STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MANUEL LANZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 82-3200

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, BOARD OF )

ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Diane D. Tremor, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on April 14, 1983, in Tampa, Florida. The issue for determination at the hearing was whether petitioner properly received a failing grade on Part A of the June 14- 16, 1982 Architecture Design and Site Planning examination.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Silvio Lufriu

412 East Madison Street, Suite 817 Tampa, Florida 33602

For Respondent: John J. Rimes, III

Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 INTRODUCTION

In September of 1982, petitioner Manuel Lanz requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, on the issue of whether he properly received a failing grade on the design and site plan portion of the National Architectural Examination which he took in June of 1982. The request for a hearing was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 22, 1982, and a hearing was originally scheduled for February 22, 1983. The hearing was rescheduled for April 14, 1983, after Petitioner's motion for continuance was granted.

At the hearing, petitioner testified in his own behalf. The respondent presented the testimony of Jeffe Hoxie, a registered architect for 23 years who has served on the Florida Board of Architecture and has graded at least 1,000 design and site plan examinations. Received into evidence were Joint Exhibits 1 (the 1982 Graders Manual for the June 1982 Design Site Problem) and 2 (petitioner's design product) and respondent's Exhibit 1 (petitioner's official grade notification).

The parties were given the opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law with the Hearing Officer subsequent to the hearing. Counsel for respondent did file such a document on April 27, 1983. To the extent that the respondent's proposed findings of fact are not included in this Recommended Order, they are rejected as being either not supported by competent substantial evidence adduced at the hearing, irrelevant or immaterial to the issue in dispute or as constituting conclusions of law as opposed to findings of fact.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found:

1. Petitioner Manuel Lanz graduated from the University of Illinois School of Architecture in December of 1971, with honors and high distinction in the area of design. He is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida.

   
   

2. The architecture examination in Florida is composed of two parts. The written portion of the exam (Part B) is given in December, and petitioner passed this portion. The design and site portion of the exam (Part A) is given in June and consists of a twelve-hour sketch problem. Petitioner failed this portion of the examination in June of 1982, as he has done on two previous occasions.

   
   

3. Part A of the examination is supplied to participating states by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and involves the design of a structure by an applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, cross sections, and floor plans. Applicants are provided with a preexamination booklet which sets forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements which are to be addressed in order to achieve a passing grade. At the time of the examination, the applicant is given other information to enable him to more adequately design the structure and perform the necessary technical adjustments.

   
   

4. Each participating state sends a number of graders to an intense two- day grading session sponsored by the NCARB. The purpose, of such sessions is to standardize the graders' conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each examination is graded on a blind basis by at least two independent architect graders. If the two separate grades received, when considered together, do not result in a definite pass or fail, a third, and on some occasions a fourth, independent grader will review the applicant's solution.

   
   

5. The project to be designed in the 1952 Site Planning and Design Test was a municipal airport terminal building in a small city in the northwest. Applicants were provided with information as to the applicable topography and climate of the area, code requirements, space requirements, site circulation requirements and the various areas to be included within the building. The candidates were required to provide a site plan, a ground level plan-north elevation; a second level plan and a cross-section of the facility.

   
   

6. Petitioner's solution to the problem was weak in many areas. Service, baggage and aircraft traffic were co-mingled. Accessibility for handicapped persons was not addressed. His solution failed to comply with the applicable building code requirements with regard to the number of exits required, the location of stairs and a fire sprinkler system. Petitioner also failed to

   comply with the requirements regarding square footage. His exit doors swung in the wrong direction and there was no means of exit from the kitchen other than through the dining room of the restaurant. His cross-sectional failed to indicate the location of beams and ducts for heating and cooling. There was no indication in the solution that petitioner gave any consideration to the program requirements of natural ventilation or natural lighting, or that he made any provision for noise from the aircraft. The flat roof provided by the petitioner would not accommodate the precipitation experienced in the area as described in the program. While an effort was made by the petitioner to comply with the program requirements, he failed in several material areas and some minor areas to achieve sufficient clarity in his presentation and to observe program requirements.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. An applicant challenging a grade he receives on a professional licensing examination carries the burden of demonstrating that an error was made in the determination of his grade or that the grade was arbitrarily or capriciously given by the examining board. No such evidence was demonstrated by the petitioner in this proceeding.

   
   

8. Instead, it has been demonstrated by evidence presented by the respondent that petitioner failed to comply with some of the program requirements, inadequately complied with others, and failed to take into consideration still other requirements. While it is possible that reasonable persons may differ as to some of the means in which compliance with the program requirements could be accomplished, petitioner failed to present any evidence of a competent substantial nature that the grade he received was erroneous or the result of arbitrary and capricious action. Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that the respondent failed to comply with any statutes or rules regarding the grading of his examination. As such, he is not entitled to a new grade or a passing score on Part A of the examination.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying petitioner's application for licensure as an architect on the ground that he failed to successfully pass Part A of the architecture examination.

Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.

DIANE D. TREMOR

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(304) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1983.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Silvio Lufriu, Esquire Suite 817

412 E. Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602

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

Tallahassee, Florida

Mr. Herbert Coons Executive Director Board of Architecture

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Mr. Fred Roche Secretary

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 82-003200

Orders for Case No: 82-003200