Draft Agenda

Document Sample
Draft Agenda Powered By Docstoc
					                                 Minutes of
                 The Florida Board of Professional Engineers
                            December 5 & 6, 2007
                       8:30 a.m., Tallahassee, Florida
                                   Part I

A.   Meeting Administration

     #1.   Call to Order, Invocation, and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

           FBPE Members Present:

           Henn Rebane, P.E.
           John Burke, P.E.
           Paul Tomasino, P.E.
           Christian Bauer, Ph.D., P.E.
           David Charland, P.E.
           Zafar Hyder, Ph.D., P.E.

           FBPE Staff:

           Carrie Flynn, Executive Director
           Patrick Creehan, Prosecuting Attorney
           Leigh Ann Dollar, Executive Assistant

           Michael Flury, Esquire, Board Counsel

     #2.   Roll Call, Determination of Quorum, and Address Absences.

     #3.   Introduction of guests and announcements as to presentations at a time
           certain.

           Dennis Barton, ASCE
           Bill Palm, Former FBPE Member, President Engineering Educators
           Frank Rudd, Executive Director, FES
           Charlie Geer, FES/FICE Liaison
           Roger Jeffery, P.E., FEMC Chair

           10:00 am – G.W. Harrell, DBPR, Contract Monitor, to discuss the fee
           holiday on renewal

           Ms. Flynn announced the time certain for an appearance by G. W. Harrell,
           Esquire, Contract Monitor and Tim Vaccaro, Director, Division of
           Professions, Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Ms.
           Flynn requested the appearance, to allow dialogue with the Department,
           regarding the proposed fee holiday plan.
Prior to his resignation, Mr. Vickers had confirmed sound financial
standing should the Board agree with the Department’s proposal.

Mr. Rebane expressed an idea of waiving application fee for the
Fundamentals applicants. This might encourage sitting for the
examination prior to graduation.

Mr. Tomasino asked for additional information on which to base a
decision regarding any type of reduction in fees.

Ms. Flynn advised the Board of plans for hiring a new Comptroller. Upon
hire, the first priorities will be completion of proposed budget, based on
possible reductions for several categories listed in the fee rule.

Further discussion was tabled until Mr. Harrell and Mr. Vaccaro could be
present.

Mr. Vaccaro announced the Department’s ongoing review of trust funds
which exceeds the balance required to cover operating expenses for a
biennium. The Department has identified five Boards with excessive trust
fund accounts. Review of the last projection confirms the engineering
trust fund will exceed $5,000,000.00. The proposed fee holiday does not
affect the $5.00 unlicensed activity fee, nor does it apply to licensees in
delinquent status.

Mr. Rebane asked about putting fines into the general revenue account.
Mr. Vaccaro advised Ms. Flynn had contacted him regarding the matter.
It was determined legislative changes would be required for deposit of
fines directly to the general revenue account.

Mr. Tomasino asked what measures are followed once the reduction
occurs and if here exists a need to increase operating funds. Mr. Vaccaro
confirmed the ability to make a special assessment should the need for
additional funds arise.

The Department is planning a press release at the beginning of 2008. The
rule should be implemented by the end of 2007.

Mr. Flury advised the Board of the Department’s authority to enact the fee
holiday without the Board’s approval pursuant to Chapter 455, F.S. The
Board would not be required to amend the fee rule as it would be
authorized under the Department’s rule.

Mr. Vaccaro affirmed Mr. Flury’s comments. However, the Department
would like to have consensus of all five boards regarding the proposed fee
holiday.



                          2 of 29
           Upon a motion by Dr. Bauer seconded by Mr. Charland, the Board
           approved the fee holiday for one renewal cycle.

     #4.   Approval of the Agenda

           Ms. Flynn included the following items to the agenda:

           D#4 - Letter from Alarm Association of Florida
           E#9 - Letter from NCEES regarding examination irregularity
           E#10 - Need for rewriting the letter to Peter Brett
           L#1 - E-mail from Muhammad Aslam
           M#1 - Letters of supplement to the Informal Hearing for Ms. Ignamara
           Petrowicz
           N#3 - Eli Tilen – Mr. Tomasino asked that staff prepare an experience
           chart to be referenced in Mr. Tilen’s Informal Hearing.

           Upon a motion by Dr. Bauer seconded by Mr. Charland, the agenda was
           approved as amended.

     #5.   Approval of the Consent Agenda
           (Items denoted with an asterisk are included in the Consent
           Agenda*)

           Mr. Rebane requested to pull the minutes of the October Board meeting,
           Item 6a.

     #6.   Review and Approval of previous Board meeting minutes

           a.     Minutes from the October 17 & 18, 2007 Board Meeting

                  Staff was directed to make changes to the October minutes.

                  Upon a motion by Dr. Bauer seconded by Mr. Charland, the
                  minutes were approved with noted corrections.

           b.     Minutes from the November 30, 2007 Conference Call*

                  Approved under the Consent Agenda.

B.   Committee Reports

     #1.   Applications Committee (Next meeting 1-16-08)
           (John Burke, P.E., Chair; David Charland, P.E.; Henn Rebane, P.E.; Zafar
           Hyder, Ph.D., P.E.) (Alternates: Christian Bauer, Ph.D., P.E.; Paul
           Tomasino, P.E.)




                                     3 of 29
      Ms. Flynn advised the January meeting will have a large number of
      application files. Dr. Bauer noted he will not be attending. Ms. Flynn will
      ask Mr. Matthews to be a Consultant at this meeting.

#2.   Educational Advisory Committee (Next meeting 1-16-08)
      (Christian Bauer, Ph.D., P.E., Chair; Melvin Anderson, Ph.D., P.E.
      (Consultant), R. Gerry Miller, Ph.D., P.E. (Consultant)

      Mr. Rebane appointed Dr. Hyder to Chair the Educational Advisory
      Committee in the absence of Dr. Bauer. Ms. Flynn will contact Dr. Miller
      and Dr. Anderson to confirm attendance.

#3.   Probable Cause Panel (Next meeting 1-17-08)
      (Henn Rebane, P.E., Chair; Allen Seckinger, P.E., Consultant) (Alternate:
      John Burke, P.E.)

      a.     PCP Memo from November 15, 2007 Meeting

             In discussion of Mr. Burke assuming Chair of the Board, Mr.
             Rebane agreed to Chair the January Probable Cause Panel.

             Mr. Rebane asked Mr. Creehan, about the low number of cases for
             tomorrow’s meeting. Mr. Rimes explained that 2/3 of the open
             cases will be closed at the Probable Cause Panel level. These
             cases would never be presented to the Board.

             Mr. Creehan explained that 30 of our cases are with consultants
             right now. The majority of these cases are from the Tampa
             location that no longer exists. In reviewing the files it was noted
             that very little investigation had occurred. With this cleanup the
             number of open cases will again drop. Mr. Creehan advised that
             legal currently has 150 cases, 75 cases that are older than one year.
             Mr. Creehan advised that he is working with his staff on getting
             the cases moved through the system.

             Mr. Creehan and Mr. Rimes gave an update on their investigative
             staff. Mr. Creehan advised the law clerk is assisting the
             investigators with clerical and administrative work. Mr. Rimes
             suggested a “failure to communicate” with investigators previously
             existed.

             Both Mr. Creehan and Mr. Rimes are communicating daily with
             their staff.

             Mr. Rimes advised once the investigators are given direction, they
             focus on the important issues and are advised if an Administrative
             Complaint or a Closing Order needs to be issued. Mr. Rimes and

                                4 of 29
             Mr. Creehan continue to train staff on issues they may not have
             been trained on in the past.

             Mr. Creehan advised the Board that FEMC has increased the
             Consultants rate of payment to $100.00 per hour.


#4.   FBPE Rules Committee
      (John Burke, P.E., Chair; Henn Rebane, P.E.; David Charland, P.E., Paul
      Tomasino, P.E.)

      The next meeting is scheduled for March 11, 2008. The Committee needs
      to get as much done as they did last time, all information will be sent to
      members well in advance. Mr. Barton inquired about the series of
      changes to the responsible rules. Mr. Flury advised he will discuss
      subject under his report.

      The Board will be holding a workshop on the responsibility rules.

#5.   FBPE Legislative Committee
      (Paul Tomasino, P.E., Chair; Christian Bauer, Ph.D., P.E.; Zafar Hyder,
      Ph.D., P.E.)

      Ms. Flynn had reviewed past minutes and selected one item for legislative
      consideration. It involves proposed legislative amendment to Chapter
      471. Provides for the requirement of an EAC/ABET degree as the only
      means of qualifying for examination and licensure.

      In discussion it was confirmed to include the authority to charge a fee for
      accrediting programs that submit a request for Board approval.

#6.   Joint Engineer/Architect Committee
      (John Burke, P.E., Chair; Zafar Hyder, Ph.D., P.E.)

      No new business.

#7.   Standard Detail Drawings Task Force
      (John Burke, P.E., Chair; Paul Tomasino, P.E., Zafar Hyder, Ph.D., P.E.)

      a. Minutes from the November 28, 2007 telephone conference call
         meeting – will be provided later

      Mr. Burke briefed the Board on the outcome of the first conference call
      committee meeting to address Standard Detail Drawings. In the
      conference call, Mr. Burke outlined the events leading to the appointment
      of this committee and the reason for the Board having responded to a letter
      received from Mr. Meister, Chair of the FES Ethics Committee. The letter
      outlined apparent issues with the requirement of engineers of record being
                                 5 of 29
      required to sign and seal standard detail drawings submitted as part of the
      design documents. Mr. Burke explained the different issues related to the
      use of standard details and clarified that the Board’s intent was to address
      engineers signing and sealing standard details outside their discipline of
      practice.

      Mr. Meister and Mr. Lorenz understood the Board’s position in this
      particular instance and they were seeking the Board’s response to other
      issues associated with use of Standard Details Package.

      As part of the discussion, the following examples were presented to
      illustrate the occasions where Standard Details are used.

      1. FDOT standard index sheets used to be signed and sealed by a
         Department’s Engineer. FDOT no longer signs and seals the standards
         but requires that the Engineer’s design documents reference the
         standard index details.
      2. Cities, Counties and Utilities are requiring that the Engineer’s design
         documents reference their standards which may or may not be signed
         and sealed.
      3. Cities, Counties and Utilities are requiring that the Engineer sign and
         seal their standard details and include them in as part of the design
         documents.
      4. FDEP requires engineers seeking permits to sign and seal all drawings
         including standard details that may have not been prepared by the
         Engineer.

      It was the consensus of all parties to schedule a future conference call.
      Prior to that call, Mr. Flurry, Board Counsel and Mr. Rimes, Staff
      Attorney will review the Board’s present rules, determine their
      applicability and the potential for any new rule making on this subject
      matter. Depending on the results of the review possible rulemaking or
      issuance of a public statement would be the decision of the full Board.

#8.   Nominations Committee
      (John Burke, P.E., Chair; David Charland, P.E.)

      Mr. Burke reported on the need to nominate a replacement to the FEMC
      Board for John Springtead. Mr. Springstead’s term is up and he has
      agreed to serve until a replacement is named. Mr. Geer will have an FES
      recommendation at the February meeting. Gary Kuhl, P.E. has indicated
      that he would like to remain on the FEMC Board as he has not served two
      consecutive four year terms.

      Upon a motion by Mr. Tomasino seconded by Mr. Charland, the FBPE
      voted to appoint Mr. Kuhl to another term on the FEMC Board.



                                 6 of 29
            Mr. Rebane called for a vote on having Mr. Burke serve as Chair of the
            FBPE and he called for a recommendation on Vice Chair

            Mr. Burke placed Mr. Charland’s name into consideration for Vice Chair.

            Upon a motion by Mr. Tomasino seconded by Mr. Charland, Mr. Burke
            was appointed Chair and Mr. Charland, Vice Chair.

C.   NCEES
     (John Burke, P.E., FBPE Liaison)

     Mr. Burke asked Mr. Rebane to give this report. Mr. Rebane affirmed his
     attendance at a Board Orientation Training Program recently. Mr. Rebane
     expressed a great deal of confidence in Jerry Carter, the new Executive Director
     of NCEES. NCEES is in sound financial condition at this time. Mr. Rebane
     reported on items of interest from the Annual Meeting. Due to concerns with
     possible appearance of lobbying efforts, the council voted down establishment of
     a branch location of NCEES in Washington, D.C. The council did approve
     NCEES seeking the next available slot as lead agency in e-week. NCEES has
     administered the fundamentals and principles and practice exam twice in Japan
     and once at the American University in Egypt. Plans are underway at this time to
     administer exams in Korea. For NCEES to respond to examination administration
     the ruling licensure agency in the country has to request the examination be
     administered. The exams are given in English and due to the reputation of the US
     licensure process many countries are now seeking the opportunity to follow the
     United States licensure model. NCEES has for a number of years given exams at
     selected military bases to accommodate the Armed Services.

     Dr. Hyder was concerned with NCEES offering the examination in foreign
     countries. Mr. Rebane believed this effort positive as long as all requirements for
     administration are met and the member Board support the council’s efforts in
     administration of examination outside of the United States. Passing the
     examination does not affect the individual from being required to meet
     educational requirements applicable to various states.

     Mr. Rebane reported on possible problems being experienced with educational
     curriculum from Canada. Students may not be receiving necessary knowledge
     required to pass the NCEES exam. A study of the engineering programs was
     conducted by an outside party, and their conclusion evidences the same as the US
     schools regarding engineering curriculum. Canada may have to initiate a
     professional practices examination. ABET, NSPE, ASCE and NCEES has
     reached the same conclusion and is supportive of the proposed BS plus 30 hours
     proposal. The proposed implementation date of 2015 has now being rethought
     because of time needed to prepare for the transition.

     Mr. Burke asked if NCEES was going to pursue a professional practices
     examination. Mr. Rebane confirmed moving forward of a proposal for possible

                                        7 of 29
     additional professional practice examination in addition to the current eight hour
     examination.

     Mr. Burke added that the Southern Zone meeting will be in Puerto Rico in May.
     If any Board member would like to attend, please advise staff.

     Mr. Rebane announced the celebration of ABET’s 75th anniversary and presented
     to staff a book on ABET’s history and a commemorative medallion to Mr. Burke
     and Ms. Flynn.

D.   Advisory Attorney's Report

     #1.    Report on Florida Gulf Coast University request to allow students to sit for
            the Fundamentals Examination.

            Mr. Flury advised he has been in contact with Dr. O’Neill, and believes
            the Board does not have authority to allow FGCU graduates to take the
            exam prior to having their program receive ABET accreditation. The
            University would have to file a Petition for Variance and Waiver to
            receive further consideration on the matter.

            It was moved by Mr. Rebane and seconded by Mr. Charland, for
            discussion, to have the University file a Petition for Variance and Waiver.

            Mr. Flury should advise the university to file the petition, ensure it follows
            requirements of the statute regarding structure and content. If approved
            the University must understand that for students passing the examination
            certification would be held until the program is accredited. The university
            should also be advised that depending on the composition of the Board at
            the time of hearing the petition may or may not be approved.

            The motion passed with two votes of opposition by Mr. Tomasino and Mr.
            Burke.

     #2.    Response letter from Marjorie Holladay, JAPC, dated October 15, 2007
            re: Rules 61G15-31.003-007 and .009, F.A.C.

            Mr. Flury discussed the letter from Mr. Holladay regarding concerns she
            says we need a guideline for each of the above rules. Mr. Flury believes
            that there are no rule changes needed at this time. Mr. Flury will respond
            to her.

     #3.    Board Counsel Opinion Letters

            a.      None.




                                       8 of 29
     #4.    Letter from Alarm Association of Florida, Inc. re: requesting a hearing

            The Association is requesting a rules workshop on the Board’s
            responsibility rules. Mr. Burke requested that we have this workshop as
            soon as possible to be able to move ahead. Mr. Rudd advised that an FES
            member down in South Florida could assist in the hearing workshop.

            Staff will notice a rules workshop in January in south Florida if
            practicable. Staff will coordinate with Mr. Rudd in contacting the
            appropriate committee members to be in attendance.

E.   Executive Director’s Report

     #1.    List of Applicants Requesting Retired Status*

            Approved under the Consent Agenda.

     #2.    Quarterly Report

            Ms. Flynn advised the Board of the new format for quarterly reports.
            There are a number of legal reports included in the report and a number of
            items resulting from the Browning Management Report.

            Each quarter, Ms. Flynn will be reporting on completed issues. She
            confirmed an upcoming meeting with the contract monitor, Mr. Harrell to
            review status of items from the first quarterly report.

            FEMC Board members voted to review the quarterly report before it is
            sent to the Department. Staff will provide copies of the report to each
            FEMC member for comment prior to submitting to the Department.

            Ms. Flynn will be contacting NCEES to discuss how they applied
            requirements of the Sarbanes Oxley Act. An update will be given in the
            February Board meeting.

     #3.    Finalize 2008 Calendar

            The Board approved the calendar for 2008.

     #4.    Update on website design and server maintenance

            Ms. Flynn advised that IT server maintenance has been contracted out.

            The newly designed website should be completed by the February
            meeting.




                                      9 of 29
#5.   Current Emeritus and Associate member list from NCEES

      Staff will be submitting to NCEES Mr. Matthews and Ms. Hogenkamp’s
      name to the Emeritus member list.

      Upon a motion by Mr. Charland seconded by Mr. Burke, the Board
      reaffirmed the current Emeritus member list.

#6.   Survey & Comments from October 2007 Exam

      Comments were forwarded to ELSES from staff and Board members.

      Mr. Tomasino noted action on a candidate that was not allowed into the
      examination because he had an expired drivers license. Mr. Burke
      commented on the long distance from the parking lot to the exam site for
      the Orland Civic Center. Ms. Flynn advised the Board of discussion on
      examination site availability during the ELSES meeting with Board
      Administrators in Philadelphia. Ms. Flynn will contact ELSES regarding
      future examination site locations.

#7.   Department’s rule on proposed Fee Holiday

      This item was discussed earlier.


#8.   Analysis Sheet on Protected Titles

      This was written for publication in the last Board newsletter. It was pulled
      after concerns were expressed regarding interpretations of the statute. Mr.
      Geer advised that their General Counsel specifically disagreed with the
      statement that a non-licensed engineer may use one of the 25 titles since
      they are exempt under 471.003 and 471.031, F.S.

      After discussion, Mr. Charland suggested the article be rewritten with
      examples and the Board be allowed to review prior to publication.

#9.   Letter from NCEES regarding an Irregularity Report

      This letter was sent due to an incident that occurred at an exam site. The
      individual used a ballpoint pen to write on his test book. NCEES is
      recommending that his exam be invalidated for failing to comply with the
      conditions stated in the Candidate Agreement.

      NCEES would like to Board to approve or deny its recommendation.

      Upon a motion by Mr. Tomasino seconded by Mr. Burke, the Board
      concurs with the action taken by NCEES. Motion passed 5 to 1.

                                10 of 29
     #10.   Letter to Peter Brett

            Mr. Tomasino requested this letter come back before the Board regarding
            language in the letter. Specifically, changes to the timing of the control
            boxes at traffic lights. The Board suggested certain changes to be made by
            staff prior to mailing the letter.

     #11.   Update on Angel Resto

            Ms. Flynn reported that Mr. Resto was to appear on the December Board
            agenda to continue his Informal Hearing. Mr. Resto has not yet submitted
            the evaluation of his transcripts from Silny and Associates. Staff, in order
            to assist Mr. Resto, forwarded original transcripts to their attention. The
            evaluation is in process and the hearing should continue on the February
            2008 Board agenda.

            Upon a motion by Dr. Bauer seconded by Mr. Burke, the file will be
            continued to the February Board meeting.

     #12.   Update on B.M. Siddique

            Mr. Siddique was on the October Board meeting and it was not clear if a
            transcript from Indian River College had been reviewed by the
            Educational Committee, so staff was told to return the file to the
            November Application Review. This was overlooked due to workloads
            and Ms. Flynn asked that Dr. Bauer and Dr. Hyder review the transcript on
            the lunch break.

            The file would be reviewed and the results would be entered into record
            on the second day of this meeting.

F.   Chief Prosecutor’s Report

     #1.    Non-Compliance Report

            Mr. Creehan discussed an issue from the quarterly report regarding
            compliance issues. The Board is supposed to contacting the licensees
            employer after a Final Order has been issued. Mr. Creehan advised this
            has not been done previously. He and Mr. Rimes would like the rule
            amended. Mr. Rebane confirmed that the Board is reporting disciplinary
            information to NCEES. However, it is important to make as many parties
            as possible aware of disciplinary actions.

            In discussion it was determined to leave the language in place. As a result
            of that discussion, legal will take necessary steps to collect the information
            for notification during the investigative process.



                                      11 of 29
            Mr. Tomasino requested that the Rules Committee discuss notification to
            the licensees employer at the time of the incident and to also notify the
            building officials.

     #2.    December Open Case Report

            Mr. Charland requested an update on the following cases:

            Fred Jones – Mr. Creehan advised Mr. Charland of his plan to enter into a
            global stipulation that covers all of the cases. It should be before the
            Board no later than the April meeting.

            Mr. Elzwig – Mr. Creehan advised Mr. Charland of this case being
            returned to the Probable Cause Panel.

            Mr. Rosenblatt – Mr. Creehan advised Mr. Charland of filing an
            Administrative Complaint.

     #3.    2007 Case Report

            For informational purposes only.

     #4.    Legal Productivity Graphs (October 2006 – November 2007)

            For informational purposes only.

     #5.    2007 Statistical Report

            For informational purposes only.

G.   Chair's Report

     Mr. Rebane confirmed Mr. Burke assuming his position of Chair effective with
     the February Board meeting. Mr. Burke will now make committee appointments.

H.   Correspondence to the Board

     #1.    Article from Herbert Saffir, P.E. on Tropical Cyclone Destructive
            Potential by Integrated Kinetic Energy *

            Consent Agenda item.

     #2.    Email from Walter McCarthy re: retired status

            Mr. McCarthy requested the Board change his status from delinquent to
            Retired after an error on his part, in not checking the status of his license.



                                       12 of 29
            Upon a motion by Mr. Burke seconded by Mr. Charland, staff will change
            his status to Retired.

     #3.    Letter from Curtis Falany, P.E. dated November 21, 2007 regarding
            Forensic Engineering

            Mr. Burke requested that Mr. Flury respond to this letter. Mr. Rimes will
            assist in writing the letter.

     #4.    Email from Scott Hampton, P.E., PTC, LLC, with FBPE response
            regarding Clarification of Electronic Sealing of Drawings

            Ms. Flynn will draft a response confirming previous answers to the
            questions posed.

            Mr. Rimes advised the Board of the need to revise the electronic sealing
            rule. In discussion it was determined to have Ms. Flynn contact NCEES
            regarding language in the Model Law. The response should be shared
            with Mr. Flury and Mr. Rimes for updating the Board’s rule.

I.   Old Business

     #1.    Update on contact with Mr. Lance Kinney, P.E., Deputy Executive
            Director, Texas Board of Engineers regarding Software Engineering

                    a.   Email from Lance Kinney, P.E.
                    b.   Consortium Purpose Executive Summary
                    c.   Consortium Purpose Statement
                    d.   Motion for Software Engineering Exam

            Dr. Bauer discussed the need for the Software Engineering exam. Dr.
            Bauer would like to move forward on this issue.

            Upon a motion by Dr. Bauer seconded by Mr. Charland, the Board agreed
            to sign the Motion for Software Engineering Exam.

J.   New Business

     Dr. Hyder discussed his ABET visit to

K.   Public Forum




                                     13 of 29
THURSDAY, December 6, 2007

Preliminary Matters before beginning hearings

Call meeting to order and address general comments to the audience.

Mr. Burke presented Mr. Rebane with a plaque as Chair and Board Member.

Mr. Burke discussed the Bachelor plus thirty credit hours of engineering subjects in
addition to a Bachelor Degree to sit for the PE exam. This could be effective by 2015.

There will be a rules workshop in January 2008 regarding fire alarm rule.

The FBPE will be revamping their webpage.

Mr. Benjamin presented a Power Point presentation discussing the 2009 renewal.

       #1.     Endorsement/Continuing Education Committee
                  (Vacant, Chair)

               Dr. Hyder reported that one application was reviewed B.M Siddique.

               Upon a motion by Dr. Hyder seconded by Mr. Tomasino, the application
               was approved.

       #2.     Rules Report – Mr. Flury discussed the rules report.

Rule Number           Title                                     Develop.
                                                                Published
61G15.18.011          Definitions                               11-21-07

61G15-20.001          Definitions                               11-21-07
.007                  Demonstration of Substantial
                      Equivalency

61G15-22.015          Compliance with Mandate Florida           11-21-07
                      Building Code Training
61G15-23.002          Seal, Signature and Date Shall be         11-21-07
                      Affixed
61G15-32.001          General Responsibility                    11-21-07
.002                  Definitions
.003                  Comm. Req. to all Fire Protection
                      Engineering Documents
                      Design of Fire Alarms, Signal and
.008                  Control Systems
61G15-34.001          General Responsibility                    11-21-07
.002                  Definitions

                                        14 of 29
.003            Design of HVAC Systems
.007            Design of Plumbing Systems
61G15-30.0004   Energy Conservation Compliance           12-7-07
.001            Purpose
.002            Definitions Common to All Engineer’s
                Responsibility Rules
.003            Engineering Document Classification
                Request for and Review of Delegated
.005            Engineering Documents
.006            Delegated Engineer’s Responsibility
.007            Prime Professional’s Responsibility
.009            Retention of Engineering Documents
61G15-33.001    General Responsibility                   12-7-07
.002            Definitions
.003            Design of Power Systems
.004            Design of Lighting Systems
.005            Design of Communications Systems
                Design of Alarm Systems
.006            Design of Lightning Protection
.007            Systems
                Design of Grounding Systems
.008            Certification of Electrical Systems of
.010            Public Interest




                                 15 of 29
                                     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)

     Dr. Bauer explained the application process of applying with non EAC/ABET
     degrees or a degree from outside of the United States.

L.   Informal Hearings on Denial of Application for Fundamentals Examination

     #1.    Muhammad Aslam

            Mr. Aslam was present for his hearing and was sworn in prior to
            addressing the Board.

            Mr. Aslam was denied based on educational deficiencies. Mr. Aslam
            holds a Bachelor’s degree from Pakistan. The Board determined that Mr.
            Aslam was deficient 3.43 semester credit hours including a course in
            Probability and Statistics and a secondary level course of Chemistry or
            Calculus based Physics and 8 semester credit hours in Humanities and
            Social Sciences.

