The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement as a landscape architect without examination pursuant to Chapter 481, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner has been licensed in the State of Tennessee as a landscape architect since 1973. Petitioner was issued his license in Tennessee without examination and without completing a professional degree program in landscape architecture. Petitioner was issued a license in Tennessee pursuant to a grandfather clause in that state's licensure requirements. On August 29, 1988, Petitioner submitted an application to the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architects (the "Department") for licensure by endorsement as a landscape architect. Respondent denied Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement on October 17, 1988, but certified Petitioner as eligible to take the written examination for licensure. Petitioner requested a formal hearing on November 9, 1988. The matter was placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Board of Landscape Architecture (the "Board"). The Board denied Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement on February 17, 1989. 1/ The Board, however, approved Petitioner to take the written examination as a so-called ". . . six- year candidate." 2/ Petitioner had at least six years of practical experience of a grade and character that was satisfactory to the Board for the purpose of taking the written examination. 3/ The Executive Director of the Board advised Petitioner by letter dated March 28, 1989, that the Board had approved Petitioner to take the examination required in Section 481.309 as a result of Petitioner's experience. Petitioner sat for and successfully completed the state portion of the examination required in Section 481.309, Florida Statutes. The examination required in Section 481.309 includes both a national portion and a portion concerning ". . . the specialized aspects of the practice of landscape architecture in Florida" (the "state portion" ). 4/ Petitioner requested to be scheduled for the state portion of the examination on April 24, 1989. Respondent sent Petitioner an acknowledgement of the request to be scheduled for the state portion of the examination on June 12, 1989. Petitioner achieved a score of 85 on the state portion of the examination. The Department notified Petitioner on January 15, 1990, that he had passed the exam and that his application for licensure had been approved by the Board. The notice of Petitioner's passing grade required Petitioner to submit a registration fee of $225. Petitioner tendered the required registration fee in accordance with the notice. The Department subsequently returned the registration fee with a letter notifying Petitioner that the Department had made an error. The Department determined that Petitioner had passed only the state portion of the examination. Petitioner did not take the national portion of the examination. The national portion of the examination is prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards ("CLARB"), is very technical, and is aimed at college graduates with technical training. Petitioner believed that the likelihood of completing the national portion of the examination successfully was not great. Petitioner could not take the oral examination offered by CLARB as an alternative to the national portion of the written examination because CLARB requirements at the time required Petitioner to reside in Tennessee, i.e., the state in which he was licensed. After the Department returned the registration fee with a letter notifying Petitioner that the Department had made an error, Petitioner again requested an administrative hearing on June 25, 1990, and on August 23, 1990. On October 5, 1990, the Petitioner's request for licensure by endorsement came on to be heard as an agenda item before the Board and, after discussion, was denied. On October 10, 1990, Respondent notified Petitioner that his request for licensure without examination was denied and the Petitioner was afforded the right to request an administrative hearing. On October 29, 1990, and on November 1, 1990, through counsel, Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. Criteria For Licensure The criteria for licensure in Florida and Tennessee were not substantially identical when Petitioner was issued his license in Tennessee in 1973. Florida and Tennessee generally required each applicant to demonstrate his or her competency by written examination. 5/ In order to sit for the examination in Florida, an applicant was required to have completed four years of high school and either: have been graduated from a nationally accredited college or university offering an approved curriculum in landscape architecture; or have no less than 11 years of practical experience satisfactory to the Board. Conversely, an applicant could sit for the examination in Tennessee with seven years of practical experience in lieu of a college degree. 6/ Petitioner did not satisfy the requirements for exemption from examination pursuant to the reciprocity provisions in effect in Florida in 1973. The Board was statutorily authorized to exempt an applicant who held a license issued by another state if the out-of-state license was issued upon examination and if the requirements for the out-of-state license were the full equivalent of the requirements in this state at the time the out-of-state license was issued. 7/ Petitioner's license was not issued to him in Tennessee upon examination. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the requirements for the Tennessee license were not the full equivalent of the requirements in Florida. Standards prescribed in the grandfather clauses in Florida and Tennessee in 1973 were not substantially identical. Both Florida and Tennessee had statutory provisions in effect in 1973 which exempted applicants in each state from the criteria for licensure if such applicants satisfied the practical experience standards prescribed in the respective statutory provisions ("grandfather clauses"). The grandfather clause in Florida required the applicant to have one year experience and to apply for licensure within six months of the date of enactment of the grandfather clause. The grandfather clause in Tennessee authorized that state's board to license without written examination any applicant who was practicing landscape architecture at the time the Tennessee law was enacted, who had experience satisfactory to the board, and who applied for licensure without examination within one year of the effective date of the Tennessee grandfather clause.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner is not eligible for licensure by endorsement as a landscaper architect. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1991.
