STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

VASANTRO SHERE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 96-0481

)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF ) ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal hearing was conducted in this proceeding by video conference before Daniel Manry, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on March 12, 1996, in Orlando, Florida. The parties, their witnesses, and the court reporter attended the formal hearing in Orlando. The undersigned participated from Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Vasantro Shere, pro se

117 Rabun Court Sanford, Florida 32773

For Respondent: R. Beth Atchison

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's examination challenge should be sustained.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Examination Grade Report dated September 6, 1995, Respondent notified Petitioner that he failed to achieve a passing score on the Predesign part of the Architecture Examination. Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf and submitted no exhibits for admission in evidence. Respondent called two witnesses and submitted six exhibits for admission in evidence.

The identity of the witnesses and exhibits, and the rulings regarding each, are set forth in the transcript of the formal hearing filed on March 25, 1996.

Respondent timely filed its proposed recommended order ("PRO") on April 3, 1996. Petitioner did not file a PRO. Proposed findings of fact in Respondent's PRO are accepted in this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice architecture. Respondent is also responsible for administering examinations for such licenses on behalf of the state.

   
   

2. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner has been unlicensed as an architect. Petitioner took the Predesign part of the Architecture Examination given in June, 1995.

   
   

3. Respondent's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by Examination Grade Report dated September 6, 1995, that Petitioner had earned a score of 74 on the Predesign part of the examination. The minimum score needed to pass the Predesign part of the examination is 75.

   
   

4. Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing. A formal hearing was conducted on March 12, 1996.

   
   

5. At the formal hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 74 and 105. Petitioner also challenged Respondent's failure to award credit for 10 pretest, or "pilot," questions included in the examination.

   
   

6. Petitioner selected answer D to question 74. The correct answer is B.

   
   

7. Petitioner selected answer A to question 105. The correct answer is D.

   
   

8. The correct answer to each question is the answer identified by Respondent. The correct answer to each question is not the answer selected by Petitioner.

   
   

9. Questions 74 and 105 are clear and unambiguous. Each question contains enough correct information to allow Respondent to select the correct response.

   
   

10. Questions 74 and 105 are supported by reference materials which are approved and generally accepted in the architectural community. The correct responses to questions 74 and 105 do not require knowledge which is beyond the scope of knowledge that reasonably could be expected from a candidate for licensure.

    
    

11. Pretest questions or "pilot items" are questions that are placed within an examination to determine their validity and reliability. No candidate, including Petitioner, may receive credit for correctly answering pretest questions.

    
    

12. Before administering the examination, Respondent notified all candidates, including Petitioner, that pretest questions would be included as part of the examination. Petitioner is not entitled to credit for pretest questions.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties in this proceeding. The parties were duly noticed for the formal hearing.

    
    

14. Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding. Petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: the examination was faulty; arbitrarily or capriciously worded; his answers were arbitrarily or capriciously graded; or that the grading process was devoid of logic or reason. Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture, 484 So.2d 1333, 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State ex rel Glaser v. J.M. Pepper, 155 So.2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); State ex rel I.H. Topp v. Board of Electrical Contractors For Jacksonville, 101 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958).

    
    

15. Petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of proof. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the examination was faulty, that the challenged questions were arbitrarily or capriciously worded, that his answers were arbitrarily or capriciously graded, or that the grading process was devoid of logic or reason.

    
    

16. Petitioner is not entitled to credit for the pretest questions he answered. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61- 11.019 provides in relevant part:

Written examinations developed by or for the Department may include pilot test or experi- mental questions for the purpose of evaluating the statistical and/or psychometric qualities of new or revised questions . . . .

* * *

(2) Pilot questions shall not be counted toward the candidate's score on the examination. . . .

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is,

RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's examination challenge.

DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.

DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 29th day of April 1996.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Board of Architecture and Interior Design Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Lynda Goodgame General Counsel

Department of Business and Professional Regulation

Northwood Center

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Vasantro Shere, pro se

117 Rabun Court Sanford, Florida 32773

R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel

Department of Business and Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

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: 96-000481

Orders for Case No: 96-000481