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 issue is whether Rules 21H-21.002(1) and 21H-21.004(1) are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Ronnie F. Taylor, of Post Office Box 697, Cedar Key, Florida, is employed by the engineering firm of Ingley, Campbell, Moses and Associates of Gainesville, Florida, which engages in mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering. Taylor has been with this engineering firm for four years and is currently a vice president in charge of production of electrical engineering documents. Prior to this employment, Taylor spent 14 years as an electrical engineer with the engineering firm of Reynolds, Smith and Hill of Jacksonville, Florida. When Taylor left Reynolds, Smith and Hill, he was the senior design engineer. Taylor served in the military as an electrician. Upon completing military service in 1967, Taylor entered Florida Junior College. He received an Associate of Science degree in Electrical Engineering Technology in 1970 from that institution. Following that degree, Taylor began employment with Reynolds, Smith and Hill, where his responsibilities included the design of electrical projects for commercial buildings, including writing specifications, making cost estimates and producing a finished product. Taylor has spent his entire career in electrical engineering and has no experience with other specialties of engineering. He has extensive experience in electrical engineering having designed and completed numerous large commercial projects. However, because Taylor is not a licensed professional engineer, a licensed professional engineer must oversee all projects during the course of design and completion and must sign and seal all completed work. Taylor is not a licensed professional engineer because he has failed to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) portion of the engineering examination. He has failed in fourteen attempts to pass the FE exam. Taylor did pass the Principles and Practices (P & P) portion of the exam in 1982. Licensure requirements specify that both sections must be passed prior to licensure. Taylor became qualified to take the engineering exam in 1977 pursuant to Section 471.21(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), which permitted an applicant to take the exam with "a specific record of 10 years or more of active practice in engineering work of a character indicating that the applicant is competent to be placed in responsible charge of such work." This so-called 10 year cycle permitted an applicant to qualify for the exam without the otherwise required 4- year college degree and 4 additional years of experience. In 1979, Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, was enacted, allowing persons in the final year of engineering school to take the FE exam to qualify as an engineer intern. This provision has been in effect since 1979. The FE exam, as required by Rule 21H-21.002(1), which is challenged here, includes questions on the subjects of mathematics, mathematical modeling of engineering systems, nucleonics and wave phenomena, chemistry, statistics, dynamics, mechanics of materials, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics/heat transfer, computer programming, electrical circuits, statics, structure of matter, engineering mechanics, electronics and electrical machinery. While Taylor scored highly on the subjects relating to electrical engineering, he had difficulty with other areas of the exam. The course work completed by Taylor in 1970 did not include some of these areas with which Taylor had difficulty. Taylor has had no course work in computer programming, thermodynamics, statistics, nucleonics and wave phenomena. The subjects tested in the FE exam are updated in order to test applicants on the most current information and knowledge of engineering fundamentals. Herbert A. Ingley is a licensed professional engineer and holds a Bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering, a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering with a minor in Environmental-Mathematics. He taught full time on the faculty of the University of Florida in Mechanical Engineering for 11 years. In his opinion, it is more difficult for applicants to pass the FE exam the further they are from their formal education and, therefore, applicants in the 10 year cycle have more difficulty passing the exam. According to Ingley, the requirement that persons such as Taylor wait 10 years before taking the FE exam is not logical. However, Ingley also opined that it is important for a professional engineer to have a fundamental knowledge of engineering and that there is a need to test the fundamental basics of engineering for each person who is going to become a licensed professional engineer. George Edward Rabb is a licensed professional engineer, having been licensed in 1965. He was grandfathered and therefore only had to pass the P & P exam. The FE exam was waived based on specific portions of statute and rule which waived the FE exam for persons with fifteen years experience. The waiver was only available to persons qualifying prior to November, 1970. According to Rabb, an engineer needs to have a working knowledge of fundamentals and to understand the general concepts of engineering. Robert D. Kersten, who has been the Dean of the Department of Engineering at the University of Florida for 20 years, has a Bachelors degree in Mathematics and Chemistry, a Masters degree in Civil Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, Water Resource/Hydrologic Engineering. Dean Kersten has served in numerous capacities with both state and national professional associations involved in accreditation of engineers and served on the Board of Professional Engineers in Florida and on the National Council of Engineering Examiners. The FE exam is prepared by the National Council of Engineering Examiners and is designed to cover the fundamental areas essential to the basic practice of engineering. The FE exam tests both the common body of knowledge that is essential to practice in the profession and the ability to apply that knowledge. According to Dean Kersten the FE exam tests items which should be within an engineer's basic knowledge and which are necessary to communication between engineers in a design team approach to project design. Dean Kersten acknowledges that the FE exam is more difficult for applicants who lack a degree or who have been out of the academic area for a period of time, but opines that those factors do not excuse an applicant from mastering and retaining the basic fundamentals important to the practice. In fact, the FE exam is designed so that 70 percent of the applicants with-the 4- year college educational background pass the exam. Only 40 percent of the applicants in the 10 year cycle pass the exam.