STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ROBERT WILLIAM MORGAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 81-2502

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD ) OF LAND SURVEYORS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this cause came on for administrative hearing before P. Michael Ruff, duly designated hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 27, 1982.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ken Davis, Esquire

DAVIS, JUDKINS & SIMPSON

Post Office Box 10368 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Susan Tully, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301

The cause was initiated by the Petitioner after he was notified that he bad failed the second part of the land surveyor's examination and that the Respondent bad denied his application for a surveyor's license. On September 3, 1981, after review, the Board of Land Surveyors gave the Petitioner a final determination that he had not scored a passing grade on part two of the examination administered April 9 and 10, 1981 in that he had scored sixty-six percent (66 percent) on the examination when a score of seventy percent (70 percent) is required for passage. On October 1, 1981 the Petitioner sought a proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, in order to avail himself of the right to present evidence to refute the Board's denial of his application for licensure.

The Petitioner presented three witnesses and the Respondent presented two witnesses, seven Exhibits were offered and admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the proceeding, the parties elected to secure the benefit of a transcript of the proceedings and to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were timely filed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner, Robert William Morgan, applied for a land surveyor's license pursuant to Chapter 472, Florida Statutes. He qualified for and passed the first part of the exam on April 9 and 10, 1981, took the second part of the written examination administered by the Board of Land Surveyors of the Florida Department of Professional Regulation (Respondent). Mr. Morgan was notified that he had failed to pass the second part of the examination by the Respondent by notice dated July 17, 1981. He requested a review of his examination by the Board and filed written objections. On September 3, 1981 he was informed by the Respondent that his protest was denied and his failing grade on the examination would stand. On October 1, 1981, the Petitioner made a timely petition to contest the Board's denial of his application for licensure pursuant to Section 120.57(1) , Florida Statutes.

   
   

2. There is no dispute that the only obstacle to the Petitioner's licensure in the eyes of the Board is that he made a score of 66 percent on the examination when 70 percent is required for passing. The rules cited below set forth the subject matter of the examination as well as the guidelines for preparing, administering and grading it. The Rules provide that the examination will consist of two parts which shall be prepared by the National Council of Engineering Examiners and, in part, by a consultant or testing service employed by the Department of Professional Regulation. The second part of the examination is the sole portion in dispute in this proceeding.

   
   

3. Pursuant to the Rules cited below, the examination is designed to test an applicant's knowledge in land boundary plot problems (either metes and bounds or lot and block types), general surveying computations, trigonometry, curves, intersections (areas) legal responsibilities in professional practice, writing land or legal descriptions, construction or topographic surveying, specialty problems involving water boundary surveys, error theory and condominium surveys. The content of part two of the examination generally involves six (6) to eight

   (8) problems drawn from those areas, each of which problems will normally generate between five (5) to fifteen (15) multiple choice questions, each of which receive 2 points of credit when completed correctly.

   
   

4. Part two of the examination, according to the Rule, is not to be machine graded and grades for part two of the examination must be based upon the application of "good land surveying judgment and a selection and evaluation of pertinent information with the demonstration of ability to make reasonable assumptions when necessary". The Rules require that the applicant must choose the multiple choice answer for a question on part two that is most nearly correct, further he is to be given space on his examination sheet to outline his reasons, methods and references by which the graders may determine his land surveying judgment which went into his answer. In the absence of such an outline, in explanation of an answer, even though the preliminary answer is marked correct, it is not to be given credit. Further, it has long been the Board's policy (expressed in the Rules) that if an outline or explanation of reasons for an answer is judged by the Board's testing service as adequate according to fundamental land surveying principles then credit will be given for the entire question pair "if the correct answer is close. . ."

