ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-13274-LDA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-02-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Arizona Registrar of Contractors,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Skilled Paint Company LLC

License Application No. [number redacted],

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-13274-LDA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 17, 2024.

APPEARANCES:

For Complainant: Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin.

For Respondent: Joshua Knotts.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Notice of Hearing. Complainant’s Exhibits 1–10 (Comp. Hr’g Pkt.). Respondent’s Exhibits 1–9 (Resp. Hr’g Pkt.).

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

On or around October 15, 2024, Respondent filed Application No. [number redacted] (the Application) for a CR-34, Painting and Wall Covering, license from the Registrar of Contractors (the Registrar).

The Application listed Mr. Knotts as Respondent’s Qualifying Party, owner, and manager.

The Application disclosed that Mr. Knotts had been convicted on five counts of sexual abuse, two counts of attempted sexual abuse, and one count of sexual assault in Coconino County Superior Court.

On October 13, 2024, Mr. Knotts signed the Application, certifying the information in the Application.

On November 14, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of License Denial to Respondent for Application based on Mr. Knotts’s felony convictions.

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 Notice of Hearing was issued on December 11, 2024, setting the hearing for January 17, 2025, at 9:00 AM. The Hearing was held in person and via Google Meet at that time.

Margaret Lindsey, Assistant General Counsel, testified on behalf of Complainant. Mr. Knotts testified for Respondent.

Mr. Knotts did not dispute the criminal charges as contained in the Registrar’s Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. On or about August 30, 1995, Mr. Knotts plead guilty to the eight charges:

Count I: on or about October 19, 1994, Mr. Knotts knowingly grabbed an individual’s breasts without consent.

Count II: on or about October 31, 1994, Mr. Knotts knowingly attempted to pull down an individuals panty hose without consent.

Count III: on or about December 7, 1994, Mr. Knotts knowingly touched an individual’s genitals without consent.

Count IV: on or about December 11, 1994, Mr. Knotts digitally penetrated an individual without consent.

Count V: on or about January 19, 1995, Mr. Knotts knowingly grabbed an individual’s genitals without consent.

Count VI: on or about January 20, 1995, Mr. Knotts knowingly grabbed an individual’s breasts without consent.

Count VII: on or about January 23, 1995, Mr. Knotts knowingly grabbed an individual’s genitals without consent.

Count VIII: on or about January 23, 1995, Mr. Knotts knowingly attempted to grab an individual’s genitals without consent.

In the agreement, it was recommended that Mr. Knotts serve one year in jail, be placed on lifetime probation, and register as a sex offender.

On April 10, 2014, Mr. Knotts was discharged from The Resolution Group because he successfully completed the program treatment work. The discharge report stated as follows:

Mr. Knotts has completed the sex offender program here at The Resolution Group. He has been in therapy for his sexual offense for over 17 years. He has all of his testing up to date and as been successful in the group process. He has been in the Maintenance program for the past few years and shows an ability to apply his relapse prevention plan while in the community. He maintains his job, his family, and his chruch while living in the community with his family and children.

January 27, 2017, Mr. Knotts successfully petitioned for the termination of his lifetime probation.

On September 20, 2022, Mr. Knotts achieved a Certificate of Completion from the Celebrate Recovery Step Study program.

Mr. Knotts remains active as level 2 on the sex offender registry. At the hearing, he was made aware that qualifying individuals may petition for termination of sex offender registration pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3826.

Mr. Knotts was 20 years old at the time of his offenses, and as of the date of this Decision, more than 30 years have passed since his offenses.

Mr. Knotts testified about his path to recovery. Mr. Knotts was in rigorous therapy going back through his own life and reliving the incidents with a detailed focus on the perspective of his victims. He successfully completed the sex-offender therapy program. He also completed a twelve step program and has been actively engaged in that program ever since. He testified that he regularly speaks publicly about his experiences in front of hundreds of people including strangers; he explained that the experience is painful and embarrassing, but it is important so others can avoid his path. He has sponsored and mentored other men in recovery.

Mr. Knotts said that he owned what he did: he did not minimize it, and he understood that he was to blame. Mr. Knotts testified about his family and how he has lived his life with honesty and integrity since the incidents.

Respondent offered five letters of recommendation for Mr. Knotts. They were from community leaders, professional contacts, and friends. All of the letters exclaimed Mr. Knotts’s character and reliability.

Complainant testified that licensees hold a heightened level of public trust. Licensees have access to people’s homes and businesses, and Complainant’s position was that Mr. Knotts posses an unreasonable risk to the public because of his convictions and inclusion on the sex offender registry. Complainant noted that the sex offender registry was created to publicly identify individuals who pose a high risk of engaging in sex offenses and to prevent recidivism.

According to Ms. Lindsey, it was the Registrar’s practice to deny license applications when an individual is actively on the sex offender registry because of the public safety risk.

Mr. Knotts was not prohibited from working under another contractor’s 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 relevant statute here is A.R.S. § 32-1122(C), which states as follows:

To obtain, renew or maintain a license under this chapter, each person who is named on a license must not have 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 or be named on a license that was suspended or revoked in this state or another state.

Grounds for suspension or revocation are set forth in A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). The list includes “[c]onviction of a felony” and a wide variety of other issues, including departure from rules adopted by the Registrar such as workmanship violations.

Although A.R.S. § 32-1122(C) says that a licensed individual “must not have . . . committed [an] act that . . . would be grounds for suspension or revocation,” the Registrar has the discretion to award a license, or allow an individual to maintain a license, even if the individual may have been subject to discipline under A.R.S. § 32-1154. Otherwise, inclusion of “suspension” in the statute would be meaningless: every individual who had been named on any license which was suspended “must not” be allowed to maintain a license. Such an outcome would be absurd.

The Registrar’s position was legitimate. It was undisputed that Mr. Knotts had been convicted of several felonies, none of which had been set aside, and he remains on the sex offender registry. A person with a criminal record must be given careful consideration when applying for a professional license, and, as stated by Ms. Lindsey, the sex offender registry was created to protect the people of Arizona.

On the other hand, Mr. Knotts credibly testified that he has spent the last thirty years actively working on his recovery. He has shared his experience openly with the world, hoping to help others. He has taken full responsibility for his actions; he earnestly expressed embarrassment and shame, and he embraced those feelings to better himself. Mr. Knotts has taken nearly every step that could reasonably be expected of an individual re-entering society.

Mr. Knotts was credible, and individuals should be allowed to recover and re-enter society. After thirty years of commitment to active recovery, Mr. Knotts has demonstrated that he was trustworthy of a license to contract for painting and covering walls.

The Registrar is well within its authority to deny Respondent’s application for a CR-34 contracting license based upon Mr. Knotts’s violations of A.R.S. §§ §§ 32-1122(C) and 32-1154(A)(7).

However, the evidence of record established a strong and compelling basis for approval of Respondent’s application for a CR-34 contracting license based upon Mr. Knotts’s efforts and accomplishments over the past thirty years. The preponderance of the evidence supports that Mr. Knotts has recovered and earned the ability to re-enter society.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar approve Respondent’s Application No. [number redacted] and overturn its denial of the same.

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, February 18, 2025.

/s/ Samuel Fox

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Arizona Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Mona Baskin, Esq.

Licensing & Enforcement Section

[email redacted]

Skilled Paint Company LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff