STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CURTIS LORD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-7502

) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF ) PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter was heard by William R. Dorsey, Jr., the Hearing Officer designated by the Division of Administrative Hearings, on February 13, 1991, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Curtis Lord, pro se

1416A Old Lystra Road

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

For Respondent: William F. Whitson

Law Clerk

Department of Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented is whether Mr. Lord should be granted additional credit for his answer to question number 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

A transcript of the proceedings was filed on February 27, 1991. The Department filed a proposed recommended order on March 8, 1991. The findings proposed by the Department, though edited, have essentially been accepted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Mr. Lord (Candidate #301402) received a score of 66.3 percent on the April 20, 1991, Principals and Practice portion of the Professional Engineer examination. A minimum passing score was 70.0 percent.

   
   

2. Mr. Lord challenged the scoring of his response to question number 144.

3. Question number 144 is an essay question involving an assembly line problem where four separate stations are used to assemble a product in sequence. A fifth station can assist in maximizing the number of finished products produced per hour, and is capable of performing all operations.

   
   

4. The correct answer to question number 144 was 100 products per hour, while Mr. Lord's answer was 25 pieces per hour.

   
   

5. Petitioner received a score of 2 (out of a possible 10) points on question number 144. This was based on the scoring plan developed for the exam by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying.

   
   

6. Mr. Lord used a method of averaging station assembly times to determine the maximum average number of products each station could produce.

   
   

7. The averaging method gave a solution which did not identify the central issue presented by the essay question: identifying and eliminating the bottlenecks in production.

   
   

8. Mr. Lord also made an assumption that the initial four stations could do all operations, thus defining the model inaccurately. This misreading allowed Mr. Lord to use an averaging methodology.

   
   

9. Mr. Granata, the Department's expert, testified that it is a coincidence of the numbers that if you multiply Respondent's answer (25) by four (the initial number of machines) you get the Board's answer (100).

   
   

10. Mr. Greenbaum, Petitioner's expert witness, testified that Petitioner's answer is "unique" and that he, as an expert, would have answered the question using a methodology similar to the one developed by the Department's expert, Mr. Granata, and by the NCEE (National Council of Examiners for Engineering).

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

11. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

12. Mr. Lord has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he should receive additional credit on question number 144 to attain the minimum passing grade of 70.0 percent. Rule 28-6.008(3), Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

13. The Florida Board of Engineers requires that candidates pass an examination prepared by the National Council of Engineers Examiners before any candidate receives a license to practice as a professional engineer. Chapter 21H-21.001, Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

14. Chapters 21-11 and 21H-21, Florida Administrative Code, specify the manner for administration of licensure examinations and the criteria for grading examinations for professional engineers.

    
    

15. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his answer to the challenged question was a correct answer, or that he deserves additional credit. He was unable to demonstrate that his examination was

    arbitrarily or capriciously graded. The Department's evidence on the grading method used was persuasive. Mr. Lord's answer was graded correctly. Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

    
    

16. Petitioner also failed to clearly show that the Department graded the challenged question arbitrarily, or that the Department's denial of additional credit for Mr. Lord's answer was devoid of logic and reason, Topp v. Board of Electrical Examiners for Jacksonville Beach, 101 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958).

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the challenge to the grading of Mr. Lord's response to question

144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination be dismissed.

RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida.

WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR.

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1991.

COPIES FURNISHED:

William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Curtis Lord

1416A Old Lystra Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514

Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 90-007502

Orders for Case No: 90-007502