The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for license as an architect pursuant to Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact In April, 1978, Petitioner John J. Bagdonas, Miami, Florida, inquired of Respondent State Board of Architecture concerning eligibility for registration as an architect in the State of Florida. He was advised by letter of April 18, 1978, from Herbert Coons, Jr., Respondent's Executive Secretary, that he was ineligible for such registration since he lacked a degree from an accredited program in architecture. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) On October 22, 1979, Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent for Class 13 certification as an architect pursuant to Chapter 467, Florida Statutes. He indicated in the appropriate block of the application form that he held a current registration as an architect in Massachusetts which had been issued in 1976. By letter of November 9, 1979, Petitioner was informed by Mr. Coons that his application was denied because he did not have a professional degree or ten years experience as a practicing architect, and he was advised as to his right to a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. By letter of November 13, 1979, Petitioner protested the decision and requested a hearing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Further correspondence ensued wherein Petitioner maintained that he was qualified for registration pursuant to current law concerning licensure by endorsement. He was making reference to a 1979 act that became Section 481.213(3)(b), F.S., which provided that Respondent Board must certify an applicant holding a valid license to practice architecture issued by another state if the criteria for issuance of such license were substantially equivalent to the licensure criteria which existed in Florida at the time the license was issued. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) By letter of January 23, 1980, Mr. Coons invited Petitioner to appear before the Board's Education Committee in February to "discuss your education in connection with your application for registration." The letter recommended that petitioner bring examples of his past work, letters of recommendation, and any other additional information concerning his educational background to the meeting. Petitioner, through counsel, declined the offer by letter of January 29, 1980, and elected to proceed with this administrative proceeding. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Petitioner graduated from high school in Boston, Massachusetts in 1962 and commenced employment with an architectural firm in that city. During the period May 1962 to November 1974, he was employed by five architectural firms in Massachusetts. During this twelve-year employment period, Petitioner prepared working drawings, office presentation drawings, design, detailing, construction drawings, and professional administration. At various times during his career, he handled several projects in their entirety, including the coordination of mechanical and electrical work with architectural drawings, client contact, supervising construction phase, shop drawings, project meetings, and field sketches. He was unemployed from November 1974 through December 1976. During the period January 1977 to the present, Petitioner has been employed successively by three architectural firms in Miami and Hollywood, Florida where he performed functions similar to those in prior years. He has been employed by the firm of Bouterse, Perez, and Fabrigas, Miami, Florida, since February 1979. He currently is the project manager for the Douglas Road Station for the rapid transit system in Miami. All of Petitioner's prior employers have submitted letters of reference concerning Petitioner's employment wherein they variously characterize his education, practical experience, and professional integrity as excellent or satisfactory. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Petitioner attended the Boston Architectural Center from 1962 to 1965 while he was employed on a full-time basis, but was unable to graduate due to his heavy schedule. During his attendance, he acquired 33 credit hours in architectural subjects with satisfactory grades. In the course of his employment, Petitioner has worked on a variety of projects including schools, office buildings, recreational facilities, nursing homes, and family housing. He has had training and experience in site and environmental analysis, schematic design, building cost analysis, code research, design development, construction documents and graphics, specifications and material research and document checking and coordination, building procedures, construction phase observation and office procedures (Testimony of Petitioner, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Petitioner was registered as an architect on February 5, 1976 in Massachusetts after successful completion of the National Council of Architectural Registration Board's (NCARB) equivalency examination in June 1975 and the NCARB professional examination in December 1975. At the time Petitioner was issued registration in that state, the law provided in Section 60C of Chapter 112, General Laws, that an applicant must either submit satisfactory evidence of graduation from an accredited school of architecture and of such practical experience in architectural work as the State Board proscribed by regulation, or that an applicant could submit satisfactory evidence of such other academic experience, practical experience, or both, as the Board prescribed. Regulations promulgated by the State Board pursuant to the General Laws provided in Chapter 30A, Section 4, that an applicant who was not a graduate of an architectural school would be required to submit satisfactory evidence of having completed eight years of practical experience in architectural work and one additional such year of work for each year short of graduation, but not more than five additional years. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) NCARB is a national organization that Sponsors registration laws in all states, formulates the standard examinations for architect registration, including Florida, establishes equivalence for its basic certificate requirements in education and training, and maintains and transmits professional records to state boards with recommendations for registration of architects who meet the organizational standards. If a registered architect in one state holds an NCARB certificate, NCARB will transmit a certified copy of his record to any state board, together with a recommendation that he be licensed as an architect without further examination. With such certification, reciprocal registration can be obtained in a great majority of the states without further examination and without making a personal appearance. Issuance of the NCARB certificate is based on the highest standards established by individual state boards. The NCARB equivalency examination is a two-day, twenty hour examination concentrating on architectural history and theory, design and construction theory and practice. It is required of non-degree applicants for NCARB certification. The Professional examination is a two-day, sixteen hour examination designed to place the candidate in areas relating to actual architectural situations whereby his abilities to exercise competent value judgments are tested and evaluated. It covers the subjects of environmental analysis, building programing, design and technology, and construction. (Testimony of Petitioner, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In 1978, Petitioner applied for and was granted NCARB Certification. In evaluating his record in this regard, NCARB determined that he possessed the equivalent of five years of education based on his academic credits and employment by architectural firms. On October 19, 1979, NCARB transmitted the Petitioner's record to Respondent in support of his application for state registration. (Testimony of Petitioner, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In Respondent's Rule 21B-8.05, Florida Administrative Code, provides that applications for registration will be reviewed by Respondent's Educational Advisory Committee when requested by the Board, to determine, among other things, a comparison of standards for equivalency for applicants who do not hold an academic degree in architecture. In such instances, the Committee customarily meets with the applicant, reviews his academic credentials and experience, and makes recommendations for registration to Respondent Board of Architecture. In making such determinations in the past, the Committee has on several occasions recommended candidates for registration who have not completed their degree requirements. In several instances, they have recommended that an applicant enroll in a graduate program in a special capacity so that he could be evaluated and a determination made as to his capabilities which might justify a recommendation of registration. However, in such instances, the individual was not required to obtain a degree prior to a favorable recommendation. In the opinion of the present chairman of the Educational Advisory Committee, Arnold F. Butt, who is presently the chairman of the Department of Architecture at the University of Florida, it is possible for the Committee to determine that an applicant has attained the required capability by work experience, but it is necessary that he demonstrate such fact to the Committee. He does not believe that providing an applicant an equivalent of one year's formal education for one year of architectural work experience is sufficient in itself to permit such a determination without evaluating the nature and extent of such experience. He is further of the opinion that, although successful completion of the NCARB equivalency examination demonstrates that a candidate has some minimal capabilities, which any candidate of a degree program would have, it is not sufficient in itself as a substitute for formal education, particularly in the area of architectural design. The Petitioner's application and NCARB record were not referred to the Educational Advisory Committee, nor did it make a recommendation to Respondent prior to the letter of denial of the application on November 9, 1979. (Testimony of Butts, Rule 21B-8.05, F.A.C.)
Recommendation That Respondent Florida State Board of Architecture deny the application of Petitioner John J. Bagdonas for license by endorsement pursuant to Chapter 481, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Eber, Esquire 151 SE 14th Terrace Miami, Florida 33131 John Rimes, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol - LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 State Board of Architecture Attn: Mr. Herbert Coons, Jr. 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Leon Cases, is an applicant to become licensed as an architect in the State of Florida by endorsement as provided in Section 481.213(3), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner was originally licensed as an architect in the State of New York in 1992, and the parties stipulate that he has passed the national licensure examination as prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and thus has completed all examination requirements for licensure. The parties also stipulate that the Petitioner has completed an architectural internship which is substantially equivalent to that required by Section 481.211, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner graduated from the School of Architecture and Environmental Studies of the City College of New York on September 1, 1977, with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Architecture (BS Arch). The School of Architecture and Environmental Studies at the City College of New York is a school or college of architecture accredited by the National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB). The degree which the Petitioner received from the City College of New York is not the professional degree in architecture offered by that college. NAAB accredits schools and colleges of architecture which offer curricula and programs leading to a first professional degree in architecture. A professional degree in architecture in the United States is uniformly evidenced by a five year degree leading to a Bachelor of Architecture (B. Arch) or a six or more year two stage degree program (a bachelor's [not a B. Arch degree] degree followed by a master's degree) leading to a Master of Architecture (M. Arch). It is not disputed that the Petitioner's degree (a four-year Bachelor of Science in Architecture degree) is not a professional degree in architecture as defined by NAAB. The Petitioner completed the course requirements for the BS Arch degree from CCNY, but did not attempt or complete the course requirements for the fifth year which results in the B. Arch from CCNY. The fifth year of a five-year program leading to a professional degree in architecture is an important part of the educational process which results in the synthesis of all the undergraduate work which is done in the first four years. This importance is recognized by CCNY which in its catalogue noted that it is only "with this degree [the bachelor of architecture, that] the student may begin the internship required for admission to the examination for licensure as a registered architect." It is in the fifth year of a five-year professional degree program, that a student usually (via a thesis requirement) develops an architectural program and completes the design of a structure from concept to completion. It is this requirement that allows the faculty to measure an individual's capacity to become a practicing architect. The Petitioner completed none of the fifth year requirements at CCNY. After the Petitioner graduated from CCNY he moved to the State of Florida and began working at an architectural firm. He considered applying to sit for the licensure examination in the State of Florida in the early 1980's; however, he determined that he would not be eligible to sit for the examination since he did not have a five-year professional degree in architecture. As a result, the Petitioner determined to apply to New York under the provisions of that state's licensure laws. He was accepted to sit for the examination in New York pursuant to his combination of education and experience, and was licensed after completing all parts of the exam in 1992. The Petitioner was authorized to sit for the examination in New York as a result of New York's statutes and rules which permit a combination of education and experience to be used to form the basis for entry to the licensure examination. The State of New York has confirmed this method by which the Petitioner was authorized to sit for the examination and ultimately licensed within New York by a document sent to the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design verifying the Petitioner's licensure in that state and the manner by which that licensure occurred. Since 1979 the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design has interpreted the provisions of Chapter 481.209, Florida Statutes, relating to entry to the licensure examination to mandate that a professional degree in architecture from an accredited school or college of architecture approved by NAAB is required. The only proviso is that applicants from an unaccredited school or college of architecture must meet standards which are equivalent to NAAB. These standards have been set forth by Board Rule 61G1-13.003, F.A.C., which mandates a five-year professional degree in architecture. Neither the Board of Architecture and Interior Design nor the Department of Business and Professional Regulation have compiled a subject matter index as mandated by Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. No evidence has been adduced to show that the Board has taken a position contrary to its established position that a professional degree in architecture is required by the provisions of Section 481.209, Florida Statutes, prior to licensure in the State of Florida. The Board did produce information relevant to past Board actions on applications either for licensure by endorsement or to sit for the examination, which shows that the Board has consistently denied such applications if a professional degree from an accredited school or college of architecture, or an equivalent degree from an unaccredited school or college of architecture, or an equivalent degree from an unaccredited school or college of architecture was not present in the applicant's educational background.
Recommendation On the basis of all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design issue a final order in this cause denying the Petitioner's application. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May 1994 at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 11th day of May 1994. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: The findings addressed immediately below are the four paragraphs following the caption "FINDINGS OF FACT" at pages 11 and 12 of the Petitioner's proposed recommended order. No effort has been made to make specific rulings on other factual assertions that appear throughout other portions of the Petitioner's proposed recommended order in conjunction with arguments and conclusions of law. Paragraph A: Accepted up to the first comma. The remainder is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph B: Accepted up to the first use of the word "architect." The remainder is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph C: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed conclusion of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. And, in any event, the argument lacks merit. Paragraph D: First sentence rejected as constituting argument or conclusion of law, rather than proposed finding of fact. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: All findings of fact proposed by the Respondent have been accepted, with the exception of the last paragraph of same. The last paragraph proposed by the Respondent is rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Paglino, Esquire 11601 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33181 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL 04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Architecture & Interior Design Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jorge L. Garcia, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida is of seven parts, part of which is the written examination and the rest of which is a site and design examination, which is given in June of each year. Petitioner took the building design portion of the Architecture Registration Examination in June, 1985. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving building design considerations. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation, and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself involves the design of a structure by an applicant which meets specific requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross- sections, facades, and floor plans. The program for the 1985 examination called for the design of a city administration building. Information supplied to the applicant includes a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Applicants also may study a series of solutions proposed by previous successful and unsuccessful applicants so that they may anticipate and apply successful solutions when taking their own examination. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a building design solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination therefore, allows the national testing service grading the examination, and through it, the Florida Board of Architecture, to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy, and legal requirements. The grading of the building design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's proposed examination solution by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some 20 states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competency required for a passing grade. Each architecture grader is then asked to review various solutions by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose examination solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration various criteria as set forth in Rule - 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code. Graders are instructed to make notations or areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then to determine, based upon an overall conception of each applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade of 3 or 4 as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code, has been earned. A method used to ensure independent and confidential grading of a solution is the folding of a single score sheet in such a way as to not allow subsequent graders to see the previous score. Approximately 3 and one-half minutes is utilized as the time in which each grader has to grade each applicant's exam. Page 7 of the Juror's Manual (graders manual) points out: Examinees are entitled to make some mistakes. The program analysis, design , development and drafting are hurriedly executed in a tense situation, without recourse to normal office reference materials (Sweets catalogs Architectural Graphic Standards, etc.) and without customary time for deliberation and critique by others. Jurors (graders) are permitted to recommend changes to an applicant's submission to bring it up to passing. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the at least three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. In the instant case, the Petitioner received three 2's (which are failing grades) and one 3 (which is a passing grade). Petitioner's exam solution presented a borderline case since one of the three graders who originally graded his exam gave him a passing grade. His response to notification of failure to pass this portion of the exam was a timely request for a Section 120.57(1) hearing and this proceeding ensued. While Petitioner attempted to comply with the instructions as set forth in the examination and pre-examination booklets, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve requisite minimal competency necessary to receive a passing score on the examination. The testimony of Arnold Butt, Registered Architect, former chairman of the Department of Architecture at the University of Florida and a master grader in the building design examination, is the only expert testimony of record. In Butt's opinion, Petitioner's submission contained several material departures from specific program requirements applicable to the 1985 examination. Specifically, Petitioner failed to place in his submission a delivery system, thus failing to meet program requirements, and showed no method of entry or egress. Further, there was no method of entry or egress from the river walk. Although Butt complimented Petitioner in overcoming one type of circulation problem that was overlooked by many other applicants at the same examination, Petitioner's circulation design was still full of many errors described by Mr. Butt, including life safety factors. Mr. Butt admitted that the graders had not marked life safety as a weakness present in Petitioner's exam. However, Butt's critique of Petitioner's circulation problems shows circulation overlaps into the area of "design logic." For other reasons, including but not limited to Petitioner's showing of certain features such as windows only upon the elevation sheets (as opposed to upon other sheets as well) and failure to show all of an access road, his errors and omissions also overlap into the evaluation criteria of "clarity and completeness of presentation." While Petitioner attempted to show, through use of the publication of NCARB which contains within it samples of various passing and failing examinations, that his examination submission was similar to those which had been recorded as passing grades, he was unsuccessful in discrediting the overall perception of Butt that there were significant difficulties in Petitioner's design solution which, taken as a whole, were much more numerous than the various solutions (both passing and failing) which were compared with Petitioner's solution. In a review of the sample solutions, Butt conceded that some of the errors that Petitioner made were also made by some of the candidates who achieved passing scores. However, Petitioner's examination submission contained a combination of many errors in one paper, which same errors may have existed only individually in some of the passing examples. In short, Petitioner's reliance on the NCARB-produced review booklet is misplaced in that his submitted solution to the problem presented a conglomeration of many of the errors which may have been passing if presented individually in various of the examples contained in the NCARB manual. Petitioner, who has the burden of proof in these de novo proceedings, has therefore failed to demonstrate that his examination solution exhibits minimal competency within the criteria necessary for a passing score.
Recommendation Therefore, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture enter a Final Order affirming that Petitioner has failed the licensure examination for 1985. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2195 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Covered in Recommended Order FOF 1-3. 3-4. Covered in FOF 10. 5-7. Those portions not accepted are rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the competent substantial evidence as a whole as set forth in FOF 11-12. Further, Mr. Butt testified that once the Petitioner's solutions to the problem were utilized, it was probable the graders would not give him the benefit of the doubt to recommend changes to his submitted because any reasonable solutions they might propose would require almost total redesign of his proposed building instead of the minimal changes they might be permitted to recommend. Rejected as not supported by the competent substantial evidence as covered in FOF 7. Three and 1/2 minutes was given as a fair estimate of the time actually used, not the time permitted. Covered in FOF 9; see also ruling on proposals 5-7 above. Covered in FOF 10; see also ruling on proposals 5-7 above. Accepted but immaterial and not dispositive of any issue at bar. The graders were not precluded from making more than three recommended marks. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Covered in FOF 1; that which is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOE 2. Covered in FOE 4 and 6. Covered in FOF 7 and 10. Covered in FOE 10. 6-7. Covered in FOF 11 and 12 but substantially modified for independent clarity of expression. COPIES FURNISHED: Pat Ard, Executive Director DPR-Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jorge L. Garcia 1744 Southwest First Avenue Miami, Florida 33134 Jorge L. Garcia 231 Southwest 52nd Avenue Miami, Florida John Rimes, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed architect in the State of Michigan. He began working in this field in 1964 as a designer-draftsman. He later served as a job captain, supervising draftsmen and designers. He began practicing architecture as a principal in February, 1974, and has been active as an architect since that time. Petitioner began his education in architecture at the University of Oklahoma in 1960, but did not obtain an architectural degree. He began graduate studies at the University of Detroit in 1974 and was awarded a Masters of Architecture Degree in December, 1975. Petitioner was originally registered as an architect in Michigan on February 2, 1975. He obtained his registration without an architectural degree on the basis of his training, experience and national examination results.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order affirming its denial of Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1983.
Findings Of Fact In October, 1973, the Petitioner filed an application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida with the Board. By letter dated November 21, 1973, the Board, through its Executive Secretary, denied the application stating that the Petitioner lacked the required degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Petitioner requested that his experience be reviewed to determine whether he had training fully equivalent to such a degree (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). By letter dated August 19, 1974 the Board notified the Petitioner that his educational background was insufficient, and that the application would be denied. Petitioner thereupon filed a Declaratory Judgment Action in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. The court adjudged that the Board was required to consider not only the Petitioner's educational training, but his private study, on-the-job training and other practical experience. A copy of the court's Final Declaratory Judgment was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 12. Petitioner again appeared before the Board and offered evidence respecting his training and practical experience. See: Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 8. On June 11, 1976, the Board entered its order finding the Petitioner to be not qualified and denying the application (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). Petitioner thereupon requested a hearing in accordance with Florida Statutes Section 120.57(1). Petitioner's application for licensure is an administrative adjudicatory proceeding which commenced prior to January 1, 1975. The parties have nonetheless stipulated that the provisions of Section 120.57(1) will hereafter govern the proceeding. The Petitioner received a Bachelor of Science degree from Chicago Technical College, Chicago, Illinois on December 17, 1954. Petitioner's course of study was architectural engineering. The Chicago Technical College was not, during the time that Petitioner attended it, and is not now on the approved list of schools and colleges of architecture adopted and published by the Board. The course of study pursued by the Petitioner at Chicago Technical College was not the same as a program in architecture. The program was a highly technical engineering program. The design studio which is perhaps the major facet of an architectural program was not present in the architectural engineering program pursued by the Petitioner. Following his graduation the Petitioner worked with other architects in the general practice of architecture. His longest periods of employment were with Cabanban and Wasserman, architects, where he worked for four years and eleven months from 1958 until 1963; and with Ohrnstein and Wasserman, with whom he was employed for four years and four months from 1966 through 1971. In each of these jobs the Petitioner performed the sort of work ordinarily performed by architects. A listing of the different projects in which the Petitioner performed design and supervisory functions is set out as a part of Hearing Officer's Exhibit 10. A wide variety of commercial buildings, apartment complexes, and private residences are included. Petitioner served as a partner in Cabanban and Wasserman, and in Ohrnstein and Wasserman. Augustine Cabanban and Earl Ohrnstein were both registered architects during the course of the partnerships. Cabanban and Ohrnstein each testified that the Petitioner performed the full range of architectural services during the course of the partnerships, and that his work was excellent. Architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner to the Board demonstrate that the Petitioner did not achieve a high level of design proficiency from his work experience. The best drawings submitted demonstrated a level of competence of approximately a third year architecture student in a five year program. Other drawings demonstrated a lack of design competence, and were inadequate. During 1972, the Petitioner passed the standard examination offered by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. Petitioner holds a current certificate issued by the National Council, and is registered to practice architecture in the State of Illinois. Schools or colleges of architecture approved by the Board have many common features, and the curricula offered at the schools are fairly consistent. Generally the programs and the curricula have remained consistent since approximately 1955 with minor variations, or changes of a technical sort. There is no real distinction between the sort of program which would have been approved in 1955, and the sort of program which would be approved today. Typically an approved program which operated on a quarter hour academic basis would require approximately 240 