08-002648PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Board Of Accountancy vs. David Mcquay, Jr.
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Monday, October 27, 2008.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner proved several instances of negligence in conduct of audit of nonprofit corporation; Recommend probation.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

13PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD )

17OF ACCOUNTANCY, )

20)

21Petitioner, )

23)

24vs. ) Case No. 08-2648PL

29)

30DAVID MCQUAY, JR., )

34)

35Respondent. )

37)

38RECOMMENDED ORDER

40Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case

51before Lawrence P. Stevenson, Administrative Law Judge of the

60Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH"), on July 22, 2008,

71in Tampa, Florida.

74APPEARANCES

75For Petitioner: Eric R. Hurst, Esquire

81Department of Business and

85Professional Regulation

871940 North Monroe Street

91Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

94For Respondent: David McQuay, Jr., pro se

101110 North Lincoln Avenue

105Tampa, Florida 33609-2908

108STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

112The issue in this case is whether Respondent, David

121McQuay, Jr., committed the violations alleged in a four-count

130Amended Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner,

136Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of

144Accountancy, on February 6, 2008, and, if so, what penalty

154should be imposed.

157PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

159Petitioner issued a four-count Amended Administrative

165Complaint (the "Complaint") on February 6, 2008, against

174Respondent, based on an audit that Respondent performed for the

184Mid-Florida Center for Medical Health and Substance Abuse, Inc.

193("Mid-Florida Center"), a non-profit organization, for the

202financial year ending September 30, 2002. Petitioner's

209accounting expert reviewed the audit and found that Respondent

218failed to properly address several significant areas. These

226areas were set forth in the Complaint as follows:

235(a) Financial Statements

238i. Amendment No. 2 (Auditor

243Communication) to the Yellow Book

248necessitated changes to auditor's reports.

253ii. Several necessary disclosures are

258missing in the notes to the financial

265statements.

266iii. The Statement of Activities and

272Statement of Functional Expenses should not

278contain captions of "Memorandum Only" for

284the total columns.

287iv. Donations of long-lived assets

292(depreciable) should not be reported as

"298Permanently Restricted Net Assets."

302(b) Working Papers

305i. There was no evidence of a reporting

313and disclosure checklist for not-for-profit

318organizations, which is common practice to

324include.

325ii. No audit evidence was located for

332fraud risk factors or planning materiality.

338iii. The management representation

342letter in this instance omitted the specific

349representations relative to the Single Audit

355and the referenced schedule of uncorrected

361misstatements in the management

365representation letter.

367iv. No documentation was evident

372regarding a consideration of a going concern

379with the entity's financial position.

384v. The management representation letter

389addressed the $158,429 liability owed to the

397Executive Director, which was reversed off

403the books; however, the letter failed to

410justify the removal of the liability from

417the financial statements by specifically

422finalizing the matter.

425vi. Relative to compliance testing, the

431working papers contained evidence of testing

437only one monthly invoice/progress report.

442Based on these findings, the Complaint alleges in Count One

452that Respondent "violated Subsection 473.323(1)(g), Florida

458Statutes, by failing to properly address significant areas in

467the audit." Count Two alleges that Respondent "violated Section

476473.323(1)(h), Florida Statutes, through Rule 61H1-22.002,

482Florida Administrative Code, by failing to comply with generally

491accepted auditing standards." Count Three alleges that

498Respondent "violated Section 473.323(1)(h), Florida Statutes,

504through Rule 61H1-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, by

511issuing an opinion on financial statements that departed from

520generally accepted principles without describing the

526departures." Count Four alleges that Respondent "violated

533Section 473.323(1)(h), Florida Statutes, through Rule 61H1-

54022.001, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to perform his

549engagements with competency."

552Respondent timely filed an election of rights requesting a

561formal hearing to contest the factual allegations of the

570Complaint. On June 5, 2008, the case was referred to the DOAH

582for assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct a

592formal administrative hearing. The case was set for hearing on

602July 22, 2008.

605At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

614Thomas F. Reilly, the expert in accounting who performed the

624review of the Mid-Florida Center's audit on behalf of

633Petitioner; and of Allan Nast, another expert in public

642accounting and auditing. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 16

650were admitted into evidence. Respondent testified in his own

659behalf and presented the testimony of Selvin McGahee, a member

669of the board of directors of the Mid-Florida Center.

678Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 5 were admitted into evidence.

687A Transcript of the hearing was filed with the DOAH on

698August 20, 2008. Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order

707on August 27, 2008. Without objection from Petitioner,

715Respondent filed his proposed recommended order on

722September 3, 2008. Both proposed recommended orders have been

731fully considered in entering this Recommended Order.

738All references to Florida Statutes and the Florida

746Administrative Code in this Recommended Order are to the

755versions applicable at the time of the Complaint, unless

764otherwise indicated.

766FINDINGS OF FACT

7691. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional

777Regulation, Board of Accountancy (hereinafter referred to as the

"786Department"), is the state agency charged with the duty to

797regulate the practice of certified public accountants in Florida

806and to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section

81420.165, and Chapters 120, 455, and 473, Florida Statutes.

8232. At all times relevant to the allegations of the

833Complaint, Respondent David McQuay, Jr., has been licensed in

842Florida as a certified public accountant. Mr. McQuay's license

851number is R 1736, and his address of record is 110 North Lincoln

864Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33609-2908.

8683. Thomas Reilly, an expert in public accounting and

877auditing, reviewed an audit that Mr. McQuay performed for the

887Mid-Florida Center, a non-profit organization, for the financial

895year ending September 30, 2002. The audit was completed on

905July 18, 2003.

9084. Mr. Reilly prepared a report of his findings, dated

918September 5, 2005. He filed a subsequent report dated

927June 25, 2007, to include copies of various accounting standards

937and reference materials that were cited in the original report.

947In preparing his original report, Mr. Reilly met with Mr. McQuay

958and reviewed Mr. McQuay's complete set of working papers.

9675. Mr. Reilly testified that he billed the Department

976$3,444.00 for his services. No billing statements, invoices, or

986other documents were entered into evidence to support the amount

996of Mr. Reilly's fee. No expert testimony was offered to

1006establish the reasonableness of the fee.

10126. As indicated in the Preliminary Statement above,

1020Mr. Reilly identified four issues relating to the financial

1029statements. First, Mr. Reilly found that the audit did not

1039include certain statements that are required by government

1047auditing standards. The "Yellow Book" contains the

1054authoritative auditing standards issued by the federal

1061Governmental Accountability Office ("GAO"). Amendment No. 2 to

1071the auditing standards, adopted in July 1999, requires that

1080certain language be included in the auditor's report on the

1090financial statement. In particular, Section 5.16.1 of Amendment

1098No. 2 provides:

1101When auditors report separately (including

1106separate reports bound in the same document)

1113on compliance with laws and regulations and

1120internal control over financial reporting,

1125the report on the financial statements

1131should also state that they are issuing

1138those additional reports. The report on the

1145financial statements should also state that

1151the reports on compliance with laws and

1158regulations and internal control over

1163financial reporting are an integral part of

1170a GAGAS [Generally Accepted Government

1175Accounting Principles] audit, and, in

1180considering the results of the audit, these

1187reports should be read along with the

1194auditor's report on the financial

1199statements.

12007. Mr. McQuay's report on the financial statements did not

1210contain a statement calling the reader's attention to the fact

1220that a separate report on internal control and compliance is

1230included elsewhere in the audit report.

12368. Mr. Reilly stated that the quoted language from the

1246Yellow Book is mandatory, and that the GAO felt that the issue

1258was important enough to call for the issuance of Amendment No. 2

1270to emphasize the revised mandate.

12759. In response, Mr. McQuay pointed to his reliance on a

1286commercially produced practice guide that did not include the

1295revised language of Amendment No. 2. While conceding the error,

1305Mr. McQuay continued to contend that the practice guide's

1314position was reasonable: that the statement is required only

1323when the reports on compliance with laws and regulations and

1333internal control over financial reporting are issued separately

1341from the report on financial statements. In Mr. McQuay's case,

1351the reports were issued under a single cover.

135910. Given that the express language of Amendment No. 2

1369references "separate reports bound in the same document,"

1377Mr. McQuay's response to the charge is insufficient. The

1386Department has demonstrated that Mr. McQuay's audit report

1394deviated from professional standards as to its failure to

1403include the mandatory Yellow Book language. The deviation is

1412ameliorated by the fact that all of the reports referenced in

1423Amendment No. 2 were in fact contained in Mr. McQuay's audit

1434report. There was no indication that Mr. McQuay's failure to

1444include the mandatory statement was intended to mislead a reader

1454of the audit report, or that his failure to comply with the

1466strict language of Amendment No. 2 had any practical effect on

1477the soundness of the audit report.

148311. The second allegation as to the financial statements

1492is that necessary disclosures were missing in the notes to the

1503financial statements. Mr. Reilly stated that the notes to the

1513financial statements did not disclose the entity's

1520capitalization policy for capital assets. The American

1527Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") Audit and

1537Accounting Guide for Not-for-Profit Organizations requires

1543disclosure of the entity's capitalization policy. Mr. Reilly

1551testified that it is important for a reader of the audit to

1563understand the dollar threshold at which the entity has decided

1573to capitalize fixed assets, and that the professional standards

1582require the disclosure in the audit report.

158912. In response, Mr. McQuay contended that the audit

1598report did disclose the capitalization policy, citing to the

1607following paragraph:

1609Property donated to the Center is stated at

1617its estimated fair market value.

1622Depreciation expense is computed by use of

1629the straight-line method of the estimated

1635economic life of the respective assets.

1641Maintenance and repairs are expensed as

1647incurred. Extraordinary repairs that

1651significantly extend the useful lives of the

1658related assets are capitalized and

1663depreciated over the assets' remaining

1668economic useful life.

167113. This response is insufficient because the quoted

1679language does not address the dollar threshold for capitalizing

1688fixed assets, which is required under the standards for audits

1698of nonprofit organizations.

170114. Mr. Reilly stated that the notes also failed to

1711include a required statement as to lease commitments. Where the

1721entity has operating leases that commit the entity for more than

1732one year, professional standards require disclosure of the

1740amount of the future commitments for each of the first five

1751years subsequent to the date of the statement of financial

1761position. Mr. McQuay's audit notes indicate that Mid-Florida

1769Center had leases ranging as far as three years into the future,

1781but do not disclose the amount of those lease commitments.

179115. Mr. McQuay responded that audit standards provide that

1800immaterial items need not be disclosed, and that it was his

1811professional judgment that the leases in question were not

1820material. Mr. Reilly replied that the audit report gives the

1830reader no basis for making an independent judgment as to the

1841materiality of the leases. Mr. Reilly's view is more consistent

1851with the specific standard regarding lease disclosure, though

1859Mr. McQuay's exercise of independent professional judgment in

1867this instance was not so unreasonable as to constitute a

1877violation of professional standards.

188116. Mr. Reilly stated that the notes to the financial

1891statements also omitted a statement of cash flows. However,

1900Mr. McQuay's audit report properly identified this omission as a

1910departure from generally accepted accounting principles

1916("GAAP"), rendering irrelevant any further discussion of the

1926definition of cash equivalents.

193017. In summary, as to the second allegation, the evidence

1940proved that Mr. McQuay violated the standards by failing to

1950address the dollar threshold for capitalizing fixed assets, but

1959did not prove any other violations of the disclosure

1968requirements.

196918. The third allegation as to the financial statements

1978was that the Statement of Activities and Statement of Functional

1988Expenses should not contain captions of "Memorandum Only" for

1997their "total" columns. Mr. Reilly contended that the

"2005Memorandum Only" caption was inaccurate and misleading.

2012Historically, the term "memorandum only" was used frequently on

2021local government financial statements, where the auditor must

2029give an opinion on different types of columns. Some of the

2040columns were on a modified accrual basis and others on an

2051accrual basis. Because these are two different bases of

2060accounting, the "total" column was irrelevant.

206619. Mr. Reilly pointed out that the only time an auditor

2077would use the "memorandum only" terminology as to a nonprofit

2087organization's audit would be in presenting comparative

2094financial statements, or where the prior year's audit included a

2104summary total that was not in accordance with GAAP. In those

2115situations, an auditor would use the "memorandum only" caption,

2124as well as other disclosures, in the notice of the financial

2135statements and the auditor's report.

214020. However, the Mid-Florida Center audit involved a

2148single year's financial statement. Mr. Reilly opined that the

2157total column on these financial statements was extremely

2165significant, and that the "memorandum only" caption was

2173extremely misleading. Mr. McQuay responded that the decision

2181was made to use the "memorandum only" caption because this was

2192the initial audit for Mid-Florida Center, and that the caption

2202does not materially change any substantive aspect of the

2211financial statement and is therefore not misleading.

2218Mr. Reilly's position that the inclusion of the "memorandum

2227only" caption was misleading and a violation of the standards

2237cited in his report was correct, and Mr. McQuay's response was

2248insufficient.

224921. The fourth allegation as to the financial statements

2258was that donations of long-lived depreciable assets should not

2267be reported as "Permanently Restricted Net Assets." Mr. Reilly

2276conceded that this was a very complicated issue for which

2286Mr. McQuay had "quite a bit of support." Mid-Florida Center

2296purchased land and some equipment from the Highlands County

2305School Board. The fair value of the property exceeded the price

2316paid by Mid-Florida Center. Under GAAP, the difference between

2325the price paid and the value would be recorded as a donated

2337asset. The dollar amount recorded in the financial statement

2346was $330,000, but there was no documentation showing how that

2357number was arrived at, and no documentation showing the breakout

2367between the land and the equipment.

237322. Mr. Reilly testified that when he looked at the fixed

2384assets, he found a $280,000 item for land but could not be

2397certain whether the item was part of this land or another piece

2409of property referenced elsewhere in the notes. However,

2417$330,000 was shown in a column called "permanently restricted."

2427Mr. Reilly did not take issue with placing the land in that

2439column. However, he thought that the equipment, i.e., the

2448depreciable portion of that asset, should not be placed in the

"2459permanently restricted" column.

246223. Mr. Reilly testified that an item such as an endowment

2473fund is the only thing that should be placed in a "permanently

2485restricted" column. Once an asset is placed in service and

2495begins depreciating, it must be placed in the "unrestricted"

2504column. In his response, Mr. McQuay referenced a reversionary

2513clause in the purchase agreement, whereby if Mid-Florida Center

2522gave up its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, the property would

2531revert to the School Board. Mr. Reilly testified that this is a

2543standard clause in government contracts, and is not a reason to

2554classify the item as permanently or temporarily restricted.

256224. While his report took issue with the placement of

2572depreciable assets in the "permanently restricted" column,

2579Mr. Reilly conceded that the relevant Statement of Financial

2588Accounting Standards is not crystal clear and that he used non-

2599authoritative practice guides to arrive at his conclusion.

2607Mr. Reilly believed that it was misleading to label equipment in

2618operation as "permanently restricted," but also conceded that

2626the notes to the financial statement fully disclosed the issue.

2636Mr. McQuay insisted that his audit did distinguish between the

2646land and equipment in the fixed assets and depreciation

2655schedules. While his treatment of the item was subject to

2665dispute, Mr. McQuay cannot be found to have violated

2674professional standards as to this issue.

268025. As indicated in the Preliminary Statement above,

2688Mr. Reilly identified six issues relating to the working papers.

2698The first allegation is that there was no evidence of a

2709reporting and disclosure checklist for not-for-profit

2715organizations. Mr. Reilly opined that it is common practice to

2725include such a checklist, and that Mr. McQuay should have used

2736one on this audit because nonprofits have unique disclosure

2745requirements and Mid-Florida Center was the only nonprofit

2753organization that Mr. McQuay was auditing at the time.

2762Mr. Reilly noted that failure to use a checklist does not

2773violate a particular auditing standard, but could be held to

2783violate the more general professional standard of due care.

279226. Mr. Reilly believed that due professional care

2800mandates that a CPA use a checklist when auditing a nonprofit

2811organization, and that a CPA "would be a fool" not to use one.

2824A typical checklist is 70 pages long, and an accountant needs

2835the list to jog his memory as to the many unique requirements of

2848nonprofits. Mr. Reilly thought that Mr. McQuay might have

2857avoided some of the cited deficiencies if he had used a

2868checklist.

286927. Mr. McQuay responded that professional standards do

2877not require the use of a checklist. Moreover, he asserted that

2888his auditing software contains the functional equivalent of a

2897disclosure checklist. While conceding that this was the only

2906nonprofit he audited during the year in question, Mr. McQuay

2916testified that he has been auditing nonprofit organizations for

2925over 36 years and that his previous firm conducted 35 to 40 such

2938audits annually. A checklist would be of no assistance out in

2949the field, where the auditor is examining the client's working

2959papers. Mr. McQuay stated that he does use a checklist when he

2971is reviewing the work of a staff auditor, but that he did not

2984need a checklist here because he was performing the audit

2994himself.

299528. Even after hearing Mr. McQuay's response, Mr. Reilly

3004continued to hold that it was foolish not to complete a

3015disclosure checklist. The fact that Mr. McQuay was the only

3025person working on the audit provided all the more reason for the

3037use of a checklist.

304129. Accepting Mr. McQuay's testimony that his auditing

3049software contained the equivalent of a checklist, it is found

3059that his failure to use a paper checklist was not a violation of

3072auditing standards or of due professional care.

