STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

POLK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs.

JENNIFER DEAN,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

) Case No. 06-0683

)

)

)

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A duly-noticed final hearing was held in this case by Administrative Law Judge T. Kent Wetherell, II, on May 23-24, 2006, in Bartow, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Donald H. Wilson, Esquire

Boswell & Dunlap, LLP

245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831

For Respondent: Gregg W. Hooth, Esquire

Dennis Hernandez & Associates 3339 Kennedy Boulevard

Tampa, Florida 33699 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether the Polk County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated February 8, 2006, the Superintendent of Schools for Polk County informed Respondent that she intended to recommend that the Polk County School Board (School Board) terminate Respondent’s employment as an assistant principal.

The letter advised Respondent of her right to request an administrative hearing, and by letter dated February 10, 2006, Respondent timely did so.

By letter dated February 14, 2006, the School Board referred this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct the hearing requested by Respondent. The referral was received by DOAH on February 21, 2006.

The final hearing was originally scheduled for April 18, 2006, but it was rescheduled for May 23, 2006, at the parties request. This case was consolidated with DOAH Case No. 06-0684 for purposes of hearing pursuant to the parties' joint motion. See Transcript (Tr.), at 7-8. The parties agreed, however, that separate Recommended Orders should be entered in each case. Id.

At the final hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of Jose Farinas, Lois Schuck, Judy Butler, Dr. Gail McKinzie, and David Lauer. The School Board's Exhibits 13, 23, 24, 27, 33, 37, 38, 42 through 45, 51, 54, 56, 57-B, and 59,

were received into evidence. Respondent testified in her own

behalf and also presented the testimony of Joe Dawson. Respondent's Exhibits R-3, R-4, R-5, R-29, R-34, R-35, R-41, R- 46, R-47, and R-58, were received into evidence.

The two-volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed on June 7, 2006. The parties were initially given 10 days from that date to file proposed recommended orders (PROs), but the deadline was subsequently extended to July 6, 2006, pursuant to Respondent’s unopposed motion. The PROs have been given due consideration.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent has worked for the Polk County School District (District) in various capacities –- from classroom teacher to assistant principal –- for the past 18 years.

2. Respondent has been an assistant principal for the past five years, and at the time of the suspension giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent was the assistant principal at Davenport School of the Arts. She was employed on an annual contract.

3. Respondent has a Master’s degree in educational leadership from Nova Southeastern University (Nova), and she is certified in that field by the Florida Department of Education (DOE).

4. Respondent is in the District’s “principal pool,” which is the program from which principals are selected for the

   District’s schools. She has also served as a “teacher recruiter” for the District.

5. Respondent and another assistant principal, Joe Dawson, started talking about pursuing doctorate degrees together at some point between the summer of 2004 and April 2005.1

6. Respondent and Mr. Dawson are neighbors and close friends. They attend the same church and their families regularly spend time together. Mr. Dawson is the Respondent in the related DOAH Case No. 06-0684.

7. The primary reason that Respondent and Mr. Dawson were interested in obtaining doctorate degrees was to enhance their standing in the principal pool so as to give themselves a better chance of being hired as school principals.2 They credibly testified that they were unaware that they would be eligible for

   $1,750 pay supplements from the District if they had doctorate degrees.

8. Respondent and Mr. Dawson looked into the doctoral program at Nova and several other traditional universities in the area, but they determined that those programs were not suitable for their needs because of the cost of the programs and the time that it would take them to obtain degrees.

9. Mr. Dawson looked into several online universities that offered doctoral degrees, including Belford University

   (Belford). He learned about Belford through a “pop up” advertisement while browsing on the Internet.

10. In September 2005, Mr. Dawson sent Respondent an e- mail referring her to Belford’s website and told her that “I think this may be the program for us.”

11. Belford is described on its website as a “virtual university with administration offices located in Humble, Texas,” and according to the website, Belford is accredited by “two renowned accreditation agencies on-line education, namely the International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities (IAAOU) and the University Council for Online Education Accreditation (UCOEA).”