            At the Board’s September Application Review, the Committee reviewed
            additional educational documents that Mr. Aslam submitted. The Board
            determined that Mr. Aslam remained deficient 8 semester credit hours in
            Humanities and Social Sciences and a secondary level of Chemistry or
            Calculus based physics and Probability and Statistics.

            Mr. Aslam requested a continuance to the February Board meeting. The
            Board approved his continuance and his file will be presented at the
            February board meeting.

     #2.    Renjan Joseph

            Mr. Joseph was present for his hearing.

            Mr. Joseph applied to sit for the Principles & Practice examination. His
            application was denied based on education. Mr. Joseph holds a Bachelor
            Degree from India. The Board reviewed the evaluation of his
            undergraduate studies by ECEI to determine substantial equivalency to
            Rule 61G15-20.007, F.A.C. Mr. Joseph was determined to be deficient 8
            semester credit hours in Math and Basic Sciences.

            Mr. Joseph submitted an Election of Rights form to supplement and to
            have an Informal Hearing. The Board reviewed his supplemental
            information and determined that the Board does not accept “pre degree”
            coursework. He has been scheduled for the December Board meeting.
                                     16 of 29
            Mr. Joseph does not agree with the evaluation completed by ECEI and has
            not articulated his masters degree.

            Upon a motion by Dr. Bauer seconded by Dr. Hyder, the application was
            referred to Board Counsel for a formal hearing.

M.   Informal Hearings on Denial of Application for Principals and Practice
     Examination

     #1.    Ignamara Petrowicz

            Ms. Petrowicz was not present for her hearing.
            Ms. Petrowicz applied to sit for the Principles and Practice examination.
            Her application was denied based on education. Ms. Petrowicz holds a
            Bachelor Degree from Venezuela. The Board reviewed the evaluation of
            her undergraduate studies by Josef Silny & Associates to determine
            substantial equivalency to Rule 61G15-20.007, F.A.C. Ms. Petrowicz was
            determined to be deficient 10 semester credit hours in Humanities and
            Social Sciences.

            Ms. Petrowicz was scheduled for an Informal Hearing in the October
            Board meeting and the Board moved to continue the hearing for the
            December meeting. Prior to the continued hearing, the Educational
            Advisory Committee would review the entire file to make a final
            determination of deficiencies. The Committee reviewed the entire file and
            determined it appropriate to revise the deficiencies of 10 semester credit
            hours to 4.25 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences.

            Upon a motion by Dr. Bauer seconded by Mr. Charland the denial was
            upheld.

     #2.    Geoffrey Lamptey

            Mr. Lamptey was present for his hearing and was sworn in prior to
            addressing the Board.

            Mr. Lamptey applied to sit for the Principles & Practice examination. His
            application was denied based on education. Mr. Lamptey holds a
            Bachelor Degree from Ghana. The Board reviewed the evaluation of his
            undergraduate studies by CPEES to determine substantial equivalency to
            Rule 61G15-20.007, F.A.C. Mr. Lamptey was determined to be deficient
            11 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences.

            Mr. Lamptey submitted an Election of Rights form to supplement and to
            have an Informal Hearing. The Board reviewed his supplemental
            information and determined that he remained deficient.

                                     17 of 29
            Upon a motion by Dr. Bauer seconded by Dr. Hyder, the application was
            approved.

     #3.    Godfrey Lamptey

            Mr. Lamptey was present for his hearing and was sworn in prior to
            addressing the Board.

            Mr. Lamptey applied to sit for the Principles & Practice examination. His
            application was denied based on education. Mr. Lamptey holds a
            Bachelor Degree from Ghana. The Board reviewed the evaluation of his
            undergraduate studies by CPEES to determine substantial equivalency to
            Rule 61G15-20.007, F.A.C. Mr. Lamptey was determined to be deficient
            11 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences.

            Mr. Lamptey submitted an Election of Rights form to supplement and to
            have an Informal Hearing. The Board reviewed his supplemental
            information and determined that he remained deficient.

            Due to wording of the rule, Mr. Lamptey was approved.

            Upon a motion by Dr. Bauer seconded by Dr. Hyder, the application was
            approved.

N.   Informal Hearings on Denial of Application for Licensure by Endorsement

     #1.    Lee Edward Wheatley

            Mr. Wheatley was not present for his hearing.
            Mr. Wheatley was licensed in South Carolina in 1978. Mr. Wheatley
            passed the Fundamentals examination in South Carolina in 1973.
            Mr. Wheatley passed the Principles and Practice examination in South
            Carolina in 1977. Mr. Wheatley has provided evidence of four years of
            engineering experience.

            Mr. Wheatley’s application was denied because he has failed to satisfy a
            score of 49 or higher on the Study Guide exam. Mr. Wheatley has taken
            the Study Guide exam three times and failed each time.

            Mr. Wheatley submitted additional paperwork that included his resume
            which outlines his history of services for over thirty years and a copy of
            his Red Vector course on Laws and Rules which he passed.

            Upon a motion by Dr. Bauer seconded by Mr. Charland, the denial was
            upheld.




                                      18 of 29
#2.   Yehia Kabbani

      Mr. Kabbani was present for his hearing. 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 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 requested 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.

      The Board granted Mr. Kabbani’s file remain open until the
      December 2007 Board meeting. Mr. Kabbani has submitted
      transcripts from the University of South Florida and Edison College
      to prove he has evidenced the required hours needed.

      Upon a motion by Dr. Bauer seconded by Mr. Charland, the application
      was approved.

#3.   Eli Tilen

      Mr. Tilen was present for his hearing. Mr. Tilen was licensed in Puerto
      Rico in 2007. Mr. Tilen holds a BS in Chemical Engineering from the
      University Puerto Rico in May 2002 and an MS Degree in Environmental
      Engineering from Florida International University in May 2004. Mr. Tilen
      passed the Fundamentals examination in Puerto Rico in 2002. Mr. Tilen
      passed the Principles and Practice examination in Puerto Rico in 2004.

      Mr. Tilen’s application was denied based on experience. Mr. Tilen
      evidenced only 43 months of experience and is required to evidence 48
      months of experience at the time of application. The Board reviewed
      additional information submitted by Mr. Tilen and it did not correct the
      deficiency.

                                19 of 29
            In accordance with the Election of Rights the Informal Hearing has been
            scheduled for the December Board meeting.

            Mr. Tilen realized that after he submitted his application, he did not
            complete the experience history very clearly.

            Mr. Tilen distributed letters from past employers to the Board members.

            Mr. Flury advised that we will count at the time of application.

            Upon a motion by Mr. Tomasino seconded by Mr. Charland, the applicant
            withdrew his application.

            If Mr. Tilen submits all his paperwork in time, he will be placed on the
            January conference call. He needs to provide the Board office with
            updated work experience.


