STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JOHN D. WATSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 98-4756

) FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT ) CORPORATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Tallahassee, Florida, on January 6, 1999, by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: John D. Watson, pro se

88 Marine Street

St. Augustine, Florida 32084

For Respondent: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire

Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his response to question number 123 of the Principles & Practice Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination administered on April 24, 1998.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against the Respondent challenging that his score on the April 1998 Civil Sanitary Engineer examination. A hearing was set before Administrative Law Judge Stephen Dean. At hearing, Petitioner called no witnesses, but elected to testify himself. Respondent presented the testimony of Frank D. Hutchinson, P.E. The Respondent presented Exhibits 1-9, which were entered into evidence. Petitioner presented Exhibits 1 and 2, which were also entered into evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner took the April 24, 1998, Principles & Practice Civil/Sanitary Engineer examination.

2. A score of 70 is required to pass the exam. Petitioner obtained a score of 69.

3. In order to achieve a score of 70, Petitioner needs a raw score of 48. Petitioner obtained a score of 69 which is a raw score of 47. Therefore, Petitioner is in need of one (1) additional raw score point.

4. On question number 123, Petitioner received a score of six points out of a possible ten.

5. Question nimber 123 is scored in increments of two raw points.

6. Two additional raw score points awarded to the Petitioner would equal a raw score of 49, equating to a conversion score of seventy-one, a passing score.

7. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), the organization that produces the examination, provides a Solution and Scoring Plan which outlines the scoring process used in question number 123.

8. The Petitioner is not allowed a copy of the examination question or the Solution and Scoring Plan for preparation of the Proposed Recommended Order.

9. Question number 123 has three parts: part A, part B, and part C.

10. For a score of ten on question number 123, the Solution and Scoring Plan states that the solution to part A must be correct within allowable tolerances; the solution to part B must state two variables that affect the answer in part A; and the solution to part C must state that anti-lock brakes do not leave skid marks thus making it very had to determine braking distance.

11. For a score of eight points on question number 123, the Solution and Scoring Plan states that part A could contain one error and lists specific allowable errors, and that part B and part C must be answered correctly showing mastery of the concepts involved.

12. Petitioner made an error in part A which falls into the allowable errors listed in the Solution and Scoring Plan under the eight-point scoring plan.

13. Petitioner answered part B correctly.

14. Petitioner contends that he also answered correctly part C, and should be awarded eight points.

15. NCEES marked part C incorrect.

    
    

16. Question number 123 is a problem involving a vehicle (vehicle number one) that skids on asphalt and hits another vehicle (vehicle number two).

17. Part C asks "Explain how your investigation of this accident would have changed if vehicle one had been equipped with anti-lock brakes."

18. The Petitioner's answer was as follows:

    
    

    If vehicle one does not "lock" its brakes, its deceleration will be dependent upon its brakes. (Not f). [Judge's note: f is used as the symbol for the co-efficient of friction between the tires and road surface in the problem.] The rate of deceleration (a) must be determined (from testing, mfg, [manufacturer,] etc.)

19. As stated above, the Board accepts a solution that recognizes that the vehicle equipped with anti-lock brakes will not leave skid marks which can be used for computing initial speed using the skid distance equation.

20. The Petitioner's answer pre-supposes that there are no skid marks because the vehicle's wheels do not lock because of the anti-lock brakes; therefore, if the co-efficient of friction of the tires, which generates the skid marks, has no effect.

21. The Petitioner introduced a portion of a commonly used manual for preparation for examination (Petitioner's Exhibit 1),

    which states, regarding a vehicle that does not lock its brakes, "its decelerations will be dependent upon its brakes."

22. The Board's expert recognized the statement by the Petitioner in response to part C as true, but indicated it was not responsive to the question in that it did not state specifically that the vehicle would not produce skid marks that would be able to be measured for use in the skid distance equation.

23. The solution sheet states regarding part C, "Part C is answered correctly by explaining that anti-lock brakes would not leave skid marks thus making it very had to determine the braking distance."

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

24. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. This Recommended Order is entered pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

25. As an applicant, Petitioner has the burden of proving entitlement to licensure as a professional engineer. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). He must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a passing score on the April 1998 principles and practice examination.

26. Based upon Petitioner's answer, the Petitioner grasped the principles involved in the question. He understood the

brakes would not lock and deceleration would be dependent on the brakes and not on the co-efficient of friction between the tires and road which is what causes skid marks. The necessity to require the words "no skid marks," or similar words is arbitrary. Petitioner addresses the principle involved and the problem it causes.

RECOMMENDATION

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

RECOMMENDED:

That the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order giving Petitioner credit for part C on the examination and passing the test.

DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

STEPHEN F. DEAN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1999.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Natalie A. Lowe

Vice President of Legal Affairs

Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

John D. Watson

88 Marine Street

St. Augustine, Florida 32084

Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of 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: 98-004756

Orders for Case No: 98-004756