The Issue Whether Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the Firefighter Minimum Standards Retest taken on November 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department), through its Division of State Fire Marshall, certifies all paid firefighters. Applicants for firefighters must complete a 360-hour minimum standards training course and pass a written and practical examination. If the applicant fails the examination, the applicant may retake the examination within six months after taking the initial examination. If the applicant does not pass the retest, the applicant must complete the minimum standards training course before additional retesting will be allowed. The examination has two parts, a written and a practical part. The written examination consists of 100 multiple choice questions. The practical portion tests the applicant on skills dealing with breathing apparatus, hose and nozzle operation, and the 24-foot extension ladder. The applicant must receive a score of 70 percent on both portions of the examination in order to pass the examination. In the breathing apparatus section of the practical examination, the applicant is timed during the donning of the equipment. If the applicant does not don the equipment within one minute and thirty seconds, points are deducted from the applicant's score. The number of points deducted increases in proportion to the amount of time it takes to don the equipment. If the applicant dons the equipment in more than one minute and thirty seconds but not more than two minutes, five points are deducted. In the hose and nozzle operation portion of the practical examination, the applicant is timed. If the applicant fails to perform the operation in two minutes or less, points are deducted from the applicant's score. Five points are deducted if the applicant takes greater than two minutes but not over two minutes and thirty seconds. Ten points are deducted if the applicant takes greater than two minutes and thirty seconds but not more than three minutes. The ladder operation portion of the examination is timed. If the applicant takes more than two minutes and thirty seconds but not more than three minutes, five points are deducted. During the practical examination, applicants are required to demonstrate their skills in tying knots and hitches. The applicant is required to tie one of a number of knots or hitches. Applicants are also required to show their proficiency in dealing with fire hoses, hose appliances and various fittings by performing one of a number of functions. Applicants must demonstrate their knowledge of the North American Emergency Response Guidebook by answering three questions using the guidebook a reference. On January 20, 1998, Petitioner, Michelle M. McCue (McCue), applied for certification as a firefighter. She completed the Minimum Standards Course. On July 30, 1998, McCue took the minimum standards examination. She received a score of 81 on the written portion and 55 on the practical examination. She was notified by memorandum dated August 12, 1998, of her scores. By memorandum dated September 3, 1998, McCue was notified that she was scheduled to retake the examination on September 22, 1998. She did not take the examination on that date. By memorandum dated October 5, 1998, McCue was notified that she was rescheduled to retake the practical examination on November 30, 1998. She retook the practical portion on the day scheduled. On the retake examination, five points were deducted from McCue's score because her donning time for the breathing apparatus portion was one minute and fifty-one seconds. She took three minutes during the timed portion of the hose and nozzle operation; thus, ten points were deducted from her score. Five points were deducted from her score because she took two minutes and thirty-five seconds to perform the ladder operation. Five points were deducted from McCue's score for failure to correctly tie a Becket Bend knot. Another five points were deducted from her score for failing to properly connect a supply line into a female pumper intake. Five points were deducted for her failure to properly answer a question using the North American Emergency Response Guidebook. McCue received a final score of 65 on the retake of the practical examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Michelle M. McCue failed the retake of the practical portion of the Minimum Standards Test and that she shall be required to repeat the Minimum Standards Course before taking any further examinations. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Shiv Narayan Persaud, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michelle M. McCue 4801 Northwest 26th Avenue Tamarac, Florida 33309
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to retake the written portion of the examination for state certification as a firefighter (the "firefighter examination").
Findings Of Fact Respondent’s Bureau of Fire Standards and Training (the "Bureau") is located in Ocala, Florida. The Bureau is responsible for certifying firefighters throughout the state. The Bureau is the only entity authorized to schedule and administer the examination for state certification as a firefighter. A person who wishes to become a firefighter must apply to take the examination for state certification. If the application is approved, the person must first complete a minimum standards course certified by the Bureau and given throughout the state prior to each testing period. The minimum standards course consists of approximately 360 hours. Students attend class four days a week Monday through Friday from 6:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.; and from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. Petitioner satisfactorily completed the minimum standards course conducted from October 26, 1998, through April 2, 1999, at the Mid Florida Tech training center in Orlando, Florida. Upon completion of the course, Petitioner qualified to take the examination given on April 14 and 15, 1999. The examination for state certification as a firefighter consists of two parts. One part is a practical examination, consisting of a physical test, and the second part is a written examination. Candidates must wear their work uniforms for the practical examination and their dress uniforms for the written examination. A person must score 70 percent or greater on each part of the examination to be certified as a firefighter. Petitioner scored 80 percent on the practical examination given on April 15, 1999. However, Petitioner scored only 65 percent on the written examination given on April 14, 1999. A candidate who does not achieve a passing score on either part of the examination is entitled, by rule, to one retest of that part within six months of the original test. If the candidate does not achieve a passing score on the retest, the candidate must submit a new application for certification and re- take the minimum standards course. By letter dated April 23, 1999, the Bureau notified Petitioner that he had not achieved a passing score on the written examination given on April 14, 1999. By letter dated April 26, 1999, the Bureau notified Petitioner that the Bureau had scheduled Petitioner for a retest on May 12, 1999. On May 12, 1999, Petitioner achieved a score of 68 percent on the written portion of the examination. By letter dated May 24, 1999, Respondent notified Petitioner that he did not achieve a passing score on the written examination and denied Petitioner’s application for certification as a firefighter. Petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner does not challenge a question or score used in either written examination given on April 14 or May 12, 1999. Petitioner challenges the procedure used by the Bureau to determine the sequence of the two-part examination given on April 14 and 15, 1999. During the minimum standards course, students generally are told to be prepared for either examination in any sequence. However, Fire Chief Mullins, Petitioner’s course instructor, specifically told Petitioner and his fellow students that the practical examination would be given on April 14, 1999, and that the written examination would be given on April 15, 1999. The written examination in fact was given on April 14, 1999, and the practical examination was given on April 15, 1999. Respondent did not inform Petitioner and his fellow students that the written examination would be given on April 14, 1999, until the morning of the test. Chief Mullins is the agent of Respondent. The Bureau inspects, approves, and certifies each training center, its course curriculum, and its course instructors. Bureau rules and policies are binding on training centers and on training center personnel, including course instructors. The Bureau can decertify training centers and personnel if either violates agency policy. Course instructors have only that authority granted to them by the Bureau and are responsible to the Bureau. The testimony of