   
   

5. The second part of the examination, in dispute herein, was formulated and administered by Mr. Dave Gibson of the University of Florida School of Engineering who prepared the multiple choice examination to be machine scored in its entirety. No space was provided on the examination sheet for the applicant to outline his reasons or his methods and references in arriving at his solution

   so that the examining graders could determine his land surveying judgment underlying his answers to the multiple choice questions. The applicant, instead, was required by the format of the examination prepared by Mr. Gibson, and the instructions given by the Board, to choose the most nearly correct answer from a series of multiple choice answers on a machine scored answer sheet (emphasis supplied). The applicant was thus forced to select a single reason for his answer to the immediately preceding multiple choice question in each pair without having a blank space in order to outline the reasons for his answer. The choices were adequate for the applicant to express his reasons for his answers in some cases and in some cases they were not. In grading of the examination, credit was only given for the most nearly correct answer instead of an "adequate outline". Thus, where there was more than one acceptable method or reason for an answer to a specific question, the Board only gave credit for the one its consultant considered most nearly correct, even though another answer in a number of instances could have been correct by the Board's own admission.

   Indeed, the Board admitted that where there was more than one correct answer to a question, the standard policy of the Board had been to give credit for both answers.

   
   

6. The parties are in agreement that the only questions in dispute are questions 13 and 14, 31 and 32, and 45 and 46, passage of all of which would give him a total score of 72 percent instead of 66 percent. These questions are arranged in pairs, 13 is the preliminary question and answer with 14 being the answer to be supplied in explanation to the answer to question 13 (no space being given, as formerly by the Board, to write an explanation). The same paired relationship is true of questions 31 and 32, with 32 providing the explanatory answer and question 46 containing the explanatory answer for question 45. The second part of the exam in question, consisted of forty (40) multiple choice questions followed by forty (40) multiple choice reasons, methods or references for the answer to the questions, as well as an essay question worth twenty (20) points. The odd numbers on the machine scored answer sheet for part two of the exam are the questions and the even numbers are the methods or reasons for the answers to the odd-numbered questions.

   
   

7. The parties do not dispute that Mr. Morgan received 54 points on the multiple choice questions and 12 points on the essay question for a total of 66 percent on the examination. It must be remembered, however, that in order to get credit for a correct answer an "adequate outline" of the reason for the answer must be given as the second answer in the pair. It is also undisputed that Mr. Morgan correctly answered questions 13, 31 and 46 of the three pairs, but was not given credit for these answers at all because of his answers to questions 14, 32 and 45 were not in the view of the Board the "most nearly correct answers for 14 and 31" or as "equally correct as other answers" for question 45. Mr. Gibson, the Board's consultant who administered and graded the examination, did not give credit for an "adequate explanatory answer or outline". In some instances, however, more than one answer was accepted as correct, after Mr. Gibson and the Board determined that the examination should be "re-keyed", because of sixteen (16) questions on part two which the Board felt were ambiguous and could be correctly answered in more than one way.

   
   

8. Question 13 on the examination was one of a series of questions testing the applicant's knowledge of topography and grading of land. It reads as follows:

   13. If a lath were placed at the cul-de-sac center on road A, how far above the existing ground should a mark be placed on the lath that reads, 'cut three feet', most nearly.

   
   

   The elevation of the existing ground was determined from other parts of the examination. The notes on Mr. Morgan's examination reflect that he correctly calculated this to be eighty-six (86) feet. He also correctly answered question

   13 by selecting choice B or "two feet". Solution number 14, the reason, method or reference for question 13, then states:

   
   

   1. This is the usual amount for most of Florida.

   2. By subtracting the elevation of the

      mark from the proposed pavement elevation.

   3. By subtracting the elevations of the mark from the existing ground elevation.

   
   

   Of those three choices, A, B and C, Mr. Morgan picked choice B as his reason for his answer to question 13. Mr. Gibson felt that the correct answer should be choice C in solution 14. The Board's witnesses admitted that the determination of the answer to question 13 was a two step process. The elevation of the mark on the stake must be determined from the proposed grade elevation within the meaning of the term "cut three" on the stake. Once the elevation of the mark is calculated, the height of the mark above existing ground elevation could be determined by calculating the difference between the elevations of the existing ground and the mark on the grade stake. If the elevation of the mark, which is eighty-eight feet, is subtracted from the elevation of the existing ground as directed in choice C of solution 14, the result is minus 2. The mark cannot logically be minus 2 feet above the existing ground on a grade stake as described in the question. Further, minus 2 was not even one of the choices for an answer to question 13. The correct and acceptable answer under the Board's "key" was 2 or plus 2 feet as Mr. Morgan correctly marked on his answer sheet.

