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 issue for consideration in this proceeding is whether the Respondent’s license as an adult living facility should be subject to an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for repeated class III deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the owner/operator of San Juan Retirement Home. The home is licensed to operate a 6-bed assisted living facility in Jacksonville, Florida. On March 5, 2003, AHCA conducted a survey of Respondent's facility. During that survey, Respondent did not have a fire safety inspection report within 365 days from an earlier fire safety inspection report. Because of the lack of a timely report the facility was cited for violating Tag A209, a Class III deficiency. Tag A209 requires that all licensed facilities have an annual fire inspection conducted by the local fire marshal or authorities having jurisdiction. In this instance the Agency interprets the word annual to mean 365 days from the last inspection report. Respondent had the facility inspected by the Fire Marshal on March 12, 2003. She received the report the same day. A follow-up survey was conducted on April 15, 2003. Tag A209 was noted as corrected in a timely manner by Respondent. Since this was the first Class III deficiency regarding the timeliness of the inspection report, no penalties were imposed by Petitioner on Respondent. On April 23, 2004, AHCA again inspected Respondent's facility. During the inspection, Respondent again did not have a fire safety inspection report completed within 365 days of the earlier inspection report of March 12, 2003. Because of the lack of the report, the facility was cited for a class III deficiency under Tag A209. Respondent admitted that she twice did not have a timely fire safety inspection report completed for her facility. The evidence demonstrated that, prior to the April 2004 inspection by AHCA, Respondent had called the Fire Marshal’s office to schedule an inspection for the facility. However, the call was not made until the expiration of the March 12, 2003, fire safety inspection report. For some unknown reason the Fire Marshal’s office did not schedule the fire safety inspection until after the April 2004 inspection. However, the Fire Marshal’s failure to schedule the inspection does not excuse Respondent’s lack of a timely inspection and report since Respondent remains responsible for obtaining the inspection and report in a timely manner and did not call the Fire Marshal’s office until the expiration of the earlier report. To her credit, Respondent obtained a new fire safety inspection report on May 4 or 5, 2004, after AHCA had inspected the facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That AHCA enter a final order imposing a $500.00 administrative fine for repeatedly failing to timely conduct or obtain an annual fire safety inspection report. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3408D Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elvira C. Demdam San Juan Retirement home 6561 San Juan Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should deny an application for certification as a Firefighter II on the alleged grounds that Petitioner failed the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 633, Florida Statutes (2009).1 At a date not disclosed in the record, Petitioner applied for a certification as a Firefighter II. On September 21, 2009, Petitioner took the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination (“initial examination”). Petitioner failed to pass the Ladder, Hose, and Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) components of the practical portion of the initial examination. On November 17, 2009, Petitioner took the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination Re-test (“examination re-test”) for the Ladder, Hose, and SCBA components. Petitioner failed to pass the Ladder component of the examination re-test. By Notice of Denial dated November 20, 2009, Respondent notified Petitioner that Petitioner had failed the Firefighter Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner alleges that, during her initial examination on September 21, 2009, there was an equipment malfunction during the Ladder component of the practical portion of the examination. Petitioner bases her allegations on the Ladder component score sheet for the initial examination (“score sheet”) that was received by Petitioner after she completed the initial examination and examination re-test. The score sheet for the initial examination states that Petitioner failed the Ladder component of the initial examination because Petitioner exceeded the time period to complete the ladder evolution and failed to fully extend the ladder with the dogs locked. In the “Comments Required for Failure” section, the score sheet listed, “Safety latch on dawgs [sic] stuck in top of rung. Unsafe act. Over time.” Petitioner alleges that the statement that a piece of equipment was "stuck" is proof of an equipment malfunction. Two experts testified during the hearing that the "stuck" equipment was caused by operator error rather than an equipment malfunction. The testimony of the two experts was credible and persuasive. Petitioner, as the examinee, could have remedied the "stuck" equipment by raising the ladder to release the finger and then lowering the ladder to allow the dogs to lock onto the rung. The failure to do so was an "unsafe act” that created a safety hazard in which the fly section of the ladder could have fallen down to the ground. A preponderance of the evidence does not show that Petitioner failed the Ladder component of the initial examination because of an equipment malfunction. Rather, the preponderance of evidence shows that Petitioner failed to have the dogs locked, which is required by the examination. A preponderance of the evidence also shows that Petitioner did not complete the ladder evolution within the required time during the re-take examination. The excessive time resulted in an automatic failure of the re-take examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order denying Kim Lashawn Edmonds’ application for certification as a Firefighter II. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the practical portion of the Florida Minimum Standards Examination for firefighters taken May 22, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner held certification as a firefighter (Firefighter Certificate of Completion #81191) issued by the State Fire Marshal. For at least three years prior to December 5, 2001, Petitioner had not been active as a firefighter or as a volunteer firefighter with an organized fire department. Pursuant to Section 633.352, Florida Statutes, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the practical portion of the Florida Minimum Standards Examination for firefighters to retain his certification. 1/ The practical examinations at issue in this proceeding consisted of four sections: the Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) section, the Hose and Nozzle Operation section, the Ladder Operation section, and the Fireground Skills section. A candidate must pass each section to pass the practical examination. On November 16, 2001, Petitioner applied to sit for the practical examination scheduled for December 5, 2001. Petitioner sat for and failed all four sections of the practical examination administered December 5. Respondent's Rule 4A- 37.0527(6), Florida Administrative Code, permits a candidate to retake the practical examination once without further training. Petitioner thereafter applied to retake the examination, which was scheduled for May 22, 2002. Petitioner passed the Hose and Nozzle Operation and the Ladder Operation sections of the practical examination on May 22, and the scoring on those sections are not at issue in this proceeding. At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner failed the SCBA section and/or the Fireground Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002. The SCBA section of the practical examination consisted of questions for which a candidate was awarded credit and certain items that a candidate was required to successfully complete (fatal items). If a candidate missed a fatal item, the candidate failed the SCBA section of the examination and, consequently, the entire practical examination. The Firegrounds Skills section of the examination tests a candidate on a variety of skills a firefighter is expected to demonstrate while fighting a fire, and the candidate is awarded a score for his or her performance. To pass each part of the practical examination, including the SCBA and the Fireground Skills sections, a candidate must achieve a score of 70 points and must not miss a fatal item. The SCBA section of the practical examination requires the candidate to properly don certain protective gear in 1 minute and 45 seconds. The failure to complete the exercise in the allotted time is a fatal item. In addition, the candidate must activate and check a personal alarm system as part of the exercise. The failure of the candidate to properly wear and activate the alarm system is also a fatal item. 