The Issue Whether petitioner's challenge to the grading of his examination for licensure as a Class B air conditioning contractor should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with the duty of regulating contracting in the State of Florida. An applicant for certification as a Class B air conditioning contractor must pass the examination administered by respondent as a prerequisite to certification. Section 489.113(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner sat for Part I of the Class B air conditioning contractor's examination on June 26, 1990, and received a failing grade of 67. Subsequently, petitioner filed a timely challenge to the respondent's grading of questions 5, 11, and 50 to the examination. Respondent sustained petitioner's challenge to question 11, accorded him credit, and raised his grade from 67 to 69. Respondent denied, however, petitioner's challenge to questions 5 and 50. Had petitioner been accorded credit for either question 5 or 50, he would have passed Part I of the examination. Question number 5 is an objective, multiple choice question. Based on the factual data in the question, the candidate is to choose, from among four possible answers, the answer that would derive the lowest cost for a line of credit. The correct response to the question was "C", and petitioner erroneously responded "A." At hearing, petitioner contended that he should be accorded credit for question 5 because he could have correctly derived the answer if Walker's Building Estimators Reference Book had been on the list of materials to bring to the test site. In this regard, petitioner testified that the test directed the applicants to utilize such reference in deriving the answer, and that had he been noticed of such fact he could have derived the correct answer through the referenced book. The subject examination, produced at hearing, was not, however, shown to contain any mention of the Walker's reference book, nor was the Walker's reference book one of the recommended reference books. In sum, petitioner's recollections regarding this question are erroneous, and his failure to correctly answer question 5 was based on his own lack of knowledge, and not any misdirection or misconduct on the part of respondent. Question 50 is likewise an objective, multiple choice question. Based on the factual data in that question, the candidate is again required to choose the correct response from among four possible answers. The correct response to the question was "D", and petitioner erroneously responded "C." At hearing, petitioner conceded that answer "D" was the only correct answer to question 50. Questions 5 and 50 were clear and unambiguous, and each contained only one correct response. Appropriately, respondent gave petitioner no credit for his answer to either question, because petitioner gave the wrong answer to each question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing petitioner's challenge to the subject examination, and that the examination questions and answers provided at hearing be sealed and not open to public inspection. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, 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 12th day of March, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's responses to Questions 38, 53, and 71 of the April 1991 Mental Health Counselor's Examination were incorrectly scored. Whether Question 71 of said examination is an improper question.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Mental Health Counselor's Examination administered by Respondent in April 1991. Petitioner was credited with 102 correct answers out of 140 questions on the professional counseling section of the examination. A score of 103 correct answers out of 140 questions was required to pass the section. Petitioner abandoned all challenges except the challenges to the scoring of her responses to Questions 38, 53, and 71. Petitioner also asserts that Question 71 is unfair because it is ambiguous. All three of the questions involved in this proceeding are multiple choice questions, each with four possible answers. The candidates are instructed to select the best answer to the question. Question 38 pertains to an expression used to described adolescence and asks the candidate to select the best answer that explains the meaning of that expression. Petitioner selected multiple choice number 4 as her answer to the question. Respondent established that multiple choice number 1 was the best answer to the question. Petitioner received no credit for her answer to question 38 because she did not select the best answer to the question. Question 53 pertains to a patient who rambles during an interview and requires the candidate to select from among the four multiple choice answers the best answer that names the technique used by the interviewer to bring the patient back to the main purpose of the discussion. Petitioner selected multiple choice number 1 as her answer to the question. Respondent contends that multiple choice number 4 was the best answer to the question. Petitioner contends that multiple choice number 4 is not a technique and that, consequently, number 4 cannot be the best answer to the question. The greater weight of the evidence, including the literature submitted as exhibits by the parties, is that multiple choice number 4 is a technique and that multiple choice number 4 is the best answer to the question. Petitioner received no credit for her answer to question 53 because she did not select the best answer to the question. Question 71 pertains to an employee at an industrial plant who has sought out the mental health counselor in the employee assistance program. Petitioner contends that the question is ambiguous because insufficient information is given for the reasons the employee sought out the mental health counselor. Respondent established that sufficient information was provided by the root of the question to enable the candidate to select the best answer to the question. Consequently, it is concluded that the question is not impermissibly ambiguous. Petitioner selected multiple choice number 1 as her answer to Question Number 71. Respondent established that multiple choice number 2 was the best answer to the question. Petitioner received no credit for her answer to question 71 because she did not select the best answer to the question.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which upholds the validity of Question 71 and which denies Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of her responses to Questions 38, 53, and 71 of the professional counseling section of the Mental Health Counselor's Examination administered by Respondent in April 1991. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearing The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are discussed as preliminary matters. The proposed findings are unnecessary as findings of fact and are, consequently, rejected. The proposed findings of fact contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 2.a.(1) are rejected because they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The candidates are instructed to select the best answer to the question. All four choices may be correct answers. While it may arguably be a correct answer, the answer selected by the Petitioner was not the best answer to the question. The proposed findings of fact contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 2.a.(1) are rejected because they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact contained in Paragraph 2.a.(2) are rejected because they are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact contained in Paragraph 2.a.(3) are rejected because they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 2.b.(1) are rejected as being the recitation of testimony that was considered in making the finding that the question is not ambiguous. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 2.c.(1) are rejected as being the recitation of testimony that was considered in making the findings reflected herein. The question called for the candidate to state what the phrase means, not whether the phrase is an improper use of a word of art. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 2.c.(2) are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraphs 1 and 2 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraph 3 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Caren Glassman 1231 SE 1 Street Apt. 13 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Mental Health Counselors 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 the Petitioner, Eugene Boatright, is entitled to licensure as an alarm systems contractor by virtue of a passing grade on the January 26, 1989, examination.
Findings Of Fact Eugene Boatright was an unsuccessful candidate for the alarm systems contractor's licensure examination given on January 26, 1989. Mr. Boatright made a score of 74. A score of 75 was required for licensure. Each correct answer had a grade value of one point. Mr. Boatright originally challenged the answers to questions 22, 95 and At the formal hearing he abandoned his challenge to question 22. Question 95 dealt with standards for the installation, maintenance and use of Remote Station Protective signaling devices. The reference was to N.F.P.A. Chapter 72C, Section 1-3.1. Mr. Boatright contended that telephone exchange was a correct answer. DPR contended that telephone exchange was incorrect because all telephone exchanges do not have personnel on duty at all times trained to receive alarm signals. The reference section contains an exception which states: Exception: Where such an agency is unwilling to receive alarm signals, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to accept another location with personnel on duty at all times trained to receive the alarm and immediately transmit it to the fire department. While a telephone exchange may, under the circumstances set forth in the exception, receive alarm signals, telephone exchange is not a correct answer to question 95. The instructions on the examination specifically advised the candidates that they were to use the general rule and were only to use the exception where it was directly indicated in the question. Question 99 invovled the mounting requirements for all installed fire warning equipment. The reference sections asserted by DPR were N.F.P.A. Chapter 75-1.1.2 and 1.1.3 and Chapter 74-4.1. Chapter 75 refers to "Installation." Chapter 74 refers to "Equipment Performance." Question 99 contains three possible answers: All installed household fire warning equipment shall be mounted so as to be supported independently of its attachment wires. so jaring [sic] or vibration will not cause accidental operation. so that the failure of any non- reliable or short-life component, which renders the detector inoperative shall be readily apparent without the need for a test. Mr. Boatright contends that the correct answer does not include part III of the answer. DPR contends that this portion of the answer is correct and refers to Chapter 74 on equipment performance to support its position. Chapter 75-1.1.2 and 1.1.3, in the chapter relating to installation, states: 5-1.1.2 All devices shall be so located and mounted that accidental operation will not be cause by jarring or vibration. 5-1.1.3 All installed household fire warning equipment shall be mounted so as to be supported independently of its attachment to wires. [Emphasis supplied]. Chapter 74-1, in the chapter relating to equipment performance, states: General. The failure of any nonreliable [sic] or short-life component which renders the detector inoperative shall be readily apparent to the occupant of the living unit without the need for test. Chapter 74-1 is only peripherally related to mounting and relates primarily to performance of the equipment. Question 99 is ambiguous and the answer given by Mr. Boatright is a correct answer. Mr. Boatright is entitled to one additional point on his examination and he therefore should have received a passing grade of 75 on the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order granting the examination challenge of Eugene Boatright and awarding one additional point to the score achieved by Mr. Boatright on the January 26, 1989, examination. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 12th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO 89-5207 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Eugene Boatright Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(5); 10(10 & 11); 12(14 & 15); 18(17; and 19(18). Proposed findings of fact 2-6, 8, 11, and 13-17 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 7 is unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 9 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1 & 2); 2(4); and 3(3). Proposed findings of fact 4 and 5 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 6 and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred C. Scott Attorney at Law 125 North Market Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to any credit for his answer to Question 51 of Division G of the June 1989 Board of Architecture examination.
Findings Of Fact In June, 1989, Petitioner sat for the examination given by Respondent to become certified in Florida as an architect. Petitioner received a failing grade on Division G of the examination, the part of the examination that relates to mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. Petitioner received no credit for his answer to question 51 of Division G. Had Petitioner received any credit for his response to question 51, he would have passed Division G. Petitioner had previously passed the other portions of the examination and has taken Division G six times. Following notification that he had failed the examination, Petitioner filed a timely challenge to Respondent's grading of Question 51, contending that his answer was correct and that he should have been given credit for his answer. The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards prepares a standardized examination that is used by many states, including Florida, for the testing of candidates for certification as architects. Question 51 of Division G is a question on that standardized examination. Question 51 is an objective question that tests the applicant's knowledge as to the types of fixtures or types of equipment that are required to have their waste outlets equipped with air gaps to prevent contamination due to possible backup of sewage through the waste piping. The candidate is required to select the correct answer from one of four possible answers. Petitioner concedes that the answer Respondent contends is the only correct answer is a correct answer to the question. Petitioner maintains, however, that the question is misleading and that the answer he selected also correctly answers the question. There is only one correct answer to the question. The answer given by Petitioner to question 51 of the examination was not correct because the waste outlet on the fixture selected by Respondent does not have an air gap and is, instead, directly connected to the drainage system. The air gap on the fixture selected by Petitioner as being the correct answer is between the potable water supply and the fixture, which is referred to as being an air gap in the water distribution system. Petitioner's contention that the question is misleading is rejected. There is a difference between an air gap for the water distribution system and an air gap for the waste system. Petitioner's failure to distinguish between the two types of air gaps caused him to incorrectly answer the question. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 51 because he failed to select the correct answer to the question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, enter a final order which denies Petitioner's challenge to Question 51 of Division G of the examination. It is further recommended that the Hearing Officer Exhibit filed in this proceeding be sealed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Claude B. Arrington 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 May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-0237 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner in his letter filed April 27, 1990. Paragraph 1 of the letter consists solely of argument. Paragraph 2 of the letter is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the letter are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The first sentence of Paragraph 5 of the letter is rejected as being contrary to the conclusions reached. While the subject question may have been a difficult question, the contention that the question was misleading is rejected. Paragraph 5(1) is rejected as being argument and as being, in part, contrary to the position taken by Petitioner at the final hearing. Paragraph 5(2) is rejected as being argument and as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Petitioner's argument in Paragraph 5(2) reflects his misreading of the question that was posed to him. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings in paragraphs 1 - 5 are accepted in material part. The proposed findings in paragraphs 6 and 7 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings in paragraph 8 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Juan A. Montalvan, Jr., pro se 11031 S. W. 40th Terrace Miami, Florida 33165 E. Harper Field, Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patricia Ard Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent should receive a passing grade on the Alarm Systems I Contractor Examination administered January 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating electrical contractors, including alarm systems contractors, in the State of Florida. Sections 489.511, .515, and .533, Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Perez sat for the Alarm Systems I Contractor Examination on January 30, 1998. He disputes the Department's determination that the answers he gave to questions 21, 58, and 59 are incorrect. These three questions are objective, multiple- choice questions, and the examination candidate is to choose the correct answer from among four possible answers. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 21 is "A"; Mr. Perez chose answer "C." Question 21 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer is found in the Specifications for Plans which, together with a set of blueprints, was provided to the examination candidates with the examination booklet. On the back of the Specifications for Plans, the examination candidates were told that the document was to be used with the examination for licensure. Several of the questions on the examination were based on information contained in the specifications and blueprints. Although the examination candidates had not seen the specifications and blueprints prior to the examination, the requirement that the candidates use these documents in answering questions on the examination is not unfair. The Department could have had the legitimate purpose of testing the candidates' ability to read blueprints and specifications. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 21 because, according to the information contained in the specifications, the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 58 is "C"; Mr. Perez chose answer "A." Question 58 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from information found in the reference material Mr. Perez was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Although the correct answer could not be found in the reference material word-for-word, it was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to use the information provided to calculate the correct answer to the question. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 58 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 59 is "D"; Mr. Perez chose answer "A." Question 59 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from both text and a schematic found in the reference material Mr. Perez was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Although the correct answer could not be found in the reference material word-for-word, it was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to derive the correct answer from the information available in the materials. Mr. Perez should not receive credit for his answer to question 59 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Juan Carlos Perez's petition challenging the subject examination questions. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Illa Jones, Executive Director Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 R. Beth Atchinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Rgulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32300-1007 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Juan Carlos Perez 7451 Southwest 161st Place Miami, Florida 33193
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's examination for licensure as a residential contractor was incorrectly graded.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a residential contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The examination is prepared by the ACSI National Assessment Institute and administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. Petitioner took the residential contractor's examination administered by DPR in October, 1988. There were three parts to the examination and an applicant was required to pass all three parts in order to be entitled to licensure. Petitioner received the following grades on his exam: Part I - 67.5; Part II - 84.0; Part III - 84.0. While the grades received by the Petitioner on Parts II and III of the exam were passing scores for those sections, Petitioner needed to obtain a grade of at least 69.01 on Part I in order to pass the exam. Petitioner challenges several of the questions on Part I of the exam contending that they were unclear and ambiguous, and that, in any event, he correctly indicated the "closest" answer included for the multiple choice questions. There is conflicting evidence as to the value of each of the challenged questions. At the hearing, Respondent's testing expert testified that each of the questions challenged by Petitioner was worth one point and, therefore, Petitioner would have to succeed in challenging two of the questions in order to obtain a passing grade in excess of 69.01. However, Petitioner challenged this evaluation system as being contrary to the information set forth in the testing materials. According to Petitioner, those materials indicated that each question was worth two points. In the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by counsel for Respondent, it is admitted that each correct question has a grade value of two points. Based upon this admission, the undersigned finds that each of the challenged questions is worth two points. The first question challenged by Petitioner, BA#1, involved the amount of reimbursement that could be expected under a builder's risk insurance policy following an accident on a job site. The question provides the exam taker with a detailed listing of the damage that occurred. The factual predicate for the question sets forth the replacement cost for damage to a temporary job site structure, the amount of damage to construction materials not in place and the amount of damage to a truck which was not covered by vehicular insurance. According to Respondent, the correct answer to the question required the applicant to add those three items together to determine the amount that would be paid under the insurance policy. In selecting his answer, Petitioner did not include the damage to the truck. Petitioner contends that he did not include the damage to the truck in calculating the amount of insurance proceeds that could be expected for two reasons. First, he contends that the owner of the truck was not identified. However, Respondent was able to demonstrate from the approved reference materials that the owner of the truck was not a controlling factor if the truck was located on the project property. Therefore, Petitioner's challenge to the question on this basis has no merit. However, the second reason cited by Petitioner for not including the damage to the truck as part of the expected insurance proceeds has merit. According to the approved reference materials, to be included under the all risk policy, the truck must be categorized as either construction equipment or part of the contractor's tools. As noted above, the contractor was not clearly identified as the owner of the truck so there is no basis for including the truck as part of the contractor's tools. While the reference materials clearly indicate that "construction equipment" is covered under the all risk policy, Petitioner contends that the truck in this question was not sufficiently described to be included in the classification of "construction equipment". In support of his contention that the truck should not be considered "construction equipment," Petitioner cited several portions of the reference materials which state that "construction equipment" does not have a common meaning, but includes the "equipage used for the physical accomplishment of the work." The reference materials do not specifically state that trucks or other vehicles designed for highway use are included within the definition of construction equipment. Indeed, in the portions of the reference materials dealing with construction equipment, only tractors and similar heavy machinery are specifically mentioned. Petitioner also introduced a copy of a builder's risk insurance form used by a local insurance agent which specifically excludes "conveyances designed for highway use." Thus, the only evidence of industry standards indicates that trucks are specifically excluded from builder's risk policies. In sum, based upon the approved reference materials and industry standards, Petitioner was justified in excluding the damage to the truck in arriving at his answer to question BA#1. The second question challenged by Petitioner was BA#6. This question required an applicant to compare estimated costs of construction with actual costs reflected on the job cost ledger. The factual predicate for the question provided for a positive cash inflow achieved from resale of excavation material. According to Respondent, the correct answer to the question should have included this "negative cost" in determining the difference between the estimated cost and the actual cost reflected on the job cost ledger. Petitioner contends that the "negative cost" for spoils disposal should not be included on the cost ledger. While Petitioner concedes that the spoils disposal can result in positive cash inflow, he contends that such a positive inflow should not be reflected as a "cost", but instead should only increase the contractor's profit on the job. The reference materials for the exam do not clearly state that "negative costs" are includable within the job cost ledger. This accounting