CFP Board Censures Improper CFP® Professional Conduct
Washington, DC, June 21, 2011 – Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. announces public disciplinary actions against the following individuals’ right to use the CFP® certification marks, effective immediately or on the date noted in each case.
Public disciplinary actions taken by CFP Board, in order of increasing severity, include letters of admonition, suspensions and permanent revocations. The basis for each decision can be found in a Disciplinary Action Report below and on CFP Board’s Web site. The public may check on an individual’s disciplinary history and certification status with CFP Board at www.CFP.net/search.
CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct, which includes the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Rules of Conduct and Financial Planning Practice Standards, sets forth the ethical standards for financial planners who hold the CFP® certification. CFP Board enforces its ethical standards by investigating incidents of alleged unethical behavior, and following the procedures established in CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. In cases where violations are found, CFP Board may impose discipline ranging from a private censure or public letter of admonition to the suspension or revocation of the right to use the CFP® marks. The Disciplinary Rules and Procedures set forth a fair process for investigating matters and imposing discipline where necessary.
CFP Board’s enforcement process is a critical consumer protection. CFP® professionals agree to abide by CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct, which sets forth their ethical responsibilities to the public, clients and employers. CFP® practitioners agree to act fairly and diligently when providing clients with financial planning advice and services, putting the clients’ interests first.
These actions result from final decisions of the February 2011 meeting of the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission. The Commission reviews all cases on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the details specific to an individual case. While CFP Board has attempted to capture the details relevant to each decision, the summary nature of these releases may omit certain details affecting the decision. Accordingly, the decisions and/or rationale described in the releases may not apply to other cases reviewed by the Commission or reflect the Commission’s future interpretation or application of the Standards.
| STATE | NAME | LOCATION | DISCIPLINE |
| Alabama | Bernard R. Michaud | Birmingham | Letter of Admonition |
| Arizona | Robert F. Hockensmith | Glendale | Revocation |
| California | Craig Alan Horner | San Diego | Letter of Admonition |
| California | Brian G. Maher | La Jolla | Suspension |
| California | Sean Taylor Moore | Temecula | Revocation |
| Colorado | Patricia W. Wier | Boulder | Letter of Admonition |
| Connecticut | Dale R. Aldieri | Middletown | Letter of Admonition |
| Florida | Diane L. Barriga | Parkland | Interim Suspension |
| Florida | Robin S. Davis | Stuart | Letter of Admonition |
| Florida | David E. Sears | Nokomis | Revocation |
| Illinois | John O. Miller | Lemont | Letter of Admonition |
| Illinois | Algrid M. Norkus | Oak Brook | Revocation |
| Massachusetts | Larry M. Post | Boston | Suspension |
| Michigan | Mark J. Carpenter | Ann Arbor | Revocation |
| Minnesota | Robert Smrekar | Minneapolis | Suspension |
| Montana | Randall G. Knowles | Great Falls | Revocation |
| New York | Morris Armstrong | Yorktown Heights | Suspension |
| New York | John P. Hannan | Skaneateles | Letter of Admonition |
| North Carolina | John E. Matheny | Mooresville | Suspension |
| Ohio | William R. Henzey | Olmsted Falls | Letter of Admonition |
| Oregon | Stuart L. Funke | West Linn | Letter of Admonition |
| Oregon | Robert W. Polski | Eugene | Revocation |
| Pennsylvania | Jay M. Desai | York | Letter of Admonition |
| Rhode Island | Charles E. O'Hara | Newport | Letter of Admonition |
| Texas | Russell K. Childs | Spring | Suspension |
| Texas | Brian P. Troy | Keller | Revocation |
| Washington | Ingrid M. Gintz | Reston | Suspension |
LETTERS OF ADMONITION
ALABAMA
Bernard R. Michaud (Birmingham): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Michaud. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Michaud: 1) failed to follow his firm’s policy with respect to resolving trading errors when he corrected a trading error in a client’s account by reimbursing the client from his own personal funds; and 2) traded a security in his personal securities account ahead of trading the same security in a client’s account. As a result of his conduct, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) issued a Cautionary Action Letter to Mr. Michaud. The Commission determined that Mr. Michaud’s conduct violated Rules 201, 406, 606(a), 606(b), 607 and 701 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Michaud with regard to the above-mentioned conduct, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules.
CALIFORNIA
Craig Alan Horner (San Diego): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Horner. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. Horner’s 2010 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. The Commission found that Mr. Horner displayed an inability to manage his personal finances and, by filing the bankruptcy, engaged in conduct which reflects adversely on his integrity and fitness as a CFP® professional, upon the CFP® certification marks, and upon the profession. The Commission determined that Mr. Horner’s conduct provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Horner with regard to the above-mentioned conduct, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules.
COLORADO
Patricia W. Wier (Boulder): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Ms. Wier. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of the revocation of Ms. Wier’s notary license in January 2009 by the Colorado Secretary of State. The Commission found that Ms. Wier notarized a document outside the physical presence of the signer without satisfactory evidence of the signer’s identification, in violation of the Colorado Notary Public Act. The Commission determined that Ms. Wier’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 606(a), 606(b), 607 and 701 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission admonished Ms. Wier with regard to the above-mentioned conduct, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules.
