The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Michael Reggia meets the Florida licensure requirements for a professional engineer in the field of manufacturing engineering. The issue is specifically whether the practice and principles portion of the licensing exam was valid. Procedural Matters At the final hearing, Petitioner, Michael Reggia testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of manufacturing engineer, Howard Bender. Petitioner's exhibits #1 and #2, letters from Martin Marietta Aerospace and Harris Corporation, were rejected as hearsay. Exhibit #3, selected pages from Fundamentals of Engineering, published by the National Council of Engineering Examiners, was admitted without objection. Respondent presented two witnesses: Cass Hurc, P.E. (by deposition, by agreement of the parties) and Allen Rex Smith, Executive Director of the Board of Professional Engineers. Respondent initially submitted four exhibits: #1 and #4 were admitted without objection, #2(a) and #2(b), were admitted over Petitioner's objection, and #3 was withdrawn. The parties requested and were given 20 days to submit post-hearing briefs and proposed orders. On September 15, 1986, Petitioner filed his arguments and summary of she testimony and evidence. Nothing was filed by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Michael Reggia resides in Titusville and works at the Kennedy Space Center. He is licensed in the state of California as a professional engineer and has practiced in the field of manufacturing engineering. California, like Florida, does not license an individual in a particular discipline of engineering but requires that an individual select an area in which he or she will be tested. Mr. Reggia took the professional engineering license exam in Florida in October 1985. For part two of the examination, Professional Practice and Principles, he chose to be tested in his field of manufacturing engineering. He achieved a score of 64.4; in order to pass, a score of 70 is required. The examination given in Florida is a national examination produced by the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) for certification or licensure throughout the United States. The October 1985 exam was developed based upon an extensive survey study initiated by NCEE in 1979. A report of that study was published in March 1981 as "A Task Analysis of Licensed Engineers". (Respondent's exhibit #4) The primary purpose of the study was to aid NCEE in developing"... fair, meaningful, uniform, and objective standards with which to measure minimum competency for professional licensure." (exhibit #4, page E1) In drafting an exam the NCEE relies on the societies representing various engineering disciplines to submit examination problems for consideration. The Society of Manufacturing Engineers, through its professional registration committee, provides that service on behalf of the manufacturing engineers. The October 1985 examination for manufacturing engineers did not include questions relating to electrical engineering, which is Mr. Reggia's sub- area of emphasis in the area of manufacturing engineering. Since manufacturing engineering includes overlap into the basic engineering disciplines, Mr. Reggia contends the exam was one-sided and invalid as he felt it concentrated on tool designing and mechanical engineering. Some industries, particularly the aerospace industries now include a substantial number of electrical engineers on their staff. Engineering is an evolving discipline and manufacturing engineering has undergone changes with new technologies in recent years. One way of addressing the diversity and changes in the field is to provide a two-book exam that would offer the applicant a wider variety of problems from which he or she could select. This has been recommended to the NCEE by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Another approach, and the one utilized by the NCEE, is to conduct periodic surveys to determine the tasks which engineers are actually performing and the level of judgement required to perform the tasks effectively. It would be impossible, and perhaps inappropriate to develop an exam that would test each individual only on his or her particular expertise. In the area of manufacturing engineering the exams developed by NCEE are passed by 65- 75 percent of the candidates, a rate which is comparable to that of the mechanical engineers for their exam. Seven out of ten applicants passed the same exam which Mr. Reggia took in October 1985.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the clinical portion of the August 2000 optometry licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the optometry licensure examination in August of 2000. He received passing scores on three of the four parts of the licensure examination. He received a failing score on the clinical portion of the examination. The Petitioner's score on the clinical portion of the subject examination was 70.50. The minimum passing score is 75.00. The Petitioner contested the scores awarded to him for his performance of procedures itemized on the examination as 2A, 7B, 10A, 22A, 33C, 9A, 18B, and 14B.3 During the course of the hearing, two of the challenged items were resolved without the need for evidence. The Petitioner withdrew his challenge to item 10A. The Respondent stipulated that the Petitioner's performance on item 2A had been incorrectly graded, and agreed that 1.5 points should be added to the Petitioner's grade on the subject examination. On five of the items challenged by the Petitioner, one of the examiners gave the Petitioner credit for successful completion of the procedure and the other examiner did not.4 With regard to these five items, the Petitioner's primary contention is that, if one examiner gave him credit, he should also have received credit from the other examiner. However, given the nature of the manner in which the clinical examination is conducted, different scores by examiners evaluating a candidate's performance are not unusual, and, standing alone, different scores are not indicative of any irregularity in the manner in which the examination was conducted. On the clinical portion of the optometry licensure examination, each candidate is evaluated by two examiners, each of whom grades the candidate's performance of a procedure independently of the other examiner. Further, the examiners are not permitted to confer with each other regarding a candidate's scores. Specific written grading standards have been prepared for each of the procedures candidates are required to perform as part of the clinical portion of the subject examination. These written grading standards are provided to all examiners prior to each examination so that the examiners can review the standards and be prepared to apply them in a fair and even-handed manner. Before serving as an examiner, each proposed examiner goes through a training session. During the training session, each proposed examiner practices scoring the performance of various optometry procedures. Following the practice sessions, the work of each examiner is evaluated to determine whether the examiner is correctly applying the grading standards. If a potential examiner is unable to demonstrate the ability to apply the grading standards, then that examiner is assigned to other duties and is not assigned to grade candidates on the licensure exam. The examiners assigned to grade the Petitioner on the clinical portion of the subject examination all successfully completed the training process and were determined to be acceptable by the Department. The examiners assigned to grade the Petitioner on the clinical portion of the subject examination were all experienced examiners and a statistical analysis of their scoring of all candidates on the subject examination demonstrates that they reliably applied the grading standards. With regard to the procedure required by item 14B, the Petitioner asserts that his ability to demonstrate the required procedure was impaired by the fact that the patient was photophobic. The greater weight of the evidence is otherwise. While the subject examination was in progress, two optometrists examined the patient and determined that the patient was not photophobic. There is no competent substantial evidence of any misconduct by any of the examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance during the subject examination. Similarly, there is no competent substantial evidence that the Department acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or that it abused its discretion. There is no competent substantial evidence that the scoring of the Petitioner's examination performance was flawed, other than the additional 1.5 points that the Department agreed should be given for item 2A.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Petitioner is not entitled to a passing grade on the clinical section of the optometry licensure examination and dismissing the petition in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Test Anxiety at the February 1994 General Contractor's Examination The General Contractor's Examination used in the licensing of individuals as general contractors is divided into three parts, each of which may be passed separately. Credit for passing any one portion of the examination is good for a period of only one year. An applicant for a license as a General Contractor is limited in taking any part of the examination to three times per year. If an applicant fails to pass all three parts of the examination in one year, therefore, the applicant must commence the examination process anew, as if none of the portions of the examination had been passed. On February 17, 1994, William T. Davenport, sat for the Contract Administration portion of the exam for the third time within a one-year period. At each of the two examinations taken earlier, he had passed one portion. The Contract Administration portion was the only part he had not yet passed. Mr. Davenport was anxious as he waited to take the exam. He fully realized that if he did not pass the Contract Administration portion he would have to start the examination process all over again. His concern was generated not only from the perspective of delay and inconvenience attendant to having to repeat the entire exam process, but also from the perspective of cost. Repeating the process would require him to pay the full exam fee after having paid already a full examination fee for each of three examinations in the year of his attempt to successfully complete the examination requirements for licensure. Different Approved Reference Lists The Construction Industry Licensing Board approves reference materials that applicants may use during the examination and issues a list of those materials periodically. The Reference List for the February examination covered the period between November 1, 1993 and February 28, 1994. On that list was a book Mr. Davenport brought with him to the examination: Practical Mathematics, 3rd Edition, Copyright 1972. As Mr. Davenport sat nervously awaiting commencement of the exam, a proctor removed Practical Mathematics from his desk indicating that use of the book was not allowed. Mr. Davenport relates his response to the incident in this way, (Tr. 26.) The anxiety was very high at that point. My concern was try to get through the exam and, when the book was taken away from me, I panicked, to be blunt. I just totally panicked. Unlike the testing period from November 1, 1993 to February 28, 1994, Practical Mathematics was not on the Reference List for the next period of testing, from March 1, through June 30, 1994. The later list, issued January 13, had been out for over a month at the time of the exam. It is likely the proctor removed the book in mistaken reliance on the later list. As it turned out, the proctor returned the book to Mr. Davenport either shortly before the examination commenced. As he did so, the proctor commented, "Well, I don't know." (Tr. 25.) Mr. Davenport did not use the book during the exam because, "[a]t that point, I was reluctant to use the book ... I didn't want the test to be invalidated and I didn't want to be challenged." Id. Not using the book proved to be critical to whether Mr. Davenport passed the Contract Administration portion of the exam. He scored a 68. A passing grade is 70. Had Mr. Davenport answered correctly question number 3, which was worth four points, he would have received a 72, a passing grade. The question involves applying a percentage. Mr. Davenport could not remember whether in obtaining a percentage it is necessary to multiply or divide. Practical Mathematics has a chapter on percentages. The chapter teaches that multiplication is the arithmetic method to use when obtaining a percentage. But Mr. Davenport guessed that division should be used. He divided by the percentage and, therefore, chose an incorrect answer. Question number 3 on the exam is one of the questions that Mr. Davenport challenged originally: A 2-man crew has consistently worked at a labor performance standard ratio of 0.85 to 1. They are selected for a job requiring 60 (standard time) man-hours to perform. They will NOT work more than 8 hours per workday. NO work will be done on Saturdays or Sundays. There are NO holidays during the time the work will be performed. According to Builder's Guide to Accounting, if the job must be finished NO later than Friday afternoon at 5:00 p.m., what is the last day that they could be scheduled to start the job? Thursday of the previous week Friday of the previous week Monday of the same week Tuesday of the same week Respondent's. Ex. No. 2. The correct answer is "(D) Tuesday of the same week." The Department's expert witness explained that the correct answer is reached by way of an algebraic formula. The formula is: "the labor performance standard ratio = x (the unknown) divided by the standard time man hours" and then that answer is divided by 2 since the crew is a 2 man crew. Applied to the problem, the formula is: .85/1 = x/60, with x, once known, divided by 2. Using the formula, the calculation goes as follows: .85/1 = x/60; multiplying both sides of the equation by 60, .85(60) = x; carrying out the arithmetic calculation, x equals 51; 51/2 = 25.5. It takes 25.5 hours, therefore, for the crew to complete the job. If, as the problem states, the job must be completed by Friday at 5 p.m. and the crew works 8 hours a day, then it will take the crew 3 full days and 1.5 additional hours to complete the job. Working backward from Friday, the crew will work 8 hours on Friday, 8 hours on Thursday, and 8 hours on Wednesday for a total of 24 hours. The crew must start on Tuesday of the same week to work the additional 1.5 hours required to complete the job. One does not need to use algebra, however, to solve the problem. One can simply obtain the number of actual hours needed to complete the job by applying 85 percent (the crew's labor performance standard) to the number of standard time manhours called for by the job, in this case, 60. Here is where Mr. Davenport needed Practical Mathematics. Not knowing whether to obtain the actual hours by multiplying .85 times 60 or dividing .85 into 60, he guessed, in error, division. Through the use of division, it appears incorrectly that the number of manhours needed is 70.588. Divided by two, to take into account that there are two members of the crew, it would take the crew 35.294 hours. If it took the crew 35 hours and a fraction to complete the job on time, the crew would need to start on Monday of the same week. "(C) Monday of the same week," is the answer chosen by Mr. Davenport. Other Distractions and the Site of the Exam The examination was conducted in the Tallahassee office of the National Assessment Institute (NAI). The NAI was under contract to the Department as the vendor to conduct the exam. At the time of the examination, the exam site was a room approximately forty feet by thirteen feet four inches in size. It contained nine tables, each 18 inches by eight feet. The tables were spaced 35 inches from each other. At each table were two straight-backed chairs. There were seven candidates present for the examination. The first and last tables were unoccupied. Each of the seven candidates were allotted 34 square feet of floor space to be occupied by the candidate, the chair, the table and materials used in the exam. On the east wall of the exam room were three plate glass fixed windows. Two of the windows are 48 inches long by 36 inches tall and one is 36 inches long by 31 inches tall. The glass is one-eighth inch thick non- commercial grade. The windows are acceptable under NAI guidelines. On the other side of the windows is a workroom that measured 15.25 by 17.5 feet. Through these windows the examination supervisor seated in the work room can monitor the performance of the proctors in the exam room and see the candidates as they take the exam. The candidates, seated to the left of the workroom, do not face the workroom. Rather, their right side is exposed to the workroom. If the tables are numbered 1 through 9 on Respondent's Ex. No. 1, beginning with 1 on the side of the room marked on the exhibit as "N" or north, candidates who were seated at tables 4 through 8 were directly exposed to the workroom windows. Mr. Davenport was seated at one of the tables exposed to the workroom windows, most likely table 3, 4 or 5, that is, one of the center 3 tables. During the exam, he could see employees through the windows moving in the workroom and hear noise from the workroom. There were four employees who were present at one time or another in the workroom. Three of these employees were also engaged in proctoring the examination. In addition to the visual diversion posed by the four employees in the workroom, Mr. Davenport could hear sounds emanating from the room. The doors to the workroom, open so that the exam supervisor seated in the workroom could hear what occurred in the exam room, also allowed sounds from the workroom into the exam room. The source of the sound was the printer working, the four workers conversing from time to time and other noises associated with an office work environment. Sight of the employees and noise from the workroom prevented petitioner from fully concentrating on the exam. Mr. Davenport was also distracted by the activities of the proctors while in the exam room. During the four hours he sat for the exam, three of the four employees he observed in the workroom were also acting as proctors. They left the workroom in a rotation in order to spell each other. During their shifts as proctors, the three monitored the exam room. Mr. Davenport felt distracted by the coming and goings of the three as they rotated in and out of the room. Although there was a table designated for the proctors at a corner outside the workroom across from table 3, they rarely sat there. They sat at one of the empty tables or walked beside the seated candidates, all the time carrying out the function of a proctor: observing the candidates during examination. The FCILB Examination Administration Manual, applicable to the February General Contractor's exam, details the responsibilities of proctors in sixteen separate counts. No. 13 reads: Proctors observe at all times and move quietly about the room. Proctors do not disturb or distract candidates during the examination. If speaking is necessary, a proctor needs to be quiet and brief as possible. Proctors avoid asking candidates to move chairs to get around them, standing too close or directly behind candidates, or rustling papers and talking to other proctors in the vicinity. Petitioner's Ex. No. 2, FCILB Examination Administration Manual, p. 2-5. Movement of the proctors was necessary during the exam because of its open-book format. It is incumbent on the proctors of an open-book exam to insure that candidates do not copy questions form the examination into their reference materials. Other Candidates Reactions to the NAI's Tallahassee Office Among the three proctors the day of the exam was Ms. Jean Love. Ms. Love is also the Office Manager of the NAI's Tallahassee Office. She has worked for NAI for over two years. Before that she worked for eight and one-half years with the Department in examination services, during which she administered exams, including acting as a proctor for exams. In addition to the daily operations of the office, she oversees the administration of examinations, a function she fulfilled at the February General Contractor's exam this year. Ms. Love did not see any unusual or distracting activities on the part of the other two proctors and did not undertake any activities, in her opinion, that would have violated any of the responsibilities of proctors, including those quoted, above, from the FCILB Examination Administration Manual. The activities during the exam in the workroom, undertaken under Ms. Love's supervision, were normal activities undertaken every day at the NAI Tallahassee Office during and outside of times of examinations. Aside from typical office activities, such as conducting telephone conversations, scheduling candidates for tests, and doing paperwork that included hand-folding documentation, there was no unusual activity the day of the exam. The only event in the workroom that contributed at all to the sound of normally quiet office activity was the validation of a single candidate's check. No complaints about noise in the workroom during the February General Contractor's Exam were registered with the NAI Tallahassee Office. Nor did any of the candidates that day complain about the activities of the proctors. Ms. Love did not learn of Mr. Davenport's complaint until after he filed his challenge to the examination questions. While a proctor may have from time to time stood near Mr. Davenport as he took the exam, none of the proctors hovered over him or, in Ms. Love's opinion, did anything that would distract the average candidate. No complaint during the examination was made by Mr. Davenport. He did not complain about inability to concentrate on the exam until after he received the exam results. During Ms. Love's two years at the NAI Tallahassee office, no candidate, prior to Mr. Davenport, had ever complained about the testing environment for any reason. The comments she has received from candidates following exams have been solely complimentary. Over the last two years, the office has administered between 15 and 20 tests per month. Complimentary comments are made, on average, by one candidate per test. In the last two years the office has received, at a minimum, well in excess of 350 compliments on the testing environment from candidates. In contrast, Mr. Davenport's complaint stands alone as the only complaint about the office testing environment in the last two years at the NAI's Tallahassee Office.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, in the alternative: That petitioner's request for reexamination or a passing grade on the "Contract Administration, Division I" portion of the General Contractor's examination administered in February 1994 be DENIED; or, in the alternative, If the Construction Industry Licensing Board is willing to overlook the petitioner's failure to challenge his grade specifically on the appropriation of the book before the examination in the petition for formal hearing and the Department's legitimate objection to the presentation of evidence on the issue, that petitioner be allowed to sit for reexamination and, if he passes the Contract Administration portion of the exam, be credited with passing the other two portions of the exam as well as if all three portions had been passed in one year. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1994. DAVID M. MALONEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 1, the first and last sentences are adopted. The remainder of the proposed finding, and in particular the reference to Linda Chaffin, test proctor, is rejected because it is either not supported by the evidence or argumentative in nature rather than factual. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2 is rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact Nos. 7 and 8 are rejected as unsupported by the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the reference to Linda Chaffin is rejected. Ms. Chaffin was not identified by the evidence as the proctor who removed the book from petitioner prior to the exam. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted, in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: William T. Davenport 336 14th Avenue, North Jacksonville, FL 32250 William W. Woodyard Assistant General Counsel D B P R 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Richard Hickok, Executive Director C I L B 7960 Arlington Expy., Ste. 300 Jacksonville, FL 32311-7467 Jack McRay General Counsel D B P R 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Prior to his admission to the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida on August 30, 1982, Petitioner Evans attended a three-year full-time Mechanical Engineering Diploma Program at the College of Arts, Science and Technology in Kingston, Jamaica. Upon completion of the program, Petitioner was awarded the College Mechanical Engineering Diploma. The diploma from the College of Arts, Science and Technology was conferred in an educational system based upon the English System of Education. The diploma was not a university degree, such as a Bachelor of Science. It is more akin to a certificate from a specialized training program. Such diplomas are often called Associate Degrees when they are issued by junior colleges in the United States. 750 credit hours were transferred from the College of Arts, Science and Technology and were applied to the lower level requirements for the Mechanical Engineering Program when Petitioner was enrolled at the University of South Florida. As with all transfers from other schools of higher education, Petitioner was not given credit for those courses in the grade point average (GPA) he was required to achieve at the university. Throughout his enrollment at the university prior to the actual award of his Bachelor of Science (BS) degree, Petitioner Evans was in the Mechanical Engineering Program. During the thirteen terms the Petitioner attended the university before he was awarded his BS degree, he repeated the following engineering department courses: EGN 3313 STATICS (3 times); EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2 (2 times); ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I (3 times) and EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO (4 times). Petitioner ultimately achieved a "A" in EGN 3313 STATICS; a "C" in EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2, as well as ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I. His final grade in the coursework for EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO was a "B". At all times while Petitioner was in attendance at the university, the Mechanical Engineering Department required students to have a GPA of 2.2 or better in a specific schedule of coursework before a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (BSME) degree would be awarded by the faculty of the Department. The curriculum for the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida was accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) based upon the program requirement that a degree in mechanical engineering would be conferred only on students with a 2.2 or better GPA. The fall term of August 24, 1987 - December 12, 1987, was designated as Petitioner's final term of his senior year as an undergraduate seeking a BSME degree. Although the means used by the Mechanical Engineering faculty to calculate a GPA during this particular time period was unavailable, there is no dispute that the faculty applied its policy and determined that a BSME could not be awarded to Petitioner because he did not meet the academic standard of 2.2 or better GPA in the scheduled courses. Due to the averaging required to arrive at a GPA, Petitioner's repetition of so many courses lowered his overall GPA even though he successfully completed each course on his final attempt. When Petitioner was personally informed of the faculty's decision by his assigned faculty adviser, he questioned whether he could retake some of the courses to bring his GPA status up to the level demanded by the faculty. This idea was discouraged by his adviser because Petitioner would have to repeat a large number of courses over a lengthy period of time. The averaging techniques used to compute a GPA makes such an endeavor very time consuming with small results for the effort spent. Based upon the advice he received, Petitioner acquiesced in the faculty's decision to award him a B.S. in Engineering-Option in General and accepted the degree. At the close of his undergraduate academic pursuits, Petitioner had an overall GPA of 2.082 and a GPA in departmental course work of 1.79. This departmental GPA was calculated by eliminating 3 "Fs" from his transcript, per the university's forgiveness policy. All other course repeats lowered his overall GPA and his departmental GPA. In spite of the overall GPA and departmental GPA determination, Petitioner did take and successfully passed every course within the curriculum of the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida. The B.S. degree awarded to Petitioner is an alternate degree within the university. It is designed for students who have either completed a specialized program but were unable to meet a faculty's higher GPA standard or for those students who never designated a specialty within the engineering school, but met general university degree requirements. This program has never been accredited by ABET. ABET relied upon the faculty's representation that students who received BSME degrees would obtain a 2.2 or better GPA in the program before the degree was awarded when accreditation was granted by the board. It is unknown as to whether the program would have been approved if a lower success standard had been set for the students. On July 9, 1990, Petitioner's application for the Fundamentals Examination was received by the Department. The application was rejected on September 24, 1990, because the Department determined Petitioner did not meet the statutory and rule provisions governing admissions to the examination. From August 27,, 1984 - December 11, 1987, Petitioner was in the final year of an approved engineering curriculum in a university approved by the Board. He successfully completed the courses in the curriculum, but his GPA in the program was lowered by his numerous repetitions of the same courses before successful completion occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application to take the examination administered by the Department for the Board be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 20th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Pages 1-2: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement Issue I-Page 3: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #11. Paragraph two. Accepted. See HO #7. Paragraph three. Accepted. See HO #3. Paragraph four. Accepted. See HO #8. Paragraph five. Accepted. See HO #4, #10, #11 and #12. Paragraph six. Accepted. Paragraph seven. Accepted. See HO #15. Paragraph eight. Accepted. See HO #12. Paragraph nine. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Rejected. Cumulative. Issue II-Page 7: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #13. Issue III-Page 8:Paragraph one. Accepted. Paragraph two. Rejected. Cumulative. Paragraph three. Accepted. Paragraph four. Rejected. Mixed Question of Law and Fact. Witness Incompetent to determine. Paragraph five. Rejected. Cumulative. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #12 and #13. Accepted. See HO #8 and #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Insufficient facts presented. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. COPIES FURNISHED: Weldon Earl Brennan, Esquire SHEAR NEWMAN HAHN & ROSENKRANZ, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Executive Director Jack McRay, General Counsel Florida Board of Professional Department of Professional Engineers Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 30, 1998, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to Problems 124, 125, and 222 on the Examination. At the time he made this request, Petitioner was aware that rescoring could result in the candidate's score being lowered (although he believed that, in his case, the outcome would be a higher, not a lower, score). Petitioner was wrong. The rescoring he requested resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). After being notified of the outcome of the rescoring, Petitioner requested the Florida Board of Professional Engineers to grant him a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. Petitioner's request was granted. At hearing, Petitioner advised that he was challenging only the grading of his solutions to Problems 124 and 222 of the Examination, and that he was not pursuing his challenge to the score he had received for his solution to Problem 125. Problems 124 and 222 were worth ten (raw) points each. Problem 124 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner received two (raw) points for his solution to Problem 124. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Due to mathematical errors that he made, Petitioner did not solve any of the subparts of Problem 124 correctly. Accordingly, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest (raw) score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a two, which is the score he received. Problem 222 contained five subparts (or requirements). Petitioner originally received a (raw) score of six for his solution to Problem 222. Upon rescoring, his (raw) score was reduced to two. In attempting to solve Problem 222, Petitioner overestimated the lateral earth pressure due to his misunderstanding of the term "equivalent fluid pressure" used in the problem. In addition, in his solution to subpart (a), he did not properly specify the appropriate bar size and spacing. Giving Petitioner a (raw) score of two for his solution to Problem 222 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1999.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a professional engineer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination as a professional engineer. By letter dated February 6, 1991, Respondent notified Petitioner that his education did not meet the criteria for licensure. Specifically, Petitioner's education was not deemed to be equivalent to an accredited engineering degree because it lacked 6 credit hours of mathematics, 24 credit hours of engineering sciences, and 8 credit hours of humanities and social sciences. Further, Petitioner had failed to submit any evidence of possessing computer skills. Petitioner is a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur, India. He received a degree styled Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering in 1967. Petitioner is not a graduate of Florida's State University System. Further, Petitioner did not notify Respondent before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in active and responsible engineering work on July 1, 1981. Petitioner had his transcript evaluated by the World Education Service (hereinafter "WES"). WES filed a report, dated September 20, 1985, attesting that Petitioner's education was the equivalent of an engineering technology degree. A second report issued by WES, dated March 14, 1988, is identical. A third report, dated January 7, 1991, is identical to the first two, except that in this latest report, the WES opines that Petitioner has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. The Board's Education Advisory Committee reviews foreign degree candidates to determine if their education meets the standards established by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The ABET standards for an approved baccalaureate degree in engineering include: 16 hours of mathematics (calculus through differential equations), 16 hours of basic sciences, 32 hours of engineering sciences, 16 hours of engineering design, and 16 hours of humanities and social sciences. There is a major difference between an engineering degree and an engineering technology degree. An engineering technology degree does not require the same number of hours in advanced mathematics (calculus through differential equations) as an engineering degree. Furthermore, an engineering technology curriculum emphasizes the technical aspects of the profession, such as engineering design coursework, but does not stress the underlying engineering sciences. Petitioner's transcript and course titles were typical of an engineering technology curriculum. Petitioner's mathematics courses were not solely at the advanced math level, but also included algebra and geometry. Furthermore, Petitioner's transcript only demonstrated 8 hours of engineering sciences. The title of Petitioner's degree is not dispositive. What is dispositive is that Petitioner's course of study had its emphasis on technical design courses rather than on higher math and engineering sciences courses.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by examination. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6, and 8-11 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 7 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Om Prakash Bhola 3600 Khayyam Avenue Apt. #7 Orlando, Florida 32826 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to one additional point on the October 1996 Professional Civil Engineer Examination so as to achieve a passing score for licensure in Florida?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the Civil Engineer Examination given in October 1996. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by Examination Grade Report dated February 17, 1997, that she had earned a score of 69.00 on the Civil Engineer Examination. The minimum passing score for the Civil Engineer Examination is 70.00. Petitioner timely requested formal hearing and challenged only Question 120, for which she received no points. Petitioner is trained as a materials engineer. Question 120 is a soils and foundation problem outside her concentrated area of study. It is an open book examination question. Petitioner selected the correct equation from the applicable manual, but acknowledged that she solved the variables of that equation incorrectly. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) produced, distributed, and was responsible for grading the examinations. Petitioner contended that the examiner who graded her answer sheet applied different criteria than the examination criteria published by the NCEES. Petitioner further contended that since one criterion her grader actually used was merely to "write the correct equation," she should be awarded at least one point on that basis. However, a comparison of the actual grader's handwritten "summary" on Petitioner's Solution Pamphlet (Respondent's Exhibit 3) and the NCEES's Solutions and Scoring Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) does not bear out Petitioner's theory. It is clear that out of five possible parts of the question, which five parts total two points' credit each, merely selecting the correct equation from an open text would not amount to two points, or even one point, credit. I accept as more competent, credible and persuasive the testimony of Eugene N. Beauchamps, the current Chairman of the NCEES Examination Policy Committee and a Florida licensed Professional Engineer, that the grader's "summary" describes what he actually reviewed in Petitioner's written solution to Question 120 rather than establishing one or more different grading criteria. In order to receive a score of two on Question 120, the candidate was required to demonstrate any one of five requirements listed in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan for "2-Rudimentary Knowledge." The first requirement in the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan (Respondent's Exhibit 2) for receiving a score of two points is, "Determines effective overburden stress at mid- depth of clay layer." The remaining four NCEES scoring criteria required that the examinee: Computes the change in effective stress at mid- depth of the clay layer due to placement of the fill. Computes the primary consolidation settlement, based on a change in effective stress, due to the fill surcharge. Evaluates the Average Degree of Consolidation and the Time Factor. Determines the waiting period after fill placement recognizing the existence of double-drained conditions. In order to gain two more points (total 4 points) so as to demonstrate "More Than Rudimentary Knowledge But Insufficient to Demonstrate Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have to have met two of the five bulleted criteria. For two more points (total 6 points) for "Minimum Competence," Petitioner would have had to score three bullets. For two more points (total 8 points) for "More than Minimum But Less Than Exceptional Competence," Petitioner would have had to score four bullets. Finally, to attain "Exceptional Competence" for 10 total points, Petitioner would have had to score all five bullets. In the first correct equation for answering Question 120, "p sub zero" (p naught) equals the present effective overburden pressure, which represents what clay was present before anything was put on top of the clay layer. "P" equals the total pressure acting at mid-height of the consolidating clay layer or the pressure of the dirt and the water in the dirt. "H" equals the thickness of the consolidating clay layer. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, "determining the effective overburden stress at mid-depth of clay layer," indicated p sub zero (p naught) as the "present effective overburden pressure," but it incorrectly calculated p sub zero equaling 125 pounds multiplied by 13 feet. This is incorrect because the effective overburden pressure would not include 13 feet of fill. The 13 feet of fill is not part of p sub zero, the present effective overburden pressure. Petitioner's solution for the first bullet, also multiplied water, represented by 62.4, by 12, which is incorrect. She should have used a multiplier of 10 to receive credit for this problem. The grader indicated the correct equation was used incorrectly by Petitioner because of the two foregoing incorrect calculations. The equation, as Petitioner stated it, was correct and her multiplication was correct. Her solution identified P sub zero as present effective overburden pressure but present effective overburden pressure would not include the fill. Petitioner had the correct equation for the present effective overburden pressure and her mathematics were correct. However, she did not use the consolidation equation correctly, not obtaining the correct percentage of primary consolidation. As stated, the problem did not consider the fill as part of the present effective overburden pressure. Her solution also contained the correctly written time rate of settlement equation but failed to use it, and no waiting period was determined. The practical result of Petitioner's error could range from a cracked building to a collapsed building, depending upon the degree of error to site and materials.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge and affirming her score as one point below passing. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Wilson 3581 Jose Terrace Jacksonville, Florida 32217 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Profession Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to enough points so as to be considered to have passed the October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination?
Findings Of Fact On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination. Petitioner received a score of 68 on the examination. A score of 70 is required to pass. A score of 70 is a converted raw score of 48. Petitioner's score of 68 is a converted raw score of 46. Therefore, Petitioner needs two raw-score points to achieve a passing score. Petitioner challenged the scoring of Questions 28, 62, 114, and 119. Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) to be re-scored. The re-score resulted in no additional points being added to Petitioner's score. No significant evidence was presented with regard to Questions 28 and 62, and Petitioner's expert agreed that they had been scored correctly with zero points awarded. Question 114 is an essay question. Petitioner received a raw score of 4 on this question, (40 percent of a possible 10 points). Question 119 is an essay question. Petitioner received a raw score of 2 on this question, (20 percent of a possible 10 points). Neither Petitioner's nor Respondent's expert was pleased with the scoring method established by NCEES, but both experts agreed that applicants are bound by the scoring plan established by whatever entity devised the test and scoring system, in this case NCEES. The NCEES scoring system is called the Solution and Scoring Plan. It contemplates that if an examinee's answer meets some criteria specified by NCEES for 4 points (but not all the criteria for 4 points) and also meets some criteria specified by NCEES for 2 points (but not all the criteria for 2 points), the examinee is to be awarded only 2 points, not 1 point or 3 points. Petitioner received a score of 4 on Question 114, a gas absorption problem. Petitioner got the correct answer but did not do much to justify the assumptions he made. He wrote his assumption in the body of his calculations instead of at the beginning, where he must have actually made the assumption in order to work the problem. According to Dr. Narayanan, Petitioner merely made an assumption of diluteness. Dr. Peters explained that Petitioner had assumed that the percent removal would be identical for the two cases contained in the problem. Petitioner had assumed that the percent removal of ammonia in condition one, which is 85 percent, is exactly the same as condition two. However, in Dr. Peters' view, there is no justification for that assumption. The Petitioner had calculated the new Yout based solely on the ratio of the two cases, without proving that the approach is valid. Therefore, although Dr. Narayanan would have scored Petitioner with 5 or 6 points, instead of 4 points on this problem, Dr. Peters' view was that achieving the correct answer from an incorrect procedure did not demonstrate more than 4 points on the established scoring system. Upon all the evidence, I find that Petitioner's answer to Question 114 meets the criteria set forth for a score of 4 under the NCEES Solution and Scoring Plan. Accordingly, Petitioner was entitled only to a score of 4 for that problem. Petitioner received a score of only 2 points on Question 119. Overall, Petitioner selected the proper equations and demonstrated the solution procedure correctly with the correct mass balances, but the scoring plan required that for a score of 4 on Question 119, examinees had to at least attempt to sketch the heat release curve, which Petitioner did not do. Petitioner admitted that he did not even attempt to draw the curve because he ran out of time. More specifically, Part A of Question 119 required Petitioner to determine the temperature at which the flash cooler must be operated and the composition, in mole percent, of the liquid stream removed. Petitioner did not demonstrate the calculation for the mole fractions in the liquid phase composition. Instead, he calculated the vapor phase composition. Although there is no way he could calculate the correct temperature, which he did, without somehow calculating the liquid phase compositions coming out of the process, Petitioner still did not fulfill all of the requirements of Part A of Question 119, as that question was posed on the examination. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Narayanan, partially agreed with the official scoring of Question 119. However, he stated that Petitioner's failure to report the liquid phase compositions, rather than the gas phase compositions, was merely an oversight. Petitioner calculated something correctly that was not required, but he did not calculate at all one element which was required. More specifically, Part B of Question 119 required Petitioner to sketch the heat release curve. Petitioner determined enough raw data for plotting the curve, but did not plot the curve due to the time factor. Completing all requirements of each problem posed was part of the testing procedure. Petitioner made no reasonable attempt to sketch the heat release curve, and therefore, Petitioner did not get any part of Part B of Question 119 correct. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, I accept as persuasive the testimony of Respondent's expert, Dr. Peters, that the scorer applied the NCEES scoring plan correctly, without a subjective component, and that Petitioner is not entitled to any more points on the October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination than those which were originally awarded to him.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order confirming Petitioner's score of 46 on the October 31, 1997, Principles and Practice Chemical Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 31st day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ashok Raichoudhury 9917 Northwest 6th Court Plantation, Florida 33324 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact L.B. Thanki received a degree in Civil Engineering at the University of Durham at Kings College, Newcastle Upon Tyne in the United Kingdom in 1956. Petitioner received a batchelor of law degree from Sardar Patel University (India) in 1967. This degree is the equivalent of two years study in law. The degree obtained from the University of Durham is not the equivalent of the degree received from an ABET approved university in the United States because it lacks 16 credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented no evidence that his degree from the University of Durham or the curriculum he completed at any other university included the missing 16 hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. Petitioner presented a certificate (which was not offered into evidence) that he had completed a course in computer services meeting the board's evidentiary requirements of computer skills.
Recommendation Based on foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: B. Thanki 1106 East Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Jack L. McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Gary L. Wheeler, Respondent, is a graduate of Bob Jones University, having received a Bachelor of Science degree therefrom in accounting in 1974. On July 27, 1979, Respondent received his California certificate as a certified public accountant. Thereafter, Respondent filed an application to obtain a reciprocal C.P.A. certificate in Florida based on his certificate issued by the State of California (Certificate No. E-28234). His application was denied by the Petitioner on October 26, 1979, for the following reason: Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements set forth in Section 7(3)(b), Chapter 79-202, Laws of Florida, inasmuch as the license issued to Gary L. Wheeler in California is not issued under criteria substantially equivalent to that in effect in Florida at the time the California license was issued. Bob Jones University was not recognized as an accredited university in Florida by the Board when Respondent received his California certificate inasmuch as it was not listed among the institutions of postsecondary education by the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). During September, 1976, Petitioner adopted the COPA list of schools as the schools from which it would accept graduates to sit for its examination. This was done for the avowed purpose of ensuring minimum competence and technical fitness among the ranks of Florida accountants. Douglas H. Thompson, Jr., the Petitioner's Executive Director since 1968, is the Board's chief operating officer and carries out its functions respecting applications for licensure. As such, Mr. Thompson was the person charged with examining Respondent's application pursuant to his California certificate to determine whether the Respondent's certificate was issued under criteria "substantially equivalent" to Florida's licensing criteria. Respondent's application was considered by the Board on two (2) occasions and rejected because Respondent's alma mater, Bob Jones University, is not listed among the accredited schools and universities by COPA. See Sections 473.306; 473.307 and 473.308, Florida Statutes, as amended; and Chapter 21A-28.06, Florida Administrative Code. As an aside, it was noted that the Board, in adopting its procedure for evaluating the criteria for applicants who were seeking to obtain certificates based on the reciprocal qualifications guidelines also adopted other equivalency procedures which provide Respondent an alternative method for which he may obtain a Florida certificate. In this regard, Respondent is only approximately six (6) quarter hours away from obtaining his certificate under the alternative equivalency procedures established by the Board. See Chapters 21A-9.01 through 9.04(4), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent's appeal of the Board's action in denying his application for a reciprocal license to practice public accounting based on the issuance of his California certificate be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of March, 1980. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
