The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the Electrical Engineering licensure examination given on April 24, 1998.
Findings Of Fact On April 24, 1998, the Petitioner took the electrical engineering licensure exam. By means of an Examination Grade report dated July 30, 1998, the Petitioner was advised that his examination had received a failing score. The Petitioner went through the examination review process. Following that process, the Petitioner contended that he was entitled to a higher score on each of three examination items. The examination items at issue are numbers 291, 294, and 295. The Petitioner's response to item number 291 was assigned a grade of 4. If graded correctly, the Petitioner's response to item number 291 would have credited him with correct answers for parts a, b, and c, and with a partially correct, but incomplete, answer to part d of that item. Under the scoring plan for item number 291, the Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 on his response to item number 291. The Petitioner's response to item number 294 was assigned a grade of 6. If graded correctly, the Petitioner's response to item number 294 would have credited him with correct answers to all parts of that item. Under the scoring plan for item number 294, the Petitioner is entitled to a score of 10 on his response to item number 294. The Petitioner's response to item number 295 was assigned a grade of 2. If graded correctly, the Petitioner's response to item number 295 would have credited him with correct answers to all parts of that item. Under the scoring plan for item number 295, the Petitioner is entitled to a score of 10 on his response to item number 295. If the Petitioner's responses to items number 291, 294, and 295 had been correctly graded, he would have received a total of 14 more points than he was given credit for.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing it is recommended that a Final Order be entered in this case concluding that the Petitioner is entitled to a grade of 6 points for his response to item number 291, is entitled to a grade of 10 points for his response to item number 294, and is entitled to a grade of 10 points for his response to item number 295, and recalculating the Petitioner's total grade on the examination on the basis of such conclusions. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1999, 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 20th day of January, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent for alleged willful or deliberate disregard and violation of applicable building codes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Henry C. Robertson, is a certified electrical contractor, holding license number C-2720. In June, 1993, the Respondent was the exclusive electrical contractor for a residential subdivision project in Pinellas County that had been underway since 1991. Altogether, it consisted of several hundred residential units. The Respondent pulled the electrical permits for all of the units in the project. There was a single entrance to the subdivision via security gate. At its end, the entrance road (Arabian Lane) formed a "T" with the other road in the subdivision. By June, 1993, most of the subdivision already was built out. On June 15, 1993, the Respondent called the Board staff for final inspection on one half of a duplex located at 1757 Arabian Lane. When the inspector arrived, electrical work was being done on the other half of the duplex. Neither of the two workers on the job was a master or a journeyman electrician. One declined to answer the inspector's questions and just walked off the jobsite; the other stayed but could not give any information as to the whereabouts of the journeyman. No other workers were in the vicinity, i.e., in either side of the duplex, at adjacent properties, or within sight. Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code, 1993 Edition, limits the issuance of electrical permits to licensed electrical contractors and provides: "Where any electrical work is being done a master or journeyman electrician shall at all times be present on the job." According to the Respondent's testimony, there was a journeyman electrician somewhere in the subdivision who could have been contacted by the two workers at 1757 Arabian Lane if they needed help or advice. The Respondent himself also visits all jobsites at least once a day. This testimony was not refuted or contradicted. The Board's Chief Electrical Inspector, Joseph Bolesina, testified that, in interpreting Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code, his office considers each electrical permit issued to define "the job" to which it applies. In the case of 1757 Arabian Lane, each side of the duplex had its own electrical permit. However, he conceded that, if work was in progress on both sides of the duplex, only one master or journeyman would be required for the two permits involved. Neither the Board nor his office has specified any other circumstances under which a single master or journeyman electrician could "at all times be present" at work being done on more than one permit. He testified that, in his view, it would depend on whether the master or journeyman electrician would be readily accessible and available to check work and to help and give advice as necessary. He testified that, in his view, the presence of a master or journeyman electrician "somewhere in the subdivision," rotating between individual jobsites, would not qualify, even if they could be contacted immediately by radio or cellular phone. In this case, neither of the workers was able to contact the journeyman electrician who was supposed to have been available and accessible to them. The Respondent testified that he believed his work methods on June 15, 1993, met the letter and the spirit of the building codes, especially in light of the difficulty he and other electrical contractors have finding and hiring journeymen. He testified that he thought the "job" consisted of all the work going on at the subdivision project, not each individual unit. In August, 1992, the Respondent stipulated to a $150 fine to resolve Board Complaint No. C92-330, alleging a violation of Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code by a company he qualified (although he was not involved personally in the violation). In that case, the journeyman left the jobsite to get supplies that were short. In May, 1993, the Respondent stipulated to another $150 fine to resolve Board Complaint No. C93-8, alleging another violation by the same company. (Again, the Respondent qualified the company but was not involved personally in the violation). In that case, the journeyman electrician was not due to arrive at work for an hour when the workers were found unloading and stretching out cord in preparation for beginning work without him. In April, 1994, the Board filed Complaint No. C94-96 for another alleged violation, this time by a company the Respondent was operating personally. The Respondent admitted the charges. In that case, the journeyman left the jobsite to get PVC cement. The prior incidents did not raise the identical issue present in this case. However, the Respondent testified that he has had several occasions to discuss with Board staff the subject of compliance with Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code. While those discussions may not have specified all circumstances under which a single master or journeyman electrician could "at all times be present" at work being done on more than one permit, they should have made it clear to the Respondent that the journeyman electrician at least had to be available and accessible to the workers. In this case, the two workers on the jobsite were unable to tell the inspector where the journeyman was. The Board has published "Guidelines for Disciplinary Action" which provide for a $300 fine as the "typical" penalty for the first "minor" infraction and, for repeat "minor" infractions: an "additional $500 up to three; then mandatory appearance before the Board." The Guidelines also list aggravating and mitigating circumstances which focus on the harm done by the offense, the licensee's efforts to rectify the situation, and whether there is a history of similar offenses by the licensee. They also authorize suspension or revocation and fines "not to exceed $1,000 per count."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of willfully or deliberately violating Section 7(a) of the Pinellas Countywide Amendments to the National Electrical Code, as charged; and (2) fining him $500. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 13th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (The Respondent does not contend that he is "exempt" but rather that the entire subdivision should be considered a single "job.") Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that he cannot find any journeyman electricians for residential work. (Proven only that the Respondent has had difficulty finding and hiring them.) Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board Suite 102 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Henry C. Robertson Robertson Electrical Services, Inc. 15316 Indian Head Drive Tampa, Florida 33618
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated an order of the Board of Professional Engineers (Board) previously entered in a disciplinary proceeding, and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed professional engineer in Florida and holds license PE 20638. He has held the license continuously since 1979. In 2000, Petitioner brought a disciplinary action against Respondent, styled FEMC v. John B. Benson, III, P.E., Department of Business and Professional Regulation Case No. BPR- 2000-04871, for alleged negligence in preparing a deficient electrical plan and related misconduct in connection with the construction of an addition to a church. The case terminated with the Board's Final Order Approving Settlement Stipulation ("2000 Final Order"). In the parties' Settlement Stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a fine and to be permanently prohibited from practicing electrical engineering. On September 17, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for electrical inspection of the "rough-in"2 electrical work associated with construction at 4915 26th Street, West, Building A, in Bradenton, Florida. On September 17, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for electrical inspection of the rough-in electrical work associated with construction at 4915 26th Street, West, Building J. On December 1, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for final electrical inspection of the electrical work associated with construction at 4915 26th Street, West, Building A. On December 3, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed, as an engineer, an Inspection Report by Affidavit for final electrical inspection of the electrical work associated with construction at 13411 Blythfield Terrace, Bradenton, Florida. No allegation was made, or evidence introduced to show, that the inspection reports referred to in paragraphs 4 through 7 contained errors or that the inspections were deficient. Mr. Ooten, an expert in electrical engineering and building inspections, testified that building officials usually require an electrical plan to be included in building plans, but the electrical plan does not have to be signed and sealed by an electrical engineer. On December 17, 2004, the Board received a complaint from the chief building official for Manatee County, regarding Respondent's signing and sealing electrical inspections in 2004, contrary to the Board's 2000 Final Order prohibiting Respondent from practicing electrical engineering. This complaint and the Board's subsequent investigation led to the Administrative Complaint which is the subject of this case. Respondent's defense to the charges in the Administrative Complaint is that he understood the Board's 2000 Final Order to prohibit him from designing an electrical plan. He did not think he was prohibited from signing and sealing electrical inspections, or from signing and sealing construction plans that included electrical components. On March 25, 2005, the Board received another complaint from the chief building official for Manatee County, who claimed that Respondent signed and sealed an electrical plan for a building for the Lemur Conservation Foundation. In response to this second complaint, Respondent informed the Board that he had placed a disclaimer statement on the building plans that "These plans have been reviewed for adequacy of structural components and systems only in compliance with FBC 01 Section 1606 130 MPH." Respondent placed this statement only on the first page of the building plans. As a consequence of this second complaint and investigation, Respondent was issued a "Letter of Guidance." No Letter of Guidance, clearly identified as such, is contained in the record. Respondent's Exhibit 1 includes a "Closing Order" of Petitioner, dated August 8, 2005, which may constitute the Letter of Guidance. It contains a statement directed to Respondent: The panel cautions the Subject that when he signs any page of plans he is responsible for all engineering depicted on the page unless the limitation of his analysis and approval appears clearly on the same page. Respondent asserts that, until the Letter of Guidance was issued, he did not understand that his inspection of electrical components and systems was the practice of electrical engineering. The Letter of Guidance, however, did not address the issue of the propriety of Respondent's four electrical inspections. The Letter of Guidance was a response to the second complaint about Respondent's signing and sealing an electrical plan, and his defense that he used a disclaimer statement to indicate that his signature and seal was not a representation about the electrical plan. The essence of the Board's "guidance" to Respondent was to make his disclaimer regarding the electrical components more explicit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 471.031(1)(k), Florida Statutes, for violating an order of the Board previously entered in a disciplinary proceeding, and imposing a penalty of license suspension for a period of four months and a fine of $4,000, plus the costs of these proceedings, as determined by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 9th day of June, 2006.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1987, the Petitioner, John Viciguerra, took the master electrician examination given by the Department of Professional Regulation for the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. He received a grade of 74.5. A grade of 75 is passing. One of the questions on the examination, number B-22, worth half a point, read: The branch circuit load in amps for one 8 KW residential range, rated 110/220 is closest to--amps. a) 14 c) 29 b) 19 d) 35 The Petitioner's answer, "d," was marked incorrect. The correct answer, according to the Respondent, is "c." The Petitioner got his answer by simply applying Ohm's Law and dividing 8000 watts by 220 volts equals 36.36, or 35. The Respondent got its answer by reference to Article 220-19 of the National Electrical Code. Note 4 to Article 220-19 states: Branch-Circuit Load. It shall be permissible to compute the branch-circuit load for one range in accordance with Table 220-19. Article 220.19 states in pertinent part: Electric Ranges and Other Cooking Appliances--Dwelling Units(s). The feeder demand load for household electric ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted cooking units, and other household cooking appliances individually rated in excess of 1 3/4 KW shall be permitted to be computed in accordance with Table 220-19. Table 220-19 says to use 80% of the rated wattage of the range. The answer, according to the Respondent, therefore is 80% of 8000 watts divided by 220 equals 29.09, or 29. The examination instructions for part B tell the examinees to choose the best answer and to use the general rule in the Code unless directed to an exception. Examination question B-22, and the answer it was seeking, fairly tests the candidate's knowledge of the Code. Essentially, the question was testing for the examinee's familiarity with the demand load factor. If the question had given the examinees more information to make this clearer, all of the examinees would have been spoon-fed the answer, making the question worthless. Similarly, if "d" is a correct answer because use of the demand factor table is just "permissible," B-22 could not test for knowledge of the Code because an examinee could always choose to "over-design" the electrical wiring for purposes of his answer by ignoring the demand factor and always using 100% of the load of the appliance even in a residential setting. In short, answer "c" is better than answer "d". 94% of the examinees who had the top quarter overall grades on the examination answered B-22 "c". Only 42% of the middle half, and only 33% of the bottom quarter, answered it "c." The only other answer selected by any of the examinees was the Petitioner's choice, "d". These statistics suggest that the examinees who best mastered the information tested by the examination in general, and the Code in particular, chose "c" as the answer to B-22. Those with less mastery of the subject matter chose the answer the Petitioner chose, "d". Question B-22 fairly, adequately and reliably tests for the examinees' knowledge of the National Electrical Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's appeal and establishing his grade on the July, 1987, master electrician examination as 74.5. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of July, 1988 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 1st day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael S. Schwartzberg, Esquire 405 Central Avenue, 7th Floor St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Ard Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 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 Questions 132 and 294 of the Principles & Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 23, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (the NCEES).
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 1999, Solorzono sat for the Principles and Practice Engineering Examination in electrical engineering. This national examination is developed, controlled, and administered by the NCEES. The examination candidates receive raw scores, which result in a converted score for the final examination score. A minimum converted score of 70 is required to pass the examination. A raw score of 48 equates to a converted score of 70. Solorzano received a raw score of 45, resulting in a converted score of 67. If a candidate is not satisfied with his examination score, he may request the NCEES to review and rescore his examination answers. Solorzano formally requested the NCEES to rescore his examination. Upon rescoring, the NCEES determined that Solozano's raw score should be decreased to 43. The examination questions at issue in this proceeding are Questions 132 and 294. Solorzano received a raw score of 4 on Question 132 and a raw score of 4 on Question 294. When the NCEES rescored the examination, it did not award any additional points for Question 132 and deducted two points for Question 294. The NCEES develops an item-specific scoring plan (ISSP) for each examination question. Question 132 was scored by the NCEES according to the ISSP for that question. Question 132 contains three subparts, which require the examinee to address five discrete requirements: The problem solution as a three-phase problem, (2) The total MW, MVAR, and MVA of the load without the capacitor bank, (3) The size of the capacitor bank in kVAR to make the power factor equal to 0.9 lagging, (4) The complex power diagrams with and without the capacitor bank (MW same for both diagrams and correct phasor directions for both diagrams), (5) The MVA load with the capacitor bank connected. Solozano correctly identified the problem as a three- phase power problem and satisfied the first requirement. Solozano incorrectly calculated the MW, MVAR, and MVA, the real power, the imaginary power, and complex power for the load on the transformer without the capacitor bank. He failed to apply the correct concepts for "Y" transformer as given in the problem statement and based his solution on the concepts for "Delta" transformer. Solorzano failed to satisfy the second requirement. Even though Solorzano's calculations carried through his error from the second requirement, he showed understanding of correcting the power factor and performed a correct analysis to size the capacitor bank. Solorzano satisfied the third requirement. Solorzano made a significant conceptual error by showing an incorrect vector direction for the calculated Q value. He showed a negative polarity for the Q component when it should have been positive. Solorzano failed to satisfy the fourth requirement. In calculating the real complex power load on the transformer, with the capacitor bank connected, Solorzano used an incorrect concept, simply subtracting the load with the capacitor bank from the transformer's rating. He failed to satisfy the fifth requirement. Having satisfied only two of the five requirements for Question 132, Solorzano is entitled to a raw score of 4 for Question 132. Question 294 requires the examinee to address the following five requirements: Correct truth table for 0-9 with at most one error. Correct truth table for 10-15. Map or table showing correct values for w,0,1 entries. Correct assignment for w,0,1 entries to circuit with at most 1 error and no x,y,z entries. Correct polarity for truth table and circuit for w,0,1 (requires correct circuit values). Solorzano constructed a truth table for 0-9 with one mistake for polarity. He fulfilled the first requirement. Solorzano failed to complete the truth table for 10-15, arguing that the 10-15 segments were not used; therefore, it was not necessary to construct a truth table. The second requirement calls for the construction of a truth table for 10-15. It is necessary for a complete truth table to ensure that the output for segment E is not affected by an input beyond 9. He failed to meet the second requirement. Solorzano made a conceptual error by reversing the most significant bit and least significant bit, resulting in his failure to map a table showing correct values for judging zero and one. He failed to satisfy the third requirement. In his development of the fourth requirement, Solorzano carried through an earlier error. However, he correctly utilized the incorrect information, satisfying the fourth requirement. Requirement five called for the correct circuit values. Because Solorzano had used the incorrect polarity throughout his solution, he failed to meet the fifth requirement. Solorzano satisfied two of the five requirements for Question 294; thus, he is entitled to a raw score of 45. Questions 132 and 294, with their problem statements, provide all the necessary information necessary for an examinee to solve the problems. The questions are properly designed to test an examinee's competence in electrical engineering. Solorzano is entitled to a raw score of 45, equating to a converted score of 67.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Solorzano is entitled to a converted score of 67 on the electrical engineering examination given on April 23, 1999, and has failed the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2000, 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 6th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Alejandro Solorzano 6675 Southwest 103 Court Miami, Florida 33173 William H. Hollimon, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the City of Tampa (Respondent) unlawfully discriminated against Royce A. Pauley (Petitioner), based upon race, by failing to promote him to the position of "electrical inspector I" in November, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a white male, began employment with Respondent as a "maintenance repairer II" on March 3, 1987. Respondent is an employer within the terms of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, found at Sections 760.01 through 760.10, Florida Statutes. In filling positions within its various departments, Respondent follows a uniform system which is initiated by completion of Form 263, entitled "Request for Position Change", by the department that has a position vacancy. The department identifies the positon it has available, as well as its requirements, and then forwards Form 263 to the Budget Office for authorization. Finally, it is forwarded to the Personnel Division for its approval, and for the preparation of a list of eligible employees from persons who have an application on file. The Personnel Division sends Form 263 back to the requesting department for that department to conduct interviews and to make the hiring decision. Part III of Form 263 contains a place for the EEO Office to note "underutilization" derived from a statistical comparision, based upon race and sex, of individuals in positions with the Respondent's "expectations" for a particular job classification. The underutilization notation "1 B/M" means that the EEO Office has determined that there is an underutilization of one black male for the vacancy being advertised. On or about September 11, 1989, the Respondent advertised a "current opening" for the position of "electrical inspector I" (Position 2601), in response to which the Petitioner timely filed an employment application. Other applicants for this position included Alfred Trujillo, a hispanic male, John Michael, a white male, and Wayne Shabazz, a black male. The Form 263 for this position was approved by the Personnel Division and returned with a list of eligibles, including Petitioner, Trujillo, Michael and Shabazz, and with the notation, "EEO Underutilization, 1 B/M". Trujillo was selected for this position and was offered employment with Respondent. He initially accepted, and passed his physical examination. However, before beginning his employment, Trujillo decided to decline this position. Thereafter, Michael was offered the position, but he also declined due to a schedule conflict with a course he was teaching in St. Petersburg at the time. After further considering the remaining applicants, Shabazz was selected for, and accepted, this position. On or about April 5, 1988, Petitioner filed a complaint of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations against Respondent alleging that he had not been selected for promotion to the position of "electrical inspector I" due to his race. Petitioner is white, and he contends that Shabazz, who is black, was selected for this position because of his race due to the Respondent's designation of this position as "EEO Underutilization, 1 B/M". Petitioner's position is that this underutilization notation indicates that the Respondent had predetermined that it would only hire a black male for this position. After investigation, the Executive Director of the Commission made a determination of "no cause" concerning Petitioner's complaint, on or about December 28, 1988. However, a supplemental investigation was conducted by an investigative specialist with the Commission who determined, on or about May 11, 1989, that Respondent's stated position with regard to Shabazz's selection was pretextual and racially motivated. Petitioner has filed a Petition for Relief alleging discrimination by the Respondent in employment practices based on race, and this matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Commission for formal hearing. While Trujillo, Michael and Shabazz were interviewed by Nick D'Andrea, Manager of Inspectional Services, and Chris E. "Gene" Scaglione, Chief Electrical Inspector, for this position of "electrical inspector I", Petitioner was not. This was due solely to the fact that Petitioner had been interviewed by D'Andrea and Scaglione within the prior six months when Petitioner applied for the position of Chief Electrical Inspector, for which he was not selected. During this previous interview, Petitioner had been asked specific questions about his knowledge of the electrical code book (Book 70, National Fire Protection Association Manual). Petitioner did not demonstrate to D'Andrea or Scaglione a sufficient knowledge of the electrical code, and lacked the ability to fully and correctly answer questions about the code which were posed to him by Scaglione, who has approximately 37 years of electrical experience. Scaglione determined from a review of previous employment which Petitioner showed on his application for this position, as well as his answers to questions in his interview for the Chief Electrical Inspector position, that Petitioner did not have a minimum of ten years experience in electrical contracting required for all electrical inspector positions by Section 553.22(3), Florida Statutes. No affirmative contacts were made by Respondent's representatives to Petitioner's previous employers to verify his prior electrical experience prior to their decision to offer the "electrical inspector I" position to Trujillo, Michael and Shabazz, rather than Petitioner. However, no efforts were made to verify any of these other applicants' prior experience either. Scaglione and D'Andrea took the prior experience listed by all applicants on their applications at face value, and made no attempts to contact previous employers. Petitioner was treated no differently than other applicants in this regard. Specifically, Petitioner was not credited for his prior experience with the Navy Seabees, Compton Electric of Huntington, West Virginia, Harris-McBurney Telephone Contractors, and as qualifier for All-Pro Electric of St. Petersburg. Scaglione's decision to exclude this prior experience was based upon Petitioner's answers to questioning about this experience in his interview for the Chief Electrical Inspector position, and also upon Scaglione's knowledge of the telephone industry, which is considered to be separate and distinct from electrical contracting. His decision to exclude Petitioner's experience with All-Pro was based on the fact that Petitioner admitted All-Pro did not do much work, and also because he was working full time with the Respondent at the same time he listed All-Pro as an employer. Without credit for these prior jobs, Petitioner had only approximately 80-90 months prior electrical experience, rather than the required 10 years, or 120 months. Shabazz's answers to questions posed to him about the electrical code during his interview exhibited a working knowledge of the code, and an ability to communicate his knowledge. Previous employment shown by Shabazz on his application totaled more than ten years of electrical contracting experience, and based upon his answers to questions in his interview, as well as his previous experience, Shabazz was chosen over Petitioner after Trujillo and Michael declined the position. At the time Shabazz was selected for this position, neither Scaglione nor D'Andrea understood what the terms "underutilization" or "1 B/M" on Form 263 meant. In addition, the evidence is uncontroverted that such notations are advisory only, and there was no effort by anyone in the Personnel Division, or elsewhere in the employ of the Respondent, to counsel or instruct Scaglione or D'Andrea to hire a black male for this position of "electrical inspector I". In fact, they initially offered the position to Trujillo, a hispanic male, and when he declined, they offered the position to a white male, Michael. It was only after these two individuals declined this position that they offered it to Shabazz, a black male. Their decision was based solely upon Shabazz's superior knowledge of the electrical code, as demonstrated in his interview, when compared with the knowledge Petitioner demonstrated in his previous interview within the past six months, and Shabazz's ten years of electrical experience as shown on the face of his application as compared with Petitioner's failure, on the face of his application, to meet the ten year experience requirement. Neither Shabazz nor Petitioner were certified as electrical contractors in Hillsborough County, where the City of Tampa is located, but possession of such certification was not a prerequisite for this position, as long as the person hired obtained certification within a prescribed period of time after being hired. Thus, race was not the reason Shabazz was selected for this position over Petitioner. The Petitioner stipulated at hearing that he is no longer pursuing his charge of retaliation, and no evidence in support of said claim was offered. In April, 1988, Petitioner applied for the position of "electrical inspector II" with the Respondent. As part of the selection process for this position, D'Andrea did telephone some of Petitioner's listed references, as he also did with the successful applicant, Fred Martin, a black male. This was a change in the procedure used to evaluate an applicant's prior experience from the process used when Petitioner applied for the position at issue in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Gardner W. Beckett, Jr., Esquire 123 Eighth Stret North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire James M. Craig, Esquire P. O. Box 639 Tampa, FL 33601 Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 89-4387) Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 4-5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 7, 9, and 11, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial. 6. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 7-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 4, 6 and 11, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial. 9-10. Rejected as simply a restatement or summary of evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony and evidence. Rejected as irrelevant based upon Finding of Fact 12, and otherwise as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8, 10 and 11, and also as speculative and as simply a statement from the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 8, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as a partial excerpt from the record and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 11, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony and evidence in the record. Rejected as simply an excerpt of testimony and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant to the issue in this case regarding alleged discrimination in hiring to fill position number 2601, and as incompetent to prove any alleged pattern of discriminatory hiring practices. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 11. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3-4. Rejected as unnecessary. 5-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 8-10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 7. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 12-16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 9. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 9. 19-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 21-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 8. 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 27-33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 11. 34-35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to Question No. 130 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 23, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dennis Vann (Petitioner), is an applicant for licensure as a professional engineer in the State of Florida. On April 23, 1999, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice Engineering Examination portion of the engineer licensure examinations. This is a national examination developed, controlled, and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). Petitioner received a raw score of 45 on this examination. For the electrical engineering discipline, a raw score of 45 results in a converted score of 67. A minimum converted score of 70 is required to pass this examination. A raw score of 48 results in a converted score of 70. Therefore, Petitioner needs an additional 3 raw score points to earn a passing score on the examination. Petitioner challenged the scoring of Question No. 130 on the examination and formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to the question. The NCEES rescored Question No. 130 and determined that Petitioner was not entitled to any additional points for Question No. 130. For Question No. 130, the maximum score achievable was Petitioner received a score of 4 on that item. The NCEES developed and used an Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) for each examination question. Question No. 130 was scored by the NCEES according to the ISSP for that question. Question No. 130 contains two subparts, which require the examinee to address four discrete requirements. Petitioner correctly calculated the bus current (requirement 3). However, Petitioner failed to properly calculate the busway loading and determination of adequacy (requirement 1), the bus impedance (requirement 2), and percent voltage drop (requirement 4). Petitioner's response to Question No. 130 was initially assigned a score of 4. However, if graded correctly, that response would have resulted in a score of 6. The credible testimony of Respondent's expert was that under the ISSP for Question No. 130, Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 for his response. With a score of 6 for Question No. 130, Petitioner's raw score is increased to 47. A raw score of 47 results in a converted score of 69. Even with the 2 additional points awarded to Petitioner's response to Question No. 130, his score on the professional engineering licensure examination is still below 70 and is not a passing score. Question No. 130 provides all the necessary information for an examinee to solve the problem. Moreover, Question No. 130 is properly designed to test an examinee's competence in electrical engineering.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered concluding that Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 points for his response to Question No. 130, and recalculating Petitioner's total score on the examination on the basis of that conclusion. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 21st day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Vann Post Office box 23054 Tampa, Florida 33623 William H. Hollimon, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1884 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the Respondent is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of professions pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The ECLB is charged with regulating the practice of electrical contracting pursuant to Section 489.507, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Rule 61G6-4.006, Florida Administrative Code, the ECLB has established a Probable Cause Panel to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that a violation of governing statutes has occurred. Mr. Borota is, and was at all times material to this matter, licensed as a Registered Electrical Specialty Contractor, having been issued license numbers ET 0000218 and ES 0000213. Mr. Borota is, and was at all times material to this matter, the licensed qualifier for his wholly owned Florida corporation, Communication Installation and Service Co., Inc. Subsection 489.517(3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires a licensee to provide proof of completing at least 14 classroom hours of continuing education courses during each biennium following issuance of the license. Rule 61G6-9.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, defines "course" as "any course, seminar or other program of instruction which has been approved by the board for the purpose of complying with the continuing education requirements for electrical and alarm contractors." Rule 61G6-9.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires that licensees provide proof of completion of at least 14 classroom hours of continuing education courses "approved by the board." Rule 61G6-9.005(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires course sponsors to register with the ECLB prior to submitting their courses to the board for approval. Rule 61G6- 9.005, Florida Administrative Code, provides that accredited universities and colleges which offer courses in the contracting areas specified in Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, are deemed admitted as course sponsors. Rule 61G6-9.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, allows a registered course sponsor to submit to the ECLB an application for approval of a continuing education course, and provides that relevant courses offered by accredited universities and colleges are deemed approved. The ECLB regularly publishes a list of approved continuing education courses. Rule 61G6-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth criteria for continuing education. The following sets forth the relevant portions of the rule as it read during the period relevant to this case: The following programs of continuing education may be used to satisfy the continuing education requirement provided that the licensee complies with the terms set forth herein: Courses for credit which are business, technical or safety courses relevant to the electrical contracting industry and which require a passing grade taken at an accredited college, university, or community college. The licensee must furnish an official transcript and a notarized statement affirming classroom hours attended and the receipt of a passing grade. Noncredited courses conducted by an accredited institution of higher learning, official governmental agency, the military, or recognized national or state trade or civil organization provided the following conditions are met: the course must be business, technical or safety course relevant to the electrical contracting industry. the course must follow a written text, which must be submitted to the Board for approval on request. the instructor of the course must be a professional educator, certified electrical contractor or a similar authority in the field. The licensee must submit a notarized statement affirming the following: Number of classroom hours attended Sponsor of the course Location of the course Date of the course Name of the instructor and his credentials Benefit received from the course George Ayrish, program administrator for the ECLB, testified that Rule 61G6-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, allows a licensee to obtain credit for courses that are not on the approved list, provided the substantive criteria for continuing education courses are met and the notarized statement is filed. The ECLB conducts random audits of its licensees every two years. On January 27, 1997, the ECLB sent Mr. Borota a written notice that his license was undergoing such an audit for the period September 1, 1994, through August 31, 1996. The notice requested that Mr. Borota provide, among other items not relevant to this proceeding, certification that he had completed the required continuing education hours. Mr. Borota responded with certificates of attendance at three separate technical electrical contracting courses presented by equipment vendors: a "3M Hot Melt Fiber Optics Connectors" course offered by 3M Telecom Systems Division on June 25, 1995; a "Category 5" cabling installation course offered by The Siemon Company on December 5, 1995; and an "Installation Certification Program" offered by Ortronics Open System Architecture Networking Products on June 19, 1995. None of these courses were included in the ECLB’s list of approved continuing education courses. By letter dated March 18, 1997, the ECLB informed Mr. Borota that the courses submitted as evidence of continuing education must be "Board approved" and "completed within the audit period." Mr. Borota responded with a certificate indicating that he had completed "product application training" and was thus a certified installer for Superior Modular Products, Inc. The certificate was dated July 31, 1995. This course was not included in the ECLB’s list of approved continuing education courses. On August 18, 1997, Mr. Ayrish filed a Uniform Complaint Form alleging that Mr. Borota did not provide proof of continuing education as required by Rule 61G6-9.004(1), Florida Administrative Code. The complaint was forwarded to Kathy MacNeill, a senior consumer complaint analyst for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. By letter dated October 9, 1997, Ms. MacNeill advised Mr. Borota that a complaint had been filed against him. She enclosed a copy of Mr. Ayrish’s complaint. The letter requested that Mr. Borota submit a written response within 20 days. By letter dated October 13, 1997, Mr. Borota responded to Ms. MacNeill’s request. He wrote, in relevant part, that: Regarding the continuing education for ET 0000218 I did send the certificates of classes that I had taken during the audit time in question. All of the classes that I had taken covered communications cabling which is what our company does. Most of the classes that are held by the contractors schools that are recommended for low voltage systems licensing cover information on security systems cabling and we do not do that kind of work. Please advise if I need to send any additional information or what I will need to do to close this case. No further direct communication occurred between Mr. Borota and Ms. MacNeill. Mr. Borota testified that he attempted to phone the Department a few times after the exchange of letters, but that he never spoke to anyone. Ms. MacNeill prepared a written Investigative Report, dated November 6, 1997, stating an alleged violation of failure to provide proof of continuing education and forwarding the matter to the Department’s legal counsel "for whatever action is deemed appropriate." The Complaint and the audit file were placed on the docket for consideration by the Probable Cause Panel of the ECLB at a telephonic conference on March 20, 1998. On the same date, a Memorandum Of Finding was signed by the chairperson of the Probable Cause Panel, indicating probable cause was found. The Department issued an Administrative Complaint on March 23, 1998, alleging that Mr. Borota failed to submit proof in response to the audit of having complied with the continuing education requirements of Subsection 489.517(3), Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Mr. Borota was served with the Administrative Complaint on March 30, 1998. On April 21, 1998, Mr. Borota timely filed his written Election Of Rights disputing the material facts set forth in the Complaint and demanding an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On the same date, Mr. Borota also submitted an affidavit, substantially complying with Rule 61G6-9.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, attesting that he had attended 30 additional hours of continuing education courses during the audit period. These courses were professional seminars provided at the annual winter meeting of Building Industry Consulting Service International, Inc. (“BICSI”), a non-profit telecommunications technical association. The materials for the BICSI conferences show that the University of South Florida was a co-sponsor of the event. The BICSI seminars were not on the ECLB’s list of approved continuing education courses. On August 6, 1998, counsel for the Department filed a Motion For Final Order, arguing that there were no disputed issues of material fact in the case because none of the courses submitted by Mr. Borota were on the ECLB’s approved list of continuing education courses. The ECLB denied the Department’s motion and agreed to refer the Administrative Complaint to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") for the conduct of a formal administrative hearing. The case was never forwarded to DOAH. The record does not disclose why the case remained at the ECLB for nearly two years following the ECLB’s denial of the Motion for Final Order. The Administrative Complaint was again considered by the Probable Cause Panel of the ECLB on May 23, 2000. On the same date, a Memorandum Of Finding was signed by the chairperson of the Probable Cause Panel that determined no probable cause was found and that the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. Both meetings of the Probable Cause Panel were tape recorded. The tapes were of such poor quality that a certified transcript of the meetings could not be prepared by either an independent court reporter or the Department. Redacted tape copies and an uncertified transcript of the meetings were admitted into evidence by agreement of the parties. The transcript is sufficient to show that the March 20, 1998, Probable Cause Panel treated Mr. Borota’s case in a pro forma fashion, without discussion of the particulars of the investigation, prior to making a finding of probable cause to proceed against Mr. Borota. At the hearing in the instant case, the Department admitted that Mr. Borota was the prevailing party in the disciplinary proceeding because the Administrative Complaint was dismissed upon a finding of "no probable cause" at the May 23, 2000, Probable Cause Panel meeting. Mr. Borota testified that he was the sole owner and qualifying licensee of the corporation through which he practiced as a licensed electrical contractor, that his net worth was less than $2 million, and that he and the corporation employed fewer than 25 workers. The Department offered no evidence to dispute Mr. Borota’s testimony on these points.
The Issue The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004, in relevant part, states: The criteria for determining the minimum score necessary for passing the Engineering Fundamentals Examination shall be developed through the collective judgment of qualified experts appointed by NCEES to set the raw score that represents the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to pass the examination. The judges shall use a Modified Angoff Method in determining the minimally acceptable raw score necessary to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Using the above mentioned Modified Angoff Method, the judges will indicate the probability that a minimally knowledgeable Fundamentals of Engineering examinee would answer any specific questions correctly. The probability of a correct response is then assigned to each question. Each judge will then make an estimate of the percentage of minimally knowledgeable examinees who would know the answer to each question. The totals each of the judges is added together and divided by the number of judges to determine the overall estimate of the minimum standards necessary. The minimum number of correct answers required to achieve a passing score will take into account the relative difficulty of each examination through scaling and equating each examination to the base examination. The raw score necessary to show competence shall be deemed to be a 70 on a scale of 100. A passing grade on Part Two of the examination is defined as a grade of 70 or better. The grades are determined by a group of knowledgeable professional engineers, who are familiar with engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering task. These professional engineers will establish a minimum passing score on each individual test item (i.e., examination problem). An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) will be prepared for each examination item based upon the NCEES standard scoring plan outline form. An ISSP will be developed by persons who are familiar with each discipline including the item author, the item scorer, and other NCEES experts. On a scale of 0-10, six (6) will be a minimum passing standard and scores between six (6) and ten (10) will be considered to be passing scores for each examination item. A score of five (5) or lower will be considered an unsatisfactory score for that item and examinee will be considered to have failed that item. To pass, an examinee must average six (6) or greater on his/her choice of eight (8) exam items, that is, the raw score must be forty- eight (48) or greater based on a scale of eighty (80). This raw score is then converted to a base 100 on which, as is noted above, a passing grade will be seventy (70). The proposed changes to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004, in relevant part, state: The passing grade for the Engineering Fundamentals Examination is 70 or better. The criteria for determining the minimum score necessary for passing the Engineering Fundamentals Examination shall be developed through the collective judgment of qualified experts appointed by NCEES to set the raw score that represents the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to pass the examination. The judges shall use a Modified Angoff Method in determining the minimally acceptable raw score necessary to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Using the above mentioned Modified Angoff Method, the judges will indicate the probability that a minimally knowledgeable Fundamentals of Engineering examinee would answer any specific questions correctly. The probability of a correct response is then assigned to each question. Each judge will then make an estimate of the percentage of minimally knowledgeable examinees who would know the answer to each question. The totals each of the judges is added together and divided by the number of judges to determine the overall estimate of the minimum standards necessary. The minimum number of correct answers required to achieve a passing score will take into account the relative difficulty of each examination through scaling and equating each examination to the base examination. The raw score necessary to show competence shall be deemed to be a 70 on a scale of 100. The passing grade for the Principles and Practice Examination is 70 or better. A passing grade on Part Two of the examination is defined as a grade of 70 or better. The grades are determined by a group of knowledgeable professional engineers, who are familiar with engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering task. These professional engineers will establish a minimum passing score on each individual test item (i.e., examination problem). An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) will be prepared for each examination item based upon the NCEES standard scoring plan outline form. An ISSP will be developed by persons who are familiar with each discipline including the item author, the item scorer, and other NCEES experts. On a scale of 0-10, six (6) will be a minimum passing standard and scores between six (6) and ten (10) will be considered to be passing scores for each examination item. A score of five (5) or lower will be considered an unsatisfactory score for that item and examinee will be considered to have failed that item. To pass, an examinee must average six (6) or greater on his/her choice of eight (8) exam items, that is, the raw score must be forty- eight (48) or greater based on a scale of eighty (80). This raw score is then converted to a base 100 on which, as is noted above, a passing grade will be seventy (70). Petitioner resides in Tampa, Florida. On April 11, 2003, Petitioner took a national examination that Petitioner must pass to be licensed by the state as a professional engineer. On July 1, 2003, Petitioner received a letter from the Board advising Petitioner that he had received a failing grade on the examination. On July 2, 2003, Petitioner unsuccessfully requested the raw scores on his examination from a representative of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The NCEES is the national testing entity that conducts examinations and determines scores for the professional engineer examination required by the state. On July 9, 2003, Petitioner submitted a formal request to the Board for all of the raw scores related to Petitioner "and all past P.E. Exams that the Petitioner had taken." A representative of the Board denied Petitioner's request explaining that the raw scores are kept by the NCEES and "it is not their policy to release them." The Board's representative stated that the Board was in the process of adopting new rules "that were in-line with the policies of the NCEES." On July 31, 2003, Petitioner requested the Board to provide Petitioner with any statute or rule that authorized the Board to deny Petitioner's request for raw scores pursuant to Section 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). On the same day, counsel for the Board explained to Petitioner that the Board is not denying the request. The Board is unable to comply with the request because the Board does not have physical possession of the raw scores. Petitioner and counsel for Respondent engaged in subsequent discussions that are not material to this proceeding. On August 6, 2003, Petitioner requested counsel for Respondent to provide Petitioner with copies of the proposed rule changes that the Board intended to consider on August 8, 2003. On August 27, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition with the Board challenging existing Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004. The petition alleged that parts of the existing rule are invalid. Petitioner did not file a challenge to the existing rule with DOAH. The Petition for Hearing states that Petitioner is filing the Petition for Hearing pursuant to Subsections 120.56(1) and (3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). However, the statement of how Petitioner's substantial interests are affected is limited to the proposed changes to the existing rule. During the hearing conducted on January 29, 2004, Petitioner explained that he does not assert that the existing rule is invalid. Rather, Petitioner argues that the Board deviates from the existing rule by not providing examinees with copies of their raw scores and by failing to use raw scores in the determination of whether an applicant achieved a passing grade on the exam. Petitioner further argues that the existing rule benefits Petitioner by purportedly requiring the Board to use raw scores in the determination of passing grades. The elimination of that requirement in the proposed rule arguably will adversely affect Petitioner's substantial interests. The Petition for Hearing requests several forms of relief. The Petition for Hearing seeks an order granting Petitioner access to raw scores, a determination that Petitioner has met the minimum standards required under the existing rule, and an order that the Board grant a license to Petitioner. The Petition for Hearing does not request an order determining that the proposed rule changes constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