quarter hours for graduation. Approximately 75 quarter hours would be in architectural design culminating in a thesis. Approximately 60 quarter hours would be in general education subject matter, with between 30 to 35 hours in social science and humanities. The social science background is important because an architect must bring together all the factors which relate to the building environment, including social factors. The educational program followed by the Petitioner lacked the necessary design courses and social science courses which would be required in an approved architectural program. An architectural engineer is an engineer involved with buildings. The design courses in an architectural engineering program are set up to enable the engineer to work with an architect. Through on-the-job training the Petitioner received considerable design experience; however, drawings which he submitted to the Board did not evidence that he had achieved the level of design competence which would be required of a graduate of an approved architectural program. The fact that the Petitioner passed the National Council's test does not in itself establish that Petitioner reached the necessary level of competence. Petitioner did not offer evidence from which it could be concluded that his studies and experience would substitute for the social science background required of a graduate of an approved program. The Petitioner did not establish that he took social science courses, or engaged in individual study in the social sciences, or engaged in any other activities which would substitute for such an academic background.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The exam consists of two parts: the written part is given in December of each year and the site and design problem is given in June of each year. Todaro graduated from Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana in 1977 and had met the requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Todaro took the design and site planning portion of the national architectural exam in June, 1980. This consists of a 12 hour sketch problem involving the design of a structure by the applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans. The exam is prepared by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and is used by all states. Pre-test information supplied to each applicant includes a booklet providing the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which applicants are expected to apply themselves in order to receive a passing grade. At the examination, other information is supplied to enable the applicant to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. The purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted by NCARB and allows the national testing service grading the examination (and through them the Florida Board of Architecture) to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements which were tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December. The grading of the site and design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectual registration boards of some 20 states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the solution which lie is grading. The grader is instructed in how to consider the appropriate criteria. Graders are also instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is a three, and an applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. In the instant cause, Todaro received two 2's and one 3. He was therefore notified of his failure to pass the examination and of his right to this hearing. While Petitioner established that an effort had been made on his part to comply with the instructions, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation, particularly as to adequate consideration to grading and site planning, adequate consideration to marking elevations on his floor plans and adequate notation regarding the type of materials to be used in his elevations, floor plans, and wall sections. In general Todaro failed to place within his solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine that his program could be used; he failed to synthesize the information which he had learned in his educational process, in such a manner as to prepare adequate plans to respond to the requirements of good architectural practice in the formulation of design and site plans.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Stephen Todaro to change his grade on the June, 1980, site and design architectural examination be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. H. E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Todaro 1507 N. E. 5th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 John J. Rimes, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Glen Hamner, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The examination consists of two parts. "Part B," which is a written examination, is given in December of each year and has already been successfully passed by the Petitioner. The other portion, "Part A," consists of a site plan and design problem and is administered in June of each year. The Petitioner met all the preliminary requirements for admittance to the licensure examination and took the subject design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination, adopted in Florida, in June of 1980. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour drafting or sketch problem involving design and site plan criteria and considerations. It is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Board (NCARB). The examination problem involves requirements for placing a structure on a site, designing and drawing the elevations, the building cross-sections, the facades and the floor plan. There are few factual questions disputed in this cause. The Board of Architecture has long required examination prior to a candidate being licensed as a registered architect in the State of Florida. This statutory authorization was continued in Section 481.213(2), Florida Statutes, when it was adopted by the Legislature in 1979. The original examination administered by the Board prior to 1974 was a seven-part, 36-hour examination, including as two of its parts a site plan and design problem essentially identical to that administered in the present "Part A" of the Professional Architectural Examination which is the subject matter of this proceeding. This original seven-part examination had been administered for many years by the Board until the Board, in consultation with NCARB and other jurisdictions who are members of NCARB, determined