The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed all lines adjuster, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with, among other duties, the responsibility and duty to enforce the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, which consists of Chapters 624-632, 634, 635, 641, 642, 648, and 651, Florida Statutes (2002). See § 624.307(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Respondent has been continuously licensed in the State of Florida as an independent all lines adjuster authorized to transact insurance adjusting business since August 1986. On January 1, 1999, at approximately 11:55 p.m., Respondent was driving his Ford Bronco in Tampa, Florida. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy White noticed that Respondent's license tag appeared to be expired. He followed Respondent for about a quarter of a mile, while he ran Respondent's tag number through the computer to determine whether it was, in fact, expired. Upon receiving an affirmative response, Deputy White pulled over Respondent's vehicle. Reserve Deputy McLaughlin was riding with Deputy White. Deputy McLaughlin approached Respondent's car and immediately detected a strong odor of burning marijuana. Deputy White then approached the car and confirmed the smell of marijuana smoke. The deputies asked Respondent for permission to search his vehicle. According to both deputies, Respondent not only gave them permission to search his car, but told them where they could find the marijuana, which was inside a black travel bag on the back seat of the car. Both deputies testified that Respondent told them he had received the marijuana as a Christmas gift. Respondent was arrested for possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, a third-degree felony pursuant to Subsection 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1998). At the hearing, Respondent testified that the black travel bag containing the marijuana belonged to an acquaintance to whom he had earlier given a ride. Respondent testified that he did not know the marijuana was in the car until the deputies found it and denied having told the deputies where to find it or that it was a Christmas gift. Respondent's testimony on these points was not credible. On or about February 12, 1999, a one-count information was filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, charging Respondent with possession of cannabis in violation of Subsection 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1998), a third-degree felony. On September 30, 2002, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge, which was accepted. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of six months and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. Respondent successfully completed his probation, and an order terminating probation was entered on February 5, 2003. After Respondent's arrest, but before the disposition of his case, the Department received an unrelated complaint concerning the manner in which Respondent was handling claims. Ms. Raulerson, a Department investigator, performed an investigation. She discovered that the Department did not have a current resident address for Respondent and obtained the correct address through Respondent's father. On January 3, 2002, Ms. Raulerson issued a letter of guidance to Respondent regarding the subject matter of the investigation. Ms. Raulerson's letter also reminded Respondent of his obligation to notify the Department of changes in his principal business, residence, and mailing addresses. She enclosed a copy of the appropriate form on which to notify the Department of address changes. During her investigation of Respondent's claims handling, Ms. Raulerson had a telephone conversation with Respondent. Ms. Raulerson mentioned that, unrelated to her investigation, the Department had received information indicating that Respondent had been charged with a felony. Respondent told Ms. Raulerson that the charge had been dismissed. Ms. Raulerson responded that if the charges had been dismissed, Respondent would be prudent to forward the paperwork to the Department so that its records could be corrected. In October 2002, Mr. Wilds, a Department investigator, was assigned to investigate whether Respondent had been convicted of, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony, and had failed to notify the Department of his conviction or plea. Mr. Wilds was unable to contact Respondent at the addresses in the Department's files, which indicated that Respondent did not take the advice in Ms. Raulerson's letter of guidance. Mr. Wilds added the failure to notify the Department of his address change to his investigator. Mr. Wilds contacted the Hillsborough County Circuit Court to request documentation regarding the outcome of Respondent's criminal case. In response, the Hillsborough County clerk's office provided Mr. Wilds with certified documents indicating that Respondent had pled nolo contendere and been placed on probation. Mr. Wilds next contacted the Department of Corrections to obtain information on Respondent's probationary status. By letter dated December 6, 2002, Respondent's probation officer, Robert Hughey, confirmed that Respondent was serving a probationary period of six months, commencing September 30, 2002, and scheduled to terminate on March 29, 2003. Subsection 626.621(11), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that the following constitutes grounds for the discretionary discipline of an agent's licensure: (11) Failure to inform the department or office in writing within 30 days after pleading guilty or nolo contendere to, or being convicted or found guilty of, any felony or a crime punishable by imprisonment of 1 year or more under the law of the United States or of any state thereof, or under the law of any other country without regard to whether a judgment of conviction has been entered by the court having jurisdiction of the case. Respondent failed to report to the Department, within 30 days of doing so, that he entered a plea of nolo contendere to a third-degree felony charge of possession of cannabis on September 30, 2002. Respondent testified that he did not inform the Department of his plea of nolo contendere to a felony because Mr. Hughey assured him that he had already notified the Department. The evidence establishes that Mr. Hughey contacted the Department only after Mr. Wilds requested information as to Respondent's probationary status and that this occurred more than 30 days after Respondent entered his plea. However, Respondent's reliance on Mr. Hughey militates against a finding that Respondent's failure to notify the Department was willful. As to the failure to notify the Department of his address changes, Respondent testified that he has always relied on his employers to notify the Department of his address when appointment papers are filed on his behalf and that there was never a problem until these investigations commenced. While Respondent's reliance on his employers does not absolve him of the personal responsibility envisioned by Section 626.551, Florida Statutes (2002), it does militate against a finding that Respondent's failure to notify the Department of his address changes was willful. Respondent's insurance license has not been previously disciplined in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 626.621(8), Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint; guilty of violating Subsection 626.621(11), Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint; and guilty of violating Section 626.551, Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's licensure as an all lines adjuster be suspended for three months for the violation of Count I, for three months for the violation of Count II, and for two months for the violation of Count III, with the suspensions for Counts II and III to run concurrently. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Michael Anthony Dipple, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees against Respondent, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2007).1
Findings Of Fact On January 3, 2008, Petitioner filed the Motion, seeking attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party in DOAH Case No. 07-3664. On November 5, 2007, Respondent filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of DOAH Case No. 07-3664, and the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings was closed by an Order entered on November 6, 2007. Respondent concedes that Petitioner is a prevailing small business party in the underlying proceeding, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. In the underlying proceeding, Respondent received a complaint from Joseph Lassen on January 26, 2007. Mr. Lassen stated that Mr. Dipple claimed to have run out of money and was therefore unable to complete the room addition he had contracted to perform on Mr. Lassen's house. Mr. Lassen stated that he feared Mr. Dipple was moving out of state and never had any intention of completing the work. With his complaint, Mr. Lassen included a copy of the contract, dated May 22, 2006, in which Mr. Dipple undertook to build the new room addition for the price of $76,350. The contract called for an initial deposit of $28,000, followed by three draws of $22,000, $17,000, and $10,000, to be paid as different phases of the work were undertaken. Mr. Lassen also included three canceled checks: one dated May 22, 2006, in the amount of $28,000; one dated August 8, 2006, in the amount of $22,000; and one dated September 25, 2006, in the amount of $18,000. In a letter dated March 2, 2007, signed by investigator Connie Garriques-Sang and sent to Mr. Dipple's business address in Largo, Respondent informed Mr. Dipple of the complaint. The letter stated, in relevant part: The enclosed complaint has been filed against you. If you wish to resolve this matter before the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board takes further action, you may do so. Upon resolution, you should notify our office so that we may update your file on this matter. Please use the attached form in response to the complaint and return it to my office within ten (10) working days. (Emphasis added.) Respondent's probable cause panel convened on March 22, 2007. At that time, no response from Mr. Dipple had been received by Respondent. The probable cause panel considered Mr. Lassen's complaint and the attachments thereto. The panel also considered information obtained by Ms. Garriques-Sang from the City of Largo's building inspector indicating there were code violations regarding electrical work that were holding up the final inspection. Based on the information before it, the panel found probable cause to proceed with disciplinary action against Mr. Dipple. Mr. Dipple's response to Ms. Garriques-Sang's letter was received by Respondent on March 23, 2007, the day after the probable cause panel met and voted to proceed with an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Dipple. The delay in Mr. Dipple's response was due in part to the fact that he had moved to Oklahoma and the letter had to be forwarded to his new address. Nonetheless, he dated his response March 13, 2007, indicating that he must have received Ms. Garriques-Sang's letter on or before that date. However, the postmark on the envelope containing Mr. Dipple's response indicates that he waited an additional week, until March 20, 2007, to actually mail the response. Mr. Dipple's response included a letter from his attorney to Mr. Lassen and a copy of a phone message3 that Mr. Lassen left at Mr. Dipple's place of business stating that Mr. Lassen wanted another company to finish the work. Mr. Dipple generally contended that Mr. Lassen thwarted his attempts to complete the job. Respondent issued an Administrative Complaint, dated March 30, 2007, alleging the following facts: Mr. Dipple contracted with Mr. Lassen on February 22, 2006, to build a room addition at Mr. Lassen's Largo home; that Mr. Dipple obtained a permit for the work on June 23, 2006; that the permit was active, but work was not complete and there were outstanding tags for code deficiencies; that Mr. Dipple had changed his business address and had not performed any work on Mr. Lassen's house for over 90 days; that Mr. Dipple had informed Mr. Lassen that he did not have enough money to finish the job; and that Mr. Lassen was forced to hire another contractor to finish the job, at additional expense. The Administrative Complaint had three counts. Count One alleged that Mr. Dipple abandoned the job in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Section 24(2)(k), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended. Count Two alleged that Mr. Dipple committed financial mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm to a customer in violation of Subsections 489.126(2) and (4), Florida Statutes, Subsection 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Section 24(2)(h), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended. Count Three alleged that Mr. Dipple committed fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Section 24(2)(m), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 16, 2007, and assigned DOAH Case No. 07-3664. With the Administrative Complaint, Respondent forwarded Mr. Dipple's Motion to Dismiss and Statement of Facts, originally served on Respondent on August 9, 2007. Mr. Dipple denied the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, stating that Mr. Lassen had interfered with the contract by refusing to allow Mr. Dipple to work on scheduled days; that Mr. Lassen wrongfully terminated the contract before the work was completed and refused to allow Mr. Dipple to complete the work; that Mr. Lassen owed money to Mr. Dipple; and that all portions of the work performed by Mr. Dipple had passed all building inspections. Mr. Dipple moved that the charges be dismissed on the ground that the alleged facts did not support any of the three counts stated in the Administrative Complaint. With the Administrative Complaint, Respondent also forwarded Mr. Dipple's notice to Respondent of his intent to recover attorney's fees and costs, originally served on Respondent on July 20, 2007. DOAH Case No. 07-3664 was scheduled for hearing on September 24, 2007, in Largo, Florida. On Mr. Dipple's motion, the hearing was continued and rescheduled for November 27, 2007. On November 5, 2007, Respondent filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the Administrative Complaint. The Division of Administrative Hearings' file in DOAH Case No. 07- 3663 was closed by Order dated November 6, 2007. Mr. Dipple's contends that the probable cause panel lacked other available information that could have and in fact did subsequently exonerate him of the charges,4 and that Respondent violated its own rules, Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, and fundamental principles of due process in precipitously arriving at a probable cause determination before Mr. Dipple had a fair opportunity to respond to the March 2, 2007, letter from Ms. Garriques-Sang. It is found that the information before the probable cause panel was sufficient to support the panel's decision to pursue an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Dipple, in the absence of any contrary information. The evidence submitted in Mr. Dipple's March 23, 2007, response to Mr. Lassen's allegations provided an insufficient basis for a finding that the response would have altered the probable cause panel's decision. While it does appear that Mr. Dipple submitted evidence that Mr. Lassen had instructed him to stop work, such evidence did not necessarily refute Mr. Lassen's allegations that Mr. Dipple's actions had forced him to seek another contractor to complete the job. Mr. Lassen also alleged something approaching fraud against Mr. Dipple, stating that he feared Mr. Dipple was planning to move away from Largo and never intended to complete the work. Mr. Dipple's response did not directly address this allegation. Further, even if the probable cause panel had timely received Mr. Dipple's response, the fact that the response was mailed from Mr. Dipple's new residence in Oklahoma would, if anything, have provided circumstantial support to Mr. Lassen's allegations.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Order of Probable Cause entered August 26, 2009, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Because Ms. Fresen failed to respond to the Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, the matters of which admissions were requested are deemed conclusively established for purposes of this administrative proceeding. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370. The Petitioner's First Request for Admissions is attached to this Final Order, and the matters of which admissions were requested are adopted herein as findings of fact.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Petitioner, Lee C. Smith, was unlawfully discriminated against by the Respondent, Food Lion, Inc., on the basis of his marital status.
Findings Of Fact At all times in issue, Respondent, Food Lion, Inc., operated its food supermarket, No. 728, in Tampa, Florida. Petitioner, Lee C. Smith, was employed by Respondent as manager. Petitioner was discharged from employment with the Respondent on December 2, 1990. The "constructive advice memo" supporting the discharge indicated the action was being taken because of "dishonesty - fraud - reputation of manager." The background to the charge related that 9 checks, totalling $1,100.00 were cashed by Petitioner's wife and "possibly endorsed or OK'd by Mr. Smith." The memo went on to further state that the decision [to discharge] was based on current evidence "and also failure to maintain mgt. role." The memo further indicated that while in management training, Mr. Smith had a problem with returned checks and "was documented on same." The memo was signed by Mr. Legett and was also signed by the Petitioner on December 5, 1990. Petitioner claims that when he first learned of the check situation, during the period March through June, 1990, when he was a management trainee, on his own initiative and without prompting by anyone in authority, he notified his store manager and assistant manager of the situation and suggested they call in a tel-alert advising all Food Lion stores in the area not to cash any checks for his wife. He was not discharged at that time. He also claims that after he was promoted to manager, his wife again started passing bad checks without his knowledge. When he found out about them, in October and November, 1990, before he was discharged, he paid some of them off. He also instituted another tel-alert through the Dunedin store, where some of the checks had been written, but he did not alert the people in his own store not to cash them. Apparently, Mrs. Smith cashed some checks in Store 728 but only one was approved by Petitioner. An area-wide listing of dishonored checks shows some that were