Minutes of the
Florida Board of Professional Engineers
August 1st & 2nd, 2007, 8:30 a.m.
Marco Island, Florida
Part I
Meeting Administration
Call to Order, Invocation, and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
FBPE Board Members Present:
Henn Rebane, P.E., Chair
John Burke, P.E., Vice Chair
Paul Tomasino, P.E.
David Charland, P.E.
Zafar Hyder, Ph.D., P.E.
Board Members Absent:
Christian Bauer, Ph.D., P.E.
Albert Rose, P.E.
FBPE Staff Present:
Carrie A. Flynn, Interim Executive Director
Marvin Vickers, Comptroller
Patrick Creehan, Prosecuting Attorney
Leigh Ann Dollar, Executive Assistant
Sean Benjamin, CE Coordinator
Others Present:
Eugene Bechamps, P.E., Former FBPE Board Member
Bill Dunn, SunCam, CE Provider
Charlie Geer, FES/FICE
Mike Wilson, Professional Engineer
Upon a motion by Mr. Charland seconded by Mr. Burke, the Board voted to excuse Mr. Rose’s absence and not excuse Dr. Bauer.
Roll call, Determination of Quorum, and Address Absences.
Introduction of guests and announcements as to presentations at a time certain.
2:00 p.m. - Roger Jeffery, P.E, Vice Chair, FEMC – Update on resumes received for the Executive Director Position.
Mr. Rebane announced a presentation by Mr. Jeffery on the search for a new Executive Director. The Board Operations Committee was to create a short list of applications and present to both boards. The short list will be presented to the Board Operations Committee and the interviews would be scheduled. The selection has been on hold until the contract for 2007-2008 was signed. Mr. Rebane appointed Mr. Burke to the Board Operations Committee and he would be representing the FBPE in their interview process.
Approval of the Agenda
Approval of the Consent Agenda
(Items denoted with an asterisk are included in the Consent Agenda*)
Ms. Flynn made the following additions under the Executive Director’s Report:
Letters received from the Governor’s office forwarded to FEMC by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation with FEMC’s response.
E #5 – Letter to William Burdick, P.E.
E #6 – Letter to Adrian Zvarych, P.E.
E #7 – Letter to Ryan Paplow, P.E.
E #8 – Letter to Richard Wallace, P.E.
Letters and articles requiring response from the last board meeting
E #9 – Letter to Charles Meister, FES
E #10 – Letter to Kevin Wright, P.E.
E #11 – Letter to Don Carter, Retired, P.E.
E #12 – Letter to Miegual Sachez, P.E.
E #13 – Letter to Eugene Rossman, Retired, P.E.
E #14 – Draft article on the retired status that has been posted on the website.
Ms. Flynn commented on her plans to draft an article on Inactive Status. As letters are completed they will be copied as part of upcoming agendas for informational purposes. If board members have any questions, please advise Board staff.
Mr. Rebane added E#14 - Rules from FES – Mr. Rebane briefed the Board on FES having taken on the responsibility for rewriting the Rules of Responsibility. Taking on this task has saved the Board time and it provided expertise without hiring of consultants. The rules are now revised for the disciplines of fire protection, electrical and mechanical engineering. The rules are about 20 years old, with the exception of the fire protection update accomplished five years ago. The updates to these rules will provide clarity as to content of plans presented to contractors. The Chair assigned these revised drafts to the Rules Committee for consideration on September 12, 2007. The Committee will then present to the full Board in the October meeting.
Mr. Dunn would like to report on his view on being a CE provider.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, the agenda was approved as amended.
Upon a motion by Mr. Charland seconded by Mr. Burke, the consent agenda was approved.
Review and Approval of previous Board meeting minutes
Minutes from the June 20 & 21, 2007 Board Meeting*
Approved by the Consent Agenda
Minutes from the July 11th, 2007 Conference Call*
Approved by the Consent Agenda
Committee Reports
Applications Committee (Next meeting 9-12-07)
(John Burke, P.E., Chair; David Charland, P.E.; Henn Rebane, P.E.; Albert Rose, P.E.; , Zafar Hyder, Ph.D., P.E.) (Alternates: Christian Bauer, Ph.D., P.E.; Paul Tomasino, P.E.)
Mr. Burke stressed the need for everyone to attend the next Application Review. Mr. Burke asked Ms. Flynn to keep Board members apprised of the number of files so that attendance could be determined and if a second day will be needed.
Ms. Flynn advised the Board of some 20 Principles and Practice files to be reviewed for the October 2007 examination. Mr. Charland asked if the Board could hire a consultant to help with application review. Mr. Rebane agreed Dr. Anderson and Dr. Miller both have the expertise to evaluate foreign degrees and experience. Mr. Flury advised that consultants and members can be appointed at any time that consultants can work on all aspects of the files.
Ms. Flynn advised the Board of considering future plans should Dr. Anderson and Dr. Miller decide to reduce the time spent as consultants. Every application that comes to the board presently requires two signatures by each Board member and Board Counsel, if the application was denied. Mr. Rebane stated with the efficiency in which staff is
preparing the application the need for a second signature will end. If second signatures continue the consultant could provide allowing more time for the Board members to complete initial review. Mr. Burke confirmed with Mr. Flury of the Board’s authority to use a past board member or an outside person to review education and experience files.
All Board members attending this meeting confirmed their attendance for the September 12, 2007 meeting.
Probable Cause Panel (Next meeting 9-20-07)
(Henn Rebane, P.E., Chair; Allen Seckinger, P.E., Consultant) (Alternate: John Burke, P.E.)
Memo from the July 26, 2007 Meeting.*
Approved by the Consent Agenda.
FBPE Rules Committee (Next meeting 9-11-07)
(John Burke, P.E., Chair; Henn Rebane, P.E.,; David Charland, P.E., Paul Tomasino, P.E.)
Mr. Burke confirmed receipt of the rules from the FES Committee. This committee worked in conjunction with the Fire Marshall’s office and other consultants. Mr. Burke asked that Ms. Flynn have Prosecutor John Rimes review the proposed revisions and once completed they be assigned to the Rules Committee. With this process expedited, the results should be available for the October Board meeting. Mr. Burke recalled in the last Application Review the Board’s direction to review Rule 61G15-20.007, F.A.C. for comparison to current ABET criteria.
Ms. Flynn confirmed receipt of current EAC/ABET criteria from Dr. Bauer. Mr. Rebane advised Mr. Burke that Dr. Anderson will be looking at the possibility of rewriting this rule, to compare with the hours portion of the rule (ABET 2000). Mr. Burke will contact Dr. Anderson to confirm that he will be working on this issue and get this information before the Rules Committee meeting.
