The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent for alleged willful or deliberate disregard and violation of applicable building codes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Henry C. Robertson, is a certified electrical contractor, holding license number C-2720. In June, 1993, the Respondent was the exclusive electrical contractor for a residential subdivision project in Pinellas County that had been underway since 1991. Altogether, it consisted of several hundred residential units. The Respondent pulled the electrical permits for all of the units in the project. There was a single entrance to the subdivision via security gate. At its end, the entrance road (Arabian Lane) formed a "T" with the other road in the subdivision. By June, 1993, most of the subdivision already was built out. On June 15, 1993, the Respondent called the Board staff for final inspection on one half of a duplex located at 1757 Arabian Lane. When the inspector arrived, electrical work was being done on the other half of the duplex. Neither of the two workers on the job was a master or a journeyman electrician. One declined to answer the inspector's questions and just walked off the jobsite; the other stayed but could not give any information as to the whereabouts of the journeyman. No other workers were in the vicinity, i.e., in either side of the duplex, at adjacent properties, or within sight. Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code, 1993 Edition, limits the issuance of electrical permits to licensed electrical contractors and provides: "Where any electrical work is being done a master or journeyman electrician shall at all times be present on the job." According to the Respondent's testimony, there was a journeyman electrician somewhere in the subdivision who could have been contacted by the two workers at 1757 Arabian Lane if they needed help or advice. The Respondent himself also visits all jobsites at least once a day. This testimony was not refuted or contradicted. The Board's Chief Electrical Inspector, Joseph Bolesina, testified that, in interpreting Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code, his office considers each electrical permit issued to define "the job" to which it applies. In the case of 1757 Arabian Lane, each side of the duplex had its own electrical permit. However, he conceded that, if work was in progress on both sides of the duplex, only one master or journeyman would be required for the two permits involved. Neither the Board nor his office has specified any other circumstances under which a single master or journeyman electrician could "at all times be present" at work being done on more than one permit. He testified that, in his view, it would depend on whether the master or journeyman electrician would be readily accessible and available to check work and to help and give advice as necessary. He testified that, in his view, the presence of a master or journeyman electrician "somewhere in the subdivision," rotating between individual jobsites, would not qualify, even if they could be contacted immediately by radio or cellular phone. In this case, neither of the workers was able to contact the journeyman electrician who was supposed to have been available and accessible to them. The Respondent testified that he believed his work methods on June 15, 1993, met the letter and the spirit of the building codes, especially in light of the difficulty he and other electrical contractors have finding and hiring journeymen. He testified that he thought the "job" consisted of all the work going on at the subdivision project, not each individual unit. In August, 1992, the Respondent stipulated to a $150 fine to resolve Board Complaint No. C92-330, alleging a violation of Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code by a company he qualified (although he was not involved personally in the violation). In that case, the journeyman left the jobsite to get supplies that were short. In May, 1993, the Respondent stipulated to another $150 fine to resolve Board Complaint No. C93-8, alleging another violation by the same company. (Again, the Respondent qualified the company but was not involved personally in the violation). In that case, the journeyman electrician was not due to arrive at work for an hour when the workers were found unloading and stretching out cord in preparation for beginning work without him. In April, 1994, the Board filed Complaint No. C94-96 for another alleged violation, this time by a company the Respondent was operating personally. The Respondent admitted the charges. In that case, the journeyman left the jobsite to get PVC cement. The prior incidents did not raise the identical issue present in this case. However, the Respondent testified that he has had several occasions to discuss with Board staff the subject of compliance with Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code. While those discussions may not have specified all circumstances under which a single master or journeyman electrician could "at all times be present" at work being done on more than one permit, they should have made it clear to the Respondent that the journeyman electrician at least had to be available and accessible to the workers. In this case, the two workers on the jobsite were unable to tell the inspector where the journeyman was. The Board has published "Guidelines for Disciplinary Action" which provide for a $300 fine as the "typical" penalty for the first "minor" infraction and, for repeat "minor" infractions: an "additional $500 up to three; then mandatory appearance before the Board." The Guidelines also list aggravating and mitigating circumstances which focus on the harm done by the offense, the licensee's efforts to rectify the situation, and whether there is a history of similar offenses by the licensee. They also authorize suspension or revocation and fines "not to exceed $1,000 per count."