The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the administration of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, including the licensure of Class "D" Security Officers. Petitioner applied for licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer. Pending the processing of that application, Petitioner became employed as a security guard for approximately five months. By letter dated February 21, 1996, Petitioner was notified by Respondent that his application for a Class "D" license was, subject to his due process rights, going to be denied based on his conviction of battery in St. Lucie County in September 1993. Respondent asserted that the conviction was of a crime directly related to the business for which the license is sought within the meaning of Section 493.6118(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent also asserted that the facts relating to that conviction establish that Petitioner had committed an act of violence or used force on another person which was not for the lawful protection of himself or another within the meaning of Section 493.6118(1)(j), Florida Statutes. On September 14, 1993, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of a misdemeanor count of battery. The victim of the battery was Thomas Coburn. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 15 days in the county jail, one year probation, and 50 hours of community service. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Thomas Coburn was employed by the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida, as a city code enforcement officer. The code enforcement division is administered by the City of Port St. Lucie Police Department. Mr. Coburn was not a sworn law enforcement officer. On Sunday, May 16, 1993, Mr. Coburn was acting in his official capacity as a city code enforcement officer. He was wearing a badge, name plate, and collar pins with the initials P.S.L. He was in an official uniform that had patches with the inscription "Port St. Lucie, Fla. Police." He was driving a marked vehicle that reflected he was with the city code enforcement department. Shortly after noon on May 16, 1993, Mr. Coburn went to the personal residence of the Petitioner for the purpose of serving upon Petitioner a notice to appear pertaining to several alleged code violations. Petitioner was home with his wife, his teenage stepson, and his five year old son. When Mr. Coburn arrived, Petitioner was about to begin a barbecue. When the stepson came to the door in response to Mr. Coburn knock on the door, Mr. Coburn asked to speak to Petitioner. The teenage stepson went inside to get the Petitioner. Mr. Coburn did not see the stepson or another member of Petitioner's family after the Petitioner came to the door. When Petitioner came to the door, Mr. Coburn identified himself as a code enforcement officer and told Petitioner he was there to deliver the notice to appear. Mr. Coburn's vehicle was parked on the street so that Petitioner could see the markings on the vehicle. Petitioner became irate and shouted profanities at Mr. Coburn. Petitioner told Mr. Coburn that he could not serve official papers on a Sunday and ordered him off his property. There is a conflict in the evidence as to what next occurred. Petitioner testified that Mr. Coburn bumped him in the chest as the two of them argued. Mr. Coburn testified that he backed away from Petitioner and began to leave the premises. The more credible version of the events is that given by Mr. Coburn. Consequently, it is found that there was no physical contact initiated by Mr. Coburn. As he was backing away and preparing to leave the premises, Mr. Coburn placed the notice to appear on the barbecue grill that was in the area where the two men were standing. After he placed the notice to appear on the barbecue grill, Mr. Coburn turned to walk away. Petitioner then kicked Mr. Coburn in the buttocks. It was Petitioner's act of kicking Mr. Coburn that resulted in his subsequent arrest and conviction. There was no one else in the area around Petitioner's front door at the time of this incident. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner was acting in defense of himself or of others when he kicked Mr. Coburn. Petitioner has not been convicted of any other crime. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was an approved process server within the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida. Petitioner worked as a security guard for the five months preceding the denial of his application. There were no incidents of violence during that five month period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that the final order deny Petitioner's application for a Class "D" license. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy, Esquire Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Edward B. Galante, Esquire 789 South Federal Highway, No. 103 Stuart, Florida 34994 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 12, 1984, a probable cause panel of the Construction Industry Licensing Board met to receive and review an investigative report resulting from complaints received from Carl Mayer Forrest Morgan, and Walter Booth concerning certain activities of Ronald D. Nutt, Petitioner. The panel found probable cause that Petitioner's activities had violated applicable statutory and rule provisions, and subsequently, on or about July 19, 1984, a five-count Administrative Complaint was issued against Petitioner charging him with disregarding an applicable building code, abandoning a construction project, making misleading and false representations, and engaging in fraud and misrepresentation in the practice of contracting. Petitioner disputed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and requested a hearing. The case was sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to issue a Recommended Order based thereon. The matter was given Division of Administrative Hearing's Case Number 84-2920, and a hearing was held on March 27, 1985 before R. T. Carpenter, Hearing Officer. At the hearings one count arising from the Booth complaint was voluntarily dismissed. On June 13, 1985, a Recommended Order was issued in Case Number 84-2920 which recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Ronald D. Nutt. On or about July 11, 1985, the Board considered the Recommended Order, and after a review of the complete record adopted the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendation contained in the Recommended Order. The Board issued its Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case Number 84-2920 on August 7, 1985. In pertinent part, the following facts were found in Case Number 84-2920 by both the Hearing Officer and the Construction Industry Licensing Board: The principal disagreement (between Nutt, who was the Respondent in this prior case, and Mayer, the complaining witness) concerned the roof design, which Respondent contends was improper. Mayer initially refused to agree to modifications suggested by Respondent and would not retain an architect to clarify his intended design. Other disagreements led to Mayer's withholding of scheduled draw payments. Mayer refused to pay the first draw on completion of the foundation, even though it had been approved by the Melbourne Building Department. By August, 1983, Respondent's firm had completed work to the approximate point of the third draw, but had still received no draw payments. By this time Mayer had retained an attorney, and several unproductive meetings had been held regarding difficulties in completing the project. Mayer subsequently contacted the Melbourne Building Department to complain that the roof was being constructed according to plans not filed with the Building Department. This complaint was verified and a stop work order was placed on the project on August 10, 1983. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Respondent had changed Mayer's roof design to one he believed was correct, but had failed to obtain Mayer's approval or file the change with the Building Department. The change made by Respondent was, according to his testimony, necessary to correct Mayer's design deficiency. Mayer's testimony to the contrary is rejected. Mayer refused to retain an architect as suggested by Respondent, and demonstrated no expertise in building design. Respondent's testimony on this point is, therefore, accepted. Further efforts to resolve disputes were unsuccessful. On February 1, 1984, Hallmark Builders, Inc. filed a claim of lien on the Mayer property for $28,559. Mayer counter-claimed, and the suits were ultimately settled through payment of $21,000 by Mayer to Hallmark Builders, Inc. Based upon these findings of fact, the following conclusion of law was reached by the Hearing Officer and Board in Case Number 84-2920: Respondent is guilty of violating a local building code by failing to file his change in plans prior to commencing construction under the change. He acknowledged this, but believed it was sufficient com- pliance to file such plans before the next inspection. This violation is not a serious one, and no disciplinary action was taken by local authorities other than the stop work order. Therefore, the charge under Subsection 489.129(1)(d), F.S., should be dismissed. The parties stipulated that at the conclusion of the Department of Professional Regulations Construction Industry Licensing Board's case-in-chief in Case Number 84-2920, Nutt moved for a directed verdict on the four counts remaining in the Administrative Complaint on which evidence was presented and this motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. Petitioner herein has established that his reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs associated with Case Number 84- 2920 were $13,153.28. Petitioner has established that he is a "small business party" as defined in Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, since he operated as a professional practice and also a corporation with his principal office in Florida, and did not have more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of more than two million dollars when the action in Case Number 84-2920 was initiated by the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board on or about July 12, 1984 with the finding of the probable cause panel. Petitioner has established that he was a prevailing small business party in Case Number 84-2920 since the Board's Final Order dismissing the charges in the Administrative Complaint was clearly in his favor and was not appealed. Petitioner has not established that the actions in Case Number 84-2920 of Respondent herein constituted unreasonable governmental action. This prior proceeding was therefore substantially justified at the time it was initiated on July 12, 1984 with the finding of the probable cause panel.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Invarrary Retirement Center, Inc. (IRC), is licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). The facility operates under the name of Inverrary Retirement Center at 5811 Northwest 28th Street, Lauderhill, Florida. On or about April 4, 1984, two HRS inspectors performed a routine relicensure survey of IRC. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether IRC was complying with all HRS requirements relating to record keeping, sanitation, fire and safety. During the course of the survey, the inspectors noted the following violations of HRS rules: There was no staff member within the facility at all times who was certified in an approved first aid course (Rule 10A- 5.19(5)(f), F.A.C.); The facility failed to keep "current" records of self administered medication (Rule 10A-5.18(6)(f), F.A.C.); Menus were not planned and posted where they could be easily viewed by the residents (Rule 10A-5.20(1)(j), F.A.C.); The kitchen was not equipped with an approved exhaust hood over the stove (Rule 10A-5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); An electrical extension cord was used to service the coffee maker (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); One of the buildings had an insufficient means of egress for the residents (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); There were no manually operated fire alarms capable of being heard throughout the facility (Rule 10A-5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); Respondent failed to provide documenta- tion reflecting the smoke detectors were tested on a weekly basis (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); and (j) There was a sliding bolt on an exit door on one of the buildings (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.). All of the foregoing constituted a separated violation of HRS rules. 