Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carlos Martinez Mallen, is an applicant for licensure by endorsement to become a professional engineer in the State of Florida. He filed his application for licensure with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (hereinafter "Board") in January 1988, relying on the facts that he was licensed in Spain approximately 25 years ago and has approximately 30 years of experience as a professional engineer. The Board subsequently determined that he could not be considered for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never taken a licensing examination in the United States which is substantially equivalent to the examination required for licensure by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, and described in Chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. Further, Petitioner has never been licensed in any state or territory of the United States, although he does hold a license to practice engineering in Spain. On the other hand, Petitioner's engineering experience record shows that he has considerable experience in the practice of engineering which would meet the additional experience requirements of Section 471.013, Florida Statutes. The Board, having determined that Petitioner does not qualify for licensure by endorsement, performed an analysis of Petitioner's application to determine whether his degree from the University of Madrid was an engineering degree which might qualify him to sit for the 1icensure examination and to ascertain if Petitioner could obtain licensure by that alternative method. An analysis was made by the Board's Education Advisory Committee to determine whether the curriculum for Petitioner's degree from the University of Madrid met the requirements of Rule 21H-20.006, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis was specifically directed to determine whether Petitioner's curriculum conformed to the criteria for accrediting engineering programs set forth by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The analysis of Petitioner's degree shows that, when compared with ABET criteria, Petitioner's engineering education was deficient four semester hours in mathematics and included no courses in engineering design, sixteen semester hours of which are required by ABET criteria. Further, Petitioner's education included no computer application of engineering design programs, a mandated requirement by ABET standards. Petitioner has never taken any of these courses subsequent to receiving his degree in Spain. Petitioner's degree, rather than being an engineering degree, is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in chemistry. Petitioner's degree is significantly deficient in required course areas, so that it does not meet the Board's criteria. Petitioner thus cannot be considered as an applicant for examination since in order to sit for the professional engineer examination in the State of Florida, one must have an engineering degree which meets standards acceptable to the Board. Finally, Petitioner's background was reviewed to determine whether he could be considered for licensure under a different provision for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never held a professional engineer registration or license from another State of the United States. The Board has never interpreted the word "state" found in the statutes and rules regulating the licensure of professional engineers in Florida to include foreign counties. Petitioner is not a graduate of the State University System. Petitioner did not notify the Department before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in engineering work on July 1, 1981, and wished to take advantage of a temporary educational waiver. As a result of the Board's review of all avenues to licensure available to Petitioner, Petitioner's application was denied either to sit for the examination to become a professional engineer or to be licensed by endorsement, unless and until he meets the educational requirements to sit for the professional engineer examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement and further finding that Petitioner's educational background does not meet the requirements necessary to take the examination to become licensed in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of March, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5973 Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 0.00, .10, .20, .30, .40, .50, 1.10, 1.20, 2.20, 3.10, 3.20, 3.40, 3.60, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 5.00, 5.30, 5.40, 5.41, 5.50, 5.51, 5.52, 6.00, 6.10, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, 6.24, 6.25, 6.26, 7.00, 7.40, and 7.50 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.21, 3.00, 4.00, 7.10, 7.20, 730, 7.41, 7.42, and 7.43 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.22 and 2.10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 3.30, 3.50, 3.70, 4.12, 4.20, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.20 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Office of Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carlos Martinez Mallen 33C Venetian Way #66 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The Administrative Complaint herein charges Respondent with violation of Section 458.331(1)(x) F.S. (violating Rule 21M-28.002 F.A.C.) by failing to submit documentation verifying his continuing medical education for the period January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1987 in response to the Board of Medicine's random audit and further charges him with violation of Section 458.331(1)(a) by attempting to obtain, obtaining, or renewing a license to practice medicine by bribery, fraudulent misrepresentations, or through error of the department or board, to wit: falsely certifying that he had completed the continuing medical education requirements for the period from January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1987.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was licensed by the Florida Board of Medicine, License No. ME 0034111. Respondent's Florida license expired on December 31, 1989 and has not been renewed. The Board of Medicine does not permit licensees to renew their licenses during a period of suspension. Pursuant to an October 29, 1990 Final Order, Respondent's license was suspended until such time as he complied with a prior December 16, 1988 Final Order reprimanding him and imposing an administrative fine of $2500 for a violation of Section 458.331(1)(b) F.S., discipline in another state, Texas. This cause involves Respondent's last biennial license renewal for the period 1988-1989. Pursuant to Section 455.213(5) F.S. as a condition of renewal of a license, the Board of Medical Examiners (Board of Medicine) shall require licensees which it regulates to periodically demonstrate their professional competency by completing at least 40 hours of continuing education every two years, of which at least five hours shall concern risk management. Criteria for, and content of, continuing education courses shall be approved by the Board. Pursuant to Rule 21M-28.002 F.A.C. every physician licensed pursuant to Chapter 458 F.S. shall be required to complete 40 hours of continuing medical education (CME) approved by the Board in the 24 months preceding each biennial renewal period as established by the Department. At least five of such CME hours required for renewal shall concern risk management. Pursuant to Rule 21M-28.002(2)(a) F.A.C. "risk management" means the identification, investigation, analysis, and evaluation of risks and the selection of the most advantageous method of correcting, reducing, or eliminating identifiable risks. Pursuant to Section 21M-28.002(3) F.A.C., part of the application for renewal shall include a form on which the licensee shall state that he has completed the required continuing education. Additionally, the licensee is affirmatively charged with retaining such receipts, vouchers, certificates, or other papers, such as physician recognition awards issued by the American Medical Association (AMA), as may be necessary to document completion of the continuing medical education listed by the licensee on the renewal form for a period of not less than four years from the date the course was taken. The Board is affirmatively charged with randomly auditing such numbers of licensees as is necessary to assure that the continuing education requirements are met. On or about January 18, 1988, Respondent signed the following statement which was thereafter submitted as part of his request to renew his license to practice medicine: I hereby certify that during the period January 1, 1986, through December 31, 1987, I have obtained no fewer than forty (40) hours of continuing medical education courses which meets the requirement of Chapter 455.213(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21M-28.002(6), Florida Administrative Code. I further certify that at least five (5) of the forty (40) hours concern risk management pursuant to Rule 21M-28.002(2), Florida Administrative Code. I understand that I must maintain such receipts, vouchers, certificates, or other papers to document completion of the CME requirements for a period of not less than four (4) years from the date the course was taken. I affirm that these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in a fine, suspension or revocation of my license as provided in Florida Statutes 455.2275, 775.082, or 775.084. The aforementioned statement concerning CME courses taken January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1987 was required as part of the renewal process for the licensing period from January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1989. Without this statement, Respondent would not have been permitted to renew his license to practice medicine in Florida, but having made it, he was permitted to renew his Florida license. That renewal was based, in part, on the aforementioned statement signed by Respondent regarding completion of the mandatory CME credits. Thereafter, Respondent was selected randomly for audit purposes to verify his continuing medical education for the January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1987 period covered in his statement made January 18, 1988, as a predicate to license renewal. Respondent was required, pursuant to rule, to retain his documentation of 1986-1987 CME courses up through that course's same month and day in 1990 (for 1986) and 1991 (for 1987). On February 17, 1989, the agency received some CME documentation from Respondent, but it was returned to Respondent because it failed to document the required 5 hours in risk management (TR-12). Thereafter, Petitioner prosecuted Respondent for failure to provide adequate documentation of 5 hours of risk management CME credits and 35 hours of Category I CME. (TR-12-13 and the Administrative Complaint herein.) Mr. George Schaffer, the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) investigator, testified that he also wrote Respondent for documentation of all 1986-1987 CME credits (TR-26-27). Respondent replied to Mr. Schaffer's letter on June 12, 1990, stating, in pertinent part, as follows: I am in receipt of your letter of 6/7/90 concerning continuing education for 1985. To the best of my knowledge, this was submitted when requested. Due to lack of storage space, I am unable to keep papers from these activities longer than two years and I no longer have papers for CME 1985 in my possession. Part of my CME for that period was in Medical management and quality assurance and I did receive my MBA in June of 1986. (P-5) [Emphasis supplied.] Mr. Schaffer's letter is not in evidence, and Respondent's foregoing June 12, 1990 letter suggests that Respondent was under the impression that Mr. Schaffer was asking him to submit only 1985 materials concerning risk management courses. It is noted that as of 6/7/90, Respondent was only required by law to have available documentation from 6/7/86 forward (four years from date of any CME course), and that if Respondent had completed all his required CME credits between January 1, 1986 and June 6, 1986, he was not required by statute and rule to retain and produce the proof thereof after June 6, 1990, and given the agency's return of his documents to him in February 1989 with no question raised to all his CME credits, but only to his risk management credits, it is not unreasonable that he might not have retained all of his CME documentation. However, in his response to Mr. Schaffer, Respondent has admitted that, contrary to law, he has failed to retain any CME materials more than two years. Likewise, once he was timely informed in February 1989 that his risk management hours were incompletely documented, he was on notice as of that date to submit proper documentation for his risk management hours, and as of that date charged with retaining and producing that documentation. After the Administrative Complaint herein was filed, the Respondent mailed to the DPR attorney of record a January 2, 1991 letter from "Prof. The Hon. Dr. M.E. West, O.M." on stationery of the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica Campus. That