The Issue The issue in this case is whether John T. Wandell (Petitioner) qualifies to participate in the firefighters supplemental compensation program.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Petitioner has been employed as a Fire Marshal with the Town of Palm Beach, Florida. He applied to the Department for participation in the firefighters supplemental compensation program, at the bachelor's degree level, on or about May 22, 1990. After review of Petitioner's transcript from New York Institute of Technology, the Department notified him on or about June 9, 1990, that he did not possess an appropriate major study concentration area to qualify for the program. Petitioner timely sought a formal hearing to contest the Department's denial of his application. Rule 4A-37.084(5), Florida Administrative Code, became effective on January 3, 1990, and does not include behavioral science/community health as a major study concentration area which would qualify applicants for participation in this program. Former Rule 6A-37.073, Florida Administrative Code, which was in effect prior to January 3, 1990, also does not include this specific field as a qualifying major study concentration area. Petitioner received his B.S. degree from New York Institute of Technology in late January, 1990, in the field of behavioral science/community mental health. At hearing, Petitioner testified that notwithstanding the specific designation of his major, a substantial number of courses he took in pursuit of his B.S. degree were "fire-related". However, the Petitioner offered no competent substantial evidence to support his position, and therefore, his testimony is not credited. In fact, the description of the behavioral science major at New York Institute of Technology makes no reference to "fire-related" courses, or qualifying graduates for employment in fire protection or fire safety fields. There was no competent substantial evidence that Petitioner had the requisite number of hours in a fire-related major study concentration area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the determination that he is not qualified to participate in the firefighters supplemental compensation program. DONE AND ENTERED this day of December 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December 1990. APPENDIX The Petitioner did not timely file Proposed Findings of Fact. Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. 3. Adopted in Findings 2 and 3. Copies furnished: John T. Wandell, Esquire 19110 Westbrook Drive Boca Raton, FL 33434 Ruth L. Gokol, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue presented is whether Mr. Lord should be granted additional credit for his answer to question number 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lord (Candidate #301402) received a score of 66.3 percent on the April 20, 1991, Principals and Practice portion of the Professional Engineer examination. A minimum passing score was 70.0 percent. Mr. Lord challenged the scoring of his response to question number 144. Question number 144 is an essay question involving an assembly line problem where four separate stations are used to assemble a product in sequence. A fifth station can assist in maximizing the number of finished products produced per hour, and is capable of performing all operations. The correct answer to question number 144 was 100 products per hour, while Mr. Lord's answer was 25 pieces per hour. Petitioner received a score of 2 (out of a possible 10) points on question number 144. This was based on the scoring plan developed for the exam by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Mr. Lord used a method of averaging station assembly times to determine the maximum average number of products each station could produce. The averaging method gave a solution which did not identify the central issue presented by the essay question: identifying and eliminating the bottlenecks in production. Mr. Lord also made an assumption that the initial four stations could do all operations, thus defining the model inaccurately. This misreading allowed Mr. Lord to use an averaging methodology. Mr. Granata, the Department's expert, testified that it is a coincidence of the numbers that if you multiply Respondent's answer (25) by four (the initial number of machines) you get the Board's answer (100). Mr. Greenbaum, Petitioner's expert witness, testified that Petitioner's answer is "unique" and that he, as an expert, would have answered the question using a methodology similar to the one developed by the Department's expert, Mr. Granata, and by the NCEE (National Council of Examiners for Engineering).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the challenge to the grading of Mr. Lord's response to question 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Curtis Lord 1416A Old Lystra Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue 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.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Petitioner does not possess the requisite criteria necessary to admit him to the examination for licensure as a professional engineer in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer 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 13th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Irving Joseph Armstrong 5069 Susannah Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32803 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Rule 21DD-5.002, Florida Administrative Code, as applied to an application for licensure as a professional geologist without examination, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On September 29, 1988, Petitioner Davis made application in proper form to the Board for licensure as a professional geologist without examination, as provided in Section 492.105(2)(c), Florida Statutes. To establish entitlement to licensure without examination, an applicant must meet all of the other requirements of Section 492.105, Florida Statutes, and make application in proper form within one calendar year of October 1, 1987. The only requirement of Section 492.105, Florida Statutes, in dispute in the formal Section 120.57 administrative hearing is whether Petitioner Davis has fulfilled the educational requirements set forth in Section 492.105(1)(d), Florida Statutes, so the Board can qualify him without examination. The parties stipulate that all other statutory licensing criteria have been met by the applicant. Petitioner's application was deemed complete by the Board on June 25, 1990. Rule 21DD-5.003, Florida Administrative Code, describes the requisite geological coursework and fundamental core program of geology accepted by the Board for purposes of fulfilling the requirements of Section 492.105(1)(d)2, Florida Statutes. This rule was enacted on April 22, 1990, over one and one- half years after Petitioner applied for his license. On July 12, 1990, a notice of denial of the application for licensure without examination was issued by the Board. According to the notice, the application committee determined Petitioner's transcripts from the University of Arizona do not show the 30 semester hours of geological courses mandated by Section 492.105(1)(d)2., Florida Statutes. Although the Board did not cite Rule 21DD-5.002, Florida Administrative Code, as a basis for its decision to deny the application, the rule was used to determine if Petitioner satisfied the educational requirements mandated by Section 492.105(1), Florida Statutes. Due to the fact that an application for licensure without examination contains the same educational requirements as an application for examination, the Board extrapolated that the new rule should be applied so as to include those still seeking licensure under the "grandfather clause" in Section 492.105(2)(c). Applications for licensure without examination which were still pending on the effective date of the rule, were evaluated according to the rule criteria.