307930. The second allegation relating to the working papers

3088was a lack of audit evidence for fraud risk factors or planning

3100materiality. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82 states that

3109the auditor "should specifically assess the risk of material

3118misstatement of the financial statements due to fraud and should

3128consider that assessment in designing the audit procedures to be

3138performed." The auditor should consider fraud risk factors

3146relating to misstatements arising from fraudulent financial

3153reporting and from misappropriation of assets. Statement on

3161Auditing Standards No. 47 provides that the auditor should

3170consider audit risk and materiality in planning the audit and

3180designing auditing procedures and in evaluating whether the

3188financial statements "taken as a whole are presented fairly, in

3198all material respects, in conformity with generally accepted

3206accounting principles."

320831. Mr. Reilly found nothing in Mr. McQuay's working

3217papers documenting that an assessment in conformance with

3225Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82 was made, or that an

3236audit risk and materiality assessment was made in accordance

3245with Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47. Mr. McQuay

3254responded that a separate section in his work papers dealt with

3265fraud risk factors and materiality. He testified that his firm

3275is careful in selecting clients and looks carefully at

3284management capabilities and the risks involved in the

3292representation. Mr. Reilly reviewed Mr. McQuay's response and

3300concluded that it did not come close to meeting professional

3310standards. As to this issue, it is found that Mr. McQuay did

3322violate professional standards as to documentation, though he

3330may well have performed the assessments in question.

333832. The third allegation relating to the working papers

3347was that the management representation letter omitted the

3355specific representations relative to the single audit and the

3364referenced schedule of uncorrected misstatements in the

3371management representation letter. The "single audit" is an

3379Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") A-133 audit of an entity

3392that has received $500,000 or more of Federal assistance for its

3404operations. Mr. Reilly found the omissions in the management

3413representation letter constituted a violation of professional

3420standards.

342133. Mr. Reilly testified that the standards require that

3430on every audit, the auditor obtain a management representation

3439letter signed by the appropriate levels of management.

3447Statement on Auditing Standards No. 85 contains the basic

3456requirements for management representations. Mr. McQuay

3462obtained a management representation letter from Mid-Florida

3469Center in compliance with this basic requirement. However,

3477because this was a single audit, additional representations were

3486required in the management representation letter over and above

3495those found in a generic audit.

350134. AICPA's Statement of Position 98-3, "Audits of States,

3510Local Governments, and Not-for-Profit Organizations Receiving

3516Federal Awards," paragraph 6.68 requires the auditor conducting

3524an OMB A-133 audit to obtain written representations from

3533management about matters related to federal awards. Paragraph

35416.69 of the same document lists 22 items for which the auditor

3553should consider obtaining written representations in a single

3561audit. Mr. Reilly testified that most of these items were

3571applicable in this case, but that none of them were included in

3583the Mid-Florida Center's management representation letter.

358935. In response, Mr. McQuay pointed to his engagement

3598letter with the client. The engagement letter states that this

3608would be an OMB A-133 audit, and that Mr. McQuay has explained

3620to the client and the client has understood that management is

3631responsible for compliance with the OMB A-133 audit

3639requirements. Mr. McQuay did not think he needed to include

3649the detailed representations of paragraph 6.69 when he already

3658had an extensive engagement letter that covered these areas of

3668management responsibility.

367036. Mr. Reilly replied that the engagement letter and the

3680management representation letter are two entirely different

3687things. The engagement letter spells out the scope of

3696representation to the client at the outset of the engagement;

3706completely different standards require the auditor to obtain

3714written representations from management regarding elements

3720spelled out in the standards, at the conclusion of the

3730engagement. The engagement letter is irrelevant for purposes of

3739the single audit's requirement that representations be obtained

3747from management about matters related to federal awards. None

3756of the specific statements referenced by Mr. McQuay in his

3766engagement letter dealt with the specifics of federal awards.

3775As to this issue, it is found that Mr. McQuay violated

3786professional standards.

378837. The fourth allegation relating to the working papers

3797was that no documentation was evident regarding a consideration

3806of a going concern with the entity's financial position.

3815Mr. Reilly testified that it was apparent from a glance at the

3827financial statements that the entity had severe financial

3835problems. It had an adverse current ratio, with assets of

3845$33,000 and liabilities of $138,000, not considering the issue

3856of liability for back pay owed to the executive director. Under

3867Statement on Auditing Standards No. 59, an auditor has the

3877responsibility to evaluate and document any causes for doubt

3886about the continuing viability of the entity, and further to

3896evaluate and document management's plans to turn around the

3905entity.

390638. Mr. Reilly saw nothing that came close to meeting this

3917standard. The only items of substance he found were a statement

3928that the Mid-Florida Center was creating a new charter school

3938and that fundraising activities were "ongoing." There were no

3947specifics as to the charter school or the fundraising.

3956Mr. Reilly found these statements "grossly inadequate" to comply

3965with professional standards. Statement on Auditing Standards

3972No. 59 includes specific items that an auditor should evaluate,

3982such as management's specific plans to curb expenditures and

3991increase revenue. Mr. McQuay supplied a document titled "Going

4000Concern Evaluation," but the document provided no specifics as

4009to the evaluation that was performed.

401539. Mr. McQuay responded that any startup organization

4023such as the Mid-Florida Center will have poor current ratios.

4033However, the entity had the management wherewithal to raise

4042money and a committed, competent board of directors. The

4051proposed charter school had already received funding for

4059building renovation for the 2003-2004 school year. Mr. McQuay

4068believed that his field work and evaluation of the management

4078plans was sufficient to satisfy the standard.

408540. As to this issue, it is found that Mr. McQuay violated

4097professional standards, at least insofar as he failed adequately

4106to document his consideration of a going concern with the

4116entity's financial position in accordance with Statement on

4124Auditing Standards No. 59.

412841. The fifth allegation relating to the working papers

4137was that the management representation letter addressed the

4145$158,429 liability owed to the executive director, which was

4155reversed off the books, but failed to justify the removal of the

4167liability from the financial statements by specifically

4174finalizing the matter. Mr. Reilly explained that, as of the

4184balance sheet date, Mid-Florida Center owed several years'

4192salary to its executive director, Dr. Arthur Cox, a significant

4202liability that would make Mid-Florida's poor current ratio even

4211worse. Mid-Florida removed the liability for Dr. Cox' salary

4220from its books. Mr. Reilly did not have a problem with removing

4232the salary, in the amount of $158,429 from the books, provided

4244Mid-Florida had secured a separate, standalone confirmation from

4252Dr. Cox that he was totally relinquishing any rights to those

4263funds.

