The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her response to question nos. 122 and 222 of the civil engineering examination administered on October 31, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the civil professional engineering licensing examination. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. Petitioner challenged the scoring of question nos. 122 and 222. As part of the examination challenge process, Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying where it was re-scored. In the re-score process, the grader deducted points from Petitioner's original score. Petitioner was given the same raw score of 6 on question number 122; however, on question number 222 her raw score of 4 was reduced to a 2. Petitioner needed a raw score of 48 in order to achieve a passing score of 70; she needed at least three additional raw score points to obtain a passing raw score of 48. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 on problem number 122. The solution and scoring plan for that problem required the candidate to obtain a culvert size in the range of 21-36 inches. The Petitioner incorrectly answered 3.1 feet or 37.2 inches. She is not entitled to additional credit for problem number 122 because she answered the question with the wrong size culvert. Problem number 122 required the candidate to use a predevelopment peak flow of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). Petitioner used 58.33 cfs. She chose the maximum flow rather than the predevelopment peak flow. In solving problem number 122, Petitioner chose a design headwater depth of 4.8 feet. The correct solution required a design headwater depth of 5.7 feet. Petitioner made another mistake in problem number 122; she failed to check the water depth in the downstream swale. Petitioner concedes she was given sufficient information to solve problem number 122. She understood what the question was asking of her. She admits that she did not compute the critical depth of the water and that she did not complete the solution. Question number 222 had three parts. The candidate was required to determine the footing size, to select the reinforcing steel, and to provide a sketch for a concrete column located along the edge of a building. Petitioner understood the question and was provided enough information to solve the problem. Petitioner correctly checked the footing size as required by the first part; however, she did not select the reinforcing steel or show the required sketch. Therefore, Petitioner did not complete enough of the problem to qualify for a score of 4 points. She is entitled to a score of 2 points. The examination questions at issue here were properly designed to test the candidate's competency in solving typical problems in real life. The grader (re-scorer) utilized the scoring plan correctly. Petitioner has been in the United States for approximately eleven years. She lived in Romania before she came to the United States. In Romania, Petitioner used only the metric system in her professional work. While she has used the English system since moving to the United States, Petitioner is more familiar with the metric system. The Principles and Practice examination is an open-book examination. Petitioner took a book entitled the Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook to the examination. When the proctor examined her books, she told the Petitioner she was not permitted to keep the handbook. The proctor took the handbook from the Petitioner. Petitioner protested the confiscation of her reference book because she had used the same book in two previous tests. About ten minutes later, the proctor's supervisor returned the book to Petitioner. Petitioner's book was returned at least ten minutes before the test began. She was permitted to use the book during the test. There is no persuasive evidence that the proctor's mistake in temporarily removing Petitioner's reference book caused her to be so upset that she failed the test. Candidates were not permitted to study their books prior to the beginning of the examination. Petitioner may have been nervous when the test began. However, Petitioner received a perfect score of ten points on the first problem she worked, problem number 121.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order confirming Petitioner's score on the examination and dismissing the Petitioner's challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 13th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis Bartin, President Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The single issue for determination is whether Petitioner is entitled to at least three more points on his response to question #121. If not, he has failed the examination.
Findings Of Fact Kenneth A. Carper graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor's degree from the University of Central Florida. In the nine years since graduation he has worked for an engineering firm primarily in the area of drainage design. Question #121 is the type of problem he deals with daily. The ultimate objective of the question is to determine whether the flow of an open channel with given specifications is subcritical or supercritical. The question required the computation of the channel's critical depth and normal depth. In the hypothetical situation described by the question, certain extraneous information was given. An appropriate answer required that this "red herring" be ignored. The ISSP is a standardized grading device by which a person subjectively grading a problem will consistently apply a score based upon specified types and numbers of deficiencies. The intent is to reduce the chance of over-leniency or an overly strict approach by different graders. The ISSP developed by the National Council of Engineering Examiners for question #121 provides in pertinent part: 10. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, correct solution, well organized, all relevant ASPECTS fully addressed. Correct approach; numerical answers correct within rounding errors; conclusion correct; adequate written records. All parts are of equal weight (3 parts). 9. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, correct solution but exces- sively conservative in choice of working values; or presen- tation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. All correct, as in 10 above, except for a single math/units error; or inadequate written record. 8. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, errors attributable to misread table or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct. All correct, as in 10 above, except for multiple math/units errors; or inadequate written record; or in combination. 7. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied. Obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable. Same as 8 above, except for more gross errors; or in combination; or a single part of three parts required completely wrong or missing, with the other two parts correct. 6. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, applicant demonstrates minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant ASPECTS of the item. Multiple math/units/records errors; or in combination; or one part completely missing or wrong, with other errors; or in combination. (Joint Exhibit 1) The grader of Carper's examination did not testify, but provided notations on the answer sheet. The solution required selection of an appropriate formula, which Carper did; it also required a trial and error mathematical computation of the value of "y." In the first part of the question Carper found "y" to be "... between 9.2 and 9.3, say 9.3'." The grader crossed out this answer with the notation,-- "not an engineering answer-Finish iteration to a close enough' final value." The grader's answer was 9.24. In the second part of the question, Carper indicated "y" was "... between 6.8 and 7.0, say 7.0'." The grader's answer was 6.99, and similar notations, were made, "not an engineering answer. Finish the iteration." It is apparent that the grader felt that the solution should be carried out to the nearest hundredth place. Yet, in a very similar question (#421), also requiring computation of normal depth, Carper's answer, 4.7' was marked "OK", and he received the full 10 points for his solution. Nothing in the instructions specifically requires a solution to the nearest hundredth. This is left to the judgement of the engineer. "Real world" engineering practice would not require a solution to the nearest hundredth place. The design of a large open channel is substantially less precise than the design of a bridge or multi-story building. In hydraulics, the practice is often to round up, for example, from a 9.8 to 10, as a conservative measure. It is also common to use estimates; for example, the roughness coefficient (resistance of the channel walls) is a textbook figure, rather than one derived from the structure itself. Given the lack of precision inherent in the formula, the computation of value beyond the tenth place serves no valid purpose. The sample solution to #121 provided by the grader specifically states "ignore backwater curve." While Carper's solution does ignore the "red herring," his work sheet does not affirmatively note that he did. Respondent claims that the grader could not know whether the back water curve was properly ignored, or just overlooked. At worst, this minor deficiency constitutes an inadequate written record. The appropriate score, based on the ISSP table reflected in paragraph 4, above, is "9." Carper selected the proper formula, performed the mathematics and arrived at answers reflecting acceptable engineering practice. The descriptions of deficiencies for the scores of less than 9 do not apply to Carper's solution for this question. Respondent's expert conceded that the solution did not contain a mathematics error. In making these findings I have considered and weighed the opinions of the three experts who testified in this proceeding. Both experts presented by Petitioner were qualified, without objection, in the engineering fields of hydraulics, hydrology and water resource management. They both have over 30 years of extensive practical experience in those fields, and they both have lectured or taught in colleges and universities. The weight of their testimony is tempered by their personal knowledge of Petitioner for eight or nine years and by their knowledge of the score he needed to pass the examination. Nothing in the substance of their testimony, however, revealed a bias in favor of their colleague, and their testimony was considered candid and forthright. They would have scored #121 as "9" or "10". Respondent's expert, a consulting engineer, employed as an Associate Professor in the University of Florida Civil Engineering Department did not know Carper, nor was he advised of the score he would need to pass. He would have given Carper a "6" or "7" on question #121, but more likely a 7, based on Carper's failure to carry his answer to "three significant figures." This opinion was not adequately explained in terms of acceptable engineering practice, but rather was based on acceptance of the test grader's judgement. (Joint Exhibit #2, Deposition, p. 29) Respondent's expert was less qualified than Petitioner's experts. His primary experience as a consulting engineer has been in review of the work of others, rather than active design.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered, awarding Kenneth Carper 9 points for question #121, thereby providing a passing grade for the engineering examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4979 The following constitute my rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner 1-5. Addressed in Background. 6-7. Adopted in paragraph #11. 8. Addressed in Background. Respondent Addressed in Background. Adopted in substance in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #10. Adopted in substance in paragraph #10. Adopted in paragraph #9. Adopted in substance in paragraph #5. Rejected as unsubstantiated speculation. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian E. Currie, Esquire SANDERS, McEWAN, MIMS & MARTINEZ, P.A 108 East Central Boulevard Post Office Box 753 Orlando, Florida 32802-0753 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neal, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should receive additional credit for his answers to questions 121 and/or 222 on the civil/sanitary engineer examination administered on April 18 and 19, 1997.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of professional engineers in this state and for the regulation of the engineering profession. Petitioner graduated from the University of South Florida in December 1990, with a degree in geo-technical engineering, a sub-specialty of civil engineering. He is not, nor does he claim to be, a structural engineer. He has practiced in the field of geo-technical engineering since his graduation and has taught soil mechanics at the master’s level at the university. He sat for the professional engineer’s examination administered by the Respondent in April 1997. Thereafter, by grade report dated July 29, 1997, the Department’s Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner that he had earned a score of 69.00 on the examination he had taken. Since a passing score for the examination which Petitioner took is 70.00, Petitioner failed the examination. Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge the grading of examination questions numbers 121 and 222, on each of which he earned a score of four. The maximum obtainable score on each question is ten. On question 121, the candidate is given a situation involving a sheet-pile wall section, and is asked to (a) sketch and dimension the earth pressure diagram acting on the wall after the proposed dredging has been completed; and (b) determine the factor of safety against the kick-out after the dredging. Scoring of the Petitioner’s examination was done by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (Council). The Council determined that, with regard to requirement (a), Petitioner’s pressure distribution was of the correct form, but the labeling of the distribution had a major error. Petitioner assumed an incorrect factor which was deemed to be a major error calling for, under the approved scoring plan, a minimum four-point deduction. With regard to requirement (b), Petitioner chose not to solve for the factor of safety as he was required to do. This resulted in a minimum reduction of two additional points. This evaluation was concurred by Mr. Adams, the Board’s expert witness, in his testimony at hearing. Mr. Adams noted that where, as here, the engineer is dealing with soil mechanics, the at-rest conditions are one thing. The active and passive (A and P) conditions are the more dynamic, and here, where the problem calls for removal of soil from in front of a retaining wall, A and P pressures should have been used instead of at-rest pressures. Adams also concluded that Petitioner’s cited authority was not valid in this case. This authority used the at-rest pressure coefficient when all the authorities Mr. Adams could find used the A and P pressure coefficient. Petitioner admits that the coefficients utilized in determining earth pressures are A, P and at-rest (O). In this case, the whole problem must be considered. A tie-back system is presented, and in that case the sheet pile and the tie-back are assumed to hold the soil behind the wall in an at-rest condition so long as the sheet-pile wall does not move or deflect. Petitioner contends that Mr. Adams’ determination that removing the soil would destroy stasis and cause the wall to move is erroneous. In fact, he contends, the sheet-pile wall and the anchor system must move before the Board’s argument holds. He cites an authority in support of his position which was also cited to the Council scorer who, at Petitioner’s request, rescored his answer. The Council official who rescored Petitioner’s answer did not have access to Petitioner’s cited authority but rejected the citation as either incorrectly cited or incorrect in itself. Petitioner’s error called for a four-point reduction in score as to (a). Further, as to requirement (b), Petitioner, though asked to solve for the factor of safety against rotation, chose not to do so. This calls for an additional two-point reduction. Independent review of Petitioner’s answer, including an evaluation of his cited authority, and consideration of the other evidence pertinent to this issue, including his testimony, that of his witness, and the rescoring results by the Council, does not satisfy the undersigned that Petitioner’s answer merits additional credit. The score of four, as awarded, is appropriate. Question 222 deals with a cantilevered retaining wall with a wide foundation and piling in two rows, some in front and some in back, to support it. The candidate is required to determine the total lateral thrust per linear foot acting on the wall in issue; to determine the vertical load on a front row pile; and to explain possible ways that the pile foundation can resist the lateral thrust. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner incorrectly calculated the lateral load by omitting the proper depth of the wall. With regard to the vertical loading, the Petitioner did not get to the proper vertical load on the front pile but received partial credit for other calculations he performed. As for the last requirement, one part of Petitioner’s answer was incorrect in that he did not explain passive pressures properly. What Petitioner mentioned was incorrect, and he did not mention battering of the piles, which was expected to be noted. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner got two parts of the question correct, each of which is worth two points. Therefore, he received a score of four points. Petitioner contends that the Board and the Council are being too restrictive in their approach to the problem and not taking into account the whole problem. He claims that though he arrived at the wrong figure in calculating the lateral load, that does not justify his receiving no credit for that segment since the method he used for calculating the thrust was correct. He admits to having erroneously neglected the weight of the soil, but contends that his method of determining the solutions to resist lateral thrust is as good as that of the Board and the Council. Petitioner was given only partial credit for his use of the correct equation to calculate the lateral thrust because he used the wrong depth. His answer to the second part was wrong in that he completely neglected the weight of the soil and calculating the pile load, even though he used the correct figure to multiply the load per foot of the wall. His answer to the third requirement, dealing with lateral resistance of the pile, was insufficient to warrant a full award. Taken together, his answer, in the opinion of the Council’s scorer, merited only an award of four points. Petitioner did not show sufficient basis for increasing this award. The evidence presented by the Board clearly established that both questions in issue provided enough information to allow the candidate to answer them correctly, and both are questions that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The scoring plan for these questions was not shown to be inappropriate, and there is no evidence that it was not properly utilized.
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 in this matter denying Petitioner additional credit for his answers to Questions 121 and 222 on the April 1997 Civil Engineer Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1998, 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 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri V. Jean 3273 Tanglewood Trail Palm Harbor, Florida 34685 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was discriminated against based upon his age, in the manner addressed by Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the City of Leesburg at times pertinent hereto. He was employed as a waste water operator trainee, commencing employment on or about June 5, 2000. The Respondent is a city government and unit of local government which operates two waste water plants. At times material to this proceeding the Respondent was employed and assigned to the "Canal Street Plant." The Petitioner was required to perform several job functions in his capacity as a waste water operator (trainee). Respondent's Exhibit Nine, in evidence, provides a job description for the Petitioner's employment positions which include the following: Record all flows; constantly survey charts and meter readings; repair leaking waste water pipes; perform building maintenance chores; maintain vigilance over all the department facilities and log or report any unusual situations; take oral and written instructions and carry them out in a quick and responsible manner; load and unload lawn cutting equipment, and cut and trim grass at utility plant sites; make repairs and/or replace parts on plant equipment; and repair leaks and other operations as directed. That job description also required a trainee to have knowledge of the functions and mechanics of pumps and other waste water plant equipment, knowledge of the occupational hazards and safety measures required in plant operations; to have an ability to detect faulty operating characteristics in equipment and to institute remedial action. The trainee is also required to be able to read meters, chart accurately and to adjust procedures to meet plant volume requirements. He must have an ability to understand and follow oral and written instructions. The Respondent's personnel policies and procedures manual (manual), in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit Eight, states at Policy No. 600.2(13) that "poor performance" is a violation of policy sufficient to initiate discipline. Poor performance is described in that section as a failure to perform assigned duties according to prescribed dimensions and standards on the individualized performance plan. Policy No. 600.2 provides for progressive discipline ranging from a verbal warning, to a written warning, a one-to-three day suspension, a four-to-five day suspension, or termination. Thus the discipline for violation of that policy is a range of appropriate actions from verbal warning to termination. On or about July 11, 2001, the Petitioner was the subject of a corrective action performance evaluation by his supervisor, Bob Mirabella. Mr. Mirabella, the Respondent's Operations Supervisor, accorded the Petitioner a grade of zero in several categories of work performance. Those are deficiencies indicating the Petitioner's lack of understanding of basic concepts related to his job position, including failure to following instructions, difficulty making simple decisions, difficulty or failure in following standard procedures, and a poor attitude. Overall his evaluation shows a rating of the Petitioner's performance as "unacceptable." That corrective action evaluation also contains a section that the Petitioner and his supervisor must initial, indicating that the Petitioner had reviewed the evaluation and that the performance deficiencies had been communicated to him. Mr. Mirabella advised the Petitioner of corrective measures to take and that any continued failure to meet expectations might result in termination. Mr. Mirabella created a type-written plan of improvement for the Petitioner with remedial activities, objectives, and developmental activities. Under the Respondent's consistent policy, the action plan would have been reviewed in 60 days, September 11, 2001, in order to determine that the Petitioner was meeting those expectations. On August 13, 2001, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for failure to perform duties assigned to him on July 23, 25, and August 9, 2001. These were duties that were in accordance with the prescribed dimensions and standards of the individual performance plan for the Petitioner. The written reprimand, in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit Two, included a description of the Petitioner's failure to perform duties including lawn maintenance, and again cited his argumentative attitude. On August 29, 2001, the Petitioner received a three-day suspension from duties for failure to perform assigned duties according to prescribed dimensions and standards as set forth in the individual performance plan. The disciplinary action form, in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit Three, specifically referred to the Petitioner's failure to perform lawn maintenance duties, failure to follow established rules and policies, and failure to take appropriate action to correct a leaking pump. It was also noted that the Petitioner was making coffee and watching television instead of performing assigned duties. Mr. Mirabella created a performance evaluation summary in preparation for the Petitioner's September 11, 2001, 60-day review of the initial, unsatisfactory evaluation of July 11, 2001. The summary showed a continuation of the Petitioner's difficulties and problems both in understanding his job and in dealing with other people in the course of his duties. The summary cited an incident where the Petitioner was abrasive, including swearing, toward other employees. It was Mr. Mirabella's intention to give the Petitioner a written reprimand regarding the swearing incident. However, due to the emergency nature of the events occurring on September 12, 2001, at the waste water plant, the written reprimand was not completed prior to the beginning of the investigation that ultimately led to the Petitioner's termination. The Petitioner made no major progress in correcting any of the problems outlined in the action plan that constituted part of the July 11, 2001, evaluation. On or about September 12, 2001, it was determined that there was a near overflow of sewage at the Canal Street Plant. Scott Moss, the employee who worked on the morning shift on September 13, 2001, discovered the problem and took corrective action immediately. Mr. Mirabella learned of the problem and reported it to the Respondent's Director of Environmental Services, Susanna Littell. Upon learning of the potential overflow occurrence, Ms. Littell began an investigation to determine when the overflow problem occurred. She gathered plant flow information and took measurements of the tanks. Employing engineering calculations, based upon the flow rates at the plant, Ms. Littell was able to determine that the problem had occurred on the Petitioner's shift. The Petitioner was the only employee on duty at the time the problem occurred. Ms. Littell consulted two outside engineers (non-city employees) to review her calculations. Those engineers found that her calculations were accurate. According to Ms. Littell, the waste water employees on duty at the plant should have observed the valve positions or otherwise noticed a problem in the plant that needed remediation. This was a regular part of their assigned duties, including the Petitioner. Mr. Mirabella determined a number of valves had been changed, which had caused the "aereation bay" to begin to fill with waste water. The aereation bay almost overflowed, which would have caused a serious environmental hazard and damage. It would have caused irreparable harm to the credibility of the waste water department, and could have engendered a minimum of $10,000.00 dollars in fines imposed by the Department of Environmental Protection. The importance of preventing these types of situations has been emphasized to employees who worked at the waste water plant, including the Petitioner. Because of the Petitioner's failure to notice the obvious serious problem occurring at the plant on his shift, and his failure to take corrective action, he was cited for negligence in performing his assigned duties in violation of the Respondent's policy. The employee who worked as his counter- part on the shift immediately after the Petitioner's, Elmer Wagner, was also cited for negligence in performing his duties because of his failure to notice the problem and to take corrective action. Mr. Wagner at the time in question was 67 years of age. The information obtained during Ms. Littell's investigation was forwarded to Ms. Jakki Cunningham-Perry, the Respondent's Director of Human Resources, in order for her to determine the appropriate disciplinary action to take. Ms. Cunningham-Perry performed an investigation of the September 12, 2001, incident. She spoke to several individuals, including, but not limited to, Mr. Mirabella, Ms. Littell, Jim Richards, who was one of the engineers consulted by Ms. Littell, as well as the Petitioner. She thereafter deliberated and prepared a written memorandum setting forth her investigative findings. Ms. Cunningham-Perry concluded that the closing of the valves occurred during the Petitioner's shift. She also concluded that Mr. Wagner should have noticed the change in the pump flow and valves during his shift. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Wagner were cited for failure to perform assigned duties in violation of city policy 600.0(13), as a result of the investigation performed by Ms. Cummingham-Perry. She reviewed the personnel history of both the Petitioner and Mr. Wagner in order to determine the appropriate levels of discipline. The Petitioner's prior history included the special corrective action evaluation of July 11, 2001, indicating unacceptable performance; the August 13, 2001, written reprimand for violation of policy 600.2(13); and the suspension for violation of that same policy. In light of the past performance of the Petitioner, as well as the September 12, 2001, incident, Ms. Cunningham-Perry recommended that he be terminated. On November 30, 2001, the Petitioner was terminated from his employment with the Respondent. The Petitioner's last day on the payroll with the Respondent was December 6, 2001. Mr. Wagner is older than the Petitioner and has had an exemplary performance record with the Respondent City. He never had any disciplinary problems on his record for 15 years of his employment with the Respondent. Because of his theretofore spotless employment disciplinary record, he was given a written reprimand as a result of his negligent performance of job duties on September 12, 2001. No evidence was adduced indicating that the Respondent treated any employees over the age of 40, including the Petitioner, any differently than employees under the age of 40. During the relevant time period the Respondent had approximately 22 employees in the waste water department. Fifteen of those 22 employees were over the age of 40. The Petitioner actually produced no evidence in his case establishing his date of birth or age. There is no evidence that the Petitioner's age was considered or was a factor in his termination decision. The decision to terminate him was based solely on his failure to perform assigned duties and his prior performance record. Moreover, the Petitioner adduced no evidence to show that he was replaced or otherwise lost his position to a younger individual. The individual who became a waste water trainee after the Petitioner's termination was Scott Moss. Mr. Moss is currently employed as Waste Water Operator with the Respondent. There is no doubt that Mr. Moss is a significantly younger individual, purported to have been in his late 20's when the incident in question occurred. The Petitioner, however, produced no evidence regarding Mr. Moss' date of birth or his age in relationship to the Petitioner's. He also produced no evidence to show that he was actually replaced by Mr. Moss. Mr. Moss had been hired on or about January 29, 2001, nearly one year prior to the date of the Petitioner's termination. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Moss were working at the Canal Street Plant in similar capacities and duties, at the time the Petitioner was terminated. Mr. Moss, therefore, just continued to work there and ultimately was elevated, through his adequate performance, to the position of Waste Water Operator. It was not established that he was hired simply to replace the Petitioner when the Petitioner was terminated. Further, the Petitioner did not adduce sufficient, persuasive evidence to show that he was actually qualified to perform the job. His prior performance had been unacceptable since at least July 11, 2001, and likely before that time. The Petitioner repeatedly failed to comprehend and perform assigned duties of a Waste Water Operator Trainee on multiple occasions. This was despite efforts by the Respondent to help the Petitioner correct his deficiencies. Accordingly, it has not been established that the Petitioner was "qualified" for the position of Waste Water Operator Trainee.
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 a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2004, 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 3rd day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael George 25131 Southeast 167th Place Umatilla, Florida 32784 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire McLin & Burnsed, P.A. Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to one additional point on the October 1996 Professional Civil Engineer Examination so as to achieve a passing score for licensure in Florida?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the Civil Engineer Examination given in October 1996. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by Examination Grade Report dated February 17, 1997, that she had earned a score of 69.00 on the Civil Engineer Examination. The minimum passing score for the Civil Engineer Examination is 70.00. Petitioner timely requested formal hearing and challenged only Question 120, for which she received no points. Petitioner is trained as a materials engineer. Question 120 is a soils and foundation problem outside her concentrated area of study. It is an open book examination question. Petitioner selected the correct equation from the applicable manual, but acknowledged that she solved the variables of that equation incorrectly. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) produced, distributed, and was responsible for grading the examinations. Petitioner contended that the examiner who graded her answer sheet applied different criteria than the examination criteria published by the NCEES. Petitioner further contended that since one criterion her grader actually used was merely to "write the correct equation," she should be awarded at least one point on that basis. However, a comparison of the actual grader's handwritten "summary" on Petitioner's Solution Pamphlet (Respondent's Exhibit 3) and the NCEES's Solutions and Scoring Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) does not bear out Petitioner's theory. It is clear that out of five possible parts of the question, which five parts total two points' credit each, merely selecting the correct equation from an open text would not amount to two points, or even one point, credit. I accept as more competent, credible and persuasive the testimony of Eugene N. Beauchamps, the current Chairman of the NCEES Examination Policy Committee and a Florida licensed Professional Engineer, that the grader's "summary" describes what he actually reviewed in Petitioner's written solution to Question 120 rather than establishing one or more different grading criteria. In order to receive a score of two on Question 120, the candidate was required to demonstrate any one of five requirements listed in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan for "2-Rudimentary Knowledge." The first requirement in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) for receiving a score of two points is, "Determines effective overburden stress at mid- depth of clay layer." The remaining four NCEES scoring criteria required that the examinee: Computes the change in effective stress at mid- depth of the clay layer due to placement of the fill. Computes the primary consolidation settlement, based on a change in effective stress, due to the fill surcharge. Evaluates the Average Degree of Consolidation and the Time Factor. Determines the waiting period after fill placement recognizing the existence of double-drained conditions. In order to gain two more points (total 4 points) so as to demonstrate "More Than Rudimentary Knowledge But Insufficient to Demonstrate Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have to have met two of the five bulleted criteria. For two more points (total 6 points) for "Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have had to score three bullets. For two more points (total 8 points) for "More than Minimum But Less Than Exceptional Competence," Petitioner would have had to score four bullets. Finally, to attain "Exceptional Competence" for 10 total points, Petitioner would have had to score all five bullets. In the first correct equation for answering Question 120, "p sub zero" (p naught) equals the present effective overburden pressure, which represents what clay was present before anything was put on top of the clay layer. "P" equals the total pressure acting at mid-height of the consolidating clay layer or the pressure of the dirt and the water in the dirt. "H" equals the thickness of the consolidating clay layer. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, "determining the effective overburden stress at mid-depth of clay layer," indicated p sub zero (p naught) as the "present effective overburden pressure," but it incorrectly calculated p sub zero equaling 125 pounds multiplied by 13 feet. This is incorrect because the effective overburden pressure would not include 13 feet of fill. The 13 feet of fill is not part of p sub zero, the present effective overburden pressure. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, also multiplied water, represented by 62.4, by 12, which is incorrect. She should have used a multiplier of 10 to receive credit for this problem. The grader indicated the correct equation was used incorrectly by Petitioner because of the two foregoing incorrect calculations. The equation, as Petitioner stated it, was correct and her multiplication was correct. Her solution identified P sub zero as present effective overburden pressure but present effective overburden pressure would not include the fill. Petitioner had the correct equation for the present effective overburden pressure and her mathematics were correct. However, she did not use the consolidation equation correctly, not obtaining the correct percentage of primary consolidation. As stated, the problem did not consider the fill as part of the present effective overburden pressure. Her solution also contained the correctly written time rate of settlement equation but failed to use it, and no waiting period was determined. The practical result of Petitioner's error could range from a cracked building to a collapsed building, depending upon the degree of error to site and materials.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge and affirming her score as one point below passing. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Wilson 3581 Jose Terrace Jacksonville, Florida 32217 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Rule 62-532.500(2)(d)1., Florida Administrative Code, by failing to seat a well casing in a rock layer or other such consolidated formation, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries. Respondent's duties include the regulation of water wells and water well contractors. Respondent is a water well contractor. As such, he holds Water Well Contractor License No. 2215. On September 25, 1997, Petitioner issued Respondent Well Construction Permit No. 597679.01. The permit gave Petitioner permission to construct a water well, four-inches in diameter, on property owned by Rex Hobbs in Pasco County. Respondent subsequently constructed the water well on the property owned by Mr. Hobbs, using the cable tool construction method. Respondent completed construction of the well on or about October 20, 1997. After the well was constructed, Mr. Hobbs complained to Respondent on several occasions that the well was producing sand, rock, and other debris. Respondent made no attempt to repair the well. In May or June of 1998, Mr. Hobbs filed a complaint with Petitioner regarding the construction of the well on his property. Petitioner's subsequent field investigation did not reveal a significant amount of sediment in the well water. Mr. Hobbs filed a second complaint with Petitioner in the summer of 1998, insisting that the water from his well contained an excess amount of sediment. Petitioner's second field investigation revealed an abnormal amount of sediment in the well water. On July 9, 1998, Petitioner issued a Notice of Violation, advising Respondent that he had violated Rule 40D-3.037(1), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to seat the casing of the Hobbs well into a consolidated formation. Water from the Hobbs well contains sediments including sand, rock, and other debris. These sediments interfere with the operation of plumbing, appliances, and irrigation devices, which utilize water supplied by the well. The quality of the well water produced by the Hobbs water well is unacceptable. The total depth of the Hobbs well is 131 feet below land surface. The well is cased to 42 feet below land surface. The water pump is set at 84 or 86 feet below land surface. The static water level was 58.2 feet below the land surface. The geologic formation at the end of the casing of the well contains gray clay, yellow clay, limerock, and sand. The end of the casing is not seated in a layer of rock or other consolidated formation. There is no persuasive testimony to the contrary. The area in which the well is located is geologically unstable. Wells in that area generally require 84 feet of casing. Respondent admitted at the hearing that the well is producing sand and needs more "pipe." Failure to seat a well casing into a consolidated formation is a major violation under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Water Well Contractor Disciplinary Guidelines and Procedures Manual. Respondent has entered into three previous Consent Orders with Petitioner to resolve permitting and construction violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $500 and assessing five points against his water well contractor's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 18th day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Tony Holt 6145 Durant Road Durant, Florida 33530 E. D. Sonny Vegara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination on April 15, 1988. He received a failing grade with an original score of 41 raw points. Since that time, he has been awarded an additional 3 raw points and has a score of 44 raw points. A passing grade is 48 raw points and is, therefore, 4 raw points from passage. Petitioner contests the score given him on three of the problems on the examination. They are problems 120, 122, and 421. He did not have the test booklet he used at the examination available to him at the hearing. Though he recognizes that the grader who assessed his scores was not allowed to look at his test booklet during the scoring process, many of his calculations for problems 120 and 122 were made in it. Problem 120 requires the examinee to compute 6 stations and the coordinates of the 6 points of the two involved curves on a railroad spur line. Petitioner computed the six points to what he considers an acceptable tolerance and had also started to compute the coordinates as required by Requirement (b). His solution page for Requirement (a) of this problem reflects only the six points, of which 5 are marked incorrectly, and bears the grader comment, "show computations." The second page, relating to Requirement (b), on which the first 3 calculations are marked as incorrect, reflects only cursory calculations and bears the grader comment, "Incomplete." Petitioner was awarded a score of "4" for his solution to problem 120. According to the National Council of Engineering Examiners Standard Scoring Plan Outline, the guideline relating to "4", "BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED", reads: Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so. The scorer's remarks concerning Petitioner's solution state: A solution which fails to demonstrate an adequate understanding of horizontal curve geometry as a result of logic errors, math errors, and failure to complete several parts. According to Petitioner, he used the Civil Engineering Reference Manual in his calculations. He also contends that Requirement (a) is far more important to the problem than is Requirement (b). Once the former is achieved, it is easy to achieve the latter. Admittedly, Petitioner did not complete Requirement (b) and, therefore, does not expect credit for it. However, he contends that having completed Requirement (a) correctly, he should have been awarded more than 40% credit. Petitioner also contends that the use of the term, "Not To Scale" in the test problem was deliberately deceptive which was not necessary to test engineers at this level of achievement. In this case, Petitioner contends the lack of availability of the examination test booklet in which he did many of his calculations hinders him in demonstrating the correctness of his solution. These computations, he contends, would show his computations in Requirement (a) were "close enough" to be graded correctly and without these computations, the scorer would not know if he did them or merely copied the answers. He would not, also, have any way of knowing if Petitioner has knowledge of horizontal curve geometry. Mr. Lippert, a licensed registered engineer testifying on behalf of Petitioner, believed that the answers to the problems to be more important than the computations. In a practical application he may be correct. However, in the instant case Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a Professional Engineer and was being examined on his qualifications for that status. In such a situation, it is not at all unreasonable to expect the candidate to demonstrate his method of arriving at his solution to demonstrate his understanding of the concept sufficiently to indicate