Findings Of Fact By Application executed July 1, 1992, Petitioner requested licensure as a professional engineer by endorsement. The application showed that Petitioner has been licensed or registered as a professional engineer for 25 years, so this is not an issue. The sole issue in the case is whether Petitioner has 30 years' continuous professional experience as a professional engineer. The application shows continues employment from June, 1960, through "present." In fact, the last job listed on the application ended on December 31, 1992. Respondent has already given Petitioner full credit for continuous professional experience from June, 1960, through April, 1962; and January, 1965, through February, 1987. The periods for which Petitioner received 50% credit are April, 1962, through January, 1965; and October, 1988, through December, 1992. For one period, Petitioner received no credit: March, 1987, through October, 1988. The time for which the Board has already given Petitioner credit totals 329 months. Petitioner requires credit for another 31 months in order to qualify for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. Petitioner received half credit for his work from May, 1989, through December, 1992, for SuperAmerica. He received half credit because his application disclosed that he merely supervised construction of convenience stores during these 44 months. However, only 40% of Petitioner's time was spent supervising construction. The remaining 60% was spent doing design and design coordination. This latter work is entitled to full credit because it involved relatively complex engineering work in connection with the design and layout of underground fuel storage tanks, monitoring systems, and recovery systems. By dividing Petitioner's work during the above-described 44-month period between the construction-supervision work and the design work, Petitioner worked 17.5 months on construction supervision and 26.5 months on design. Reducing the construction-supervision work by half, Petitioner is entitled to a total of 35.25 months of credit for the SuperAmerica work. Rounded down to 35 months, this gives Petitioner an additional 13 months than what the Board gave him, for a new total of 342 months. The remaining two periods for which Petitioner received only half credit involve 41 months when he taught civil engineering from April, 1962, through January, 1965, and October, 1988, through May, 1989. He received half credit because the nature of the material taught did not warrant full credit. However, during these periods, Petitioner spent about half of his time doing outside consulting work on various engineering jobs. The nature of the work was of a complexity comparable to that typically performed by a professional engineer in the course of his or her employment. The credit should be adjusted for the above-described 41-month period. Half of this time was spent on teaching, for which half credit is appropriate; thus, Petitioner earns 10.25 months for this work. The other half is entitled to full credit, so Petitioner earns 20.5 months for this work. The resulting total of 30.75 months, which is rounded off to 31 months, is 11 months more than the credit given him by the Board. The extra 11 months give Petitioner 353 months. Petitioner did not contend at the hearing that he was entitled to any credit for the period from October, 1988, through May, 1989. During this time, he was employed as a real estate broker and appraiser. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner lacks the requisite 360 months of professional experience. Even if the recommended adjustments had resulted in a recalculation of 360 months, there has been a clear break in professional employment from March, 1987, through October, 1988, during which time Petitioner's employment as a real estate broker and appraiser had nothing to do with professional engineering.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. ENTERED on May 7, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on May 7, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin A. Bayo Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 George G. Briggs 26171 Hickory Blvd. Bonita Springs, FL 33923 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of contracting and the licensure of those engaged in the practice of contracting of all types, in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent engages in re-modeling and other construction-related work both as his own business and employment by a certified general contractor. This case arose upon a Complaint filed with the Petitioner Agency by Mr. Kenneth Hatin. The Complaint asserted his belief that the Respondent had engaged in a contract to construct an addition on his home, and after being paid substantial sums of money, had wrongfully left the job and never finished it. The residence in question is co-owned by Mr. Hatin and his fiancée, Ms. Beverly White. Ms. White's first cousin is Ms. Julie Crawley. Ms. Crawley is the Respondent's fiancée. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent were introduced by Ms. Crawley and Ms. White. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent thus met socially and as they got to know each other discussed Mr. Hatin's desire to have an addition placed on his home. The addition consisted of a pool enclosure to be constructed on his property located at 33 Botany Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Hatin expressed the desire to have the Respondent assist him in constructing the pool enclosure. The Respondent agreed to do so. The Respondent is employed by his brother, who is a Florida-Licensed General Contractor, but neither the Respondent nor his business, JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., are licensed or certified to engage in contracting or electrical contracting. In accordance with his agreement with Mr. Hatin, the Respondent provided labor and assistance with the renovation project, including digging ditches, picking-up supplies and being present at the work site. In addition to the Respondent, other friends and family members of the protagonists assisted with the project, including the Respondent's son, Ms. Crawley's son, Mr. Hatin's employer, Ms. White's brother-in-law, and Mr. Hatin himself. This was, in essence, a joint family/friends cooperative construction project. Over the course of approximately five months during the construction effort, Mr. Hatin wrote checks to the Respondent in the total amount of $30,800.00. All contractors or workmen on the job were paid and no liens were placed on Mr. Hatin's property. The checks written were for the materials purchased and labor performed by tradesmen or sub-contractors engaged by the Respondent and Mr. Hatin for various aspects of the job such as roofing, tile or block laying, etc. The Respondent received no fee or profit in addition to the amounts paid to the material suppliers, contractors, and laborers on the job. It is not entirely clear from the record who prepared the contract in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four, or the document that the parties treated as a contract. It is not entirely clear who actually signed it, but the document was drafted relating to the work to be done on Mr. Hatin's home (the contract). Mr. Hatin maintained that the Respondent prepared and signed the contract. Ms. Crawley testified that the contract was actually prepared by herself and Ms. White (for "tax purposes"). It is inferred that this means that the contract was prepared to provide some written evidence of the amount expended on the addition to the home, probably in order to raise the cost basis in the home to reduce capital gains tax liability potential at such time as the home might be sold. The term "tax purposes" might mean other issues or consequences not of record in this case, although it has not been proven that the contract was prepared for a fraudulent purpose. Ms. Crawley testified that the Respondent did not actually sign the document himself but that she signed it for him. What was undisputed was that there were hand-written changes made to the contract so as to include exhaust fans, ceiling fans, sun tunnels, a bathroom door and outside electrical lighting. Although there was a change to the contract for this additional scope of work, there was no increase in the amounts to be paid by Mr. Hatin for such work. After the project was commenced and the addition was partially built, Mr. Hatin and Ms. White were involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Work was stopped on the project for a period of approximately seven weeks, with Mr. Hatin's acquiescence, while Ms. White convalesced. The Respondent, during this time, dedicated all of his time to his regular job and other work commitments. It was apparently his understanding, expressed in Ms. Crawley's testimony, that, due to injuries he received in the accident and more particularly the more serious injuries received by his fiancée, that Mr. Hatin was not focused on the project at that time, but let it lapse until the medical emergency was past. After approximately seven weeks of inactivity Mr. Hatin contacted the Respondent requesting that he begin work on the project again. A meeting was set up between Mr. Hatin and the Respondent. The Respondent however, was unable to attend the meeting with Mr. Hatin that day, tried to re-schedule and a dispute arose between the two. Additionally, family disputes over money and interpersonal relationships were on- going at this time leading to a lack of communication and a further dispute between Mr. Hatin, Ms. White, the Respondent, and Ms. Crawley. A threat of physical harm was directed at the Respondent by Mr. Hatin (he threatened to put out the Respondent's "one good eye" if he came on the subject property again). Because of this, the Respondent elected not to return to the project. Inferentially, at that point the process of filing the subject complaint soon ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Garvin B. Bowden, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Prior to his admission to the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida on August 30, 1982, Petitioner Evans attended a three-year full-time Mechanical Engineering Diploma Program at the College of Arts, Science and Technology in Kingston, Jamaica. Upon completion of the program, Petitioner was awarded the College Mechanical Engineering Diploma. The diploma from the College of Arts, Science and Technology was conferred in an educational system based upon the English System of Education. The diploma was not a university degree, such as a Bachelor of Science. It is more akin to a certificate from a specialized training program. Such diplomas are often called Associate Degrees when they are issued by junior colleges in the United States. 750 credit hours were transferred from the College of Arts, Science and Technology and were applied to the lower level requirements for the Mechanical Engineering Program when Petitioner was enrolled at the University of South Florida. As with all transfers from other schools of higher education, Petitioner was not given credit for those courses in the grade point average (GPA) he was required to achieve at the university. Throughout his enrollment at the university prior to the actual award of his Bachelor of Science (BS) degree, Petitioner Evans was in the Mechanical Engineering Program. During the thirteen terms the Petitioner attended the university before he was awarded his BS degree, he repeated the following engineering department courses: EGN 3313 STATICS (3 times); EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2 (2 times); ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I (3 times) and EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO (4 times). Petitioner ultimately achieved a "A" in EGN 3313 STATICS; a "C" in EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2, as well as ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I. His final grade in the coursework for EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO was a "B". At all times while Petitioner was in attendance at the university, the Mechanical Engineering Department required students to have a GPA of 2.2 or better in a specific schedule of coursework before a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (BSME) degree would be awarded by the faculty of the Department. The curriculum for the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida was accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) based upon the program requirement that a degree in mechanical engineering would be conferred only on students with a 2.2 or better GPA. The fall term of August 24, 1987 - December 12, 1987, was designated as Petitioner's final term of his senior year as an undergraduate seeking a BSME degree. Although the means used by the Mechanical Engineering faculty to calculate a GPA during this particular time period was unavailable, there is no dispute that the faculty applied its policy and determined that a BSME could not be awarded to Petitioner because he did not meet the academic standard of 2.2 or better GPA in the scheduled courses. Due to the averaging required to arrive at a GPA, Petitioner's repetition of so many courses lowered his overall GPA even though he successfully completed each course on his final attempt. When Petitioner was personally informed of the faculty's decision by his assigned faculty adviser, he questioned whether he could retake some of the courses to bring his GPA status up to the level demanded by the faculty. This idea was discouraged by his adviser because Petitioner would have to repeat a large number of courses over a lengthy period of time. The averaging techniques used to compute a GPA makes such an endeavor very time consuming with small results for the effort spent. Based upon the advice he received, Petitioner acquiesced in the faculty's decision to award him a B.S. in Engineering-Option in General and accepted the degree. At the close of his undergraduate academic pursuits, Petitioner had an overall GPA of 2.082 and a GPA in departmental course work of 1.79. This departmental GPA was calculated by eliminating 3 "Fs" from his transcript, per the university's forgiveness policy. All other course repeats lowered his overall GPA and his departmental GPA. In spite of the overall GPA and departmental GPA determination, Petitioner did take and successfully passed every course within the curriculum of the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida. The B.S. degree awarded to Petitioner is an alternate degree within the university. It is designed for students who have either completed a specialized program but were unable to meet a faculty's higher GPA standard or for those students who never designated a specialty within the engineering school, but met general university degree requirements. This program has never been accredited by ABET. ABET relied upon the faculty's representation that students who received BSME degrees would obtain a 2.2 or better GPA in the program before the degree was awarded when accreditation was granted by the board. It is unknown as to whether the program would have been approved if a lower success standard had been set for the students. On July 9, 1990, Petitioner's application for the Fundamentals Examination was received by the Department. The application was rejected on September 24, 1990, because the Department determined Petitioner did not meet the statutory and rule provisions governing admissions to the examination. From August 27,, 1984 - December 11, 1987, Petitioner was in the final year of an approved engineering curriculum in a university approved by the Board. He successfully completed the courses in the curriculum, but his GPA in the program was lowered by his numerous repetitions of the same courses before successful completion occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application to take the examination administered by the Department for the Board be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 20th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Pages 1-2: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement Issue I-Page 3: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #11. Paragraph two. Accepted. See HO #7. Paragraph three. Accepted. See HO #3. Paragraph four. Accepted. See HO #8. Paragraph five. Accepted. See HO #4, #10, #11 and #12. Paragraph six. Accepted. Paragraph seven. Accepted. See HO #15. Paragraph eight. Accepted. See HO #12. Paragraph nine. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Rejected. Cumulative. Issue II-Page 7: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #13. Issue III-Page 8:Paragraph one. Accepted. Paragraph two. Rejected. Cumulative. Paragraph three. Accepted. Paragraph four. Rejected. Mixed Question of Law and Fact. Witness Incompetent to determine. Paragraph five. Rejected. Cumulative. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #12 and #13. Accepted. See HO #8 and #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Insufficient facts presented. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. COPIES FURNISHED: Weldon Earl Brennan, Esquire SHEAR NEWMAN HAHN & ROSENKRANZ, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Executive Director Jack McRay, General Counsel Florida Board of Professional Department of Professional Engineers Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has not completed an approved engineering curriculum. From 1955 through 1958, he was enrolled in an engineering program at the University of Florida. He received an associate in arts degree. During 1961 he was enrolled for three semesters in an engineering program. Petitioner's other educational experiences have not been in the field of engineering. Since the Petitioner did not complete the requirements for a degree program, it is appropriate that his educational experience be viewed as engineering work experience in order to determine his eligibility to take the examination for licensure as a professional engineer. Since he has completed only the earlier stages of an engineering program, it is not appropriate that his years of educational background be credited directly as years of work experience. It is appropriate, however, that he be considered as having had one year of engineering work experience as an engineer based upon his total educational background. From 1964 until 1970, Petitioner worked for the Department of of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering at the University of Florida. He was in charge of field experiments considering littoral drift on the east coast of Florida. He assisted in setting up programs for beach erosion control. Petitioner was in charge of conducting various experiments to observe beach erosion, to locate sources of offshore sand for use in erosion prevention, and in developing models to establish techniques for stabilizing sand movements. Some of the work he performed was clearly engineering work, but a significant portion of it would more properly be classified as surveying work. The Petitioner was directly supervised by James A. Purpura, who was a professional engineer. Unfortunately, Mr. Purpura is deceased. Only three-quarters of a year of the experience that the Petitioner had with the Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering has been verified by a registered professional engineer as engineering experience. In view of the fact that significant portions of the Petitioner's work from 1964 to 1970 was not engineering work, and the fact that his work cannot be verified as engineering work, it is not appropriate that he be credited with more than three-fourths year of engineering work experience for this period. From 1970 until 1972, Petitioner was employed with Global Oceanic, Inc. Petitioner testified that during this period he designed a submersible dredge; was involved in restoration of beach property in the Bahamas; and designed and constructed a marina, a water desalination plant, various seawalls, and roads. Petitioner testified that he was employed as field engineer during this period. Petitioner presented no verification from a registered professional engineer as to the nature of his work experience with Global Oceanic, Inc. He testified that his director-supervisor, who was a professional engineer, died. From 1972 until 1973, Petitioner was employed with his own company, McGill and Associates. His work during this period was to complete activities with Global Oceanic, Inc., after his employer died. Petitioner testified that his work with McGill and Associates was as a field engineer. Again, however, there has been no verification of his work experience by a registered professional engineer. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's experience wit Global Oceanic, Inc., and with McGill and Associates from 1972 until 1973 has not been verified by a professional engineer as engineering work experience, it is not appropriate that the Petitioner be credited with experience by the Board of Engineers. From 1973 until 1975, Petitioner was employed by Kunde and Associates, an engineering firm. During this period, he oversaw various construction projects, and monitored them to assure that they were being constructed in accordance with engineering specifications. He served as a field engineer, directly responsible for various dredging and road building projects. Petitioner's work experience while at Kunde and Associates has been verified by a professional engineer as engineering work experience, and there does not appear to be any dispute that he should be credited with two years of engineering work experience for this period. Since 1975, the Petitioner has worked with his own company, McGill and Associates. He has been in the business of designing and constructing swimming pools and whirlpool spas. He has spent a fair amount of his time engaged in the original design of whirlpools. He has also participated in designing swimming pools, but in order to receive construction permits, registered engineers have had to evaluate and approve his designs. A considerable amount of the work that Petitioner has performed since 1975 has been engineering work; however, limited engineering know-how is required in swimming pool and whirlpool design and construction. Only approximately one year of non-repetitive engineering experience can appropriately be credited to such activities. Crediting Petitioner with one year of engineering work experience resulting from his educational background, three-fourths year of engineering work experience with the Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering at the University of Florida, two years of engineering work experience with Kunde and Associates, and one year of engineering work experience with McGill and Associates, the Petitioner has four and three-fourths years of valid engineering work experience.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to take the Principles and Practices Examination for licensure as a professional engineer.
Findings Of Fact In 1994, Petitioner passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination (a ten-year academic course) in India. Petitioner passed this high school course of study with classes in the core subjects of English, Sanskrit, Hindi, Mathematics, Science, and Social Sciences. In 1996, Petitioner passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination in India. For this two-year high school course of study, Petitioner completed classes in English, Mathematics and Statistics, Physics, Chemistry, and Comprehensive Science. Petitioner completed his undergraduate degree in December 2001. He graduated from the Sardar Patel College of Engineering (SPCE), an affiliate of the University of Mumbai in Mumbai, India, with a Bachelor of Engineering Degree (Civil). The SPCE is accredited by the National Board of Accreditation of the All India Council for Technical Education (NBA-AICTE). At the time of Petitioner's graduation, the SPCE was not accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET). For 75 years, ABET has accredited college and university programs in the United States in the following areas: (a) applied science; (b) computing; (c) engineering; and (d) technology. It is a federation of 28 professional and technical societies representing these fields. ABET accredits approximately 2,700 programs at over 550 colleges and universities nationwide. In April 2003, Petitioner passed the Engineer Intern Examination. Petitioner passed this eight-hour written examination in Ohio. In May 2003, Petitioner earned a Master of Science in Civil Engineering at the University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio. Petitioner worked for a design engineer located in Vicksburg, Mississippi, from July 2003 to April 2004. Since May 2004, Petitioner has worked for an engineering firm located in Jacksonville, Florida. The Washington Accord, signed in 1989, is an international agreement among bodies responsible for accrediting engineering degree programs. It recognizes the substantial equivalency of programs accredited by signatories and recommends that graduates of programs accredited by any signatory be recognized by the other signatories as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering. ABET, as a signatory of the Washington Accord, recognizes the substantial equivalency of foreign academic programs accredited by other signatory members; it does not accredit them. Further, ABET only recommends that graduates of programs from the signatories be recognized as substantially equivalent. Respondent does not follow the recommendations of ABET regarding the substantial equivalency of foreign academic programs in part because ABET and the other signatories of the Washington Accord recognize engineering technology degrees. Respondent has statutory authority to recognize engineering technology degrees only if the applicant was enrolled in a state university system prior to July 1, 1979. See § 471.013(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. In 2007, the Washington Accord members granted provisional membership status to the NBA-AICTE. As a provisional member, the NBA-AICTE must demonstrate that the accreditation system for which it has responsibility, appears to be conceptually similar to those of the other signatories of the Washington Accord. By conferring provisional status, the signatories have indicated that they consider the provisional signatory to have the potential capability to reach full signatory status; however, the awarding of provisional status does not in any way imply a guarantee of the granting of full signatory status. April 2007, Petitioner applied to take the Principles and Practices Examination for licensure as a professional engineer. He specifically sought to be recognized as a civil engineer with proficiency in water resources. In order to show substantial equivalency pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007(1), Petitioner had his engineering degree from SPCE evaluated by Joseph Silny and Associates, Inc. (Silny). Respondent has approved Silny to conduct the substantial equivalency evaluations required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007(3). Silny's evaluation showed that Petitioner's degree from SPCE lacked 13.59 semester credit hours of math and basic sciences, and 16 semester credit hours of humanities and social sciences. Silny concluded that Petitioner’s SPCE degree failed to meet the substantial equivalency requirements rule requirements. Petitioner submitted his transcript from the University of Toledo to Respondent for further evaluation. After reviewing the transcript, Respondent gave Petitioner credit for coursework in Numerical Analysis I and Numerical Analysis II, totaling six semester credit hours toward the math and basic science requirements. The credit reduced Petitioner's academic deficiency to 7.59 semester credit hours in math and basic science. During the hearing, Petitioner submitted transcripts and his secondary school certificates as evidence of coursework prior to his Bachelor of Science degree at SPCE. This coursework is not acceptable to meet the substantial equivalency rule requirements because they are college preparatory classes taken in high school for which Petitioner received no college credit. Many of Petitioner's high school courses cover subjects also taken in his undergraduate program, such as physics, chemistry, math, and statistics. Petitioner has already received credit for these courses that cannot be counted twice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enters a final order denying Petitioner's application to take the second part of the professional engineer examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 14th day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Rahul Parab 496 Monet Avenue Ponte Vedra, Florida 32081 Michael T. Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Patrick Creehan, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' February 7, 2005 Joint Prehearing Submission2: Respondent and his father are the principal owners of J.G.P. Engineering Group P.A. (JGP), an engineering firm specializing in the design of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. JGP does mainly "high end projects." It has offices in Miami, Florida, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Respondent is in charge of JGP's Miami office. The office is located at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 207. Before moving to this location, JGP occupied Suite 210 in the same building. In or around the mid-1990's, Orlando Naranjo was invited to work as an electrical engineer for JGP in its Miami office. Mr. Naranjo wanted to remain self-employed, so he turned down the offer; however, his firm and JGP subsequently worked collaboratively on "quite a few projects." Mr. Naranjo's firm and JGP were "doing so much work [together] requiring significant coordination" that in or around 1998, Mr. Naranjo decided "to move [his office to 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209] next to [JGP's office]." Mr. Naranjo's office was at this location (9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209) at all times material to the instant case. On September 20, 2001, Mr. Naranjo's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida (which was then under suspension) was revoked by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (Board). The suspension and revocation resulted from Mr. Naranjo's having failed to have taken the necessary steps to renew his license in a timely manner. Mr. Naranjo did not become aware of the Board's revocation action until "some time later," around or before the Thanksgiving holiday (that same year). Upon learning that his license had been revoked, Mr. Naranjo began the process of attempting to become relicensed. Mr. Naranjo's office (at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209) remained open, and his firm continued to engage in business, following the revocation of his license and during the time that he was seeking relicensure. Mr. Naranjo recognized that, until he got his license back, he would be unable to sign and seal documents and otherwise act as the "engineer of record" on projects. Mr. Naranjo therefore asked Respondent to help him by assuming the role of "engineer of record" on projects that Mr. Naranjo had been working on but had not yet completed. As a favor to Mr. Naranjo, Respondent agreed to do so without compensation. Among the projects of Mr. Naranjo's that Respondent undertook responsibility for were (what the parties have referred to in their February 7, 2005, Joint Prehearing Submission as) the Toras Emes project (TE Project) and the Manatee Village at Ruskin project (MV Project). "[C]ompared to the jobs that [JGP] had done with [Mr. Naranjo] in the past, these two jobs . . . [were] relatively straightforward." The TE Project involved design work for a dormitory facility consisting of "individual dormitory rooms, a hallway [connecting] them, and a common bathroom [with] showers and stalls for the people [living] in the dormitory." The architectural firm that hired Mr. Naranjo to work on the TE Project was Gustavo J. Ramos and Associates, Inc. (Ramos). Ramos had a contractual relationship with, and paid, Mr. Naranjo, not Respondent, for the work done on the TE Project. The MV Project involved design work for a residential housing development consisting of four types of "small apartment units [having] one or two bedrooms." The architectural firm that hired Mr. Naranjo to work on the MV Project was R.E. Chisholm Architects, Inc. (Chisholm). Chisholm had a contractual relationship with, and paid, Mr. Naranjo, not Respondent, for the work done on the MV Project. The MV Project required "relatively little" work since approximately "99% [of the plans that had been developed for use in a previous project] were reused" for this project. Assisting in the preparation of the plans for the TE Project and the MV Project were Mr. Naranjo's employees, Pablo Viteri and Antia Rodriguez, who (unlike Respondent) were paid by Mr. Naranjo for their efforts in connection with the projects. Mr. Viteri and Ms. Rodriguez served as draftspeople on these projects, drafting in accordance with the directions they received, as did Mr. Naranjo after he had relinquished his role as "engineer of record" on these projects (and Respondent had started "running the show"). In addition to the drafting work he did, Mr. Viteri was regularly "in touch" with the "people who were involved [o]n the architectural side" of the projects to "coordinate" with them. Mr. Viteri became a Florida-licensed professional engineer in the "beginning of 2003." (He is currently employed by JGP as an electrical engineer and computer-aided design manager.) Ms. Rodriguez was an engineer in her native country, but has not obtained a license to practice engineering in the State of Florida. Mr. Viteri, Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr. Naranjo, at all times material to the instant case, worked (on the TE Project and the MV Project ) out of Mr. Naranjo's office at 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209, which outside its front door had a sign which read: N+A NARANJO+ASSOCIATES Mechanical·Electrical Consulting Engineers #209 The sign had been there since the time Mr. Naranjo had moved into the office. It remained on the door even though Mr. Naranjo's license had been revoked and he was no longer authorized to engage in the practice of engineering in the State of Florida. The purpose of the sign was not to advertise, but to identify who occupied the office. Following his agreement to help Mr. Naranjo, Respondent exercised complete supervision, direction, and control of all engineering aspects of the TE Project and the MV Project, including the preparation of the engineering plans for these projects (that he signed and sealed). Upon assuming the role of "engineer of record" on these projects, Respondent first reviewed the design work that had been done prior to his involvement in the projects to determine if the "quality and validity" of the work met his satisfaction. After completing this review, Respondent oversaw the completion of the design work, making all necessary engineering decisions. Respondent had discussions with Mr. Viteri, Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr. Naranjo about the remaining work that needed to done and gave them instructions and directions on the drafting they were to do. Respondent reviewed their finished work product to make sure that it was consistent with the instructions and directions he had given them. Only after he was satisfied that there was such consistency and that the drafting that had been done accurately reflected the engineering decisions he had made did Respondent sign and seal the plans for the projects. The title block on these plans identifying Respondent as the projects' mechanical engineer listed his address as 9300 Northwest 25th Street, Suite 209, Miami, Florida (which was the address of Mr. Naranjo's office) and his telephone number and fax number as (305) 599-9447 and (305) 599-9427, respectively (which were the telephone number and the fax number for Mr. Naranjo's office). All engineering documents related to the projects were kept, not in Respondent's office, but in Mr. Naranjo's office (where Mr. Naranjo, Mr. Viteri, and Ms. Rodriguez worked) so as to not inconvenience Mr. Viteri, who needed to have ready access to these documents on a regular basis given that he was the "person who had the direct day-to-day contact" with the project architects. Likewise, the calculations done for the TE Project were on a computer in Mr. Naranjo's office. Any documents or information that Respondent needed to fulfill his responsibilities as the "engineer of record" on the TE Project and the MV Project he could retrieve with relative ease from Mr. Naranjo's office, which was just a short distance from his office. At no time did Respondent attempt to conceal from anyone the nature and extent of his involvement in the TE Project and the MV Project, nor did he have any intent to assist Mr. Naranjo in the unlicensed practice of engineering. Respondent has never before been disciplined by the Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order dismissing all four counts of the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 5th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded additional credit for his answer to question number 290, and thereby be given a passing grade on the Professional Engineer examination administered on October 25, 1996, in Orlando.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers (Board) was the state agency responsible for the examination and licensing of professional engineers in Florida. With the cooperation and assistance of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), the Board conducts periodic examinations to test the qualifications of candidates for certification as professional engineers in this state. Such an examination was conducted in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 1996. Petitioner was a candidate at that examination. A minimum score for passing was 70. Petitioner received an overall score of 69. One of the questions posed to the candidates at that examination was question number 290, dealing with the design of a control system, which required the candidate to determine values for two parameters in such a fashion that the closed loop specifications stated as, "with K =20 the unit step response be a damped oscillation with a 10% overshoot and with a damped natural frequency of 15 rad/s" were met. In the answer to this question, the engineer has to arrive at parameters to give the desired step response within the stated percentages. According to Dr. Antonio Arroyo, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Florida and an expert in electrical engineering, this subject matter is taught in a standard undergraduate controls course which is required in engineering schools nation-wide. The question in issue is a classic controls problem. The candidate is to reduce the diagram displayed in the examination question and give a closed loop description. Given that, the solution proceeds by taking the percentage of error and using it to back- track and arrive at the requested parameters, step by step. The examination is an open book examination. Because of the many formulae used in engineering, the candidate is permitted to use printed resources to assist in the solving of the problems. This formula involved in this problem is standard. Only the parameters cited in the test problem are different. In his answer to the question Petitioner cited to the page in his reference material where the solution is to be found, and he used the appropriate formula. In doing so, he could take the numbers presented in the problem and apply them to the standard problem solution contained in the reference book he had with him. It is a "plug and chug" situation wherein the candidate inserts the problem numbers into the given formula and makes the calculations. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, however, the candidate must decide how to use the information given. In this case, the problem involved a damped frequency of 15 hz and the candidate was required to calculate an undamped frequency. The Petitioner did not show that calculation in his solution, and it appears to Dr. Arroyo he missed the fact of the difference between the two frequencies. In Petitioner's solution, he listed what he saw as the data given, and though at no place did the problem show "Omega d", Petitioner put down "Omega d" but used "Omega n". In the expert opinion of Dr. Arroyo, an engineer should, at least, check his calculations. Examiners will give credit to a candidate if the candidate shows the appropriate knowledge of the concepts involved in the problem. In the instant case, Petitioner's answer to question 290 far exceeded the allowable 10% overshoot. His answer for "a" was 0.895, whereas the correct answer was 1.099. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference was .110, Petitioner’s overshoot was .204. His answer for "b" was 11.25, whereas the correct answer was 17.3. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference here was 1.73, Petitioner’s overshoot was 6.05. To Dr. Arroyo, this shows a concept error rather than a calculation error In substance, Petitioner utilized the correct formulae, but used incorrect data, and the use of the wrong data is sufficient to indicate his ignorance of the appropriate concepts. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, who did not see the problem utilized in the examination and relied on information provided by Petitioner, concluded that Petitioner’s margin of error was within the 10% limitation. Here, notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of Dr. Garrett, Petitioner's solution missed the authorized overshoot by a significant amount, far more than the allowable 10%. He should have known something was wrong when this happened and should have looked to see what he did wrong. In the opinion of Dr. Arroyo, the Petitioner did not adequately evaluate the problem consistent with acceptable engineering standards since the final product of his calculations did not meet the specifications of the problem. This is the purpose behind the professional certification process, and Petitioner should have recognized that his answer did not meet the required specifications. Petitioner received a score of six out of a possible ten for his solution to question 290. Dr. Arroyo is satisfied that the scoring plan of the NCEES for this problem is fair and he supports it. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, a professional engineer and long-time professor of electrical engineering at the University of South Florida, disagrees. In his evaluation of the problem and the grading process used here, Dr. Garrett notes that problem 290 consisted of five parts, for each of which two points could be awarded. Petitioner correctly answered the first three parts and received a grade of six points. He missed part four, and part five was to use the results of parts three and four, with the proper equations, to determine the two answers required. Since Petitioner used the proper equations to figure his answer to part five, even though he did not get a correct answer to part four, which resulted in his numeric answer to part five being incorrect, Dr. Garrett is of the opinion that he should have received an additional two points for applying the proper formula in part five. Review of the scoring plan developed for this problem indicates that Petitioner met all the qualifications for award of six points, but he did not recognize the relationship of damped as opposed to undamped. He used incorrect data to arrive at "a" and "b" in that he did not identify the relationship between natural frequency and damped frequency. This is a basic problem of control systems which an undergraduate should be able to solve correctly. It is basic electrical engineering knowledge and not beyond that expected of an electrical engineer with a bachelor's degree in the field. Had Petitioner utilized the formula he used with the proper data, he would have been awarded credit for a correct answer even if his calculations were incorrect. Here, however, while Petitioner utilized the correct formula, he applied it to incorrect data, and it is this use of incorrect data which makes an award of a higher score inappropriate. The professional engineers’ examination is designed to test the individual's familiarity with engineering concepts and his ability to cast the problem into those concepts to solve the problem. Petitioner contends that his understanding of the concepts involved was correct and, therefore, even though he used the wrong figures, he should received credit for a correct answer or, at most, only 2 rather than 4 points should have been deducted. Though Petitioner utilized the correct formula for his solution to question 290, he applied the wrong values in the use of the formula. This indicates a lack of understanding of the concepts involved, and even though Petitioner used the proper formula, that formula came from the book he was permitted to use for the examination. He cannot be given full credit for copying the formula from the book. Had he used the correct values in his solution to the problem, he would have been given appropriate credit even if his calculations were wrong. After being notified of his unsuccessful exam results, Petitioner requested that his answer to question number 290 be resubmitted to NCEES for re-scoring, and this was done. By memorandum in response, dated July 10, 1997, the NCEES scorer concluded: The error in using undamped natural frequency for damped natural frequency in the examinee's solution is a major error. Whether the examinee did not recognize the function was in fact the undamped natural frequency, as given in the problem statement, or whether it was an oversight, it is still a major error since the outcome is significantly affected. The scorer, whose knowledge of the identity of the candidate was limited to a number only, recommended a score of "six" for Petitioner answer to this problem. There was no change from the initial scoring.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner additional credit for his answer to question number 290 on the principles and practice portion of the electrical engineering examination administered for the Board of Professional Engineers on October 25 and 26, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bahman Behzadi Post Office Box 290931 Tampa, Florida 33687 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carlos Martinez Mallen, is an applicant for licensure by endorsement to become a professional engineer in the State of Florida. He filed his application for licensure with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (hereinafter "Board") in January 1988, relying on the facts that he was licensed in Spain approximately 25 years ago and has approximately 30 years of experience as a professional engineer. The Board subsequently determined that he could not be considered for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never taken a licensing examination in the United States which is substantially equivalent to the examination required for licensure by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, and described in Chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. Further, Petitioner has never been licensed in any state or territory of the United States, although he does hold a license to practice engineering in Spain. On the other hand, Petitioner's engineering experience record shows that he has considerable experience in the practice of engineering which would meet the additional experience requirements of Section 471.013, Florida Statutes. The Board, having determined that Petitioner does not qualify for licensure by endorsement, performed an analysis of Petitioner's application to determine whether his degree from the University of Madrid was an engineering degree which might qualify him to sit for the 1icensure examination and to ascertain if Petitioner could obtain licensure by that alternative method. An analysis was made by the Board's Education Advisory Committee to determine whether the curriculum for Petitioner's degree from the University of Madrid met the requirements of Rule 21H-20.006, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis was specifically directed to determine whether Petitioner's curriculum conformed to the criteria for accrediting engineering programs set forth by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The analysis of Petitioner's degree shows that, when compared with ABET criteria, Petitioner's engineering education was deficient four semester hours in mathematics and included no courses in engineering design, sixteen semester hours of which are required by ABET criteria. Further, Petitioner's education included no computer application of engineering design programs, a mandated requirement by ABET standards. Petitioner has never taken any of these courses subsequent to receiving his degree in Spain. Petitioner's degree, rather than being an engineering degree, is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in chemistry. Petitioner's degree is significantly deficient in required course areas, so that it does not meet the Board's criteria. Petitioner thus cannot be considered as an applicant for examination since in order to sit for the professional engineer examination in the State of Florida, one must have an engineering degree which meets standards acceptable to the Board. Finally, Petitioner's background was reviewed to determine whether he could be considered for licensure under a different provision for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never held a professional engineer registration or license from another State of the United States. The Board has never interpreted the word "state" found in the statutes and rules regulating the licensure of professional engineers in Florida to include foreign counties. Petitioner is not a graduate of the State University System. Petitioner did not notify the Department before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in engineering work on July 1, 1981, and wished to take advantage of a temporary educational waiver. As a result of the Board's review of all avenues to licensure available to Petitioner, Petitioner's application was denied either to sit for the examination to become a professional engineer or to be licensed by endorsement, unless and until he meets the educational requirements to sit for the professional engineer examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement and further finding that Petitioner's educational background does not meet the requirements necessary to take the examination to become licensed in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of March, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 28th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5973 Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 0.00, .10, .20, .30, .40, .50, 1.10, 1.20, 2.20, 3.10, 3.20, 3.40, 3.60, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 5.00, 5.30, 5.40, 5.41, 5.50, 5.51, 5.52, 6.00, 6.10, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, 6.24, 6.25, 6.26, 7.00, 7.40, and 7.50 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.21, 3.00, 4.00, 7.10, 7.20, 730, 7.41, 7.42, and 7.43 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.22 