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Immaculate Espejo Asuncion, of St. Paul, Minnesota, filed an application with Respondent, Board of Medical Examiners, on September 21, 1982, for licensure by endorsement to practice medicine. (Testimony of Petitioner, Joint Exhibit No. 1) On March 7, 1983, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Endorsement Licensure on the grounds that Petitioner had not obtained a 75 percent FLEX weighted average on the licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc., as required by Rule 21M- 29.01(2), Florida Administrative Code, and was not certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners as having completed its examination within the ten years immediately preceding the filing of the application for licensure by endorsement, as required by Section 458.313(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Petitioner thereafter requested a hearing on the proposed denial of her application. (Testimony of Faircloth, Joint Exhibit No. 1) Petitioner was licensed to practice medicine in the state of Minnesota in 1978. She obtained such licensure by satisfactorily passing the clinical science and clinical competence portions of the FLEX examination, and by successfully completing a basic sciences examination administered by the Minnesota State Board of Examiners. (Testimony of Petitioner, Joint Exhibit No. 1) Petitioner is a graduate of a foreign medical school and is therefore not eligible to take the examination of the National Board of Medical Examiners. The alternate method of obtaining licensure by endorsement is by certification through licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. (FLEX). This examination has three parts and is taken over a period of three days. The three parts of the examination are basic science, clinical science, and clinical competence. The scores on the three parts are averaged under a formula to produce a weighted average score. Respondent's Rule 21M-29.01(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires that an applicant have a FLEX weighted average of 75 percent from one complete sitting on the examination. Petitioner took only the clinical science and clinical competence portions of the examination and therefore did not obtain a certified FLEX weighted average score. The Minnesota basic sciences examination taken by Petitioner was not the same basic sciences examination administered as part of the FLEX examination. (Testimony of Faircloth, Joint Exhibit No. 1)
Recommendation That Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Immaculate Espejo-Asuncion, M.D. Dorothy J. Faircloth 80 Battle Creek Place Executive Director St. Paul, Minnesota 55119 Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street John Griffin, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Test Anxiety at the February 1994 General Contractor's Examination The General Contractor's Examination used in the licensing of individuals as general contractors is divided into three parts, each of which may be passed separately. Credit for passing any one portion of the examination is good for a period of only one year. An applicant for a license as a General Contractor is limited in taking any part of the examination to three times per year. If an applicant fails to pass all three parts of the examination in one year, therefore, the applicant must commence the examination process anew, as if none of the portions of the examination had been passed. On February 17, 1994, William T. Davenport, sat for the Contract Administration portion of the exam for the third time within a one-year period. At each of the two examinations taken earlier, he had passed one portion. The Contract Administration portion was the only part he had not yet passed. Mr. Davenport was anxious as he waited to take the exam. He fully realized that if he did not pass the Contract Administration portion he would have to start the examination process all over again. His concern was generated not only from the perspective of delay and inconvenience attendant to having to repeat the entire exam process, but also from the perspective of cost. Repeating the process would require him to pay the full exam fee after having paid already a full examination fee for each of three examinations in the year of his attempt to successfully complete the examination requirements for licensure. Different Approved Reference Lists The Construction Industry Licensing Board approves reference materials that applicants may use during the examination and issues a list of those materials periodically. The Reference List for the February examination covered the period between November 1, 1993 and February 28, 1994. On that list was a book Mr. Davenport brought with him to the examination: Practical Mathematics, 3rd Edition, Copyright 1972. As Mr. Davenport sat nervously awaiting commencement of the exam, a proctor removed Practical Mathematics from his desk indicating that use of the book was not allowed. Mr. Davenport relates his response to the incident in this way, (Tr. 26.) The anxiety was very high at that point. My concern was try to get through the exam and, when the book was taken away from me, I panicked, to be blunt. I just totally panicked. Unlike the testing period from November 1, 1993 to February 28, 1994, Practical Mathematics was not on the Reference List for the next period of testing, from March 1, through June 30, 1994. The later list, issued January 13, had been out for over a month at the time of the exam. It is likely the proctor removed the book in mistaken reliance on the later list. As it turned out, the proctor returned the book to Mr. Davenport either shortly before the examination commenced. As he did so, the proctor commented, "Well, I don't know." (Tr. 25.) Mr. Davenport did not use the book during the exam because, "[a]t that point, I was reluctant to use the book ... I didn't want the test to be invalidated and I didn't want to be challenged." Id. Not using the book proved to be critical to whether Mr. Davenport passed the Contract Administration portion of the exam. He scored a 68. A passing grade is 70. Had Mr. Davenport answered correctly question number 3, which was worth four points, he would have received a 72, a passing grade. The question involves applying a percentage. Mr. Davenport could not remember whether in obtaining a percentage it is necessary to multiply or divide. Practical Mathematics has a chapter on percentages. The chapter teaches that multiplication is the arithmetic method to use when obtaining a percentage. But Mr. Davenport guessed that division should be used. He divided by the percentage and, therefore, chose an incorrect answer. Question number 3 on the exam is one of the questions that Mr. Davenport challenged originally: A 2-man crew has consistently worked at a labor performance standard ratio of 0.85 to 1. They are selected for a job requiring 60 (standard time) man-hours to perform. They will NOT work more than 8 hours per workday. NO work will be done on Saturdays or Sundays. There are NO holidays during the time the work will be performed. According to Builder's Guide to Accounting, if the job must be finished NO later than Friday afternoon at 5:00 p.m., what is the last day that they could be scheduled to start the job? Thursday of the previous week Friday of the previous week Monday of the same week Tuesday of the same week Respondent's. Ex. No. 2. The correct answer is "(D) Tuesday of the same week." The Department's expert witness explained that the correct answer is reached by way of an algebraic formula. The formula is: "the labor performance standard ratio = x (the unknown) divided by the standard time man hours" and then that answer is divided by 2 since the crew is a 2 man crew. Applied to the problem, the formula is: .85/1 = x/60, with x, once known, divided by 2. Using the formula, the calculation goes as follows: .85/1 = x/60; multiplying both sides of the equation by 60, .85(60) = x; carrying out the arithmetic calculation, x equals 51; 51/2 = 25.5. It takes 25.5 hours, therefore, for the crew to complete the job. If, as the problem states, the job must be completed by Friday at 5 p.m. and the crew works 8 hours a day, then it will take the crew 3 full days and 1.5 additional hours to complete the job. Working backward from Friday, the crew will work 8 hours on Friday, 8 hours on Thursday, and 8 hours on Wednesday for a total of 24 hours. The crew must start on Tuesday of the same week to work the additional 1.5 hours required to complete the job. One does not need to use algebra, however, to solve the problem. One can simply obtain the number of actual hours needed to complete the job by applying 85 percent (the crew's labor performance standard) to the number of standard time manhours called for by the job, in this case, 60. Here is where Mr. Davenport needed Practical Mathematics. Not knowing whether to obtain the actual hours by multiplying .85 times 60 or dividing .85 into 60, he guessed, in error, division. Through the use of division, it appears incorrectly that the number of manhours needed is 70.588. Divided by two, to take into account that there are two members of the crew, it would take the crew 35.294 hours. If it took the crew 35 hours and a fraction to complete the job on time, the crew would need to start on Monday of the same week. "(C) Monday of the same week," is the answer chosen by Mr. Davenport. Other Distractions and the Site of the Exam The examination was conducted in the Tallahassee office of the National Assessment Institute (NAI). The NAI was under contract to the Department as the vendor to conduct the exam. At the time of the examination, the exam site was a room approximately forty feet by thirteen feet four inches in size. It contained nine tables, each 18 inches by eight feet. The tables were spaced 35 inches from each other. At each table were two straight-backed chairs. There were seven candidates present for the examination. The first and last tables were unoccupied. Each of the seven candidates were allotted 34 square feet of floor space to be occupied by the candidate, the chair, the table and materials used in the exam. On the east wall of the exam room were three plate glass fixed windows. Two of the windows are 48 inches long by 36 inches tall and one is 36 inches long by 31 inches tall. The glass is one-eighth inch thick non- commercial grade. The windows are acceptable under NAI guidelines. On the other side of the windows is a workroom that measured 15.25 by 17.5 feet. Through these windows the examination supervisor seated in the work room can monitor the performance of the proctors in the exam room and see the candidates as they take the exam. The candidates, seated to the left of the workroom, do not face the workroom. Rather, their right side is exposed to the workroom. If the tables are numbered 1 through 9 on Respondent's Ex. No. 1, beginning with 1 on the side of the room marked on the exhibit as "N" or north, candidates who were seated at tables 4 through 8 were directly exposed to the workroom windows. Mr. Davenport was seated at one of the tables exposed to the workroom windows, most likely table 3, 4 or 5, that is, one of the center 3 tables. During the exam, he could see employees through the windows moving in the workroom and hear noise from the workroom. There were four employees who were present at one time or another in the workroom. Three of these employees were also engaged in proctoring the examination. In addition to the visual diversion posed by the four employees in the workroom, Mr. Davenport could hear sounds emanating from the room. The doors to the workroom, open so that the exam supervisor seated in the workroom could hear what occurred in the exam room, also allowed sounds from the workroom into the exam room. The source of the sound was the printer working, the four workers conversing from time to time and other noises associated with an office work environment. Sight of the employees and noise from the workroom prevented petitioner from fully concentrating on the exam. Mr. Davenport was also distracted by the activities of the proctors while in the exam room. During the four hours he sat for the exam, three of the four employees he observed in the workroom were also acting as proctors. They left the workroom in a rotation in order to spell each other. During their shifts as proctors, the three monitored the exam room. Mr. Davenport felt distracted by the coming and goings of the three as they rotated in and out of the room. Although there was a table designated for the proctors at a corner outside the workroom across from table 3, they rarely sat there. They sat at one of the empty tables or walked beside the seated candidates, all the time carrying out the function of a proctor: observing the candidates during examination. The FCILB Examination Administration Manual, applicable to the February General Contractor's exam, details the responsibilities of proctors in sixteen separate counts. No. 13 reads: Proctors observe at all times and move quietly about the room. Proctors do not disturb or distract candidates during the examination. If speaking is necessary, a proctor needs to be quiet and brief as possible. Proctors avoid asking candidates to move chairs to get around them, standing too close or directly behind candidates, or rustling papers and talking to other proctors in the vicinity. Petitioner's Ex. No. 2, FCILB Examination Administration Manual, p. 2-5. Movement of the proctors was necessary during the exam because of its open-book format. It is incumbent on the proctors of an open-book exam to insure that candidates do not copy questions form the examination into their reference materials. Other Candidates Reactions to the NAI's Tallahassee Office Among the three proctors the day of the exam was Ms. Jean Love. Ms. Love is also the Office Manager of the NAI's Tallahassee Office. She has worked for NAI for over two years. Before that she worked for eight and one-half years with the Department in examination services, during which she administered exams, including acting as a proctor for exams. In addition to the daily operations of the office, she oversees the administration of examinations, a function she fulfilled at the February General Contractor's exam this year. Ms. Love did not see any unusual or distracting activities on the part of the other two proctors and did not undertake any activities, in her opinion, that would have violated any of the responsibilities of proctors, including those quoted, above, from the FCILB Examination Administration Manual. The activities during the exam in the workroom, undertaken under Ms. Love's supervision, were normal activities undertaken every day at the NAI Tallahassee Office during and outside of times of examinations. Aside from typical office activities, such as conducting telephone conversations, scheduling candidates for tests, and doing paperwork that included hand-folding documentation, there was no unusual activity the day of the exam. The only event in the workroom that contributed at all to the sound of normally quiet office activity was the validation of a single candidate's check. No complaints about noise in the workroom during the February General Contractor's Exam were registered with the NAI Tallahassee Office. Nor did any of the candidates that day complain about the activities of the proctors. Ms. Love did not learn of Mr. Davenport's complaint until after he filed his challenge to the examination questions. While a proctor may have from time to time stood near Mr. Davenport as he took the exam, none of the proctors hovered over him or, in Ms. Love's opinion, did anything that would distract the average candidate. No complaint during the examination was made by Mr. Davenport. He did not complain about inability to concentrate on the exam until after he received the exam results. During Ms. Love's two years at the NAI Tallahassee office, no candidate, prior to Mr. Davenport, had ever complained about the testing environment for any reason. The comments she has received from candidates following exams have been solely complimentary. Over the last two years, the office has administered between 15 and 20 tests per month. Complimentary comments are made, on average, by one candidate per test. In the last two years the office has received, at a minimum, well in excess of 350 compliments on the testing environment from candidates. In contrast, Mr. Davenport's complaint stands alone as the only complaint about the office testing environment in the last two years at the NAI's Tallahassee Office.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, in the alternative: That petitioner's request for reexamination or a passing grade on the "Contract Administration, Division I" portion of the General Contractor's examination administered in February 1994 be DENIED; or, in the alternative, If the Construction Industry Licensing Board is willing to overlook the petitioner's failure to challenge his grade specifically on the appropriation of the book before the examination in the petition for formal hearing and the Department's legitimate objection to the presentation of evidence on the issue, that petitioner be allowed to sit for reexamination and, if he passes the Contract Administration portion of the exam, be credited with passing the other two portions of the exam as well as if all three portions had been passed in one year. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1994. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 1st day of December, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 1, the first and last sentences are adopted. The remainder of the proposed finding, and in particular the reference to Linda Chaffin, test proctor, is rejected because it is either not supported by the evidence or argumentative in nature rather than factual. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2 is rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact Nos. 7 and 8 are rejected as unsupported by the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the reference to Linda Chaffin is rejected. Ms. Chaffin was not identified by the evidence as the proctor who removed the book from petitioner prior to the exam. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted, in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: William T. Davenport 336 14th Avenue, North Jacksonville, FL 32250 William W. Woodyard Assistant General Counsel D B P R 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Richard Hickok, Executive Director C I L B 7960 Arlington Expy., Ste. 300 Jacksonville, FL 32311-7467 Jack McRay General Counsel D B P R 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's academic record meets the academic requirements that are prerequisites to taking the Fundamentals of Engineering examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted an application for approval to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. The Petitioner studied engineering at the Tongji University in the People's Republic of China from 1991 to 1995. He majored in Building Engineering and was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Engineering on July 10, 1995. Beginning in September of 1995, the Petitioner studied engineering at the graduate level at Tongji University. His graduate studies lasted until April of 1998, at which time he was awarded the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Structural Engineering. During the course of his graduate studies at Tongji University from September of 1995 until April of 1998, the Petitioner completed a total of 38 semester credit hours. Those semester credit hours included the following courses with their indicated semester credit hours: Applied Statistics 2 credit hours Numerical Analysis 3 credit hours The courses titled Applied Statistics and Numerical Analysis are both higher mathematics courses. In the fall of 2000, the Petitioner began further graduate studies in engineering at Auburn University. He studied at Auburn University through the spring of 2002. The courses taken by the Petitioner at Auburn University included the following, with the indicated number of semester credit hours: Advanced Structural Analysis 3 credit hours Advanced Stress Analysis 3 credit hours Structural Dynamics I 3 credit hours Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics 3 credit hours The course titled Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics is a higher mathematics class. The other three Auburn courses listed immediately above, if not pure mathematics courses, are certainly courses which involve the application of advanced principles of mathematics. To successfully complete such courses, a person would have to be well-grounded in higher mathematics. In the fall of 2002, the Petitioner transferred to the University of Florida where he continued his graduate studies in engineering. On December 20, 2003, the University of Florida awarded the Petitioner the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Civil Engineering. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 20.007 the Petitioner submitted his educational credentials to an educational evaluator approved by the Board. The evaluator selected by the Petitioner was Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. (Silny). Following its evaluation of the Petitioner's educational credentials, Silny prepared a Report of Evaluation of Educational Credentials (Silny Report) dated June 15, 2005. The Silny Report reached the conclusion that the Petitioner's undergraduate education at Tongji University was not the equivalent of a degree in engineering earned from a program approved by ABET. Silny was of the view that the Petitioner's undergraduate course of study at Tongji University was not equivalent because his curriculum was deficient five semester credit hours in higher mathematics and basic sciences and was deficient one semester credit hour in humanities and social sciences.1 The conclusions reached in the Silny Report were based on an evaluation of the Petitioner's undergraduate course work at Tongji University from 1991 to 1995. The Silny Report did not take into consideration any of the courses taken by the Petitioner during his graduate studies at Tongji University from 1995 to 1998, during his graduate studies at Auburn University from 2000 to 2002, or during his graduate studies at the University of Florida from 2002 to 2003. During his undergraduate engineering studies at Tongji University, the Petitioner completed 36 semester hour credits of course work in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences. Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University represent less study than semester credit hours completed at an accredited engineering school in a university in the United States of America. Specifically, Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University are the equivalent of only 75 percent of semester credit hours earned in accredited engineering programs in the United States of America. Accordingly, when Silny evaluated the Petitioner's undergraduate education credentials, Silny multiplied the 36 semester credit hours the Petitioner had completed at Tongji University in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences by a factor of 0.75, and concluded that those 36 semester credit hours were equivalent to only 27 semester credit hours at an accredited engineering program in the United States of America.2 Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007 includes the following requirements regarding applicants with degrees from foreign institutions: Applicants having degrees from foreign institutions shall be required to document “substantial equivalency” to the 2002 ABET Accreditation Yearbook for Accreditation Cycle Ended September 30, 2002 engineering criteria. This document is hereby incorporated by reference. In order to document “substantial equivalency” to an ABET accredited engineering program, the applicant must demonstrate: 32 college credit hours of higher mathematics and basic sciences. The hours of mathematics must be beyond algebra and trigonometry and must emphasize mathematical concepts and principles rather than computation. Courses in probability and statistics, differential calculus, integral calculus, and differential equations are required. Additional courses may include linear algebra, numerical analysis, and advanced calculus. As for the hours in basic sciences, courses in general chemistry and calculus-based general physics are required, with at least a two semester (or equivalent) sequence of study in either area. Additional basic sciences courses may include life sciences (biology), earth sciences (geology), and advanced chemistry or physics. Computer skills and/or programming courses cannot be used to satisfy mathematics or basic science requirements. 16 college credit hours in humanities and social sciences. Examples of traditional courses in this area are philosophy, religion, history, literature, fine arts, sociology, psychology, political science, anthropology, economics, and no more than 6 credit hours of languages other than English or other than the applicant’s native language. Courses in technology and human affairs, history of technology, professional ethics and social responsibility are also acceptable. Courses such as accounting, industrial management, finance, personnel administration, engineering economics and military training are not acceptable. Courses which instill cultural values are acceptable, while routine exercises of personal craft are not. 48 college credit hours of engineering science and engineering design. Courses in this area have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application. Examples of traditional engineering science courses are mechanics, thermodynamics, electrical and electronic circuits, materials science, transport phenomena, and computer science (other than computer programming skills). Courses in engineering design stress the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation. In order to promote breadth, at least one engineering course outside the major disciplinary area is required. In addition, evidence of attainment of appropriate laboratory experience, competency in English, and understanding of the ethical, social, economic and safety considerations of engineering practice must be presented. As for competency in English, transcripts of course work completed, course content syllabi, testimonials from employers, college level advanced placement tests, Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores of at least 550 in the paper- based version, or 213 in the computer-based version, will be accepted as satisfactory evidence.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued concluding that the Petitioner has met the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, and is eligible to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 29th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact L.B. Thanki received a degree in Civil Engineering at the University of Durham at Kings College, Newcastle Upon Tyne in the United Kingdom in 1956. Petitioner received a batchelor of law degree from Sardar Patel University (India) in 1967. This degree is the equivalent of two years study in law. The degree obtained from the University of Durham is not the equivalent of the degree received from an ABET approved university in the United States because it lacks 16 credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented no evidence that his degree from the University of Durham or the curriculum he completed at any other university included the missing 16 hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented a certificate (which was not offered into evidence) that he had completed a course in computer services meeting the board's evidentiary requirements of computer skills.
Recommendation Based on foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. N. AYERS 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 10th day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: B. Thanki 1106 East Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Jack L. McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact On May 23, 1975, the Petitioners herein took the general contractors licensing exam in Miami, Florida. Petitioners failed to achieve a passing score on said examination and thereafter several reviews of the examination questions and answers resulted. The exam in question was administered to approximately 659 examinees. The test was made up of 100 questions and the examinees were allotted 4 hours to complete the exam. The examinees were instructed in the examination booklet to answer as many questions as possible within the time limit and to always select the best possible answer out of the listed choices. The examinees were furnished a list of reference materials by Respondent and they were advised that the exam questions would come from some 18 odd reference books supplied on the reference lists. Petitioner Dennis Milch took the general contractor's examination administered on May 23, 1975. 2/ In preparation of the exam he took a prep course given by Cole Construction and began his preparation approximately two months prior to the exam. He received a score of 67.5 on the exam. He earned a degree from the University of South Florida and took advance construction courses at FIU where he earned a degree in marketing. His work experience consisted of serving as an apprentice carpenter for Burke Construction Company in Miami for approximately two months and as a contractor to build residential homes in Houston Texas. Milch voiced his opinion that the exam questions failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of being "objective" within the meaning of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Joseph Cole, the founder of Cole Construction College in 1949, testified that he had approximately 30 years experience in teaching construction, architectural and engineering courses. He had conducted various seminars for students and received a B.S. Degree from the University of Miami. He received a B.S. Degree in biochemistry and civil engineering from the University of Pittsburgh and conducted seminars at the University of Florida in Math, Physics and Engineering. He also conducted seminars at the Markowitz Engineering School. He was licensed in 1947 in Coral Gables, Miami Beach, and in Miami where he has built approximately 2,000 single-family homes, high-rise buildings and apartments. He aired his opinion that Milch missed approximately 36 questions of which approximately 24 were what he regarded as "impossible" questions. He expressed his awareness that during the morning sessions two questions were voided and credits were given to all examinees having a point value of 1 point each. Two questions were also voided from the afternoon session. Thomas H. Hebert, an associate of the testing agency which compiled the exam for the Board, i.e., Bryon, Harlow, Schaefer, Reed and Associates, explained the procedure for compiling the tests for the Board (Respondent). He stated that data is taken from Board references and an exam format is established. Examinees are tested on plan reading and estimating using standard plans for takeoff and specification requirements. The test is first administered to contractors and others who had previously passed