01/28/1994
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE APPEAL TO THE CITY MANAGER
by George Rejrat, EBS Hi Point, Inc.
January 28, 1994 - 3:00 p.m.
Present:
Kathy S. Rice, Deputy City Manager
Al Galbraith, City Attorney
Detective Robert Pease, Clearwater Police Department
Janet McMahon, License/Permit Specialist
Camille Motley, Central Records Specialist
Also Present:
George Rejrat, Appellant
Louis Kwall, Esquire, Representing Appellant
Kathy S. Rice, Deputy City Manager, called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and outlined the
following reaons for the city's denial of the issuance of occupational license application: 1)
Both applicants failed to disclose Spencer Schulman's interest as Secretary, Treasurer and
Director in EBS Hi Point, Inc. The omission of a prinicipal in the business may be considered a
deliberate falsehood and conflicts with Section 29.41(6)(b), "Applicant knowingly made false,
misleading, or fraudulent statements of fact in the permit application or in any document
required by the City."; 2) Spencer M. Schulman is a convicted felon. His conviction is in
conflict with Section 29.41(6)(a) "and the license inspector shall not issue an occupational
license if applicants, if an individual, or any of the co-owners has been convicted of a felony
involving fraud, deceit or offense involving moral turpitude. (b) been convicted of any offense
involving the use of or threat to use force or violence upon another person. Mr. Schulman has
been convicted of felonies within the past 5 years."; 3) Both applicants indicate that George
Rejrat has interest in EBS Hi Point, Inc. and they supplied corporate documents showing he is
the majority stockholder in the company. George Rejrat's interest in the business conflicts with
City Ordinance 29.41(1)(e), "licensee violated any county ordinance, state or federal statute
rule or regulation pertaining to the activity which has been licensed", and Section 29.41(6)
"license shall not be issued if the applicant has been convicted of any felonies within the past 5
years."
In Mr. Kwall's opening statement he produced corporate minutes for EBS Hi Point, Inc
indicating Mr. Schulman had not been involved in the business for the past six (6) months. He
went on to question the timeliness of the hearing, namely, whether or not our Code specified
the number of days in which the appeal must be heard.
Ms. Rice read a portion of the Code; "Right of appeal to the City Manager. Such appeals shall
be taken by filing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after the action complained of a
written statement setting forth fully the grounds for such appeal. The City Clerk shall forthwith
notify the City Manager. The City Manager shall respond to the appeal within thirty (30) days
after the filing of the appeal." Ms. Rice felt the City Manager had responded by setting a time
within the thirty (30) days.
MINOL01A.94 1
Mr. Kwall stated the appeal had been filed on December 2, 1993 and today was January 27,
1994. He then moved to dismiss the proceedings.
Mr. Galbraith was asked by Ms. Rice for his interpretation of the Code Section 29.41(8). He
stated the Code didn't say to hold a hearing within the thirty (30) days but only to respond to
the filing of the appeal.
Mr. Kwall stated in his opinion the plain reading of the Code is the hearing should take place
within thirty (30) days of the date of the appeal. He indicated the proceedings against Mr.
Rejrat should be dismissed based on the fact that he did not have a timely hearing.
Mr. Galbraith advised Ms. Rice that the City Manager could make a decision based on the
written statements that were filed or proceed with the hearing.
Ms. Rice elected to continue with the hearing but stated she would note what Mr. Kwall had
said.
Mr. Kwall requested he be allowed to point out, for the purpose of the record, the notice of this
hearing was sent on January 26, 1992, signed by Cynthia E. Goudeau, the City Clerk, and
there has never been a response from the City Manager to their request for an appeal of any
kind.
Ms. Rice accepted the letter and the receipt for the record.
Sue Diana, a Notary Public, swore in all those present who would give testimony.
Detective Robert Pease gave testimony that he had done the background investigative
searches personally. He stated Mr. Schulman's interest in EBI HI POINT, INC and his criminal
history were not declared on the application. However, he withdrew the part of the objection in
regard to Mr. Schulman's convictions since they did not fall within the past five (5) years.
