STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JOHN R. MARONEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. ) Case No. 99-2628

)

) DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS )

LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on November 3, 1999, in Tallahassee, Florida, before J. D. Parrish, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: John R. Maroney, pro se

9641 Northwest 39th Court Cooper City, Florida 33024

For Respondent: Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock, Esquire

Department of Business and Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit on the challenged examination for licensure.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on June 4, 1999, when Petitioner, John R. Maroney, filed a letter challenging the examination for electrical contractor low voltage that he had taken in January 1999. Such letter has been accepted as the petition in the matter. Petitioner alleged he should be given credit for his responses to questions 49, 84, and 90. He subsequently withdrew the challenge to question 90.

At the hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf and did not oppose the admission of Respondent’s Exhibits 1, 2, 4, and 5. Respondent presented testimony from Ralph Annunziata, a licensed electrical contractor, and Cynthia Woodley, a psychometrist.

The Transcript of the proceeding was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 17, 1999. Petitioner has not timely filed a proposed recommended order. Respondent’s proposed order has been considered in the preparation of this order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, John R. Maroney, is a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor low voltage applicant. He sat for examination in January 1999. His candidate number is 240024.

2. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Electrical Contractors, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing applicants such as Petitioner.

3. On the examination challenged, Petitioner received a score of 73.00, which was designated a failed status. In order to achieve a pass status Petitioner was required to obtain a score of 75.00.

4. Petitioner timely challenged the results of two questions on the January 1999 examination. First, as to question 49, Petitioner maintained that his answer was reasonable as none of the answers given were correct.

5. Question 49 required applicants to perform a mathematical computation and to select the best answer from those offered. The answer selected by Petitioner was $6.59 from the correct answer. The answer, the one that was given credit, was $4.77 or $1.47 from the correct answer, depending on whether the individual was paid for over-time at a higher rate.

6. In either case the Department’s "correct" answer while not being mathematically accurate was the closer answer to a properly computed answer.

7. The instructions on the examination directed applicants to choose the best answer to each question posed. Thus, while

   not mathematically accurate, Respondent’s answer to question 49 was the best from those offered.

8. Choosing the best answer was also the issue in question

   
   

   84 as none of the answers given on the examination accurately describes the cause of the problem. In making his selection, Petitioner admitted he had guessed, as he could not determine how any of the provided answers could decipher the problem he was to solve.

9. Petitioner’s argument in this regard is well made since none of the answers given are attributable to the conditions described. Nevertheless, by process of elimination, an applicant could rule out the options offered by recognizing that two choices related to relay 1 could not contribute to the problem described.

10. As Petitioner selected one of these clearly erroneous options, he cannot be given credit for the choice.

11. As to the two remaining options, while inaccurate, the option that received credit was more likely related to the problem as the stop switch (stop 3) being faulty could cause the described problem if the circuit were to continue to be closed.

12. Petitioner’s answer that described the problem on a relay unrelated to stop 3 would not be the best answer.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

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

14. Section 489.516, Florida Statutes, requires persons who engage in electrical contracting to be certified. In order to be certified they must pass an appropriate examination that is designed to establish competency in the chosen field. Applicants who fail the examination for licensure or certification are entitled to challenge the test.

15. In this regard Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that in awarding no credit for the challenged portions of the examination, the Respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or abused its discretion. He has failed to meet that burden. As to both questions challenged, while acknowledging that no accurate answer was offered, Respondent’s "correct" answer was the best among those options afforded candidates. Accordingly, Petitioner’s challenge must fail.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors’ Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the examination for licensure.

DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

J. D. PARRISH 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 15th day of December, 1999.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

John R. Maroney

9641 Northwest 39th Court Cooper City, Florida 33024

Ila Jones, Executive Director Board of Electrical Contractors Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

William Woodyard, 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 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: 99-002628

Orders for Case No: 99-002628