12. Notwithstanding Belford’s accreditations and its characterization of itself as a “virtual university,” Belford’s website includes a number of statements that call into question its legitimacy as an educational institution, such as: “Get a degree for what you already know!”; “No admissions. No attendance. No hassle.”; “Add degrees to your resume in just 7 days and open avenues to promotion and better jobs!”; and “Get all your money back if you do not get approved!”

13. The website explains that to obtain a doctorate degree from Belford, an applicant must have “at least 8 years of work or life experience relevant to [his or her] desired major.” That eligibility requirement “may be satisfied in any of the

    following ways: prior job experience in any field; previous educational achievements; employer-sponsored training and attendance of workshops; participation in organizations, both professional and non-professional; personal goals, lifestyle, hobbies, and travel; participation in volunteer activities and community service; and independent reading, viewing, listening or writing.”

14. A doctorate degree can be received from Belford “without attending classes or taking admissions anywhere.”

15. Respondent reviewed the information on Belford’s website, and she also contacted Belford by phone and e-mail to get additional information about its doctoral program and its accreditation status.

16. Of particular note, Respondent sent an e-mail to Belford on or about September 16, 2005, asking “what the degree would say on it” and stating that “I don’t want it to say ‘life experience.’” In response, Belford’s assistant registrar assured Respondent that Belford’s degrees “do not mention the Web address or words like ‘life experience’ or ‘online degree’ anywhere on the documents or in the verification process.”

17. In an effort to explain away this e-mail, Respondent testified that the reason that she wanted the degree to state “Doctor of Education” rather than “life experience” was that she

    was concerned that a degree that stated “life experience” would not be recognized in the education field.

18. It is apparent from the e-mail that Respondent had concerns from the outset about the legitimacy of the degree that she would be receiving from Belford. Indeed, her testimony related to the e-mail demonstrates that even though Respondent claimed to understand that the doctorate degree offered by Belford based upon “life experience” was not equivalent to a traditional doctorate degree such as a Ph.D., she did not want the true nature of the degree disclosed, and that she wanted the degree to be recognized as something that it clearly was not, i.e., a Doctorate of Education.

19. Respondent testified that she called Lois Schuck, the District’s certification specialist, in early October 2005 and told her that she and Mr. Dawson were considering obtaining doctorate degrees from Belford and that she wanted to know whether the degrees would be accepted by DOE and the District for certification purposes. Ms. Schuck had no recollection of the conversation.

20. Ms. Schuck’s job duties include reviewing degrees submitted by the District’s teachers and administrators to determine whether the degrees are eligible for certification purposes. As a result, it is reasonable for teachers and

    administrators to rely on her advice and direction on certification-related issues.

21. Respondent testified that Ms. Schuck told her that she was not familiar with Belford; that she did not know whether a degree from Belford would be accepted for certification purposes; and that Respondent should go ahead and get the degree and then submit it to her for a determination as to whether the degree would be accepted for certification purposes.

22. On the last point, Ms. Schuck testified unequivocally and persuasively that under no circumstances would she have advised Respondent to get a degree before determining whether it will be accepted for certification purposes because such advice is contrary to her standard practice (shaped by her own personal experience with an unaccredited degree) of advising individuals in Respondent’s position to give her the prospective university’s contact information so that she can investigate whether it is accredited by an entity recognized by DOE before the individual spends time and money pursuing the degree.

23. Respondent’s testimony regarding her conversation with Ms. Schuck was not persuasive. Indeed, if, as Respondent testified, she was told by Ms. Schuck to give her a copy of the degree after she received it, it is reasonable to expect that Respondent would have done so, but she did not. Instead, after receiving her degree, Respondent e-mailed Donna Wingard in the

    certification office (rather than Ms. Schuck) and asked who she should send her information to in order to “get her Certificate updated.” The fact that the e-mail makes no mention of Respondent’s prior conversation with Ms. Schuck, coupled with the fact that it was not sent directly to Ms. Schuck, calls into question Respondent’s testimony that she spoke with Ms. Schuck prior to obtaining her degree from Belford.