426442. However, the relinquishment issue was addressed in a

4273management representation letter by way of what Mr. Reilly

4282termed "squirrely wording." Rather than completely extinguish

4289any rights Mr. Cox had to the salary, the Mid-Florida Center's

4300board voted to change the liability from deferred compensation

4309to amounts owed for future salary increases. Essentially, the

4318board took the liability off the books at the present time, but

4330left open the possibility of reinstating it when Mid-Florida

4339Center's finances permitted it to pay Dr. Cox the amount he was

4351owed.

435243. Mr. McQuay responded that the Form 990 for the year in

4364question had been completed by another CPA and filed prior to

4375his retention. Form 990 is the tax return for organizations

4385exempt from income tax. The working trial balance prepared by

4395the other CPA indicated that the liability for the back pay had

4407been removed, and the Form 990 had been filed with the Internal

4419Revenue Service without including the liability. In reconciling

4427the Form 990 with the working trial balance for purposes of his

4439audit, Mr. McQuay obtained the management representation letter

4447referenced by Mr. Reilly. Mr. McQuay testified that he viewed

4457the letter as firming up the matter that the previous CPA had

4469dropped in his lap.

447344. Selvin McGahee, a member of the Mid-Florida Center's

4482board of directors, testified that Dr. Cox founded the Mid-

4492Florida Center, writing the initial grants that got the entity

4502started. Dr. Cox' focus on providing services led him to forego

4513some of the salary that was budgeted for his position, in order

4525to spend the funds on other positions. Mr. McGahee testified

4535that this situation persisted for a couple of years, with Dr.

4546Cox supplementing the organization's revenues by not paying

4554himself. The board ultimately decided to remove the back pay

4564from its books, but had the intention of paying Dr. Cox his back

4577salary if and when the organization generated sufficient

4585unrestricted revenue to do so.

459045. As to this issue, it is found that that Mr. McQuay

4602violated professional standards and departed from generally

4609accepted accounting principles. Removing the liability for back

4617salary payments to the executive director should have been

4626accompanied by an unequivocal renunciation of those funds by the

4636executive director. As matters were allowed to stand by

4645Mr. McQuay, Mid-Florida Center's balance sheet was significantly

4653improved in a manner that did not finalize the issue of the

4665possible reinstatement of the back pay liability in the future.

467546. The sixth allegation as to the working papers was

4685that, relative to compliance testing, the working papers

4693contained evidence of testing only one monthly invoice/progress

4701report. Mr. Reilly testified that the problem here was a lack

4712of documentation. Though the auditor's judgment is paramount as

4721to compliance testing, there are stated requirements that the

4730auditor must meet. Because this was a single audit, OMB

4740Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement was used. This Circular

4748lists fourteen specific items of testing, each of which should

4758be addressed by the auditor at least to the point of indicating

4770that the auditor has determined the item to be inapplicable to

4781the audit at hand.

478547. Mr. Reilly testified that one of the specific issues

4795he was called to investigate involved the lack of documentation

4805regarding a grant that the Mid-Florida Center had obtained from

4815the City of Bartow. The grant required the submission of a

4826monthly invoice/progress report. Mr. Reilly could find evidence

4834that Mr. McQuay had tested only one such invoice. Mr. Reilly

4845conceded that it was "tough to say" what professional judgment

4855demanded in this situation because he was not there when the

4866audit was conducted. Mr. Reilly stated that he would probably

4876have tested more than one invoice, but he could not say how

4888many. The usual practice is to expand the testing if a problem

4900is found with the first invoice. Mr. McQuay found no problems

4911with the one invoice and progress report that he tested, and

4922made the judgment that his examination was adequate. Mr. Reilly

4932believed that, based on the overall scope of problems with Mid-

4943Florida Center's documentation, Mr. Reilly concluded that the

4951entity's invoices and progress reports were "lightly tested."

495948. As to this issue, it is found that Mr. McQuay did not

4972violate professional standards or generally accepted accounting

4979principles. Mr. Reilly testified that he might have conducted

4988the compliance testing more strenuously than did Mr. McQuay, but

4998he could not state that Mr. McQuay's actions were outside the

5009boundaries of his professional judgment.

501449. Petitioner offered the testimony of Allan Nast, an

5023expert in accounting and auditing. Mr. Nast reviewed the audit

5033performed by Mr. McQuay, and also reviewed the reports prepared

5043by Mr. Reilly. Mr. Nast agreed with Mr. Reilly's opinions in

5054every particular. Mr. Nast's opinion has been considered and is

5064respected by the undersigned, but does not change the findings

5074of fact made above.

507850. Mr. Nast testified that he billed Department $1,365.00

5088for his services. No billing statements, invoices, or other

5097documents were entered into evidence to support the amount of

5107Mr. Nast's fee. No expert testimony was offered to establish

5117the reasonableness of the fee.

512251. Mr. McQuay testified that he believes he has been

5132singled out for disciplinary action based on business reasons.

5141Mr. McQuay pointed out that the initial complaint in this matter

5152was filed by a competitor who was also the father of an

5164accountant whose firm Mr. McQuay had rejected for work in his

5175role as director of quality assurance for WorkNet Pinellas, Inc.

5185Mr. McQuay, an African-American, also testified as to incidents

5194of racism as he pursued his career in a profession dominated by

5206white men. The undersigned has considered this testimony by

5215Mr. McQuay, but cannot find that these matters had any bearing

5226on the merits of the allegations lodged by the Department in the

5238Complaint after its thorough investigation of the initial

5246complaint.

