Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James Ilardi, was an unsuccessful candidate for the June, 1989 General Contractor's Construction Examination in the State of Florida. He is an experienced contractor and is licensed in the State of South Carolina. He is the past President of the Charleston Contractor's Association in South Carolina. He has experience with most types of building construction, including office buildings, military facilities, hospitals, factories and other large projects. He served as Chief Executive Officer for a design and construction firm for a period of ten years. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering the certified general contractor's examination and with regulating the licensure and practice of construction contractors in the State of Florida. The Petitioner sat for the certified general contractor's examination in June, 1989. He has challenged the scoring of his answers to questions 2, 11, 12, 17, 19 and 33 on that examination. During the course of the hearing, he abandoned his challenges to questions 2, 17, 19 and 33. If he were accorded correct answers to either of the remaining challenged questions, numbers 11 or 12, he would have a sufficient score to obtain a passing grade of 70 on that examination. Both questions 11 and 12 used a "critical path network diagram" for use in working out the correct answer to the questions. The Petitioner criticized the diagram as being obscure, difficult to read and containing error. He maintained that it was not supported by the representations found in the reference materials recommended by the Respondent, in its "Instructions to Candidates", as being the material to use to arrive at answers to the questions. The Petitioner contends that the size of the diagram, "the multiple fonts, the difference in the intensity of the print, and the use of symbols all contribute to the obscurity and illegibility of the diagram, itself". In particular, he complains that the symbol listing includes a symbol which he did not find on the diagram. That is, the symbol for "structural steel" and "steel bar joists, which is two straight vertical parallel lines. He also complains that general practice in the construction industry, in his experience, and as indicated in the reference work "Construction Contracting", pages 325-326, one of the references listed for candidates to use in answering these questions, recommends against the use of symbols in lieu of abbreviated notations for description of activities on such a diagram. The main complaint he had concerning the use of symbols, however, was the fact that use of symbols, and having to constantly defer to the symbol legend on the exam materials, was time-consuming and was not generally accepted industry practice or procedure. He contends that the diagram contains error or is obscure and does not conform to the Respondent's recommended reference materials nor to industry standards and. is deficient in format, design and reproductive quality. Thus, he maintains that questions 11 and 12 do not adequately test the knowledge or skills necessary for licensure as a general contractor. The Petitioner acknowledged that the questions at issue had been reviewed twice by the Respondent's examination content specialist and that an "item analysis and review process" by the Respondent's expert resulted in the Respondent maintaining its position that the two questions and supporting materials were valid in fairly testing the knowledge of general contractor licensure candidates. In summary, the Petitioner contends that as to question 11, the symbol for steel bar joists, the two parallel vertical lines, does not appear on the diagram; therefore, he was unable to determine whether his answer was correct or not. As to question number 12, he maintains, in essence, that the use of symbols instead of brief abbreviated descriptions of the activities involved, accompanying the arrows in the diagram which indicate the critical path for the activity in question (paint work), render answering the question confusing and time consuming in having to constantly refer to the symbol legend and look for the symbols. He states that, in his 20 years of construction industry experience, he has not had to use symbols in working with a critical path diagram. The Petitioner did not demonstrate, however, that the use of symbols was incorrect procedure as delineated in the reference materials supplied to the candidates and which they were instructed to use in answering the questions on the examination. The Respondent produced the testimony of Mr. Olson, a Florida certified general contractor, who is also employed with the National Assessment Institute which developed this examination. Mr. Olson, however, did not, himself, have a hand in developing the examination. Mr. Olson did, however, review the Petitioner's challenges to the questions at issue and his responses, reviewed questions 11 and 12, as well as the Respondent's asserted correct answers to those questions and the methodology used in reaching those answers. Mr. Olson established that this was an "open-book" examination and the candidates were informed of and supplied all necessary reference materials to answer these two questions. The only optional consideration was that candidates could have used a calculator to speed up their calculations and were informed that it was permissible to use a calculator. Question 11 required candidates to calculate the total time necessary to install structural steel and steel bar joists in interpreting the activity network represented by the diagram in question. They were asked to calculate whether the installation was ahead of schedule or behind schedule and by how much. Mr. Olson established that the correct response was "C", which is two days behind schedule. Mr. Olson demonstrated that it was quite possible for a candidate to make this calculation and track this in formation on the diagram provided the candidates, through reading the path with the symbols, which alphabetically represent the activity, and which are numerical in representing the time in days. He established that this is very typical of the construction industry, related to the preparation, reading and interpreting of blueprints. A tremendous amount of symbols and legends are typically used in preparing and interpreting blueprints. Mr. Olson established that the pertinent number, 85 days, could be calculated for installation of structural steel and steel bar joists, based upon the information supplied to the candidates. By using the diagram and the information supplied with the question, the candidate can calculate that the actual number of days that were taken for the job was 87 days and therefore, that the project, at that point, was two days behind schedule. Mr. Olson performed this calculation by using the actual diagram the Petitioner used and reference information the Petitioner was given to use in answering the actual examination question at issue. He also established that the two parallel lines representing steel bar joists and structural steel on the diagram, and in the symbol legend supplied with the diagram, were indicated on the diagram supplied to Mr. Ilardi at the examination. Mr. Olson also established that the reference quoted for question number 11 was walkers Building Estimator's Reference Book, which, indeed, listed the type of activity network depicted in the diagram used by candidates for question number 11 and 12. Mr. Olson also established that question number 12 requires a candidate to work through an activity network diagram to find the amount of days necessary from the beginning of a project to the time the painting activity begins. He established that the answer could be obtained without the use of any other reference materials other than the information depicted on the diagram, itself, associated with the question. He established that the only correct answer from that information on the diagram could be "D" or 153 days. The Petitioner did not establish that his answer to question number 12, nor to question number 11 for that matter, was a correct answer and did not establish that there was any misleading quality or ambiguity in the wording of the questions and the associated information which would mislead a candidate into calculating the wrong answers or that there was erroneous information depicted in the reference materials or the diagram which would result in the candidate being misled into giving a wrong answer to questions 11 and 12.. Mr. Ilardi challenged the examination as to the testing environment, as that relates to the ambient light level in the examination room and to the acoustic qualities of the room. He also asserted that the test was not standardized throughout the State and was biased due to age, because of the perceived hearing and vision difficulties which he believed were caused by the acoustics in the examination room and the light available. Other than stating his opinions in this regard, he produced no testimony or evidence concerning these alleged qualities of the testing environment. It was demonstrated by she Respondent that, indeed, the test is standardized throughout the State and is the one given to all candidates in Florida, regardless of the test location.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on the certified general contractor's licensure examination. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-3784 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Rejected. The Petitioner was not qualified as an expert witness. Other than that, this finding is accepted. Rejected, as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant weight of the evidence. 4.A.-4.C. Accepted. 4.D. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not constituting a finding of fact, but rather a quotation from the transcript of the proceedings. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as immaterial and not probative of the issues of whether the questions were ambiguous or misleading or whether the Petitioner's answers were correct. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence, and as not materially dispositive. 4.1. Rejected, as not materially dispositive. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as immaterial. Accepted, but not a matter of factual dispute and immaterial. Respondent's Findings of Fact 1-10. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth D. Easley, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. James Ilardi P.O. Box 8095 Jacksonville, FL 32239
