The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner qualifies for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor level for supplemental compensation at the rate of $110.00 per month.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to these proceedings, the Petitioner has been employed as a firefighter with the Metro-Dade Fire Department. The Petitioner's primary function with the Metro-Dade Fire Department is as a firefighter. By letter dated May 30, 1991, and received on June 10, 1991, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent for Firefighters Supplemental Compensation at the Bachelor degree level. Three transcripts were submitted with the Petitioner's application. The first was from Miami-Dade Community College, and showed that an Associate of Science degree in Fire Science was awarded to the Petitioner on May 4, 1991. The second transcript was from Broward Community College, showing many courses taken by Petitioner, but no degree awarded. 3/ The third transcript was from Florida International University, and showed that a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Industrial Technology was awarded to Petitioner on December 12, 1980. Petitioner's Bachelor degree from Florida International University is not based upon, and does not include, any of the courses in fire science that formed the basis for Petitioner's Associate degree from Miami-Dade Community College. 4/ Petitioner's transcript of her Bachelor degree does not reveal a major study concentration area of at least 18 semester hours or 27 quarter hours which is readily identifiable and applicable as fire- related. On or about June 24, 1991, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that she was eligible for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Associate degree level by virtue of her Associate of Science degree in Fire Science from Miami-Dade Community College. On or about June 26, 1991, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that she was not eligible for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor degree level because Petitioner's major in Industrial Technology from Florida International University was not a recognized Major Study Concentration Area in Rule 4A-37.084. The denial letter cites and quotes the definition of "Bachelor's Degree" at Rule 4A-37.084(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance issue a final order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for participation in the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor degree level. 7/ DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of December, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 17th day of December, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed by the State of Florida as a laboratory technologist. Petitioner applied to the Respondent for licensure as a supervisor. On February 2, 1982, Respondent denied Petitioner's application to take the supervisory examination for the stated reason that Petitioner did not have ten years of experience. Petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Fine Arts from Florida International University. Petitioner has supplemented his education by taking additional science courses. The science courses taken before and after Petitioner received his Bachelor's degree total 26 semester credits. The courses taken after receipt of his degree have been specifically related to his field. Petitioner has been employed by the Miami Heart Institute since July 11, 1976, except for the period between September, 1976, and August, 1977. Dr. Jerome Benson is a pathologist and is the Director of Laboratories at the Miami Heart Institute. He is also Vice Chairman of the National Accreditation for Clinical Laboratory Sciences, the organization which accredits approximately 1,000 programs in the medical technology field and which is responsible for the Committee on Higher Education and Accreditation of the United States Office of Education, which accredits laboratories. He is familiar with accreditation of medical technology programs throughout the country and locally. He serves on the Advisory Committee at Miami-Dade Community College, and he planned the curriculum for the medical technology programs at both Miami- Dade Community College and at Florida International University. He was recognized as an expert by both parties. Dr. Benson believes that Petitioner is qualified to sit for the supervisory examination in terms of education, in terms of experience time, in terms of intent of the law, and in terms of protecting the public safety. He further believes that the science courses Petitioner has taken, both pre-baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate, qualify Petitioner for a Bachelor's degree in medical technology. Norman Bass was formerly Petitioner's immediate supervisor. He evaluates Petitioner's performance in the laboratory as excellent and believes that Petitioner is qualified through experience and academic courses to sit for the supervisory examination. At the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Petitioner had a total of 12,935 hours of work time at the Miami Heart Institute. Respondent considers 37.5 hours as constituting a full work week. George S. Taylor, Jr., reviewed Petitioner's application on behalf of Respondent. The application was received on January 18, 1982, and was denied on February 2, 1982, for the reason that Petitioner did not have ten years' experience. At the time, Respondent did not have current transcripts reflecting courses taken by Petitioner. Respondent did not request any, but simply used transcripts on file with Respondent which had been filed when Petitioner applied for his technologist's license, even though Petitioner's application for licensure as a supervisor reflected that he had taken various science courses at Miami-Dade Community College. Taylor is of the opinion that an applicant with 120 college credits must have between 25 and 30 of those credits in science courses in order to have a major in science; an applicant with 90 semester hours in college is required to have 17 to 24 credits in science in order to have a science major.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application to take the examination for a supervisor's license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 14th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel S. Forman, Esquire The Counsel Building 2016 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Morton Laitner, Esquire Dade County Health Department 1350 North West 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her response to question nos. 122 and 222 of the civil engineering examination administered on October 31, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the civil professional engineering licensing examination. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. Petitioner challenged the scoring of question nos. 122 and 222. As part of the examination challenge process, Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying where it was re-scored. In the re-score process, the grader deducted points from Petitioner's original score. Petitioner was given the same raw score of 6 on question number 122; however, on question number 222 her raw score of 4 was reduced to a 2. Petitioner needed a raw score of 48 in order to achieve a passing score of 70; she needed at least three additional raw score points to obtain a passing raw score of 48. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 on problem number 122. The solution and scoring plan for that problem required the candidate to obtain a culvert size in the range of 21-36 inches. The Petitioner incorrectly answered 3.1 feet or 37.2 inches. She is not entitled to additional credit for problem number 122 because she answered the question with the wrong size culvert. Problem number 122 required the candidate to use a predevelopment peak flow of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). Petitioner used 58.33 cfs. She chose the maximum flow rather than the predevelopment peak flow. In solving problem number 122, Petitioner chose a design headwater depth of 4.8 feet. The correct solution required a design headwater depth of 5.7 feet. Petitioner made another mistake in problem number 122; she failed to check the water depth in the downstream swale. Petitioner concedes she was given sufficient information to solve problem number 122. She understood what the question was asking of her. She admits that she did not compute the critical depth of the water and that she did not complete the solution. Question number 222 had three parts. The candidate was required to determine the footing size, to select the reinforcing steel, and to provide a sketch for a concrete column located along the edge of a building. Petitioner understood the question and was provided enough information to solve the problem. Petitioner correctly checked the footing size as required by the first part; however, she did not select the reinforcing steel or show the required sketch. Therefore, Petitioner did not complete enough of the problem to qualify for a score of 4 points. She is entitled to a score of 2 points. The examination questions at issue here were properly designed to test the candidate's competency in solving typical problems in real life. The grader (re-scorer) utilized the scoring plan correctly. Petitioner has been in the United States for approximately eleven years. She lived in Romania before she came to the United States. In Romania, Petitioner used only the metric system in her professional work. While she has used the English system since moving to the United States, Petitioner is more familiar with the metric system. The Principles and Practice examination is an open-book examination. Petitioner took a book entitled the Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook to the examination. When the proctor examined her books, she told the Petitioner she was not permitted to keep the handbook. The proctor took the handbook from the Petitioner. Petitioner protested the confiscation of her reference book because she had used the same book in two previous tests. About ten minutes later, the proctor's supervisor returned the book to Petitioner. Petitioner's book was returned at least ten minutes before the test began. She was permitted to use the book during the test. There is no persuasive evidence that the proctor's mistake in temporarily removing Petitioner's reference book caused her to be so upset that she failed the test. Candidates were not permitted to study their books prior to the beginning of the examination. Petitioner may have been nervous when the test began. However, Petitioner received a perfect score of ten points on the first problem she worked, problem number 121.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order confirming Petitioner's score on the examination and dismissing the Petitioner's challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis Bartin, President Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is qualified for licensure as a professional geologist pursuant to the grandfather provision of Section 492.105(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact Andrew Minot Nicholson, Petitioner, applied for licensure as a professional geologist pursuant to the grandfather provisions of Section 492.105(2)(c), Florida Statutes. This provision exempts qualifying applicants from taking and passing the examination required of other applicants. The Respondent has stipulated that Petitioner is in all respects qualified for licensure, except for the educational requirements contained in Section 492.105(1)(d)2, Florida Statutes. Petitioner graduated from the Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) in 1973 with a degree in Ocean Engineering. He later returned to FIT and received a master's degree in Business Administration. The courses which Petitioner argues meets the educational requirements for licensure as a professional geologist are as follows (all from FIT) Course Abbreviation Course Title Course Hours Earned ST161 Introduction to Earth and Space Sciences 3 ST313 Materials Science I 3 ST314 Materials Science II 3 OE3505 Ocean Engineering Design 3 ST315 Materials Laboratory 1 0E3583 Marine Geology Laboratory 1 0E4506 Ocean Engineering Design II 3 OE3001 Introduction to Oceanography 3 OE3503 Marine Geology 3 OE3002 Chemical Oceanography 3 OE3500 Fluid Mechanics I 3 OE4507 Soil Mechanics 3 OE4508 Hydroacoustics 3 OE3581 Fluid Mechanics Laboratory I 1 OE3502 Fluid Mechanics II 3 OE3582 Fluid Mechanics 1 Laboratory II OE4502 Optical Oceanography 3 0E4581 Optical Ocean Laboratory 1 OE4433 Solid Mechanics I 3 0E4505 Ocean Waves 3 The above courses, with the exception of Introduction to Earth and Space Sciences, are upper division courses successfully completed by Petitioner. The hours listed are quarter hours. Fifty quarter hours are roughly equivalent to 40 semester hours. Of those courses in finding four above only Introduction to Earth and Space Sciences (ST161), Marine Geology Laboratory (OE3583), Introduction to Oceanography (OE3001) and Marine Geology (OE3503) were accepted by Respondent as meeting the statutory identification as geology courses. Geology is a precise science which relies on knowledge about principles which can only be obtained by taking core courses in geology programs. These core courses include Historical Geology, Structural Geology, Mineralogy, Optical Mineralogy, Petrology, Sedimentology, Geophysics, Geochemistry, Stratigraphy, Economic Geology, Hydrogeology, Field Methods and Paleontology. The courses taken by Petitioner at FIT were primarily oceanographic engineering or oceanography courses and the geological aspects of the courses he took related only to the aquatic aspects of geology. Petitioner's practical experience, which was accepted as adequate by the Board, involved only aquatic geology. If Petitioner's practice of geology were limited to an oceanographic setting, with the training he received at FIT, he would be qualified for licensure. However, there are not geology licenses limited to one specific