Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
CLAUDIO RICARDO RAMOS vs. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, 82-002893 (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-002893 Latest Update: Jun. 16, 1990

Findings Of Fact Petitioner Claudio Ricardo Ramos was a candidate on the 1982 Architecture Design and the Site Planning Examination administered on June 14- 16, 1982 by the Department of Professional Regulation. He is a graduate of the University of Miami with a Bachelor of Architecture Degree and is presently employed by an architecture firm in Miami, Florida. On September 10, 1982 Petitioner was informed by the Department that he had received a failing grade on Part A of the examination. After a review of his examination he requested a formal hearing to contest his failing grade. That request initiated these proceedings. The professional architecture examination consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. Part A is known as the site planning and design portion of the exam. It requires a candidate to draw a solution to a problem involving (a) site plans, (b) floor plans, (c) building sections, (d) two significant building elevations, (e) diagrams of structural systems, (f) diagrams of environmental control systems, and (g) a typical wall section. Part A is blind-graded by at least two examiners designated and approved by the Department. Each examiner judges the individual applicant's entire work product pursuant to evaluation criteria set out in Section 21B- 14.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. Grades ranging from 1 through 4, depending on the quality of the work, are awarded by each examiner. An applicant must have a minimum average of 3 in order to pass Part A of the examination. On the June 1982 examination, all candidates were required to design a small municipal airport terminal building in a midwestern location. The problem required a site plan, ground level plan-north elevation, second level plan, and a cross-section of the facility. While Petitioner demonstrated on his examination that an effort had been made to comply with the instructions set out in the examination and preexamination booklet, he failed in several significant areas to design a structure consistent with the program's requirements. His design for the terminal failed to fit the criteria for floor areas, entrance- exist requirements, circulation pattern through enplaning and deplaning and to comply with the required structural and mechanical details. These deficiencies in Petitioner's design cannot be explained as merely a difference in professional judgment. They are fundamental mistakes which in some respects make his design functionally unsound. It is apparent from Petitioner's design that he spent a considerable portion of his allotted time on the ground level of the airport terminal design and then was without adequate time to prepare the second level plan and integrate that plan with the ground level. Petitioner has failed to present evidence showing that the failing grade he received was given in a capricious or arbitrary manner. Petitioner's grade was well within the range of reasonable professional judgment on what is an unsuccessful performance of the Part A examination.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Architecture enter a Final Order denying the application of Claudio Ricardo Ramos for licensure as an architect on the grounds that he failed to successfully pass Part A of the architecture examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Claudio Ricardo Ramos 140 Northwest 87th Avenue Apartment G-222 Miami, Florida 33172 John J. Rimes III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Florida Board of Architecture Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (3) 120.5714.03455.217
# 3
LEON CASES vs BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN, 93-004407 (1993)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Aug. 09, 1993 Number: 93-004407 Latest Update: Sep. 20, 1994

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

Florida Laws (5) 120.53120.57481.209481.211481.213 Florida Administrative Code (1) 61G1-13.003
# 7

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer