ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-05687-LDA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-07-18
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Arizona Registrar of Contractors,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
R & E Remodel LLC,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-05687-LDA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: Conducted and concluded on June 28, 2024.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover and Assistant General Counsel Margaret Lindsey
For Respondent: Ashley Edwards
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing. Complainant introduced Exhibits 1–14.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
On or around March 25, 2024, Ashley Edwards filed Application No. [number redacted] (the Application) for a CR-61 Carpentry, Remodeling and Repairs license from the Registrar of Contractors (the Registrar).
The Application listed Ms. Edwards as Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Manager.
The Application disclosed that Ms. Edwards had been convicted Possession of Narcotic Drugs and Organized Retail Theft in Maricopa County Superior Court.
On March 25, 2024, Ms. Edwards electronically signed the Application, certifying that the information was “true and correct.”
On April 12, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of License Denial to Respondent for Application based on Ms. Edwards’s felony convictions in violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-1122(C); 32-1154(A)(7).
Respondent timely appealed the denial.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an independent evidentiary hearing to determine whether grounds existed for the Registrar to deny Respondent’s application for licensure based on alleged violation(s) of A.R.S. § 32-1122(C).
The Hearing was held via Google Meet on June 28, 2024.
The Registrar called Margaret Lindsey, Assistant General Counsel, as a witness and submitted Exhibits 1–14. Respondent called Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards did not dispute the criminal charges as contained in the Registrar’s Exhibit 12, which stated that on October 9, 2017, Ms. Edwards plead guilty to the following crimes:
Three counts of Organized Retail Theft, a class 4 felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1801, 13-1819, 13-610, 13-701, 13-702, and 13-801;
One count of Attempted Organized Retail Theft, a class 5 felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1001, 13-1819, 13-1801, 13-610, 13-702, and 13-801; and
Possession or Use of Narcotic Drugs, a class 4 felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-3401, 13-3408, 13-3413, 13-3416, 13-3418, 13-610, 13-701, 13-702, 13-801, and 13-901.01(A).
It further stated that Ms. Edwards was released from prison on June 3, 2019, and she was discharged from supervised probation on February 28, 2022.
Ms. Lindsey testified that the theft felonies, of which Ms. Edwards was convicted, were especially concerning because licensed contractors are in a position of trust. Often, contractors are trusted with large sums of money from customers, are permitted onto customers’ property, and have access to customers’ financial information. A history of theft, and similar untrustworthy behavior, presented a risk to the public safety that concerned the Registrar. While Ms. Edwards was employed by a licensed contractor, that contractor was responsible for supervising Ms. Edwards; they were responsible for her. However, if Respondent was given a license, then Ms. Edwards would not be supervised.
Ms. Lindsey testified that the Registrar received and considered Respondent’s supplemental information in support of Ms. Edwards. However while Ms. Edwards had been making strides toward rehabilitation, the Registrar did not have enough evidence to support a conclusion that Ms. Edwards was rehabilitated. That conclusion was based, in part, because Ms. Edwards only finished probation two years ago.
According to Ms. Lindsey, Ms. Edwards did not qualify at the time.
Ms. Edwards testified that prior to her convictions, she was an undiagnosed alcoholic and suffered from undiagnosed autism. Ms. Edwards had a difficult upbringing, leading her to being dishonest and untrustworthy. Ms. Edwards acknowledged that the person who she was—the person convicted of the crimes detailed above—did not deserve a license. She had, however, had made significant changes in her life, and the person she had become had worked hard and earned a license.
Ms. Edwards testified that she was involved in her community and with her church. Ms. Edwards was an active member of AA, she had a sponsor, and she was a sponsor. She had been sober since June 28, 2017.
Ms. Edwards testified to her professional accomplishments. She completed a painting apprenticeship; she was a master painter; and she was almost a master drywaller. Ms. Edwards had held foreman and superintendent positions, and she was trusted by her contractor-employers to complete projects alone. Ms. Edwards testified that she was reformed and had paid her debt to society.
Ms. Edwards believed that refusal of a license was unjust. However if she was denied, she would remain on her reformed path and would apply again.
Respondent offered 8 letters of recommendation for Ms. Edwards, including from supervisors, customers, general contractors, and personal advisors. Each letter praised Ms. Edwards’s work, her personal progress, and her worthiness of a license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction and was properly brought before OAH for adjudication.
“[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.”
Respondent bears the burden to establish that it meets statutory qualifications for a contractor’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning,” unless defined by the legislature.
The legislature did not intend for the Registrar to deny a license application based solely on a technicality and in the face of evidence that the applicant is otherwise qualified.
The conviction of multiple crimes is not a permanent bar to being licensed.
A.R.S. § 32-1122(C) provides that to obtain a license, “each person who is named on a license must not have . . . committed any act that, if committed or done by any licensed contractor, would be grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license.”
Grounds for suspension or revocation are established in A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), which sets forth a list of prohibited acts and omissions. Subpart (7) prohibits “[c]onviction of a felony.”
A person with a criminal record must be given careful consideration when applying for a professional license. It was undisputed that Ms. Edwards had been convicted of several felonies and that none of the convictions had been set aside; however, Ms. Edwards credibly testified that over the past few years she had changed her life. Ms. Edwards was addressing her mental health, positively impacting her community, and was likely trustworthy of a license. This Tribunal applauds Ms. Edwards’s efforts to change her life and her successes so far.
The Registrar’s concerns are legitimate. Ms. Edwards was recently released from probation and the underlying criminal activity regards the betrayal of public trust. While a few years may seem like a long time, Ms. Edwards can continue to demonstrate her reformed life with additional time.
Therefore, based on the evidence of record, this Tribunal concludes that the Registrar appropriately denied Respondent’s application for CR-61 contracting license based on Ms. Edwards’s violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1122(C) and 32-1154(A)(7).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar deny Respondent’s appeal.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar affirm the denial of Application No. [number redacted].
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
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 forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, July 18, 2024.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
[email redacted]
R & E Remodel LLC
2337 W Paradise Ln
Phoenix, AZ 85023
Charles S. Hover, III
Office of the Attorney General
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff