STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MICHAEL HARAC, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 82-767

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in this case on February 27, 1984, in Coral Gables, Florida. The parties were afforded leave through March 12, 1984, to submit proposed memoranda supportive of their respective positions. 1/ Petitioner's counsel has submitted a proposed recommended order which was considered by me in preparation of this Recommended Order. /2

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Howard Hochman, Esquire

35 NE 17 Street, Suite 114 Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ISSUE

The issue presented herein concerns whether Petitioner should be deemed to have passed the Site Planning and Design Section of the June 1981 Architecture Examination (Section A) pursuant to applicable guidelines and criteria.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the parties' prehearing stipulation, the deposition of Herbert Coons and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact.

   
   

2. Michael Harac, Petitioner herein, sat for the June 1981 Architecture Examination. Petitioner passed the written section of the 1981 Architecture Examination which tests substantive knowledge, has satisfied his internship requirements, and would be eligible for registration as an architect by the State of Florida but for his failing grade in the Design Examination at issue.

   By letter dated February 4, 1982, Petitioner requested a formal hearing on the question of whether or not he passed the Design section of the June 1981 Architecture Examination.

   
   

3. The Design Section of the examination tests competence in the design process and utilizes the holistic grading method. Under the holistic procedure, three graders, after appropriate training sessions and instruction, grade each applicant's design solution. The range of available grades are 0 through 4. Scores of 3 and 4 are passing, a score of 2 or less is failing. Coordinating graders are available at the site and time of testing to evaluate any solution wherein the grader is uncertain or where there is a substantial disparity in grading.

   
   

4. Petitioner received holistic scores of 1, 2 and 3 on the June 1981 exam. Respondent acknowledges that a score of 1 could not properly be awarded to Petitioner's solution based on the applicable grading criteria and, accordingly, has stipulated to the invalidity of that grade. That acknowledgment and stipulation stems from the fact that petitioner's solution was complete. Based on that stipulation and acknowledgment, Petitioner only received two valid grades, one passing (3) and one failing (2).

   
   

5. The Grader's Manual used by Respondent in connection with the 1981 exam provides for a training session wherein the Training Committee will select twenty (20) actual test solutions which exemplify the level of competency and accomplishment required for each holistic score. (Grader's Manual at page 4, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Those solutions are termed training solutions and the graders are required to conform the severity and emphasis of their grading to the training solutions. The quality of an examinee's solution is to be measured against the quality of the solutions provided by other examinees. The graders are cautioned against judging against an imaginary ideal solution and must judge the actual performance of examinees on that particular examination for that particular project. (petitioner's Exhibit 1 at page 7)

   
   

6. Training solutions are used as "range finders" in the holistic grading process. It is essential to the integrity of the holistic grading method that each applicant's solution is graded in a manner consistent with the training solutions. (Testimony of Ronald Newman, an expert qualified herein in holistic grading procedures)

   
   

7. Charles Sieger, a witness tendered and received as an expert in architecture, conducted an evaluation of Petitioner's solution by first studying the solution and then blind-scoring several training solutions and thereafter scored Petitioner's solution and thereafter scored additional training solutions. Equal time was spent on all solutions including Petitioner's and all

   20 training solutions were considered and weighed against Petitioner's solution. Mr. Sieger considered both passing and failing training solutions both before and after grading Petitioner's solution. Petitioner's solution compared favorably to the passing training solutions and would merit a holistic grade of

   3 when compared to said training solutions.

   
   

8. The evaluation procedure utilized by Charles Sieger possessed substantial validity within the holistic testing method, as is more particularly described in the Grader's Manual, and is as close to the original format as possible without reconvening the original graders and trainers.

   
   

9. Mr. Sieger acknowledged that there were some design flaws in the Petitioner's solution; however, Petitioner's solution was buildable; given

   sufficient time to "polish" his solution, the solution would demonstrate the petitioner's ability to design and the flaws in Petitioner's solution were so minor that small changes could be made without destroying the concept as presented by the petitioner. (Testimony of expert witnesses Nerman and Sieger)

   
   

10. Mr. Coons did not utilize the range finders in grading Petitioner's solution nor did he grade each solution against the others as is recommended in the Grader's Manual. Additionally, Respondent has acknowledged that Petitioner's solution was not graded against or in comparison with the training solutions by Mr. Coons. A review of Mr. Coons' testimony further reveals that he gave failing grades to training solutions which were passing solutions and were given holistic grades of 3 and 4 by coordinating grades.