Findings Of Fact In June 1987, petitioner, Karl T. Christiansen, was an examinee on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Uniform National Examination for landscape architects. He had previously passed Sections 1 and 2 in the June, 1986 examination. The test is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation, and licensure is granted by respondent, Board of Landscape Architects. The examination in question is a uniform multi-state examination adopted for use in Florida. The questions are prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. The same organization also prepares a comprehensive Evaluation Guide for use by graders in scoring the test. All Florida graders must be professional landscape architects with at least five years' experience. In addition, they are given training by the Office of Examination Services before grading the examination. After the examination was completed by the candidates, all examinations, including that of Christiansen, were blind-graded by the graders using the Evaluation Guide as a tool. By notice dated October 23, 1987, petitioner was advised by the Office of Examination Services that he had received the following scores on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the examination: Design Application 84.4 PASS Design Implementation 70.8 FAIL Florida Section 76.2 PASS On December 14, 1987, petitioner was given an opportunity to meet with Board representatives in Tallahassee and present objections concerning his score on Section 4 of the examination. Because of Christiansen's concerns, the Board regraded his examination a second time and raised his overall score from 70.8 to 72.4. This was still short of the 74.5 needed for passing. After being given the results of the second grading, petitioner requested a formal hearing. At hearing petitioner lodged objections to scores received on twenty- one questions in Subparts A, B and C of Section 4 of the examination. These objections are contained in joint composite exhibit 1 received in evidence. It was Christiansen's position that the graders had used subjective standards in evaluating his solutions, and that they had failed to take a sufficient amount of time to evaluate his answers. In addition, Christiansen contended that the examiners had failed to note a number of correct answers for which he was not given credit. Other than his own testimony, petitioner did not present any other evidence to support his contentions. Indeed, his own witness, a Fort Lauderdale landscape architect with thirty years experience, concluded that the Board was correct in failing Christiansen and that Christiansen had not demonstrated adequate competence on the examination to justify a passing grade. In support of its position, respondent presented an expert, Michael Oliver, a longtime registered landscape architect with three years experience in grading this type of examination. In preparation for the hearing, Oliver reviewed the examination, instruction booklet and grader's Evaluation Guide. He then regraded petitioner's examination and assigned it a score of 73.4, which was a failing grade. In doing so, Oliver assigned higher scores than did the previous two graders to certain questions but lower scores to others, for an overall average of 73.4. Through a detailed analysis, Oliver pointed out the infirmities in each of Christiansen's objections and why an overall failing grade was appropriate. It was demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that, where petitioner had not received the desired grade, he had misinterpreted the instructions, prepared unsafe designs, failed to satisfy all criteria, or gave incorrect answers. Therefore, petitioner's grade should not be changed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board denying petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on section 4 of the June, 1987 landscape architecture examination. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of May, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Richard Berry, an applicant for licensure as a landscape architect, was administered the Landscape Architecture License Examination in June, 1987. This exam is a standardized national test which is prepared by the Council Of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards and administered through the Florida Department of Professional Regulation. Part of the examination requires the implementation of design knowledge through practical application. Mr. Berry's score on the design implementation portion of the exam was not sufficient to constitute a passing score. A weighted score of 75 on each portion is required to pass the examination. Mr. Berry passed all other portions of the examination. Upon initially receiving the failing score, Mr. Berry requested an informal review of the grading, which resulted in an upward adjustment of his score. However the score was still insufficient to raise the score to a passing level. The remaining disagreement centered on five items in the practical examination. The items were related to architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner as required by question four of the design implementation portion of the exam. The items were as follows: 4b(2) drawing of wood deck attachment detail to wall 4b(4) drawing of concrete sidewalk grade wall detail 4b(5) drawing of metal fence detail 4b(6) qualities/quantities of materials listed 4c(2,3) drawing of deck detail At the hearing, Mr. Berry discussed the relevant exam questions and clearly articulated why he believed his responses were entitled to credit in addition to what had originally been given by the examination graders. The Department's expert witness, Mr. Buchannan, indicated that he had rescored Mr. Berry's exam responses in accordance with the "Examination Evaluation Guide" issued by the Council of Landscape Architectural Examination Boards. Mr. Buchannan testified that one point of additional credit should have been given for Mr. Berry's response on the item 4b(2) and one point of additional credit should be given for the response on item 4b(6) of the design implementation portion of the exam. No additional points were to be credited to the responses on the three remaining items. Juan Trujillo, examination development specialist for the Department of Professional Regulation testified as to the effect of the additional points. According to his testimony, the additional credit would provide Mr. Berry with, a raw score of 71.5, which equates to a weighted score of 74.5. The weighted score is rounded up by the Department to a grade of 75.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Landscape Architecture, granting to Petitioner, if otherwise qualified, licensure as a landscape architect. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 21st day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1376 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent are accepted as modified in the Recommended Older. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Berry, pro se 6588 Southeast 78th Avenue Keystone Heights, Florida 32656 William Leffler, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Ard, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Landscape Architects 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge regarding the June 1997 landscape architecture licensure examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: In June of 1994, Petitioner took the national landscape architecture licensure examination (LARE). LARE is an examination developed, administered and graded by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB). The 1994 version of LARE, like all subsequent pre-1997 versions of the examination, contained seven parts: Legal and Administrative Aspects of Practice (part 1), Programming and Environmental Analysis (part 2), Conceptualization and Communication (part 3), Design Synthesis (part 4), Integration of Technical and Design Requirements (part 5), Grading and Drainage (part 6) and Implementation of Design Through the Construction Process (part 7). Three of the seven parts of the examination, parts 1, 2 and 7, consisted of multiple choice questions. Parts 2 and 7 had 90 and 120 questions, respectively. The passing score for each part of the examination was 75. On the June 1994 examination, Petitioner received a passing grade of 75 on part 2 and failing grade of 69 on part 7. In June of 1995, Petitioner retook part 7 of the examination (as well as four other parts of the examination she had failed in 1994). Petitioner received a failing grade of 71 on part 7 of the June 1995 examination. After receiving her scores on the June 1995 examination, Petitioner sent a letter, dated October 10, 1995, to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), which read as follows: Pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, I would like to petition for a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. I am disputing my scores achieved on the Landscape Architecture Registration Examination (LARE) for sections 3, 4, 5 6 and The reason I am disputing the score on these sections is because I was comfortable with the examination format, paid specific attention to detail and felt confident that I had successfully designed appropriate buildable solutions to the problems meeting or exceeding minimum competency. The procedures for requesting a formal hearing were written with what appear to be contradictions and therefore I am enclosing a copy that was mailed to me. Since the information pamphlet specifically states that NO CHALLENGES TO SECTIONS 1 THRU 7 OF THE EXAMINATION WILL BE ACCEPTED, it is not clear then why it states that a candidate electing to review the examination for the purpose of submitting challenges is then stated. I did call the Department of [Business and Professional] Regulation and spoke with JoAnn Richardson at the Bureau of Testing for clarification. In my first conversation with her, she stated that I would be able to request a pre-hearing review in order to accurately challenge my scores. In a second conversation with her on that same day, she then said that it would be O.K. to go to the review and then submit this letter of petition for a formal hearing. Since the dates in this pamphlet do not accurately reflect our conversation, I asked her if she could write it in a letter for me so that I was confident that I would not miss the deadline to file for this petition. I have not received this letter from her and therefore am petitioning for a formal hearing at this time with a request for a pre-hearing review of my examination. Petitioner received a letter from the Department, dated October 27, 1995, acknowledging receipt of her October 10, 1995, letter and advising her that her letter had been "forwarded to the Office of the General Counsel for review and action." No action, however, was subsequently taken on the matter. Petitioner telephoned the Department on