STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JACK L. STOUT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-3635

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided and on August 31, 1992 in Tallahassee, Florida a formal hearing was held in this case. Authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jack L. Stout, pro se

916 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 and

2775 Jewell Drive, #229

Tallahassee, Florida 32310

For Respondent: Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Suite 1501

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1501 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues concern Petitioner's request to obtain a license by endorsement which would allow him to practice engineering in Florida. See Section 471.015, Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner's request to obtain a license by endorsement was denied by Respondent. When provided the option to resolve the dispute concerning that request, Petitioner chose a formal hearing to be conducted in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the proceeding. The case was received by the Division on June 18, 1992. The aforementioned hearing date was established and the hearing conducted on that date.

Petitioner testified in support of his application for license by endorsement and offered two composite exhibits which were admitted into evidence, with the exception of item 7 within the composite Exhibit No. 2. Dr. Robert D. Kersen testified on behalf of Respondent. Respondent's composite Exhibit No. 1 was admitted.

The transcript was prepared and filed on October 1, 1992. Petitioner has presented a written summation which combines legal argument and his impression of the facts presented at hearing. This proposal has been considered.

Respondent has presented a proposed recommended order in which it has discreetly identified the facts which it wishes to be found. This factual treatment, unlike the proposal by Petitioner, allows a specific response to the fact proposals. That response is found within in an appendix within the recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On June 3, 1956 Petitioner received his degree of Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Oklahoma.

   
   

2. In 1956 Petitioner took and passed a fundamentals of engineering examination in Oklahoma. This was in furtherance of his licensure as an Engineer-in-Training. It dealt with basic engineering subjects. He also took a principles and practice examination in that year in Oklahoma. The fundamentals of engineering examination was Part I and the principles and practices examination was Part II.

   
   

3. The State Licensing Board in Oklahoma did not recognize the results of Part II. As Petitioner explains it, based upon his understanding of the circumstances, that state had revised its laws pertaining to licensure of engineers in 1961. In 1960, to his understanding, those changes were in the draft form concerning the legislation. The changes that were brought about in 1961 required that a candidate for licensure have four years of experience before he or she would be able to stand a mandatory principle and practices Part II portion of an examination process. Because Petitioner had not gained four years experience before standing examination on principles and practices Part II the licensing authority in Oklahoma removed the reference to Petitioner's successful completion of the principles and practices Part II portion of the examination. Moreover it does not appear that candidates for licensure as professional engineers when Petitioner received his certificate of registration as a professional engineer granted by the State of Oklahoma on May 13, 1960 had to stand an examination before receiving that license. Prior to the receipt of registration as a professional engineer and following his graduation from the University of Oklahoma, Petitioner had held the Engineer-in-Training License. Petitioner had not received his professional engineer's registration in 1956 because the State of Oklahoma required a minimum three years of professional experience after graduation from engineering school before it would grant that registration.

   
   

4. The verification of registration form that was completed by the Oklahoma Board of Engineering indicated that the Petitioner's registration as a professional engineer was based upon five years of formal education in his engineering course work, an examination associated with a license as Engineer- in-Training, and three years of work experience beyond that five year course.

   
   

5. Records of the licensing authority in Oklahoma have not shown the Petitioner as having taken a professional engineer's examination as contrasted

   with his examination for an Engineer-in-Training license. Further, Petitioner is without tangible evidence that he stood the principles and practices portion Part II, as part of a professional engineer's examination in Oklahoma.

   
   

6. After graduation, Petitioner worked for Continental Oil Company, Poncaca City, Oklahoma from June, 1956 until October, 1957 in a position whose title was automotive engineer. In this employment he designed special equipment for different departments within that company. This included all terrain vehicles for seismograph work and heavy duty trucks to haul drilling rigs. It involved design of seismographs and a shaker that was intended to replace drilling a hole and shooting dynamite charges.

   
   

7. From October, 1957 until February, 1958 Petitioner worked as a sales engineer for Parkersburg Refrigeration and Reel Company in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. This work was involved with a pumping unit that had gear systems in it. The pump had to be designed economically. The pump had to be designed to withstand a certain amount of torque. If a system was too large for a well then it cost the customer money. If it was too small it would strip the gears. A piece of equipment also involved beams. It included a sucker rod strain that had to be sized so that it did not overly stretch as the pump lifted. There was a concern that the design be such that it would not achieve harmonic balance causing a bungee cord effect. This experience involved picking pump sizes or specific pieces of equipment and matching those with the client's or customer's needs. One had to be careful about the sucker rod size in that the rod was introduced two miles into the earth to lift oil.

   
   

8. From January, 1959 until July, 1960 Petitioner worked at the Oklahoma City Air Defense Station in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in a position entitled mechanical engineer (general). This work involved designing a maintenance program for mechanical equipment in diesel electric generating plants.

   
   

9. From August, 1960 until October, 1963 Petitioner held the position of employment as a mechanical engineer (diesel). This was in association with the headquarters of the Air Defense Command, Ent Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado. In this assignment he worked in 138 different stations as opposed to

   11 stations in the prior position he held. In addition to working to design maintenance programs, he also was involved in work on overhauls by designing a program for determining when overhauls were necessary on the diesel electric generators. Petitioner was also a trouble shooter. If there was trouble with a unit, others would send the Petitioner to the station and he would analyze the problem and recommend necessary corrective action. Petitioner prepared programs and told mechanics what to do in the way of maintenance.

   
   

10. From November, 1963 until November, 1985 Petitioner was employed as a consulting engineer and general contractor for Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company in Yukon, Oklahoma. The engineering portion of this enterprise had to do with designs of varying kinds. As to things built by his company, this included buildings, building foundations, and building trusses. It also included electrical systems, plumbing systems and mechanical systems. Those latter items were required to be done by a professional engineer in Oklahoma during the period in question, in those instances involving public access whether into private or public buildings. During Petitioner's association with Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company, approximately 50% of his time was spent as a consulting engineer and the other 50% as a general contractor.

11. In the period November, 1985 until August, 1989, Petitioner was still associated with Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company as a consulting engineer and contractor; however, he had moved to Port Mansfield, Texas. At this point Petitioner did some professional engineering work in Oklahoma even though he was residing in Texas. Petitioner indicated that he obviously did not do as much work as a professional engineer while residing in Texas. The engineering work that he did in Texas proper was not of a professional level. The work in Texas involved redesigning boats.

    
    

12. From the period August, 1989 until April, 1991, Petitioner worked as a real estate salesman for Heritage Realty in Tallahassee, Florida. He has done some professional engineering work in Oklahoma while residing in Florida, but not as much as when he lived in Oklahoma.

    
    

13. Dr. Robert Kersen who holds a baccalaureate degree, masters degree, and doctorate in civil engineering, testified concerning which activities constitute the practice of engineering. Among the positions which Dr. Kersen has held which would give him insight in commenting on engineering practice was that of Dean of the Engineering School at the University of Central Florida. He was dean for approximately 20 years. This gave him the occasion to evaluate individuals concerning their engineering backgrounds. In addition he served on the State Board of Engineers in Florida for about 6 years and was on the application committee which allowed him to review candidate files for licensure that came before the State Board of Engineers. In particular he has had the opportunity to investigate background experience of those candidates. Given his credentials, Dr. Kersen was qualified as an expert to state his opinion, to comment on the nature of activities that would constitute the practice of engineering.

