Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Manuel Lanz graduated from the University of Illinois School of Architecture in December of 1971, with honors and high distinction in the area of design. He is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in Florida is composed of two parts. The written portion of the exam (Part B) is given in December, and petitioner passed this portion. The design and site portion of the exam (Part A) is given in June and consists of a twelve-hour sketch problem. Petitioner failed this portion of the examination in June of 1982, as he has done on two previous occasions. Part A of the examination is supplied to participating states by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and involves the design of a structure by an applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, cross sections, and floor plans. Applicants are provided with a preexamination booklet which sets forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements which are to be addressed in order to achieve a passing grade. At the time of the examination, the applicant is given other information to enable him to more adequately design the structure and perform the necessary technical adjustments. Each participating state sends a number of graders to an intense two- day grading session sponsored by the NCARB. The purpose, of such sessions is to standardize the graders' conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each examination is graded on a blind basis by at least two independent architect graders. If the two separate grades received, when considered together, do not result in a definite pass or fail, a third, and on some occasions a fourth, independent grader will review the applicant's solution. The project to be designed in the 1952 Site Planning and Design Test was a municipal airport terminal building in a small city in the northwest. Applicants were provided with information as to the applicable topography and climate of the area, code requirements, space requirements, site circulation requirements and the various areas to be included within the building. The candidates were required to provide a site plan, a ground level plan-north elevation; a second level plan and a cross-section of the facility. Petitioner's solution to the problem was weak in many areas. Service, baggage and aircraft traffic were co-mingled. Accessibility for handicapped persons was not addressed. His solution failed to comply with the applicable building code requirements with regard to the number of exits required, the location of stairs and a fire sprinkler system. Petitioner also failed to comply with the requirements regarding square footage. His exit doors swung in the wrong direction and there was no means of exit from the kitchen other than through the dining room of the restaurant. His cross-sectional failed to indicate the location of beams and ducts for heating and cooling. There was no indication in the solution that petitioner gave any consideration to the program requirements of natural ventilation or natural lighting, or that he made any provision for noise from the aircraft. The flat roof provided by the petitioner would not accommodate the precipitation experienced in the area as described in the program. While an effort was made by the petitioner to comply with the program requirements, he failed in several material areas and some minor areas to achieve sufficient clarity in his presentation and to observe program requirements.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying petitioner's application for licensure as an architect on the ground that he failed to successfully pass Part A of the architecture examination. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (304) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Silvio Lufriu, Esquire Suite 817 412 E. Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Herbert Coons Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, William Everett Warriner, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida consists of two parts, one of which is a written examination given in December of each year, and the other of which is a Site Planning and Design Test given in June of each year. Petitioner meets all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Petitioner took the Site Planning and Design Test portion of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) in June, 1982. This portion of the examination is a twelve-hour sketch problem involving design and site consideration in which the applicant is graded on his or her design solution to the program requirements furnished, which are identical for each candidate at a given examination, on the basis or certain stated criteria, by trained graders who are registered architects. The examination is administered by 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 NCARB. The examination involves the design of a structure, in this case a small municipal airport terminal building, by an applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, facades, floor plans, and other aspects. The applicant is supplied with a preexamination booklet which sets 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. At the time of the actual examination, the applicant is furnished other information to enable him to more adequately design the facility and demonstrate his command of the architectural requirements. In general, the examination was designed to require the applicant to design a solution to the site plan and the building design problems submitted to him by NCARB. The pertinent portion of the examination allows the examination graders to determine whether an applicant is able to coordinate the various structural design, technical aesthetic, energy, and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem. The grading of the Site Planning and Design Test is accomplished by the review of the candidate's product by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of several