1/ When the survey was completed, the inspectors reviewed all violations with IRC's manager and advised her that a resurvey would be taken in about thirty days, and that all violations must either be corrected by that time, or some action instituted which reflected an intent on the part of the facility to correct the same. This was in accordance with HRS policy governing ACLFs, and approximated the time given other facilities to make similar corrections. On April 10, 1984, a Corrective Action Plan was issued by HRS and sent to IRC. This document set out in detail the various violations found in the April 4 inspection and set a compliance date of May 4, 1984 for all corrections to be made. A resurvey of IRC's facility was made by the same two HRS inspectors on May 18, 1984. With the exception of item (3)(h), which required documentation verifying that smoke detectors be tested weekly, the inspectors noted that no corrections had been made. However, respondent presented evidence that items (3)(b) and (3)(c) had indeed been corrected by that date and such evidence is deemed to be more persuasive than contrary evidence offered by HRS representatives. Further, the violation in item (3)(f), and turns on whether an HRS publication or the City of Lauderdale fire code was controlling when the inspection was made. Because no evidence was presented to establish which standard was in effect, the allegation that an HRS publication was violated must fail. Accordingly, it is found that IRC failed to timely correct items (3)(a), (3)(d), (3)(e), (3)(h), (3)(i), and (3)(j) as required by the Corrective Action Plan. Respondent eventually made all corrections, although not within the HRS imposed deadline. One of the deficiencies [item (3)(d) required extensive renovations, including bids and a city permit, which took considerable time to accomplish. However, IRC's manager neglected to provide HRS inspectors with any evidence on the May 18 visit showing that bids were being solicited, or that there was any "movement" on the project. The same is true for item (3)(g) which required competitive bids from suppliers. IRC also failed to advise HRS that it could not immediately enroll an employee in the Broward County First Aid Course [item (3)(a)] because of the large number of participants in the class. IRC failed to do so even though its manager had been told that an extension on the May 4 deadline could be obtained where IRC gave some evidence to the inspectors that action was being instituted to correct the deficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating agency rules as set forth in items (3)(a), (3)(d), (3)(e), (3)(h), (3)(i) and (3)(j) of the administrative complaint, and that a $900 administrative fine be imposed, to be paid within thirty days after the data of the final order rendered in this proceeding. All other charges should be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1985, 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 11th day of March, 1985.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the City of Clearwater properly dismissed Respondent, Diane C. Hashil, from her employment as a Toll Booth Attendant for inefficiency in the performance of duties, in violation of Rule 14, Section 1, paragraph (c), of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Clearwater.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Diane C. Hashil, was employed as a Toll Booth Attendant at the Sand Key Tollbooth by Petitioner, City of Clearwater, (the City), from July of 1992 until May 24, 1995. During the course of Respondent's employment with the City, Respondent has been the subject of numerous disciplinary actions, resulting in counseling, written reprimands, and suspensions. Beginning on December 6, 1993, and continuing through May 24, 1995, twelve disciplinary actions were taken against Respondent for charges including repeated discourtesy to customers, insubordination, failure to comply with verbal instructions, failure to follow policies regarding nonpayment of tolls, and entering the cash drawer of another employee without permission. Respondent's disciplinary action history includes the following actions: 1) On December 7, 1993, Respondent received a written warning for a Level 4, #2 offense (insubordination); 2) On December 21, 1993, Respondent was suspended for two days for a Level 2, #2 offense (discourtesy); 3) On January 26, 1994, Respondent was suspended for three days for a Level 2, #2 offense (discourtesy); 4) On August 10, 1994, Respondent received a letter of reprimand for a Level 1, #1 offense; 5) On January 12, 1995, Respondent received a letter of reprimand for a Level 4, #2 offense (insubordination); 6) On January 17, 1995, Respondent was given a letter of reprimand for a Level 2, #1 offense; 7) On March 9, 1995, Respondent was suspended for two days for a Level 3 offense (productivity); and, 8) On March 15, 1995, Respondent was suspended for five days for a Level 4, #2 offense (insubordination). In April of 1994, Respondent's employment with the City was terminated; however, the City reversed this decision, and Respondent subsequently remained in her position. On November 1, 1994, Respondent received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation. The primary basis for this evaluation was Respondent's continued discourtesy to patrons which had resulted in disciplinary actions against Respondent during the evaluation period. The City's employee performance ratings policy requires that an employee receiving an unsatisfactory rating be reevaluated in three months. On February 13, 1995, at her three-month follow-up reevaluation, Respondent again received an unsatisfactory performance rating. The basis for this evaluation was that Respondent had received repeated reprimands for insubordination, failure to follow rules, and entering the cash drawer of another employee without permission. On March 9, 1995, as a result of her unsatisfactory reevaluation, Respondent received a two-day suspension, and twenty disciplinary points. On March 15, 1995, Respondent was suspended for five days for insubordination. Respondent's appeal of these suspensions was upheld