RICHARD CORCORAN,

Commissioner of Education, Petitioner,

Before the Education Practices Commission of the State of Florida

DOAH CASE No. 19-6169PL

vs. EPC CASE No. 20-0103-TC

CAMARA BAIYINA NJERI TUNSILL, PPS No. 189-0797

DOE No. 1291027

Respondent. INDEX No. 20-175-FOF

/

Final Order

This matter was heard by a Teacher Panel of the Education Practices Commission pursuant to Sections 1012.795, 1012.796 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on June 4, 2020 via telephone conference call, for consideration of the Amended Recommended Order entered in this case by ROBERT J. TELFER III, Administrative Law Judge, on April 17, 2020. Respondent was present and was not represented. Petitioner was represented by Ron Weaver, Esquire.

Ruling on Respondent’s Exceptions to Findings of Fact

1. EXCEPTION 1A (Paragraph 10 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because it addresses the credibility of witnesses.

2. EXCEPTION 1B (Paragraph 12 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the

   
   

   
   

   Filed June 16, 2020 2:27 PM Division of Administrative Hearings

   
   

   
   

   exception because there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this finding of fact. Furthermore, the Commission does not have substantive jurisdiction to determine what constitutes “clear and convincing evidence.” The Commission can only determine if there was no competent, substantial evidence.

3. EXCEPTION 1C (Paragraph 13 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this finding of fact. Furthermore, the Commission does not have substantive jurisdiction to determine what constitutes “clear and convincing evidence.” The Commission can only determine if there was no competent, substantial evidence.

4. EXCEPTION 1D (Paragraph 14 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this finding of fact. Furthermore, the Commission does not have substantive jurisdiction to determine what constitutes “clear and convincing evidence.” The Commission can only determine if there was no competent, substantial evidence.

5. EXCEPTION 2 (Paragraph 18 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because it addresses the credibility of witnesses.

6. EXCEPTION 3 (Paragraph 23 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this finding of fact.

7. EXCEPTION 4 (Paragraph 24 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this finding of fact. Furthermore, the Commission does not have substantive jurisdiction to determine what

   
   

   
   

   constitutes “clear and convincing evidence.” The Commission can only determine if there was no competent, substantial evidence.

8. EXCEPTION 5 (Paragraph 28 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this finding of fact. Furthermore, the Commission does not have substantive jurisdiction to determine what constitutes “clear and convincing evidence.” The Commission can only determine if there was no competent, substantial evidence.

9. EXCEPTION 6 (Paragraph 39 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this finding of fact. Furthermore, the Commission does not have substantive jurisdiction to determine what constitutes “clear and convincing evidence.” The Commission can only determine if there was no competent, substantial evidence.

10. EXCEPTION 7 (Paragraph 40 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this finding of fact. Furthermore, the Commission does not have substantive jurisdiction to determine what constitutes “clear and convincing evidence.” The Commission can only determine if there was no competent, substantial evidence.

11. EXCEPTION 8 (Paragraph 41 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this finding of fact. Furthermore, the Commission does not have substantive jurisdiction to determine what constitutes “clear and convincing evidence.” The Commission can only determine if there was no competent, substantial evidence.

    
    

    
    

    Ruling on Respondent’s Exceptions to Conclusions of Law

    
    

12. EXCEPTION 9 (Paragraph 43 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because the Commission does not have jurisdiction to re-weigh evidence, including credibility of witness testimony.

13. EXCEPTION 10 (Paragraphs 52 and 53 of Recommended Order): The Commission rejected the exception because the Commission does not have jurisdiction to re-weigh evidence, including credibility of witness testimony.

    Ruling on Petitioner’s Exception to Recommended Penalty

    
    

14. EXCEPTION 11: The Commission rejected the exception because bias is not a proper basis for an exception. Additionally, the Commission may not reduce or increase the recommended penalty without a review of the complete record and without stating with particularity its reasons in the order.

    Findings of Fact

    
    

15. The findings of fact set forth in the Amended Recommended Order are approved and adopted and incorporated herein by reference.

16. There is competent substantial evidence to support the findings of fact.

    
    

    Conclusions of Law

    
    

17. The Education Practices Commission has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes.

18. The conclusions of law set forth in the Amended Recommended Order are approved and adopted and incorporated herein by reference.

    
    

    
    

    Penalty

    
    

    Upon a complete review of the record in this case, the Commission determines that the penalty recommended by the Administrative Law Judge be ACCEPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that:

19. Respondent’s Florida educator’s certificate is hereby suspended for a period of twelve

    
    

    (12) months, nunc pro tunc, from May 31, 2019, to May 31, 2020.

    
    

20. Upon employment in any public or private position requiring a Florida Educator’s certificate, Respondent shall be placed on twelve (12) months employment years of probation with the conditions that during that period, he shall:

    1. Immediately notify the investigative office in the Department of Education upon employment or termination of employment in the state in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator’s certificate.

    2. Have Respondent’s immediate supervisor submit annual performance reports to the investigative office in the Department of Education.

    3. Pay to the Commission during the first 6 months of each probation year the administrative costs ($150) of monitoring probation assessed to the educator.

    4. Violate no law and shall fully comply with all district school board policies, school rules, and State Board of Education rules.

    5. Satisfactorily perform all assigned duties in a competent, professional manner.

       
       

    6. Bear all costs of complying with the terms of a final order entered by the Commission.

This Final Order takes effect upon filing with the Clerk of the Education Practices Commission.

DONE AND ORDERED, this 5th day of June, 2020.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF RENDITION OF THIS ORDER.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Order was mailed to CAMARA TUNSILL, 1577 Jacks Drive, Apt. A, Tallahassee, FL 32301 by Certified U.S. Mail and by electronic mail to Bonnie Wilmot, Deputy General Counsel, Suite 1544, Turlington Building, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 and Ron Weaver, Esquire, Post Office Box 770088, Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 this 5th day of June, 2020.

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Office of Professional Practices Services Bureau of Educator Certification Superintendent

Leon County Schools 2757 W. Pensacola St.

Tallahassee, FL 32304-2907

Director of Employee Relations Leon County Schools

2757 W. Pensacola St. Tallahassee, FL 32304-2907 Timothy Frizzell

Assistant Attorney General

Robert J. Telfer III Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

Claudia Llado, Clerk

Division of Administrative Hearings

Docket for Case No: 19-006169PL

Orders for Case No: 19-006169PL