ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2014A-3697-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2014-12-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 3, 2014, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: Valley Coatings LLC appeared through Christopher Lee Neumeyer, its qualifying party and only member; the Arizona Registrar of Contractors was represented by Seth T. Hargraves, Esq., Assistant Attorney General. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure 1. On or about March 6, 2014, Christopher Lee Neumeyer (“Mr. Neumeyer”) on behalf of Valley Coatings LLC (“Valley Coatings”) submitted an Application for Contractor’s License to the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”). Mr. Neumeyer was listed on the application as Valley Coatings’ qualifying party and only member.[1] 2. Mr. Neumeyer answered “Yes” to two questions on the application: 1. Question 22 about whether he had ever received a citation for contracting without a license, and 2. Question 26 about whether anyone listed on the application had been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor.[2] Mr. Neumeyer disclosed that in 2003, he had been convicted of attempted burglary in Maricopa County Superior Court.[3] 3. Mr. Neumeyer also submitted with Valley Coatings’ application two completed Work Experience Record forms, in relevant part as follows: 1. A Work Experience Record that claimed that Mr. Neumeyer had 7 years and 5 months of experience, between July 2006, and December 2013, with Intra Crete, License No. 222084, under Andrea Lipan’s supervision, including five years, 7 months experience in each of the positions of laborer, foreman, and supervisor. This Work Experience Record was signed by Cory Neumeyer under penalty of perjury to verify that based on his direct knowledge, the information on the Work Experience Record was correct.[4] 2. A second Work Experience Record that also claimed that Mr. Neumeyer had 7 years and 5 months of experience, between July 2006, and December 2013, with Intra Crete. The second Work experience record claimed that the experience was under Brandon Palmer’s supervision, including five months’ experience as a laborer, one year’s experience as an apprentice, six years’ experience as a journeyman, six years’ experience as a foreman, and six years’ experience as a superintendent, that was signed by Mr. Palmer under penalty of perjury to verify that based on his direct knowledge, the information on the Work Experience Record was correct.[5] 4. Mr. Neumeyer also submitted with Valley Coatings’ application a Project Information form that indicated that he worked on a project at Bonnie Zimmerlin’s property in July 2009, that was signed by Ms. Zimmerlin under penalty of perjury to verify that she had direct knowledge of the project and that the information on the form was true.[6] 5. Mr. Neumeyer also submitted with Valley Coatings’ application nine Project Information forms that indicated that Mr. Neumeyer worked on nine projects for various other property owners between October 2008, and October 2012, that were all signed by Mr. Palmer under penalty of perjury to verify that he had direct knowledge of the projects and that the information on the forms was true.[7] 6. On or about August 12, 2014, the Registrar’s Chief of Licensing, Lawrence R. Mathews, sent a letter to Valley Coatings to notify it that the Registrar had determined to deny its license application under A.R.S. §§ 32-1122(D), 32-1154(A)(7), 32-1151, and 32- 1122(F)(1), and summarizing the facts that supported the denial under each statute.[8] Mr. Mathews’ August 12, 2014 letter concluded as follows: Christopher Lee Neumeyer has been convicted of multiple felonies. He has also been convicted of contracting without a license and was required to pay fines of $1,000.00 and restitution in the amount of $6,152.00. The nature of the convictions makes licensure of his company a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Christopher Lee Neumeyer also failed to demonstrate that he has the requisite two (2) years’ experience needed for this license classification. . . .[9]

7. Mr. Neumeyer requested a hearing on the Registrar’s denial of Valley Coatings’ license application. 8. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 9. An evidentiary hearing was held on December 3, 2014. Mr. Neumeyer submitted three exhibits and testified on Valley Coatings’ behalf. The Registrar submitted six exhibits and presented the testimony of Mr. Mathews. Hearing Evidence Mr. Neumeyer’s Criminal History February 1998 Conviction for Possession of Marijuana 10. On or about July 23, 1997, Mr. Neumeyer was charged with possession of dangerous drugs, specifically methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia in Case No. CR97- 02212AFE in Peoria Justice Court. Mr. Neumeyer had four co- defendants in that matter, who were all charged with the same offenses, including Cory Alan Neumeyer.[10] 11. Peoria Justice Court Case No. CR97-02212AFE, including the charges against all five defendants, was subsequently transferred to the Maricopa County Superior Court, where it was redesignated as Case No. CR97-08544. On or about August 5, 1997, the same five defendants, including Mr. Neumeyer and Cory Alan Neumeyer, were charged by information with the same three criminal offenses.[11] 12. On or about January 9, 1998, Mr. Neumeyer entered into a plea agreement in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CR97- 08544(D).[12] According to the February 10, 1998 presentence report in Case No. CR97-08544(D), Mr. Neumeyer stated that “[h]e is not a bad person that gets in trouble, nor is he an alcoholic, drug addict, or drug dealer,” and that he “[did] not know why this happened.”[13] 13. On or about February 18, 1998, Mr. Neumeyer was convicted pursuant to his plea agreement of Possession of Marijuana, a Class 6 undesignated felony, in Case No. CR97-08544, and sentenced to two years’ supervised probation, to pay a $500.00 fine, and to participate and cooperate in the drug court program, which included days in the Maricopa County Jail, with the dates of incarceration to be determined at a later hearing.[14] 14. On or about June 30, 1998, Mr. Neumeyer was found to have violated the conditions of his probation in Case No. CR97-08544. As a result, the court reinstated his supervised probation, but extended the term of probation to three years from February 10, 1998.[15] 15. On or about January 28, 1999, for the second time, Mr. Neumeyer was found to have violated the conditions of his probation in Case No. CR97-08544. The court designated the offense as a felony, reinstated the supervised probation, to be concurrent with the sentence in Case No. CR98-17628, and imposed a fine of $1,000.00.[16] 16. On or about April 23, 1999, for the third time, Mr. Neumeyer was found to have violated the conditions of his probation in Case No. CR97-08544. As a result, the court revoked and terminated his probation as unsuccessfully completed and imposed a fine of $500.00.[17] January 1999 Conviction for Possession of Dangerous Drugs for Sale 17. On or about December 28, 1998, Mr. Neumeyer was charged in the Northwest Justice Court for Maricopa County in Case No. CR98-1789FE with possession of dangerous drugs for sale based on an incident that had allegedly occurred on May 13, 1998.[18] 18. Northwest Justice Court Case No. CR98-1789FE was transferred to Maricopa County Superior Court and redesignated as Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CR98-17628, and on December 24, 1998, Mr. Neumeyer was charged by information with knowingly possessing for sale methamphetamine, a dangerous drug.[19] Mr. Neumeyer subsequently pled guilty to knowingly possessing methamphetamine for sale. 19. The January 26, 1999 Presentence Investigation in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CR98-17628 noted that Mr. Neumeyer had stated that “he was attending outpatient substance abuse classes before he was arrested at Prevention, Assessment and Counseling (PAC),” that “[i]f not for his arrest, he would have graduated December 31st,” and that “he has been drug-free since his arrest on May 13, 1998 . . . .”[20] However, Mr. Neumeyer’s counselor at PAC described his participation in the program as follows: [Mr. Neumeyer] was always late for regular and make-up classes, many times as much as a half hour. His homework was many times not completed as directed. His overall attendance and attitude was “minimal”. Most of the time he was not prepared for group when he did attend. [The class] was in the pre-treatment phase of the program. If [Mr. Neumeyer] is reinstated on probation, he would have to start another program all over again, in fact . . . residential treatment would be more appropriate for [Mr. Neumeyer’s] needs [and] intensive probation would be more appropriate for [Mr. Neumeyer].[21]