    
    

14. As established by Dr. Kersen, the prime function of an engineer is to devise the system, components, structure, machine, or whatever item, according to sound engineering principles and standards of practice. By contrast, contractors are responsible for building, constructing, and erecting structures according to the engineer's plan. Notwithstanding the distinction between the activities of engineers and contractors, it has been the custom and practice of the Board of Professional Engineers in Florida, to Dr. Kersen's knowledge, to accept contracting experience in lieu of engineering experience in satisfying engineering experience requirements for licensure. That experience in contracting is discounted by 50%. This concept is reasonable and is accepted. Applied to Petitioner's experience while working with Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company in Yukon, Oklahoma in the period November, 1963 until November, 1985, Petitioner would be entitled to 11 years credit as an engineer and five and one-half years credit as a contractor, for a total of 16 1/2 years in that work cycle. This experience when added to the other positions which Petitioner held from June, 1956 until November, 1963 gives Petitioner approximately 24 years of continuing engineering experience. The period beyond November, 1985 until August, 1989 constituting approximately three and one-half years additional experience is unclear concerning which portion was associated with professional engineering, contracting and engineering practice not of a professional level. In any event, even should the Petitioner be credited with that latter period, the total amount of continuous work as an engineer from June, 1956 until August, 1989 would be slightly in excess of 27 1/2 years. Petitioner's explanation of the period of August, 1989 through April, 1991 did not clearly identify the portion of his time which was spent in engineering practice as opposed to what appears to be his principal employment as a real estate salesman and he is not credited for that period.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

15. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter in this action in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

16. As the person seeking a license, Petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he is entitled to be granted a license by endorsement. See Balino v. HRS, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

    
    

17. The first theory which Petitioner advances for obtaining his license by endorsement is as set forth in Section 471.015(3)(b), Florida Statutes where it states:

    
    

    the board shall certify as qualified for a license by endorsement an applicant who: holds a valid license to practice engineering issued by another state or territory of the United States, if the criteria for issuance of such license were substantially identical to the licensure criteria which existed in this state at the time the license was issued.

    
    

18. In an attempt to prove that the criteria for issuance of the license were substantially identical to the licensure criteria existing in Florida, Petitioner has presented excerpts of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes and Title 59, Chapter 10, Oklahoma Statutes, 1951. Those materials are found within Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1.

    
    

19. Section 471.02, Florida Statutes, from Petitioner's exhibit states:

    
    

    * * *

    1. The term "professional engineer" or the word "engineer", when used in this chapter, shall be construed to include any person who, by reason of his knowledge of mathematics, the physical sciences and the principles of engineering, acquired either by professional education or by practical experience, is qualified to engage in the practice of professional engineering as hereinafter defined.

    2. The term "professional engineering", when used in this chapter shall be construed to include, among other things, any professional service requiring use or knowledge of mathematics and the principles of engineering rendered or offered to be rendered for public or private utilities, industrial works, railways, tramways, bridges, tunnels, highways, roads, streets, engineering surveys, municipal improvements, canals, seawalls, groins, beach preservations, harbors, wharves, piers, docks, barges, dredges, cranes, drainage works, water works, irrigations works, water purification plants, sewerage works and systems, sewage disposal plants and

       works, buildings, timber structures, steel and concrete and reinforced concrete structures, power transmission, electric power lighting plants and associated plants and systems, electrical machinery, electrical apparatus, telephone and telegraph systems, cables, wireless plants, radio broadcasting installations, minerals and mining machinery and equipment, mining developments and operations, gas and oil developments and operations, smelters, refineries, metallurgical machinery and equipment and apparatus for carrying on such operations, steam turbines, steam engines, water turbines, pumps, refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, internal combustion engines, prime movers and other mechanical, chemical , electrical, industrial and metallurgical structures, machinery, processes and equipment. Any consultation, investigation, plan, design, engineering evaluation, technical advice and report or responsible supervision of construction in any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes or works,

       shall be considered as professional services and within the purview of the above definitions. The enumeration of any public or private utilities or other works in this section shall not be construed as excluding from the operation of this chapter any other public or private utilities or works which require experience and technical knowledge for their design or the supervision of their construction or for their valuation.