letter states: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN CATEGORY 1 CME HOURS This is to certify that Dr. The Hon. Albert B. Lockhart has participated in a going Medical Education in the area of Risk Management from 1985-90. The hours are as following:- 1985 10 hours 1986 12 hours 1987 10 hours 1988 15 hours 1989 12 hours 1990 10 hours TOTAL 69 hours (Signature) Prof. The Hon. Dr. M.E. West, OM (P-6) Rule 21M-28.002 (6) F.A.C. describes and defines the CME courses approved by the Board and does not on its face certify as approved the courses set out in the foregoing finding of fact. The letter from "Dr. West" is not verified or notarized, and there is no evidence in this record to establish who "Dr. West" is or what constitutes his authority with regard to "going" Medical Education, whatever that may be. Respondent did nothing further to establish his compliance with the Florida CME requirements. The result is that Respondent has only established that during 1986 and 1987, the years he was requested to document, he took 22 hours of medical education, which hours have not been shown to meet the quality standards established by the Board for either Category I CME or risk management courses, pursuant to rule. 1/
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Count I of the Administrative Complaint by violation of Section 458.331(1)(x) F.S. and not guilty of Count II of the Administrative Complaint, imposing a $5,000 penalty, and suspending Respondent's license until such time as he has paid the penalty and proved to the satisfaction of the Board that he has completed an additional approved 35 CME hours and 5 risk management CME hours, such hours to be in addition to any hours previously earned or required by rule. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to four problems on 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 45 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 45 converts to a score of 67. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 26, 1999) that his solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 222 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to Natalie Lowe of the Board, who forwarded it to the NCEES. Appended to Petitioner's letter to Ms. Lowe were two pages of "scratch paper" on which Petitioner had written during his post-examination review on March 19, 1999. On the first page were written comments he had made regarding the scoring of Problems 120 and 125. On the second page were the following written comments he had made regarding the scoring of Problems 220 and 222: 220 a, b, & c 2 parts b & c correct. Min. mark I should get[:] At least 5 instead of 2 and maybe 7. There is an error. 222 ok The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 222 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). The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on May 12, 1999. The Board subsequently referred the matter to the Division to conduct an administrative hearing. At the administrative hearing that was held pursuant to the Board's referral, Petitioner challenged the grading of his solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 220 of the Examination, and indicated that he had "no dispute concerning the grading of [his solution to Problem] 222," notwithstanding that he had requested, in his March 26, 1999, letter to Ms. Lowe, that his solution to Problem 222 be rescored. Petitioner explained that he had made this request as a result of inadvertence and that he had actually intended to seek rescoring of his solution to Problem 220, not Problem 222. Problems 120, 125, and 222 were worth ten raw points each. Problem 120 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner initially received four raw points for his solution to Problem 120. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Petitioner solved two subparts of Problem 120 correctly (subparts (a) and (b)). The solutions to the other two subparts of Problem 120 (subparts (c) and (d)), however, were incorrect inasmuch as Petitioner had neglected, in making the lateral force calculations and drawing the diagrams required by these subparts, to include the force attributable to the movement of the groundwater referred to in the problem. Therefore, 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 four, which is the score he received. Problem 125 contained three subparts (or requirements). Petitioner initially received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 125. Upon rescoring, no change was made this raw score. Petitioner correctly solved only one of the three subparts of Problem 125 (subpart (c)). In his solution to subpart (a) of Problem 125, Petitioner did not provide, as required by this subpart, the quantities of water, cement, and aggregate necessary for the project described in the problem. Petitioner's solution to subpart (b) did not describe one of the acceptable slump increasing methods that the candidates were required describe in their solution to this subpart. Accordingly, giving Petitioner a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 125 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 220. He did not request, in his March 26, 1999, letter to Ms. Lowe, a rescoring of his solution to this problem, and, as a result, his solution was not rescored. At the administrative hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf regarding the scoring of this solution and, during his testimony, contended that the score he received was too low; however, neither a copy of the problem, nor a copy of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, was offered into evidence. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to support a finding that the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 220 was undeservedly low in light of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. Petitioner initially received a raw score of eight for his solution to Problem 220. Rescoring resulted in this score being reduced two points to a six. Petitioner did not present any evidence supporting the position (which he advances in his Proposed Recommended Order) that he should have received a higher score for his solution to this problem, and, consequently, Respondent's expert, in his testimony at hearing, did not address the matter. While there were exhibits offered (by Respondent) and received into evidence relating to the scoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 222, it is not apparent from a review of these exhibits that such scoring deviated from the requirements of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem (which was received into evidence as part of Respondent's Exhibit 12).
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 20th day of December, 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 20th day of December, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a registered electrical contractor doing business as Howard Hall Electric. On October 16, 1979, Petitioner filed his application to become a certified electrical contractor. Prior to filing his application, Petitioner knew the next examination for such certification was scheduled to be given on November 2, 1979. At its meeting on October 18 and 19, 1979, the board approved Petitioner's application to sit for the Electrical Contractors' Certification Examination. By letter dated October 24, 1979, the Board advised Petitioner of the approval and provided Petitioner with information concerning the November 2, 1979, examination. The information provided included a listing of those areas of competency to be covered by the certification examination, and specifically set forth that the examination would include problems relating to accounting. Petitioner was provided by the Board a reference book list of those books permitted to be utilized during the "open-book" examination. The list did not include a reference book for accounting. Petitioner took the examination on November 2, 1979. On December 3, 1979, the Board directed a letter to the Petitioner advising him that he had failed the examination, having achieved a score of 67. The rules of the Board require that a score of 70 be attained in order to pass the examination. Of the candidates taking the examination on November 2, 1979, 20 persons of the 26 sitting for the examination were successful. Further, 19 of the 24 persons taking the accounting portion of the examination were successful. Petitioner requested a review of his examination, and such review was afforded to him by the Board. Additionally, an analysis of the examination itself was performed by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. The Board, which had drafted the examination, reviewed the examination and Petitioner's answers to the questions thereon and determined that the examination was fair and properly graded as to the Petitioner. The Office of Examination Services performed an item analyzation as to the number of candidates responding correctly and incorrectly as to each question on the examination. Although the Office of Examination Services determined that several questions on the examination could have misled some candidates, most candidates responded correctly, and most candidates successfully passed the examination. Although one of the books on the reference list provided by the Board was out of print and unavailable, the examination contained no questions dealing with that subject matter In performing its analysis of the examination, the Office of Examination Services contacted Professor William Hillison of Florida State University to obtain his opinion of the questions in the accounting section of the examination. Dr. Hillison felt that most of the questions in the accounting section were capable of being answered correctly by Florida State University students in their sophomore year in the introductory accounting courses offered by that school. Although Professor Hillison believed that several of the questions in the accounting section were problematic as to the terminology utilized, no testimony was presented that his students would be unable to answer the questions or that the questions were beyond a level of expertise expected to be possessed by a businessman having a general knowledge of management, finance, accounting, and any other functional areas of business.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified electrical contractor be denied. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Lehrman, Esquire 103 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia R. Gleason, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Legal Section Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Rules 21H-21.002(1) and 21H-21.004(1) are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Ronnie F. Taylor, of Post Office Box 697, Cedar Key, Florida, is employed by the engineering firm of Ingley, Campbell, Moses and Associates of Gainesville, Florida, which engages in mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering. Taylor has been with this engineering firm for four years and is currently a vice president in charge of production of electrical engineering documents. Prior to this employment, Taylor spent 14 years as an electrical engineer with the engineering firm of Reynolds, Smith and Hill of Jacksonville, Florida. When Taylor left Reynolds, Smith and Hill, he was the senior design engineer. Taylor served in the military as an electrician. Upon completing military service in 1967, Taylor entered Florida Junior College. He received an Associate of Science degree in Electrical Engineering Technology in 1970 from that institution. Following that degree, Taylor began employment with Reynolds, Smith and Hill, where his responsibilities included the design of electrical projects for commercial buildings, including writing specifications, making cost estimates and producing a finished product. Taylor has spent his entire career in electrical engineering and has no experience with other specialties of engineering. He has extensive experience in electrical engineering having designed and completed numerous large commercial projects. However, because Taylor is not a licensed professional engineer, a licensed professional engineer must oversee all projects during the course of design and completion and must sign and seal all completed work. Taylor is not a licensed professional engineer because he has failed to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) portion of the engineering examination. He has failed in fourteen attempts to pass the FE exam. Taylor did pass the Principles and Practices (P & P) portion of the exam in 1982. Licensure requirements specify that both sections must be passed prior to licensure. Taylor became qualified to take the engineering exam in 1977 pursuant to Section 471.21(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), which permitted an applicant to take the exam with "a specific record of 10 years or more of active practice in engineering work of a character indicating that the applicant is competent to be placed in responsible charge of such work." This so-called 10 year cycle permitted an applicant to qualify for the exam without the otherwise required 4- year college degree and 4 additional years of experience. In 1979, Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, was enacted, allowing persons in the final year of engineering school to take the FE exam to qualify as an engineer intern. This provision has been in effect since 1979. The FE exam, as required by Rule 21H-21.002(1), which is challenged here, includes questions on the subjects of mathematics, mathematical modeling of engineering systems, nucleonics and wave phenomena, chemistry, statistics, dynamics, mechanics of materials, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics/heat transfer, computer programming, electrical circuits, statics, structure of matter, engineering mechanics, electronics and electrical machinery. While Taylor scored highly on the subjects relating to electrical engineering, he had difficulty with other areas of the exam. The course work completed by Taylor in 1970 did not include some of these areas with which Taylor had difficulty. Taylor has had no course work in computer programming, thermodynamics, statistics, nucleonics and wave phenomena. The subjects tested in the FE exam are updated in order to test applicants on the most current information and knowledge of engineering fundamentals. Herbert A. Ingley is a licensed professional engineer and holds a Bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering, a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering with a minor in Environmental-Mathematics. He taught full time on the faculty of the University of Florida in Mechanical Engineering for 11 years. In his opinion, it is more difficult for applicants to pass the FE exam the further they are from their formal education and, therefore, applicants in the 10 year cycle have more difficulty passing the exam. According to Ingley, the requirement that persons such as Taylor wait 10 years before taking the FE exam is not logical. However, Ingley also opined that it is important for a professional engineer to have a fundamental knowledge of engineering and that there is a need to test the fundamental basics of engineering for each person who is going to become a licensed professional engineer. George Edward Rabb is a licensed professional engineer, having been licensed in 1965. He was grandfathered and therefore only had to pass the P & P exam. The FE exam was waived based on specific portions of statute and rule which waived the FE exam for persons with fifteen years experience. The waiver was only available to persons qualifying prior to November, 1970. According to Rabb, an engineer needs to have a working knowledge of fundamentals and to understand the general concepts of engineering. Robert D. Kersten, who has been the Dean of the Department of Engineering at the University of Florida for 20 years, has a Bachelors degree in Mathematics and Chemistry, a Masters degree in Civil Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, Water Resource/Hydrologic Engineering. Dean Kersten has served in numerous capacities with both state and national professional associations involved in accreditation of engineers and served on the Board of Professional Engineers in Florida and on the National Council of Engineering Examiners. The FE exam is prepared by the National Council of Engineering Examiners and is designed to cover the fundamental areas essential to the basic practice of engineering. The FE exam tests both the common body of knowledge that is essential to practice in the profession and the ability to apply that knowledge. According to Dean Kersten the FE exam tests items which should be within an engineer's basic knowledge and which are necessary to communication between engineers in a design team approach to project design. Dean Kersten acknowledges that the FE exam is more difficult for applicants who lack a degree or who have been out of the academic area for a period of time, but opines that those factors do not excuse an applicant from mastering and retaining the basic fundamentals important to the practice. In fact, the FE exam is designed so that 70 percent of the applicants with-the 4- year college educational background pass the exam. Only 40 percent of the applicants in the 10 year cycle pass the exam.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to the "Principles and Practice" portion of the electrical engineer examination administered by Respondent in October 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the electrical engineer licensing examination administered by Respondent in October 1996. Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida with the duty to regulate the practice of electrical engineering in Florida. Pursuant to Section 471.015, Florida Statutes, an applicant for licensure as an electrical engineer is required to successfully pass both parts of a licensure examination.1 The electrical engineer licensure examination at issue in this proceeding was developed and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). Following the initial grading of the "Principles and Practice" section of the exam, Petitioner was awarded a score of 68. A total score of 70 was required to pass that portion of the examination. Petitioner thereafter timely challenged the grading of two questions on the "Principles and Practice" portion of the exam. His challenge was limited to Questions 130 and 132. Petitioner did not specifically challenge Question 131. In response to that challenge, Respondent sent Petitioner’s examination package back to NCEES to have the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination re-graded. NCEES re-graded all of Petitioner's answers to the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination, including his responses to Questions 130, 131, and 132. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 2 points for his answer to Question 130. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was not awarded any additional credit for his answer to Question 130. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 130 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is not entitled to any additional credit for his response to Question 130. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 2 points for his answer to Question 132. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 4 points for his answer to Question 132. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 132 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 4 points for his answer to Question 132. NCEES initially awarded Petitioner a score of 8 points for his answer to Question 131. When the answer was re-graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 6 points for his answer to Question 131. The record in this proceeding established that Petitioner's answer to Question 131 was properly re-graded. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 points for his answer to Question 131. Petitioner is not entitled to a score of 8 for his answer to Question 131. Each of the three questions at issue in this proceeding is a problem that requires multiple steps and computations to solve. If a candidate correctly answers all parts of the question a score of 10 points is awarded. Partial credit can be awarded based on how many of the parts of the question are correctly answered. There is no allegation that the three questions involved in this proceeding are ambiguous or otherwise inappropriate for a licensure examination. The record is not clear when Respondent notified Petitioner of its position following the re-grading of the questions at issue. It is clear that Petitioner was aware of Respondent's position prior to the start of the formal hearing. During the formal hearing and in his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner challenged Respondent's right to re-grade Question 131 since he had not specifically challenged that question. Petitioner has not asserted that he was provided insufficient notice of Respondent's position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that awards Petitioner a score of 68 on the "Principles and Practice" portion of the October 1996 licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1997.
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 Whether Petitioner is entitled to be licensed by endorsement as a professional engineer in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 471.015, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Gerardo A. Marquez is an applicant for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. By letter dated May 30, 1990, Petitioner was informed by the Board that his education did not meet the criteria for licensure by examination under Section 471.013(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, because the engineering program he completed was not accredited by the Accrediation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Petitioner is a graduate of the Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico, with a degree in civil engineering. This program is not accredited by ABET. Section 471.013(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes, provides that graduates of an approved engineering technology curriculum of four years or more in a school, college or university within the state university system, having been enrolled or having graduated prior to July 1, 1979, shall be entitled to take an examination to determine if he is qualified to practice as an engineer. Petitioner does not qualify pursuant to this provision. Petitioner was enrolled for one semester in 1977 at the University of Puerto Rico in the engineering program. This first semester consisted of basic general studies such as humanities, English, biology and math. Petitioner resumed his college education in the summer of 1980 at the Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico. Petitioner testified that the criteria for licensure in Puerto Rico was "substantially identical" to the criteria in Florida at the time of his licensure since Puerto Rico requires that the University granting the degree be approved by the Middle States Association of Colleges as well as the Commission of Higher Education of Puerto Rico. ABET is the sole agency in the United States to accredit engineering programs. ABET does not accredit schools, but only specific programs. Since 1981 when Chapter 471 underwent sunset review, Florida has required an ABET approved degree, and the Board has considered that any state that has the same experience and examination requirements as Florida, but does not require an ABET approved engineering degree, is not substantially equivalent to Florida under the statute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement under Section 471.015, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5778 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 - 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Gerardo A. Marquez Reef Tower Apartment 16B Isla Verde, Puerto Rico 00913 Rex Smith Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact On June 3, 1956 Petitioner received his degree of Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Oklahoma. In 1956 Petitioner took and passed a fundamentals of engineering examination in Oklahoma. This was in furtherance of his licensure as an Engineer-in-Training. It dealt with basic engineering subjects. He also took a principles and practice examination in that year in Oklahoma. The fundamentals of engineering examination was Part I and the principles and practices examination was Part II. The State Licensing Board in Oklahoma did not recognize the results of Part II. As Petitioner explains it, based upon his understanding of the circumstances, that state had revised its laws pertaining to licensure of engineers in 1961. In 1960, to his understanding, those changes were in the draft form concerning the legislation. The changes that were brought about in 1961 required that a candidate for licensure have four years of experience before he or she would be able to stand a mandatory principle and practices Part II portion of an examination process. Because Petitioner had not gained four years experience before standing examination on principles and practices Part II the licensing authority in Oklahoma removed the reference to Petitioner's successful completion of the principles and practices Part II portion of the examination. Moreover it does not appear that candidates for licensure as professional engineers when Petitioner received his certificate of registration as a professional engineer granted by the State of Oklahoma on May 13, 1960 had to stand an examination before receiving that license. Prior to the receipt of registration as a professional engineer and following his graduation from the University of Oklahoma, Petitioner had held the Engineer-in-Training License. Petitioner had not received his professional engineer's registration in 1956 because the State of Oklahoma required a minimum three years of professional experience after graduation from engineering school before it would grant that registration. The verification of registration form that was completed by the Oklahoma Board of Engineering indicated that the Petitioner's registration as a professional engineer was based upon five years of formal education in his engineering course work, an examination associated with a license as Engineer- in-Training, and three years of work experience beyond that five year course. Records of the licensing authority in Oklahoma have not shown the Petitioner as having taken a professional engineer's examination as contrasted with his examination for an Engineer-in-Training license. Further, Petitioner is without tangible evidence that he stood the principles and practices portion Part II, as part of a professional engineer's examination in Oklahoma. After graduation, Petitioner worked for Continental Oil Company, Poncaca City, Oklahoma from June, 1956 until October, 1957 in a position whose title was automotive engineer. In this employment he designed special equipment for different departments within that company. This included all terrain vehicles for seismograph work and heavy duty trucks to haul drilling rigs. It involved design of seismographs and a shaker that was intended to replace drilling a hole and shooting dynamite charges. From October, 1957 until February, 1958 Petitioner worked as a sales engineer for Parkersburg Refrigeration and Reel Company in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. This work was involved with a pumping unit that had gear systems in it. The pump had to be designed economically. The pump had to be designed to withstand a certain amount of torque. If a system was too large for a well then it cost the customer money. If it was too small it would strip the gears. A piece of equipment also involved beams. It included a sucker rod strain that had to be sized so that it did not overly stretch as the pump lifted. There was a concern that the design be such that it would not achieve harmonic balance causing a bungee cord effect. This experience involved picking pump sizes or specific pieces of equipment and matching those with the client's or customer's needs. One had to be careful about the sucker rod size in that the rod was introduced two miles into the earth to lift oil. From January, 1959 until July, 1960 Petitioner worked at the Oklahoma City Air Defense Station in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in a position entitled mechanical engineer (general). This work involved designing a maintenance program for mechanical equipment in diesel electric generating plants. From August, 1960 until October, 1963 Petitioner held the position of employment as a mechanical engineer (diesel). This was in association with the headquarters of the Air Defense Command, Ent Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado. In this assignment he worked in 138 different stations as opposed to 11 stations in the prior position he held. In addition to working to design maintenance programs, he also was involved in work on overhauls by designing a program for determining when overhauls were necessary on the diesel electric generators. Petitioner was also a trouble shooter. If there was trouble with a unit, others would send the Petitioner to the station and he would analyze the problem and recommend necessary corrective action. Petitioner prepared programs and told mechanics what to do in the way of maintenance. From November, 1963 until November, 1985 Petitioner was employed as a consulting engineer and general contractor for Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company in Yukon, Oklahoma. The engineering portion of this enterprise had to do with designs of varying kinds. As to things built by his company, this included buildings, building foundations, and building trusses. It also included electrical systems, plumbing systems and mechanical systems. Those latter items were required to be done by a professional engineer in Oklahoma during the period in question, in those instances involving public access whether into private or public buildings. During Petitioner's association with Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company, approximately 50% of his time was spent as a consulting engineer and the other 50% as a general contractor. In the period November, 1985 until August, 1989, Petitioner was still associated with Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company as a consulting engineer and contractor; however, he had moved to Port Mansfield, Texas. At this point Petitioner did some professional engineering work in Oklahoma even though he was residing in Texas. Petitioner indicated that he obviously did not do as much work as a professional engineer while residing in Texas. The engineering work that he did in Texas proper was not of a professional level. The work in Texas involved redesigning boats. From the period August, 1989 until April, 1991, Petitioner worked as a real estate salesman for Heritage Realty in Tallahassee, Florida. He has done some professional engineering work in Oklahoma while residing in Florida, but not as much as when he lived in Oklahoma. Dr. Robert Kersen who holds a baccalaureate degree, masters degree, and doctorate in civil engineering, testified concerning which activities constitute the practice of engineering. Among the positions which Dr. Kersen has held which would give him insight in commenting on engineering practice was that of Dean of the Engineering School at the University of Central Florida. He was dean for approximately 20 years. This gave him the occasion to evaluate individuals concerning their engineering backgrounds. In addition he served on the State Board of Engineers in Florida for about 6 years and was on the application committee which allowed him to review candidate files for licensure that came before the State Board of Engineers. In particular he has had the opportunity to investigate background experience of those candidates. Given his credentials, Dr. Kersen was qualified as an expert to state his opinion, to comment on the nature of activities that would constitute the practice of engineering. As established by Dr. Kersen, the prime function of an engineer is to devise the system, components, structure, machine, or whatever item, according to sound engineering principles and standards of practice. By contrast, contractors are responsible for building, constructing, and erecting structures according to the engineer's plan. Notwithstanding the distinction between the activities of engineers and contractors, it has been the custom and practice of the Board of Professional Engineers in Florida, to Dr. Kersen's knowledge, to accept contracting experience in lieu of engineering experience in satisfying engineering experience requirements for licensure. That experience in contracting is discounted by 50%. This concept is reasonable and is accepted. Applied to Petitioner's experience while working with Jack Stout Engineering and Construction Company in Yukon, Oklahoma in the period November, 1963 until November, 1985, Petitioner would be entitled to 11 years credit as an engineer and five and one-half years credit as a contractor, for a total of 16 1/2 years in that work cycle. This experience when added to the other positions which Petitioner held from June, 1956 until November, 1963 gives Petitioner approximately 24 years of continuing engineering experience. The period beyond November, 1985 until August, 1989 constituting approximately three and one-half years additional experience is unclear concerning which portion was associated with professional engineering, contracting and engineering practice not of a professional level. In any event, even should the Petitioner be credited with that latter period, the total amount of continuous work as an engineer from June, 1956 until August, 1989 would be slightly in excess of 27 1/2 years. Petitioner's explanation of the period of August, 1989 through April, 1991 did not clearly identify the portion of his time which was spent in engineering practice as opposed to what appears to be his principal employment as a real estate salesman and he is not credited for that period.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached it RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which denies the application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 4th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-3635 The following discussion is given concerning the fact finding proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioners facts were presented together with his legal argument in such a manner as to not allow specific discussion concerning those proposed facts. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1 through 4 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 5 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 6 through 14 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 16 through 18 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 19 does not change the impression of the work which Petitioner did which has been credited as engineering work. Paragraph 20 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. Stout No. 229 2775 Jewel Drive Tallahassee, FL 32310 and 916 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request for license by endorsement as a professional engineer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, James R. Eason (Petitioner), is the pavement management coordinator for the Hernando County Public Works Department. He is a registered professional engineer in the State of Georgia, having received Professional Engineering Registration Number 17320 in 1988. In March 1997, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers (Board), seeking licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer in this state. On July 1, 1997, the Board issued its preliminary decision in the form of a letter advising Petitioner that his application had been denied. As grounds, the Board stated that Petitioner had received a raw score of 67 with five points awarded for Veterans Preference on the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. The letter further explained that a raw score of 70 or above was required in order for his score on the Georgia examination to be recognized in the State of Florida and that "Chapter 471, F.S. does not provide for awarding of points for Veterans Preference." The denial of the application prompted Petitioner to bring this action. Petitioner is a graduate of, and holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from, the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has a record of four years active engineering experience of a character indicating competence to be in responsible charge of engineering. The parties have also stipulated he is of good moral character, and he has never been under investigation in another state for any act which would constitute a violation of Chapters 455 or 471, Florida Statutes. Petitioner passed the Fundamentals portion of the professional engineering examination administered in 1973 by the State of Georgia. He obtained a score of more than 70. In April 1988, Petitioner took the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. A grade of 70 was required to pass the Georgia examination. Petitioner received a grade of 67 on the initial scoring of the Principles and Practice portion of the examination, plus a five-point Veterans Preference credit, for a total grade of 72. The Veterans Preference credit is provided by Georgia law to all candidates who are members or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States and meet certain service requirements. In Petitioner's case, he had served eight years on active duty as a member of the United States Naval Reserve, and he was honorably discharged as a Lieutenant on July 3, 1969, upon expiration of his active duty commitment. At least ninety days of his active duty military service was during wartime or at a time when military personnel were committed by the President of the United States. The examination administered by the State of Georgia in April 1988 was a national examination published by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, and it was identical to the examination administered by the State of Florida at that time. Florida, like Georgia, requires a grade of 70 to pass the examination, but it does not provide a Veterans Credit for service to candidates who are members or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States. Therefore, in the State of Georgia, a veteran can pass the examination with a raw score as low as 65. To this extent, the two examinations are not substantially equivalent. Among other things, Petitioner pointed out at hearing that he needed only three points to achieve a passing grade on the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. Therefore, he concluded that the awarding of that amount of extra points for being a veteran amounted to only a single standard deviation, and thus the extra points were immaterial in relation to the overall score. However, the Board does not construe this three-point deficiency as being "immaterial," and had Petitioner received the same score in Florida, he would not have passed the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of November 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Mason, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Brooksville, Florida 34605-1900 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
