Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James Ilardi, was an unsuccessful candidate for the June, 1989 General Contractor's Construction Examination in the State of Florida. He is an experienced contractor and is licensed in the State of South Carolina. He is the past President of the Charleston Contractor's Association in South Carolina. He has experience with most types of building construction, including office buildings, military facilities, hospitals, factories and other large projects. He served as Chief Executive Officer for a design and construction firm for a period of ten years. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering the certified general contractor's examination and with regulating the licensure and practice of construction contractors in the State of Florida. The Petitioner sat for the certified general contractor's examination in June, 1989. He has challenged the scoring of his answers to questions 2, 11, 12, 17, 19 and 33 on that examination. During the course of the hearing, he abandoned his challenges to questions 2, 17, 19 and 33. If he were accorded correct answers to either of the remaining challenged questions, numbers 11 or 12, he would have a sufficient score to obtain a passing grade of 70 on that examination. Both questions 11 and 12 used a "critical path network diagram" for use in working out the correct answer to the questions. The Petitioner criticized the diagram as being obscure, difficult to read and containing error. He maintained that it was not supported by the representations found in the reference materials recommended by the Respondent, in its "Instructions to Candidates", as being the material to use to arrive at answers to the questions. The Petitioner contends that the size of the diagram, "the multiple fonts, the difference in the intensity of the print, and the use of symbols all contribute to the obscurity and illegibility of the diagram, itself". In particular, he complains that the symbol listing includes a symbol which he did not find on the diagram. That is, the symbol for "structural steel" and "steel bar joists, which is two straight vertical parallel lines. He also complains that general practice in the construction industry, in his experience, and as indicated in the reference work "Construction Contracting", pages 325-326, one of the references listed for candidates to use in answering these questions, recommends against the use of symbols in lieu of abbreviated notations for description of activities on such a diagram. The main complaint he had concerning the use of symbols, however, was the fact that use of symbols, and having to constantly defer to the symbol legend on the exam materials, was time-consuming and was not generally accepted industry practice or procedure. He contends that the diagram contains error or is obscure and does not conform to the Respondent's recommended reference materials nor to industry standards and. is deficient in format, design and reproductive quality. Thus, he maintains that questions 11 and 12 do not adequately test the knowledge or skills necessary for licensure as a general contractor. The Petitioner acknowledged that the questions at issue had been reviewed twice by the Respondent's examination content specialist and that an "item analysis and review process" by the Respondent's expert resulted in the Respondent maintaining its position that the two questions and supporting materials were valid in fairly testing the knowledge of general contractor licensure candidates. In summary, the Petitioner contends that as to question 11, the symbol for steel bar joists, the two parallel vertical lines, does not appear on the diagram; therefore, he was unable to determine whether his answer was correct or not. As to question number 12, he maintains, in essence, that the use of symbols instead of brief abbreviated descriptions of the activities involved, accompanying the arrows in the diagram which indicate the critical path for the activity in question (paint work), render answering the question confusing and time consuming in having to constantly refer to the symbol legend and look for the symbols. He states that, in his 20 years of construction industry experience, he has not had to use symbols in working with a critical path diagram. The Petitioner did not demonstrate, however, that the use of symbols was incorrect procedure as delineated in the reference materials supplied to the candidates and which they were instructed to use in answering the questions on the examination. The Respondent produced the testimony of Mr. Olson, a Florida certified general contractor, who is also employed with the National Assessment Institute which developed this examination. Mr. Olson, however, did not, himself, have a hand in developing the examination. Mr. Olson did, however, review the Petitioner's challenges to the questions at issue and his responses, reviewed questions 11 and 12, as well as the Respondent's asserted correct answers to those questions and the methodology used in reaching those answers. Mr. Olson established that this was an "open-book" examination and the candidates were informed of and supplied all necessary reference materials to answer these two questions. The only optional consideration was that candidates could have used a calculator to speed up their calculations and were informed that it was permissible to use a calculator. Question 11 required candidates to calculate the total time necessary to install structural steel and steel bar joists in interpreting the activity network represented by the diagram in question. They were asked to calculate whether the installation was ahead of schedule or behind schedule and by how much. Mr. Olson established that the correct response was "C", which is two days behind schedule. Mr. Olson demonstrated that it was quite possible for a candidate to make this calculation and track this in formation on the diagram provided the candidates, through reading the path with the symbols, which alphabetically represent the activity, and which are numerical in representing the time in days. He established that this is very typical of the construction industry, related to the preparation, reading and interpreting of blueprints. A tremendous amount of symbols and legends are typically used in preparing and interpreting blueprints. Mr. Olson established that the pertinent number, 85 days, could be calculated for installation of structural steel and steel bar joists, based upon the information supplied to the candidates. By using the diagram and the information supplied with the question, the candidate can calculate that the actual number of days that were taken for the job was 87 days and therefore, that the project, at that point, was two days behind schedule. Mr. Olson performed this calculation by using the actual diagram the Petitioner used and reference information the Petitioner was given to use in answering the actual examination question at issue. He also established that the two parallel lines representing steel bar joists and structural steel on the diagram, and in the symbol legend supplied with the diagram, were indicated on the diagram supplied to Mr. Ilardi at the examination. Mr. Olson also established that the reference quoted for question number 11 was walkers Building Estimator's Reference Book, which, indeed, listed the type of activity network depicted in the diagram used by candidates for question number 11 and 12. Mr. Olson also established that question number 12 requires a candidate to work through an activity network diagram to find the amount of days necessary from the beginning of a project to the time the painting activity begins. He established that the answer could be obtained without the use of any other reference materials other than the information depicted on the diagram, itself, associated with the question. He established that the only correct answer from that information on the diagram could be "D" or 153 days. The Petitioner did not establish that his answer to question number 12, nor to question number 11 for that matter, was a correct answer and did not establish that there was any misleading quality or ambiguity in the wording of the questions and the associated information which would mislead a candidate into calculating the wrong answers or that there was erroneous information depicted in the reference materials or the diagram which would result in the candidate being misled into giving a wrong answer to questions 11 and 12.. Mr. Ilardi challenged the examination as to the testing environment, as that relates to the ambient light level in the examination room and to the acoustic qualities of the room. He also asserted that the test was not standardized throughout the State and was biased due to age, because of the perceived hearing and vision difficulties which he believed were caused by the acoustics in the examination room and the light available. Other than stating his opinions in this regard, he produced no testimony or evidence concerning these alleged qualities of the testing environment. It was demonstrated by she Respondent that, indeed, the test is standardized throughout the State and is the one given to all candidates in Florida, regardless of the test location.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on the certified general contractor's licensure examination. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-3784 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Rejected. The Petitioner was not qualified as an expert witness. Other than that, this finding is accepted. Rejected, as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant weight of the evidence. 4.A.-4.C. Accepted. 4.D. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not constituting a finding of fact, but rather a quotation from the transcript of the proceedings. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as immaterial and not probative of the issues of whether the questions were ambiguous or misleading or whether the Petitioner's answers were correct. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence, and as not materially dispositive. 4.1. Rejected, as not materially dispositive. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as immaterial. Accepted, but not a matter of factual dispute and immaterial. Respondent's Findings of Fact 1-10. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth D. Easley, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. James Ilardi P.O. Box 8095 Jacksonville, FL 32239
