STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CARL WASSERMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-1183

)

FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF )

ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on October 27, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

The following appearances were entered: Melvin R. Horne, Tallahassee, Florida, for the Petitioner, Carl Wasserman; James C. Rinaman, Jr., Jacksonville, Florida, for the Respondent, Florida State Board of Architecture.

During October, 1973, Carl Wasserman ("Petitioner" hereafter) filed an application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida with the Florida State Board of Architecture ("Board" hereafter). Various proceedings before the Board, and before the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida ensued. On June 11, 1976, the Board entered an order denying the application. By letter dated June 16, 1976. Petitioner requested a hearing pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 120.57(1)(a). By letter dated June 23, 1976, the Board requested that a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings conduct further proceedings. A copy of the Board's request for assignment of a hearing officer, the Petitioner's request for a hearing, and the Board's order of June 11, 1976, were received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. On October 8, 1976, the Petitioner filed a "Statement of Issues, Facts and Matters to be Asserted" which constitutes a formal petition for hearing (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 6). The Respondent filed a response to the petition at the hearing (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 7). The final hearing was originally scheduled to be conducted on September 22, 1976, but was continued upon motion of the Petitioner by order entered September 22, 1976 (Hearing Officer's Exhibits 2, 3, 4). At the hearing the Petitioner called the following witnesses: Herbert Coons, Jr., the Board's Executive Secretary; and Dean Arnold Butt, the Chairman of the Department of Architecture at the University of Florida. The Respondent elicited testimony from these witnesses on cross examination, and offered no additional testimony. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1 - 12, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 - 7, and Board Exhibit 1 were offered into evidence and were received at the hearing. Board Exhibit 2 was offered into evidence but was rejected. Hearing Officer's Exhibit 8 is a transcript of proceedings conducted before the Board on May 29, 1975. The exhibit includes the transcribed testimony of the following witnesses: Dean Arnold Butt; Augustine A. Cabanban, a former employer of the Petitioner; Earl Ohrnstein, a former employer of the Petitioner; and the Petitioner. Hearing Officer's

Exhibit 9 was a deposition of Herbert Coons, Jr. The testimony set out in Hearing Officer's Exhibits 8 and 9 was considered as fully as if the testimony had been presented at the hearing.

Petitioner contends that he is qualified under the provisions of Florida Statutes Section 467.11 to be registered to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner did not have a degree in architecture from an accredited school, and had not acquired a degree of proficiency fully equal to such a degree through private study, classroom education, on-the-job-training or other practical experience.

The Petitioner's application was filed prior to January 1, 1975, the effective date of Florida Statutes, Section 120.57. The parties nonetheless stipulated that the provisions of Section 120.57(1) would govern the proceeding. Some confusion was expressed during the course of the hearing respecting the nature of the hearing. The hearing was conducted as a formal proceeding in accordance with Section 120.57(1). The hearing was not conducted as a review of previous action taken by the Board.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In October, 1973, the Petitioner filed an application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida with the Board. By letter dated November 21, 1973, the Board, through its Executive Secretary, denied the application stating that the Petitioner lacked the required degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Petitioner requested that his experience be reviewed to determine whether he had training fully equivalent to such a degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). By letter dated August 19, 1974 the Board notified the Petitioner that his educational background was insufficient, and that the application would be denied. Petitioner thereupon filed a Declaratory Judgment Action in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. The court adjudged that the Board was required to consider not only the Petitioner's educational training, but his private study, on-the-job training and other practical experience. A copy of the court's Final Declaratory Judgment was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 12. Petitioner again appeared before the Board and offered evidence respecting his training and practical experience. See: Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 8. On June 11, 1976, the Board entered its order finding the Petitioner to be not qualified and denying the application (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). Petitioner thereupon requested a hearing in accordance with Florida Statutes Section 120.57(1). Petitioner's application for licensure is an administrative adjudicatory proceeding which commenced prior to January 1, 1975. The parties have nonetheless stipulated that the provisions of Section 120.57(1) will hereafter govern the proceeding.

   
   

2. The Petitioner received a Bachelor of Science degree from Chicago Technical College, Chicago, Illinois on December 17, 1954. Petitioner's course of study was architectural engineering. The Chicago Technical College was not, during the time that Petitioner attended it, and is not now on the approved list of schools and colleges of architecture adopted and published by the Board. The course of study pursued by the Petitioner at Chicago Technical College was not the same as a program in architecture. The program was a highly technical engineering program. The design studio which is perhaps the major facet of an architectural program was not present in the architectural engineering program pursued by the Petitioner.

3. Following his graduation the Petitioner worked with other architects in the general practice of architecture. His longest periods of employment were with Cabanban and Wasserman, architects, where he worked for four years and eleven months from 1958 until 1963; and with Ohrnstein and Wasserman, with whom he was employed for four years and four months from 1966 through 1971. In each of these jobs the Petitioner performed the sort of work ordinarily performed by architects. A listing of the different projects in which the Petitioner performed design and supervisory functions is set out as a part of Hearing Officer's Exhibit 10. A wide variety of commercial buildings, apartment complexes, and private residences are included. Petitioner served as a partner in Cabanban and Wasserman, and in Ohrnstein and Wasserman. Augustine Cabanban and Earl Ohrnstein were both registered architects during the course of the partnerships. Cabanban and Ohrnstein each testified that the Petitioner performed the full range of architectural services during the course of the partnerships, and that his work was excellent.