20. On or about January 28, 1999, pursuant to his plea agreement in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CR98-17628, Mr. Neumeyer was convicted of Possession of Dangerous Drugs for Sale, a Class 3 felony, and sentenced to three years’ supervised intensive probation, 21 days’ incarceration in the Maricopa County Jail, and a $2,000.00 fine.[22] 21. On or about April 23, 1999, Mr. Neumeyer was found to have violated the conditions of his probation in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CR98-17628, resulting in the his probation being revoked, a $2,000.00 fine imposed, and the court committing him to the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections for a presumptive term of imprisonment of three and one-half years.[23] March 2004 Conviction for Burglary in the Third Degree 22. On or about October 23, 2003, in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CR2003-036717, Mr. Neumeyer was charged by information with intent to commit theft, based on an incident that had allegedly occurred on June 14, 2003.[24] 23. On or about February 25, 2004, Mr. Neumeyer entered a plea of guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CR2003-036717 to burglary in the third degree, a Class 4 felony.[25] According to the March 22, 2004 Presentence Investigation, Mr. Neumeyer stated that he “was under the influence of methamphetamine and was looking for change to ride a bus,” but requested that he be granted probation “because for the first time in a long time he is off of drugs, attending counseling, employed, and he and his girlfriend are expecting a child.”[26] 24. On or about March 26, 2004, pursuant to his plea agreement in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CR2003-036717, the court sentenced Mr. Neumeyer to 4 years’ supervised probation, whose terms included that he successfully complete substance abuse counseling/treatment, perform 100 hours of community service, and be incarcerated in the Maricopa County Jail for six months.[27] The court’s sentencing order noted that “Andrea Lipan address[ed] the Court on behalf of [Mr. Neumeyer].”[28] Mr. Neumeyer’s Testimony about his Criminal History 25. Mr. Neumeyer noted that his most recent criminal conviction was more than ten years old. He successfully completed his most recent probation in two years and was released early. Mr. Neumeyer credibly testified that all of his convictions resulted from his drug addiction, of which he is ashamed, but that he is proud that he has overcome his addiction and become an upstanding citizen who no longer poses any threat. 26. Mr. Neumeyer acknowledged that he has not yet had his civil rights restored after his three felony convictions. He is working with an attorney, however, and is in the process of submitting a request to the court to restore his civil rights. Mr. Neumeyer’s History of Unlicensed Contracting 27. On or about January 10, 2010, Mr. Neumeyer was charged with contracting without a license in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1151 in San Marcos Justice Court, Maricopa County in Case No. JC 2010 102993, based on an event that allegedly occurred on November 18, 2008.[29] 28. On or about April 19, 2010, Mr. Neumeyer pled guilty to the crime of contracting without a license, a Class 1 misdemeanor in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1151, in San Marcos Justice Court Case No. JC 2010 102993.[30] As a result of his guilty plea, Mr. Neumeyer was sentenced to pay a $1,000.00 fine and restitution in an amount to be determined at a later time.[31] After a restitution hearing, on or about June 21, 2010, Mr. Neumeyer was ordered to pay $6,152.00 in criminal restitution to the injured homeowner.[32] 29. Mr. Mathews noted that nothing in the court records indicated that Mr. Neumeyer had paid the restitution. 30. Mr. Neumeyer testified that he is current on his restitution payments and is very close to paying off the entire amount of the court-ordered restitution. Mr. Neumeyer’s Experience in Performing Work in the CR34 License Classification and for Intra Crete

31. Mr. Mathews testified that the Registrar requires license applicants to complete Work Experience Record and Project Information forms for the qualifying party so that the Registrar can verify whether the qualifying party possesses the number of years of experience in the license classification that applicable statute requires. Mr. Mathews explained that the Registrar also must determine whether the work that the qualifying party claims for the required experience was performed in a professional and workmanlike manner. 32. To verify the qualifying party’s claimed work experience for a license application, Mr. Mathews testified that the Registrar must be able to contact the persons who verified the information on the Work Experience Record forms. The Registrar also must be able to contact the persons who verified the information on the Project Information forms to ensure that the qualifying party performed work on the project, that the work performed was the type of work performed under the license classification, and that the work was performed in a professional and workmanlike manner. Mr. Mathews explained that A.R.S. § 32-1122(F)(1) requires a minimum of four years’ practical or management trade experience, at least two of which must have been within the last ten years. 