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the clinical portion of the August 2000 optometry licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the optometry licensure examination in August of 2000. He received passing scores on three of the four parts of the licensure examination. He received a failing score on the clinical portion of the examination. The Petitioner's score on the clinical portion of the subject examination was 70.50. The minimum passing score is 75.00. The Petitioner contested the scores awarded to him for his performance of procedures itemized on the examination as 2A, 7B, 10A, 22A, 33C, 9A, 18B, and 14B.3 During the course of the hearing, two of the challenged items were resolved without the need for evidence. The Petitioner withdrew his challenge to item 10A. The Respondent stipulated that the Petitioner's performance on item 2A had been incorrectly graded, and agreed that 1.5 points should be added to the Petitioner's grade on the subject examination. On five of the items challenged by the Petitioner, one of the examiners gave the Petitioner credit for successful completion of the procedure and the other examiner did not.4 With regard to these five items, the Petitioner's primary contention is that, if one examiner gave him credit, he should also have received credit from the other examiner. However, given the nature of the manner in which the clinical examination is conducted, different scores by examiners evaluating a candidate's performance are not unusual, and, standing alone, different scores are not indicative of any irregularity in the manner in which the examination was conducted. On the clinical portion of the optometry licensure examination, each candidate is evaluated by two examiners, each of whom grades the candidate's performance of a procedure independently of the other examiner. Further, the examiners are not permitted to confer with each other regarding a candidate's scores. Specific written grading standards have been prepared for each of the procedures candidates are required to perform as part of the clinical portion of the subject examination. These written grading standards are provided to all examiners prior to each examination so that the examiners can review the standards and be prepared to apply them in a fair and even-handed manner. Before serving as an examiner, each proposed examiner goes through a training session. During the training session, each proposed examiner practices scoring the performance of various optometry procedures. Following the practice sessions, the work of each examiner is evaluated to determine whether the examiner is correctly applying the grading standards. If a potential examiner is unable to demonstrate the ability to apply the grading standards, then that examiner is assigned to other duties and is not assigned to grade candidates on the licensure exam. The examiners assigned to grade the Petitioner on the clinical portion of the subject examination all successfully completed the training process and were determined to be acceptable by the Department. The examiners assigned to grade the Petitioner on the clinical portion of the subject examination were all experienced examiners and a statistical analysis of their scoring of all candidates on the subject examination demonstrates that they reliably applied the grading standards. With regard to the procedure required by item 14B, the Petitioner asserts that his ability to demonstrate the required procedure was impaired by the fact that the patient was photophobic. The greater weight of the evidence is otherwise. While the subject examination was in progress, two optometrists examined the patient and determined that the patient was not photophobic. There is no competent substantial evidence of any misconduct by any of the examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance during the subject examination. Similarly, there is no competent substantial evidence that the Department acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or that it abused its discretion. There is no competent substantial evidence that the scoring of the Petitioner's examination performance was flawed, other than the additional 1.5 points that the Department agreed should be given for item 2A.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Petitioner is not entitled to a passing grade on the clinical section of the optometry licensure examination and dismissing the petition in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 13th day of September, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has "just cause" to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Madison County, Florida. Respondent is an educator, certified by the Florida Department of Education. During the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years, Petitioner employed Respondent as a teacher at the Madison Excel Alternative School (Excel). Excel is a non-traditional school. Students who attend Excel are behind academically or have other problems, requiring removal from the regular school setting. Instruction at Excel is self-paced and computer-based. Teachers at Excel may be responsible for assisting students in more than one subject during any one class period. Typically, computer coursework makes up 75 percent of a student's grade. The other 25 percent of a grade depends on the student's participation and/or other student work. Once a student completes a computer course, a report is generated to verify completion with a satisfactory grade of at least 70 percent. The student then must take an exam and pass it. If the computer program does not have an internal comprehensive exam, the teacher must generate an exam. There were at least three different computer programs used at Excel during the 2008-2009 school year. The A+LS system was the program used for computer-based instruction. Pinnacle has been used as the official, computer-based grade book and attendance record since the 2007-2008 school year. Additionally, the MIS system was used to maintain the cumulative permanent educational record for each student, including the classes taken and the grades in each subject. During the 2008-2009 school year, administrators (principal and/or secretary) were responsible for enrolling students in classes at Excel. This responsibility included enrolling students at the beginning