing. Sections 345-8 and 348- 11. The first article of the National Electrical Code is devoted to definitions. Under Article 100, the scope of the definitions article is explained as follows: Scope. Only definitions of terms peculiar to and essential to the proper use of this Code are included. In general, only those terms used in two or more articles are defined in Article 100. . . . Part A of this article contains definitions intended to apply wherever the terms are used throughout this Coded. . . Article 100 contains no definition of "trim" or "ream," although the term "ream" is used in two or more articles: namely, Articles 345, 346, and 348. The term "ream" is the word commonly used in the relevant industry to describe the process by which a person eliminates the rough edges on the cut end of a rigid; nonmetallic conduit. The term "ream" is so used by, among others, practicing professional electrical and alarm system contractors. The term "ream" is also so used by manufacturers of "conduit reamers," which are packaged and labelled under that name. These "conduit reamers" are obviously designed for use with PVC and other rigid nonmetallic conduit. By contrast, the term "trim" is rarely used to describe this deburring process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a Final Order assigning Petitioner a passing grade on the January, 1989, electrical and alarm systems contractor' s examination. ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26 day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert S. Hayes 437 W. Vine Street Kissimmee, FL 34741 Jack L. McRay, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Pat Ard, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
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 hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: By its Administrative Complaint filed herein dated July 6, 1982, the Petitioner, Electrical Contractors Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent, J. Hugh Smith, a registered electrical contractor, who holds license number ER 0004272. The Respondent is the President of Electric Hugh Company, Inc. Electric Hugh Company is the entity through which the Respondent engaged in the business of electrical contracting in the City of Jacksonville. On March 3, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville met and considered charges filed against the Respondent for failure to use certified craftsmen. A Mr. Etheridge, an employee of Respondent, was permitted to engage in electrical contracting work unsupervised by a certified craftsman without being licensed as a certified craftsman. By so doing, Respondent violated Section 950.110(a), Ordinance Code of the City of Jacksonville, Florida. 1/ For that code violation, Respondent's certificate was suspended for a period of six (6) months. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and testimony of John R. Bond, Executive Director -- Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville) On June 2, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board convened another meeting to consider other charges filed against Respondent based on an alleged failure (by Respondent) to pull electrical permits on four instances wherein a permit was required. At that time, Respondent's certification was revoked effective June 2, 1982, and that revocation remains in effect. The action by the Construction Trades Qualifying Board, City of Jacksonville, has been reviewed by Petitioner. By way of mitigation, Respondent opined that he considered the two years in which his license has been revoked by the City of Jacksonville as sufficient penalty for the violation. Respondent did not substantively contest the charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's registered electrical contractor's license number ER 0004272 be suspended for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provision of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended, as more specifically alleged in Counts One through Four of the Administrative Complaint dated August 10, 1992 and the First Amendment of the Administrative Complaint, dated November 9, 1992.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should receive a passing grade on the Alarm Systems I Contractor Examination administered January 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating electrical contractors, including alarm systems contractors, in the State of Florida. Sections 489.511, .515, and .533, Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Perez sat for the Alarm Systems I Contractor Examination on January 30, 1998. He disputes the Department's determination that the answers he gave to questions 21, 58, and 59 are incorrect. These three questions are objective, multiple- choice questions, and the examination candidate is to choose the correct answer from among four possible answers. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 21 is "A"; Mr. Perez chose answer "C." Question 21 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer is found in the Specifications for Plans which, together with a set of blueprints, was provided to the examination candidates with the examination booklet. On the back of the Specifications for Plans, the examination candidates were told that the document was to be used with the examination for licensure. Several of the questions on the examination were based on information contained in the specifications and blueprints. Although the examination candidates had not seen the specifications and blueprints prior to the examination, the requirement that the candidates use these documents in answering questions on the examination is not unfair. The Department could have had the legitimate purpose of testing the candidates' ability to read blueprints and specifications. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 21 because, according to the information contained in the specifications, the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 58 is "C"; Mr. Perez chose answer "A." Question 58 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from information found in the reference material Mr. Perez was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Although the correct answer could not be found in the reference material word-for-word, it was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to use the information provided to calculate the correct answer to the question. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 58 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 59 is "D"; Mr. Perez chose answer "A." Question 59 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from both text and a schematic found in the reference material Mr. Perez was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Although the correct answer could not be found in the reference material word-for-word, it was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to derive the correct answer from the information available in the materials. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 59 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Juan Carlos Perez's petition challenging the subject examination questions. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Illa Jones, Executive Director Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 R. Beth Atchinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Rgulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32300-1007 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Juan Carlos Perez 7451 Southwest 161st Place Miami, Florida 33193