Respondent’s witness claimed that Chief Mullins did not have actual authority to represent to his students the sequence in which the two-part examination would be given. Assuming arguendo that the testimony is supported by applicable law, the testimony is not dispositive. Chief Mullins had the apparent authority to make each representation to Petitioner and his fellow students, and the students reasonably relied on that representation. Petitioner relied on the representation by Respondent’s agent to Petitioner’s detriment. The detriment to Petitioner consisted of three parts. First, Petitioner was lulled into inaction and lost his opportunity for final preparation before the written examination. Second, the lost opportunity shocked and unnerved Petitioner during the test. Finally, Petitioner was denied an opportunity to take the written examination a second time without being misled by Respondent’s agent. The first part of the detriment to Petitioner occurred on April 13, 1999. In reliance upon Respondent’s misleading representation, Petitioner deferred his final preparation for the written examination until after the practical test which Petitioner believed in good faith would be given on April 14, 1999. Petitioner’s scheduled final preparation for the written examination included a study group that had been prearranged between Petitioner and some of his fellow students to be conducted after the practical examination was completed. When Respondent scheduled the written examination on April 14, 1999, rather than April 15, 1999, Petitioner lost the opportunity Petitioner had scheduled for final study and preparation during the remainder of the day and night following the practical examination. The second part of the detriment to Petitioner occurred to Petitioner’s state of mind during the written examination given on April 14, 1999. Petitioner was shocked and unnerved by the lost opportunity for final preparation before the written examination. The last part of the detriment to Petitioner occurred when Respondent counted the retest on May 12, 1999, as the second test rather than the first test. The test given on May 12, 1999, was the first test not flawed by misleading representations from Respondent’s agent which lulled Respondent into inaction before the written examination. The retest on May 12, 1999, cured the first and second part of the detriment to Petitioner by allowing Petitioner time for final preparation before the written examination. However, the retest did not cure the third part of the detriment to Petitioner. By counting the test given on May 12 as the second test, Respondent did not cure the procedural defect in counting a flawed test as Petitioner’s first test. The detriment to Petitioner is that he would be required to re-apply for certification and take the 360-hour minimum standards course again before he could take a second written examination not flawed by misleading representations that lulled Petitioner into inaction before the written examination. When Petitioner was given the opportunity for final preparation before the written examination on May 12, 1999, his score improved three percentage points from 65 percent to 68 percent. If Petitioner is given a second opportunity for final preparation before the test, he may, or may not, achieve the additional two percentage points needed to score 70 percent on the written examination. Petitioner is entitled, by rule, to a second opportunity to take the written test without being lulled into inaction before the test by misleading representations from Respondent. Respondent argues that tests are frequently rescheduled for weather or other acts of God. However, an act of God was not the reason Respondent rescheduled the sequence of the two-part examination on April 14 and 15, 1999. Respondent scheduled the sequence of the two-part examination at issue in this case for administrative convenience. The Bureau determines the number of days required to give the examination offered to graduates of each training center at the beginning of each training course when the training center sends the Bureau a course roster. The Bureau gives the examination for certification as a firefighter in one day if there are less than 15 applicants enrolled in a training course and in two days if there are 15 to 30 applicants enrolled. If there are more than 30 applicants enrolled, the Bureau gives the examination over three days, adding an additional day for each increment of 15 applicants. The Bureau does not determine the sequence in which the two parts of the examination will be given until the end of the training course, approximately one week before the first test date, and does not inform the test center until that time. The course instructor, therefore, could not have known what the sequence of testing was going to be on April 14 and 15, 1999, when he misled Petitioner and his fellow students into believing the written examination would be given on April 15, 1999. It is equally correct, however, that neither Petitioner nor his fellow students could have known, or should have known, that the course instructor was unaware of the sequence of testing when the course instructor repeatedly misled Petitioner and his fellow students during the training course. The course instructor misrepresented the sequence of testing throughout the course beginning sometime in February 1999 and thereafter until the course was concluded on April 2, 1999. Several times during March 1999, the course instructor represented to Petitioner and his fellow students that the written examination would be given on April 15, 1999. Respondent has no policy that establishes standards for determining the sequence of the two-part examination. Examiners who administer the tests travel from Ocala to each test site. Approximately one week before leaving for the test site, examiners inform someone at the training center of the testing sequence. Respondent failed to explicate any standards for determining the sequence of testing except acts of God, which are irrelevant to the facts in this case; the general principle that firefighters must be prepared for any eventuality, which Respondent failed to explain in the record; and the unbridled discretion of the examiner. Respondent did not explicate why the examiner for the examination given on April 14 and 15, 1999, decided to give the written examination on the earlier date or why the course instructor did not correct his prior misleading representations during the week before the examination. Respondent’s witness testified that Petitioner and his fellow students had no right to know the sequence of testing. While Petitioner and his fellow students may not have had a right to know the sequence of testing, their course instructor volunteered that information and carried out that voluntary agency action in a misleading manner that lulled Petitioner into inaction. Respondent may not have been required to provide notice of the sequence of testing to Petitioner and his fellow students. Once Respondent voluntarily undertook to provide notice of the sequence of testing, Respondent was required to carry out its voluntary action in a fair and adequate manner. The notice voluntarily given by Respondent’s agent was neither fair nor adequate but was misleading, arbitrary, and capricious. The course instructor had no way of knowing the sequence of testing before the telephone call from the test examiner, and the test examiner had no standards to limit his discretion to determine the sequence of testing. Respondent asserts that the changed testing sequence, if any, did not cause extreme hardship to Petitioner. In support of its assertion, Respondent submitted evidence that other students overcame any hardship and passed the written test. Respondent misses the point. If some students were not harmed by Respondent’s misleading notice, the absence of harm does not eliminate the error in the agency notice to those students. It merely means that the error in the notice to those students was harmless error. The lack of harm to those students does not eliminate the prejudice to a student who was harmed by the error in notice. If an agency voluntarily undertakes action and does so in a faulty and misleading manner, the agency properly should suffer the consequences of such action rather than the person who is prejudiced by such action. The harm caused by faulty and misleading notice to a particular student is not measured by the prejudice, or lack of prejudice, to other students. Such harm is personal and is properly measured by the facts and circumstances unique to the individual student and his or her state of mind.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's challenge to the written examination given on April 14, 1999, and granting Petitioner’s request to retake the written examination given on May 12, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bill Nelson, State Treasurer And Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level II Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Shiv Narayan Persaud, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Jonathan C. Anthony 215 Bella Coola Drive Indian Harbor Beach, Florida 32937