24. In any event, even if Respondent spoke with Ms. Schuck as she testified that she did, the evidence was not persuasive that Ms. Schuck advised her to go ahead and get the degree. To the contrary, if the conversation occurred, it is more likely than not that Ms. Schuck advised Respondent to give her Belford’s contact information so that she could investigate whether a degree from Belford would be accepted for certification purposes before Respondent spent time and money pursuing the degree.

25. On or about November 10, 2005,3 Respondent applied for a doctorate degree from Belford by filling out the form on Belford’s website. In the boxes provided on the form, she entered information detailing her education, work, and other life experiences.

26. The information Respondent provided to Belford included her resume, a five-page summary of her life experiences, and the materials that she put together as part of

    the application process for the principal pool. She did not submit transcripts or other official evidence of her Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees to Belford.

27. Respondent did not attend any classes at Belford, nor did she prepare or defend a dissertation in order to obtain her doctorate degree from Belford. She received the degree based solely on the package of information described above.

28. Respondent testified that the information that she submitted to Belford to obtain her degree accurately reflected her education, work history, life experiences, and other qualifications. The School Board offered no evidence to the contrary and, indeed, its witnesses acknowledged that they had no reason to believe that the information Respondent submitted to Belford was inaccurate.4

29. Respondent obtained her doctorate degree from Belford for “less than $800.” The degree was issued to Respondent within two weeks of the time that she applied for it, and Respondent was not required to pay for the degree until she was advised by Belford that she would receive the degree based upon the information submitted.

30. A traditional doctorate degree, such as a Ph.D., takes several years to receive, costs thousands of dollars, and involves extensive coursework as well as the preparation and defense of a lengthy dissertation.

31. Respondent’s “official transcript” from Belford reflects that she was awarded a Doctor of Arts degree with a major in educational administration on November 10, 2005. The transcript makes no reference to the fact that the degree was based upon “life experiences” rather than a traditional course of study.

32. Respondent’s transcript includes a designation of magna cum laude based upon a 3.81 grade point average (GPA). Respondent had to pay extra to receive that GPA.

33. Respondent’s transcript lists eight courses with specific grades -- from “A” to “B-” -- awarded for each course. Respondent testified that she did not attend those courses, and that it was her understanding that the grades shown on the transcript were based upon the information that she submitted to Belford, which reflected the extent of her experience in the areas identified in the course descriptions.

34. On November 17, 2005, Respondent sent the e-mail referenced above to Ms. Wingaurd. Respondent stated in the e- mail that she “just completed [her] Doctorate Program” and, as noted above, she asked Ms. Wingard who she needed to send the information about the degree to in order to get her DOE certificate updated. Notably, Respondent did not mention that the “Doctorate Program” was through an online university or that

    the degree she received was based upon life experiences rather than a traditional course of study.

35. Ms. Wingaurd forwarded Respondent’s e-mail to Ms.

    
    

    Shuck to handle. In her e-mail response, Ms. Schuck directed Respondent to send her an original transcript and stated that she would send the original to DOE for certification purposes and give a copy to the personnel office for “a salary change.” Respondent credibly testified that this was the first notice that she had that she was eligible for a salary increase as a result of the doctorate degree.

36. On November 29, 2005,5 Respondent and Mr. Dawson met with Ms. Schuck to give her copies of their "official transcripts" from Belford for certification purposes.

37. Ms. Schuck was unable to process the transcripts for certification purposes at that time because they did not include the date that the degrees were awarded. She handed the transcripts back to Respondent and Mr. Dean during the meeting and advised them to get her dated transcripts.6

38. Respondent and Mr. Dawson obtained dated copies of their transcripts from Belford, and Respondent sent them to Ms. Schuck through interoffice mail.

39. Respondent testified that she called Ms. Schuck to confirm that she received the degrees and to check on their status. Respondent testified that Ms. Schuck told her that she

    had received the degrees and that she had given them to Ms. Butler for processing.

40. Respondent’s testimony regarding her conversation with Ms. Schuck was not persuasive. Indeed, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Ms. Schuck never received the dated transcripts, but rather that they were somehow received by Pam Merritt, an administrative assistant in the District’s personnel office.

41. Ms. Merritt put the transcripts in Judy Butler’s in- basket for processing. Ms. Butler’s responsibilities include processing salary changes for District staff.

42. Ms. Butler is not responsible for reviewing transcripts or degrees for certification purposes. That review is done by the District’s certification office and is supposed to occur prior to the transcript or degree being forwarded to the personnel office for purposes of a salary change.

43. Ms. Butler assumed that Respondent’s degree was in her in-basket for purposes of a salary change even though there was no cover letter or other directions with the transcript.

44. Ms. Butler placed Respondent’s salary change on the agenda for the Salary Classification Committee (SCC). She did not do the same for Mr. Dawson because his transcript had somehow gotten affixed to Respondent’s transcript and Ms. Butler did not see it.

45. On January 26, 2006, the SCC approved a $1,750 salary supplement for Respondent based upon her Belford doctorate degree.

46. On January 28, 2006, Ms. Butler found Mr. Dawson’s transcript as she was pulling apart the documents from the SCC meeting for inclusion in a package for the Superintendent to review. She sent an e-mail to Mr. Dawson on that date advising him that she had his transcript and that she would make sure that it was placed on the SCC’s February agenda. She sent a copy of the e-mail to David Lauer, the District’s assistant superintendent for human relations.

47. Mr. Lauer received the e-mail on January 31, 2006, when he returned to the office. He knew Mr. Dawson and was surprised to learn that he had obtained a doctorate degree, so he asked Ms. Butler for the documentation related to Respondent and Mr. Dawson.

48. Mr. Lauer reviewed the Belford website for approximately 45 minutes and determined that it was a “diploma mill” and that the doctorate degrees obtained by Mr. Dawson and Respondent were “bogus.”

49. Mr. Lauer also spoke with Ms. Schuck and asked her to determine whether Belford is an accredited university for DOE certification purposes. Ms. Schuck did so by e-mailing Mandy Mims, her contact at DOE. Ms. Mims advised Ms. Schuck that

    “Belford is not accredited by any agency recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education, so degrees earned would not be appropriate for certification purposes.”

50. Mr. Lauer was “flabbergasted” by the situation, and because he considered the submittal of bogus degrees to be “so serious and so contrary to what we believe in as educators,” he went directly to the Superintendent, Dr. Gail McKinzie, instead of first speaking to Respondent and Mr. Dawson to get their side of the story.

51. Mr. Lauer reported the situation to Dr. McKinzie on February 1, 2006. That same day, Dr. McKinzie reviewed the Belford website for approximately an hour and came to the same conclusions as Mr. Lauer regarding Belford and the nature of Respondent’s and Mr. Dawson’s doctorate degrees.

52. On February 3, 2006, Respondent was called to a meeting with Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer.

53. At the meeting, which lasted less than 10 minutes, Dr.

    
    

    McKinzie told Respondent that she was going to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be fired because she had misrepresented her professional qualifications though the submission of the Belford degree. Respondent was not given a meaningful opportunity to give her side of the story at the meeting.

54. By letter dated February 8, 2006, Dr. McKinzie informed Respondent that she had recommended to the School Board that her employment be terminated. The letter advised Respondent of her right to request an administrative hearing, and Respondent timely did so by letter dated February 10, 2006.

55. The School Board approved Dr. McKinzie’s recommendation at its meeting on February 14, 2006, and Respondent has been suspended without pay since that date pending the outcome of this proceeding.

56. The negative characterization of Belford and its degrees by Mr. Lauer and Dr. McKinzie is reasonable based upon the evidence of record. For example, in addition to the statements from the website referred to in Finding of Fact 12 that should put a reasonable person on notice that Belford is not a legitimate educational institution, a degree from Belford can be obtained in as little as one week; the applicant is allowed to select his or her GPA, with a higher GPA costing more money; the applicant is not required to pay for his or her degree until after learning that the degree will be issued; the applicant is allowed to select his or her graduation date, with back-dating available at an additional cost; Belford will “introduce [a major] as a new addition to [its] doctorate curriculum” if the major sought by the applicant is not on Belford’s list of majors; Belford does not require transcripts

    or other proof beyond the applicant’s representations that he or she has lower degrees (e.g., Bachelor’s and Master’s) prior to awarding a higher degree (e.g., Doctorate); and a base-level doctorate degree from Belford costs only $549.00.

