ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

14F-2012.025-ACY · State Board of Accountancy · 2014-02-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 15, 2014 APPEARANCES: Carter E. Dickey appeared personally. The Arizona State Board of Accountancy was represented by Assistant Attorney General Seth T. Hargraves. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Arizona State Board of Accountancy (“Board”) is the authority for certifying and regulating the practice of public accounting by Certified Public Accountants in the State of Arizona. 2. Carter E. Dickey (“Respondent”) is the holder of Certified Public Accountant Certificate No. 1446-E issued by the Board. This certificate enables Respondent to practice as a Certified Public Accountant in the State of Arizona. 3. On or about June 7, 2012, Respondent entered into a Decision and Order (By Consent) (“Consent Order No. 1”) with the Board. Pursuant to the terms of Consent Order No. 1, Respondent was required, within twelve (12) months of the effective date of Consent Order No. 1, to take and successfully complete sixteen (16) hours of continuing professional education (“CPE”). Respondent failed to comply with the terms of Consent Order No. 1. 4. At its July 15, 2013 meeting, the Board reviewed and considered Respondent’s noncompliance with the terms of Consent Order No. 1. Respondent was present to address his noncompliance and vowed to do whatever the Board wanted in order to keep his certificate. The Board voted to offer Respondent a new consent agreement to include suspension, sixteen (16) hours of CPE to be completed within one (1) year, and a $500.00 administrative penalty to be paid within thirty (30) days. 5. On July 18, 2013, Board staff mailed the offered consent agreement to Respondent by regular and certified mail to his address of record. The accompanying cover letter directed Respondent to respond to the offer within thirty (30) days. The certified mail was signed for as received on July 19, 2013. Respondent failed to respond to the offer. 6. On September 9, 2013, Board staff sent Respondent a letter notifying him that the Board would consider his failure to respond at its September 16, 2013 meeting. 7. At its September 16, 2013 meeting, the Board reviewed and considered Respondent’s failure to respond to the offered consent agreement. Respondent was present at the meeting and indicated that he would sign the offer right then and there if the Board would accept it. 8. The Board voted to accept Respondent’s late response only if he signed the offer prior to leaving the meeting, otherwise the Board would proceed to a hearing for revocation. Respondent signed the offered Decision and Order (By Consent) (“Consent Order No. 2”) and it became effective on September 16, 2013. 9. Pursuant to the terms of Consent Order No. 2, Respondent was required to pay a $500.00 administrative penalty to the Board within thirty (30) days of the effective date of Consent Order No. 2. 10. Respondent failed to pay the administrative penalty within thirty (30) days of the effective date of Consent Order No. 2. 11. At its November 4, 2013 meeting, the Board reviewed and considered Respondent’s failure to pay the administrative penalty required by Consent Order No. 2. As of the date of the meeting, Respondent had not submitted any payment. The Board voted the matter to hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency. 12. At the hearing, the Board’s Compliance Manager, Ryan Edmonson, testified consistent with the above Findings of Facts. 13. Respondent testified that Mr. Edmonson’s testimony and the Board’s exhibits were accurate. Respondent further testified that he was willing to pay the administrative penalty but did not do so at that time. 14. The evidence of record establishes a history of non-compliance with the Board. Respondent’s testimony that he is willing to now pay the administrative penalty lacks credibility. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2), the Board has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). 3. Respondent’s failure to comply with the terms of Consent Order No. 2 constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(9).[1] In light of Respondent’s failure to comply with Consent Order Nos. 1 and 2, the Board’s intention to revoke Respondent’s Certified Public Accountant Certificate No. 1446-E is supported by the evidence of record. 4. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-701(10)(g), Respondent should be assessed the Board’s costs of investigation and proceedings in this matter. RECOMMENDED ORDER It is recommended that Respondent’s Certified Public Accountant Certificate No. 1446 be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-741.03(A), Respondent shall return his certificate to the Board. It is further recommended that Respondent be assessed the Board’s costs of investigation and proceedings in this matter.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order shall be five (5) days from the date of the certification.

Done this day, February 4, 2014.

/s/ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Monica L. Petersen, Executive Director Arizona State Board of Accountancy ----------------------- [1] A.R.S. § 32-741(A)(9) provides as follows: “Violation of any decision, order or rule issued or adopted by the board.”

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826