00-003490 Amanuel Worku vs. Florida Engineers Management Corporation Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, January 5, 2001.

Summary: Petitioner failed to answer the two challenged questions correctly, failing the engineer licensure examination.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

AMANUEL WORKU, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 00-3490

)

FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT )

CORPORATION, )

)

Respondent. )

__________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this

case on November 30, 2000, by video teleconference in

Tallahassee and Miami, Florida, before Susan B. Kirkland, a

designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Amanuel Worku, pro se

18492 Northwest 52nd Path

Miami, Florida 33055

For Respondent: Douglas Sunshine, Esquire

Florida Engineers Management Corporation

1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers

to questions 42 and 81 of the morning session of the

Fundamentals of Engineering Examination portion of the

engineering licensure examination given on April 15, 2000.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated August 18, 2000, to the Florida Board of

Professional Engineers (Board), Petitioner, Amanuel Worku

( Worku), requested an administrative hearing, challenging

questions 42 and 81 of the Fundamentals of Engineering

Examination portion of the engineering licensure examination

given on April 15, 2000. Worku received a failing raw score

of 108 that converted to a failing scaled score of 69.

On August 21, 2000, the Board referred the case to the

Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment to an

Administrative Law Judge. The final hearing was scheduled for

October 13, 2000. On October 2, 2000, Respondent, Florida

Engineers Management Corporation, filed an Amended Motion for

Continuance. The motion was granted, and the final hearing

was rescheduled for November 30, 2000.

At the final hearing, Petitioner testified in his own

behalf. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted in

evidence. Respondent called Frank Hutchinson as its witness.

Respondent's Exhibits 1-8 were admitted in evidence.

The parties agreed to file proposed recommended orders

within ten days of the filing of the transcript, which was

filed on December 21, 2000. Petitioner filed his Proposed

Recommended Order on December 14, 2000, and Respondent filed

its Proposed Recommended Order on December 27, 2000. The

parties' Proposed Recommended Orders have been considered in

rendering this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Worku took the Fundamentals of Engineering

Examination portion of the examination for licensure to

practice as an engineer intern on April 15, 2000. The

examination is a national multiple-choice examination

developed and administered by the National Council of

Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES).

2. The examination is divided into a morning session and

an afternoon session. The questions in the morning session

are worth one raw point each. The questions in the afternoon

session are worth two raw points each.

3. Worku challenged questions 42 and 81, which were on

the morning session of the examination. Worku received 56 raw

points for the morning session and 52 raw points for the

afternoon session for a total raw score of 108 on the

examination. Based on the NCEES' Score Conversion Table, a

raw score of 108 converts to a score of 69. A converted score

of 70, which equates to a raw score of 109-113, is a passing

score.

5. Question 81 asked the examinee to identify the

geometric shape that was given by an equation provided in the

question. Each examinee was given a reference manual during

the examination. The manual contains general formulas for the

types of geometric shapes listed as possible answers to

question 81. The equation given in question 81 was for a

specific shape and was not listed among the general formulas

in the reference manual.

6. Worku felt that because the general equation was not

used that the equation was stated incorrectly. However, the

equation was stated correctly. The equation differed from the

equation listed in the reference manual because it was for a

special shape of the geometric figure. Worku did not answer

question 81 correctly.

7. Question 42 dealt with recrystallization as it

relates to metal. The question asks the examinee to pick the

answer which explains the reference to the term

" recrystallization" in the question. Worku contends that

there are two correct answers to question 42 and that the

answer which he provided is one of the correct answers.

8. The answer which Worku provided is not a correct

answer. It refers to the process of annealing, which is the

process of decreasing the toughness of a metal.

Recrystallization can be a part, but is not always part of

annealing. Recrystallization and annealing are not synonymous

terms; thus Worku is not entitled to credit for question 42.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of

this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

10. A person seeking to be licensed by the Board to

practice as an engineer intern in Florida must take and pass a

licensure examination. Section 471.015, Florida Statutes, and

Rule 61G15-21.001, Florida Administrative Code.

11. An examinee has the burden to establish that his

failing score was a product of arbitrary or otherwise improper

or erroneous grading. See Harac v. Department of Professional

Regulation , 484 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986).

12. Rule 61G15-21.004(1), Florida Administrative Code,

requires a minimum score of 70 on a scale of 100 to pass the

Engineering Fundamentals Examination. Worku failed to

establish that the scoring was arbitrary, improper, or

erroneous. Worku earned a score of 69 and did not pass the

Engineering Fundamentals Examination.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered

finding that Amanuel Worku failed the Engineering Fundamentals

Examination with a score of 69.

DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

Susan B. Kirkland

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 5th day of January, 2001.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Amanuel Worku

18492 Northwest 52nd Path

Miami, Florida 33055

Douglas Sunshine, Esquire

Florida Engineers Management Corporation

1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director

Board of Professional Engineers

1208 Hays Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Barbara D. Auger, General counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any

exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the

agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.