STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RILEY N. BRACK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 84-1292

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ) LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter came on for hearing in Orlando, Florida, on May 16, 1984, before the Division of Administrative Hearings and its duly appointed Hearing Officer, R. T. Carpenter. The parties were represented by:

For Petitioner: David G. Budd, Esquire

660 Ninth Street, North Naples, Florida 33940

For Respondent: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire

Deputy General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

This matter arose on Petitioner's review of his electrical contractors licensing examination which he contends was incorrectly graded. Specifically, he challenged questions 11, 13, 16, 23, 49 and 60 for which he received no credit. Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. To the extent these proposed findings have not been adopted or otherwise incorporated herein, they are found to be subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary or not supported by the evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner was a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor and took the electrical contractor examination given July 26, 1983.

   
   

2. Petitioner's initial grade was 70 percent. Additional credit was given based on certain objections and Petitioner's grade was raised to 73.5 percent. The minimum passing score on this examination is 75 percent. See Rule 21GG- 6.01(4), F.A.C.

   
   

3. Respondent concedes that Petitioner's answer to question #11 should be credited since the .80 multiplier utilized by the Board in its calculation was not correct pursuant to note 10A of Table 310-16 of the National Electrical Code. Petitioner's grade is thereby further raised to 74.5 percent.

4. Question #13 involves the calculation of electrical service for a lobby room of an apartment house. There was no listing for a lobby on the Table 220-

   25 of the National Electrical Code and since this lobby is found in an apartment building, the service should be the same as a residence which is three watts. Furthermore, Petitioner made mistakes on the percentage he utilized on both motor loads and incorrectly multiplied the fire alarm service by 1.25.

   
   

5. Petitioner incorrectly answered question #16, in part because he utilized two watts instead of three watts for the lobby computation. As noted above, the lobby was in an apartment house and should have been assigned the residential rate.

   
   

6. Question #23 reads as follows:

   
   

   The owner is thinking of taking 2400 square feet of the lobby and adding a barber shop with 120/208 single phase panel. There would be a 9 KW hot water heater (at 125 percent) and 15 other receptacles, a reverse cycle air conditioner, 3 HP, 208 volt. How many amps would this add to the service?

   
   

7. The accepted answer to the above question is computed by adding the additional current requirements to the existing lobby area. Petitioner followed this procedure but went one step further. He deducted the current required for the 2400 feet of lobby space which would no longer exist if the barber shop were added. Question #23 clearly contemplates removal of 2400 feet of lobby space. Therefore, the best answer to the question is derived by following Petitioner's procedure rather than Respondent's. Petitioner should be given credit for his answer to this question, thus raising his grade to 75.5 percent.

1. Petitioner marked the wrong answers on his answer sheet for questions

   49 and 60. He was not given credit for his correct calculations on his work sheet since the Board does not grant credit for any information which is not reflected on the answer sheet. This has been a consistent Board policy.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

2. Rule 21GG-7.01, Florida Administrative Code, provides in part:

   
   

   (4) An applicant shall be required to achieve a score of a general average of

   not less than seventy-five percent (75 percent) in order to pass the examination and be certified for licensure.

3. Subsection 455.217(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), provides in part: After an examination has been administered,

   the board may reject any question which does not reliably measure the general areas of competency specified in the rules of the board.

   
   

4. The above provisions permit grade changes where, as here, the question does not reliably measure competency as an electrical contractor. The answer to

Question No. 23 sought by Respondent omits an important step in correctly determining current requirements. Petitioner, through diligence and knowledge of electrical contracting, followed the correct procedure and should be given credit for his answer. His grade would thereby be raised to 75.5 percent, which is a passing grade.

RECOMMENDATION

From the foregoing, it is

RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order assigning Petitioner a grade of 75.5 percent on the July, 1983 electrical contractor examination.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida.

R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1984.

COPIES FURNISHED:

David G. Budd, Esquire 660 Ninth Street, North Naples, Florida 33940

Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Jerry W. Hendry, Executive Director

Electrical Contractors Licensing Hoard

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 84-001292

Orders for Case No: 84-001292