   If one applies the "most nearly correct rule" to the answers in a mathematical sense, the most nearly correct answer would have been zero for question 13 using choice C as the answer for 14. This is obviously not the most logical and correct answer.

   
   

9. Choice A for question 14 in explanation of the answer for 13 is admittedly a "detractor" type choice and not worthy of serious consideration. Choice B is an expression of the meaning of "cut three" and is the key to solving the problem stated in question 13, that is, the elevation of the existing grade, 85 feet, minus the elevation of the mark equals minus 3, which is directly symbolic of the surveyors term "cut three". Until this relationship is known, the elevation of the mark cannot be determined from the information given and therefore without knowing the elevation of the mark, the height of the mark above existing ground cannot be determined. Thus, choice C is an expression of the first step to a two-step process required to arrive at the correct answer to question 13. It is not the final step in explanation of the answer for question 13, but it must be found to be an "adequate reason", since the only other alternatives offered the examinee require him to disregard elementary mathematical principles, such as subtraction, which he is charged

   with applying in solving the examination. Thus, choice 14-B is the correct explanation for the answer to question 13 since it correctly expresses the initial part of the two-part process required to arrive at the correct answer to question 13 and since the other two choices A and C are either illogical or do not comport with applicable mathematical principles such as subtraction.

10. Question 31 reads as follows: Concerning Palm Avenue about the 1955

    MHW line, which statement is most nearly

    correct?

    
    

    1. The original developer is fee owner subject to public easement.

    2. The public is the complete owner subject to easements for the subdivision lot owners.

    3. Each lot owner owns fee title to the street center line subject to a public easement.

    4. State of Florida holds fee title subject to a public easement.

    5. The public is the complete owner subject to no easement.

       
       

       Mr. Morgan selected choice C for his answer, which is agreed to be the correct answer.

       
       

11. Question 32 reads:

    
    

    Reason for Response given in question 31

    
    

    1. Public only receive an easement from the developer.

    2. The public received complete title from the developer.

    3. Riparian rights.

    4. Deed for lots presumes grant to center of adjoining street.

    5. The lack of improving the street gives the fee title to the state.

       
       

       Mr. Morgan selected choice D as his answer for question 32, the Board did not give him credit for this answer because it felt the reason he gave was not the most nearly correct.

       
       

12. As admitted by the Board's consultant, Mr. Gibson, the object of question 31 was to test the applicant's knowledge of legal principles pertaining to street or subdivision plats. Specifically, it required the applicant to state the title for that portion of the street above the mean high water mark, given the facts presented to him in the problem. Mr. Gibson also admitted that the applicant was expected to apply the substantive law of Florida as its existed at the time the applicant took the exam in April of 1981. He also admitted that the correct answer for the state of the title for question 31 contained two parts: an easement held by the public; and the underlying fee title held by the abutting lot owners.

13. Both Witnesses Gibson and Davis admitted that the two best explanations contained in question 32, A and D, each only explain one part of the state of the title of the property involved. Response A only explains the easement portion of the title and response D explains the state of the fee title. These two witnesses conceded that Mr. Morgan's choice for question 32, response D, was a correct answer. Although they maintained they did not consider it the best answer, they failed to establish that response A is an any more correct or complete statement of title in explaining that an easement goes to the public for use of the street than is the explanation in the Petitioner's answer D, which states that the deed for the lots presumes a grant of the fee title to the center of the street. The Respondent's answer obviously is "adequate" if it is one of two possible correct answers. The Petitioner should thus get credit for his answers to questions 13 and 14 and questions 31 and 32. His reasons given for his obviously correct answers to the first questions in the two pairs are clearly adequate, which would have been obvious to the Board had it afforded him the hitherto provided space on his answer sheet to explain the answers to the first question in each pair.

