\

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PAUL A. WROBLEWSKI, )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-2646

)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD ) OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Hearing Officer, Joyous D. Parrish, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on July 1, 1993, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Paul A. Wroblewski, pro se

15150 South West 128th Avenue Miami, Florida 33186

For Respondent: Vytas J. Urba

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner passed the licensure examination which was given on June 15-17, 1992.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on April 28, 1993, when the Petitioner filed a formal request for hearing to contest the landscape architecture examination given in June, 1992. Petitioner alleged that several aspects of the Landscape Architect Registration Examination (LARE) were improper. More specifically, the Petitioner claimed: that candidates who passed section 3 of the U.N.E. were forced to retake the section (section 3 in the LARE); that the exam grades were reported to the candidates 6 months after the exam date rather than within a 3 month time limit; that he received inconsistent grades (one grader gave him a very high score, one gave him a very low score on the same section) which suggests the graders did not understand the criteria for grading; that some test problems were randomly doubled for scoring purposes; that partial credit should have been given for conceptual and schematic designs; and that section 3 should not be included in the exam.

The Department of Professional Regulation, now Department of Business and Professional Regulation, (Department) forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on May 12, 1993. By notice of hearing entered June 4, 1993, the case was scheduled for formal hearing.

At the hearing, the Petitioner testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of Michael Oliver, an exam consultant employed by the Department. The Department presented the testimony of Clarence Chaffee, Jr., the chief executive officer for the Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Boards (CLARB); and David Milligan, a licensed landscape architect who has been a master grader for the Department for five years. Petitioner's exhibits numbered

1 through 5 have been admitted into evidence. Respondent's exhibit 1 was also admitted into evidence. All documents have been sealed to protect their confidentiality.

At the outset of the hearing, the parties reached several stipulations of fact. Such stipulations are memorialized below in the findings of fact paragraphs numbered 2, 3, and 13.

On July 16, 1993, the Petitioner filed a motion to supplement facts which was denied by order entered August 4, 1993. The transcript of the proceedings was filed on August 27, 1993. Thereafter, the parties had ten days to submit their proposed recommended orders. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are included in the appendix at the conclusion of this order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner, Paul A. Wroblewski, is a transition candidate for licensure as a landscape architect. By "transition" candidate it is meant that Petitioner began the licensing process when the Department utilized a different examination for licensure. Petitioner successfully passed Section 3, entitled "Design Application," of that prior test, the U.N.E.

   
   

2. Most recently, Petitioner took the examination for licensure administered by the Department on June 15-17, 1992. This test, the Landscape Architect Registration Examination (LARE), was graded by licensed landscape architects in a national grading session administered by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB). The Department received the scores from CLARB and then reported them to Petitioner.

   
   

3. Petitioner's scores were as follows:

   
   

   EXAM SECTION	MINIMUM TO	PASS	SCORE ACHIEVED	SECTION STATUS
   SECTION 2 PROGRAMMING &	75.0		79.0	PASS
   ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
   SECTION 3 CONCEPTUALI- ZATION & COMMUNICATION	75.0		68.0	FAIL

   SECTION 4 DESIGN

   SYNTHESIS 75.0 81.0 PASS

   
   

4. In order to apply for licensure, all sections of the examination must be passed.

   
   

5. The challenged section in this case, Section 3, contained five separate vignettes that were graded by two independent scorers. The raw scores given by the graders were then translated to a pass/fail/neutral response for each vignette. Additionally, vignette 2 was double weighted.

   
   

6. The total number of translated scores for Section 3 was twelve (5 vignettes graded by 2 examiners with an extra 2 scores for the double weighted vignette). In order to achieve the minimum score of 75.0, the examinee had to obtain a minimum number of passes and neutrals which translated to the numerical score of 75.

   
   

7. With regard to vignette 1, Petitioner's response was graded by four graders: of the four, three found Petitioner's response to be a "fail" score; one found the Petitioner's response to be a "neutral."

   
   

8. With regard to vignette 2, Petitioner's response warranted a "fail" score.

   
   

9. With regard to vignette 3, Petitioner's response warranted a "fail" score.

   
   

10. With regard to vignette 4, Petitioner's response warranted a "fail" score.

    
    

11. With regard to vignette 5, Petitioner's response was regraded and given a "pass" score.

    
    

12. Assuming the testimony of Petitioner's witness to be the most credible as to the scoring of Petitioner's examination, Petitioner would have received two neutral scores, two pass scores, and eight fail scores. Such scores would have been insufficient to receive a numerical score of 75.

    
    

13. After the examination was administered, CLARB graded the Petitioner's examination and mailed the results of the test to the Department on October 15, 1992. Petitioner received his grades from the Department by letter dated January 4, 1993.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

14. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

    
    

15. Petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to additional points for his responses to Section 3 of the LARE such that his overall grade for the section would have been a 75.

    
    

16. Further, there is no evidence to establish that the examination was arbitrarily or capriciously graded or that the denial of additional credit for the vignettes challenged was devoid of logic and reason.

17. Finally, Petitioner, while inconvenienced by the delay in the grade reporting, has not shown, as a matter of law, that he is entitled to a passing grade on the examination by virtue of such delay.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED:

That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Landscape Architects, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to his examination scores.

DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

Joyous D. Parrish 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 1st day of October, 1993.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2646

Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner:

1. None submitted

Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent:

1. Paragraghs 1 through 10 are accepted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Paul A. Wroblewski

15150 South West 128th Avenue Miami, Florida 33186

Vytas J. Urba

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Angel Gonzalez Executive Director

Board of Landscape Architect 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0766p

Jack McRay

Acting General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 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: 93-002646

Orders for Case No: 93-002646