During his investigation, he observed there was no mention of a corporation or corporate
officers on the application. Detective Pease also indicated concern that Mr. Rejrat, the father
of the applicants Beata Mulholland, President and Ewa Smolinska, Vice President, still had an
interest in the business since he had been arrested by the Pinellas County Sheriff's
Department on felony charges for dealing in stolen property at the pawn shop.
Detective Pease offered into evidence the letter from Captain Maser to City Attorney
recommending revoking the occupational license of the owner of Hi Point Pawn Shop and
Loan, George Rejrat, based on the fact he had been convicted of dealing in stolen property
and failure to keep records as Exhibit 1.
Mr. Kwall objected on the grounds there had been a proceeding last year for denial of license
at which the issue of Mr. Rejrat's conviction had been raised. The proceeding had been
dismissed and the license issued. He stated that his client was being denied due process
since the allegation had been faced at that time.
Mr. Galbraith questioned whether this was a different issue than that in the previous appeal.
MINOL01A.94 2
Detective Pease stated he had an agenda memo scheduling the item before the City
Commission on February 15, 1993, to revoke the occupational license but had never received
the results of that meeting. He stated he received the applications dated November 22, 1993.
He referenced Exhibits 4 and 4-A, question 38 and stated the initials NA meant not applicable
in his opinion. He referenced Exhibits 5 and 5-A, letters to the applicants requesting more
specific information pertaining to the application. He stated the response to his inquiry from
Department of State Division of Corporations (Exhibit 9), received on November 18, 1993,
indicated Mr. Schulman was an officer in the corporation. Detective Pease contended that
false statements were made because the applicants had failed to disclose the specific
information, namely, Mr. Schulman's interest in the corporation. He also stated according to
his calculations one-hundred (100) shares of corporate stock were missing.
Mr. Galbraith asked what other evidence Detective Pease had pertaining to Mr. Schulman's
interest in the corporation. Detective Pease had no other evidence. Mr. Galbraith requested
clarification about Detective Pease' earlier withdrawal of an objection based upon a conviction
because it was not within the last five (5) years.
Detective Pease replied that his request for a certified copy of Mr. Schulman's disposition of
sentencing indicated no information had been filed on the charge of grand theft.
Mr. Galbraith asked if the printout received from the State Division of Corporations indicated
the date of the corporation's last annual report. Detective Pease said there was an effective
date of January 13, 1993.
Mr. Kwall asked if there was a state seal on the printout to which Detective Pease replied there
was not. Mr. Kwall stated the document could not be used as evidence since it did not meet
the requirements of the evidence code. Mr. Kwall pointed out that the document did not show
Mr. Schulman as an owner of the corporation. He asked Detective Pease whether he had
asked the applicants if Mr. Schulman was an owner to which Detective Pease stated he had
not.
Ms. Rice asked Mr. Kwall if he had information that would indicate Mr. Schulman was not an
owner. He produced a copy of the Corporate Minutes for a Special Meeting held July 10,
1993, and A Waiver of Notice of Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of EBS HI POINT,
INC. Ewa Smolinska was elected as Secretary of the Corporation to replace Spencer M.
Schulman effective that date. Copies were made for City staff.
Ms. Rice asked Mr. Kwall who owned the business. He replied that three people, the two
women on the application, Beata Mulholland and Ewa Smolinska, and Mr. Rejrat owned the
business. Mr. Kwall stated that is the information furnished to Detective Pease in Exhibits 6
and 6A and to which Detective Pease had testified.
Mr. Kwall then reiterated that his client, Mr. Rejrat, had already faced those issues during the
previously scheduled hearing at which the City dropped their charges.
Mr. Galbraith asked if the issue last year was Mr. Rejrat's conviction.
MINOL01A.94 3
Mr. Kwall produced interdepartmental correspondence received from Mr. James M. Polatty,
Director of Planning and Development, to Mr. Rejrat; from Captain Maser with copies to Janet
McMahon; in which was stated the consideration for denial of Occupational License hinged on
Mr. Rejrat's arrest for multiple counts of dealing in stolen property and of failure to keep
business records. During the appeal the case was argued but then later the City sent him a
letter that the objections were being withdrawn because of procedural problems, namely, Mr.
Rejrat had not received proper notice. Mr. Kwall stated his client prevailed at that appeal to
which Mr. Galbraith disagreed.
The hearing ended at 3:45 p.m.
MINOL01A.94 4