STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DAVID A. MANCINO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 83-141

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, BOARD OF )

ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in the above case before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, DONALD R. ALEXANDER, on February 16, 1983, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Christopher T. Mancino, Esquire

One Financial Plaza, Suite 2200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

For Respondent: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301

BACKGROUND

On September 10, 1982, Petitioner, David A. Mancino, was advised by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture, that he had received a failing grade on Part A of the 1982 Architecture Design and Site Planning Examination given in June, 1982.

On December 20, 1982, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his grade pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 6, 1983, with a request that a hearing officer be assigned to conduct a hearing.

By notice of hearing dated January 24, 1983, the final hearing was scheduled for February 16, 1983, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf. Respondent presented the testimony of Robert H. Burke, Jr., a licensed architect who is the State's grading coordinator. By agreement of the parties, Respondent's examination solutions and the grader's manual were received as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Official notice was also taken by the undersigned of recent amendments to Rules 21B-14.03 and 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code, which are not yet reflected in the Code.

There was no transcript of hearing in this proceeding. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by Respondent on February 28, 1983, and have been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this order. Findings of fact not included in this order were considered irrelevant to the issues, immaterial to the results reached, or were not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

The issue herein is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on Part A of the 1982 Architecture Design and Site Planning Examination.

Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, David A. Mancino, was a candidate on the 1982 Architecture Design and Site Planning Examination administered on June 14 through 16, 1982, by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture. He is a 1979 graduate of the University of Texas and is presently employed by an architectural firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

   
   

2. On September 10, 1982, Petitioner was advised by Respondent that he had received a failing grade on Part A of the examination. After reviewing his examination with the Executive Director of the Board in December, 1982, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his failing grade. That request prompted the instant proceeding.

   
   

3. The professional architectural examination consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. The former part is known as the Site Planning and Design portion of the examination and requires a candidate to draw a solution to a problem involving (a) site plans, (b) floor plans, (c) building sections, (d) two significant building elevations, (e) diagrams of structural systems, (f) diagrams of environmental control systems, and (g) a typical wall section.

   
   

4. Part A is blind-graded by at least three examiners designated and approved by the Department. Each examiner judges the individual applicant's entire work product pursuant to prescribed evaluation criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. Grades are awarded by each examiner ranging from 1 through 4 depending on the quality of the work. An applicant must have a minimal average of 3 in order to pass this part of the examination.

   
   

5. On the June, 1982 examination all candidates were required to design a small municipal airport terminal building in a midwestern location. The problem required a site plan, ground level plan/north elevation, second level plan, and a cross-section of the facility. Petitioner's solution has been received as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1.

   
   

6. Petitioner received scores of 2, 2 and 2 on Part A of the examination. Generally, his solution was found to be weak in the following broad areas: (a) site planning and site location, (b) building planning and design, and (c) technical aspects. Specifically, the solution was weak as to the following aspects of site planning and site design: handicapped parking location/access from parking area across traffic lanes, service area location and traffic circulation, service drive curb cut, and site aesthetics, including trees, walls and pedestrian crosswalks. In building planning and design Petitioner's solution was less than acceptable in appropriate positioning and indication of

   ancillary elements, logical pedestrian circulation in relation to services, vertical circulation, conformance to program area requirements, conformance to life safety requirements, and building aesthetics in response to surrounding area, activities and owner goals. Finally, the technical aspects of the solution were weak in terms of the use of appropriate materials and construction methods, and vertical loads (roofs, columns and walls)

   
   

7. All such deficiencies were confirmed by the Department's expert witness who reviewed and analyzed the examination, and who would have assigned a grade of 2 to the examination had he been an examiner.

   
   

8. Petitioner generally disagreed with the noted weaknesses, and contended his solutions were satisfactory. He also questioned whether the problem was "fair", since the typical architect would probably never be called upon to design an airport terminal building during his or her career. Other than his own testimony, he offered no other evidence to contradict the examiners' conclusions.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties thereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

10. When an applicant challenges the grades he received on a professional licensing examination, he must show by a preponderance of evidence that the grades in issue were arbitrarily or capriciously given by the examining board. State ex rel. Glasser v. Pepper, 155 So.2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). Absent some showing that the examining board failed to follow standard procedures for conducting and/or grading the examination, or that the candidate was treated differently from other examination candidates, test results will not be disturbed. In re Corda (Florida Board of Architecture, Final Order entered September 28, 1982).

    
    

11. It is concluded that Petitioner has failed to meet his burden. While his sincerity in disagreeing with the examination results is not questioned, the evidence does not support a conclusion that the grades received were arbitrary or capricious, that the examiners did not follow a standard procedure while conducting and grading the examination, or that he was treated differently from other candidates. Therefore, Petitioner's request that he be given a passing grade on the examination should be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of David A. Mancino be DENIED.

DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1983.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mr. David A. Mancino

2791 Northeast 57th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308

Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Christopher T. Mancino, Esquire Suite 2200

One Financial Plaza

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 83-000141

Orders for Case No: 83-000141