Certification Updates

CFP Board Censures Improper CFP® Certificant Conduct

Nov 03, 2005
Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. today announced public disciplinary actions against the following individuals' rights to use the CFP® certification marks, effective immediately.
Alaska Sheila D. Miller Anchorage Letter of Admonition
California Phillip Kohlmeyer Pleasant Hill Permanent Relinquishment
Florida Scott D. Krause Windermere Suspension
Illinois Robert W. Esch Alhambra Suspension
Kentucky Allan L. Crumes Louisville Letter of Admonition
Massachusetts Bradford C. Bleidt Boston Revocation
New York Patricia Drivanos New York Revocation
Oregon Ronald J. Sloy Portland Letter of Admonition
Virginia Glenn C. Moore Manassas Letter of Admonition

Public disciplinary actions taken by CFP Board, in order of decreasing severity, include permanent revocation, suspension and letters of admonition. Under terms of the relinquishment and revocations, Phillip Kohlmeyer, Bradford C. Bleidt and Patricia Drivanos no longer have the right to use the CFP marks. The rights of Robert W. Esch to use the CFP® certification marks were suspended for two years, and the rights of Scott D. Krause were suspended for one year and one day. CFP Board issued letters of admonition to Sheila D. Miller, Allan L. Crumes, Glenn C. Moore and Ronald J. Sloy; they retain the right to use the CFP® marks.

The basis for each decision can be found in the report below. Consumers can check on a planner's disciplinary history and certification status with CFP Board on the Web site.

December 2005

Public Letters of Admonition


Sheila D. Miller (Anchorage): CFP Board discovered Ms. Miller's client filed a customer complaint with Alaska's Department of Commerce and Economic Development (Alaska) and that Ms. Miller personally settled the client's claims for $6,000. In September 2005, CFP Board issued Ms. Miller a letter of admonition after it found that Alaska fined her $500 for violating the NASD Rules of Fair Practice when Ms. Miller had her client sign and date blank New Account Forms; delayed for three weeks execution of the investment program agreed to by her client; altered the date on the client's new account forms to mask the delay in program execution; failed to return telephone calls to her client to promptly to discuss her client's concerns; failed to promptly notify her broker/dealer's compliance department of the client's complaint and that the resolution of the complaint would include a cash refund to the client; and assured the securities division that she had informed her broker/dealer's compliance department of the client's complaint and the resolution thereof, when, in fact, she had not done so.


Allan L. Crumes (Louisville): In August 2005, CFP Board issued Mr. Crumes a Letter of Admonition pursuant to a settlement agreement, wherein Mr. Crumes consented to a finding that he violated the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility when he failed to present a written financial plan to his clients as stated in the financial planning agreement.


Ronald J. Sloy (Portland): Mr. Sloy disclosed to CFP Board his involvement in several adversarial civil proceedings wherein Mr. Sloy's clients alleged negligence, breach of contract, suitability, misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The clients claimed damages in excess of $12.5 million. Two of the civil proceedings resulted in arbitration awards against Mr. Sloy in the amount of $4,781,999 and the other three civil proceedings settled for a combined total of $170,000. In July 2005, CFP Board issued Mr. Sloy a letter of admonition after it found that Mr. Sloy sold unsuitable high-risk investments to several of his clients and failed to inform his clients of the risks associated with the investments held in their portfolios.


Glenn C. Moore (Manassas): In July 2005, CFP Board issued Mr. Moore a letter of admonition after learning Mr. Moore entered into a letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) with the NASD wherein, without admitting or denying the allegations therein, he consented to findings that in violation of NASD Conduct Rules he signed the names of a customer and his wife and completed certain information on an account agreement form without the customers' knowledge or consent. In addition, Mr. Moore consented to a ten-business-day suspension from association with any NASD member firm and to pay a fine in the amount of $8,500. CFP Board also learned that as a result of Mr. Moore's conduct, the Virginia Department of Corporations required him to successfully retake the series 66 exam. Further, Mr. Moore's firm issued him a formal reprimand and fined him $1,500 for violating firm policies and implemented for a 90-day period special supervisory conditions on him, including disqualification from promotion or recognition.



