Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jorge L. Garcia, 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 seven parts, part of which is the written examination and the rest of which is a site and design examination, which is given in June of each year. Petitioner took the building design portion of the Architecture Registration Examination in June, 1985. This portion of the examination consists of a 12-hour sketch problem involving building design 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 involves the design of a structure by an applicant which meets specific requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, building cross- sections, facades, and floor plans. The program for the 1985 examination called for the design of a city administration building. Information supplied to the applicant includes a pre-examination booklet setting forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements to which the applicant is expected to apply himself in order to receive a passing grade. Applicants also may study a series of solutions proposed by previous successful and unsuccessful applicants so that they may anticipate and apply successful solutions when taking their own examination. At the time of the examination itself, other information is supplied to the applicant to enable him 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 building design solution in response to a program submitted to him by NCARB. This portion of the examination therefore, allows the national testing service grading the examination, and through it, the Florida Board of Architecture, to determine whether the applicant is able to coordinate the various structural, design, technical, aesthetic, energy, and legal requirements. The grading of the building design problem is accomplished by the review of the applicant's proposed examination solution by at least three architects selected by the various architectural registration boards of some 20 states who are then given training by NCARB to standardize their conceptions of the minimal competency required for a passing grade. Each architecture grader is then asked to review various solutions by applicants on a blind grading basis. That is, the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose examination solution he is grading. The grader is instructed to take into consideration various criteria as set forth in Rule - 21B-14.03, Florida Administrative Code. Graders are instructed to make notations or areas of strength and of weakness on the grading criteria and then to determine, based upon an overall conception of each applicant's submission, whether or not a passing grade of 3 or 4 as set forth in Rule 21B-14.04, Florida Administrative Code, has been earned. A method used to ensure independent and confidential grading of a solution is the folding of a single score sheet in such a way as to not allow subsequent graders to see the previous score. Approximately 3 and one-half minutes is utilized as the time in which each grader has to grade each applicant's exam. Page 7 of the Juror's Manual (graders manual) points out: Examinees are entitled to make some mistakes. The program analysis, design , development and drafting are hurriedly executed in a tense situation, without recourse to normal office reference materials (Sweets catalogs Architectural Graphic Standards, etc.) and without customary time for deliberation and critique by others. Jurors (graders) are permitted to recommend changes to an applicant's submission to bring it up to passing. In order for an applicant to pass, he must receive at least two passing grades from the at least three architects who independently grade the applicant's submission. In the instant case, the Petitioner received three 2's (which are failing grades) and one 3 (which is a passing grade). Petitioner's exam solution presented a borderline case since one of the three graders who originally graded his exam gave him a passing grade. His response to notification of failure to pass this portion of the exam was a timely request for a Section 120.57(1) hearing and this proceeding ensued. While Petitioner attempted to comply with the instructions as set forth in the examination and pre-examination booklets, it is clear that in several material areas he failed to achieve requisite minimal competency necessary to receive a passing score on the examination. The testimony of Arnold Butt, Registered Architect, former chairman of the Department of Architecture at the University of Florida and a master grader in the building design examination, is the only expert testimony of record. In Butt's opinion, Petitioner's submission contained several material departures from specific program requirements applicable to the 1985 examination. Specifically, Petitioner failed to place in his submission a delivery system, thus failing to meet program requirements, and showed no method of entry or egress. Further, there was no method of entry or egress from the river walk. Although Butt complimented Petitioner in overcoming one type of circulation problem that was overlooked by many other applicants at the same examination, Petitioner's circulation design was still full of many errors described by Mr. Butt, including life safety factors. Mr. Butt admitted that the graders had not marked life safety as a weakness present in Petitioner's exam. However, Butt's critique of Petitioner's circulation problems shows circulation overlaps into the area of "design logic." For other reasons, including but not limited to Petitioner's showing of certain features such as windows only upon the elevation sheets (as opposed to upon other sheets as well) and failure to show all of an access road, his errors and omissions also overlap into the evaluation criteria of "clarity and completeness of presentation." While Petitioner attempted to show, through use of the publication of NCARB which