    
    

11. The Grader's Manual requires the grader to score solutions with the following questions in mind:

    
    

    "If the examinee knew more about the partic- ular project, would I say this person could design?

    
    

    If the examinee had time to polish the solu- tion, would I say that this person could design?

    
    

    Is the solution presented by the examinee buildable?

    
    

    Are the flaws in the solution so minor that small changes could be made without destroy- ing the concept?"

    
    

    (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 at page 7)

    
    

12. Respondent's main criticisms of Petitioner's solution consisted of his inclusion of a bathroom on the first floor, his failure to abut the structure to the adjacent building and his decision to opt for the minimum square footage (even though allowable under the program).

    
    

13. While it is true that the inclusion of a bathroom on the first floor lobby was not called for by the program, evidence reveals and it is concluded that the bathroom could be deleted by a simple erasure without substantially changing the concept of the lobby. Further, several passing training solutions also provided for a bathroom on the first floor lobby which could be required, under some code provisions.

    
    

14. Petitioner deliberately elected not to abut the new structure to an adjacent structure because of a lack of information as to the footings of the adjacent structure. In this regard, both Petitioner and Respondent's witness, Mr. Coons, testified that information as to the footings of the adjacent structure would be needed in order to properly abut the structure.

    
    

15. Finally, Petitioner's solution satisfied the minimum square footage as required under the program. In this regard, Respondent's expert acknowledged the feasibility of increasing the square footage in Petitioner's solution if desired and noted that "the designer in this case could very easily have provided additional space. (Testimony of Herbert Coons) Moreover, at least one

    passing training solution contained less than minimum square footage requirements.

    
    

16. Petitioner's solution properly located the core of the building, reflected the footings and structure of the building, provided for handicapped occupants, correctly designed the stairways and parking facilities and provided for energy conservation elements. Additionally, there was good continuity of transition between the new and existing buildings in Petitioner's solution, the security booth was correctly located and the solution made provision for artwork and other amenities required by the program. Petitioner's design elements in some instances were more sophisticated or extensive than required pursuant to the program.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

17. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

18. The authority of the Respondent is derived from 455 and 481, Parts 1 and 2, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapters 21B and K, Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

19. Petitioner's solution as presented in the June 1981 Architecture Examination demonstrated minimum competence in site planning and design.

    
    

20. Respondent has submitted no evidence of substantial program violations or any other factual has is to justify its award of a holistic grade of 2 to the Petitioner's solution.

    
    

21. Respondent offered no record evidence to suggest that the public health, welfare or safety would be endangered or in any way compromised by awarding a passing grade to the Petitioner's solution to the planning and design portion of the June 1981 Architecture Examination. A review of Petitioner's solution reflects that he demonstrated his knowledge of and appreciation for public health and safety considerations as depicted in his solution.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Petitioner should be deemed to have passed the Site Planning and Design Section of the June 1981 Architectural Examination and shall be qualified for registration as an architect by the State of Florida provided he meet or otherwise satisfies other registration requirements not connected with the subject Site Planning and Design section of the June 1981 exam.

RECOMMENDED this 18th day of June 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida.

JAMES E. BRADWELL

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June 1984.

ENDNOTES

1/ The parties waived the thirty-day time requirement that a recommended order be entered within thirty days following the close of the hearing.

2/ To the extent that the Petitioner's proposed findings and conclusions are not incorporated in this Recommended Order, said proposed findings, etc. were deemed either irrelevant, immaterial or not otherwise supported by record evidence.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Howard Hochman, Esquire

35 NE 17 Street, Suite 114 Miami, Florida 33132

Herbert Coons, Jr. Executive Director Board of Architecture

130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Fred Roche, Secretary

Department of Professional Regulation

130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 82-000767

Orders for Case No: 82-000767