                                      Part III
                               Disciplinary Hearings

     Description of Disciplinary Process by Chairman of the Probable Cause
     Panel, Henn Rebane, P.E.

P.   Settlement Stipulations

     #1.    Alfredo Carbonell, P.E.
            PE 14170
            FEMC Case Number 2004052898
            Represented by Violeta Longino, Esquire
            Probable Cause Panel: Matthews, Burke, Seckinger

            Mr. Carbonell has been charged by an Administrative Complaint with four
            counts of negligence in the practice of engineering for designing a two-
            story new addition for an existing home. The design contained
            architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing deficiencies.

            After a request for a formal hearing was made, the Board and the Subject
            signed a settlement stipulation which was rejected at the Board’s
            December 2006 meeting, primarily for the Subject’s nonappearance at that
            Board meeting.

            The stipulation calls for a fine increase to $2,000.00 from the original
            amount of $1,000, a reprimand, 2 yrs probation with a plan review within
            12 months of the Final Order being filed, a Board approved course in
            Engineering Professionalism and Ethics; study guide; and appearance

                                      20 of 29
before the Board to explain how he will improve quality control and
explain his understanding of the need to sign and seal only accurate and
complete plans, or limit his signature as needed.

Staff Recommendation: Adoption of the Stipulation in a Board Final
Order. The terms of the Stipulation are: Reprimand; $2,000.00
administrative; costs of $750.00; 2 years probation with project review
within 12 months; Board-approved course in Engineering Professionalism
and Ethics within 1 year; study guide; and appearance before the Board to
explain how he will improve quality control and explain his competency
to practice structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing disciplines.

Related Comments: PCP Recommendation: Reprimand; $4,000.00
administrative fine (4 cts. @ $1,000.00 per ct.); 2 yrs probation with plan
review at 6 and 18 months: Board approved course in Engineering
Professionalism and Ethics; study guide; and appearance before the Board
to explain how he will improve quality control and explain his
competency to practice structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing
disciplines.

Mr. Carbonell and his attorney were present.

Mr. Carbonell was sworn in prior to addressing the Board.

Ms. Longino addressed the Board stating that Mr. Carbonell had been a
licensed engineer since 1972 and has never had any disciplinary action
before. Mr. Carbonell agrees with the terms of the settlement stipulation,
however, he is requesting that the public reprimand be taken out of his
record.

Mr. Carbonell discussed his education.

Mr. Rebane notes that the stipulation provides for an appearance before
the Board to explain how he will improve the quality control and explain
his competence to practice structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing
disciplines. Mr. Rebane asked that he address those areas only.

Mr. Carbonell stated that his resolution to improve the quality control on
electrical, mechanical, plumbing and structural are the following: I will
pay closer attention to revising the work done by his employees and make
sure that he looks at all of the details and to comply with the Florida
Building Code in order to present a complete set of plans to the different
building departments when obtaining permits.

Mr. Charland asked whether Mr. Carbonell’s personal specialty was
mechanical engineering. Mr. Carbonell stated that yes, mechanical
engineering. He acquired his electrical background working in Texas. He

                          21 of 29
only designs structural and electrical on residential projects. He said he
has never signed and sealed plans for high rises and things like that.

Mr. Charland asked what Mr. Carbonell was going to do about doing
a better job on the structural engineering. Mr. Carbonell stated that from
now on, he will make sure that his plans are final and if they are not then
they will not be submitted as final.

Mr. Rebane notes that he is currently doing single family dwellings, and
wants to know what his continuing education courses that he has taken.
He wants to know where he acquired the expertise in the structural
HVAC, plumbing, structural and electrical and also wants him to explain
why the structural was finally designed by Mr. Rodriguez that works for
him, were signed and sealed by Mr. Carbonell. Describe Mr. Rodriguez’
qualifications to do structural and whether he is licensed and experienced.
Does Mr. Carbonell have other licensed engineers working for him in his
firm? Mr. Carbonell indicated that he had no other engineers working for
him. Mr. Carbonell stated that when he finished working for Texaco in
1972, he relocated back to Miami and started working with Housing
Corporation of America. HCA was a subsidiary of ALCOA. He worked
there in the mechanical department in charge of air conditioning and
plumbing. His continuing education courses have been mainly in
structural engineering and in electrical engineering also. He worked
overseas in Venezuela to design apartments that had collapsed. He is also
a general contractor. He considers himself to have plenty of experience to
design single family homes which doesn’t service more than 300 amps.
He has to comply with all of the regulations. He only does small designs.
Mr. Rodriguez is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida.
He designed the layout, the idea of using the PCI; he helped Mr. Carbonell
out in the design on the convention system. After this experience
he will never get into anything that he is not a 100% expert which is
mechanical, plumbing, and not even electrical, even on the residential
level. He has no other professional working for him.

Mr. Rebane asked whether Mr. Carbonell wanted to change the stipulation
and wanted to know if Mr. Carbonell wants the Board to reject the
stipulation. Ms. Longino wants the Board to approve the stipulation with
the minor change of the public reprimand. Mr. Rebane indicated that there
were no minor changes; it was not possible, either he accepts or rejects the
stipulation and we will make a new one. Ms. Longino indicated that yes,
Mr. Carbonell wanted to reject the stipulation since it contains the
reprimand. They would be willing to pay an additional fine in order not to
have the reprimand.

Mr. Flury advised that Mr. Carbonell has a right to withdraw from the
stipulation. They are requesting that the reprimand be changed and that
they would agree to an increase in fine if the Board wants to make an offer

                          22 of 29
      to them. If they do so, then they would be able to accept it and the
      prosecutor would have to accept it also.

      Mr. Creehan indicated that he thought it was up to the Board, that this is a
      much older case.

      Mr. Rebane asked Mr. Creehan to state what he thought the revised
      stipulation would be that Mr. Carbonell is asking for. Mr. Creehan
      believes that what the stipulation would be now would be a $4,000.00
      fine, 2 years probation with a plan review in 12 months, board approved
      course in engineering professionalism and ethics, study guide and
      obviously his appearance here today.

      Upon motion by Mr. Tomasino and seconded by Mr. Charland the Board
      voted, by 3 to 2, to accept the revised stipulation.

#2.   Miller Cooper, P.E.
      PE 15284
      FEMC Case Number 2004008193
      Represented by John Bozmoski, Esquire
      Probable Cause Panel: Matthews, Seckinger

      This investigation is predicated on the receipt of a complaint from Ramon
      Gavarette, Highlands County Engineering Department, alleging that the
      Respondent was negligent in his role as in signing and sealing As-Built
      plans on October 30, 2006 for the Arbor Cove Condominiums project and
      in submitting a certificate to Highlands County that the project was built in
      accordance with those plans.

      Board Consultant Nevins Smith, PE opined that the Respondent was
      negligent in his role as engineer on the Arbor Cove project because
      although he testified that the project was built in accordance with those
      plans, the project as constructed was missing, among other items, or for
      the Harborage Place project; in that he failed to diligently perform his
      duties to detect defects in construction; and that he issued the Certificates
      of Compliances without ever visiting the site. According to the Consultant,
      among the defects in construction are: reinforcement missing in some
      exterior masonry walls as per structural drawings; grout missing in some
      exterior masonry walls as per structural drawings, masonry tie columns
      missing; sleeves in slab for masonry reinforcement not provided as per
      structural drawings; lap splices and dowels for masonry not provided; PT
      cables not cut back as per structural drawings; and the Certificate of
      Compliance was issued for the balcony railings based upon load testing
      for only one railing.

      After initially leaning toward an informal hearing, Respondent agreed to
      attempt to resolve the matter with this settlement stipulation.

                                23 of 29
      Recommendation: Adoption of the Stipulation in a Board Final Order.
      The terms of the Stipulation are identical to the PCP recommendation.
      Reprimand; $2,000.00 administrative; costs of $1,539.00; Board-
      approved course in Engineering Professionalism and Ethics within 1 year;
      study guide; and appearance before the Board to discuss what his intent
      was in certifying these as-builts without a site inspection.

      Mr. Cooper was not present at the meeting.

      Upon motion by Mr. Burke and seconded by Mr. Charland, the Board
      adopted the stipulation.

#3.   Christopher Lynch, P.E.
      PE 40174
      FEMC Case Number 2006001309
      Probable Cause Panel: Matthews, Seckinger,

      This investigation is predicated on the receipt of a complaint from Ramon
      Gavarette, Highlands County Engineering Department, alleging that the
      Respondent was negligent in his role as in signing and sealing As-Built
      plans on October 30, 2006 for the Arbor Cove Condominiums project and
      in submitting a certificate to Highlands County that the project was built in
      accordance with those plans.

      Board Consultant Nevins Smith, PE opined that the Respondent was
      negligent in his role as engineer on the Arbor Cove project because
      although he testified that the project was built in accordance with those
      plans, the project as constructed was missing, among other items, or for
      the Harborage Place project; in that he failed to diligently perform his
      duties to detect defects in construction; and that he issued the Certificates
      of Compliances without ever visiting the site. According to the Consultant,
      among the defects in construction are: reinforcement missing in some
      exterior masonry walls as per structural drawings; grout missing in some
      exterior masonry walls as per structural drawings, masonry tie columns
      missing; sleeves in slab for masonry reinforcement not provided as per
      structural drawings; lap splices and dowels for masonry not provided; PT
      cables not cut back as per structural drawings; and the Certificate of
      Compliance was issued for the balcony railings based upon load testing
      for only one railing.

      After initially leaning toward an informal hearing, Respondent agreed to
      attempt to resolve the matter with this settlement stipulation.

      Recommendation: Adoption of the Stipulation in a Board Final Order.
      Related Comments: PCP Recommendation: Reprimand; $2,000.00
      administrative; costs of $1,539.00; Board-approved course in Engineering
      Professionalism and Ethics within 1 year; study guide; and appearance

                                24 of 29
      before the Board to discuss what his intent was in certifying these as-builts
      without a site inspection.

      Mr. Creehan stated that he was approached by Mr. Lynch who had some
      concerns about the stipulation. Since this is only a one count complaint,
      Mr. Creehan has no problem moving it to the February Board meeting.

#4.   Oliver J. Turzak, P.E.
      PE 18230
      FEMC Case Number 20040037005
      Probable Cause Panel: Matthews, Seckinger, Hogenkamp

      This investigation is predicated on the receipt of a complaint from Richard
      Matassa, P.E., alleging that the Respondent signed and sealed plans that
      Matassa himself developed. Matassa alleges that Respondent failed to
      follow the procedures as a successor engineer under Rule 61G15-27.001
      and properly notify him that he was the successor engineer.

      On July 21, 2002, Matassa prepared five (5) sheets of plans for the Nott
      Mini Storage Project, with the title block for Civil Tech Consulting
      Engineers, Inc, his company. These plans were drafted pursuant to a July
      11, 2000 contract between Frederic Nott and Civil Tech. On February 25,
      2004, Nott sold the plans to Jarakoe LLC/James Bonello.


      On June 29, 2004, Respondent submitted five (5) sheets of drawings that
      he signed and sealed on April 20, 2004 to the Hernando County
      Development Department for the ABCD Econo Mini Storage Project.
      These plans contained the same design plans as earlier drafted by Matassa.
      Sheets four (4) and five (5) even retained the title block for Civil Tech
      Consulting Engineers, Inc. On June 30, 2004, Respondent resubmitted
      plans for the project to Hernando County, this time sheets four (4) and five
      (5) did not contain the Civil Tech title block but were otherwise identical
      to the plans submitted a day earlier.


      On June 19, 2006, Dr. Chen Lin, P.E., Board Consultant reviewed the
      investigative file and opines that the Subject is negligent in the practice of
      engineering when the Respondent’s calculations set forth for the minimum
      design flows for sewage are not in compliance with formula set forth in
      Rule 64E-6.008(1), F.A.C. Dr. Lin also opined that the Respondent failed
      to comply with the responsibility rules in the F.A.C. as they apply to the
      successor engineer.


      Respondent submitted a written response to the Board and stated that his
      belief is that the plans were significantly redesigned and that the complaint
      stems from a civil dispute between Civil-Tech and Bonello over payments
                                25 of 29
      for the plans. Respondent also believes that the sewage calculations are
      correct when designed for a storage facility, and that charge was based on
      FEMC’s consultant’s inappropriate use of calculations for sewage flows
      for an office building.


      Although a formal hearing was requested, after lengthy discourse about
      the merits of the case between Respondent and FEMC’s consultant, it was
      decided to attempt to resolve this matter through a stipulation rather than a
      formal administrative proceeding.


      NOTE: In a Final Order in FEMC Case No. 2004005988, with events that
      were contemporaneous with this one, Respondent served a one year
      suspension, and successfully passed his subsequent plans reviews at the
      six, eighteen and twenty-four month intervals.
      Recommendation: Adoption of the Stipulation in a Board Final Order.
      The terms call for a reprimand, an administrative fine of $5,000, costs of
      750.00, Probation for a period of 2 years with a plans review at the six and
      eighteen month intervals, (with a provision that probation terminate after
      the first plans review should it come back favorable.) and an appearance
      before the Board to discuss his responsibility in adopting another
      engineer’s work.


      Related Comments: PCP Recommendation:. Reprimand; $20,000.00
      administrative fine ($5,000.00 per count for (4) counts); costs of $750.00;
      and Suspension of licensure for (4) year(s). Following suspension, Subject
      will be placed on (2) year(s) probation with plan review at 6 and 18
      months; and appearance before the Board to explain: what his plans will
      be while under suspension, and his responsibility in adopting another
      engineer’s work.

      Mr. Creehan stated that Mr. Turzak had some unexpected surgery and is
      under doctor’s orders not to travel. For those reasons, that case would be
      put on the February agenda.

#5.   J. S. Nagamia, P.E.
      PE 19241
      FEMC Case Number 2005014450
      Probable Cause Panel: Rebane, Seckinger

      This investigation is predicated on an unlicensed activity investigation
      involving an engineering intern named Reuben Phipps who is preparing
      plans for clients to be submitted to the building department. The single
      family residential plans in question were rejected by the building
      department’s plans examiner for insufficiencies. Mr. Phipps was calling

                                26 of 29
himself a civil engineer on the title block on all pages of the design. The
respondent in this case signed and sealed the plans. Reuben Phipps was
issued a cease and desist by FBPE.

The FEMC investigator interviewed the Subject as to the process by which
Subject exercised control over the production of the documents brought to
him by Phipps. Subject stated that Mr. Phipps brings the drawings to his
home where he reviews it, then signs and seals it. When asked why subject
signs every page including electrical and he responds that some counties
require it. However, Subject continued by saying he wouldn’t take
responsibility for the electrical (and presumptively the mechanical)
page(s), this is the reason for the “structural only” above the signature.
An AC was filed on – 2007 charging respondent with negligence (Count
1) and aiding and abetting unlicensed practice (Count 2). After negotiation
with counsel, it was agreed that Count 1 would be dismissed and that
Respondent would not contest the allegations in Count 2.

Stipulation: Reprimand; $1,000.00 administrative fine; costs of $935.29;
suspension of licensure, stayed if fine/costs paid within 30 days of Final
Order date; Board approved course in Engineering Professionalism and
Ethics; study guide; and appearance before the Board to explain: his
rationale as to why a structural engineer should sign and seal for all
disciplines and not just to the structural work he/she performed.

PCP Recommendation: Reprimand; $1,000.00 administrative fine; costs of
$935.29; suspension of licensure, stayed if fine/costs paid within 30 days
of Final Order date; Board approved course in Engineering
Professionalism and Ethics; study guide; and appearance before the Board
to explain: his rationale as to why a structural engineer should sign and
seal for all disciplines and not just to the structural work he/she performed.

Staff Recommendation: Accept Stipulation. The dismissal of Count I did
not result in any change in any of the terms of the proposed PCP
disposition which was accepted in toto by Respondent.

Mr. Rebane is recused from this case, however, he will chair the meeting.

Mr. Nagamia was sworn in prior to addressing the board.

Mr. Nagamia indicated that denies the aiding and abetting charge since he
was not aware that Mr. Phipps had used that language in his plans. The
sentence is in the title block in very small print and when he reviewed the
plans he looked at the technical contents and not the signature block. He
has never suggested to anyone that Mr. Phipps is a civil engineer for the
purpose of promoting business. Mr. Nagamia talked with Mr. Phipps and
he assured Mr. Nagamia that he will no longer use this block in his plans.
Mr. Phipps regrets his choice. Mr. Nagamia didn’t do anything, Mr.

                          27 of 29
Phipps did, and Mr. Phipps is not being fined or anything. He asks the
Board to drop the charges.

Mr. Rimes noted that Mr. Nagamia signed the stipulation on advice of
counsel. Mr. Rimes asked Mr. Nagamia whether he was agreeing to the
stipulation. Mr. Nagamia indicated that he signed the stipulation because
he didn’t fully understand what the charges were. He thought the charges
were being dropped. Mr. Rimes again asked whether Mr. Nagamia had
counsel. Mr. Nagamia said he did have counsel. Mr. Rimes asked Mr.
Nagamia whether he was withdrawing from the stipulation and if so, Mr.
Rimes indicated that there would be no other settlement stipulations, and
that he would recommend a higher fine and penalty. Mr. Nagamia again
states that he’s asking for the board’s mercy. Mr. Rebane explained Mr.
Nagamia’s options; whether to reject the stipulation or move forward. Mr.
Nagamia indicated he was not withdrawing the stipulation.

Mr. Tomasino noted that the stipulation provides for Mr. Nagamia to
present to the Board his rational as to why a structural engineer should
sign and seal for other disciplines and not just the structure work. Mr.
Rimes indicated that that portion of the complaint was dismissed. The
only thing the stipulation addresses is the fact that Mr. Nagamia sealed
and signed a set of documents that had Mr. Phipps name on it with the
term civil engineer next to it that is the violation.

Mr. Nagamia was asked to talk about whether he thinks a structural
engineer should seal and sign everything or only the things he is in
responsible charge of, it is not the quality of the design. Mr. Nagamia
says that he has by education and experience, the ability to sign those
things; however, in this particular instance that he signed only for the
structural portion of his sheets. The building department was asking that
the whole set of plans be signed by the engineer otherwise they wouldn’t
issue the building permit.

Mr. Burke asked Mr. Nagamia to explain to him what business Mr.
Nagamia is in, is he a one man operation? Mr. Nagamia said that he is
essentially a one man operation. Mr. Burke asked him to briefly give his
background of experience. Mr. Nagamia has been in public service for a
number of years. He worked for Hillsborough County, City of St. Pete
Harbor as a city engineer and director of public works. During that time,
he had the occasion to design many of the infrastructures for the City
including marinas, warehouse, fire stations, etc. Mr. Nagamia said that
prior to coming to the United States, he was in construction and design
and has wide experience in construction and design of structure.

Mr. Burke said that Mr. Nagamia said he felt comfortable with the
electrical and mechanical and wanted to know where he got that
experience. Mr. Nagamia said that his experience was as a city engineer
and that he was schooled in electrical and mechanical engineering.
                          28 of 29
           Mr. Burke was concerned that he was “schooled”. There is a difference
           between being schooled and having experience. Mr. Burke wanted to
           know why the engineering intern came to Mr. Nagamia and wanted to
           know how he knew Mr. Nagamia. Mr. Nagamia said that he knows him
           by work of mouth that he will review plans and sign and seal them. Mr.
           Burke was very bothered by that statement and indicated that he had to get
           out of that mindset or he thought Mr. Nagamia would be back before the
           Board. Mr. Burke told Mr. Nagamia that as the professional that he
           should have sent the intern away and reported him to the Board. Mr.
           Burke said he hoped that Mr. Nagamia leaves this meeting with a
           different mindset. Mr. Burke said that when Mr. Nagamia allows this to
           happen that he is running a plan stamping service and he hopes this does
           not happen again because the board will not be light next time.

           Mr. Nagamia apologized.

           Upon motion by Mr. Charland and seconded by Mr. Burke the Board
           accepted the stipulation.

Q.   Adjourn. 10:40 am




                                     29 of 29

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:10/18/2011
language:English
pages:29