contains within it samples of various passing and failing examinations, that his examination submission was similar to those which had been recorded as passing grades, he was unsuccessful in discrediting the overall perception of Butt that there were significant difficulties in Petitioner's design solution which, taken as a whole, were much more numerous than the various solutions (both passing and failing) which were compared with Petitioner's solution. In a review of the sample solutions, Butt conceded that some of the errors that Petitioner made were also made by some of the candidates who achieved passing scores. However, Petitioner's examination submission contained a combination of many errors in one paper, which same errors may have existed only individually in some of the passing examples. In short, Petitioner's reliance on the NCARB-produced review booklet is misplaced in that his submitted solution to the problem presented a conglomeration of many of the errors which may have been passing if presented individually in various of the examples contained in the NCARB manual. Petitioner, who has the burden of proof in these de novo proceedings, has therefore failed to demonstrate that his examination solution exhibits minimal competency within the criteria necessary for a passing score.
Recommendation Therefore, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture enter a Final Order affirming that Petitioner has failed the licensure examination for 1985. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 12th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2195 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Covered in Recommended Order FOF 1-3. 3-4. Covered in FOF 10. 5-7. Those portions not accepted are rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the competent substantial evidence as a whole as set forth in FOF 11-12. Further, Mr. Butt testified that once the Petitioner's solutions to the problem were utilized, it was probable the graders would not give him the benefit of the doubt to recommend changes to his submitted because any reasonable solutions they might propose would require almost total redesign of his proposed building instead of the minimal changes they might be permitted to recommend. Rejected as not supported by the competent substantial evidence as covered in FOF 7. Three and 1/2 minutes was given as a fair estimate of the time actually used, not the time permitted. Covered in FOF 9; see also ruling on proposals 5-7 above. Covered in FOF 10; see also ruling on proposals 5-7 above. Accepted but immaterial and not dispositive of any issue at bar. The graders were not precluded from making more than three recommended marks. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Covered in FOF 1; that which is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOE 2. Covered in FOE 4 and 6. Covered in FOF 7 and 10. Covered in FOE 10. 6-7. Covered in FOF 11 and 12 but substantially modified for independent clarity of expression. COPIES FURNISHED: Pat Ard, Executive Director DPR-Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jorge L. Garcia 1744 Southwest First Avenue Miami, Florida 33134 Jorge L. Garcia 231 Southwest 52nd Avenue Miami, Florida John Rimes, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Eric Neale Anderson, has been a registered building contractor in Florida, at all times relevant to this proceeding with license number RB 0016806. In December, 1983 Respondent entered into a contract with Mrs. Linda Fatzinger, a homeowner in Columbia County, for replacement of a roof. The contract price for the reroofing was $2820. After Respondent completed the reroofing, leaks developed in the new roof which Respondent attempted to fix. Respondent did not correct the leaking roof. Mrs. Fatzinger contracted with another building contractor who did repair her roof and eliminate the leaks for an additional charge of approximately $900. Mrs. Fatzinger's roof was inspected by representatives of the Columbia County Building Department who found violations of portions of the Standard Building Code, as adopted by Columbia County Ordinance 78-1, in the work performed by Respondent. Specifically, Respondent installed shingles on a portion of Mrs. Fatzinger's roof that had a pitch of only 1/2 inch per foot instead of the two inches per foot which is required by Section R-803 of the Standard Building Code when shingles are used. This means that the rise of the roof was only 1/2 inch per running foot which is virtually a flat roof. The manufacturer's packaging of the shingles used by Respondent clearly states that the shingles are for application to roof decks having inclines of not less than two (2) inches per foot. Respondent did not obtain a building permit for this reroofing job, although one was required by Columbia County Ordinance 78-1, and he admits knowing that one was required. In the installation of shingles on Mrs. Fatzinger's roof, it has been deemed admitted that Respondent used an insufficient number of nails. Although four nails per shingle were recommended by the manufacturer and are required by Section R-803, Standard Building Code, for the shingles that were used, in some areas Respondent used only two or three staples per shingle, and did not use any nails. In making the above findings of fact, Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered one through four are approved and proposed finding number five is rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for a period of three (3) months. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of March, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric N. Anderson Route 9, Post Office Box 322 Lake City, Florida 32085 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for reexamination at the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 74.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 67.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 4, 10 and 17. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question numbers 4, 10 & 17 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. As to question number 4, the only correct response to the question was answer "B". Petitioner's answer to the question was "D", which was not acceptable. As to question number 10, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "B", was not acceptable. As to question number 17, the correct response was answer "C". Petitioner's answer "A" was not acceptable. The Department's determination that answers "B", "C" and "C" were the only appropriate answers was not arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the challenge by Petitioner that he be awarded a passing grade for Part III of the June 1990 certified building contractors examination be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Uebelacker 326 NW Catherine Avenue Port Charlotte, FL 33952 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Prior to July, 1972, Athan was a registered architect in the State of Florida after passing the Board's examination. In 1972 Athan failed to pay his renewal fee for the year 1973. Nathan tendered his fee for 1972 in June, 1973; however, his application and check were returned to him by the Board because Athan did not include a $10.00 penalty fee. No further action was taken by the Board until June, 1976, when after an inquiry by Athan as to his status, the Board sent Athan a notice of revocation dated May 27, 1976. In response to this notice, Athan requested additional information from the Board. The Board's letters of June 9, 1976, and August 16, 1976, advised Athan that, if he desired to be reinstated without examination, he would have to appear before the Board. Athan appeared before the Board on two occasions and the Board denied his request for reinstatement. The basis for this denial was never stated formerly to Athan and is not developed in the file introduced into evidence. Athan testified and the file reflects that he was never noticed of a hearing to be held on the issue of the revocation of his license and that no formal action of revocation was ever taken by the Board prior to May 27, 1976. The parties stipulated that Athan meets all the qualifications for licensure required by the statutes prior to taking the examination for licensure. The basis for the Board's action in denying Athan's request for reinstatement are contained in the representations and arguments of Counsel for the Board as set forth in the introductory portion of this order and are hereby incorporated into the findings of fact. Based upon the stipulation concerning Athan's qualifications, the only basis for denial of Athan's application for reinstatement are those stated above. Between 1972 and 1974 Athan designed structures for his own development company. During this period, he developed, designed and supervised the construction of a forty-unit apartment house and six office buildings. Considering that Athan was totally responsible for design and construction of these projects, this work compares favorably with his work output in the preceding four years during which he designed thirteen shopping centers, 3,000 apartment units, a four-story office building, two hospitals, and twelve to fifteen private homes. Following his eighteen month vacation, Athan worked for a licensed architectural firm in the State of Florida for a short while during which he was involved in all phases of architecture. This firm found that Athan's work was totally satisfactory in all respects.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Demetrios James Athan be reinstated by the Florida State Board of Architecture. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Rinaman, Jr., Esquire Southeast First Bank Building Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Demetrios James Athan Post Office Box 174 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Claudio Ricardo Ramos was a candidate on the 1982 Architecture Design and the Site Planning Examination administered on June 14- 16, 1982 by the Department of Professional Regulation. He is a graduate of the University of Miami with a Bachelor of Architecture Degree and is presently employed by an architecture firm in Miami, Florida. On September 10, 1982 Petitioner was informed by the Department that he had received a failing grade on Part A of the examination. After a review of his examination he requested a formal hearing to contest his failing grade. That request initiated these proceedings. The professional architecture examination consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. Part A is known as the site planning and design portion of the exam. It 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 two examiners designated and approved by the Department. Each examiner judges the individual applicant's entire work product pursuant to evaluation criteria set out in Section 21B- 14.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. Grades ranging from 1 through 4, depending on the quality of the work, are awarded by each examiner. An applicant must have a minimum average of 3 in order to pass Part A 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. While Petitioner demonstrated on his examination that an effort had been made to comply with the instructions set out in the examination and preexamination booklet, he failed in several significant areas to design a structure consistent with the program's requirements. His design for the terminal failed to fit the criteria for floor areas, entrance- exist requirements, circulation pattern through enplaning and deplaning and to comply with the required structural and mechanical details. These deficiencies in Petitioner's design cannot be explained as merely a difference in professional judgment. They are fundamental mistakes which in some respects make his design functionally unsound. It is apparent from Petitioner's design that he spent a considerable portion of his allotted time on the ground level of the airport terminal design and then was without adequate time to prepare the second level plan and integrate that plan with the ground level. Petitioner has failed to present evidence showing that the failing grade he received was given in a capricious or arbitrary manner. Petitioner's grade was well within the range of reasonable professional judgment on what is an unsuccessful performance of the Part A examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Architecture enter a Final Order denying the application of Claudio Ricardo Ramos for licensure as an architect on the grounds that he failed to successfully pass Part A of the architecture examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Claudio Ricardo Ramos 140 Northwest 87th Avenue Apartment G-222 Miami, Florida 33172 John J. Rimes III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Florida Board of Architecture Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Paul A. Wroblewski, is a transition candidate for licensure as a landscape architect. By "transition" candidate it is meant that Petitioner began the licensing process when the Department utilized a different examination for licensure. Petitioner successfully passed Section 3, entitled "Design Application," of that prior test, the U.N.E. Most recently, Petitioner took the examination for licensure administered by the Department on June 15-17, 1992. This test, the Landscape Architect Registration Examination (LARE), was graded by licensed landscape architects in a national grading session administered by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB). The Department received the scores from CLARB and then reported them to Petitioner. Petitioner's scores were as follows: EXAM SECTION MINIMUM TO PASS SCORE ACHIEVED SECTION STATUS SECTION 2 PROGRAMMING & 75.0 79.0 PASS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SECTION 3 CONCEPTUALI- ZATION & COMMUNICATION 75.0 68.0 FAIL SECTION 4 DESIGN SYNTHESIS 75.0 81.0 PASS In order to apply for licensure, all sections of the examination must be passed. The challenged section in this case, Section 3, contained five separate vignettes that were graded by two independent scorers. The raw scores given by the graders were then translated to a pass/fail/neutral response for each vignette. Additionally, vignette 2 was double weighted. The total number of translated scores for Section 3 was twelve (5 vignettes graded by 2 examiners with an extra 2 scores for the double weighted vignette). In order to achieve the minimum score of 75.0, the examinee had to obtain a minimum number of passes and neutrals which translated to the numerical score of 75. With regard to vignette 1, Petitioner's response was graded by four graders: of the four, three found Petitioner's response to be a "fail" score; one found the Petitioner's response to be a "neutral." With regard to vignette 2, Petitioner's response warranted a "fail" score. With regard to vignette 3, Petitioner's response warranted a "fail" score. With regard to vignette 4, Petitioner's response warranted a "fail" score. With regard to vignette 5, Petitioner's response was regraded and given a "pass" score. Assuming the testimony of Petitioner's witness to be the most credible as to the scoring of Petitioner's examination, Petitioner would have received two neutral scores, two pass scores, and eight fail scores. Such scores would have been insufficient to receive a numerical score of 75. After the examination was administered, CLARB graded the Petitioner's examination and mailed the results of the test to the Department on October 15, 1992. Petitioner received his grades from the Department by letter dated January 4, 1993.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Landscape Architects, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to his examination scores. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2646 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. None submitted Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraghs 1 through 10 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Wroblewski 15150 South West 128th Avenue Miami, Florida 33186 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Landscape Architect 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0766p Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for registration to practice architecture in Florida should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated April 7, 1982, authored by Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director for the Board of Architecture, Petitioner's application for registration to practice architecture in Florida was denied "due to the fact that [his] application does not show evidence that [he] had the professional degree which is required pursuant to Florida Statutes 481.213(3)(a)." Petitioner was further advised that he had failed to show that he satisfied the requirements of Florida Statutes 481.213(3)(b) or that he had engaged in the practice of architecture in another state for the ten (10) years, in conformance with Florida Statutes 481.213(3)(c). Therein, Petitioner was further advised that he could appeal the Respondent's denial of his application to practice architecture. Petitioner appealed that denial, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant thereto, the matter was noticed for hearing by copy of a Notice of Hearing dated December 14, 1982, scheduling the matter for hearing on February 18, 1983, in Miami, Florida. As stated, the Petitioner, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear to prove his entitlement for approval of his application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida. Based thereon, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1983.