       
       

20. Section 471.21, Florida Statutes, from Petitioner's exhibit states:

    
    

    . . . The following shall be considered as minimum evidence satisfactory to the board that the applicant is qualified to be admitted to examination for registration, to-wit: that he

    1. Is more than twenty-four years of age,

    2. Is of good character and reputation,

    3. Is a graduate from an approved course in engineering of four years or more in a school or college approved by the board as of satisfactory high standing, and has a specific record of an additional four years or more of active practice in engineering work of a character indicating that the applicant is competent to be placed in responsible charge of such work; or in lieu of graduation and the active practice aforesaid, has a specific record of ten or more years of active practice in engineering work of a character indicating

    that the applicant is competent to be placed in responsible charge of such work.

    The applicant shall file his application in the manner to be prescribed by the board.

    
    

21. Section 471.22, Florida Statutes, from Petitioner's exhibit states:

    
    

    . . . Examinations for registration shall be held at such times and at such places within the state as the board shall determine, provided, however, that there shall be not less than two examinations per annum. The scope of the examinations shall be of such a character as to test the qualifications of the applicant to practice professional engineering, and shall include such subjects

    as will tend to ascertain the knowledge of the applicant of the theory and practice of professional engineering and may include such subjects as are taught in accredited engineering schools and colleges. The board may adopt such rules and regulations as may specifically set forth the subjects upon which such examinations will be held. As soon as practicable after the close of an examination the board shall determine the result of the examination and either approve or disapprove the applicant as being qualified. An applicant failing to pass an examination may be re-examined at the discretion of the board, for which re-examination the board shall charge the candidate a fee of fifteen dollars.

    
    

22. Title 59, Chapter 10, Oklahoma Statutes, 1951, Section 2 states:

    
    

    Professional Engineering

    1. The term "Professional Engineer" as used in this Act shall mean a person who, by reason of his knowledge of mathematics, the physical sciences, and principles of Engineering, acquired by professional education and/or practical experience, is qualified to engage in engineering practice as hereinafter defined. The practice of Professional Engineering within the meaning and intent of this Act includes any professional engineering service, such as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design, or responsible supervision of construction or operation in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works, or projects, wherein the public welfare, or the safeguarding of life, health or property is concerned or involved, when such professional engineering service requires the application of engineering principles and date, provided

       that the term "professional engineering service" as defined in this Section shall not be construed to include the occupation of an "architect" as defined in Section 4422, Oklahoma Statutes, 1931.

       
       

       Engineer-in-Training

    2. The term Engineer-in-Training, as used in this Act, shall mean a person for registration as a Professional Engineer who is a graduate from a school or college approved by the Board as of satisfactory standing having a course in engineering of not less than four (4) years; or who has had four (4) years, or more, of experience in engineering work of a character satisfactory to the Board, and who, in addition, has successfully passed an examination in the fundamental engineering subjects as hereinafter provided, and who shall have received from the Board as hereinafter defined a certificate stating that he has successfully passed this portion of the professional examination.

    
    

23. Title 59, Chapter 10, Oklahoma Statutes, 1951, Section 12 states:

    
    

    Professional Engineer

    (a) The Board, upon application on the form prescribed by it, and upon the payment of a fee of Twenty-five ($25.00) Dollars, and except as hereinafter provided, shall issue a certificate of registration as a Professional Engineer to any person who submits evidence satisfactory to the Board that he or she is qualified to practice professional engineering. In evaluating the evidence submitted to it, the Board shall carefully consider the applicant's knowledge and understanding of the principles of mathematics, physics, engineering, and applicable engineering sciences. Provided, that no person shall be eligible for registration as a Professional Engineer who

    is not at least twenty-five (25) years of age, or who is not of good character and repute or who has not been actively engaged for at least eight (8) years in professional engineering, which professional experiences are to be of a character satisfactory to the Board; however, each year of the study of engineering in a school or college satisfactory to the Board shall be considered the equivalent of one (1) year's active practice, but the total number of years of study which may be credited to such eight (8) years of active practice shall not exceed four (4) years; except that graduation from an engineering school or

    college of recognized high standing satisfactory to the Board shall be deemed equivalent to five (5) years of active practice.

