Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Glen P. Hamner, Jr., has applied for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architectural licensure examination, administered by the Respondent, consists of two portions, the written examination given in December of each year, and the site planning and design portion administered in June of each year. The Petitioner has complied with all requirements for admittance to the subject examination. The Petitioner sat for the 12-hour "Part A" examination in June, 1980. The examination consists of a drafting or sketching problem and is so constituted as to require the applicant for licensure to design a particular type of building to be accommodated to a particular site, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, designing elevations, building cross sections, facades and floor plans, as well as taking into consideration numerous criteria such as human traffic flow, parking, access to all areas, heating and cooling, including solar heating potential, prevailing climate conditions, use of natural lighting, and numerous other esthetic, engineering and legal requirements. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation and is supplied to the State of Florida, as well as to all other jurisdictions in the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination was adopted in Florida pursuant to the above-cited rules. Prior to sitting for the examination, each applicant, including the Petitioner, receives a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished by that applicant and various requirements to which the Petitioner was expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Immediately prior to commencing the examination itself, the Petitioner received other information designed to enable him to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical and architectural requirements of the problem. In general, the examination was designed to require the Petitioner to design a solution to the site plan and building design problem submitted to him by the NCARB and the Florida board. The pertinent portion of the examination thus allows the examination graders and, through them, the Florida Board of Architecture to determine whether an applicant, such as the Petitioner, is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, esthetic, energy and legal requirements in order to resolve the design and site plan problem after having been tested on the same requirements in written form in the initial portion of the examination administered in December of each year. The grading of the design and site portion of the examination was accomplished by submission of the Petitioner's work product to at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of 20 states. These graders are given training by the NCARB in order to standardize their conceptions of minimal competence required for achievement of a satisfactory grade on the examination. Each architect grader is then asked to review and score various solutions to this site and design problem, including the Petitioner's, in a blind grading basis. The grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration the various criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code, as well as in Respondent's Exhibit Three. The graders are instructed to note the areas of strength and weakness in an applicant's solution with regard to those grading criteria and then determine, based on an overall conception of the solution submitted by the applicant, whether or not a passing grade is warranted. A passing grade is defined as a holistic grade of three or four as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code. The applicant must receive at least two passing grades from the three architect graders who independently grade his solution in order to pass that portion of the examination. The Petitioner herein received two "1's" and one "2" on the examination, all of which were failing grades. Although he demonstrated an effort to comply with instructions set forth in the examination, as well as the pre-examination booklet, he failed to achieve sufficient clarity of presentation in several material areas such that the graders could make a clear determination that he understood and had complied with sufficient of the mandatory criteria to achieve passage of the examination. The testimony of the Respondent's witnesses (Herbert Coons, Executive Director of the Florida Board of Architecture and a grader in this examination, and Mr. Dan Branch, a grader of the petitioner's own examination) shows that the petitioner failed to supply sufficient information to permit a passing score to be awarded based on the criteria required to be considered and complied with by the authority cited below. The Petitioner's examination was deficient in a number of material respects. Many technical errors were pointed out by these witnesses, as well as by the petitioner's own admissions. The record thus discloses that the Petitioner's examination solution was deficient in its allowance for parking space and the ability of vehicular ingress to egress from the parking lot surrounding the building to be designed. There were no room designations on the rooms in the floor plan; there was only one rest room space and one set of toilets for men and women where two spaces and sets of facilities were required by the instruction program. The Petitioner failed to mark the building elevations on the building floor plans, did not depict where furniture would be located, and two different elevation drawings and two sectional drawings required to be depicted on the examination were not. The Petitioner did not show what type of material would be used in the roof nor what type of insulation, nor did he show what type and uses of glass were to be made. The Petitioner failed to give adequate consideration to grading and site planning, failed to adequately make notation of the types of materials to be used in the elevation's floor plans and wall sections, and generally did not adequately adhere to the program presented him. In general, it was shown by these witnesses that while the Petitioner had made a substantial effort to pass the examination, he had failed to place within the solution adequate information to allow the graders to determine clearly that his program or design could be a successful one. The Petitioner's own admissions show that he approached the examination in question in such a manner as to substitute his own judgment and opinion regarding which techniques and components were architecturally sound for the problem for those required to be treated as essential elements of the site and design problem posed him in the instructions. The program presented to the Petitioner assumed he would be in the hypothetical position of an "architect" presented with a program which had already reached a point of completion as to design ideas and site location. The insertion of his own ideas and judgment regarding various elements of the project is contrary to established architectural practice, for a program which had already reached the point of completion, in terms of initial design decisions, as that presented to the examination candidates in this instance. In view of the above-determined deficiencies, the Petitioner did not establish that his solution to the site and design-problem posed by the examination reflected sufficient and appropriate consideration of the requirements and criteria he was instructed to address.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the failing grade conferred on the Petitioner on the June, 1980, site and design portion of the architectural examination be upheld, and that the petition be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 19th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Glen P. Hamner, Jr. 1231 Bayshore Drive Valparaiso, Florida 32580 John Rimes, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samual Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Certain stipulations of fact were entered into by Petitioner and Respondent and accepted by the Hearing Officer. Those stipulations of fact are set forth below as Findings of Fact in this cause: "Petitioner, CHRISTINE DIANE ZARLI, [McDonough] is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in the State of Florida is of two (2) parts, one of which is the written examination given in December of each year and the other of which is a site and design (sic) [Part (a)] which is given in June of each year. Petitioner has met all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination." "Petitioner took the design and site plan portion of the National Architecture Examination in June, 1981. This portion of the examination consist (sic) of a twelve (42) hour sketch problem involving design and site considerations. The examination is administered by the office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation, and is supplied to the State of Florida as well as to all of the jurisdictions of the United States by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The examination itself as noted above involves the design of a structure by an applicant including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross-sections, facades and floor plans." "Information supplied to the applicant includes a preexamination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself (sic) in order to receive a passing grade. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him (sic) to more adequately design the structure requested and perform the necessary technical architectural requirements. In general, the purpose of the examination is to require the applicant to put together a design and site plan solution in response to a program submitted to him (sic) by NCARB. This portion of the examination, therefore, allows the national testing service grading the examination and through them the Florida Board of Architecture to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, asthetic, energy and legal requirements which are tested in written form in the other portion of the examination given in December of each year." "The grading of the site and design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's product by at least three (3) architects selected by the various architectural boards of some twenty (20) states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each architect-grader is then asked to review various solutions submitted by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin (sic) of the solution which he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration various criteria as set forth in Rule 21B-14.03, F.A.C. Graders are instructed to make notations for areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then are to determine, based upon an overall conception of the applicants (sic) submission, whether or not a passing grade of three (.3) or four (4) as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, F.A.C. (sic) [has been achieved]. In order for an applicant to pass he must receive at least two (2) passing grades from the three (3) architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. [That is, at least two of the three graders must have scored the applicant with a passing score.]" The architects chosen as graders by the NCARB for the design and site plan portion of the examination are required to participate in an extensive exercise designed to achieve uniformity in grading by all graders. The graders are instructed to review the solutions of the applicants quickly for an overall impression. They are further directed to score the solution on the basis of that first impression. They are specifically asked not to regrade solutions or to analyze specific points of presentation. The graders are instructed that the grading concept is a holistic concept and that the basic assumption of that holistic grading concept is that each of the factors involved in design skills is related to all the other factors and that no one factor can be separated from the others. The graders are instructed that they must judge each solution as a whole grading the solution for their impression of its totality. They are told that an examinee is entitled to make some mistakes, recognizing that the problem is hurriedly executed in a tense situation, without recourse to normal office reference materials and without the customary time for deliberation and critique by others. The graders are directed to give each solution a holistic score of 1, 2, 3, or 4. 1 is Very Poor (failed), 2 is Poor (failed), 3 is Minimally Acceptable (pass), and 4 is Good (pass). No evidence has been presented in this proceeding from which it can be concluded that the instructions to the graders and the rules for the administration of this test were not followed. Thus, it is found that the three graders who graded Petitioner's solution did not know Petitioner's identity nor her state of origin and did not know, at the time they graded her solution, the grade placed on that solution by their fellow graders. Each of the three graders independently assigned a score of 2, or Poor and failing, to Petitioner's solution. Although testimony was presented with regard to the strengths and weaknesses of certain specific elements of Petitioner's solution, no evidence was presented from which it can be found as a matter of fact that the solution, when considered holistically, was deserving of a grade higher than that assessed by the three independent graders.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, David A. Mancino, was a candidate on the 1982 Architecture Design and Site Planning Examination administered on June 14 through 16, 1982, by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture. He is a 1979 graduate of the University of Texas and is presently employed by an architectural firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 10, 1982, Petitioner was advised by Respondent that he had received a failing grade on Part A of the examination. After reviewing his examination with the Executive Director of the Board in December, 1982, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his failing grade. That request prompted the instant proceeding. The professional architectural examination consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. The former part is known as the Site Planning and Design portion of the examination and requires a candidate to draw a solution to a problem involving (a) site plans, (b) floor plans, (c) building sections, (d) two significant building elevations, (e) diagrams of structural systems, (f) diagrams of environmental control systems, and (g) a typical wall section. Part A is blind-graded by at least three examiners designated and approved by the Department. Each examiner judges the individual applicant's entire work product pursuant to prescribed evaluation criteria set forth in Rule 21B-14.