The Issue Whether Petitioner should receive a passing grade for the Unlimited Electrical Contractors' Examination given on January 29, 1999.
Findings Of Fact On January 29, 1999, Petitioner Ulises A. Garcia (Garcia), sat for the Unlimited Electrical Contractors' Examination given by Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board (Department). The examination consisted of 150 multiple-choice questions, 100 of which were on the morning portion of the examination and the remaining 50 of which were on the afternoon portion of the examination. The questions are based on general trade knowledge and certain reference materials, which are identified to the candidates prior to the examination in the "Candidate Information Booklet for the Electrical Contractors' Examination." The candidates are allowed to bring the reference materials to the examination and to refer to them during the examination. An applicant must receive a score of at least 75 in order to pass the examination. Each question is worth two-thirds of a point. The Department rounds the scores. For example, if a candidate scored 74 and 2/3 points, the Department awards a grade of 75. By examination grade report mailed March 15, 1999, the Department notified Garcia that he had failed the examination with a grade of 74. Garcia requested an administrative hearing challenging questions 20, 53, and 100 on the morning portion of the examination and question 2 on the afternoon portion of the examination. At the final hearing, Garica withdrew his challenge to questions 100 and 2, leaving questions 20 and 53 at issue. Question 20 dealt with service entrance conductors. The parties stipulated that Garcia gave "A" as the answer. The answer which the Department considered to be correct was "C." Garcia stated that he was giving the answer which applied to the general rule concerning service entrance conductors and that he did not consider exceptions to the general rule in his answer. The Department took the position that the question did not specify that only the general rule should be considered; thus, the exceptions should be included. If the general rule is used pertaining to question 20, the correct answer is "A." If some but not all the exceptions are used, the correct answer would be "C." The question, as posed, requires that if exceptions are to be considered all the exceptions should be considered. The multiple-choice question had four possible answers, none of which was the correct answer based upon the testimony of both Garcia's expert witness and the Department's expert witness. Because the correct answer is not included in the choices, Garcia should be given credit for his answer as has been the past practice of the Department when a question is vague or ambiguous. Question 53 dealt with passive infrared detectors, commonly known as motion detectors. The parties stipulated that Garcia answered the question as "B." The Department's position is that the correct answer is "D." The correct answer is "D" as found in Section 10.2 of Understanding and Servicing Alarms Systems, which is listed as reference material in the "Candidate Information Booklet for the Electrical Contractor's Examination." Question 53 is not vague or ambiguous. Eighty-two percent of the 102 persons who took the January 29, 1999, examination answered question 53 correctly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entering finding that Ulises A. Garcia received a passing score of 75 on the Unlimited Electrical Contractors' Examination given on January 29, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd 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 22nd day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Renato Perez, Esquire Law Offices of Perez and Perez 1105 Southwest 87th Avenue Miami, Florida 33174 Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Ila Jones, Executive Director Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Bobby Serota is licensed as an electrical contractor in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties and is fully qualified by experience and training to take the FECLB examination. Petitioner is presented of Serota and Maggi Electrical Company, Inc. In 1979, the company failed to remit to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) payroll taxes when due, and the IRS placed a lien against the company for some $24,000 for taxes, penalties and interest. Serota entered into an agreement with the IRS to repay this indebtedness at the rate of $1500 per month and is current on those payments. If this scheduled is maintained the lien will be satisfied in January, 1982. The examination for which Serota has applied is given twice per year. The next examination will be given in December, 1981, or January, 1982.
Recommendation From the foregoing it is concluded that Petitioner is fully qualified to sit for the next examination but for the IRS lien filed against his company. This IRS lien will be liquidated by the time the next examination is given provided Petitioner keeps his payments to the IRS current. It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Bobby Serota be qualified to sit for the next electrical contractors examination provided that he submits to the Board by 1 December 1981, a statement showing his payments to the IRS are current. ENTERED this 14th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Bobby Serota 2040C Tigertail Boulevard Dania, Florida 33004 Susan Tully, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his answers to the Unlimited Contractor Exam administered by Respondent on July 24, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat as a candidate for the Unlimited Contractor Exam administered by Respondent on July 24, 1998. Petitioner was duly notified that he received a failing grade on that examination. Thereafter Petitioner timely challenged the scoring of his responses to several questions on the examination. Petitioner was duly notified that the formal hearing in this proceeding was scheduled for February 23, 1999. Petitioner did not appear at the formal hearing. Neither Petitioner nor anyone on his behalf presented any evidence in support of his challenges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order dismissing challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Gonzalo N. Perez 9711 Southwest 6th Street Miami, Florida 33174 Ms. Ila Jones, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board 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
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provision of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended, as more specifically alleged in Counts One through Four of the Administrative Complaint dated August 10, 1992 and the First Amendment of the Administrative Complaint, dated November 9, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor and took the electrical contractor examination given July 26, 1983. Petitioner's initial grade was 70 percent. Additional credit was given based on certain objections and Petitioner's grade was raised to 73.5 percent. The minimum passing score on this examination is 75 percent. See Rule 21GG- 6.01(4), F.A.C. Respondent concedes that Petitioner's answer to question #11 should be credited since the .80 multiplier utilized by the Board in its calculation was not correct pursuant to note 10A of Table 310-16 of the National Electrical Code. Petitioner's grade is thereby further raised to 74.5 percent. Question #13 involves the calculation of electrical service for a lobby room of an apartment house. There was no listing for a lobby on the Table 220- 25 of the National Electrical Code and since this lobby is found in an apartment building, the service should be the same as a residence which is three watts. Furthermore, Petitioner made mistakes on the percentage he utilized on both motor loads and incorrectly multiplied the fire alarm service by 1.25. Petitioner incorrectly answered question #16, in part because he utilized two watts instead of three watts for the lobby computation. As noted above, the lobby was in an apartment house and should have been assigned the residential rate. Question #23 reads as follows: The owner is thinking of taking 2400 square feet of the lobby and adding a barber shop with 120/208 single phase panel. There would be a 9 KW hot water heater (at 125 percent) and 15 other receptacles, a reverse cycle air conditioner, 3 HP, 208 volt. How many amps would this add to the service? The accepted answer to the above question is computed by adding the additional current requirements to the existing lobby area. Petitioner followed this procedure but went one step further. He deducted the current required for the 2400 feet of lobby space which would no longer exist if the barber shop were added. Question #23 clearly contemplates removal of 2400 feet of lobby space. Therefore, the best answer to the question is derived by following Petitioner's procedure rather than Respondent's. Petitioner should be given credit for his answer to this question, thus raising his grade to 75.5 percent. Petitioner marked the wrong answers on his answer sheet for questions 49 and 60. He was not given credit for his correct calculations on his work sheet since the Board does not grant credit for any information which is not reflected on the answer sheet. This has been a consistent Board policy.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order assigning Petitioner a grade of 75.5 percent on the July, 1983 electrical contractor examination. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David G. Budd, Esquire 660 Ninth Street, North Naples, Florida 33940 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry W. Hendry, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Hoard 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit on the challenged examination for licensure.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John R. Maroney, is a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor low voltage applicant. He sat for examination in January 1999. His candidate number is 240024. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Electrical Contractors, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing applicants such as Petitioner. On the examination challenged, Petitioner received a score of 73.00, which was designated a failed status. In order to achieve a pass status Petitioner was required to obtain a score of 75.00. Petitioner timely challenged the results of two questions on the January 1999 examination. First, as to question 49, Petitioner maintained that his answer was reasonable as none of the answers given were correct. Question 49 required applicants to perform a mathematical computation and to select the best answer from those offered. The answer selected by Petitioner was $6.59 from the correct answer. The answer, the one that was given credit, was $4.77 or $1.47 from the correct answer, depending on whether the individual was paid for over-time at a higher rate. In either case the Department’s "correct" answer while not being mathematically accurate was the closer answer to a properly computed answer. The instructions on the examination directed applicants to choose the best answer to each question posed. Thus, while not mathematically accurate, Respondent’s answer to question 49 was the best from those offered. Choosing the best answer was also the issue in question 84 as none of the answers given on the examination accurately describes the cause of the problem. In making his selection, Petitioner admitted he had guessed, as he could not determine how any of the provided answers could decipher the problem he was to solve. Petitioner’s argument in this regard is well made since none of the answers given are attributable to the conditions described. Nevertheless, by process of elimination, an applicant could rule out the options offered by recognizing that two choices related to relay 1 could not contribute to the problem described. As Petitioner selected one of these clearly erroneous options, he cannot be given credit for the choice. As to the two remaining options, while inaccurate, the option that received credit was more likely related to the problem as the stop switch (stop 3) being faulty could cause the described problem if the circuit were to continue to be closed. Petitioner’s answer that described the problem on a relay unrelated to stop 3 would not be the best answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors’ Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the examination for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John R. Maroney 9641 Northwest 39th Court Cooper City, Florida 33024 Ila Jones, Executive Director Board of Electrical Contractors Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the Respondent should receive a passing grade on the Alarm Systems Contractor II Examination administered July 24, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating electrical contractors, including alarm systems contractors, in the State of Florida. Sections 489.511, .515, and .533, Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Senfar sat for the Alarm Systems Contractor II Examination on July 24, 1998. At the hearing, he disputed the Department's determination that the answers he gave to questions 11, 27, 36, 43, 55, 80, 83, and 94 are incorrect. These questions are objective, multiple-choice questions, and the examination candidate must choose the correct answer from among four possible answers. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 11 is "A"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "C." Question 11 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The examination candidates were directed to answer question 11 using the diagram that is printed above the question in the examination booklet. The correct answer to the question was not found in any of the reference materials Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination, but it could be derived from the information provided in the diagram and in the question itself. Question 11 was intended to test the examination candidate's field knowledge acquired during the four years of field work required for a candidate to qualify to take the Alarm Systems Contractor II Examination. It was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to use the information learned in the field to derive the correct answer from the diagram provided. The reference Mr. Senfar provided to support his answer is not related to the question posed in question 11. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 11 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 27 is "B"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "A." Question 27 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from the information found in a table included in the reference materials Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Although the correct answer itself was not included in the reference material, it was not unfair for the Department to expect the examination candidates to use the information provided to calculate the correct answer to the question. The reference Mr. Senfar provided to support his answer directs the reader to the place where the information necessary to answer question 27 can be found, but the reference he provided does not itself provide this information. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 27 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 36 is "B"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "A." Question 36 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 36 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 43 is "B"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "A." Question 43 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 43 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 55 is "A"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "B." Question 55 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 55 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 80 is "C"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "B." Question 80 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. The reference provided by Mr. Senfar to support his answer is out-of-date and, in addition, does not relate to the question posed in question 80. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 80 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 83 is "A"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "D." Question 83 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 83 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 94 is "B"; Mr. Senfar chose answer "D." Question 94 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer was included among the choices provided. The correct answer was included in the reference material Mr. Senfar was permitted to use while he was taking the examination. The reference Mr. Senfar provided to support his answer is not related to the question posed in question 94. Mr. Senfar should not receive credit for his answer to question 94 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Joe Senfar's petition for a formal hearing to challenge to the subject examination questions. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock, Esquire Contract Administrator Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joe Senfar 311 Southwest 135th Avenue Miami, Florida 33184 Ila Jones, Executive Director Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate for the January, 1989, alarm systems contractors' I examination (the "examination"). The examination was multiple choice, and a minimum score of 75 was required to pass the examination. After reevaluation, Petitioner received a grade of 74 on the examination. Petitioner challenged question 70 at the formal hearing. Credit for a correct answer to question 70 would result in Petitioner receiving a passing grade on the examination. Question number 70 contained four possible answers. Pursuant to the Candidate Information Booklet, only one answer was correct. The Candidate Information Booklet advised Petitioner that the questions were designed so that a person with "the necessary background knowledge of electrical contracting will find it easy to select the correct answer." Finally, the References for State of Florida Alarm System Contractor I stated that "Some of the questions will be based on field experience and knowledge of trade practices. . ." Question 70 was one of three questions which referred to a single diagram. The diagram contained eight items. Four of those items were labeled and four were not labeled. The labeled items were: a "Battery"; a closed "Contact"; an open "Switch"; and a "Re1ay" The items that were not labeled were: two horizontally parallel lines; a vertical coil; and an open contact.1/ The two questions not challenged by Petitioner referred to the labeled closed "Contact" and the "Battery". The text of question 70 referred to "the relay" (sic). The text of question 70 asked whether "the relay" was: (a) normally open; (b) normally closed; (c) de-energized; or (d) normally open and de- energized. Petitioner selected (c) as the correct answer. Respondent considered (d) to be the correct answer. The uncontroverted evidence established that "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de- energized. The only disputed issue of fact was whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was normally open. The uncontroverted evidence further established that the essential parts of a relay include a coil, one normally open contact, and one normally closed contact. A contact may be normally open or normally closed depending on the design of the alarm system. The normal state of a contact is its de- energized state. The language in question 70 was misleading and ambiguous based on the evidence in this proceeding. Question 70 asked whether "the relay" was normally open or normally closed, not whether a given contact was normally open or normally closed. The evidence established that a "contact" is either normally open or normally closed. No evidence established that a "relay" may be normally open or normally closed. The diagram was misleading and ambiguous to the extent it applied to question 70. The diagram contained the essential parts of a relay, i.e., a coil, one normally open contact, and one normally closed contact. The coil and labeled closed "Contact" were connected in a circuit with the items shown as the "Battery" and the "Switch". The un-labeled open contact and the item shown as the "Relay" were separated from the coil by approximately 1/4 inch. A determination could not be made as to whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de-energized without reference to the item shown as the "Switch" in the diagram. The "Switch" was open but was not connected in the same circuit with the item shown in the diagram as the "Relay". Petitioner correctly assumed that "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de-energized because the "Switch" shown in the diagram was open. Even though not connected in the same circuit with the item shown as the "Relay" in the diagram, the "Switch" was electronically associated with "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70. The uncontroverted evidence established the correctness of this assumption by Petitioner. 2/ Petitioner reasonably assumed that "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was comprised of the coil, the un-labeled open contact, and the labeled closed "Contact" in the diagram. Since "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70, like other relays, had to include both a normally closed contact and a normally open contact, it was impossible for Petitioner to decide whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was either normally open or normally closed. The only certain answer for Petitioner was that "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de-energized. Respondent established that the answer it considered to be the correct answer to question 70 was reasonable. However, Respondent failed to refute the preponderance of evidence that Petitioner's answer to question 70 /3 was also reasonable under the circumstances. Respondent established that the portion of the diagram that included the item shown as the "Relay" was separated from the portion of the diagram that included the items shown as the open "Switch", the "Battery", and closed "Contact". The two portions of the diagram were not physically connected, were not part of the same circuit, and were separated by a space of approximately 1/4 inch in a diagram that was approximately 4 inches long. The two portions of the diagram were referred to by the terms of the examination as a single diagram because the single diagram was to be used in answering questions 68, 69, and 70. It was reasonable for Respondent to assume that when question 70 asked whether "the relay" was normally open or normally closed it was to be interpreted as asking whether "the relay contact" was normally open or normally closed. Respondent attempted to establish the unreasonableness of Petitioner's answer with conflicting evidence. For the purpose of determining whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de-energized, Respondent defined "the relay" by reference to the portion of the diagram that was disconnected from the item shown in the diagram as the "Relay". For the purpose of determining whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was normally open or normally closed, however, Respondent defined "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 by reference to only that portion of the diagram shown as the "Relay". Respondent admitted during the formal hearing and in its written explanation for the answer to question 70 that "[t]he relay as shown is de- energized because the switch is open." (emphasis added) Thus, Respondent admitted that a determination of whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was de-energized was to be made by reference to a portion of the diagram that was not physically connected to the item shown in the diagram as the "Relay". However, Respondent's expert witness insisted during direct and cross examination that a determination of whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was normally open or normally closed was to be made by disregarding that portion of the diagram that included the coil, the "Switch", and the labeled closed "Contact". Nothing in the instructions for questions 68-70 suggested the limited use of the diagram suggested by Respondent for the purpose of determining whether "the relay" referred to in the text of question 70 was normally open or normally closed. Instead, the instructions stated that "the next 3 questions (68- 70) refer to the following diagram." If Respondent intended for question 70 to refer to only that portion of the diagram shown as the "Relay" it would have been reasonable for Respondent to arrange question 70 and the portion of the diagram shown as the "Relay" in separate diagrams. Respondent's written explanation of the answer to question 70 was inconsistent with Respondent's suggested answer to question 70. Question 70 asks whether "the relay" is normally open or normally closed. Respondent's written explanation states that "the relay contacts are normally open." (emphasis added) Later in its written explanation, Respondent stated that "the relay [is] closed" and that "its normally closed contacts [are kept] open against spring pressure...". For the same reasons, Respondent's written explanation of the answer to the question was internally inconsistent. The evidence presented by Respondent was inconsistent with Respondent's written explanation of the suggested answer to question 70. For the purpose of determining whether "the relay" referred to in question 70 was normally open or normally closed, Respondent's expert witness insisted during his testimony that "the relay" excluded that part of the diagram that included the coil. In its written explanation, however, Respondent stated that the "normally closed intrusion contacts are connected to the coil of the sensitive relay." (emphasis added) Further, Respondent's expert repeatedly testified that the labeled closed "Contact" in the diagram could be an intrusion contact but need not be any particular kind of contact. In Respondent's written explanation, however, the closed contacts were specifically identified as "intrusion contacts." The language in question 70 and the diagram used to answer question 70 were misleading and ambiguous. The language in question 70 and the diagram permit more than one reasonable interpretation. Both Petitioner's answer to question 70 and Respondent's answer to question 70 were reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's request for a re-grade of his January, 1989, alarm systems contractors I examination be GRANTED; Petitioner be given full credit for question 70; Petitioner be deemed to have passed the examination; and Petitioner be deemed qualified for registration as an alarm system contractor. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of April 1990. DANIEL MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April 1990.