The Issue Whether Petitioner should receive a passing score on the retake of the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter, and whether Petitioner should be required to retake the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter without repeating the Minimum Standards Course.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Tamara Lynn Rose (Rose), applied for certification as a firefighter on January 21, 1997. She completed a training course at the Broward Fire Academy. Rose took the initial Minimum Standards Examination for Firefighters in August 1997. She passed the written part of the examination, but failed the practical portion. On October 13, 1997, she retook the practical portion of the examination. The only portion of the examination results which Rose contests is the score received for the 1 3/4" Hose and Nozzle Operation of Part I of the examination. The hose and nozzle operation is a timed event. The hose advance exercise should be completed within two minutes. If the applicant takes over five minutes to finish the operation, 40 points are deducted from the applicant's score. In order to pass the practical examination, the applicant must score 70 percent or better on the examination. Rose took five minutes and thirty-six seconds to complete the hose and nozzle operation portion of the examination, resulting in a forty-point deduction and an automatic failure of the examination. The hose and nozzle portion of the examination consists of the applicant shouldering the hose load, advancing to the rear of the fire truck, making a u-turn and looping the hose, advancing to the front of the fire truck, bleeding the lines, advancing 100 feet, and knocking down three cones with the water coming from the nozzle. Rose had difficulty in getting the load out of the bed of the truck. The hose became tangled, and she had to stop and straighten out the hose. She walked to the front of the truck and began her hose drag, but the drag was slow and hard because the hose had caught on one of the truck's tires. She pulled the hose free. Because of the tangling of the hose and the hose catching on the tire, Rose lost too much time to be able to complete the hose and nozzle operation in a timely manner. The hose is loaded on the truck by students who are taking the examination. The loading is supervised by instructors who are certified firefighters. It is the responsibility of these instructors to correct any improper loading. The field representative from the State Fire Marshall's Office at the retest was Phillip Bagley. After retiring with 24 years with the Tampa Fire Department, Mr. Bagley began working for the State Fire Marshall in 1996. He has administered between 900 and 1,000 tests. He did not see any problem with the way that the hose was loaded on the truck. In his experience it is not uncommon for the hoses to become tangled, usually resulting from a failure of the applicant to get enough of the hose on the his shoulder causing the load to pull loose when the applicant steps down from the truck. The applicants are given an opportunity to inspect the hoses prior to beginning the examination. Prior to the examination being administered, the applicants are given an orientation and are advised that they should report immediately to the examiners any malfunction. At the time of the examination, Rose did not report to Mr. Bagley that the hose was improperly loaded. Rose also received a five-point deduction because she failed to form a loop during the hose advance portion of the examination. Rose is not contesting the five points that were deducted for failing to tie the safety knot during the 24-foot ladder extension portion of the examination or the five points that were deducted for not having her chin strap under her chin during the donning of the protective gear portion of the examination. Her total score for the retest was 50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Rose's application for certification as a firefighter and requiring her to repeat the Minimum Standards Course prior to retaking the Minimum Standards Certification Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Karuna P. Rao, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 33314 Tamara Lynn Rose, pro se 4051 Southwest 72 Terrace Davie, Florida 33314
The Issue Whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2008, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants.1/ Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's first attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on September 26, 2011, and included four practical components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills.2/ To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn a score of at least 70 on all sections. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded. For instance, the ladder operation consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee must complete within the maximum time of four minutes and 30 seconds. The ladder operation also requires the examinee to fulfill ten mandatory components, which include, among other things, maintaining control of the ladder at all times and securing the "dogs"3/ properly. Pertinent to the instant case, noncompliance with respect to any of the mandatory elements results in automatic failure, irrespective of the examinee's performance in connection with the 15 evaluative components. It is undisputed that Petitioner achieved passing scores on the fireground skills, SCBA, and hose components of the retention examination; Petitioner was unable, however, to complete the ladder evaluation within the prescribed time limit, which resulted in an automatic failure. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.4/ Petitioner's retest was administered on November 15, 2011, at the Ocala Fire College, during which he passed the SCBA and hose portions of the examination. (For reasons not explained during the final hearing, Petitioner was not required to re-take the fireground skills component.) Once again, however, Petitioner failed the ladder evaluation, as established by the final hearing testimony of Tuffy Dixon, the field examiner on that occasion.5/ Mr. Dixon explained, credibly, that Petitioner scored an automatic failure because he neglected to lock one of the ladder's "dogs"——one of the ladder evaluation's ten mandatory components.6/ Accordingly, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner failed the November 15, 2011, retention examination retest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order denying Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination Retest.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Berejuk is a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the state of Florida. To be certified as a firefighter, a candidate is required to successfully complete the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination. A candidate is able to take the certification test twice. If a candidate fails the first time, the candidate is automatically afforded an opportunity for a retest. On April 11, 2012, Mr. Berejuk took the original examination of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination at Miami, Florida. To successfully complete the Minimum Standards Written Examination (Written Examination), a candidate is required to receive a minimum of 70 points on the Written Examination. Mr. Berejuk received more than the minimum of 70 points. As a result, he passed the Written Examination. The Minimum Standards Practical Examination (Practical Examination) consists of four evolutions. To successfully complete the Practical Examination, a candidate is required to receive a minimum of 70 points on each evolution and to complete all mandatory steps. Mr. Berejuk received more than a minimum of 70 points in each evolution, except the ladder search and rescue evolution (Ladder Evolution). During the Ladder Evolution, Mr. Berejuk failed to complete a mandatory step. He failed to don a hood on his head, and because of that failure he received zero points for the Ladder Evolution. As a result, he failed to pass the Ladder Evolution. Also, pertinent to the instant case, the maximum time allowed on the Ladder Evolution is four minutes and 30 seconds. Exceeding the maximum time allowed is an automatic failure of the Ladder Evolution. Mr. Berejuk's time on the Ladder Evolution was three minutes and 20 seconds, which was one minute and 10 seconds, or 70 seconds, less than the maximum allowable time. Because of his failure to pass the Ladder Evolution, Mr. Berejuk failed to successfully complete the Practical Examination. On May 15, 2012, Mr. Berejuk completed a retest of the Practical Examination at Ocala, Florida. The Practical Examination Retest consisted of three evolutions. He was required to receive a minimum of 70 points on each evolution and to complete all mandatory steps in order to successfully complete the Practical Examination Retest. On the Practical Examination Retest, Mr. Berejuk received more than a minimum of 70 points, receiving a perfect score of 100 points, on all of the evolutions, except the Ladder Evolution on which he received zero points. He exceeded the maximum time allowed on the Ladder Evolution. As on the original examination, the maximum time allowed is four minutes 30 seconds and exceeding the maximum time allowed is an automatic failure of the Ladder Evolution. Mr. Berejuk's time was four minutes 42 seconds, which is 12 seconds more than the maximum allowable time. He received zero points on the Ladder Evolution for exceeding the maximum allowable time. As a result of his failing to pass the Ladder Evolution, Mr. Berejuk failed to successfully complete the Practical Examination Retest. Because Mr. Berejuk failed the Practical Examination Retest, the Department denied his certification as a firefighter. As support for his challenge to the Department's determination that he exceeded the maximum allowable time on the Ladder Evolution, Mr. Berejuk relies upon his performance on the practice ladder evolution at the Coral Springs Fire Academy (Academy). He completed his training at the Academy in 2012. His time on the practice ladder evolution was three minutes and 49 seconds, which is 41 seconds less than the maximum allowable time. The Ladder Evolution's footprint at the Practical Examination Retest in Ocala is different from the footprint at the Academy (the practice site) in Coral Springs and at the original examination site in Miami. At the practice, Mr. Berejuk's time for the Ladder Evolution was three minutes and 49 seconds, 41 seconds less than the maximum allowable time; at the original examination, his time was three minutes and 20 seconds, 70 seconds less than the maximum allowable time; and at the Practical Examination Retest, a little over 30 days after the first test, his time was four minutes and 42 seconds, 12 seconds more than the maximum allowable time. Even though the difference in the times recorded for the Ladder Evolution at the original examination and the Practical Examination Retest are markedly different, Mr. Berejuk presented insufficient evidence addressing the difference in order to make a finding of fact or draw an inference. Also, he did not present any evidence detailing his specific performance on the Ladder Evolution at the Practical Examination Retest, such as his not stumbling or hesitating at any point during the Ladder Evolution. Mr. Berejuk failed to present any evidence as to the inaccuracy of the instrument, a stopwatch, used to time the Ladder Evolution or as to the inaccuracy of the field representative recording the time at the Practical Examination Retest. He presented only assumptions or conjectures as to the inaccuracy of the instrument or the recording of the field representative. The field representative did not testify at hearing. The evidence fails to demonstrate that the amount of time determined by the Department for Mr. Berejuk to complete the Ladder Evolution was incorrect or inaccurate. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Berejuk failed to successfully complete the Ladder Evolution within the maximum allotted time. Hence, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Berjuk failed the Practical Examination Retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order: Finding that Daniel Berejuk failed to successfully complete the Practical Examination Firefighter Retest; and Denying Daniel Berejuk's application for certification as a firefighter in the state of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Thomas R. Felts applied to the City of Hollywood, Florida for appointment as a firefighter. He took and passed the Civil Service examination, the physical examination and physical agility test used by the City of Hollywood to qualify firefighter applicants. Following successful completion of the tests above noted two things only stood between Felts and employment as a firefighter. First, he had to complete the firefighter training school and second, receive certification from the State Fire Marshal's office. Prior to entering the four weeks training program Felts was advised by Respondent that, because of the condition of his hands, he could not meet the State's physical requirements for certification even if he successfully completed the training program. Felts was born May 28, 1949. In 1969 he was involved in an industrial accident which severely damaged both hands. Upon his discharge from further treatment in 1972 Felts' hands are described in the attachment to Dr. Angelides' deposition as follows: Examination of the right hand re vealed a reconstituted thumb, extending to the level of the IP joint. The patient's index finger was totally absent having undergone a ray amputation. The long finger was amputated at the level of the PIP joint. The ring finer was amputated through the level of the DIP joint. There was a well-healed skin graft over the ulnar border of the finger, and the ulnar half of the finger was anesthetic. The fifth finger was normal. There were multiple well-healed lacerations of the right hand. Examination of the left hand revealed an amputation of the left thumb, through the level of the MP joint. The index ray was absent and the patient's long finger was amputated through the level of the PIP joint. The ring and fifth finger were normal. There were multiple well-healed scars and skin grafts of the left hand. There was a flexion deformity of forty degrees at the MP joint of the left long finger. In lay language Petitioner has one-half thumb (reconstituted) on the right hand, no thumb on the left, no index finger on either hand, one half middle finger on each hand, and the tip of the ring finger missing on the right hand. Subsequent to his accident Petitioner has worked as a life guard and as a building contractor. In the latter capacity he has wielded a hammer, climbed scaffolding, operated power tools and handled hoses for spraying and pouring concrete. After his release from further medical treatment Petitioner started a physical therapy program including weight lifting. This program had been ongoing for some seven years at the time Petitioner applied for the firefighter's position. As a result of this program and Petitioner's dedication he has developed a powerful body on a 182-pound frame capable of bench pressing 385 pounds and doing one-handed pull-ups (chins) with either hand. When tested by the City of Hollywood Petitioner passed the Minimum Physical Fitness Requirements in National Fire Protection Association's Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, NFPA No. 1001, plus a ten-foot rope climb and swimming tests not contained in NFPA No. 1001. Prior to 1979 Respondent used the Minimum Physical Fitness Requirements of NFPA No. 1001 as a condition for certification. These requirements were abandoned as a result of a suit brought by EEOC alleging that these physical requirements, which test strength, endurance and agility, were unfair to female applicants who did not have sufficient upper body strength to perform those tasks. Although the physical fitness requirements were abandoned, Respondent retained the physical standards contained in NFPA No. 1001 and adopted those standards in Rule 4A-37.05(3), Florida Administrative Code. These rules provide for rejection of a candidate for firefighter when the medical examination reveals any of the following conditions: 2-2.6.1.2 Hand and Fingers. The causes for rejection for appointment shall be: Absence (or loss) of more than 1/3 of the distal phalanx of either thumb. Absence (or loss) of distal and middle phalanx of an index, middle or ring finger of either hand irrespec tive of the absence (or loss) of little finger. Absence of more than the distal phalanx of any two of the following fingers, index, middle finger or ring finger, of either hand. Respondent is disqualified on each of these three grounds.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus ("SCBA") part of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination for firefighter certification.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for certification as a firefighter in August 2004. In order to be certified, Petitioner was first required to successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course, which consists of a minimum of 360 hours of training at an approved school or training facility. After completing the training course, Petitioner was required to take the Minimum Standards Examination, which is structured in two parts: a written portion and a practical portion. The practical portion consists of four sections or "evolutions," including the SCBA, the hose pull, the ladder operation, and the fireground skills section. To pass the four practical evolutions, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each one. Each evolution of the practical exam has certain elements or skills that are graded. The SCBA test contains 11 skills related to checking, donning, and properly activating the SCBA that enables a firefighter to breathe in a hostile environment, such as a burning building. The SCBA test must be completed in not more than one minute and 45 seconds. After completing the Minimum Standards Course, Petitioner took the initial Minimum Standards Examination on December 8, 2004. Petitioner passed the written portion of the exam, but did not pass the practical portion of the initial exam because he exceeded the maximum time for the SCBA test. In a memorandum dated December 21, 2004, the Department formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the SCBA portion of the practical exam. The memorandum also informed Petitioner that he had been automatically scheduled to retake the SCBA test. In another memorandum dated December 21, 2004, the Department advised Petitioner that he was scheduled to retake the SCBA portion of the practical examination at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, on February 24, 2005. Petitioner took the retest of the SCBA portion of the practical examination as scheduled. Petitioner again failed the SCBA test. Though he completed each of the 11 skills with no deduction of points, he again exceeded the maximum time of one minute and 45 seconds. Petitioner's time was one minute and 50 seconds. Larry McCall is a field representative with the Department. Mr. McCall described "field representative" as a "glorified name for an examiner." Mr. McCall was the examiner who tested Petitioner on the retake of the SCBA portion of the practical exam on February 24, 2005. He observed Petitioner perform the 11 skills, and he timed Petitioner with a stopwatch. Mr. McCall has been an examiner for 15 years. He is a certified firefighter and a certified fire service instructor. He retired from the City of Jacksonville Fire Department after 30 years. Mr. McCall estimated that he has administered 10,000 SCBA tests. Petitioner testified that before taking the retest, he practiced the SCBA test upwards of 50 times and never exceeded the time limit. Petitioner testified that he was certain that he completed the test within the time limit on February 24, 2005. Petitioner is currently a volunteer at the Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue Department. The chief of that department, Emilio Rodriguez, testified that he administered the SCBA test to Petitioner in practice situations over a dozen times, and Petitioner never went over one minute and ten seconds. Keith Perry, a veteran firefighter working for the Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue Department, testified that he has timed Petitioner many times and that Petitioner has never exceeded the time limit, averaging between one minute and five seconds and one minute and ten seconds. Neither of Petitioner's witnesses was present when he took the SCBA retest on February 24, 2005, and, thus, could not testify as to whether he passed the test on that day. Petitioner's subjective feeling that he passed the test based on the many times he practiced, is necessarily less persuasive than the time actually recorded by Mr. McCall. The students are assigned an applicant number on the day of the test. The examiners refer to the students by this number, rather than their names, during the testing process. After the test has been administered, the examiners coordinate the names with the numbers and assign final scores. At the hearing, Petitioner suggested that a mistake had been made in coordinating the names and numbers and that he had mistakenly been assigned the failing score of another candidate. Petitioner offered no evidence for this speculative suggestion, which, therefore, cannot be credited. Petitioner also noted that Mr. McCall had recorded a time of 20 seconds for Petitioner's performance on the "seal check," an exercise to ensure that the face piece of the SCBA equipment is securely sealed such that the firefighter is breathing only from his air tank. The candidate must perform the seal check for at least ten seconds. Petitioner persuasively contended that 20 seconds is an extraordinarily long time for the seal check, because the candidate must hold his breath for the duration of the check. Further, Petitioner noted that candidates are trained to count off the required ten seconds, making it unlikely that he would inadvertently take twice the required time to complete the check. Petitioner's theory was that Mr. McCall's mistaken recording of 20 seconds was enough to account for the five seconds by which Petitioner failed the overall SCBA test. However, Mr. McCall testified that he used a stopwatch with a split timer to record Petitioner's time for the SCBA test. A split timer independently records a span of time within the overall time being measured. When Petitioner commenced the seal check portion, Mr. McCall triggered the split timer, and he stopped the split timer when Petitioner completed the seal check. The split timer has no effect on the total time. Whether the split for the seal check had been ten seconds, 20 seconds, or more, Petitioner's overall time would have been one minute and 50 seconds. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the SCBA section of the practical examination was appropriately and fairly graded. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to a passing grade for his performance on the SCBA section. Respondent established that Mr. McCall appropriately administered the subject SCBA section pursuant to the applicable provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69A-37, which set forth guidelines for the practical examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that Petitioner failed the SCBA section of the practical portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standard Examination administered February 24, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Casia R. Sinco, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Room 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Adam J. Oosterbaan, Esquire Adam J. Oosterbaan, P.A. 2500 Airport Road South, Suite 306 Naples, Florida 34112 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent’s participation in the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program (McKay Scholarships) and the Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship Program (CTC Scholarships) should have been suspended, and whether Respondent’s eligibility to participate in the programs should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact CHC is a private school located in Merritt Island, Florida. Lara Nichilo is the owner and head administrator of CHC. Ms. Nichilo was also the owner and head administrator of another private school located in Cocoa, Florida. For the purposes of this proceeding, the school located in Cocoa, Florida, will be referred to as CHC 2.2 CHC and CHC 2 had participated in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs. Section 1002.39, Florida Statutes, authorizes the McKay Scholarships program, which affords a disabled student an opportunity to receive a scholarship to defray the cost of attending a private school of choice. Section 220.187, Florida Statutes, authorizes the CTC Scholarships program, which enables taxpayers to make private, voluntary contributions so that students who qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches under the National School Lunch Act may receive a scholarship to defray the cost of attending a private school of choice. The Department of Education has the responsibility to annually verify the eligibility of a private school to participate in these scholarship programs. Private schools participating in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs are required to comply with Section 1002.421, Florida Statutes, and must meet applicable state and local health, safety, and welfare laws, codes, and rules, including laws, codes, and rules relating to firesafety and building safety. If a private school participating in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs desires to renew its participation in the programs, the school must file a signed, notarized Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit with the Department of Education by March 1 of each year for participation in the subsequent school year. The Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit contains a list of requirements to which the private school must certify that it meets or does not meet. If the school certifies that it does not meet a requirement, such certification constitutes an outstanding compliance issue, which must be resolved by the school prior to May 1 of each year for the school to remain eligible to participate in the scholarship programs. Specifically, the signature page of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit states in part: “I understand that in answering ‘No’ to any requirement in Section 9: School Facility, the provision of a reason for answering ‘No’ shall not make the school compliant with the reporting requirement and will be considered an outstanding compliance issue for resolution as described in State Board of Education Rules 6A-6.03315, 6A-6.0960, and 6A- 6.0970, Florida Administrative Code.” Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03315(2) requires that every third year a school applies for renewal of eligibility for the scholarship programs there must be a review of compliance documentation. This means that the school must submit documentation to support its eligibility along with the affidavit. For the renewal of eligibility for the 2009-2010 school year, CHC had to submit compliance documentation for review. On November 6, 2008, Ms. Nichilo executed and mailed the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for CHC for renewal of CHC’s eligibility to participate in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs for the 2009-2010 school year. Subsection 1 of Section 9 of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit requires the school to answer the following question: Does the school facility possess a current, violation free or satisfactory Fire Code Inspection and compliance report in accordance with Section 1002.421(2)(g)1., Florida Statutes, State Finance Services Rule 69A-58.004, Florida Administrative Code, and county and/or municipal ordinance? Ms. Nichilo answered “Yes” to the question. CHC submitted a fire inspection certificate for CHC with a date of February 22, 2008. At the time Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit in November 2008, CHC did not have a current Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. The last fire inspection certificate was dated February 22, 2006, and had expired on February 22, 2007. Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted a Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for the 2007-2008 school year, certifying that CHC had a current, violation-free fire inspection report. The certificate affidavit which Ms. Nichilo signed stated: I have read the applicable scholarship program rules and understand that by signing this form I am certifying that the school is currently in compliance and agrees [sic] to remain in compliance with all scholarship program rules and reporting requirements. If at any point, the school is not in compliance with scholarship rules, or if there is a change in the status of any reporting requirement, the school will have 15 days to notify the Department of Education and will provide all information necessary to document its continued compliance with program rules and requirements. At the time the certification was submitted on January 11, 2007, CHC did have a current, violation-free fire inspection report; however, CHC did not have a current, violation-free fire inspection report that was valid for the entire 2007-2008 school year. CHC did not notify the Department of Education that it was not in compliance with the fire safety inspections during the 2007-2008 school year. On December 5, 2007, Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted a Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for the 2008-2009 school year, certifying that CHC had a current, violation-free fire inspection report. At the time of submission of the affidavit, CHC did not have a current, violation-free fire inspection report, and, from the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year until December 23, 2008, CHC did not maintain a current, violation-free fire inspection report nor did CHC notify the Department of Education as late as December 11, 2008, that CHC was not in compliance with the fire inspection requirement. On November 19, 2008, Assistant Fire Marshall Doug Carter of Brevard County Fire Rescue (BCFR) received a complaint concerning CHC and CHC 2 from an anonymous caller. It is the policy of BCFR to follow up on all complaints. On November 20, 2008, Lead Fire Inspector William Morissette, following up on the anonymous complaint, went to CHC for the purpose of performing a fire inspection. On November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette performed a fire inspection on CHC and noted some violations. During the inspection on November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette noticed that the fire inspection certificate that was posted at CHC was partially obscured, and he could not see the school’s address. On November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette performed a fire inspection of CHC 2 and noted some violations. He observed the posted fire certificate at CHC 2 during his inspection. The fire certificate had an account number 23832 and was dated February 22, 2008. The font used in the printing of the certificate did not appear to be the same type as used by BCFR. While at CHC 2, Mr. Morrissette called Assistant Fire Marshall Carter and learned that account number 23832 was for CHC and not CHC 2 and that no fire certificate had been issued to CHC 2 on February 22, 2008. The last fire certificate that had been issued to CHC 2 was on December 15, 2005, and had expired on December 16, 2006. On November 6, 2008, CHC sent a copy of the fire inspection certificate dated February 22, 2008, to the Department of Education as part of the documentation supplied to verify CHC’s eligibility for renewal. The fire inspection certificate was a forgery. Ms. Nichilo testified that she did not send the forged certificate to the Department of Education and that some disgruntled former employee who had access to CHC’s files must have sent the certificate to the Department of Education or must have put the forged certificate in the envelope containing the renewal information that was sent to the Department of Education. Ms. Nichilo’s testimony is not credible. The certificate came in the same envelope as the other material which CHC submitted in November 2008. Ms. Nichilo signed and mailed the renewal information on November 6, 2008. Her testimony that the envelope must have been in the mail room a couple of days before it was mailed, thereby allowing the disgruntled employee an opportunity to slip the forged certificate in the envelope, is not credible. After the renewal package was sent to the Department of Education, Ms. Nichilo asked her secretary to contact BCFR to schedule a fire inspection. Ms. Nichilo knew that she needed a fire inspection because she knew that she did not have a current fire inspection certificate when she sent the renewal submittal to the Department of Education. Based on the clear and convincing evidence presented, it can only be concluded that Ms. Nichilo knew the fire inspection certificates, which she included with the renewal submittals, were forgeries. On or about December 5, 2008, Mr. Carter contacted the Department of Education and informed the Department of Education that he had concerns about CHC’s and CHC 2’s fire inspection certificates. Mr. Carter sent a memorandum dated December 9, 2008, to Riley Hyle with the Department of Education, explaining BCFR’s observations and concerns relating to the fire inspection certificates. After learning from Mr. Carter that CHC’s and CHC 2’s fire inspection certificates were in question, Mr. Hyle checked the Department of Education’s renewal files on CHC and CHC 2. Mr. Hyle found forged fire inspection certificates in both files. When CHC’s and CHC 2’s submittals arrived on November 10, 2008, in the same envelope, Mr. Hyle reviewed the submittals and verified that both submittals contained fire inspection certificates. He received no further documentation from CHC or CHC 2 from November 10, 2008, and the time he talked to Mr. Carter on December 5, 2008. On December 8, 2008, Mr. Morrissette returned to CHC 2 to do a follow-up inspection. CHC 2 had not corrected all its violations. Mr. Morrissette was advised by the principal at CHC 2 that CHC also had not corrected all of its violations. One of the violations CHC had was a broken lockbox. On December 7, 2008, CHC had called BCFR and requested an application for a lockbox. Thus, on December 8, 2008, CHC would still have not corrected its lockbox violation. On December 11, 2008, Ms. Nichilo signed a revised version of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit3 for CHC for the 2009- 2010 school year. The question posed in the affidavit submitted in November 2008 concerning whether the facility had a current, violation-free fire code inspection remained the same in the revised affidavit. Again, CHC stated that it did have a current, violation-free Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. The revised affidavit also contained the same language as the November 2008 affidavit that answering a question in the negative in Section 9 would result in an out-of-compliance issue. Both the November affidavit and the revised affidavit contained the following language: I have read the applicable