through the City Manager stage. Respondent did not seek further review of these suspensions. On May 5, 1995, at her second follow-up reevaluation, Respondent again received an unsatisfactory performance rating. Under the City's policy this unsatisfactory rating was automatic because Respondent had been suspended for five or more days during the rating period. In addition the second follow-up performance evaluation stated that Respondent filed a false police report alleging a customer had defrauded her, that Respondent entered the cash drawer of another employee without permission, and that Respondent was responsible for low morale of the other employees at the Sand Key Tollbooth. Respondent admits that she entered the cash drawer of another employee without permission, and that she kept a daily log of the activities of other employees which contributed to the low morale at the Sand Key Tollbooth; however, Respondent believed other employees were allowed to violate rules, and that she was being unfairly disciplined because she was female and not a member of the union. The evidence does not support a finding that other employees were allowed to violate rules, nor that Respondent was treated differently than other employees. The evidence does not reflect that Respondent was subjected to disciplinary actions because of her gender or her failure to join a union. During her employment at the Sand Key Tollbooth, Respondent received more complaints from customers and other employees than any other tollbooth attendant. Because Respondent had received two consecutive three-month reevaluations with an unsatisfactory rating, she was subject to termination under the City's policy. In addition, because Respondent had accumulated excessive disciplinary points she was subject to termination under the City's Guidelines for Disciplinary Action. The performance evaluations and the disciplinary actions taken with regard to Respondent were appropriate and consistent with those given other employees. Following her five-day suspension, Respondent filed a report alleging various rule violations of other employees. The City investigated Respondent's allegations and required three employees to attend counseling with regard to cash drawer procedures. The evidence does not support a finding that the City singled out Respondent for disciplinary actions. The City allowed Respondent to serve her five-day suspension over two pay periods to lessen the financial impact of her suspension. The City Harbormaster has employed other females within the department without incident. As of October 1995, the City has eliminated the position of tollbooth attendant because of the construction of a new Sand Key bridge which will, upon completion, be toll free. The City has assisted former tollbooth attendants in attempting to secure other positions of employment with the City. Subsequent to her termination, Respondent applied for a meter reading position with the City, but was not hired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The City of Clearwater Civil Service Board enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from her position of employment with the City of Clearwater. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of November, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 29th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX As to Petitioner's Proposed Findings: 1 - 12. Accepted and Incorporated. As to Respondent's Proposed Statement of Facts: Accepted, except that unauthorized entry into another employee's cash drawer violated City rules and regulations. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Esquire Paul Richard Hull, Esquire City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Diane C. Hashil 1527 South Prospect Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 Ms. Cynthia Goudeau City Clerk City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
Conclusions THIS MATTER came before the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 420.57(2), Florida Statutes, on April 10, 2008, in Indialantic, Florida, for consideration of the Administrative Complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit A), in the above styled case. Petitioner has filed a Motion for Final Order. Petitioner was represented by Jeff Kelly, Esquire. Respondent was present. Upon consideration, the Board FINDS: 1. The Petitioner’s Motion is granted. 2. The material facts are not in dispute. 3. The allegations of fact set forth in the Administrative Complaint are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference as the Board's Findings of Fact. 4. The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference as the conclusions of law of (A) Respondent is required to appear before the Probation Committee of the Board at such times as directed by the Board Office, approximately every six (6) months. Respondent's first probationary appearance requires a full day attendance at the Board meeting. In connection with each probation appearance, Respondent shall answer questions under oath. In addition, Respondent shall provide such other information or documentation as is requested by either the Petitioner, Department, the Board or the Probation Committee. Respondent shall forward said documentation to the Board:at least - 30 days in advance of the probation appearance or as otherwise directed. for 4 -(B) The burden shall be solely upon’ Respondent to remember the requirement for - said appearance and to take the necessary steps in advance of said appearance to contact the Board office and ascertain the specific time, date, and place of said appearance. Respondent shall not rely on notice of said appearance from the Board or the Department. (C) Should Respondent violate any condition of the probation, it shall be considered a violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and shall result in further disciplinary action by the Board. (D) Should the Respondent fail to make a satisfactory appearance as determined by the Board, the term of the probationary period shall automatically be extended by six (6) months. If there occurs a second such failure then the term of probationary period will be extended an additional year. Should the Board determine a third failure of the Respondent to make a satisfactory