CONNECTICUT
Dale R. Aldieri (Middletown): In March 2011, following a hearing before CFP Board’s Appeals Committee, CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Aldieri. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Aldieri: 1) performed certain supervisory functions requiring principal registration without being registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) in a supervisory capacity, in violation of FINRA Rules 1021 and 2110; 2) entered into a December 2008 Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with FINRA wherein he agreed to a six-month suspension and a $15,000 fine; and 3) failed to notify CFP Board of his professional suspension within 10 calendar days of the suspension. After a hearing, CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission’s (“Commission”) issued a suspension of Mr. Aldieri’s right to the use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day after determining that Mr. Aldieri’s conduct violated Rules 406, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Mr. Aldieri appealed the Commission’s decision to CFP Board’s Appeals Committee. After a hearing, the Appeals Committee affirmed the Commission’s findings but determined to modify the decision to a Letter of Admonition. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Aldieri with regard to the above-mentioned conduct, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules.
FLORIDA
Robin S. Davis (Stuart): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Ms. Davis. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Ms. Davis: 1) engaged in a pattern of making recommendations to clients to invest their entire retirement savings in unsuitable variable annuities and sub-account allocations as evidenced by four National Association of Securities Dealers (now known as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. or “FINRA”) arbitrations filed during the period 2001 to 2004; and 2) listed “cfp” in the domain name of her Web site, in violation of Section 2.8 of CFP Board’s Guide to Use of the CFP® Certification Marks. The Commission determined that Ms. Davis’s conduct violated Rules 201, 601, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission admonished Ms. Davis with regard to the above-mentioned conduct, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules.
ILLINOIS
John O. Miller (Lemont): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Miller. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Miller: 1) executed unauthorized trades by liquidating a deceased client’s trust account, thereby causing the trust to incur commissions; 2) was unaware that the bank trustee could have contacted the broker-dealer directly to avoid transaction costs; and 3) agreed to accept $200,000 as a beneficiary of the client’s trust account while serving as advisor to the trust. The Commission determined that Mr. Miller’s conduct violated Rules 2.2(b), 4.4 and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Miller with regard to the above-mentioned conduct, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules.
NEW YORK
John P. Hannan (Skaneateles): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Hannan. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Hannan: 1) personally settled a customer complaint without reporting the settlement to his broker-dealer; and 2) defaulted on his debt obligations pursuant to a promissory note entered into by Mr. Hannan for purposes of settling a customer dispute. The Commission determined that Mr. Hannan’s conduct violated Rules 201, 406, 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Hannan with regard to the above-mentioned conduct, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules.
OHIO
William R. Henzey, CFP® (Olmsted Falls): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Henzey. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Henzey used his homeowner’s association funds without proper authorization, which resulted in a fine issued by the Ohio Department of Insurance against Mr. Henzey and termination by his employer. The Commission determined that Mr. Henzey’s conduct violated Rule 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Henzey with regard to the above-mentioned conduct, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules.
OREGON
Stuart L. Funke (West Linn): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Funke. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. Funke’s 2010 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and acceptance of two promissory note loans that he did not repay. The Commission determined that Mr. Funke’s conduct violated Rule 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Funke with regard to the above-mentioned conduct, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules.
PENNSYLVANIA
Jay M. Desai (York): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Desai. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Desai recommended that a client engage in unsuitable futures contracts transactions. The Commission determined that Mr. Desai’s conduct violated Rules 201, 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Desai with regard to the above-mentioned conduct, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules.
RHODE ISLAND
Charles E. O'Hara (Newport): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board's Disciplinary and Ethics Commission ("Commission"), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. O'Hara. This discipline followed CFP Board's investigation of allegations that Mr. O'Hara received a loan from his clients. In May 2010, Mr. O'Hara entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") related to the loan, wherein he agreed to a 10-day suspension and fine of $5,000. The Commission determined that Mr. O'Hara's conduct violated Rules 3.5 and 6.5 of CFP Board's Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(e) of CFP Board's Disciplinary Rules and Procedures ("Disciplinary Rules"). Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. O'Hara with regard to the above-mentioned conduct, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Disciplinary Rules.
INTERIM SUSPENSION
FLORIDA
Diane L. Barriga (Parkland): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an Interim Suspension Order suspending Ms. Barriga’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. CFP Board initiated interim suspension proceedings following its discovery that Ms. Barriga consented to a permanent bar from association with any Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) member in any capacity following allegations that she failed to provide FINRA with requested information and documentation relating to allegations that she misappropriated funds from two customers. The Commission determined that Ms. Barriga failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she did not pose an immediate threat to the public, and that her conduct did not impinge upon the stature and reputation of the marks. Under the Interim Suspension Order, Ms. Barriga’s right to use the CFP® certification marks is suspended pending CFP Board’s completed investigation and possible further disciplinary proceedings. The Interim Suspension Order became effective on April 8, 2011.