the exam. This is done to test time limits, etc., and grading procedures. By so doing, he testified that it is possible to correct deficiencies in the exam. After the examination is compiled and is administered to the agency employees and other contractors who have passed the exam, an item analysis is compiled and computerized. There are five possible answers for each question. The exam is divided into three segments, i.e., the upper 27 percent, the mid 46 percent, and the lower 27 percent. After the tests results are in, the weighting on various questions are checked to see if large numbers of examinees "jump" one question and further to see if questions are ambiguous. If found to be or that there are two correct answers for a given question, credit is given for both answers. Thereafter, a discrimination index is compiled based on the lower and upper 27 percent. These papers are scrutinized and if there is a discrepancy in excess of .1 to .8 percent, the question is examined and a solution is derived at based on results gathered from the scrutiny. He testified further that if an exam paper is mutilated or is otherwise difficult to machine score, it is hand graded. All exam papers in which the score ranged from 0 to 30 are hand graded as are those where the score ranges between 60 to 70. Of those questions where there is no correct answer, the question is deleted and a new base is established. For example, if a question is deemed faulty, each question has a weight of 1.1 one hundredths of a point. If they have three correct answers, points are given for all three answers. It was further brought out during his testimony that it was not necessary for a contractor to pass the certification examination in order to practice contracting in Florida. Evidence reveals that there are two kinds of licenses issued by the Board, i.e., registration and certification. The registration process only requires compliance with local requirements and the filing of a form with the Board, which may be the passing of a local competency exam or simply obtaining a local occupational license. The Certification method is optional and if the contractor passes the certification examination, it is unnecessary for him to take any local examinations. After going over various questions missed by Petitioner Dennis Milch, Petitioners argue that the scope of the Board Certification Examination included questions affecting the business of contracting as well as the technical aspects of for example how to nail two boards together to make a safe structure. Florida Statutes Chapter 468.106(2)(a) provides for an examination covering knowledge of basic principles of contracting and construction. Chapter 468.101 declares the purpose of Chapter 468 and states in pertinent part that "any person desiring to obtain a certificate to engage in the business shall be required to establish his competency and qualifications." Hence, the legislature has covered the business of contracting as well as the theory of construction. This serves the purpose of Chapter 468 by making it safer for owners to contract with the contractors and to have assurances that no liens will be placed on their property by subcontractors, that the owners are safe from suit from work that was done on the job, that the payments made on the construction will not be diverted and that the contractor understands his obligations. This requires general knowledge of the mechanics lien law, basic contract law and workers compensation law, all of which were tested by the subject examination. Respecting Petitioners' argument that they were denied certain constitutional guarantees when they were instructed by Respondent to select the best possible answer but that after the test was administered and Respondent determined that many questions had no best choice, the Board failed to delete such questions from the exam, it was noted that after the Respondent discovered that several test questions were deemed acceptable but that the answers offered did not meet the tests of selecting the best possible answer, adjustments were made. In other words, there was no single best possible answer for approximately four questions. Rather than deleting the entire question, Respondent permitted those examinees who selected either the answer originally preferred by the Board or one of the later adopted alternate answers to achieve full credit for such questions and answers. The statute (Chapter 468, F.S.) mandates that the examination be an "objective" written examination. The criteria of objectivity is not met where the examining body is granted the discretion to accept alternate answers to a given question. A "best" answer is something different from an acceptable answer. To give the Board discretion to accept alternate answers would authorize a substitution of standards which is' not permitted by Chapter 468, F.S. Once subjectivity comes into play, Respondent becomes vested with almost unbridled discretion in deciding who shall become a certified general contractor. This was prohibited by the legislature by requiring objectivity in setting a uniform minimum test grade. As relates to Petitioner Milch, it was noted that a subsequent review of his exam resulted in his being awarded a half credit for his answer to question number 39 and the Board determined that after review answers B and A were both correct. The net result of this was that his overall score was 68. A review of the court cases revealed that Florida courts have not been involved in the minute details of how examination grades or points are awarded. See the cases of State ex rel. Topp v. Board of Electrical Examiners, 101 So.2d 583 (Fla. App. 1st 1968), and State ex real. Lane v. Dade County 258 So.2d (347 Fla. App. 3rd, 1972). These cases generally show that unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, courts shall not substitute their judgment for the agencies as to how examinations are graded. Petitioners also submit that once regrading had commenced, the Board should have deleted all questions with wrong answers or more than one equally acceptable answer, distributed the weight of the deleted questions in proportionate fashion of the remaining questions and considered passing to be 70 percent of the total points available, rather than 70 cumulative points. During the hearing, Petitioners failed to show how they were injured by the difference in the award of the points for questions deleted. A wrong without damage does not constitute a good cause of action. Based on the evidence presented it appears that the Petitioners are treated the same as all other examinees. Since the Petitioners have failed to establish that if the assignment of points were different, they would have passed the examination, this argument is moot. Petitioners also alleges that they were denied certain constitutional protections by Respondent's failure to adopt and promulgate uniform rules and regulations concerning preparation, administration and review of licensing examinations. Florida Statutes, Chapter 468, requires Respondent to conduct its affairs pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 120. The Administrative Procedure Acts set out specific procedures to be followed by State agencies in adopting, promulgating and enforcing rules. Statutory authority governing the granting of a license should be strictly followed. In this case, there is no evidence of the existence of any unlawful rule or regulation adopted by Respondent to govern any of the variety of issues concerning the licensing of general contractors. Petitioners also submit that the Board should be required to promulgate and enforce rules concerning examinations