Findings Of Fact Certain stipulations of fact were entered into by Petitioner and Respondent and accepted by the Hearing Officer. Those stipulations of fact are set forth below as Findings of Fact in this cause: "Petitioner, CHRISTINE DIANE ZARLI, [McDonough] is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida is of two (2) parts, one of which is the written examination given in December of each year and the other of which is a site and design (sic) [Part (a)] which is given in June of each year. Petitioner has met all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination." "Petitioner took the design and site plan portion of the National Architecture Examination in June, 1981. This portion of the examination consist (sic) of a twelve (42) hour sketch problem involving design and site considerations. The examination is administered by the office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation, and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself as noted above involves the design of a structure by an applicant including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades and floor plans." "Information supplied to the applicant includes a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself (sic) in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him (sic) to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted to him (sic) by NCARB. This portion of the examination, therefore, allows the national testing service grading the examination and through them the Florida Board of Architecture to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, asthetic, energy and legal requirements which are tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December of each year." "The grading of the site and design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three (3) architects selected by the various architectural boards of some twenty (20) states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin (sic) of the solution which he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration various criteria as set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, F.A.C. Graders are instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then are to determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicants (sic) submission, whether or not a passing grade of three (.3) or four (4) as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, F.A.C. (sic) [has been achieved]. In order for an applicant to pass he must receive at least two (2) passing grades from the three (3) architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. [That is, at least two of the three graders must have scored the applicant with a passing score.]" The architects chosen as graders by the NCARB for the design and site plan portion of the examination are required to participate in an extensive exercise designed to achieve uniformity in grading by all graders. The graders are instructed to review the solutions of the applicants quickly for an overall impression. They are further directed to score the solution on the basis of that first impression. They are specifically asked not to regrade solutions or to analyze specific points of presentation. The graders are instructed that the grading concept is a holistic concept and that the basic assumption of that holistic grading concept is that each of the factors involved in design skills is related to all the other factors and that no one factor can be separated from the others. The graders are instructed that they must judge each solution as a whole grading the solution for their impression of its totality. They are told that an examinee is entitled to make some mistakes, recognizing that the problem is hurriedly executed in a tense situation, without recourse to normal office reference materials and without the customary time for deliberation and critique by others. The graders are directed to give each solution a holistic score of 1, 2, 3, or 4. 1 is Very Poor (failed), 2 is Poor (failed), 3 is Minimally Acceptable (pass), and 4 is Good (pass). No evidence has been presented in this proceeding from which it can be concluded that the instructions to the graders and the rules for the administration of this test were not followed. Thus, it is found that the three graders who graded Petitioner's solution did not know Petitioner's identity nor her state of origin and did not know, at the time they graded her solution, the grade placed on that solution by their fellow graders. Each of the three graders independently assigned a score of 2, or Poor and failing, to Petitioner's solution. Although testimony was presented with regard to the strengths and weaknesses of certain specific elements of Petitioner's solution, no evidence was presented from which it can be found as a matter of fact that the solution, when considered holistically, was deserving of a grade higher than that assessed by the three independent graders.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for reexamination at the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 74.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 67.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 4, 10 and 17. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question numbers 4, 10 & 17 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. As to question number 4, the only correct response to the question was answer "B". Petitioner's answer to the question was "D", which was not acceptable. As to question number 10, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "B", was not acceptable. As to question number 17, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "A" was not acceptable. The Department's determination that answers "B", "C" and "C" were the only appropriate answers was not arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the challenge by Petitioner that he be awarded a passing grade for Part III of the June 1990 certified building contractors examination be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 19th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Uebelacker 326 NW Catherine Avenue Port Charlotte, FL 33952 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure in the category of mechanical plans examiner should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the formal hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner has been employed as a plans examiner for the City of Melbourne (City) since 1988. Petitioner has been a certified building plans examiner since 1994. She also holds certification as a standard and limited building inspector. Sometime in October 2003, Petitioner was informed that her limited plans examiner license, No. LP 369, had been permitted to expire on November 30, 1997, for failure to pay her renewal fee. The building official in her department at the City advised her that the renewal for the license had not been paid since 1996. It has been the practice of her department to automatically renew each of her licenses with the appropriate board, each year, as it came due, as a service to its employees. Why this one license, among several, was not renewed is unknown. After notification of the expiration of her limited plans examiner license, Petitioner immediately discontinued the review of electrical, mechanical, and plumbing plans and contacted the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), reported the oversight, and requested directions on how to reinstate the limited plans examiner license, No. LP 369. No response was forthcoming; however, on October 27, 2003, DBPR issued an unsigned Notice and Order directed to Petitioner to cease and desist practicing as a limited plans examiner. Petitioner immediately complied and sought reinstatement. No formal disciplinary action was taken; however, reinstatement was denied on the grounds that her license had become null and void on November 30, 1997, pursuant to the self-executing language contained in Section 455.271, Florida Statutes. On January 3, 2005, Petitioner submitted an application to DBPR as a mechanical plans examiner. By Notice of Intent to Deny, dated July 18, 2005, DBPR notified Petitioner that it intended to deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a mechanical plans examiner. Citing Sections 468.607, 468.609, and 468.621, Florida Statutes, Respondent alleged that Petitioner did not have five years of combined experience in the field of construction, or a related field, or plans review corresponding to building plan review; that Petitioner did not provide an affidavit for each separate period of work experience from an architect, engineer, contractor, or building code administrator who has knowledge of Petitioner's duties and responsibilities; that Petitioner was employed by a local government authority without being properly licensed; and that she performed unlicensed activities in violation of the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has shown that she satisfied the following requirements for licensure as a mechanical plans examiner. The evidence shows that: Petitioner is more than 18 years of age and is of good moral character; Petitioner has more than five years of combined experience in the field of construction and plans review; and Petitioner's application provided an affidavit for each separate period of work experience from a building code administrator who has knowledge of Petitioner's duties and responsibilities. Petitioner has more than adequate time in plans review, she did submit an affidavit of work experience signed by her building code administrator, and the administrator has a thorough knowledge of her duties. Building Official Alan Beyer, BU 383, certified to her years of plans review. Petitioner has been reviewing plans for the City since 1988. In 1994, based on her prior experience, Petitioner received a license as a limited plans examiner. Said license was allowed to expire through non-renewal and became void on November 30, 1997. Petitioner continued to perform her job until she was notified in October 2003 that her license had expired. Petitioner immediately discontinued the review of electrical, mechanical, and plumbing plans. Nevertheless, Petitioner performed activities during the period of 1997 through 2003, for which she was not licensed. However, the evidence is clear that Petitioner did not knowingly do so. Respondent has been previously licensed by Petitioner as a limited building inspector, a standard building inspector, and a standard building plans examiner. Each of these licenses has been maintained and is current, including the standard building plans examiner license, No. PX 838. Petitioner has no history of discipline in any of these areas, since 1993, the year the state first began to regulate this occupation. Petitioner has kept current the continuing educational requirements for each category for which she holds a license, including that of limited plans examiner. The subcategory of plumbing plans examiner was recently added to the standard building plans examiner license already held by Respondent. This subcategory required the same work experience (five-year combined experience) and affidavits signed by a building code administrator. The Board approved this addition to Petitioner's license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's request to complete the requirements for future standard licensing as a mechanical plans examiner. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 7th day of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact On March 9, 1973 Peterson, an architect registered in Florida, submitted a proposal "for preparation of design and construction drawings" for remodeling an existing residence to a new law office (Exhibit P-5). This was assigned on March 13, 1978 by attorney Anderson, who also remitted the required $200 retainer fee. Pertinent to this case, the contract provided for services to be rendered as: "Contract documents for permits and construction to include architectural plans (site floor plan, elevations and sections) and engineered structural and electrical drawings; "fee was $1,000 payable $200 on signing and $800 upon completed contract documents for permits." Any other services were at $20 per hour, including design changes after approval of preliminary drawings. The plans Peterson prepared showed the removal of a load bearing wall, without comment or provision for structural additions required by the demolition of the wall. Although the plans were not sealed, Anderson paid the $800 balance and bids were requested. The one bid (Exhibit R-4) was considerably more than budgeted, therefore the project was delayed. After a time, Anderson got interested in the project