    
    

14. The final pair of answers in dispute are those for questions 45 and

1. Question 45 reads:

   
   

   At what point of construction should

   the measurements be made for the surveyor's certificate required for a condominium?

   
   

   1. After the architect's plans are prepared but before construction starts.

   2. After the piling and footers are placed but before construction of the buildings.

   3. After the columns and floors are completed but before framing of the units.

   4. After framing of the units but before the walls are finished.

   5. After the interior walls are finished.

Mr. Morgan chose response A.

1. One of the requirements of applicants for licensure and examinees is that they be knowledgeable of substantive Florida Law pertaining to the profession of land surveying. Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, pertaining to land surveying, provides for two certifications which a surveyor is called upon to make during the course of development and construction of a condominium. One of these is the certificate which should be issued by the surveyor after construction is substantially complete. Accordingly, with that in mind, the Board maintained that the Petitioner should have answered "E" to question 45 which reads "after the interior walls are finished", as being the time at which the surveyor's certificate should be issued. The other surveyor's certificate required in the course of the development of a condominium, must be prepared much earlier as one of the documents that a developer must file with the Division of Land Sales and Condominiums when he wants to offer sales contracts and take advance subscription agreements for condominium reservation deposits. The developer cannot take a reservation or deposit until he files a surveyor's certificate filed with the Division. The Petitioner chose response A because of his knowledge of this last-described surveyor s certificate. The author of the examination, Witness Gibson, admitted that when he prepared the examination he was not aware of this other certificate required of surveyors when dealing with condominium developments. His question, therefore, did not specify which

   certificate was required for a correct response to the question. It was finally admitted that Mr. Morgan's choice, response A, was one of two correct answers to question 45 given the requirements of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, which he is charged with knowledge of as a candidate for licensure. The Respondent acknowledged that historically it has been the Board's policy to give credit for a question where there is more than one correct answer to that question. If an answer is correct for any reasonable reading of the question to which it applies, then it is just as correct as any other answer. Accordingly, the Petitioner should be given credit for a correct answer to question 45. The Respondent admitted that the Petitioner correctly answered question 46, thus he should be given total credit for both questions 45 and 46.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

2. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

3. The subject matter of the examination, as well as the specific guidelines for its preparation, administration and grading are set forth in detail in Chapter 21HH-4, Florida Administrative Code, being the rules of the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Land Surveyors.

   
   

4. Section 21HH-4.01 provides that the examination will consist of two parts and shall be prepared in part by the National Counsel of Engineering Examiners and in part by a consultant employed by the Department. The pertinent portions of Chapter 21HH-4 provide:

   
   

   21HH-4.02. Content of Examination.

   1. Part one of the examination shall be on land surveying fundamentals and shall involve machine graded multiple choice questions. Part one will include questions taken from subjects normally connected with requirements for basic fundamentals in the

      practice of land surveying. The topics which are usually treated in this section are as follows: mathematics, physics, English, surveying (consisting of instrumentation, orientation, horizontal measurements, traverse, topographic mapping, note keeping and records), route surveying. State plane coordinate calculations, economic analysis.

      
      

   2. Part two of the examination shall be based on Professional Practice and Principles in land surveying. Part two of the examination will involve the applicant's finding solutions to problems designed to test the applicant's ability to apply acceptable land surveying practice to problems which are representative of those commonly encountered in the profession of land surveying. The examination problem selection is made by the testing service or consultant engaged by the Department and generally shall involve problems in the following areas and with the

      general relative weights:

      1. Land Boundary Problems (sectional surveys)

         --20 percent

      2. Land Boundary Problems (metes and bounds or lot and block types)--15 percent

      3. General Surveying Computations (trigonometry, curves, intersections, areas) --10 percent

      4. Legal Responsibilities and Professional Practice (interpretation of Florida laws and rules governing Land Surveying) --15 percent

      5. Writing a Land or Legal Description --20 percent

      6. Construction and/or Topographic Surveying (layout, contours) --10 percent

      7. Specialty Problems (e.g., Water Boundary Surveys, error theory, condominium survey)

      --10 percent

      
      

   3. The content of part two of the examination generally will involve between six to eight problems drawn from the above-mentioned areas. Each problem normally will generate from between five to fifteen multiple choice questions each of which receive two points of credit when completed correctly.