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of willfully or deliberately violating Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code, as charged; and (2) fining him $500. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 13th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (The Respondent does not contend that he is "exempt" but rather that the entire subdivision should be considered a single "job.") Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that he cannot find any journeyman electricians for residential work. (Proven only that the Respondent has had difficulty finding and hiring them.) Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board Suite 102 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Henry C. Robertson Robertson Electrical Services, Inc. 15316 Indian Head Drive Tampa, Florida 33618
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as an electrical contractor in Pinellas County should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board) was the county agency responsible for the certification of members of the construction trade and the regulation of that trade in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Gabriel Varro, was certified as an electrical contractor by the Board and held such certification at all times pertinent hereto. On June 18, 1998, Nicholas Sasso, a building inspector with Pinellas County, visited a construction site at 24698 U.S. Highway 19 in Clearwater, Florida, where Respondent was engaged in electrical work. Mr. Sasso was supposed to conduct an inspection of electrical work done by the Respondent at that site but when he arrived at the construction site, at 11:45 a.m., was unable to gain entry to the site. At that time, Mr. Sasso called Respondent by telephone and left a message for Respondent to call back to reschedule the inspection. Respondent did not call in for re-inspection until October 23, 1998, over four months later. In response, however, Mr. Sasso again went to the site for an inspection on that day, where he found at least five violations of the building code for which he issued red tags (requirements for correction). At that point, Respondent had 15 working days to take corrective action, pay the red tags, and call for re-inspection. Mr. Sasso also called Respondent and left a message on the answering machine, but Respondent did not call back. On December 8, 1998, the Building Department's computer produced a notice of Respondent's failure to take sufficient corrective action or pay the red tags. Mr. Sasso returned to the site on November 16, 1998, for a follow-up and found that the Respondent had failed to take the required corrective action. Mr. Sasso returned to the site on December 8, 1998, and found the violations had still not been corrected. On December 30, 1998, the computer again indicated Respondent's failure to correct or pay the red tags, so Mr. Sasso went to the site, saw the deficiencies had not been corrected, and issued to Respondent, a Notice of Violation for failure to take corrective action and to pay red tags, and for electrical violations of the National Electrical Code and/or the standard building code which he had observed on several prior official visits to the construction site. Respondent was advised on the Notice of Violation that failure to correct the deficiencies within 15 working days of the citation would result in a court citation. Respondent called Mr. Sasso that same day, upon receipt of the Notice of Violation, and indicated he would comply with the requirements of the code, but he had not done so when Mr. Sasso returned to the site on February 4, 1999, to conduct a follow-up inspection, appropriate action has not been taken. Respondent claims he paid the red tags even though he did not cause the defects; and requested the Building Department to take his name off the permit. Respondent explained the mix-up by claiming the owner of the property had taken out the permit himself and put his, Respondent's, name on it as contractor because Respondent had agreed to do part of the project to correct some work done improperly by a tenant of the park which had resulted in a violation being issued to the park owner. The majority of the deficiencies discovered, Respondent claims, were located inside a structure on the property to which he never got access. Respondent also contends he limited his work to correction of an improper connection from the meter to the riser. He claims he advised the property owner that the only way he, Respondent, would call for an inspection would be if he were provided access to the structure so he could let in the inspector. It appears that because of a subsequent determination that the entire project violated the zoning laws, the job was cancelled by the owner. On February 17, 1998, Mr. Sasso also observed electrical work being carried on at an RV park in Pinellas County. Because Mr. Sasso could not recall any permit having been pulled for electrical work at that site, he stopped to see what was going on and identified himself to the workman on the job. The worker identified himself as Respondent and gave Mr. Sasso