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. Grades are awarded by each examiner ranging from 1 through 4 depending on the quality of the work. An applicant must have a minimal average of 3 in order to pass this part of the examination. On the June, 1982 examination all candidates were required to design a small municipal airport terminal building in a midwestern location. The problem required a site plan, ground level plan/north elevation, second level plan, and a cross-section of the facility. Petitioner's solution has been received as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Petitioner received scores of 2, 2 and 2 on Part A of the examination. Generally, his solution was found to be weak in the following broad areas: (a) site planning and site location, (b) building planning and design, and (c) technical aspects. Specifically, the solution was weak as to the following aspects of site planning and site design: handicapped parking location/access from parking area across traffic lanes, service area location and traffic circulation, service drive curb cut, and site aesthetics, including trees, walls and pedestrian crosswalks. In building planning and design Petitioner's solution was less than acceptable in appropriate positioning and indication of ancillary elements, logical pedestrian circulation in relation to services, vertical circulation, conformance to program area requirements, conformance to life safety requirements, and building aesthetics in response to surrounding area, activities and owner goals. Finally, the technical aspects of the solution were weak in terms of the use of appropriate materials and construction methods, and vertical loads (roofs, columns and walls) All such deficiencies were confirmed by the Department's expert witness who reviewed and analyzed the examination, and who would have assigned a grade of 2 to the examination had he been an examiner. Petitioner generally disagreed with the noted weaknesses, and contended his solutions were satisfactory. He also questioned whether the problem was "fair", since the typical architect would probably never be called upon to design an airport terminal building during his or her career. Other than his own testimony, he offered no other evidence to contradict the examiners' conclusions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of David A. Mancino be DENIED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David A. Mancino 2791 Northeast 57th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Christopher T. Mancino, Esquire Suite 2200 One Financial Plaza Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed architect in the State of Michigan. He began working in this field in 1964 as a designer-draftsman. He later served as a job captain, supervising draftsmen and designers. He began practicing architecture as a principal in February, 1974, and has been active as an architect since that time. Petitioner began his education in architecture at the University of Oklahoma in 1960, but did not obtain an architectural degree. He began graduate studies at the University of Detroit in 1974 and was awarded a Masters of Architecture Degree in December, 1975. Petitioner was originally registered as an architect in Michigan on February 2, 1975. He obtained his registration without an architectural degree on the basis of his training, experience and national examination results.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order affirming its denial of Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 28th day of June, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas J. Embro holds two licenses issued by Petitioner. They are RG0021774, registered general contractor, and RC0021647, registered roofing contractor. He has held these licenses since 1974. Sometime in the fall of 1979 Respondent was hired by Richard F. Rogers to replace the roof on a residential structure located at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. At that time the house was for sale. Mr. Rogers, who is a real estate agent, wanted the roof replaced in anticipation of a Veterans Administration financed sale of the house to Mr. William Schrader. Prior to beginning work on the roof Mr. Embro did not obtain a building permit from the City of Gainesville for the job. On October 1, 1979 Mr. Schrader made a complaint to the Building Division of the City of Gainesville. His complaint stated that the roofing work performed by Respondent was unsatisfactory. Mr. Al Davis, a building inspector employed by Gainesville, reviewed the city records and determined that a permit had not been issued to Respondent for reroofing Mr. Schrader's house. On October 3, 1979 Mr. Davis wrote a letter to Mr. Embro which stated in its entirety: October 3, 1979 Mr. Thomas J. Embro 3816 SW 18 Street Gainesville, Florida Dear Sir: We have received a complaint from Mr. Bill Schrader of 4119 NW 12th Avenue on the reroofing that you performed on his residence. After receiving the complaint I investigated out records and the work performed by your company and found the following violations: Our records indicate that a permit was not issued to reroof the above address, this is a violation of Section 106.1 of the Southern Standard Building Code. The roof material was not installed correctly. Shingles shall be installed in accordance to manufacture [sic] re- quirements and some parts of the roof are too flat for shingles. Interior damage has been caused by the roof leaking from not installing the shingles as required. The above violations shall be corrected within 10 days from receipt of this letter. Your compliance will make further action unnecessary. Sincerely, /s/ Al Davis Building Official cc: Mr. Bill Dow, State Investigator Mr. Bill Schrader Mr. Embro applied on October 25, 1979 for a permit from Gainesville for the work at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue. The permit was issued on December 6, 1979. It is not unusual in Gainesville for a contractor to begin a construction job before the appropriate permit is applied for or issued. When this is not a frequent practice of a particular contractor the City imposes no penalty. If the contractor habitually begins construction without permits, the City imposes a penalty by charging him double the regular permit application fee. Mr. Embro was not charged a penalty by the City in this case. In the course of his contracting business Mr. Embro frequently asked his wife to make permit applications for him before he begins work. In this case he believed that she had applied for the appropriate permit. The City of Gainesville allows persons other than the contractor to apply for a building permit on behalf of a contractor if the contractor has first filed an authorization with the City designating an agent. Mr. Embro filed such an authorization on February 13, 1980 for his wife to be his designated agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Thomas J. Embro. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1981.
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.