field of geology. Petitioner contends that because FIT is listed in the Directory of Geoscience Departments by the American Geological Institute, a degree from that school qualifies him to meet the educational requirements for licensure. This document is a directory of academic geoscience departments which include geology departments as well as oceonographic institutes. A listing of the professors at FIT in this directory reveals a heavy orientation of their degrees towards oceanography and ocean engineering as opposed to geology. Licensing of professional geologists came to being in Florida with the enactment of Chapter 87-403 Laws of Florida. Accordingly, applications for licensure have been processed for only one year and Rules have not been adopted which define and interpret various provisions of this statute such as what constitutes "geological courses". Respondent has a proposed rule to provide a more detailed explanation of what criteria an applicant must meet to satisfy the educational requirements for licensure. Such a policy constitutes incipient agency action pending the adoption of rule. Respondent's witness explained that since there are no provisions for limited licenses in geology, the Board has adopted a policy which requires applicants for licensure to demonstrate that they have taken enough core geology courses to have been subjected to nearly all phases of geology. This will permit them, hopefully, to at least recognize problems that may need additional research to resolve, while holding themselves out as licensed professional geologists.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application of Andrew Minot Nicholson for licensure as a professional geologist under the grandfather provisions of Section 492.105(2)(c) Florida Statutes be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K.N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0282 Treatment accorded Petitioner's proposed findings. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted and are in general included in the findings submitted by the Hearing Officer except: Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Reject last sentence. "Geological courses" was defined by Respondent's witness. Petitioner's Exhibit 8. Rejected. Respondent looked at the curriculum and the professor's fields of expertise who taught the courses. From these two factors the department concluded the courses were not primarily geology courses, although all of the courses touched slightly on geology. Treatment accorded Respondent' proposed findings. Proposed findings submitted by the Respondent are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Maxwell G. Battle, Jr., Esquire 1460 Beltrees Street Suite A Dunedin, FL 34698 Kenneth D. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Anna Polk Executive Director Board of Professional Geologists 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from January 1, 2000, through June 13, 2002, on the basis of his employment with Florida Community College at Jacksonville (FCCJ).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert Burns, has been employed as an adjunct instructor of FCCJ since March 1989. FCCJ is a member employer under FRS. Adjunct instructors traditionally have been employed by FCCJ on a class-by-class, semester-by-semester basis, and have no expectation of employment beyond any single semester. Petitioner knew this from his date of first hire. When Petitioner began work with FCCJ, all adjunct instructors were given a contract for each term and each course. This practice continued for all instructors and classes until the year 2000. Despite the semester-to-semester, repetitive contracts, occasionally Petitioner's courses were of a duration longer than one semester, and Petitioner was sometimes evaluated only on an annual basis. These evaluations were for purposes of certifying Petitioner and similarly situated adjunct instructional personnel for further semester contracts. At all times material, Petitioner taught on three campuses and taught college courses in biology and earth science; acted as a facilitator in the laboratory; and taught Adult Studies courses. At all times material, sixty percent of Petitioner's time was spent teaching Adult Studies courses. From 1989 until January 1, 2000, Petitioner was provided semester contracts for each of the three foregoing functions: college courses, lab facilitation, and Adult Studies courses. Every contract clearly acknowledged, in pertinent part, 3. This contract shall at all times be subject to any and all laws, Florida State Board of Education Rules and Florida Community College at Jacksonville Board of Trustees rules and regulations now existing or hereinafter lawfully enacted or promulgated. In furtherance thereof, the Contractor expressly agrees to become aware of and comply with all such applicable regulations, including but not limited to those addressing discrimination/affirmative action and sexual harassment. * * * The Contractor agrees and understands that he/she is not entitled to receive benefits made available by the College to its full-time employees. The Contractor further agrees and understands that his/her services are of a temporary nature, and that the College does not agree to provide the Contractor with any future employment or contract whether temporary, permanent or otherwise. The relationship hereby created between the Contractor and the College shall be deemed to have been voluntarily terminated by the Contractor upon the termination or expiration of this agreement. The Contractor agrees and understands that the compensation described herein is the entire compensation due to Contractor for performance of services pursuant to this contract. Specifically, Contractor agrees and understands that he/she shall not be entitled to wages or hours similar to those provided to College employees. * * * 9. The Contractor and the College understand and hereby agree that this contract does not and shall not be deemed to create an employment relationship. From January 1, 2000, through June 2002, Petitioner was not provided individual contracts for his Adult Studies classes, but was provided contracts for his other courses and lab facilitation work. In 2000, FCCJ began implementing a new computer system and, as a result, some adjunct instructors were not given individual contracts for each course. Adult Studies was one program area where time cards, rather than individual contracts, were used. No one at FCCJ ever told Petitioner that he had become a full or part-time employee, as opposed to an adjunct instructor. At various times during the period after January 1, 2000, Petitioner and other adjunct instructors approached Dean of Adult Studies, Lloyd Watkins, and asked him where their contracts were. The Dean inquired of FCCJ's Human Resources Department and was told there were too many contracts to do and so they would not be issued. It is not certain that Dean Watkins ever conveyed this information to Petitioner. However, throughout the period at issue, Petitioner used the time cards and understood that his employment was on a class by class, semester by semester basis. The issue of FRS benefits vis-á-vis independent contractor status did not arise until after Petitioner had been terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to participate in FRS from January 1, 2000, through June 13, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Al Millar, Esquire 4627 Ocean Street Mayport, Florida 32233 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Simone Marstiller, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, in the practice of marine contracting, committed fraud and other misconduct, in violation of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is certified by Pinellas County as a building contractor and marine specialty contractor. He holds license C-4002, as a certified marine specialty contractor, and license C-1806, as a certified building contractor. Respondent serves as the qualifying agent for Tug Marine Corporation, d/b/a Tug Building and Marine Construction Company (Tug Marine). Through Tug Marine, Respondent undertook to perform the work described below under his marine specialty license. A person holding only a building contractor license could not lawfully have performed this work. Kelly and Karlyn Bradshaw wanted to replace a dilapidated dock at their home. A friend suggested that they contact Tug Marine. Mrs. Bradshaw's telephone call to Tug Marine resulted in a visit to her home on November 7, 1995, by Jay Bowers, an employee of Tug Marine. Mr. Bowers spoke with Mr. and Mrs. Bradshaw and prepared a contract for the work. The contract calls for the removal of the existing dock and installation of a new dock pursuant to a drawing and specifications that are on the contract form. The total cost is $4500, with one-third down and the balance due on completion. The contract is silent as to when work is to start or finish. During negotiations, Mr. Bowers assured the Bradshaws that Tug Marine would finish the new dock by Christmas. He said that the work would take only three days and they would start the work within 30 days. The parties agreed that the Bradshaws would obtain the necessary permits from the City of St. Petersburg. After they did so, Mrs. Bradshaw and Mr. Bowers, on behalf of Tug Marine, signed the contract on November 13, 1995. When she signed the contract, Mrs. Bradshaw gave Mr. Bowers a check in the amount of $1500 payable to Respondent personally. Respondent endorsed the check personally, and the Bradshaws' bank paid the check, debiting the Bradshaws' account by $1500. No one ever performed the work specified in the November 7 contract. Mrs. Bradshaw became concerned when the work did not commence when Mr. Bowers had promised. She first called Tug Marine on December 5. After calling a number of times, Mrs. Bradshaw received a call back on December 10 from Respondent. She expressed her concern to Respondent, who blamed the delays on bad weather. Mrs. Bradshaw asked him when work would start. Respondent said he did not know. She asked him if they had pulled the necessary additional permits. Respondent said that he did not know. When the work still did not commence by Christmas, Mrs. Bradshaw called Respondent and demanded her money back. She made at least five such demands prior to filing a complaint with Petitioner in early 1996. Respondent refused to return the money to Mrs. Bradshaw. He explained that the company was financially distressed and did not have the money to return to her. Respondent committed fraud in the business of contracting when he cashed the Bradshaws' check, failed to do the work, and refused to refund the deposit. When he wanted to find a contractor to build a new dock, Joseph Zaia checked the yellow pages for the name of a contractor and found Tug Marine. He called the number listed and set up an appointment. At the appointed time, Mr. Bowers, still an employee of Tug Marine, visited Mr. Zaia's house on September 8, 1995. After discussions, Mr. Bowers prepared a contract dated September 8 calling for the installation of a 44-foot long dock at a total cost of $4000 or possibly $3342. (The bottom of the contract states $4000, and the middle of the contract shows $4000 lined out and $3342 written in.) The Zaia contract is on the same form as the Bradshaw contract. The contract is silent as to when work is to start or finish. During negotiations, Mr. Bowers assured Mr. Zaia that the work would be completed in two weeks. On September 12, 1995, Mr. Zaia and Mr. Bowers, on behalf of Tug Marine, signed the contract. At that time, Mr. Zaia gave Mr. Bowers a check in the amount of $1114 and payable to Respondent personally. Respondent personally endorsed the check. Mr. Zaia's bank paid the check and debited Mr. Zaia's account by $1114. Shortly after the contract was signed, Respondent contacted Mr. Zaia and informed him that local authorities would permit a dock only as long as 35 feet. Mr. Zaia told him to prepare a new drawing and new cost estimate. Respondent never contacted Mr. Zaia again. No one at Tug Marine ever gave Mr. Zaia the new information that he had requested or returned his deposit. In late October 1995, Mr. Zaia filed a complaint with Petitioner. Respondent committed fraud and mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting by taking Mr. Zaia's deposit and refusing either to return it or do the work.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order revoking Respondent's marine specialty contractor certificate, license C-4002 and suspending Respondent's building contractor certificate, license C-1806, for a period of ten years; provided the suspension of the contractor certificate shall be lifted at anytime after one year if Respondent reimburses Mr. and Mrs. Bradshaw and Mr. Zaia for the deposits that they paid him. ENTERED on September 30, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE, 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 September 30, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Thomas C. Little, Esquire Post Office Box 5379 Clearwater, Florida 34625
Findings Of Fact In the summer of 1981, Christopher Max Grix (Chris), a tenth-grader, was one of some 1,100 students enrolled in the combined Miami Beach Senior High School-Nautilus Junior High School summer school program. On Monday, July 20, 1981, George Thompson, a security man at the school, took Chris, John DeBlasio, and a third youth to the school office. Mr. Thompson told Solomon Lichter, the principal, and Assistant Principal Nockow, that he had seen these three boys shoving one another. As a result, each student received a three-day suspension, ending with the opening of school on Thursday, July 23, 1981. At about 7:20 on the morning of July 27, 1981, Chris and John DeBlasio had another "confrontation." When it ended, Chris fled in his car to the principal's office. There he reported that some "niggers and spics" had jumped him on school grounds along 42nd Street, and complained that the principal had not done "a damn thing about it." Although Mr. Lichter asked Chris to remain seated, Chris jumped up and left the office after he had been there only two minutes. While Mr. Lichter summoned the police, Carlton Jenkins, Jr., another assistant principal who was in an office near Mr. Lichter's, followed Chris and watched him drive away recklessly, stop near some students, and emerge from the car with a tire iron. Chris asked John DeBlasio's brother Alfred where John had gone. Wielding a tire iron, Chris shoved Alfred and threatened to kill him. He made the identical threat to Mark Allen Uffner, and also shoved him. After the tire iron was back in Chris's car, and after Alfred and George Korakakos had subdued Chris in a fist fight, Uffner ran to meet Assistant Principal Jenkins and Principal Lichter as they approached from the school office, and gave them a full report. Chris was gone by the time the police arrived. Later on the morning of July 27, 1981, Messrs. Lichter and Nockow left the summer school grounds for the campus of Miami Beach Senior High School to look for some walkie-talkies. While they were there, Chris, his older brother, and a third young man arrived. When Chris's older brother asked what had happened, Chris gave his version in colorful language. Mr. Lichter told Chris he was going to suspend him from school if he did not calm down. After Chris continued complaining about "niggers, spics, and the school principal," Mr. Lichter announced that Chris was suspended and ordered him to stay off school grounds for ten days. The trio left the campus of Miami Beach Senior High School but later on, at midday on July 27, 1981, Alfred DeBlasio saw Chris and the others on the summer school (Nautilus Junior High School) campus near 42nd Street, with knives and crow bars. Chris and traveling companions were equipped with ax handles, and were threatening Uffner, among others. A security man told Mr. Jenkins that a gang of students was headed toward Chris's car behind the cafeteria. Mr. Jenkins called after Chris's car as it left, ordering Chris not to return to school for the rest of the day.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent Florida Keys Community College had good cause to remove 39 academic credits and an associate in science degree from Petitioner Timothy Jones’ academic transcript and whether Respondent has good cause to terminate Petitioner from employment as professor of marine propulsion.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Respondent, the Florida Keys Community College (hereinafter referred to as the “FKCC”), is a part of the “Florida College System,” subject to the provisions of Chapter 1001, Part III, Florida Statutes. FKCC, located in Key West, Florida, is specifically recognized as a Florida “community college” pursuant to Section 1000.21(3)(h), Florida Statutes. FKCC is governed by a local board of trustees. See § 1001.60(3), Fla. Stat. FKCC’s president is Jill Landesberg-Boyle, Ph.D. At the times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, Timothy Jones, a full-time faculty member of FKCC, was employed by FKCC as an instructor in, and, for part of his employment, the director of, the Marine Engineering Department. Mr. Jones was initially hired in August 2001. When hired, Mr. Jones, who had no prior teaching experience, possessed an associate of arts degree, which he had earned in the 1970’s. Mr. Jones did not possess an associate in science degree with a major in marine propulsion or marine engineering at the time he was hired. He did, however, possess practical experience, having owned and operated a marine outboard sales and repair business for approximately two years prior to his employment with FKCC. At some point prior to 2004, Mr. Jones became director of the Marine Engineering Department. In addition to his instructional duties, Mr. Jones acted as supervisor for Mark Welsh, another Marine Engineering Department instructor and the Department’s faculty advisor. Mr. Jones taught courses dealing with gasoline powered engines, while Mr. Welsh taught courses dealing with diesel powered engines. Mr. Jones’ Associate in Science Degree; Marine Engineering, Management & Seamanship. In January or February 2004, Mr. Jones met with Dr. Maureen Crowley, then vice president of instruction for FKCC. At some point during the meeting, Dr. Crowley told Mr. Jones that it appeared that the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (hereinafter referred to as the “SACS”), would likely be requiring that instructors at FKCC possess a degree in the area in which they were employed to teach. This was not a new requirement, but one that had not previously been enforced by SACS. Dr. Crowley told Mr. Jones that, if SACS did enforce the policy, he would probably not be allowed to continue teaching in the Marine Engineering Department if he did not obtain an associate in science degree in his area of instruction. Dr. Crowley also told Mr. Jones that the quickest way for him to earn the requisite degree would be to earn course credits from FKCC by “Institutional Credit by Examination.” In light of the fact that Mr. Welsh was the Marine Engineering Department’s advisor, Dr. Crowley told Mr. Jones to talk to him about how to proceed. The awarding of credits by examination, including “Institutional Examinations,” is authorized by FKCC Board of Trustees Rule 7.710 (College Exhibit 3). In particular, Rule 7.710 provides, in pertinent part, the following: Credit may be earned in certain other College courses by successful completion of an appropriate examination. Evidence of proficiency in the subject is to be presented to the instructor of the course. If, in the opinion of the instructor, the student is eligible to take the examination, the student will be required to pay a non refundable examination fee in accordance with the Fee Schedule (see Financial Information) prior to the administration of the examination. The instructor of the course will administer the examination at an appointed time and assign a final grade. If the student passes the examination at the 80% level or above . . . credit will be awarded and recorded on the student’s permanent record by the Director of Enrollment Services. . . . Despite “opinion” testimony to the contrary, the foregoing Rule is clear as to its requirements, including the requirement that an “examination” designed to test the student’s knowledge is to be “administered” before any credits are to be awarded for any course available at FKCC. The Rule does not authorize or contemplate the awarding of course credits simply because the “instructor” believes that the “student” is knowledgeable, based upon prior observation or some review of the student’s records. Subsequent to the meeting with Dr. Crowley, Mr. Jones met with Mr. Welsh. Mr. Jones told Mr. Welsh that he, Mr. Jones, needed to earn an associate in science degree or that he would not be allowed to continue his employment with FKCC. Mr. Jones also told Mr. Welsh that Dr. Crowley had told him to talk to Mr. Welsh about the best way for him to earn the requisite degree. According to Mr. Jones, he left the meeting leaving the decision in Mr. Welsh’s hands, assuming