his card. Respondent advised Mr. Sasso of what he was doing, and when Mr. Sasso advised Respondent that he could not legally do the work without first obtaining a permit, Respondent indicated he was going to get it. Mr. Sasso noted that a trench had been dug near a power line, creating a potentially dangerous situation, and that five 50-watt electrical outlets had been installed on pedestals outside the front of the clubhouse. This was confirmed by the proposal submitted to the client by Respondent on September 2, 1998, and accepted by the client on December 4, 1998. The proposal called for the electrical permit to be included in the total contract price of $7,000. Respondent admits to giving the owner of the property a proposal for electrical work to be done, but claims, as the proposal form indicates, the owner was to dig the trench. The owner had the trench dug, as called for, and also placed the pedestals. The digging and the placing of the pedestals were an integral part of the project which Respondent had agreed to perform, and those actions required a permit to be issued prior to starting the work. The required permit was not obtained by Respondent or anyone else, and the work in progress has not been completed. Petitioner has suggested that Respondent be fined $750.00 for the violation alleged in Count One; $300.00 for the violation alleged in Count Two; and $750.00 for the violation alleged in Count Three. Counts One and Three are classified by statute as "major" violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, enter a final order assessing an administrative fine of $1,050.00 for the violations alleged in Counts One and Two. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Gabriel Varro 1910 Union Street Clearwater, Florida 33763-2249
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s certification as an electrical contractor should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board was the county agency responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, William L. Crump, Jr., was certified as an electrical contractor under license C-1217 (ER003415), and was on record as qualifying contractor for Crump Electrical Service, which he owned. On September 25, 1997, a representative of Crump Electrical Services submitted a Proposal to Mrs. Christina Windsor, wife of the complaining witness herein, for the upgrading of the electrical panel in the Windsor’s home to 200 amperes. The price quoted for this service was $875.00. Small print on the proposal form indicates that permit fees, if required, are in addition to the cost cited. That same day, September 25, 1997, Mrs. Windsor authorized the work to be done. The work was done as called for. Respondent claims the proposal was made and the work done in response to an emergency call from the Windsors. September 25, 1997, was a Thursday. The city permitting office was open and a permit could have been obtained. No permit for the work was pulled at the time by either the Windsors or Respondent. Mr. Crump was of the opinion that because the Windsors had no power, the work should be done immediately without the delay of getting a permit. Though, he claims, he did not know of it at the time, he has subsequently learned that at the time in issue, the city had a policy whereby, in an emergency situation, a contractor could call in and get oral permission to do work requiring a permit, subsequently paying for and receiving the written permit. This was not done by either the Windsors or the Respondent. Mr. Crump did not pull the required permit after the work was done, or cause it to be pulled by an employee, because of the provision in the proposal form that the property owner was responsible for the cost of the permit. He claims to have advised the Windsors of the need for the permit and believed they had pulled it. The Windsors did not provide him with the extra funds for the permit and did not advise him they had not, or would not, obtain the permit. Though required, at no time was the permit pulled. Mr. Crump’s son and business associate, Todd Crump, contends that the real dispute in this issue relates not to whether the required permit was obtained, but to the Crumps’ failure to provide a statement as to the actual cause of the fire which necessitated the placement of the new electrical panel in the Windsor’s house. Todd contends that after talking with Mr. Dennison, the company’s representative who obtained the purchase order, shortly after the work was done, he got the impression the Windsors were going to obtain the permit. He did not find out that the permit had not been pulled until a month or so after he turned the request for the above-mentioned cause statement over to his father. Todd admits he should have followed up to see if the permit was pulled, but did not. Subsequent to the hearing, Mr. Crump filed a statement denying any intentional wrongdoing, and indicating his intent to give up his “personal business.” It is not known just what the term “personal business“ means. He claims that over the years he has donated significant amounts of professional service to the homeless and other needy persons in his area, but has ceased doing so because of the actions of the Board in attempting to discipline him. He contends the charges against him are unjustified and unwarranted and he implies there is a vendetta against him by the Executive Director of the Board. No independent evidence of this was presented. In a submittal subsequent to hearing, the Board Director recommended imposition of the maximum administrative fine of $1,000, a reprimand, and a one-year probation period with the requirement to file monthly reports on all work contracted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order imposing on Respondent William L. Crump, Jr., an administrative fine of $500.00 and a reprimand, and placing Respondent’s license on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as the Board may proscribe. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 William L. Crump, Jr. 2112-J Sunnydale Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 34625