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to three problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 29, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 29, 1999, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in mechanical engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the mechanical engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 13, 2000) that his solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to the Board's "Legal Section," which forwarded it to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 resulted in his receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about April 25, 1999. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated May 3, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problems 141, 144, and 147 were worth ten raw points each. Petitioner received four raw points for his solution to Problem 141. In his solution to Problem 141, Petitioner failed to take into consideration bending stresses and loads. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 144. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": A correct solution [to this problem] must include an energy balance on the open feedwater heater to determine the fraction of flow through turbine T1 that is extracted and taken to the open feedwater heater. a correct equation for determining the specific work developed by the two turbines on the basis of one pound entering turbine T1. The equation the examinee has written assumes the same flow through both turbines. determination of the mass rate of flow (m1) at the inlet to turbine T1. This is determined by dividing the net power by the specific net work. determining the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. finally, dividing the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator by the heating value times 0.75 with the appropriate conversion factors. The examinee has used the new power (200 MW or 200 x 105)as the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. This is incorrect. The scoring plan states 2 RUDIMENTARY KNOWLEDGE . . . OR-(3) determines tons/day = Wnet/7650, Wnet = (h1 - h2) + (h3 - h4) This is what the examinee has done. Based on the scoring plan and the above analysis, a score of 2 is recommended. There has been no showing that the foregoing "analysis" was in any way flawed or that application of the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem should have resulted in Petitioner receiving a raw score higher than two for his solution to Problem 144. Petitioner received a raw score of four for his solution to Problem 147. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee used an incorrect temperature difference in [his] calculation of the heat transferred by convection and radiation from the outer surface of the pipe. Most of the examinee's work for requirement (b) was not needed. In doing that unnecessary work, however, [he] made two significant errors: 1. [He] evaluated a radiation exchange between the steam inside the pipe and the environment surrounding the pipe. The pipe shields the environment surrounding the pipe from the steam. 2. The examinee's equation "Total heat Loss = Conductive + Radiation" is not satisfactory. In attempting to evaluate the heat transfer from the insul[a]ted pipe, [he] assumed that the outer surface heat transfer coefficient was very high; 3.0 is not high. The examinee made no attempt to evaluate the payback period for the insulation. There has been no showing that the foregoing analysis was in any way flawed. For the errors made by Petitioner in his solution to Problem 147, a 50% "grade reduction" was warranted pursuant to the "error analysis" portion of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. 1/ The remaining portions of the scoring plan for Problem 147 provided as follows: 10: Essentially complete and correct solution. May have one or two minor math, data, or chart reading errors. . . . Grade of 8: A grade of 8 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 10% and 50%. A Grade of 6: A grade of 6 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 30% and 50%. Grade of 4: 2/ A grade of 4 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 50% and 70%. Grade of 2: A grade of 2 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 70% and 90%. Grade of Zero: Nothing presented that warrants a grade of at least 10%. It is unclear from a reading of the NCEES scoring plan for Problem 147 whether a grade reduction of 50% should result in a raw score of four or six. The plan is ambiguous in this regard. While it may be reasonable to interpret the plan as requiring that a raw score of six be given where there is a grade reduction of 50%, the plan is also reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that a 50% grade reduction should result in a raw score of four, the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 147. It therefore cannot be said that the scoring of his solution to this problem was inconsistent with the problem's scoring plan, as reasonably construed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 29, 1999, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 2000.
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Petitioner should be given additional credit for his answers to the April, 1993 Structural I Engineer Examination.
Findings Of Fact On April 15 and 16, 1993, the then Department of Professional Regulation's Bureau of Testing administered an examination for Structural I Engineer, as a part of the examination for licensure as a Professional Engineer. The fundamentals portion thereof was administered in two sessions. The first consisted of 140 questions and was administered in the morning session. The second consisted of 70 questions and was administered in the afternoon session of the same day. Of the 140 morning questions, 35 were pretest questions being "tried out" for fairness and which were not scored as a part of the examination. In the afternoon session, there were 18 questions in that category. The examination is not scored on a true arithmetic basis. Proportion scoring is utilized. All questions are not of equal difficulty. The test is equated so that the difficulty of the examination does not change from test to test. The pretest questions are included to provide for that. Petitioner's score of 68 was a scaled score. He actually answered correctly 93 of the 210 questions. In the morning session, he answered 47 questions correctly and in the afternoon session, answered 46 questions correctly. In his written request for formal hearing, and again at hearing, Petitioner outlined his objections to the examination process and to certain questions posed therein. Initially, he asserted that the examinee is provided with only vague information prior to the test. He also complains about the review process for which he claims he was totally unprepared because of the paucity of the information provided by the Department. When the Department, by letter dated August 6, 1993, first notified Petitioner of his review appointment, it enclosed therewith a sheet of "guidelines governing examination reviews" which outlined the ground rules for the review process. The day of the review, or just shortly before it, he was also furnished with a set of "review instructions" which outlined the procedure to be followed and the parameters of the review process. Petitioner complains this was totally inadequate and has a "tremendous negative impact" on the examinee, but he gives no specifics and admits he was not denied the opportunity to challenge any questions or to present his position fully. Consequently, it is hard to see where Petitioner was prejudiced by the review process. Of the 10 questions which Petitioner initially challenged, prior to the presentation of any evidence, he agreed that the Department's answer to all but one was correct. However, at hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 17-AM, 79-AM, and 11-AM. With regard to Question 17-AM, Petitioner's answer was "e" - "it may either increase or decrease with time depending on the system." He claims that example 21.1, shown in Lindberg's reference book at page 21-7 is applicable in that it "concludes that a local or isolated system can experience both an increase and a decrease in entrophy", and, therefore, his answer is also correct. Mr. Arnett, on the other hand, concludes that nowhere in Lindberg's reference material is the term "isolated system" used. The correct reference is to thermodynamics and an isolated system which is what the testers were looking for. The examination question and the Lindberg example use entirely different systems. Consequently, the correct answer is "a" - "either remains constant or increases with time", and Petitioner's answer is wrong. His answer would be correct under the planet system, but that is the wrong system to use in this situation. It is so found. As to question 79-AM, the correct answer, according to Mr. Arnett, is "d", "30 million", whereas Petitioner's answer was "e", "45 million." In Mr. Arnett's opinion, the question has enough information presented to allow the candidate to work it without reference to any outside manual. The question deals with Young's modulus - the relationship of unit stress to unit strain. The candidate is required to take readings in the area in proportion, figure unit stress and strain, and using proportionality, arrive at the correct answer of 30 million. The question shows consistency to a certain level where it changes. This shows that at that point, the limit is reached. The question does not relate solely to steel, and this is not relevant to the problem. Mr. Arnett believes Petitioner did not understand that it was not important to know the identity of the material being used. Petitioner claimed that this is an incomplete text. According to Arnett, nowhere is it shown the question relates to steel, and any further reference to steel is irrelevant. Steel was not a part of the problem. According to Mr. Arnett, the question is logical and neither arbitrary nor capricious. It is a fair question and one that a candidate for minimal competency should be able to answer. It is so found. With regard to question 11 - AM, Petitioner claims it is deficient in that the diagram utilized in the examination booklet did not specifically denote by name the location of the pin involved therein. In support of his position, he introduced extracts from sample questions furnished by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, (NCEES), which all utilize the term "pin" in each location where such an instrument is used. Petitioner claims the failure to so denote on this examination renders the question faulty in that it does not provide enough information upon which to base an answer. When Mr. Arnett looked at the question for the first time, he immediately looked to see the type of joint and saw the dot in the semicircle appearing thereon. This is a commonly used method of identifying a pin connection in the engineering profession, and, in his opinion, there is sufficient information to allow the candidate to answer the question. This question, as written, was certified as proper by NCEES, whose sample booklet, utilized for preparation purposed, labels pins. It is found, therefore, that even without the label "pin" at the joint, there was sufficient information for a qualified, properly trained engineer to answer the question properly. Petitioner also asserted that the examination process was too long, and he objected to the inclusion of the pretest questions. He claims that in an endurance test, as here, an age factor is in play. The pretest questions are not identified as such on the examination and as a result, the examinee must endeavor to answer all the questions because he does not know which questions will count and which won't. To rectify this "unfair" situation, Petitioner claims one point should be added to his score for each session in which pretest questions are used. According to both Mr. Arnett and Dr. Klock, the psychometrician, all candidates are advised in advance of the length of the test and of their right to seek any necessary accommodation under the terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Petitioner claims he sought an accommodation twice, but failed to present independent evidence of either the existence or nature of his disability. There is no record on file with the Department that Petitioner ever sought an accommodation. All candidates were afforded the same amount of time to take the test and there was no indication that any candidate did not have enough time to complete it. Petitioner's claim is, therefore, without merit. Mr. Focsan also asserts that the scoring system is age biased in the fundamentals area of the test which covers basics taken in university courses and which is usually taken just after graduation when this information is fresh in the mind of the candidate. He asserts the fundamentals examination can be waived in some states for individuals who have extensive experience in engineering. He has 35 years of experience, having been licensed and worked as an engineer in Romania for 27 years before coming to the United States. He is not licensed as an engineer anywhere in this country. He claims the physical demands of the test play a part and older candidates are not in as good a shape as the younger ones. As a result, he states, the test is harder for older candidates. No independent evidence was presented by Petitioner to support this or his contention on age bias and his testimony is insufficient, standing alone, to support a finding to that effect. Petitioner claimed, in addition, that the reference materials allowed to be brought into the examination sessions, (this was an open-book exam), had some misleading or erroneous information in them. Although these errors were, he contends, obvious, and an errata sheet was prepared for examinees taking the April, 1994 examination, none of this was taken into consideration is grading the April, 1993 examination. No errata was available for the test he sat for, and he also contends the time given was too short. Neither Mr. Arnett nor Dr. Klock found any fault with the use of the reference materials procedure in place for the test taken by Petitioner. The examination instructions given each candidate prior to the examination advised that reference materials could be used during the examination, no specific reference was prescribed. Instead, the restrictive language related to the type of material which could not be utilized. Any commonly accepted source other than those prohibited was allowed. Included in the permitted material was the Lindberg manual referred to by Petitioner. It is important to note that reference materials were permitted, not required. In that regard, as of the 1994 examination, no reference material other than that supplied by the National Council is now allowed in the examination room. This change was made to protect against the unlawful removal of examination materials from the examination room concealed in candidates' reference materials. In any case, Mr. Arnett notes there is nothing in the errata material referred to in Petitioner's Exhibit C, which would change any of Petitioner's answers or any correct answer on the 1993 examination, and there is sufficient information in each question to allow the candidate to reach the correct answer. It is so found. Petitioner also objected to the requirement imposed on examinees to use a number 2 pencil instead of a pen, claiming this allowed unauthorized changes to the examinees' answers. Petitioner had no evidence at all to indicate such misconduct had occurred regarding his or that of any other examinee and it is found that such allegations is without merit or foundation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this matter denying Petitioner herein, Cristofor Focsan, additional credit for his answers to the April 1993 licensure examination developed by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of July, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED Cristofor Focsan 6150 36th Terrace, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 William M. Woodyard, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the February, 1993 General Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, David W. Kradin (Kradin), took the February, 1993 General Contractor Examination and received a score of 65 on the project management portion. A minimum score of 70 is required to pass that portion of the examination. Kradin challenged questions numbered 6, 12, 19 and 30. Joint Exhibit 1 is a composite exhibit of the challenged questions. Joint Exhibit 2 is a drawing included in the examination relating to question number 6. Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 are deemed to be confidential pursuant to Section 455.229, Florida Statutes. Question number 6 required the calculation of the square feet of concrete contact surface for formwork for an elevator pit depicted in Joint Exhibit 2. Kradin challenged the question on the basis that the drawing was unclear because the elevation line appeared to drop slightly in one place. The drawing was sufficiently clear to determine the correct answer. The height of the concrete contact surface could be determined by the height shown on the drawing and the height of the expansion joint. Kradin failed to answer the question correctly because of an error in his calculations. Question number 12, an entry level question, dealt with comparing the estimated cost per cubic yard with the actual cost per cubic yard for excavation work based only on the information in the job cost ledger provided in the question. The job cost ledger contained costs and the net profit made from the sale of spoil. Kradin challenged the question as unclear and imprecise because the job cost ledger contained information on the net profit from the sale of spoil. The parties stipulated that it is improper, incorrect, an error, and a mistake to have job profit in any job cost ledger. Kradin included the net profit when he calculated the actual costs for the project. As a result his answer was incorrect because the profit should not have been included in the calculation of the actual cost for the excavation work. Question number 19 concerned the calculation of the amount of money that should be deducted from a subcontractor's application payment for the cost of worker's compensation insurance premiums. Kradin challenged the question, stating that the question was improper because he read the question to mean that the subcontractor and contractor did not have a written agreement before the work was performed and that the contractor would pay the premium and deduct the premium amount from the subcontractor's pay request. He viewed the scenario set up in the question to mean that the subcontractor was violating the law because he did not have worker's compensation coverage and the general contractor was violating the law because he hired a subcontractor without worker's compensation coverage. Additionally, he read the question to mean that the general contractor was subjecting himself to civil liability because of the lack of worker's compensation coverage. Question number 19 is not a difficult question. The contractor and subcontractor have agreed that the general contractor will provide worker's compensation coverage for the work done and will deduct the amount of the coverage from the subcontractor's application for pay. The question gives the amount of the pay request and the cost of the worker's compensation insurance per $100 worth of billing. The candidate is supposed to calculate the amount that will be deducted. The question does not deal with the legalities of the arrangement between the subcontractor and general contractor nor would a reasonable person read the question as such. Kradin's answer was not a correct calculation of the amount to be deducted. The examination is an open book examination and the candidates are allowed to bring specified reference materials with them, including the Contractor's Manual. Question number 30 deals with material found in the Contractor's Manual, relating to project schedules. Here, the question asks the candidate to pick out the entity not listed in the manual. Kradin picked out an entity which was listed in the manual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the challenge by Petitioner requesting that he be awarded a passing grade for the Project Management portion of the February, 1993, General Contractor Examination be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3936 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1 and 2 accepted. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Kradin 1525 J Spring Harbor Drive Delray Beach, Florida 33445 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
Findings Of Fact In April, 1988, Petitioner sat for the examination given by Respondent to become certified in Florida as a Professional Engineer. Petitioner received a failing grade on the examination. Petitioner received a score of 46 where a score of 48 was necessary to pass the examination. Following notification that he had failed the examination, Petitioner filed a timely challenge to question 275 of the examination, contending that he had been given inadequate credit for his answer. A perfect answer to question 275 was worth 10 points. When Petitioner's answer to question 275 was first graded, Petitioner was awarded a score of 2 points. At Petitioner's request, his answer to question 275 was reevaluated. As a result of the reevaluation, Petitioner was awarded an additional two points for his answer to question 275, so that the total points awarded Petitioner for his answer to question 275 was 4 points of the possible 10 points. Petitioner contends that he should be awarded at least six points for his answer to question 275. The examination questions were prepared by the National Council of Engineering Examiners, which prepares examination questions for a number of states, including the State of Florida. Question 275 required the applicant to answer the question by assuming certain data and by applying a certain formula. The question required the applicant to give the answer and to show how he arrived at the answer. The final answer to the question given by Petitioner was the correct answer to the question. However, in coming to his answer, Petitioner did not use the formula required by the question and he did not properly utilize the information given by the question. The answer given by Petitioner to question 275 of the examination was only partially correct. The score Petitioner received for his partially correct answer was not arbitrarily or capriciously awarded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, enter a final order which denies Petitioner's challenge to question 275 of the examination. It is further recommended that the exhibits filed in this proceeding be sealed. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3254 The rulings on the proposed findings submitted on behalf of Petitioner in his letter filed September 5, 1989, are as follows: The proposed findings contained in the first paragraph of the letter are rejected as being unsupported by the record and as being argument. The proposed findings contained in the second paragraph of the letter are rejected as being contrary to the evidence presented at the formal hearing. The proposed findings contained in the third and fourth paragraphs are rejected as being argument The rulings on the proposed findings contained in Respondent's Proposed recommended order are as follows: The proposed findings contained in the first paragraph are accepted in substance. See Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the second paragraph are rejected as being contrary to the evidence. See Paragraph 2 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the third paragraph are accepted in substance. See Paragraph 3 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the fourth paragraph are accepted in substance. See Paragraph 4 of the recommended order. The proposed findings contained in the fifth paragraph are rejected as being subordinate to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in the sixth paragraph are rejected as being subordinate to the conclusions reached and as being the recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Francisco A. Lee 3885 Edgar Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 E. Harper Field, Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, - General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner successfully completed the answers posed on the April, 1987 professional engineer's examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April, 1987 professional engineering examination and was advised that he failed the principles and practice portion of the examine. His raw score was 45 points and the parties stipulated that he needed a minimum raw score of 48 points to pass the examination. In his request for hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 120, 123 and 420. However, during the hearing, he only presented testimony and challenged question 420. Question 420 is worth 10 points and is set forth in its entirety in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1. For reasons of test security, the exhibit has been sealed. Question 420 requires the examinee to explore the area regarding "braced excavations" and explores the principles involved in such excavations. Question 420 requires the examinee to calculate the safety factor for a braced excavation including the depth of excavation which would cause failure by "bottom heaving". Petitioner, in calculating the safety factor, made a mathematical error when he incorporated the B-prime value calculation which was inserted into the equation in making his calculations. Question 420 does not direct the applicant to apply the calculations to either a square excavation or to a rectangular excavation. Petitioner assumed the shape of the excavation to be square and calculated the factor of safety according to that assumption. In assuming the square excavation, Petitioner did not make the more conservative calculation that will be required in making the safety factor calculation for a rectangular excavation. In this regard, an examination of Petitioner's work sheet indicates that he referenced the correct calculation on his work sheet but the calculation was not transferred to or utilized in the equation. Respondent utilizes the standard scoring plan outline, which is more commonly known as the Items Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) which is used by the scorers in grading the exam. The ISSP provides a scoring breakdown for each question so that certain uniform criteria are met by all applicants. For example, four points are given for a correct solution on a specific question regardless of the scorer. This criteria is supplied by the person or persons who prepared the exam. The criteria indicates "in problem-specific terms, the types of deficiencies that would lead to scoring at each of the eleven (0-10) points on the scale". The ISSP awards six points on question 420 when the applicants meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied, applicant demonstrate minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant aspect of the item." ISSP awards seven points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable". The ISSP awards eight points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied. Errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct". The ISSP awards nine points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, correct solution but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc." The ISSP criteria for awarding nine points as to question 420 clearly requires that the Petitioner calculate the correct solution without mathematical errors. The Petitioner's answer was not correct regardless of the assumption as to the shape of the excavation since he made a mathematical error. The ISSP criteria for awarding eight points as to question 420 allows Petitioner to calculate the answer with mathematical errors with the requirements that the results are reasonable. Petitioner made a mathematical error although his result was reasonable. His answer fits the criteria for the award of eight points in conformity with the ISSP criteria. Petitioner received six points for his answer to question 420 whereas he is entitled to an award of eight points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner failed the principles and practice portion of the April, 1987 engineering examination. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Glen E. Wichinsky, Esquire 900 Glades Road, 5th Floor Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for answers scored as incorrect on questions she challenged on the March 2001 Practice of Geology and Fundamentals of Geology Examinations.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In March 2001, Petitioner, Susan Sitkoff, took the Practice of Geology and the Fundamentals of Geology examinations; these are multiple-choice examinations up to four hours in length. These written licensure examinations are designed to assess a candidate's knowledge and skills to practice professional geology. The National Association of State Boards of Geology ("the Association") provides these national examinations which are used by Respondent and its Board of Professional Geologists for licensure examinations. In addition to providing the actual examinations, the Association conducts analyses to ensure examination validity. In order to ensure test fairness and quality, the Association follows Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1999), published by the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. Test questions are written and reviewed by panels of subject matter experts who are professional geologists. Statistical analyses are reviewed by the subject matter experts so that any substandard test questions can be eliminated before generating candidates' final scores. These statistical analyses also validate the individual examination questions and answers. Each test question is submitted to four reviews by the panels of subject matter experts. These reviews ensure that each question: (1) has one correct or best answer; (2) is related to the practice of the profession; (3) is related to public protection; (4) possesses language that is clear and direct; (5) is written at an entry-level of difficulty; (6) adequately describes a problem or situation; and (7) is free of trickery. On the March 2001 examinations, nationwide (23 states), 462 candidates completed the Fundamentals of Geology examination and 372 completed the Practice of Geology examination. The examination results and a variety of statistical analyses were reviewed by a panel of subject matter experts on April 6 and 7, 2001. The reviews indicated that the examinations performed very well and exhibited a high degree of internal consistency. Petitioner was notified by the Bureau of Testing, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on May 18, 2001, that she had earned a failing score of 67 percent on the Fundamentals of Geology examination, and a failing score of 68 percent on the Practice of Geology examination. A score of 70 percent was required to pass each examination section. On August 6, 2001, Petitioner reviewed her examination in Orlando, Florida. By letter to the Bureau of Testing, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, dated August 16, 2001, Petitioner formally filed her petition for a formal hearing to challenge her examination results. After initially indicating that she would challenge 52 questions, Petitioner came to the hearing to challenge 17 questions. Petitioner challenged questions 21, 35, 53, and 60 on the Fundamentals of Geology examination. At the hearing, Petitioner withdrew her challenge to questions 26, 78, 79, 91, and 98 on the Fundamentals of Geology examination. Petitioner challenged questions 62 and 71 on the Practice of Geology examination. At the hearing, Petitioner withdrew her challenge to questions 15, 26, 31, 53, 57, and 68 on the Practice of Geology examination. In the discussion related to the challenge of question 21 on the Fundamentals of Geology examination, Petitioner indicated that she believed "b," "c," and "d" were all correct answers. She answered "c." Respondent indicated that "b" was the correct answer. Petitioner’s expert witness opined that answer "c" was not the most correct answer. Regarding question 35 on the Fundamentals of Geology examination, Petitioner's expert witness opined that "d" (Petitioner's answer) was a misleading, but agreed that a careful reading indicated that "c" was the correct answer. Respondent's expert witnesses opined that this question was not a “trick question” [or answer] but rather used a distractor answer to deter candidates without the necessary knowledge to answer the question. Seventy-two percent of the candidates answered this question correctly on the examination. There was an in-depth discussion of the answers to question 53 on the Fundamentals of Geology examination. Petitioner submitted that her answer, "b," was the more correct answer. Petitioner's expert opined that "a," "b," and "c" were all correct answers. Respondent's expert geologist opined that only "c" was the correct answer. The testimony revealed that 51 percent of the candidates taking the examination answered "b," a higher ratio than for the correct answer "c." Respondent's expert psychometrician, Dr. Warner, indicated that the panels of subject matter experts had specifically reviewed this question due to the fact that more candidates chose the "distractor" answer than the "correct" answer. The panels of subject matter experts confirmed that "c" was the correct answer. Question 60 on the Fundamentals of Geology examination involved a diagram, which Petitioner felt was unclear in that she was unable to determine if it was a plane view or a top view. She answered "c"; the offered "correct" answer was "a." Respondent's expert geologist reported that the diagram in the question was, in fact, a structure contour map on the top of a limestone bed and the diagrams revealed a single bed. Seventy- seven percent of the candidates answered the question correctly. Petitioner indicated that she did not believe there was a correct answer to question 62 on the Practice of Geology examination and further stated that "unless you work with inclinometers for a living it would be difficult to answer this question correctly." Petitioner's expert indicated that he did not have much experience in the area. Respondent's expert geologist opined that "c," not "d," as selected by Petitioner, was the correct answer. He also indicated that he confirmed his opinion with another expert geologist from the panel of subject matter experts. Question 71 on the Practice of Geology examination addresses federal regulations in the assessment of environmental sites. Petitioner indicated that "anyone doing a Phase I [environmental assessment] would have used the ASTM guidelines" which, unfortunately, guided her to an incorrect answer involving an “ASTM circular.” Petitioner conceded that, “. . . they put federal regulations in here which would exclude that answer.” In no instance during her presentation did Petitioner demonstrate that any examination question she challenged or the "correct" answer, as offered by Respondent, was faulty, arbitrarily or capriciously worded or graded, or that she was inappropriately denied credit for any answer she gave.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered confirming Petitioner’s examination score and dismissing her challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _____ JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Sitkoff 14024 Colonial Grand Boulevard Apartment 708 Orlando, Florida 32837 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Sherry Landrum, Executive Director Board of Professional Geologists Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted extra credit for questions numbers 320, 321, 322, and 323, for which he gave allegedly incorrect answers, on the October 1996, Environmental Engineer Examination administered by the Department.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency responsible for the professional testing and licensing of professional engineers, and the regulation of the engineering profession in Florida. Petitioner is a graduate engineer, specializing in environmental engineering, who took the Environmental Engineer Examination administered by the Bureau on October 25 and 26, 1996. By Examination Grade Report dated February 17, 1997, the Bureau notified Petitioner that he had achieved a score of 67.00 on the examination; that a minimum score of 70.00 is required for passing the examination; and, therefore, that Petitioner had failed the examination. Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal of the examination results, challenging the grading of questions numbers 320, 321, 322, and 323 of the examination in question. Question 320 tests the candidate’s ability to understand the characteristics of pumps both in series and parallel. The engineering principle involved is Bernouli’s Theory. The problem is in two parts, A and B. The first part asks which of two impellers are in the pump, based on a given set of data using Bernouli’s Principle. Petitioner answered Part A correctly. Part B repeats Part A, except that the candidate has to recognize the difference between series and parallel pumps, and Petitioner did not get the question correct. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) published a scoring plan for each question on the examination. The maximum award a candidate can receive on this question is “10.” The NCEES’ scoring plan for this question provides a score of “4,” which Petitioner received, when the candidate gets one part of the question correct and one part incorrect. To earn a score of “6” for the question, the candidate must present a correct parallel pump analysis, and in this case, Petitioner doubled head pressure instead of flow. Question 321 also consists of two parts and deals with a sewer which is facing overload based on population projections. A relief sewer is proposed and the candidate must do two things. He must first analyze the flow of the existing sewer, and then determine what the invert of the new sewer line would be at the outer end of that sewer In this instance, Petitioner got the second part of the problem correct but not the first. Petitioner started off correctly, but then incorrectly used a piece of information that was given. The problem must be solved using Manning’s Equation, and then checked for scouring velocity. Petitioner used the minimum velocity in determining what the flow is and, according to Mr. Hutchinson, this is not the way to solve the problem. Hutchinson suggests that in solving the problem, the candidate first finds out how much flow will exist in the years ahead by knowing the population and the flow per capita. Then, using Manning’s Equation, the candidate calculates the flow the existing sewer can take. Subtracting the second from the first, the answer is the flow the new pipe will have to be designed for. In the examination question, all the required information is given except the diameter, which is determined through the use of Manning’s Equation. Once that is done, the candidate must check the new scouring velocity. This is done by calculating the velocity in the new sewer to be sure it is in excess of the number given in the problem statement. Here, Petitioner took the minimum scouring velocity and used that figure to calculate the size of the pipe. As a result, he arrived at the wrong answer of ten inches, when the correct answer was twenty-four inches. Petitioner was awarded a grade of “4” for his answer to problem number 321. According to NCEES’ Scoring plan, a “4” reflects the candidate got only one of the two parts correct. Question 322 deals with a hazardous waste incinerator. The first part of the problem calls for a determination of the amount of air needed to complete combustion if the additional air (excess air) is 100 percent. This means twice the air needed to perfectly combust the material. The candidate must first put down the chemical equation, all the constituents of which are given in the problem. Then, the candidate must balance the equation, and for 100 percent excess air, one multiplies the air input by a factor of two. The second part of the problem asks for the amount of water necessary to quench the gasses. Petitioner did not correctly balance the chemical equation called for in the first part even though he made an effort, and he was given some credit for trying. His answer to the second part was twice what it should have been. Since Petitioner did not do either part of the problem correctly, the award of “4” for his answer was, in Hutchinson’s opinion, generous. Question 323 involves a situation wherein a vehicle which gives off carbon monoxide is used inside a facility. Some of the workers have experienced dizziness. Readings are given for the carbon monoxide levels. The candidate is asked to calculate several factors. The first is what the eight-hour time weighted exposure is. There are certain limits involved. The second is how much ventilation air would be necessary to reduce the concentration to a lower stipulated level in one hour. The size and other specifics of the facility are given. The third part of the question is a non-mathematical essay question wherein the candidate is asked to define the disadvantages of having a combustion engine internal to a facility. The fourth part of the problem asks why mere dilution of the pollution is not the solution to the problem. Petitioner answered the first part of the problem correctly. He overstated the amount of air called for in part two of the problem by a magnitude of two. Petitioner answered the third part of the problem correctly, but in the fourth part, provided only one of the two reasons called for. He was awarded a score of “4” for his answer to this problem. The NCEES’ scoring plan indicates a score of “4” is appropriate when the candidate gets the first part correct; commits a logic error in the second part; and provides only two of three answers called for in the combined third and fourth parts. This is exactly what Petitioner did. In Mr. Hutchinson’s opinion, none of the problems in issue here were beyond the scope of knowledge that should be expected of a candidate for licensure. In addition, the questions as written are not ambiguous or unclear, and they give the candidate enough information to properly answer the questions. The examination is not a test of a candidate’s ability to do mathematical calculations. The examiners look at the ability to calculate as something which a high school student should be able to do. What is being tested is the candidate’s understanding of the engineering particulars and concepts. For example, in problem 320, the examiners are testing the candidate’s understanding of the difference between parallel flow and series flow for a pump. Under the scoring plan, that issue carries as much or more weight that the ability to solve the mathematics. Petitioner did not demonstrate the requisite understanding. The examination is structured so as to administer four questions in the morning session and four questions in the afternoon session. The examination is made up of questions which are submitted by members of that committee of the NCEES which drafts the examinations. The proposed questions are tested by committee members who solve each question in no more than twenty minutes. If the committee members judge the question to be appropriate and acceptable, it goes into a question bank and is subsequently reviewed several times before it is first incorporated in an examination two or more years later. In each question, the subject matter and the language of the question are reviewed to determine that there is no trick information involved; that all information necessary to correctly solve the question is incorporated; and that the scoring plan is valid. If any changes are made to a question during the evaluation time, two additional independent reviews are required. The examination is given nation-wide at the same time. At that time, the NCEES selects fifty to sixty tests at random, which are sent in for scoring. Of those, ten are selected and sent to a monitor to insure uniformity of scoring and appropriateness of the scoring plan. Once the examination is determined to be satisfactory, fifteen expert judges are called in to evaluate the fifty to sixty tests and to review them for demonstrated minimum competence by the candidates whose examinations are under scrutiny. At that point, a minimum numerical score is reached, and the remaining tests are graded. In his cross examination of the Respondent’s expert Mr. Hutchinson, regarding not only each of the examination problems in issue but also the methodology of the development and grading of the examination, Petitioner prefaced his questions by extensive, comprehensive statements of his position as to the matter at issue. Notwithstanding frequent and repeated reminders by the Administrative Law Judge that the matters being expressed were unsworn and not testimony, and therefore could not be considered as evidence, Petitioner persisted. The majority of his comments and arguments made in his Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions are based on that material and it is impossible for the undersigned to recommend Petitioner be granted the relief he proposes, based on the evidence admitted at hearing, as his testimony, when received, was not persuasive. Petitioner also submitted at hearing, as his Composite Exhibit 1, a series of documents which, for the most part, include personal information regarding his credentials, and copies of the pleadings, orders, and correspondence which make up the case file. Also included was a letter from Petitioner’s supervisor testifying to his hard work, industry, and professionalism; and a breakdown of the raw scores he achieved on the examination in question. None of this has a significant bearing on the merits of his challenge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order in this matter denying Petitioner additional credit for his answers to problems 320, 321, 322, and 323, on the October 1996 Environmental Engineer Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott D. Walker 14535 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard Number 918 Tampa, Florida 33613 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Stephen Phillips Kilmon, committed the violations alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint issued by the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation on January 25, 2007, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged in Chapter 472, Florida Statutes, with the duty, among other things, of regulating the practice of land surveying and mapping. At the times material to this proceeding, Stephen Phillips Kilmon, is and was a licensed Florida Surveyor and Mapper, having been issued license number LS 5439. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Kilmon was doing business as ViaLink, Inc., a licensed surveyor business, having been issued license number LB 6648. Mr. Kilmon's address is 2010 Northeast 122 Road, North Miami, Florida 33181. Mr. Kilmon obtained his license in January 1995. Before obtaining his license and beginning in 1980, he obtained experience in surveying, mapping, civil engineering, computer aided design drafting, and information management systems, which ultimately led to his licensure. The Fiddler's Creek Project. 951 Land Holdings, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "951"), through Holes Montes & Associates (hereinafter referred to as "Holes Montes"), was engaged in the development of a housing/golf course project in Naples, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Fiddler's Creek Project"). A portion of the Fiddler's Creek Project was being constructed by Atlantic Civil, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "ACI"). Among other things, ACI was engaged in the excavation of several lakes and the creation of an upland golf course in a wetlands' area. ACI was, however, having difficulty completing the excavation of the lakes due to apparent back-fill which was preventing ACI from achieving the contracted depth of -18 feet National Geiodetic Vertical Datum 1929. Mr. Kilmon described the problem as follows: . . . each lake became mysteriously back- filled to a depth of -14 feet, National Geiodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD29) virtually overnight not allowing ACI to achieve reaching their contract depth of -18 NGVD29 for the bottom of any lake. The analogy is like digging a small hole in the sand a the beach near the water only to watch it fill with more sand and water each time you scoop out the material. The result of ACI's futile efforts to achieve and maintain -18 NGVD29 for any lake caused an over-excavation in cubic yards per lake, long before ACI could finish cutting out the lake pattern or design template. ACI filled its construction site limits to more than 110% of the cubic yards HMA [Holes Montes & Associates] designed for it, yet only completed 75% of the lakes final design template. ACI sought reasonable contract relief from 951 in achieving the unattainable contract required -18 NGVD29 lake bottom depth due to the natural back- fill of liquid sand conditions below the initial 4~6 feet of cap rock, and 951 refused. ACI's position then became that 951 was taking advantage of its contractor to force excessive extraction of "free" fill material for 951 at the unfair expense of ACI. . . . ACI then made the attempt hiring ViaLink to identify the approximate best known volume of excavated "fill" material placed onsite from the lakes, and to be paid according to material type cubic yard unit cost, rather than by the contract method of lake dredge percent complete. Petitioner's Exhibit 6. Involvement of ViaLink, Inc. and Mr. Kilmon in the Fiddler's Creek Project. As a result of the foregoing described problem, ACI hired ViaLink, Inc., and Mr. Kilmon to provide services described by Mr. Kilmon, in pertinent part, as follows: My initial role as Surveyor/Mapper for ACI was to monitor the mysterious back-filing of sandy material during the dredging process after reaching -18 NGVD29. I performed numerous measurements immediately following the backhoe digging, and recorded depths reaching the -18 NGVD29. . . . My second involvement came several months later. At this time I was requested by ACI to perform a survey which captures a topographic surface (less the hydrographic surfaces of the lakes, surveyed by HMA) in the form of a digital terrain model (DTM) of the contracted construction limits out to, and including the bordering lands matching to existing conditions beyond the ACI construction site limit for that moment in time. . . . My third and next involvement on this project site came when ACI informed me that their informal negotiations with 951 felt [sic] through at trying to convey the understanding of the amount of material already placed onsite exceeding the contracted and design intended volume for the ACI construction site limits. I was asked by ACI to contact HMA directly to compare my "ViaLink" DTM topographic surface . . . to the HMA DTM surfaces maintained on their computer systems . . . . From this point on legal counsel for both sides took over the control for resolution between ACI vs. 951, which sent everyone into court. . . . Petitioner's Exhibit 6. Ultimately, the parties turned to the courts to resolve their dispute. During this litigation process, Mr. Kilmon prepared what he titled a "Specific Purpose Survey Surveyor's Report" (hereinafter referred to as the "Surveyor's Report"). Petitioner's Exhibit 4. The Surveyor's Report was prepared in response to a subpoena from counsel for 951 and had to be prepared quickly: MR. KILMON: Because it was an evolutionary process -- ever since we were first hired to go and work on the site, the Judge said, "Wrap it up." That was exactly what he said, "Wrap it up," and he said "Wrap it up" because the other counsel on the other side was seeing that this evolution here of survey work was actually producing something, that I was actually able to recreate this [Digital Terrain Model] that they were hiding. I was actually able to come up with it again and actually produce a number. They cut it, and they go the Judge to say, "Okay, let's produce what he has, let's see what he has" My client said, "Please, you've got to say something. They've drawn a line in the sand and we're not allowed to cross it anymore. We have to come up with something." . . . . MR. KILMON: That was the first piece I gave them because of that subpoena, and that was the May 30 disk. . . . And then I ended up submitting the final version of it that I ran out of time with, and well, here you go, it's the last version. So I complied is all I did. I complied. . . . Transcript, Vol. II, Page 215, Lines 15-25, Page 216, Lines 1-4, and Page 217, Lines 6-12. The Surveyor's Report. The Surveyor's Report, dated July 10, 2002, and addressed to the president and CEO of ACI, states that it involves "Professional Forensic Surveying & Mapping Services; Earthwork Analysis" for the Fiddler's Creek Project. The Surveyor's Report contains the following "Mission Statement": Develop a stratum within a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) having two (2) surfaces for comparison; (a) compile an existing conditions surface (Surface 2[SRF2]) observed and recorded by Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc. (HMA) and their sub- consultants at the time Atlantic Civil, Inc. (ACI) began construction, and (b) compile a final surface (Surface 3 [Srf3]) observed hydrographically by HMA and topographically by ViaLink, Inc (ViaLink) at the time the ACI was terminated, less any areas even partially filled by others, though completed by ACI. Perform a calculation within the DTM which determines the amount of "FILL" material placed on the Fiddler's Creek, Phase 2A, Stage l (the "Site") by Atlantic Civil, Inc. between Srf2 and Srf 3. Methods of volume calculations include "Average End Area" by contract, and "Prismoidal" in support as a backup check calculation in verification. The Surveyor's Report also lists the data relied upon by Mr. Kilmon, many of the rules that govern the practice of surveyors and mappers, and information concerning the calculation of the amount of fill removed by ACI in its efforts to excavate the lakes made by Mr. Kilmon. The Surveyor's Report also included a compact disc (hereinafter referred to as the "CD"), which contained "AutoCAD drawing files depicting a Digital Terrain Model ('DTM')." The Digital Terrain Model (hereinafter referred to as the "DTM"), a digital representation of data, is, according to the Department, a "map." Petitioner's Exhibit 5. The CD contained "AutoCAD drawing files depicting a Digital Terrain Model (DTM)." A printed depiction of the Digital Terrain Model (hereinafter referred to as the "DTM"), contained on the CD was printed and admitted in evidence. It was never Mr. Kilmon's intention to prepare a "quantity survey" as those terms are defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.002(8)(h), or provide a "map" with his report. As to the type of report he intended to issue, Mr. Kilmon testified, in part, as follows: I was left with a partial, if you will, quantity survey, and it's uncertified data, and I didn't want anyone to take off with an assumption, by just reading the title of my report, that there was some sort of real quantity surveying going on here. That’s why you have a specific purpose survey is when you have things that are really out of whack from what's normal for a survey type, slowing everything down. Making people take a look at the title, specific purpose survey, was my judgment call. I wanted to make everybody, including the public, know that right off the top of the bat, you're not going to see this as a quantity. You're going to have to break it down and understand what the data is that made the number. Transcript, Vol. II, Page 220, Lines 16-25, and Page 221, Lines 1-5. Mr. Kilmon recognized that to issuing a quantity survey or map was not appropriate for two reasons: First, some of the data he had available to him was unverified data from Holes Montes; and Second, he did not have all of the data necessary to complete an accurate quantity survey. As Mr. Kilmon further explained his intention during his testimony at hearing, agreeing "in part" with a question as to whether he had concluded that a quantity survey was not appropriate because of inappropriate data he had: . . . . The other part is that the end- all answer of what would be the quantity on that surface, because we didn't have enough data, not just uncertified, but we didn't have enough data to tell where every bit of fill was on that surface. There is no way to know that the end-all number would be. It's simply, as I put in my certification, the best-known number, and the reason is because we're just trying to determine whether or not it's in the 700, 600, a thousand cubit yard range, or are we talking about the 400,000 cubic yard range that the contractor got paid for. Is it worth another look at reevaluating with better cooperation from the other surveyor to get certified data and maybe look at their actual DTM, you know, to get to the bottom of this? Transcript, Vol. II, Page 218, Lines 22-25 and Page 219, Lines 1-12. In addition to styling his report as a "Specific Purpose Survey Surveyor's Report," rather than a quantity survey, Mr. Kilmon warned the reader of the uncertainty of some of the data he had relied upon. On page 14 of the Surveyor's Report, under the heading "Reviewed Survey Data" he identifies the following "Surveyor's and Mappers providing surveying data for review" (see also, page 1): Hole Montes & Associates, Inc. (HMA), . . .as the surveying and mapping consultant or agent to the Fiddler's Creek Developer (FCD), including aerial photogrammetry sub- consultants employed, though their identities are not disclosed. ViaLink, Inc. (ViaLink) . . . as the surveyor and mapping consultant to ACI. On January 24, 2001 the undersigned Surveyor and Mapper formally made a request of HMA and the FCD through ACI for a copy of specific survey instruments, in digital and hardcopy formats, to expedite the review of the Fiddler's Creek Ste, as identified above. To date no signed and sealed, or certified field notes, survey maps, sketches, or surveyor's reports, of any kind have been provided for evaluation. Further, HMA and the FCD insist all survey related information available from there [sic]file has been proffered for review. While originally requested of HMA and the FCD certain forms of helpful raw and finished survey product(s) developed by HMA (and/or it [sic] sub-consultants) and the FCD have if [sic] fact been withheld from this review. Examples being lawfully prepared certified plats of public record, their respective certified boundary surveys, and control surveys signed and sealed. Other examples of withheld survey information include all controlled aerial photogrammetry products observed at the time ACI was terminated. Certified survey data contained in the attached DTM to date is limited to that portion of information provided by this firm, ViaLink, Inc. All other survey data provided for this DTM review is NOT certified, and does not meet the Minimum Technical Standards (MTS) of Chapter 61G17-6 of the Florida Administrative Code as required by Florida Law. The lack of certification does not invalidate the accuracy of the survey data, just its backing. (Emphasis added). The Surveyor's Report, page 14, goes on to advise that there are "three(3) surfaces" contained within the CD's DTM and warns the following with regard to "Surface No. 1": "Surface No. 1 (Srf1) being simply the "Contract Surface" reportedly created by a mystery aerial photogrammetrist developing planimetrics and derived three-dimensional spot elevations as a sub-consultant to HMA in and about a Fiddler's Creek pre- construction Site. " Beginning at the bottom of page 14 and continuing on to page 15, the Surveyor's Report describes where more specific data concerning all three surfaces was obtained, the accuracy or lack thereof of the data, and whether the data is certified. Much of the data listed is acknowledged to be of "unknown" accuracy and to lack certification. Finally, on pages 25 and 26, under the heading "Surveyor's & Mapper Notes," Mr. Kilmon noted the following concerning the inadequacy of data used in the report: 4.) This SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY & MAP SURVEYOR'S REPORT is the direct result of geometric calculation, in large part due to the availability of qualified data provided by others, but without any certification of the responsible surveyor and mapper. . . . . 8.) Under Florida Law, this firm, ViaLink, Inc., and the undersigned Surveyor & Mapper can not certify survey information provided by others when the survey is not conducted under the direct supervision of the undersigned Surveyor & Mapper. Therefore this firm, ViaLink, Inc., and the undersigned Surveyor & Mapper will not assuming [sic] any liability; for information provided by others used in this SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY for Earthwork Analysis. Mr. Kilmon goes on to make the following ultimate findings in the Surveyor's Report: 10.) It is this undersigned Surveyor & Mapper's certain opinion that the earthwork calculation which determined a FILL quantity of 688,080 cubic yards of material reflects an extremely conservative volume of material placed onsite by ACI for the area known as Phase 2A, Stage 1. Additionally, extreme measures have been taken to exclude any and all areas of Srf3 were even in part FILL was placed by others. These pocketed areas of partial FILL formerly reflected within SRF3 have been extensively sought out and totally removed by ACI personnel having direct personal knowledge of the site prior to any construction by ACI. Aerial photography taken by Aerophoto, Inc., on 07/15/1999 independently supports these efforts depicting the same identified regions of partial FILL. The result of this additional effort to meet and/or exceed the Mission Statement of this Surveyor's Report now actually benefits the FCD. Omitted partially filled regions by ACI and others are now not claimed by ACI in any way, but are instead 100% credited to the FCD. 11.) It is the undersigned Surveyor & Mapper's certain opinion that HMA conducted its surveying practices with the positive intension to reflect the actual conditions of Fiddler's Creek, Phase 2A, State 1 topographic and hydrographic surfaces, as no evidence was found to the contrary. 12.) The Average End Area computed total FILL quantity of 688,080 represents FILL to form higher uplands regions and placed in lakes, and may contain a variety of earth materials from rock to sand. On the last page of the Surveyor's Report is the following note: Not Valid without the signature and the original raised seal of a Florida licensed surveyor and mapper. Further this Surveyor's Report is not valid without the original CD-ROM displaying the original signature of this same undersigned Surveyor & Mapper. As noted, supra, a CD was provided by Mr. Kilmon with the Surveyor's Report. The DTM contains a large "N" with an arrow at the bottom. Under this symbol is the following identifying information: Specific Purpose Survey Fiddler's Creek, Phase 2A, Stage 1 (NAD 83/99 FL E. 901 & NGVD 29) Mr. Kilmon did not intend for the DTM to be a "map." Toward this end, he notes the following in the Surveyor's Report on page 26 under the heading "Surveyor's & Mapper Notes": "This is NOT a BOUNDARY SURVEY." Consistent with his intent to only prepare a "report" and not a "report and map", Mr. Kilmon consistently refers to the Surveyor's Report throughout the report (except for what appears to be typographical error), as a "Specific Purpose Survey & Map Surveyor's Report." He does not refer to the report as a "Specific Purpose Survey and Map." To the extent that it is considered a "map," the DTM does not contain the information required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.003 alleged to be missing in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Mr. Kilmon signed and sealed the Surveyor's Report under the following "Surveyor's Certification:" THIS IS TO CERTIFY that this SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY & MAP SURVEYOR'S REPORT is the result of compiled topographic and hydrographic data in part provided by others for the limited purpose of calculating best known "FILL" quantities as mentioned in the Mission Statement herein. I FURTHER CERTIFY that this SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY & MAP SURVEYOR'S REPORT meets or exceeds the evaluation, analysis, and result finding accuracies established by the Minimum Technical Standards as set forth by the Florida Board of Surveyors and Mappers in Chapter 61G17-6.0052, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Chapter 472.027 of the Florida Statutes. Summary Findings. The ultimate issues of fact in this case are whether the Surveyor's Report constitutes a "quantity survey" and whether the DTM is a "Map." Credible expert witnesses for the Department and Mr. Kilmon gave inconsistent testimony on these issues. Ultimately, as to the first question, whether the Surveyor's Report constitutes a "quantity survey," the testimony of the Department's expert witnesses was more convincing. It is concluded that the Surveyor's Report, regardless of what Mr. Kilmon named it, is a quantity survey, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.002(8)(h) and (j), as "a survey to obtain measurements of quantity." The Surveyor's Report comes within this definition: First, the Surveyor's Report is a "survey", which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.003(8) as "the orderly process of determining facts of size, shape, identity, geodetic location, or legal location by viewing and applying direct measurement of features on or near the earth's surface using field or image methods. . . ."; and Second, the survey, by admission of Mr. Kilmon at hearing and on the face of the Surveyor's Report, was intended to obtain and report a measurement of quantity even if only a rough estimate thereof. While Mr. Kilmon did qualify his calculations and openly disclosed the shortcomings of the data relied upon, the bottom line is Mr. Kilmon concluded that "[i]t is this undersigned Surveyor & Mapper's certain opinion that the earthwork calculation which determined a FILL quantity of 688,080 cubic yards of material reflects an extremely conservative volume of material placed onsite by ACI for the area known as Phase 2A, Stage 1." The second issue, as to the proper characterization of the DTM, is more difficult to resolve. The Department's experts unequivocally characterized the DTM as a map. Mr. Kilmon's expert testimony emphasized the issue of whether a map was required rather than whether the DTM was a map. While it seems that the DTM is nothing more than a depiction of data during an intermediate step in the process of manipulating that data, it would not be reasonable to reject the testimony of the Department's experts. It is, therefore, found that the DTM is a map. The Department's witnesses did not, however, prove clearly and convincingly that the DTM is the type of map for which the information specified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.003 is required. Mr. Kilmon's expert, on the other hand, testified convincingly that the DTM is not a map to which the standards and requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.003(3) apply.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Board enter a final order finding that Stephen Phillips Kilmon committed the violation described in this Recommended Order, issuing a written reprimand, and requiring that he pay a fine of $500.00 within 30 days of the entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 19th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric R. Hurst Charles F. Tunnicliff Assistants General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Stephen Phillips Kilmon 2010 Northeast 122 Road North Miami, Florida 33181 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Morrison, Executive Director Board of Professional Land Surveyors And Mappers Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The matters in dispute in this cause concern the attempts by Petitioner to achieve licensure in the State of Florida as a registered land surveyor, pursuant to Chapter 472, Florida Statutes, and through Rule 21HH-3.01, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, Respondent asserts that Petitioner has not met the necessary prerequisites in Section 472.013, Florida Statutes, to allow him to stand the licensing examination. Moreover, Respondent has not allowed Petitioner to gain licensure by endorsement as defined in Subsection 472.015 (3) , Florida Statutes. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to licensure by endorsement or in the alternative, to stand the examination, leading to his licensure by testing. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS Petitioner testified in this cause and offered two exhibits which were received. Respondent presented a composite exhibit which is constituted of file materials related to the Petitioner's application for licensure and responses to the application request.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a retiree from the United States Army, having served 22 years, commencing in 1955. During his service, he obtained military occupational specialties related to the field of surveying in the artillery branch. This experience included occupational training given to Petitioner and examinations of his skills following that training; practical surveying work, and instructional work by Petitioner performed for the benefit of other trainees. This work experience included surveying activities in Florida while in the military. Those surveying duties were military assignments. Material related to Petitioner's training and job performance is generally set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 are further statements related to the Petitioner's military occupational specialties. Petitioner has made application to be licensed as a land surveyor in Florida in keeping with the provisions of Chapter 472, Florida Statutes. Through this process, it is Petitioner's desire to be accepted for licensure through the endorsement process or be given the opportunity to sit for the examination. Respondent is unwilling to accent Petitioner as a candidate for licensure by endorsement. In this connection, he did not establish his successful completion of an examination identified in Subsection 472.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes, or that he holds a valid license from another jurisdiction within the meaning of Subsection 472.015(3)(b) , Florida Statutes. After reviewing Petitioner's application, Respondent through correspondence dated September 10, 1982, denied Petitioner's reguest for licensure by examination premised upon the fact that Petitioner's land surveying experience was not verified by a registered land surveyor who had employed or supervised Petitioner's work. In addition, the letter of denial of licensure indicated that the applicant's file was not complete in that it failed to account for work experience following Petitioner's retirement from the armed services in 1976. (In the course of the hearing, it was established that Petitioner has not practiced land surveying following his retirement.) Notwithstanding his considerable experience, Petitioner has failed to submit by application and/or in the course of the final hearing, documentation which would verify that Petitioner has gained his experience in the field of surveying as a sub- ordinate to a land surveyor as defined in Subsection 472.005(3), Florida Statutes. His documentation did not identify that Petitioner's supervisors or commanders were land surveyors as previously defined and Petitioner did not establish in the hearing that his superiors were land surveyors, as defined. As a consequence, Petitioner failed to provide references from land surveyors setting forth the quality and character of his duties and responsibilities while under the land surveyor's supervision. After receiving the letter of denial of the application, Petitioner made a timely request for a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. This matter was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings and received by that Division on October 18, 1982. An initial hearing date was established for December 8, 1982, and was continued to allow for the negotiations between the parties. The case was subsequently reset for final hearing on March 16, 1983, the date the final hearing was conducted.