   
   

4. Architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner to the Board demonstrate that the Petitioner did not achieve a high level of design proficiency from his work experience. The best drawings submitted demonstrated a level of competence of approximately a third year architecture student in a five year program. Other drawings demonstrated a lack of design competence, and were inadequate.

   
   

5. During 1972, the Petitioner passed the standard examination offered by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. Petitioner holds a current certificate issued by the National Council, and is registered to practice architecture in the State of Illinois.

   
   

6. Schools or colleges of architecture approved by the Board have many common features, and the curricula offered at the schools are fairly consistent. Generally the programs and the curricula have remained consistent since approximately 1955 with minor variations, or changes of a technical sort. There is no real distinction between the sort of program which would have been approved in 1955, and the sort of program which would be approved today. Typically an approved program which operated on a quarter hour academic basis would require approximately 240 quarter hours for graduation. Approximately 75 quarter hours would be in architectural design culminating in a thesis. Approximately 60 quarter hours would be in general education subject matter, with between 30 to 35 hours in social science and humanities. The social science background is important because an architect must bring together all the factors which relate to the building environment, including social factors.

   
   

7. The educational program followed by the Petitioner lacked the necessary design courses and social science courses which would be required in an approved architectural program. An architectural engineer is an engineer involved with buildings. The design courses in an architectural engineering program are set up to enable the engineer to work with an architect. Through on-the-job training the Petitioner received considerable design experience; however, drawings which he submitted to the Board did not evidence that he had achieved the level of design competence which would be required of a graduate of an approved architectural program. The fact that the Petitioner passed the National Council's test does not in itself establish that Petitioner reached the necessary level of competence. Petitioner did not offer evidence from which it could be concluded that his studies and experience would substitute for the social science background required of a graduate of an approved program. The Petitioner did not establish that he took social science courses, or engaged in

   individual study in the social sciences, or engaged in any other activities which would substitute for such an academic background.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter to this action. The parties have stipulated in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 120.72(2)(a) that the provisions of Florida Statutes, Section 120.57(1) will govern this proceeding.

   
   

9. Whether the Petitioner is qualified for registration as an architect in the State of Florida is governed by the statutes and rules in existence at the time that he filed his application in October, 1973. Florida Statutes, Section

   1. (1971) provided as follows:

      
      

      "Hereafter no person shall be admitted to the practice of architecture in this state with- out an examination except that a certificate of registration may be issued upon filing of application and payment of the same fees as if qualified by examination to a person who meets the requirements of applicants for examination as set forth in Section 467.08 and has passed a standard examination and holds a current certificate issued by the National Council of Architectural Registra- tion Boards and who furnishes satisfactory evidence of continued honorable professional practice after the passing of such exami- nation together with satisfactory evidence of his present ability and integrity."

      
      

      Florida Statutes, Section 467.08 (1971) sets out the requirements for applicants for examination in pertinent part as follows:

      
      

      "(1)(b) Any applicant for examination shall establish by satisfactory evidence to the Board with his application that:

      1. He is 21 years of age;

      2. He is a citizen of the United States or has pending a Declaration of

         Intention so to become;

      3. He is of good moral character;

      4. Be is a graduate of an accredited high school or has education equivalent thereto; and

      5. He is either a graduate of a school or college of architecture appearing

   upon the list of approved schools and colleges of architecture as adopted and published by the Board in its rules, with graduation there from evidenced by a diploma setting forth the applicant's degree, or has had training which shall be found by the Board to be fully equivalent to such degree, and a minimum of one year of

   diversified training in the offices of registered practicing architects."

   
   

   The burden is upon the applicant (the Petitioner herein) to establish that he or she meets the requirements of the statute. The only issue presented in this case is whether the applicant has had training fully equivalent to a degree from an approved school or college of architecture.

   
   

10. In the Declaratory Judgment Action brought by the Petitioner against the Board the court interpreted Section 467.08(1)(b)(5) as follows:

    
    

    "...[T]he phrase training which shall be found by the Board to be fully equivalent to a degree in architecture means that an appli- cant must have acquired by any combination of private study, classroom education, on-the-

    job training and/or other practical experience a degree of proficiency found by the Board after study of each applicant's qualifications, to be fully equal to the degree of competency as an architect possessed by a graduate of an

    accredited school." (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 12).

    
    

11. The Petitioner has failed to establish by satisfactory evidence that he has acquired a level of competency equal to that of an architect with a degree from an approved school or college of architecture. The Petitioner's educational background is clearly deficient, and his private study, on-the-job training and other practical experience does not fill the gaps.

    
    

12. The application of the Petitioner for registration as an architect in the State of Florida should be denied.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED:

That the Florida State Board of Architecture enter an order denying the application of Carl Wasserman for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida.

RECOMMENDED this 15 day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 539 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

COPIES FURNISHED:

Melvin R. Horne, Esquire HORNE & JAFFRY

800 Barnett Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

James C. Rinaman, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 447

Jacksonville, Florida 32201

Docket for Case No: 76-001183

Orders for Case No: 76-001183