57. It is unreasonable for anyone, and particularly someone like Respondent who has 18 years of experience in the education system, to believe that Belford is a legitimate educational institution or that a doctorate degree from Belford is a legitimate degree that would be accepted as such by DOE or the District. Thus, it is inferred that Respondent knew or should have known that a doctorate degree from Belford is not a legitimate educational degree that could be used to enhance her standing in the principal pool or bolster her professional qualifications.

58. The evidence establishes that Respondent knowingly misrepresented her professional qualifications when she presented her Belford degree to the District for certification purposes and to enhance her status in the principal pool without disclosing the true nature of the degree.

59. Respondent’s decision to purchase a doctorate degree over the Internet calls into question her judgment as well as her respect for the educational process, which, in turn, raises serious doubts about Respondent’s ability to be effective in the school system. Indeed, it is clear from the totality of the

    evidence -- and particularly the testimony of Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer -- that Respondent’s ability to be an effective leader (as assistant principals and aspiring principals are supposed to be) in the District has been significantly impaired through her submission and continued defense of her Belford degree as a legitimate educational degree.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

60. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2005).7

61. The School Board has the burden to prove the allegations against Respondent by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., McNeill v. Pinellas County School Board, 678 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Sublett v. Sumter County

    School Board, 664 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Allen v. School Board of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accord Polk County School Board v. Martin, Case No. 02-4389, 2003 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 1058, at **13- 14 (DOAH March 31, 2003); § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

62. Assistant principals are considered administrative staff for purposes of the Florida K-20 Education Code. See § 1012.01(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat.

63. Section 1012.33(6)(b),8 Florida Statutes, provides that any administrative staff member:

    may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the term of the contract; however, the charges against him or her must be based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude, as these terms are defined by rule of the State Board of Education.

    
    

64. The School Board contends that Respondent has committed “misconduct in office,” which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3) as:

    a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual’s effectiveness in the school system.

    
    

65. More specifically, the School Board contends that Respondent’s conduct violates the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, which provides in pertinent part:

    1. The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.

       
       

    2. Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law.

       * * *

       
       

       (5) Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:

       
       

       (a) Shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.

       
       

       * * *

       
       

       1. Shall not misrepresent one's own professional qualifications.

          
          

       2. Shall not submit fraudulent information on any document in connection with professional activities.

       
       

       * * * Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1.006.

66. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent misrepresented her professional qualifications in an attempt to enhance her standing with the District by purchasing a doctorate degree over the Internet that she knew or should have known was not a legitimate educational degree, and that she presented the certificate to the District as evidence of the completion of her “Doctorate Program” without fully disclosing the true nature of the program or the degree. In doing so, Respondent failed to maintain honesty in her professional dealings, misrepresented her professional qualifications and, hence, violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a) and (g).

67. Having concluded that Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, it becomes necessary to determine whether the violation is “so serious as to impair the individual’s effectiveness in the school system.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-4.009(3).

68. Ineffectiveness can be inferred from the conduct at issue and need not be independently proven. See, e.g., Purvis v. Marion County School Board, 766 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Walker v. Highlands County School Board, 752 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

69. The Legislature has gone to great lengths to protect the integrity of degrees and academic credentials.9 As a result, misrepresentations related to degrees or academic credentials by individuals in the education system are appropriately viewed as serious misconduct. Moreover, the testimony of Mr. Lauer and Dr. McKinzie, coupled with the swift action taken by the School Board against Respondent, underscores the seriousness of Respondent’s misconduct and the extent to which her effectiveness in the school system has been impaired by her efforts to improperly bolster her qualifications through the submittal of the Belford degree.

70. In sum, the School Board met its burden to prove that Respondent committed “misconduct in office” and, therefore, the School Board has “just cause” to terminate Respondent’s

employment as an assistant principal. See § 1012.33(6)(b), Fla. Stat.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Polk County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent’s employment.

DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2006.

ENDNOTES

1/ Mr. Dawson testified that he and Respondent “started talking in the summer of ’04 and just had conversations over the next year or two about what programs would work well with [their] time constraints and [their] budget . . . .” Tr. 273-74.