33. Mr. Mathews testified that the two Work Experience Record forms that Mr. Neumeyer submitted with Valley Coatings’ license application were confusing because they were inconsistent. 34. Mr. Mathews pointed out that the first Work Experience Record was verified by Cory Neumeyer. Although Mr. Mathews was able to contact Cory Neumeyer, he discounted the Work Experience Record that Cory Neumeyer signed because he shared Mr. Neumeyer’s surname, the two appeared to have a familial relationship, and Cory Neumeyer was a co-defendant in Maricopa Superior Court Case No. CR97-08544. Mr. Mathews testified that due to these circumstances, the Work Experience Record that Cory Neumeyer verified for Mr. Neumeyer might not have been accurate. 35. Mr. Mathews testified that he attempted to contact Mr. Palmer, who verified the second Work Experience Record and nine of the Project Information forms, without success. Because the Registrar could not corroborate the information that Mr. Palmer had verified on these forms, it could not credit the claimed work experience. 36. According to the Registrar’s public website, on July 17, 2006, License No. 222084 for dual concrete coatings was issued to Intra Crete, a sole proprietorship. Andrea Lyn Lipan was the qualifying party, owner, and the only person listed on that license. On May 1, 2014, License No. 222084 was voluntarily cancelled. 37. Mr. Mathews testified that because one of the Work Experience Record forms that Mr. Neumeyer had submitted claimed Ms. Lipan as a supervisor, Mr. Mathews also attempted to contact Ms. Lipan by calling the telephone number in the Registrar’s records for Intra Crete, but that the number had been disconnected. 38. Mr. Neumeyer testified that Ms. Lipan is his common-law wife and that the two have been together since 2003 and have a 10-year-old son together. Mr. Neumeyer testified that he was the reference for the experience that Ms. Lipan claimed on Intra Crete’s license application and that although on paper Intra Crete was Ms. Lipan’s name, he performed the company’s day-to-day contracting activities, including marketing and managing employees. 39. Mr. Neumeyer testified that Ms. Lipan closed Intra Crete’s business so that she could attend the University of California at Santa Barbara and that she and their son currently reside in southern California. Mr. Neumeyer explained that he and Ms. Lipan agreed that the closure of Intra Crete would allow him to take advantage of new opportunities by starting his own company. 40. Mr. Neumeyer testified that application of decorative coatings is an art form as well as a trade and that he is good at it. Mr. Neumyer stated that during the time that he was associated with Intra Crete, he learned a lot about management and ownership. Mr. Neumeyer testified that he gives back to the community and donates 5% of all profits to the International Rescue Committee. 41. Mr. Neumeyer submitted three exhibits to support his testimony about his role at Intra Crete, in relevant part as follows: 1. Carlos Santana, a sales representative for Arizona Polymer Flooring, whom Mr. Neumeyer testified was one of Intra Crete’s suppliers, provided a signed email that stated that Mr. Neumeyer “has been the face of ‘Intracrete’ to which his companion of many years ‘Andrea Lipan’ was the owner only on paper.” Mr. Santana stated further that since 2004, his company had supplied Mr. Neumeyer’s company with materials, that he had a personal yet professional relationship with Mr. Neumeyer, and that Mr. Neumeyer’s reputation in the construction industry exceeded all expectations for a business owner and responsible worker.[33] 2. Jaime Isidoro, the Glendale store manager for Nina Construction Supply, whom Mr. Neumeyer testified was another one of Intra Crete’s suppliers, provided a signed email that included the same content as Mr. Santana’s email.[34] 3. An unsigned letter from Ms. Lipan stated that “[Mr.] Neumeyer worked for IntraCrete off and on during the time that I was in business (2007 to 2014). He has worked as a project manager, crew leader, laborer, and consultant.”[35] 42. Mr. Neumeyer testified that although he was the face of Intra Crete, Ms. Lipan performed administrative tasks while he ran the company. Mr. Neumeyer testified that Arizona Polymer Flooring and Nina Construction Supply furnished materials and supplies to other companies for whom he worked between 2004 and 2006, before Intra Crete was licensed. 