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 timely complete the exercise, which is a fatal item. Petitioner failed to properly activate the personal alarm system, which is also a fatal item. Petitioner was awarded no points for 5 of 10 items for which points could be awarded (each item was worth 10 points). Even if he had passed the fatal items noted above, Petitioner would have failed the SCBA section because he failed to achieve a passing score of 70 on that section of the examination. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to additional credit for the SCBA section of the practical examination. Petitioner received a failing score on the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002, was appropriately and fairly graded. Of the 100 points available for this section of the examination, Respondent established that Petitioner deserved no credit for the following: 20 points on the forcible entry part of the section; 12 points on the ladders and fire service tools part of the section; and 4 points on the hazardous materials part of the section. Consequently, Respondent established that Petitioner was entitled to a total of 64 points on the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22 2002, which is a failing grade. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to additional credit for the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002. Respondent established that the administration and grading of the subject exams were consistent with the provisions of Chapter 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, which set forth by rule applicable guidelines for the practical examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order deny Petitioner's application for re-certification as a firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (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.
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 2009, 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. Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's initial attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on September 21, 2012, and included four practical components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills. 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; the ladder operation, for instance, consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee is expected to complete. Significantly, 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, donning protective gear appropriately, and finishing the exercise within the time limit of four minutes and 30 seconds. 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 evaluative components. It is undisputed that Petitioner achieved passing scores on the fireground skills, SCBA, and hose components of the retention examination. With respect to the ladder evaluation, however, Petitioner failed to comply with two mandatory elements (he exceeded the time limit and neglected to don his hood properly), which resulted in an automatic failure. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.1/ Petitioner's retest was administered on November 8, 2012, at the Ocala Fire College, during which he passed the SCBA and hose portions of the examination. (Petitioner was not required to re-take the fireground skills component.) As for the ladder evaluation, the Department contends, and Petitioner does not dispute, that a time of four minutes and 49 seconds was recorded——a result that exceeds the time limit of four minutes and thirty seconds. Petitioner speculates, however, that the examiner, Thomas Johnson,2/ could have mistakenly started the timer during the safety inspection. While it is true that the timing process should not begin until an examinee completes a safety examination of the ladder, Petitioner has adduced no evidence, persuasive or otherwise, that Mr. Johnson started the clock too soon. Petitioner has therefore failed to show that he achieved a passing score on the ladder evaluation and, consequently, on his retention 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 29th day of March, 2013, 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 29th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner certification as a Florida firefighter.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a resident of Ohio, requested to qualify for the Florida Minimum Standards Equivalence Examination, based on his experience, to become a Florida firefighter. Petitioner's request effectively "challenged" the exam and requested an exemption from attending the Florida Minimum Standards Course. Petitioner could have taken the Florida Minimum Standards Course. If he had taken the course, he may have had an opportunity to review video tapes and other instructional materials which are available but not a required part of the basic curriculum. Instead, Petitioner elected to furnish Respondent with his out-of-state firefighter credentials. Subsequently, Respondent granted Petitioner the requested exemption. Prior to taking the examination, Respondent's staff accurately informed Petitioner about the scope, structure and subject matter of the test during numerous telephone calls. On at least ten occasions, Respondent's staff described the test to Petitioner and told him how to prepare for it. Respondent's staff specifically told Petitioner that he should study the International Fire Service Training Association Manual (IFSTA Manual). As to part one of the practical portion of the exam, Petitioner knew that Respondent would test him on the breathing apparatus, the one and three quarter-inch hose and nozzle operation, and the twenty-four foot ladder evolution. Respondent told Petitioner that he needed to know how to perform all skills set forth in the IFSTA Manual because Respondent randomly selects six different sections of tasks to test on part two of the practical examination. The six skill sections which are picked for part two remain unknown to anyone in advance of the test regardless of whether he is out-of-state or in-state applicants. These skills are chosen by Respondent's Field Representatives in their offices at the Florida State Fire College prior to going to a testing site or for testing at the Florida State Fire College. The two parts of the practical examination are of equal worth. An examinee begins with 100 points and points are deducted for deficiencies throughout the exam. Candidates are required to achieve a score of at least seventy (70) points in order to pass the practical examination. Petitioner took his Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Examination on April 28, 1997, at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner's final score on the April 28, 1997, Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Examination was twenty-five (25) points, which was not a passing score. Candidates are allowed one retest of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest if they are not successful on their initial test. Petitioner chose to take the test again on July 28, 1997, at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Respondent's Field Representative administered part one of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest to Petitioner. Petitioner did not take part two of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest. He chose to quit after realizing that his score on part one was so low that he could not pass the retest as a whole. After deciding not to take part two in the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest, Petitioner approached Field Representative Bill DePauw to tell him that he was quitting. Petitioner was not attired in the mandatory minimum safety gear, but in civilian clothes. At that time, Mr. DePauw was in the process of testing another examinee. Mr. DePauw told the Petitioner he needed to talk to Larry McCall, Field Representative Supervisor. Petitioner then approached Mr. McCall and informed him that he would not be taking part two of the retest. Mr. McCall asked Petitioner to leave the testing grounds because Petitioner was being loud and disruptive to the applicants testing or waiting to be tested. Further, once an applicant decides not to continue, he is no longer allowed in the testing area. Petitioner informed Mr. McCall, both on the field and in Mr. McCall's office, that the Florida exam and the process were "chicken." Petitioner lost seventy-five (75) points on part one of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest. The maximum allowable deduction for part one of fifty (50) points was deducted from Petitioner's part one score. Therefore, Petitioner's final score on the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest administered on July 28, 1997, was fifty (50) points, which is not a passing score. Applicants are assigned a number during orientation. From that time on, the applicants are referred to only by that number to ensure impartiality. The applicant's name is attached to the number after the exam, sometimes several days later. The examiner makes up a package of exams, numbers the packets, and then circles six (6) skills at random in each packet. No names are applied to the packets and the numbers are not assigned to the examinees until the day of testing. The Field Representatives are required to give an orientation prior to each Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination on the day of the exam. The orientation consists of walking the applicants through each section of part one. The Field Representatives use the same form check-off sheet during each orientation to ensure that each candidate is given the same orientation. The Field Representatives use a scoresheet to grade the applicants which is a guide to simplify the scoring process. The numeric values on the scoresheet are negative points deducted from an applicant's raw score of 100 points. The Field Representatives only make deductions when the applicant does not follow the required procedure for performing the evolution. Petitioner admits that the point deduction is correct for exceeding the required time on the breathing apparatus evolution. Petitioner admits that he had to go back to the loop during the hose and nozzle evolution to fix the kinks in the hose line. Additionally, he took a couple of steps backwards while he was pulling the hose line. Walking backwards occurs when a candidate takes two steps or more backwards, walking in the opposite direction from where he is looking. There are no warnings issued for walking backwards during the certification examination. Petitioner admits that the deduction for exceeding time during the hose and nozzle evolution was correct. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner struggled during the ladder evolution. He lacked control of the ladder at all times during the demonstration. All of the deficiencies which Petitioner admits to amount to a total of 35 negative points as the least possible point deduction. That equals a score of 65 without Petitioner even having taken part two. A score of 65 is not a passing score.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Bill Nelson in his capacity as State Fire Marshal enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a Certification of Compliance as a Florida Firefighter. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Paul Appleton 13500 Shaker Boulevard, No. 102 Cleveland, Ohio 44120 Bill Nelson, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner, Christie Beverly, should be certified as a firefighter or, in the alternative, whether Petitioner should be allowed to re-take the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency responsible for testing all candidates for certification as a firefighter, for conducting such tests, and for issuing a certification upon the successful completion of the minimum requirements by a candidate. One such examination administered by the Department is the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination (firefighter examination). Petitioner successfully completed her firefighting training at the Manatee Technical Institute (MTI). Jeff Durling is an adjunct instructor at MTI, whose main purpose is to get candidates prepared for the state firefighter examination. During his particular MTI course, Mr. Durling's students were taught the three main types of hose pulls: flat, triple layer, and minuteman. Larry W. Schwartz, Jr., is the fire science coordinator of MTI. He oversees MTI's operations and is directly involved in its curriculum. Although Mr. Schwartz is familiar with the double minuteman hose pull, MTI has not taught it in the past because that particular pull has not been tested. The firefighter examination has a written portion, as well as four practical evolutions or components (self-contained breathing apparatus, hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills).2/ In order to be certified, a candidate has to achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each component. On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, at the MTI campus, Petitioner successfully completed all portions of the firefighter examination, except the hose component of the practical examination. Petitioner conceded that she exceeded the maximum time allowed to complete the hose component by eight seconds. At some point, Petitioner was notified that she did not receive a passing score on the hose component in the June 2011 firefighter practical examination. Petitioner was advised she could take the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Retest (retest) within six months of the June 2011 firefighter examination. Petitioner was required to successfully complete the retest or she would be required to re-take the firefighter course before she could take the test again. On Friday, September 23, 2011, Petitioner presented for her retest at the Florida State Fire College (Fire College) in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner arrived by 7:30 a.m. for her retest. There were over 403/ candidates present to take either an original firefighter practical test or a retest. The retest course was not ready at 7:30 a.m. On September 23, 2011, Eric Steves was also a retest candidate at the Fire College. Mr. Steves observed that the retest course was not set up when he arrived at 7:30 a.m. Further, he observed that the retest course was slightly different than the original practical test course in June 2011. There was no walk-through of the retest course prior to starting it, because the retest course was set up after the other candidates took their test and bad weather was approaching. Although Mr. Steves did not pass his retest, his testimony is credible as he has no vested interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Dennis Hackett is the standards supervisor with the Department's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training (Bureau). Mr. Hackett has administered and scored the minimum standard firefighter examination for candidates, including the retest examination. The majority of the candidates were given another practical test, not the retest administered to Petitioner. Mr. Hackett confirmed that the retest course was not ready at 7:30 a.m. on September 23, 2011. The Fire College was capable and did have the equipment to set up two different hose load courses. It is apparent that the Fire College adheres to a strict protocol in the administration of the firefighter testing; yet, it was not adhered to on September 23, 2011. There was a change to the practical testing component of the firefighter examination being implemented. The majority of the candidates on September 23, 2011, took a different practical test than the retest administered to Petitioner and Mr. Steves. Thomas M. Johnson has been a field representative for the Department's Bureau for seven years. As a field representative, Mr. Johnson has administered and scored numerous firefighting examinations and retest examinations. Mr. Johnson testified that Petitioner's retest course "would be set up when we were done with the rest of the students." He further testified that the retest course "would be set up when we were done with the other students who were taking the new evolutions." Although Mr. Johnson testified that Petitioner's retest was administered in a uniform manner, the credible evidence supports the position that the retest was not conducted following the strict protocol of the Fire College. For Petitioner's retest, the course barrels were held in place by field instructors. Petitioner questioned Mr. Johnson regarding their participation, asking: "Is that standard practice?" Mr. Johnson's response of "It was that day," lends credence that it was not standard practice or part of the uniform retest protocol. Further, Mr. Johnson's testimony that Petitioner was "in a hurry" to complete her retest is illogical. Petitioner waited for 40 or more candidates to test before her, and then she had to wait for the retest course to be assembled before she could attempt the course. There was a great deal of discussion about the type of hose pull required during the retest examination. There was no clear definition of a minuteman hose load or a double minuteman hose load.4/ Whether or not the hose pull was a minuteman or a double minuteman is irrelevant as the retest course was not prepared or set up by 7:30 a.m. as required by the Department's own rule. Mr. Johnson scored Petitioner on the retest examination. The score sheet used on the practical retest examination portion reflected three types of Hose Advancements: Flat Load, Triple Layer Load, and Minuteman Load. (An option to pull a double minuteman load is not printed anywhere on the score sheet.) Further review of the Department's score sheet reveals that someone wrote "4 LR"5/ out beyond the phrase: "Hose Advancement (1¾") ~~ Maximum Time 1:25." This phrase, "4 LR," is purported to mean that Mr. Johnson: asked her [Petitioner] to pull the left-side pre-connect, knock down the cone on the left first and then the cone on the right. And the reason it's above the minuteman is because that's the load she pulled, but it was not a minuteman. This "4 LR" phrase is well above the blank line found beside the words "Minuteman Load." The undersigned does not accept the "4 LR" phrase as an indication that the "double minuteman" hose pull was the retest examination option. Further, the score sheet also has blanks to be filled in by the scorer following the phrase: "Your target sequence is RT/Left or Left/RT ." However, the scorer did not fill in either blank. At the bottom of the page, there is an empty blank following "Candidate #," making it uncertain to whom this score sheet applies. On the score sheet, there is a written time of "2:39," the word "Fail" is circled, and there is a zero beside the "Score." The score sheet appears to be incomplete at best. Mr. Johnson was asked to confirm whether or not a double minuteman load was listed on the score sheet, and he confirmed that the phrase "double minuteman" load was not on the score sheet. The words "double minuteman" do not appear on the score sheet, nor is the type of hose load identified. It is impossible to determine what hose load Petitioner was directed to pull during her retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, enter a final order granting Petitioner's request to retest on the hose component of the practical portion of the firefighter examination and that Petitioner should be tested as if she were taking the retest within the six-month window for the retest. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. is an invalid exercise of legislatively granted authority in violation of section 120.52(8)(b), (c), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes (2020).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, is headed by the Chief Financial Officer of the state, who serves as the Chief Fire Marshal pursuant to section 603.104(1), Florida Statutes. The State Fire Marshal is charged with the responsibility to minimize the loss of life and property in Florida due to fire, and to adopt rules, which must “be in substantial conformity with generally accepted standards of firesafety; must take into consideration the direct supervision of children in nonresidential child care facilities; and must balance and temper the need of the State Fire Marshal to protect all Floridians from fire hazards with the social and economic inconveniences that may be caused or created by the rules.” § 633.104(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a Florida corporation authorized by the Department to offer fire certification training courses in both online and blended learning formats. A blended learning course is one that has both online and in-person components. The blended learning courses Petitioner currently offers have 37 hours of online learning and eight hours of in-person instruction to address those portions of the course that may need “hands on” instruction. Section 633.216, Florida Statutes, requires Respondent to certify fire safety inspectors, and to provide by rule for the development of a fire safety inspector training program of at least 200 hours. The program developed by Department rule must be administered by education or training providers approved by the Department for the purpose of providing basic certification training for fire safety inspectors. § 633.216(2), (8), Fla. Stat. Current Certification Requirements Section 633.406 identifies several certifications in the fire safety arena that may be awarded by the Division of State Fire Marshal: firefighter, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(4); fire safety inspector, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.216(2); special certification, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(6); forestry certification, for those meeting the requirements of section 590.02(1)(e); fire service instructor, for those who demonstrate general or specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities in firefighting and meet the qualifications established by rule; certificate of competency, for those meeting certain requirements with special qualifications for particular aspects of firefighting service; and volunteer fire fighter certifications. In order to become a fire safety officer, an applicant must take the courses outlined in rule 69A-39.005, and pass an examination with a score of 70% or higher. The five courses as listed in the current version of rule 69A- 39.005 are Fire Inspection Practices; Private Protection Systems; Blue Print Reading and Plans Examinations (also known as Construction Documents and Plans Review); Codes and Standards; and Characteristics of Building Construction. The Rulemaking Process On November 5, 2015, the Department held the first of a series of rule workshops and “listening sessions” as it began the process for making changes in the certification program for fire safety inspectors.1 These workshops and listening sessions were held on November 5, 2015; July 10, 2016; November 10, 2016; January 17, 2017; August 8, 2018; November 8, 2018; and October 29, 2019. As described by Mark Harper, who is now the assistant superintendent of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training at the Florida State Fire College, the Bureau conducted the first few listening sessions to hear the industry’s view on what changes were needed, followed by drafting proposed rule language and conduct of rule workshops. 