The Issue Should Respondent be fined $500.00 for initiating repairs to an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system before obtaining a permit?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is engaged in the septic tank contracting business as a contractor licensed under Chapter 489, Part III, Florida Statutes. He does business as "Alpha." In association with his business Respondent provided services to residents at 224 North Orange Avenue, Orange City, Florida. This was related to a failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at that residence. To assist in providing repair service to the residence in Orange City, Florida, Respondent engaged Andy Trapp. Mr. Trapp's business is to assist septic tank contractors in obtaining necessary permits to perform septic tank contracting services. Mr. Trapp's occupation includes field work involving soil testing, measurements, and completion of necessary paperwork to assist the septic tank contractor in obtaining necessary permits. As permitting agency, usually Petitioner would accept applications submitted by Mr. Trapp in relation to the application for a permit to repair on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems, in that Mr. Trapp is recognized by Petitioner as being sufficiently qualified to submit information in support of an application for permit. On March 27, 1998, Mr. Trapp submitted an application for a permit to repair the on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at the Orange City, Florida, address, to include supporting information concerning the results of soil testing. That application was accompanied by the necessary fee to obtain a permit. The application was delivered to Petitioner's Daytona Beach, Florida, office as a matter of convenience to Mr. Trapp. Mr. Trapp realized that the actual processing of the permit application would be conducted by Petitioner's Deland, Florida, office. In that connection, Mr. Trapp realized that the application that he had submitted to the Daytona Beach office would be forwarded by interoffice transmittal to the Deland office, which would cause a delay in the processing of the application. In his experience Mr. Trapp has filed applications with the Daytona Beach office to be subsequently transmitted to the New Smyrna Beach office of the Petitioner, which ordinarily can be done late on the same day that the application was presented or by the next day. James McRae is an environmental supervisor for the Volusia Health Department, Environmental Health Office in Deland, Florida. It is his office that had ultimate responsibility for considering, and if appropriate, issuing a permit allowing Respondent to conduct necessary repairs of the failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at the Orange City, Florida address. Mr. McRae confirmed that the permit application, as submitted by Mr. Trapp for the repairs, had been received by the Deland office on March 30, 1998. In addition, the accompanying $57.00 fee had been transferred from the Daytona Beach office to the Deland office, as was customary, the custom being that the funds in support of an application would ultimately be received in the office from which the application would be processed and a permit number assigned, as applicable. Upon receipt of the application in the Deland office, a receipt was generated. Information concerning the permit application was placed in the computer. Assessment of the application was assigned to William Vander Lugt, Environmental Specialists II, who is part of the field staff for the Petitioner's Deland office. Beyond Mr. Vander Lugt's assignment to consider the application for the permit for the Orange City, Florida project, it was expected that he would do any necessary field work involving an inspection and any necessary soil analysis. If satisfied that the site was appropriate to effect repairs to the failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system, Mr. Vander Lugt would issue a permit subject to approval by Mr. McRae. Mr. McRae identified that the usual turn around time for issuing permits is two to three days, assuming that the permit was applied for at Petitioner's office which would be responsible for assessing the application. In this instance the permit had been applied for at another office which delayed consideration of the permit application by the Deland office. The permit was approved on April 2, 1998, within three days of its receipt by the Deland office. Before the permit was issued, Respondent, through his employees, had commenced the repairs at the Orange City, Florida, address. The commencement of repairs was verified by an on-site inspection performed by Mr. Vander Lugt, on March 31, 1998. Although the supporting information presented by Mr. Trapp was in order and the fee had been paid, and there was no indication that any other problems existed which would prohibit the repairs from being conducted, Respondent was premature in commencing the work before the permit issued, and was unjustified in that choice.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be issued which imposes a $500.00 fine against Respondent for initiating a repair of an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system without first obtaining a permit to do the work. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlene Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Michael J. Jedware Post Office Box 390073 Deltona, Florida 32739-0073 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to questions 42 and 81 of the morning session of the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination portion of the engineering licensure examination given on April 15, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Worku took the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination portion of the examination for licensure to practice as an engineer intern on April 15, 2000. The examination is a national multiple-choice examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). The examination is divided into a morning session and an afternoon session. The questions in the morning session are worth one raw point each. The questions in the afternoon session are worth two raw points each. Worku challenged questions 42 and 81, which were on the morning session of the examination. Worku received 56 raw points for the morning session and 52 raw points for the afternoon session for a total raw score of 108 on the examination. Based on the NCEES' Score Conversion Table, a raw score of 108 converts to a score of 69. A converted score of 70, which equates to a raw score of 109-113, is a passing score. Question 81 asked the examinee to identify the geometric shape that was given by an equation provided in the question. Each examinee was given a reference manual during the examination. The manual contains general formulas for the types of geometric shapes listed as possible answers to question 81. The equation given in question 81 was for a specific shape and was not listed among the general formulas in the reference manual. Worku felt that because the general equation was not used that the equation was stated incorrectly. However, the equation was stated correctly. The equation differed from the equation listed in the reference manual because it was for a special shape of the geometric figure. Worku did not answer question 81 correctly. Question 42 dealt with recrystallization as it relates to metal. The question asks the examinee to pick the answer which explains the reference to the term "recrystallization" in the question. Worku contends that there are two correct answers to question 42 and that the answer which he provided is one of the correct answers. The answer which Worku provided is not a correct answer. It refers to the process of annealing, which is the process of decreasing the toughness of a metal. Recrystallization can be a part, but is not always part of annealing. Recrystallization and annealing are not synonymous terms; thus Worku is not entitled to credit for question 42.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Amanuel Worku failed the Engineering Fundamentals Examination with a score of 69. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ Susan B. Kirkland 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 5th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Amanuel Worku 18492 Northwest 52nd Path Miami, Florida 33055 Douglas Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara D. Auger, General counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner herein, Kristina V. Tignor, took the Professional Engineers Examination for the State of Florida in Orlando on April 9 and 10, 1987. On July 22, 1987 she was advised by the Department of Professional Regulation's Office of Examination Services that she had failed the examination and was given a cummulative score of principles and practice of 69.1 percent. In her initial request for review and reconsideration, Petitioner objected to the points assigned to her solutions for three problems on the test, Numbers 425, 421, and 124. She contended that as a working engineer, certain criteria and assumptions must be made in approaching any engineering problem and, because the portion of the examination in issue is graded subjectively, her answered should be reconsidered and evaluated in that light. At the hearing, Petitioner contested only the grading of questions number 124 and 421, thereby accepting the grade given for question 425. With regard to Question 124, Ms. Tignor was awarded a score of 5 on her solution to this problem. The National Council of Engineering Examiners, in its Standard Scoring Plan Outline awards a "qualified" evaluation to scores from 10 down to 6 on this question. Scores from 5 to 0 are rated, "unqualified." A score of 5 indicates the applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one aspect of one category. Specifically, a rating of 5 in this question indicates that the examinee displayed an inadequate knowledge of weight/volume and concrete mix design. Her computations were displayed and an incomplete or erroneous solution was arrived at which gave a generally unrealistic result. Dr. Bruce A. Suprenant a civil engineer registered in four states and who teaches engineering at the University of South Florida, reviewed the question, the Petitioner's solution, the solution proposed by the examiners, and the grading scheme for this problem and found a number of illogical items in Petitioner's solution which, to him, were difficult to understand. He found several items which had no basis and which were possibly assumed. As to Part a of Petitioner's answer, a mixture of answers, (correction for moisture), which should have been in Part b, was located in Part a. As to density, the value used by Petitioner does not appear to be reasonable based on information provided in the problem. In Dr. Suprenant's opinion, there are at least three approaches to this problem. One is the water/cement ration method. Another is the weight method. The third is the absolute volume method. The water/cement ratio method would be difficult to apply here and neither Petitioner nor the examiners used it. As to the weight method, much the same problem exists. There is insufficient information provided to satisfactorily apply this method and while the examiners did not use it, Petitioner did. Petitioner's answer has a correction for moisture in the absolute volume method on the first page of the solution form at the top. The calculations by Petitioner are assumed information not known, (volume). In addition the correction for moisture in the second part of page one is included on the top of page two. It is not a part of the solution for subpart a and should not be there. Petitioner used 150 pounds per cubic foot for concrete density in her solution and this choice is not explained. Most publications utilized by engineers suggest using tables which were not provided to the examinees and it is, therefore, illogical to assume concrete density with no history for that assumption. Petitioner's answer of 5.41 cubic yards is only slightly off the suggested answer of 5.44 cubic yards but the fact that the answers are close does not justify her assumption. It might well not come so close in other cases. As to Part b of the question calling for the water/cement ratio, the corrections for moisture of fine and coarse aggregate on page one are acceptable. On the second page, a problem arises in when the correction for moisture should decrease. Petitioner got the right factor but applied it in the wrong manner. As a result, her answer to Part b of the examination question is wrong. Her answer was 4.40 as opposed to the correct answer of 4.34. This small degree of error can be attributed to the smallness of the amount in question. Were the amounts greater, the error would be greater. As to part c of the question, which deals with the cement factor in a yard of concrete, Petitioner's approach of dividing sacks of cubic yards is correct, but the cubic yard content was determined from Part a of the question, and Dr. Suprenant does not agree with how she got her solution. He therefore questions her carryover. The standard weight of a sack of concrete is 94 pounds. The individual grading Petitioner's response to Question 124 indicates she displayed inadequate knowledge and reached a solution which gives "unrealistic results." Dr. Suprenant agrees, contending that Petitioner's performance in regard to this question indicates inadequate knowledge of weight/volume relationship. She made inadequate assumptions in formulating her answer to the question. The fact that in this problem she arrived at a solution close to the correct one does not indicate that in other problems, she would achieve the same closeness using the same procedure. In his opinion, Petitioner showed some confusion regarding the basis for solving this problem and Dr. Suprenant believes that a grade of 5 as awarded by the examiner is correct. Petitioner questioned the fact that the various technical weights and volumes, such as 94 pounds in a sack of concrete, 8.33 pounds for a gallon of water, and 27 cubic feet in a cubic yard do not appear in the problem statement. This, in the opinion of Dr. Suprenant, compounds the gravity of Petitioner's deficiency. They are routine "givens" generally accepted in the practice by engineers and it would be difficult to assume that anyone familiar with the practice of engineering would use different "givens" for these specifics. Petitioner's employer, Mr. Bishop, himself a registered civil engineer in Florida since 1958, also reviewed Petitioner's solution to Question 124. He admits that on the first page of the answer sheet, Petitioner began solving the problem in an inappropriate way. Her calculations for moisture content were correct, however. On the second paged the correction factor was put in with the wrong sign and the aggregate was given the wrong factor. As a result, the answer was off. In his practice, however, the error committed by Petitioner in these regards is both minimal and acceptable. Her choice of 150 pounds per square foot is reasonable and produced a close result, and while it is true that if the project were of a greater scale, the error might be significant for a test question, as here, the error, in his opinion, is insignificant. He feels much the same way regarding the error in Part c of the examination question. While the factors used by petitioner were wrong, the process used was correct and the answer was not unreasonably incorrect for a test solution. In an examination situation, the calculations are not being done on a continuous basis, and he feels the grade of 5 awarded is unduly harsh since the error was numerical rather than operational. In his opinion, a more reasonable grade would have been a 6 or 7. Petitioner began her solution to this problem by using one similar to that used by the examiners in their publications. Shortly, however, she realized she would not get the answer she needed by doing so and abandoned her solution. She forgot to cross it out, however, and now recognizes she should have done so. She thereafter began to accomplish a series of new calculations on the first page of the answer sheet but did not necessarily utilize that data for her solution to Part a. She admits she made an error in calculation for moisture on the second page. In that calculation, she used the study manual and admits now that she should have cited the figure she used. As to Parts b and c, her use of some figures from Part a may have thrown her answer off somewhat. However, the 5 awarded her, indicating her solution was unrealistic, is, in her opinion unfair as she considers her answer to be quite realistic. The problem did not state what solution method to use and she feels her use of givens from recognized manuals such as the 150 pounds, should not be held against her. 94 pounds for a sack of cement used by the grader was also not given and her use of other accepted numbers should not, she contends, be held against her. Petitioner believes a grade of 7 would more accurately describe the quality of her answer. A 7 means that the examinee obtained an appropriate solution but chose a less than optimum approach. The solution is, therefore, awkward but nonetheless resonable. Ms. Tignor believes that while her approach may have been awkward, she achieved reasonable solution demonstrated by the fact that it was only slightly off the correct figure. Therefore, she believes a grade of 6 would be appropriate. This examination was an open book examination and Petitioner had her manuals with her. She could have easily determined the appropriate weights an "givens" from these manuals without choosing those she used. Ms. Tignor's conclusions that her results are realistic are contradicted by the Board's expert. Realistic results are, in engineering practice, not only the figure reached but also the method used in arriving at that figure. Here, though Petitioner's results are close, the approach utilized in arriving at her solution is unrealistic. Her approach showed an inadequate knowledge of weight/volume and calculations. Consequently it is found the grade is valid and was not arbitrarily assigned. According to the Standard Scoring Plan Outline, each score from 10 through 6 has an indispensable criteria that all categories must be satisfied. Since Ms. Tignor's examination response did not satisfy all categories, the best she can be given is a 5 and that award appears to be justified by the evidence presented. Question 421 was a four part drainage problem. Petitioner used as a part of her solution calculations based on a 100 year storm and this was determined by the examiners to be inappropriate. Ms. Tignor was awarded a grade of 8 and contends she was not given appropriate credit. She relates that even Mr. Smith, the Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers, advised her she may not have been given full credit for her answer. She was given full credit for Part a but lost two points for part c which included a calculation error to which Petitioner admits. She contends however, it was so minor, only one point should have been deducted. Were Petitioner to receive an additional one point on this question, she would pass the examination which she failed by only one point. However, this issue must be resolved on the basis of lawfully admitted evidence and Mr. Smith's comment, being unsupported hearsay evidence, cannot itself sustain the rasing of the grade. The Standard Scoring Plan Outline for this question reflects that to receive an 8, the examinee must demonstrate that all categories are satisfied, that errors are attributable to misread tables or calculating devices, and that errors would be corrected by routine checking. The results must be reasonable if not correct. For a 9, the examinee must demonstrate that all categories are satisfied; that a correct solution is arrived at but the examinee has been excessively conservative in the choice of working values; and that examinee's presentation is lacking in completeness or equations diagrams or orderly steps in solution, etc. Subqualifications for a 9 indicates that the answer is correct but that the organization of the solution is not logical. One error in calculation in any of the Parts from a to d, which does not affect the other parts of the solution, is acceptable. Mr. Kenneth Weldon, the Assistant State Drainage Engineer for the Department of Transportation, an expert in the area of drainage to which this problem relates, reviewed the question and the Petitioner's answer thereto and would award a grade of 8 to her answer. He found various numerical mathematical errors which led to the wrong solution. In addition, Petitioner made various assumptions that, though supposedly supported, were, he felt, in error through her misinterpretation. In general, none of the actual solutions she arrived at were correct. Specifically, that portion of the problem to determine the cross sectional area of the waterway for establishing normal depth flow was done incorrectly. Because the Petitioner used incorrect equations throughout the problem, the depth flow computed is high. Petitioner did no analysis to determine whether or not any of the several situations relating to flow control were pertinent. Mr. Weldon initially felt Petitioner's answer to the question merited a grade of 6. This means that the examinee knew all the proper steps but failed to interpret some of the criteria properly. He could not award her a grade of 9 which would indicate all categories were satisfied and the solution was correct, if conservative. Petitioner's solutions were incorrect. He subsequently changed his award to an 8, however, on the basis that the Petitioner's errors were attributable to a misread table or calculating device and would be corrected by routine checking. The result was reasonable, though not correct. Mr. Weldon did not like this question even though he believed it appropriate for a one-hour exam. As written, it involves establishing and making judgements beyond what someone minimally competent would be expected to do. It requires materials that are beyond what are normally available to someone taking the exam. However, Petitioner failed to make proper provision to protect herself in a case where the question is inappropriate or incomplete. If she felt something was wrong with the question, she should have clearly stated the assumption she was making to solve the problem. This was her responsibility and she failed to do so. In Mr. Weldon's opinion, Petitioner's answer might merit a grade slightly higher but not significantly higher. His reasoning is that Petitioner misinterpreted the criteria she stated for writing the problem. Her comment that the Department of Transportation uses 100 year storm criteria was incorrect even though that statement is made in outdated Department of Transportation publications. The basis for her answer is not well established or correct, or based on engineering calculations or judgement, and at best he could award no more than an 8.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered affirming the score awarded to Petitioner on questions 124 and 421, respectively, of the Civil Engineering Examination administered to her in April, 1987. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 10th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5110 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner None For the Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated except for the characterization of several assumptions as guesses. No evidence exists to support such a characterization even though they are incorrect. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristina V. Tignor, pro se 2160 North Oval Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director DPR, Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with the duty of regulating general contractors in the State of Florida. An applicant for certification as a general contractor must pass the examination administered by Respondent as a prerequisite to certification. Section 489.113(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner sat for the certified general contractor's examination on October 14-15, 1988. Petitioner did not pass Part I of the examination. Petitioner scored the highest score one can score on Part I without passing that part of the examination. While Petitioner received a grade of 69 on Part I of the examination, a grade in excess of 69 is required to pass. Had Petitioner been awarded any credit for his answers to the challenged questions, he would have passed Part I of the examination. Petitioner timely challenged the grading of four examination questions contained in Part I of the examination for which he received no credit, to wit: Question 5, Question 26, Question 32, and Question 39. Petitioner's challenges were as to the format of the question or as to the grading of the question. Petitioner abandoned any challenge he may have had to other questions. Each of the challenged questions is an objective, multiple choice question. The candidate is required to choose the correct response from among four possible answers. Prior to taking the examination, Petitioner was told by Respondent that certain approved reference materials were used in formulating the examination questions and that certain reference materials could be used during the examination. Question 5 provided certain information from which the candidate was to determine the correct answer to an accounting problem. The question contained sufficient information to correctly answer the problem. The evidence does not support Petitioner's contention that this question is unfairly tricky. The accounting formula which was necessary to determine the correct answer to the problem was available to Petitioner in the reference material he was permitted to use during the examination. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 5 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. Question 26, required the candidate to correctly answer a question about a reporting requirement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The question contained sufficient information to determine the correct response. The basis of Petitioners challenge to this question is that the information needed to answer the question was not contained in the reference material published by OSHA. The information needed to arrive at the correct response is contained in other reference material Petitioner was permitted to use during the examination. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 26 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. Petitioner contends that two of the four responses to Question 32, which involved statements as to partnerships, are correct and that he should be given credit for his response to the question. Petitioner made unwarranted assumptions in arriving at his answer which resulted in his answer being incorrect. The question contained only one correct response. The question provided sufficient information to enable Petitioner to arrive at the correct response through the use of the reference materials that the candidates were permitted to use. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 32 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. Petitioner contends that two of the four responses to Question 39, which involved statements about workers compensation, are correct and that he should be given credit for his response to the question. Petitioner made unwarranted assumptions in arriving at his answer which resulted in his answer being incorrect. The question contained only one correct response. The question provided sufficient information to enable Petitioner to arrive at the correct response through the use of the reference materials that the candidates were permitted to use. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 39 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. None of the candidates who sat for the examination, including Petitioner, was awarded partial credit for an incorrect response.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing bindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, enter a final order which finds that Petitioner abandoned his challenges to all questions except Question 5, Question 26, Question 32, and Question 39 and which denies Petitioner's challenges to Question 5, Question 26, Question 32, and Question 39. It is further recommended that the questions filed as exhibits in this proceeding be sealed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of January, 1990. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4934 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 6-9 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Dirk Douglas Summerlot, pro se 16146 75th Avenue North Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 Robert G. Harris, Esquire Qualified Representative Department of Professional 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 69 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact I. Statement of the Parties' Positions In their prehearing statement, the parties set forth their respective positions on the propriety of respondent's termination: SFWMD: Arthur Torvela [respondent] exhibited numerous performance problems throughout his career as an engineer with the South Florida Water Management District. Torvela's perfor- mance has been consistently marginally acceptable or less. Recently, Torvela has failed to properly perform the duties and projects assigned to him in spite of clear and explicit direction and warnings by his supervisors. Torvela has admitted that his work has been found to be unsatisfactory by several different supervisors. Therefore, based upon his overall performance failures, Torvela was properly discharged. Respondent: Throughout Torvela's career with the Respondent, his work never received an overall rating of unsatisfactory by his superiors. Merit review ratings at the District are conducted in an arbitrary and selective fashion. Other employees with similar job performance have not been termi- nated from employment with the Respondent. As a result of Torvela's subpoenaed testimony to an investigator from the Florida Commission on Ethics which suggested that certain District staff members gave preferential treatment to Stanley Hole (a District Governing Board Member) during the permit review process, Torvela was singled out for special treatment. This special treatment was initiated as a work evaluation assignment which was designed in such a fashion to prohibit proper completion by an engineer in a similar position to Torvela. Subsequently Torvela was discharged. II. Respondent's Work Performance Was Inadequate Over an Extended Period Respondent was employed in an entry level Water Resource Engineer I position by SFWMD from November 18, 1982, to July 15, 1983, when he was terminated for alleged inadequate overall performance. A Water Resource Engineer I position is "an entry level professional position involving routine engineering work in the analysis and review of hydrologic and water resources related projects." (R-1) The standardized position description states that "Experience in computer programming is desirable." (R-1) Nevertheless, when SFWMD recruited to fill respondent's position, it made proficiency in the use of computers a qualification for the job. In respondent's initial employment interview, it was explained to him that his main function in the Water Resource Division would involve computer programming. Respondent accepted the job knowing that proficiency in computer programming was an explicit job requirement. (Testimony of Marban, Chapman, Torvela; P-27) During his first 14 months with SFWMD, respondent worked as an Engineer I in the Permit Review Section of the Division of Surface Water Management, part of the Resource Control Department. Frank A. Caluwe, Jr. was his immediate supervisor and Charles Hall was his Division Director. After respondent had worked with SFWMD for about four months, Mr. Hall told him that he would be terminated. Respondent sought help from his supervisor, Mr. Caluwe, who intervened on his behalf. Because of Mr. Caluwe's timely intervention, respondent was not terminated from his employment. In May 1981, respondent received his six-month probationary review from Mr. Caluwe, who gave him an overall satisfactory rating. He noted, however, that "his [respondent's] knowledge of work and quality of work should improve through OJT. The employee needs considerable improvement in communication skills." He recommended that respondent take public speaking and technical writing courses. (P-28) In January 1982, respondent--at his own request--was transferred to the Water Resources Division. Just prior to his transfer, he was given a second merit review, with an overall rating of "excellent." He received this rating despite the fact that he was doing minimal work at that time. He believed he was given the "excellent" rating because he was leaving Surface Water Management. He attributed his problems in Surface Water Management to a personality conflict between he and Mr. Hall. When he received the "excellent" rating, respondent disagreed with it, making this notation on the end of the review sheet: During my 14 months in Resource Control Mr. Hall: Did not talk to me. Was not fair to me. (R-10) In July 1982--after completing six months in the Water Resource Division--respondent was given the required probationary merit review. On that review, he was rated overall as "minimally acceptable," an unusually poor rating in that Division and one which, in actuality, was considered unsatisfactory. 2/ His then supervisor, Steve Lin, commented that he needed to improve his computer skills and knowledge of hydrology. Jorge Marban, his reviewing Division Director, extended his probationary period for another three months, noting that he "seems to have problems in adjusting to Water Resources and computer related subjects." They recommended that respondent obtain training in all aspects of computer programming. Although respondent disagreed with this rating, there is no indication that he appealed it. Although given a "minimally acceptable" rating, it is clear that respondent's work performance during his first six months in Water Resources was, in fact, unsatisfactory. For the first two months, his supervisor, Tom MacVicar, assigned him a project involving rainfall data and computer programming. Although this would not have been a difficult project for an Engineer I, respondent was unable to complete it--although he worked on it six to eight weeks, and had continuing assistance from Mr. MacVicar. Mr. MacVicar finally reassigned this project to a technician who completed the project in two weeks. Respondent was then reassigned to work under another supervisor, Steve Lin. During his two months under Mr. MacVicar's supervision, respondent lacked motivation and showed little initiative. He needed constant, close and direct supervision. He lacked the requisite technical skills and needed to improve all aspects of his computer knowledge. (Testimony of MacVicar, Marban, P-21) Mr. Lin assigned respondent two specific projects: to develop a water budget for Lake Okeechobee, and estimate the amount of water back-pumped into Lake Okeechobee by private pumps. Respondent satisfactorily completed the back- pumping estimates but, after four or five months, was unable to complete the water budget. This would not have been a technically difficult task for an Engineer I, and he should have been able to complete it within the time alloted. (Testimony of Marban) When the "minimally acceptable" merit review was given respondent, he was counseled by Mr. Marban and Mr. Lin. They discussed with him his deficiencies and questioned whether he really wanted to spend his career in water resources. They also encouraged him to take an in-house computer programming course. Three months later, he was given his next merit review. (Testimony of Marban) This (extended probation) merit review rated him satisfactory or "completely acceptable." Although Mr. Lin initially rated him "minimally acceptable" in "knowledge of work," "initiative" and other performance standards, he changed his evaluation after encouraged to do so by Mr. Marban. Mr. Lin also scratched out his written comment on the last page of the review: "However, this [good attendance, quietness] is not enough [for respondent] to be a member of our Division." (TR-30) If Mr. Marban had not intervened on respondent's behalf, respondent would have received a second "minimally acceptable" rating, mandating his dismissal. SFWMD does not retain employees whose level of performance is consistently "minimally acceptable." Even after the review was upgraded (due to Mr. Marban's intervention), it indicated that respondent needed to improve his computer skills, try harder and show more motivation. (Testimony of Marban; P-21) Mr. Marban upgraded respondent's initial review in order to avoid terminating him. He was convinced that respondent had shown some improvement and that he could be motivated to become a productive member of the Division. On respondent's request, Mr. Marban also moved him from under Mr. Lin's supervision and placed him, again, under the supervision of Tom MacVicar. Three months later respondent received the required semiannual merit review. (Testimony of Marban) In this January 1983 semiannual merit review, respondent again received a "minimally acceptable" rating. His work performance had been inadequate and he had shown a lack of motivation to improve. Mr. MacVicar's rating comment reiterated the recurring problem with respondent's performance: Art has been here for 12 months and contri- buted very little. His technical background is very weak (hydrology and computers) and he has displayed very little ambition to improve his abilities. He must increase his motivation if he is to become useful to the Division. Mr. MacVicar also noted that respondent "does not seem interested in improving his engineering ability," and "needs constant close supervision." (P-3) In his reviewing capacity, Mr. Marban wrote that it is taking respondent "more time than expected to become proficient in this area [computer programming]." (P-3) Although Mr. MacVicar had rated respondent "unacceptable" for "initiative," Mr. Marban increased it to "minimally acceptable." He also up-graded a "minimally acceptable" rating for "communication skills" to "completely acceptable." 3/ They, again, recommended additional training in computer programming. This particular merit review was the subject of a 4.5 hour conference between respondent, Mr. Lin, Mr. MacVicar, and Mr. Marban. Although respondent disputed each of the ratings on the review, the overall "minimally acceptable" rating was not changed. Mr. Marban, employed as a supervisor by SFWMD for 10 1/2 years, has never known an instance where an employee was given two "minimally acceptable" merit reviews. He discussed the matter with his supervisor, Pete Rhoads, Director of Resource Planning. Several months later, Mr. Rhoads sent a memorandum to respondent emphasizing the seriousness of the situation and the need to improve his performance. In that memorandum, dated May 2, 1983, Mr. Rhoads advised respondent that if his performance did not improve, he would face disciplinary action. He further advised him that he would be given specific work assignments and would be required to submit weekly progress reports. Meetings would be held, not less frequent than once every two weeks, to assess his progress and performance. It was explicitly stated that the accuracy and completeness of his work product would be the basis of his next merit review. (P-5) This memorandum resulted in respondent being given two specific work assignments on May 5, 1993: A 30-minute unit hydrograph for Royal Palm Colony, and a unit hydrograph for the Jim Branch Creek Basin. These projects were designed to test respondent's engineering ability, not his computer skills. A Water Resource Engineer I, with average skills conscientiously applied, could have completed these two projects with little difficulty. (Testimony of Marban, MacVicar) On May 31, 1983, Mr. Marban, together with Mr. MacVicar and Mr. Lin, evaluated respondent's completed hydrograph for Royal Palm Colony. Several inaccuracies were found, including an error in estimation of velocities and errors in arithmetic. The hydrograph also revealed a basic misconception of the meaning of a unit hydrograph, a failure to understand the concept of a 30-minute unit hydrograph, and a lack of knowledge on how to develop the hydrograph using the Cypress formula for peak run-off. His performance of this hydrograph was unsatisfactory. Respondent was then instructed to proceed with the second assignment, which was required to be completed by June 28 and evaluated on June He was given this explicit warning: After this evaluation, an assessment of your work will be made and appropriate personnel action, up to and including discharge, will be taken if your performance is found unacceptable. (P-18) Respondent also failed to adequately perform the second assignment. His work product indicated a basic error in engineering judgment. In defining the land area which would provide water flow to a specific weir, respondent included a significant portion of land which was downstream from the weir: For these lands to contribute flow to the weir, water would have had to run uphill. Respondent's failure to adequately perform these two specific engineering tasks precipitated his termination on the basis of his overall inadequate job performance. III. SFWMD Followed Termination Procedures In terminating respondent, SFWMD followed its Corrective Action Procedures for dealing with employees with performance problems. Under these procedures, where unsatisfactory performance is the result of lack of skills, knowledge, or abilities needed to meet the performance standard, supervisors must 1) document the problem; 2) discuss the problem and a solution with the employee; and 3) document expected performance standards and plan solutions. Respondent's inadequate performance was the subject of numerous merit reviews, and his performance problems and solutions were discussed with him many times. Performance expectations were documented and clearly expressed by his supervisors. He was provided constant and close supervision and given additional in-house computer training. In an effort to accommodate him, he was transferred between divisions and among supervisors. He was given the benefit of the doubt on numerous occasions, in hopes that his future performance would improve. (Testimony of Marban, MacVicar; R-3) IV. Termination Unrelated to His Testimony Before Ethics Commission Respondent holds the sincere belief that he was terminated because of his testimony before the State Ethics Commission concerning alleged improprieties by SFWMD employees. His belief has no basis in fact and is wholly unsubstantiated. He has shown no nexus between his testimony before the Commission and his termination. None of his supervisors, who were instrumental in and responsible for his ultimate termination, were aware of his testimony before the Commission when they faulted his job performance or recommended his termination. Both Mr. Marban and Mr. MacVicar deny knowledge of his testimony (about alleged preferential treatment given to a SFWMD Board member) and their denials are accepted as credible and persuasive. Despite the absence of evidence, respondent persists in his belief that SFWMD employees conspired to terminate him in retaliation for his testimony. The uncorroborated and conclusory testimony which he relies on to prove his theory is, at best, speculative, inconsistent, and unreliable. V. Failure to Show Respondent was Singled Out for Arbitrary Treatment Respondent has also failed to substantiate his allegation that he was singled out for arbitrary termination when other employees with like performance records were not similarly treated. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that there were few, if any, employees who performed their jobs as poorly as did respondent. Of 1,651 employees evaluated in SFWMD between September 1982 and September 1983, only 17 were rated "minimally acceptable" or less. During that same time period, respondent was the only employee in the Water Resource Division who received a minimally acceptable" rating. For the entire Resource Planning Department, the average evaluation was "excellent." (Testimony of Chapman; P-24, P-25) VI. Ultimate Conclusions Respondent was terminated from his employment because of his overall inadequate performance demonstrated over a lengthy period of time. He clearly lacked the knowledge and skills in engineering and computer programming which his supervisors had a right to expect and require. He also lacked the motivation to improve his performance and overcome his deficiencies. Despite close supervision, frequent counseling, opportunities for additional training, and explicit warnings by his supervisors, his inadequate performance persisted. SFWMD has good cause to terminate him from his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SFWMD terminate respondent from his employment for inadequate overall work performance. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of June 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 15th day of June 1984.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should correct a health violation and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule and statute, as alleged in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 22, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves an allegation that Respondent, Steve DeLuca, violated an agency regulation and statute by making repairs to a drainfield on property located at 1444 East New York Avenue, Deland, Florida, without obtaining the necessary permits from the Volusia County Department of Health (Health Department). That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner, Department of Health (Department). Respondent denies the charge and, as clarified for the first time at hearing, contends that the repairs were minor in nature and thus did not require a permit, no authorization was given to the excavation firm which performed the repairs, and the Citation was not issued to the actual owner of the property. On October 29, 1999, William N. VanderLugt (Vanderlugt), a Health Department environmental specialist, received a complaint regarding a septic tank repair being undertaken at 1430 East New York Avenue, Deland, Florida. During the course of inspecting that property, Vanderlugt observed excavation activities on the drainfield located next door at 1444 East New York Avenue. More specifically, Vanderlugt observed an area in the back yard approximately 6 feet by 20 feet in size which had been recently excavated and a large pile of sand nearby. In the excavated site, he saw a rock bed of the size commonly used in drainfields, "clean" and "newly installed" rocks, and a "black paper" covering a part of the rocks. Therefore, he concluded that the excavating firm had just installed a new rock drainfield. This type of activity constitutes a repair to an existing drainfield and requires that such work be performed by a licensed septic tank contractor. It also requires that appropriate permits be obtained from the Health Department. Although Respondent contended that the work was merely to correct a "minor structural flaw" which would not require a permit, Vanderlugt's testimony is more persuasive on this issue, and it is found that a more substantial repair to the drainfield was made. Further inquiry by Vanderlugt revealed that no permits had been obtained for the repair of a drainfield from the Health Department by the excavating company, Collier Enterprises. After a brief conversation with a Collier Enterprises employee, the substance of which is hearsay in nature and cannot be used, Vanderlugt visited the offices of Delco Oil Company and spoke with Respondent, who is employed by that firm. In doing so, Vanderlugt was under the impression that Respondent owned the property in question. During his brief conversation with Repondent, Vanderlugt pointed out that he had to issue a citation because no permit had been obtained for the work at the property in question. DeLuca responded with words to the effect that "they [Collier Enterprises] broke a pipe and they fixed what they broke." Apparently, there was no discussion as to whether Respondent or someone else actually owned the property. Vanderlugt returned to the property in question and performed a second inspection on November 3, 1999. Because no permits had been obtained by that date, and the drainfield site had been covered, a recommendation for a citation was prepared by Vanderlugt. A Citation for Violation was later issued by the Department on December 22, 1999, alleging that Respondent had failed to obtain permits before making a drainfield repair. The Citation was delivered to Respondent at Delco Oil Company. Because Collier Enterprises was not licensed to perform the work, it was given a first violation "warning" letter by the Health Department, as required by a Department rule. During later meetings with Respondent and others, Vanderlugt learned that the actual owner of the property in question was Deluca Properties, Inc., and not Steve DeLuca. For some reason, however, the Department declined to amend its citation and charge the actual owner with the alleged violation. Although Petitioner asserted at hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order that Respondent is the owner's registered agent, there is no competent evidence of record to support this assertion. According to the general manager of Delco Oil Company, which is apparently owned by Steve Deluca and others, no permission was given to the excavating company to make any repairs. Indeed, Deluca Properties, Inc. has a licensed septic tank contractor who makes all septic tank repairs, when needed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 14th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Christopher R. Ditslear, Esquire Post Office Box 41 Deland, Florida 32721-0041 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded additional credit for his answer to question number 290, and thereby be given a passing grade on the Professional Engineer examination administered on October 25, 1996, in Orlando.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers (Board) was the state agency responsible for the examination and licensing of professional engineers in Florida. With the cooperation and assistance of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), the Board conducts periodic examinations to test the qualifications of candidates for certification as professional engineers in this state. Such an examination was conducted in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 1996. Petitioner was a candidate at that examination. A minimum score for passing was 70. Petitioner received an overall score of 69. One of the questions posed to the candidates at that examination was question number 290, dealing with the design of a control system, which required the candidate to determine values for two parameters in such a fashion that the closed loop specifications stated as, "with K =20 the unit step response be a damped oscillation with a 10% overshoot and with a damped natural frequency of 15 rad/s" were met. In the answer to this question, the engineer has to arrive at parameters to give the desired step response within the stated percentages. According to Dr. Antonio Arroyo, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Florida and an expert in electrical engineering, this subject matter is taught in a standard undergraduate controls course which is required in engineering schools nation-wide. The question in issue is a classic controls problem. The candidate is to reduce the diagram displayed in the examination question and give a closed loop description. Given that, the solution proceeds by taking the percentage of error and using it to back- track and arrive at the requested parameters, step by step. The examination is an open book examination. Because of the many formulae used in engineering, the candidate is permitted to use printed resources to assist in the solving of the problems. This formula involved in this problem is standard. Only the parameters cited in the test problem are different. In his answer to the question Petitioner cited to the page in his reference material where the solution is to be found, and he used the appropriate formula. In doing so, he could take the numbers presented in the problem and apply them to the standard problem solution contained in the reference book he had with him. It is a "plug and chug" situation wherein the candidate inserts the problem numbers into the given formula and makes the calculations. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, however, the candidate must decide how to use the information given. In this case, the problem involved a damped frequency of 15 hz and the candidate was required to calculate an undamped frequency. The Petitioner did not show that calculation in his solution, and it appears to Dr. Arroyo he missed the fact of the difference between the two frequencies. In Petitioner's solution, he listed what he saw as the data given, and though at no place did the problem show "Omega d", Petitioner put down "Omega d" but used "Omega n". In the expert opinion of Dr. Arroyo, an engineer should, at least, check his calculations. Examiners will give credit to a candidate if the candidate shows the appropriate knowledge of the concepts involved in the problem. In the instant case, Petitioner's answer to question 290 far exceeded the allowable 10% overshoot. His answer for "a" was 0.895, whereas the correct answer was 1.099. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference was .110, Petitioner’s overshoot was .204. His answer for "b" was 11.25, whereas the correct answer was 17.3. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference here was 1.73, Petitioner’s overshoot was 6.05. To Dr. Arroyo, this shows a concept error rather than a calculation error In substance, Petitioner utilized the correct formulae, but used incorrect data, and the use of the wrong data is sufficient to indicate his ignorance of the appropriate concepts. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, who did not see the problem utilized in the examination and relied on information provided by Petitioner, concluded that Petitioner’s margin of error was within the 10% limitation. Here, notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of Dr. Garrett, Petitioner's solution missed the authorized overshoot by a significant amount, far more than the allowable 10%. He should have known something was wrong when this happened and should have looked to see what he did wrong. In the opinion of Dr. Arroyo, the Petitioner did not adequately evaluate the problem consistent with acceptable engineering standards since the final product of his calculations did not meet the specifications of the problem. This is the purpose behind the professional certification process, and Petitioner should have recognized that his answer did not meet the required specifications. Petitioner received a score of six out of a possible ten for his solution to question 290. Dr. Arroyo is satisfied that the scoring plan of the NCEES for this problem is fair and he supports it. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, a professional engineer and long-time professor of electrical engineering at the University of South Florida, disagrees. In his evaluation of the problem and the grading process used here, Dr. Garrett notes that problem 290 consisted of five parts, for each of which two points could be awarded. Petitioner correctly answered the first three parts and received a grade of six points. He missed part four, and part five was to use the results of parts three and four, with the proper equations, to determine the two answers required. Since Petitioner used the proper equations to figure his answer to part five, even though he did not get a correct answer to part four, which resulted in his numeric answer to part five being incorrect, Dr. Garrett is of the opinion that he should have received an additional two points for applying the proper formula in part five. Review of the scoring plan developed for this problem indicates that Petitioner met all the qualifications for award of six points, but he did not recognize the relationship of damped as opposed to undamped. He used incorrect data to arrive at "a" and "b" in that he did not identify the relationship between natural frequency and damped frequency. This is a basic problem of control systems which an undergraduate should be able to solve correctly. It is basic electrical engineering knowledge and not beyond that expected of an electrical engineer with a bachelor's degree in the field. Had Petitioner utilized the formula he used with the proper data, he would have been awarded credit for a correct answer even if his calculations were incorrect. Here, however, while Petitioner utilized the correct formula, he applied it to incorrect data, and it is this use of incorrect data which makes an award of a higher score inappropriate. The professional engineers’ examination is designed to test the individual's familiarity with engineering concepts and his ability to cast the problem into those concepts to solve the problem. Petitioner contends that his understanding of the concepts involved was correct and, therefore, even though he used the wrong figures, he should received credit for a correct answer or, at most, only 2 rather than 4 points should have been deducted. Though Petitioner utilized the correct formula for his solution to question 290, he applied the wrong values in the use of the formula. This indicates a lack of understanding of the concepts involved, and even though Petitioner used the proper formula, that formula came from the book he was permitted to use for the examination. He cannot be given full credit for copying the formula from the book. Had he used the correct values in his solution to the problem, he would have been given appropriate credit even if his calculations were wrong. After being notified of his unsuccessful exam results, Petitioner requested that his answer to question number 290 be resubmitted to NCEES for re-scoring, and this was done. By memorandum in response, dated July 10, 1997, the NCEES scorer concluded: The error in using undamped natural frequency for damped natural frequency in the examinee's solution is a major error. Whether the examinee did not recognize the function was in fact the undamped natural frequency, as given in the problem statement, or whether it was an oversight, it is still a major error since the outcome is significantly affected. The scorer, whose knowledge of the identity of the candidate was limited to a number only, recommended a score of "six" for Petitioner answer to this problem. There was no change from the initial scoring.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner additional credit for his answer to question number 290 on the principles and practice portion of the electrical engineering examination administered for the Board of Professional Engineers on October 25 and 26, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bahman Behzadi Post Office Box 290931 Tampa, Florida 33687 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent failed to maintain sewage drains and to prevent the presence of roaches in violation of Food Code Rules 5-402.13 and 6-501.111, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating restaurants in the state. Respondent is licensed as a restaurant, pursuant to license number 3912699, and is located at 1235 Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, Florida. A sanitation and safety specialist (Specialist) for Petitioner inspected the restaurant on March 15, 2006. Respondent committed two violations. One violation involved waste water sewage, and the other involved roaches. Waste water sewage backed up into the mop sink in the floor drain in the dishwashing room. Waste water also backed up in the kitchen hand sink drain. Eight roaches were present in a shelf, and 10 roaches were clustered in cracks in a pipe. Another roach crawled out from behind the kitchen stove. The deficiencies were significant violations. Petitioner issued an emergency order closing the restaurant. Respondent corrected the offenses in one day. There is no evidence the violations are continuing. Respondent submitted credible and persuasive evidence of diligent efforts to maintain the restaurant in proper condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of committing the acts and violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine of $1,000, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date that the agency serves Respondent with a copy of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 1st day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria B. Vences Los Tucanes 1235 East Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact In April, 1988, Petitioner sat for the examination given by Respondent to become certified in Florida as a Professional Engineer. Petitioner received a failing grade on the examination. Petitioner received a score of 46 where a score of 48 was necessary to pass the examination. Following notification that he had failed the examination, Petitioner filed a timely challenge to question 275 of the examination, contending that he had been given inadequate credit for his answer. A perfect answer to question 275 was worth 10 points. When Petitioner's answer to question 275 was first graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 2 points. At Petitioner's request, his answer to question 275 was reevaluated. As a result of the reevaluation, Petitioner was awarded an additional two points for his answer to question 275, so that the total points awarded Petitioner for his answer to question 275 was 4 points of the possible 10 points. Petitioner contends that he should be awarded at least six points for his answer to question 275. The examination questions were prepared by the National Council of Engineering Examiners, which prepares examination questions for a number of states, including the State of Florida. Question 275 required the applicant to answer the question by assuming certain data and by applying a certain formula. The question required the applicant to give the answer and to show how he arrived at the answer. The final answer to the question given by Petitioner was the correct answer to the question. However, in coming to his answer, Petitioner did not use the formula required by the question and he did not properly utilize the information given by the question. The answer given by Petitioner to question 275 of the examination was only partially correct. The score Petitioner received for his partially correct answer was not arbitrarily or capriciously awarded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, enter a final order which denies Petitioner's challenge to question 275 of the examination. It is further recommended that the exhibits filed in this proceeding be sealed. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 14th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3254 The rulings on the proposed findings submitted on behalf of Petitioner in his letter filed September 5, 1989, are as follows: The proposed findings contained in the first paragraph of the letter are rejected as being unsupported by the record and as being argument. The proposed findings contained in the second paragraph of the letter are rejected as being contrary to the evidence presented at the formal hearing. The proposed findings contained in the third and fourth paragraphs are rejected as being argument The rulings on the proposed findings contained in Respondent's Proposed recommended order are as follows: The proposed findings contained in the first paragraph are accepted in substance. See Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the second paragraph are rejected as being contrary to the evidence. See Paragraph 2 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the third paragraph are accepted in substance. See Paragraph 3 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the fourth paragraph are accepted in substance. See Paragraph 4 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the fifth paragraph are rejected as being subordinate to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in the sixth paragraph are rejected as being subordinate to the conclusions reached and as being the recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Francisco A. Lee 3885 Edgar Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 E. Harper Field, Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, - General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Luis A. Gonzalez earned a passing grade on the Professional Engineer Examination of April 14-15, 1988?
Findings Of Fact Luis A. Gonzalez took the Professional Engineer Examination administered by the Department of professional Regulation on April 14-15, 1988. By notice dated July 22, 1988, Mr. Gonzalez was informed by the Respondent's Office of Examination Services that he had failed the Professional Engineer Examination. Question 122 on the Principles & Practices of Engineering Examination, Form 8804, involving Civil/Sanitary/Structural engineering, provided the following: SITUATION: An old, large, retirement community apartment complex has reported sewer overflow and plumbing discharge problems. You are an engineer assigned to review the flow and sizing of the one main sanitary sewer exiting and carrying the total flow of the complex, with the objective of correcting the problem. Review with the manager, and inspection of the plans, reveal there are 490 residential units with an estimated continuing residence population of 1,475. Water bills are paid individually. REQUIREMENTS: NOTE: Use and-show equations for calculations. Do not use a nomograph or hydraulic slide rule. Citing your assumptions and sources, calculate the average, maximum, and minimum sanitary wastewater flows expected, in gallons per day, from the total complex. You measure the main sewer from the project and examine the plans and find it is 10" round ID, VCP, with a slope of 0.0045. Inspection leads to an estimate of n 0/015 (fair) because of age. Calculate theoretical full flow capacity and velocity with no surcharge. Calculate depth and velocity of flow for your estimated maximum flow rate, if you can conclude the sewer is not overloaded. Mr. Gonzalez was instructed to include assumptions and citations in support of his answer to Question 122. The citations included by Mr. Gonzalez in answering part (a) of Question 122, although questioned by the grader of Question 122, were adequate. Mr. Gonzalez failed to list assumptions which he should have taken into account in answering part (a) of Question 122, concerning inflow, infiltration or exfiltration. In answering part (a) of Question 122, Mr. Gonzalez determined "estimated flow." In calculating estimated flow, Mr. Gonzalez multiplied the population of the complex (1,475) times an estimated water use per person of 100 gallons per day. In support of Mr. Gonzalez's use of 100 gallons per person water use, Mr. Gonzalez cited the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, Fourth Edition, and the ASCE Manual on Engineering Practice No. 36. Mr. Gonzalez also provided other references at the formal hearing to support his use of 100 gallons per day. The use of 100 gallons a day per person in answering part (a) of Question 122 by Mr. Gonzalez would be correct only if the problem involved a residential community. The citations used by Mr. Gonzalez indicate that 100 gallons per day is generally acceptable for residential communities or "[i]n the absence of any better basis . . . ." Question 122, however, involves an apartment complex and not a residential community. The weight of the evidence presented at the formal hearing indicates that for an apartment complex an estimated water use of 60 to 80 gallons per day per person should be used. Even some of the references provided by Mr. Gonzalez at the formal hearing support this conclusion. For example, Petitioner's exhibit 5 indicates that a wastewater flow of 67 to 79 gallons per person per day should be used for "[m]ultiple-family dwellings (apartments)." Mr. Gonzalez's use of 100 gallons per day in answering part (a) of Question 122 was incorrect. Mr. Gonzalez failed to demonstrate an adequate understanding of flow in answering Question 122. Although Mr. Gonzalez demonstrated an understanding of full flow, he failed to demonstrate an understanding of partial flow. Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (b) of Question 122 was adequate. Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (c) of Question 122 was incorrect. Mr. Gonzalez did not dispute this conclusion at the forma1 hearing. Mr. Gonzalez was awarded a score of 4 for his solution of Question 122. Question 122 was graded pursuant to the National Council of Engineering Examiners Standard Scoring Plan Outline (DPR Exhibit #4). This Outling provides that a grade of 4 is to be awarded under the following circumstances: UNQUALIFIED: Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in more than one ASPECT of one CATEGORY. BU. Fails to demonstrate an understanding of flow and velocity calculations for pipes flowing full or partially full; or contains multiple errors; or one part is missing or wrong with other gross or multiple errors; or the record is deficient; or in combination. A grade of 5 was to awarded under circumstances similar to the circumstances for awarding a score of 4, except that a score of 5 is appropriate only if an "[a]pplicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in [only] one ASPECT of one CATEGORY." The Respondent properly concluded that Mr. Gonzalez is entitled to a score of 4 for his answer to Question 122 and not a score of 5. Mr. Gonzalez failed to "demonstrate an understanding of flow . . . calculations for pipes flowing . . . partially full . . . ." His answer also "contains multiple errors" and at least "one part is . . . wrong." Finally, Mr. Gonzalez's answer to Question 122 "failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in more than one ASPECT of one CATEGORY" as opposed to "[only] one ASPECT of one CATEGORY." [Emphasis added]. Question 123 of the Principles & Practice of Engineering Examination, Form 8804, involving Civil/Sanitary/Structural engineering, includes parts (a) through (j). Mr. Gonzalez questioned parts (b), (d) and (e) of Question 123. In pertinent part, Question 123 provides the following: SITUATION: In a detailed study of traffic flow on one lane of a 2-lane urban freeway, the following data were collected: Average Distance between the front bumper of successive vehicles 75 feet Space Mean Speed = 33 mph Time Mean Speed = 32 mph REQUIREMENTS: (b) Determine the traffic density. Assuming that the 30th highest hourly volume is to be used for design purposes on this highway, what is a reasonable estimate of the 30th highest hourly volume in one direction on this facility? Briefly justify any assumptions made. Determine the most widely accepted value of the capacity of a freeway lane operating under ideal conditions of uninterrupted flow. Mr. Gonzalez was instructed to include assumptions and citations in support of his answer to Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez answered part (b) of Question 123 by calculating a density of 70.40. The grader of Question 123 circled this answer and wrote "DECIMAL." The Respondent agreed at the formal hearing that the use of decimals by Mr. Gonzalez was insignificant. In answering part (d) of Question 123 Mr. Gonzalez failed to include adequate assumptions. Although the statements made by Mr. Gonzalez in answering part (d) of Question 123 are correct, his equation is wrong. Mr. Gonzalez did not offer adequate proof at the formal hearing that his response to part (d) of Question 123 was correct. In answering part (e) of Question 123 Mr. Gonzalez assumed a capacity of 2,000 cars per hour. The grader of Question 123 indicated that this capacity is an "obsolete value." The Solutions to be used in grading the Professional Engineer Examination and, in particular, Question 123, indicates the following: Based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual or other similar sources, the capacity of a multi-lane freeway lane operating under ideal conditions is 2,000 vehicles per hour. ANSWER Although Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (e) of Question 123 is consistent with this solution, the capacity of a multi-lane freeway lane operating under ideal conditions, based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual is actually 2,800 vehicles per hour and not 2,000 vehicles per hour. The answer to part (e) of Question 123 provided in the Solutions used by graders of the Professional Engineer Examination and Mr. Gonzalez's answer are therefore incorrect. The Solutions provided to graders are to be used only to assist graders and are not binding on them. Although Mr. Gonzalez's answer to part (e) of Question 123 is consistent with the Solutions provided, the answer is incorrect. Therefore, the grader properly took into account Mr. Gonzalez's incorrect solution to part (e) of Question 123. Even if Mr. Gonzalez is given credit for his response to part (e) of Question 123, his grade for Question 123 will not change. Mr. Gonzalez correctly answered parts (a)-(c) and (f)-(j) of Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez was awarded a score of 8 points for his answer to Question 123. Question 123 was graded pursuant to a Six Level Item Specific Scoring Plan (155P). The Plan provides that a grade of 8 is to be awarded under the following circumstances: CLEARLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied with at least one at a higher than minimum level. Correct approach but a solution with math errors or answers outside allowable tolerances for parts (d), (e), and (h) or An [sic] slightly incomplete solution. The next highest grade which can be awarded for Question 123 is 10 points, the maximum award possible for Question 123. Ten points are to be awarded under the following circumstances: HIGHLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied. -Presentation -may lack in completeness or equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. Results within allowable tolerance. Correct approach and correct solution within allowable tolerances for parts (d), (e), and (h) and correct interpretation of results. All parts complete. The Respondent properly concluded that Mr. Gonzalez is entitled to a score of 8 for his answer to Question 123 and not a score of 10. Mr. Gonzalez did not satisfy all categories and he failed to arrive at the "correct solution within allowable tolerances for parts (d), [and] (e) . . . " in answering Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez failed to prove that he should have been awarded a score of 10 for Question 123. Mr. Gonzalez failed to prove that he should be awarded an additional point on the Professional Engineer Examination of April 14-15, 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Engineers issue a final order concluding that Luis A. Gonzalez's grade on the Professional Engineer Examination of April 14- 15, 1988, was a failing grade. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 6th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX Case Number 88-6056 Mr. Gonzalez has submitted a letter dated March 21, 1989, containing proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. Mr. Gonzalez's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Paragraphs 1-2, 6 Not proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 3 The first sentence is a statement of the issue concerning Question 122. The second and third sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation established water per day usage is for regulatory purposes and not necessarily consistent with the engineering principles to be used in answering questions on the Professional Engineer Examination. References which should have been used in answering Question 122 indicate that a water use rate of 67 to 79 gallons per day should have been used for apartments. The letter referred to was not accepted into evidence and can not form any basis for a finding of fact. Paragraph 4 The first and fifth sentences are accepted in findings of fact 20 and 21. The second and fourth sentences are not relevant to this proceeding. The third sentence is based upon a letter apparently received after the formal hearing. It cannot be taken into account in this proceeding. The sixth sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The grader used the correct information and not "personal conviction." Although it is true that Mr. Gonzalez used the most recent data he was aware of concerning vehicles per hour, the fact remains that the value he used at the time of the examination was incorrect. Paragraph 5 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Mr. Gonzalez included two references with his letter of March 21, 1989, which were not offered at the formal hearing. Those references cannot be relied upon in this case and have played no part in making the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Luis A Gonzalez 7419 Sandy Bluff Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