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Floyd E. Williams be DISMISSED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of June, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.42 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent does business under the name South Florida Construction Group. At no time relevant to this proceeding has Respondent or his business entity been registered or certified to perform electrical contracting or any other contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent holds only an occupational license from the City of North Miami. The residence owned by the homeowners (the subject property) sustained roof damage as a result of Hurricane Wilma in October 2005. The homeowners planned to replace their damaged roof after their insurance claim had been processed. In the interim, temporary repairs were made to the roof by a roofing contractor the homeowners located through a local Home Depot, Inc., store. This roofing contractor was identified only as the Home Depot roofing contractor. The homeowners were dissatisfied with the work of the Home Depot roofing contractor. In early August 2006, Mrs. Ugokwe mentioned at a beauty salon that the Home Depot roofing contractor had failed to prevent her roof from leaking. Shortly thereafter, Respondent learned of the homeowners’ dissatisfaction with the Home Depot roofing contractor. On August 9, 2006, Respondent visited the subject property and told the homeowners that he was a general contractor. Respondent gave them his business card that contained Respondent’s name, address, telephone number, and fax number. In addition, the business card contained the name “South Florida Construction Group” underneath which were the words “State Certified General Contractors” and the following license number “CGC 1510133.” The business card advertised the following services: “Home Improvement & Repairs, New Building Construction, Residential & Commercial Pools, Asphalt Paving & Sealcoating [sic], Site Development & Drainage, and Notary Public Service.” The homeowners believed Respondent to be a licensed general contractor. Respondent and the homeowners discussed Respondent performing work on the damaged roof, including placing blue tarp on the roof (the tarp work) to prevent further leaks until the re-roofing could be completed. They also discussed the subsequent re-roofing of the property. Respondent estimated that the re-roofing would be between $30,000.00 and $33,000.00. After inspecting the subject property, Respondent told the homeowners, among other things, that an electrical connection to a pump on their drain field needed to be repaired. Respondent testified that the electrical connection had been damaged when he backed his truck up while attempting to remove some debris from the subject property. At the meeting on August 9, 2006, Respondent and the homeowners agreed that Respondent would perform the tarp work. On August 11, 2006, the homeowners paid Respondent a down- payment of $50.00 cash for the tarp work. On August 12, 2006, Respondent’s crew completed the tarp work. On August 13, 2006, the homeowners paid Respondent the sum of $659.28 for the balance of the materials and labor for the tarp work. The total amount paid for the tarp work was $709.28. On August 13, 2006, after he received payment for the tarp work, Respondent produced a building permit application, which he had Mrs. Ogokwe sign in blank. Respondent explained that he had not finished his proposal for the complete re- roofing and that he wanted her to execute a blank permit to expedite the permitting process. On August 14, 2006, Respondent presented a signed permit application to the building department of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pertaining to the re-roofing of the subject property. Ms. Ugowke’s signature had been notarized. When Respondent presented the permit application to the building department, the contractor’s name was listed as F L Construction, Inc. The qualifying contractor’s name was listed as being Charles Lennox with the contracting licensing number CGC 1510133. That was the same number listed on Respondent’s business card. The value of the work was listed as being $6,200.00. On the morning of August 15, 2006, Respondent returned to the subject property with a person Respondent told the homeowners was an electrician. Mrs. Ugokwe asked Respondent how much the repair of the electrical connection would cost before the purported electrician started to work. Respondent told her not to worry since he would add the cost of the electrical work to the cost of re-roofing the subject property. The electrical repair had been made by the time Mrs. Ugokwe returned to the subject property after work that evening. On August 16, 2006, Respondent informed the homeowners that he had secured a building permit and that he had his proposal for the re-roofing. On August 17, 2006, Respondent delivered a package to the homeowners that contained his proposal and the building permit. Respondent’s proposal for the re-roofing was in the total amount of $39,672.92. The homeowners considered this proposal to be unacceptable. On the building permit Respondent gave to the homeowners, the name of the contractor (F L Construction, Inc.) had been covered with white-out and the name South Florida Construction Group had been inserted as the name of the contractor. The building permit was not otherwise altered. On August 19, 2006, Respondent presented the homeowners with a revised contract for the total price of $33,000.00. Mrs. Ugowke confronted Respondent about the discrepancy between the revised proposal ($33,000.00) and the value of the work reflected on the building permit ($6,200.00). Mrs. Ugowke also confronted Respondent about the white-out on the building permit. The homeowners refused to sign the second proposal. Respondent became angry and demanded immediate payment of $750.00 for the repair of the drain field electrical connection. Mrs. Ugokwe counter-offered to pay $150.00, a sum she believed to be fair after her husband priced the cost of the materials used in the repair. Respondent refused to take the counter-offer. By invoices dated August 22 and September 4, 2006, Respondent billed the homeowners for work that included the electrical work. Each invoice was on South Florida Construction Group’s form invoice. Each invoice reflected the general contractor’s license number CGC 1510133, which is Mr. Lennox’s number. Both invoices included a charge of $1,209.28 for installation of “new blue top, nails and labor” although the homeowners had already paid Respondent $709.28 for the same job. The homeowners refused to pay the invoices. Respondent sued them and placed a lien on the subject property in the amount of $3,839.82. In his claim of lien, Respondent affirmed under oath that he furnished the following services to the homeowners: re-roofing, electrical, and repairs. Respondent’s civil suit was dismissed on the merits. Even after that action, Respondent refused the homeowners’ request to remove the lien from their property. On September 15, 2006, Mr. Lennox sent all his sub- contractors a letter asking them to immediately stop using his contractor license number without his express permission. Respondent signed the bottom of the letter acknowledging receipt thereof, even though Respondent was not a sub-contractor. Respondent’s business primarily consists of finding customers for contractors. He deals with a customer, but has a contractor, such as Mr. Lennox, perform the work Respondent’s company has contracted to do. Had the contract with the homeowners in this proceeding gone through, Respondent intended to obtain payment from them, by having F L Construction, Inc., do the actual work. Petitioner has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $277.52. This figure excludes any costs associated with attorney’s time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that finds Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 and assess investigative costs against Respondent in the amount of $277.52. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of April, 2008.