several occasions to ascertain the status of her hearing request. She was told that she would be notified when a hearing was scheduled. Such notification, however, never came. Petitioner therefore applied to retake, in June of 1996, those parts of the LARE she had not yet passed, including part 7. The Pre-Exam Orientation Information booklet that CLARB sent to candidates before the June 1996 examination alerted candidates to the following: 1996 will be the last time to take Sections 2 and 7 of the LARE separately. In 1997, Sections 2 and 7 of the current test will be combined into a new Section 2(7)- Analytical and Technical Aspects of Practice. If a candidate does not pass both Sections 2 and 7 separately in 1996 he/she will be required to complete the new Section 2(7). Petitioner received a failing grade of 74 on part 7 of the June 1996 examination. She did not take any steps to challenge this failing grade. The revisions announced in the 1996 Pre-Exam Orientation Information booklet were made to the 1997 version of the LARE. Parts 2 and 7 of the examination were replaced by a new part 2(7), entitled "Analytical and Technical Aspects of Practice," which consisted of 130 multiple choice questions. This new part of the examination tested the same general knowledge, skills and abilities as had parts 2 and 7 of the previous examinations, but did so in a more efficient manner. In June of 1997, Petitioner took part 2(7) of the examination and received a failing grade. The failing score that Petitioner received on part 2(7) of the June 1997 examination, and the failing scores that she received on part 7 of the 1994, 1995, and 1996 examinations, are reliable indicators of her competency in the areas tested at the time she took the examinations. These failing scores reflect her failure to meet minimum competency in the areas tested, as determined by the panel of experts who set the passing scores for these examinations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner is not qualified for licensure as a landscape architect because she has not yet passed the licensure examination, as required by Section 481.311(2)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Paul A. Wroblewski, is a transition candidate for licensure as a landscape architect. By "transition" candidate it is meant that Petitioner began the licensing process when the Department utilized a different examination for licensure. Petitioner successfully passed Section 3, entitled "Design Application," of that prior test, the U.N.E. Most recently, Petitioner took the examination for licensure administered by the Department on June 15-17, 1992. This test, the Landscape Architect Registration Examination (LARE), was graded by licensed landscape architects in a national grading session administered by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB). The Department received the scores from CLARB and then reported them to Petitioner. Petitioner's scores were as follows: EXAM SECTION MINIMUM TO PASS SCORE ACHIEVED SECTION STATUS SECTION 2 PROGRAMMING & 75.0 79.0 PASS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SECTION 3 CONCEPTUALI- ZATION & COMMUNICATION 75.0 68.0 FAIL SECTION 4 DESIGN SYNTHESIS 75.0 81.0 PASS In order to apply for licensure, all sections of the examination must be passed. The challenged section in this case, Section 3, contained five separate vignettes that were graded by two independent scorers. The raw scores given by the graders were then translated to a pass/fail/neutral response for each vignette. Additionally, vignette 2 was double weighted. The total number of translated scores for Section 3 was twelve (5 vignettes graded by 2 examiners with an extra 2 scores for the double weighted vignette). In order to achieve the minimum score of 75.0, the examinee had to obtain a minimum number of passes and neutrals which translated to the numerical score of 75. With regard to vignette 1, Petitioner's response was graded by four graders: of the four, three found Petitioner's response to be a "fail" score; one found the Petitioner's response to be a "neutral." With regard to vignette 2, Petitioner's response warranted a "fail" score. With regard to vignette 3, Petitioner's response warranted a "fail" score. With regard to vignette 4, Petitioner's response warranted a "fail" score. With regard to vignette 5, Petitioner's response was regraded and given a "pass" score. Assuming the testimony of Petitioner's witness to be the most credible as to the scoring of Petitioner's examination, Petitioner would have received two neutral scores, two pass scores, and eight fail scores. Such scores would have been insufficient to receive a numerical score of 75. After the examination was administered, CLARB graded the Petitioner's examination and mailed the results of the test to the Department on October 15, 1992. Petitioner received his grades from the Department by letter dated January 4, 1993.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Landscape Architects, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to his examination scores. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish 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 October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2646 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. None submitted Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraghs 1 through 10 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Wroblewski 15150 South West 128th Avenue Miami, Florida 33186 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Landscape Architect 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0766p Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In June 1990, petitioner was a candidate on section 4 of the landscape architect examination, having previously passed the other five sections on the examination. The test was administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Landscape Architecture (Board). On October 8, 1990, DPR issued a written uniform grade notice advising petitioner that he had received a grade of 65.7 on the examination. A grade of 75 is necessary to pass this section of the examination. The Board has adopted a rule authorizing an unsuccessful candidate to attend a post-examination review session in Tallahassee for the purpose of challenging his grade. Under this procedure, a candidate may request another grader to regrade the challenged portions of the examination. In this case, petitioner opted to use this procedure and challenged various problems in section 4. Two other graders regraded the examination and, while raising some scores, the graders also lowered others, which resulted in an overall scale score of 73. By letter dated March 31, 1991, petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his grade. In his letter, Delate generally contended he was entitled to a passing grade because his examination solutions were graded in a "careless and inconsistent nature", the instructions given at the examination were "very confusing and interruptive", the regrading of his examination was improper because it resulted the in lowering of the original scores on some problems, three multiple choice questions were arbitrarily thrown out after the examination was given, the passing grade was arbitrarily raised by the Board from 74.5 to 75, and he did not receive appropriate credit on ten problems. The June 1990 examination was a uniform national examination used in approximately thirty-eight states, including Florida. With the exception of one section, all sections on the examination were prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB), a national organization of which the Florida board is a member. The examination is blind graded by volunteer licensed landscape architects who receive training from and are "standardized" by master graders prior to the test. On this examination, the solutions by all candidates from the southeastern region of the United States, including Florida, were placed in one group and graded by the same persons. The graders used an evaluation guide prepared by CLARB which contained guidelines and criteria for assigning scores. Since two parts of section 4 are graded subjectively, it is not unusual for two graders to reach a different conclusion with respect to a particular problem. There is no evidence that the first or second graders who reviewed Delate's examination were arbitrary, inconsistent or careless as he has alleged. Section 4 of the examination involves the subject matter of design implementation and consists of parts 4a and 4b. Part 4a had four factors (problems) while part 4b had seven factors. Each factor is assigned points which may range from zero for no credit to as high as eight, depending on the number of items in the factor. In this case petitioner has challenged the score he received on all four factors in part 4a and factors one through six in part 4b. In order to maintain the confidentiality of the specific problems on this examination, it is suffice to say that the candidate on section 4 was required to prepare a large drawing for each part, one being a "layout and dimensioning" drawing, that is, he was required to lay out fixed and proposed elements (e.g., sidewalks, drains, paving detail) and to locate their dimensions, and the other being a "detail and specification" drawing which required the candidate to draw the details and specifications for such things as walls, pavement, decking and the like. Petitioner's drawings have been received in evidence as respondent's exhibits 4 and 5. Each party presented evidence regarding the appropriate grade that should have been assigned to the problems in dispute. Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of another candidate on the same examination and an engineering technician. Although the undersigned allowed the witnesses to express opinions regarding the examination, none were qualified or accepted as experts, and none were familiar with the specific grading criteria for this examination. The Board presented the testimony of a long-time licensed landscape architect, C. Michael Oliver, who is a master grader for CLARB and has been grading the national examination for a number of years. As a master grader, Oliver trains other graders on the national examination. Petitioner's contention that Oliver's testimony is irrelevant has been rejected. 1/ Oliver regraded parts 4a and 4b on petitioner's examination and concluded that Delate was not entitled to a passing grade. He reached this conclusion as to part 4a because the candidate had missing or incorrect dimensions, inaccurately located elements, and poorly communicated plan layout. The expert also reached the same conclusion with respect to part 4b because the candidate had a lack of dimension, missing elements, an unsound structure, and poor communicative skills. This testimony is found to be more credible and persuasive than that offered by petitioner and is hereby accepted. Therefore, it is found that petitioner was not entitled to have his grade raised on parts 4a and 4b. Petitioner also contended that he would have received a passing grade if the Board had not thrown out three multiple choice questions after the examination was given. However, the evidence shows that if the questions had been used, the passing grade (based upon the difficulty of the examination) would have been raised and petitioner would still not achieve a scale score of 75. Petitioner next contended that the Board acted improperly during the regrading process because the second graders lowered the scores from the original grade on some of the challenged questions. In other words, the second graders not only raised certain scores, but they also lowered others resulting in a revised grade of 73, still short of the required 75. Delate complained this was unfair and that no prior notice was given to him regarding this procedure. However, it was established that this process, which is not codified by rule, is an accepted testing procedure, is used on all professional examinations administered by DPR, and never results in the revised score being reduced below the original overall score. Therefore, the agency's policy is found to be justified and adequately explicated. Delate also contended that the review session graders were given unlimited time to grade the examination in contrast to the original graders who had a compressed time schedule and numerous examinations to review. Even so, this can hardly be deemed to be arbitrary or unfair since the second graders raised petitioner's grade by some seven points. Petitioner's next contentions concerned "confusing and interruptive" instructions allegedly given at both the examination and regrading session and an allegation that the Board acted arbitrarily by changing (on an undisclosed date) the required grade for passing from 74.5 to 75. However, there was no evidence to support the allegation that these matters prejudiced petitioner, and in any event, all original and review session candidates would have been subject to the same interruptions, time constraints and passing grade requirements. Further, if the change in the passing grade (from 74.5 to 75) occurred after the examination was given, petitioner's grade (73) was still too low to be affected by that change. Finally, petitioner cited the fact that he will lose his job as a landscape architect with Collier County if he does not receive a passing grade. While this factor obviously has profound economic and personal ramifications for petitioner, it is not a consideration in the grading process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order confirming petitioner's grade of 73 on section 4 of the June 1990 examination. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted sufficient additional credit for exam factors which would be sufficient to receive a passing grade on the design implementation portion of the June 1989 landscape architecture examination.
Findings Of Fact In June 1989, Petitioner, Deborah Martohue, was an examinee on Section 4, Parts A and B, of the Uniform National Examination for Landscape Architects. She had previously passed Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 in the June 1988 examination. The test is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. Licensure is granted by Respondent, Board of Landscape Architects. The examination in question is a uniform multi-state examination adopted for use in Florida. The questions are prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. The same organization also prepares a comprehensive Evaluation Guide for use by graders in scoring the subjective portions of the test. All Florida graders must be professional landscape architects with at least five years experience. In addition, they are given training by the Office of Examination Services before grading the examination. Prior to the administration of the exam, master graders from all 43 states who use the exam meet and critique both the examination questions and the evaluation guide to insure uniformity. By notice, Petitioner was advised by the Office of Examination Services that she had received a failing scaled score of 64.8158 on Section 4, Design Implementation, of the examination. A minimum scaled score of 74.5 is required for a passing grade. On October 30, 1989, Petitioner reviewed her examination and using the evaluation guide, disputed 25 points concerning the scoring on Section 4 of the examination. As a result of Petitioner's concerns, the Board assigned a new person to regrade her examination. As a result Petitioner's overall scaled score was raised form 64.8158 to 73.1489. This was still short of the 74.5 needed for passing. After being given the results of the second grading, Petitioner requested a formal hearing. At the hearing, Petitioner objected to the scores received on Section 4A, Factors 2 and 3, out of a total of four factors, and Section 4B, Factors 1,3,4,5, and 6, out of a total of nine factors, of the examination. It is Petitioner's position that the graders had used subjective standards in evaluating her solutions to the problems, and that they had failed to take a sufficient amount of time to evaluate her answers. In addition, Petitioner contended that the examiners had failed to note a number of correct answers for which she was not given credit. Other than her own testimony, Petitioner did not present any other competent evidence to support her contentions. In support of its position, Respondent presented the testimony of C. Michael Oliver, a longtime registered landscape architect and master grader with five years experience in grading this type of examination. In preparation for the hearing, Oliver reviewed the examination, instruction booklet, and grader's Evaluation Guide. He then regraded Petitioner's examination and assigned it a scaled score of 70.3712, which was a failing grade. In doing so, Oliver assigned higher scores than did the previous two graders to certain questions, but lower scores to others for an overall average of 70.3. Through a detailed analysis, Oliver pointed out the infirmities in each of Petitioner's objections and why an overall failing grade was appropriate. It was demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that, where Petitioner had not received the desired grade, she had prepared unsafe designs, failed to satisfy all criteria, or gave incorrect answers. The evidence does not support a conclusion that Petitioner's examination was graded arbitrarily or capriciously, or that Respondent failed to conduct the examination fairly, uniformly and in accordance with its own rules and regulations, or that the examination instructions were insufficient and misleading.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board denying Petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on Section 4 of the June 1989 landscape architecture examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-1567 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 14, 15. Rejected: paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (restatement of the testimony or argument) COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah Martohue 1315 Margate Avenue Orlando, FL 32803 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Ard Executive Director Landscape Architecture Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an applicant for licensure as a landscape architect in the State of Florida, and he took the licensure examination on June 14th and 15th, 1982. The Petitioner passed one part of this examination, Landscape Architecture Design, with a score of 75, but he failed History of Landscape Architecture, Professional Practice, and Design Implementation. The only part of the exam the Petitioner challenges is Design Implementation for which he received a final grade of 73. His initial Score was 69, but after a review and reevaluation of his designs by the consultant, points were added to his score which brought it up to 73. A score of 75 is required in order to pass the examination. The landscape architecture examination is a national examination, developed and administered by CLARB, Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. The Design Implementation section of the exam is approximately 50 percent of the examination, and is graded by a team of landscape architect experts who have been trained by CLARB in a one-day seminar regarding their responsibilities and evaluation standards. There is always a minimum of two evaluators for each examination. Candidates are identified only by a candidate number, which maintains their anonymity. CLARB utilizes a statistical process to measure the differences among evaluators to eliminate the very hard graders and the very easy ones. In order to arrive at a raw score, CLARB collects all of the examination grades from the entire nation and determines a median score. This is utilized to calculate a coefficient for each individual state that determines the value of each point. The Petitioner was graded on three separate drawings. These drawings were graded by the evaluators for the State of Florida and Petitioner was given a grade of 69. The Petitioner reviewed his examination and made objections to the score given on drawings 1 and 2. These drawings and the Scores given were reviewed by the consultant. addition, the consultant reviewed each one of the scoring items on all three drawings to ensure proper grading Professional judgment must be utilized in grading these examinations, because they are landscape architecture drawings; therefore, the evaluators are professional landscape architecture experts, as is the Department's consultant. The Petitioner's drawings did not meet the Standards set by CLARB for minimal competency in the area of landscape architecture. For example, he did not place elevation figures in proper places, he failed to indicate grades where they were poised to be indicated, he did not show proper contours, and he did not clearly preserve all trees as required by the examination guidelines. Certain grading criteria in the Design examination where cumulative, in that each level must have been completed before the next level could be attained. This resulted in low grades for the Petitioner on some of the criteria. The Petitioner's drawings showed a lack of minimal competency, in that he was not clear and precise in the location of grades and contours, and left vague areas that could be misinterpreted by contractors or surveyors. The Petitioner's testimony consisted largely in going over the parts of the drawings in question, and pointing out areas where he contended more credit should have been given. However, insufficient real evidence, as opposed to the opinion of the Petitioner, was presented to support a finding of fact that his examination score should be upgraded more than was already done. The Petitioner's expert witness had been the Petitioner's employer for two years and, although he supported the Petitioner's contentions that the score on his drawings should be upgraded, the Petitioner's expert had no prior experience in the grading of examinations. Thus, his conclusions were unpersuasive, and have not been found as facts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Augustus A. Perna, Jr., for licensure as a landscape architect be denied, based on his failure to achieve a passing grade on the June, 1982, examination. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 27th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 27 day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus A. Perna 6850 S. W. 40th Street Miami, Florida 33155 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Herbert Coons, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Landscape Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate for the landscape architects examination given in June, 1990, (the "examination"). Petitioner achieved a passing grade on Sections 2 and 5 of the examination but failed Sections 3 and 4. Petitioner received a score of 72.8 percent on Section 3 of the examination. The minimum passing score is 75 percent. At Petitioner's request, Respondent regraded Petitioner's answers to Section 3 of the examination. Petitioner's score upon regrade was 73 percent. Petitioner needs 2 percentage points to pass Section 3 of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 54.3 percent on Section 4 of the examination. The minimum passing score for Section 4 of the examination is 75 percent. At Petitioner's request, Respondent regraded Petitioner's answers to Section 4 of the examination. Petitioner's score upon regrade was 60 percent. Petitioner needed 25 percentage points to pass Section 4 of the examination, but waived his challenge to Section 4 during the formal hearing. Petitioner was given proper credit for his answers to Section 3 of the examination. Petitioner should have received and received a score of 73 percent when Respondent regraded Petitioner's answers to Section 3 of the examination.