states, who are given training by NCARB in an effort to, as much as is possible, standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each reviewer then assesses the product submitted by candidates/examinees on a "blind grading" basis, that is without knowledge of the identity or geographical origin of the submitter, or of the grade assigned the product by other reviewers/graders. The graders assess the product with a view toward identifying areas of strength or weakness within an overall determination of satisfaction and assign a holistic numerical score ranging from "0" (fail) to "4" (pass). Grades "1" (incomplete) and "2" (poor) are failing grades, and grades "3" (minimally acceptable) and "4" (good) are passing grades. If grades "1" or "2" are awarded, the graders are required to indicate the examinee's weakness, but these indications of weakness must not be arbitrary. All solutions are graded by three examiners, except those solutions to which a "0" has been given by one examiner. Solutions which are not clearly passing or failing are graded by a fourth examiner. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive passing grades from at least two examiners, who independently grade his solution to the problem. A passing grade, as was stated above, is defined as a holistic grade of "3" or "4" as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner received a grade of "2", which is a failing grade, from each of the three graders who graded his examination. Though the Petitioner demonstrated an effort to comply with the criteria set forth in the examination and indicated in each area identified as weak on the examination grade report wherein he felt he had achieved the desired goal and standard, Mr. Burke, a registered architect and a member of the Florida Board of Architecture, identified several material areas wherein the Petitioner failed to observe program requirements. In the Site Planning and Site Design area, Petitioner has not shown any details as to how handicapped individuals would get across the median in the parking area in that there is no showing of a ramp from the pavement over the curb and across the median, nor is there any showing of lighting over the curbs for the handicapped. Further, on the issue of service area location, as drawn by Petitioner, this layout would require all service vehicles to pass in front of the airport through passenger traffic to get to the service cut for the service drive, which, in itself, is located too close to the baggage handling area. In addition, the site aesthetics were deficient in completeness and clarity in that landscaping was not shown, nor was appropriate consideration given to water flow and drainage. Additional deficiencies were demonstrated in the areas of building planning and design. The functional relationships of programmed areas were basically accomplished, but major problems exist in the general lobby area. While the test problem calls for the display area to be in the general lobby area, in Petitioner's solution, they are away from the ticket area and somewhat hidden. Those facilities which need exposure do not get it. Pedestrian circulation between the baggage claim area and the lobby exits is obstructed by the location of the car rental booths. In addition, traveling from the deplaning area on the second floor to the baggage claim area on the ground floor is made too difficult. The solution's conformity to barrier-free requirements is weak. There is little or insufficient protection from the elements at the entrances and exits. The solution's requirement for 74-foot trusses in the terminal creates excessive wasted volume in the attic area, and the overall form is awkward. In addition, one page of the problem is not completed, and emergency exits are not shown as required. In the section involving technical aspects of the plan, the first two sub-areas were marked weak primarily because of the incompleteness of the technical plan for the foundation. Further, only a very few technical notes appear on the solution, providing insufficient information, and the use of wood for a public building is dangerous. Petitioner disagrees with his grade and presented evidence to show that his failure was a marginal one. He feels he has rebutted approximately 75 percent of the failing items and passed the written part of the examination (Part B) on the first attempt. He has been involved in residential design for twelve years and has considerable experience. He feels the comment on the handicap ramps is valid, but that is only one part of the problem. There is sufficient other provision made for the handicapped in his solution. The lobby displays would have the least likelihood of being seen if placed in the ticket area as suggested. He opines that the covered walkways over the two major entrances are sufficient, and it would be superfluous to have covers over every door. Repeated rebuttal, such as those items listed, display Petitioner's difference of opinion with the grade assigned his problem, but not that his examination was graded in an arbitrary or capricious way or in a manner different than that utilized in grading the examination of every candidate taking the same examination throughout the United States. Also, his excuse for incompleteness that he only had twelve hours in which to complete the problem is invalid. The same time was allotted all candidates, including those who passed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Petitioner has failed to achieve a passing score on the June 1982 architecture examination and upholding the grade awarded to Petitioner on that examination. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 3rd day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. William Everett Warriner 305 North East Fifth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Mr. Herbert Coons, Jr. Executive Director Board of Architecture Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for licensure should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed applications with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) for a provisional plans examiner license and a standard building plans examiner license.1/ The Board of Building Code Administrators and Inspectors (Board), which is part of DBPR, is the state agency charged with certification of building code administrators, plans examiners, and building code inspectors, pursuant to Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accompanying her applications were: a statement of educational history; an affidavit from her then current employer, Robert Olin of the Orange County Building Division; an "Experience History" page; and notarized statements from two construction companies listed on the Experience History page, JE Activities Construction Managers, Inc., and BFC Construction Corp., regarding Petitioner's employment with those companies. DBPR reviewed her applications and sent her two letters dated August 9, 2005, both of which read in pertinent part as follows: If you are using your education as experience, you will need to have an official transcript sent from your institution. Have them send it to attention building codes, CIU. (There's no need to send the one for the psychology coursework, only the engineering.) The paperwork you sent from New York is not sufficient. You will need to use the affidavit form in your packet, such as Mr. Olin used. They need to fill out the form completely (please note it does not have to be notarized.) The affidavits must be filled out by a state licensed architect, engineer, contractor or building official (see application instructions.) They must include their state license number and tell what the license is (i.e. general contractor). If they are one of these professions but are not licensed in New York because it is not necessary in that state, they need to send a separate letter so stating, which is notarized. You need to send a new experience history page which includes your position in Orange County. (emphasis in original) Additionally, the August 9, 2005, letter regarding her application for a provisional license advised Petitioner the following: Please be advised that in order to be eligible for provisional license, you must be hired into the position of a building plans examiner. . . . You will need to send a new affidavit from your CBO stating that you have been hired into the position, and the effective date of such hire. (Please see Rule 61G19-6.012(6) showing you are eligible to perform the duties of a building plans examiner when hired for a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the application for provisional licensure) under direct supervision of a CBO. . . . Petitioner responded to the August 9, 2005, letters by supplying the requested documentation. Specifically, Petitioner provided a revised affidavit from Robert C. Olin, Manager/Building Official with the Orange County Building Division, which stated as follows: Ms. Georges was hired as a Plans Examiner on 6/13/05. She is applying for her Provisional Plans Examiner License and also to take the Building Plans Examiner exam. Presently her responsibility is to complete her training for the position of Plans Examiner, and to obtain a Provisional, and then a Standard Plans Examiner License. Petitioner also provided a revised Experience History page which included her position in Orange County listing the dates of employment as June 13, 2005 to present. Further, Petitioner provided revised statements/affidavits, on the affidavit form specified in the August 9, 2005, letter to Petitioner, regarding her work experience in New York. One of the affidavits was written by Ernest Jochen, vice president of JE Activities, Inc., who listed her dates of employment as February 2003 to June 2005, and her years of supervisory experience as "2 years 3 months." The other affidavit was written by Garfield Stewart, Senior Project Manager, of BFC Construction Corp., who listed her dates of employment as May 2000 to January 2003, and her years of supervisory experience as "2 years 8 months." The substance of the original statements of Mr. Jochen and Mr. Stewart regarding Petitioner's work experience was essentially the same as in the revised affidavits. The revisions were of a technical nature only, i.e., on the correct forms. Petitioner's work experience in these jobs, i.e., managing gut renovations of city-owned multi-family apartment buildings, is in the field of construction. Petitioner also ordered an official transcript from Polytechnic University in Brooklyn, New York, which was received by Respondent on October 5, 2005. The transcript indicates that Petitioner attended Polytechnic University from the fall of 1996 through the fall of 2000, earning 123.50 credits over four years with a major in Civil Engineering. The Board denied Petitioner's applications at a meeting held on December 9, 2005, and issued the Notice of Intent to Deny on January 4, 2006. Subsequent to issuance of the Notice of Intent to Deny,2/ Petitioner provided separate letters from Mr. Stewart and Mr. Jochen which read as follows: A license to complete gut renovations on multi-family structures is not required in the State of New York. The firm is only required to be bonded and insured. Although Petitioner was employed by Orange County at the time she submitted her applications and for several months thereafter, she explained at hearing that she left her employment with Orange County in June 2006, and was employed there for exactly one year. This meant at the time she made application, Petitioner was employed by an agency of government, but not at the time of hearing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for provisional certification as a building plans examiner, and granting Petitioner's application for standard certification as a building plans examiner, thus allowing her to sit for the standard certificate examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 24th day of August, 2006.