and appeals or results thereof and cite the reasons for the actions it takes prior to its review of the examination. The Board is not required to adopt rules and regulations in every area in which it is authorized to act by statute. Where the statute is clear, there is no requirement or reason by the Board to adopt rules. Here, the Board provided the applicants with a chance to examine the questions, their papers, grades and to complain if they wished about the questions either individually or at board meetings with the possibility that the fairness of the questions could be resolved quickly and informally and if necessary, as in this case, without the full ponoply of an administrative hearing. By so doing, the Board was clearly following its statutory duty to provide the applicants with a chance to see their examination papers and grades. (F.S. Chapter 466.110). Based on the above, it is concluded that Respondent compiled the May 23, 1975 examination based on objective standards. When the Board determined that certain questions were defective either because there was more than one answer or for other reasons, the Board reviewed said questions and credited those examinees who failed to properly answer the question. By so doing, Petitioners were treated the same as all examinees who took the exam. Based on the record evidence, it further appears that all the questions meet the statutory tests of being objective and the Board's determination that a cumulative score of 70 percent is necessary to successfully obtain a certification, was not shown by any competent or substantial evidence to be an abuse of discretion. It is therefore recommended that the agency's action be sustained and that the petition filed herein be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore recommended that the agency's actions be affirmed and the petition filed herein be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching certificate should be suspended or revoked on grounds that he violated Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes (1979), by knowingly obtaining and filing a fraudulent university transcript with the Florida Department of Education for the purpose of being certified in the additional field of elementary education.
Findings Of Fact I. The Respondent: Background l. Respondent, a 44-year-old school teacher, has taught at Dade County elementary schools since 1966. He obtained a bachelor of science degree at Southern University in 1962. Later, he completed several postgraduate elementary education courses at Miami-Dade Community College and the University of Miami; in 1977, he earned a master's degree from Nova University. In his postgraduate courses, he earned almost straight "A's," with an occasional "B." (Testimony of Parker; P-6.) From 1966-1977, Respondent held a rank III (graduate) teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education. After obtaining his master's degree in 1977, he was issued a rank II (post graduate) teaching certificate; however, although qualified in other areas, he was not certified to teach in the field of elementary education. (Testimony of Parker; P-6.) From 1974-1979, Respondent taught at Biscayne Elementary School in Dade County; since he was not certified in elementary education, he taught "out of his field." Teachers, such as Respondent, who taught out of their certified fields were required to complete at least six credit hours per year toward obtaining certification in the field in which they were teaching. Between 1977 and 1979, the Dade County School Board ("School Board") reminded its teachers of this requirement, that if they did not take the necessary ongoing course work, they would be required to return to their certified field of instruction. (Testimony of Gray.) Earlier, Respondent had hoped that, by obtaining his master's degree, he would complete enough courses to qualify for certification in the field of elementary education. However, his 1977 postgraduate teaching certificate did not certify him in elementary education. Sometime in early 1978, he calculated that 18 additional postgraduate credit hours would entitle him to be certified in elementary education, the area in which he preferred to teach. (Testimony of Parker.) II. Sutton Helps Respondent Enroll and Take Courses at Florida A & M University At all times material to this case, Eugene Sutton was employed by Florida A & M University ("Florida A & M") in Tallahassee, Florida, as its supervisor of intern teachers. In this capacity, Sutton would travel around the State, visiting interns and talking to supervising teachers. If problems were encountered, he would offer assistance. (P-4.) Sutton had been introduced to Respondent by Rosalyn Bethel, another faculty member at Biscayne Elementary School. In early 1978, Sutton--who had visited the school numerous times--walked into Respondent's classroom and asked him where he had attended school. When the conversation turned to various universities, Sutton stated that Florida A & M offered courses that could be taken by working people; he volunteered to help Respondent take such courses: [H]e [Sutton] said that he was able to reg- ister me, give me my work, and take it back to the instructors or the University, and I would get credit. (Tr. 76.) (Testimony of Parker; P-3.) Respondent accepted Sutton's offer. Shortly thereafter, he gave Sutton the registration fees (required by the university catalog) for nine credit hours. As promised, Sutton registered Respondent for elementary education courses at Florida A & M for the Spring Quarter of 1978. Respondent received a receipt from the university indicating his enrollment. During the ensuing months, Sutton would frequently exchange course materials with Respondent: Sutton would give course assignments to Respondent; Respondent would give Sutton completed course work for delivery to the various university instructors. (Testimony of Parker.) Respondent reasonably believed that he was properly completing course work assigned by his university instructors. The course work bore course titles and names of various instructors. Sutton was a faculty member at the university, a person in authority with important responsibilities. Respondent had no reason to distrust him or suspect him of wrongdoing. (Testimony of Parker, Gaines.) After finishing the Spring Quarter, Respondent enrolled at Florida A & M again, (through Sutton) for nine more credit hours (three courses) in elementary education during the Summer Quarter of 1978. The procedure was the same: He paid Sutton the required registration fees and received a receipt from the university. Sutton then brought course assignments (with textbooks) to Respondent, who, after completing them, gave them to Sutton for delivery to the various university instructors. Respondent never attended the university's Tallahassee campus or spoke directly with his instructors. (Testimony of Parker.) The elementary education courses which Respondent took at Florida A & M during 1978 were not directed individual study courses--courses which can be completed without attendance at the university's campus. However, Respondent-- at the time he selected these courses--did not know that they required attendance at the university. Sutton helped him select the courses from the university's course catalog, and he relied on Sutton as a university faculty member. (Testimony of Parker.) Respondent was unable to produce tuition receipts or work assignments associated with his course work because his house had been vandalized (and his records damaged) when he was hospitalized in September, 1979. 3/ (Testimony of Parker.) III. Respondent Receives a University Transcript At the conclusion of the Spring and Summer Quarters of 1978, Respondent received a copy of a course transcript from Florida A & M. The transcript--the original of which is part of the official records of the university--indicated that Respondent took six courses (18 credit hours) during the two quarters but successfully completed only three of them; that he earned only nine credit hours because of two "I's" (incompletes) and one "F" (failure). His grade-point average for the two quarters was 2.25. (Testimony of Parker; P- 3, P-4, P-8.) Although the transcript appeared to be valid and authentic, Respondent was surprised at the two "I's" and the "F." He had completed all his course assignments and had given them to Sutton; he did not expect an "F" when he was accustomed to earning A's and B's in postgraduate courses. 4/ Respondent then confronted Sutton. (Testimony of Parker.) Sutton explained that he (Sutton) had been late in delivering Respondent's course work to the university, and that Respondent would receive the correct grades. Shortly thereafter, Respondent received a corrected transcript indicating that he successfully completed (with B's) the three courses which had earlier been "I's" and an "F." He believed the corrected transcript was valid and authentic; however, he did not understand how the "F" could be corrected to a "B" when Sutton's explanation attributed the incorrect grades to the late submittal of course work. 5/ (Testimony of Parker.) Shortly thereafter--on May 31, 1979--Respondent completed an application for extension of his teaching certificate (to extend his area of certification to include elementary education) and gave it to Sutton, with the $5 application fee, for delivery to the Florida Department of Education. Subsequently, the Department granted him the requested extension of his teaching certificate. (Testimony of Parker, Gray; P-6.) The corrected transcript was, in fact, false. Upon discovery of that fact, the School Board suspended Respondent from his employment and conducted an investigation. On November 19, 1980, the School Board reinstated Respondent to his position after learning that Respondent was not the subject of criminal prosecution. (Testimony of Gray.) IV. Findings of Fact Proposed by Parties The findings of fact proposed by the parties have been considered. Those proposed findings which are not incorporated above are rejected as irrelevant to the issue presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against Respondent be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1981.
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
Findings Of Fact The Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), is the state agency in Florida charged with the responsibility of regulating contractors. As a part of this function, it periodically administers written examinations to applicants to determine their qualification to be certified or registered with the various counties as contractors in this state. At some time prior to August, 1987, Petitioner, Paul E. Curtis, made application to the Board to take the October, 1987 examination. As a result of his application, which was submitted sometime in June or July, 1987, he received several pieces of correspondence from the Board requesting additional information. In early August, 1987, the Board advised Petitioner that he did not qualify for license examination at that time and requested even additional information. This request for additional information was mailed to the Respondent on August 27, 1987, and Petitioner had ten days to respond. He was very late in doing so, not submitting the requested information until September 25, 1987. Nonetheless, even though he could have been disqualified on that basis, the Board determined he was qualified to sit for the examination and mailed his examination admission card to him on September 29, 1987. At the time the admission card was mailed to Petitioner, his name was listed on the Department's sight book indicating the candidate number, the date of the examination to be taken, and the date the admission card was sent. All admission cards are mailed by United States Mail. To the best of the knowledge of Ms. Berry, Examination Branch clerk, candidates whose admission cards were mailed out subsequent to the date on which Petitioner's card was mailed apparently received them as they did sit for the examination in question on October 22 and 23, 1987. Petitioner, however, did not sit for the examination. He contends that as of the date of the examination, he had not received his admission card. Evidence uncontroverted by the Respondent tends to indicate that the admission card was not received by the Petitioner until October 26, 1987, a date subsequent to the examination dates. This was supported by the testimony of Ms. Tillman, the office manager, who personally recalled opening the letter from the Board which contained the admission card and applying the current date stamp to it as was routine practice on the day the card was received. That was October 26, 1987. This was confirmed by the unofficial bookkeeper, Mrs. Curtis. She indicated that because Petitioner had been looking forward to some communication from the Board, all employees had been notified to look out for any Board correspondence, to open it immediately upon receipt, and to get it to Petitioner as soon as it was stamped in. This procedure was followed and according to both Ms. Tillman and Mrs. Curtis, the stamp was placed on the document the day it was received and it was immediately delivered to Petitioner. By this time, the examination had already been given. Petitioner subsequently sat for the examination on the two sessions following that of October 22/23, 1987 and has successfully passed three of four sections of the examination. Rules of the Board, however, require that in order to be licensed, a candidate must pass all sections of the examination in three consecutive sessions. The Board has taken the position that Petitioner's failure to sit for the examination at the first session after his qualification as eligible to take it, on October 22/23, 1987, constitutes his use of the first of three sessions. Therefore, even though he need not submit a new application and pay a new application fee, and though he need not submit new evidence of eligibility, he must again take and successfully pass all four sections of the examination. The three which he has already passed will no longer count. Ms. Berry asserts that Petitioner had the responsibility to call the Examination Branch and find out if he was eligible to sit if he had not received his admission card prior to the examination date. She relates that had he done so, he would have been advised of his qualification number and with that and identification, could have been admitted to take the examination if he had presented himself at the examination site on the date scheduled. This procedure outlined by Ms. Berry, however, is nowhere made known to any applicant and is not a requirement of the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Paul E. Curtis, be afforded an opportunity to sit for that part of the Contractor's examination that he has not already passed and that he not be required to take the entire examination over. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of January, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 20th day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Arnold D. Levine, Esquire 100 South Ashley Drive Suite 1600 Post Office Box 3429 Tampa, Florida 33601-3429 Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR, Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