24. Title 59, Chapter 10, Oklahoma Statutes, 1951, Section 13 states: Evidence of Qualifications

    Unless disqualifying evidence exists, the

    following facts established in the application, upon verification by the Board shall be regarded as evidence satisfactory to the Board that the applicant is qualified to practice as a Professional Engineer, or Engineering-in-Training, to-wit:

    
    

    1. Professional Engineers

       1. A specific record of eight (8) years, or more, of active engagement in engineering work of a character satisfactory to the Board, or

       2. Graduation from a school or college approved by the Board as of satisfactory standing, having a course in engineering of not less than four (4) years, and a specific record of an additional three (3) years of active engagement in engineering work, of a character satisfactory to the Board.

       
       

    2. Engineer-in-Training

    1. Graduation in an accredited engineering course of four (4) scholastic years or more from a school or college approved by the Board as of satisfactory standing and successfully passing a written examination in the basic engineering subjects, or,

    2. A Specific record of four (4) years or more in experience in engineering work of a character satisfactory to the Board and successfully passing a written examination to the basic engineering subjects.

    (Title 59-Sec. 442, O.S.51)

    
    

25. Title 59, Chapter 10, Oklahoma Statutes, 1951, Section 14 states:

    
    

    Applicants for registration, in cases where the evidence presented in the application does not appear to the Board conclusive nor warranting the issuing of a certificate of registration, may be required to present, for the consideration of the Board, further evidence, and may also be required to pass an oral or written examination, or both, as the Board may determine. A majority vote of the members of the Board shall be required to pass upon the qualifications of the applicant for registration. When a certificate of registration is issued authorizing the

    applicant to practice as a professional engineer or Engineer-in-Training, the Board shall impress upon each such certificate the seal of the Board.

    
    

26. Petitioner has not produced the changes to the Oklahoma Statutes that he says took place in 1961 as they might influence this comparison with the Florida criteria. In any event those changes occurred subsequent to his licensure and would not be anticipated to have relevance to this inquiry.

    
    

27. Evidence submitted by the Petitioner concerning Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, in effect when he was being licensed in Oklahoma, did not point to an internship or Engineering-in-Training program in Florida. Oklahoma did have a program which included passing a written examination in basic engineering subjects in order to be recognized as an Engineer-in-Training. To this extent, during the four years following graduation from an accredited engineering program, Oklahoma had requirements which were more rigorous than those in Florida in that the four years of experience following graduation or an equivalent preparation leading to the Engineering-In-Training status could only be pursued by successfully passing a written examination in basic engineering subjects. Florida allowed four years of additional work beyond the time of completion of a course of study of four or more years to be pursued before standing an examination. On the other hand, again, by resort to the exhibit presented by Petitioner which was not objected to by Respondent, by comparing the statutes in Florida and Oklahoma, in effect when Petitioner sought registration in Oklahoma, it can be seen that Florida required an examination before registration as a professional engineer. This followed completion of the prerequisite work experience beyond completion of an approved course in engineering. Oklahoma did not require examination. In Oklahoma registration could be achieved as a professional engineer by submission of evidence satisfactory to the Board in Oklahoma that the candidate was qualified to practice professional engineering. It was only in the case where the evidence presented in the application did not appear to satisfy the Board that the candidate "... may also be required to pass an oral or written examination, or both, as the board may determine."

    
    

28. It is concluded that Petitioner took a written examination on the basic engineering subjects as described when identifying Engineers-in-Training in Oklahoma under Title 59, Chapter 10, Oklahoma Statutes, 1951, and as Petitioner referred to it at hearing as a fundamentals of engineering examination also referred to as Part I. He was licensed as an Engineer-In- Training based upon this examination. Why Petitioner was allowed to take an examination on the principles and practice Part II before achieving his four years of experience beyond graduation from the University of Oklahoma is not evident. It does not seem to correspond to the notion of an examination which the Board of Engineering in Oklahoma would have required pursuant to Section 14 in their laws, because the examination was taken before achieving the requisite experience necessary to be considered as a candidate for registration as a professional engineer. Moreover, Petitioner acknowledges remarks made to him by the officials in Oklahoma involved with his registration as a professional engineer in which he was told that he would not be given credit for the score which he achieved on the principles and practices Part II examination. A principles and practices examination may have become a requirement in 1961 before registration as a professional engineer, but it was not a requirement when Petitioner was licensed in 1960. Credit for principles and practices was not assigned as Petitioner was told because he did not complete the requisite four years experience for standing the principles and practices Part II