of a term, consistent with students' academic programs and the Department of Education's student progress requirements. The school administrators also enrolled students in other courses when they completed course work prior to the end of a term. When an administrator enrolled a student in a particular course, the administrator would also permit the student access to the course material on the A+LS system and add the class to the computer-based grade book, Pinnacle. The Pinnacle system only allows so many classes per student per semester. When a student exceeds that number, school administrators have to notify Petitioner's district office to ensure that the student's grades are properly recorded. During most of the 2008-2009 school year, and prior thereto, Respondent kept a hand-written grade book. He used the grade book to record attendance as well as grades. Petitioner's policy required teachers to put weekly grades in Pinnacle for each student in each course. In the fall of 2008, Respondent did not follow the policy; he refused to enter a string of zeros when students, who were already behind, continuously failed to make progress. On or about February 17, 2009, the principal of Excel, Elizabeth Hodge, gave Respondent a written reprimand. The reprimand related to Respondent's failure to properly post grades in Pinnacle, the computerized grading system. Respondent ceased using his hand-written grade book at or about this time. During the 2008-2009 school year, Q. F. and S. B. were students at Excel in classes taught by Respondent. During the first semester of that year, Respondent taught each student at least three subjects. S. B. was in Respondent's first, third, and sixth-period classes. Q. F. was in Respondent's second, fourth, and fifth-period classes. Respondent was S. B.'s teacher for Integrated Math 1 during the third period of the first semester of the 2008-2009 school year. S. B. earned a semester grade of 93 in Integrated Math 1. With Respondent as her teacher, S. B. began, but did not complete, Economics at Excel during the second semester of the 2008-2009 school year. Respondent was Q. F.'s teacher for Algebra 1-A during the fourth period of the first semester of the 2008-2009 school year. Q. F. earned a semester grade of 73 in Algebra 1-A. With Respondent as her teacher, Q. F. began, but did not complete, Biology at Excel during the second semester of the 2008-2009 school year. During the 2009-2010 school year, Q. F. and S. B. enrolled in Petitioner's high school. At that time, they were no longer Respondent's students. Upon commencement of the 2009-2010 school term, the high school guidance staff placed S. B. into classes that Pinnacle showed were appropriate. S. B. objected to her placement, stating that she had taken some of the classes from Respondent while enrolled in Excel. In order to show that she had taken some of the classes, S. B. went to Respondent and requested that he provide the high school with a letter concerning the classes she took at Excel. The letter he wrote, dated November 17, 2009, stated as follows: This is to acknowledge that I was the instructor of record for [S. B.] in the school year 2007-08 [sic]. She completed the second semester of Biology and Economics. Our input system at Excel failed to grant these credits due to employee turnover and untimely submission of grades. At the time, we were in the process of changing principals and losing our data entry personnel. I can assure you that [S. B.] earned an 87 in Biology and 83 in Economics. We at Excel regret any unnecessary inconvenience that [S. B.] might have suffered. The guidance staff at the high school could not substantiate that S. B. had completed the classes referenced in the November 17, 2009, letter. S. B. then approached Respondent and requested documentation to confirm the matters set out in the November 17, 2009 letter. In response to the request, Respondent prepared a letter dated January 11, 2010, which states as follows: Conformation Record The 3rd & 4th periods consisted of six or seven different subjects. [S. B.] took Economics. (Economics, Pre-Algebra, Integrated Math 1 & 2, Algebra A and B, Consumer Math & Geometry). Respondent attached a copy of a page from his grade book to the January 11, 2010, letter. Respondent then gave the letter and the grade book page in a sealed envelope to S. B. to hand-deliver to the high school. The grade book page attached to the January 11, 2010, letter was for the fall semester of the 2008-2009 school term. It shows a list of third-period student names, including S. B., with grades next to them under a list of courses entitled "Econ, Pre-Algebra, Integrated Math." The term "Econ" is written in a different pen than the other subjects. There is no way from looking at the grade book page to know which student was taking which class. According to Respondent, S. B.'s grades on the page were for Economics. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that no grades for Economics were posted in Respondent's grade book or any computerized system for any students listed on the grade book page for the fall term of 2008. Instead, S. B. received credit that semester for Integrated Math. In the spring of 2009, the term during which Respondent was reprimanded and forced to cease using his grade book, S. B. attempted but did not complete course work for Economics. Respondent failed to record any grades in Pinnacle to show S. B.'s work in Economics. Upon commencement of the 2009-2010 school year, the guidance staff at the high school placed Q. F. in appropriate classes according to Pinnacle. Q. F. objected to her placement, stating that she had taken some of the classes from Respondent at Excel. Q. F. went to see Respondent. Q. F. requested Respondent to provide the high school with a letter concerning the classes she took while enrolled at Excel. In response to Q. F.'s request, Respondent prepared a letter dated January 13, 2010, and delivered it to the high school. The letter advised the high school as follows in relevant part: This 2nd semester class shows (4th period) as an example that . . . [Q. F.] was taking Biology. [Q. F.] had an 85 average in Biology. The January 13, 2010, letter had a copy of the same page from the grade book attached to it that was attached to the January 11, 2010, letter concerning S. B. The grade book page shows a list of fourth-period student names, including Q. F., with grades next to them under a list of courses entitled "Alg 1A-B/Consumer Math/Biology/Geometry." There is no way from looking at the grade book page to know which student took which class. According to Respondent, Q. F.'s grades on the page were for Biology. Upon investigation, Respondent's staff determined that no grades for Biology were posted for any fourth-period students listed in the grade book page for the fall term of 2008. Instead, Q. F. received credit for "Alg 1A-B." Respondent confirmed Q. F.'s grade in Algebra 1 for the fall term of 2008. For the spring term of 2009, Q. F. completed a half credit in Biology. Respondent failed to have this attempt properly entered into the computerized grading system. Comparing a copy of the page from the grade book that was attached to the January 13, 2010, letter, with a copy of the page from the grade book that was attached to the January 11, 2010, letter, it is apparent that Respondent altered the former. The alteration concerns the group of subjects listed over the fourth-period students' names. The grade book page attached to the January 11, 2010, letter listed the following fourth-period subjects: Alg 1A- B/Consumer Math/Geometry. The grade book page attached to the January 13, 2010, letter listed the following subjects: Alg 1A- B/Consumer Math/ Biology/Geometry. Because the subject "Biology" appears in the copy of the grade book page attached to the January 13, 2010, letter, but not in the copy of the grade book page attached to the January 11, 2010, letter, it is clear that it was added after January 11, 2010. Additionally, the term "Biology" was not simply added by writing it above the student names in pen. Instead, Respondent admitted that he cut a strip from a back page in the grade book, re-wrote the group of courses, and then photocopied the grade book page so that it would appear as through the subject "Biology" was always listed. Respondent testified that he remembered that Q. F. had taken Biology, so he was simply trying to "correct" the grade book. Respondent attempted to intentionally deceive Petitioner into awarding credit for classes that had not been earned. He did this in the following ways: (a) stating in the November 17, 2009, letter that S. B. had completed Economics and Biology when this was not true; (b) attempting to substantiate the falsehood by sending the January 11, 2010, letter and attaching to it a copy of a page from his grade book that had been altered by adding the term "Econ" to the subject line, then falsely asserting that the page showed S. B.'s completion of Economics; and (c) sending the January 13, 2010, letter and attaching to it a copy of a page from his grade book that had been intentionally altered by adding the term "Biology" to the group of subjects above Q. F.'s name, then falsely asserting that the page showed Q. F.'s completion of Biology.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George T. Reeves, Esquire Davis, Schnitker, Reeves & Browning, P.A. Post Office Box 652 Madison, Florida 32341-0652 Lou S. Miller, Superintendent District School Board of Madison County 210 Northeast Duval Avenue Madison, Florida 32340 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Donald A. Moyant, Petitioner, operates a contractors' exam school in Brandon, Florida, at which he preps builders to take the CILB exam for licensure as contractors. Petitioner took the exam given in June 1985 and received a score of 58.60. A score of 70.00 is required to pass this examination. The only answer that Petitioner questions is the answer he supplied to question No. 2, which related to the number of reinforcing bars required in a concrete slab of given dimensions and spacings of the bars. In Petitioner's solution to the problem he dropped the fractional bar that resulted from dividing the length of the slab by the spacing between bars. The correct solution requires the addition of a bar for this fractional spare. Petitioner's purpose in pursuing this proceeding is to obtain information to use in his Contractors Exam School, Inc. Since he would not have passed the examination even if his solution to question No. 2 had been marked correct, Petitioner is without standing to bring this action because he is doing so on behalf of the school he runs and not to allow him to receive a passing grade.