methodology is not set forth in the reference materials and is merely a book- keeping procedure rather than a construction standard established through field knowledge. Since this book-keeping procedure was not adequately explained in the reference materials and does not qualify as an industry standard, the Petitioner was justified in including only "positive costs" in answering question BA#6. Petitioner also challenges question BA#9. That question states that an insurance company will provide a reduced premium if the insured adopts a safety program. The question also provides the cost associated with the implementation of the safety program. The exam taker is required to choose the answer that reflects the total cost of the insurance program. According to Respondent, the correct answer should include the reduced insurance premium plus the cost associated with implementing the safety program. Petitioner excluded the cost associated with the safety program on the grounds that it was not actually a "cost of insurance." While Petitioner's answer would have been correct if the question asked how much was paid to the insurance company, the question asked for the total net cost incurred by the company for insurance. Thus, the most appropriate response included the cost of the safety program which would necessarily be incurred in order to achieve the lower insurance premium. Petitioner has not sustained his burden of proof with respect to this question. During the hearing, Petitioner also argued that question FA#11, which dealt with interest rates on a construction loan, tested an applicant on a subject matter which was beyond the scope of knowledge an applicant for a residential contractor's license can be expected to have acquired prior to taking the exam. While the question deals with subject matter that is generally available only to the owner of a project, (i.e., the interest payments due on the construction loan), to obtain the correct answer, the applicant needed only to apply simple math procedures involving the calculation of interest. These math procedures are typical skills a contractor will frequently utilize in business. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sustained his burden of proof in challenging this question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's October, 1988 examination for residential contractor's license be regraded in order to give him credit for correctly answering questions BA#1 and BA#6 and that Petitioner be deemed to have passed the exam and be qualified for registration as a residential contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 4th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1232 Both of the parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered throughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Paragraph Number and Recommended Order Fact Number Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Accepted in Finding of Fact 8. Accepted in part but subordinate to Finding of Fact 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as overbroad. However, see Finding of Fact 11 which deals with this issue. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. The remainder of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommended Order are deemed by the undersigned to constitute merely summarization of the testimony or legal argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Paragraph Number and Recommended Order Fact Number Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Accepted in Findings of Fact 2, 3-5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 15. However, Petitioner also challenged question FA#11. Accepted (as amended by the correction filed on June 29) in Finding of Fact 7. The first sentence is adopted in the preliminary statement. The second sentence is rejected as subordinate to the Findings of Fact set forth in this Recommended Order. The first sentence is adopted in the preliminary statement. The second sentence is rejected as merely a summary of the testimony. The first sentence is adopted in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. However, The second sentence is rejected as a result of the Correction to Proposed Recommended Order filed by Respondent on June 29, 1989. As to question BA#6, this proposal is rejected as subordinate to the Findings of Fact contained in this Recommended Order. As to question BA#9, this proposal is adopted in Finding of Fact 14. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James C. Marshall, Esquire 3241 S.W. 104 Ct. Miami, Florida 33165
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Section 310.011, Florida Statutes, the Board of Pilot Commissioners (Board) was established within the Department of Professional Regulation (Department). The Board, in conformance with Section 310.061, has the authority to determine the number of pilots needed for a given port. To fill those numbers, the Department examines all applicants for the position of pilot or deputy pilot and, if found qualified, appoints and licenses as a pilot or appoints and certifies as a deputy pilot the number prescribed by the Board. See: Section 310.081, Florida Statutes. On December 8, 1986, the Department held an examination to fill two deputy pilot positions at Port Canaveral. Petitioner and Intervenors, Captain John M. Boltz and Captain Earl R. McMillin were among the candidates examined. A total of twenty-two candidates took the examination. The facets of the examination were as required by Rule 21SS-5.13(1), Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that the examination include the following subject areas: International Rules of the Road. Inland Rules of the Road and the Pilot Rules. Seamanship, Shiphandling and other Subjects Relating to Piloting. Aids to Navigation. Local or specific knowledge of the port area for which being examined. Chartwork of the port area for which being examined, with detailed information of the port area required to be charted. A general examination concerning matters pertaining to a candidates knowledge of federal and state pilotage, fitness and ability to undertake the duties of a certified deputy pilot in the port for which being examined, and such other related information as may be deemed pertinent to the examination process, to determine whether the applicant is qualified to pilot all classes of vessels liable to enter the port and is familiar with the waters, the channels, the harbor and the port. Rule 21SS-5.13(2), Florida Administrative Code, mandates that: In order to achieve a passing grade on the examination a candidate must score 90 percent on the subject areas in subsections (1)(a) and (b), and a score of 75 percent on the subject areas in subsection (1)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). A failure to attain the required percentage in any of the seven subject areas renders the candidate unsuccessful. Of the twenty-two candidates who took the examination, only four candidates attained a passing score on each of the seven subject areas. Of these four, Captain McMillin was first with an overall score of 94.74 percent, Captain Boltz was second with an overall score of 92.76 percent, and Petitioner was third with an overall score of 92.62 percent. The Department, in accordance with standard practice, ranked the candidates by overall score, and appointed the top two candidates, Captain McMillin and Captain Boltz, to the two available positions. Following disclosure of his score, Petitioner reviewed his examination and offered a timely objection to question 117. That question reads: The reaction of a ship known as "squat" results in a change in trim. generally varies in direct proportion to the speed. Only I is a correct statement. Only II is a correct statement. Both I and II are correct statements. Neither I nor II is a correct statement. As originally keyed, the only correct response to question 117 was answer A. However, after reviewing the test results, the Department decided to rekey the acceptable responses to the question and accord credit for answer A and C. Petitioner objects to the Department's decision to accord credit for answer C, which he asserts is a technically incorrect response. Significantly, had the Department not rekeyed the responses to the question, Petitioner, who elected response A, would have achieved a better overall score than Captain Boltz, who elected response C. Question 117 was developed by Captain John C. Hanson, the Department's consultant, from Shiphandling For The Mariner, by MacElrevey; a source recommended to all candidates prior to the examination. Pertinent to this case, MacElrevey teaches: As a ship begins to make way through the water she undergoes a change in mean draft known as sinkage. This change may occur equally forward and aft or may be greater at the bow or the stern, the resulting change in trim being known as "squat." When passing through the water the ship displaces an amount of water equal to her own weight. This water must move outward from and around the hull in all directions. The water so displaced moves primarily along and under the hull and returns astern of the ship to "fill" the space left by the ship as she moves on. Naturally, the faster the ship is moving the greater the velocity of this flow under and along her hull, and the greater the corresponding pressure drop as a result of that increased velocity. Depending upon where the greatest drop in pressure occurs along the length of the hull, this reduced pressure will result in greater sinkage (increase in draft) at the bow or stern, although the draft increases to some degree all along the length of the ship. As the ship enters shallow water the flow of water becomes increasingly restricted due to the reduced clearance both under and on one or both sides of the hull. The degree of restriction or "blockage factor" is dependent upon several variables . . . Consider first the effect of ship's speed since this is the factor over which the mariner has the greatest control. It has been found, based upon observations of both actual ships and models, that squat varies in proportion to the square of the speed. If ship's speed is doubled, squat increased by a factor of four. With today's large ships and minimal underkeel clearances it becomes immediately obvious why speed and resulting squat must be very much on the shiphandler's mind. (Emphasis added) The question developed by Captain Hanson was designed to test the candidate's knowledge of squat and the effect of speed on squat, which is important information for a pilot who must navigate through shallow waters or confined channels. The correct technical response to question 117 as posed, and as intended by Captain Hanson, was answer A. Answer C was an incorrect response because squat does not technically vary in direct proportion to speed but, rather, in proportion to the square of the speed. 1/ Notwithstanding the fact that answer A was the intended and only technically correct response to question 117, the Department's Office of Examination Services decided to also afford credit for answer C. This decision was predicated on its conclusion, after a review of the responses to the question, that the phrase "direct proportion" could logically have been interpreted by the candidates in a non-technical sense to mean: that squat is directly related to speed (i.e., if speed increases/decreases, squat increases/decreases). If so interpreted, answer C would also have been a correct response to question 117. Accordingly, the Department concluded that it would afford credit for answer C, as well as answer A. The proof accords logic and reason to the Department's decision. The twenty-two candidates who took the examination were experts in seamanship and shiphandling. A review of the responses to question 117 by these twenty-two candidates revealed that: three chose answer A, one chose answer B, and 18 chose answer C. Of the four who attained a passing score, two chose answer A and two chose answer C. Notably, 82 percent of the candidates in both the upper and lower half of the class chose answer C. Because of its poor statistical performance, Ms. Lila Quero-Munoz of the Office of Examination Services, an expert in psychometrics, was of the opinion that the question needed close review. In Ms. Quero-Munoz' opinion, which is credited, when 18 of 22 qualified people select a response other than the one that was keyed, there is good reason to suspect that there is something in the phrasing of the question that is subject to misinterpretation. Upon review of question 117, Ms. Quero-Munoz and Martin Persampieri, also of the Office of Examination Services, were of the opinion, which opinion is credited, that the phrase "direct proportion" could have logically been interpreted as meaning that squat is directly related to speed, instead of its technical or mathematical definition. Therefore, the Department's decision to afford credit for answer C had a logical and reasonable basis. /2 The testimony of Captain Hanson, Petitioner, Captain McMillin and Captain Boltz lends support to the conclusion that the Department acted logically and reasonably when it decided to rekey the answers to question 117. Captain Hanson, when he prepared the question, did not intend it to be a trick question. Yet, Petitioner and Captain McMillin, both of whom responded with answer A, thought the question to be tricky and applied the technical or mathematical definition of "direct proportion." Captain Boltz was not familiar with the technical definition of "direct proportion" and ascribed to it the general proposition that squat is directly related to speed. Notably, the term "direct proportion" was not defined anywhere in the sources recommended by the Department to the candidates. The Department, in carrying out the examination process, is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the examination for deputy pilot adequately and reliably measures a candidate's ability to practice the profession of deputy pilot. Further, it must ensure that the examination questions are a reliable measurement of the general areas of competence specified in Rule 21SS-5.13(1), Florida Administrative Code. These responsibilities were adequately addressed by the Department in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the examination challenge filed by Petitioner be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 October, 1987.
The Issue Whether Petitioner meets the criteria to sit for the Alarm Contractor I licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact The Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for licensing alarm system contractors. Section 489.505, Florida Statutes, contains the following definitions pertaining to this proceeding: As used in this part: "Alarm system" means any electrical device or combination of electrical devices used to detect a situation which causes an alarm in the event of a burglary, fire, robbery, medical emergency, or equipment failure. "Alarm system contractor" means a person whose business includes the execution of contracts requiring the ability, experience, science, knowledge, and skill to lay out, fabricate, install, maintain, alter, repair, monitor, inspect, replace, or service alarm systems for compensation, including, but not limited to, all types of alarm systems for all purposes. "Alarm system contractor I" means an alarm system contractor whose business includes all types of alarm systems for all purposes. . . . Petitioner applied to sit for the alarm system contractor I examination pursuant to the provisions of Section 489.511(2)(a)3.c., Florida Statutes, which provides that a person can sit for the licensure examination if that person: c. Has, within the 12 years immediately preceding the filing of the application, at least 6 years of comprehensive training, technical education, or broad experience associated with an electrical or alarm system installation or servicing endeavor; or Rule 61G6-5.003(1)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Any person desiring to take the certification examination must establish that he or she meets eligibility requirements according to one of the following criteria: * * * (c) Has, within 12 years immediately preceding the filing of the application, at least 6 years of comprehensive training, technical education, or broad experience associated with an electrical or an alarm system installation or servicing endeavor. The experience required must include: * * * 2. For an alarm contractor I, at least 40% of work that is in fire alarm systems. By letter dated June 16, 1998, Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the ground that the application failed to demonstrate compliance with Rule 61G6-5.003(1)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner worked full-time for Florida Power and Light in the capacity of a connect and disconnect man. Petitioner described this position as installing electric meters or disconnecting electric meters when there has been an initiation, change, or termination of service. Petitioner's employment with Florida Power and Light does not require him to work directly with any type of alarm system. The application form provided by Respondent required Petitioner to submit a representative list of his experience. He was to provide a detailed description of the work performed, the job location and address, the general contractor's name, and the name and telephone number of the contractor who pulled the permit. Petitioner provided information pertaining to five jobs in his application and at the formal hearing. Petitioner claimed to have worked on the burglar and fire alarm system during the construction of the First Baptist Church of Brownsville, 4600 Northwest 23rd Avenue, Miami, Florida, between March 29, 1997, and February 9, 1998. Petitioner claimed that he designed the fire alarm system and drew the plans for that system on the blueprint that was used for the construction of the building. Petitioner also claimed to have participated in the installation of the fire and burglar alarm systems. Petitioner testified that the alarm system had 99 devices and was a Fire Light 5210 U.D. system. Petitioner testified that he kept a computer generated time ticket for each job. These computer records were not offered into evidence. Petitioner testified that he spent approximately 2300 hours on the job involving the church. 1/ The second job identified by Petitioner was a joint project with West Kendall Electric for the installation of a NAPCO 2600 model fire alarm system in a residence between March and October 1993. Petitioner estimated that he spent approximately twenty hours on this job. The third job identified by Petitioner was the installation of a residential fire alarm system, security system, burglar alarm system, intercom system, television antenna system, and telephone system at a residence located at 199905 Southwest 135th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The dates of the job were between December 19, 1990, and July 15, 1991. The fire and burglar alarm system was a NAPCO 2600 model. Petitioner did not estimate the amount of time he expended on that job. The fourth job identified by Petitioner was the installation of a NAPCO 3000 model system at 14911 Southwest 144th Terrace, Miami, Florida. Petitioner described this system as an industrial fire and burglar alarm panel with automation and approximately 35 sensors. The dates of the job were between January 6, 1995, and October 20, 1996. Petitioner testified that he expended approximately 90 hours on this project, with forty to forty-five percent of the job being devoted to the fire alarm system. The fifth job identified by Petitioner was the installation of a NAPCO 2600 model fire and burglar alarm system at 14460 Southwest 152nd Court, Miami, Florida. This was another joint project with West Kendall Electric. Petitioner estimated that he expended 80 hours on that job with forty to forty-five percent of the job being devoted to the fire alarm system. This job lasted between December 14, 1993, and March 27, 1994. Petitioner testified that he spent 2,358 hours on the five jobs he identified. He also stated that he had devoted 1,414 of those hours to burglar alarm systems, "according to the ratio." 2/ Petitioner testified that he had been a member of the National Fire Protection Association since 1994. There are no standards for admission to that association, other than the payment of a membership fee. Petitioner has attended various fire alarm seminars over the years sponsored either by system manufactures or associations, such as the National Fire Protection Association. He attended a seminar consisting of 16 hours sponsored by the National Fire Protection Association in May of 1994. He attended an alarm installers seminar sponsored by a manufacturer in February 1990 consisting of 24 hours over a three-day period. He attended another seminar sponsored by a manufacturer for eight hours on October 29, 1992. Petitioner attended a fire alarm training seminar on May 19, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that denies Petitioner's application to sit for the certification examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1999.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the Limited Energy Examination of the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board, taken on November 9, 2004, should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner sat for the November 2004 Limited Energy Examination. Upon receiving notice that he had not passed the examination, Petitioner challenged several examination questions. This hearing is a distillation of the challenge process and one question has been brought before this tribunal. The particular question, No. 55, is, as follows: "[T]he best choice of conductor in an electrically noisy environment is: a. coaxial, b. fiber optics, c. twisted pair, d. shielded twisted pair." Petitioner offered evidence, by way of his opinion, that the terms "fiber optic" and "conductor" are not synonymous, therefore the question is poorly-worded, and that "shielded twisted pair" should be the correct answer. Petitioner also presented technical documents that distinguished between the terms "fiber optic" and "conductor." The Department's expert witness in electrical contacting has 40 years' experience in electrical contracting and has been licensed in Florida since 1985. He opined that the terms "fiber optic" and "conductor" are synonymous, as used in the industry. The test is not only of reference knowledge, but also of trade knowledge. He stated that all four possible answers are "conductors." He stated that the only correct answer was b, "fiber optics." The Department's expert witness, the psychometrician, testified that test questions are pre-screened by industry experts to assure that the questions are "viable, reliable, and valid" and that there is only one correct answer. Then a post- test assessment is conducted to determine the difficulty of the questions and to determine how many of the test-takers, who passed the test, got the correct answers. In this instance, question No. 55 was answered correctly by 93 percent of the individuals who passed the test and 92 percent of the 28 test-takers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board enter a final order which denies Petitioner's application for an electrical contractor's license based upon the failing score that he received on the Limited Energy Examination of the November 2004 licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 12th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David Nathan Warren Post Office Box 1131 Palm City, Florida 34991 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit pursuant to his challenge to the examination for civil/sanitary engineer licensure.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Brian Trujillo, is a candidate for licensure by examination as a civil/sanitary engineer. Mr. Trujillo took the examination in April of 1998, and received a score of 69. He timely challenged the test results and maintained he should have received a higher score on four items of the examination. In order to achieve a passing score of 70, Petitioner would need to establish he should have been given a raw score of at least 48. Thus, Mr. Trujillo needs credit of one more point in order to pass the examination. At the hearing, Mr. Trujillo limited his challenge to only two problems on the examination which were identified in this record as to Questions No. 87 and No. 125. As to Question No. 87, Mr. Trujillo maintained that based upon the conditions in South Florida, the answer he gave is the correct one of the four choices. Question No. 87 was a multiple-choice question wherein candidates were to choose the best of the four options offered. Mr. Hutchinson explained why the answer provided by Petitioner was not the best choice for Question No. 87. Mr. Hutchinson's explanation was clear, concise, and based upon engineering demands regardless of the location of the project. As to Question No. 125, Petitioner maintained he should have received more points for the answers given. This item was divided into three parts worth a total of 10 points. The score given Petitioner on this item was 8. By his own admission, Mr. Trujillo lacked sufficient time to complete Question No. 125. Based upon the calculations shown by Petitioner, it is difficult to determine how the candidate intended to solve the problem. In the absence of additional comments from a candidate, the examiners reviewing the work must assume a candidate used a consistent problem-solving approach. In order to achieve a score of 10 on this problem, the candidates were required to be within five percent of the approved solution value. Mr. Trujillo did not explain the approach used in his attempt to solve Question No. 125. Two approaches would have yielded correct responses. The answers provided by Mr. Trujillo were inconsistent with a single problem solving approach. Thus, either part B or part C or his answers were incorrect by a margin of greater than ten percent. If the reviewer assumed Petitioner used one approach to solve the items of Question No. 125, he did calculate the problems correctly. If the Petitioner used two different approaches to solve the items of Question No. 125, he did not clearly explain his work in order to demonstrate knowledge of the areas addressed by the question. Question No. 125 required the candidate to solve three subparts based upon a single factual scenario. The question was not ambiguous nor did it require a candidate to use inconsistent theories to arrive at a correct solution.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order confirming Petitioner's score on the April 1998 examination and dismissing the challenge to it. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. 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 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Brian Trujillo 16660 Southwest 92nd Terrace Miami, Florida 33196