that Mr. Welsh would do whatever was necessary to ensure that he earned the necessary degree. Mr. Jones heard nothing more about the matter until April of 2004, when Mr. Welsh presented him with 13 completed Applications for Credit by Institutional Examination (hereinafter referred to as the “Applications”). At the top of each Application is the following explanation, which consistently explains the requirements of Rule 7.710: Students who are currently enrolled in a credit course other than that being challenged or have not taken an institutional exam for the course at any previous time or not previously taken the course at FKCC or through transfer credit may earn credit in a number of college courses for which no CLEP, DANTES, or Excelsior examination is available. A score of at least 80% on a comprehensive written examination and/or demonstration of satisfactory ability in performance skills will be required. Credit may not be earned in a course in which the student is enrolled or for which he has earned credit. Only one attempt at credit by institutional examination will be permitted per course. A maximum of 75% of associate degree requirements or 50% of certificate requirements may be earned by institutional examination or other acceleration mechanisms. Evidence of proficiency in the subject is to be presented to the instructor of the course. If, in the opinion of the instructor, the student is eligible to take the examination, the student will proceed to the Business Office for payment of the non- refundable $20 per credit examination fee before taking the examination. The instructor will administer the exam, at an agreed upon time, and will assign a final grade. The completed form will be forwarded to the Director of Enrollment Services who will then inform the student in writing of the results of the examination and will record credit earned by institutional examination on the transcript, if appropriate. The following sections should be completed in sequence. Mr. Jones did not read the instructions on the Application or follow them. The instructions on the Application add certain requirements for obtaining credits by institutional examination not contained in Rule 7.710: the “examination” may be a “comprehensive written examination and/or demonstration of satisfactory ability in performance skills”; and no more than a “maximum of 75% of associate degree requirements or 50% of certificate requirements may be earned by institutional examination.” The first section to be completed on the Applications is a section containing a space for the student’s name and social security number, the course number and name, and the credit hours for the course. There is also a space for the student to list the “specific reasons why I wish to take a challenge examination . . . .” Finally, this section ends with a place for the student to date and sign the Application, noting that “[e]vidence of prior related experience is attached” and that, by the student’s signature, the student acknowledges that he or she has “read and understand[s] the criteria and procedure for credit by institutional examination.” The first section of the 13 Applications was signed by Mr. Jones on April 20, 21, or 22, 2004. The Applications were for 13 different courses totally 39 credit hours. All information written into this section, other than Mr. Jones’ signature, was already written on the Applications when presented to Mr. Jones for signature. No “specific reasons” why Mr. Jones wished to take a challenge examination in the courses was included on the 13 Applications and no “prior related experience” as attached to the Applications. Mr. Jones’ acknowledgement, by signing the Applications, that he had “read and understand[s] the criteria and procedure for credit by institutional examination” was false. The next section of the Applications to be “completed in sequence” is a section for the “Instructor” of the course to sign recommending the student for credit by institutional examination and agreeing to “administer a supplementary skills performance test.” All 13 of the Applications were signed by Mr. Welsh, Mr. Jones’ subordinate, and were dated the same day that Mr. Jones signed them, except for one, which was signed by Mr. Welsh the day after the date Mr. Jones had signed it. (Whether this section of the Applications was signed by Mr. Welsh in April, as it now appears, or were actually dated in February is questionable based upon a cursory review of College Exhibit 2). The next section of the Applications is a section for the “cashier’s validation.” This section is intended to be signed by a cashier of FKCC to acknowledge receipt of payment for the credit by institutional examination, along with the amount paid and the date. The section states in all capital letters, “TO BE VALIDATED BEFORE EXAMINATION DATE.” All 13 Applications were signed by the cashier on April 22, 2004. This date is after the date Mr. Welsh indicates the “examinations” took place, as discussed, infra. The next-to-the-last section of the Applications, which should have been executed after the Applications were instituted by the student, after the instructor had accepted the Applications, and after payment for the credits had been made and acknowledged, is a section to be completed by the instructor of the course verifying the following: I examined the above student in the indicated course on (date) . According to the standards for the award by credit by institutional examination, I do/do not (strike one) recommend the credit be awarded based on the student’s grade of . Documentation of the examination results is attached. All 13 Applications were signed by Mr. Welsh indicating that Mr. Jones had earned an “A” in each of the 13 courses and that the “examination” had been administered on February 20, 21, or 22, 2004, two months before Mr. Jones signed the Applications. None of the 13 Applications had “documentation of the examination results” attached to them. Mr. Welsh indicated on the Applications that the “examination” had been given two months before Mr. Jones signed the Applications, in complete disregard for the instructions on the Application and contrary to Rule 7.710. Finally, the last section on the Applications is for the signature of the Director of Enrollment Services. All 13 Applications are signed and dated April 22, 2004. The 13 courses for which Mr. Jones “applied” and was granted credit by institutional examination are Marine Diesel Engine Overhaul; 2 & 4 Cycle Outboard Repair and Maintenance; Marine Diesel Systems; Marine Engine Installation and Repower Procedures; Fiberglassing Theory; Applied Marine Electricity; Gas and Electric Welding; Basic Seamanship; Diesel Engine Testing and Troubleshooting Procedure; Marine Corrosion and Corrosion Prevention; Diesel Fuel Injection Systems; Marine Gearcases, Outdrives & Transmission Systems; and Marine Auxiliary Equipment Servicing. Of the 13 awarded courses, Mr. Jones had taught only six. Mr. Welsh had never taught any of the six courses taught by Mr. Jones. While Mr. Welsh had taught six