and 2.10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 3.30, 3.50, 3.70, 4.12, 4.20, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.20 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Office of Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carlos Martinez Mallen 33C Venetian Way #66 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The Petitioner has applied to take the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board licensure examination and the Board proposes to deny the Petitioner's application on the ground that the Petitioner does not fully meet the experience requirements which are prerequisites to taking the examination. The parties stipulated that the Petitioner has satisfied one-half of the experience requirement pursuant to Rule 21GG-5.03(2), Florida Administrative Code, by reason of his having a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from the University of Miami. Thus, the central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's professional and business experience constitutes one and one-half years "proven experience in the trade as an electrical contractor or in a responsible management position with an electrical contractor." See Section 2489.521, Fla. Stat., Rule 2100-5.03(1), F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses, the exhibits received in evidence, and the stipulations of the parties, I make the following findings of fact. Mr. Juan M. Reynes has applied to the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") to take the licensure examination for certification as an electrical contractor. Mr. Reynes' application was denied because the Board concluded that he had failed to demonstrate the experience required by Section 2489.521, Florida Statutes, as interpreted by Rule 21GG-5.03, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Reynes is originally from Cuba, where his father ran an electrical contracting company. When Mr. Reynes was a teenager he began working in his father's business in 1949. He worked in a number of capacities, including work as an apprentice to an electrical engineer. Thereafter Mr. Reynes studied electrical engineering at the University of Havana and received a degree in electrical engineering during the middle or late 1950's. Thereafter, Mr. Reynes was licensed as an electrical engineer in Cuba. Following receipt of his degree and license as an electrical engineer, Mr. Reynes continued to work for his father's electrical contracting company from 1958 until sometime in 1962. During the period from 1958 to 1962, Mr. Reynes was involved in all aspects of the management of his father's electrical contracting company. His involvement in the management of the business included such things as signing contracts for the company, locating new business for the company, obtaining the necessary permits, dealing with the supply houses, and keeping the necessary employee records. In Cuba a license to practice electrical engineering also authorized the licensee to engage in the business of electrical contracting. The permitting procedure in Cuba was one in which permission to construct was obtained by having the appropriate government officials sign the blue prints. It was necessary to have an electrical engineer degree in order to submit blue prints for government approval. At the time Mr. Reynes was working as a licensed electrical engineer with his father's company there were laws in Cuba similar to Florida's worker's compensation laws and unemployment compensation laws. Workers in Cuba were also guaranteed certain other benefits such as guaranteed vacation days and sick leave. It was necessary to keep records regarding each employee. At the time Cuba did not have any laws similar to the Social Security laws in this country. When Mr. Reynes was studying for his electrical engineering degree in Cuba, his course work included studying the law of contracts. Thereafter Mr. Reynes spent a number of years in jail in Cuba as a political prisoner. Following his release from jail, from October of 1970 until January 1972 Mr. Reynes worked on some extensive electrical construction projects for Alfa Romeo in Cuba. After finishing that project, Mr. Reynes was able to obtain permission to leave Cuba and move to Spain. All of the electrical construction projects that Mr. Reynes was involved in within Cuba were built pursuant to the latest available edition of the North American National Electric Code. In Spain, Mr. Reynes did some work in the fields of electronics and electrical engineering. He left Spain and came to the United States. In the United States he has worked for a lot of companies in a variety of positions related to one aspect or another of electricity, but most of that experience is not relevant to the experience requirements for taking the electrical contractor's certification examination. While working in the United States, Mr. Reynes studied electrical engineering at the University of Miami and received a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering in May of 1981. He graduated cum laude as a result of receiving high grades, which he was able to do while also working full time to support himself and his family. In October of 1981, he took the licensure examination for professional engineer and passed it the first time he took it. Since February of 1982, he has been licensed as a professional engineer by the Board of Professional Engineers of the State of Florida. Since being licensed as a professional engineer, Mr. Reynes has owned and operated his own electrical engineering business. He has worked as an engineering consultant for several general contractors and electrical contractors, but he has not been in a responsible management position with an electrical contractor since coming to the United States, nor has he pulled any building permits for electrical construction in the United States. However, in working for electrical contractors, he has done such things as calculate the total number of man hours required for projects, calculate the total cost of supplies for projects, and supervised the actual construction of projects. In the operation of his own business Mr. Reynes has one full-time employee and two part-time employees. In the operation of his own business he has become familiar with such matters as preparation of payroll and the necessary deductions, the Internal Revenue Service requirements for businesses, worker's compensation insurance, and unemployment compensation insurance. An important part of the experience required by the applicable statute and rule is experience in the business activities aspect of electrical contracting. These activities include such things as payroll, insurance, bonding, worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, contract, and building laws.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is recommended that the Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board issue a Final Order concluding that Mr. Reynes is eligible to take the next electrical contractors' certification examination. DONE and ORDERED this 29th of November 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Juan M. Reynes, 336 W. 16th Street Hialeah, Florida 33010 Arthur Wallberg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Room 1601 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 323301 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