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner successfully completed the answers posed on the April, 1987 professional engineer's examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April, 1987 professional engineering examination and was advised that he failed the principles and practice portion of the examine. His raw score was 45 points and the parties stipulated that he needed a minimum raw score of 48 points to pass the examination. In his request for hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 120, 123 and 420. However, during the hearing, he only presented testimony and challenged question 420. Question 420 is worth 10 points and is set forth in its entirety in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1. For reasons of test security, the exhibit has been sealed. Question 420 requires the examinee to explore the area regarding "braced excavations" and explores the principles involved in such excavations. Question 420 requires the examinee to calculate the safety factor for a braced excavation including the depth of excavation which would cause failure by "bottom heaving". Petitioner, in calculating the safety factor, made a mathematical error when he incorporated the B-prime value calculation which was inserted into the equation in making his calculations. Question 420 does not direct the applicant to apply the calculations to either a square excavation or to a rectangular excavation. Petitioner assumed the shape of the excavation to be square and calculated the factor of safety according to that assumption. In assuming the square excavation, Petitioner did not make the more conservative calculation that will be required in making the safety factor calculation for a rectangular excavation. In this regard, an examination of Petitioner's work sheet indicates that he referenced the correct calculation on his work sheet but the calculation was not transferred to or utilized in the equation. Respondent utilizes the standard scoring plan outline, which is more commonly known as the Items Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) which is used by the scorers in grading the exam. The ISSP provides a scoring breakdown for each question so that certain uniform criteria are met by all applicants. For example, four points are given for a correct solution on a specific question regardless of the scorer. This criteria is supplied by the person or persons who prepared the exam. The criteria indicates "in problem-specific terms, the types of deficiencies that would lead to scoring at each of the eleven (0-10) points on the scale". The ISSP awards six points on question 420 when the applicants meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied, applicant demonstrate minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant aspect of the item." ISSP awards seven points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable". The ISSP awards eight points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied. Errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct". The ISSP awards nine points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, correct solution but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc." The ISSP criteria for awarding nine points as to question 420 clearly requires that the Petitioner calculate the correct solution without mathematical errors. The Petitioner's answer was not correct regardless of the assumption as to the shape of the excavation since he made a mathematical error. The ISSP criteria for awarding eight points as to question 420 allows Petitioner to calculate the answer with mathematical errors with the requirements that the results are reasonable. Petitioner made a mathematical error although his result was reasonable. His answer fits the criteria for the award of eight points in conformity with the ISSP criteria. Petitioner received six points for his answer to question 420 whereas he is entitled to an award of eight points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner failed the principles and practice portion of the April, 1987 engineering examination. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 30th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Glen E. Wichinsky, Esquire 900 Glades Road, 5th Floor Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to question numbers 21 and 24 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination administered in April 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April 24, 1998 professional engineering licensing examination with an emphasis in civil engineering. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. In order to achieve a score of 70, Petitioner needs a raw score of 48. Therefore, Petitioner is in need of at least one additional raw score point. Petitioner is challenging question numbers 21 and 24. They are both multiple-choice questions and worth one point each. Exhibit 10 contains a diagram for the candidate's use in answering question numbers 21 and 24. Question 21 requires the examinee to calculate the percentage of wooded land on the diagram. The diagram contains a rectangle labeled "woodlot," and within the rectangle are three non-contiguous areas marked with schematics of trees. The Petitioner reduced the percentage of wooded area to conform to the portion of the area labeled "woodlot" marked with schematics of trees. In regard to question number 21, the Petitioner asserts that as a matter of convention, by failing to put the trees everywhere in the wooded lot, one may assume that there are trees only where there is a schematic of the trees. The Petitioner's challenge was rejected on the basis that the scorer opined that it is standard practice that drawings are only partially filled with details, and the most reasonable interpretation of the site plan drawings is that the woodlot fills the entire area enclosed by the rectangle. John Howath, a professional engineer, testified regarding accepted conventions in engineering drawings. In Howath's opinion the drawing on the examination used inconsistent methodologies and was confusing regarding whether all of the area designated by the label or "call out" of woodlot was in fact wooded. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Howath referred to drawings in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual which showed areas on drawings totally covered with visual indications of a particular material or condition. Peter Sushinsky, a professional engineer, testified as an expert for the Respondent. Mr. Sushinsky acknowledged the Petitioner's exhibits; however, Mr. Sushinsky noted that these were only a few examples of drawings that are available. Mr. Sushinsky referenced construction drawings he had seen in his practice with partial "cross-hatching" just like the diagram on the examination. In sum, Mr. Sushinsky's experience was that diagram might be totally or partially "cross-hatched." In Mr. Sushinsky's opinion it was not a bad diagram, only subject to a different interpretation by a minor group. Question number 24 asked the candidate to calculate the weir peak discharge from the catchment area using the rational formula. The Petitioner asserts the question is misleading and should read, "What is the peak discharge from the watershed?" The Petitioner bases his assertion on the ground that the "rational formula" is used to compute discharge from a watershed not a weir, as mandated by the question. The scorer did not address the Petitioner's concerns. The scorer stated, "It is clear from the item statement that the weir equation is not to be used." However, the questions ask the candidate to compute the weir discharge. Jennifer Jacobs, a professor of engineering, testified regarding the rationale formula that it was used to calculate watershed discharge and not weir discharge. All experts agreed that the rational formula is not used to compute weir discharge. The experts all agree that the question was confusing because the rational formula is not used to calculate the discharge from a weir. The Respondent's expert justifies the answer deemed correct on the basis that if one uses the rational formula and computes the watershed discharge, one of the answers provided is close to the result. The Respondent's expert calculated the watershed discharge as 230.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). The answer deemed correct was 232 cfs. The expert stated the weir attenuates flow. If the weir attenuates flow one would expect an answer less than 230.6 cfs., not an answer equal to or greater than 230.6 cfs. The amount of attenuation is based upon the physical features of the impoundment area and the mouth of the weir. Weir Attenuation varies. The only answers smaller than 230.6 are 200 or 32. Is the 232 cfs. answer wrong because it does not allow for attenuation by the weir? How much did the weir attenuate the flow? Under these facts, the question is capricious. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner didn't follow instructions while acknowledging that the "correct" answer is not the answer to the question that was asked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order awarding Petitioner two raw points and a passing score on the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 20th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark W. Nelson 720 Northwest 31st Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director 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
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Eric R. Hartman has been licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate salesperson, having been issued license number 0455304. Mr. Hartman was originally licensed on August 12, 1985. The last status of Mr. Hartman's license was involuntarily inactive. On or about June 26, 1995, Mr. Hartman forwarded his real estate salesperson license renewal notice to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division of Real Estate). His license had expired on March 31, 1995. Mr. Hartman submitted the license renewal notice to the Division of Real Estate for the purpose of renewing his real estate salesperson license. On the license renewal notice, Mr. Hartman signed an affirmation that he had completed all of the requirements for renewal of his license. As a prerequisite for the renewal of his license, Mr. Hartman was required to successfully complete a minimum of 14 hours of real estate continuing education. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hartman knew of this requirement. Prior to submitting his signed license renewal notice, in order to comply with the required continuing education, Mr. Hartman had obtained a correspondence course for 14 hours of continuing education from the Bert Rodgers Schools of Real Estate, Incorporated (Bert Rodgers). The correspondence course included a course book and test booklet. At the end of each chapter in the course book was a progressive quiz, and the answers for the quiz were provided at the end of the course book. Mr. Hartman took the progressive quiz after completing each chapter and, for the total book, had only two incorrect answers. The test for the continuing education course was open book. After completing the test, Mr. Hartman forwarded the test booklet to Bert Rodgers for grading. Based upon his performance on the progressive quiz after each chapter, there was no reason for Mr. Hartman to believe that he had not passed the test and, therefore, successfully completed the course. Confident that he had passed the continuing education course, Mr. Hartman submitted his license renewal notice to the Division of Real Estate. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hartman knew that he was required to maintain and submit to the Division of Real Estate, upon request, a course report certificate for the continuing education. The certificate indicates that he had timely and successfully completed the continuing education course. At the time that Mr. Hartman submitted his signed license renewal notice, he had not received a course report certificate from Bert Rodgers. On July 10, 1995, relying upon Mr. Hartman's representation that he had successfully completed the requirements for renewal of his license, the Division of Real Estate renewed Mr. Hartman's license and issued him a real estate salesperson license. His license had an effective date of June 23, 1995, and an expiration date of March 31, 1997. Subsequently, Mr. Hartman received notification from Bert Rodgers that the course material, including the test booklet, had expired and was no longer valid. Simultaneously, Bert Rodgers provided Mr. Hartman with a new and valid course book and test booklet. He completed the new test booklet and forwarded it to Bert Rodgers for grading. At the time that Mr. Hartman signed his license renewal notice and forwarded it to the Division of Real Estate, he had no intent to deceive or mislead or to make a material misrepresentation for the purpose of inducing the Division of Real Estate to renew his license. On his own initiative, by letter dated August 28, 1995, Mr. Hartman notified the Division of Real Estate of the situation regarding the Bert Rodgers continuing education course. After having forwarded the new and valid test booklet to Bert Rodgers, Mr. Hartman, subsequently, received a course report certificate from Bert Rodgers. The certificate indicated, among other things, that Mr. Hartman had taken a 14-hour continuing education correspondence course, which was completed on August 25, 1995, and that he had received a grade of 93.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a final order imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine against Eric R. Hartman. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1997.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Mr. Lord should be granted additional credit for his answer to question number 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lord (Candidate #301402) received a score of 66.3 percent on the April 20, 1991, Principals and Practice portion of the Professional Engineer examination. A minimum passing score was 70.0 percent. Mr. Lord challenged the scoring of his response to question number 144. Question number 144 is an essay question involving an assembly line problem where four separate stations are used to assemble a product in sequence. A fifth station can assist in maximizing the number of finished products produced per hour, and is capable of performing all operations. The correct answer to question number 144 was 100 products per hour, while Mr. Lord's answer was 25 pieces per hour. Petitioner received a score of 2 (out of a possible 10) points on question number 144. This was based on the scoring plan developed for the exam by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Mr. Lord used a method of averaging station assembly times to determine the maximum average number of products each station could produce. The averaging method gave a solution which did not identify the central issue presented by the essay question: identifying and eliminating the bottlenecks in production. Mr. Lord also made an assumption that the initial four stations could do all operations, thus defining the model inaccurately. This misreading allowed Mr. Lord to use an averaging methodology. Mr. Granata, the Department's expert, testified that it is a coincidence of the numbers that if you multiply Respondent's answer (25) by four (the initial number of machines) you get the Board's answer (100). Mr. Greenbaum, Petitioner's expert witness, testified that Petitioner's answer is "unique" and that he, as an expert, would have answered the question using a methodology similar to the one developed by the Department's expert, Mr. Granata, and by the NCEE (National Council of Examiners for Engineering).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the challenge to the grading of Mr. Lord's response to question 144 on the April 1990 Professional Engineer licensure examination be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Curtis Lord 1416A Old Lystra Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offense alleged in the Final Notice of Non-Compliance and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Charles E. Brown, Jr., is now and was at all times material hereto licensed by Petitioner, Department of Insurance (Department), as a Life and Health Agent (02-18), and held license number A031614. At all times material hereto, insurance agents licensed in Florida, such as Respondent, have been required to complete continuing education courses every two years, and Respondent was aware of such obligation. 1/ Compliance could be achieved by completing Department-approved seminars, classroom courses, or self-study courses. 2/ During the compliance period of December 1, 1995 through November 30, 1997, Respondent was required to complete 28 hours of continuing education courses. With regard to that requirement, the proof demonstrated Respondent failed to complete any hours of continuing education. Consequently, the proof supports the conclusion that Respondent failed to timely complete the 28 hours of continuing education required for the compliance period at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and which, for the violation found, suspends Respondent's insurance license for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 28th day of April, 2000.
