The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner’s application for certification should be approved as a result of her successfully completing the Firefighter Minimum Standards MIN. STD. PRACTICAL RETEST retest.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Evans is a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. Ms. Evans attended the Coral Springs Fire Academy (Fire Academy), as a student, from July 11, 2009, through January 9, 2010. During her training at the Fire Academy, she was chosen as the squad leader. A candidate for the certification examination must pass a written and practical examination, with a minimum score of 70 on both the written and practical parts. Pertinent hereto, a candidate must pass the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination (Practical Examination) in order to become certified as a firefighter. The Practical Examination consists of four components: the Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA); the Hose Operation (a/k/a Hose Evolution); the Ladder Operation (a/k/a Ladder Evolution); and the Fireground Skills. The Practical Examination is replicated at the Fire Academy, and students at the Fire Academy must pass the four components. The Fire Academy adopted the State standards for passing the Practical Examination, except that at the Fire Academy the standards for the Ladder Evolution are more strict. Also, pertinent hereto, for the Ladder Evolution, the State’s passing score is 70, but the Fire Academy’s passing score is 80; and the maximum time allowed by the State to successfully complete the Ladder Evolution is two minutes and 20 seconds, but the Fire Academy’s maximum time is two minutes and 10 seconds. Additionally, pertinent hereto, for the Ladder Evolution, the State’s established testing protocol is to permit a candidate to perform a safety inspection of the ladder prior to beginning the timing of the Ladder Evolution, and the timing begins after the candidate touches the ladder again. Consequently, State testing protocol dictates that, during the safety inspection, no timing occurs, but, when the candidate touches the ladder again, the timing begins. The Fire Academy uses this same protocol at testing for the Ladder Evolution. The time limit placed on the Ladder Evolution is designed to replicate actual fire fighting conditions, producing a certain degree of stress upon candidates. At the Fire Academy, Ms. Evans successfully completed the Ladder Evolution on November 11, 2009, receiving a score of 80 and a time of two minutes and three seconds. Again, on January 5, 2010, she successfully completed the Ladder Evolution with a score of 100 and a time of one minute and 53 seconds. Ms. Evans graduated from the Fire Academy and was eligible to sit for the certification examination. On January 10, 2010, Ms. Evans took the Ladder Evolution part of the State Practical Examination in Coral Springs, Florida. A wind gust caused her to lose control of the ladder. She received a score of zero, due to losing control, and, therefore, did not successfully complete the Ladder Evolution. Ms. Evans took a re-test of the Ladder Evolution part of the State Practical Examination on January 28, 2010, in Ocala, Florida. She completed the Ladder Evolution in two minutes and 50 seconds, which was beyond the maximum allowed time of two minutes and 20 seconds. She received a score of zero and, therefore, failed to successfully complete the Ladder Evolution on the re-test. Ms. Evans contends that, on January 28, 2010, the State’s Field Representative began the time during her safety inspection of the ladder. The more persuasive evidence supports this contention. As a result, a finding of fact is made that, on January 28, 2010, the State’s Field Representative began the timing of Ms. Evans’ Ladder Evolution during her safety inspection, which was contrary to the State’s testing protocol. The evidence fails to demonstrate what Ms. Evans’ time on the Ladder Evolution would have been had the timing begun in compliance with the State’s established testing protocol.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order directing the re-testing of Melanie Evans on the Ladder Operation (a/k/a Ladder Evolution) of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 29th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Slotkin, Esquire 600 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 600 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Nic Thornton, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Julie Jones, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
Findings Of Fact At all times, material to this case, Petitioner has been licensed by the Department to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which is located at 6200 West Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Florida, and is known as the Warrington House. Francis Cooper is the sole shareholder and operator of the Warrington House. Prior to 1984, the Warrington House was known as the Heritage House and was owned by a Mr. Mitchell. Sometime in 1984, Mr. Mitchell was criminally charged with elderly abuse on his residents and the Heritage House went into receivership. Another branch of HRS who was represented by Esther Ward, asked Ms. Francis Cooper to take over the facility. HRS was apparently well satisfied with Ms. Cooper's qualifications in running an ACLF since she had another such facility. When Ms. Cooper took over the Heritage House the electrical power to the facility was about to be turned off. Only by Ms. Cooper's pleading with Gulf Power was that circumstance forestalled. There were only thirteen (13) patients at the facility out of the sixteen (16) that were supposed to have been there. Three (3) of the patients had been mysteriously removed during the night. The residents that were at the house could not identify themselves and very few resident records were at the facility. The building was infested with roaches, there was raw sewage in the yard and the sewage system was completely blocked to the extent that sewage came up through the showers when a toilet was flushed. There was urine in every carpet. None of the appliances in the house worked. There were no air conditioners, fans or plastic dishes. The floors were in bad shape. In fact, Ms. Cooper fell through two of the bathroom floors. When Ms. Cooper questioned HRS representatives about the appalling conditions of the facility, she received no responsive answer. After Ms. Cooper had taken over the facility, she discovered that Mr. Mitchell had absconded with three months advance rent from the residents. Ms. Cooper, therefore, had to operate the premises for three months without income from the residents that were there. She used her own money. Ms. Cooper started with the air conditioning, flooring and carpeting. All these items were replaced. The bathrooms were tiled and additional bathrooms were added. She put in a $6,000.00 sewage system, a lift station and paid $1,000.00 to hook the building onto city sewage. She also brought in an exterminator to get rid of the bugs. All of this took place over a period of two years wherein Ms. Cooper worked diligently to bring the building up to "snuff." In fact, in the time since she has had the facility she has accomplished wonders in improving conditions at the house. These conditions clearly did not appear overnight, but over several years and were apparently overlooked by Respondent until the crisis with Mr. Mitchell had occurred. Ms. Cooper went into the house with the understanding that the corporation would eventually build another facility and close what had become the Warrington House. The reason for the new construction was that the current building, regardless of the amount of repair, was still an old building not worth maintaining and which was allowed to deteriorate badly prior to her stewardship. However, due to a falling out with her brother, who was then a co- shareholder of the corporation, Ms. Cooper was unable to complete her plans for moving the residents of the Warrington House to a new facility. She continues to attempt to obtain financing to build a new facility. At least once a year, HRS does a full survey on a ACLF like the Warrington House. A full survey is simply an inspection of the property in order to determine the degree of compliance with HRS rules and regulations. Upon completing the inspection, the inspector goes through an exit briefing with the ACLF's management. During the exit briefing, the inspector will go over any deficiencies he or she has discovered and attempt to establish mutually agreeable correction dates. The inspector also explains that these time periods are the best estimates that they can come up with at that point to allow a reasonable amount of time for the required corrections to be made. If any problems should arise, the inspector requests that the manager communicate with his or her office and ask for an extension. Extensions are not always forthcoming. After the full survey inspection is done, a follow-up visit is normally scheduled to determine whether the earlier cited deficiencies have been corrected. If, after the follow-up survey there are items that are still not corrected, the inspector will explain to the person in charge that they are subject to administrative action and that he or she will report he facility's noncompliance to his or her office. Whether or not administrative action is taken is determined at a level above the inspector. However, it appears that the customary practice of the office is to pursue an administrative fine for any noncompliance after the correction date has been passed. After the first follow-up survey has been made it depends on the particular factual situation whether or not further follow-up surveys are made until compliance is achieved. If there are efforts being made to correct the problems further follow-up surveys will be made. If not, further follow-up surveys may not be made. In this case, James Temkin, an HRS Fire Protection Specialist, performed a full survey fire safety inspection on the Warrington House on September 24, 1986. During that survey, he cited 11 deficiencies. Various compliance dates were established for the deficiencies. A follow-up survey was conducted by Mr. Temkin on January 14, 1987. During that survey, he noted that 6 of the previously cited deficiencies had not been corrected. He recommended administrative action on all the uncorrected deficiencies. The six remaining uncorrected deficiencies were as follows: No up to date fire plan and the July 7th fire drills were not documented; No fire alarm test since July 1986 and fire alarm zones were not shown on the actuator panel; Smoke detectors not working in four (4) rooms; Exit sign lights burned out at the front and center exits, emergency lights not working at the front, rear and upstairs exit halls; Sleeping rooms had hollow core doors; and There was no documentation of fire safety on the wood paneling and tile ceilings on the first and second floors. All other deficiencies cited during the September 24, 1986 full survey were corrected. As to the alleged deficiencies contained in the latter half of (b) and (c)-(f) above, none appear at any point in HRS' rules governing ACLF's. Supposedly, these deficiencies are cited in the NFPA life safety code, which is incorporated by reference in the Fire Marshal's rule on ACLF's, Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code. The 1984 version of Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code is incorporated by reference in HRS' rule, Rule 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. Both HRS' rule and the Fire Marshal's rule are contained in the Florida Administrative Code. However, the 1984 version of NFPA is nowhere to be found in the Administrative Code. The current Fire Marshal's rule adopts portions of the 1985 NFPA life safety code. However, the HRS' rule adopts the 1984 version of the Fire Marshal's rule. No showing was made by Respondent as to what the 1984 version of the NFPA code contained. The HRS inspector's testimony regarding a particular deficiency's inclusion in the NFPA cannot be relied on since both inspectors apparently used the 1985 version of the NFPA which is not the 1984 version included in HRS's rule. Without proof of the contents of the NFPA, HRS has failed to prove any deficiencies for which it may take administrative actions. As to the other deficiencies, attempts to comply were in fact made by the Warrington House. The facility's personnel in fact thought they had complied with HRS' desires based upon previous inspections. However, for one reason or another, these attempts were rejected by the HRS inspector and the deficiency was cited again, but because of another reason. The lack of an up- to-date fire plan (cited in (a) above) was met by the Warrington House when they obtained a fire plan prior to the established correction date from another arm of HRS responsible for devising such plans. However, upon the January 14th follow-up inspection, the plan obtained from HRS by Petitioner was considered insufficient in that it did not outline staff responsibilities during a fire. The same thing occurred with the lack of fire alarm tests, cited in the latter part of (a) and the first part of (b) above. The Warrington House obtained the testing document and test from another branch of HRS responsible for such testing. However, the inspector at the follow up survey did not deem his own agency's testing documents sufficient since it did not show a different type sending unit was being tested at least once a year. 1/ These are simply not repeat deficiencies since in each instance the earlier grievance had been met and it was another grievance which cropped up. On July 9, 1987, a second follow-up survey to the Temkin September 24, 1986, full survey was performed by O.B. Walton, an HRS fire safety inspector. The evidence was not clear as to any remaining uncorrected deficiencies, if any, he found. Therefore, Respondent failed to establish any repetitive deficiencies as a result of the July 9 follow-up survey. Apparently, however, Mr. Walton, did perform another full survey on July 9, 1987. Several additional deficiencies were cited by him. A follow-up visit was conducted by Mr. Walton on October 23, 1987. Four alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected as follows: Ceiling not repaired in hot water heater closet, i.e. not taped; Kitchen fire door latch was jammed open so it would not latch, but it would stay closed; Plug by hot water heater had no cover; No documentation that drapes were fire retardant. Again, none of the above alleged deficiencies appear in HRS' rules or in the fire marshal's rule and a reasonable person could not glean from any of the other provisions contained in HRS' rules that the above conditions might be included in these provisions. The lack of clarity or uniformity in interpretation of HRS' rules is especially born out in this case since two different inspectors while inspecting the same building cited different deficiencies under their respective interpretation of the rules. When the experts differ it is difficult to see how a reasonable lay person could even begin to know or understand the contents of HRS or the Fire Marshal's rules. This lack is especially true since the relevant contents of the 1984 NFPA life safety code are not contained in the Florida Administrative Code and were not demonstrated by HRS. HRS, therefore, failed to prove any repeat deficiencies from the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. A third fire safety follow-up visit was conducted by Pat Reid, a human services program analyst, on January 21, 1988. She has no expertise or license to perform fire safety inspections. She found all of the earlier cited uncorrected deficiencies corrected except for the documentation on the drapes. That alleged deficiency was partially corrected since Petitioner was replacing the drapery with metal blinds. However, as indicated earlier the lack of documentation for fire retardant drapes was not proven to be a violation by Respondent. Ms. Reid had previously conducted a full survey of Petitioner on August 17 and 18, 1987 in her area of expertise operation and general maintenance of an ACLF. Several deficiencies were cited and correction dates were established. Ms. Reid conducted a follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey on October 23, 1987. The following alleged deficiencies had not been corrected: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases; The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease; Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom; Faucet of first floor bathroom is loose; Carpeting in first floor resident room (#7) is badly stained; Three vinyl chairs in dining room have tears, exposing foam padding; Second floor bathroom faucet nearest exit does not clearly distinguish between hot and cold water taps. As to the alleged deficiency contained in (a) above, the regulations do not contain a requirement that any documentation be kept regarding staff members being free of communicable disease. The regulations only require that the facility administrator assure that staff is free of communicable disease. The evidence showed that Petitioner had in fact assured that the staff was free of communicable disease. Therefore, no violation occurred. The alleged deficiency cited in (b) above does constitute a violation of Rules 10-5.081(1)(b), (2)(a)4.d., and (2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. However, in this instance, there are several mitigating circumstances. Foremost is the fact that Petitioner attempted on several occasions to obtain this information from another arm of HRS who had M. B. under its care prior to his admission to Petitioner's facility and had actually failed to complete M. B.'s Health Assessment form properly. Petitioner received many assurances from HRS that it would obtain and forward the information. HRS failed to do so. Moreover, after several years of M. B. living at the Warrington House and after several years of HRS care prior to his admission, common sense would dictate that M. B. is free of communicable diseases. Petitioner has in fact received confirmation of that fact from an examining physician who certified M. B. free of communicable diseases. 2/ As to (c) above, the evidence showed that the windows were only cracked and not broken. No evidence was presented as to the severity of the cracks. Cracked windows are not included in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code, which only addresses broken window panes. Moreover, cracked windows without proof of the severity of the cracks is not sufficient evidence of the lack of good repair or other hazardous conditions similar to those listed in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Rule requires proof of the hazardous nature of such a condition. Cracked windows are not hazardous in and of themselves and no showing was made that these cracked panes constituted a hazard. Nor do cracked window panes standing alone constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(d). The rule requires evidence that such cracked panes are unreasonably unattractive and no showing was made that the cracks were unreasonably unattractive. Likewise, the missing shower tile in (d) above fails to constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(a) since the deficiency is not listed, and no showing was made that the missing tile constituted a hazardous condition. Similarly, the missing tile, by itself, does not constitute a violation under Rule 10A-5.022(d) since no showing was made that the missing tile was unreasonably unattractive. The same failure of proof occurs with the alleged deficiencies listed in (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). See Rules 10A-5.022(c), (e) and (i). The alleged deficiency cited in (j) above does constitute a violation of 10A-5.023(9)(e). However, the violation was not repeated after October 1, 1987, the effective date of Section 400.414(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Ms. Reid conducted a second follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey when she performed the fire safety follow-up on January 21, 1988. All previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases. The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable diseases. The following maintenance problems exist: broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms and resident room identified as W. S. A third follow-up was conducted by Ms. Reid on April 15, 1988. All the previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease. Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom. All of the alleged deficiencies cited in the January 21, 1988 follow- up and the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey were carried forward from the alleged deficiencies discussed above, cited in the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. The same findings are made as to the alleged deficiencies which were carried forward. Only the physical health assessment of M. B. was cited by Respondent and shown to be a repeated deficiency since the information was not obtained by the established correction dates occurring after October 1, 1987. By the date of the hearing all the above alleged deficiencies had been corrected. Respondent notified Petitioner that it proposed to deny renewal of Petitioner's license to operate the Warrington House on December 23, 1987. The basis for the denial was Section 400.414(1) and (2)(d) which states: 400.414 Denial, revocation, or suspension of license; imposition of administrative fine; grounds. The department may deny, revoke or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine in the manner provided in chapter 120. Any of the following actions by a facility or its employee shall be grounds for action by the department against a licensee: * * * (d) Multiple and repeated violations of this part or of minimum standards or rules adopted pursuant to this part. The language of Subsection (d) was added to Section 400.414 F.S. on October 1, 1987. Prior to that date Respondent had no authority to take punitive action against the license of an ACLF licensee for multiple and repeated violations of Respondent's statutes and rules. The only action Respondent could take against a facility for such violations was in the form of a civil fine the amount of which could be raised if the violation was repetitive. Section 400.426, Florida Statutes. No multiple violations were shown by the evidence through the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey. More importantly, however, no multiple violations were shown by Respondent after October 1, 1987, the effective date of the statutory language at issue in this case. No showing was made by Respondent as to any legislative intent that the statute operate retrospectively. The statute operates only prospectively. Therefore, any alleged deficiencies cited prior to October 1, 1987 are irrelevant for purposes of imposing the punishment contemplated under Section 400.414, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services renew Petitioner's license. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1988.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner, Christie Beverly, should be certified as a firefighter or, in the alternative, whether Petitioner should be allowed to re-take the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency responsible for testing all candidates for certification as a firefighter, for conducting such tests, and for issuing a certification upon the successful completion of the minimum requirements by a candidate. One such examination administered by the Department is the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination (firefighter examination). Petitioner successfully completed her firefighting training at the Manatee Technical Institute (MTI). Jeff Durling is an adjunct instructor at MTI, whose main purpose is to get candidates prepared for the state firefighter examination. During his particular MTI course, Mr. Durling's students were taught the three main types of hose pulls: flat, triple layer, and minuteman. Larry W. Schwartz, Jr., is the fire science coordinator of MTI. He oversees MTI's operations and is directly involved in its curriculum. Although Mr. Schwartz is familiar with the double minuteman hose pull, MTI has not taught it in the past because that particular pull has not been tested. The firefighter examination has a written portion, as well as four practical evolutions or components (self-contained breathing apparatus, hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills).2/ In order to be certified, a candidate has to achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each component. On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, at the MTI campus, Petitioner successfully completed all portions of the firefighter examination, except the hose component of the practical examination. Petitioner conceded that she exceeded the maximum time allowed to complete the hose component by eight seconds. At some point, Petitioner was notified that she did not receive a passing score on the hose component in the June 2011 firefighter practical examination. Petitioner was advised she could take the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Retest (retest) within six months of the June 2011 firefighter examination. Petitioner was required to successfully complete the retest or she would be required to re-take the firefighter course before she could take the test again. On Friday, September 23, 2011, Petitioner presented for her retest at the Florida State Fire College (Fire College) in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner arrived by 7:30 a.m. for her retest. There were over 403/ candidates present to take either an original firefighter practical test or a retest. The retest course was not ready at 7:30 a.m. On September 23, 2011, Eric Steves was also a retest candidate at the Fire College. Mr. Steves observed that the retest course was not set up when he arrived at 7:30 a.m. Further, he observed that the retest course was slightly different than the original practical test course in June 2011. There was no walk-through of the retest course prior to starting it, because the retest course was set up after the other candidates took their test and bad weather was approaching. Although Mr. Steves did not pass his retest, his testimony is credible as he has no vested interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Dennis Hackett is the standards supervisor with the Department's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training (Bureau). Mr. Hackett has administered and scored the minimum standard firefighter examination for candidates, including the retest examination. The majority of the candidates were given another practical test, not the retest administered to Petitioner. Mr. Hackett confirmed that the retest course was not ready at 7:30 a.m. on September 23, 2011. The Fire College was capable and did have the equipment to set up two different hose load courses. It is apparent that the Fire College adheres to a strict protocol in the administration of the firefighter testing; yet, it was not adhered to on September 23, 2011. There was a change to the practical testing component of the firefighter examination being implemented. The majority of the candidates on September 23, 2011, took a different practical test than the retest administered to Petitioner and Mr. Steves. Thomas M. Johnson has been a field representative for the Department's Bureau for seven years. As a field representative, Mr. Johnson has administered and scored numerous firefighting examinations and retest examinations. Mr. Johnson testified that Petitioner's retest course "would be set up when we were done with the rest of the students." He further testified that the retest course "would be set up when we were done with the other students who were taking the new evolutions." Although Mr. Johnson testified that Petitioner's retest was administered in a uniform manner, the credible evidence supports the position that the retest was not conducted following the strict protocol of the Fire College. For Petitioner's retest, the course barrels were held in place by field instructors. Petitioner questioned Mr. Johnson regarding their participation, asking: "Is that standard practice?" Mr. Johnson's response of "It was that day," lends credence that it was not standard practice or part of the uniform retest protocol. Further, Mr. Johnson's testimony that Petitioner was "in a hurry" to complete her retest is illogical. Petitioner waited for 40 or more candidates to test before her, and then she had to wait for the retest course to be assembled before she could attempt the course. There was a great deal of discussion about the type of hose pull required during the retest examination. There was no clear definition of a minuteman hose load or a double minuteman hose load.4/ Whether or not the hose pull was a minuteman or a double minuteman is irrelevant as the retest course was not prepared or set up by 7:30 a.m. as required by the Department's own rule. Mr. Johnson scored Petitioner on the retest examination. The score sheet used on the practical retest examination portion reflected three types of Hose Advancements: Flat Load, Triple Layer Load, and Minuteman Load. (An option to pull a double minuteman load is not printed anywhere on the score sheet.) Further review of the Department's score sheet reveals that someone wrote "4 LR"5/ out beyond the phrase: "Hose Advancement (1¾") ~~ Maximum Time 1:25." This phrase, "4 LR," is purported to mean that Mr. Johnson: asked her [Petitioner] to pull the left-side pre-connect, knock down the cone on the left first and then the cone on the right. And the reason it's above the minuteman is because that's the load she pulled, but it was not a minuteman. This "4 LR" phrase is well above the blank line found beside the words "Minuteman Load." The undersigned does not accept the "4 LR" phrase as an indication that the "double minuteman" hose pull was the retest examination option. Further, the score sheet also has blanks to be filled in by the scorer following the phrase: "Your target sequence is RT/Left or Left/RT ." However, the scorer did not fill in either blank. At the bottom of the page, there is an empty blank following "Candidate #," making it uncertain to whom this score sheet applies. On the score sheet, there is a written time of "2:39," the word "Fail" is circled, and there is a zero beside the "Score." The score sheet appears to be incomplete at best. Mr. Johnson was asked to confirm whether or not a double minuteman load was listed on the score sheet, and he confirmed that the phrase "double minuteman" load was not on the score sheet. The words "double minuteman" do not appear on the score sheet, nor is the type of hose load identified. It is impossible to determine what hose load Petitioner was directed to pull during her retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, enter a final order granting Petitioner's request to retest on the hose component of the practical portion of the firefighter examination and that Petitioner should be tested as if she were taking the retest within the six-month window for the retest. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a Florida firefighter due to his not achieving a passing score of seventy on the written portion of the required Minimum Standards Examination for firefighters.