The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Pinellas County School Board can cancel Respondents' Professional Service Contracts and terminate their employment due to their failure to meet certification requirements.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Pinellas County School Board, (Board), was the agency responsible for the provision of public education from preschool through primary and secondary schooling to vocational and adult technical courses in Pinellas County. Respondent Edwards has taught agricultural subjects including horticultural service, animal service and small and large animal services, among other courses she has taught at Tarpon Springs High School since July, 1990. Respondent Corbin, Edwards' brother, has taught at Countryside High School since 1989 in the fields of horticulture, small and large animal service, and practical skills agriculture for grades 9 - 12. Neither Respondent Edwards or Respondent Corbin has a Bachelor's degree in agriculture or in any other field. Edwards has an Associate of Science degree in veterinary technology and has taken courses in agricultural education for certification at the University of Florida as well as 20 credit hours at the University of South Florida in a course in technical vocational training programs she was required to take. She was certified by the State Department of Education in horticultural science and agricultural production in 1992. Respondent Corbin has between 30 and 40 college credit hours. About 2 years after starting work, when he finished the beginning teacher program and the required technical vocational training courses, he was certified by the state to teach horticulture and agricultural production. This allowed him to teach students in grades 9 - 12, and at the adult technical/vocational level. According to Dr. Brown, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, sometime prior to March, 1995 it was reported to him that the School Board had two teachers in the agricultural program who were not properly certified. These teachers are the Respondents herein. By state law, the Respondents are not properly certified at the 9 - 12 grade level, but they can teach at the vocational/technical level. Under the provisions of Department of Education Rule 6A-4.054, teachers must hold a bachelor's degree in agriculture or a master's degree with an undergraduate major in agriculture in order to be certified to teach that subject at the 9 - 12 grade level. Neither Respondent has that qualification. When Dr. Brown found out about the problem, he consulted with his staff and then informed the Superintendent of the situation. Dr. Brown also contacted the State Board of Education to see if these Respondents could stay in their current positions. The response received from the State Board of Education indicated the teachers could be considered "out of field" teachers, in accordance with Rule 6A-1.0503, F.A.C., but would need to take a minimum of 6 semester hours of college credit each year to obtain a bachelor's degree in agriculture. After receiving that information, Dr. Brown met with both Respondents and advised them of the situation and what they had to do. At that time the indication he received from them was that they would not consider going to school for 6 credits each year because, as they indicated, this was not their fault. According to Dr. Brown, neither Respondent had taken the required courses this year, and it is his position that though they may be retained as teachers, they cannot be offered a Personal Services Contract unless they do. All that would be available to them would be a year to year appointment. It is quite evident that the 1989 change to the certification rule which creates the problem in this case, that of requiring a teacher in the field of agriculture to have a degree in that area, was not widely publicized, and even high ranking members of the Board staff in Pinellas County were not actively aware of its existence for several years after it was promulgated. Of the two Respondents, Mr. Corbin was hired prior to 1989, and Respondent Edwards was hired after 1989. Both were offered and received Personal Service Contracts after the rule was changed and, in fact, notwithstanding the Board's letter of March 13, 1995, indicating the intention to remove the Personal Service Contract of each, by letter dated in April, 1995, each Respondent was advised of the issuance of a Personal Service Contract for the 1995-1996 school year. This creates a problem for the Board in that, under Florida law, if a program is not properly staffed with properly certified instructors, the state funding for that program can be reduced, and this could, in this case, amount to a substantial amount of money lost to the Board. Dr. Brown considers both Respondents to be excellent teachers whom the Board would like to keep, and he would like to see them participate in the program which would allow them to remain as certified teachers by taking the 6 credit continuing education courses per year. This would be difficult for both Respondents, however. First, the courses to be taken must be approved by the Board as leading to a degree in the teacher's area of expertise. In this regard, Dr. Brown does not know if any of the courses that would qualify for the Respondents are available within a 100 mile radius of Pinellas County. By the same token, he also does not know if the Board would provide financial or time help to the Respondents in the event the courses were available. Another possibility would be for the Respondents to take courses at the University of Florida on Friday nights and Saturdays over a period of time, or during the summer. In that regard, however, Respondent Edwards' inquiry of the University clearly indicates it is not easy to get the required courses at the time when they are needed and Respondents are available. Someone trying to work toward a degree on such a part time basis could take an unreasonably extended period of time to get all the core and prerequisite courses to those which lead toward the degree in the specialty. Notwithstanding this, Dr. Ross is not aware of any instance where the Board has ever waived the requirement for courses because courses were not available locally. The current situation came as a great surprise, specifically to Mr. Corbin. In March, 1992, he was called in by his Vice-Principal, Mr. Moore, and told he was unqualified to teach horticulture. At that same time, however, he was advised as to what he had to do to come up to certification standards, and he took the required courses. As he understood it, that was all that was necessary. With the courses he took at this point, and all the TVT courses he had taken previously, he believed he was in good standing to receive his Personal Services Contract which, in fact, he did receive in April, 1994. However, he first learned of the instant crisis on March 13, 1995 by a copy of a letter to his Principal from Dr. Brown advising that Mr. Corbin's Personal Service Contract was being cancelled. There was no explanation and no reason given then, and Mr. Corbin got no answer to his questions as to the reason for this action. As a result, he sought the assistance of the union. Approximately 7 to 10 days after receipt of the letter, Mr. Corbin was advised by Dr. Brown that his only alternative, if he wanted to continue teaching at Countryside, was to take the courses that would be required for an "out of field" teacher. At this point, Mr. Corbin inquired about the availability of courses and found that a Bachelor's degree in Agricultural Science is available only at the University of Florida. There are no courses offered locally that would help him. He did not, however, check with the University of Florida to see what the availability of the courses was there. Mr. Corbin works from 6:45 AM to 3:00 PM each day at school. He also has a personal lawn maintenance business and he does a lot of extra volunteer work for the school helping out at school fairs, banquets and other similar functions. He has taught summer school off and on. He claims that if he had been aware of the change in the requirements in 1990 when they first went into effect, he would have chosen another career instead of staying with agriculture. He asserts he might well have gone on to get his undergraduate degree and a law degree, but at this time it is too late for that. Mr. Corbin realizes that if he wishes to continue his Personal Service Contract he must take the required courses as an "out of field" teacher. Otherwise he would be no more than an "appointee" to his position on a year to year basis. This would be a very tenuous and stressful position to be in. Such a person serves at the pleasure of the Principal, and Mr. Corbin does not want to be in that situation. However, even though he checked on the local availability of courses and found there were none to help him, he did not check what courses were available at the University of Florida, and he asserts at this time that if any were available he could take during the summers, he would do this. Ms. Edwards first learned of the certification problem when she was advised by an official at the School Board that in order to teach animal science for grades 9 - 12 she had to take a course at Seminole Education Center. She was also told that she would be teaching "out of field", and in order to continue with a Personal Services Contract "out of field" she had to take the additional 6 credit hours per year. She was not aware of the implementation of the 1989 rule change which requires the bachelor's degree. Had she known at any time up until March, 1995 when she first learned of it, she claims she probably would have worked toward a Bachelor of Science degree so she could teach in veterinary technology. The requirements for this would be 120 more hours which she could get only at the University of Florida. The credit hours she earned working toward her Associate degree will not transfer. After Ms. Edwards received the March 13, 1995 letter, she inquired and found she could not get the 6 credit hours she needed for this year before the end of the school year. The advisor at the University of Florida gave her a list of courses she could possibly take locally, but she was given no guarantee they would be transferable toward a degree program. Ms. Edwards is currently enrolled in a 3 hour math course but does not know if it will go toward certification. She contends Dr. Brown did not tell her anything about teaching without a contract, but she would not agree to doing that as an appointee. She feels it would be tenuous and she wants the security of a contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT the Pinellas County School Board terminate the professional services contracts of the Respondents, Deborah Edwards and Richard Corbin. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1995, in 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 24th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. & 18. Accepted but not relevant to any issue herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant to any issue herein as a Finding of Fact. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: 1. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County Schools P.O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Marguerite Longoria Robinson, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue Suite 301 P.O. Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street S.W. P.O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a psychologist by the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact On February 6, 1995, the Petitioner filed an application for licensure by examination as a psychologist in the State of Florida. During its regular meeting of February 9-11, 1995, the Respondent considered and rejected the Petitioner's application. By letter dated February 13, 1995, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that his application had been denied. On May 11, 1995, the Respondent filed a Notice of Intent to Deny the application. The Notice appears to have been signed on April 20, 1995. The Notice of Intent identifies the basis for the denial as follows: In voting to deny the application, the Board found that the applicant's program did not require coursework in biological bases of behavior, cognitive-affective bases of behavior, or statistics. Moreover, the program did not require an internship that met the requirements of Rule 59AA-11.0061(3)(j), F.A.C. Prior to commencement of the hearing, the parties resolved the issue related to coursework in the Petitioner's favor. The issue remaining for hearing is whether the Petitioner's educational program required an internship that met the requirements of the cited rule. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner has 1660 of acceptable pre-doctoral internship hours. The Petitioner has also submitted 2340 hours of post-doctoral supervised experience. Post-doctoral experience may be used to augment pre-doctoral hours if the post-doctoral experience meets the requirements of Rule 59AA-11.003(30(j), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence fails to establish that any of the 2340 hours meet the requirements set forth for pre-doctoral experience. The evidence is insufficient to establish that, beyond those hours to which the parties have agreed, any of the Petitioner's remaining internship/experience hours meet the applicable requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Psychological Examiners, enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a psychologist in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Kaye Howerton Executive Director Board of Psychological Examiners Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jerome Hoffman General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert Jacobs, Pro Se 1114 Evening Trail Drive Wesley Chapel, Florida 33543 Allen R. Grossman Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed as a psychologist in Argentina, where she was educated. She attended the University of Buenos Aires completing a six-year program in four years. Petitioner received a degree in psychology from the University of Buenos Aires on December 23, 1977, but did not receive her diploma from that institution until June of 1979. She became licensed as a psychologist by the Ministry of Health in 1979. Upon her graduation from the University of Buenos Aires, Petitioner began to practice psychology in Argentina. She worked in a hospital from 1979 to 1983. Petitioner describes this period of work as her "internship." She also worked in a drug abuse program, which she also describes as an "internship." During these work experiences, Petitioner supervised other personnel. During the same period of time, specifically from 1980 to 1982, Petitioner also engaged in private practice. In 1981 Petitioner enrolled in the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, where she took a number of courses and wrote a paper which she presented to the faculty there. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree-granting institution. Upon completion of the four year program, only a certificate is issued. Petitioner did not produce a transcript from the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates as part of her application for licensure in Florida. She submitted only a syllabus, i.e., a listing of the names of the courses she took at that institution. A syllabus, however, is not a transcript. Subsequently, Petitioner moved to the state of Michigan where she applied for licensure as a psychologist at the master's degree level. Based upon her education and training, she received a limited license to practice psychology in 1989. Michigan recognizes master's degree level psychologists. In Florida, however, master's degree level applicants are not eligible for licensure as psychologists. In 1991 Petitioner was interviewed by the licensure board in Michigan. Subsequent to that interview, Michigan granted her full licensure to practice as a psychologist in that state. In granting Petitioner full licensure, the Michigan licensing board deemed that her education and training were equivalent to education and training at the doctorate level even though between 1989 and 1991, Petitioner had not added to her education credentials. She had merely obtained additional supervised experience. At some point, Petitioner took and passed the Michigan examination for licensure. The Michigan examination is not the same as the examination for licensure developed by Professional Examination Services. Petitioner has never taken the national examination required for licensure in Florida. In 1993, Petitioner applied for licensure as a psychologist in Florida. She maintains that Michigan's determination that her education and training are equivalent to a doctorate level education should be sufficient to qualify her for Florida licensure as well. She admits, however, that she does not have a Ph.D. She also admits that there is "a huge difference" between the training in Argentina and the training in the United States. As part of her application process and in order to demonstrate to Respondent her qualifications for licensure in Florida, Petitioner submitted her education and training credentials to two foreign education credentialing services. One of those services determined that Petitioner has the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from an institution in the United States that has regional academic accreditation, plus completion of four years of advanced theoretical and clinical training. The other service found that Petitioner has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in psychology. The second credentialing service was unable to evaluate Petitioner's studies at the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates because that institution is not recognized as a degree-granting institution of higher education. Neither of those evaluations could verify that Petitioner possesses the equivalent of a doctorate degree as a result of her training and education in Argentina. In 1992, the University of Buenos Aires created a Ph.D. program in psychology; however, that program did not exist at the time that Petitioner attended that institution. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree granting institution and does not offer a doctorate program in psychology. At the time that Petitioner chose to attend the University of Buenos Aires and the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, it was possible to obtain a Ph.D. in psychology in Argentina, but Petitioner chose not to pursue that course of study. Based upon Petitioner's advanced education beyond her bachelor's degree, she has the educational equivalent of a master's level degree without the thesis generally required to obtain such a degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist either by endorsement or by examination. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-4675 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 20- 22, 24, 28 and 46 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 10 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 13-17, 19, 39, 41- 43, 47, and 50-54 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 8, 12, 18, 25-27, 34- 38, 40 and 49 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 23, 29-33, 44, 45, and 48 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10, 12 and 15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 11, 13 and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank P. Rainer, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virginia Daire, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dr. Kay Howerton, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Psychology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a duly-licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida having been issued License No. PE0035663. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with interpreting, enforcing, and regulating concerning the licensure and professional practice standards for professional engineers in the State of Florida embodied in Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. The Respondent practices engineering as Dr. S.K. Nayak & Associates, Regulatory, Environmental and Civil Engineering Consultants. That engineering firm is not licensed as a professional engineering firm in the State of Florida. On September 20, 1988, the permit to the JNC by the Department for its domestic waste-water treatment and disposal system expired. Thereafter, on June 16, 1989, an application to operate such a system was submitted to the Department by Mr. Cordes on behalf of the JNC. The Respondent was the professional engineer of record depicted on that application. On or about July 14, 1989, the Department issued a notice of permit denial concerning that application and cited six deficiencies as the basis for the denial. The notice of permit denial identified the JNC's reclaimed water distribution system as not being designed in accordance with sound engineering principles and practices, as delineated in Rule 17-6.070(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and the design as not being provided in the manner required by Rule 17-610.414, Florida Administrative Code. The permit applicant was thus advised by the notice of permit denial that some modifications for the water distribution and storage system would have to be undertaken and completed in order for permitting to be effected. Thereafter, on or about January 30, 1990, the Respondent submitted a design statement for a reclaimed water disposal system to the Department. The design must conform to certain criteria enunciated in Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. The design for such a system must be accompanied with an engineering report to document geohydrological conditions at the site and to document that a ground water mounding analysis has been performed for the percolation pond systems, in order to verify that the systems will perform satisfactorily under the pertinent provisions of Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. The Department considered the design submitted by the Respondent to constitute the necessary design for the application for a new operating permit for the JNC. Expert witness Bryant Marshall's testimony establishes clearly that the creation of the design and its submittal to the Department constitutes a specific type of engineering practice and moreover that that sort of design requires a specific type of geotechnical and geohydrological engineering experience. Upon reviewing the design statement submitted by the Respondent, the Department advised Mr. Cordes of numerous items of incompleteness which would need to be addressed before an evaluation of the proposal, including design, could be performed. Mr. Cordes was informed of this by letter from the Department of February 23, 1990, which was copied to the Respondent. See, Exhibit B in evidence. Upon reviewing the design submitted, the Department determined that, because of the limited data and analyses and absence of calculations in that design document, that the Respondent had not demonstrated that he was qualified to perform such geotechnical and hydrogeological engineering, with pertinent calculations and depictions as was required for a project such as that proposed, nor had that type of required engineering work been done. Ultimately, therefore, it filed a complaint against the licensure of the Respondent with the Petitioner licensing agency. On April 9, 1990, the Respondent submitted a signed and sealed withdrawal of the design statement previously submitted to the Department. The Respondent contends that he never intended that the design statement originally submitted should constitute the final "as built" design for the water reclamation facility involved. Rather, he contends that it was intended by the Department, by himself, and by his client to be merely a preliminary or suggested design solely for purposes of negotiation concerning the permit denial and an attempt to work out a satisfactory arrangement with the Department in terms of the Department's conditions and requirements for design and construction, so that the proposed facility could be permitted. The Respondent contends that that was not the practice of engineering but, rather, submittal of a preliminary design statement which he claims the Department required of him. He thus submitted the design statement with the full understanding that it was not intended by him, or by the Department for that matter, to be a feasible final proposal or design and knowing that it was not up to standard or intended to be and knowing that it did not comply with certain applicable rules and regulations, he did not sign or seal it. Mr. Marshall, the expert witness put forward by the Petitioner, opined that the submission of substandard work, merely because another party has requested it for negotiating purposes, or for whatever reason, still is not acceptable practice for a licensed professional engineer. Merely because one is of the intent and opinion that submittal of the work will not be the final work product, by which the facility in question is to be built, is no excuse for not complying with proper standards of professional engineering practice. The Respondent's soil and ground water data was shown by Mr. Marshall to be inadequate because it did not provide for the necessary calculations which could indicate whether the performance of the system will actually meet the design criteria, given the geotechnical soil and hydrogeological conditions prevailing at the site, which were not adequately allowed for by their entry into proper calculations which should have been performed by the Respondent. The Respondent's professional history moreover does not reflect adequate geotechnical or hydrogeological experience and training necessary for a project such as the JNC at issue. It has been established by Mr. Marshall's testimony, which is adopted, that standards of practice were not followed because an appropriate subsurface exploration geotechnical investigation, laboratory soil testing, engineering analysis, and ground water mounding analysis was not performed. Even if the Respondent had adequate training in geotechnical and hydrogeological engineering, he promulgated a deficient engineering document in terms of this design, regardless of whether or not it was signed or sealed, because it constituted the practice of professional engineering and yet he failed to perform and to indicate on his design that the geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations required for such work had been performed. The document was based only on a review of available published information regarding surficial and sub-surficial soil conditions. No test borings were done in accordance with standard practice. The percolation testing performed by the Respondent was shown by Mr. Marshall to be inadequate under the circumstances of the project for which design was being considered. The proper geotechnical exploration, in keeping with standard engineering practice, would require the use of soil test borings to depths of 20 to 30 or perhaps 40 feet below ground surface. This would be necessary to properly characterize the aquifer and subsurface conditions and to evaluate the properties of the soil within that zone to determine what the actual hydraulic characteristics of the subsurface profiles would be. It would then be necessary to perform laboratory permeability testing on the soil samples from the various depths so as to properly characterize the aquifer performance or predicted aquifer performance for the entire depth zone to those significant depths. Just the top 18 or 20 inches of soil is not an adequate investigation. Further, the Respondent provided no documentation for his conclusions regarding established ground water movement, established surface water flow, and confirmed ground water table elevations. According to Mr. Marshall, it is safe to assume that surface water flow might be to the southeast given the site's topography and the fact that the ground slopes downward toward the southeast and generally toward the east, as well. However, the Respondent provided no documentation of any test borings or other site-specific geotechnical investigation work done to verify anything about the direction of ground water flow nor the ground water table elevation. Apparently the Respondent relied upon general information contained in a soil survey of Jefferson County but did not do site-specific investigatory work, in keeping with standard engineering practice, which would allow him to make those types of conclusions in a legitimate fashion. Mr. Marshall thus opined and established that the submission of the work by the Respondent was substandard work and that it is not justifiable engineering practice to submit such substandard engineering work, even if it is done at the request of another party with an understanding between the engineer and the other party and the client that this work is merely to be a preliminary design for purposes of negotiation between the regulator and the client. It is also no excuse for such substandard engineering practice that the Respondent submitted it without it being signed or sealed in his capacity as an engineer. The lack of the signing or sealing does not render it immune from having to comport with standard, acceptable engineering practice. Accordingly, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering in these particulars, with regard to his participation and design concerning the JNC project. Because the Respondent intended that this be a preliminary submittal, solely for the purposes of negotiation between himself, his client, and the regulatory agency and did not intend that it be a final design to be built in an attempt to comply with regulatory requirements, he has not been shown to have intentionally committed misconduct in the practice of engineering.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Professional Engineers finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, to the extent that he is guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering and that he be issued a reprimand and that his licensure be placed in probationary status for a period of one year with reasonable terms to be decided by the Board, including the requirement of continuing professional education in the area of compliance with appropriate professional practice standards. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-7994 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted, to the extent they are consistent with the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer and otherwise as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence; to some extent, irrelevant; and to some extent, as being legal conclusions and not proposed findings of fact. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence, as constituting an incorrect conclusion of law, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 4-5. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence in its entirety, as constituting argument rather than a proposed finding of fact, and being an incorrect conclusion of law. 6. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence in its entirety, as constituting argument rather than a proposed finding of fact, as being an incorrect conclusion of law, and to some extent, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Cammarata, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Shrinivas K. Nayak 3512 Shirley Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack McRay, Esq. 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, FL 32399-0755
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has 13 semester hours of science credits in college. She is also certified with the American Society of Clinical Pathologists. Petitioner's sole contention is that her certification is the equivalent of the seven remaining semester hours of academic instruction she needs to reach the 20 hours of science courses required for licensure by Rule 10D-49.68, Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether John Morse is entitled to licensure as a geologist under the provisions of section 492.105, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact John G. Morse graduated from Ohio State University in 1966 with a B. S. degree in physics. He later attended the University of Arizona, and in 1976 was awarded a M. S. degree with a major in hydrology. Morse's degree was obtained from the University's College of Earth Sciences, which unlike many similar institutions, has a separate Department of Hydrology, focussing on fluids, and a Department of Geology, focussing on minerals. The courses which Morse presents for the educational requirements for a geologist license are as follows (all from the University of Arizona): Course Title Hours Physical Geology 3 Hydrology 3 Dynamics of Flow Systems of the Earth (A & B) 6 Hydrogeology 3 Geomathematics 3 Aquifer Mechanics 3 Advanced Topics in Hydrology 3 Advanced Topics in Hydrology 3 Analysis of Hydrologic Systems 3 30 All, with the possible exception of physical geology, were upper division courses and all were successfully completed by Morse. All of the courses, with the exception of physical geology and geomathematics, were offered in the Department of Hydrology. The hydrology courses, comprising Morse's primary area of concentration, involve the study of the movement of fluids through the earth, in the earth and on the surface of the earth. Since graduation, Morse has engaged in responsible, professional work related to hydrology and hydrogeology, including work in Carlsbad, New Mexico, related to nuclear waste storage. Since July 1988, he has been employed in Florida by Jammal and Associates, an engineering firm in Winter Park. As Senior Hydrogeologist he is responsible for directing and conducting geoenvironmental studies. Morse contends that most geologists in Florida are engaged in the area of water supply development and contamination assessment and that there is substantial overlap and cross-over between geologists and groundwater hydrologists. The Florida Legislature created the Board of Professional Geologists within the Department of Professional Regulation in 1987. Morse filed his application in May 1988, well within the one-year deadline for non-examination licensure. The Board denied his application on September 13, 1988, citing the provisions of subsection 492.105 (1)(d) 1. and 2., Florida Statutes. The application committee identified only two geology courses in Morse's academic transcript: physical geology and geomathematics, a 6-hour total. Dr. Anthony Randazzo is chair of the application committee. He is also a professor and chair of the University of Florida's Department of Geology, which department also includes courses in hydrology. Two applicants, other than Morse, with degrees in hydrology from the University of Arizona, were granted licensure as geologists because they had sufficient geology courses in addition to their hydrology courses. Hydrology is an important field related to geology but it is not the discipline itself. A hydrologist might be aware of the dynamics of flow systems, but a professional would need some knowledge of the nature of the rocks through which the fluid flows in order to seal work as a geologist. The University of Arizona makes a specific distinction between geology and hydrology. The University of Florida includes hydrogeology courses in its Geology Department curricula, but basic geology courses: physical geology, paleontology, field camp, minerology, and the like, are required for a degree in geology.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure as a geologist in the State of Florida be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 8th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Joaquin Fraxedas, Esquire Two South Orange Plaza Orlando, Florida 32801 Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Kenneth D. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue presented is whether Mr. Lord should be granted additional credit for his answer to question number 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lord (Candidate #301402) received a score of 66.3 percent on the April 20, 1991, Principals and Practice portion of the Professional Engineer examination. A minimum passing score was 70.0 percent. Mr. Lord challenged the scoring of his response to question number 144. Question number 144 is an essay question involving an assembly line problem where four separate stations are used to assemble a product in sequence. A fifth station can assist in maximizing the number of finished products produced per hour, and is capable of performing all operations. The correct answer to question number 144 was 100 products per hour, while Mr. Lord's answer was 25 pieces per hour. Petitioner received a score of 2 (out of a possible 10) points on question number 144. This was based on the scoring plan developed for the exam by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Mr. Lord used a method of averaging station assembly times to determine the maximum average number of products each station could produce. The averaging method gave a solution which did not identify the central issue presented by the essay question: identifying and eliminating the bottlenecks in production. Mr. Lord also made an assumption that the initial four stations could do all operations, thus defining the model inaccurately. This misreading allowed Mr. Lord to use an averaging methodology. Mr. Granata, the Department's expert, testified that it is a coincidence of the numbers that if you multiply Respondent's answer (25) by four (the initial number of machines) you get the Board's answer (100). Mr. Greenbaum, Petitioner's expert witness, testified that Petitioner's answer is "unique" and that he, as an expert, would have answered the question using a methodology similar to the one developed by the Department's expert, Mr. Granata, and by the NCEE (National Council of Examiners for Engineering).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the challenge to the grading of Mr. Lord's response to question 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 14th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Curtis Lord 1416A Old Lystra Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for answers to two questions on the geology examination Petitioner took in August 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the geology examination given on August 16, 1996. Respondent administered the examination. Petitioner must pass both parts of the examination with a score of 70 to be licensed as a professional geologist. Petitioner earned a score of 85 on the portion of the examination pertaining to rules and regulations. However, Petitioner earned a score of 69.6 on that portion of the examination pertaining to geology. Credit for an answer to one additional question would result in a score of 70 on the geology portion of the examination. Alternatively, disqualification of two of the questions for which Petitioner did not receive credit would result in a passing score. Petitioner challenges questions 18 and 90 on the examination. He challenges the grade given to him for an incorrect answer as well as the grade given to other candidates for a correct answer. Question 18 asks the candidate to identify the best method for testing well-casing integrity. Well-casing integrity addresses breaks, ruptures, and holes in the well casing. Respondent determined the correct answer to Question 18 to be D. Answer D is a televiewer log. Petitioner answered B. Answer B is a caliper. The correct response is answer D. Answer D provides a more complete determination of the well casing integrity than does the answer chosen by Petitioner. Question 18 is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer correctly. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge reasonably expected of a candidate for licensure. Question 90 asks the candidate for the best method of providing permeability for the largest volume. It does not specify the conditions for performing the test because the candidate does not need to know the conditions in order to answer the question. Respondent determined the correct response to be answer B. Petitioner selected answer D. The correct response is answer B. Answer B provides a more complete answer. Question 90 is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer correctly. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge reasonably expected of a candidate for licensure.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge to questions 18 and 90. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Rimes, Executive Director Board of Geologists Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jeffrey James Tarr, pro se 3151 State Road 21 Middleburg, Florida 33068
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for the Principles and Practice Examination has met the requirements set forth in Subsection 471.013(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.002(1)(b).
Findings Of Fact On or about April 27, 2006, Petitioner filed an application (Application) with the Board seeking to take the Principles and Practice Examination for professional engineers. Petitioner is not licensed in any other state as a professional engineer. Petitioner is a resident of Florida, who is of good moral character, and completed his bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from Ohio State University in December 1999. On August 5, 2006, Petitioner was awarded the degree of Master's of Science in Electrical Engineering from UCF. Petitioner is seeking to take the Florida Professional Engineering Examination in the area of electrical engineering. Section 7 of the Application for the Licensure by Examination directs the Applicant to do the following: List, in order, all employment experience. A minimum of four years experience must be evidenced at time of submitting your application. All engineering experience after graduation or prior to graduation shall be verified by professional or practicing engineers. Non- engineering experience or periods of unemployment shall be listed, but is not required to be verified. List employment beginning with earliest experience. Refer to attached copy of Rule 61G15-20.002. Column # 1 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to identify the Experience Number. Column # 2 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Dates of Employment, Month, Day, and Year. Column # 3 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Title of Position, Names and complete address of the firm and immediate supervisor. Column # 4 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to list Total Time in # of Months in Professional (Engineering Related) and Non-Professional (Non-Engineering Related) work. Column # 5 of Section 7 directs the Applicant to provide the following: Details pertaining to nature of work. Distinguish clearly between professional and non- professional duties and responsibilities. For each employment, describe explicitly, but concisely, the work you did and one engineering decision you were required to make. Attach exhibits as necessary. Refer to definitions in Section 471.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15, Florida Administrative Code, when defining work, see attached copy of rule. All experience, whether or not engineering, shall be accounted for on this application. (Emphasis in Original) Petitioner listed four separate professional experiences under Section 7. From August 1, 1995, to March 1, 2000, Petitioner served as a research assistant in the Electroscience Laboratory at the Ohio State University, while studying for his degree in electrical engineering. Petitioner assisted Ph.D. researchers to investigate electrical phenomena built electrical research devices, in a laboratory setting. From March 1, 2000, to March 1, 2001, Petitioner was employed as an electrical engineer for Weldon Technologies in Columbus, Ohio, where he worked on design, construction and manufacture of electrical systems for integration onto mobile devices. Petitioner worked on designs for digital systems, multiplying systems, vehicle systems, mobile vehicle response systems, emergency vehicles, and airplane/aerospace powered supply designs. From March 1, 2001, to December 1, 2001, Petitioner was employed as an electrical engineer for National Technical Systems in Foxborough, Massachusetts, where he worked to design, construct and perform electrical testing for domestic and international certification requirements and compliance verification. From December 1, 2001, to the present, Petitioner has been employed as an electrical engineer for the Harris Corporation in Palm Bay, Florida, where he works to design and analyze electrical systems for performance and qualification verification on aircraft, mobile vehicles, and space communication systems. Although staff had recommended that Petitioner's application be approved, Petitioner understood that the Board had to hear and approve the application. Petitioner completed the application form himself and felt that he had fulfilled all of the requirements set forth in the Application, including those contained in Column 5 of Section 7. Although Petitioner testified as to the details of the nature of the work he did at each of his employments after graduation, Petitioner failed to describe explicitly the work he did as required in Section 7, Column 5. Petitioner was required to describe explicitly, but concisely, one engineering decision he was required to make during the course of his employment. Petitioner failed to do so on his application or at the formal hearing. Petitioner has failed to show that he has met the requirements, set for in the Florida Statutes and in the Florida Administrative Code Rules, that he is entitled to sit for the Principles and Practice Examination for Professional Engineers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying the application of Petitioner, Larry Freeman, for application for the Principles and Practice Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2007, 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 23rd day of February, 2007.