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the City of Tampa (Respondent) unlawfully discriminated against Royce A. Pauley (Petitioner), based upon race, by failing to promote him to the position of "electrical inspector I" in November, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a white male, began employment with Respondent as a "maintenance repairer II" on March 3, 1987. Respondent is an employer within the terms of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, found at Sections 760.01 through 760.10, Florida Statutes. In filling positions within its various departments, Respondent follows a uniform system which is initiated by completion of Form 263, entitled "Request for Position Change", by the department that has a position vacancy. The department identifies the positon it has available, as well as its requirements, and then forwards Form 263 to the Budget Office for authorization. Finally, it is forwarded to the Personnel Division for its approval, and for the preparation of a list of eligible employees from persons who have an application on file. The Personnel Division sends Form 263 back to the requesting department for that department to conduct interviews and to make the hiring decision. Part III of Form 263 contains a place for the EEO Office to note "underutilization" derived from a statistical comparision, based upon race and sex, of individuals in positions with the Respondent's "expectations" for a particular job classification. The underutilization notation "1 B/M" means that the EEO Office has determined that there is an underutilization of one black male for the vacancy being advertised. On or about September 11, 1989, the Respondent advertised a "current opening" for the position of "electrical inspector I" (Position 2601), in response to which the Petitioner timely filed an employment application. Other applicants for this position included Alfred Trujillo, a hispanic male, John Michael, a white male, and Wayne Shabazz, a black male. The Form 263 for this position was approved by the Personnel Division and returned with a list of eligibles, including Petitioner, Trujillo, Michael and Shabazz, and with the notation, "EEO Underutilization, 1 B/M". Trujillo was selected for this position and was offered employment with Respondent. He initially accepted, and passed his physical examination. However, before beginning his employment, Trujillo decided to decline this position. Thereafter, Michael was offered the position, but he also declined due to a schedule conflict with a course he was teaching in St. Petersburg at the time. After further considering the remaining applicants, Shabazz was selected for, and accepted, this position. On or about April 5, 1988, Petitioner filed a complaint of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations against Respondent alleging that he had not been selected for promotion to the position of "electrical inspector I" due to his race. Petitioner is white, and he contends that Shabazz, who is black, was selected for this position because of his race due to the Respondent's designation of this position as "EEO Underutilization, 1 B/M". Petitioner's position is that this underutilization notation indicates that the Respondent had predetermined that it would only hire a black male for this position. After investigation, the Executive Director of the Commission made a determination of "no cause" concerning Petitioner's complaint, on or about December 28, 1988. However, a supplemental investigation was conducted by an investigative specialist with the Commission who determined, on or about May 11, 1989, that Respondent's stated position with regard to Shabazz's selection was pretextual and racially motivated. Petitioner has filed a Petition for Relief alleging discrimination by the Respondent in employment practices based on race, and this matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Commission for formal hearing. While Trujillo, Michael and Shabazz were interviewed by Nick D'Andrea, Manager of Inspectional Services, and Chris E. "Gene" Scaglione, Chief Electrical Inspector, for this position of "electrical inspector I", Petitioner was not. This was due solely to the fact that Petitioner had been interviewed by D'Andrea and Scaglione within the prior six months when Petitioner applied for the position of Chief Electrical Inspector, for which he was not selected. During this previous interview, Petitioner had been asked specific questions about his knowledge of the electrical code book (Book 70, National Fire Protection Association Manual). Petitioner did not demonstrate to D'Andrea or Scaglione a sufficient knowledge of the electrical code, and lacked the ability to fully and correctly answer questions about the code which were posed to him by Scaglione, who has approximately 37 years of electrical experience. Scaglione determined from a review of previous employment which Petitioner showed on his application