cashed by Mrs. Smith. This listing is sent to each store and probably came to Petitioner's store. Petitioner admits he may have seen it but most of the checks written by Mrs. Smith were approved by the assistant manager. Whenever he saw a check listing with his wife's name on it, he redeemed that check, but the listing he saw was for his store only. He claims not to have seen listings from other stores, but from time to time, the manager of other stores would call him to ask if they could take her checks. He claims always to have said no. None of the checks relied upon by Respondent in the discharge action were admitted in evidence. Petitioner claims that at the time in issue, he had no knowledge his wife was writing the bad checks. During this period, he and his wife were having domestic difficulties. Some of the time they were living together and some of the time they were separated. Even when they were separated, she continued to come into the store for purchases and to cash checks. Petitioner claims that as a result of his discharge by the Respondent he has been damaged in a total amount of between $452,122.55 and $518,122.55, including legal fees. These sums are based on his salary at the time of his discharge, modified by certain assumptions regarding sick pay, bonus, profit sharing and holiday pay. At the time of his discharge, Petitioner was earning $550.00 per week and claims he was due an increase to $610.00 per week. Therefore, he claims, his base salary for December, which he was not paid, would have been $2,440.00. Added to that, he claims is 2 percent for sick pay totalling $572.00, a 2 percent bonus of $572.00, a 15 percent profit sharing pay out of $4,290.00 and holiday pay for 6 days at $110.00 per day, for $660.00. This additional amount totals $6,094.00 which, when added to the base salary claimed due amounts to $8,534.00 for December, 1990, not paid to him because of his termination. His base salary of $610.00 per week for calendar year 1991, would have totaled $31,720.00 and his insurance benefit would have been an additional $1,242.60. This totals $32,962.60. Added to that, he claims are the bonuses, sick pay, profit sharing, profit forfeiture, holiday pay at $122.00 per day for 6 days, and two weeks vacation ($1,220.00) for a subtotal of $9,566.00. When this figure is added to his base for 1991, he claims his total income from Respondent would have been $42,528.60 for the year. However, when his actual earnings from Kash & Karry, with whom he found employment after he was discharged by Respondent, in the amount of $13,941.58 are deducted, his actual loss for calendar year 1991 is, he claims, $28,587.60. Following the same formula, using identical factors but with slightly different amounts for each due to a projected increase in weekly salary, the net loss to Petitioner is claimed to be $19,903.32 for calendar year 1992, and through March 5, 1993, the date of the hearing, his calendar year 1993 loss is claimed to be $6,474.39. The sum total of the yearly losses is $71,109.77 to which Petitioner has added a 1 percent per month interest figure which totals $19,910.73 for the 28 months in issue. The sum of these figures is $91,020.50. To this Petitioner has also added a 4 year loss of projected profit sharing pay outs had he stayed with Food Lion which he estimates at between $30,000.00 to $45,000.00 per year. At $30,000.00 the total would be $120,000 to which Petitioner has added an unexplained $200,000.00. Adding this to the $120,000.00, and the $91,020.50 amounts to $411,020.50 to which Petitioner has added 10 percent legal fees of $41,102.05 for a grand total of $452,122.55. Applying the same calculations to a loss of profit sharing figure of $45,000 per year for 4 years, and the unexplained $200,000.00 addition, with similar 10 percent legal fees and the actual claimed out of pocket loss described above, his claim amounts to $518,122.55. In support of his claim of Food Lion earnings, Petitioner submitted only one pay slip, for the period ending 12/01/90 which showed his regular earnings to be $1,100.00 and special earnings of $650.00 for the period. The evidence he presented is insufficient to support his monetary claim. His earnings at Kash and Karry are not questioned. Petitioner's wife's bad check activity first came to light when he was a manager trainee and he paid those checks off immediately. However, in the latter part of 1990, a loss prevention investigation was initiated into alleged cash shortages and bad checks at Petitioner's store. Mr. Satterfield, the Area Perishable Supervisor was told by the investigator that Petitioner was aware of his wife's passing of bad checks. Mr. Satterfield also talked to other employees. One of these, Mr. Koonce, cashed several checks for Mrs. Smith which had been approved by one of the managers. Petitioner was one of those approving managers on only one occasion. Based on that one approval, which he does not know to have been for a subsequently dishonored check, he merely assumed the Petitioner approved the others. An unsworn written statement to the investigator, Mr. Greer, by Kimberly Lantrip, an employee of another Food Lion store, indicates that Petitioner told the grocery manager it was OK to cash his wife's checks and hid the bad check register bearing his wife's name for several weeks when it came in. This evidence is clearly double and even triple hearsay evidence, however, and though admissible here, is of minimal probative value. Furthermore, neither were the checks themselves nor photocopies thereof were offered. Mrs. Smith, by sworn affidavit, also hearsay, indicated that at no time did Petitioner have any knowledge she had written checks in Food Lion stores, nor did he ever approve any for her or tell anyone else to cash them. This statement carries little evidentiary weight. Petitioner clearly had knowledge of his wife's prior check writing activity and, in fact, paid off several. He obviously failed to take appropriate action to correct her activity or to preclude her writing other checks at Food Lion stores. After the investigation, Satterfield met with Petitioner and other supervisors, and as a result of that meeting, where at least one supervisor recommended termination, Mr. Satterfield, who had observed Petitioner over the months in both training and as assistant manager and saw him do nothing wrong, nonetheless decided to put the Petitioner on indefinite suspension with pay pending further investigation. Mr. Satterfield then notified the Regional Supervisor and Mr. Legett, the Area Supervisor, of what he had done. The next he heard about it was when the constructive advice memo terminating Petitioner was issued. He thereafter had nothing more to do with the matter. Mr. Legett was satisfied at the way Petitioner took care of the first series of bad checks written by Petitioner's wife in the Spring of 1990. However, based on what he was told by Mr. Satterfield, and the information contained in the loss prevention investigation, he concluded that Petitioner was aware of the second series of bad checks his wife was writing and did not attempt to stop them. Based on this, which he found showed fraud and dishonesty on Petitioner's part, he decided to discharge Petitioner Before doing so, however, he discussed the matter with Food lion's Vice President for Personnel who agreed with the decision to discharge. While Petitioner's failure to take corrective action to preclude his wife from cashing any further checks at Food Lion stores reflects on his management ability and may support termination for that reason, absent a clear showing of his conspiracy with her, his encouragement of her actions, or his knowing acquiescence in her misconduct, it does not rise to the level of fraud or dishonesty. Regarding Petitioner's claim for damages, Mr. Legett indicates a proposed raise of $60.00 per week in 1990 is not justified. A maximum raise is $20.00 per 6 month increment based on performance. Not all managers get raises each year. In addition, continuing employees do not get paid for holidays they don't take off. If the time is not taken, it is lost. However, if a person is terminated, any unused accrued vacation time for that year is paid. By the same token, sick days are not compensated. Employees receive 2 percent of salary as a sick pay bonus at the end of the year unless too much sick leave is taken. In general, a sick day taken once a week results in a net loss, not earned bonus. Also, profit sharing is not a constant but varies year by year. In 1990 and 1991, the amount was 15 percent. The amount for 1992 had not been determined as of the hearing, but 15 percent is a maximum. In any case, employees do not become eligible to participate in the profit sharing plan until they have been with the company for 5 years. If the employee leaves before the five years are up, the accrued but unpaid profit sharing maintained in his name is forfeited and paid on a pro rata basis to other employees. The most Mr. Legett, an individual relatively high up in management, ever got was 2 percent. He has never received anywhere near 5 percent of his salary. Effective January 1, 1993, employees contribute $21.00 per month for insurance. Prior to that time, there was no contribution.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that Lee C. Smith's Petition for Relief from Unlawful Discrimination based on marital status, relating to his discharge from employment by Respondent, Food Lion, Inc., be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-6047 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's counsel submitted Proposed Findings of Fact but failed to number them. They will be treated paragraph by paragraph, however, in this appendix. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and, except for references to hearsay evidence, incorporated herein. Mr. Koonce, the only individual interviewed by the investigator who appeared at hearing indicated he had seen Petitioner approve only one check for his wife and assumed from that, he had approved others. The balance of the hearsay evidence, though admissible for a limited purpose, is considered of minimal probative value. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but more a comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted only as to the showing that the issue of Petitioner's knowledge of his wife's check writing activities was a part of the related case involving discrimination based on race. Irrelevant to the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee C. Smith P.O. Box 260922 Tampa, Florida 33685-0922 Steven C. Ellingson, Esquire Arnold & Anderson 1200 Peachtree Center Cain Tower 229 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Margaret Jones Clerk Commission of Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent, James Jennings, violated Subsections 106.021(3), 106.07(5), or 106.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in the Amended Order of Probable Cause dated February 20, 2004, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Respondent has taught in the public schools of Lee County, Florida, for 31 years. He has a bachelor of science degree. Respondent was a first-time candidate for public office, although he had limited political experience as a precinct committeeman and president of the Sanibel-Captiva Republican Club. He had not been actively engaged in any previous campaign as a campaign treasurer or deputy. Incidental to becoming a candidate he met with appropriate municipal and county election officials and received a campaign handbook which included the following: A Compilation of The Election Laws of the State of Florida (2001), published by the Department of State; 2002 Handbook for Candidates, published by the Department of State; 2002 Handbook for Treasurers, published by the Department of State; Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, published by the Department of State; various Sanibel municipal ordinances related to city elections; a calendar listing important dates for filing campaign documents. Respondent signed a Statement of Candidate which advised that he had received a copy of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, and that he had read and understood same. It is apparent that Respondent did not understand the Florida Election Law as embodied in Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. Respondent designated a campaign treasurer and a deputy campaign treasurer. Notwithstanding the fact that Subsection 106.021(3), Florida Statutes (2002), clearly states that no campaign expenditure shall be made except through the duly- appointed campaign treasurer, Respondent personally signed 30 campaign checks. In fact, he signed all campaign checks with the exception of one check. On that particular check he directed his wife, the deputy campaign treasurer, who was statutorily authorized to sign the campaign check as deputy campaign treasurer, to sign his name. Inexplicably, Respondent believed that he, personally, was obligated to sign all campaign checks because he was the candidate. Respondent prepared his own Campaign Treasurer's Reports. It is suggested that he received some limited assistance from his wife. On February 28, 2003, Respondent was required to file a Campaign Treasurer's Report for the reporting period of February 8, 2003, through February 27, 2003. Two previous Campaign Treasurer's Reports for periods January 1, 2003, through January 24, 2003, and January 25, 2003, through February 7, 2003, had reporting dates which were seven days after the reporting period ended (January 31, 2003, and February 14, 2003). Respondent believed that the Campaign Treasurer's Report due on February 28, 2003, covered the period from February 8, 2003, through February 21, 2003. The campaign calendar presented by a city elections official clearly indicated the accurate reporting period. On February 28, 2003, immediately prior to filing the subject Campaign Treasurer's Report, Respondent discovered that the report should have included activity through February 27, 2003. He did not include appropriate information for February 21, 2003, through February 27, 2003, because he did not have time to return to his home, obtain the additional information, make appropriate inclusions, and file the report before 5:00 p.m. at the Sanibel City Hall. He merely changed the end of the reporting period on the Campaign Treasurer's Report from February 21, 2003, to February 27, 2003, knowing that it was inaccurate. The Campaign Treasurer's Report failed to include 24 contributions that should have been reported. During the telephone conversation in which he discovered the actual reporting period, he testified that he was advised by a Lee County elections official to file the report even though it was inaccurate, and then immediately file an accurate amended report. This is not credible. February 28, 2003, was a Friday. Respondent filed an Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report on Wednesday, March 5, 2003. The election was on Tuesday, March 4, 2003. Unfortunately, the Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report was not accurate. On June 2, 2003, Respondent filed a Second Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report, which included seven previously unreported contributions. This particular inaccuracy was attributed to the fact that two pages in the spiral notebook used to record contributions had stuck together for some unknown reason concealing these seven contributions. Petitioner failed to present evidence in testimony or stipulated facts as to the amount of unreported contributions. Respondent acknowledged his failure to report 24 contributions, but not the amount of each contribution or of a total amount of unreported contributions. While the orders of probable cause contain specific reference to the amount of each unreported contribution, this is not evidence. It may be possible to sift through the Campaign Treasurer's Reports and estimate the unreported amounts by comparing each report. An examination of the various Campaign Treasurer's Reports suggests that obtaining an accurate figure would be problematic and not exact. I find that there is no basis for an administrative fine predicated on the amount of unreported contributions. Respondent's attempts at campaign bookkeeping mirrored his understanding of the election laws. He, at first, attempted to keep contributions and expenditures in a checkbook register. When this proved inadequate, he started recording contributions and expenditures in a spiral notebook and on lined paper. These records were received into evidence. After a cursory examination of these documents, it is easy to understand why there was confusion. Respondent's campaign bookkeeping lacked basic organization. There does not appear to be any ulterior motive for Respondent's glaring errors, in particular his lack of basic understanding as to who should sign campaign checks. No one was deceived by the candidate's signing his name to the campaign checks. Equally as baffling and disappointing is his failure to understand the reporting periods and his response to his discovery of the error in the time covered by the reporting period in question. While it is argued that the voting public is deceived by Respondent's failure to disclose contributions, it is unlikely that any voters were waiting to examine the Campaign Treasurer's Report on the Monday before a Tuesday election. Clearly, Respondent did not comply with Subsection 106.021(3), Florida Statutes (2002), when he signed 30 campaign checks. This failure is obviated by granting the motion to dismiss the counts related to this violation. He also certified the correctness of the Campaign Treasurer's Report for the February 8, 2003, through February 27, 2003, reporting period knowing that the report was inaccurate and did not accurately reflect contributions. The March 5, 2003, Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report was similarly inaccurate. The real issue regarding Respondent's filing inaccurate Campaign Treasurer's Reports is whether or not these activities were "willful" as defined by Section 106.37, Florida Statutes (2002). Notwithstanding his written assertion that he understood the Florida Election Law, he did not. This is demonstrated by the fact that he clearly did not understand the law regarding who could sign campaign checks. The fact that he directed his wife to sign his name to a campaign check when she was a deputy campaign treasurer and an statutorily authorized signer, demonstrates that he just did not understand the law. Signing a Campaign Treasurer's Report, knowing it did not accurately reflect required reportable activity, clearly violates the law, and cannot be attributed to misunderstanding the law. Even if it is believed that he was advised to file an inaccurate report and file an immediate amended report, which is not credible, Respondent knowingly violated the law. He filed an inaccurate report and certified that it was true and correct when it was not. He should have waited until the following Monday, filed an accurate report, and suffered the fine and potential attendant political repercussions. The Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report filed March 5, 2003, failed to report seven campaign contributions that were ultimately reported on the Second Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report filed on June 2, 2003; this inaccuracy was not done knowingly; however, it does reflect reckless disregard for the law. Respondent's excuse that the pages were stuck together by fruit juice is unacceptable. Respondent did an inexcusably sophomoric job in his campaign record keeping; this failure as a record keeper rises to the level of recklessly filing an inaccurate Campaign Treasurer's Report. Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests (CE Form 1) for the 2002 calendar year reflects an annual income of $51,279, from the Lee County School Board, joint-residential home ownership, modest tax sheltered annuities, and typical debt. This is the only financial information presented. In addition, Respondent has no previous history of involvement with Petitioner and was fully cooperative with the investigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found to have violated Subsections 106.07(5) and 106.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), and fined $3,900. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2004.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Petitioner was the state agency responsible for licensing and monitoring the real estate profession in Florida. Respondents, Gruhler and Wilson were licensed as a real estate broker and real estate salesman, respectively, in this state. In April, 1988, Respondent Wilson was a 50% owner of Wilson's Cavalier Motor Inn, Inc., located in Sarasota, Florida and, that same month, listed it for sale with his employer, Respondent Gruhler. In June, 1988, Maurice G. Andersen and his wife, who were in the market to buy a motel, looked at the Cavalier and, after discussion with the Respondents, agreed to buy it for $181,900.00. Prior to agreeing to purchase the property, the Andersens were shown several papers regarding it, including the listing sheet prepared and provided by Mr. Wilson which reflected gross sales of $62,769.00 in 1986 and $65,413.00 in 1987. Based on his analysis of the property, Mr. Andersen made an offer to purchase it by Purchase agreement dated June 28, 1988, with which he enclosed a deposit of $1,000.00. Mr. Andersen now claims that at the time he felt the income figures provided by Mr. Wilson were too high for a 9 unit motel but assumed they were accurate. He claims his decision to purchase the property was based on the income and expense figures provided by Mr. Wilson incident to the purchase. A statement of earnings for the property for the period March 5, 1986 to February 28, 1987 , a term of approximately 14 months, reflected gross income of $72,360.70, expenses of $37,904.51, with a net income of $34,456.19. This statement which Andersen admits is accurate, is only one of four that he received. The closing transferring ownership to the Andersens took place on September 30, 1988. At that time, the parties executed a stock purchase agreement by which the Andersens purchased not only the assets of the motel but also 100% of the stock in the corporation which owned the motel and its assets. The corporation had been owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wilson. During the first six months of Andersen's ownership of the property, the income was not up to his expectations. He claims he had been told he'd do a lot of business through advance reservations but, in fact, had only one and the six month gross income during that period was approximately the same amount the previous owner, Mr. Wilson, had done. In February, 1989, Mr. Wilson gave the Andersens a financial statement on the property and business for the period April 5 through September 30, 1988 which reflected gross income of $24,622.36 and expenses of $24,604.10, for a net income of $18.26. He also provided, sometime that year, a more detailed statement for the period from April 17, 1988 through June 30, 1988 which reflected, among other things, a gross income for that period of $9,956.00. In reality, the income for that period, as reflected on the Department of Revenue sales tax returns submitted by Mrs. Wilson, the bookkeeper, was $7,483.60, a difference of $2,472.40. This is a significant difference. All of the financial information provided to the Andersens by Mr. Wilson, except for that contained in the erroneous statement prepared by Mrs. Wilson, was provided by previous owners of the motel. Neither Mr. Gruhler nor Mr. Wilson was familiar in detail with the actual revenue and expense of the motel prior to the time Mr. Wilson took it over in 1988. Mr. Andersen's chief complaint lies with Mr. Wilson, who he believes intentionally misled him with false information to induce his purchase, and not with Mr. Gruhler. He is satisfied the latter did not intentionally try to trick him or commit fraud. Wilson purportedly advised him orally that the motel brought in approximately $3,000 per month when in reality it was only about two- thirds that figure. He admits to having an opportunity to examine the property thoroughly prior to the purchase and even had his accountant in Minnesota go over the listing sheet and the initially provided figures before agreeing to buy. The motel is a 9 unit operation with small rooms and one large efficiency apartment. There is no pool. The Andersens occupy one unit and their son occupies another. Mr. Andersen does not know if, even with this reduction from rental space, his operation is bringing in any less than Mr. Wilson did, and proudly claims that as an inexperienced operator, for the year past he did $2,000.00 more in business than did the experienced operator from whom Wilson took back the business. He asserts he had a good year even though the tourist activity for Sarasota County was down for the same period. Mr. Wilson was first contacted by Mr. Andersen in June, 1988, regarding several motels for sale advertised by Gruhler, for whom Wilson works. They met at one motel which Mr. Andersen did not like and then went to the Cavalier which Andersen liked because he could afford it. Andersen came back with his wife the following Monday and on the following day, met with Wilson at the Gruhler brokerage office where he made his offer on the property At the time they made the offer, the Andersens had had an opportunity to examine the property and had been given a copy of the listing sheet and the financial statement which, all agreed, was accurate and which were examined by Andersen's accountant before closing. This information was prepared by Mrs. Wilson from the business books which she kept. There is no evidence that Mr. Wilson knew, or had any reason to believe, that the information furnished to the Andersens at any time was incorrect. Though Mrs. Wilson admits that one document, that relating to the April 17 through June 30, 1988 income is in error, all other income information provided to the Andersens has been shown to be correct. The error was made when she incorrectly included in the income certain items which should not have been there. Even she did not know the report was incorrect at the time she presented it and first found out about her mistake when it was brought to her attention later by the Andersens after they checked the reported income against the sales tax forms. In light of the fact that she prepared those forms as well and that such forms are public records which are open for inspection, it is found to be unlikely she would have intentionally provided incorrect income figures to the Andersens who had already indicated their habit of having financial records checked by their accountant. In any case, there is no evidence she made Mr. Wilson or Mr. Gruhler aware of the mistake and that they thereafter acted on that information knowing it to be incorrect. The Reverend Robert Miller has known the Wilsons for 11 years and been their pastor for 9 years. Both are dedicated Christians and have a high reputation for truth and veracity in the community. In all the years he has known them there has never been a hint of dishonesty of the part of either.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint as to both Respondents, Walter Gruhler and Calvin L. Wilson, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 3rd day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6264 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not supported by the evidence of record. Not proven. The last sentence of this paragraph is rejected. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein as to ultimate facts. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas Fitzgibbons, Esquire 1800 Second Street, Suite 775 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact During the year 1976, for several years before, and until February or March of 1977, petitioner worked in the comptroller's office of the University of West Florida. From at least as early as December of 1976, until she left the comptroller's office, she worked as an account clerk II in the student receivable section of the office, under the direct supervision of Ms. Wynell Collins Heidema. One of petitioner's responsibilities was the collection of checks returned to the University for insufficient funds. Dishonored checks, like all other checks that arrived in the mail, went first to a secretary in the comptroller's office who logged in checks of all kinds on a form called a mail transmittal. The mail transmittal, together with the checks, then went to the head cashier who verified the accuracy of the mail transmittal and sorted the checks into different categories. After segregating checks which had been returned for insufficient funds, the head cashier gave them to Brenda Hill, a teller, who recorded the checks on journal vouchers. When Ms. Hill finished this task, she gave both the checks and the journal vouchers to petitioner. Putting the journal vouchers to one side and working from the checks, petitioner filled out a "collection effort card" for each check and mailed a form letter to the person who had drawn the check, asking that the check be made good. She noted the date the letter was mailed on the collection effort card. Afterwards, the checks were placed in a notebook. If necessary, petitioner followed up the original letter with additional efforts to secure payment of the returned check. This procedure was followed with respect to most, but not all, of the dishonored checks returned to the University. If the returned check was drawn by a faculty member, the faculty member was likely to be notified by a telephone call instead of by a letter. In September of 1976, a University vice president wrote a check against insufficient funds. When the vice president's check was returned to the University by the bank on which it was drawn, it was rerouted before petitioner saw it and Mr. Charles E. Clark, the University's comptroller, personally took the check to the vice president. One day in the fall of 1976, petitioner's brother promised petitioner that, in partial repayment of a loan petitioner had made to him, he would deposit fifty dollars ($50.00) in her checking account on a specified date before December 8, 1976. Petitioner wrote a check in the amount of twenty dollars ($20.00) on December 8, 1976, and cashed it at the University. She did not learn until later that her brother had failed to deposit the money he had promised to deposit. When the University's bank presented the check to petitioner's bank for payment, petitioner's bank dishonored the check and mailed notice of its action to petitioner. As a routine matter, the University's bank presented petitioner's check for payment a second time. Petitioner's bank again refused to pay it because the funds in petitioner's account were still insufficient. On December 21, 1976, the University received in the mail from the bank the twice dishonored check. A day or two before the check arrived, petitioner had told her supervisor, Ms. Heidema, that it would be coming. The secretary who opened the mail on December 21, 1976, recorded petitioner's returned check on the mail transmittal The teller who received the returned checks from the head cashier recorded petitioner's check on a journal voucher, saying aloud to nobody in particular that a check drawn by petitioner had been returned. When petitioner received the returned checks from the teller, she logged them all in. She wrote letters and filled out collection effort cards for each of them, except for her own check. She put all of the checks, including her own, in the notebook she used for filing returned checks. Ms. Heidema, testified that the dishonor of petitioner's check was the first such incident in five years' time and that she did not feel it was necessary to ask petitioner to redeem the check because she knew that petitioner would do it on her own. On January 3, 1977, Mr. Clark happened to notice petitioner's check among the other returned checks in the notebook. The following day he investigated and discovered that petitioner had not prepared a collection effort card for her own check and that there was no other indication that she had written herself a letter. He then "discussed the check" (R13) with the assistant comptroller, Mr. Norris, and with Mr. Cordell, an employee in the comptroller's office, neither of whom had previously been aware that petitioner's check had been returned. The three of them "agreed that [they] would wait the rest of the week to see if Mrs. Josey would redeem the check on her own. (R13) About this time, Mr. Clark learned of a letter petitioner had sent to Chancellor York in which she expressed "grave concern about the management of the Controller's Office at the University of West Florida," petitioner's exhibit No. 1, reported the resignation of several long time employees of the comptroller's office, asked that a managerial audit of the office be performed, and asked that her letter be treated as confidential. On January 7, 1977, petitioner was summoned to Mr. Norris' office where Mr. Cordell was also present and was asked when she intended to redeem her bad check. She answered that she would do it as soon as possible. Mr. Norris directed her to do it before the end of the day. Within a matter of hours, she brought Mr. Norris a one hundred dollar bill. In the course of her discussions with Mr. Norris and Mr. Cordell, petitioner felt her honesty was called into question and was not as polite as she would have been otherwise. Messrs. Norris and Cordell recommended to Mr. Clark that petitioner be suspended. Mr. Clark was initially reluctant to act on this recommendation for fear it would appear to disinterested observers that he was acting in retaliation for the criticisms petitioner had leveled in her letter to Chancellor York, but he overcame this reluctance.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent pay petitioner the money she would have earned if she had been permitted to work on January 10, 11 and 12, 1977. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Donna S. Josey Route 5, Box 121 Thomas Town Estates Pace, Florida 32570 Mr. J. J. Menge, Esquire Shell, Fleming, Davis and Menge Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Lawrence A. Grolemund, has been in the securities business for over 21 years. Except for two complaints--one in 1986 and a second 1988--he has not been the subject of complaint or investigation by the National Association of Securties Dealers (NASD) or any state. He earned a reputation as a successful securities dealer and, as his career progressed, as manager of securities dealership branch offices. As branch manager, one of Grolemund's primary responsibilities was to insure that his office functioned in compliance with applicable state and federal law, and the rules of the NASD. Due to the reputation Grolemund had earned, the Chairman of the Board of Prudential Bache Securities, Inc., personally recruited Grolemund as a branch manager. After a training period, Grolemund assumed duties at the company's New Orleans office in August, 1982. He did not become a registered options principal for the New Orleans office until December, 1982. For several years before Grolemund's arrival, the company's New Orleans office had been a "problem office." A disproportionate share of securities violations occurred in that office, and management had difficulty controlling the associated persons in the office to achieve compliance. Several branch managers who preceded Grolemund had been disciplined by the NASD for inadequate supervision of the office. Grolemund knew some of the problems--he was hired to try to correct them--but he did not know the extent of the problems he would face when he took over. On August 25, 1986, the District 5 Business Conduct Committee filed a complaint against Howard Hampton, E.F Hutton & Company, Inc., Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., Grolemund and others. The gist of the complaint is that Hampton committed various violations of the Securities and Exchange Act, SEC rules and NASD rules while an associated person with E.F. Hutton and with Prudential-Bache. Hampton was with E.F. Hutton from February, 1981, through August, 1982, and was with Prudential-Bache in the New Orleans office from August, 1982, through February, 1984. The violations involve Hampton's dealings with clients he brought with him from E.F. Hutton to Prudential-Bache. Most of the violations involve the exercise of discretionary power in the accounts of clients without prior written authorization. Some of the alleged incidents occurred while Hampton was at E.F. Hutton. Some occurred while Hampton was at Prudential-Bache but before Grolemund arrived at the New Orleans office. Some occurred after Grolemund arrived but before he became an options principal for the office. In some cases, the information in the file on which Grolemund had to rely was incorrect. Grolemund fired Hampton in December, 1983. (At the time Hampton was fired, no complaints had yet been leveled against Hampton. In fact, all of the clients who ultimately complained against Hampton went with Hampton when he was fired from Prudential-Bache.) Grolemund also fired some other "unsavory" account executives in the New Orleans office. Grolemund was charged, along with other Prudential-Bache options principals, with failure and neglect to establish, maintain, and/or enforce written procedures which would enable Prudential-Bache to exercise reasonable and proper supervision of Hampton and with failure and neglect to supervise Hampton reasonably and properly. Grolemund was represented in the proceedings before the district committee by in-house counsel for Prudential-Bache. Otherwise, Grolemund did not have independent advice of counsel. Prudential-Bache was involved in other proceedings before the SEC which made it in its best interest to resolve the matters arising out of the New Orleans office. For several months, Prudential- Bache tried to convince Grolemund to settle. In addition, Grolemund was concerned whether the District 5 Business Conduct Committee would fairly consider the complaint against him. As part of his successful management of Prudential-Bache's New Orleans office, he competed directly against other securities dealers in the area, some of which were represented on, or had friends who were on, the Committee. When Grolemund came to New Orleans, there were 16 account executives in the office. Under his term of management, after he fired four to five account executives, including Hampton, the New Orleans office grew from 16 to 36 account executives. In addition, Grolemund opened satellite offices in Shreveport and Lafayette, Louisiana. These offices grew in size to 11 and 9 account executives, respectively. Many of the account executives Grolemund added were recruited away from competitors, and he was concerned that there might be hard feelings against him among the members on the Committee. After spending considerable time weighing all factors, Grolemund agreed on or about November 3, 1987, to settle the Hampton matter on terms that included acceptance of a finding that he was guilty of the allegations against him and acceptance of a censure, a 21-day suspension, a requirement that he re- qualify as a registered options principal, and a $7,500 fine. The settlement was reduced to writing in final form on April 25, 1988. As a result of the 21-day suspension, another options principal at Prudential-Bache was required to sign all options agreements during the suspension. Otherwise, Grolemund's job was the same as before the suspension, and Grolemund continued to receive his full normal compensation from Prudential- Bache. Prudential-Bache paid the fine for Grolemund. Re-qualification was a matter of passing a written examination, which did not present a problem for Grolemund. In agreeing to settle, Grolemund misunderstood that the district committee's action would not be the basis of any other proceedings against him. He also misunderstood that the offer of settlement would resolve all pending matters involving the New Orleans office, including the so-called Keel matters. Contrary to Grolemund's understanding, the NASD filed another complaint against Prudential-Bache and Grolemund on May 9, 1988. This complaint, which had been under investigation during the time the Hampton case was proceeding, involved an account executive named Patrick Keel. Like Hampton, Keel was alleged to have exercised discretionary power in the accounts of clients without prior written authorization. He also was alleged to have recommended unsuitable stock and option investments to two clients and to have falsely reported to Prudential-Bache that some of his clients enjoyed profits from the investments he had recommended and made for them, when in fact they had incurred losses. As with the Hampton matter, Grolemund was accused of having failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures that would have enabled him to exercise proper supervision of Keel and of having failed to properly supervise Keel. The Keel matter went to hearing before the District 5 Business Conduct Committee on August 24-25, 1989. As to what it called Cause One, the Committee found that Keel engaged in unauthorized and unsuitable options transactions in the account of one customer and that Grolemund had failed to supervise Keel properly in connection with the options transactions. Under Cause Two, the Committee found that Keel made unauthorized and unsuitable stock and options transactions in the account of another customer and that Grolemund had ample early warning that Keel was not handling his options accounts properly. The Committee noted that in October, 1984, the customer had lodged complaints regarding Keel's options trading and that Grolemund had daily conversations with a superior concerning problems with Keel's options accounts. The Committee found that, even if Grolemund did not have the benefit of the early warnings of irregularity, his response to the concerns raised by the customer in her December 10, 1984, telephone conversation was inadequate. The Committee found that, given the customer's refusal to sign the activity letter that Grolemund sent her, it was incumbent upon Grolemund to determine whether the customer understood options, whether options transactions were consistent with her financial situation, and whether she had approved the options transactions before their execution. The Committee found that Grolemund did not compile and review the customer's account documentation, which would have revealed that options trading was inconsistent with her objectives and needs and that the customer was only approved for Level II trading although Keel had executed two Level III transactions. Accordingly, the Committee found that Grolemund had violated Article III, Sections 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice by failing to supervise Keel properly. Under Cause Three, the Committee found that Keel recommended to a customer (the same customer involved in Cause Two) that she commit 25-30% of her net worth to a Hawaiian real estate private placement tax shelter that was not consistent with the customer's needs and objectives. However, the Committee noted that there was conflicting evidence as to whether Grolemund had reviewed the recommendation in light of the customer's personal financial strategy form. Although it was not Grolemund's job at Prudential-Bache to review suitability determinations with respect to private placements, the Committee expressed the view that Grolemund was in the best position to supervise the recommendations of salesmen and that he could not delegate this responsibility to other departments. Accordingly, the Committee found that Grolemund had violated Article III, Sections 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice under Cause Three. As to Causes Four through Eleven, the Committee dismissed all but two for insufficient evidence. As for the two that were not dismissed, the Committee found that Keel exercised discretion in the accounts of customers without prior written approval and that Grolemund failed to exercise proper supervision over Keel. The Committee reasoned that, by the time at issue, Grolemund had adequate warning of Keel's exercise of discretion without authority and that Grolemund allowed Keel not only to continue options trading but also allowed Keel to continue using special telephone and "bunching" privileges that, in the Committee's view, "greatly facilitated Keel's exercise of discretion." The Committee dismissed Cause Twelve to the extent that it alleged that Grolemund failed to supervise Keel reasonably with respect to the submittal of inaccurate active account information reports by him. The Committee, in its June 21, 1990, decision, censured Grolemund, barred him from associating with any NASD member in any principal capacity and fined him $4,000. Under the bar, Grolemund would not have been permitted to apply for reinstatement for at least ten years. Based on this decision, and the earlier disposition of the 1986 complaint in the Hampton matter, the Department offered to conditionally grant Grolemund's application, prohibiting Grolemund from acting as a principal, supervisor or manager. When Grolemund refused to accept the conditions, the Department denied the application. Grolemund appealed the Committee decision in the Keel matter to the Board of Governors of the NASD. The appeal was heard on October 11-12, 1990. On appeal, the Board reversed the finding that Keel executed out-of-level options transactions. The Board also noted that the record demonstrates a high degree of direct interaction between Grolemund, Keel, Keel's clients, and Prudential-Bache's operations manager and that the firm's records distribution system may have prevented Grolemund from exercising greater supervision over Keel. Because branch managers did not receive copies of customer information relating to limited partnerships, such as the Maui/Waikiki deal, Grolemund had no opportunity to assess the suitability of Keel's customer for the offering, or to compare the documents that Keel had completed in connection with that deal with other account information regarding the customer. The Board also noted that Grolemund engaged in more-than-adequate follow-up with clients following the receipt of complaints and that the customer may have been less than candid regarding her lack of understanding of the investments that Keel recommended for her account. Nonetheless, the Board believed that Grolemund fell short of the standard of reasonable supervision in that it should have been clear to Grolemund that Keel had not been properly trained and lacked a basic understanding of the practices of the securities industry. The well-documented problems that Keel's options trading caused with respect to customers' margins, and Keel's documented confusion of cash and margin accounts, certainly should have put Grolemund on notice that Keel lacked sufficient training to engage in such risky trading strategies as writing options. The Board also thought Grolemund should have inquired why there was no options agreement on file for one customer until after options trading in her account had ceased. The Board concurred with the Committee that Grolemund fell below the standard of reasonable supervision, and thereby violated Article III, Section 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice. The Board of Governors affirmed the censure and $4,000 fine against Grolemund. However, in light of the various mitigating factors regarding Grolemund's overall conduct, the Board ruled that barring him as a principal was an excessively harsh penalty. Instead, the Board suspended him from acting in any principal capacity for seven days and required him to requalify by examination in all principal capacities. In July, 1985, long before either the Hampton or the Keel complaint was filed, Prudential-Bache promoted Grolemund to the new Tampa office. When Grolemund took over as branch manager, the Tampa office was only nine months old. Grolemund successfully managed the Tampa office until May, 1990, when he applied for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc. During Grolemund's time as branch manager, the Tampa office grew to 35 account executives. The evidence proved that no violations occurred in the Tampa office during the almost five years that Grolemund was the branch manager there. Since the Hampton and Keel matters, the securities industry has changed remarkably, in part as a result of the October, 1987, stock market crash. Before the crash, options trading generally was viewed as a conservative investment--a way to participate in the market with limited resources and to provide an additional source of income from a conservative investment. The risks of options trading now are widely recognized, and management generally has become sensitive and responsive to those risks. In addition, the data processing and informations systems now in general use in the industry have given management new and effective tools for supervising the activities of account executives. Some of these systems make it impossible for some of the Hampton and Keel violations to occur today. For example, the systems will not process options trades for which there is no record of prior written authorization in the file. For these reasons, it is not likely that activities such as those in which Hampton and Keel were involved in 1981 through 1984 would go undetected today by a manager of Grolemund's caliber or that, detected, they would go unchecked. Advest, Inc., the securities dealer that wants to associate Grolemund to manage its new Clearwater office, is a respectable securities dealer that places reasonably strong emphasis on compliance with the requirements of the various regulatory agencies under which it must operate. It specializes in relatively safe investments, certainly as compared with the activities of the New Orleans office of Prudential-Bache in the early 1980s. Options trading represents only 14 to 15 percent of Advest's total business nationwide. Less than six percent of the business of its new Clearwater office consists of options trading. Advest's compliance department generates a monthly computer report called a "commission versus equity" run which displays the account name and number, the account executive's number, gross commission generated for the month and year, the number of trades for the month and year to date, the amount of cash and securities in the account, and the value of the account in relationship to the trading on a percentage basis. Some variation of the report is provided to the branch managers, to the division managers, and to the branch group manager, with each higher level of management getting more and more information in the report. An options activity report is produced in the Advest compliance department on a daily basis listing all accounts that traded outside their levels, if any, and any accounts that have a trade executed where the appropriate forms are not on file within the allowed period. Advest compliance sends out active account letters to verify customer satisfaction. If the customer does not respond within ten days, a second letter is sent. If the customer does not respond to the second letter within ten days, the account is restricted from further activity. The Advest compliance department reviews all aspects of the branch offices on an annual audit. Compliance then issues a report to the branch manager, the division manager, and the branch group manager. The computer generated commission report would automatically detect a trade executed by a registered representative not assigned to the account for which the trade is completed and would place an asterisk around the account executive number. The manager would then be contacted by the compliance department and asked to explain the discrepancy. In addition to the ordinary compliance procedures in place at Advest, to address the concerns of the Department and other regulatory agencies, Advest proposes several measures to reduce even further the likelihood of violations in the new Clearwater office to which it will assign Grolemund as branch manager. First, it will limit the number of account executives under Grolemund to 15 or less for the first year. Second, it will require another senior registered options principal to supervise the options trading along with Grolemund for the first year. Third, Advest's branch group manager or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office four times during the first year to monitor compliance; during the second year, either he or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office for this purpose at least twice. Fourth, two annual routine compliance monitoring visits will be made, instead of the usual one visit. Finally, the branch group manager personally will review all new account information from Grolemund's office weekly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order granting Grolemund's application for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc., subject only to the following conditions: First, that Advest limit the number of account executives under Grolemund to 15 or less for the first year; Second, that Advest require another senior registered options principal to supervise the options trading along with Grolemund for the first year. Third, that Advest's branch group manager or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office four times during the first year to monitor compliance and that, during the second year, either he or another Florida branch manager personally visit Grolemund's office for this purpose at least twice. Fourth, that Advest make two annual routine compliance monitoring visits to Grolemund's office, instead of the usual one visit. Finally, that the branch group manager personally review all new account information from Grolemund's office weekly. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1991, 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 21st day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5880 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part in that the Department did not consider the order of the Board of Governors of the NASD on appeal from the order of the District 5 Business Conduct Committee on the 1988 "Keel" complaint before giving notice of intent to deny the application. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in the sense that final action has not yet been taken. As it refers to Department notice of intended action, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 8.-10. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Also, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven exactly when the uniform guidedlines went into effect. Rejected as not proven exactly when the uniform guidedlines went into effect. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 16.-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the system was in operation since 1980. 21.-23. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 24. Accepted and incorporated. 25.-28. Accepted and incorporated. 29. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 30.-36. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found and unnecessary. First clause, accepted; second clause, rejected consistent with the NASD orders. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 43.-46. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated in the form of the findings of the Board of Governors of the NASD on appeal from the 1988 "Keel" complaint. Accepted but unnecessary. 49.-50. Accepted and incorporated. 51.-52 Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as conclusion of law and unnecessary. Rejected that the orders were entered in 1986 and 1988; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 5.-7. Rejected as conclusion of law and unnecessary. 8.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted that the Committee characterized its decision in those terms by way of explaining why it was just to differentiate between Prudential-Bache and its representatives, including Grolemund, and E.F. Hutton and its representatives. However, in fact, the various dispositions were agreed by the parties. It is unnecessary to include this finding. 15.-18. Accepted and incorporated. 19. Accepted but unnecessary. 20.-21. Accepted and incorporated. 22. Accepted but unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward W. Dougherty, Esquire Mang, Rett & Collette, P.A. 660 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Margaret S. Karniewicz, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Legal Section The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
