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 2009, 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. Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's initial attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on September 21, 2012, and included four practical components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills. 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; the ladder operation, for instance, consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee is expected to complete. Significantly, 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, donning protective gear appropriately, and finishing the exercise within the time limit of four minutes and 30 seconds. 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 evaluative components. It is undisputed that Petitioner achieved passing scores on the fireground skills, SCBA, and hose components of the retention examination. With respect to the ladder evaluation, however, Petitioner failed to comply with two mandatory elements (he exceeded the time limit and neglected to don his hood properly), which resulted in an automatic failure. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.1/ Petitioner's retest was administered on November 8, 2012, at the Ocala Fire College, during which he passed the SCBA and hose portions of the examination. (Petitioner was not required to re-take the fireground skills component.) As for the ladder evaluation, the Department contends, and Petitioner does not dispute, that a time of four minutes and 49 seconds was recorded——a result that exceeds the time limit of four minutes and thirty seconds. Petitioner speculates, however, that the examiner, Thomas Johnson,2/ could have mistakenly started the timer during the safety inspection. While it is true that the timing process should not begin until an examinee completes a safety examination of the ladder, Petitioner has adduced no evidence, persuasive or otherwise, that Mr. Johnson started the clock too soon. Petitioner has therefore failed to show that he achieved a passing score on the ladder evaluation and, consequently, on his retention 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 29th day of March, 2013, 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 29th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his failure to timely complete the ladder evolution of the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical examination because he was allegedly distracted by an examiner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent, Department of Insurance, through its Division of State Fire Marshall, certifies all paid firefighters and establishes a course of instruction and Minimum Standards written and practical examinations for certification. An individual ("candidate") who desires to become a firefighter must take a 360-hour Minimum Standards course of instruction and pass a Minimum Standards written and practical examination. If the candidate fails the examination, the candidate is given one opportunity to retake the portions of the examination which were not passed. If the candidate does not pass the retest, the candidate must again complete the Minimum Standards training course before additional retesting will be allowed. Petitioner completed the Minimum Standards course of instruction at Hillsborough Community College in June 2001. He took the Minimum Standards written and practical examination in December 2001. The Minimum Standards practical examination consists of four evolutions: (1) self-contained breathing apparatus; (2) inch and three-quarter hose pull and operation; (3) 24-foot ground ladder carry; and (4) other fire ground skills. On the December 2001 Minimum Standards practical examination, Petitioner did not obtain a passing score on the self-contained breathing apparatus and the 24-foot ground ladder carry evolutions. Petitioner was retested on the self-contained breathing apparatus and the 24-foot ground ladder carry evolutions on February 28, 2002, at the State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner obtained a passing score on the self-contained breathing apparatus evolution; he again failed to obtain a passing score on the 24-foot ground ladder carry evolution. Each evolution of the Minimum Standards practical examination has a value of 100 points. The examiner deducts points for deficiencies that occur throughout the examination. Each candidate is required to achieve a score of 70 points in each evolution to pass the Minimum Standards practical examination. The 24-foot ground ladder carry evolution involves multiple sequenced tasks testing a candidate's ability to safely lift, maneuver, and deploy a 24-foot ladder; the maximum time allowed to complete all tasks required in the 24-foot ground ladder carry evolution is two minutes and 45 seconds. Failure to complete all required tasks of the evolution within the maximum time results in failure of the evolution. As Petitioner proceeded to perform the 24-foot ground ladder carry evolution, he experienced difficulty with some of the required tasks, and, as a result, time was running out as he neared completion of the required tasks. While testimony differs as to the exact words that were spoken, the examiner, noting that time was running out, spoke to Petitioner advising him to hurry to complete the tasks, or words to that effect. While an examiner speaking to a candidate during testing is not a common occurrence, nothing prohibits an examiner from speaking to a candidate while the testing progresses. Petitioner completed the 24-foot ground ladder carry evolution in two minutes and 48 seconds, exceeding the maximum time by three seconds and failing the retest. Petitioner maintains that he was distracted by the examiner's spoken words, lost his focus, and, as a result, exceeded the maximum allowable time for the 24-foot ground ladder carry evolution. While Petitioner's contention is plausible, it is not supported by the evidence presented. His previous failure of the same evolution demonstrates the difficulty he had with it; he acknowledged this difficulty. Petitioner did not appear to react to the examiner's spoken words in any way that evidenced shock or distraction. One of the ladder guards recalls Petitioner's performance on the 24-foot ground ladder carry evolution as "a weak performance all around." "I recall him taking a lot of time, an excessive amount of time, " ". . . he wasn't performing it as well, so it took him longer to do it since he wasn't doing it well." The ladder guard's observations were essentially confirmed by the examiner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered confirming Petitioner’s examination score and dismissing his challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 12th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherwood S. Coleman, Esquire Kwall, Showers, and Coleman, P.A. 133 North Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Mechele R. McBride, Esquire Elentia Gomez, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest he took on May 17, 2012, should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Because no evidence was offered at the final hearing held in the instant case, no findings of fact are made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of the State Fire Marshall, enter an order denying Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest he took on May 17, 2012. S DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse Beauregard 10731 Northwest 18th Court Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Linje E. Rivers, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Sixth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
Findings Of Fact At all times, material to this case, Petitioner has been licensed by the Department to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which is located at 6200 West Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Florida, and is known as the Warrington House. Francis Cooper is the sole shareholder and operator of the Warrington House. Prior to 1984, the Warrington House was known as the Heritage House and was owned by a Mr. Mitchell. Sometime in 1984, Mr. Mitchell was criminally charged with elderly abuse on his residents and the Heritage House went into receivership. Another branch of HRS who was represented by Esther Ward, asked Ms. Francis Cooper to take over the facility. HRS was apparently well satisfied with Ms. Cooper's qualifications in running an ACLF since she had another such facility. When Ms. Cooper took over the Heritage House the electrical power to the facility was about to be turned off. Only by Ms. Cooper's pleading with Gulf Power was that circumstance forestalled. There were only thirteen (13) patients at the facility out of the sixteen (16) that were supposed to have been there. Three (3) of the patients had been mysteriously removed during the night. The residents that were at the house could not identify themselves and very few resident records were at the facility. The building was infested with roaches, there was raw sewage in the yard and the sewage system was completely blocked to the extent that sewage came up through the showers when a toilet was flushed. There was urine in every carpet. None of the appliances in the house worked. There were no air conditioners, fans or plastic dishes. The floors were in bad shape. In fact, Ms. Cooper fell through two of the bathroom floors. When Ms. Cooper questioned HRS representatives about the appalling conditions of the facility, she received no responsive answer. After Ms. Cooper had taken over the facility, she discovered that Mr. Mitchell had absconded with three months advance rent from the residents. Ms. Cooper, therefore, had to operate the premises for three months without income from the residents that were there. She used her own money. Ms. Cooper started with the air conditioning, flooring and carpeting. All these items were replaced. The bathrooms were tiled and additional bathrooms were added. She put in a $6,000.00 sewage system, a lift station and paid $1,000.00 to hook the building onto city sewage. She also brought in an exterminator to get rid of the bugs. All of this took place over a period of two years wherein Ms. Cooper worked diligently to bring the building up to "snuff." In fact, in the time since she has had the facility she has accomplished wonders in improving conditions at the house. These conditions clearly did not appear overnight, but over several years and were apparently overlooked by Respondent until the crisis with Mr. Mitchell had occurred. Ms. Cooper went into the house with the understanding that the corporation would eventually build another facility and close what had become the Warrington House. The reason for the new construction was that the current building, regardless of the amount of repair, was still an old building not worth maintaining and which was allowed to deteriorate badly prior to her stewardship. However, due to a falling out with her brother, who was then a co- shareholder of the corporation, Ms. Cooper was unable to complete her plans for moving the residents of the Warrington House to a new facility. She continues to attempt to obtain financing to build a new facility. At least once a year, HRS does a full survey on a ACLF like the Warrington House. A full survey is simply an inspection of the property in order to determine the degree of compliance with HRS rules and regulations. Upon completing the inspection, the inspector goes through an exit briefing with the ACLF's management. During the exit briefing, the inspector will go over any deficiencies he or she has discovered and attempt to establish mutually agreeable correction dates. The inspector also explains that these time periods are the best estimates that they can come up with at that point to allow a reasonable amount of time for the required corrections to be made. If any problems should arise, the inspector requests that the manager communicate with his or her office and ask for an extension. Extensions are not always forthcoming. After the full survey inspection is done, a follow-up visit is normally scheduled to determine whether the earlier cited deficiencies have been corrected. If, after the follow-up survey there are items that are still not corrected, the inspector will explain to the person in charge that they are subject to administrative action and that he or she will report he facility's noncompliance to his or her office. Whether or not administrative action is taken is determined at a level above the inspector. However, it appears that the customary practice of the office is to pursue an administrative fine for any noncompliance after the correction date has been passed. After the first follow-up survey has been made it depends on the particular factual situation whether or not further follow-up surveys are made until compliance is achieved. If there are efforts being made to correct the problems further follow-up surveys will be made. If not, further follow-up surveys may not be made. In this case, James Temkin, an HRS Fire Protection Specialist, performed a full survey fire safety inspection on the Warrington House on September 24, 1986. During that survey, he cited 11 deficiencies. Various compliance dates were established for the deficiencies. A follow-up survey was conducted by Mr. Temkin on January 14, 1987. During that survey, he noted that 6 of the previously cited deficiencies had not been corrected. He recommended administrative action on all the uncorrected deficiencies. The six remaining uncorrected deficiencies were as follows: No up to date fire plan and the July 7th fire drills were not documented; No fire alarm test since July 1986 and fire alarm zones were not shown on the actuator panel; Smoke detectors not working in four (4) rooms; Exit sign lights burned out at the front and center exits, emergency lights not working at the front, rear and upstairs exit halls; Sleeping rooms had hollow core doors; and There was no documentation of fire safety on the wood paneling and tile ceilings on the first and second floors. All other deficiencies cited during the September 24, 1986 full survey were corrected. As to the alleged deficiencies contained in the latter half of (b) and (c)-(f) above, none appear at any point in HRS' rules governing ACLF's. Supposedly, these deficiencies are cited in the NFPA life safety code, which is incorporated by reference in the Fire Marshal's rule on ACLF's, Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code. The 1984 version of Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code is incorporated by reference in HRS' rule, Rule 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. Both HRS' rule and the Fire Marshal's rule are contained in the Florida Administrative Code. However, the 1984 version of NFPA is nowhere to be found in the Administrative Code. The current Fire Marshal's rule adopts portions of the 1985 NFPA life safety code. However, the HRS' rule adopts the 1984 version of the Fire Marshal's rule. No showing was made by Respondent as to what the 1984 version of the NFPA code contained. The HRS inspector's testimony regarding a particular deficiency's inclusion in the NFPA cannot be relied on since both inspectors apparently used the 1985 version of the NFPA which is not the 1984 version included in HRS's rule. Without proof of the contents of the NFPA, HRS has failed to prove any deficiencies for which it may take administrative actions. As to the other deficiencies, attempts to comply were in fact made by the Warrington House. The facility's personnel in fact thought they had complied with HRS' desires based upon previous inspections. However, for one reason or another, these attempts were rejected by the HRS inspector and the deficiency was cited again, but because of another reason. The lack of an up- to-date fire plan (cited in (a) above) was met by the Warrington House when they obtained a fire plan prior to the established correction date from another arm of HRS responsible for devising such plans. However, upon the January 14th follow-up inspection, the plan obtained from HRS by Petitioner was considered insufficient in that it did not outline staff responsibilities during a fire. The same thing occurred with the lack of fire alarm tests, cited in the latter part of (a) and the first part of (b) above. The Warrington House obtained the testing document and test from another branch of HRS responsible for such testing. However, the inspector at the follow up survey did not deem his own agency's testing documents sufficient since it did not show a different type sending unit was being tested at least once a year. 1/ These are simply not repeat deficiencies since in each instance the earlier grievance had been met and it was another grievance which cropped up. On July 9, 1987, a second follow-up survey to the Temkin September 24, 1986, full survey was performed by O.B. Walton, an HRS fire safety inspector. The evidence was not clear as to any remaining uncorrected deficiencies, if any, he found. Therefore, Respondent failed to establish any repetitive deficiencies as a result of the July 9 follow-up survey. Apparently, however, Mr. Walton, did perform another full survey on July 9, 1987. Several additional deficiencies were cited by him. A follow-up visit was conducted by Mr. Walton on October 23, 1987. Four alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected as follows: Ceiling not repaired in hot water heater closet, i.e. not taped; Kitchen fire door latch was jammed open so it would not latch, but it would stay closed; Plug by hot water heater had no cover; No documentation that drapes were fire retardant. Again, none of the above alleged deficiencies appear in HRS' rules or in the fire marshal's rule and a reasonable person could not glean from any of the other provisions contained in HRS' rules that the above conditions might be included in these provisions. The lack of clarity or uniformity in interpretation of HRS' rules is especially born out in this case since two different inspectors while inspecting the same building cited different deficiencies under their respective interpretation of the rules. When the experts differ it is difficult to see how a reasonable lay person could even begin to know or understand the contents of HRS or the Fire Marshal's rules. This lack is especially true since the relevant contents of the 1984 NFPA life safety code are not contained in the Florida Administrative Code and were not demonstrated by HRS. HRS, therefore, failed to prove any repeat deficiencies from the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. A third fire safety follow-up visit was conducted by Pat Reid, a human services program analyst, on January 21, 1988. She has no expertise or license to perform fire safety inspections. She found all of the earlier cited uncorrected deficiencies corrected except for the documentation on the drapes. That alleged deficiency was partially corrected since Petitioner was replacing the drapery with metal blinds. However, as indicated earlier the lack of documentation for fire retardant drapes was not proven to be a violation by Respondent. Ms. Reid had previously conducted a full survey of Petitioner on August 17 and 18, 1987 in her area of expertise operation and general maintenance of an ACLF. Several deficiencies were cited and correction dates were established. Ms. Reid conducted a follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey on October 23, 1987. The following alleged deficiencies had not been corrected: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases; The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease; Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom; Faucet of first floor bathroom is loose; Carpeting in first floor resident room (#7) is badly stained; Three vinyl chairs in dining room have tears, exposing foam padding; Second floor bathroom faucet nearest exit does not clearly distinguish between hot and cold water taps. As to the alleged deficiency contained in (a) above, the regulations do not contain a requirement that any documentation be kept regarding staff members being free of communicable disease. The regulations only require that the facility administrator assure that staff is free of communicable disease. The evidence showed that Petitioner had in fact assured that the staff was free of communicable disease. Therefore, no violation occurred. The alleged deficiency cited in (b) above does constitute a violation of Rules 10-5.081(1)(b), (2)(a)4.d., and (2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. However, in this instance, there are several mitigating circumstances. Foremost is the fact that Petitioner attempted on several occasions to obtain this information from another arm of HRS who had M. B. under its care prior to his admission to Petitioner's facility and had actually failed to complete M. B.'s Health Assessment form properly. Petitioner received many assurances from HRS that it would obtain and forward the information. HRS failed to do so. Moreover, after several years of M. B. living at the Warrington House and after several years of HRS care prior to his admission, common sense would dictate that M. B. is free of communicable diseases. Petitioner has in fact received confirmation of that fact from an examining physician who certified M. B. free of communicable diseases. 2/ As to (c) above, the evidence showed that the windows were only cracked and not broken. No evidence was presented as to the severity of the cracks. Cracked windows are not included in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code, which only addresses broken window panes. Moreover, cracked windows without proof of the severity of the cracks is not sufficient evidence of the lack of good repair or other hazardous conditions similar to those listed in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Rule requires proof of the hazardous nature of such a condition. Cracked windows are not hazardous in and of themselves and no showing was made that these cracked panes constituted a hazard. Nor do cracked window panes standing alone constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(d). The rule requires evidence that such cracked panes are unreasonably unattractive and no showing was made that the cracks were unreasonably unattractive. Likewise, the missing shower tile in (d) above fails to constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(a) since the deficiency is not listed, and no showing was made that the missing tile constituted a hazardous condition. Similarly, the missing tile, by itself, does not constitute a violation under Rule 10A-5.022(d) since no showing was made that the missing tile was unreasonably unattractive. The same failure of proof occurs with the alleged deficiencies listed in (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). See Rules 10A-5.022(c), (e) and (i). The alleged deficiency cited in (j) above does constitute a violation of 10A-5.023(9)(e). However, the violation was not repeated after October 1, 1987, the effective date of Section 400.414(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Ms. Reid conducted a second follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey when she performed the fire safety follow-up on January 21, 1988. All previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases. The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable diseases. The following maintenance problems exist: broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms and resident room identified as W. S. A third follow-up was conducted by Ms. Reid on April 15, 1988. All the previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease. Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom. All of the alleged deficiencies cited in the January 21, 1988 follow- up and the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey were carried forward from the alleged deficiencies discussed above, cited in the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. The same findings are made as to the alleged deficiencies which were carried forward. Only the physical health assessment of M. B. was cited by Respondent and shown to be a repeated deficiency since the information was not obtained by the established correction dates occurring after October 1, 1987. By the date of the hearing all the above alleged deficiencies had been corrected. Respondent notified Petitioner that it proposed to deny renewal of Petitioner's license to operate the Warrington House on December 23, 1987. The basis for the denial was Section 400.414(1) and (2)(d) which states: 400.414 Denial, revocation, or suspension of license; imposition of administrative fine; grounds. The department may deny, revoke or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine in the manner provided in chapter 120. Any of the following actions by a facility or its employee shall be grounds for action by the department against a licensee: * * * (d) Multiple and repeated violations of this part or of minimum standards or rules adopted pursuant to this part. The language of Subsection (d) was added to Section 400.414 F.S. on October 1, 1987. Prior to that date Respondent had no authority to take punitive action against the license of an ACLF licensee for multiple and repeated violations of Respondent's statutes and rules. The only action Respondent could take against a facility for such violations was in the form of a civil fine the amount of which could be raised if the violation was repetitive. Section 400.426, Florida Statutes. No multiple violations were shown by the evidence through the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey. More importantly, however, no multiple violations were shown by Respondent after October 1, 1987, the effective date of the statutory language at issue in this case. No showing was made by Respondent as to any legislative intent that the statute operate retrospectively. The statute operates only prospectively. Therefore, any alleged deficiencies cited prior to October 1, 1987 are irrelevant for purposes of imposing the punishment contemplated under Section 400.414, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services renew Petitioner's license. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 1988.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the Firefighter Minimum Standards Retest taken on November 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department), through its Division of State Fire Marshall, certifies all paid firefighters. Applicants for firefighters must complete a 360-hour minimum standards training course and pass a written and practical examination. If the applicant fails the examination, the applicant may retake the examination within six months after taking the initial examination. If the applicant does not pass the retest, the applicant must complete the minimum standards training course before additional retesting will be allowed. The examination has two parts, a written and a practical part. The written examination consists of 100 multiple choice questions. The practical portion tests the applicant on skills dealing with breathing apparatus, hose and nozzle operation, and the 24-foot extension ladder. The applicant must receive a score of 70 percent on both portions of the examination in order to pass the examination. In the breathing apparatus section of the practical examination, the applicant is timed during the donning of the equipment. If the applicant does not don the equipment within one minute and thirty seconds, points are deducted from the applicant's score. The number of points deducted increases in proportion to the amount of time it takes to don the equipment. If the applicant dons the equipment in more than one minute and thirty seconds but not more than two minutes, five points are deducted. In the hose and nozzle operation portion of the practical examination, the applicant is timed. If the applicant fails to perform the operation in two minutes or less, points are deducted from the applicant's score. Five points are deducted if the applicant takes greater than two minutes but not over two minutes and thirty seconds. Ten points are deducted if the applicant takes greater than two minutes and thirty seconds but not more than three minutes. The ladder operation portion of the examination is timed. If the applicant takes more than two minutes and thirty seconds but not more than three minutes, five points are deducted. During the practical examination, applicants are required to demonstrate their skills in tying knots and hitches. The applicant is required to tie one of a number of knots or hitches. Applicants are also required to show their proficiency in dealing with fire hoses, hose appliances and various fittings by performing one of a number of functions. Applicants must demonstrate their knowledge of the North American Emergency Response Guidebook by answering three questions using the guidebook a reference. On January 20, 1998, Petitioner, Michelle M. McCue (McCue), applied for certification as a firefighter. She completed the Minimum Standards Course. On July 30, 1998, McCue took the minimum standards examination. She received a score of 81 on the written portion and 55 on the practical examination. She was notified by memorandum dated August 12, 1998, of her scores. By memorandum dated September 3, 1998, McCue was notified that she was scheduled to retake the examination on September 22, 1998. She did not take the examination on that date. By memorandum dated October 5, 1998, McCue was notified that she was rescheduled to retake the practical examination on November 30, 1998. She retook the practical portion on the day scheduled. On the retake examination, five points were deducted from McCue's score because her donning time for the breathing apparatus portion was one minute and fifty-one seconds. She took three minutes during the timed portion of the hose and nozzle operation; thus, ten points were deducted from her score. Five points were deducted from her score because she took two minutes and thirty-five seconds to perform the ladder operation. Five points were deducted from McCue's score for failure to correctly tie a Becket Bend knot. Another five points were deducted from her score for failing to properly connect a supply line into a female pumper intake. Five points were deducted for her failure to properly answer a question using the North American Emergency Response Guidebook. McCue received a final score of 65 on the retake of the practical examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Michelle M. McCue failed the retake of the practical portion of the Minimum Standards Test and that she shall be required to repeat the Minimum Standards Course before taking any further examinations. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Shiv Narayan Persaud, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michelle M. McCue 4801 Northwest 26th Avenue Tamarac, Florida 33309
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Orange County Fire Rescue (Respondent) committed an act of unlawful employment discrimination against Marlene Serrano (Petitioner) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a Puerto Rican-born Hispanic female. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Orange County Fire Rescue Department (FRD), a unit of the Orange County government. In order to increase the number of firefighters available to the Respondent, the FRD posted a job advertisement in July 2008 ("Job Req. #007931"), seeking to hire state- certified paramedics who were capable of becoming state-certified firefighters. The advertisement clearly indicated that applicants should be state-certified paramedics who were "[c]apable of successfully completing and maintaining the Florida State Firefighter certification after three (3) years of being hired." Employees hired into the new paramedic-firefighter positions were identified as "paramedics." Employees hired as paramedics only were identified as "PMOs." On September 8, 2008, the FRD officially hired four paramedics for the positions advertised by Job Req. #007931. The group included the Petitioner, two Caucasian females (Sarah Wilson and Jennifer Massey) and a Caucasian male (Shane Doolittle). It was commonly understood by those hired, including the Petitioner, that they were required to obtain state certification as firefighters by September 18, 2011, the third anniversary of their employment. Pursuant to the advertised job requirements, the paramedics were required to pass a physical ability test (referred to as the "CPAT") and complete the Orange County firefighter orientation program. The Petitioner passed the CPAT on her second attempt and completed the orientation program. Candidates seeking to be certified by the State of Florida as firefighters are required to complete a 450-hour firefighter training course (commonly referred to as Firefighter I and II Minimum Standards classes) and to pass a firefighter certification exam. The Petitioner had completed the Firefighter I and II Minimum Standards classes as of December 17, 2010. On December 22, 2010, the Petitioner took the firefighter certification exam at the Central Florida Firefighter Academy and failed the hose and ladder components of the exam. When the Petitioner failed to pass the exam, the Respondent placed her in a fire station with a ladder truck company so that she could improve her ladder skills. On February 22, 2011, the Petitioner retook the firefighter certification exam at a training facility in Ocala, Florida, where she successfully completed the hose component of the exam, but again failed the ladder component. A candidate for firefighter certification is permitted to take the exam twice. A candidate who twice fails the exam is required to retake the Firefighter II Minimum Standards class before being permitted to retake the certification exam. On March 8, 2011, the Petitioner met with FRD officials to assess her progress towards obtaining the firefighter certification. The Petitioner had received notice of the meeting on March 1, 2011, from Assistant Fire Chief Brian Morrow. Similar meetings occurred with the other paramedics employed by the Respondent. During the meeting, the Petitioner advised the FRD officials that she intended to dispute the results of her second test. The Petitioner was aware that she could not retake the certification exam without retaking the Firefighter II Minimum Standards class. Although the Petitioner contacted a training facility to inquire about course schedules, she did not attempt to retake the training course. The March 8 meeting and discussion was memorialized in a letter to the Petitioner dated March 14, 2011. The letter contained an assessment of her progress towards certification. The letter also noted that she was required to obtain her state certification prior to September 18, 2011, and that failure to obtain certification by that date could result in termination of her employment. The Petitioner received the letter on March 16, 2011. In an email dated March 22, 2011, to FRD Lieutenant John Benton, the Petitioner advised that she was trying to determine how she would be able to go to class and maintain her work schedule. Lt. Benton forwarded the email to Assistant Fire Chief Morrow. Assistant Fire Chief Morrow replied to the Petitioner's email on March 29, 2011, wherein he advised her that the FRD had met its obligation to fund the certification training. He asked the Petitioner to advise him of the status of her appeal, to identify the class she was planning to take, and to outline her schedule and specify the hours she would use as vacation time and as "time trades." He asked for a response "as soon as possible" and invited the Petitioner to contact him directly to resolve any questions. The Petitioner received Assistant Fire Chief Morrow's March 29 email, but did not respond to it. Assistant Fire Chief Morrow subsequently contacted the Petitioner by telephone to inquire as to the issues noted in the email, but received little additional information from the Petitioner regarding her plans. After receiving the official notice that she had failed her second attempt at the certification exam, the Petitioner filed an administrative appeal (DOAH Case No 11-1556) to dispute the scoring of the exam. A hearing was conducted before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on May 24, 2011. On July 7, 2011, the ALJ issued a Recommended Order finding that the Respondent failed the exam and recommending that the appeal be denied. By Final Order dated August 20, 2011, the State of Florida, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshall, adopted the findings and recommendation of the ALJ and denied the Petitioner's appeal of the exam grading. The Final Order specifically noted that the Petitioner's certification was denied until she obtained a passing score on the exam. The Petitioner made no further efforts to become a state-certified firefighter. She did not register to retake the Firefighter II Minimum Standards class. As of September 17, 2011, the Petitioner was not a certified firefighter and was not actively engaged in seeking certification. Because the Petitioner did not meet the published job requirements and was making no effort to meet them, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner from employment on September 17, 2011. The Respondent offered to permit the Petitioner to resign from her employment rather than be terminated, but she declined the offer. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that, after she twice failed to pass the certification exam and was unsuccessful in challenging the scoring of the second attempt, she had no further interest in obtaining the certification. There is no evidence that the Petitioner requested an extension of the applicable three-year certification deadline. Nonetheless, the Petitioner has asserted that the Respondent provided deadline extensions to other paramedics and that the Respondent's actions, in not providing an extension to her and in terminating her employment, were based on her race or national origin. There is no evidence to support the assertion. The March 14, 2011, letter specifically referenced the published job requirements set forth in Job Req. #007931, as well as the applicable provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) governing the Petitioner's employment by the Respondent. The Petitioner was a member of the Orange County Professional Fire Fighters Association. Her employment by the Respondent was subject to a CBA dated December 14, 2010, between the Respondent and the Orange County Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 2057, International Association of Fire Fighters. Section IV, Article 60, of the CBA provided as follows: ARTICLE 60 - PARAMEDIC PROMOTIONS/STATUS CHANGE Employees in the Paramedic classification agree to, upon reaching three (3) years of employment [sic] to meet the requirements of the Firefighter classification. Either upon reaching three (3) years of employment, or upon the desire of the department, the employee shall be moved from the Paramedic pay plan to Step 1 of the Firefighter pay step plan or to the higher nearest step to the employee's Paramedic current rate of pay. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit the Orange County Fire/Rescue Department from terminating the employment of a Paramedic when upon reaching three (3) years employment the minimum requirements for the position of Firefighter have not been met. Employees not meeting the minimum qualifications by the three (3) year employment anniversary may be separated from county employment without a predetermination hearing (PDH) and without access to Article 17 - Grievance and Arbitration Procedure of this contract. It is the sole discretion of Fire Rescue Management to extend the three (3) year time frame limitation due to case-by-case circumstances and/or operational need. The evidence establishes that certification deadlines have rarely been extended by FRD officials. The evidence fails to establish that FRD officials have considered race or national origin in making decisions related to deadline extensions. Sarah Wilson, a Caucasian female, was hired at the same time as the Petitioner and the deadline by which she was required to have obtained firefighter certification was September 18, 2011. Ms. Wilson completed the training course on September 15, 2011. She was scheduled to sit for the certification exam on October 4 and 5, 2011. The scheduling of the exam was the responsibility of the training facility. Neither Ms. Wilson nor the Respondent had any control over the testing date or the scheduling of the exam. The Respondent permitted Ms. Wilson to remain employed beyond the certification deadline and through the dates of the exam, an extension of 17 days. The extension granted to Ms. Wilson was the only time that the Respondent has allowed a paramedic more than 36 months of employment in which to obtain the required certification. Ms. Wilson passed the firefighter exam on October 4 and 5, 2011, and became a state-certified firefighter. Had Ms. Wilson not passed the exam on October 4 and 5, 2011, her employment would have been terminated by the Respondent. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Wilson retained all required certifications and remained employed as a firefighter paramedic with the FRD. In contrast to Ms. Wilson, the Petitioner was making no effort to obtain the required certification when the certification deadline passed. There was no evidence that the Respondent's extension of Ms. Wilson's certification deadline was based upon race or national origin. Jennifer Massey, a Caucasian female who was hired at the same time as the Petitioner, left her employment with the Respondent prior to the certification deadline. Shane Doolittle, a Caucasian male, was hired at the same time as the Petitioner, and the deadline by which he was required to have obtained firefighter certification was originally September 18, 2011. However, Mr. Doolittle was called to active military duty for three months during the three-year certification period. In order to provide Mr. Doolittle with the full 36 months of employment prior to the certification deadline, the Respondent extended Mr. Doolittle's certification deadline by three months, to December 18, 2011. In contrast to Mr. Doolittle, the Petitioner was employed and present with the FRD throughout the three-year period and had a full 36 consecutive months in which to obtain the required certification. There was no evidence that the Respondent's extension of Mr. Doolittle's certification deadline was based upon race or national origin. Mr. Doolittle did not become certified by the extended deadline, and the Respondent terminated his employment on December 18, 2011. There is no evidence that the Respondent was not invested in each paramedic successfully completing their training and meeting the requirements set forth in Job Req. #007931. The Respondent hired 12 paramedics in 2008. The Respondent paid the tuition and equipment costs for each paramedic who sought state certification as a firefighter. Additionally, the Respondent paid the salaries and benefits for the paramedics while in classes or exams, as well as the costs of the employees who covered the shifts of such paramedics. The Petitioner received the same training and benefits as all other employees seeking certification. The Respondent anticipated that the Petitioner would ultimately complete the training and exam requirements for certification, and she participated in the recruit training graduation ceremony with her colleagues. The 2008 hires included a Puerto Rican-born Hispanic male who obtained his firefighter certification prior to the deadline, and a Caucasian male who resigned from employment in lieu of termination because he had not obtained the firefighter certification by the deadline and was making no progress towards doing so. During the termination meeting with the Petitioner, FRD Chief Michael Howe advised the Petitioner that she was eligible for re-employment with the FRD if she obtained the firefighter certification. About a week after the termination meeting, Chief Howe called the Petitioner and left a voice message, offering to loan equipment to the Petitioner and to sponsor her for a discount on tuition costs, should she choose to retake the required course and become re-eligible for the certification exam. Chief Howe received no response from the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 8th day of February, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan T. Spradley, Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Post Office Box 3068 Orlando, Florida 32802 Scott Christopher Adams, Esquire LaBar and Adams, P.A. 1527 East Concord Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Is Petitioner entitled to be certified as a Firefighter based upon examination results through an examination administered by Respondent? See Section 633.35, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for certification as a Firefighter on June 19, 1998. Subsequently he completed the Firefighter training program administered at Volusia County Fire Science Institute commensurate with the requirements set forth in Section 633.35(1), Florida Statutes. On December 15, 1998, Petitioner took the state examination following completion of the "Minimum Standards Course." The state examination was administered by the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training. That examination was constituted of a written and practical portion with the expectation that a minimum score of 70% was required in both aspects of the examination. See Rule 4A-37.056(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code. When the December 15, 1998 examination was graded, the Petitioner passed the practical with a score of 90. Petitioner did not pass the written, receiving a score of 66. Officials within the Respondent's agency were persuaded that some portions of the examination given on December 15, 1998, were arguably beyond the abilities of a beginning Firefighter. This decision was arrived at recognizing that material on the test had been presented in the "Minimum Standards Course." Nonetheless, adjustments were made to the scores of the candidates in recognition of the difficulty of some of the examination questions. The re-scoring improved Petitioner's written score from 66 to 67. On February 9, 1999, Petitioner retook the written portion of the state examination and received a score of 59. That score was adjusted on the same basis as has been described in relation to the December 15, 1998, examination session. With the adjustment Petitioner received a score of 62. Petitioner took a third written examination on May 12, 1999. This examination was given, having purged the examination instrument of the more difficult questions that had been presented on the occasion of the December 15, 1998, and the February 9, 1999, examinations. In the instance of the May 12, 1999 examination, Petitioner received a 66 on the written portion. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the nature of the examinations, taking into account the adjustments in the scoring, were beyond the expectation of the competence of a candidate who had undergone the "Minimum Standards Course" in preparation for this state examination or that Respondent failed to appropriately administer and grade the examinations given Petitioner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered upholding the examination results in the several examinations administered to Petitioner in relation to the written portion, as adjusted, and finding that Petitioner has exhausted his opportunities for examination in this cycle. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Anthony Robert Shuta, II 3043 Pine Tree Drive Edgewater, Florida 32141 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capital, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether the Department properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a Florida firefighter due to his not achieving a passing score of 70% on the written portion of the required Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Notkin filed his application for certification as a Florida firefighter on February 4, 2000. As an applicant, Mr. Notkin was required to and did take a state-approved Minimum Standards Course. Upon successful completion of the Florida Minimum Standards Course, applicants must thereafter sit for the Minimum Standards Examination. The examination consists of a written part and a practical part, and applicants must pass each part with a score of 70% or better in order to be eligible for certification. Approximately one-half (180 hours) of the 360 hours of the Minimum Standards Course is dedicated to preparation for the written portion of the Minimum Standards Examination, with the balance of the time devoted to matters to be covered on the practical field work portion of the Minimum Standards Examination. There are 100 questions on the written portion of the Minimum Standards Examination and applicants are able to miss up to 30 questions and still achieve a passing score of 70%. At all times material to this case there were three required texts for students taking the Minimum Standards Course: The Essentials of Fire Fighting, 4th edition, published by Oklahoma State University's Fire School; Medical First Responder, 5th edition, authored by J. David Bergeron; and Initial Response to Hazardous Materials published by the National Fire Academy. Mr. Notkin and his classmates were instructed to study the required text materials and informed that anything found in the text materials could be on the written portion of the Minimum Standards Examination. Students were advised that where information provided in the textbook conflicts with information provided by the instructor, the instructor's interpretation should be followed. Most questions on the Minimum Standards Examination are featured prominently in the required course textbooks. Mr. Notkin successfully completed his Firefighters Minimum Standards course with a score of 85%. He thereafter took his initial written and practical portions of the Minimum Standards Examination on June 13, 2000, at which time Mr. Notkin passed the practical examination with the minimum allowable score of 70%. However, he scored a 67% on the written portion, which is three points below the minimum passing score of 70%. Applicants are permitted two chances to achieve a passing score on the Minimum Standards Examination written portion. If an applicant fails both the initial and retest examinations, that applicant has to retake and successfully complete the 360-hour Minimum Standards Course before being permitted to retake the Minimum Standards Examination. Mr. Notkin re-tested for the written portion of the Minimum Standards Examination on or about August 2, 2000. A score of 70% would have allowed him to be certified as a firefighter without the necessity of taking a second practical examination, or repeating the Minimum Standards Course. Mr. Notkin scored 60% on the August 2, 2000, written examination, ten points below the required minimum for a passing score and certification as a firefighter. Mr. Notkin's examinations were properly graded.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance, Division of the State Fire Marshal, enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Florida firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 24th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Ian Notkin 10809 Northwest 46 Drive Coral Springs, Florida 33076 James B. Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 The Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. is an invalid exercise of legislatively granted authority in violation of section 120.52(8)(b), (c), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes (2020).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, is headed by the Chief Financial Officer of the state, who serves as the Chief Fire Marshal pursuant to section 603.104(1), Florida Statutes. The State Fire Marshal is charged with the responsibility to minimize the loss of life and property in Florida due to fire, and to adopt rules, which must “be in substantial conformity with generally accepted standards of firesafety; must take into consideration the direct supervision of children in nonresidential child care facilities; and must balance and temper the need of the State Fire Marshal to protect all Floridians from fire hazards with the social and economic inconveniences that may be caused or created by the rules.” § 633.104(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a Florida corporation authorized by the Department to offer fire certification training courses in both online and blended learning formats. A blended learning course is one that has both online and in-person components. The blended learning courses Petitioner currently offers have 37 hours of online learning and eight hours of in-person instruction to address those portions of the course that may need “hands on” instruction. Section 633.216, Florida Statutes, requires Respondent to certify fire safety inspectors, and to provide by rule for the development of a fire safety inspector training program of at least 200 hours. The program developed by Department rule must be administered by education or training providers approved by the Department for the purpose of providing basic certification training for fire safety inspectors. § 633.216(2), (8), Fla. Stat. Current Certification Requirements Section 633.406 identifies several certifications in the fire safety arena that may be awarded by the Division of State Fire Marshal: firefighter, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(4); fire safety inspector, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.216(2); special certification, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(6); forestry certification, for those meeting the requirements of section 590.02(1)(e); fire service instructor, for those who demonstrate general or specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities in firefighting and meet the qualifications established by rule; certificate of competency, for those meeting certain requirements with special qualifications for particular aspects of firefighting service; and volunteer fire fighter certifications. In order to become a fire safety officer, an applicant must take the courses outlined in rule 69A-39.005, and pass an examination with a score of 70% or higher. The five courses as listed in the current version of rule 69A- 39.005 are Fire Inspection Practices; Private Protection Systems; Blue Print Reading and Plans Examinations (also known as Construction Documents and Plans Review); Codes and Standards; and Characteristics of Building Construction. The Rulemaking Process On November 5, 2015, the Department held the first of a series of rule workshops and “listening sessions” as it began the process for making changes in the certification program for fire safety inspectors.1 These workshops and listening sessions were held on November 5, 2015; July 10, 2016; November 10, 2016; January 17, 2017; August 8, 2018; November 8, 2018; and October 29, 2019. As described by Mark Harper, who is now the assistant superintendent of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training at the Florida State Fire College, the Bureau conducted the first few listening sessions to hear the industry’s view on what changes were needed, followed by drafting proposed rule language and conduct of rule workshops. 1 Curiously, neither party introduced the notices for any of these workshops or listening sessions, so how notice was provided to interested persons wanting to give input on possible changes cannot be determined. The first workshop/listening session was conducted on November 5, 2015, in Palm Beach Gardens, and was moderated by Mark Harper. At this workshop, a variety of comments were received regarding the quality of the existing program and the quality of the fire safety inspectors being certified. Those comments included the need for more field training and more hours of instruction; suggested use of a “task book” in training; the view that classes should be taught by more experienced inspectors, not just people who have passed the classes; and the need for more practical training. The view was expressed by at least one attendee that the quality and method of delivery needed to be examined, and that Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review should not be taught online. In December 2015, Tony Apfelbeck, the Fire Marshal for Altamonte Springs, provided to Mr. Harper proposed draft revisions to chapter 69A-39, which included increasing the number of training hours to 315 hours (as opposed to the 200 hours required by section 633.216), and requiring use of a task book, as well as other changes. The draft did not include any language regarding course methodology in terms of classroom, online, or blended format classes. At the next workshop, held July 10, 2016, a draft proposal was provided to the audience, but it is not clear whether the draft provided is the one Mr. Apfelbeck suggested or something else. Concerns were expressed regarding the implementation of the use of a task book, and at least one speaker speaking against the suggested changes opined that the changes suggested in the draft would cost more money. Another commented that increasing the hours may not help the issue. Instead, there should be a greater emphasis on the quality of the educational delivery, and that instruction needed to be tied more closely to field work. Late in the workshop, comments were made regarding online and classroom delivery, and it was suggested that some classes should not be held online. While the drafts that were provided at the various workshops are not in the record, at some point, language was added that would require two of the five courses for fire safety certification, i.e., Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review, be taught in a traditional classroom setting only. The subject of online classes was discussed more thoroughly at the next workshop held November 10, 2016. During this workshop, there were comments both in favor of and against the use of online classes. While the speakers cannot always be identified from the recordings of the workshops, some attendees stated that some of the online providers were doing a really good job, and the concern was raised that if online classes were eliminated, it might be an exchange of convenience for quality.2 At least one person expressed the opinion that the speaker was not a fan of online classes, and Mr. Harper suggested that blended learning might be a way to meet some of the concerns expressed, and that the method of delivery would be up to the institution. Others who participated in the workshop spoke highly of blended classes. The remaining workshops also had discussions regarding the online class change, as well as other changes in the proposed rule. Opinions were voiced on both sides of the issue. The primary source of comments seeking a traditional classroom setting only were fire marshals at various municipalities around the state concerned about the need for “hands-on” training and the current lack of preparation encountered with new staff. On July 10, 2019, the Department filed a Notice of Proposed Rules for rules 69A-39.003, 39.005, and 39.009. The proposed rule amendments included the following amendment to rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d.: d. The courses “Codes and Standards” and “Construction Documents and Plans Review” 2 The identity of the speakers is not important, and the comments are not relayed for the truth of the statements made. They are listed simply to show that the Department heard several viewpoints during these listening sessions. required under this paragraph (1)(b) will only be approved by the Bureau when taught in a traditional classroom delivery method. No definition for “traditional classroom delivery method” is provided. On January 15, 2020, Respondent conducted a public hearing on the proposed rule. As was the case with the workshops, people voiced both support and opposition to the proposal to require a traditional classroom setting for the Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review courses. Counsel for Petitioner appeared and spoke against the proposed language to eliminate online and blended learning for the two classes, and asked whether any type of data existed to support the change in the rule, or whether any type of study had been conducted to gauge the need for the change. Respondent’s representative stated that the proposed language was based upon “extensive testimony” from employers requesting the change. Counsel also asked that Respondent consider defining what is meant by traditional classroom delivery. No such definition has been added to the rule. The Notice of Proposed Rule does not include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. Instead, it states: The Agency has determined that this will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the Agency. The Agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: The Department’s economic analysis of the potential impact of the proposed rule amendments determined that there will be no adverse economic impact or increased regulatory costs that would require legislative ratification. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs, or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so within 21 days of this Notice. Petitioner addressed the increased costs under the proposed rule during at least one of the workshops. There is no evidence, however, that Petitioner submitted, in writing, a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative within 21 days of the Notice of Proposed Rule. On January 27, 2020, Petitioner filed its Petition to Challenge Specific Changes to Proposed Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. The Petition is timely filed. Current Online Providers and Course Review Process As of April 10, 2020, there are approximately 20 organizations approved by the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that offer distance learning delivery for courses in programs leading to a certification pursuant to rule 69A-37.605. Of those providers, two are approved to teach Codes and Standards and three are approved to teach Construction Documents and Plans Review. In addition, as of June 1, 2020, there are 13 state colleges and/or universities in Florida also approved to provide distance learning. Of those, ten are approved to offer Codes and Standards, and ten are approved to offer Construction Documents and Plans Review. Petitioner has been approved to teach these two courses in a blended format since at least 2015. It also has articulation agreements with some educational institutions, including Waldorf University in Iowa, and Columbia Southern University in Alabama. The Department previously sought to take action against Ricky Rescue related to the type of courses taught, although the statutory basis for taking action against Ricky Rescue is not part of the evidence presented in this proceeding. The Consent Order entered to resolve the prior proceeding expressly provides, “Respondents agree that they will not offer any on-line courses until such time as they obtain approval from the Bureau, which will not be unreasonably withheld.” In order to be approved to teach any of the courses for certification in an online or blended format, a provider is required to go through an extensive review process. Initially, Respondent used a Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric to evaluate the courses a provider sought to offer. Course approvals initially took anywhere from four months to a year and a half to meet the standards and be approved. Respondent no longer uses the Quality Matters rubric, because it has transitioned to the accreditation process used by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. With this change, the length of time for class approvals has shortened considerably. Susan Schell used to be the Department’s Training Programs Manager and was in charge of the review and approval of classes for online learning. She has since moved on to another position within the Department. Ms. Schell would take the submitted course herself, view the different videos and discussion boards, and work through some of the projects, as well as review some of the case discussions and questions. Ricky Rescue’s courses that she reviewed met all of the state requirements to be approved. According to Ms. Schell, classes taught in the traditional format did not go through the same review process. Ricky Rescue’s accreditation verification from AdvancED Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement indicated that Ricky Rescue’s accreditation was confirmed on March 31, 2017, for a five-year term expiring June 30, 2022. There is no credible dispute regarding whether Ricky Rescue complies with the requirements for offering its courses in a blended format. The report of the external review team prepared by AdvancED Education, Inc., noted that the school’s website is exemplary and stated in its conclusions: Once a month, students attend a day on site blended learning instruction where students can collaborate and complete and present projects. Given that the owners are brother fire fighters, there is a genuine feeling of camaraderie and collegiality. It is apparent to the Team that the Ricky Rescue Training Academy is an ideal institutional opportunity to obtain classes for firefighter training and certification classes. … The school has embraced the continuous improvement model to insure that they continue to deliver high quality online educational programs with rigor, relevance, and fidelity. Two Different Views Petitioner and Respondent approached the proposed rule amendment, both at the workshops and public hearing conducted by the Department and at the hearing in this proceeding, from different perspectives. Ricky Rescue focused on the needs and opinions of students seeking to take the courses. Its witnesses testified that the blended courses had significant substantive content; that the in-person component gave the necessary opportunity for completion of group projects and hands-on instruction or field trips; and that the ability to complete the course at any time during a 30-day period was essential in terms of both costs and scheduling for the student, and completing the classes while managing job and family responsibilities. For example, Ryan Russell has worked for over ten years in the fire service and is a battalion chief for the Haines City Fire Department. He has a variety of certifications and oversaw the training division for his department. Mr. Ryan has taken five courses from Ricky Rescue, and speaks highly of them. Mr. Ryan agrees that there are some advantages to traditional classroom settings, because they provide more opportunities for engagement, but that ultimately, a class is only as good as the instructor. Similarly, Robert Morgan is also a battalion chief at another fire department, and took Documents and Plans Review from Ricky Rescue. Mr. Morgan believed that the online blended course is just as good as a traditional classroom setting, and believes that in the blended setting, a student has to work harder than just sitting at the back of the classroom. Both men spoke of the convenience and accessibility that online learning provides that a traditional classroom does not. Matthew Trent also testified in favor of the availability of online and blended courses. Mr. Trent has a master’s degree in public administration and is a Ph.D. student in public policy administration. He is also a certified state firefighter II; pump operator; Fire Officer I, II, III, and IV; fire inspector I and II; fire investigator I; and fire life safety educator I. About half of Mr. Trent’s certifications have been based on classes taken online, and all of his classes for his masters’ and doctoral degrees have been online. Mr. Trent felt both courses at issue could be taught in an online format, and stated that both as a student and as an instructor, it is up to the student to choose the delivery method by which they want to learn. If not for online learning, he would not have been able to accomplish nearly as much in his professional life, because distance learning gives the student the ability to work around other responsibilities. The Department, on the other hand, was influenced more heavily by (and sought information from) the fire safety officials across the state who employ fire safety inspectors. Many of those officials spoke at the public workshops and some testified at hearing. The major concern voiced by these officials was that new fire safety inspectors certified by the state were not really prepared to do their job. Although most acknowledged that some on the job training would always be necessary to deal with local codes and ordinances that are not part of the state curriculum, they felt that new inspectors did not have a good grasp of the concepts necessary to be effective, especially with respect to the skills taught in the classes at issue in this case. For example, Anthony Apfelbeck is the Director of the Building and Fire Safety Department for the City of Altamonte Springs. He has worked in that department for approximately 20 years and served as Fire Marshal for a significant portion of his tenure there, and served in other cities as well. Mr. Apfelbeck has an impressive array of certifications and currently supervises approximately eight fire safety inspectors. He attended almost all of the workshops and was an active participant. Mr. Apfelbeck testified that he concurred with the State Fire Marshal’s Association that both classes should be offered only in a traditional classroom environment. He stated that there is a limited period of time to get someone trained and certified as a fire safety inspector, and he has seen some of the deficiencies in the current training. In his view, requiring these two classes to be given in a traditional classroom environment allows the instructor to keep the student engaged, and to get into critical thinking with probing questions and real-life examples. Instructors can have interactions with students that address issues the students may be having in the students’ jurisdictions, and read the body language of the students to gauge involvement. He also spoke of the ability to develop relationships with other individuals in the class and develop a peer group within that body. Mr. Apfelback has used the virtual environment extensively during the COVID-19 pandemic, and does not feel that it has the spontaneity and free- flow of information that a traditional classroom affords. Mr. Apfelbeck has not taken any of Ricky Rescue’s classes, and does not know what it has done to make sure its students get 200 hours of education. Likewise, he is not aware of the review Ricky Rescue went through to get its courses approved. He stated, correctly, that the rule is not written specifically about Ricky Rescue’s programs. It is written for all educational programs that are provided pursuant to this rule. Michael Tucker is the assistant superintendent for the State Fire Marshal’s Office. His experience includes serving as battalion chief for the Reedy Creek Improvement District (i.e., Disney) for 13 years, and serving as the Chief of the Fire Department for the Villages for 13 years. He has taught fire safety classes both in the classroom setting and online. While at Reedy Creek, he was the training officer responsible for providing training to fire inspectors, firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs. Mr. Tucker believes that the two classes addressed in the proposed rule are very intricate classes with a lot of detail. He believes that the traditional environment gives more opportunity for students to get hands-on instruction and have more interaction with the instructor. He acknowledged that there is a possibility that fees could increase under the proposed rule, but thinks that the increased cost is outweighed by the value that employers would get when they hire people trained in a classroom setting. Cheryl Edwards is the Fire Marshal for the City of Lakeland, and her views regarding traditional versus online learning are similar to those already expressed. She believes that the traditional classroom environment promotes collaborative learning and enhances critical thinking skills, through live discussions, and the need to think on your feet. She also felt that in person, an instructor is better able to gauge students’ learning styles and provide activities and modalities for all to learn, regardless of learning style. Ms. Edwards believes that the traditional classroom setting allows for more “teachable moments,” and guided practice before a student has to put that knowledge into use. Finally, David Abernathy is the Fire Chief of the City of Satellite Beach and has worked with the City for 35 years. Mr. Abernathy has an impressive list of certifications and has taught all five of the courses necessary for fire safety inspector certification, but has never taught them in an online or blended learning format. Mr. Abernathy believes that for these two courses there is a benefit to the traditional classroom setting. He believes that both classes need a hands-on approach to be the most effective. Mr. Abernathy also believes that requiring these two courses to be taught in a traditional classroom setting will cost more, but as an employer is more willing to pay for it than for online classes. Mark Harper testified that during the workshops, the Department wanted to hear from everyone, because all would be impacted by the changes. However, he believes that there is a heavier weight of responsibility on employers as opposed to students, because they are the ones trying to fill positions, and they are the ones having to deal with additional costs occasioned by failures in training. As a practical matter, employers are more cognizant of the potential liability jurisdictions face when a fire safety inspector, who looks at everything from mom and pop businesses to industrial sites with large containers of hazardous materials, is not adequately trained. The decision to go forward with the proposed rule amendment requiring a traditional classroom delivery method with respect to Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review is based on the feedback received through the workshop process. It is not based on data. The Department does not track how students who took certification classes online or in a blended format score on the certification examination as opposed to students who took the same classes in a traditional setting. It would be difficult to collect that type of data, because there is no requirement that a student take all five courses the same way. In preparation for the hearing in this case, the Department conducted a survey of employers regarding their views on traditional versus distance learning. The Florida Fire Marshals and Inspectors Association distributed the survey to its members, and of the 358 addressees, 114 responded. There was no evidence to indicate that the Department attempted to survey people taking the classes. The questions asked in the survey were quite limited, and frankly, provide no guidance because they provide only two alternatives, and do not address blended learning formats at all. There are three questions, and they are as follows, with the responses in parentheses: Is there is current need to increase the proficiency of newly certified Firesafety Inspectors in Florida? Yes (59.65%) No (16.67%) Neutral opinion (12.68%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Codes and Standards class, which class setting would produce a more proficient inspector? Traditional classroom delivery method (71.17%) Online (distance learning ) delivery method (9.91%) Neutral opinion (18.92%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Construction Documents and Plans Review Class, which class setting would produce a more proficient instructor? Traditional classroom (76.32%) Online (7.02%) Neutral opinion (16.67%) Questions two and three assume that one format must be better than the other, rather than allowing for the possibility of equivalency. Had there been some recognition of a blended learning format, the answers might be different. The survey was informative in terms of the comments that were provided by the respondents. Similar to the views expressed at the workshops, there were strong opinions both in favor of limiting the classes to the traditional setting, and strong opinions advocating for the option of online learning. Petitioner presented information related to the increased costs that will be incurred should the rule go in effect. Those costs include the need for space rental for five-day periods in order to teach in multiple locations; the costs related to conversion of the material to a classroom setting versus online; and the need to pay instructors for more days each time the course is taught. It does not appear from the evidence presented that Ricky Rescue would experience increased costs of $200,000 in one year. However, Ricky Rescue is just one provider, and section 120.54 speaks in terms of an increase in costs in the aggregate, meaning as a whole. It is not known whether the other approved providers who teach these two courses will continue to do so should the rule be amended to require a classroom setting. It is also unknown what types of costs would be borne by state colleges and universities in order to recast the courses for traditional classroom settings. Finally, the litigants to this proceeding were well aware that this rule was being developed and was noticed as a proposed rule before the world began to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. It is open to speculation whether some of the impetus to require a traditional classroom setting would have changed in light of the changes society has had to make over the last six months. Department employees were questioned regarding the Fire College’s response to the pandemic, and both Mark Harper and Michael Tucker testified about the precautions being taken on the campus to insure safety, such as taking temperatures, having students complete a questionnaire regarding possible exposure, limiting the number of students per class, and spacing people six feet apart to maintain effective social distancing. Mr. Tucker testified that they would be ready to postpone some classes until they could be taught safely in person. When asked whether Respondent would consider postponing the effective date of the proposed rule, he indicated “that would be something we would have to take into consideration, and again, the feedback from our constituents, but if it became necessary, then we would consider it.”