1 Curiously, neither party introduced the notices for any of these workshops or listening sessions, so how notice was provided to interested persons wanting to give input on possible changes cannot be determined. The first workshop/listening session was conducted on November 5, 2015, in Palm Beach Gardens, and was moderated by Mark Harper. At this workshop, a variety of comments were received regarding the quality of the existing program and the quality of the fire safety inspectors being certified. Those comments included the need for more field training and more hours of instruction; suggested use of a “task book” in training; the view that classes should be taught by more experienced inspectors, not just people who have passed the classes; and the need for more practical training. The view was expressed by at least one attendee that the quality and method of delivery needed to be examined, and that Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review should not be taught online. In December 2015, Tony Apfelbeck, the Fire Marshal for Altamonte Springs, provided to Mr. Harper proposed draft revisions to chapter 69A-39, which included increasing the number of training hours to 315 hours (as opposed to the 200 hours required by section 633.216), and requiring use of a task book, as well as other changes. The draft did not include any language regarding course methodology in terms of classroom, online, or blended format classes. At the next workshop, held July 10, 2016, a draft proposal was provided to the audience, but it is not clear whether the draft provided is the one Mr. Apfelbeck suggested or something else. Concerns were expressed regarding the implementation of the use of a task book, and at least one speaker speaking against the suggested changes opined that the changes suggested in the draft would cost more money. Another commented that increasing the hours may not help the issue. Instead, there should be a greater emphasis on the quality of the educational delivery, and that instruction needed to be tied more closely to field work. Late in the workshop, comments were made regarding online and classroom delivery, and it was suggested that some classes should not be held online. While the drafts that were provided at the various workshops are not in the record, at some point, language was added that would require two of the five courses for fire safety certification, i.e., Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review, be taught in a traditional classroom setting only. The subject of online classes was discussed more thoroughly at the next workshop held November 10, 2016. During this workshop, there were comments both in favor of and against the use of online classes. While the speakers cannot always be identified from the recordings of the workshops, some attendees stated that some of the online providers were doing a really good job, and the concern was raised that if online classes were eliminated, it might be an exchange of convenience for quality.2 At least one person expressed the opinion that the speaker was not a fan of online classes, and Mr. Harper suggested that blended learning might be a way to meet some of the concerns expressed, and that the method of delivery would be up to the institution. Others who participated in the workshop spoke highly of blended classes. The remaining workshops also had discussions regarding the online class change, as well as other changes in the proposed rule. Opinions were voiced on both sides of the issue. The primary source of comments seeking a traditional classroom setting only were fire marshals at various municipalities around the state concerned about the need for “hands-on” training and the current lack of preparation encountered with new staff. On July 10, 2019, the Department filed a Notice of Proposed Rules for rules 69A-39.003, 39.005, and 39.009. The proposed rule amendments included the following amendment to rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d.: d. The courses “Codes and Standards” and “Construction Documents and Plans Review” 2 The identity of the speakers is not important, and the comments are not relayed for the truth of the statements made. They are listed simply to show that the Department heard several viewpoints during these listening sessions. required under this paragraph (1)(b) will only be approved by the Bureau when taught in a traditional classroom delivery method. No definition for “traditional classroom delivery method” is provided. On January 15, 2020, Respondent conducted a public hearing on the proposed rule. As was the case with the workshops, people voiced both support and opposition to the proposal to require a traditional classroom setting for the Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review courses. Counsel for Petitioner appeared and spoke against the proposed language to eliminate online and blended learning for the two classes, and asked whether any type of data existed to support the change in the rule, or whether any type of study had been conducted to gauge the need for the change. Respondent’s representative stated that the proposed language was based upon “extensive testimony” from employers requesting the change. Counsel also asked that Respondent consider defining what is meant by traditional classroom delivery. No such definition has been added to the rule. The Notice of Proposed Rule does not include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. Instead, it states: The Agency has determined that this will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the Agency. The Agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: The Department’s economic analysis of the potential impact of the proposed rule amendments determined that there will be no adverse economic impact or increased regulatory costs that would require legislative ratification. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs, or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so within 21 days of this Notice. Petitioner addressed the increased costs under the proposed rule during at least one of the workshops. There is no evidence, however, that Petitioner submitted, in writing, a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative within 21 days of the Notice of Proposed Rule. On January 27, 2020, Petitioner filed its Petition to Challenge Specific Changes to Proposed Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. The Petition is timely filed. Current Online Providers and Course Review Process As of April 10, 2020, there are approximately 20 organizations approved by the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that offer distance learning delivery for courses in programs leading to a certification pursuant to rule 69A-37.605. Of those providers, two are approved to teach Codes and Standards and three are approved to teach Construction Documents and Plans Review. In addition, as of June 1, 2020, there are 13 state colleges and/or universities in Florida also approved to provide distance learning. Of those, ten are approved to offer Codes and Standards, and ten are approved to offer Construction Documents and Plans Review. Petitioner has been approved to teach these two courses in a blended format since at least 2015. It also has articulation agreements with some educational institutions, including Waldorf University in Iowa, and Columbia Southern University in Alabama. The Department previously sought to take action against Ricky Rescue related to the type of courses taught, although the statutory basis for taking action against Ricky Rescue is not part of the evidence presented in this proceeding. The Consent Order entered to resolve the prior proceeding expressly provides, “Respondents agree that they will not offer any on-line courses until such time as they obtain approval from the Bureau, which will not be unreasonably withheld.” In order to be approved to teach any of the courses for certification in an online or blended format, a provider is required to go through an extensive review process. Initially, Respondent used a Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric to evaluate the courses a provider sought to offer. Course approvals initially took anywhere from four months to a year and a half to meet the standards and be approved. Respondent no longer uses the Quality Matters rubric, because it has transitioned to the accreditation process used by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. With this change, the length of time for class approvals has shortened considerably. Susan Schell used to be the Department’s Training Programs Manager and was in charge of the review and approval of classes for online learning. She has since moved on to another position within the Department. Ms. Schell would take the submitted course herself, view the different videos and discussion boards, and work through some of the projects, as well as review some of the case discussions and questions. Ricky Rescue’s courses that she reviewed met all of the state requirements to be approved. According to Ms. Schell, classes taught in the traditional format did not go through the same review process. Ricky Rescue’s accreditation verification from AdvancED Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement indicated that Ricky Rescue’s accreditation was confirmed on March 31, 2017, for a five-year term expiring June 30, 2022. There is no credible dispute regarding whether Ricky Rescue complies with the requirements for offering its courses in a blended format. The report of the external review team prepared by AdvancED Education, Inc., noted that the school’s website is exemplary and stated in its conclusions: Once a month, students attend a day on site blended learning instruction where students can collaborate and complete and present projects. Given that the owners are brother fire fighters, there is a genuine feeling of camaraderie and collegiality. It is apparent to the Team that the Ricky Rescue Training Academy is an ideal institutional opportunity to obtain classes for firefighter training and certification classes. … The school has embraced the continuous improvement model to insure that they continue to deliver high quality online educational programs with rigor, relevance, and fidelity. Two Different Views Petitioner and Respondent approached the proposed rule amendment, both at the workshops and public hearing conducted by the Department and at the hearing in this proceeding, from different perspectives. Ricky Rescue focused on the needs and opinions of students seeking to take the courses. Its witnesses testified that the blended courses had significant substantive content; that the in-person component gave the necessary opportunity for completion of group projects and hands-on instruction or field trips; and that the ability to complete the course at any time during a 30-day period was essential in terms of both costs and scheduling for the student, and completing the classes while managing job and family responsibilities. For example, Ryan Russell has worked for over ten years in the fire service and is a battalion chief for the Haines City Fire Department. He has a variety of certifications and oversaw the training division for his department. Mr. Ryan has taken five courses from Ricky Rescue, and speaks highly of them. Mr. Ryan agrees that there are some advantages to traditional classroom settings, because they provide more opportunities for engagement, but that ultimately, a class is only as good as the instructor. Similarly, Robert Morgan is also a battalion chief at another fire department, and took Documents and Plans Review from Ricky Rescue. Mr. Morgan believed that the online blended course is just as good as a traditional classroom setting, and believes that in the blended setting, a student has to work harder than just sitting at the back of the classroom. Both men spoke of the convenience and accessibility that online learning provides that a traditional classroom does not. Matthew Trent also testified in favor of the availability of online and blended courses. Mr. Trent has a master’s degree in public administration and is a Ph.D. student in public policy administration. He is also a certified state firefighter II; pump operator; Fire Officer I, II, III, and IV; fire inspector I and II; fire investigator I; and fire life safety educator I. About half of Mr. Trent’s certifications have been based on classes taken online, and all of his classes for his masters’ and doctoral degrees have been online. Mr. Trent felt both courses at issue could be taught in an online format, and stated that both as a student and as an instructor, it is up to the student to choose the delivery method by which they want to learn. If not for online learning, he would not have been able to accomplish nearly as much in his professional life, because distance learning gives the student the ability to work around other responsibilities. The Department, on the other hand, was influenced more heavily by (and sought information from) the fire safety officials across the state who employ fire safety inspectors. Many of those officials spoke at the public workshops and some testified at hearing. The major concern voiced by these officials was that new fire safety inspectors certified by the state were not really prepared to do their job. Although most acknowledged that some on the job training would always be necessary to deal with local codes and ordinances that are not part of the state curriculum, they felt that new inspectors did not have a good grasp of the concepts necessary to be effective, especially with respect to the skills taught in the classes at issue in this case. For example, Anthony Apfelbeck is the Director of the Building and Fire Safety Department for the City of Altamonte Springs. He has worked in that department for approximately 20 years and served as Fire Marshal for a significant portion of his tenure there, and served in other cities as well. Mr. Apfelbeck has an impressive array of certifications and currently supervises approximately eight fire safety inspectors. He attended almost all of the workshops and was an active participant. Mr. Apfelbeck testified that he concurred with the State Fire Marshal’s Association that both classes should be offered only in a traditional classroom environment. He stated that there is a limited period of time to get someone trained and certified as a fire safety inspector, and he has seen some of the deficiencies in the current training. In his view, requiring these two classes to be given in a traditional classroom environment allows the instructor to keep the student engaged, and to get into critical thinking with probing questions and real-life examples. Instructors can have interactions with students that address issues the students may be having in the students’ jurisdictions, and read the body language of the students to gauge involvement. He also spoke of the ability to develop relationships with other individuals in the class and develop a peer group within that body. Mr. Apfelback has used the virtual environment extensively during the COVID-19 pandemic, and does not feel that it has the spontaneity and free- flow of information that a traditional classroom affords. Mr. Apfelbeck has not taken any of Ricky Rescue’s classes, and does not know what it has done to make sure its students get 200 hours of education. Likewise, he is not aware of the review Ricky Rescue went through to get its courses approved. He stated, correctly, that the rule is not written specifically about Ricky Rescue’s programs. It is written for all educational programs that are provided pursuant to this rule. Michael Tucker is the assistant superintendent for the State Fire Marshal’s Office. His experience includes serving as battalion chief for the Reedy Creek Improvement District (i.e., Disney) for 13 years, and serving as the Chief of the Fire Department for the Villages for 13 years. He has taught fire safety classes both in the classroom setting and online. While at Reedy Creek, he was the training officer responsible for providing training to fire inspectors, firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs. Mr. Tucker believes that the two classes addressed in the proposed rule are very intricate classes with a lot of detail. He believes that the traditional environment