Scott D. Krause (Windermere): In August 2005, CFP Board determined to suspend Mr. Krause's right to use the CFP certification marks for a period of one (1) year and one (1) day related to its investigation of an arbitration filed against him. The Board of Professional Review found that Mr. Krause violated CFP Board's Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility in that: 1) after assessing his client's financial assets and knowing that she had no source of income, he recommended and sold nearly $1 million of mutual fund B shares to her; 2) even though he knew his client had no source of income, he approved appreciation and speculation as his client's primary investment objectives; 3) despite his indication that his client's primary investment objective was income, other than the use of margin, he failed to implement any source of income for her; 4) he provided inaccurate information on the new account forms he helped his client execute; and 5) he failed to acknowledge that he was engaged in a financial planning relationship with his client despite: a) claiming that he conducted a complete financial analysis for her, including an evaluation of her inherited assets and her goals; b) made recommendations to his client; c) assisted his client in implementing his recommendations; and d) monitored the success of the mutual fund purchases.


Robert W. Esch (Alhambra): Mr. Esch entered into a Consent Order with the State of Illinois Securities Department in connection with an investment management system that he advertised, operated and managed, and for which he mailed, delivered or caused to be delivered to clients advertising materials which included performance measurement figures and/or charts for this system. Mr. Esch consented to findings that these advertising materials did not comply with federal securities laws. Mr. Esch further consented to the state securities department's finding that the advertising was misleading or false because (a) it did not disclose that the past performance measurements for the system were not based upon actual trades but were based solely upon hypothetical recommendations and transactions; (b) failed to disclose that the percentage returns quoted in the material were before any fees paid or transaction costs and that the actual returns would be lower; (c) failed to disclose that a quoted annualized rate of return was hypothetical and based upon a projection of a rate of return for 3-4 months and not upon an actual annualized rate of return; and (d) falsely misrepresented that the system was a registered or trademarked system when in fact it was not. Pursuant to the Consent Order, Mr. Esch's Investment Adviser and Investment Adviser Representative registrations in that state were revoked with the right to reapply two years from the date of the Consent Order. Mr. Esch was also fined $15,000. In July 2005, CFP Board accepted Mr. Esch's offer of settlement wherein he consented to the suspension of his right to use the CFP marks for two years, and the requirement that he complete additional continuing education credits in retirement planning.

Permanent Relinquishment


Phillip Kohlmeyer, (Pleasant Hill): In July 2005, pursuant to a settlement agreement with CFP Board, Mr. Kohlmeyer permanently relinquished his right to use the CFP marks after consenting to findings that in violation of Rules 103(e), 201, 606(b), 607 and 703 of CFP Board's Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, he over-concentrated several of his clients' accounts in the stock of two companies. Mr. Kohlmeyer also acknowledged that he had discretionary authority over some of the clients' accounts.



Bradford C. Bleidt (Boston): CFP Board initiated a complaint against Bleidt after he sent a tape recording to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in which he admitted to buying a radio station in 2002 with money stolen from client deposits with his financial management firm. On the tape, Bleidt admitted to having stolen tens of millions of dollars from clients during the past 20 years, violating numerous federal securities laws. The SEC, the Massachusetts Division of Insurance and the Maine Bureau of Insurance have taken action against him. CFP Board's complaint revoking Bleidt's rights to use the CFP marks was served in April 2005, and Bleidt subsequently accepted the terms, which have now become final.


Patricia Drivanos (New York): In July 2005, CFP Board permanently revoked Ms. Drivanos' right to use the CFP marks after she failed to respond to CFP Board's Complaint alleging that she failed to complete the distribution of her client's assets to the client's heirs, failed to respond to client inquiries, and failed to respond to CFP Board's requests for information about these allegations. As a result of Ms. Drivanos' failure to file an Answer to CFP Board's Complaint, the allegations in the Complaint were deemed admitted and an Order of Revocation was issued.

The mission of Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. is to help people benefit from competent, professional and ethical financial planning. CFP Board owns the certification marks CFP®, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ and federally registered CFP (with flame design) in the U.S., which it awards to individuals who successfully complete CFP Board's initial and ongoing certification requirements. CFP Board currently authorizes more than 49,000 individuals to use these marks in the United States. 

# # #