other courses, Mr. Jones had not. One course, Gas and Electric Welding, had not been taught by Mr. Jones or Mr. Welsh. These facts, along with the fact that Mr. Welsh was Mr. Jones’ subordinate, raise serious questions about the appropriateness of the award of the 39 credits and an associate in science degree to Mr. Jones which any reasonable person should have been concerned about. As a result of the completion and submission of the 13 Applications, Mr. Jones was awarded 39 credit hours for the 13 courses and, as a consequence, was awarded an Associate in Science degree by FKCC on or about May 3, 2004. Mr. Jones acknowledges that he did not take any examination, written or by “demonstration of satisfactory ability in performance skills,” for any of the 13 courses for which he was given credit. In fact, Mr. Jones acknowledges and the evidence proved that all he did was to tell Mr. Welsh about his need to obtain a degree and sign the 13 Applications. Despite all the indications to the contrary, Mr. Jones simply followed Mr. Welsh’s directions, signing whatever documents Mr. Welsh provided to him, purportedly because “he knew of my abilities and I could pass the examination if he took the time to do it.” Volume I, Page 93, Lines 20-21, Transcript. Scholarship Funding for the 13 Applications. In order to pay for the courses for which credit was awarded pursuant to the 13 Applications, Mr. Jones applied for employee/dependent scholarship aid. While employee/dependent scholarship aid is available for the payment of tuition, it is not intended for use in paying for the $20.00 application fee for credit by institutional examination. Employee/dependent scholarship aid is also limited to 12 hours per term and 24 hours per year. Mr. Jones completed a Scholarship Aid Request for the 39 credit hours by institutional examination he was awarded. The funds were approved and used to fund the costs of the 39 hours of credit. As with the award of the 39 credits by institutional examination, at no time did Mr. Jones inquire as to the appropriateness or legality of using scholarship aid to fund the award of his Associate in Science degree. FKCC’s Investigation. On or about August 1, 2007, Dr. Landesberg-Boyle, who had served some months as president-designee of FKCC, was hired by the FKCC Board of Trustees (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), as FKCC president. One of Dr. Landesberg-Boyle’s first official acts was to create the position of provost and to fill that position with Clifford Colman. Mr. Colman possesses extensive experience in academia. Proposed findings concerning Mr. Colman’s background are accurately reflected on page 6 of Florida Keys Community College’s Brief and are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Among Mr. Colman’s duties as the provost, the FKCC’s chief academic officer, was the responsibility to ensure that FKCC faculty were possessed of the requisite credentials required by FKCC and the State of Florida. In late September or early October,2007 a comment was made to Mr. Colman during a conversation he was having with the then Director of Marine Engineering and another faculty member about Mr. Jones’ credentials, or purported lack thereof. One of the individuals said in effect that Mr. Jones did not posses a degree in his discipline and that the rumor around the campus was essentially that he had “pulled a fast one on the college and had gotten a degree without doing any work for it.” In reasonable response to these comments, Mr. Colman began an investigation. He first went to the records office and reviewed Mr. Jones’ academic transcript. He noticed the credit for the 13 courses totaling 39 hours of credit awarded to Mr. Jones. Mr. Colman was alarmed because, in his experience, a full-time student would normally require one and a half academic years to complete that much course work. Mr. Jones had been awarded the 39 credits for a single academic term. Mr. Colman was also concerned because the 39 hours of credit, according to the transcript, had been awarded by “Institutional” examination. Therefore, Mr. Colman next retrieved the supporting documentation for the courses, including the 13 Applications. Concerned about the amount of credits awarded, the fact that they were all awarded in a short period of time, the fact that Mr. Jones had been given an “A” in each course, and the fact that Mr. Welsh was Mr. Jones’ subordinate, Mr. Colman investigated further. Mr. Colman next spoke on more than one occasion by telephone with Mr. Welsh, who was no longer employed at FKCC or living in the area. Those conversations took place in October 2007. Dr. Landesberg-Boyle participated in one of the conversations. Although the accuracy of what Mr. Welsh told Mr. Colman and Dr. Landesberg-Boyle is hearsay and, therefore, is not reported in this Recommended Order nor relied upon by the undersigned in the ultimate decisions in this case, what Mr. Welsh said about the events gave Dr. Landesberg-Boyle reasonable cause to take the actions she took in this matter. After completing his investigation, Mr. Colman and the Board attorney, William “Buck” DeVane, met with Mr. Jones. Although not given any notice of what the meeting was for, Mr. Jones was informed of Mr. Colman’s findings and given an opportunity to speak to the findings. Mr. Jones was then told that he could resign his position or, if chose not to, FKCC would pursue termination proceedings. Mr. Jones requested and was given a few days to consider his options. Ultimately, Mr. Jones declined the opportunity to resign. While Mr. Jones complained at hearing about his perceived lack of opportunity to respond to Mr. Colman’s findings, he has been afforded his complete due process rights through this proceeding. Following Mr. Jones’ decision not to resign, Mr. Colman recommended that Dr. Landesberg-Boyle take action to terminate Mr. Jones’ employment with FKCC. Dr. Landesberg-Boyle’s Decision and Recommendation to the Board, the Board’s Decision, and Mr. Jones’ Request for Hearing. Dr. Landesberg-Boyle wrote a letter dated January 3, 2008, to Mr. Jones informing him that she was “directing Enrollment Services to remove [the associate in science] degree from your academic transcript.” She also told Mr. Jones that she intended to recommend to the Board at their meeting on January 26, 2008, that his position with FKCC be terminated. Finally, Dr. Landesberg-Boyle advised Mr. Jones that he had the right to a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Although she did not specifically inform Mr. Jones of his right to challenge her decision to direct the removal of his associate in science degree from his transcript, he has been afforded that opportunity through this proceeding. On January 5, 2008, Dr. Landesberg-Boyle instructed Cheryl Malsheimer, Director Enrollment Services, by memorandum, to “remove the 39 credits by exam on Mr. Tim Jones’ FKCC transcript that were posted in April 2004. ” On January 26, 2008, the Board accepted the recommendation to terminate Mr. Jones’ employment with FKCC. Mr. Jones exercised his right to challenge both actions: the removal of the 39 credits by exam and his Associate in Science degree from his transcript and the decision of the Board to terminate his employment with FKCC. By the conduct of this proceeding, Mr. Jones was afforded his due process rights pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, as to both the decision of Dr. Landesberg-Boyle to remove the credits and degree from his transcript and the decision of the Board to terminate his employment. Good Cause for Dr. Landesberg-Boyle’s Decision. Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the action of Dr. Landesberg-Boyle in ordering the removal of the 39 credits by institutional examination and the Associate in Science degree from Mr. Jones’ transcript was done with good cause. Mr. Jones’ suggestion that he simply did what he was instructed to do is simply not reasonable for any number of reasons: The person who “awarded” him the credits was his subordinate; Being awarded a degree for simply signing your name to the 13 Applications, without reading the forms or asking any questions was totally unreasonable for any college instructor and especially the head of the department; Accepting an award of credits for courses for which Mr. Jones had no experience and had not taught was unreasonable; and Accepting an award of credits for courses for which Mr. Jones had some expertise from an individual who did not possess the same expertise was unreasonable. Good Cause for the Board’s Decision. Based upon the foregoing, it is also clear that the decision of the Board to terminate Mr. Jones was made with good cause. Regardless of whether Mr. Jones possesses the skills and ability to teach marine engineering, his actions in accepting 39 credits and an associate in science degree by simply signing the 13 Applications and by inappropriately using employee/dependent financial aid to pay for those credits support the Board’s decision. Whether, as FKCC suggests, Mr. Jones was part of a fraudulent scheme to protect his job, or he simply followed what he was told, his actions were inconsistent with what the Board may reasonably expect and demand from instructional staff at FKCC.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Florida Keys Community College enter a final order finding that there is good cause to eliminate 39 credits awarded to Timothy Jones by institutional examination, and the associate in science degree awarded as a consequence thereof, and terminating Mr. Jones from employment with Florida Keys Community College. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 13th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel J. Kaufman, Esquire Law Offices of Samuel J. Kaufman, P.A. 1509 Josephine Street, Suite 1 Key West, Florida 33040 Robert L. Norton, Esquire Luke C. Savage, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request for license by endorsement as a professional engineer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, James R. Eason (Petitioner), is the pavement management coordinator for the Hernando County Public Works Department. He is a registered professional engineer in the State of Georgia, having received Professional Engineering Registration Number 17320 in 1988. In March 1997, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers (Board), seeking licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer in this state. On July 1, 1997, the Board issued its preliminary decision in the form of a letter advising Petitioner that his application had been denied. As grounds, the Board stated that Petitioner had received a raw score of 67 with five points awarded for Veterans Preference on the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. The letter further explained that a raw score of 70 or above was required in order for his score on the Georgia examination to be recognized in the State of Florida and that "Chapter 471, F.S. does not provide for awarding of points for Veterans Preference." The denial of the application prompted Petitioner to bring this action. Petitioner is a graduate of, and holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from, the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has a record of four years active engineering experience of a character indicating competence to be in responsible charge of engineering. The parties have also stipulated he is of good moral character, and he has never been under investigation in another state for any act which would constitute a violation of Chapters 455 or 471, Florida Statutes. Petitioner passed the Fundamentals portion of the professional engineering examination administered in 1973 by the State of Georgia. He obtained a score of more than 70. In April 1988, Petitioner took the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. A grade of 70 was required to pass the Georgia examination. Petitioner received a grade of 67 on the initial scoring of the Principles and Practice portion of the examination, plus a five-point Veterans Preference credit, for a total grade of 72. The Veterans Preference credit is provided by Georgia law to all candidates who are members or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States and meet certain service requirements. In Petitioner's case, he had served eight years on active duty as a member of the United States Naval Reserve, and he was honorably discharged as a Lieutenant on July 3, 1969, upon expiration of his active duty commitment. At least ninety days of his active duty military service was during wartime or at a time when military personnel were committed by the President of the United States. The examination administered by the State of Georgia in April 1988 was a national examination published by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, and it was identical to the examination administered by the State of Florida at that time. Florida, like Georgia, requires a grade of 70 to pass the examination, but it does not provide a Veterans Credit for service to candidates who are members or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States. Therefore, in the State of Georgia, a veteran can pass the examination with a raw score as low as 65. To this extent, the two examinations are not substantially equivalent. Among other things, Petitioner pointed out at hearing that he needed only three points to achieve a passing grade on the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. Therefore, he concluded that the awarding of that amount of extra points for being a veteran amounted to only a single standard deviation, and thus the extra points were immaterial in relation to the overall score. However, the Board does not construe this three-point deficiency as being "immaterial," and had Petitioner received the same score in Florida, he would not have passed the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of November 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Mason, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Brooksville, Florida 34605-1900 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
