07/19/1996
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
Solicitor’s Permit Appeal - John DePaolo
July 19, 1996 - 10:00 a.m.
Present: Margaret Simmons Finance Director
Bob Surette Assistant City Attorney
Jill Divens Police Records Supervisor
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
Also Present: John DePaola Appellant
Appellant Exhibits: Composite Exhibit B, comprised of Personal Data Report, Order of
Probation, Order of Community Control, Copy of Applicant Driver
License, Application for Occupational License
City Exhibits: Exhibit A, Clearwater Code Sections
Exhibit C, Letter of Denial for Licensure
Margaret Simmons, representing City Manager Elizabeth Deptula, opened the meeting
at 10:00 a.m. and explained the rules governing the procedures. She stated a ruling will be
issued within 10 days.
Witnesses were sworn in by Holly Ausanio.
Mr. DePaola explained he had applied and been denied a solicitor’s license by the City
of Clearwater. He plans to work for Douglas Sales Management, a contractor for GTE in
Clearwater. GTE now sells cable service in the area. Mr. DePaola stated he has been in the
cable industry for the past seven years. The last two years he worked in New Jersey.
Previously, he worked in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and North Carolina as
a salesman in the cable industry. His position entailed selling cable services to new
subscribers. Mr. DePaola offered assurances no customer complaints have been filed against
him, and promised he would not pose a threat to the community. He stated he is from the
area, and would be willing to post a bond or sign any necessary documents that would enable
him to work in the area.
Ms. Simmons indicated Mr. DePaolo’s arrest in 1992 was for assault. Adjudication was
withheld, and Mr. DePaolo received probation.
Mr. DePaolo confirmed the arrest in 1992. He also stated he had been informed the
assault charge would be adjudicated and withheld from his record. He included the
information on the application for licensure because his intent was to be totally honest.
Mr. Rob Surette, Assistant City Attorney, submitted 1) Exhibit A, Clearwater Code
sections; 2) Composite Exhibit B, Mr. DePaolo’s application for licensure and arrest records;
and 3) Exhibit C, the City’s denial for licensure letter. Composite Exhibit B included an Order
of Probation from Hillsborough County Court for a 1992 charge of three counts; 1) aggravated
1
mah07.96 07/19/96
battery; 2) criminal mischief; and 3) misdemeanor battery. Mr. DePaolo was placed on one
year house arrest for the felony aggravated battery, followed by four years of probation. Mr.
DePaolo is currently on probation for the felony charge only. The applicant was required to list
all convictions and/or charges where a plea of guilty or no contest, including what, where,
when and dispositions, on the Personal Data Report. Mr. DePaolo completed the question,
listing only the 1992 assault charge.
Mr. Surette asked Mr. DePaolo the following questions: 1) had he entered a plea in
Norfolk, Virginia on November 6, 1987, to a charge of using profane and threatening language
on the telephone?; 2) had he entered a plea on January 31, 1973, in Prince George County,
Virginia to a charge of possession of marijuana?; and 3) had he entered a plea in 1981 in
Lakeland, Florida to a charge of possession of Quaaludes? Mr. DePaolo answered yes to all
three questions, adding the Quaaludes charge in 1981 should have been withheld from his
record. He also stated the charge in 1987 was dismissed, although he did not have any
documentation. The 1973 incident had slipped his mind at the time of application for licensure,
and he did not intentionally exclude it to mislead anyone. The incident occurred 23 years ago.
He stated he was rather confused in reference to the dates and dispositions of the charges in
question, and Mr. Surette reviewed each charge again.
Mr. Surette stated Section 23.32 of Clearwater Code requires a person who intends to
solicit from a private residence any orders for services that in character or description is
required to obtain a solicitor permit.
Mr. Surette noted Section 23.35, subsection 1, subparagraph a2, states the police chief
shall not issue a permit if any of the following are found to have occurred: the applicant has
been convicted of any offense involving the use of or threat to use force or violence upon the
person of another, is grounds for denying the permit, unless such conviction occurred at least
five years prior to the date of the application. The subsection includes any disposition of a
criminal case resulting in the imposition against an applicant of a fine, probation, incarceration
or other adverse sentence of punitive nature, whether or not the applicant has been formally
adjudicated guilty.
Mr. Surette stated Composite Exhibit B clearly indicates Mr. DePaolo entered a plea of
no contest to the aggravated assault charge, and adjudication was withheld. He also entered
a plea to misdemeanor battery, for which he was convicted, according to the Order of
Probation submitted. Based on testimony during the proceeding, an additional ground for
denial is contained in Section 23.35, subsection 1, subparagraph b, which provides additional
grounds for denial of the solicitor permit if the applicant has made any misleading statement of
fact. Mr. Surette stated based on the ordinance as written, he felt the denial was warranted in
the case. Mr. Surette moved to amend Exhibit C to add the additional ground stating:
“misstatement of facts contained on the application regarding prior criminal history”.
Ms. Simmons requested Mr. Surette add more documents to Mr. DePaolo’s permanent
file to support charges.
Mr. Surette stated that no certified copies of records were in his possession and he did
not feel it necessary to create an appeal. Based on the information at hand, he moved to
withdraw the basis for denial based on failure to have disclosed the 1981 possession of
2
mah07.96 07/19/96
Quaaludes charge or the 1987 profane and threatening language charge. Mr. DePaolo
excluded the 1973 possession of marijuana on the application, and Mr. Surette recommended
proceeding merely on that charge as the basis for being less than fully candid in answering the
Personal Data Report.
Mr. DePaolo stated he must obtain the solicitor license in order to support his family.
He offered to meet any requirements necessary to obtain the license, and asked the
committee take into consideration the charges had been many years ago. He emphasized a
solicitor’s license was vital to obtaining work and supporting his family. He felt he has since
become a good citizen, and asked for an expeditious decision.
Ms. Simmons informed Mr. DePaolo the decision will be mailed to him.
Proceedings were concluded at 10:40 a.m.
3
mah07.96 07/19/96