524752. In summary, as to the four allegations regarding the

5257financial statements recited in the Preliminary Statement above,

5265it was found that the first allegation as to missing statements

5276in the audit was proven, though ameliorated by the fact that all

5288of the reports referenced by the missing statements were

5297included in the audit report. As to the second allegation as to

5309missing disclosures, it was found that Mr. McQuay violated

5318professional standards as to only one of several of the alleged

5329omissions. As to the third allegation regarding the "Memorandum

5338Only" statement in the "total" columns, it was found that Mr.

5349McQuay violated the relevant standards. As to the fourth

5358allegation regarding the categorization of long-lived

5364depreciable assets, it was found that Mr. McQuay did not violate

5375professional standards.

537753. There were six allegations regarding the working

5385papers recited in the Preliminary Statement above. As to the

5395first allegation regarding the disclosure checklist, it was

5403found that Mr. McQuay did not violate auditing standards or the

5414duty of professional care. As to the second allegation

5423regarding lack of evidence for fraud risk factors or planning

5433materiality, it was found that Mr. McQuay violated professional

5442standards as to documenting his work, though he may have

5452performed the assessments in question. As to the third

5461allegation regarding omissions in the management representation

5468letter, it was found that Mr. McQuay violated professional

5477standards. As to the fourth allegation regarding going concern

5486considerations, it was found that Mr. McQuay violated

5494professional standards. As to the fifth allegation regarding

5502removal of liabilities owed to the executive director, it was

5512found that Mr. McQuay violated professional standards. As to

5521the sixth allegation regarding the sufficiency of compliance

5529testing, it was found that Mr. McQuay did not violate

5539professional standards.

5541CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

554454. The DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of

5554this proceeding and of the parties thereto, pursuant to Section

5564120.569 and Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2008).

557155. In the Complaint, the Department seeks to impose

5580penalties against Mr. McQuay, including imposition of a fine not

5590to exceed $5,000 per violation, assessment of costs associated

5600with the investigation and prosecution of this matter, and/or

5609imposition of any other penalty authorized by Chapters 455 and

5619473, Florida Statutes. The Department, therefore, has the

5627burden of proving the allegations of the Administrative

5635Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Department of

5643Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor

5651Protection v. Osborne Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996);

5663Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); and Nair v.

5675Department of Business & Professional Regulation , 654 So. 2d

5684205, 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Clear and convincing evidence is

5695the proper standard in license disciplinary proceedings, because

5703they are penal in nature and implicate significant property

5712rights. See Osbourne Stern , 670 So. 2d at 935.

572156. In Evans Packing Co. v. Department of Agriculture and

5731Consumer Services , 550 So. 2d 112, 116, n.5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989),

5743the Court defined clear and convincing evidence as follows:

5752[C]lear and convincing evidence requires

5757that the evidence must be found to be

5765credible; the facts to which the witnesses

5772testify must be distinctly remembered; the

5778evidence must be precise and explicit and

5785the witnesses must be lacking in confusion

5792as to the facts in issue. The evidence must

5801be of such weight that it produces in the

5810mind of the trier of fact the firm belief of

5820conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

5826truth of the allegations sought to be

5833established. Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So.

58392d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

584657. Judge Sharp, in her dissenting opinion in Walker v.

5856Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation , 705

5864So. 2d 652, 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(Sharp, J., dissenting),

5874reviewed recent pronouncements on clear and convincing evidence:

5882Clear and convincing evidence requires more

5888proof than preponderance of evidence, but

5894less than beyond a reasonable doubt. In re

5902Inquiry Concerning a Judge re Graziano , 696

5909So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1997). It is an

5917intermediate level of proof that entails

5923both qualitative and quantative [sic]

5928elements. In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W. ,

5935658 So. 2d 961, 967 (Fla. 1995), cert.

5943denied , 516 U.S. 1051, 116 S. Ct. 719, 133

5952L.Ed.2d 672 (1996). The sum total of

5959evidence must be sufficient to convince the

5966trier of fact without any hesitancy. Id.

5973It must produce in the mind of the fact

5982finder a firm belief or conviction as to the

5991truth of the allegations sought to be

5998established. Inquiry Concerning Davey , 645

6003So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994).

600958. The Complaint alleges in Count One that Respondent

"6018violated Subsection 473.323(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by failing

6025to properly address significant areas in the audit." Count Two

6035alleges that Respondent "violated Section 473.323(1)(h), Florida

6042Statutes, through Rule 61H1-22.002, Florida Administrative Code,

6049by failing to comply with generally accepted auditing

6057standards." Count Three alleges that Respondent "violated

6064Section 473.323(1)(h), Florida Statutes, through Rule 61H1-

607122.003, Florida Administrative Code, by issuing an opinion on

6080financial statements that departed from generally accepted

6087principles without describing the departures." Count Four

6094alleges that Respondent "violated Section 473.323(1)(h), Florida

6101Statutes, through Rule 61H1-22.001, Florida Administrative Code,

6108by failing to perform his engagements with competency."

611659. Section 473.323, Florida Statutes, provides that the

6124Board of Accountancy may take disciplinary action against the

6133license of a certified public accountant if it is found that the

6145accountant has committed certain enumerated offenses. Count One

6153of the Complaint alleges a violation of Subsection

6161473.323(1)(g), Florida Statutes, which provides:

6166(1) The following acts constitute grounds

6172for which the disciplinary actions in

6178subsection (3) may be taken:

6183* * *

6186(g) Committing an act of fraud or deceit,

6194or of negligence, incompetency, or

6199misconduct, in the practice of public

6205accounting.

620660. Counts Two through Four of the Complaint allege

6215violations of Subsection 473.323(1)(h), Florida Statutes, which

6222provides that disciplinary action may be taken for "[v]iolation

6231of any rule adopted pursuant to this chapter or chapter 455."

624261. Count Two of the Complaint alleges a statutory

6251violation through Florida Administrative Code Rule 61H1-22.002,

6258which provides:

6260A licensee shall not permit his name to be

6269associated with financial statements in such

6275a manner as to imply that he is acting as an

6286independent certified public accountant

6290unless he has complied with the applicable

6297generally accepted auditing standards.

6301Statements on Auditing Standards as

6306published by the American Institute of CPAs,

6313are for purposes of this rule, deemed and

6321construed to be interpretations of generally

6327accepted auditing standards, and departures

6332from such statements must be justified by

6339those who do not follow them.

634562. Count Three of the Complaint alleges a statutory

6354violation through Florida Administrative Code Rule 61H1-22.003,

6361which provides:

6363A licensee shall not express an opinion that

6371financial statements are presented in

6376conformity with generally accepted

6380accounting principles if such statements

6385contain any departure from any such

6391principle which has a material effect on the

6399statements taken as a whole, unless he can

6407demonstrate that due to unusual

6412circumstances that financial statements

6416would otherwise have been misleading. In

6422such cases his report must describe the

6429departure, the approximate effects thereof,

6434if practicable, and the reasons why

6440compliance with the principle would result

6446in a misleading statement.

645063. Count Four of the Complaint alleges a statutory

6459violation through Florida Administrative Code Rule 61H1-22.001,

6466which provides:

6468A licensee shall comply with the following

6475general standards and must justify any

6481departures therefrom:

6483(1) Professional competence. A licensee

6488shall undertake only those engagements which

6494he or his firm can reasonably expect to

6502complete with professional competence. A CPA

6508must be in charge of all public accounting

6516services performed by the firm.

6521(2) Due professional care. A licensee

6527shall exercise due professional care in the

6534performance of an engagement.

6538(3) Planning and supervision. A licensee

6544shall adequately plan and supervise an

6550engagement.

6551(4) Sufficient relevant data. A licensee

6557shall obtain sufficient relevant data to

6563afford a reasonable basis for conclusions or

6570recommendations in relation to an

6575engagement.

657664. As to Count One, Mr. McQuay has not been accused of

6588committing an act of fraud or deceit, or of misconduct. If the

6600allegation is to be sustained, Mr. McQuay must be found to have

6612committed one or more acts of negligence or incompetence. The

6622above Findings of Fact established by clear and convincing

6631evidence that Mr. McQuay was negligent as to: addressing the

6641dollar threshold for capitalizing fixed assets; including the

"6649Memorandum Only" caption on the "total" columns of the

6658Statement of Activities and Statement of Functional Expenses;

6666failing to document his audit evidence for fraud risk factors or

6677planning materiality; the omissions in the management

6684representation letter; his failure to document consideration of

6692a going concern with the entity's financial position; and his

6702failure to obtain an unequivocal renunciation of future rights

6711to back pay from Dr. Cox.

671765. As to Count Two, the above Findings of Fact

6727established by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. McQuay did

6737not comply with the applicable generally accepted auditing

6745standards as to: his failure to include mandatory Yellow Book

6755language as to separate reports bound in the same document,

6765though this failure was de minimus ; his failure to address the

6776dollar threshold for capitalizing fixed assets; his inclusion of

6785the "Memorandum Only" caption on the "total" columns of the

6795Statement of Activities and Statement of Functional Expenses;

6803his failure to document his audit evidence for fraud risk

6813factors or planning materiality; the omissions in the management

6822representation letter; his failure to document consideration of

6830a going concern with the entity's financial position; and his

6840failure to obtain an unequivocal renunciation of future rights

6849to back pay from Dr. Cox.

685566. As to Count Three, only one of Mr. McQuay's proven

6866departures from the applicable generally accepted accounting

6873standards even arguably had "a material effect on the statements

6883taken as a whole." This departure was the failure to obtain a

6895separate, standalone confirmation from Dr. Cox that he was

6904relinquishing any rights to the $158,429 in back salary that

6915Mid-Florida Center was removing from its books. It is concluded

6925that the Department failed to carry the burden of proving by

6936clear and convincing evidence that, under all the circumstances

6945(including the fact that this issue was dropped into

6954Mr. McQuay's lap by a previous accountant), Mr. McQuay's

6963omission caused a material effect on the entity's financial

6972statements.

697367. As to Count Four, it is concluded that the Department

6984failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. McQuay

6995undertook the Mid-Florida Center engagement without reasonably

7002expecting to complete it with professional competence, that

7010Mr. McQuay failed to adequately plan or supervise the

7019engagement, or that Mr. McQuay failed to obtain sufficient

7028relevant data to afford a reasonable basis for his conclusions.

7038The Department did prove by clear and convincing evidence that

7048Mr. McQuay failed to exercise due professional care in the

7058performance of the engagement, for the same reasons he was held

7069to be "negligent" as to Count One.

707668. Subsection 473.323(3), Florida Statutes, provides:

7082When the board finds any licensee guilty of

7090any of the grounds set forth in subsection

7098(1), it may enter an order imposing one or

7107more of the following penalties:

7112(a) Denial of an application for licensure.

7119(b) Revocation or suspension of a license.

7126(c) Imposition of an administrative fine

7132not to exceed $5,000 for each count or

7141separate offense.

7143(d) Issuance of a reprimand.

7148(e) Placement of the licensee on probation

7155for a period of time and subject to such

7164conditions as the board may specify,

7170including requiring the licensee to attend

7176continuing education courses or to work

7182under the supervision of another licensee.

7188(f) Restriction of the authorized scope of

7195practice by the certified public accountant.

720169. Subsection 455.227(3)(a), Florida Statutes, provides:

7207In addition to any other discipline imposed

7214pursuant to this section or discipline

7220imposed for a violation of any practice act,

7228the board, or the department when there is

7236no board, may assess costs related to the

7244investigation and prosecution of the case

7250excluding costs associated with an

7255attorney's time.

725770. A range of disciplinary guidelines for violations of

7266Chapter 473, Florida Statutes, has been adopted in Florida

7275Administrative Code Rule 61H1-36.004. The only provision of the

7284guidelines that appears to address the statutory and rule

7293violations alleged in the Complaint is Florida Administrative

7301Code Rule 61H1-36.004(2)(h), which provides a range from "letter

7310of guidance" to "reprimand and one (1) year probation

7319(continuing education and review of practice at licensee's

7327expense and limited area of practice) for each violation

7336involving negligence or misconduct."