appearance, the stay of suspension of the Respondent's license to practice contracting shall be lifted and the license shall remain in suspended status unless and until a further stay is granted by the Board. (E) Should Respondent's license to practice contracting be suspended or otherwise placed on inactive status, the probation period shall be tolled during the period of the suspension or inactivity and shall resume running at the time the suspension is stayed or Respondent reactivates the license and Respondent shall serve the time remaining on the term of probation. . (F) To ensure successful completion of probation, Respondent's license to practice contracting shall be suspended for the period of probation, with the suspension stayed for the period of:probation. ‘The time-of the suspension and ‘the stay shall run concurrently” ~~ --with the period of probation. If Respondent-successfully completes probation, the’ »- - suspension shall terminate.’ If Respondent fails to comply with the requirements set forth in the Final Order imposed in this ‘case, or fails to make satisfactory appearances as determined by the Board, the stay shall be lifted. Once the stay is lifted, the license shall remain in suspended status unless and until a further stay is granted by the Board. 5. In addition, Respondent shall complete seven (7) additional credit hours of continuing education which must be related specifically to Chapter 489 and related rules, within this renewal period. The seven (7) hours ordered shail be in addition to the continuing education required by Rule 61G4-18.001, F.A.C. Proof of the seven (7) additional hours must be supplied directly to Executive Director of the Construction Industry Licensing Board at 1940 N. Monroe Street MS# N14, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1039. Failure to provide such proof direct to the Executive Director will result in a violation of this Order. 6. Achangein licensure status, including the suspension, revocation, voluntary relinquishment, or involuntary relinquishment of license does not relieve Respondent of the obligation to pay any fines, costs, interest or restitution imposed in this Order. This Final Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. DONE AND ORDERED this O; day of oe , 2008. RAYMOND R. HOLLOWAY, Chair Construction Industry Licensing Board
The Issue Whether Respondent violated various provisions of Section 489.129(1) by failing to pay for all roofing materials used on the North Orient Road job; by filing a false payment statement and by having his permitting privilege revoked by the City of Tampa Unified Construction Trades Board.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation charged, in conjunction with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the Rules promulgated pursuant to the statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, a certified roofing contractor and a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers CC CO39803 and RC 049317. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Jenkins Economy Roofing, Inc., for which Sharon K. Jenkins was an officer. Ed Nabakowski is, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner of the real property and improvements thereon located at 2501 North Orient Road, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. R. L. Dykes is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified general contractor duly licensed by the State of Florida. In the months proceeding July 1988, Nabakowski entered into a contract with Dykes wherein Dykes agreed to construct a commercial building upon Nabakowski's property on North Orient Road. Pursuant to that contract, Dykes entered into a subcontract on July 6, 1988, with Respondent Jenkins, doing business as Jenkins Economy Roofing, Inc., wherein Jenkins agreed to construct the roof of the building. Pursuant to the subcontract, Dykes agreed to pay Jenkins the sum of $8,487.00 which payment included costs of all materials, supplies and labor. Pursuant to the subcontract, Jenkins had the sole responsibility for ordering, arranging delivery to the site and paying for such materials and supplies as would be necessary for the construction of the roof. Jenkins construction activities commenced on July 6, 1988 and were concluded within the time contemplated by the subcontract. Greenbriar Building Materials, Inc., was, in July 1988, a supplier of building materials in Tampa, Florida. In connection with his construction of the roof, Jenkins ordered certain materials and supplies from Greenbriar which were delivered to the construction site. The materials and supplies had not been altered in their form or substance in any discernable manner between the Greenbriar warehouse and the construction site. Greenbriar maintained invoice records of the specific materials and supplies delivered to the job site. Greenbriar's records had three invoices for the North Orient Road site. The total sum of the three invoices was in the amount of $5,747.22. The invoiced price of the materials and supplies was usual and reasonable. The materials and supplies listed on the Greenbriar invoices were of such nature and quantity as would normally be used in the construction of the particular roof structure of this project. The materials and supplies listed in the invoices were used for and exhausted in the construction of the roof. By check dated August 8, 1998, Dykes paid Jenkins the sum of $6,790.00 as a draw against the total amount of the subcontract. On August 15, 1988, and as a prerequisite to receiving the draw payment a document titled "Partial Waiver of Lien" was signed by Sharon K. Jenkins as Secretary for Jenkins Economy Roofing, Inc. Under the terms of that document, Respondent warranted that " ... invoices for all materials, supplies and services provided by others ... arising out of work or items furnished to the described property, prior to the date hereto, have been paid." Greenbriar recorded a Claim of Lien in the Official Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, on September 19, 1988, securing the debt for roofing materials delivered to the job site. The lien was in the exact amount of the sum of the three Greenbriar invoices, to wit: $5,747.22. In the text of the Claim of Lien which was executed under oath by Greenbriar, Notice