Findings Of Fact Petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate for the January, 1989, alarm systems contractors' I examination (the "examination"). The examination was multiple choice, and a minimum score of 75 was required to pass the examination. After reevaluation, Petitioner received a grade of 74 on the examination. Petitioner challenged question 70 at the formal hearing. Credit for a correct answer to question 70 would result in Petitioner receiving a passing grade on the examination. Question number 70 contained four possible answers. Pursuant to the Candidate Information Booklet, only one answer was correct. The Candidate Information Booklet advised Petitioner that the questions were designed so that a person with "the necessary background knowledge of electrical contracting will find it easy to select the correct answer." Finally, the References for State of Florida Alarm System Contractor I stated that "Some of the questions will be based on field experience and knowledge of trade practices. . ." Question 70 was one of three questions which referred to a single diagram. The diagram contained eight items. Four of those items were labeled and four were not labeled. The labeled items were: a "Battery"; a closed "Contact"; an open "Switch"; and a "Re1ay" The items that were not labeled were: two horizontally parallel lines; a vertical coil; and an open contact.1/ The two questions not challenged by Petitioner referred to the labeled closed "Contact" and the "Battery". The text of question 70 referred to "the relay" (sic). The text of question 70 asked whether "the relay" was: (a) normally open; (b) normally closed; (c) de-energized; or (d) normally open and de- energized. Petitioner selected (c) as the correct answer. Respondent considered (d) to be the correct answer. The uncontroverted evidence established that "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de- energized. The only disputed issue of fact was whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was normally open. The uncontroverted evidence further established that the essential parts of a relay include a coil, one normally open contact, and one normally closed contact. A contact may be normally open or normally closed depending on the design of the alarm system. The normal state of a contact is its de- energized state. The language in question 70 was misleading and ambiguous based on the evidence in this proceeding. Question 70 asked whether "the relay" was normally open or normally closed, not whether a given contact was normally open or normally closed. The evidence established that a "contact" is either normally open or normally closed. No evidence established that a "relay" may be normally open or normally closed. The diagram was misleading and ambiguous to the extent it applied to question 70. The diagram contained the essential parts of a relay, i.e., a coil, one normally open contact, and one normally closed contact. The coil and labeled closed "Contact" were connected in a circuit with the items shown as the "Battery" and the "Switch". The un-labeled open contact and the item shown as the "Relay" were separated from the coil by approximately 1/4 inch. A determination could not be made as to whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de-energized without reference to the item shown as the "Switch" in the diagram. The "Switch" was open but was not connected in the same circuit with the item shown in the diagram as the "Relay". Petitioner correctly assumed that "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de-energized because the "Switch" shown in the diagram was open. Even though not connected in the same circuit with the item shown as the "Relay" in the diagram, the "Switch" was electronically associated with "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70. The uncontroverted evidence established the correctness of this assumption by Petitioner. 2/ Petitioner reasonably assumed that "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was comprised of the coil, the un-labeled open contact, and the labeled closed "Contact" in the diagram. Since "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70, like other relays, had to include both a normally closed contact and a normally open contact, it was impossible for Petitioner to decide whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was either normally open or normally closed. The only certain answer for Petitioner was that "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de-energized. Respondent established that the answer it considered to be the correct answer to question 70 was reasonable. However, Respondent failed to refute the preponderance of evidence that Petitioner's answer to question 70 /3 was also reasonable under the circumstances. Respondent established that the portion of the diagram that included the item shown as the "Relay" was separated from the portion of the diagram that included the items shown as the open "Switch", the "Battery", and closed "Contact". The two portions of the diagram were not physically connected, were not part of the same circuit, and were separated by a space of approximately 1/4 inch in a diagram that was approximately 4 inches long. The two portions of the diagram were referred to by the terms of the examination as a single diagram because the single diagram was to be used in answering questions 68, 69, and 70. It was reasonable for Respondent to assume that when question 70 asked whether "the relay" was normally open or normally closed it was to be interpreted as asking whether "the relay contact" was normally open or normally closed. Respondent attempted to establish the unreasonableness of Petitioner's answer with conflicting evidence. For the purpose of determining whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de-energized, Respondent defined "the relay" by reference to the portion of the diagram that was disconnected from the item shown in the diagram as the "Relay". For the purpose of determining whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was normally open or normally closed, however, Respondent defined "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 by reference to only that portion of the diagram shown as the "Relay". Respondent admitted during the formal hearing and in its written explanation for the answer to question 70 that "[t]he relay as shown is de- energized because the switch is open." (emphasis added) Thus, Respondent admitted that a determination of whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de-energized was to be made by reference to a portion of the diagram that was not physically connected to the item shown in the diagram as the "Relay". However, Respondent's expert witness insisted during direct and cross examination that a determination of whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was normally open or normally closed was to be made by disregarding that portion of the diagram that included the coil, the "Switch", and the labeled closed "Contact". Nothing in the instructions for questions 68-70 suggested the limited use of the diagram suggested by Respondent for the purpose of determining whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was normally open or normally closed. Instead, the instructions stated that "the next 3 questions (68- 70) refer to the following diagram." If Respondent intended for question 70 to refer to only that portion of the diagram shown as the "Relay" it would have been reasonable for Respondent to arrange question 70 and the portion of the diagram shown as the "Relay" in separate diagrams. Respondent's written explanation of the answer to question 70 was inconsistent with Respondent's suggested answer to question 70. Question 70 asks whether "the relay" is normally open or normally closed. Respondent's written explanation states that "the relay contacts are normally open." (emphasis added) Later in its written explanation, Respondent stated that "the relay [is] closed" and that "its normally closed contacts [are kept] open against spring pressure...". For the same reasons, Respondent's written explanation of the answer to the question was internally inconsistent. The evidence presented by Respondent was inconsistent with Respondent's written explanation of the suggested answer to question 70. For the purpose of determining whether "the relay" referred to in question 70 was normally open or normally closed, Respondent's expert witness insisted during his testimony that "the relay" excluded that part of the diagram that included the coil. In its written explanation, however, Respondent stated that the "normally closed intrusion contacts are connected to the coil of the sensitive relay." (emphasis added) Further, Respondent's expert repeatedly testified that the labeled closed "Contact" in the diagram could be an intrusion contact but need not be any particular kind of contact. In Respondent's written explanation, however, the closed contacts were specifically identified as "intrusion contacts." The language in question 70 and the diagram used to answer question 70 were misleading and ambiguous. The language in question 70 and the diagram permit more than one reasonable interpretation. Both Petitioner's answer to question 70 and Respondent's answer to question 70 were reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's request for a re-grade of his January, 1989, alarm systems contractors I examination be GRANTED; Petitioner be given full credit for question 70; Petitioner be deemed to have passed the examination; and Petitioner be deemed qualified for registration as an alarm system contractor. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of April 1990. DANIEL MANRY, 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 16th day of April 1990.
The Issue Whether Petitioner meets the criteria to sit for the Alarm Contractor I licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact The Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for licensing alarm system contractors. Section 489.505, Florida Statutes, contains the following definitions pertaining to this proceeding: As used in this part: "Alarm system" means any electrical device or combination of electrical devices used to detect a situation which causes an alarm in the event of a burglary, fire, robbery, medical emergency, or equipment failure. "Alarm system contractor" means a person whose business includes the execution of contracts requiring the ability, experience, science, knowledge, and skill to lay out, fabricate, install, maintain, alter, repair, monitor, inspect, replace, or service alarm systems for compensation, including, but not limited to, all types of alarm systems for all purposes. "Alarm system contractor I" means an alarm system contractor whose business includes all types of alarm systems for all purposes. . . . Petitioner applied to sit for the alarm system contractor I examination pursuant to the provisions of Section 489.511(2)(a)3.c., Florida Statutes, which provides that a person can sit for the licensure examination if that person: c. Has, within the 12 years immediately preceding the filing of the application, at least 6 years of comprehensive training, technical education, or broad experience associated with an electrical or alarm system installation or servicing endeavor; or Rule 61G6-5.003(1)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Any person desiring to take the certification examination must establish that he or she meets eligibility requirements according to one of the following criteria: * * * (c) Has, within 12 years immediately preceding the filing of the application, at least 6 years of comprehensive training, technical education, or broad experience associated with an electrical or an alarm system installation or servicing endeavor. The experience required must include: * * * 2. For an alarm contractor I, at least 40% of work that is in fire alarm systems. By letter dated June 16, 1998, Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the ground that the application failed to demonstrate compliance with Rule 61G6-5.003(1)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner worked full-time for Florida Power and Light in the capacity of a connect and disconnect man. Petitioner described this position as installing electric meters or disconnecting electric meters when there has been an initiation, change, or termination of service. Petitioner's employment with Florida Power and Light does not require him to work directly with any type of alarm system. The application form provided by Respondent required Petitioner to submit a representative list of his experience. He was to provide a detailed description of the work performed, the job location and address, the general contractor's name, and the name and telephone number of the contractor who pulled the permit. Petitioner provided information pertaining to five jobs in his application and at the formal hearing. Petitioner claimed to have worked on the burglar and fire alarm system during the construction of the First Baptist Church of Brownsville, 4600 Northwest 23rd Avenue, Miami, Florida, between March 29, 1997, and February 9, 1998. Petitioner claimed that he designed the fire alarm system and drew the plans for that system on the blueprint that was used for the construction of the building. Petitioner also claimed to have participated in the installation of the fire and burglar alarm systems. Petitioner testified that the alarm system had 99 devices and was a Fire Light 5210 U.D. system. Petitioner testified that he kept a computer generated time ticket for each job. These computer records were not offered into evidence. Petitioner testified that he spent approximately 2300 hours on the job involving the church. 1/ The second job identified by Petitioner was a joint project with West Kendall Electric for the installation of a NAPCO 2600 model fire alarm system in a residence between March and October 1993. Petitioner estimated that he spent approximately twenty hours on this job. The third job identified by Petitioner was the installation of a residential fire alarm system, security system, burglar alarm system, intercom system, television antenna system, and telephone system at a residence located at 199905 Southwest 135th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The dates of the job were between December 19, 1990, and July 15, 1991. The fire and burglar alarm system was a NAPCO 2600 model. Petitioner did not estimate the amount of time he expended on that job. The fourth job identified by Petitioner was the installation of a NAPCO 3000 model system at 14911 Southwest 144th Terrace, Miami, Florida. Petitioner described this system as an industrial fire and burglar alarm panel with automation and approximately 35 sensors. The dates of the job were between January 6, 1995, and October 20, 1996. Petitioner testified that he expended approximately 90 hours on this project, with forty to forty-five percent of the job being devoted to the fire alarm system. The fifth job identified by Petitioner was the installation of a NAPCO 2600 model fire and burglar alarm system at 14460 Southwest 152nd Court, Miami, Florida. This was another joint project with West Kendall Electric. Petitioner estimated that he expended 80 hours on that job with forty to forty-five percent of the job being devoted to the fire alarm system. This job lasted between December 14, 1993, and March 27, 1994. Petitioner testified that he spent 2,358 hours on the five jobs he identified. He also stated that he had devoted 1,414 of those hours to burglar alarm systems, "according to the ratio." 2/ Petitioner testified that he had been a member of the National Fire Protection Association since 1994. There are no standards for admission to that association, other than the payment of a membership fee. Petitioner has attended various fire alarm seminars over the years sponsored either by system manufactures or associations, such as the National Fire Protection Association. He attended a seminar consisting of 16 hours sponsored by the National Fire Protection Association in May of 1994. He attended an alarm installers seminar sponsored by a manufacturer in February 1990 consisting of 24 hours over a three-day period. He attended another seminar sponsored by a manufacturer for eight hours on October 29, 1992. Petitioner attended a fire alarm training seminar on May 19, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that denies Petitioner's application to sit for the certification examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of January, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner suffers from dyslexia. Consequently, it is difficult for him to read and to understand and remember what he has read. He also has difficulty in comprehending and retaining auditorially presented materials without frequent repetition. Academically, Petitioner did poorly in