Mr. Burke thanked Mr. Rebane for taking on the responsibility of reviewing the continuing education rules for alignment with NCEES criteria. According to Chapter 471, F.S. the rules should be in line with NCEES guidelines. For instance, there is 15 hours per year, 30 hours total required by NCEES, where Florida requires a total of 8 per biennium. While the maximum required by NCEES can’t be incorporated into our rules we should incorporate what does fit into our rulemaking authority for area of practice. Laws and Rules are specific to our state and are not affected by NCEES guidelines. Mr. Rebane’s proposed rule modifications will be presented to the Rules Committee. One item previously taken out of the rules should be reinstated. This item allows recognition of courses completed for other states of licensure for area of practice.
Mr. Burke noted the busy schedule before the Rules Committee. Staff has presented several additional rules and rule revisions. Mr. Seckinger, as requested by Mr. Burke, has reviewed the rules and has provided several changes for grammar and appropriate statute and rule cites.
The Rules Committee will be noticed for 8:30 a.m. on September 11, 2007.
Mr. Rebane advised that the state of Kentucky passed a rule about six months ago that requires all applicants for examination to present a validated experience record by NCEES. This Board presently recognizes the Model Law Record for processing applications by endorsement within seven days of receipt. This Board should consider future requirements for having examination candidates submit a NCEES record validation experience.
There was discussion as to how the changes in the Continuing Education Rules would affect the presently approved Florida providers. This will require consideration as the process moves forward.
Mr. Dunn did not see this as a benefit to his business as the process is too expensive. Mr. Dunn indicated acceptance of their courses by all states except New York. NY and FL are the two that NCEES would have the most difficulty with, because of qualifications. Mr. Burke will work with Ms. Flynn on selecting a staff person to assist with the rules committee.
FBPE Legislative Committee
(Vacant - Chair, Christian Bauer, Ph.D., P.E.; Paul Tomasino, P.E.)
Mr. Rebane appointed Mr. Tomasino as Chair of this Committee and Dr. Hyder to fill his position as committee member.
Joint Engineer/Architect Committee
(Vacant – Chair; Gary Kuhl, P.E., Consultant)
Staff had confused this committee with the Joint Engineer/Landscape Architect Committee. The future agenda should include Mr. Burke as Chair and Dr. Hyder in lieu of Mr. Kuhl.
Mr. Rebane commented on issues associated with the FES Energy Committee. The Governor has new executive orders regarding energy. LEEDS certification for new buildings and management services are required to write rules for this requirement. There is a potential problem as there are not many LEEDS certified professionals in this state.
Mr. Rebane suggested Board members update themselves with the governor’s executive order. This Committee may have to work with the Architect Board on future rulemaking.
NCEES (Annual Meeting August 22-25, 2007)
(John Burke, P.E., FBPE Liaison)
Mr. Burke advised that he, Ms. Flynn, Mr. Charland, Mr. Bechamps, Dr. Anderson, Mr. Jeffery and Mr. Rebane will be attending the Annual meeting.
Mr. Burke advised that NCEES has a new Acting Executive Director. Ms. Betsy Browne has retired. Mr. Jerry Carter has taken over the position. NCEES will discuss her retirement at the Annual Meeting. Mr. Carter has served as the Assistant Executive Director for a long time and is very well versed in all aspects of NCEES.
Mr. Rebane reminded the Board of the mandate to evaluate domestic degrees. CPEES had advised they would provide evaluations and subsequently problems arose in this area. Contact with Mr. Carter and Ms. Adán confirmed their plans to assist the Board in evaluations provided the Board can provide criteria for the evaluations. CPEES has encountered a huge number of applications and additional staff has been hired. Ms. Adán has affirmed assistance to this Board provided they receive information as to content and types of evaluations required. Ms. Adán will receive an invitation to attend the Application Review Committee on September 12, 2007.
Advisory Attorney's Report
Discussion on the proposed Rule 61G15-31.010, F.A.C.
Proposed Rule 61G15-31.010, F.A.C.
Letter to Governor Charlie Crist
Copy of SB 404 (Exhibit D #1)
Mr. Flury advised the Board to consider all factors and withdraw the rule. With the passing of SB 404, the need for the rule no longer exists. Further, there are two pending challenges set for a DOAH hearing in September. If the Board withdraws the rule, the hearing will be moot.
Mr. Burke briefed Dr. Hyder on the history of this proposed rule. The industry came before this Board regarding structural integrity of pool enclosures. The pools are constructed by contractors from details included in design manuals signed by an engineer. This Board held several hearings on the matter. The proposed rule coming from the hearings is now unnecessary as the new law removes authority from the Board to have rules on the matter. Mr. Burke asked and Mr. Flury confirmed that withdrawal of this rule does not prohibit this Board from pursuit of complaints filed against engineers that fail to follow the existing responsibility rules in their design.
Mr. Rebane asked Mr. Creehan how to be proactive on the manuals that are out there and the permitting process, leaving out single-family dwellings, to evaluate the manuals that are out there and the permitting process. Prepare a plan for us at the next meeting. The Board should be proactive in the review of the manuals currently sold to contractors and the process by which the engineers sell these manuals. Mr. Creehan will review the materials and prepare a report for the October Board meeting.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, the Board voted to rescind the present rulemaking.
It was the consensus of the Board to withdraw the rule. Mr. Rebane asked staff to advise Mr. Brian Hall, Aluminum Association in Jacksonville, of the Board’s action.
Mandate for the Gregory Ruck case*
Approved by the Consent Agenda.
This case was the first case where attorney’s fees were not awarded.
Board Counsel Opinion Letters
None.
Executive Director’s Report
List of Applicants Requesting Retired Status*
Ms. Flynn noted two applications for Retired Status.
Richard Martter and David Weaver
Mr. Martter’s license is Null and Void and is not eligible for Retired Status. Ms. Flynn will advise Mr. Martter that he has no license to retire. Mr. Matter will have to come back through the endorsement application if he wants to perform engineering in the future.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, the application filed by David Weaver, P.E. was approved for Retired Status and the application by Richard Martter was denied.
Update on Contract negotiations.
Ms. Flynn advised the Board of ongoing discussions with Mr. Harrell, Contract Monitor regarding content of the 2007-2008 Contract. Staff reviewed the contract point by point followed with conference call attended by Mr. Rebane and Mr. Kuhl. Items of concern were presented to Mr. Harrell. Ms. Flynn summarized the following items of concern.
The contract requires a response to priority referrals – Staff requested the Department define priority referrals and the requirement to respond within seven days or sooner if requested.
The contract required FEMC to use a document imaging system compatible with the system utilized by the Department. Staff met with representatives of DBPR and the language was amended to read at such time as it is available. The Department’s goal is to implement scanning of applications and supporting documents as soon as they are received at the Department. This allows working the application from the electronic record. The Department has agreed to research the possibility of purchasing the technology out of the trust fund rather than FEMC’s operating budget. FEMC will also be working toward paperless application process. FEMC will work with the Department on training and every aspect of the technology at such time as FEMC is brought into the program.
Mr. Rebane briefed the Board on his conversations with the Secretary and her plan for the Department to spend $7-10 million on technology for scanning all correspondence received in the Department.
The contract requires as part of the quarterly reports a requirement to implement specific recommendations from the Browning report as attached to the contract. The Department, other than customer service, verification of legal cases, quarterly meetings of the FEMC corporate board, failed to specifically identify what is to be implemented from the Management Study.
Mr. Harrell stated the Department was aware of the many changes already completed from the Management Study.
The contract requires a corrective action plans at such time as a deficiency is noted in the quarterly statistics.
The contract contained language regarding approval by the Secretary of FEMC’s bonus plan. Ms. Flynn discussed with Mr. Harrell of FEMC’s opinion as to lack of authority to approve the Bonus Plan. The latest report on the contract indicates the Department having substituted the word approved with review by the Secretary and a statement of having met the performance standard.
The contract contained language referring FEMC’s 2004 procurement policy. Staff discussed with the Department an update to this procurement policy based on the current requirements of Chapter 287, F.S. The Department was okay with this as long as we have a procurement policy.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, the FBPE delegated authority to Mr. Rebane to sign the Contract based on the modifications reported in this meeting.
Mr. Dunn addressed the Board regarding the conflict in the Continuing Education Rule approving courses for two years. This rule is in conflict with the provider status application and expiration dates.
The Board discussed this matter and agreed to have the Rules Committee review the matter in their upcoming meeting. Mr. Benjamin outlined the process currently in place and explained the date is presently set for expiration on May 31. For instance, laws and rules and area of practice courses appear on the portal with an expiration date of May 31, 2009.
Mr. Geer suggested to keep it simple, and to have them expire on a biennium basis. It is confusing when courses have individual expiration dates.
Mr. Rebane believed the current requirement discourages people from investing in new course content. To go through the course approval, we have put in stringent requirements so it isn’t simply sending in a piece of paper to renew your laws and rules course or the same one that you gave.
Ms. Flynn confirmed receipt of Mr. Dunn’s email on this matter and having forwarded the matter to the Rules Committee for review and determination of rule amendments.
Mr. Rebane did not agree the matter should go to the Rules Committee. He suggested it should be reviewed for a change in the administration applicability of the expiration requirement.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, this issue was addressed to staff to decide if we need to go to rule making or that this matter may be resolved the administrative guidelines currently in place.
Ms. Flynn can administratively fix the issue. This should be completed prior to the September 11th meeting.
Quarterly Report*
Approved by the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Flynn advised of certain changes to the quarterly report documentation. The quarterly statistics will have support documentation to verify the numbers. Should the Contract Monitor call and want information on this report, we will immediately be able to answer the question. The Board requested copies of the quarterly reports and they be in a word document for easy access.
Update on Board Office security.
Mr. Vickers advised the Board of ADT finalizing the access entry to the office. Staff will receive badges and future entry into the secure area will require presentation of the badges. The downstairs basement wall has been built and a entry door installed. Mr. Vickers and one other staff member will have a key and use will be monitored.
Aegis will be installing the new server in the following week.
In discussion of the letter issued to Mr. Meister, Chair of the FES Ethical Practices Committee, Mr. Rebane confirmed several comments based on the content of the letter. Mr. Rebane asked Mr. Geer to discuss with the FES Board of Directors.
Mr. Burke recalled this letter addressing an engineering firm doing lift station plans. Mr. Burke believed it to be a business issue and he believed it appropriate for the engineer to sign the Standard Detail Sheets as part of the design package. When signing and sealing these documents, Engineer shall follow 61G15-27 PROCEDURES FOR THE ADOPTION OF ANOTHER|’S WORK and be competent in that discipline.
It was the consensus of the Board to revisit this issue per Mr. Tomasino’s and Mr. Geer’s comments. The Chair appointed a Task Force Committee to study the Standard Detail drawings furnished by clients. Mr. Burke will Chair the committee, Dr. Hyder and Mr. Tomasino would serve as members along with one or two members from FES/FICE. The Committee should report to this Board with the final determination within one year.
Mr. Rebane believed this issue could extend to software, inventions, patents and product approval.
Mr. Vickers gave an update on the audit and he confirmed having presented the unaudited financial statements to the Department. From the fiscal year of July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006 FEMC will return $44,000.00 in unexpended funds to the Department. Due to diligent efforts, staff was able to clear all the outstanding legal fees from this budget. We currently have $5.7 million in the trust fund. Mr. Vickers will provide suggestions on how to get this number down. We have cut the EI exam to $25. Changes will need to be in place in one year. Other states are putting their fines into general revenue.
Mr. Rebane would like Mr. Flury to research authority for fee reduction.
Chief Prosecutor’s Report
Non-Compliance Report
Mr. Creehan advised that with future stipulations, this list will become obsolete.
July Open Case Report
Mr. Creehan advised that since April 15, 2006 to the present we have cut these numbers by half. The 2004 cases on the list are either set for hearing or are stipulations that will appear on the October agenda.
Mr. Burke asked if legal was short on investigators? Mr. Creehan is in the process of reviewing staff and making changes in the next few weeks.
Final Order – The Pool People, Inc.
Mr. Creehan is pleased with the outcome on this case. We saved FEMC $50,000.00 in attorney’s fees.
Revised Legal Protocols from 7-19-07 discussion
Mr. Creehan met with Mr. Rebane and Mr. Rimes. Mr. Creehan reviewed the protocols at the last probable cause meeting to discuss. This is a condensed version of 1-4 and getting together within the first couple of weeks, finding whether legal sufficiency exists, picking an expert, notifying the subject, putting a cover letter on the consultant contract to say we need within 90 days. We have condensed three or four steps down to one, which makes a lot more sense, where in the first two weeks you should be able to answer all the pertinent questions. We are doing this in 90% of the 2007 cases.
Mr. Rebane briefed the Board on the purpose of this meeting. It was determined to establish the parameters of the Board Counsel vs. Prosecuting Attorney. Mr. Rimes is FEMC’s prosecuting attorney and based on his extensive background on the FBPE rules and statutes he could serve a valuable source in preparing responses to letters and assist in rule drafting. Any product produced will be coordinated with Board Counsel, Mr. Flury.
Mr. Tomasino inquired about qualified experts and if FEMC is paying the appropriate fee for services needed. The Board directed FEMC to research this matter and make a determination of change, if needed.
Chair's Report
Resignation letter from Mr. Rivera
Mr. Rebane advised that FES has established a few candidates as the public member.
FBPE Board Member Status Chart
Mr. Rebane developed the chart for FES to use in their consideration of candidates for board positions. Mr. Rebane suggested a similar chart for FEMC as this Board must nominate the engineering members to the committee.
Mr. Geer advised that FES has established an FES Nominating Committee and are meeting on a regular basis to track the vacant seats. They have recruited applicants for the vacant seats. FES’s lobbyist have spoken with the Governor’s office on the present vacancies and suggested applicants for the positions.