to Owner was certified as having been served on July 26, 1988. There was not and has not been any dispute as to the validity of the lien and all interested parties have acted in accord with the lien's validity. By certified letter dated September 28, 1988, Greenbriar made formal demand of the owner, Nabakowski, for payment of the amount of the Claim of Lien under threat of foreclosure. Nabakowski communicated with Dykes and in accord with professional responsibility, Dykes paid the full amount of the debt due to Greenbriar. Dykes payment to Greenbriar resulted in the satisfaction of the lien against the owners property on December 12, 1988. Dykes was financially harmed by paying the amount necessary to secure the satisfaction of the lien against the owner's property. It caused him to twice pay for the same building materials, since he had already paid Jenkins the amount necessary to pay Greenbriar at the time of his drab on August 8, 1988. Jenkins Economy Roofing had not paid the debt due to Greenbriar for materials supplied to this job at the time of signing the Partial Waiver of Lien. Jenkins Economy Roofing, Inc., did not pay the debt due to Greenbriar for materials supplied to his job site at any time thereafter. Pursuant to a formal complaint filed by Dykes on September 21, 1988, the City of Tampa, Code Compliance Section, conducted an investigation of Jenkins's transactions relative to the construction project on North Orient Road. As a result of the investigation, Jenkins was charged with violations of the City of Tampa Code, Chapter 25, Sections 25-101(6),(7),(19) and (22). A disciplinary action against Respondent was scheduled for hearing before the Unified Construction Trades Board. Respondent was notified of the disciplinary action hearing by certified mail. Respondent failed to respond to or appear at the City of Tampa disciplinary action. Pursuant to evidence produced at the hearing on January 3, 1989, the Unified Construction Trade Board unanimously determined that Respondent was guilty of violating City of Tampa Codes and disciplined Respondent by permanently revoking his permitting privileges. Respondent was notified of this local disciplinary action in writing and was verbally advised of his rights to appeal and the appellate review procedure by Darrow in a subsequent telephone conversation. Respondent did not appeal the local discipline. In Department of Professional Regulation v. Thomas L. Jenkins, DPR Case No. 89-903, which is an unrelated disciplinary action case, the Construction Industry Licensing Board entered a Final Order on November 28, 1990, finding Respondent guilty of violating local building codes, being disciplined by any municipality and misconduct in the practice of contracting, i.e., violations of Section 489.129(1)(d),(e) and (m). The Final Order imposed a fine of $2,500.00 against Respondent and ordered that his license CC CO39803 be suspended until the fine is paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of violations of Counts I through V of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Board REVOKE the Respondent's license as a certified roofing contractor, number CC C039803, and as a registered roofing contractor, number RC 0049317, in accordance with disciplinary guidelines set forth in Rule 21E-17.001, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 25th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-47. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig M. Dickinson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Thomas L. Jenkins HC 73, Box 3035 Vanceburg, KY 41179 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Town and The Parties The City of Opa Locka is an incorporated municipality within Dade County, Florida. It is approximately 4.5 square miles, with a population of approximately 14,000, and some 5,000 registered voters. If this case is a valid example, citizens of Opa Locka actively and enthusiastically are involved in the local political process. The process can become lusty and raw with acrimony. Timothy Holmes, a citizen of Opa Locka and full-time community activist, receives disability income and is otherwise unemployed. From time to time he has provided various services or errands for attorney, James Greason, and at one time he had cards printed identifying himself as an investigator for Greason. His primary activities in recent years have been related to non- compensated membership on several municipal boards and committees. From approximately 1982, until its abolition in December 1988, Timothy Homes was on the Opa Locka Code Enforcement Board. He was then appointed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He was on that board in 1989 when he decided to run for the city commission in the 1990 elections, for the seat occupied by Ollie B. Kelley. He did not formally file for the election until early 1990, and it is unclear when his intent was made known, but he had previously endorsed candidates in opposition to seated board members. Ollie B. Kelley is employed as a baker for the Dade County School Board. She is currently vice-mayor of Opa Locka and has served on the commission since 1986. Robert Ingram is a visiting professor at Florida Memorial College and is mayor of the City of Opa Locka, having served in that elected office for approximately 5 years. He previously served as Opa Locka police chief from 1980 to 1985. For the past three years, L. Dennis Whitt has been city manager for the City of Opa Locka. Daniel Reyes was employed as assistant to the city manager, L. Dennis Whitt, from November 28, 1989 until November 30, 1990, when he was terminated for various alleged wrongdoings. Holmes' Removal From The Board When Dennis Whitt came to the city in the middle of June 1989, he was made aware of Timothy Holmes' activities. Holmes exhibited behavior which Whitt considered inappropriate for an official of the city. Whitt received complaints and questions about Holmes as to perceived conflicts between his function as a board member and his services to Attorney Greason, who was representing parties in litigation against or involving the city. Holmes also was alleged to have gained access to city facilities based on his public office, but in furtherance of outside interests. Holmes wrote letters to the newspaper