Respondent testified that she and Mr. Dawson had been sharing information with each other about the programs that they had looked into “since probably April . . . of ’05.” Tr. 209.

2/ Respondent testified that she “was wanting a doctorate degree because [she] was currently in the principals pool, and . . . that [she] was hoping that [the degree] would help [her] career goal to become a principal.” Tr. 209. Mr. Dawson similarly testified that he was interested in obtaining a doctorate degree to “improve [his] stature and an opportunity to be a principal in the school system” (Tr. 280) or, stated another way, to “help [him]self in the eyes of the [District’s] higher-ups” because he had been told that at least one assistant superintendent did not consider him to be a serious candidate for a principal’s job.

Tr. 273. See also Tr. 270 (Mr. Dawson’s testimony that getting a doctorate degree was something that he and Respondent decided they could do to “further [them]selves . . . in the eyes of both the school board and the professional world”).

3/ Respondent did not recall the exact date that she submitted her application to Belford, but she testified that it was “around the first couple weeks in November.” Tr. 228. The November 10, 2005, date is inferred from the date shown on Respondent’s transcript and the dates of the e-mails between Belford and Respondent contained in Exhibit 54.

4/ It is curious that neither Respondent nor the School Board offered into evidence the information that Respondent submitted to Belford to obtain her degree. Respondent testified that the information was stored on her computer at work, and that by the time she attempted to retrieve the information after her suspension, it had been deleted. However, that testimony does not explain why Respondent did not obtain copies of the information directly from Belford, as she presumably had a right to do since it is part of her educational records.

5/ Ms. Schuck did not recall the exact date of the meeting, but she testified that it occurred at the “end of November, beginning of December.” Tr. 42. Respondent and Mr. Dawson both testified that the meeting was on the Tuesday after Thanksgiving break. Thanksgiving Day was Thursday, November 24, 2005, which means that the following Tuesday was November 29, 2005.

6/ In making this finding, the undersigned did not overlook Ms. Schuck’s testimony that it was her assistant who first noticed that the transcripts were undated and that it was not until some point after the meeting that she called Respondent and advised her that dated transcripts were necessary. Tr. 42-43. Ms.

Schuck’s testimony on this issue was consistent with the timeline prepared around the time of the incident -- Exhibit R-5

-- but it was less persuasive than the testimony of Respondent and Mr. Dean on this issue because it seems highly unlikely that Ms. Schuck would not have noticed the absence of a date on the face of the one-page transcripts even on a cursory review. The rejection of Ms. Schuck’s testimony on this issue does not, in the undersigned’s mind, undermine the remainder of her testimony, which was found to be persuasive.

7/ All statutory references are to the 2005 version of the Florida Statutes.

8/ In their PROs, the School Board and Respondent both cite paragraph (4)(c) as the provision of Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, applicable to Respondent. However, because Respondent was under an annual contract, it appears that she is subject to paragraph (6)(b) of Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, not paragraph (4)(c), which applies to administrative personnel under “continuing contracts.” Ultimately, this is a distinction without a difference because the substantive standards -- “misconduct in office,” etc. -- in paragraphs (4)(c) and (6)(b) of Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, are the same.

9/ See, e.g., § 817.567, Fla. Stat. (making it a first degree misdemeanor for a person to claim to have an academic degree unless he or she has been awarded the degree by an institution accredited by an organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, and prohibiting the use of the title “Dr.” or abbreviations that are generally taken to signify the receipt of a doctorate degree unless the person has received such a degree from an appropriately accredited university); § 1005.01(2), Fla. Stat. (identifying several of the important purposes served by degrees and explaining that the educational and other requirements imposed on independent postsecondary educational institutions are intended to “aid in protecting the integrity of [their] degrees, diplomas, and other educational credentials”).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dr. Gail F. McKinzie, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830

C. Wesley Bridges, Esquire General Counsel

Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830

Donald H. Wilson, Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP

245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831

Gregg W. Hooth, Esquire Dennis Hernandez & Associates 3339 Kennedy Boulevard

Tampa, Florida 33699

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 06-000683

Orders for Case No: 06-000683