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 30, 1998, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to Problems 124, 125, and 222 on the Examination. At the time he made this request, Petitioner was aware that rescoring could result in the candidate's score being lowered (although he believed that, in his case, the outcome would be a higher, not a lower, score). Petitioner was wrong. The rescoring he requested resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). After being notified of the outcome of the rescoring, Petitioner requested the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to grant him a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. Petitioner's request was granted. At hearing, Petitioner advised that he was challenging only the grading of his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Examination, and that he was not pursuing his challenge to the score he had received for his solution to Problem 125. Problems 124 and 222 were worth ten (raw) points each. Problem 124 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner received two (raw) points for his solution to Problem 124. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Due to mathematical errors that he made, Petitioner did not solve any of the subparts of Problem 124 correctly. Accordingly, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest (raw) score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a two, which is the score he received. Problem 222 contained five subparts (or requirements). Petitioner originally received a (raw) score of six for his solution to Problem 222. Upon rescoring, his (raw) score was reduced to two. In attempting to solve Problem 222, Petitioner overestimated the lateral earth pressure due to his misunderstanding of the term "equivalent fluid pressure" used in the problem. In addition, in his solution to subpart (a), he did not properly specify the appropriate bar size and spacing. Giving Petitioner a (raw) score of two for his solution to Problem 222 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 October, 1999.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Prior to his admission to the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida on August 30, 1982, Petitioner Evans attended a three-year full-time Mechanical Engineering Diploma Program at the College of Arts, Science and Technology in Kingston, Jamaica. Upon completion of the program, Petitioner was awarded the College Mechanical Engineering Diploma. The diploma from the College of Arts, Science and Technology was conferred in an educational system based upon the English System of Education. The diploma was not a university degree, such as a Bachelor of Science. It is more akin to a certificate from a specialized training program. Such diplomas are often called Associate Degrees when they are issued by junior colleges in the United States. 750 credit hours were transferred from the College of Arts, Science and Technology and were applied to the lower level requirements for the Mechanical Engineering Program when Petitioner was enrolled at the University of South Florida. As with all transfers from other schools of higher education, Petitioner was not given credit for those courses in the grade point average (GPA) he was required to achieve at the university. Throughout his enrollment at the university prior to the actual award of his Bachelor of Science (BS) degree, Petitioner Evans was in the Mechanical Engineering Program. During the thirteen terms the Petitioner attended the university before he was awarded his BS degree, he repeated the following engineering department courses: EGN 3313 STATICS (3 times); EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2 (2 times); ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I (3 times) and EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO (4 times). Petitioner ultimately achieved a "A" in EGN 3313 STATICS; a "C" in EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2, as well as ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I. His final grade in the coursework for EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO was a "B". At all times while Petitioner was in attendance at the university, the Mechanical Engineering Department required students to have a GPA of 2.2 or better in a specific schedule of coursework before a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (BSME) degree would be awarded by the faculty of the Department. The curriculum for the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida was accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) based upon the program requirement that a degree in mechanical engineering would be conferred only on students with a 2.2 or better GPA. The fall term of August 24, 1987 - December 12, 1987, was designated as Petitioner's final term of his senior year as an undergraduate seeking a BSME degree. Although the means used by the Mechanical Engineering faculty to calculate a GPA during this particular time period was unavailable, there is no dispute that the faculty applied its policy and determined that a BSME could not be awarded to Petitioner because he did not meet the academic standard of 2.2 or better GPA in the scheduled courses. Due to the averaging required to arrive at a GPA, Petitioner's repetition of so many courses lowered his overall GPA even though he successfully completed each course on his final attempt. When Petitioner was personally informed of the faculty's decision by his assigned faculty adviser, he questioned whether he could retake some of the courses to bring his GPA status up to the level demanded by the faculty. This idea was discouraged by his adviser because Petitioner would have to repeat a large number of courses over a lengthy period of time. The averaging techniques used to compute a GPA makes such an endeavor very time consuming with small results for the effort spent. Based upon the advice he received, Petitioner acquiesced in the faculty's decision to award him a B.S. in Engineering-Option in General and accepted the degree. At the close of