Report on July 18, 2007, meeting with Board counsel and Board staff
The agenda date should read July 19, 2007. This meeting was addressed earlier in the meeting.
Correspondence to the Board
No action required.
Article from Herbert Saffir, P.E.*Performance of Glass/Cladding of High Rise Buildings in Hurricane Katrina
This article from Mr. Saffir outlines his latest publication on “Performance of Glass/Cladding of High Rise Buildings in Hurricane Katrina”.
Email from Frank Rudd re: HR 2067 Good Samaritan Bill*
Mr. Rudd sent an email advising the Board that the bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee back in April. There are no present hearings scheduled on the bill.
For informational purposes only.
Board Opinion Required.
Ms. Flynn asked for an update from Mr. Flury on preparing responses to correspondence requesting interpretations of rules, etc. Mr. Flury stated there was not a specific policy and that it is up to the individual Board.
It was determined that staff would propose a response, share it with Mr. Flury, and place the draft on the agenda for Board confirmation.
Letter from Fredrick M. Hilpert, P.E., dated May 25, 2007, regarding Rule 61G15.
Mr. Hilpert asked the Board if a project has to have an Engineer of Record, can the Engineer of Record limit their responsibility; can there be a specialty engineer without an Engineer of Record.
Mr. Rimes had prepared a response to the questions and it is before the Board for approval.
Question 1: Is a project required to have an engineer of record?
Answer: The term “engineer of record” is a term connoting the degree of professional responsibility assumed by a PE. The term is only used in the Rules. The term is used when the Rules address the issue of who is considered to be in “responsible charge” for sealing and signing purposes (Rule 61G15-18.011(1). The term is defined in Rule 61G15-30.002(1) to be “[a] Florida professional engineer who is in responsible charge for the preparation, signing, dating, sealing and issuing of any engineering document(s) for any engineering service or creative work.”
As a result of the foregoing, an engineer who seals and signs engineering documents and must be in responsible charge of the production of the documents is by definition the “engineer of record” for those documents. Therefore, all engineering projects that result in sealed documents must by that fact alone have an engineer who is the “engineer of record” since as soon as the documents are sealed the engineer who does the sealing is the “engineer of record” for those documents. If no sealing and signing of documents occurs then the term “engineer of record” has no regulatory meaning and such a “project’ (if such a term can be used) would not have or need an “engineer of record.”
Question 2: If [you are] the only professional engineer on a project, can [you] limit your responsibilities?
Answer: From the regulatory perspective of the Board, a PE may not attempt to limit the scope of that PE’s professional responsibility in such a way to be out of compliance with the provisions of Chapter 471, the Board’s Rules or other applicable provisions of law or code. Subject to the foregoing, there is no statutory preclusion on such a PE placing a scope limitation on the PEs professional responsibility for services rendered to a client so long as any limits on the PE’s responsibility is fully disclosed to the client and placed on the final sealed documents produced for the client or filed for public record.
Question 3 (Part1): Can [you] be a system design engineer, such as a truss design engineer or an aluminum structure design engineer without an engineer of record?
Answer: The Board’s Rules only address the standards of responsibility of a “system design engineer” in the context of the Responsibility Rules (Rules 61G15-30 to 61G15-36 FAC). The Rule generally uses the term “delegated engineer” to connote those circumstances wherein a PE performs a discrete portion of services on a project on an independent basis but in furtherance of the directions of the “engineer of record” for the project or a portion thereof. Therefore, other than as provided in the Responsibility Rules, an engineer may limit the scope of the services provided to a client so long as those services are competently performed and otherwise comply with the regulatory standards applicable to all services provided by PEs and so long as any limitations on the scope of the PE’s responsibility are fully disclosed to the client and are placed on the final sealed documents produced for the client or filed for public record.
Question 3 (Part 2): Can [you] be a system design engineer for a system not specified by [Chapter] 61G15?
Answer: The Board’s Rules do not address the term “system design engineer” other than in the Responsibility Rules and thus the Board cannot opine on this issue.
Mr. Rebane believed Mr. Rimes had provided a clear and concise response.
Email from Phil Kelly, P.E. re: signing and sealing
Mr. Kelly submitted a question to the Board on information contained in the title block of plans. Mr. Kelly asked on documents that are required to be signed and sealed, does the engineer’s printed name and license number need to be on the document? The question pertains to the specifics of “Does the name need to be printed, or, does the seal that is affixed (with the name and license number on it) satisfy the requirement for legibility? The Board has interpreted the rule as when an engineer signs and dates a document, and affixes his seal to the document (and the seal has his name and license number), that this complies with the Florida Administrative Code.
The question is whether an engineer can comply with Rule 61G15-23.002(2), F.A.C. by simply utilizing the name and P. E. number contained on the seal with no additional reference to include the printed name and number in a title block (remembering that the PE’s address must also be legibly placed on every page of the document in any event).
The Rule states in relevant part: Engineers shall legibly indicate their name, address, and number on each sheet. If practicing through a duly authorized engineering business, engineers shall legibly indicate their name and license number, as well as, the name, address, and certificate of authorization number of the engineering business on each sheet. A title block on each sheet containing the printed name, address, and license number of the engineer or if applicable, the name and license number of the engineer, and the name, address and certificate of authorization number of the engineering business will satisfy this requirement.
The Rule does not require the use of a title bock with the printed name and number but does note that using this format will satisfy the provisions of the Rule that the information is legibly imparted to the user. Therefore other formats imparting the same information could be used so long as the mandated information is present on the documents and is legible. Thus, a seal would meet the requirements if the engineer’s name and number were legible. The problem, of course, is that the information on the embossed seal may not always legible on each page of the design. If the required information is not legible then the P. E. has violated the Rules and is subject to discipline by the Board and rejection of plans by the permitting agency as not complying with the Board’s rules.
The Board agreed with the answers provided by Mr. Rimes and staff will advise Mr. Kelly.
Letter from Hector Medina
Ms. Flynn confirmed her ability to respond to the letter. She had included the letter on the agenda in response to Mr. Medina’s request. The Board concurs with Ms. Flynn regarding lack of authority to waive the continuing education requirement for health disabilities. The Board suggested Ms. Flynn provide several options when drafting the letter with a recommendation of applying for Retired Status. Staff will attach a copy of the article on retired status.
Update on the Executive Director Job Search
Mr. Jeffery gave an update on the interviewing process of the new President/Executive Director position. The Committee has reviewed the resumes received. On August 30th the Committee will report to both Boards to discuss the final decision. Interviews will begin in the next few weeks. This meeting does not have to be noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The final selection of the President/Executive Director will be approved by both boards.
Business
New Business
Public Forum
The Chair recessed the meeting at 2:15 pm to allow application review and confirmed the reconvening for 8:30 a.m. August 2, 2007.