      
      

5. 21HH-4.03 Grading Criteria.

   
   

   1. Insofar as part one of the land surveying examination is machine graded, multiple

      choice question developed by a national testing service, it is not possible to designate with any degree of certainty the relative weight assigned to those areas tested. It may safely be assumed, however, that fundamental questions of land surveying principles and technique will comprise the majority of the examination. Grades shall be determined by the applicant's ability to choose the correct answer from several given choices.

      
      

   2. Insofar as part two of the examination is not machine graded, the Board deems it necessary to set forth the following guidelines on which grades for part two shall be based:

      1. Grades for part two of the examination will be based upon the application of good land surveying judgment and the selection and the evaluation of pertinent information and the demonstration of the ability to make reasonable assumptions when necessary.

      2. Each question to be asked will generally have five multiple choice answers of which

         the applicant must choose the one most nearly correct. Furthermore, the applicant is given

         space on the examination sheet to outline his reasons, methods and references by which the examining service may determine the land surveying judgment which went into the determination of each answer.

      3. In the absence of such an outline, a question, even though marked correct, is not given credit. If the correct answer is close and the outline is judged by the testing service as adequate according to fundamental land surveying principles, credit will be given for the question.

      4. All grading of examinations shall be done on a blind basis by the consultant or testing service preparing the examination. The method of validation as to questions given and to the examination itself shall be according to acceptable testing procedures determined

         by the Department and the service or consultant preparing the examination.

         
         

6. 21HH-4.04 Passing Grades.

   
   

   1. A passing grade on part one of the examination is defined as three-quarters of a standard deviation below the national mean. The national mean is determined by a national group set up by the testing service giving the examination which is intended to give the most accurate cross section of the applicants taking the examination. All raw grades shall be converted by a factor provided by the testing service to a scale of 100 and the passing grade set forth above shall be set as equivalent to 70 on such a scale.

      
      

   2. A passing grade on part two of the examination is defined as 70 percent of the questions asked being answered correctly with the requisite reasoning for such answers as set forth in Rule 21HH-4.03(2)(b) and (c). (emphasis supplied)

      
      

7. The evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that the examination administered to the Petitioner failed to comply with the above Rules in several respects. First, the second part of the examination was machine scored in its entirety contrary to Section 21HH-4.03(2). Further no space was provided the Petitioner on his examination sheet for him to outline the reasons or his methods or references in support of his answers to the questions immediately proceeding the questions which required reasons, so that the grader of the examination could determine his land surveying judgment. The failure to provide the space on the examination sheet is directly contrary to the requirements of Section 21HH-4.03(2)(b) delineated above and paragraph (c) above requires that if no outline is supplied by the examinee then the entire question is wrong, but that if a "correct" answer is a close one, an "adequate" outline in explanation of it will result in credit for the entire question. The Petitioner was thus improperly forced by the format of the examination and the instructions given