SUSPENSIONS
CALIFORNIA
Brian G. Maher (La Jolla): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Maher’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for three years. The suspension followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. Maher’s 2009 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. The Commission determined that by filing for bankruptcy, Mr. Maher displayed an inability to manage his personal finances and thus engaged in conduct that reflects adversely on his integrity and fitness as a registrant, upon the CFP® certification marks and upon the profession. The Commission determined that Mr. Maher’s conduct provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Maher’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for three years, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules. Mr. Maher’s suspension is effective until November 30, 2012.
MASSACHUSETTS
Larry M. Post (Boston): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Post’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for five years. The suspension followed CFP Board’s investigation of a 2008 Consent Order with the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation (“Bureau”) wherein Mr. Post agreed to not engage in any management activities or sales activities within the state and subject to the Bureau’s regulatory jurisdiction for five years. The Commission determined that Mr. Post’s conduct violated Rules 201, 606(a), 606(b), 607 and 705 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Post’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for five years, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules. Mr. Post’s suspension is effective from April 25, 2011 to March 25, 2016.
MINNESOTA
Robert Smrekar (Minneapolis): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Smrekar’s right to use the CFP® certification marks until August 1, 2014. The suspension followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Smrekar: 1) used his status as a client’s financial advisor to facilitate the client’s investment in a real-estate development company that had not been approved by Mr. Smrekar’s broker-dealer and in which Mr. Smrekar had personally invested; and 2) filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. The Commission determined that Mr. Smrekar’s conduct violated Rule 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Smrekar’s right to use the CFP® certification marks until August 1, 2014, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules. Mr. Smrekar’s suspension is effective from April 19, 2011 to August 1, 2014.
NEW YORK
Morris Armstrong (Yorktown Heights): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Armstrong’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for five years. The suspension followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Armstrong had been charged with three felony counts of “Attempted Disseminating Indecent Materials to Minors in the First Degree” for engaging in illegal communications with an undercover investigator posing as a 15-year old girl. In January 2009, Mr. Armstrong pleaded guilty to “Attempted Disseminating Indecent Materials to Minors in the Second Degree.” The court sentenced Mr. Armstrong to 60 days in jail, three years of probation and a $500 fine. The Commission determined that Mr. Armstrong’s conduct violated Rule 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(c) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Armstrong’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for five years, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules. Mr. Armstrong’s suspension is effective from May 18, 2009 to May 18, 2014.
NORTH CARLOINA
John E. Matheny (Mooresville): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Matheny’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for two years. The suspension followed CFP Board’s investigation of Mr. Matheny’s 2009 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. The Commission determined that by filing for bankruptcy, Mr. Matheny displayed an inability to manage his personal finances and thus engaged in conduct that reflects adversely on his integrity and fitness as a registrant, upon the CFP® certification marks and upon the profession. The Commission determined that Mr. Matheny’s conduct provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Matheny’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for two years, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules. Mr. Matheny’s suspension is effective from April 25, 2011 to April 25, 2013.
TEXAS
Russell K. Childs (Spring): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Childs’ right to use the CFP® certification marks for three years. The suspension followed CFP Board’s investigation of: 1) a Texas State Securities Board (“TSSB”) order issued against Mr. Childs that resulted in the 2005 suspension of his agent and investment advisor representative registration and a fine for failure to disclose other business engagements on his U4 (“2005 Order”); 2) a related 2004 undertaking placing Mr. Childs on probation for two years as an agent and investment advisor representative; 3) a 2010 TSSB regulatory action relating to alleged violation of the 2005 Order, unsuitable transactions and charging prohibited commissions, which resulted in a suspension and a fine; and 4) a 2010 Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”, formerly known as the National Association of Securities Dealers, or “NASD”) wherein Mr. Childs consented to violations of NASD Rules 2110, 2310(a) and 3060 by charging prohibited commissions to clients and accepting gifts or gratuities in excess of $100 from a party affiliated with an investment product that Mr. Childs sold. The Commission determined that Mr. Childs’ conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 202, 405, 406, 606(a), 606(b), 607 and 701 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Childs’ right to use the CFP® certification marks for three years, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules. Mr. Childs’ suspension is effective from April 26, 2011 to April 26, 2014.
WASHINGTON
Ingrid M. Gintz (Reston): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order suspending Ms. Gintz’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of Ms. Gintz’s: 1) 2010 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy; 2) failure to sufficiently disclose and document the conflict of interest related to Ms. Gintz’s clients investing with her family members; and 3) 2009 termination for failure to adequately report outside business activities. The Commission determined that Ms. Gintz’s conduct violated Rules 401 and 406 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (“Disciplinary Rules”). Accordingly, the Commission suspended Ms. Gintz’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day, pursuant to Article 4.3 of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules. Ms. Gintz’s suspension is effective from March 25, 2011 to March 26, 2012.
REVOCATIONS
ARIZONA
Robert F. Hockensmith (Glendale): In March 2011, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“Commission”), CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Hockensmith’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed CFP Board’s investigation of allegations that Mr. Hockensmith: 1) recommended unregistered securities to clients; 2) failed to inform his employer and his clients that the securities were unregistered; 3) sold unregistered se