STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STEPHEN TODARO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 80-1979

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, BOARD OF )

ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

An Administrative Hearing was held on the above matter by H. E. SMITHERS, on December 5, 1980 at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The Petitioner represented himself and John Rimes represented the Respondent.

This case commenced when Petitioner Todaro received Respondent's September 5, 1980, notification that he did not achieve a passing grade on the design and site planning portion of the architectural examination which was taken in June, 1980. By letter dated September 25, 1980, the subject hearing was requested.

The issue is whether Petitioner passed the June, 1980 design and site problem.

The Petitioner presented himself as a witness. Respondent presented the testimony of Executive Director of the Board of Architecture and one of the graders of Petitioner's examination; Respondent's exhibits R 1-4 were made part of the record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The exam consists of two parts: the written part is given in December of each year and the site and design problem is given in June of each year. Todaro graduated from Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana in 1977 and had met the requirements for admittance to the licensure examination.

   
   

2. Todaro took the design and site planning portion of the national architectural exam in June, 1980. This consists of a 12 hour sketch problem involving the design of a structure by the applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. The exam is prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and is used by all states.

   
   

3. Pre-test information supplied to each applicant includes a booklet providing the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which applicants are expected to apply themselves in order to receive a passing grade. At the examination, other information is supplied to enable the applicant to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. 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 by NCARB and allows the national testing service grading the examination (and through them the Florida Board of Architecture) to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which were tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December.

   
   

4. The grading of the site and design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectual 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 solution which lie is grading. The grader is instructed in how to consider the appropriate criteria. Graders are also instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is a three, and an applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission.

   
   

5. In the instant cause, Todaro received two 2's and one 3. He was therefore notified of his failure to pass the examination and of his right to this hearing.

   
   

6. While Petitioner established that an effort had been made on his part to comply with the instructions, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation, particularly as to adequate consideration to grading and site planning, adequate consideration to marking elevations on his floor plans and adequate notation regarding the type of materials to be used in his elevations, floor plans, and wall sections. In general Todaro failed to place within his solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine that his program could be used; he failed to synthesize the information which he had learned in his educational process, in such a manner as to prepare adequate plans to respond to the requirements of good architectural practice in the formulation of design and site plans.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. The passage of an examination to practice Architecture in Florida is mandated by Florida Statutes 481.213(2), Florida Statutes.

   
   

8. If an applicant fails part of that examination he is entitled to a grade review and a formal hearing pursuant to F.S. 120.57. 455.217(2) , Florida Statutes.

   
   

9. The examination in question and the grading criteria have been challenged and upheld as a rational tool for determining the competency of architects to practice their profession. See Hankes v. Fisher, 314 F.Supp. 101 (W.D. Mass., 1970) Aff'd. 91 S.Ct. 462, 400 U.S. 985, 27 L.Ed. 2d 436.

   
   

10. The action of an administrative agency when within the powers validly conferred upon it is presumed to be valid and correct in the absence of proof to the contrary. Haves v. Bowman, 91 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1957). All reasonable

    presumptions should be indulged in favor of the validity of the agency's actions. Varholy v. Sweat, 15 So.2d 267, (Fla. 1953)

    
    

11. The Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent abused its discretion or errored in failing him. Rather, Petitioner showed that reasonable men might differ regarding with the completeness of his examination. This is not sufficient to support the determination that an error on the part of Respondent in grading Petitioner's examination had been made. State ex rel I.

H. Topp v. Board of Electrical Examiners for Jacksonville Beach, 101 So.2d 583 (4th D.C.A. 1958)

RECOMMENDATION

From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Stephen Todaro to change his grade on the

June, 1980, site and design architectural examination be denied.

DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.

H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1981.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Stephen A. Todaro 1507 N. E. 5th Avenue

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304

John J. Rimes, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 80-001979

Orders for Case No: 80-001979