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Kaliher submitted his application for certification as a Florida firefighter on January 4, 2000. As an applicant, Mr. Kaliher was required to take a Minimum Standards Course in order to be eligible to take the Minimum Standards Certification Examination. Mr. Kaliher took the Minimum Standards Course at HCC, which began on or about January 5, 2000, and concluded on or about July 2000. Approximately one-half (180 hours) of the 360 hours of the Minimum Standards Course are dedicated to preparation for the written portion of the Minimum Standards Examination. To be certified as a Florida firefighter an applicant must successfully complete the Florida Minimum Standards Course and thereafter pass the written (70%) portion and the practical (70%) portion of the Minimum Standards Examination. There are one hundred questions on the written portion of the Minimum Standards Examination and applicants are able to miss up to thirty (30) questions and still achieve a passing score of seventy (70). There are three required texts for students taking the Minimum Standards Course: The Essentials of Fire Fighting by Oklahoma State University; First Responder, 5th Edition, published by Brady, authored by Bergeron, Bizjak; and lastly; Initial Response to Hazardous Materials by the National Fire Academy. Mr. Kaliher, and other students, were instructed to study the required text materials and informed that basically anything found in the text materials could be on the written portion of the Minimum Standards Examination. The first section of the Minimum Standards classes came for First Responder text which covered basic first aid, assessment of an injured victim's signs and symptoms, and how to stabilize for transport to the hospital. HCC ordered and made available to Minimum Standards Course students the text, First Responder text published by Brady and authored by Karren and Hafen; not First Responder, published by Brady and authored by Bergeron and Bizjak. Dennis Phillips, coordinator, and Mike Gonzalez, HCC instructor, both testified that the First Responder text by Karren and Hafen contained accurate information to learn the skills necessary to pass the First Responder portion of the Minimum Standards Course. Mr. Kaliher and other students used the initially issued First Responder text by Karren and Hafen to prepare for and pass the First Responder portion of the Minimum Standards Course. Because First Responder by Brady, Bergeron and Bizjak, is the source text from which the Fire Marshall's office randomly selects a bank of questions from which the computer make random selections for each examination, Dennis Phillips, coordinator, advised HCC to order the Bergeron and Bizjak' edition. First Responder by Brady, Bergeron and Bizjak authors, was ordered, made available to each class member on or about the second week of February 2000, and each Minimum Standards class members exchanged their text without cost and sign an exchange sheet evidencing that fact. Mike Gonzalez, HCC instructor, testified that all essential materials were covered in both First Responder textbooks and that only minor differences are such that in one textbook pediatric and geriatric patients are covered together in one chapter in one textbook, but in the other textbook pediatric and geriatric patients are treated as separate chapters. The substantive similarly of content in both texts negated the need to re-teach materials initially covered at the beginning of the class. The HCC class conducted two review sessions of the First Responder materials during the Minimum Standards class, one prior to the mid-term and again prior to the final examination. Mr. Kaliher took his initial written and practical portions of the Minimum Standards Examination on or about July 20, 2000, scoring 62, not a passing score, on the written portion. Of the 52 students in Mr. Kalihers' Minimum Standards class at HCC, 43 (more than 80%) passed the written portion of the Minimum Standards examination. Indeed, Mr. Kaliher's classmate and only witness, Ryan Moore, admitted that HCC provided him with the proper instructions, materials, and training to prepare him for his successful completion of the examination. Mr. Kaliher re-tested for the written portion of the Minimum Standards Examination on or about August 10, 2000, scoring 69, not a passing score, on the written portion. Larry McCall, the Department's representative, testified that both Mr. Kaliher's examinations were correctly graded; that he missed only two of ten First Responder questions on the retake examination, and missed 29 questions from Essentials of Fire Fighting textbook and Initial Response to Hazardous Materials textbook materials. Further, there is no basis upon which Mr. Kaliher can be granted certification under existing circumstances. Applicants such as Mr. Kaliher are only allowed to take the Minimum Standards Examination written portion two times. If an applicant fails both the initial and retest examinations, that applicant has to retake and complete the 360- hour Florida Minimum Standard Course and successfully pass that course before being permitted to retake the Minimum Standards Examination. Respondent acted properly by not granting Mr. Kaliher his firefighter certification for the State of Florida because he did not pass the written portion of the examination as required of all firefighters by Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance, Division of the State Fire Marshall, enter a final order DENYING Petitioner Ryan Patrick Kaliher's application for certification as a Florida firefighter; further order that Ryan Patrick Kaliher is required to re-take the Florida Minimum Standards Course prior to submission of all future applications; and to re-take the written portion of the Florida Minimum Standards Examination for certification as a Florida firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 3rd day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ryan Patrick Kaliher 2108 Flamingo Boulevard Bradenton, Florida 34207 James B. Morrison, Esquire Michelle McBride, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 The Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2008, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants.1/ Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's first attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on September 26, 2011, and included four practical components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills.2/ To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn a score of at least 70 on all sections. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded. For instance, the ladder operation consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee must complete within the maximum time of four minutes and 30 seconds. The ladder operation also requires the examinee to fulfill ten mandatory components, which include, among other things, maintaining control of the ladder at all times and securing the "dogs"3/ properly. Pertinent to the instant case, noncompliance with respect to any of the mandatory elements results in automatic failure, irrespective of the examinee's performance in connection with the 15 evaluative components. It is undisputed that Petitioner achieved passing scores on the fireground skills, SCBA, and hose components of the retention examination; Petitioner was unable, however, to complete the ladder evaluation within the prescribed time limit, which resulted in an automatic failure. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.4/ Petitioner's retest was administered on November 15, 2011, at the Ocala Fire College, during which he passed the SCBA and hose portions of the examination. (For reasons not explained during the final hearing, Petitioner was not required to re-take the fireground skills component.) Once again, however, Petitioner failed the ladder evaluation, as established by the final hearing testimony of Tuffy Dixon, the field examiner on that occasion.5/ Mr. Dixon explained, credibly, that Petitioner scored an automatic failure because he neglected to lock one of the ladder's "dogs"——one of the ladder evaluation's ten mandatory components.6/ Accordingly, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner failed the November 15, 2011, retention examination retest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order denying Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. is an invalid exercise of legislatively granted authority in violation of section 120.52(8)(b), (c), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes (2020).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, is headed by the Chief Financial Officer of the state, who serves as the Chief Fire Marshal pursuant to section 603.104(1), Florida Statutes. The State Fire Marshal is charged with the responsibility to minimize the loss of life and property in Florida due to fire, and to adopt rules, which must “be in substantial conformity with generally accepted standards of firesafety; must take into consideration the direct supervision of children in nonresidential child care facilities; and must balance and temper the need of the State Fire Marshal to protect all Floridians from fire hazards with the social and economic inconveniences that may be caused or created by the rules.” § 633.104(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a Florida corporation authorized by the Department to offer fire certification training courses in both online and blended learning formats. A blended learning course is one that has both online and in-person components. The blended learning courses Petitioner currently offers have 37 hours of online learning and eight hours of in-person instruction to address those portions of the course that may need “hands on” instruction. Section 633.216, Florida Statutes, requires Respondent to certify fire safety inspectors, and to provide by rule for the development of a fire safety inspector training program of at least 200 hours. The program developed by Department rule must be administered by education or training providers approved by the Department for the purpose of providing basic certification training for fire safety inspectors. § 633.216(2), (8), Fla. Stat. Current Certification Requirements Section 633.406 identifies several certifications in the fire safety arena that may be awarded by the Division of State Fire Marshal: firefighter, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(4); fire safety inspector, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.216(2); special certification, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(6); forestry certification, for those meeting the requirements of section 590.02(1)(e); fire service instructor, for those who demonstrate general or specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities in firefighting and meet the qualifications established by rule; certificate of competency, for those meeting certain requirements with special qualifications for particular aspects of firefighting service; and volunteer fire fighter certifications. In order to become a fire safety officer, an applicant must take the courses outlined in rule 69A-39.005, and pass an examination with a score of 70% or higher. The five courses as listed in the current version of rule 69A- 39.005 are Fire Inspection Practices; Private Protection Systems; Blue Print Reading and Plans Examinations (also known as Construction Documents and Plans Review); Codes and Standards; and Characteristics of Building Construction. The Rulemaking Process On November 5, 2015, the Department held the first of a series of rule workshops and “listening sessions” as it began the process for making changes in the certification program for fire safety inspectors.1 These workshops and listening sessions were held on November 5, 2015; July 10, 2016; November 10, 2016; January 17, 2017; August 8, 2018; November 8, 2018; and October 29, 2019. As described by Mark Harper, who is now the assistant superintendent of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training at the Florida State Fire College, the Bureau conducted the first few listening sessions to hear the industry’s view on what changes were needed, followed by drafting proposed rule language and conduct of rule workshops. 1 Curiously, neither party introduced the notices for any of these workshops or listening sessions, so how notice was provided to interested persons wanting to give input on possible changes cannot be determined. The first workshop/listening session was conducted on November 5, 2015, in Palm Beach Gardens, and was moderated by Mark Harper. At this workshop, a variety of comments were received regarding the quality of the existing program and the quality of the fire safety inspectors being certified. Those comments included the need for more field training and more hours of instruction; suggested use of a “task book” in training; the view that classes should be taught by more experienced inspectors, not just people who have passed the classes; and the need for more practical training. The view was expressed by at least one attendee that the quality and method of delivery needed to be examined, and that Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review should not be taught online. In December 2015, Tony Apfelbeck, the Fire Marshal for Altamonte Springs, provided to Mr. Harper proposed draft revisions to chapter 69A-39, which included increasing the number of training hours to 315 hours (as opposed to the 200 hours required by section 633.216), and requiring use of a task book, as well as other changes. The draft did not include any language regarding course methodology in terms of classroom, online, or blended format classes. At the next workshop, held July 10, 2016, a draft proposal was provided to the audience, but it is not clear whether the draft provided is the one Mr. Apfelbeck suggested or something else. Concerns were expressed regarding the implementation of the use of a task book, and at least one speaker speaking against the suggested changes opined that the changes suggested in the draft would cost more money. Another commented that increasing the hours may not help the issue. Instead, there should be a greater emphasis on the quality of the educational delivery, and that instruction needed to be tied more closely to field work. Late in the workshop, comments were made regarding online and classroom delivery, and it was suggested that some classes should not be held online. While the drafts that were provided at the various workshops are not in the record, at some point, language was added that would require two of the five courses for fire safety certification, i.e., Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review, be taught in a traditional classroom setting only. The subject of online classes was discussed more thoroughly at the next workshop held November 10, 2016. During this workshop, there were comments both in favor of and against the use of online classes. While the speakers cannot always be identified from the recordings of the workshops, some attendees stated that some of the online providers were doing a really good job, and the concern was raised that if online classes were eliminated, it might be an exchange of convenience for quality.2 At least one person expressed the opinion that the speaker was not a fan of online classes, and Mr. Harper suggested that blended learning might be a way to meet some of the concerns expressed, and that the method of delivery would be up to the institution. Others who participated in the workshop spoke highly of blended classes. The remaining workshops also had discussions regarding the online class change, as well as other changes in the proposed rule. Opinions were voiced on both sides of the issue. The primary source of comments seeking a traditional classroom setting only were fire marshals at various municipalities around the state concerned about the need for “hands-on” training and the current lack of preparation encountered with new staff. On July 10, 2019, the Department filed a Notice of Proposed Rules for rules 69A-39.003, 39.005, and 39.009. The proposed rule amendments included the following amendment to rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d.: d. The courses “Codes and Standards” and “Construction Documents and Plans Review” 2 The identity of the speakers is not important, and the comments are not relayed for the truth of the statements made. They are listed simply to show that the Department heard several viewpoints during these listening sessions. required under this paragraph (1)(b) will only be approved by the Bureau when taught in a traditional classroom delivery method. No definition for “traditional classroom delivery method” is provided. On January 15, 2020, Respondent conducted a public hearing on the proposed rule. As was the case with the workshops, people voiced both support and opposition to the proposal to require a traditional classroom setting for the Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review courses. Counsel for Petitioner appeared and spoke against the proposed language to eliminate online and blended learning for the two classes, and asked whether any type of data existed to support the change in the rule, or whether any type of study had been conducted to gauge the need for the change. Respondent’s representative stated that the proposed language was based upon “extensive testimony” from employers requesting the change. Counsel also asked that Respondent consider defining what is meant by traditional classroom delivery. No such definition has been added to the rule. The Notice of Proposed Rule does not include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. Instead, it states: The Agency has determined that this will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the Agency. The Agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: The Department’s economic analysis of the potential impact of the proposed rule amendments determined that there will be no adverse economic impact or increased regulatory costs that would require legislative ratification. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs, or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so within 21 days of this Notice. Petitioner addressed the increased costs under the proposed rule during at least one of the workshops. There is no evidence, however, that Petitioner submitted, in writing, a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative within 21 days of the Notice of Proposed Rule. On January 27, 2020, Petitioner filed its Petition to Challenge Specific Changes to Proposed Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. The Petition is timely filed. Current Online Providers and Course Review Process As of April 10, 2020, there are approximately 20 organizations approved by the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that offer distance learning delivery for courses in programs leading to a certification pursuant to rule 69A-37.605. Of those providers, two are approved to teach Codes and Standards and three are approved to teach Construction Documents and Plans Review. In addition, as of June 1, 2020, there are 13 state colleges and/or universities in Florida also approved to provide distance learning. Of those, ten are approved to offer Codes and Standards, and ten are approved to offer Construction Documents and Plans Review. Petitioner has been approved to teach these two courses in a blended format since at least 2015. It also has articulation agreements with some educational institutions, including Waldorf University in Iowa, and Columbia Southern University in Alabama. The Department previously sought to take action against Ricky Rescue related to the type of courses taught, although the statutory basis for taking action against Ricky Rescue is not part of the evidence presented in this proceeding. The Consent Order entered to resolve the prior proceeding expressly provides, “Respondents agree that they will not offer any on-line courses until such time as they obtain approval from the Bureau, which will not be unreasonably withheld.” In order to be approved to teach any of the courses for certification in an online or blended format, a provider is required to go through an extensive review process. Initially, Respondent used a Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric to evaluate the courses a provider sought to offer. Course approvals initially took anywhere from four months to a year and a half to meet the standards and be approved. Respondent no longer uses the Quality Matters rubric, because it has transitioned to the accreditation process used by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. With this change, the length of time for class approvals has shortened considerably. Susan Schell used to be the Department’s Training Programs Manager and was in charge of the review and approval of classes for online learning. She has since moved on to another position within the Department. Ms. Schell would take the submitted course herself, view the different videos and discussion boards, and work through some of the projects, as well as review some of the case discussions and questions. Ricky Rescue’s courses that she reviewed met all of the state requirements to be approved. According to Ms. Schell, classes taught in the traditional format did not go through the same review process. Ricky Rescue’s accreditation verification from AdvancED Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement indicated that Ricky Rescue’s accreditation was confirmed on March 31, 2017, for a five-year term expiring June 30, 2022. There is no credible dispute regarding whether Ricky Rescue complies with the requirements for offering its courses in a blended format. The report of the external review team prepared by AdvancED Education, Inc., noted that the school’s website is exemplary and stated in its conclusions: Once a month, students attend a day on site blended learning instruction where students can collaborate and complete and present projects. Given that the owners are brother fire fighters, there is a genuine feeling of camaraderie and collegiality. It is apparent to the Team that the Ricky Rescue Training Academy is an ideal institutional opportunity to obtain classes for firefighter training and certification classes. … The school has embraced the continuous improvement model to insure that they continue to deliver high quality online educational programs with rigor, relevance, and fidelity. Two Different Views Petitioner and Respondent approached the proposed rule amendment, both at the workshops and public hearing conducted by the Department and at the hearing in this proceeding, from different perspectives. Ricky Rescue focused on the needs and opinions of students seeking to take the courses. Its witnesses testified that the blended courses had significant substantive content; that the in-person component gave the necessary opportunity for completion of group projects and hands-on instruction or field trips; and that the ability to complete the course at any time during a 30-day period was essential in terms of both costs and scheduling for the student, and completing the classes while managing job and family responsibilities. For example, Ryan Russell has worked for over ten years in the fire service and is a battalion chief for the Haines City Fire Department. He has a variety of certifications and oversaw the training division for his department. Mr. Ryan has taken five courses from Ricky Rescue, and speaks highly of them. Mr. Ryan agrees that there are some advantages to traditional classroom settings, because they provide more opportunities for engagement, but that ultimately, a class is only as good as the instructor. Similarly, Robert Morgan is also a battalion chief at another fire department, and took Documents and Plans Review from Ricky Rescue. Mr. Morgan believed that the online blended course is just as good as a traditional classroom setting, and believes that in the blended setting, a student has to work harder than just sitting at the back of the classroom. Both men spoke of the convenience and accessibility that online learning provides that a traditional classroom does not. Matthew Trent also testified in favor of the availability of online and blended courses. Mr. Trent has a master’s degree in public administration and is a Ph.D. student in public policy administration. He is also a certified state firefighter II; pump operator; Fire Officer I, II, III, and IV; fire inspector I and II; fire investigator I; and fire life safety educator I. About half of Mr. Trent’s certifications have been based on classes taken online, and all of his classes for his masters’ and doctoral degrees have been online. Mr. Trent felt both courses at issue could be taught in an online format, and stated that both as a student and as an instructor, it is up to the student to choose the delivery method by which they want to learn. If not for online learning, he would not have been able to accomplish nearly as much in his professional life, because distance learning gives the student the ability to work around other responsibilities. The Department, on the other hand, was influenced more heavily by (and sought information from) the fire safety officials across the state who employ fire safety inspectors. Many of those officials spoke at the public workshops and some testified at hearing. The major concern voiced by these officials was that new fire safety inspectors certified by the state were not really prepared to do their job. Although most acknowledged that some on the job training would always be necessary to deal with local codes and ordinances that are not part of the state curriculum, they felt that new inspectors did not have a good grasp of the concepts necessary to be effective, especially with respect to the skills taught in the classes at issue in this case. For example, Anthony Apfelbeck is the Director of the Building and Fire Safety Department for the City of Altamonte Springs. He has worked in that department for approximately 20 years and served as Fire Marshal for a significant portion of his tenure there, and served in other cities as well. Mr. Apfelbeck has an impressive array of certifications and currently supervises approximately eight fire safety inspectors. He attended almost all of the workshops and was an active participant. Mr. Apfelbeck testified that he concurred with the State Fire Marshal’s Association that both classes should be offered only in a traditional classroom environment. He stated that there is a limited period of time to get someone trained and certified as a fire safety inspector, and he has seen some of the deficiencies in the current training. In his view, requiring these two classes to be given in a traditional classroom environment allows the instructor to keep the student engaged, and to get into critical thinking with probing questions and real-life examples. Instructors can have interactions with students that address issues the students may be having in the students’ jurisdictions, and read the body language of the students to gauge involvement. He also spoke of the ability to develop relationships with other individuals in the class and develop a peer group within that body. Mr. Apfelback has used the virtual environment extensively during the COVID-19 pandemic, and does not feel that it has the spontaneity and free- flow of information that a traditional classroom affords. Mr. Apfelbeck has not taken any of Ricky Rescue’s classes, and does not know what it has done to make sure its students get 200 hours of education. Likewise, he is not aware of the review Ricky Rescue went through to get its courses approved. He stated, correctly, that the rule is not written specifically about Ricky Rescue’s programs. It is written for all educational programs that are provided pursuant to this rule. Michael Tucker is the assistant superintendent for the State Fire Marshal’s Office. His experience includes serving as battalion chief for the Reedy Creek Improvement District (i.e., Disney) for 13 years, and serving as the Chief of the Fire Department for the Villages for 13 years. He has taught fire safety classes both in the classroom setting and online. While at Reedy Creek, he was the training officer responsible for providing training to fire inspectors, firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs. Mr. Tucker believes that the two classes addressed in the proposed rule are very intricate classes with a lot of detail. He believes that the traditional environment gives more opportunity for students to get hands-on instruction and have more interaction with the instructor. He acknowledged that there is a possibility that fees could increase under the proposed rule, but thinks that the increased cost is outweighed by the value that employers would get when they hire people trained in a classroom setting. Cheryl Edwards is the Fire Marshal for the City of Lakeland, and her views regarding traditional versus online learning are similar to those already expressed. She believes that the traditional classroom environment promotes collaborative learning and enhances critical thinking skills, through live discussions, and the need to think on your feet. She also felt that in person, an instructor is better able to gauge students’ learning styles and provide activities and modalities for all to learn, regardless of learning style. Ms. Edwards believes that the traditional classroom setting allows for more “teachable moments,” and guided practice before a student has to put that knowledge into use. Finally, David Abernathy is the Fire Chief of the City of Satellite Beach and has worked with the City for 35 years. Mr. Abernathy has an impressive list of certifications and has taught all five of the courses necessary for fire safety inspector certification, but has never taught them in an online or blended learning format. Mr. Abernathy believes that for these two courses there is a benefit to the traditional classroom setting. He believes that both classes need a hands-on approach to be the most effective. Mr. Abernathy also believes that requiring these two courses to be taught in a traditional classroom setting will cost more, but as an employer is more willing to pay for it than for online classes. Mark Harper testified that during the workshops, the Department wanted to hear from everyone, because all would be impacted by the changes. However, he believes that there is a heavier weight of responsibility on employers as opposed to students, because they are the ones trying to fill positions, and they are the ones having to deal with additional costs occasioned by failures in training. As a practical matter, employers are more cognizant of the potential liability jurisdictions face when a fire safety inspector, who looks at everything from mom and pop businesses to industrial sites with large containers of hazardous materials, is not adequately trained. The decision to go forward with the proposed rule amendment requiring a traditional classroom delivery method with respect to Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review is based on the feedback received through the workshop process. It is not based on data. The Department does not track how students who took certification classes online or in a blended format score on the certification examination as opposed to students who took the same classes in a traditional setting. It would be difficult to collect that type of data, because there is no requirement that a student take all five courses the same way. In preparation for the hearing in this case, the Department conducted a survey of employers regarding their views on traditional versus distance learning. The Florida Fire Marshals and Inspectors Association distributed the survey to its members, and of the 358 addressees, 114 responded. There was no evidence to indicate that the Department attempted to survey people taking the classes. The questions asked in the survey were quite limited, and frankly, provide no guidance because they provide only two alternatives, and do not address blended learning formats at all. There are three questions, and they are as follows, with the responses in parentheses: Is there is current need to increase the proficiency of newly certified Firesafety Inspectors in Florida? Yes (59.65%) No (16.67%) Neutral opinion (12.68%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Codes and Standards class, which class setting would produce a more proficient inspector? Traditional classroom delivery method (71.17%) Online (distance learning ) delivery method (9.91%) Neutral opinion (18.92%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Construction Documents and Plans Review Class, which class setting would produce a more proficient instructor? Traditional classroom (76.32%) Online (7.02%) Neutral opinion (16.67%) Questions two and three assume that one format must be better than the other, rather than allowing for the possibility of equivalency. Had there been some recognition of a blended learning format, the answers might be different. The survey was informative in terms of the comments that were provided by the respondents. Similar to the views expressed at the workshops, there were strong opinions both in favor of limiting the classes to the traditional setting, and strong opinions advocating for the option of online learning. Petitioner presented information related to the increased costs that will be incurred should the rule go in effect. Those costs include the need for space rental for five-day periods in order to teach in multiple locations; the costs related to conversion of the material to a classroom setting versus online; and the need to pay instructors for more days each time the course is taught. It does not appear from the evidence presented that Ricky Rescue would experience increased costs of $200,000 in one year. However, Ricky Rescue is just one provider, and section 120.54 speaks in terms of an increase in costs in the aggregate, meaning as a whole. It is not known whether the other approved providers who teach these two courses will continue to do so should the rule be amended to require a classroom setting. It is also unknown what types of costs would be borne by state colleges and universities in order to recast the courses for traditional classroom settings. Finally, the litigants to this proceeding were well aware that this rule was being developed and was noticed as a proposed rule before the world began to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. It is open to speculation whether some of the impetus to require a traditional classroom setting would have changed in light of the changes society has had to make over the last six months. Department employees were questioned regarding the Fire College’s response to the pandemic, and both Mark Harper and Michael Tucker testified about the precautions being taken on the campus to insure safety, such as taking temperatures, having students complete a questionnaire regarding possible exposure, limiting the number of students per class, and spacing people six feet apart to maintain effective social distancing. Mr. Tucker testified that they would be ready to postpone some classes until they could be taught safely in person. When asked whether Respondent would consider postponing the effective date of the proposed rule, he indicated “that would be something we would have to take into consideration, and again, the feedback from our constituents, but if it became necessary, then we would consider it.”
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2008, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants.1/ Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's first attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on May 20, 2011, and included four components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills. To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn scores of at least 70 on each section. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded. For instance, the ladder operation consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder at all times, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee must complete within the maximum time of four minutes and 30 seconds. A failure to finish the tasks within the allotted time results in an automatic failure and a score of zero, even if the examinee performs each of the 15 skills successfully.2/ Although Petitioner achieved perfect scores of 100 on the ladder operation and fireground skills components, he was unable to achieve scores of 70 or higher on the SCBA or hose portions of the practical examination. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.3/ Petitioner's retest was administered on September 22, 2011, at the Ocala Fire College. On that occasion, Petitioner passed the SCBA and hose portions——the sections that he failed during his previous attempt——with scores of 85. Interestingly, however, the Department's field notes indicate that Petitioner exceeded the ladder evaluation's maximum permitted time by 32 seconds, a performance 58 seconds slower than his recorded time just four months earlier, when he achieved a perfect score. The field notes further reflect that Petitioner committed no errors in connection with the 15 ladder skills and that his failing score was entirely attributable to the examiner's conclusion that the time limit had been exceeded. During the final hearing, Respondent called Thomas Johnson, the field representative for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that administered Petitioner's retest, who testified that he timed the ladder examination with a stopwatch, and that Petitioner did not complete the evaluation within the prescribed time period. Significantly, however, the Department elicited no detail from Mr. Thomas with respect to the causes——e.g., loss of ladder control, tripping, fumbling, etc.——of Petitioner's purported failure to complete the evaluation within the allotted time.4/ In contrast, Petitioner testified that although he was not permitted to bring a timekeeping device to the examination (the Department forbids examinees from doing so), he is confident that he completed the ladder retest within the prescribed time limit: Mr. Saintilmond: All right. On the date of the retest, I was taking the ladder examination. I've gone through the evolution. I did not fumble around. I did not take any time. I went through the exam as trained. No fumbling around, no waiting, no nothing. And I believe that I completed the evolution on time. And I passed the examination before. I've done it several times. But on this particular day, on my retake, I know I went through this evolution and I passed it with no fumbling around. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 12. Notwithstanding the anecdotal nature of Petitioner's evidence, his description of the evaluation, which was credible and adequately detailed, carries significant persuasive force in light of his perfect completion of the same ladder examination—— with 26 seconds to spare——just four months before the retest. The undersigned therefore accepts Petitioner's version of the events and finds that he did not exceed the maximum time limit of four minutes and 30 seconds during the September 22, 2011, retention examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order granting Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Galilee was licensed by the Department. Galilee's last known address is 4685 Haverhill Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. Galilee is a lodging establishment, consisting of rental apartments. It was originally constructed in 1995 as an assisted living facility but, as a business decision, the owner subsequently converted it to rental apartments. The Department's inspector inspected the outside of Galilee on December 18, 2002, and again on January 17, 2003. The inspector found deficiencies at the first inspection, and at the second inspection three deficiencies remained uncorrected. The uncorrected deficiencies were (1) the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system was not available; (2) fire extinguishers failed to have state certification tags affixed; and (3) no backflow prevention device on the exterior hose connection to the apartment building. The failure to have available the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system was a critical violation. The deficiency was classified as a critical violation because the annual report is the only way that an inspector can ascertain that the fire sprinkler system is operational. The inspector requested the current annual report at the first visit but it was not available. The failure of the fire extinguishers to have state certification tags affixed was a critical violation. The deficiency was classified as a critical violation because the state certified tag verifies that an extinguisher is in proper working order and is being properly maintained. The failure to have a backflow prevention device on the exterior hose connection to the apartment building was not a critical violation. The backflow prevention device stops negative water pressure. At the first inspection, the inspector explained the violations to the owner and gave him a 30-day warning to have the violations corrected, advising the owner that she would return on January 17, 2003, for a follow-up inspection. The violations were not corrected at the follow-up inspection 30 days later. The evidence shows that all the violations were corrected within a month to a month and a half after the second inspection. Galilee provided mitigating circumstances for the violations not being corrected at the time of the second inspection. As to the deficiency regarding availability of the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system, Galilee has a current report dated February 27, 2003. Also, Galilee suggests that the inspector did not request the report. The undersigned finds the inspector's testimony credible that she requested the report. Further, the evidence shows that Galilee confused the requested report with the report of the fire department's inspection. The inspector testified, and her testimony is found credible, that the report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system is generated by a private company, not the fire department, because the fire department does not perform the inspection required for the requested report. As to the deficiency regarding tagging of the fire extinguishers, Galilee's owner purchased fire extinguishers from Home Depot and was not aware that the extinguishers were required to be tagged at the time of the first inspection. Subsequent to the second inspection, the fire extinguishers were tagged by the AAC United Fire and Safety Department, with which Galilee has a contract to inspect the fire extinguishers. As to the deficiency regarding backflow prevention device, it too was corrected subsequent to the second inspection. Furthermore, even though the deficiencies were corrected subsequent to the second inspection, Galilee began the process to correct the deficiencies after the first inspection. Galilee was not ignoring the deficiencies. The deficiencies were not timely corrected because Galilee's owner was attempting to obtain, whom he considered, the proper people to perform the tasks involved and have the tasks performed at a reasonable expense. No evidence of prior disciplinary action being taken against Galilee by the Department was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: Finding that Galilee violated NFPA Life Safety Code 25, 1-8.2 and Food Code Rule 5-204.12. Dismissing the violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(5). Imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00, payable under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. S DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ____ ERROL H. POWELL 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 October, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should deny an application for certification as a Firefighter II on the alleged grounds that Petitioner failed the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 633, Florida Statutes (2009).1 At a date not disclosed in the record, Petitioner applied for a certification as a Firefighter II. On September 21, 2009, Petitioner took the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination (“initial examination”). Petitioner failed to pass the Ladder, Hose, and Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) components of the practical portion of the initial examination. On November 17, 2009, Petitioner took the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination Re-test (“examination re-test”) for the Ladder, Hose, and SCBA components. Petitioner failed to pass the Ladder component of the examination re-test. By Notice of Denial dated November 20, 2009, Respondent notified Petitioner that Petitioner had failed the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner alleges that, during her initial examination on September 21, 2009, there was an equipment malfunction during the Ladder component of the practical portion of the examination. Petitioner bases her allegations on the Ladder component score sheet for the initial examination (“score sheet”) that was received by Petitioner after she completed the initial examination and examination re-test. The score sheet for the initial examination states that Petitioner failed the Ladder component of the initial examination because Petitioner exceeded the time period to complete the ladder evolution and failed to fully extend the ladder with the dogs locked. In the “Comments Required for Failure” section, the score sheet listed, “Safety latch on dawgs [sic] stuck in top of rung. Unsafe act. Over time.” Petitioner alleges that the statement that a piece of equipment was "stuck" is proof of an equipment malfunction. Two experts testified during the hearing that the "stuck" equipment was caused by operator error rather than an equipment malfunction. The testimony of the two experts was credible and persuasive. Petitioner, as the examinee, could have remedied the "stuck" equipment by raising the ladder to release the finger and then lowering the ladder to allow the dogs to lock onto the rung. The failure to do so was an "unsafe act” that created a safety hazard in which the fly section of the ladder could have fallen down to the ground. A preponderance of the evidence does not show that Petitioner failed the Ladder component of the initial examination because of an equipment malfunction. Rather, the preponderance of evidence shows that Petitioner failed to have the dogs locked, which is required by the examination. A preponderance of the evidence also shows that Petitioner did not complete the ladder evolution within the required time during the re-take examination. The excessive time resulted in an automatic failure of the re-take examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order denying Kim Lashawn Edmonds’ application for certification as a Firefighter II. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner certification as a Florida firefighter.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a resident of Ohio, requested to qualify for the Florida Minimum Standards Equivalence Examination, based on his experience, to become a Florida firefighter. Petitioner's request effectively "challenged" the exam and requested an exemption from attending the Florida Minimum Standards Course. Petitioner could have taken the Florida Minimum Standards Course. If he had taken the course, he may have had an opportunity to review video tapes and other instructional materials which are available but not a required part of the basic curriculum. Instead, Petitioner elected to furnish Respondent with his out-of-state firefighter credentials. Subsequently, Respondent granted Petitioner the requested exemption. Prior to taking the examination, Respondent's staff accurately informed Petitioner about the scope, structure and subject matter of the test during numerous telephone calls. On at least ten occasions, Respondent's staff described the test to Petitioner and told him how to prepare for it. Respondent's staff specifically told Petitioner that he should study the International Fire Service Training Association Manual (IFSTA Manual). As to part one of the practical portion of the exam, Petitioner knew that Respondent would test him on the breathing apparatus, the one and three quarter-inch hose and nozzle operation, and the twenty-four foot ladder evolution. Respondent told Petitioner that he needed to know how to perform all skills set forth in the IFSTA Manual because Respondent randomly selects six different sections of tasks to test on part two of the practical examination. The six skill sections which are picked for part two remain unknown to anyone in advance of the test regardless of whether he is out-of-state or in-state applicants. These skills are chosen by Respondent's Field Representatives in their offices at the Florida State Fire College prior to going to a testing site or for testing at the Florida State Fire College. The two parts of the practical examination are of equal worth. An examinee begins with 100 points and points are deducted for deficiencies throughout the exam. Candidates are required to achieve a score of at least seventy (70) points in order to pass the practical examination. Petitioner took his Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Examination on April 28, 1997, at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner's final score on the April 28, 1997, Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Examination was twenty-five (25) points, which was not a passing score. Candidates are allowed one retest of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest if they are not successful on their initial test. Petitioner chose to take the test again on July 28, 1997, at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Respondent's Field Representative administered part one of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest to Petitioner. Petitioner did not take part two of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest. He chose to quit after realizing that his score on part one was so low that he could not pass the retest as a whole. After deciding not to take part two in the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest, Petitioner approached Field Representative Bill DePauw to tell him that he was quitting. Petitioner was not attired in the mandatory minimum safety gear, but in civilian clothes. At that time, Mr. DePauw was in the process of testing another examinee. Mr. DePauw told the Petitioner he needed to talk to Larry McCall, Field Representative Supervisor. Petitioner then approached Mr. McCall and informed him that he would not be taking part two of the retest. Mr. McCall asked Petitioner to leave the testing grounds because Petitioner was being loud and disruptive to the applicants testing or waiting to be tested. Further, once an applicant decides not to continue, he is no longer allowed in the testing area. Petitioner informed Mr. McCall, both on the field and in Mr. McCall's office, that the Florida exam and the process were "chicken." Petitioner lost seventy-five (75) points on part one of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest. The maximum allowable deduction for part one of fifty (50) points was deducted from Petitioner's part one score. Therefore, Petitioner's final score on the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest administered on July 28, 1997, was fifty (50) points, which is not a passing score. Applicants are assigned a number during orientation. From that time on, the applicants are referred to only by that number to ensure impartiality. The applicant's name is attached to the number after the exam, sometimes several days later. The examiner makes up a package of exams, numbers the packets, and then circles six (6) skills at random in each packet. No names are applied to the packets and the numbers are not assigned to the examinees until the day of testing. The Field Representatives are required to give an orientation prior to each Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination on the day of the exam. The orientation consists of walking the applicants through each section of part one. The Field Representatives use the same form check-off sheet during each orientation to ensure that each candidate is given the same orientation. The Field Representatives use a scoresheet to grade the applicants which is a guide to simplify the scoring process. The numeric values on the scoresheet are negative points deducted from an applicant's raw score of 100 points. The Field Representatives only make deductions when the applicant does not follow the required procedure for performing the evolution. Petitioner admits that the point deduction is correct for exceeding the required time on the breathing apparatus evolution. Petitioner admits that he had to go back to the loop during the hose and nozzle evolution to fix the kinks in the hose line. Additionally, he took a couple of steps backwards while he was pulling the hose line. Walking backwards occurs when a candidate takes two steps or more backwards, walking in the opposite direction from where he is looking. There are no warnings issued for walking backwards during the certification examination. Petitioner admits that the deduction for exceeding time during the hose and nozzle evolution was correct. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner struggled during the ladder evolution. He lacked control of the ladder at all times during the demonstration. All of the deficiencies which Petitioner admits to amount to a total of 35 negative points as the least possible point deduction. That equals a score of 65 without Petitioner even having taken part two. A score of 65 is not a passing score.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Bill Nelson in his capacity as State Fire Marshal enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a Certification of Compliance as a Florida Firefighter. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 20th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Paul Appleton 13500 Shaker Boulevard, No. 102 Cleveland, Ohio 44120 Bill Nelson, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
