STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ROBERT POWERS WHEELER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 82-766

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on July 6, 1982, in Miami, Florida.

Petitioner Robert Powers Wheeler appeared on his own behalf, and John J. Rimes, III, Esquire, Tallahassee, Florida, appeared on behalf of Respondent Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture.

Petitioner failed to achieve a passing grade on Section A of the architecture examination administered in June, 1981, and thereafter requested a formal hearing to determine the propriety of the grade he received on that examination. Accordingly, the issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the June, 1981, architecture examination.

Petitioner testified on his own behalf, and Respondent presented the testimony of Herbert Coons, Jr. Additionally, a Joint Composite Exhibit numbered 1 and Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 were admitted in evidence.

Both parties have submitted post-hearing findings of fact. To the extent that any proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as not having been supported by the evidence, as having been irrelevant to the issue under consideration herein, or as constituting unsupported argument or conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner Robert Powers Wheeler is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida consists of two parts, one of which is a written examination given in December of each year, and the other of which is a Site Planning and Design Test given in June of each year. Petitioner meets all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination.

   
   

2. Petitioner took the Site Planning and Design Test portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1981. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving design and site considerations. The examination is administered by the Department of

   Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself involves the design of a structure by an applicant including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans.

   
   

3. Information supplied to the applicant includes a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination allows the national testing service grading the examination and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine if an applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which are tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December of each year.

   
   

4. The grading of the Site Planning and Design Test is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some 20 states, who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis, that is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. Further, the grader does not know the grade assigned to any applicant's solution by any other grader. Graders are instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and are required to determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's solution, whether a passing grade of "3" or "4" should be assigned to each applicant's solution. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's solution.

   
   

5. Petitioner received a grade of "2," which is a failing grade, from each of the three graders who graded his examination.

   
   

6. Although the Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture, who is also an architect, testified that Petitioner made a valiant effort to pass the examination, he identified several material areas wherein Petitioner failed to achieve minimal competency in his presentation or wherein Petitioner failed to observe program requirements. Petitioner failed to meet the owner's goals in that he approached the minimum square footage requirement while failing to provide amenities, which was a prime directive in the examination program. Petitioner had difficulty with regard to the pedestrian traffic flow on his third-floor plan. Petitioner had difficulty with his parking solution as well as with fulfilling the requirement of keeping the building architecturally compatible with surrounding structures. The Board's Executive Director, who has many years' experience in grading Site Planning and Design Tests, would have also given to Petitioner an overall grade of "2."

   
   

7. The graders of Petitioner's examination were not uniform in identifying areas of concern regarding Petitioner's weaknesses in his solution. However,

   the procedure to be utilized by graders is set forth in the Grader's Manual and specifies that under the holistic grading system each grader is to determine his overall impression of a candidate's submission in order to assign a passing or a failing grade. After making his determination based upon the overall project, the grader then returns to his areas of special concern. Although the different graders may have identified different areas of concern, all graders found Petitioner's submission to be below minimal competency requirements.

   
   

8. Although Petitioner disagrees with his grade, he presented no evidence to show that his examination was graded in an arbitrary or capricious way or in a manner different than that utilized in grading the examination of every candidate taking the same examination throughout the United States.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

10. Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, regulates the practice of architecture in the State of Florida and includes within the requirements for licensure the passage of an examination. Respondent has stipulated that Petitioner has fulfilled all other statutory requirements for licensure as an architect in the State of Florida.

    
    

11. The thrust of Petitioner's position is twofold: first, he disagrees with the grade he received on Section A of the June, 1981, architecture examination; and second, he believes that the grading of Section A of the examination is purely subjective and, therefore, unfair. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that an error was made in determination of his grade. He presented no evidence to show that the grade he received on his examination was in fact purely subjective or arbitrary or capricious. On the other hand, Respondent has shown that the examination is national in scope, that the examination is graded by architects, that the graders are given special training in the grading of Section A of the national examination, that the graders do not know the name of the examinee or the state of origin of the examination being graded, that no grader is aware of the grade assigned by any other grader, that a successful examinee needs to achieve a passing grade from two out of the three graders reviewing that examination, that all three graders grading Petitioner's examination assigned to him a failing grade, and that Petitioner failed to supply material information which was specifically required by the instructions given him prior to the examination. Petitioner has simply failed to carry his burden of proof that the examination was improperly constructed or that the examination was improperly administered or that an error was made in calculating his grade or that his examination was graded differently than were the examinations of other persons.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner has failed to achieve a passing score on the June, 1981, architecture examination and upholding the grade awarded to Petitioner on that examination.

DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 11th day of January, 1983.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mr. Robert Powers Wheeler 5501 South West 147th Terrace Miami, Florida 33158

John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director

Board of Architecture

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 82-000766

Orders for Case No: 82-000766