ALJDEC

00F-T0241-ROC-COM · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-09-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 18, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for a Compliance Hearing to determine whether the Respondent has substantially complied with the terms and conditions of the previously entered Decision and Order of the Registrar of Contractors. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order on Compliance Hearing are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The prior Order of the Registrar of Contractors, which has become final in the absence of any timely appeal, provides for the suspension of the Respondent’s Class C-61 License unless or until the Respondent has properly performed designated corrective action on the Complainant’s residence. 2. The credible testimony and evidence of record established that the Respondent has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the prior Order of the Registrar of Contractors. 3. The credible testimony and evidence of record also established that the Complainant has not been forthcoming in granting access to his residence and that the Complainant has placed unreasonable conditions on the Respondent in order to gain access to the residence. 4. Credible evidence established that the Respondent’s actions over a prolonged period of time are not indicative of a good faith desire to resolve this matter by complying with the terms and conditions of the prior Order of the Registrar of Contractors. On the contrary, credible evidence of record establishes that the Respondent has repeatedly failed to properly accomplish compliance with the terms and conditions of the prior Order and that the Respondent’s efforts appear to have been directed to engage in arguments with the Complainant, rather than to achieve, compliance with the prior Order of the Registrar of Contractors. 5. Credible evidence established that the course of conduct exhibited by the Complainant was not calculated to enable the expeditious accomplishment of the designated corrective actions set forth in the prior Order of the Registrar of Contractors and that the Complainant’s conduct appeared to be directed at an effort to engage in a long term argumentative relationship with the Respondent rather than the performance of the directed corrective action. The nature and extent of the designated corrective action did not warrant extensive prior meetings and plans nor is the Complainant’s attempt to impose time limits on the performance of corrective action appropriate. It was never the intent of the prior Order to place the duration of any license suspension at the uncontrolled discretion of the Complainant. 6. Both parties demonstrated an ongoing inability to effectively communicate or to schedule their onsite work and both repeatedly resorted to the use of agency personnel to act as intermediaries. This is not an appropriate agency function and no additional opportunities need be, or should be, afforded for the Respondent or the Complainant. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The credible evidence of record supported findings that the Respondent has not substantially complied with the terms and conditions of the prior Order of the Registrar of Contractors. 2. A licensed contractor is not entitled to an unlimited period of time or an endless succession of opportunities to comply with specified conditions which reduce, eliminate, or terminate, disciplinary action against the Contractor’s License. Nor is a complaining party who elects to utilize this forum necessarily entitled the performance of corrective action by a contractor who has violated provisions of the State’s contracting laws. In appropriate cases, especially where personal friction between the parties effectively prevents the performance of directed corrective action a departure from the normal agency preference to encourage corrective action is fully justified and unconditional disciplinary action may be properly substituted. 3. The credible testimony and evidence presented at the hearing warrants the modification of the prior order so as to provide for a fixed period of active license suspension to be followed by a period of disciplinary probation and for the deletion of the corrective action provisions of the prior agency order. RECOMMENDED ORDER on compliance hearing In view of the foregoing, it is recommended on this Compliance Hearing that the prior agency order be amended to vacate the terms and conditions relating to corrective action and that, instead, the Respondent’s Class C- License be placed on active suspension for a period of thirty (30) days followed immediately by a period of disciplinary probation for a period of ninety (90) days. Done this day, September 29, 2000.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of September, 2000, to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By _______________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488