again but Peterson was unavailable so another architect was used and the project was completed. Thereafter, Anderson's requested reimbursement from Peterson was refused and this complaint was filed. Two registered Florida architects testified as experts for the Petitioner. Peterson's plans did not meet minimum architectural standards, particularly as to omission of substitute structural members for the removal of the load bearing wall. Although, structural changes could have been added by addendum, plans must be complete prior to obtaining permits and bids, and the acceptance of the full amount of the fee. In mitigation, Respondent agreed that he misinterpreted Anderson's understanding and desires but thought the standard procedure was followed; he indicated that this is the first time he has been in this type of situation. More particularly, Peterson intended to exercise his right to prepare an addendum that would have provided an appropriate structural substitution for the load bearing wall, after the ceiling was opened up; he considered the original plans for the wall as schematic only. He assumed the project was not going forward and the bidding process was merely to get prices.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Albert Poza, applied for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the state of Florida. The architectural licensure examination administered by the Respondent consists of two portions, the written examination given in December of each year and the site planning and design portion administered in June of each year. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for admittance to the subject examination. The Petitioner sat for a twelve hour examination consisting of a drafting or sketching problem concerning which he was required to design a particular type of building to be accommodated to a particular site, taking into consideration numerous design and site considerations such as human traffic flow, parking, access to all floors, heating and cooling, including natural heating and lighting and numerous other aesthetic, engineering and legal requirements. The examination is administered by the office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the state of Florida as well as to all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Counsel of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) . Pursuant to the authority delineated below, this examination has been adopted for use by Florida applicants for licensure. The examination itself is so constituted as to require the applicant for licensure, the Petitioner, to design a structure for placement on a particular site, including mandatory requirements for accommodating the structure to the site, and vice versa, detailed design of elevations, building cross-sections, facades, and floor plans, as well as effective use of natural light and solar heating potential, regard for the physical and aesthetic needs of the building's occupants, its impact on the environment of the site and its locality and numerous other criteria. Prior to sitting for the examination, each applicant, including the Petitioner, receives a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished by the applicant and various requirements to which the Petitioner is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Immediately prior to commencing the examination itself, the Petitioner received other information designed to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical and architectural requirements of the problem. In general, the examination was designed to require the Petitioner to design a solution to the site plan and the building design problems submitted to him by NCARB. The pertinent portion of the examination thus allows the examination graders, and through them, the Florida Board of Architecture, to determine whether an applicant such as the Petitioner is able to coordinate the various structural design, technical, aesthetic, energy and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem after having been tested on these same requirements in written form in the initial portion of the examination administered in December of each year. The grading of the site and design portion of the examination was accomplished by submission of the Petitioner's work product to at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some twenty states. These graders are given training by the NCARB in order to standardize their conceptions of minimal competence required for achievement of a satisfactory grade on the examination. Each architect grader is then asked to review and score various solutions to the site and design problem submitted by applicants, including the Petitioner, on a blind grading basis. The grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration the various criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code, and the evaluation criteria set forth in the grading sheet. The graders are instructed to note areas of strength and of weakness in an applicant's solution with regard to the grading criteria and then determine, based on an overall conception of the solution submitted by the applicant, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is defined as a holistic grade of three or four as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code. The applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architect graders who independently grade his solution to the problem in order to pass the relevant portion of the exam. The Petitioner herein received two "2's", which are failing grades and one "3", which is a passing grade. The Petitioner demonstrated an effort to comply with the instructions set forth in the examination, as well as the pre- examination booklet. He failed, however, to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation in several material areas such that the graders could make a clear determination that he understood and had complied with sufficient of the mandatory criteria to achieve passage of the examination. As established by Herbert Coons, Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture, and Glenn Paulsen, Professor of Architecture at the University of Michigan, both graders of the Petitioner's examination and the Respondent's expert witnesses, the Petitioner failed to supply sufficient information to permit a passing score to be