his undergraduate academic pursuits, Petitioner had an overall GPA of 2.082 and a GPA in departmental course work of 1.79. This departmental GPA was calculated by eliminating 3 "Fs" from his transcript, per the university's forgiveness policy. All other course repeats lowered his overall GPA and his departmental GPA. In spite of the overall GPA and departmental GPA determination, Petitioner did take and successfully passed every course within the curriculum of the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida. The B.S. degree awarded to Petitioner is an alternate degree within the university. It is designed for students who have either completed a specialized program but were unable to meet a faculty's higher GPA standard or for those students who never designated a specialty within the engineering school, but met general university degree requirements. This program has never been accredited by ABET. ABET relied upon the faculty's representation that students who received BSME degrees would obtain a 2.2 or better GPA in the program before the degree was awarded when accreditation was granted by the board. It is unknown as to whether the program would have been approved if a lower success standard had been set for the students. On July 9, 1990, Petitioner's application for the Fundamentals Examination was received by the Department. The application was rejected on September 24, 1990, because the Department determined Petitioner did not meet the statutory and rule provisions governing admissions to the examination. From August 27,, 1984 - December 11, 1987, Petitioner was in the final year of an approved engineering curriculum in a university approved by the Board. He successfully completed the courses in the curriculum, but his GPA in the program was lowered by his numerous repetitions of the same courses before successful completion occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application to take the examination administered by the Department for the Board be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 20th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Pages 1-2: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement Issue I-Page 3: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #11. Paragraph two. Accepted. See HO #7. Paragraph three. Accepted. See HO #3. Paragraph four. Accepted. See HO #8. Paragraph five. Accepted. See HO #4, #10, #11 and #12. Paragraph six. Accepted. Paragraph seven. Accepted. See HO #15. Paragraph eight. Accepted. See HO #12. Paragraph nine. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Rejected. Cumulative. Issue II-Page 7: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #13. Issue III-Page 8:Paragraph one. Accepted. Paragraph two. Rejected. Cumulative. Paragraph three. Accepted. Paragraph four. Rejected. Mixed Question of Law and Fact. Witness Incompetent to determine. Paragraph five. Rejected. Cumulative. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #12 and #13. Accepted. See HO #8 and #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Insufficient facts presented. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. COPIES FURNISHED: Weldon Earl Brennan, Esquire SHEAR NEWMAN HAHN & ROSENKRANZ, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Executive Director Jack McRay, General Counsel Florida Board of Professional Department of Professional Engineers Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for answers to two questions on the geology examination Petitioner took in August 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the geology examination given on August 16, 1996. Respondent administered the examination. Petitioner must pass both parts of the examination with a score of 70 to be licensed as a professional geologist. Petitioner earned a score of 85 on the portion of the examination pertaining to rules and regulations. However, Petitioner earned a score of 69.6 on that portion of the examination pertaining to geology. Credit for an answer to one additional question would result in a score of 70 on the geology portion of the examination. Alternatively, disqualification of two of the questions for which Petitioner did not receive credit would result in a passing score. Petitioner challenges questions 18 and 90 on the examination. He challenges the grade given to him for an incorrect answer as well as the grade given to other candidates for a correct answer. Question 18 asks the candidate to identify the best method for testing well-casing integrity. Well-casing integrity addresses breaks, ruptures, and holes in the well casing. Respondent determined the correct answer to Question 18 to be D. Answer D is a televiewer log. Petitioner answered B. Answer B is a caliper. The correct response is answer D. Answer D provides a more complete determination of the well casing integrity than does the answer chosen by Petitioner. Question 18 is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer correctly. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge reasonably expected of a candidate for licensure. Question 90 asks the candidate for the best method of providing permeability for the largest volume. It does not specify the conditions for performing the test because the candidate does not need to know the conditions in order to answer the question. Respondent determined the correct response to be answer B. Petitioner selected answer D. The correct response is answer B. Answer B provides a more complete answer. Question 90 is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer correctly. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge reasonably expected of a candidate for licensure.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge to questions 18 and 90. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Rimes, Executive Director Board of Geologists Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jeffrey James Tarr, pro se 3151 State Road 21 Middleburg, Florida 33068
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be allowed to retake the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter without repeating the Minimum Standards Course.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Laurie J. Rudock (Rudock), failed the practical portion of the initial Minimum Standards Certification Examination for firefighters given on August 12, 1997. Petitioner retook the Minimum Standards Certification Examination on October 13, 1997, and failed that examination. After being duly noticed of the final hearing in this proceeding, Petitioner did not appear at the final hearing and failed to present any evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner, Laurie J. Rudock, is not entitled to retake the Minimum Standards Certification Examination without first retaking the Minimum Standards Course. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Karuna P. Rao, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Laurie J. Rudock, pro se 1819 North Victoria Park Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305