43. Mr. Mathews testified that Mr. Neumeyer’s testimony did not change his opinion about whether Valley Coatings should be licensed, but raised additional concerns. Mr. Mathews assumed that Mr. Neumeyer was not listed on Intra Crete’s license application as the qualifying party. Mr. Mathews testified that if Mr. Neumeyer had secured Intra Crete’s license under Ms. Lipan’s name and later ran Intra Crete’s contracting business, Intra Crete would have obtained its license through a misrepresentation. 44. Mr. Mathews explained that because such misrepresentation was an egregious offense and that if it had occurred, that Intra Crete’s license application should not have been approved. Mr. Mathews noted that if Mr. Neumeyer’s testimony about his role at Intra Crete was credited, the Work Experience Record that listed Ms. Lipan as his supervisor contained a misrepresentation. Mr. Mathews testified that if Intra Crete had not cancelled its license, he would recommend that the Registrar’s Legal Department summarily suspend the license based on Mr. Neumeyer’s testimony. 45. On rebuttal, Mr. Neumeyer testified that Ms. Lipan was involved in the day-to-day contracting activities of Intra Crete, but that he performed the technical work and supervised the crews, and Ms. Lipan communicated with clients and performed administrative tasks. Mr. Neumeyer apologized if he had overstated his role at Intra Crete. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[36] 2. Valley Coatings bears the burden of proof to establish that it meets statutory qualifications for a contractor’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.[37] “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[38] 3. A.R.S. § 32-1122(D) provides, in relevant part, as follows: To obtain or renew a license under this chapter, each person shall be of good character and reputation. Lack of good character and reputation may be established by showing that a person has engaged in contracting without a license or committed any act that, if committed or done by any licensed contractor, would be grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor's license . . . .

A contractor’s license is a privilege, not a right. Even though cause may exist to deny a license application, however, an applicant may establish that he is rehabilitated, has reestablished good character, and no longer poses a threat to the public. The issue of what constitutes good character or a lack thereof is nebulous at best. Former United States Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter noted: No doubt satisfaction of the requirement of moral character involves an exercise of delicate judgment on the part of those who reach a conclusion, having heard and seen the applicant . . . , a judgment of which it may be said as it was of "many honest and sensible judgments" in a different context that it expresses "an intuition of experience which outruns analysis and sums up many unnamed and tangled impressions; impressions which may lie beneath consciousness without losing their worth." . . . [39]

4. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7) includes among the grounds furnishing cause for the Registrar to revoke or suspend a contractor’s license “[c]onviction of a felony.” Mr. Neumeyer did not dispute that he was convicted of felonies in February 1998, January 1999, and March 2004. Once good character is shown to be absent, it is not automatically regained by the mere passage of time and some positive and affirmative activities are required for a person to regain what was lost. Mr. Neumeyer credibly testified that all of his felony convictions resulted from his addiction to illegal drugs and that he has overcome his addictions. But Mr. Neumeyer has a history of making self-serving statements in court proceedings that his later behavior demonstrates were false, no one else testified to his character and good works, and he has continued to make poor decisions that demonstrate that he is not yet fully rehabilitated. 5. A.R.S. § 32-1151 provides, in relevant part, as follows: It is unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization, or a combination of any of them, to engage in the business of, submit a bid or respond to a request for qualification or a request for proposals for construction services as, act or offer to act in the capacity of or purport to have the capacity of a contractor without having a contractor's license in good standing in the name of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization as provided in this chapter, unless the person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or other organization is exempt as provided in this chapter. . . .