THURSDAY, August 2, 2007
Mr. Rebane called the meeting to order and advised all in attendance to turn off their cell phones. He gave a brief outline on the proposed changes sought by NCEES to require a BS degree plus thirty hours. This plan, if successful, will become effective in 2015. Legislative changes would be required to place this in Chapter 471, Florida Statutes.
Endorsement/Continuing Education Committee
(Chair - Vacant; David Charland, P.E.; Henn Rebane, P.E.; John Burke, P.E., Al Rose, P.E.)
Mr. Rebane advised the audience of the Board’s responsibility to review all application files. Presently if holding an NCEES record and EAC/ABET degree the process of licensure can be completed within seven days. Standard applications take from 3 to 4 months to move through the process.
Mr. Burke reported on seven applications that were reviewed and recommended for approval to sit for the October 2007 examination.
Upon a motion by Mr. Charland seconded by Mr. Burke, the actions of the application committee were ratified.
Rules Report
Currently there are three rules. One is regarding educational requirements that are being developed and are not ABET accredited. A form is being created for this. The Educational Review Committee will assist with this form.
Mr. Flury reported on the Board’s action to withdraw the aluminum responsibility rule.
Rule Number
Title
Develop. Published
Notice Published
Adopted
Effective
61G15-20.006
Educational Requirements
9-23-05
7-28-06
(JAPC hold ltr 11-28-06) (to go to Sept. Education review committee)
61G15-21.007
Re-examination
7-21-06
8-11-06
(JAPC hold ltr 9-28-06)
61G15-31.010
Aluminum Structures
12-22-06
1-19-07
(On hold due to Rule Challenge)
Part II
Informal Hearing Agenda
Begin hearings after Report on Educational Requirements by Chair of Educational Advisory Committee (Christian Bauer, Ph.D., P.E., Chair)
Mr. Burke gave background on the Educational Requirements. The full board is part of the Application Committee. The Committee meets every other month in Tallahassee. It is an all day process and the Board members review FE, PE, Endorsement, Special Inspector and Continuing Education provider applications. Two board members review and sign on each application along with Board Counsel should it be a denied application. Two Friday’s after that, the applications are ratified. If the applicant holds a non EAC/ABET degree or foreign degree, they must meet substantial equivalency to Rule 61G15-20.007, FAC. Mr. Burke confirmed that technology degrees do not meet requirements of Section 471.013, F.S. unless the applicant was enrolled or a graduate prior to July 1, 1979.
Consideration of Petition for Formal Hearing
None.
Informal Hearings on Denial of Application for Fundamentals Examination
Sergio Barrera
Mr. Barrera was present and sworn in prior to addressing the Board. Mr. Barrera applied for the Fundamentals examination and his application was denied based on failing the examination five times. The applicant has not complied with Rule 61G15-21.007, F.A.C. regarding the twelve hours of engineering courses. Mr. Barrera submitted his MS transcript to clear the hours. Review indicates completion of the MS degree prior to the last examination attempt.
The informal hearing was scheduled for the August Board meeting in accordance with the Election of Rights.
Mr. Barrera advised the Board that he has been away from the Engineering profession and working for a general contractor. He has taken the exam several times and failed due to a workload that is very heavy working sixty to seventy hours, he finds it hard to study for the exam. He also advised the Board that he does not do well on tests.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, the Board upheld the denial.
Saurabm Srivastava
Mr. Srivastava was not present. Mr. Srivastava applied for the Fundamentals examination in April of 2006 and was denied based on educational deficiencies. Mr. Srivastava holds a Bachelor’s Degree from India. The transcript evaluation proved deficiencies of 11.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences and 14 hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. The Board awarded one course in Mathematics and Basic Sciences. This resulted in the 11.5 semester credit hours reduced to 8.5 credit hours. In response to the denial, Mr. Srivastava submitted an Election of Rights to supplement. The supplemental information was a MS transcript from the University of Florida. The Board reviewed the MS degree and determined the Mathematics and Basic Sciences were satisfied. With this action, the Board granted Conditional Approval pursuant to Rule 61G15-20.007, F.A.C. In responses to the Conditional Approval, Mr. Srivastava submitted an Election of Rights form to supplement and to have an Informal Hearing. There is no supplement and his application remains as a Conditional Approval. In accordance with the Applicant’s Election of Rights, staff scheduled the Informal Hearing for the August Board meeting.
Upon a motion by Mr. Charland seconded by Mr. Burke, the Board voted to uphold the conditional approval.
The Board clarified that conditional approval means that Mr. Srivastava can take the exam, but he will not be certified until he has completed all his educational requirements.
Jose Matos
Mr. Matos was not present. Mr. Matos’s application was denied based on educational deficiencies. Based on Mr. Matos 2006 application, his degree was a mechanical technology degree from Florida International University awarded in 1983. Pursuant to Section 471.013(1)(a)2, F.S., you must be a graduate of an approved engineering technology curriculum of 4 years or more in a school, college, or university within the state university system, having been enrolled or graduated prior to July 1, 1979.
Mr. Matos is requesting the Board consider his previous approval for the examination as basis for present approval. In accordance with the Applicant’s Election of Rights form, the hearing has been scheduled for the August Board meeting.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, the Board upheld the denial.
David Wojtasezek
Mr. Wojtasezek was present and sworn in prior to addressing the Board.
Mr. Wojtasezek was denied based on educational deficiencies. Mr. Wojtasezek holds a degree in Electrical Engineering Technology from Pointe Park University, Pittsburg, PA, awarded in 1995. Pursuant to Section 471.013(1)(a)2, F.S., you must be a graduate of an approved engineering technology curriculum of 4 years or more in a school, college, or university within the state university system, having been enrolled or graduated prior to July 1, 1979.
In accordance with the Applicant’s Election of Rights form, the hearing has been scheduled for the August Board meeting.
Mr. Wojtasezek addressed the Board and hoped that his engineering experience would suffice. By state law the Board is not able to overrule experience toward education. The experience he has will serve him well if he enrolls in a Masters program. The Board advised Mr. Wojtasezek there are Master programs that are available online. If he gets a Masters degree, with the necessary courses, that will correct the education deficiency.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, the Board upheld the denial.
Matthew Engelbert
Mr. Engelbert was not present. Mr. Engelbert was approved for the October 2006 Fundamentals examination. Mr. Engelbert passed the examination and subsequently inquired about the status of his EI certification. Staff determined the application was approved in error and Mr. Engelbert did not satisfy requirements of Section 471.013 (1) (b), F.S.
A person shall be entitled to take the fundamentals examination for the purpose of determining whether she or he is qualified to practice in this state as an engineer intern if she or he is in the final year of, or is a graduate of, an approved engineering curriculum in a school, college, or university approved by the Board.
A denial letter was issued and Mr. Engelbert subsequently submitted an Election of Rights to an Informal Hearing. Mr. Engelbert holds a BS Degree in Engineering Technology. When reviewed staff determined he did not qualify and submitted the application to the Board for denial. When scheduling the approved applicants, staff did not notice the error. Mr. Engelbert requests the Board issue the EI certification with the understanding and requirement that he must complete an EAC/ABET accredited engineering degree before becoming eligible for the Principles and Practice examination. The Informal Hearing is before the board on the August Board agenda.
The Board clarified that Mr. Engelbert did pass and will not affect that in the future.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, the Board upheld the denial.
Informal Hearings on Denial of Application for Principals and Practice Examination
None.
Informal Hearings on Denial of Application for Licensure by Endorsement
Yehia Zakaria Kabbani
Mr. Kabbani was present and sworn in prior to addressing the Board.
Mr. Kabbani was licensed in Michigan in 2006. Mr. Kabbani holds a BS in Civil Engineering from Beirut, Lebanon (1983) and an MS Degree in Civil Engineering from Montreal, Canada (1995). Mr. Kabbani passed the Fundamentals examination in Michigan in 2005. Mr. Kabbani passed the Principles and Practice examination in Michigan in 2006. Mr. Kabbani evidenced four years of engineering experience.
Mr. Kabbani’s application is denied for educational deficiencies. Mr. Kabbani holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from Lebanon and a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering from Canada. The transcript evaluation was reviewed by the Education Advisory Committee to determine equivalency to requirements of Rule 61G15-20.007, Florida Administrative Code. It was determined that Mr. Kabbani was deficient 11.4 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences.
In accordance with the Election of Rights the Informal Hearing has been scheduled for the August Board meeting. In requesting the Informal Hearing, Mr. Kabbani is requesting the board’s consideration to hold his file open until such time as he has completed the additional hours. Mr. Kabbani is presently enrolled in USF and will complete courses in December of 2007.
Mr. Kabbani advised that he will be done with the additional courses in November.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, the application will be continued to the December 2007 Board meeting.
Wen-Hsen Huang
Mr. Huang was not present. Mr. Huang was licensed in Virginia in 1999.
Mr. Huang holds a Bachelor and MS of Science from Taiwan. Mr. Huang holds a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. Mr. Huang passed the Fundamentals examination in Virginia in 1997. Mr. Huang passed the Principles and Practice examination in Virginia in 1998. Mr. Huang has provided evidence of four years of engineering experience.
Mr. Huang’s application is denied for educational deficiencies. Mr. Huang holds a Bachelor of Science Degree from Taiwan. Pursuant to Rule 61G15-20.007, F.A.C., he was required to submit a course by course evaluation of his degree. Mr. Huang failed to submit the mandatory education evaluation and his application was denied. Mr. Huang is asking for the review to be waived in the same manner as the law allows waiving of the Fundamentals examination based on his Ph.D.
Mr. Huang submitted an Election of Rights to have an Informal Hearing. In accordance with the Election of Rights the Informal Hearing has been scheduled for the August Board meeting.
Uphold a motion by Mr. Charland seconded by Mr. Burke, the Board upheld the denial.
Michael Pietrzyk
Mr. Pietrzyk was present and was sworn in prior to addressing the Board.
Mr. Pietrzyk holds licensure in Texas. Mr. Pietrzyk holds a BS Degree from Virginia Tech and an MS Degree from Penn State. Mr. Pietrzyk passed the Fundamentals examination in Texas in 1980. Texas waived the requirement for the Principles and Practice examination. Mr. Pietrzyk evidenced four years of engineering experience.
His experience record indicates operation of a business under name of Transportation Solutions, Inc., from 2002 through July 18, 2007. The company filed for a CA issued on July 18, 2007. The Board denied Mr. Pietrzyk’s application for possible unlicensed activity and directed the matter to Legal for investigation.
Mr. Pietrzyk submitted his Election of Rights to an Informal Hearing. He also submitted a letter supplementing his application. Staff presented the file to the application Committee to determine if the information would reverse the denial. If approved, the applicant would not require an Informal Hearing. The Committee upheld the denial.
To correct a possible oversight as to proper procedure, given the applicant did not specifically request to supplement and go directly to a hearing, staff determined to add this case as part of the August agenda.
Upon a motion by Mr. Charland seconded by Mr. Burke, the Board decided not to discuss the case publically and to hold any final decisions until the complaint has been resolved.
Part III
Disciplinary Hearings
Description of Disciplinary Process by Chairman of the Probable Cause Panel, Henn Rebane, P.E.
Recommended Orders
Fresnel E. Hernandez and G. F. Consulting Engineers, Inc.
PE 46618
FEMC Case Number 2005039758
DOAH Case Number 07-0377
Represented by Samuel B. Reiner, II, Esquire
Probable Cause Panel: Burke, Matthews, Seckinger
Mr. Hernandez was not present for hearing.
This case was predicated on a complaint filed by a building official of Coral Gables, alleging that the Subject submitted deficient plans and calculations for a project known as Moon Thai Restaurant Remodeling.
The project revised the exterior of an existing building without changing its interior area.
The FEMC consultant, James E. Trowbridge, P.E., did not agree with all the criticisms from the building department, but found that the Subject’s plans were negligently prepared. Based on this conclusion, Probable Cause was found on March 16, 2006 and an AC was issued. A trial at DOAH was held on March 29, 2007.
At DOAH Mr. Trowbridge refined his concerns to one issue: that the new footing extensions were incorrectly designed. However, Respondent testified that in his design he addressed the design concerns by designing 8' x 8' concrete dead weight anchors that were to be attached to the existing footings on the building. The dead weight anchors were designed to prevent the building from overturning by adding additional weight to the building to counteract the overturning effect. His intent in the structural plans and calculations was not to redesign the footings of the building.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent’s design of the dead weight anchors was appropriate to address the concern of the Coral Gables Building Department plans examiners regarding the lateral stability of the building and the possibility of overturning, even though he disagreed with the plan examiner's concern, and that he used due care and had due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles in formulating the design. The Administrative Law Judge found that FEMC’s consultant made incorrect assumptions about Respondent’s design intent in coming to his conclusion.
The Administrative Law Judge recommended DISMISSAL.
Upon a motion by Mr. Charland seconded by Mr. Tomasino, the Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s Findings of Fact.
Upon a motion by Mr. Charland seconded by Mr. Tomasino, the Board dismissed the case.
Settlement Stipulations
Samuel A. Greenberg, P.E.
PE 34245
FEMC Case Number 2005036176
Represented by Hazel I. Gutierrez, Esquire
Probable Cause Panel: Matthews, Hogenkamp, Seckinger
Mr. Greenberg was present for hearing. Mr. Greenberg was represented by counsel, Hazel I. Gutierrez.
This investigation is predicated on the receipt of a complaint from Timothy Moore, Building Official for Pasco County, New Port Richey, alleging that the Respondent sent unlicensed individuals as duly authorized representatives to perform required “provider provider” inspections.
The Respondent is the Registered Agent and the Professional Engineer acting as managing member for Dansco Engineering, LLC. Dansco Engineering, LLC is a licensed engineering business in the State of Florida, having been issued Certificate of Authorization number 25948. Dansco Engineering, LLC was hired to provide engineering services as a “private provider” under the provisions of Section 553.791, Florida Statutes, during the period of May 27, 2004 through March 4, 2005 for IH Suncoast Homes, Inc., for a Hunting Creek project. The inspections required by that statute were performed by Andrei Ristea, Residential Building Inspector #5241165-B1; Daniel Domingdez, Residential Building Inspector #5210255-B1; Daniel Greenberg, Residential Building Inspector #5232923-B1; and Debbie L. Board, Provisional Building Inspector PB 1929 acting as representatives of Dansco Engineering, LLC. None of these persons were PEs, Architects, or certified building inspectors, although they all seemed to have advanced training in inspections and would probably have met the requirements for being representative of a special inspector under Rule 61G15-35.004. However, Section 553.791, Florida Statutes, requires that a “private provider” or a “duly authorized representative” acting on behalf of the “private provider.” must perform inspections under that statute. And that both a “private provider” and a ‘duly authorized representative” must be licensed as an engineer, architect or certified building inspector under Chapters 468, 471 or 481. Thus the violation. There was no evidence of bad inspections or falsification of certifications but the job was stopped by the building official and the Respondent was replaced, costing the client time and money.
PCP Recommendation Reprimand; $20,000.00 administrative fine (four counts at $5,000.00 per count); costs of $180.00; suspension of Certificate of Authorization for one year; and appearance before the Board to explain his understanding of laws as it pertains to using duly authorized representatives.
Mr. Greenberg entered into a Settlement Stipulation with FEMC for an $8000.00 Fine, Costs $180.00, Appearance, Reprimand, Probation (minimum of 1year, Board-approved course in Engineering Professionalism and Ethics, Study Guide, review of specific projects done as private provider & special inspector. If report acceptable, probation removed if not then BOPE itself, in its discretion, can order at the meeting when the probation report is filed that the probation will be extended or modified or, if the Board wishes, it can refer the matter to PCP. Mr. Rimes believes that modifying the PCP even though the PE has a prior history of probation from the late 1990s in design matters this case does not relate to design issues but rather to compliance with statutory inspection requirements. He looked at the possible confusion over the “threshold inspector’ statute (553.79) and the “private provider” statute and concluded that Respondent’s actions, while sanctionable, did not warrant the suspension or the fine level proposed by the PCP and that probation with strong Board control addressing this issue would be more appropriate.
Mr. Greenberg was sworn in prior to addressing the Board.
Mr. Greenberg states that his confusion was that they were duly authorized to act as a threshold agent, duly authorized being that they were licensed by the ICC, but he didn’t understand that they also had to have a Professional Engineer license under Florida Law.
Mr. Rebane asked Mr. Greenberg to explain what Dansco does in the engineering field.
Dansco, LLC does residential inspections, and reports to the building officials. They have 37 employees. Residential analysis has two employees.
Mr. Rebane asked Mr. Greenberg to explain his view of the duties of a special inspector and how he conducts his business.
Mr. Greenberg explained that he meets with general contractors and architects, and they are set up based on an inspection plan. Reports are forwarded to building officials until the project is complete. Mr. Greenberg also stated that he had some employees that held a spectrum of specialty tickets and others that just hold some.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, the Settlement Stipulation was accepted.
Alberto J. Sanchez, P.E.
PE 21368
FEMC Case Number 2005009371
Represented by Michelle M. Krone
Probable Cause Panel: Matthews, Seckinger
Mr. Sanchez was present at hearing and represented by counsel, Michelle M. Krone.
The complainant, a PE, was discharged by the client, allegedly for not complying with the client’s design wishes. The client, which was the Pinellas County School Board, subsequently hired Alberto Sanchez, PE, who designed a ventilation system that met the client’s budget but is in violation of code.
In his expert report, FBPE Consultant Homer Ooten, PE, opined that the HVAC design contained in sheets ME 01, ME 4.1 and ME 9.1 for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and ductwork renovations for a Multi-Purpose Room, which was a portion of the Coachman School Project, reflect the fact that the ventilation system at the school was under designed. Respondent’s renovation design plans for the Multi-Purpose Room’s HVAC system specified a 25-ton Roof Top HVAC Unit providing 10,000 Cubic Feet/Minute (CFM) of air and 900 CFM of outside air. The presumed occupancy of the Multi-Purpose Room at a standard rate is 600 persons (9000 Square Feet Area of Multi-Purpose Room/15 Square Feet per Person). Assuming that the occupancy of the Multi-Purpose Room would be intermittent (an assumption that is most beneficial to the HVAC design decision of Respondent), the lowest ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers) acceptable rate of Outside Air for the Multi-Purpose Room is 7.5 CFM per person. In order to meet this standard, the HVAC unit specified by Respondent’s HVAC design would have to input Outside Air at a rate of 4500 CFM of (9000 Square Feet Area of Multi-Purpose Room/15 Square Feet per Person/7.5 CFM per person) into the Multi-Purpose Room. The HVAC unit specified by Respondent’s HVAC design, however, produces Outside Air at a rate of 900 CFM for the room as a whole and thus produces Outside Air at a rate of 1.5 CFM per person utilizing the Multi-Purpose Room. Thus, because of Respondent’s design decision, the HVAC system supplies Outside Air to the Multi-Purpose Room users, normally the Coachman School children and teaching staff, at 20% of the rate required by building code and ASHRAE standards.
The school renovations were completed in 2002 and the HVAC system was constructed in compliance with Subject’s design. It remains in operation is currently using the same HVAC system. The AC charged that the failure of Respondent’s HVAC design to adequately provide for the proper rate of Outside Air circulation was a serious engineering deficiency and that in a hot and humid state such as Florida where HVAC systems are extensively utilized, such a deficiency could substantially add to the likelihood that the transmission of airborne diseases among the Multi-Purpose Room’s users would increase.
On May 17, 2007, the PCP authorized the issuance of an Administrative Complaint. Respondent through counsel sought to resolve this matter by entering into a settlement stipulation which was signed on July, 2007.
Probable Cause Recommendation: Reprimand; $1,000.00 administrative fine ($1,000.00 per count for (1) count); costs of $1,871.00; Suspension of licensure, stayed if fine/costs paid within 30 days of Final Order date; Board approved course in Engineering Professionalism and Ethics; and study guide.
Mr. Sanchez entered into a Settlement Stipulation with FEMC for costs ($1871.00)-appearance & discussion of practice, Reprimand, Course in Professionalism & Ethics & Study Guide.
Mr. Sanchez was sworn in prior to addressing the Board
Mr. Rebane asked Mr. Sanchez to address the Board and explain how he will prevent the same problems from reoccurring, and to explain his mitigating circumstances.
Mr. Sanchez was retained by the School Board to investigate design solutions for ventilation issues. He replaced some of the existing work, and provided the Board with plans for taking care of the health related issues, replacing duct work, additional ventilation, a new AC, etc. Mr. Sanchez stated that ventilation was a secondary issue and not required to be up to code and the budget could not afford changes.
Mr. Burke said that Mr. Sanchez had made a bad business decision when he attempted to follow the money which brings lots of errors in decision making. Engineers are professionals and sometimes we have to walk away from a project. Some clients are not worth having. Money cannot drive your decisions and scope of work, in the future not let these types of projects drive you, get the scope defined and do the right thing.
Mr. Tomasino asked Mr. Sanchez whether he advised his client about the capacity of the building.
Mr. Sanchez said that those issues were discussed and they were fully aware of the situation. The room was not going to be used much and would mostly be unoccupied.
Mr. Tomasino commented that this would be a good learning experience for Mr. Sanchez.
Mr. Sanchez discussed his experience with ventilation equipment and his understanding as to when special equipment is required.
Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland the Settlement Stipulation was accepted.
Adalberto M. Pascual, P.E.
PE 46747
FEMC Case Number 2007018522
Represented by Timothy R. Qualls, Esquire
Probable Cause Panel: Matthews Seckinger
Mr. Pascual was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Timothy R. Qualls.
On October 5, 2004, the Board of Professional Engineers issued a Final Order in Case Number 03-0130, that required Respondent, ADALBERTO M. PASCUAL, to submit a list of projects completed by him at six (6) and eighteen (18) months from the date of the filing of the Final Order for a Board Consultant to review. Respondent’s North Miami Station (2005) and Hammondville Station (2005) projects (the Projects) were selected for the initial project review. Respondent sealed, signed and dated all plans for all disciplines represented on the plans for the Projects. Due to the length of time for submission of the documents and the time to complete, the review Subject’s probation ended on October 6, 2006. No tolling was provided for in the Final Order. This delay occurred because of the fact that several engineering disciplines were involved, which occasioned the need to seek a reviewer (Pistorino & Alam) that had the capacity to review all disciplines.
Petitioner’s engineering consultants, Pistorino & Alam, Consulting Engineers, Inc., through various professional engineers in the employ of that firm, reviewed the plans for the Projects and submitted a summary report dated May 15, 2006, with accompanying comments on each of the engineering disciplines for which Respondent sealed, signed and dated plans for the Projects. There were significant departures from accepted engineering principles and lack of due care in the pages of the plans addressing the Electrical, Structural, Mechanical, Architectural, and Civil aspects of the Projects. Moreover, the portions of the plans addressing the Electrical, Structural, Mechanical, Architectural, and Civil aspects of the Projects did not comply with applicable building code requirements. The departures from accepted engineering principles, lack of due care, and failures to comply with applicable building codes were set out in full in the Pistorino & Alam comments to the May 15, 2006 summary report.
On July 20, 2006, the Respondent filed a response to the comments contained in the May 15, 2006 summary report and comments. On February 16, 2007, Petitioner’s engineering consultants, Pistorino & Alam, Consulting Engineers, Inc., through various professional engineers in the employ of that firm, submitted a final report to Petitioner. This report was compiled after the consultants’ reviewed the plans for the Projects in light of the information contained in the July 20, 2006 response from Petitioner. The consultants maintained their conclusions that the plans for the Projects contained significant departures from accepted engineering principles and were not in compliance with building code requirements as to the Electrical, Structural, Mechanical, Architectural and Civil disciplines and the plans related thereto.
On May 17, 2007 the PCP found probable cause and an eight-count AC was issued. The Respondent, through counsel, immediately sought to resolve the case on essentially the same terms as those approved by the PCP. On July, 16, 2007 a stipulation was signed and received.
Mr. Pascual has entered into a Stipulation with FEMC for a reprimand; a $4,000.00 administrative fine; and no costs, since none were incurred insofar as Respondent had already paid for the review during the completed probationary term; Suspension of licensure, stayed if fine paid within 30 days of Final Order date; permanent restriction of practicing electrical and structural; Subject will be placed on two years probation with plan review at six and 18 months; and appearance before the Board to explain--with his previously self-imposed restrictions--what has he done to improve his mechanical and civil engineering skills; and who will he assign the electrical and structural tasks to.
PCP Recommendation: Reprimand; $8,000.00 administrative fine ($1,000.00 per count for eight counts; litigation costs (if incurred); Suspension of licensure, stayed if fine paid within 30 days of Final Order date; permanent restriction of practicing electrical and structural; Subject will be placed on two years probation with plan review at six and 18 months; and appearance before the Board to explain--with his previously self-imposed restrictions--what has he done to improve his mechanical and civil engineering skills; and who will he assign the electrical and structural tasks to.
Mr. Pascual entered into a Settlement Stipulation with FEMC for a reprimand; a $4,000.00 administrative fine; no costs, since none were incurred insofar as Respondent had already paid for the review during the completed probationary term; Suspension of licensure, stayed if fine paid within 30 days of Final Order date; permanent restriction of practicing electrical and structural. Subject will be placed on two years probation with plan review at six and 18 months; and appearance before the Board to explain--with his previously self-imposed restrictions--what has he done to improve his mechanical and civil engineering skills; and who he will assign the electrical and structural tasks to.
Mr. Pascual was sworn in prior to addressing the Board.
After an extensive question and answer session with Mr. Pascual, the Board was dissatisfied with his responses.
Upon a motion by Mr. Rebane seconded by Mr. Charland, the Stipulation was rejected.
Upon a motion by Mr. Rebane seconded by Mr. Charland, a Counter Stipulation was offered for an $8,000 fine and Mr. Pascual being restricted from performing electrical, structural, HVAC and plumbing engineering work.
Defaults
Kenneth Yurkovich, P.E.
PE 57004
FEMC Case Number 2007013396
Mr. Yurkovich was not present at the hearing.
Mr. Yurkovich has been charged by an Administrative Complaint of one charge of practicing engineering on a suspended license. Yurkovich signed a settlement stipulation on October 9, 2006, to resolve a charge of failing to abide by a prior stipulation. The October 9, 2006, stipulation called for Yurkovich’s license to be suspended for a period of six months. This stipulation was presented at the FBPE meeting in December 2006, and was approved by the Board at that time. Yurkovich was present at that Board meeting and was witness to its acceptance.
On December 14, 2006, the Final Order was filed and as such Yurkovich’s license was officially suspended at that time. On December 19, 2006, the Respondent was served the Final Order via certified mail at his address of record. On January 2, 2007, Yurkovich signed and sealed a project in Port Charlotte, Florida.
The one count Administrative Complaint charging Yurkovich with operating under a suspended license was served on him on June 4, 2007. Yurkovich did not respond within the 21 days after service was affected and as such has waived his right to a formal hearing.
Upon advice by Board counsel, Mr. Flury, this matter was rescheduled for the October Board meeting.
