Findings Of Fact In April 1995, Abraham S. Inlong (Petitioner) took the Electrical Engineer part of the Professional Engineering Examination (Examination). A minimum grade of 70 is required to pass the Examination. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Respondent) notified Petitioner that he had failed the Examination, having received a grade of 69.10. The Examination is a national examination and is graded by national examiners. Respondent issues licenses to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida and administers the Examination on behalf of the State. Petitioner challenges, the answer selected by the national examiners to Problem 433, Question 6 of the Examination, which is A. Respondent selected D as the answer, which states that A, B, and C are all correct. As part of the instructions for candidates taking the Examination, the candidates were to choose the best answer. The best answer is the correct answer. Respondent's response to Problem 433, Question 6 was regraded by the national examiners. They denied Respondent any additional credit. The best and correct answer to Problem 433, Question 6 is the answer identified by Respondent as the answer by the national examiners, i. e., A. The answer selected by Petitioner is not the best and correct answer. A diagram is part of the challenged problem and question. The diagram is clear and unambiguous. The scope of knowledge required for the challenged problem and question is not beyond the knowledge reasonably expected from a candidate for licensure. The challenged problem and question contain sufficient information for a candidate for licensure to select the best and correct answer. Additional information was unnecessary, including whether the system was balanced or unbalanced. The challenged problem and question are clear and unambiguous. The challenged problem and question are not devoid of logic and reason. The challenged problem and question are valid. Statistics indicate that 60 percent of the candidates for licensure (candidates), who took the Examination, answered Problem 433 correctly and that 48 percent of the candidates answered Problem 433, Question 6 correctly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order dismissing Abraham S. Inlong's examination challenge and denying him licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0031 The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4 and 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, or not supported by the more credible evidence. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, or not supported by the more credible evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5. See Preliminary Statement. 6. See Preliminary Statement. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 - 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Rejected as being subordinate, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. NOTE--Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being subordinate, irrelevant, unnecessary, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire One Datran Center, Suite 400 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7815 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded additional credit for his answer to question number 290, and thereby be given a passing grade on the Professional Engineer examination administered on October 25, 1996, in Orlando.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers (Board) was the state agency responsible for the examination and licensing of professional engineers in Florida. With the cooperation and assistance of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), the Board conducts periodic examinations to test the qualifications of candidates for certification as professional engineers in this state. Such an examination was conducted in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 1996. Petitioner was a candidate at that examination. A minimum score for passing was 70. Petitioner received an overall score of 69. One of the questions posed to the candidates at that examination was question number 290, dealing with the design of a control system, which required the candidate to determine values for two parameters in such a fashion that the closed loop specifications stated as, "with K =20 the unit step response be a damped oscillation with a 10% overshoot and with a damped natural frequency of 15 rad/s" were met. In the answer to this question, the engineer has to arrive at parameters to give the desired step response within the stated percentages. According to Dr. Antonio Arroyo, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Florida and an expert in electrical engineering, this subject matter is taught in a standard undergraduate controls course which is required in engineering schools nation-wide. The question in issue is a classic controls problem. The candidate is to reduce the diagram displayed in the examination question and give a closed loop description. Given that, the solution proceeds by taking the percentage of error and using it to back- track and arrive at the requested parameters, step by step. The examination is an open book examination. Because of the many formulae used in engineering, the candidate is permitted to use printed resources to assist in the solving of the problems. This formula involved in this problem is standard. Only the parameters cited in the test problem are different. In his answer to the question Petitioner cited to the page in his reference material where the solution is to be found, and he used the appropriate formula. In doing so, he could take the numbers presented in the problem and apply them to the standard problem solution contained in the reference book he had with him. It is a "plug and chug" situation wherein the candidate inserts the problem numbers into the given formula and makes the calculations. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, however, the candidate must decide how to use the information given. In this case, the problem involved a damped frequency of 15 hz and the candidate was required to calculate an undamped frequency. The Petitioner did not show that calculation in his solution, and it appears to Dr. Arroyo he missed the fact of the difference between the two frequencies. In Petitioner's solution, he listed what he saw as the data given, and though at no place did the problem show "Omega d", Petitioner put down "Omega d" but used "Omega n". In the expert opinion of Dr. Arroyo, an engineer should, at least, check his calculations. Examiners will give credit to a candidate if the candidate shows the appropriate knowledge of the concepts involved in the problem. In the instant case, Petitioner's answer to question 290 far exceeded the allowable 10% overshoot. His answer for "a" was 0.895, whereas the correct answer was 1.099. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference was .110, Petitioner’s overshoot was .204. His answer for "b" was 11.25, whereas the correct answer was 17.3. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference here was 1.73, Petitioner’s overshoot was 6.05. To Dr. Arroyo, this shows a concept error rather than a calculation error In substance, Petitioner utilized the correct formulae, but used incorrect data, and the use of the wrong data is sufficient to indicate his ignorance of the appropriate concepts. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, who did not see the problem utilized in the examination and relied on information provided by Petitioner, concluded that Petitioner’s margin of error was within the 10% limitation. Here, notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of Dr. Garrett, Petitioner's solution missed the authorized overshoot by a significant amount, far more than the allowable 10%. He should have known something was wrong when this happened and should have looked to see what he did wrong. In the opinion of Dr. Arroyo, the Petitioner did not adequately evaluate the problem consistent with acceptable engineering standards since the final product of his calculations did not meet the specifications of the problem. This is the purpose behind the professional certification process, and Petitioner should have recognized that his answer did not meet the required specifications. Petitioner received a score of six out of a possible ten for his solution to question 290. Dr. Arroyo is satisfied that the scoring plan of the NCEES for this problem is fair and he supports it. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, a professional engineer and long-time professor of electrical engineering at the University of South Florida, disagrees. In his evaluation of the problem and the grading process used here, Dr. Garrett notes that problem 290 consisted of five parts, for each of which two points could be awarded. Petitioner correctly answered the first three parts and received a grade of six points. He missed part four, and part five was to use the results of parts three and four, with the proper equations, to determine the two answers required. Since Petitioner used the proper equations to figure his answer to part five, even though he did not get a correct answer to part four, which resulted in his numeric answer to part five being incorrect, Dr. Garrett is of the opinion that he should have received an additional two points for applying the proper formula in part five. Review of the scoring plan developed for this problem indicates that Petitioner met all the qualifications for award of six points, but he did not recognize the relationship of damped as opposed to undamped. He used incorrect data to arrive at "a" and "b" in that he did not identify the relationship between natural frequency and damped frequency. This is a basic problem of control systems which an undergraduate should be able to solve correctly. It is basic electrical engineering knowledge and not beyond that expected of an electrical engineer with a bachelor's degree in the field. Had Petitioner utilized the formula he used with the proper data, he would have been awarded credit for a correct answer even if his calculations were incorrect. Here, however, while Petitioner utilized the correct formula, he applied it to incorrect data, and it is this use of incorrect data which makes an award of a higher score inappropriate. The professional engineers’ examination is designed to test the individual's familiarity with engineering concepts and his ability to cast the problem into those concepts to solve the problem. Petitioner contends that his understanding of the concepts involved was correct and, therefore, even though he used the wrong figures, he should received credit for a correct answer or, at most, only 2 rather than 4 points should have been deducted. Though Petitioner utilized the correct formula for his solution to question 290, he applied the wrong values in the use of the formula. This indicates a lack of understanding of the concepts involved, and even though Petitioner used the proper formula, that formula came from the book he was permitted to use for the examination. He cannot be given full credit for copying the formula from the book. Had he used the correct values in his solution to the problem, he would have been given appropriate credit even if his calculations were wrong. After being notified of his unsuccessful exam results, Petitioner requested that his answer to question number 290 be resubmitted to NCEES for re-scoring, and this was done. By memorandum in response, dated July 10, 1997, the NCEES scorer concluded: The error in using undamped natural frequency for damped natural frequency in the examinee's solution is a major error. Whether the examinee did not recognize the function was in fact the undamped natural frequency, as given in the problem statement, or whether it was an oversight, it is still a major error since the outcome is significantly affected. The scorer, whose knowledge of the identity of the candidate was limited to a number only, recommended a score of "six" for Petitioner answer to this problem. There was no change from the initial scoring.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner additional credit for his answer to question number 290 on the principles and practice portion of the electrical engineering examination administered for the Board of Professional Engineers on October 25 and 26, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bahman Behzadi Post Office Box 290931 Tampa, Florida 33687 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request for license by endorsement as a professional engineer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, James R. Eason (Petitioner), is the pavement management coordinator for the Hernando County Public Works Department. He is a registered professional engineer in the State of Georgia, having received Professional Engineering Registration Number 17320 in 1988. In March 1997, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers (Board), seeking licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer in this state. On July 1, 1997, the Board issued its preliminary decision in the form of a letter advising Petitioner that his application had been denied. As grounds, the Board stated that Petitioner had received a raw score of 67 with five points awarded for Veterans Preference on the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. The letter further explained that a raw score of 70 or above was required in order for his score on the Georgia examination to be recognized in the State of Florida and that "Chapter 471, F.S. does not provide for awarding of points for Veterans Preference." The denial of the application prompted Petitioner to bring this action. Petitioner is a graduate of, and holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from, the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has a record of four years active engineering experience of a character indicating competence to be in responsible charge of engineering. The parties have also stipulated he is of good moral character, and he has never been under investigation in another state for any act which would constitute a violation of Chapters 455 or 471, Florida Statutes. Petitioner passed the Fundamentals portion of the professional engineering examination administered in 1973 by the State of Georgia. He obtained a score of more than 70. In April 1988, Petitioner took the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. A grade of 70 was required to pass the Georgia examination. Petitioner received a grade of 67 on the initial scoring of the Principles and Practice portion of the examination, plus a five-point Veterans Preference credit, for a total grade of 72. The Veterans Preference credit is provided by Georgia law to all candidates who are members or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States and meet certain service requirements. In Petitioner's case, he had served eight years on active duty as a member of the United States Naval Reserve, and he was honorably discharged as a Lieutenant on July 3, 1969, upon expiration of his active duty commitment. At least ninety days of his active duty military service was during wartime or at a time when military personnel were committed by the President of the United States. The examination administered by the State of Georgia in April 1988 was a national examination published by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, and it was identical to the examination administered by the State of Florida at that time. Florida, like Georgia, requires a grade of 70 to pass the examination, but it does not provide a Veterans Credit for service to candidates who are members or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States. Therefore, in the State of Georgia, a veteran can pass the examination with a raw score as low as 65. To this extent, the two examinations are not substantially equivalent. Among other things, Petitioner pointed out at hearing that he needed only three points to achieve a passing grade on the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. Therefore, he concluded that the awarding of that amount of extra points for being a veteran amounted to only a single standard deviation, and thus the extra points were immaterial in relation to the overall score. However, the Board does not construe this three-point deficiency as being "immaterial," and had Petitioner received the same score in Florida, he would not have passed the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of November 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Mason, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Brooksville, Florida 34605-1900 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for licensure as a professional engineer. Petitioner took the licensure examination in October, 1992, and received an overall score of 68.10. The minimum passing score for the exam was 70. The examination used by the Department is a nationally recognized test administered and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The scoring plan utilized by NCEES in this case provided, in pertinent part, that the score of 4 would be given where the applicant's response showed more than rudimentary knowledge but was insufficient to demonstrate competence. Petitioner received the score of 4 on problem #120 and felt his answer should have received a higher grade. To receive a score of 6 on problem #120, Petitioner's solution would have shown minimum competence by indicating the required volume of solids taken as the required volume of fill with all other analysis and computations being correct. According to the scoring plan, only "modest" errors in cost analysis or volume analysis computations are permitted to receive a grade of 6. Petitioner admitted that his calculation of volume on problem #120 was incorrect, but felt that since the error was only 10-15 percent, such error was reasonable given that he had correctly analyzed the majority of the problem. Petitioner's calculations for problem #120 were approximately 5900 cubic yards from the correct answer. Since Petitioner's volume calculations were incorrect, no credit was given for the cost analysis. Petitioner's error was not a "modest" miscalculation as set forth by the scoring plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the professional engineer examination administered in October, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 19th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2652 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraph a) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph b) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph c) is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph d) is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ali Khalilahmadi 12755 S.W. 60 Lane Miami, Florida 33183 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's academic record meets the academic requirements that are prerequisites to taking the Fundamentals of Engineering examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted an application for approval to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. The Petitioner studied engineering at the Tongji University in the People's Republic of China from 1991 to 1995. He majored in Building Engineering and was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Engineering on July 10, 1995. Beginning in September of 1995, the Petitioner studied engineering at the graduate level at Tongji University. His graduate studies lasted until April of 1998, at which time he was awarded the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Structural Engineering. During the course of his graduate studies at Tongji University from September of 1995 until April of 1998, the Petitioner completed a total of 38 semester credit hours. Those semester credit hours included the following courses with their indicated semester credit hours: Applied Statistics 2 credit hours Numerical Analysis 3 credit hours The courses titled Applied Statistics and Numerical Analysis are both higher mathematics courses. In the fall of 2000, the Petitioner began further graduate studies in engineering at Auburn University. He studied at Auburn University through the spring of 2002. The courses taken by the Petitioner at Auburn University included the following, with the indicated number of semester credit hours: Advanced Structural Analysis 3 credit hours Advanced Stress Analysis 3 credit hours Structural Dynamics I 3 credit hours Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics 3 credit hours The course titled Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics is a higher mathematics class. The other three Auburn courses listed immediately above, if not pure mathematics courses, are certainly courses which involve the application of advanced principles of mathematics. To successfully complete such courses, a person would have to be well-grounded in higher mathematics. In the fall of 2002, the Petitioner transferred to the University of Florida where he continued his graduate studies in engineering. On December 20, 2003, the University of Florida awarded the Petitioner the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Civil Engineering. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 20.007 the Petitioner submitted his educational credentials to an educational evaluator approved by the Board. The evaluator selected by the Petitioner was Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. (Silny). Following its evaluation of the Petitioner's educational credentials, Silny prepared a Report of Evaluation of Educational Credentials (Silny Report) dated June 15, 2005. The Silny Report reached the conclusion that the Petitioner's undergraduate education at Tongji University was not the equivalent of a degree in engineering earned from a program approved by ABET. Silny was of the view that the Petitioner's undergraduate course of study at Tongji University was not equivalent because his curriculum was deficient five semester credit hours in higher mathematics and basic sciences and was deficient one semester credit hour in humanities and social sciences.1 The conclusions reached in the Silny Report were based on an evaluation of the Petitioner's undergraduate course work at Tongji University from 1991 to 1995. The Silny Report did not take into consideration any of the courses taken by the Petitioner during his graduate studies at Tongji University from 1995 to 1998, during his graduate studies at Auburn University from 2000 to 2002, or during his graduate studies at the University of Florida from 2002 to 2003. During his undergraduate engineering studies at Tongji University, the Petitioner completed 36 semester hour credits of course work in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences. Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University represent less study than semester credit hours completed at an accredited engineering school in a university in the United States of America. Specifically, Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University are the equivalent of only 75 percent of semester credit hours earned in accredited engineering programs in the United States of America. Accordingly, when Silny evaluated the Petitioner's undergraduate education credentials, Silny multiplied the 36 semester credit hours the Petitioner had completed at Tongji University in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences by a factor of 0.75, and concluded that those 36 semester credit hours were equivalent to only 27 semester credit hours at an accredited engineering program in the United States of America.2 Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007 includes the following requirements regarding applicants with degrees from foreign institutions: Applicants having degrees from foreign institutions shall be required to document “substantial equivalency” to the 2002 ABET Accreditation Yearbook for Accreditation Cycle Ended September 30, 2002 engineering criteria. This document is hereby incorporated by reference. In order to document “substantial equivalency” to an ABET accredited engineering program, the applicant must demonstrate: 32 college credit hours of higher mathematics and basic sciences. The hours of mathematics must be beyond algebra and trigonometry and must emphasize mathematical concepts and principles rather than computation. Courses in probability and statistics, differential calculus, integral calculus, and differential equations are required. Additional courses may include linear algebra, numerical analysis, and advanced calculus. As for the hours in basic sciences, courses in general chemistry and calculus-based general physics are required, with at least a two semester (or equivalent) sequence of study in either area. Additional basic sciences courses may include life sciences (biology), earth sciences (geology), and advanced chemistry or physics. Computer skills and/or programming courses cannot be used to satisfy mathematics or basic science requirements. 16 college credit hours in humanities and social sciences. Examples of traditional courses in this area are philosophy, religion, history, literature, fine arts, sociology, psychology, political science, anthropology, economics, and no more than 6 credit hours of languages other than English or other than the applicant’s native language. Courses in technology and human affairs, history of technology, professional ethics and social responsibility are also acceptable. Courses such as accounting, industrial management, finance, personnel administration, engineering economics and military training are not acceptable. Courses which instill cultural values are acceptable, while routine exercises of personal craft are not. 48 college credit hours of engineering science and engineering design. Courses in this area have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application. Examples of traditional engineering science courses are mechanics, thermodynamics, electrical and electronic circuits, materials science, transport phenomena, and computer science (other than computer programming skills). Courses in engineering design stress the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation. In order to promote breadth, at least one engineering course outside the major disciplinary area is required. In addition, evidence of attainment of appropriate laboratory experience, competency in English, and understanding of the ethical, social, economic and safety considerations of engineering practice must be presented. As for competency in English, transcripts of course work completed, course content syllabi, testimonials from employers, college level advanced placement tests, Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores of at least 550 in the paper- based version, or 213 in the computer-based version, will be accepted as satisfactory evidence.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued concluding that the Petitioner has met the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, and is eligible to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 29th day of March, 2006.
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 in this proceeding is whether Michael Reggia meets the Florida licensure requirements for a professional engineer in the field of manufacturing engineering. The issue is specifically whether the practice and principles portion of the licensing exam was valid. Procedural Matters At the final hearing, Petitioner, Michael Reggia testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of manufacturing engineer, Howard Bender. Petitioner's exhibits #1 and #2, letters from Martin Marietta Aerospace and Harris Corporation, were rejected as hearsay. Exhibit #3, selected pages from Fundamentals of Engineering, published by the National Council of Engineering Examiners, was admitted without objection. Respondent presented two witnesses: Cass Hurc, P.E. (by deposition, by agreement of the parties) and Allen Rex Smith, Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers. Respondent initially submitted four exhibits: #1 and #4 were admitted without objection, #2(a) and #2(b), were admitted over Petitioner's objection, and #3 was withdrawn. The parties requested and were given 20 days to submit post-hearing briefs and proposed orders. On September 15, 1986, Petitioner filed his arguments and summary of she testimony and evidence. Nothing was filed by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Michael Reggia resides in Titusville and works at the Kennedy Space Center. He is licensed in the state of California as a professional engineer and has practiced in the field of manufacturing engineering. California, like Florida, does not license an individual in a particular discipline of engineering but requires that an individual select an area in which he or she will be tested. Mr. Reggia took the professional engineering license exam in Florida in October 1985. For part two of the examination, Professional Practice and Principles, he chose to be tested in his field of manufacturing engineering. He achieved a score of 64.4; in order to pass, a score of 70 is required. The examination given in Florida is a national examination produced by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) for certification or licensure throughout the United States. The October 1985 exam was developed based upon an extensive survey study initiated by NCEE in 1979. A report of that study was published in March 1981 as "A Task Analysis of Licensed Engineers". (Respondent's exhibit #4) The primary purpose of the study was to aid NCEE in developing"... fair, meaningful, uniform, and objective standards with which to measure minimum competency for professional licensure." (exhibit #4, page E1) In drafting an exam the NCEE relies on the societies representing various engineering disciplines to submit examination problems for consideration. The Society of Manufacturing Engineers, through its professional registration committee, provides that service on behalf of the manufacturing engineers. The October 1985 examination for manufacturing engineers did not include questions relating to electrical engineering, which is Mr. Reggia's sub- area of emphasis in the area of manufacturing engineering. Since manufacturing engineering includes overlap into the basic engineering disciplines, Mr. Reggia contends the exam was one-sided and invalid as he felt it concentrated on tool designing and mechanical engineering. Some industries, particularly the aerospace industries now include a substantial number of electrical engineers on their staff. Engineering is an evolving discipline and manufacturing engineering has undergone changes with new technologies in recent years. One way of addressing the diversity and changes in the field is to provide a two-book exam that would offer the applicant a wider variety of problems from which he or she could select. This has been recommended to the NCEE by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Another approach, and the one utilized by the NCEE, is to conduct periodic surveys to determine the tasks which engineers are actually performing and the level of judgement required to perform the tasks effectively. It would be impossible, and perhaps inappropriate to develop an exam that would test each individual only on his or her particular expertise. In the area of manufacturing engineering the exams developed by NCEE are passed by 65- 75 percent of the candidates, a rate which is comparable to that of the mechanical engineers for their exam. Seven out of ten applicants passed the same exam which Mr. Reggia took in October 1985.
Findings Of Fact L.B. Thanki received a degree in Civil Engineering at the University of Durham at Kings College, Newcastle Upon Tyne in the United Kingdom in 1956. Petitioner received a batchelor of law degree from Sardar Patel University (India) in 1967. This degree is the equivalent of two years study in law. The degree obtained from the University of Durham is not the equivalent of the degree received from an ABET approved university in the United States because it lacks 16 credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented no evidence that his degree from the University of Durham or the curriculum he completed at any other university included the missing 16 hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented a certificate (which was not offered into evidence) that he had completed a course in computer services meeting the board's evidentiary requirements of computer skills.
Recommendation Based on foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. N. AYERS 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 10th day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: B. Thanki 1106 East Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Jack L. McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carlos Martinez Mallen, is an applicant for licensure by endorsement to become a professional engineer in the State of Florida. He filed his application for licensure with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (hereinafter "Board") in January 1988, relying on the facts that he was licensed in Spain approximately 25 years ago and has approximately 30 years of experience as a professional engineer. The Board subsequently determined that he could not be considered for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never taken a licensing examination in the United States which is substantially equivalent to the examination required for licensure by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, and described in Chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. Further, Petitioner has never been licensed in any state or territory of the United States, although he does hold a license to practice engineering in Spain. On the other hand, Petitioner's engineering experience record shows that he has considerable experience in the practice of engineering which would meet the additional experience requirements of Section 471.013, Florida Statutes. The Board, having determined that Petitioner does not qualify for licensure by endorsement, performed an analysis of Petitioner's application to determine whether his degree from the University of Madrid was an engineering degree which might qualify him to sit for the 1icensure examination and to ascertain if Petitioner could obtain licensure by that alternative method. An analysis was made by the Board's Education Advisory Committee to determine whether the curriculum for Petitioner's degree from the University of Madrid met the requirements of Rule 21H-20.006, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis was specifically directed to determine whether Petitioner's curriculum conformed to the criteria for accrediting engineering programs set forth by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The analysis of Petitioner's degree shows that, when compared with ABET criteria, Petitioner's engineering education was deficient four semester hours in mathematics and included no courses in engineering design, sixteen semester hours of which are required by ABET criteria. Further, Petitioner's education included no computer application of engineering design programs, a mandated requirement by ABET standards. Petitioner has never taken any of these courses subsequent to receiving his degree in Spain. Petitioner's degree, rather than being an engineering degree, is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in chemistry. Petitioner's degree is significantly deficient in required course areas, so that it does not meet the Board's criteria. Petitioner thus cannot be considered as an applicant for examination since in order to sit for the professional engineer examination in the State of Florida, one must have an engineering degree which meets standards acceptable to the Board. Finally, Petitioner's background was reviewed to determine whether he could be considered for licensure under a different provision for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never held a professional engineer registration or license from another State of the United States. The Board has never interpreted the word "state" found in the statutes and rules regulating the licensure of professional engineers in Florida to include foreign counties. Petitioner is not a graduate of the State University System. Petitioner did not notify the Department before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in engineering work on July 1, 1981, and wished to take advantage of a temporary educational waiver. As a result of the Board's review of all avenues to licensure available to Petitioner, Petitioner's application was denied either to sit for the examination to become a professional engineer or to be licensed by endorsement, unless and until he meets the educational requirements to sit for the professional engineer examination.
Recommendation Based upon 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 and further finding that Petitioner's educational background does not meet the requirements necessary to take the examination to become licensed in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of March, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 28th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5973 Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 0.00, .10, .20, .30, .40, .50, 1.10, 1.20, 2.20, 3.10, 3.20, 3.40, 3.60, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 5.00, 5.30, 5.40, 5.41, 5.50, 5.51, 5.52, 6.00, 6.10, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, 6.24, 6.25, 6.26, 7.00, 7.40, and 7.50 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.21, 3.00, 4.00, 7.10, 7.20, 730, 7.41, 7.42, and 7.43 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.22 and 2.10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 3.30, 3.50, 3.70, 4.12, 4.20, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.20 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Office of Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carlos Martinez Mallen 33C Venetian Way #66 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