    examination. Whatever change may have transpired in the Oklahoma law in 1961, when Petitioner was licensed in 1960, candidates for registration as professional engineers, to include the Petitioner, did not have to undergo an examination to receive a license to practice professional engineering and he did not undergo examination to obtain that license. Petitioner had to undergo an examination to be allowed to be recognized as an Engineer-in-Training. That examination was on basic engineering subjects. Petitioner did undergo such an examination and did hold a license as an Engineer-in-Training in the four years following his graduation from Oklahoma University. Petitioner was not required nor did he stand an oral or written examination following his four years work beyond graduation from Oklahoma University as a prerequisite to his registration in Oklahoma as a professional engineer. The criteria for licensure in Oklahoma departed from the Florida experience in that respect. Florida required examination before registration after concluding the necessary experience to sit for the examination for registration. Therefore, the Oklahoma and Florida laws were not substantially identical and Petitioner is not entitled to a licensure by endorsement on that theory.

    
    

29. Alternatively, Petitioner would be entitled to endorsement in the instance described in Section 471.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes, where it states:

    
    

    The Board shall certify as qualified for a license by endorsement an applicant who:

    qualifies to take the examination as set forth in s. 471.013, has passed the national, regional, state or territorial licensing examination which is substantially the equivalent to the examination required by s.

    471.013, and has satisfied the experience requirements set forth in s. 471.013.

    
    

30. Section 471.015(5), Florida Statutes describes one means of establishing that the candidate for licensure for endorsement has passed a licensing examination which is substantially equivalent to the examination required by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, where it states:

    
    

    (5)(a) The board shall deem that an applicant who seeks licensure by endorsement has passed an examination substantially equivalent to part I of the engineering examination when such applicant:

    1. Has held a valid professional engineer's registration in another state for 15 years, and

    2. Has had 20 years of continuous professional-level engineering experience.

    (b) The board shall deem that an applicant who seeks licensure by endorsement has passed an examination substantially equivalent to part I and part II of the engineering examination when such applicant:

    1. Has held a valid professional engineer's registration in another state for 25 years, and

    2. Has had 30 years of continuous professional-level engineering experience.

31. While Petitioner has demonstrated that he has satisfied the work experience requirements set out in Section 471.013, Florida Statues, to take the examination, he has failed to establish that his examination experience in Oklahoma is substantially equivalent to the examination required by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, or that he is entitled to recognition of substantial equivalence by resort to Section 471.015(5), Florida Statutes. It is not known from this record how his examination experience compares to an examination required by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes. Alternatively, while he has proven that he has held a valid engineer's registration in Oklahoma for 25 years, he has failed to prove that he has had 30 years of continuous professional engineering experience as called for by Section 471.015(5), Florida Statutes pertaining to the need to pass both part I and part II before being registered.

is,

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached it

RECOMMENDED:

That a Final Order be entered which denies the application for licensure by

endorsement.

DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1992.

APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-3635

The following discussion is given concerning the fact finding proposed by the parties:

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.

Petitioners facts were presented together with his legal argument in such a manner as to not allow specific discussion concerning those proposed facts.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.

Paragraphs 1 through 4 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 5 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 6 through 14 are subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 15 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

Paragraphs 16 through 18 are subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 19 does not change the impression of the work which Petitioner did which has been credited as engineering work.

Paragraph 20 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Jack L. Stout No. 229

2775 Jewel Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32310 and

916 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301

Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Engineers

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 92-003635

Orders for Case No: 92-003635