his answer was neither copied nor a fluke. Since the candidate is seeking a higher degree of recognition, a requirement that he demonstrate a higher degree of professional skill is not unreasonable. Under the fact situation demonstrated here, the award of a "4" as a grade for Petitioner's solution to this problem is appropriate. In Problem 122, the candidate was required to use and show equations for his calculations of (a), the average maximum and minimum sanitary wastewater flows expected, in gallons per day, for the total complex in issue; (b), the theoretical full flow capacity and velocity with no surcharge; and (c), depth and velocity of flow for the estimated maximum flow rate. The candidate was instructed to conclude, if possible, that the sewer is not overloaded. The problem deals with a troublesome wastewater disposal system for a retirement community of 490 units with a population of 1,475. Here, Petitioner was awarded an a score of "8" and feels he should have received more. As to (a), Petitioner cited in his answer the reference manual he was using, a manual used by many engineers and one accepted in the profession, yet the grader apparently felt that the use of only the title was insufficient. He wanted the author's name, publisher, date of publication, and other salient information. Petitioner felt this was unnecessary in light of the well known status of the book. In (b), the problem calls for 10" UCP pipe. All pipe, depending upon the material from which constructed, has a different diameter. Petitioner's solution was marked at least partially incorrect because he assumed the interior diameter of the pipe as .83' when the problem stated the interior diameter was 10". Petitioner contends that even with that unnecessary calculation based on an incorrect assumption, his solution of 2.295 feet/second velocity was sufficiently close to the grader's solution of 2.35 feet/second to be marked correct. Similarly, Petitioner contends his velocity in (c) was within a "tolerable" margin and that his conclusions is "OK". While the grader considered his method in this section as "OK", he marked the calculation almost entirely wrong. This may be related to the formula used by Petitioner in (b) which, he admits, is wrong. He contends he must have brought the wrong number over from his calculations which he accomplished in his test booklet. This booklet is not now available, but, in any case, would not have been seen by the scorer. Petitioner also claims that the gallons per capita per day figure of 100 is the standard "everyone uses" to calculate problems involving sewage. Here, because he was taking an examination, he used a figure of 112.5 gallons per day, a compromise between 100 and 125, which he took from the reference manual without citing page number from which taken. Consequently, he contends the grader's comment that his figure is too high is in error but even if it was too high, he ran the calculations correctly and should be given full credit. It is his position that in a case like this, error on this high side, which would give greater capacity, is better than being short. Being correct would be even better, and Petitioner's solutions was not correct. In the scoring plan outline for this problem, an "8" is described as: QUALIFIED; All categories satisfied, errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking, Results reasonable though not correct. and a "9" is described as: QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied, correct solutions but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. The scorer's comments were: CQ. Fundamentals are correct. Solutions are basically correct and complete but contain math, unit, or tolerance errors making answers unacceptable; or the record is different, or in combination. Here, Petitioner contends that his ultimate solution, only .05 feet/second off in velocity is so close that the error is insignificant. It is close but the difference between an "8" and a "9" lies in the correctness of the ultimate solutions. "Close" is not "correct" and Petitioner's errors are not attributable to misread equations or devices but to his own improper assumptions. Because his calculations were done in a test booklet which is not now available it cannot be determined where the error originates which caused (c) to be marked as it was. Under the circumstances shown here, the score of "8" awarded is not inappropriate. Problem 421 calls for the candidate to find the required volume in cubic feet of on site storage so that post development flows on the parcel of land in question do not exceed the pre-development flows to the existing stream for the 25 year frequency rainfall. Petitioner determined the pre and post development numbers correctly but did the retention area in the old fashioned way resulting in his solution equating to 1/2 of the correct solution. The grader indicated that Petitioner's "procedures [sic] [were] in error here." Petitioner has a one page solution to the problem and got credit for his answer of "4.22" to the first stage of the problem as well as his answer to the second part. He admits, however, that his third step was wrong and that threw the problem answer off. He contends, however, that he was undergraded when awarded a "4" and while he admits to not deserving a "6", feels he should have received a "5". Grades for this problem were awarded on a 2-4-6-8-10 point scale. A "5" was not an authorized score. The scoring plan for this problem describes a "4" as: BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED; Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so. A grade of "6" is described as: MINIMALLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied at a minimally adequate level. Here the scorer indicated: Pre and post calculation OK. An attempt at detention calculation made but no significant progress toward conclusion. Fails to demonstrate knowledge necessary to calculate detention as existing. Detention calculations fail to demonstrate knowledge of hydrograph [sic] nature of storage calculations. Only one data point obtained. The comments of the grader on the Petitioner's answer sheet clearly indicate that the answer given was incorrect and that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge of the procedures in issue. Since there is no provision made to award any grade between "4" and "6", and since Petitioner's answer clearly, and by his own admission, does not qualify for a "6", the awarded score of "4" is appropriate. Based on the above, it is found that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the scores given him on the problems in issue were incorrect, unsupported, or inappropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered affirming the score awarded to Petitioner on questions 120, 122, and 421, respectively, of the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination administered to him on April 15, 1988. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 4th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard A. Smally Longboat Key, Incorporated 501 Bay Isles Road Longboat Key, Florida 33548 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's application for a Class B waste water treatment plant operator was received by Respondent on September 20, 1991. Ms. Setchfield who is in charge of reviewing and approving and/or denying all applications, reviewed Petitioner's application. Based on the documentary evidence submitted by Petitioner, he was given constructive credit for 58 months and actual credits received was 27.6 months for a total credit time of 85.6 months. To receive credit for educational experience, an applicant must demonstrate that his major area of study is in science or biology. Alternatively, an applicant may receive credit provided he furnish Respondent a transcript which would delineate the areas of his studies he successfully completed and the credits received. However, in such instances, an applicant only receives partial credit. Petitioner has been advised (by Respondent) that if he furnish a copy of his transcript, it will be reviewed and if it demonstrates that he is entitled to credit for courses he successfully completed, he would be awarded such credit. Petitioner steadfastly refuses to provide a transcript to Respondent. To be eligible for certification as a Class B waste water treatment plant operator, an applicant must demonstrate, at minimum, that he/she has the required minimum of 96 months total creditable time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Class B waste water treatment plant operator, as he has failed to satisfy the minimum total time requirement for such certification. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 29th Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. day of May, 1992, in JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 29th day of May, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for licensure as a professional engineer. Petitioner took the licensure examination in October, 1992, and received an overall score of 68.10. The minimum passing score for the exam was 70. The examination used by the Department is a nationally recognized test administered and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The scoring plan utilized by NCEES in this case provided, in pertinent part, that the score of 4 would be given where the applicant's response showed more than rudimentary knowledge but was insufficient to demonstrate competence. Petitioner received the score of 4 on problem #120 and felt his answer should have received a higher grade. To receive a score of 6 on problem #120, Petitioner's solution would have shown minimum competence by indicating the required volume of solids taken as the required volume of fill with all other analysis and computations being correct. According to the scoring plan, only "modest" errors in cost analysis or volume analysis computations are permitted to receive a grade of 6. Petitioner admitted that his calculation of volume on problem #120 was incorrect, but felt that since the error was only 10-15 percent, such error was reasonable given that he had correctly analyzed the majority of the problem. Petitioner's calculations for problem #120 were approximately 5900 cubic yards from the correct answer. Since Petitioner's volume calculations were incorrect, no credit was given for the cost analysis. Petitioner's error was not a "modest" miscalculation as set forth by the scoring plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the professional engineer examination administered in October, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. 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 19th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2652 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraph a) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph b) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph c) is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph d) is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ali Khalilahmadi 12755 S.W. 60 Lane Miami, Florida 33183 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
The Issue Whether Petitioner should receive a passing score on the retake of the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter, and whether Petitioner should be required to retake the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter without repeating the Minimum Standards Course.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Tamara Lynn Rose (Rose), applied for certification as a firefighter on January 21, 1997. She completed a training course at the Broward Fire Academy. Rose took the initial Minimum Standards Examination for Firefighters in August 1997. She passed the written part of the examination, but failed the practical portion. On October 13, 1997, she retook the practical portion of the examination. The only portion of the examination results which Rose contests is the score received for the 1 3/4" Hose and Nozzle Operation of Part I of the examination. The hose and nozzle operation is a timed event. The hose advance exercise should be completed within two minutes. If the applicant takes over five minutes to finish the operation, 40 points are deducted from the applicant's score. In order to pass the practical examination, the applicant must score 70 percent or better on the examination. Rose took five minutes and thirty-six seconds to complete the hose and nozzle operation portion of the examination, resulting in a forty-point deduction and an automatic failure of the examination. The hose and nozzle portion of the examination consists of the applicant shouldering the hose load, advancing to the rear of the fire truck, making a u-turn and looping the hose, advancing to the front of the fire truck, bleeding the lines, advancing 100 feet, and knocking down three cones with the water coming from the nozzle. Rose had difficulty in getting the load out of the bed of the truck. The hose became tangled, and she had to stop and straighten out the hose. She walked to the front of the truck and began her hose drag, but the drag was slow and hard because the hose had caught on one of the truck's tires. She pulled the hose free. Because of the tangling of the hose and the hose catching on the tire, Rose lost too much time to be able to complete the hose and nozzle operation in a timely manner. The hose is loaded on the truck by students who are taking the examination. The loading is supervised by instructors who are certified firefighters. It is the responsibility of these instructors to correct any improper loading. The field representative from the State Fire Marshall's Office at the retest was Phillip Bagley. After retiring with 24 years with the Tampa Fire Department, Mr. Bagley began working for the State Fire Marshall in 1996. He has administered between 900 and 1,000 tests. He did not see any problem with the way that the hose was loaded on the truck. In his experience it is not uncommon for the hoses to become tangled, usually resulting from a failure of the applicant to get enough of the hose on the his shoulder causing the load to pull loose when the applicant steps down from the truck. The applicants are given an opportunity to inspect the hoses prior to beginning the examination. Prior to the examination being administered, the applicants are given an orientation and are advised that they should report immediately to the examiners any malfunction. At the time of the examination, Rose did not report to Mr. Bagley that the hose was improperly loaded. Rose also received a five-point deduction because she failed to form a loop during the hose advance portion of the examination. Rose is not contesting the five points that were deducted for failing to tie the safety knot during the 24-foot ladder extension portion of the examination or the five points that were deducted for not having her chin strap under her chin during the donning of the protective gear portion of the examination. Her total score for the retest was 50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Rose's application for certification as a firefighter and requiring her to repeat the Minimum Standards Course prior to retaking the Minimum Standards Certification Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Karuna P. Rao, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 33314 Tamara Lynn Rose, pro se 4051 Southwest 72 Terrace Davie, Florida 33314