awarded based upon the criteria required to be considered and complied with in the examination program and by the authority cited below. The Petitioner's examination was deficient in a number of material respects. The Petitioner violated the setback requirements as to the side entrance of the building in question with the result that significant alterations of the off-site and publicly owned sidewalks and easements would be required in order to effect his design solution. It is not good architectural practice, when asked to design a structure, to use land which is not part of the land owned by the client requesting the design. The examination program also specifically required that the candidate either maximize the floor space in the building by eliminating some amenities or if determining to insert amenities such as atria, balconies, large interior spaces and so forth, that these be provided in such a way to make the structure a luxury-type office building. In effect, the owner's goals in this design problem sought either a functional building with maximum floor space or a luxury building with minimal floor space, but with significant cultural amenities. In his solution, the Petitioner did not meet either of those two goals, since he included minimal floor space and yet an insufficient number of luxury features required by the program as an alternative. Other significantly deficient areas in the Petitioner's examination solution included his failure to visually relate the building's design to adjacent buildings. That is, he ignored the instructions in the program requiring him to design a building in an area of historical significance with an appearance which is compatible with adjacent historical buildings; pictures of adjacent buildings being furnished in his examination booklet. The Petitioner failed to allow adequate room in the mechanical equipment space for heating and air conditioning equipment, which the size and type building would require. Additionally Witness Coons established, by scaling the Petitioner's design solution, that the building was too large for the site on which it was to be constructed. Portions of it would encroach upon public property and violate local zoning ordinances. In a more serious vein, it was established that the building design did not contain an adequate allowance for structural support as to the various spans over the columns. The column spacing was appropriate, but the beams depicted are not of a sufficient size and type to safely support the structure and there is a danger that a building so constructed would collapse. Additional deficiencies noted involved poor human traffic circulation in the third floor lobby area design, insufficient storage space included in the design for the third floor lecture room and inadequate provision for landscaping. Other less significant deficiencies were noted including, as admitted by the Petitioner that the square footage on the upper floors was in error. In short, significant program requirements were not provided for or complied with by the Petitioner. In view of the above determined deficiencies, the Petitioner failed to establish that his solution to the site and design problem posed by the examination reflects sufficient and appropriate consideration of the requirements and criteria he was instructed to address.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore
Findings Of Fact Prior to July, 1972, Athan was a registered architect in the State of Florida after passing the Board's examination. In 1972 Athan failed to pay his renewal fee for the year 1973. Nathan tendered his fee for 1972 in June, 1973; however, his application and check were returned to him by the Board because Athan did not include a $10.00 penalty fee. No further action was taken by the Board until June, 1976, when after an inquiry by Athan as to his status, the Board sent Athan a notice of revocation dated May 27, 1976. In response to this notice, Athan requested additional information from the Board. The Board's letters of June 9, 1976, and August 16, 1976, advised Athan that, if he desired to be reinstated without examination, he would have to appear before the Board. Athan appeared before the Board on two occasions and the Board denied his request for reinstatement. The basis for this denial was never stated formerly to Athan and is not developed in the file introduced into evidence. Athan testified and the file reflects that he was never noticed of a hearing to be held on the issue of the revocation of his license and that no formal action of revocation was ever taken by the Board prior to May 27, 1976. The parties stipulated that Athan meets all the qualifications for licensure required by the statutes prior to taking the examination for licensure. The basis for the Board's action in denying Athan's request for reinstatement are contained in the representations and arguments of Counsel for the Board as set forth in the introductory portion of this order and are hereby incorporated into the findings of fact. Based upon the stipulation concerning Athan's qualifications, the only basis for denial of Athan's application for reinstatement are those stated above. Between 1972 and 1974 Athan designed structures for his own development company. During this period, he developed, designed and supervised the construction of a forty-unit apartment house and six office buildings. Considering that Athan was totally responsible for design and construction of these projects, this work compares favorably with his work output in the preceding four years during which he designed thirteen shopping centers, 3,000 apartment units, a four-story office building, two hospitals, and twelve to fifteen private homes. Following his eighteen month vacation, Athan worked for a licensed architectural firm in the State of Florida for a short while during which he was involved in all phases of architecture. This firm found that Athan's work was totally satisfactory in all respects.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Demetrios James Athan be reinstated by the Florida State Board of Architecture. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Rinaman, Jr., Esquire Southeast First Bank Building Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Demetrios James Athan Post Office Box 174 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931