gives more opportunity for students to get hands-on instruction and have more interaction with the instructor. He acknowledged that there is a possibility that fees could increase under the proposed rule, but thinks that the increased cost is outweighed by the value that employers would get when they hire people trained in a classroom setting. Cheryl Edwards is the Fire Marshal for the City of Lakeland, and her views regarding traditional versus online learning are similar to those already expressed. She believes that the traditional classroom environment promotes collaborative learning and enhances critical thinking skills, through live discussions, and the need to think on your feet. She also felt that in person, an instructor is better able to gauge students’ learning styles and provide activities and modalities for all to learn, regardless of learning style. Ms. Edwards believes that the traditional classroom setting allows for more “teachable moments,” and guided practice before a student has to put that knowledge into use. Finally, David Abernathy is the Fire Chief of the City of Satellite Beach and has worked with the City for 35 years. Mr. Abernathy has an impressive list of certifications and has taught all five of the courses necessary for fire safety inspector certification, but has never taught them in an online or blended learning format. Mr. Abernathy believes that for these two courses there is a benefit to the traditional classroom setting. He believes that both classes need a hands-on approach to be the most effective. Mr. Abernathy also believes that requiring these two courses to be taught in a traditional classroom setting will cost more, but as an employer is more willing to pay for it than for online classes. Mark Harper testified that during the workshops, the Department wanted to hear from everyone, because all would be impacted by the changes. However, he believes that there is a heavier weight of responsibility on employers as opposed to students, because they are the ones trying to fill positions, and they are the ones having to deal with additional costs occasioned by failures in training. As a practical matter, employers are more cognizant of the potential liability jurisdictions face when a fire safety inspector, who looks at everything from mom and pop businesses to industrial sites with large containers of hazardous materials, is not adequately trained. The decision to go forward with the proposed rule amendment requiring a traditional classroom delivery method with respect to Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review is based on the feedback received through the workshop process. It is not based on data. The Department does not track how students who took certification classes online or in a blended format score on the certification examination as opposed to students who took the same classes in a traditional setting. It would be difficult to collect that type of data, because there is no requirement that a student take all five courses the same way. In preparation for the hearing in this case, the Department conducted a survey of employers regarding their views on traditional versus distance learning. The Florida Fire Marshals and Inspectors Association distributed the survey to its members, and of the 358 addressees, 114 responded. There was no evidence to indicate that the Department attempted to survey people taking the classes. The questions asked in the survey were quite limited, and frankly, provide no guidance because they provide only two alternatives, and do not address blended learning formats at all. There are three questions, and they are as follows, with the responses in parentheses: Is there is current need to increase the proficiency of newly certified Firesafety Inspectors in Florida? Yes (59.65%) No (16.67%) Neutral opinion (12.68%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Codes and Standards class, which class setting would produce a more proficient inspector? Traditional classroom delivery method (71.17%) Online (distance learning ) delivery method (9.91%) Neutral opinion (18.92%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Construction Documents and Plans Review Class, which class setting would produce a more proficient instructor? Traditional classroom (76.32%) Online (7.02%) Neutral opinion (16.67%) Questions two and three assume that one format must be better than the other, rather than allowing for the possibility of equivalency. Had there been some recognition of a blended learning format, the answers might be different. The survey was informative in terms of the comments that were provided by the respondents. Similar to the views expressed at the workshops, there were strong opinions both in favor of limiting the classes to the traditional setting, and strong opinions advocating for the option of online learning. Petitioner presented information related to the increased costs that will be incurred should the rule go in effect. Those costs include the need for space rental for five-day periods in order to teach in multiple locations; the costs related to conversion of the material to a classroom setting versus online; and the need to pay instructors for more days each time the course is taught. It does not appear from the evidence presented that Ricky Rescue would experience increased costs of $200,000 in one year. However, Ricky Rescue is just one provider, and section 120.54 speaks in terms of an increase in costs in the aggregate, meaning as a whole. It is not known whether the other approved providers who teach these two courses will continue to do so should the rule be amended to require a classroom setting. It is also unknown what types of costs would be borne by state colleges and universities in order to recast the courses for traditional classroom settings. Finally, the litigants to this proceeding were well aware that this rule was being developed and was noticed as a proposed rule before the world began to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. It is open to speculation whether some of the impetus to require a traditional classroom setting would have changed in light of the changes society has had to make over the last six months. Department employees were questioned regarding the Fire College’s response to the pandemic, and both Mark Harper and Michael Tucker testified about the precautions being taken on the campus to insure safety, such as taking temperatures, having students complete a questionnaire regarding possible exposure, limiting the number of students per class, and spacing people six feet apart to maintain effective social distancing. Mr. Tucker testified that they would be ready to postpone some classes until they could be taught safely in person. When asked whether Respondent would consider postponing the effective date of the proposed rule, he indicated “that would be something we would have to take into consideration, and again, the feedback from our constituents, but if it became necessary, then we would consider it.”