734071. The Department in its Proposed Recommended Order has

7349suggested imposition of a $500.00 administrative fine, requiring

7357Mr. McQuay to pay investigative costs of $4,809.00, requiring

7367Mr. McQuay to take sixteen hours of continuing professional

7376education beyond the regular requirement, including eight hours

7384related to nonprofit organizations, and placing Mr. McQuay on

7393probation for a period of two years with conditions including

7403the review of his audits by a consultant selected by the Board

7415of Accountancy for the first year, at Mr. McQuay's expense.

742572. The Department did not provide sufficient evidence to

7434support its investigative costs of $4,809.00. Mr. Reilly and

7444Mr. Nast testified as to the amount of their billings to the

7456Department. However, the Department provided no billing

7463statements, invoices, or other documents to support the amount

7472of the experts' fees, and offered no expert testimony to

7482establish the reasonableness of those fees.

748873. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61H1-36.004(3)

7494provides that the Board of Accountancy deviate from the

7503disciplinary guidelines "upon a showing of aggravating or

7511mitigating circumstances by clear and convincing evidence

7518presented to the Board prior to the imposition of a final

7529penalty."

753074. None of the aggravating circumstances set forth in

7539Florida Administrative Code Rule 61H1-36.004(3)(a) is applicable

7546to Mr. McQuay's case, and the Department has urged no

7556aggravating circumstances beyond those enumerated in the rule.

756475. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61H1-36.004(3)(b)

7570sets forth the mitigating circumstances as follows:

7577Mitigating circumstances; circumstances

7580which may justify deviating from the above

7587set forth disciplinary guidelines and cause

7593the lessening of a penalty beyond the

7600minimum level of discipline in the

7606guidelines shall include but not be limited

7613to the following:

76161. In cases of negligence, the minor nature

7624of the engagement in question and lack of

7632danger to the public health, safety and

7639welfare resulting from the licensee’s

7644misfeasance.

76452. Lack of previous disciplinary history in

7652this or any other jurisdiction wherein the

7659licensee practices his profession.

76633. Restitution of any damages suffered by

7670the licensee's client.

76734. The licensee's professional standing

7678among his peers including continuing

7683education.

76845. Steps taken by the licensee or his firm

7693to insure the non-occurrence of similar

7699violations in the future.

77036. The degree of financial hardship

7709incurred by a licensee as a result of the

7718imposition of fines or the suspension of his

7726practice.

77277. Cooperation with the Department of

7733Business and Professional Regulation and the

7739Board including understanding and admission

7744of the violation by the Respondent.

775076. The evidence established several mitigating

7756circumstances that should be considered in this case:

7764a. There was no showing of danger to the public health,

7775safety and welfare resulting from Mr. McQuay's misfeasance;

7783b. The Department offered no evidence of prior discipline

7792involving Mr. McQuay;

7795c. Mr. McQuay's client suffered no damages and in fact

7805offered testimony in support of Mr. McQuay; and

7813d. Mr. McQuay would incur great financial harm if a

7823significant fine and/or investigative costs were imposed.

783077. Under all the circumstances, it is concluded that the

7840recommended probation and continuing education are the most

7848appropriate and sufficient disciplinary measures to be imposed

7856upon Mr. McQuay. It is concluded that a financial penalty would

7867be needlessly punitive under all the circumstances.

7874RECOMMENDATION

7875Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

7885Law, it is

7888RECOMMENDED that

7890A final order be entered finding that David McQuay, Jr.

7900committed the violations alleged in Counts One, Two, and Four of

7911the Amended Administrative Complaint and requiring Mr. McQuay to

7920take sixteen hours of Continuing Professional Education beyond

7928the regular requirement, including eight hours related to

7936nonprofit organizations, and placing Mr. McQuay on probation for

7945a period of two years. During the first year of probation, all

7957audits (including financial statements and working papers) will

7965be reviewed by a consultant selected by the Board, at

7975Mr. McQuay's expense. If any audit is deemed deficient upon

7985review by the Board, review of all audits will continue through

7996the second year of Mr. McQuay's probation.

8003DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2008, in

8013Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

8017S

8018LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON

8021Administrative Law Judge

8024Division of Administrative Hearings

8028The DeSoto Building

80311230 Apalachee Parkway

8034Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

8037(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

8041Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

8045www.doah.state.fl.us

8046Filed with the Clerk of the

8052Division of Administrative Hearings

8056this 27th day of October, 2008.

8062COPIES FURNISHED :

8065Eric R. Hurst, Esquire

8069Department of Business and

8073Professional Regulation

80751940 North Monroe Street

8079Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

8082David McQuay, Jr.

8085110 North Lincoln Avenue

8089Tampa, Florida 33609-2908

8092Veloria A. Kelly, Director

8096Department of Business and Professional

8101Regulations, Board of Accountancy

8105240 NW 76th Drive, Suite A

8111Gainesville, Florida 32607

8114Ned Luczynski, General Counsel

8118Department of Business and

8122Professional Regulations

8124Northwood Centre

81261940 North Monroe Street

8130Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0793

8133NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

8139All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

814915 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions

8160to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that

8171will issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 12/23/2008
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 12/23/2008
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held July 22, 2008). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2008
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2008
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Stevenson from D. McQuay regarding request for copy of Transcript of Proceedings filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2008
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2008
Proceedings: Respondent`s Exhibit List (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 08/20/2008
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
Date: 07/22/2008
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2008
Proceedings: Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2008
Proceedings: (Respondent`s Answers to) Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/26/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/17/2008
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 06/17/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 22, 2008; 9:00 a.m.; Tampa, FL).
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/12/2008
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/05/2008
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2008
Proceedings: Amended Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2008
Proceedings: Election of Rights filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2008
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON
Date Filed:
06/04/2008
Date Assignment:
07/11/2008
Last Docket Entry:
12/23/2008
Location:
Tampa, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
PL
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):

Related Florida Rule(s) (4):