scholarship program rules and understand that by signing the form I am certifying that the school is currently in compliance and agrees [sic] to remain in compliance with all scholarship program rules and reporting requirements. If at any point, the school is not in compliance with the scholarship rules, or if there is a change in the status of any reporting requirement, the school shall have 15 days to notify the Department of Education and will provide all information necessary to document its continued compliance with program rules and requirements. The revised affidavit was submitted to the Department of Education, which received the affidavit on December 16, 2008. At the time CHC submitted the affidavit, it did not have a current, violation-free Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. On December 23, 2008, the BCFR re-inspected CHC and found that the violations had been corrected. After its inspection on December 23, 2008, BCFR issued a fire inspection certificate backdated to November 20, 2008, which was the date of the original inspection. On December 17, 2008, the Agency issued an Administrative Complaint, suspending CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs for failure to have a current fire inspection report. By letter dated December 23, 2008, and received by the Department of Education on December 29, 2008, CHC advised that the school had been re- inspected and now had a current fire code inspection certificate. On January 2, 2009, CHC sent a 12-page facsimile transmission to the Department of Education. One of the pages of the transmission was a copy of a facsimile transmission coversheet dated December 31, 2008, with the BCFR letterhead concerning inspection reports. The comments section of the coversheet read “Please read letter.” The second page of the transmission was an unsigned to-whom-it-may-concern letter dated December 30, 2008. At the top of the letter, printed in large, bold type was the following: “Brevard County Fire Rescue.” The letter stated: To whom it may concern, In reviewing and trying to figure out what happen with the 2007 inspection reports this is the conclusion we have come to. If you review the two reports on both CHC-1 and CHC-2 the visiting inspection times over lap each other making it seem like a 2007 inspection was done when in reality it was not. CHC-1 inspection has a date on it February 22, 2006 to February 2007. CHC-2 inspection shows January 12, 2006 (re-inspection) January 2007. I believe that this was just an over site on both our parts due to the fact that the fire department does come in regularly every year even without an appointment. Lara Nichilo did notify us to come in ASAP when the reports could not be found. But as of November 20, 2008 all her inspections were done and her follow up correction reports have been completed putting her in good standing with the fire and inspections department. CHC-1 and CHC-2 (inspection reports provided to you with this letter) For more information you may contact us at 321-455-6383 Thank you for your time, The telephone number given in the letter was the telephone number for CHC. The original letter submitted at the final hearing by CHC was written on stationary bearing the CHC watermark. The letter received by the Department of Education had no visible watermark. The facsimile transmission coversheet that accompanied the letter was a coversheet which BCFR had sent to CHC on December 31, 2008. The statements in the comments section that BCFR sent had been deleted and replaced with “Please read letter.” The following are the comments which BCFR had written: There are no reports or certificates for 690 Range Road for 2006 or 2007. There are no inspection reports or certificates for 55 McLeod for 2007. Certificates will be issued upon receipt of payment. Laura Harrison, the director of the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs at the Department of Education, transmitted a copy of the letter to BCFR and asked if the letter had originated from BCFR. Mr. Carter advised Ms. Harrison that the letter did not come from BCFR. Ms. Nichilo wrote the letter. A person reading the letter would be led to believe that the letter came from BCFR. The letter was accompanied by a facsimile transmission coversheet bearing the BCFR letterhead and the coversheet comments said “Please read letter.” The letter refers to Ms. Nichilo in the third person and uses first person plural pronouns to refer to BCFR. The letter purports to bear the letterhead of BCFR. It must be concluded that Ms. Nichilo intended the Department of Education to rely on the letter as a letter transmitted by BCFR to Ms. Nichilo to explain the situation. If Ms. Nichilo had intended the Department of Education to treat the letter as a letter written by her, she would have written the letter using CHC letterhead, signed the letter, not referred to herself in the third person, not referred to BCFR in the first person, and not used a transmission coversheet from BCFR in which the comments section had been altered. In a conversation on December 30, 2008, Ms. Nichilo advised Mr. Hyle that she was sending him a letter that would explain everything and would resolve the situation concerning the fire inspections. Ms. Nichilo testified that she told Mr. Hyle that she was writing the letter. Mr. Hyle did not recall whether Ms. Nichilo said that she was writing a letter. Jade Quinif, who was Ms. Nichilo’s administrative assistant on December 30, 2008, listened to the conversation between Mr. Hyle and Ms. Nichilo on speakerphone. She recalls Ms. Nichilo asking Mr. Hyle if he would like her to write a letter regarding Ms. Nichilo’s conversations with BCFR. Mr. Hyle said that would be fine. Ms. Nichilo typed a letter and asked Ms. Quinif to send it to the Department of Education. Ms. Quinif sent a letter to the Department of Education dated December 30, 2008. Based on the evidence presented, the letter that Ms. Quinif sent was a letter dated December 30, 2008, written on CHC letterhead and signed by Ms. Nichilo.4 It was not the letter dated December 30, 2008, which appeared to be from BCFR (purported BCFR letter). The only evidence of receipt of the purported BCFR letter by the Department of Education is in a 12-page facsimile transmittal, which was transmitted twice on January 2, 2009. Ms. Quinif credibly testified that she did not send a 12-page transmission and that she did not send the doctored transmission coversheet from BCFR. She also credibly testified that the letter that she sent was a few days after Christmas and was not more than a week after Christmas. Ms. Nichilo testified that Ms. Quinif did sent the transmittal coversheet from the BCFR on December 30, 2008; however, Ms. Nichilo’s testimony is not credible given that the transmittal coversheet from BCFR was dated December 31, 2008, and showed a transmission date of December 31, 2008, to CHC. The clear and convincing evidence is that Ms. Nichilo wrote and sent the purported letter from BCFR and the doctored transmittal coversheet from BCFR in an attempt to make it appear that BCFR was taking some of the blame for CHC not having maintained current fire inspection certificates. BCFR does not automatically do an annual inspection of schools. If a school desires to have a fire inspection, the school must notify BCFR and arrange for a fire inspection. The failure to have current, violation-free fire inspection reports rests with CHC and not with BCFR. The bogus letter was an effort by CHC to seek mitigation for its failure to adhere to the requirements for eligibility for the scholarships programs. After learning that the letter transmitted on January 2, 2009, was not from BCFR, the Agency issued an Amended Administrative Complaint on January 23, 2009, which superseded the December 17, 2008, Administrative Complaint. The Amended Administrative Complaint deleted the allegations concerning the failure to have a current, violation-free fire inspection report and added allegations involving fraud and failure to maintain current, violation-free fire inspection reports.