that examination did not adequately test minimal competency to practice architecture. This ultimate determination was made after a thorough review by NCARB prior to 1974 and ultimately resulted in the creation of a new professional examination, which was adopted by all the member states and which consisted of what is now "Part B" of the Professional Architectural Examination (the written examination). The Executive Director of NCARB, Samuel Balin, was instrumental in the preparation of the initial professional examination. His testimony described the concern the National Council and the Boards had regarding the original seven-part examination, that it was an extremely technical examination, aside from the site and design plan problem, designed primarily to cover subjects which had already been covered in most accredited college degree programs. Thus, at the time the NCARB and member boards were in the process of changing over from the seven-part examination to what is now the "Part B" professional examination, NCARB and the member boards of each state were also rapidly moving toward requiring the completion of architectural degrees by candidates as a prerequisite to entry into the architectural profession. As established by this witness, NCARB research showed that much of the material contained in the seven- part examination was already adequately taught in the various universities offering architectural degree programs, and thus the examination necessary for registration should focus on the professional aspects of architecture and the practical methods by which an architect actually must provide his services to the public, rather than merely being an examination consisting of a review of what had already been taught in the colleges and universities. Based on this intensive review regarding the most appropriate means to test architectural competency based upon what candidates were already receiving in various degree programs, the two-day "Part B" examination was developed and first offered in 1973, concurrently with the seven-part examination previously in effect. It was determined by the Respondent, other state boards and the NCARB that, since many individuals had successfully completed large portions of the seven-part examination, it would be unfair to not allow them to finish the examinations they had originally begun. A minimal number of parts passed on the seven-part examination was thus required in order for a candidate to continue to attain licensure based upon that examination during the 1974 examination session. Subsequent to 1974, an individual who had not already successfully completed the entire seven-part examination was required by the Board to take what is presently "Part B" of the current examination. Thus, from 1975 through 1977, the sole licensure examination, requirement in Florida was the "Part B" written examination provided to the Florida Board by NCARB and adopted by the Florida Board in its rules as Rule 21B-2.02(1), Florida Administrative Code (1974). During the period 1974 to 1977, the Board became increasingly concerned with deficient graphic abilities of examination candidates in drafting plans, as well as their physical ability to synthesize the problems faced by an architect in building design into overall solutions and to incorporate those solutions into appropriate building and site plans for clients. Accordingly, a number of states expressed to NCARB their desire to have a site and design plan problem again incorporated into the National Architectural Examination. As a result of these requests, NCARB initiated a study to determine whether such a site and design plan problem was really a legitimate tool to test the competency of an architect in synthesizing building and construction design problems and expressing in a graphic manner the various component skills or abilities required to practice the profession of architecture and, corollarily, whether or not the lack of it in the "Part B" examination rendered it a substandard tool for determining minimal competence. The study resulted in a report by a distinguished panel of architects from various jurisdictions which recommended that, in fact, the site plan and design problem should be included in the professional examination. Florida then, in 1977, determined, based upon the evidence presented to it by NCARB, as well as through its own professional expertise, that a site and design plan problem was indeed a necessary component in determining minimal competency of architectural licensure candidates. The NCARB, at its meeting of June, 1977, thus adopted the site and design plan problem as part of the uniform National Professional Architectural Examination. The Florida Board subsequently thereto, and after receiving detailed information regarding the contents of the new portion of the national examination, proposed its own Rule 21B-2.02(2), on March 31, 1978, by notice contained in the Florida Administrative Weekly, which rule constituted Florida's adoption of the new site and design plan problem added to the National Professional Architectural Examination by NCARB. A hearing was held before the Florida Board on April 28, 1978, and the rule was certified and filed with the Secretary of State on May 30, 1978. Documents required to be filed with that rule pursuant to Chapter 120 were admitted into evidence in this proceeding. The effective date of Rule 21B-2.02(2) was June 19, 1978, therefore, subsequent to that date the professional architectural examination in Florida has consisted of two parts. One part being "Part A" which was the new site and design plan problem and the other part being the previously adopted "Part B" (multiple choice examination). The Legislature in 1979 pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, "sunsetted" all professional boards. The Board of Architecture was reconstituted pursuant to Chapter 79-273, Laws of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 79-273 it was provided that all rules in existence would be repealed as of January 1, 1980. Accordingly, on December 3, 1979, the Florida Board readopted, pursuant to Section 481.209, Florida Statutes, and Section 455.217, Florida Statutes, examination rules set out in Rules 21B-14.01, 14.02 and 14.03, Florida Administrative Code (the successors to the above-cited rule) . There have been no substantive amendments to those rules since their effective date of December 23, 1979, and the issues with which the Petitioner's challenge to the rules are concerned have not been substantially affected by that readoption procedure.