school. He did not graduate from high school. Since he was a young boy, however, Petitioner has displayed a special talent for electrical work. Before moving to Florida in 1970, where he has lived and worked since, Petitioner owned and operated an alarm system installation business in his native state of New York. From 1970 to 1975, Petitioner worked for others installing alarm systems and similar devices. In 1975, Petitioner opened his own alarm system installation business. He successfully operated the business for ten years demonstrating his skill and competency in the installation of alarm systems. During that time, he obtained a license from Dade County and a temporary certificate from the Department to engage in the alarm system installation business. By 1985, Petitioner's temporary certificate from the Department had expired and he had not obtained a regular certificate. He was therefore forced to close his business. Petitioner has been unsuccessful in his ongoing efforts to be certified to engage in the alarm system installation business on a statewide basis. He has taken the alarm system contractor certification examination, which is a written test administered by the Department, on five separate occasions. Each time, he has failed to achieve a passing score, although his scores have improved from one test to the next. He received a score of 55 or 56 on the last test he took. Although he and his attorney may have communicated with representatives of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board regarding the matter, at no time prior to taking the first four tests did Petitioner or anyone acting on his behalf notify the Department that he suffered from dyslexia and that he wanted the Department to give him a practical, instead of a written, examination and/or make other special accommodations for him in the testing process because of his disability. Prior to the fifth and last examination, which was administered on January 29, 1991, the Department received a written Certification of Handicap from Dr. Robert Zielinski, a clinical psychologist who had examined Petitioner at Petitioner's request for approximately one hour on September 7, 1989. In the certification he had prepared, Zielinski indicated that Petitioner was unable "to read and comprehend what was read" and that therefore the Department should take the following measures in administering the examination to Petitioner: Recommended testing environment: regular environment for testing Recommended format of examination: Since he is not able to read and understand, he would have to be given the test verbally by an examiner. Recommended time allocation for testing: 2-4 additional hours for each testing day Recommended recording of responses: He would need to have someone else mark his answers down on the paper after being read the questions or verbal exam on a one to one basis Zielinski did not recommend in his certification that Petitioner be given a practical examination in lieu of a written examination because he did not believe that he had the option to make such a recommendation. The Department routinely relies upon the recommendations of the psychologist, physician or learning disability specialist who certifies that an examination candidate has a handicap that warrants the provision of special assistance. It followed this practice in the instant case when it administered the alarm system contractor examination to Petitioner for the fifth time on January 29, 1991. It provided Petitioner with a "helper" to read the examination questions to him and to mark his answers on the answer sheet. It also gave him eight hours, instead of the usual five, in which to complete the examination. Petitioner did not take full advantage of the special assistance with which he had been provided on this occasion. He declined the "helper's" offer to read the entire examination to him and to mark down his answers on the answer sheet, although he did request the helper's assistance with a word or two that he had trouble reading. Furthermore, he did not use all of the time he had been allotted to complete the examination. Petitioner had greatest difficulty with those questions on the examination designed to test the candidate's knowledge of general business matters. His problem was not so much reading the questions, but understanding them. He asked the "helper" to explain and interpret these questions for him. The "helper" refused inasmuch as it was against Department policy (as it still is) to assist a candidate in determining the answers to examination questions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that the Department of Professional Regulation did not commit an "unlawful employment practice" in violation of Section 760.10(5), Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioner, and denying his Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 6th day of July, 1992.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should receive a passing grade on the Alarm Systems I Contractor Examination administered January 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating electrical contractors, including alarm systems contractors, in the State of Florida. Sections 489.511, .515, and .533, Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Perez sat for the Alarm Systems I Contractor Examination on January 30, 1998. He disputes the Department's determination that the answers he gave to questions 21, 58, and 59 are incorrect. These three questions are objective, multiple- choice questions, and the examination candidate is to choose the correct answer from among four possible answers. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 21 is "A"; Mr. Perez chose answer "C." Question 21 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer is found in the Specifications for Plans which, together with a set of blueprints, was provided to the examination candidates with the examination booklet. On the back of the Specifications for Plans, the examination candidates were told that the document was to be used with the examination for licensure. Several of the questions on the examination were based on information contained in the specifications and blueprints. Although the examination candidates had not seen the specifications and blueprints prior to the examination, the requirement that the candidates use these documents in answering questions on the examination is not unfair. The Department could have had the legitimate purpose of testing the candidates' ability to read blueprints and specifications. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 21 because, according to the information contained in the specifications, the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 58 is "C"; Mr. Perez chose answer "A." Question 58 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from information found in the reference material Mr. Perez was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Although the correct answer could not be found in the reference material word-for-word, it was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to use the information provided to calculate the correct answer to the question. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 58 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 59 is "D"; Mr. Perez chose answer "A." Question 59 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from both text and a schematic found in the reference material Mr. Perez was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Although the correct answer could not be found in the reference material word-for-word, it was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to derive the correct answer from the information available in the materials. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 59 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Juan Carlos Perez's petition challenging the subject examination questions. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 27th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Illa Jones, Executive Director Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 R. Beth Atchinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Rgulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32300-1007 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Juan Carlos Perez 7451 Southwest 161st Place Miami, Florida 33193
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on his examination for certification as an electrical contractor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the electrical and alarm system contractor examination in January, 1989. Petitioner failed the examination. Petitioner timely challenged one question of relevance. The question that Petitioner challenges is question 34. If he were to receive a passing grade on this question or if the question were discarded, Petitioner would pass the examination. The challenged question is: All cut ends of rigid nonmetallic conduits shall be inside and outside to remove rough edges. trimmed reamed shaped sanded Petitioner answered "(B)." The answer for which Respondent gave credit is "(A)." The National Electrical Code describes the finishing processes for rigid nonmetallic conduit and rigid metal conduit as follows: Section 347-5. Trimming. All cut ends shall be trimmed inside and outside to remove rough edges. Section 346-7(a). Reamed. All cut ends of conduits shall be reamed or otherwise finished to remove rough edges. The National Electrical Code also uses the phrase "reamed or otherwise finished" with respect to intermediate metal conduit and electrical metallic tubing. Sections 345-8 and 348- 11. The first article of the National Electrical Code is devoted to definitions. Under Article 100, the scope of the definitions article is explained as follows: Scope. Only definitions of terms peculiar to and essential to the proper use of this Code are included. In general, only those terms used in two or more articles are defined in Article 100. . . . Part A of this article contains definitions intended to apply wherever the terms are used throughout this Coded. . . Article 100 contains no definition of "trim" or "ream," although the term "ream" is used in two or more articles: namely, Articles 345, 346, and 348. The term "ream" is the word commonly used in the relevant industry to describe the process by which a person eliminates the rough edges on the cut end of a rigid; nonmetallic conduit. The term "ream" is so used by, among others, practicing professional electrical and alarm system contractors. The term "ream" is also so used by manufacturers of "conduit reamers," which are packaged and labelled under that name. These "conduit reamers" are obviously designed for use with PVC and other rigid nonmetallic conduit. By contrast, the term "trim" is rarely used to describe this deburring process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a Final Order assigning Petitioner a passing grade on the January, 1989, electrical and alarm systems contractor' s examination. ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26 day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert S. Hayes 437 W. Vine Street Kissimmee, FL 34741 Jack L. McRay, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Pat Ard, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