for this position, as well as his answers to questions in his interview for the Chief Electrical Inspector position, that Petitioner did not have a minimum of ten years experience in electrical contracting required for all electrical inspector positions by Section 553.22(3), Florida Statutes. No affirmative contacts were made by Respondent's representatives to Petitioner's previous employers to verify his prior electrical experience prior to their decision to offer the "electrical inspector I" position to Trujillo, Michael and Shabazz, rather than Petitioner. However, no efforts were made to verify any of these other applicants' prior experience either. Scaglione and D'Andrea took the prior experience listed by all applicants on their applications at face value, and made no attempts to contact previous employers. Petitioner was treated no differently than other applicants in this regard. Specifically, Petitioner was not credited for his prior experience with the Navy Seabees, Compton Electric of Huntington, West Virginia, Harris-McBurney Telephone Contractors, and as qualifier for All-Pro Electric of St. Petersburg. Scaglione's decision to exclude this prior experience was based upon Petitioner's answers to questioning about this experience in his interview for the Chief Electrical Inspector position, and also upon Scaglione's knowledge of the telephone industry, which is considered to be separate and distinct from electrical contracting. His decision to exclude Petitioner's experience with All-Pro was based on the fact that Petitioner admitted All-Pro did not do much work, and also because he was working full time with the Respondent at the same time he listed All-Pro as an employer. Without credit for these prior jobs, Petitioner had only approximately 80-90 months prior electrical experience, rather than the required 10 years, or 120 months. Shabazz's answers to questions posed to him about the electrical code during his interview exhibited a working knowledge of the code, and an ability to communicate his knowledge. Previous employment shown by Shabazz on his application totaled more than ten years of electrical contracting experience, and based upon his answers to questions in his interview, as well as his previous experience, Shabazz was chosen over Petitioner after Trujillo and Michael declined the position. At the time Shabazz was selected for this position, neither Scaglione nor D'Andrea understood what the terms "underutilization" or "1 B/M" on Form 263 meant. In addition, the evidence is uncontroverted that such notations are advisory only, and there was no effort by anyone in the Personnel Division, or elsewhere in the employ of the Respondent, to counsel or instruct Scaglione or D'Andrea to hire a black male for this position of "electrical inspector I". In fact, they initially offered the position to Trujillo, a hispanic male, and when he declined, they offered the position to a white male, Michael. It was only after these two individuals declined this position that they offered it to Shabazz, a black male. Their decision was based solely upon Shabazz's superior knowledge of the electrical code, as demonstrated in his interview, when compared with the knowledge Petitioner demonstrated in his previous interview within the past six months, and Shabazz's ten years of electrical experience as shown on the face of his application as compared with Petitioner's failure, on the face of his application, to meet the ten year experience requirement. Neither Shabazz nor Petitioner were certified as electrical contractors in Hillsborough County, where the City of Tampa is located, but possession of such certification was not a prerequisite for this position, as long as the person hired obtained certification within a prescribed period of time after being hired. Thus, race was not the reason Shabazz was selected for this position over Petitioner. The Petitioner stipulated at hearing that he is no longer pursuing his charge of retaliation, and no evidence in support of said claim was offered. In April, 1988, Petitioner applied for the position of "electrical inspector II" with the Respondent. As part of the selection process for this position, D'Andrea did telephone some of Petitioner's listed references, as he also did with the successful applicant, Fred Martin, a black male. This was a change in the procedure used to evaluate an applicant's prior experience from the process used when Petitioner applied for the position at issue in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Gardner W. Beckett, Jr., Esquire 123 Eighth Stret North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire James M. Craig, Esquire P. O. Box 639 Tampa, FL 33601 Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 89-4387) Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 4-5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 7, 9, and 11, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial. 6. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 7-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 4, 6 and 11, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial. 9-10. Rejected as simply a restatement or summary of evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony and evidence. Rejected as irrelevant based upon Finding of Fact 12, and otherwise as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8, 10 and 11, and also as speculative and as simply a statement from the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 8, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as a partial excerpt from the record and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 11, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony and evidence in the record. Rejected as simply an excerpt of testimony and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant to the issue in this case regarding alleged discrimination in hiring to fill position number 2601, and as incompetent to prove any alleged pattern of discriminatory hiring practices. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 11. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3-4. Rejected as unnecessary. 5-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 8-10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 7. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 12-16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 9. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 9. 19-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 21-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 8. 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 27-33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 11. 34-35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13.
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.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent has been licensed as a professional engineer in the State of Florida since 1964 (license number PE 0010812), having become licensed by examination in the field of mechanical engineering. He has practiced professional engineering since 1964 in and around Fort Walton Beach and Okaloosa County, Florida, as an individual practitioner and as an officer of the Royster Construction Company. The Respondent's formal education and professional experience are in the fields of civil, structural, and mechanical engineering. Although testimony indicates that the Respondent has had some contact with the field of electrical engineering, he lacks significant formal education or professional experience in that specialty. Findings regarding Count I In July 1984 plans for a proposed project to be known as the White Sands Bowling Center were prepared, signed, and sealed by the Respondent in his capacity as a professional engineer. The plans included sheets numbered 1 through 9, of which sheet number 6 and sheet number 9 depict electrical components of the proposed structure. Findings regarding Count II The electrical engineering plans (sheet number 6 and sheet number 9) contain errors and omissions including the following: The "symbol legend" necessary to define components depicted on the plans has been omitted. Fixture types and wattage specifications necessary to determine adequate and appropriate loading of circuits have been omitted. Electrical component and fixture circuit identification numbers necessary to identify such components and fixtures have been omitted. Specifications necessary to determine air conditioning connections have been omitted. Details of fire alarm circuitry required by applicable building codes in force at the time of design have been omitted. Emergency exit fixtures and circuitry required by applicable building codes in force at the time of design have been omitted. Electrical panel details necessary to complete construction have been omitted. Details of connections necessary for installation of indicated aluminum wiring have been omitted. The specification depicted for grounding of the electrical system is not in compliance with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. The electrical riser depicted on the plans is incomplete and does not provide sufficient information to complete construction. The Respondent failed to meet a standard of due care in the preparation of the plans depicting electrical engineering for the White Sands Bowling Center and was negligent in his preparation of those plans. Findings regarding Count III The mechanical engineering plans (sheet number 7, air conditioning, and sheet number 8, plumbing) contain errors and omissions including the following: Specifications of air conditioning units and associated ducting are in conflict and do not provide details necessary to complete construction. Details showing "returns" from outside air are in conflict with known standards of design and do not provide details sufficient to complete construction. Specifications of condensation features do not provide sufficient detail to complete construction and are not in compliance with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. Toilet exhaust system details are not sufficient to complete construction and are not in compliance with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. Details of water supply system source and sanitary collection and disposal required by applicable building codes in force at the time of design have been omitted. The Respondent failed to meet a standard of due care in the preparation of the plans depicting mechanical engineering for the white Sands Bowling Center and was negligent in his preparation of those plans. Findings regarding Count IV The structural engineering plans (sheet number 3) do not contain details sufficient to complete construction, and if built as designed, there is no reasonable assurance that the structure would comply with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. The Respondent failed to meet a standard of due care in the preparation of the plans depicting structural engineering for the White Sands Bowling Center and was negligent in his preparation of those plans.
