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 is a registered electrical contractor doing business as Howard Hall Electric. On October 16, 1979, Petitioner filed his application to become a certified electrical contractor. Prior to filing his application, Petitioner knew the next examination for such certification was scheduled to be given on November 2, 1979. At its meeting on October 18 and 19, 1979, the board approved Petitioner's application to sit for the Electrical Contractors' Certification Examination. By letter dated October 24, 1979, the Board advised Petitioner of the approval and provided Petitioner with information concerning the November 2, 1979, examination. The information provided included a listing of those areas of competency to be covered by the certification examination, and specifically set forth that the examination would include problems relating to accounting. Petitioner was provided by the Board a reference book list of those books permitted to be utilized during the "open-book" examination. The list did not include a reference book for accounting. Petitioner took the examination on November 2, 1979. On December 3, 1979, the Board directed a letter to the Petitioner advising him that he had failed the examination, having achieved a score of 67. The rules of the Board require that a score of 70 be attained in order to pass the examination. Of the candidates taking the examination on November 2, 1979, 20 persons of the 26 sitting for the examination were successful. Further, 19 of the 24 persons taking the accounting portion of the examination were successful. Petitioner requested a review of his examination, and such review was afforded to him by the Board. Additionally, an analysis of the examination itself was performed by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. The Board, which had drafted the examination, reviewed the examination and Petitioner's answers to the questions thereon and determined that the examination was fair and properly graded as to the Petitioner. The Office of Examination Services performed an item analyzation as to the number of candidates responding correctly and incorrectly as to each question on the examination. Although the Office of Examination Services determined that several questions on the examination could have misled some candidates, most candidates responded correctly, and most candidates successfully passed the examination. Although one of the books on the reference list provided by the Board was out of print and unavailable, the examination contained no questions dealing with that subject matter In performing its analysis of the examination, the Office of Examination Services contacted Professor William Hillison of Florida State University to obtain his opinion of the questions in the accounting section of the examination. Dr. Hillison felt that most of the questions in the accounting section were capable of being answered correctly by Florida State University students in their sophomore year in the introductory accounting courses offered by that school. Although Professor Hillison believed that several of the questions in the accounting section were problematic as to the terminology utilized, no testimony was presented that his students would be unable to answer the questions or that the questions were beyond a level of expertise expected to be possessed by a businessman having a general knowledge of management, finance, accounting, and any other functional areas of business.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified electrical contractor be denied. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Lehrman, Esquire 103 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia R. Gleason, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Legal Section Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her response to question nos. 122 and 222 of the civil engineering examination administered on October 31, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the civil professional engineering licensing examination. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. Petitioner challenged the scoring of question nos. 122 and 222. As part of the examination challenge process, Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying where it was re-scored. In the re-score process, the grader deducted points from Petitioner's original score. Petitioner was given the same raw score of 6 on question number 122; however, on question number 222 her raw score of 4 was reduced to a 2. Petitioner needed a raw score of 48 in order to achieve a passing score of 70; she needed at least three additional raw score points to obtain a passing raw score of 48. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 on problem number 122. The solution and scoring plan for that problem required the candidate to obtain a culvert size in the range of 21-36 inches. The Petitioner incorrectly answered 3.1 feet or 37.2 inches. She is not entitled to additional credit for problem number 122 because she answered the question with the wrong size culvert. Problem number 122 required the candidate to use a predevelopment peak flow of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). Petitioner used 58.33 cfs. She chose the maximum flow rather than the predevelopment peak flow. In solving problem number 122, Petitioner chose a design headwater depth of 4.8 feet. The correct solution required a design headwater depth of 5.7 feet. Petitioner made another mistake in problem number 122; she failed to check the water depth in the downstream swale. Petitioner concedes she was given sufficient information to solve problem number 122. She understood what the question was asking of her. She admits that she did not compute the critical depth of the water and that she did not complete the solution. Question number 222 had three parts. The candidate was required to determine the footing size, to select the reinforcing steel, and to provide a sketch for a concrete column located along the edge of a building. Petitioner understood the question and was provided enough information to solve the problem. Petitioner correctly checked the footing size as required by the first part; however, she did not select the reinforcing steel or show the required sketch. Therefore, Petitioner did not complete enough of the problem to qualify for a score of 4 points. She is entitled to a score of 2 points. The examination questions at issue here were properly designed to test the candidate's competency in solving typical problems in real life. The grader (re-scorer) utilized the scoring plan correctly. Petitioner has been in the United States for approximately eleven years. She lived in Romania before she came to the United States. In Romania, Petitioner used only the metric system in her professional work. While she has used the English system since moving to the United States, Petitioner is more familiar with the metric system. The Principles and Practice examination is an open-book examination. Petitioner took a book entitled the Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook to the examination. When the proctor examined her books, she told the Petitioner she was not permitted to keep the handbook. The proctor took the handbook from the Petitioner. Petitioner protested the confiscation of her reference book because she had used the same book in two previous tests. About ten minutes later, the proctor's supervisor returned the book to Petitioner. Petitioner's book was returned at least ten minutes before the test began. She was permitted to use the book during the test. There is no persuasive evidence that the proctor's mistake in temporarily removing Petitioner's reference book caused her to be so upset that she failed the test. Candidates were not permitted to study their books prior to the beginning of the examination. Petitioner may have been nervous when the test began. However, Petitioner received a perfect score of ten points on the first problem she worked, problem number 121.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order confirming Petitioner's score on the examination and dismissing the Petitioner's challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis Bartin, President Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to question numbers 21 and 24 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination administered in April 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April 24, 1998 professional engineering licensing examination with an emphasis in civil engineering. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. In order to achieve a score of 70, Petitioner needs a raw score of 48. Therefore, Petitioner is in need of at least one additional raw score point. Petitioner is challenging question numbers 21 and 24. They are both multiple-choice questions and worth one point each. Exhibit 10 contains a diagram for the candidate's use in answering question numbers 21 and 24. Question 21 requires the examinee to calculate the percentage of wooded land on the diagram. The diagram contains a rectangle labeled "woodlot," and within the rectangle are three non-contiguous areas marked with schematics of trees. The Petitioner reduced the percentage of wooded area to conform to the portion of the area labeled "woodlot" marked with schematics of trees. In regard to question number 21, the Petitioner asserts that as a matter of convention, by failing to put the trees everywhere in the wooded lot, one may assume that there are trees only where there is a schematic of the trees. The Petitioner's challenge was rejected on the basis that the scorer opined that it is standard practice that drawings are only partially filled with details, and the most reasonable interpretation of the site plan drawings is that the woodlot fills the entire area enclosed by the rectangle. John Howath, a professional engineer, testified regarding accepted conventions in engineering drawings. In Howath's opinion the drawing on the examination used inconsistent methodologies and was confusing regarding whether all of the area designated by the label or "call out" of woodlot was in fact wooded. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Howath referred to drawings in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual which showed areas on drawings totally covered with visual indications of a particular material or condition. Peter Sushinsky, a professional engineer, testified as an expert for the Respondent. Mr. Sushinsky acknowledged the Petitioner's exhibits; however, Mr. Sushinsky noted that these were only a few examples of drawings that are available. Mr. Sushinsky referenced construction drawings he had seen in his practice with partial "cross-hatching" just like the diagram on the examination. In sum, Mr. Sushinsky's experience was that diagram might be totally or partially "cross-hatched." In Mr. Sushinsky's opinion it was not a bad diagram, only subject to a different interpretation by a minor group. Question number 24 asked the candidate to calculate the weir peak discharge from the catchment area using the rational formula. The Petitioner asserts the question is misleading and should read, "What is the peak discharge from the watershed?" The Petitioner bases his assertion on the ground that the "rational formula" is used to compute discharge from a watershed not a weir, as mandated by the question. The scorer did not address the Petitioner's concerns. The scorer stated, "It is clear from the item statement that the weir equation is not to be used." However, the questions ask the candidate to compute the weir discharge. Jennifer Jacobs, a professor of engineering, testified regarding the rationale formula that it was used to calculate watershed discharge and not weir discharge. All experts agreed that the rational formula is not used to compute weir discharge. The experts all agree that the question was confusing because the rational formula is not used to calculate the discharge from a weir. The Respondent's expert justifies the answer deemed correct on the basis that if one uses the rational formula and computes the watershed discharge, one of the answers provided is close to the result. The Respondent's expert calculated the watershed discharge as 230.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). The answer deemed correct was 232 cfs. The expert stated the weir attenuates flow. If the weir attenuates flow one would expect an answer less than 230.6 cfs., not an answer equal to or greater than 230.6 cfs. The amount of attenuation is based upon the physical features of the impoundment area and the mouth of the weir. Weir Attenuation varies. The only answers smaller than 230.6 are 200 or 32. Is the 232 cfs. answer wrong because it does not allow for attenuation by the weir? How much did the weir attenuate the flow? Under these facts, the question is capricious. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner didn't follow instructions while acknowledging that the "correct" answer is not the answer to the question that was asked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order awarding Petitioner two raw points and a passing score on the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark W. Nelson 720 Northwest 31st Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent Florida Keys Community College had good cause to remove 39 academic credits and an associate in science degree from Petitioner Timothy Jones’ academic transcript and whether Respondent has good cause to terminate Petitioner from employment as professor of marine propulsion.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Respondent, the Florida Keys Community College (hereinafter referred to as the “FKCC”), is a part of the “Florida College System,” subject to the provisions of Chapter 1001, Part III, Florida Statutes. FKCC, located in Key West, Florida, is specifically recognized as a Florida “community college” pursuant to Section 1000.21(3)(h), Florida Statutes. FKCC is governed by a local board of trustees. See § 1001.60(3), Fla. Stat. FKCC’s president is Jill Landesberg-Boyle, Ph.D. At the times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, Timothy Jones, a full-time faculty member of FKCC, was employed by FKCC as an instructor in, and, for part of his employment, the director of, the Marine Engineering Department. Mr. Jones was initially hired in August 2001. When hired, Mr. Jones, who had no prior teaching experience, possessed an associate of arts degree, which he had earned in the 1970’s. Mr. Jones did not possess an associate in science degree with a major in marine propulsion or marine engineering at the time he was hired. He did, however, possess practical experience, having owned and operated a marine outboard sales and repair business for approximately two years prior to his employment with FKCC. At some point prior to 2004, Mr. Jones became director of the Marine Engineering Department. In addition to his instructional duties, Mr. Jones acted as supervisor for Mark Welsh, another Marine Engineering Department instructor and the Department’s faculty advisor. Mr. Jones taught courses dealing with gasoline powered engines, while Mr. Welsh taught courses dealing with diesel powered engines. Mr. Jones’ Associate in Science Degree; Marine Engineering, Management & Seamanship. In January or February 2004, Mr. Jones met with Dr. Maureen Crowley, then vice president of instruction for FKCC. At some point during the meeting, Dr. Crowley told Mr. Jones that it appeared that the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (hereinafter referred to as the “SACS”), would likely be requiring that instructors at FKCC possess a degree in the area in which they were employed to teach. This was not a new requirement, but one that had not previously been enforced by SACS. Dr. Crowley told Mr. Jones that, if SACS did enforce the policy, he would probably not be allowed to continue teaching in the Marine Engineering Department if he did not obtain an associate in science degree in his area of instruction. Dr. Crowley also told Mr. Jones that the quickest way for him to earn the requisite degree would be to earn course credits from FKCC by “Institutional Credit by Examination.” In light of the fact that Mr. Welsh was the Marine Engineering Department’s advisor, Dr. Crowley told Mr. Jones to talk to him about how to proceed. The awarding of credits by examination, including “Institutional Examinations,” is authorized by FKCC Board of Trustees Rule 7.710 (College Exhibit 3). In particular, Rule 7.710 provides, in pertinent part, the following: Credit may be earned in certain other College courses by successful completion of an appropriate examination. Evidence of proficiency in the subject is to be presented to the instructor of the course. If, in the opinion of the instructor, the student is eligible to take the examination, the student will be required to pay a non refundable examination fee in accordance with the Fee Schedule (see Financial Information) prior to the administration of the examination. The instructor of the course will administer the examination at an appointed time and assign a final grade. If the student passes the examination at the 80% level or above . . . credit will be awarded and recorded on the student’s permanent record by the Director of Enrollment Services. . . . Despite “opinion” testimony to the contrary, the foregoing Rule is clear as to its requirements, including the requirement that an “examination” designed to test the student’s knowledge is to be “administered” before any credits are to be awarded for any course available at FKCC. The Rule does not authorize or contemplate the awarding of course credits simply because the “instructor” believes that the “student” is knowledgeable, based upon prior observation or some review of the student’s records. Subsequent to the meeting with Dr. Crowley, Mr. Jones met with Mr. Welsh. Mr. Jones told Mr. Welsh that he, Mr. Jones, needed to earn an associate in science degree or that he would not be allowed to continue his employment with FKCC. Mr. Jones also told Mr. Welsh that Dr. Crowley had told him to talk to Mr. Welsh about the best way for him to earn the requisite degree. According to Mr. Jones, he left the meeting leaving the decision in Mr. Welsh’s hands, assuming that Mr. Welsh would do whatever was necessary to ensure that he earned the necessary degree. Mr. Jones heard nothing more about the matter until April of 2004, when Mr. Welsh presented him with 13 completed Applications for Credit by Institutional Examination (hereinafter referred to as the “Applications”). At the top of each Application is the following explanation, which consistently explains the requirements of Rule 7.710: Students who are currently enrolled in a credit course other than that being challenged or have not taken an institutional exam for the course at any previous time or not previously taken the course at FKCC or through transfer credit may earn credit in a number of college courses for which no CLEP, DANTES, or Excelsior examination is available. A score of at least 80% on a comprehensive written examination and/or demonstration of satisfactory ability in performance skills will be required. Credit may not be earned in a course in which the student is enrolled or for which he has earned credit. Only one attempt at credit by institutional examination will be permitted per course. A maximum of 75% of associate degree requirements or 50% of certificate requirements may be earned by institutional examination or other acceleration mechanisms. Evidence of proficiency in the subject is to be presented to the instructor of the course. If, in the opinion of the instructor, the student is eligible to take the examination, the student will proceed to the Business Office for payment of the non- refundable $20 per credit examination fee before taking the examination. The instructor will administer the exam, at an agreed upon time, and will assign a final grade. The completed form will be forwarded to the Director of Enrollment Services who will then inform the student in writing of the results of the examination and will record credit earned by institutional examination on the transcript, if appropriate. The following sections should be completed in sequence. Mr. Jones did not read the instructions on the Application or follow them. The instructions on the Application add certain requirements for obtaining credits by institutional examination not contained in Rule 7.710: the “examination” may be a “comprehensive written examination and/or demonstration of satisfactory ability in performance skills”; and no more than a “maximum of 75% of associate degree requirements or 50% of certificate requirements may be earned by institutional examination.” The first section to be completed on the Applications is a section containing a space for the student’s name and social security number, the course number and name, and the credit hours for the course. There is also a space for the student to list the “specific reasons why I wish to take a challenge examination . . . .” Finally, this section ends with a place for the student to date and sign the Application, noting that “[e]vidence of prior related experience is attached” and that, by the student’s signature, the student acknowledges that he or she has “read and understand[s] the criteria and procedure for credit by institutional examination.” The first section of the 13 Applications was signed by Mr. Jones on April 20, 21, or 22, 2004. The Applications were for 13 different courses totally 39 credit hours. All information written into this section, other than Mr. Jones’ signature, was already written on the Applications when presented to Mr. Jones for signature. No “specific reasons” why Mr. Jones wished to take a challenge examination in the courses was included on the 13 Applications and no “prior related experience” as attached to the Applications. Mr. Jones’ acknowledgement, by signing the Applications, that he had “read and understand[s] the criteria and procedure for credit by institutional examination” was false. The next section of the Applications to be “completed in sequence” is a section for the “Instructor” of the course to sign recommending the student for credit by institutional examination and agreeing to “administer a supplementary skills performance test.” All 13 of the Applications were signed by Mr. Welsh, Mr. Jones’ subordinate, and were dated the same day that Mr. Jones signed them, except for one, which was signed by Mr. Welsh the day after the date Mr. Jones had signed it. (Whether this section of the Applications was signed by Mr. Welsh in April, as it now appears, or were actually dated in February is questionable based upon a cursory review of College Exhibit 2). The next section of the Applications is a section for the “cashier’s validation.” This section is intended to be signed by a cashier of FKCC to acknowledge receipt of payment for the credit by institutional examination, along with the amount paid and the date. The section states in all capital letters, “TO BE VALIDATED BEFORE EXAMINATION DATE.” All 13 Applications were signed by the cashier on April 22, 2004. This date is after the date Mr. Welsh indicates the “examinations” took place, as discussed, infra. The next-to-the-last section of the Applications, which should have been executed after the Applications were instituted by the student, after the instructor had accepted the Applications, and after payment for the credits had been made and acknowledged, is a section to be completed by the instructor of the course verifying the following: I examined the above student in the indicated course on (date) . According to the standards for the award by credit by institutional examination, I do/do not (strike one) recommend the credit be awarded based on the student’s grade of . Documentation of the examination results is attached. All 13 Applications were signed by Mr. Welsh indicating that Mr. Jones had earned an “A” in each of the 13 courses and that the “examination” had been administered on February 20, 21, or 22, 2004, two months before Mr. Jones signed the Applications. None of the 13 Applications had “documentation of the examination results” attached to them. Mr. Welsh indicated on the Applications that the “examination” had been given two months before Mr. Jones signed the Applications, in complete disregard for the instructions on the Application and contrary to Rule 7.710. Finally, the last section on the Applications is for the signature of the Director of Enrollment Services. All 13 Applications are signed and dated April 22, 2004. The 13 courses for which Mr. Jones “applied” and was granted credit by institutional examination are Marine Diesel Engine Overhaul; 2 & 4 Cycle Outboard Repair and Maintenance; Marine Diesel Systems; Marine Engine Installation and Repower Procedures; Fiberglassing Theory; Applied Marine Electricity; Gas and Electric Welding; Basic Seamanship; Diesel Engine Testing and Troubleshooting Procedure; Marine Corrosion and Corrosion Prevention; Diesel Fuel Injection Systems; Marine Gearcases, Outdrives & Transmission Systems; and Marine Auxiliary Equipment Servicing. Of the 13 awarded courses, Mr. Jones had taught only six. Mr. Welsh had never taught any of the six courses taught by Mr. Jones. While Mr. Welsh had taught six other courses, Mr. Jones had not. One course, Gas and Electric Welding, had not been taught by Mr. Jones or Mr. Welsh. These facts, along with the fact that Mr. Welsh was Mr. Jones’ subordinate, raise serious questions about the appropriateness of the award of the 39 credits and an associate in science degree to Mr. Jones which any reasonable person should have been concerned about. As a result of the completion and submission of the 13 Applications, Mr. Jones was awarded 39 credit hours for the 13 courses and, as a consequence, was awarded an Associate in Science degree by FKCC on or about May 3, 2004. Mr. Jones acknowledges that he did not take any examination, written or by “demonstration of satisfactory ability in performance skills,” for any of the 13 courses for which he was given credit. In fact, Mr. Jones acknowledges and the evidence proved that all he did was to tell Mr. Welsh about his need to obtain a degree and sign the 13 Applications. Despite all the indications to the contrary, Mr. Jones simply followed Mr. Welsh’s directions, signing whatever documents Mr. Welsh provided to him, purportedly because “he knew of my abilities and I could pass the examination if he took the time to do it.” Volume I, Page 93, Lines 20-21, Transcript. Scholarship Funding for the 13 Applications. In order to pay for the courses for which credit was awarded pursuant to the 13 Applications, Mr. Jones applied for employee/dependent scholarship aid. While employee/dependent scholarship aid is available for the payment of tuition, it is not intended for use in paying for the $20.00 application fee for credit by institutional examination. Employee/dependent scholarship aid is also limited to 12 hours per term and 24 hours per year. Mr. Jones completed a Scholarship Aid Request for the 39 credit hours by institutional examination he was awarded. The funds were approved and used to fund the costs of the 39 hours of credit. As with the award of the 39 credits by institutional examination, at no time did Mr. Jones inquire as to the appropriateness or legality of using scholarship aid to fund the award of his Associate in Science degree. FKCC’s Investigation. On or about August 1, 2007, Dr. Landesberg-Boyle, who had served some months as president-designee of FKCC, was hired by the FKCC Board of Trustees (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), as FKCC president. One of Dr. Landesberg-Boyle’s first official acts was to create the position of provost and to fill that position with Clifford Colman. Mr. Colman possesses extensive experience in academia. Proposed findings concerning Mr. Colman’s background are accurately reflected on page 6 of Florida Keys Community College’s Brief and are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Among Mr. Colman’s duties as the provost, the FKCC’s chief academic officer, was the responsibility to ensure that FKCC faculty were possessed of the requisite credentials required by FKCC and the State of Florida. In late September or early October,2007 a comment was made to Mr. Colman during a conversation he was having with the then Director of Marine Engineering and another faculty member about Mr. Jones’ credentials, or purported lack thereof. One of the individuals said in effect that Mr. Jones did not posses a degree in his discipline and that the rumor around the campus was essentially that he had “pulled a fast one on the college and had gotten a degree without doing any work for it.” In reasonable response to these comments, Mr. Colman began an investigation. He first went to the records office and reviewed Mr. Jones’ academic transcript. He noticed the credit for the 13 courses totaling 39 hours of credit awarded to Mr. Jones. Mr. Colman was alarmed because, in his experience, a full-time student would normally require one and a half academic years to complete that much course work. Mr. Jones had been awarded the 39 credits for a single academic term. Mr. Colman was also concerned because the 39 hours of credit, according to the transcript, had been awarded by “Institutional” examination. Therefore, Mr. Colman next retrieved the supporting documentation for the courses, including the 13 Applications. Concerned about the amount of credits awarded, the fact that they were all awarded in a short period of time, the fact that Mr. Jones had been given an “A” in each course, and the fact that Mr. Welsh was Mr. Jones’ subordinate, Mr. Colman investigated further. Mr. Colman next spoke on more than one occasion by telephone with Mr. Welsh, who was no longer employed at FKCC or living in the area. Those conversations took place in October 2007. Dr. Landesberg-Boyle participated in one of the conversations. Although the accuracy of what Mr. Welsh told Mr. Colman and Dr. Landesberg-Boyle is hearsay and, therefore, is not reported in this Recommended Order nor relied upon by the undersigned in the ultimate decisions in this case, what Mr. Welsh said about the events gave Dr. Landesberg-Boyle reasonable cause to take the actions she took in this matter. After completing his investigation, Mr. Colman and the Board attorney, William “Buck” DeVane, met with Mr. Jones. Although not given any notice of what the meeting was for, Mr. Jones was informed of Mr. Colman’s findings and given an opportunity to speak to the findings. Mr. Jones was then told that he could resign his position or, if chose not to, FKCC would pursue termination proceedings. Mr. Jones requested and was given a few days to consider his options. Ultimately, Mr. Jones declined the opportunity to resign. While Mr. Jones complained at hearing about his perceived lack of opportunity to respond to Mr. Colman’s findings, he has been afforded his complete due process rights through this proceeding. Following Mr. Jones’ decision not to resign, Mr. Colman recommended that Dr. Landesberg-Boyle take action to terminate Mr. Jones’ employment with FKCC. Dr. Landesberg-Boyle’s Decision and Recommendation to the Board, the Board’s Decision, and Mr. Jones’ Request for Hearing. Dr. Landesberg-Boyle wrote a letter dated January 3, 2008, to Mr. Jones informing him that she was “directing Enrollment Services to remove [the associate in science] degree from your academic transcript.” She also told Mr. Jones that she intended to recommend to the Board at their meeting on January 26, 2008, that his position with FKCC be terminated. Finally, Dr. Landesberg-Boyle advised Mr. Jones that he had the right to a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Although she did not specifically inform Mr. Jones of his right to challenge her decision to direct the removal of his associate in science degree from his transcript, he has been afforded that opportunity through this proceeding. On January 5, 2008, Dr. Landesberg-Boyle instructed Cheryl Malsheimer, Director Enrollment Services, by memorandum, to “remove the 39 credits by exam on Mr. Tim Jones’ FKCC transcript that were posted in April 2004. ” On January 26, 2008, the Board accepted the recommendation to terminate Mr. Jones’ employment with FKCC. Mr. Jones exercised his right to challenge both actions: the removal of the 39 credits by exam and his Associate in Science degree from his transcript and the decision of the Board to terminate his employment with FKCC. By the conduct of this proceeding, Mr. Jones was afforded his due process rights pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, as to both the decision of Dr. Landesberg-Boyle to remove the credits and degree from his transcript and the decision of the Board to terminate his employment. Good Cause for Dr. Landesberg-Boyle’s Decision. Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the action of Dr. Landesberg-Boyle in ordering the removal of the 39 credits by institutional examination and the Associate in Science degree from Mr. Jones’ transcript was done with good cause. Mr. Jones’ suggestion that he simply did what he was instructed to do is simply not reasonable for any number of reasons: The person who “awarded” him the credits was his subordinate; Being awarded a degree for simply signing your name to the 13 Applications, without reading the forms or asking any questions was totally unreasonable for any college instructor and especially the head of the department; Accepting an award of credits for courses for which Mr. Jones had no experience and had not taught was unreasonable; and Accepting an award of credits for courses for which Mr. Jones had some expertise from an individual who did not possess the same expertise was unreasonable. Good Cause for the Board’s Decision. Based upon the foregoing, it is also clear that the decision of the Board to terminate Mr. Jones was made with good cause. Regardless of whether Mr. Jones possesses the skills and ability to teach marine engineering, his actions in accepting 39 credits and an associate in science degree by simply signing the 13 Applications and by inappropriately using employee/dependent financial aid to pay for those credits support the Board’s decision. Whether, as FKCC suggests, Mr. Jones was part of a fraudulent scheme to protect his job, or he simply followed what he was told, his actions were inconsistent with what the Board may reasonably expect and demand from instructional staff at FKCC.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Florida Keys Community College enter a final order finding that there is good cause to eliminate 39 credits awarded to Timothy Jones by institutional examination, and the associate in science degree awarded as a consequence thereof, and terminating Mr. Jones from employment with Florida Keys Community College. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel J. Kaufman, Esquire Law Offices of Samuel J. Kaufman, P.A. 1509 Josephine Street, Suite 1 Key West, Florida 33040 Robert L. Norton, Esquire Luke C. Savage, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to be licensed by endorsement as a professional engineer in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 471.015, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Gerardo A. Marquez is an applicant for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. By letter dated May 30, 1990, Petitioner was informed by the Board that his education did not meet the criteria for licensure by examination under Section 471.013(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, because the engineering program he completed was not accredited by the Accrediation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Petitioner is a graduate of the Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico, with a degree in civil engineering. This program is not accredited by ABET. Section 471.013(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes, provides that graduates of an approved engineering technology curriculum of four years or more in a school, college or university within the state university system, having been enrolled or having graduated prior to July 1, 1979, shall be entitled to take an examination to determine if he is qualified to practice as an engineer. Petitioner does not qualify pursuant to this provision. Petitioner was enrolled for one semester in 1977 at the University of Puerto Rico in the engineering program. This first semester consisted of basic general studies such as humanities, English, biology and math. Petitioner resumed his college education in the summer of 1980 at the Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico. Petitioner testified that the criteria for licensure in Puerto Rico was "substantially identical" to the criteria in Florida at the time of his licensure since Puerto Rico requires that the University granting the degree be approved by the Middle States Association of Colleges as well as the Commission of Higher Education of Puerto Rico. ABET is the sole agency in the United States to accredit engineering programs. ABET does not accredit schools, but only specific programs. Since 1981 when Chapter 471 underwent sunset review, Florida has required an ABET approved degree, and the Board has considered that any state that has the same experience and examination requirements as Florida, but does not require an ABET approved engineering degree, is not substantially equivalent to Florida under the statute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement under Section 471.015, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5778 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 - 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Gerardo A. Marquez Reef Tower Apartment 16B Isla Verde, Puerto Rico 00913 Rex Smith Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Rules 21H-21.002(1) and 21H-21.004(1) are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Ronnie F. Taylor, of Post Office Box 697, Cedar Key, Florida, is employed by the engineering firm of Ingley, Campbell, Moses and Associates of Gainesville, Florida, which engages in mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering. Taylor has been with this engineering firm for four years and is currently a vice president in charge of production of electrical engineering documents. Prior to this employment, Taylor spent 14 years as an electrical engineer with the engineering firm of Reynolds, Smith and Hill of Jacksonville, Florida. When Taylor left Reynolds, Smith and Hill, he was the senior design engineer. Taylor served in the military as an electrician. Upon completing military service in 1967, Taylor entered Florida Junior College. He received an Associate of Science degree in Electrical Engineering Technology in 1970 from that institution. Following that degree, Taylor began employment with Reynolds, Smith and Hill, where his responsibilities included the design of electrical projects for commercial buildings, including writing specifications, making cost estimates and producing a finished product. Taylor has spent his entire career in electrical engineering and has no experience with other specialties of engineering. He has extensive experience in electrical engineering having designed and completed numerous large commercial projects. However, because Taylor is not a licensed professional engineer, a licensed professional engineer must oversee all projects during the course of design and completion and must sign and seal all completed work. Taylor is not a licensed professional engineer because he has failed to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) portion of the engineering examination. He has failed in fourteen attempts to pass the FE exam. Taylor did pass the Principles and Practices (P & P) portion of the exam in 1982. Licensure requirements specify that both sections must be passed prior to licensure. Taylor became qualified to take the engineering exam in 1977 pursuant to Section 471.21(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), which permitted an applicant to take the exam with "a specific record of 10 years or more of active practice in engineering work of a character indicating that the applicant is competent to be placed in responsible charge of such work." This so-called 10 year cycle permitted an applicant to qualify for the exam without the otherwise required 4- year college degree and 4 additional years of experience. In 1979, Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, was enacted, allowing persons in the final year of engineering school to take the FE exam to qualify as an engineer intern. This provision has been in effect since 1979. The FE exam, as required by Rule 21H-21.002(1), which is challenged here, includes questions on the subjects of mathematics, mathematical modeling of engineering systems, nucleonics and wave phenomena, chemistry, statistics, dynamics, mechanics of materials, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics/heat transfer, computer programming, electrical circuits, statics, structure of matter, engineering mechanics, electronics and electrical machinery. While Taylor scored highly on the subjects relating to electrical engineering, he had difficulty with other areas of the exam. The course work completed by Taylor in 1970 did not include some of these areas with which Taylor had difficulty. Taylor has had no course work in computer programming, thermodynamics, statistics, nucleonics and wave phenomena. The subjects tested in the FE exam are updated in order to test applicants on the most current information and knowledge of engineering fundamentals. Herbert A. Ingley is a licensed professional engineer and holds a Bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering, a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering with a minor in Environmental-Mathematics. He taught full time on the faculty of the University of Florida in Mechanical Engineering for 11 years. In his opinion, it is more difficult for applicants to pass the FE exam the further they are from their formal education and, therefore, applicants in the 10 year cycle have more difficulty passing the exam. According to Ingley, the requirement that persons such as Taylor wait 10 years before taking the FE exam is not logical. However, Ingley also opined that it is important for a professional engineer to have a fundamental knowledge of engineering and that there is a need to test the fundamental basics of engineering for each person who is going to become a licensed professional engineer. George Edward Rabb is a licensed professional engineer, having been licensed in 1965. He was grandfathered and therefore only had to pass the P & P exam. The FE exam was waived based on specific portions of statute and rule which waived the FE exam for persons with fifteen years experience. The waiver was only available to persons qualifying prior to November, 1970. According to Rabb, an engineer needs to have a working knowledge of fundamentals and to understand the general concepts of engineering. Robert D. Kersten, who has been the Dean of the Department of Engineering at the University of Florida for 20 years, has a Bachelors degree in Mathematics and Chemistry, a Masters degree in Civil Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, Water Resource/Hydrologic Engineering. Dean Kersten has served in numerous capacities with both state and national professional associations involved in accreditation of engineers and served on the Board of Professional Engineers in Florida and on the National Council of Engineering Examiners. The FE exam is prepared by the National Council of Engineering Examiners and is designed to cover the fundamental areas essential to the basic practice of engineering. The FE exam tests both the common body of knowledge that is essential to practice in the profession and the ability to apply that knowledge. According to Dean Kersten the FE exam tests items which should be within an engineer's basic knowledge and which are necessary to communication between engineers in a design team approach to project design. Dean Kersten acknowledges that the FE exam is more difficult for applicants who lack a degree or who have been out of the academic area for a period of time, but opines that those factors do not excuse an applicant from mastering and retaining the basic fundamentals important to the practice. In fact, the FE exam is designed so that 70 percent of the applicants with-the 4- year college educational background pass the exam. Only 40 percent of the applicants in the 10 year cycle pass the exam.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to three problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 29, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 29, 1999, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in mechanical engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the mechanical engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 13, 2000) that his solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to the Board's "Legal Section," which forwarded it to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 resulted in his receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about April 25, 1999. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated May 3, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problems 141, 144, and 147 were worth ten raw points each. Petitioner received four raw points for his solution to Problem 141. In his solution to Problem 141, Petitioner failed to take into consideration bending stresses and loads. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 144. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": A correct solution [to this problem] must include an energy balance on the open feedwater heater to determine the fraction of flow through turbine T1 that is extracted and taken to the open feedwater heater. a correct equation for determining the specific work developed by the two turbines on the basis of one pound entering turbine T1. The equation the examinee has written assumes the same flow through both turbines. determination of the mass rate of flow (m1) at the inlet to turbine T1. This is determined by dividing the net power by the specific net work. determining the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. finally, dividing the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator by the heating value times 0.75 with the appropriate conversion factors. The examinee has used the new power (200 MW or 200 x 105)as the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. This is incorrect. The scoring plan states 2 RUDIMENTARY KNOWLEDGE . . . OR-(3) determines tons/day = Wnet/7650, Wnet = (h1 - h2) + (h3 - h4) This is what the examinee has done. Based on the scoring plan and the above analysis, a score of 2 is recommended. There has been no showing that the foregoing "analysis" was in any way flawed or that application of the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem should have resulted in Petitioner receiving a raw score higher than two for his solution to Problem 144. Petitioner received a raw score of four for his solution to Problem 147. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee used an incorrect temperature difference in [his] calculation of the heat transferred by convection and radiation from the outer surface of the pipe. Most of the examinee's work for requirement (b) was not needed. In doing that unnecessary work, however, [he] made two significant errors: 1. [He] evaluated a radiation exchange between the steam inside the pipe and the environment surrounding the pipe. The pipe shields the environment surrounding the pipe from the steam. 2. The examinee's equation "Total heat Loss = Conductive + Radiation" is not satisfactory. In attempting to evaluate the heat transfer from the insul[a]ted pipe, [he] assumed that the outer surface heat transfer coefficient was very high; 3.0 is not high. The examinee made no attempt to evaluate the payback period for the insulation. There has been no showing that the foregoing analysis was in any way flawed. For the errors made by Petitioner in his solution to Problem 147, a 50% "grade reduction" was warranted pursuant to the "error analysis" portion of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. 1/ The remaining portions of the scoring plan for Problem 147 provided as follows: 10: Essentially complete and correct solution. May have one or two minor math, data, or chart reading errors. . . . Grade of 8: A grade of 8 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 10% and 50%. A Grade of 6: A grade of 6 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 30% and 50%. Grade of 4: 2/ A grade of 4 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 50% and 70%. Grade of 2: A grade of 2 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 70% and 90%. Grade of Zero: Nothing presented that warrants a grade of at least 10%. It is unclear from a reading of the NCEES scoring plan for Problem 147 whether a grade reduction of 50% should result in a raw score of four or six. The plan is ambiguous in this regard. While it may be reasonable to interpret the plan as requiring that a raw score of six be given where there is a grade reduction of 50%, the plan is also reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that a 50% grade reduction should result in a raw score of four, the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 147. It therefore cannot be said that the scoring of his solution to this problem was inconsistent with the problem's scoring plan, as reasonably construed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 29, 1999, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 2000.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 30, 1998, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to Problems 124, 125, and 222 on the Examination. At the time he made this request, Petitioner was aware that rescoring could result in the candidate's score being lowered (although he believed that, in his case, the outcome would be a higher, not a lower, score). Petitioner was wrong. The rescoring he requested resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). After being notified of the outcome of the rescoring, Petitioner requested the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to grant him a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. Petitioner's request was granted. At hearing, Petitioner advised that he was challenging only the grading of his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Examination, and that he was not pursuing his challenge to the score he had received for his solution to Problem 125. Problems 124 and 222 were worth ten (raw) points each. Problem 124 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner received two (raw) points for his solution to Problem 124. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Due to mathematical errors that he made, Petitioner did not solve any of the subparts of Problem 124 correctly. Accordingly, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest (raw) score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a two, which is the score he received. Problem 222 contained five subparts (or requirements). Petitioner originally received a (raw) score of six for his solution to Problem 222. Upon rescoring, his (raw) score was reduced to two. In attempting to solve Problem 222, Petitioner overestimated the lateral earth pressure due to his misunderstanding of the term "equivalent fluid pressure" used in the problem. In addition, in his solution to subpart (a), he did not properly specify the appropriate bar size and spacing. Giving Petitioner a (raw) score of two for his solution to Problem 222 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 4th day of October, 1999.
The Issue The issues framed by the Amended Administrative Complaint are whether Mr. Chandwani was guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering with respect to drawings prepared for the renovation of a house, and whether he failed to obtain a certificate of authorization for a corporation which he owned which offered engineering services to the public.
Findings Of Fact The notice of the hearing was sent to Mr. Chandwani at the address disclosed on the Election of Rights form in which he demanded a formal hearing on the allegations made in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Professional Regulation. Mr. Chandwani did not, however, appear at the hearing. Mr. Chandwani is licensed by the Board of Professional Engineers holding registration #PE0017049. Mr. Chandwani is the president of International Engineers and Builders, Inc., a Florida corporation whose Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Secretary of State on July 8, 1980. Mr. Chandwani, on behalf of International Engineers and Builders, Inc., entered into a contract on November 28, 1984, with Peter Persaud for the preparation of sealed plans for the rehabilitation of a property located at 22740 S.W. 179th Place, Miami, Florida. Mr. Persaud had purchased the property while it was in foreclosure. The property had come under the jurisdiction of the Dade County Code Enforcement Department due to defects in the structure, and Mr. Chandwani was engaged to provide drawings for the rehabilitation of the property. The plans originally delivered to Mr. Persaud by Mr. Chandwani were neither signed nor sealed. When taken to the Dade County Building and Zoning Department they were found to be deficient not only because they were not signed and sealed, but because they did not meet the criteria of the South Florida Building Code. For example, a cabana shown on the plans should not have been located on the property line. Eventually Mr. Chandwani provided signed and sealed plans, but only after a demand to do so had been made by Mr. Persaud's attorney. The testimony of James Owen Power, a consulting engineer who testified about the plans on behalf of the Board of Professional Engineers, has been accepted. The plans submitted are deficient in that they do not contain complete information on all components of the structure. For example, there is no design specified for roof trusses, nor is there any design for assembling trusses into a roof system. The plans are also confusing and contradictory in that Section A on sheet 1 of the plans appears to show a wall of a garage as part of an existing building but the plans indicate elsewhere that the garage is new, and nonexisting. There is also a confusing note with respect to a "cathedral ceiling" in the construction of the house, for there is no definition of what a cathedral ceiling is. Moreover, the drawings appear to show a level ceiling, not a cathedral ceiling. It is not clear whether the garage is to have any ceiling. Although Mr. Chandwani contracted with Mr. Persaud through International Engineers and Builders, Inc., International Engineers and Builders, Inc., has never been issued a certificate of authorization under the provision of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered finding Mr. Chandwani guilty of negligence in the practice of professional engineering and of offering engineering services through an entity which does not hold a certificate of authorization, that he be reprimanded, fined $2,000 and his licensure be placed on probation for a period of two years. The fine shall be paid within sixty (60) days of the entry of the final order. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, 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 11th day of April, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Arjan D. Chandwani 2560 Azalea Avenue Miramar, Florida 33025 Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seeley Executive Director Construction Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