criticizing the city commission and was heard berating the commission in their meetings, calling them "Papa Doc, Mama Doc and Baby Doc", in an unflattering reference to former Haitian dictators. This latter incident was particularly irritating to Commissioner Kelley. She approached Whitt and asked whether something could be done. In response, Whitt researched the city charter for the procedure for removal of board members; he drafted an affidavit of charges based on his conversations with Commissioner Kelley and his own personal observations. He met with Commissioner Kelley on September 27, 1989 and gave her the affidavit. Although Dennis Whitt understood that board members could be removed for cause, the existing procedures applied to employees of the city, so he developed the language of the affidavit from the city's personnel rules, citing violations of a "standard of conduct", "insubordination" and "disgraceful conduct", "antagonism", interference with the proper "cooperation of employees", and use of his official capacity to solicit attorneys in litigation with the city and to conduct a private investigation of a city employee. (Petitioner's Exhibit #7) Commissioner Kelley signed the affidavit; it was presented to the full commission at the September 27th meeting; and the commission unanimously voted (with Kelley abstaining, because she brought the charges) to suspend Timothy Holmes from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The action, reflected in Resolution No. 5138, also set a public hearing on removal for November 8, 1989. At Holmes' request the hearing was continued to a later meeting, January 10, 1990. In the meantime, Dennis Whitt was instructed to conduct an investigation and bring together witnesses and evidence for the hearing. The hearing on removal of Timothy Holmes commenced at 7:00 p.m. on January 10th and proceeded into the early hours of the morning of January 11th. Timothy Holmes was represented by counsel, James H. Greason. The city was represented by its city attorney, Teretha Lundy-Thomas. Ms. Kelley testified, and did not participate as a voting member of the commission. Two law enforcement officers also testified. Three members of the public, including former mayor John Riley, testified on behalf of Timothy Holmes. The Commission voted to sustain the allegations regarding general insubordination and similar charges, but the last two charges regarding misuse of office failed for lack of majority vote. After votes on the separate charges, Dennis Whitt informed the commission that Holmes' removal from the board would need to be finalized with a resolution. The meeting was recessed to allow the city attorney and city manager to prepare the resolution. When the commission reconvened, the resolution removing Timothy Holmes passed 4-0, again with Commissioner Kelley abstaining. Holmes' Complaint To The Ethics Commission Holmes was convinced that his removal was a political vendetta. At some point after the public hearing he was in Attorney Greason's office and met Daniel Reyes. Reyes mentioned that he was with the city when the hearing took place and in Reyes' opinion, the removal in January 1990 was wrong. Reyes had heard Holmes and others referred to as "V.C." or "Viet Cong" - political enemies to be eliminated. Holmes was delighted to get information which he felt confirmed his own suspicions. Reyes executed an affidavit, dated June 11, 1991, stating among other matters, that "In January, 1990, Affiant, while so employed [as assistant to the city manager] witnessed City Manager L. Dennis Whitt and Mayor Robert Ingram conspire together to formulate changes which were used to remove Timothy Holmes as a member of the Opa-Locka Zoning Board . . . " (Petitioner's exhibit #3) That affidavit and an affidavit executed by Timothy Holmes were attached to a Commission on Ethics complaint form executed by Timothy Holmes on October 23, 1991. The affidavits and complaint to the Ethics Commission were prepared with the assistance of James Greason. At some point the above-referenced date on Reyes' affidavit, "January 1990", was struck through, and "September 1989" was substituted. Reyes initialed the change. The "corrected" date on Reyes' affidavit made the affidavit false, since Reyes was obviously not employed by the City in September 1989. He initialed the change at Greason's direction and never really looked at the date or considered it. Reyes was employed at the time of the removal hearing, but not when the process was first initiated. He was present when the resolution for removal was drafted during the January meeting's recess, but admittedly had no personal knowledge of the drafting of the initial affidavit by Whitt or the suspension resolution. The substance of Timothy Holmes' complaint to the Commission in Ethics was that Kelley, Ingram and Whitt conspired to remove him for actions protected by the First Amendment and for the purpose of discrediting him and politically damaging him in the November 1990 municipal election. He based the complaint on his own perception of the political climate and on what he understood were specific first-hand observations by Whitt's former assistant, Daniel Reyes. On January 29, 1992, the Commission issued its public report and order dismissing complaint: . . . On Friday, January 24, 1992, the Commission on Ethics met in executive session and considered this complaint for legal sufficiency pursuant to Commission Rule 34-5.002, F.A.C. The Commission's review was limited to questions of jurisdiction of the Commission and of the adequacy of the details of the complaint to allege a violation of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. No factual investigation preceded the review, and therefore the Commission's conclusions do not reflect on the accuracy of the allegations of the complaint. The Commission voted to adopt the legal sufficiency analysis of its Executive Director, a copy of which is attached. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed for failure to constitute a legally sufficient complaint with the issuance of this public report, which shall include the complaint and all documents related to the complaint. . . . The Petition for Fees and Costs Richard Venditti has handled legal matters for the City of Opa Locka and its officials in the past. He served as special master on contract with the City and also represented a couple of commissioners who were being investigated on charges by a private citizen. He represented Dennis Whitt in an action brought by Daniel Reyes for punitive damages related to his employment termination. When Whitt, Kelley and Ingram were served with Timothy Holmes' complaint to the Ethics Commission, they consulted individually with Richard Venditti. No papers or responsive pleadings were filed by or on behalf of respondents prior to the Ethics Commission's dismissal of the complaint. However each respondent was reasonably concerned and sought their attorney's advice. Petitions for costs and attorney's fees were filed with the Commission on Ethics on behalf of respondents, Kelley, Whitt and Ingram on February 28, 1992. Richard Venditti and L. Dennis Whitt drafted the petitions with information supplied primarily by Whitt. On March 11, 1992, Richard Venditti submitted individual bills to Whitt, Kelley and Ingram in the respective amounts of $1,665.00, $690.00 and $690.00. Most of the time reflected on the bills' itemization relates to the recovery of fees. The bills have not been paid, and the respondents are each unclear as to whether the city will pay the bills for them. They understand that they are personally responsible if the city does not pay the bills. Summary of findings Timothy Holmes filed his complaint with the advice and active assistance of an attorney. He was convinced that since his removal did not relate to specific misdeeds as a Zoning Board member, the removal was politically motivated and was in retaliation for zealous exercise of his rights as a citizen. He relied on those personal convictions and on statements by Daniel Reyes, whom he chanced to meet in his attorney's office and who gave him what appeared to be reliable inside information. Further investigation would have required his confronting the very persons he believed had conspired against him. The handwritten, "corrected" date on Reyes' affidavit was an error, but not Holmes' error. It apparently was an effort by someone other than Holmes to conform the statement to the date the process was initiated. Reyes, himself, explained that the "conspiracy" he witnessed was at the time of the removal hearing. This explanation is consistent with Whitt's testimony regarding the temporary recess required to draft the removal resolution. Reyes, and not Holmes, was negligent in checking the date on his affidavit before he initialled the change. Reyes presence when Dennis Whitt and the City Attorney drafted the removal resolution during the hearing recess makes it easy to understand why he felt the resolution was a foregone conclusion: it was. Each charge against Timothy Holmes had just been voted up or down, and the resolution, according to the city manager, was a necessary final step in the process. For good reason, the vote for removal was then beyond any doubt. The claim that Ollie Kelley had no knowledge of the facts in the affidavit of charges was based on Ms. Kelley's unfamiliarity with some of the terms used by Dennis Whitt in the draft. She was required to read the charges both at the meeting when suspension was voted and at the removal hearing. She stumbled over words such as "antagonistic". These were terms from the city's personnel manual and, although they may not have been part of Ms. Kelley's vocabulary, when explained to her they adequately expressed her personal concerns about Holmes' activities. It is neither necessary nor appropriate here to unravel the tangled web of political intrigue woven by the allegations and counter-allegations of the parties in this proceeding. Like Commissioner Kelley who was ignorant as to how to proceed but instinctively felt that something was wrong, Timothy Holmes reasonably relied on the advice of others in pursuing a remedy for relief. Timothy Holmes was misguided, but was not, himself, malicious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter its Final Order denying fees and costs to Robert B. Ingram, Ollie B. Kelley and L. Dennis Whitt. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 11th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX The following are rulings made pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. the parties proposed findings of fact. Findings of Fact Proposed by Ingram, Kelley and Whitt: Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. and 3. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. Adopted in part in paragraph 2, otherwise rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. Adopted in part in paragraph 3, otherwise rejected as immaterial. and 7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 8. - 13. Rejected as immaterial, since Holmes' reliance on Reyes was reasonable and consistent with his own perception of the events leading to his removal. 14. - 19. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 4 and 9. Adopted in part in paragraphs 10 and 26. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 23. - 25. Rejected as unnecessary. 26. Adopted in paragraph 19. 27. Rejected as unnecessary. 28. Adopted in paragraphs 6 and 7. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraphs 10 and 11. Adopted in paragraph 13. 32. - 34. Rejected as unnecessary. 35. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. 36. - 40. Rejected as unnecessary. Findings of Fact Proposed by Holmes 1. - 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in conclusions of law. Adopted in paragraph 18. The legal argument is rejected as contrary to prior ruling by the Commission. - 7. Legal argument rejected as provided in paragraph 5, above. The conclusion is adopted generally in paragraphs 23- 27. Adopted in "Recommendation". COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Venditti, Esquire 250 Bird Road, Ste. 102 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Timothy Holmes 275 Seaman Avenue Opa Locka, FL 33054 James H. Greason, Esquire 4165 NW 135th Street Opa Locka, FL 33054 Tracey Maleszewski Clerk & Complaint Coordinator Ethics Commission Capitol, Room 2105 P.O. Box 6 Tallahassee, FL 32302-0006 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Commission on Ethics The Capitol, Room 2105 P.O. Box 6 Tallahassee, FL 32302-0006
