04/26/1990
Occupational License Appeal to the City Manager by Terence Quinn
April 26, 1990
Present: Ron H. Rabun, City Manager
Robert Surette, Assistant City Attorney
Stu Williams, License Inspector
Barbara Sexsmith, License Inspector
Detective Pease
Terence Quinn, Appellant
Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk
Terence Quinn submitted a letter appealing the decision of the occupational license inspector to
deny his occupational license. The denial was based on a police report indicating that there was reason
to deny this occupational license.
The City Manager set this public hearing. The public hearing was called to order at 10:40 a.m.
The City Manager questioned whether or not Mr. Quinn had requested the appeal and Mr. Quinn
indicated he had. City Manager read the letter setting the hearing into the record.
Detective Pease, the officer who did the background investigation on Mr. Quinn, stated Mr.
Quinn was convicted of a felony involving securities fraud and the date of disposition of the sentence
was 1988. He stated there were numerous cases of fraud and as the disposition was in 1988, it was
within the five-year timeframe provided for in the code (Section 71.12(e)(1)a.) for reason to deny
issuance of a license. Mr. Quinn rebutted that while the disposition was in 1988, the indictment was
actually in 1984. There have been no problems with his doing business since 1984.
In response to a question from the City Manager, the Assistant City Attorney stated the 1988
date is the trigger date for the five-year period. Mr. Quinn stated he had been totally upfront in his
application and did not try to mislead the city but that the infractions were in 1984. He stated the U.S.
Parole Commission did a thorough check on the business he is proposing prior to his applying for a city
license. He stated he is a lower risk than someone off the street because he is under the "microscope" of
the U.S. Parole Division.
The City Manager questioned what type of business Mr. Quinn was wishing to operate. Mr. Quinn
indicated he will be marketing timeshares in Vermont. He does not complete the sale process and does
not receive any customer funds. All closings and sales take place up north. All of his business is
conducted by telephone and mail. Mr. Quinn indicated that if the government had difficulties with him
doing business over the phone, they would have ordered no phone solicitation;however, the parole
commission did a thorough background check and approved of this operation.
Mr. Surette, Assistant City Attorney, questioned Mr. Quinn regarding his business. Mr. Quinn
indicated that he receives lists of individuals who have had contact with the timeshare venture. All
contacts are outside of Florida, mostly in Massachusetts, and he markets the timeshares for a facility in
Vermont. He emphasized again that he does not do any business within Florida. The Assistant City
Attorney asked Mr. Quinn whether or not he had contacted the Division of Real Estate in Florida to see if
4/26/90
1
he needed to meet the requirements for a broker. Mr. Quinn indicated he had been informed as long as
the business is outside of Florida, he does not fall within their jurisdiction.
Mr. Surette questioned whether or not Mr. Quinn had contacted the states of Vermont or
Massachusetts to see if he would fall under their jurisdiction. Mr. Quinn responded that he understood
that there were no regulations in those two states with which he would have to comply.
The Assistant City Attorney requested Mr. Quinn be sworn in. The City Clerk administered the
oath.
Mr. Surette questioned whether or not Mr. Quinn had been told by Vermont and/or
Massachusetts that he needed a broker license. Mr. Quinn indicated he had not and that he had not
inquired recently. Mr. Surette questioned whether or not Mr. Quinn had ever been told that he did not
need approval of the Vermont and Massachusetts Real Estate's Department. Mr. Quinn indicated he had
not been told he did not need their approval.
Government Exhibit A: A copy of the 1988 judgement issued in Mr. Quinn's case was admitted into
evidence. It indicated a 13-count indictment of securities fraud, commodities trade fraud, wire fraud, and
mail fraud. Mr. Quinn was ordered to pay $161,125.00 in restitution.
In response to questions from the Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Quinn indicated that the restitution
was to compensate people who had lost monies in dealings with him. Mr. Quinn stated his reason for
wanting to operate this business was so that he could make a living and start paying the restitution which
has been ordered. He reemphasized that he has had no legal problems since 1984. When questioned
what he had been doing since 1984, he indicated he has been working at various jobs and that he has
not done any work in investments since 1984.
Mr. Surette indicated he was verifying with the State Division of Real Estate regarding whether
or not Mr. Quinn would fall under the definition of broker. He requested that the City Manager take
notice of Florida Statute, Section 475.01(1)(C) and 475.42(1).
Mr. Quinn indicated he did not feel that what he was doing fell under the definition of broker. He
stated he is an off-post canvasser and the basis of the business is to drum up business. Part of the
requirement of the Parole Commission, in order to operate his business, is he cannot receive any
customer funds.
Mr. Rabun indicated he would consider all that had been said, the Statutes, etc. and would be
issuing a finding in the appeal within 10 days. Mr. Quinn requested that his application for an
import/export business license be separated from his license to do the timeshare marketing.
The meeting adjourned at 11:11 a.m.
4/26/90
2