12/07/1950
'"I.,.'" ,.... :!O. I ::.i..... "', ,t l"'~ :Ojl '("';,'fr,t."7";t.#,.,~~;
TxE az� conudzzsszorr Mr�rzrrG
Decembor 7, 1950
The City Cormnission of the City oP Cle�rwater me$ in Special Seaslon at
City Ha11 Thursday, December 7th, 1950, at 7:30 PoM. with the follcwing
members present•
Harry D. Sargeant
Herbert M. Brov�rn
E. B. Casler Jr.
Leland F. Drew
Joe Turner
Absent:
None
Alao Present 4Jere.
Bogd A. Bennett
George T. McClaumia
Ben Krentzman
The Maqor-Couunissioner ce.11ed
pose of the meeting was to consider
tP�e Barbers Examining Board<
-M�yar-Couuniasioner
-Co�issioner
-Cor,missionor
-Co�nnissionar
-Cormiissioner
-City Man�ger
-ChieP of Police
-Clty Attorney
trhe meeting to order, announcing that the pur-
tl�e appeal of Pau1 Matranga from a ruling nf
Mro John W. Row�e, of thb Pirm oi' 1Yolfe Vi�ightr,ian and Rowe, addressed the Com-
mission on behalf oi' Mr. Matranga, asserting that thc� examination given htr.
Matranga was unPeir, unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory and had been pre_
pared for the purpose oP causing �ir. hiatranga to fa�.l th� examination. b2r. Ben
Krentzman., City Attorney, told tha Commission t:�at the Ordinanee sstting up the
Barbera Examining Board was sim3lar to those in other P'].orida citiea. Members
of the Baxbers Examining Board, niessrs. Ben Sutton, Halph Shaw and C. R. Bennett,
and Mr. Roy B. Brown o� the Stato Barbers Board, te�tified that the examination
giVen Mra Idlatx°�nga was similar to written examinations given by the Stat� Boaz°d.
Mre Gerald Tedrick also tosti�iedo �ir. Luther T. Dorminy, ovrner o�' tha ahop
employing Mre a4atranga, was called to the stand, questioned b,p Attorney Rowe and
by City Attorney Yrentzman.
The Commisaion retired for deliberation and returned with the Po?lowing
decision:
The City Cormiission findsz
�e �'hat the ordinance under consideration is legal, valld and
enforeeable.
2. That in tr�e applicatioz� of the or3inance the Barbar Board
ara in no way guiity of fraud or skullduggery.
3e That price Pixing is not a fl,inction o� the Barber Board and
the action of the Board in this case ia in no wise connected
therewith.
4. That notwithstanding that the decision of the Boerd �o give
written examinations wras arrived at bePore this application
came to the attenti.on of the Board, nevertheless the change
of poliag was not sufPicientlq publicized to give proper
notice to the public, and this lack of public notice Yaas
amounted to legal diac�imination, which, Sn our opinion, in-
'vades the constitutional rights of the applicante
5. Tha�t discrimination as ussd here means 1ega1 discrimination
rather �han actual or delibarate discriminatione
6. That the pra�etica� e�minatian as given the applicant is com-
parable to ttiie examinstions formerly given by the Board,
therePore sin�e the applicant passed the practical examitta-
t3un.we hold that ira this instance the applicant is en--
titled to a license without the neGessity of p�ssing a
written examination.
7. We flirther hold that if the Board desire� to require a
differeni t�rpe of' exami:�ation than previously used that am-
ple �ublic notice be gi.ven so that no legal discrimination
may again occur or be claimed.
8. It is further held that the action of the Barber Board in
holding the applicant not entitled to a license is hereby
reversed and it is ordered that a register.ed Barber+� license
be issued to the applicant upon his compliance with further
provisions oi the law: to wit: Payraent o� required fees.
There being no furtner business to come
bAfore the Board, thc� meeting was adjourned.
�
bia,yor ommissione