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining the suspension of CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs and revoking CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's apparent failure to achieve a passing score on the written portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standards retest resulted from improper administration or grading of the examination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Cruz's petition and denying his application for certification as a Florida firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Hipolito Cruz, Jr. 1214 Southwest 46 Avenue Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 James Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004, in relevant part, states: The criteria for determining the minimum score necessary for passing the Engineering Fundamentals Examination shall be developed through the collective judgment of qualified experts appointed by NCEES to set the raw score that represents the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to pass the examination. The judges shall use a Modified Angoff Method in determining the minimally acceptable raw score necessary to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Using the above mentioned Modified Angoff Method, the judges will indicate the probability that a minimally knowledgeable Fundamentals of Engineering examinee would answer any specific questions correctly. The probability of a correct response is then assigned to each question. Each judge will then make an estimate of the percentage of minimally knowledgeable examinees who would know the answer to each question. The totals each of the judges is added together and divided by the number of judges to determine the overall estimate of the minimum standards necessary. The minimum number of correct answers required to achieve a passing score will take into account the relative difficulty of each examination through scaling and equating each examination to the base examination. The raw score necessary to show competence shall be deemed to be a 70 on a scale of 100. A passing grade on Part Two of the examination is defined as a grade of 70 or better. The grades are determined by a group of knowledgeable professional engineers, who are familiar with engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering task. These professional engineers will establish a minimum passing score on each individual test item (i.e., examination problem). An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) will be prepared for each examination item based upon the NCEES standard scoring plan outline form. An ISSP will be developed by persons who are familiar with each discipline including the item author, the item scorer, and other NCEES experts. On a scale of 0-10, six (6) will be a minimum passing standard and scores between six (6) and ten (10) will be considered to be passing scores for each examination item. A score of five (5) or lower will be considered an unsatisfactory score for that item and examinee will be considered to have failed that item. To pass, an examinee must average six (6) or greater on his/her choice of eight (8) exam items, that is, the raw score must be forty- eight (48) or greater based on a scale of eighty (80). This raw score is then converted to a base 100 on which, as is noted above, a passing grade will be seventy (70). The proposed changes to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004, in relevant part, state: The passing grade for the Engineering Fundamentals Examination is 70 or better. The criteria for determining the minimum score necessary for passing the Engineering Fundamentals Examination shall be developed through the collective judgment of qualified experts appointed by NCEES to set the raw score that represents the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to pass the examination. The judges shall use a Modified Angoff Method in determining the minimally acceptable raw score necessary to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Using the above mentioned Modified Angoff Method, the judges will indicate the probability that a minimally knowledgeable Fundamentals of Engineering examinee would answer any specific questions correctly. The probability of a correct response is then assigned to each question. Each judge will then make an estimate of the percentage of minimally knowledgeable examinees who would know the answer to each question. The totals each of the judges is added together and divided by the number of judges to determine the overall estimate of the minimum standards necessary. The minimum number of correct answers required to achieve a passing score will take into account the relative difficulty of each examination through scaling and equating each examination to the base examination. The raw score necessary to show competence shall be deemed to be a 70 on a scale of 100. The passing grade for the Principles and Practice Examination is 70 or better. A passing grade on Part Two of the examination is defined as a grade of 70 or better. The grades are determined by a group of knowledgeable professional engineers, who are familiar with engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering practice and with what is required for an applicable engineering task. These professional engineers will establish a minimum passing score on each individual test item (i.e., examination problem). An Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) will be prepared for each examination item based upon the NCEES standard scoring plan outline form. An ISSP will be developed by persons who are familiar with each discipline including the item author, the item scorer, and other NCEES experts. On a scale of 0-10, six (6) will be a minimum passing standard and scores between six (6) and ten (10) will be considered to be passing scores for each examination item. A score of five (5) or lower will be considered an unsatisfactory score for that item and examinee will be considered to have failed that item. To pass, an examinee must average six (6) or greater on his/her choice of eight (8) exam items, that is, the raw score must be forty- eight (48) or greater based on a scale of eighty (80). This raw score is then converted to a base 100 on which, as is noted above, a passing grade will be seventy (70). Petitioner resides in Tampa, Florida. On April 11, 2003, Petitioner took a national examination that Petitioner must pass to be licensed by the state as a professional engineer. On July 1, 2003, Petitioner received a letter from the Board advising Petitioner that he had received a failing grade on the examination. On July 2, 2003, Petitioner unsuccessfully requested the raw scores on his examination from a representative of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The NCEES is the national testing entity that conducts examinations and determines scores for the professional engineer examination required by the state. On July 9, 2003, Petitioner submitted a formal request to the Board for all of the raw scores related to Petitioner "and all past P.E. Exams that the Petitioner had taken." A representative of the Board denied Petitioner's request explaining that the raw scores are kept by the NCEES and "it is not their policy to release them." The Board's representative stated that the Board was in the process of adopting new rules "that were in-line with the policies of the NCEES." On July 31, 2003, Petitioner requested the Board to provide Petitioner with any statute or rule that authorized the Board to deny Petitioner's request for raw scores pursuant to Section 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). On the same day, counsel for the Board explained to Petitioner that the Board is not denying the request. The Board is unable to comply with the request because the Board does not have physical possession of the raw scores. Petitioner and counsel for Respondent engaged in subsequent discussions that are not material to this proceeding. On August 6, 2003, Petitioner requested counsel for Respondent to provide Petitioner with copies of the proposed rule changes that the Board intended to consider on August 8, 2003. On August 27, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition with the Board challenging existing Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.004. The petition alleged that parts of the existing rule are invalid. Petitioner did not file a challenge to the existing rule with DOAH. The Petition for Hearing states that Petitioner is filing the Petition for Hearing pursuant to Subsections 120.56(1) and (3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). However, the statement of how Petitioner's substantial interests are affected is limited to the proposed changes to the existing rule. During the hearing conducted on January 29, 2004, Petitioner explained that he does not assert that the existing rule is invalid. Rather, Petitioner argues that the Board deviates from the existing rule by not providing examinees with copies of their raw scores and by failing to use raw scores in the determination of whether an applicant achieved a passing grade on the exam. Petitioner further argues that the existing rule benefits Petitioner by purportedly requiring the Board to use raw scores in the determination of passing grades. The elimination of that requirement in the proposed rule arguably will adversely affect Petitioner's substantial interests. The Petition for Hearing requests several forms of relief. The Petition for Hearing seeks an order granting Petitioner access to raw scores, a determination that Petitioner has met the minimum standards required under the existing rule, and an order that the Board grant a license to Petitioner. The Petition for Hearing does not request an order determining that the proposed rule changes constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