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal can revoke Respondent's certification as a firefighter because Respondent failed to timely complete the requirements to maintain his Firefighter Certificate of Compliance prior to September 30, 2011, pursuant to section 633.352, Florida Statutes (2010).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certifying firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. On June 30, 2006, Respondent also obtained certification as a fire Instructor III. On October 9, 2006, Pointu obtained his Firefighter II Certificate of Compliance ("certification"). On September 30, 2008, Respondent stopped volunteering with Lauderdale-By-The-Sea Volunteer Fire Department ("Lauderdale-By-The-Sea"). Prior to July 1, 2010, state certified fire instructors were able to maintain their firefighter certification as long as their fire instructor certification was current. On July 1, 2010, the statutory requirements for firefighters changed. Section 633.352 was amended to require a certified firefighter be a full-time fire instructor or a full- time fire inspector to maintain certification. The 2010 statutory change retained a three-year period for firefighters to complete the requirements to maintain certification. It is undisputed that between September 30, 2008, and September 30, 2011, Pointu did not perform any of the necessary requirements to maintain his certification in section 633.352, such as retake the Minimum Standards Examination; maintain employment as a firefighter or volunteer firefighter; or work full time as an instructor or firesafety inspector. On April 6, 2012, the Department distributed an informational bulletin titled "Firesafety Instructors & Maintenance of Firefighter Certification." The bulletin stated in bold "The 3-year period begins on July 1, 2010 for persons who held an active instructor certification and an active firefighter certification as of June 30th, 2010." Question 7 of the bulletin also provided: 7. Is the Division of the State Fire Marshal attempting to amend the State Statute to reflect the previous language that does not require "full-time employment as a fire instructor"? The Division has attempted to amend or reinstate this language, however, the Statute remains unchanged, and the Division may not be successful in amending the language to its previous form. Pointu received the 2012 bulletin and determined that since he held an active instructor certification and active firefighter certification as of June 30, 2010, his firefighter certification period started July 1, 2010, and expired July 1, 2013. On July 1, 2013, section 633.352 was revised amended and renumbered legislature as section 633.414. The statutory amendment also changed the three-year recertification cycle to a four-year cycle and removed the full-time instructor requirement. Respondent used the 2013 statutory change to calculate his certification validation date until 2018. In 2014, Pointu contacted the Department regarding his certification after being told by a county official that his certification was not valid. Thereafter, over an approximate two-year period, Respondent was informed various and conflicting information regarding his certification status and expiration dates. The Department does not have a statutory requirement to provide notice to certified individuals of requirements to maintain certification. The Fire College Department of Insurance Continuing Education ("FCDICE") database monitors and manages all firefighters' certifications. Department's interim chief, Michael Tucker ("Tucker"), made the final decision regarding Pointu's certification. Tucker reviewed FCDICE and did not find any records which demonstrated Pointu's renewal of certification prior to September 29, 2011. Tucker correctly determined that the 2010 version of the statute applied to Pointu's certification because Respondent left his employment at Lauderdale-By-The-Sea on September 30, 2008, which made his three-year period for renewal deadline September 30, 2011, pursuant to section 633.352. Tucker also established that Pointu did not fulfill the minimum requirements to renew his certification prior to September 30, 2011, because he did not become employed again, volunteer with a fire department, become a full-time fire inspector or a full-time instructor, or retake the practical portion of the examination. After evaluating Respondent's certification history, Tucker concluded Respondent failed to meet the minimum firefighter requirements and therefore Pointu's certification is not valid and should be revoked. At hearing, Tucker acknowledged that he was not familiar with the issuance of the April 6, 2012, bulletin, but, after reviewing it, he determined there were misstatements in the bulletin regarding requirements for certification because the Department did not have the authority to waive any statutes. On June 3, 2011, Petitioner issued an amended Notice that it intended to revoke Pointu's certification for failure to renew his certification within three years of employment termination from an organized fire department pursuant to section 633.352. Pointu contested the notice and requested a hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Patrick Pointu, violated section 633.252, Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Firefighter Certificate of Compliance be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 31st day of August, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa E. Dembicer, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 (eServed) Merribeth Bohanan, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Patrick Pointu (Address of Record-eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firesafety inspector.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a firesafety inspector. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Firesafety Inspector Training Course and pass a firesafety inspector certification examination. Petitioner successfully completed his required coursework at the Florida State Fire College and Daytona State College. To pass the written examination, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent. Petitioner took the exam the first time and did not receive a passing score. After a month or so, Petitioner took a "retest." He received a score of 68 on the retest, which is below the minimum passing score of 70. By letter dated October 11, 2011, Respondent notified Petitioner that he did not receive a passing grade on the retest. The notice also informed Petitioner that because he failed both the initial and retake examinations, it would be necessary for him to repeat the Inspection Training Program before any additional testing can be allowed. The notice further informed Petitioner that if he enrolled in another training program, he would have to submit a new application. Petitioner submitted a letter which was received by the Department on September 27, 2011, in which he raised concerns about the quality of instruction he received at Florida State Fire College. Petitioner asserted that in two classes he took, the instructors had not taught the class before. He also asserted that the books used for class were not always the books used for testing, and that he believed that some of the state inspector test questions were irrelevant to how or what he would need to know in performing an actual inspection. Attached to this letter were five questions which had been marked as being answered incorrectly on the examination. Petitioner's letter and attachments were treated as a request for administrative hearing, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which resulted in this proceeding. Marshall Shoop took classes with Petitioner at the Florida State Fire College. It was also Mr. Shoop's understanding that at least one instructor had never taught the class before. Karl Thompson is the Standard Supervisor for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training. At hearing, Mr. Thompson reviewed each question offered by Petitioner and the answer Petitioner thought to be correct. Mr. Thompson concluded that Petitioner answered each of the five questions incorrectly. Mr. Thompson explained that the firesafety test is a secure document and, pursuant to a contract with a third party, persons who take the test and later review their incorrect answers are not allowed to write down the questions or copy anything from the test. The test must remain secure so that it is not compromised. The test questions and answers are not in evidence. Petitioner has been shadowing a part-time fire inspector for the City of Flagler Beach. Martin Roberts is the Fire Chief for the City of Flagler Beach. Chief Roberts would feel comfortable with Petitioner taking on the role of fire inspector despite Petitioner's grades on the fire safety inspector certification examination. While attending Daytona State College, Petitioner earned an "A" in a building construction course and a "B+" in a course in "construction codes and materials rating."
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Firesafety Inspector, and permitting Petitioner to repeat the required coursework before retaking the Firesafety Inspector certification examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 16th day of February, 2012.
