The Issue Whether Respondent was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful in examining Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 30, 1998, Petitioner applied for certification as a firefighter with the Department under the provision relating to equivalency as a firefighter certified in another state. Petitioner met the requirements for equivalency and on November 3, 1998, was informed by letter from the Department of an Equivalency Examination. On November 23, 1998, Petitioner took the Examination, scoring a 15 percent on the practical portion. Points were deducted from Petitioner's score for the following items: Part I Breathing apparatus inhalation 5 Donning time over time limit 10 Hose and nozzle Operation 5 (Protective clothing not worn properly) Operation of nozzle 20 (poor control, closing nozzle too fast, nozzle not fully opened, nozzle opened when water arrives) Hose and nozzle operation over time limit 10 24' ladder extension 20 (did not check for overhead obstructions, lost control of ladder, did not tie a clove hitch) 24' ladder extension operation over time limit 5 Part II Improper tying on roof ladder 5 Failed to correctly demonstrate the advancing 5 and uncharged 1 3/4" hoseline up a ladder __ Total points deducted 85 A score of at least 70 percent is required to pass the Practical Examination. The Department sent Petitioner a letter on December 3, 1998, notifying him of his score on the Practical Examination and informing him that he failed. Petitioner was notified by letter dated December 10, 1998, from the Department of a retest on February 22, 1999. On February 22, 1999, Petitioner took the retest of the Practical Examination. Points were deducted from Petitioner's score for the following items: Part I a) Breathing apparatus inhalation 5 b) Donning time over time limit 5 c) Hose and nozzle operation over time limit 10 f) 24' ladder extension 5 g) (fly section not fully extended) 24' ladder extension operation over time limit 10 Part II Retied bowline 5 Unable to find requested material in guidebook 5 __ Total points deducted 45 Petitioner's score on the retest was 55. The Department sent Petitioner a letter on March 3, 1999, notifying him of his score and informing him that he failed. On March 4, 1999, the Department issued a letter of intent to deny, denying his certification as a firefighter for failure to meet the certification requirements. There are four events on the Practical Examination that are timed: testing the seal on the breathing apparatus, donning the apparatus, deploying and using the hose and nozzle, and extending and placing the 24-foot ladder. The inhalation test requires a check of the face seal after donning and fitting the mask of not less than 10 seconds. The Petitioner received a 5-point deduction for not maintaining the seal for the full 10 seconds. The total donning operation must be completed in not more than one minute and twenty-nine seconds. Examinees receive a 5-point penalty for each thirty-second increment they exceed the allowable time up to a maximum of 40 points. The Petitioner exceeded the allowable time by two seconds and received a 5-point deduction. The deployment and operation of the hose and nozzle requires an examinee to pull a water-filled hose a given distance, then turn the hose on and direct it properly on a specified type of fire. The examinee must complete the task in not more than one minute and fifty-nine seconds. For each thirty-second increment over the allowable time, 5-points are deducted from the examinee's score up to a maximum of 35 points. The Petitioner exceeded the allowable time by forty- five seconds, and received a 10-point deduction. The raising of the extension ladder requires the examinee to carry a 24-foot extension ladder to the side of a building, extend the ladder fully, and place the ladder against the wall of the building using proper procedures within a maximum allowable time of two minutes and twenty-nine seconds. For each thirty-second increment an examinee exceeds the allowable time, the examinee receives a deduction of 5-points, up to a maximum of 35 points. In each of the listed tasks above, as well as the other un-timed portions of the examination, the examinee can lose additional points for using the wrong technique or procedure. The total number of points that can be deducted from an examinee's score is 450 points. Mr. McCall from the Fire College testified concerning how the times on the examination were normed. The times of various examinees taking the examination before timing was required were taken and their times averaged. An additional increment of time was added to the average time required to complete each event. For each thirty-second increment an examinee exceeded the set time, 5 points are deducted. The method of arriving at the mean time for the events is sound; however, Mr. McCall reported that the data upon which the time standards were based had been destroyed. There was no evidence presented on the manner in which the point deductions schedules were established. They are uniformly linear in terms of the time limits imposed and points deducted. That is to say, that for every thirty seconds in excess of the allowable time, an additional 5 points is deducted. The Fire Colleges data reveals that only 35 percent of out-of-state applicants are able to qualify for certification by equivalency. This, at fact value, appears to be a low number for individuals who have already been examined and re frequently experienced firefighters. However, many of the tasks on the practical test require physical agility and prowess which may be affected by age or injury. No information is maintained regarding the demographic data of equivalency examinees regarding age and sex; however, it is noted that the statutes provide a special exemption for out-of-state firefighters hired to fill top positions within department. During the course of the hearing, it became evident that the number of points which potentially could be deducted totaled 450 points. It also became evident that the deduction of points was directly from 100 points with which each examinee started. This deduction was direct and was not scaled, weighed, or converted to arrive at a final score. The practical examination has a possible 450 points which can be deducted from 100 points. An examinee's score is the result of subtracting the points he or she loses from 100 points. The statute and rule provides that passing on the written and practical portions of the examination will be 70 percent. The Petitioner had a total of 45 points deducted on his performance examination from a total of 450 possible points that could be deducted. He missed 10 percent of the possible points which could be deducted, or conversely made a score of 90 percent. By deducting up to 450 points from 100 points to arrive at a final score, the Respondent has adopted a scoring system which is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the statute and rules. The fact that the Respondent has done this for a long time does not validate the process. Contrary to the suggestion by Respondent that looking at the number of possible deductions is a "red Herring," it is precisely the number of possible points "available." If the Respondent uses a 30 percent error rate when the base is 450, an applicant could lose up to 135 points. The Petitioner lost 45 points, only a third of the allowable points using the Respondent's method. Petitioner passed the written examination with a score of 86. The Petitioner should receive a score of 90 on his practical examination based upon the number of points on the examination and the statutory guidance. Based upon the foregoing the Petitioner's grade should be entered as a 90.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner be licensed. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 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 8th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kurt P. Larson 2225 Inverness Drive Pensacola, Florida 32503 Shiv Narayan Persaud, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should receive additional credit for his answers to questions 121 and/or 222 on the civil/sanitary engineer examination administered on April 18 and 19, 1997.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of professional engineers in this state and for the regulation of the engineering profession. Petitioner graduated from the University of South Florida in December 1990, with a degree in geo-technical engineering, a sub-specialty of civil engineering. He is not, nor does he claim to be, a structural engineer. He has practiced in the field of geo-technical engineering since his graduation and has taught soil mechanics at the master’s level at the university. He sat for the professional engineer’s examination administered by the Respondent in April 1997. Thereafter, by grade report dated July 29, 1997, the Department’s Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner that he had earned a score of 69.00 on the examination he had taken. Since a passing score for the examination which Petitioner took is 70.00, Petitioner failed the examination. Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge the grading of examination questions numbers 121 and 222, on each of which he earned a score of four. The maximum obtainable score on each question is ten. On question 121, the candidate is given a situation involving a sheet-pile wall section, and is asked to (a) sketch and dimension the earth pressure diagram acting on the wall after the proposed dredging has been completed; and (b) determine the factor of safety against the kick-out after the dredging. Scoring of the Petitioner’s examination was done by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (Council). The Council determined that, with regard to requirement (a), Petitioner’s pressure distribution was of the correct form, but the labeling of the distribution had a major error. Petitioner assumed an incorrect factor which was deemed to be a major error calling for, under the approved scoring plan, a minimum four-point deduction. With regard to requirement (b), Petitioner chose not to solve for the factor of safety as he was required to do. This resulted in a minimum reduction of two additional points. This evaluation was concurred by Mr. Adams, the Board’s expert witness, in his testimony at hearing. Mr. Adams noted that where, as here, the engineer is dealing with soil mechanics, the at-rest conditions are one thing. The active and passive (A and P) conditions are the more dynamic, and here, where the problem calls for removal of soil from in front of a retaining wall, A and P pressures should have been used instead of at-rest pressures. Adams also concluded that Petitioner’s cited authority was not valid in this case. This authority used the at-rest pressure coefficient when all the authorities Mr. Adams could find used the A and P pressure coefficient. Petitioner admits that the coefficients utilized in determining earth pressures are A, P and at-rest (O). In this case, the whole problem must be considered. A tie-back system is presented, and in that case the sheet pile and the tie-back are assumed to hold the soil behind the wall in an at-rest condition so long as the sheet-pile wall does not move or deflect. Petitioner contends that Mr. Adams’ determination that removing the soil would destroy stasis and cause the wall to move is erroneous. In fact, he contends, the sheet-pile wall and the anchor system must move before the Board’s argument holds. He cites an authority in support of his position which was also cited to the Council scorer who, at Petitioner’s request, rescored his answer. The Council official who rescored Petitioner’s answer did not have access to Petitioner’s cited authority but rejected the citation as either incorrectly cited or incorrect in itself. Petitioner’s error called for a four-point reduction in score as to (a). Further, as to requirement (b), Petitioner, though asked to solve for the factor of safety against rotation, chose not to do so. This calls for an additional two-point reduction. Independent review of Petitioner’s answer, including an evaluation of his cited authority, and consideration of the other evidence pertinent to this issue, including his testimony, that of his witness, and the rescoring results by the Council, does not satisfy the undersigned that Petitioner’s answer merits additional credit. The score of four, as awarded, is appropriate. Question 222 deals with a cantilevered retaining wall with a wide foundation and piling in two rows, some in front and some in back, to support it. The candidate is required to determine the total lateral thrust per linear foot acting on the wall in issue; to determine the vertical load on a front row pile; and to explain possible ways that the pile foundation can resist the lateral thrust. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner incorrectly calculated the lateral load by omitting the proper depth of the wall. With regard to the vertical loading, the Petitioner did not get to the proper vertical load on the front pile but received partial credit for other calculations he performed. As for the last requirement, one part of Petitioner’s answer was incorrect in that he did not explain passive pressures properly. What Petitioner mentioned was incorrect, and he did not mention battering of the piles, which was expected to be noted. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner got two parts of the question correct, each of which is worth two points. Therefore, he received a score of four points. Petitioner contends that the Board and the Council are being too restrictive in their approach to the problem and not taking into account the whole problem. He claims that though he arrived at the wrong figure in calculating the lateral load, that does not justify his receiving no credit for that segment since the method he used for calculating the thrust was correct. He admits to having erroneously neglected the weight of the soil, but contends that his method of determining the solutions to resist lateral thrust is as good as that of the Board and the Council. Petitioner was given only partial credit for his use of the correct equation to calculate the lateral thrust because he used the wrong depth. His answer to the second part was wrong in that he completely neglected the weight of the soil and calculating the pile load, even though he used the correct figure to multiply the load per foot of the wall. His answer to the third requirement, dealing with lateral resistance of the pile, was insufficient to warrant a full award. Taken together, his answer, in the opinion of the Council’s scorer, merited only an award of four points. Petitioner did not show sufficient basis for increasing this award. The evidence presented by the Board clearly established that both questions in issue provided enough information to allow the candidate to answer them correctly, and both are questions that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The scoring plan for these questions was not shown to be inappropriate, and there is no evidence that it was not properly utilized.
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 in this matter denying Petitioner additional credit for his answers to Questions 121 and 222 on the April 1997 Civil Engineer Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1998, 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 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri V. Jean 3273 Tanglewood Trail Palm Harbor, Florida 34685 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's apparent failure to achieve a passing score on the written portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standards retest resulted from improper administration or grading of the examination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Cruz's petition and denying his application for certification as a Florida firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Hipolito Cruz, Jr. 1214 Southwest 46 Avenue Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 James Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2008, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants.1/ Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's first attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on September 26, 2011, and included four practical components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills.2/ To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn a score of at least 70 on all sections. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded. For instance, the ladder operation consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee must complete within the maximum time of four minutes and 30 seconds. The ladder operation also requires the examinee to fulfill ten mandatory components, which include, among other things, maintaining control of the ladder at all times and securing the "dogs"3/ properly. Pertinent to the instant case, noncompliance with respect to any of the mandatory elements results in automatic failure, irrespective of the examinee's performance in connection with the 15 evaluative components. It is undisputed that Petitioner achieved passing scores on the fireground skills, SCBA, and hose components of the retention examination; Petitioner was unable, however, to complete the ladder evaluation within the prescribed time limit, which resulted in an automatic failure. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.4/ Petitioner's retest was administered on November 15, 2011, at the Ocala Fire College, during which he passed the SCBA and hose portions of the examination. (For reasons not explained during the final hearing, Petitioner was not required to re-take the fireground skills component.) Once again, however, Petitioner failed the ladder evaluation, as established by the final hearing testimony of Tuffy Dixon, the field examiner on that occasion.5/ Mr. Dixon explained, credibly, that Petitioner scored an automatic failure because he neglected to lock one of the ladder's "dogs"——one of the ladder evaluation's ten mandatory components.6/ Accordingly, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner failed the November 15, 2011, retention examination retest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order denying Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of compliance as a fire fighter under the provisions of Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner completed 240 hours of firefighter minimum standards training at the Orlando/Orange County Fire Training Academy in 1982 and was issued a certificate of completion at the end of the course. Between 1982 and 1985, Petitioner served as a reserve firefighter with the Winter Park Fire Department. From 1985 to June 1989, Petitioner was on inactive status. From June 1989 until March 1990, Petitioner completed technical training in American Sign Language. From 1990 through 1993, Petitioner completed a Bachelor of Science degree, with a double major in business and marketing. Between 1996 and February 1997, Petitioner was re-certified and also became a fire inspector. In February 1997, Petitioner was awarded an Associate of Science degree in Fire Science. Petitioner has served as a contract fire inspector with the Orange County Fire Department and has been a principal in a private arson investigation company for the past thirteen or fourteen years in Orange County, Florida. Florida law was amended in 1989 to require that a person pass an examination as prescribed by the Department, in addition to completing the firefighter minimum standards training program and being qualified for employment to be issued a certificate of compliance. Promulgated in 1991 and amended in 1995, a Florida administrative rule granted those persons that had been issued a certificate of completion by the opportunity to upgrade their certificate of completion to a certificate of compliance by June 30, 1995, without having to comply with the current requirements of the law. Petitioner did not upgrade her certificate of completion to a certificate of compliance by June 30, 1995. During the years 1991 through 1995, Petitioner made no effort to keep informed about the current requirements of becoming certified as a firefighter. Petitioner had a total of four years in which to upgrade her certificate of completion into a certificate of compliance. More than 11,000 certificates of completion were upgraded to certificates of compliance by June 30, 1995; 2,900 were not. Eighty percent of those certificates of completion that had been issued by the State, since certificates of completion were first issued in 1969, were upgraded to certificates of compliance by June 30, 1995. Petitioner's first inquiry into the status of her certificate of completion and request for a certificate of compliance was made by letter dated August 12, 1997, to the Fire Marshall's office. Respondent responded to Petitioner's August 12, 1997, letter with a letter dated October 3, 1997, which informed Petitioner that any certificate of completion not upgraded by June 30, 1995, was revoked. Respondent's October 3, 1997, letter also informed Petitioner that failure to follow the procedures outlined in Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, for upgrading certificates of completion would require the individual to meet the current requirements of the law, which include having to complete 360 hours of firefighter minimum standards training, passing the Minimum Standards Certification Examination, and being qualified for employment according to Section 633.34, Florida Statutes, in order to be issued a certificate of compliance. There are no provisions in the rule for an extension after the cutoff date of June 30, 1995. There is no firefighter minimum standards training program consisting of 120 hours of instruction for the Petitioner to take which would enable Petitioner to meet the current requirements of Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, which require a total of 360 hours of firefighter minimum standards training, as Petitioner had completed only 240 hours of firefighter minimum standards training in 1982. Prior to 1984, a person needed both a certificate of completion and a certificate of compliance to become a firefighter. At that time, to be qualified for a certificate of compliance, a person had to successfully complete firefighter minimum standards training and satisfy the qualifications for employment found in Section 633.34, Florida Statutes. Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, was amended in 1984 with the result that the Respondent no longer issued certificates of completion, which had been issued since 1969, for the successful fulfillment of the firefighter minimum standards training program. Rule 4A-37.56 Florida Administrative Code, was amended in order to implement the amendments made in 1989 to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. Rule 4A-37.056, Florida Administrative Code, was amended to establish the Minimum Standards Certification Examination, as required by the 1989 amendments to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, was promulgated in order to implement the amendments made in 1989 to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. In order to upgrade a certificate of completion to a certificate of compliance, Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, provided that a person who had been issued a certificate of completion was required to make application to the Respondent for certification as a firefighter. Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, as initially promulgated in 1991, stated that certificates of completion had to be upgraded to certificates of compliance by June 30, 1993. Respondent published a Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the promulgation of Rule 4A-37.0515, in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 15, 1991. Respondent keeps a mailing list, which includes every fire department and training center in the State of Florida, to facilitate mailing out notices of anything that effects the fire service, including changes in the statutes and rules governing the fire service. Respondent sent a copy of the Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter, 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the promulgation of Rule 4A-37.0515, to every fire department and training center in the State of Florida on July 26, 1991. Respondent sent a copy of the Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the promulgation of Rule 4A-37.0515, to every fire department and training center in Orange County, Florida appearing on the Department's mailing list. Petitioner has lived and worked in Orange County, Florida, all of her life. Individual notices were not sent to certificate holders. Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, became effective on June 30, 1991. Petitioner did not upgrade her certificate of completion to a certificate of compliance by June 30, 1993. Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, was amended in 1993 to require that firefighter minimum standards training would be composed of at least 360 hours of instruction. Respondent published a Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter, 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the Rule 4A-37.0515, in the Florida Administrative Law Weekly on December 2, 1994. Respondent also sent a copy of the Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter, 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the amendment of Rule 4A-37.0515, to every fire department and training center in the State of Florida on April 24, 1995. Respondent sent a copy of the Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter, 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the amendment of Rule 4A-37.0515, to every fire department and training center in Orange County, Florida appearing on the Department's mailing list on April 24, 1995. Notice of Changes to the rule were not sent to individuals who held certificates. On March 20, 1995, Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, was amended, extending the deadline by which certificates of completion could be upgraded to certificates of compliance from June 30, 1993, to June 30, 1995. Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, was further amended to state that those individuals who held certificates of completion but did not upgrade them by June 30, 1995, would be required to meet the current requirements of Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, which included having to complete 360 hours of firefighter minimum standards training, passing the Minimum Standards Certification Examination, and being qualified for employment according to Section 633.34, Florida Statutes, in order to be issued a certificate of compliance. Certificates of completion which were not upgraded to certificates of compliance by June 30, 1995, were revoked that same day.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's request for a certificate of compliance by the Department's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training of the Division of the State Fire Marshal. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 13th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen Mohr 4702 Abaca Street Orlando, Florida 32808 M. Joel Prather, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should deny an application for certification as a Firefighter II on the alleged grounds that Petitioner failed the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 633, Florida Statutes (2009).1 At a date not disclosed in the record, Petitioner applied for a certification as a Firefighter II. On September 21, 2009, Petitioner took the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination (“initial examination”). Petitioner failed to pass the Ladder, Hose, and Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) components of the practical portion of the initial examination. On November 17, 2009, Petitioner took the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination Re-test (“examination re-test”) for the Ladder, Hose, and SCBA components. Petitioner failed to pass the Ladder component of the examination re-test. By Notice of Denial dated November 20, 2009, Respondent notified Petitioner that Petitioner had failed the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner alleges that, during her initial examination on September 21, 2009, there was an equipment malfunction during the Ladder component of the practical portion of the examination. Petitioner bases her allegations on the Ladder component score sheet for the initial examination (“score sheet”) that was received by Petitioner after she completed the initial examination and examination re-test. The score sheet for the initial examination states that Petitioner failed the Ladder component of the initial examination because Petitioner exceeded the time period to complete the ladder evolution and failed to fully extend the ladder with the dogs locked. In the “Comments Required for Failure” section, the score sheet listed, “Safety latch on dawgs [sic] stuck in top of rung. Unsafe act. Over time.” Petitioner alleges that the statement that a piece of equipment was "stuck" is proof of an equipment malfunction. Two experts testified during the hearing that the "stuck" equipment was caused by operator error rather than an equipment malfunction. The testimony of the two experts was credible and persuasive. Petitioner, as the examinee, could have remedied the "stuck" equipment by raising the ladder to release the finger and then lowering the ladder to allow the dogs to lock onto the rung. The failure to do so was an "unsafe act” that created a safety hazard in which the fly section of the ladder could have fallen down to the ground. A preponderance of the evidence does not show that Petitioner failed the Ladder component of the initial examination because of an equipment malfunction. Rather, the preponderance of evidence shows that Petitioner failed to have the dogs locked, which is required by the examination. A preponderance of the evidence also shows that Petitioner did not complete the ladder evolution within the required time during the re-take examination. The excessive time resulted in an automatic failure of the re-take examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order denying Kim Lashawn Edmonds’ application for certification as a Firefighter II. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner, Christie Beverly, should be certified as a firefighter or, in the alternative, whether Petitioner should be allowed to re-take the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency responsible for testing all candidates for certification as a firefighter, for conducting such tests, and for issuing a certification upon the successful completion of the minimum requirements by a candidate. One such examination administered by the Department is the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination (firefighter examination). Petitioner successfully completed her firefighting training at the Manatee Technical Institute (MTI). Jeff Durling is an adjunct instructor at MTI, whose main purpose is to get candidates prepared for the state firefighter examination. During his particular MTI course, Mr. Durling's students were taught the three main types of hose pulls: flat, triple layer, and minuteman. Larry W. Schwartz, Jr., is the fire science coordinator of MTI. He oversees MTI's operations and is directly involved in its curriculum. Although Mr. Schwartz is familiar with the double minuteman hose pull, MTI has not taught it in the past because that particular pull has not been tested. The firefighter examination has a written portion, as well as four practical evolutions or components (self-contained breathing apparatus, hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills).2/ In order to be certified, a candidate has to achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each component. On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, at the MTI campus, Petitioner successfully completed all portions of the firefighter examination, except the hose component of the practical examination. Petitioner conceded that she exceeded the maximum time allowed to complete the hose component by eight seconds. At some point, Petitioner was notified that she did not receive a passing score on the hose component in the June 2011 firefighter practical examination. Petitioner was advised she could take the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Retest (retest) within six months of the June 2011 firefighter examination. Petitioner was required to successfully complete the retest or she would be required to re-take the firefighter course before she could take the test again. On Friday, September 23, 2011, Petitioner presented for her retest at the Florida State Fire College (Fire College) in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner arrived by 7:30 a.m. for her retest. There were over 403/ candidates present to take either an original firefighter practical test or a retest. The retest course was not ready at 7:30 a.m. On September 23, 2011, Eric Steves was also a retest candidate at the Fire College. Mr. Steves observed that the retest course was not set up when he arrived at 7:30 a.m. Further, he observed that the retest course was slightly different than the original practical test course in June 2011. There was no walk-through of the retest course prior to starting it, because the retest course was set up after the other candidates took their test and bad weather was approaching. Although Mr. Steves did not pass his retest, his testimony is credible as he has no vested interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Dennis Hackett is the standards supervisor with the Department's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training (Bureau). Mr. Hackett has administered and scored the minimum standard firefighter examination for candidates, including the retest examination. The majority of the candidates were given another practical test, not the retest administered to Petitioner. Mr. Hackett confirmed that the retest course was not ready at 7:30 a.m. on September 23, 2011. The Fire College was capable and did have the equipment to set up two different hose load courses. It is apparent that the Fire College adheres to a strict protocol in the administration of the firefighter testing; yet, it was not adhered to on September 23, 2011. There was a change to the practical testing component of the firefighter examination being implemented. The majority of the candidates on September 23, 2011, took a different practical test than the retest administered to Petitioner and Mr. Steves. Thomas M. Johnson has been a field representative for the Department's Bureau for seven years. As a field representative, Mr. Johnson has administered and scored numerous firefighting examinations and retest examinations. Mr. Johnson testified that Petitioner's retest course "would be set up when we were done with the rest of the students." He further testified that the retest course "would be set up when we were done with the other students who were taking the new evolutions." Although Mr. Johnson testified that Petitioner's retest was administered in a uniform manner, the credible evidence supports the position that the retest was not conducted following the strict protocol of the Fire College. For Petitioner's retest, the course barrels were held in place by field instructors. Petitioner questioned Mr. Johnson regarding their participation, asking: "Is that standard practice?" Mr. Johnson's response of "It was that day," lends credence that it was not standard practice or part of the uniform retest protocol. Further, Mr. Johnson's testimony that Petitioner was "in a hurry" to complete her retest is illogical. Petitioner waited for 40 or more candidates to test before her, and then she had to wait for the retest course to be assembled before she could attempt the course. There was a great deal of discussion about the type of hose pull required during the retest examination. There was no clear definition of a minuteman hose load or a double minuteman hose load.4/ Whether or not the hose pull was a minuteman or a double minuteman is irrelevant as the retest course was not prepared or set up by 7:30 a.m. as required by the Department's own rule. Mr. Johnson scored Petitioner on the retest examination. The score sheet used on the practical retest examination portion reflected three types of Hose Advancements: Flat Load, Triple Layer Load, and Minuteman Load. (An option to pull a double minuteman load is not printed anywhere on the score sheet.) Further review of the Department's score sheet reveals that someone wrote "4 LR"5/ out beyond the phrase: "Hose Advancement (1¾") ~~ Maximum Time 1:25." This phrase, "4 LR," is purported to mean that Mr. Johnson: asked her [Petitioner] to pull the left-side pre-connect, knock down the cone on the left first and then the cone on the right. And the reason it's above the minuteman is because that's the load she pulled, but it was not a minuteman. This "4 LR" phrase is well above the blank line found beside the words "Minuteman Load." The undersigned does not accept the "4 LR" phrase as an indication that the "double minuteman" hose pull was the retest examination option. Further, the score sheet also has blanks to be filled in by the scorer following the phrase: "Your target sequence is RT/Left or Left/RT ." However, the scorer did not fill in either blank. At the bottom of the page, there is an empty blank following "Candidate #," making it uncertain to whom this score sheet applies. On the score sheet, there is a written time of "2:39," the word "Fail" is circled, and there is a zero beside the "Score." The score sheet appears to be incomplete at best. Mr. Johnson was asked to confirm whether or not a double minuteman load was listed on the score sheet, and he confirmed that the phrase "double minuteman" load was not on the score sheet. The words "double minuteman" do not appear on the score sheet, nor is the type of hose load identified. It is impossible to determine what hose load Petitioner was directed to pull during her retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, enter a final order granting Petitioner's request to retest on the hose component of the practical portion of the firefighter examination and that Petitioner should be tested as if she were taking the retest within the six-month window for the retest. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents are entitled to a renewed license for their facility. HRS' position is that the renewal should be denied because the sleeping room windows do not comply with the 1981 Life Safety Code. The Brevigs argue that HRS's interpretation of the code is too rigid, that the 1985 code is the applicable edition, and that they are entitled to an exception contained within the later code.
Findings Of Fact Tom and Jeannie Brevig own Florida Haven Retirement Home #1, located in Maitland, Florida. They purchased the facility in 1981. Prior to 1984, Florida Haven was licensed as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) by the HRS District Office and fire safety inspections were conducted by Seminole County inspectors. In 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification acquired jurisdiction and a fire inspector from that office conducted an inspection in July 1984. At that time a citation was issued for deficiencies in the sleeping room windows. In October 1984, the Brevigs sold the facility. Ray Heyser is an inspector certified by the State Fire Marshal. He is employed by HRS' Office of Licensure and Certification and conducts inspections of ACLFs in accordance with Chapter 22 of the Life Safety Code. On July 2, 1985, he inspected Florida Haven and personally measured the windows. He found the following: The front north bedroom window had a clear opening of 16 inches high, by 48 inches wide, and the sill was 42 inches from the floor. The rear south bedroom window was 16 inches high, by 32 inches wide, and the sill was 42 inches from the floor. The side south bedroom window was 10 inches high, by 48 inches wide, with a 54 inch sill. The front south bedroom was 16 inches high, by 48 inches wide, with a 34 inch sill. The remaining front bedroom window was also 16 inches high, by 48 inches wide, with a 34 inch sill. Each of these bedrooms was used as a sleeping room. None of the rooms has exterior doors. The Life Safety Code requires that an outside window in a sleeping room have a clear opening of not less than 24 inches in height, 20 inches in width, and 5.7 square feet in area. The bottom of the opening must be no more than 44 inches from the floor. "Clear opening" means the unobstructed passage when the window is opened. The reasons for the requirement are to allow emergency egress and to permit access by fire service personnel who may be equipped with large cylinder breathing apparatus. None of the sleeping room windows at the facility met the height requirement for clear opening and one window was out of compliance as to the height from the floor. In January 1986, the Brevigs regained ownership of the facility and were granted a transfer license. In August 1986 the home was again cited for deficiencies in the windows. This was noted as a "Class III" deficiency and the recommendation was a "conditional license pending correction". (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) At a re-investigation in February 1987, the window deficiencies still existed. By a letter dated July 7, 1987, Tom Brevig was informed that his license for Florida Haven Retirement Home #1 expired on June 30, 1987. Since he had not corrected the deficiencies noted in his conditional license, he was told to relocate the residents. HRS adopted the 1985 Life Safety Code in April 1987. Both that code and the prior edition provide for exceptions or variances to the window requirements in certain circumstances. HRS' policy is that exceptions are only rarely granted, and then only when the applicant affirmatively presents its basis for an exception. Tom Brevig discussed the possibility of an exception with HRS's architect but did not make a specific proposal. Tom Brevig claims that he was given an exception by a prior HRS inspector, but the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification has nothing in writing that would indicate that an exception was granted. The ACLF Director for that HRS office has no knowledge that HRS ever approved the windows as a pre-existing means of escape or entry.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a renewal license be withheld from Florida Haven Retirement Home #1, until the deficiencies are corrected or the owner provides an alternative proposal consistent with the standards in the Life Safety Code, 1985 Edition and Rule 4A- 40.004, F.A.C. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 February, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by counsel for the Brevigs: Adopted in paragraph #1. Adopted in paragraph #2. Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. Mr. Brevig's argument is a conclusion based on the fact of his obtaining a license. He did not establish that the windows were approved or that their size was at issue when the Seminole County inspections were made. Adopted in substance in paragraph 3, although it was not clearly established that this was the first citation by HRS. It was the first citation by the OLC. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as uncorroborated hearsay. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary and a mischaracterization of the discussion as evidenced in the cited portions of the transcript. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as irrelevant and hearsay. Adopted in part in paragraph 6. Access from the outside is not the sole reason for the requirement, in spite of the testimony from witness Mauger. The plain language of the section of the Code and the Handbook explanation establish the requirement as relating to a means of escape from the inside. Rejected as hearsay and inconsistent with the history of Rule 4A-40.005, F.A.C. Adoption was in 1987, not 1986, according to the F.A.C. Addressed in paragraph 2, Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. This fact is not in issue. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service 400 West Robinson Street Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Thomas C. Brevig 1680 Maitland Avenue Maitland, Florida 32751 Michael J. Bittman, Esquire DEMPSEY AND GOLDSMITH, P.A Suite 500, Day Building 605 E. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's application for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida should be denied. Included within that question is the issue of whether the Petitioner successfully passed the Fireground Skills portion of the Minimum Standards Examination pursuant to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 4A-37.056 and 4A-37.062.
Findings Of Fact In July of 2002 the Petitioner applied for certification as a Florida Firefighter. In order to be accorded that status he had to take the Minimum Standards Examination. Prior to being allowed to take that examination applicants are required to successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course, consisting of a minimum of 360 hours of training at an approved school or training facility. The Minimum Standards Examination is structured in two parts: A written portion and a practical portion. The practical portion consists of four sections which are: the self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), the hose pull, the ladder operation, and Fireground Skills. In order to pass the practical evolutions an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each one. The Petitioner took the initial Minimum Standards Examination on December 11, 2002. Mr. Ralph Chase was the examiner for the Petitioner's initial Minimum Standards practical Examination. Mr. Chase is a field representative with the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training and has held that position for seven years. He is a certified EMT and holds numerous fire service certifications, including Instructor Level Three, Inspector Level Two, Fire Investigator Level Two, Fire Officer Level Two, and has been a certified Firefighter since 1974. The Petitioner did not pass either the written portion of the Minimum Standards Examination or the Fireground Skills portion. The Petitioner took his written re-test and Fireground Skills re-test on May 20, 2003. Although he passed the written portion of the re-test he failed the Fireground Skills portion of the practical re-test. Mr. Chase was his examiner for the Fireground Skills portion of the re-test examination. Assignment of examiners at the Minimum Standard Re-test is done by the choice of the examiner in charge that day. The examiners are then responsible for conducting the examinations for either all the odd-numbered students or the all the even- numbered students. That is to say, on the day of the re-test, students are assigned an applicant number. They are referred to by this number throughout the testing process to prevent the examiners from knowing whom they are grading. This is done for ease of reference and to prevent possible bias among the examiners. Mr. Chase conducted an orientation for the applicants, including the Petitioner, on the day of the re-test. During the orientation, the applicants were told how each portion of the exam was going to be graded and what would be expected from them. Mr. Chase also referred to and checked off an orientation check-list to ensure that each section was covered and explained. The students were allowed to ask questions about the orientation and the examinations, but were not allowed to ask for a demonstration of exactly how an exam will be conducted. On the day of the Petitioner's re-test, no student, including the Petitioner, had any questions concerning how any part of the Firegrounds Skills portion of the exam would be conducted or graded. Part four, or the Fireground Skills portion, of the minimum standard re-test exam consists of five skills stations: ropes and knots, forced entry, ladder operations, hose, and hazardous materials. The specific skills that each applicant must perform are chosen randomly when the test packets are prepared. On the date of the re-test, Mr. Chase prepared the Petitioner's grade sheets. On the ropes, knots, and hitches, portion of Petitioner's Fireground Skills re-test, Mr. Chase deducted points for a number of different errors in the Petitioner's performance. The Petitioner had points deducted or was not awarded them, for failing to successfully tie a bowline knot. The Petitioner did not have the correct configuration for the knot and did not have a safety applied on the knot. He did not tie the knot correctly on his first attempt and he did not successfully complete the requested task. When Mr. Chase originally scored the Petitioner's ropes, knots and hitches exam, he added up the total number of points incorrectly and put the total number of points awarded as "16." When he realized his error he completed a second score sheet tallying the correct total number of points which was "4." There is no difference in the score sheet other than the total number of points, the score. The total number of points deducted on both sheets corresponds with a score of "4." The knot the Petitioner attempted to tie fell apart twice and the Petitioner never successfully tied the bowline knot as requested. Points were deducted on the skill number 5 of the ropes, knots, and hitches portion of the Fireground Skills evolution for failing to complete the task without performing an unsafe act. The Petitioner contended that he should have been awarded points on skill number 5 of the ropes, hitches, and knots portion of the re-test because he never performed an unsafe act. According to the Department's score sheet, skill 5 of the ropes, knots, and hitches, portion of the Fireground Skills test or re-test concerns "following instructions, completing the task without performing an unsafe act." The Petitioner failed to complete the assigned task because he never tied a bowline knot. On the forcible entry portion of the re-test, Mr. Chase deducted points for a number of different errors in performance. The Petitioner had points deducted or was not awarded points, for having improper use of his tool, by failing to remove his extremities from in front of the window and for performing an unsafe act, by failing to keep his hands and arms outside the window he was breaking. The Petitioner contended that there was no way to hold the tool in order to keep his extremities outside of the glass. Mr. Chase established however, that the Petitioner could have, but did not stand off to one side of the window while breaking the glass, and also did not keep his arm and hand out of the area of broken glass while using his tool. On the ladders and fire service tools portion of the re-test, Mr. Chase deducted points for errors in the Petitioner's performance. The Petitioner had points deducted or was not awarded points, because he failed to achieve a leg lock on a ladder he was climbing and performed an unsafe act by not properly locking himself on to the ladder before working with the tool. On the hose coupling and the hose rolls portion of the re-test, points were deducted for errors in performance. The Petitioner had points deducted or was not awarded points, because he failed to use the proper technique to roll the hose by starting to perform a single donut roll, instead of the twin donut roll he was asked to perform and for failing to dress the hose roll. The Petitioner maintains that he knew what "dressing a hose" means and that a firefighter would dress a hose in order to prevent the hose from falling apart while storing or carrying it. The Petitioner contended that there is no requirement in the "Essentials of Firefighting" publication that a diamond be formed when rolling a hose into a twin donut roll configuration. The Petitioner also maintained that there is no requirement in the "Essentials of Firefighting" publication that a hose be dressed upon completion of a hose roll. The Petitioner achieved full credit on the hazardous materials portion of the re-test examination. As a result of the above point deduction, the Petitioner received a score of sixty. A score of seventy is required in order to pass the re- test examination. The Petitioner was provided notice of denial of certification on May 28, 2003.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross Lee Kramer 103 Baird Way Saint Mary's, Georgia 31558 Casia R. Belk, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal (the Department), properly administered and graded the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical examination taken by Petitioner, Catalina Williams (hereinafter Williams).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for testing, monitoring and certifying firefighters. The Department conducts certification examinations at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, and some thirty-plus other sites around the State. Those sites are located on college campuses, training facilities, fire stations, and other locales. The test at issue in this proceeding was administered at the Fire College site. Catalina Williams is an Hispanic woman who desires to become a certified firefighter. Her interest in firefighting began when she worked as a photographer covering fire-related events for a magazine and thought it would be exciting and interesting to be on “the front line.” Williams has also served as a caregiver, giving her experience in providing assistance to others, and is a certified lifeguard. In order to accomplish her goal of becoming a firefighter, Williams entered into schooling to learn the trade. Williams first attended First Coast Technological College (First Coast) in 2009. She completed the Firefighter Minimum Basic Standards Course (Firefighter I) that year. In 2010, she enrolled at the school for the summer semester to begin training in the advanced (Firefighter II) curriculum. That school term was shorter and more compressed than a regular semester. Despite her best efforts, Williams did not successfully complete the Firefighter II course. Rochford was one of her instructors during her first unsuccessful enrollment at First Coast. In 2012, Williams entered First Coast again. At that time, she was working as a paid volunteer firefighter for Volusia County. The county paid her tuition costs at First Coast when Williams entered the school for the Firefighter II course work. The second time, Williams was able to successfully complete the course material and pass her final examination. Passing the final examination was a prerequisite to taking the State certification exam. While attending First Coast, Williams took hundreds of practice exams, especially on the practical portions of the tests. She took exams as part of her classes, took exams voluntarily with someone timing her, and took exams just to practice. The State Certification Exam There are four primary segments of the State certification exam: A written examination of 100 multiple choice questions; A hose evolution involving a self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and personal protection equipment (PPE); A ladder/search and rescue evolution; and A skills portion, involving ropes and knots, two fire ground skills, and a short test on the emergency response guide (ERG). The ladder/search and rescue evolution is a practical portion of the exam; it is the singular portion of the test at issue in this proceeding and will be referred to as the ladder evolution. The ladder evolution portion consists of the following tasks and assignments: The candidate inspects ladders hanging on a simulated fire truck. He or she then takes a 24-foot ladder from the truck and extends it against the wall of a building up to the second floor. Once that ladder is properly hoisted, the candidate confirms that a ladder guard (another candidate acting as a spotter) has control of the ladder. The candidate then initiates radio contact and then walks quickly around the building to another ladder that is already in place. He/she must ascend the ladder to the second floor, test the floor inside the building to make sure it is safe, and enter the building through a window. Upon entry the candidate must find a “victim” (a 125-pound mannequin) on the lower floor, secure the victim in an approved manner, and then exit the building with the mannequin. Upon exit, the candidate must safely deposit the victim on the ground and provide notice by way of radio contact that he/she and the victim are outside the building. The radio transmission is something along the lines of: “PAR 2 [Personnel Accountability Reporting, two people]. Firefighter No. “X” and victim have safely exited the building.” The entire ladder evolution sequence must be done within four minutes and 30 seconds although, as will be discussed below, there are differences of opinion as to when the timed portion of the evolution ends. It is necessary for candidates taking the test to pass each of the four sections. Failure of any one portion would result in failure overall. Should a candidate fail the examination, they must reschedule their retest within six months of the failed test. All retest examinations are administered at the Fire College. On test day, there may be dozens of applicants taking the test at the same time. The procedure dictates that candidates arrive at the test facility in time to process paperwork prior to the 7:30 a.m., test commencement. Candidates must first provide identification to an instructor and be assigned a candidate number. They then fill out paperwork, including a waiver should any injuries occur during testing. Candidates will have their gear inspected to make sure it is in compliance with State standards. Prior to commencement of testing, one of the instructors or examiners will read a document called the “Minimum Standards Pre-Exam Orientation” (the Orientation) to the candidates. During the reading of the Orientation, which may take 45 minutes to an hour or more, candidates are allowed and encouraged to ask questions. Unless a question is asked, the Orientation will be read verbatim, word for word, with no additional comment. After the Orientation is read, candidates are walked through the facility so they can familiarize themselves with the test site. Once the test commences, candidates are not allowed to ask any questions. Williams’ Test Experience In October 2012, after successful completion of the Firefighter II course at First Coast, Williams applied for and was approved to take the State certification examination. The exam was conducted at First Coast on the school’s training grounds. The test was conducted by certified employees of the Department. Williams did not pass the examination. One of her shortcomings in that test was a failure in the ladder evolution. Her timed completion of that evolution was in excess of the required time of four minutes and 30 seconds. Williams had been confident she would pass the certification exam because it was similar to the final exam she had passed at First Coast during her schooling. She believes she failed because she was too nervous when she took the exam when it was administered as the actual State certification test. After failing the exam, Williams then applied for a retest which would be held at the Fire College on February 7, 2013. That re-test is the focus of the instant proceeding. On the morning of the retest, Williams arrived well in advance of the 7:30 a.m., start time. As she inspected her gear in anticipation of the start of the exam, she found that the SCBA regulator she was supposed to use did not properly fit the face mask on her helmet. There were extra regulators behind one of the tables being used to process applicants for that day’s test. Examiner Harper was sitting at that table and was providing paperwork to applicants who had already signed in at the first processing station. Williams went to Harper’s table and was allowed to obtain a new regulator. Inasmuch as she was already at Harper’s table getting her replacement regulator before going to the first processing station, Williams went ahead and filled out the paperwork Harper was providing to candidates at his processing station. That is, she filled out the paperwork before actually checking in at the first station. Williams then went to the first check-in table which was manned by Examiner Rochford. She provided her identification to Rochford and was assigned candidate number 37. Rochford then told Williams to go to Harper’s table to fill out the paperwork at that station. Williams told Rochford she had already done so and walked away. (At that point, Williams remembers Rochford yelling at her, asking whether she understood his order and telling her in a harsh manner to obey him. Rochford does not remember talking to Williams at all. Neither version of this alleged confrontation is persuasive. Inasmuch as the conversation was not verified one way or another by a third person -- although there were probably a number of other people around, it will not be considered to have happened for purposes of this Recommended Order.) The Orientation was then read to the candidates. The various portions of the test were addressed in the Orientation. The ladder evolution contained the following language, which Rochford read verbatim to the candidates without anything added or deleted: “Time starts when you touch anything. Time ends when the candidate and victim fully exit the building.” There is no evidence that any of the candidates asked a question concerning this part of the Orientation. Rochford’s timing policy regarding the ladder evolution differs from what he read to the candidates. He takes the position that time stops when the candidate exits the building with the victim, places the victim on the ground in an appropriate manner, and issues a verbal statement into the radio indicating that the firefighter and victim are out of the building. By his own admission, Rochford could not speak to how other examiners handle this timing issue. Harper, who was Williams’ assigned examiner on the test, also seemed to require candidates to lay the victim down and make radio contact before stopping the time. Neither Rochford nor Harper satisfactorily explained why their timing policy was different from what was stated in the orientation. The testimony concerning the correct way of timing the evolution was, at best, confusing. The following statements from the record provide contradictory and disparate opinions by various examiners: Rochford: “As soon as they lay the mannequin on the ground [and] announce they have exited the building . . . the time stops.” Tr. p. 45, lines 9-18 “The mannequin’s feet have got to be outside the plane from the door opening. That’s when the time stops.” Id. Lines 23- 25. “Until they talk on the radio is – - when they finish talking on the radio is when the time would stop.” Tr. p. 255, lines 7-9. Johnson: “At that point, they’ll use one of the prescribed methods for rescue to take the victim and themselves past the threshold out to the fresh air. At that point, the time stops.” Tr. p. 111, lines 11-14 “I read [the Orientation] word for word.” Tr. p. 114, line 23 “On the ladder rescue evolution . . . we [examiners] all stop when they pass the threshold.” Harper: “Then they’re told to lay the victim down, make radio contact you’re out of the building. Time stops.” Tr. p. 138, lines 7-8 “After they make radio contact.” Tr. p. 147, line 3 “[Orientation] says time starts when they touch anything, time ends when the candidate and the victim fully exit the building.” Tr. P. 148, lines 15-17 Hackett: “It stops when the victim comes out of the building.” Tr. p. 222, lines 7-8 [If the victim was thrown out of the building by the firefighter] “I think they would stop the clock.” Id., lines 9-11 “It is part of the timed part that they have to designate that they’re out of the building safely and lay down the victim.” Tr. pp. 222, line 24 through 223, line 1 Question to Hackett: “If [Williams] is coming out and she dropped the victim and picked up -- and presumably picked it up or whatever and then radioed, would that add time?” Answer: “No.” Tr. p. 246, lines 5- 10 Williams was timed by Harper when she took the ladder evolution portion of the exam. According to Harper’s (deposition) testimony, he subscribes to the version of timing that requires the victim to be laid down on the ground and the firefighter to make radio contact. Using that version of timing, Williams received a time of four minutes and 35 seconds for the entire ladder evolution portion of the test. In March, the Department mailed out notices to all the candidates that had tested on February 7. Notices of failure were sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. Williams’ letter was returned to the Department as unclaimed. Williams at some point in time found out from Chief McElroy, head of the Fire Academy, that she had purportedly failed the exam. She began calling examiner Harper in March seeking to find out what portion of the exam she had not successfully completed. She had at least two telephone conversations with Harper in March 2013. On April 4, 2013, the Department re-sent the failure letter to Williams, again by certified mail. This time, the letter was claimed by Williams and she became officially aware that she had not passed the exam. The basis given for Williams’ failure was that she did not complete the ladder evolution within the prescribed time parameters. She was timed at four minutes and 35 seconds, just five seconds beyond the allowable limit. It is her contention that she exited the building with the victim within the four minute/30 second time frame. The basis for her belief is that she has done the test so many times that she knows when she is behind schedule. During the test she did not stumble, drop any equipment, or have any other problem that would have added to her time. So, she concludes, she must have completed the evolution timely. Her personal feelings on the matter, without further corroboration or support, are not persuasive. Harper did not testify at final hearing. The transcript of his deposition taken in this case was admitted into evidence. In that transcript, Harper talks about his policy regarding timing of the evolution. His policy is the same as Rochford’s and is discussed above. He does not specifically say if he employed that policy when timing Williams during her test on February 7, 2013. He does not explain the difference between the Orientation statement about timing and his personal policy. The most persuasive evidence at final hearing established that it would have taken ten to 15 seconds after exiting the building to lay the victim down and make radio contact. The radio contact itself would have taken about four seconds. If Harper had stopped his timing when Williams and the victim broke the threshold of the building, her time would have likely been less than four minutes and 30 seconds. If he used his personal timing policy, then the time of four minutes/35 seconds was probably accurate. Harper deducted points from Williams’ score because of other minor mistakes. The totality of those points would not have caused Williams to fail the test. It was the ladder evolution time that caused the failure. In fact, Williams successfully completed all portions of the re-test except for the timing issue in the ladder evolution portion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, rescinding the failing score on the State Firefighter Certification Examination for Catalina Williams and certifying her as a Firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Seth D. Corneal, Esquire The Corneal Law Firm 904 Anastasia Boulevard St. Augustine, Florida 32080 Michael Davidson, Esquire Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
