Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Architecture
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 631,484 So.2d 1333 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-319,85-319 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 631 Michael HARAC, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Howard Hochman, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and John J. Rimes III, Tallahassee, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Appellant, an applicant for an architecture license, seeks review of a final order of the Board of Architecture which denies his application.
In June 1981 Harac sat for the Florida Architecture Examination. He had passed the written examination which tests general knowledge, and had completed the internship requirements. However, on the design examination he received a failing grade, and for that reason he was declared ineligible for registration as an architect.
For the design examination, 1 three graders evaluate each applicant's solution using the holistic grading method. The Grader's Manual used in connection with the examination provides for the selection of twenty training solutions which exemplify the level of competency and accomplishment required for each holistic score. Scores of 0, 1, and 2 are failing; scores of 3 and 4 are passing. The graders are required to conform the severity and emphasis of their grading to the training solutions. The Grader's Manual cautions against judging according to an imaginary ideal solution, and the quality of an examinee's solution is to be measured against the quality of solutions provided by other examinees. Graders are expected to react based on first impressions, giving the examinee the benefit of any doubt.
Scores of 1, 2 and 3 were given to Harac's solution--one passing and two failing. He was thereupon given an overall failing grade which he sought to have reviewed in an administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1985).
The parties agreed, at the outset of the hearing, that a score of 1 was invalid and should not be considered. 2 Harac's two valid scores as assigned by graders, for the purpose of the hearing, were a 3 and a 2.
Evidence presented at the hearing was also divided. Charles Sieger was received as an expert in architecture. He conducted an evaluation of Harac's solution by studying it and then simultaneously blind scoring several training solutions and Harac's solution. Sieger considered both passing and failing solutions before and after grading Harac's solution. He determined that there were some design flaws in Harac's solution, but that the solution was buildable if minor changes were made. Herbert Coons, an expert grader for the 1981 design examination, also testified. Coons did not evaluate Harac's solution against or in comparison to the training solutions; nevertheless, he testified that he would have given the solution a failing grade of 2.
Coons' reasons for his decision included the following: (1) space was lost on the designed building's interior because Harac did not abut the building with the existing structures; (2) one of the stair towers opened to the outside; (3) toilets were added in the lobby which were not a program requirement; (4) the toilets badly restricted use of the lobby as a display area; and (5) the program called for a service door which was not shown in Harac's solution. Despite the deficiencies he noted, Coons stipulated that Harac's solution was buildable.
The hearing officer's recommended order recited the following pertinent findings: (1) Harac's solution demonstrated minimum competence in site planning and design; (2) the Board of Architecture (Board) submitted no evidence of substantial program violations or other factual basis to justify its grade of 2 for Harac's solution; and (3) the Board offered no record evidence to suggest that the public health, welfare, or safety would be endangered or compromised in any way by awarding a passing grade to Harac's design solution. The order recommended that Harac should be deemed to have passed the design examination and be qualified for registration as an architect by the State of Florida. The Board did not file exceptions to the findings of facts.
The hearing examiner essentially rejected the testimony of Coons and adopted that of Sieger, as a third examiner. It was agreed that Sieger's evaluation procedure possessed substantial validity within the holistic testing method and was as close to the original grading format as possible without reconvening the original graders and trainers. Coons failed to grade Harac's solution against or in comparison with the training solutions as is required by the Grader's Manual. The examiner also noted Coons' propensity to grade severely as evidenced by the uncontroverted evidence that Coons gave failing grades to training solutions which had been given passing holistic grades of 3 and 4.
At the meeting to review the examiner's recommended order, five members of the Board conducted their own review of Harac's design solution. The Board members regraded the solution and, based upon their independent grading of the solution, rejected certain findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the hearing officer's recommended order. The Board substituted the following for the hearing officer's findings:
[Harac's] failure to abut the building to other structures resulted in a significant deviation from program requirements and further his addition of significant program features not required of the candidates such as the bathrooms on the first floor, in addition to several other minor areas of difficulty noticed by [the Board's] witness Coons resulted in significant errors in the design solution submitted by [Harac].
The Board's substituted conclusions of law included the following:
Insofar as the expertise of the majority of the Florida State Board of Architecture based upon its members' knowledge as experienced graders of the examination in question that the deviations of [Harac's] solution from the program's requirements were of such a nature as to evidence failure on the part of the applicant to accurately comprehend the requirements of the examination and to meet the level of expertise necessary for minimum competence as a Registered Architect in the State of Florida. This determination is based upon a review of the complete record, as well as the above mentioned professional knowledge of the majority of the Board voting to make this determination. In the opinion of the majority of the Board, the examination in question should have received a 2. A (failing) grade.
Three members of the Board agreed with the Board's substituted conclusions. Two Board members voted to adopt the examiner's recommended order.
The Board concedes that the hearing officer's findings on facts are supported by substantial and competent evidence. The final order which rejects the hearing officer's findings and conclusions is based upon a "special expertise" exception to the rule that a reviewing agency may not reject or modify the hearing officer's findings unless the agency determines that the findings are not based upon competent substantial evidence. See § 120.57(1)(b)9, Fla.Stat. (1985). The exception permits a board comprised of members who have expertise in the subject area to reach its own conclusions. The special expertise rule may be invoked where the dispositive facts are not susceptible to ordinary methods of proof, and where the decision of the Board is one which impacts on the public health and safety.
The Board relies mainly on Johnston v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 456 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) and McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 1370 (Fla.1979). The Board contends that it has been given broad discretion in testing for licensure, unlike its more limited function where it is called upon to review disciplinary action against a licensee; and that in determining the competency of an applicant it may employ the expertise of its members and reject factual and legal determinations of hearing officers where, as here, competency is not susceptible to usual means of proof.
Harac argues that the authorities relied on by the Board do not dictate that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SOUTH FLA. CARGO CARRIERS v. State
...by competent substantial evidence and complying with the requirements of Section 120.57(1); see Harac v. Dept. of Prof. Reg. Board of Architecture, 484 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986); Dunham v. Highlands County School Board, 652 So.2d 894 (Fla. 2nd DCA If in an appropriate instance, the que......
-
Espinoza v. DEPT. OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, 98-3077.
...was incorrect must show that the agency's initial decision was arbitrary and capricious. See Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So.2d 1333, 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). In the instant case, upon review of the denial of Mr. Espinoza's application in Florida for licensure by endo......
-
Munger v. State Bd. for Registration of Architects
...it was not in a position to substitute its decision for that of the Board. Although Mr. Munger cites Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So.2d 1333 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986), as authority for the proposition that a trial court may intervene in the Board's decision, we find his ......
-
Yerks v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty.
...methods of proof and is an issue of fact to be determined by the administrative law judge); Harac v. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Architecture , 484 So.2d 1333, 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (agency could not reject hearing officer's determination that candidate's answer to architectural ex......