him by the Board to choose the most nearly correct answer from a series of multiple choice answers on a machine scored answer sheet. By having to use this format instead of being provided the required space in which to outline the reasons for his answers, the applicant was forced to select a single "compromise" reason. In the case of the three disputed question pairs, none of the choices available in the second questions in each pair were adequate to explain the initial answers. Thus, for instance, as found above in formulating the multiple choice answers to question 14 the answer contended to be correct by the Board ignored the plain meaning of the word "subtract" even though Section 21HH-4.03(1) requires one of the topics to be tested to be mathematics. In grading the examination, credit was only given for the most nearly correct answer instead of consideration for an "adequate outline" for which credit is mandated pursuant to Section 21HH-4.03(2)(c) above. Thus, the Board only gave credit for the answer it considered most nearly correct even where there was more than one acceptable method or reason for an answer to a specific question, which could have been revealed if the Petitioner had been permitted to write the explanation required by the Rule. Although the Board admitted that where there is more than one correct answer to a question, the standard policy long adopted by the Board is to give credit for both answers, that was not done with regard to the questions and answers discussed above. Finally, the applicable substantive Florida Law was not used entirely in the formulating of the answers and reasons regarding some of the questions contrary to Rule 21HH-4.02(2)(d) and indeed Witness Gibson, the formulator of the exam, admitted that he drafted the examination more according to "general surveying principles" rather than with a specific view to Florida Law, hence the problem regarding which surveyor's certificate was required in answer to questions 45 and 46. Thus, the Board violated its own Rules and its admitted proven policy in the formulation, administration and grading of the Petitioner's exam.

21. In summary, Rule 21HH-4.04(2) provides that a seventy percent (70 percent) score is a passing score on the examination. It is undisputed that Mr. Morgan correctly answered questions 13, 31 and 46, but was not given credit for those answers because his answers to questions 14, 32 and 45 were not considered by the Board as "most nearly correct" for 14 and 32 or as "equally correct" as other answers for 45. The evidence renders the conclusion obvious that, had the Board applied the correct standards set forth above band given the Petitioner credit for any correct answers, if adequate outlines of the reasons for the answers were given as the Rule mandates, then he would have been given credit for all his disputed answers. This was of course impossible because of the improper use of the machine scored answer sheet. Thus, the evidence in the record establishes that the Petitioner should receive credit for correctly answering questions 13 and 14, 31 and 32, and 45 and 46 which will give him a total score of seventy-two percent (72 percent), which is sufficient for passage of the examination.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is therefore

RECOMMENDED:

That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Land Surveyors awarding Robert William Morgan a passing score of seventy-two percent (72 percent) on part two of the land surveyor's examination

administered April 9 and 10, 1981 and therefore, it being agreed that no other impediment to licensure is extant, that the Board grant him licensure as a land surveyor.

DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida.

P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1982.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ken Davis, Esquire DAVIS, JUDKINS & SIMPSON

Post Office Box 1368 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Susan Tully, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Board of Land Surveyors

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION

ROBERT MORGAN,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO.: 81-2502

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF LAND SURVEYORS,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to notice and Chapter 120, F.S., this cause came on to be heard before the Florida Board of Land Surveyors on June 24, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida for consideration of a Recommended Order issued by Hearing Officer P. Michael Ruff on June 2, 1982. Also considered were Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed by Respondent; Petitioner did not file exceptions.

Petitioner waived his appearance at the hearing; Respondent was present.

Upon consideration of the Recommended Order and the exceptions filed thereto by Respondent, it is ORDERED that:

1. The findings of fact of the Recommended Order be adopted in toto;

   
   

2. that the conclusions of law within the Recommended Order be adopted, with the specific exception of the conclusion of law set forth on page l4 of the Recommended Order;

   that Petitioner receive credit for all his disputed answers;

   
   

3. that the conclusion of law set forth in Respondent's Exceptions to the Recommended Order that Petitioner receive credit for his answers which were either correct or adequate be adopted;

   
   

4. that the recommendation of the hearing officer that Petitioner be awarded a score of 72 percent and be granted licensure be modified to the extent Petitioner be awarded a score of 70 percent and be granted licensure as a registered land surveyor.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1982.

FLORIDA BOARD OF LAND SURVEYORS

Alan R. Smith, Jr.

Executive Director

cc: Ken Davis, Esquire Susan Tully, Esquire

P. Michael Ruff, Hearing Officer

Docket for Case No: 81-002502

Orders for Case No: 81-002502