Mr. Neumeyer acknowledged that in April 2010, he was convicted of unlicensed contracting in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1151 and that he has not yet completed his sentence by paying the full amount of restitution to the homeowner. Mr. Neumeyer’s conviction for unlicensed contracting in 2010, calls into question his testimony about his role at Intra Crete, whose License No. 222084 was current and in good standing in 2008, when the unlicensed contracting activity occurred. 6. For the reasons that Mr. Mathews provided in his testimony, the Work Experience Record and Project Information forms that Mr. Neumeyer submitted with Valley Coatings’ license application do not establish that he has the four years’ experience required by A.R.S. § 32- 1122(F)(1)[40] performing contracting work within the scope of a CR34 license classification in a professional and workmanlike manner. 7. Mr. Neumeyer’s testimony and exhibits about his role at Intra Crete do not cure the deficiencies that Mr. Mathews’ testimony established in the documentation that Mr. Neumeyer submitted to establish his experience. Because Ms. Lipan was the qualifying party on Intra Crete’s license, not Mr. Neumeyer, she was required to supervise and to be actively involved in its contracting work.[41] If Mr. Neumeyer was “face of Intra Crete” and performed or supervised its contracting activities and Ms. Lipan’s role was predominantly administrative, Intra Crete would have aided and abetted Mr. Neumeyer’s unlicensed contracting activities, thereby furnishing cause for the Registrar to revoke or suspend Intra Crete’s license.[42] 8. “[T]he Registrar is charged with the overall responsibility of protecting the welfare of the public dealing with persons engaged in the building contracting vocations and afford the public protection against incompetent, inexperienced, unlawful and fraudulent acts of building contractors.”[43] Grounds exist under A.R.S. §§ 32-1122(D), 32-1154(A)(7), 32-1151, and 32-1122(F)(1) to deny Valley Coatings’ Pending License No. CR34-291051-D. On this record, Mr. Neumeyer did not establish that he is sufficiently rehabilitated or that he possesses the requisite experience for the Registrar to grant Valley Coatings’ application for a contractor’s license without exposing the public to an unreasonable risk of harm. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s order, the Registrar affirm the decision to deny Valley Coatings’ application for a contractor’s license. 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 will be five days from the date of that certification. Done this day, December 12, 2014. /s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge Transmitted electronically to: William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 2. [2] See id. at 2. [3] See id. at 3. [4] See id. at 4. [5] See id. at 6. [6] See id. at 5. [7] See id. at 7-15. [8] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 1. [9] Id. at 5. [10] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 3 at 2-3. [11] See id. at 5-6. [12] See id. at 7-8. [13] See id. at 10. [14] See id. at 17-19. [15] See id. at 20-23. [16] See id. at 24-27. [17] See id. at 29-31. [18] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 4 at 5-8. [19] See id. at 31. [20] Id. at 32. [21] Id. at 33. [22] See id. at 42-46. [23] See id. at 47-51. [24] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 5 at 7-8. [25] See id. at 9-10. [26] Id. at 15. [27] See id. at 11-14. [28] Id. at 11. [29] See the Registrar’s Exhibit 6 at 2-3. [30] See id. at 6-8. [31] See id. at 9. [32] See id. at 13. [33] Valley Coatings’ Exhibit A. [34] See Valley Coatings’ Exhibit B. [35] Valley Coatings Exhibit C. [36] See A.R.S. § 32-1122. [37] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(1); A.A.C. R2-19-119; see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [38] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [39] Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of the State of New Mexico, 353 U.S. 232, 248, 77 S. Ct. 752, 761 (1957) (citation omitted; concurring opinion). [40] A.R.S. § 32-1122(F)(1) requires, in relevant part, that a qualifying party must “[h]ave had a minimum of four years' practical or management trade experience, at least two of which must have been within the last ten years, dealing specifically with the type of construction, or its equivalent, for which the applicant is applying for a license.” [41] A.R.S. § 32-1127 provides, in relevant part, as follows: The terms "responsible managing employee" and "qualifying party" shall, for the purpose of administering this chapter, be synonymous, and shall mean an employee who is regularly employed by the licensee and is actively engaged in the classification of work for which such responsible managing employee qualifies in behalf of the licensee. While engaged as a qualifying party for a licensee, the qualifying party shall not take other employment that would conflict with his duties as qualifying party or conflict with his ability to adequately supervise the work performed by the licensee. . . . [42] See A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(9), which includes among the grounds furnishing cause for the Registrar to revoke or suspend a contractor’s license “[a]iding or abetting a licensed or unlicensed person to evade this chapter, knowingly or recklessly combining or conspiring with a licensed or unlicensed person, allowing one's license to be used by a licensed or unlicensed person or acting as agent, partner, associate or otherwise of a licensed or unlicensed person with intent to evade this chapter.” [43] Burrows v. Taylor, 129 Ariz. 212, 214, 630 P.2d 35, 37 (Ct. App. 1981); see also Laws 1985, Ch. 334, § 1 (“The goals and objectives of the registrar of contractors are to protect the public health, safety and welfare by licensing, bonding and regulating contractors engaged in residential construction . . . .”).

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

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