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 the score he received for Section 3 of the landscape architect examination given in June, 1990. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of September 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. No notation is made for unnumbered paragraphs. Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Accepted in Finding 2 Accepted in Finding 3 Accepted in Findings 3-4 COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Landscape Architecture Board 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jack McRay General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Case No. 91-2120 (continued) Mr. Dale R. Smith 28225 Southwest 172d Avenue Homestead, Florida 33030
Findings Of Fact Maribel Mackey is the sole proprietor of Petitioner Maribe1 Mackey Landscaping. As a woman of Hispanic heritage (Cuban), she falls into two of the presumptive categories of socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Petitioner is a landscaping company started in April, 1990, by Maribel Mackey as its sole owner. The company does not itself perform either irrigation or sod work as was sworn to on its application; rather, it subcontracts those items of work when they are required under a contract. Petitioner conducts business out of the home of Maribel and Robert Mackey at 5032 S.W. 121 Avenue, Cooper City, Florida. Robert and Maribel Mackey were married in March, 1988. Maribel Mackey had no prior experience in the landscaping business prior to starting her business. Robert Mackey is the sole shareholder of a landscaping company known as Robert Mackey Landscaping, Inc., incorporated in 1988. Prior to the formation of that business entity, Robert Mackey was the sole proprietor of Robert Mackey Landscaping from approximately 1982 to 1988. In total, Robert Mackey has been in the landscaping business for approximately 17-18 years. Robert Mackey also conducts his 1andscaping business out of the home he shares with Maribel. Both businesses share the same office in the Mackey home and share the same office equipment, which includes: a desk, a phone (which doubles as their home phone), a file cabinet, a copying machine and a fax machine. Robert Mackey acts in more than an advisory capacity with Petitioner. Robert Mackey also assisits Maribel Mackey with bid estimating and in the supervision of field operations. Robert Mackey has also helped Maribel Mackey Landscaping to obtain credit for the purchase of landscaping supplies at nurseries and in the leasing of equipment used in the landscaping business. Robert Mackey performed and/or assisted Maribel Mackey in putting together a Proposal on the Kathcar Building. The original of this Proposal was done on a form of Robert Mackey Landscaping and was signed by Robert Mackey. The copy forwarded to the Department and admitted as an exhibit during the final hearing had been altered to reflect Petitioner's name and the signature of Maribel Mackey had been added to that of Robert. Robert and Maribel Mackey maintain a line of credit in the amount of $100,000. This line of credit is available to both of them for either personal or business purposes and requires both signatures. This line of credit is secured by a mortgage on the Mackeys' personal residence. Maribel and Robert Mackey have an informal, oral agreement not to compete with each other in the landscaping business. Maribel Mackey is prepared to forfeit substantial profits on behalf of Petitioner by referring potential landscaping jobs to her husband's company. Maribel and Robert Mackey, as part of this agreement, have agreed that Petitioner will concentrate exclusively on public or government projects, while Robert Mackey Landscaping will concentrate exclusively on private projects. Petitioner has, however, done private work, and Robert Mackey Landscaping has done public work and currently has a bid in on another public project. In addition, Maribel Mackey's business card states on its face that Petitioner performs "residentia1 and interior" work. Petitioner is currently certified as a Women's Business Enterprise and/or a Minority Business Enterprise with the following governmental entities: Broward County, The School Board of Broward County, and Palm Beach County. Broward County, in its evaluation of Petitioner's application to be certified as a WBE/MBE, did not visit Petitioner's place cf business to conduct an on-site interview with Maribel Mackey. Broward County, when it certified Petitioner as a WBE/MBE, did not know that Petitioner shared the same office space and equipment with Robert Mackey Landscaping. Broward County also did not know that Robert Mackey had his own landscaping business or that he had been in the landscaping business for approximately 17-18 years.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner Maribel Mackey Landscaping certification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of January, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officeer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-5830 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 5 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 6-8 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 9-11 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: William Peter Martin Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. #58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Maribel Mackey 5032 Southwest 121 Avenue Cooper City, Florida 33330 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. #58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
