STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HENRY B. VAN TWYVER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 76-1222
) FLORIDA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on December 15 and 28, 1976, in Orlando, Florida.
APPEARANCES
The following appearances were entered:
For Petitioner: Michael F. Cycmanick
Orlando, Florida
For Respondent: F. Hartselle Baker
Orlando, Florida
On April 15, 1976, a complaint was filed by Dr. Henry B. Van Twyver against Florida Technological University ("University" hereafter) in the office of the President of the University. Copies of the complaint were received into evidence at the hearing as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2 and Complaining Party's Exhibit 1. It is alleged in the complaint that the University wrongfully denied Dr. Van Twyver's application for tenured status on the faculty of the University. Dr.
Van Twyver is seeking a review of the University's denial of tenured status through the vehicle of a grievance initiated in accordance with the Rules of the Department of Education, Board of Regents, Rules 6C-5.08(3)(a), (4)(a) 2, Florida Administrative Code (hereafter cited "F.A.C."). Efforts to resolve the grievance complaint without the necessity for conducting formal proceedings were unsuccessful, and by letter dated June 28, 1976, the President of the University directed that a plenary proceeding be conducted (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1).
Dr. Van Twyver's complaint was filed in the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 8, 1976. The University responded to the complaint with an Answer in which the allegations of the complaint are denied (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 5). The final hearing was scheduled to be conducted on December 14, 1976, by notice dated November 30, 1976 (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). In order to accommodate the calendar of Dr. Van Twyver's attorney; who had recently been elected to the position of County Judge in Orange County, Florida, and was in the process of closing his private practice; the hearing was conducted on December 15 and 28, 1976 (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4, Transcript of December 15 proceedings, at p. 73).
Dr. Van Twyver appeared as a witness on his own behalf, and called the following additional witness: Dr. Phillip Tell, an associate professor of psychology at the University. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1-5, and Complaining Party's Exhibits 1-8, 10, and 11 were received into evidence. Complaining Party's Exhibit 9 was offered into evidence, but was rejected.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In September, 1970, Dr. Van Twyver was appointed Assist-ant Professor of Psychology by the University. The appointment was made in accordance with a contract which ran from September, 1970 through June, 1971. He was given a similar appointment for the academic year beginning September, 1971. Prior to the academic year beginning September, 1972, Dr. Van Twyver was promoted to the rank of Associate Professor (Complaining Party's Exhibit 8). Dr. Van Twyver received appointments as Associate Professor of Psychology for the academic years beginning in September, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976. Dr. Van Twyver also received several appointments to the same position for summer academic terms. Copies of the various appointments offered to and accepted by Dr. Van Twyver were received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 6. Prior to the appointment for the academic year beginning in September, 1976, each of Dr. Van Twyver's appointments was to tenure earning positions. The position covered by the appointment for the present academic year which commenced in September, 1976, is not a tenure earning position. Dr. Van Twyver's present contract provides that it is a terminal contract and will not be renewed.
During his fifth year with the University (the academic year beginning September, 1974) Dr. Van Twyver applied for tenured status on the faculty. He was told by the Chairman of the Psychology Department that due to a change in policy he would not be considered for tenured status until his sixth year. During his sixth year (the academic year beginning September, 1975) Dr. Van Twyver again applied for tenured status. He submitted an application to the Department Chairman.
The application was forwarded to the Department of Psychology Faculty Evaluation of Faculty Committee. The Committee was composed of five members. The members of the Committee originally voted unanimously in favor of recommending Dr. Van Twyver for tenure. The vote was based upon an evaluation in which areas of performance substantially equivalent to those itemized in Rule 6C-5.05(2) F.A.C. were considered. At a meeting of the Committee conducted on October 10, 1975, two members urged that Dr. Van Twyver and other tenure applicants be evaluated based upon an additional criterion, that being whether granting tenure would serve the best interests of the University. Dr. Burroughs who chaired the Committee indicated that Dr. Abbott, the Chairman of the Department, thought the additional criterion should be considered. The other members of the Committee rejected the argument, and at an October 15 meeting the Committee voted to recommend Dr. Van Twyver for tenure by a vote of three in favor and two abstaining. A copy of the Committee's final evaluation form dated October 15, 1976, was received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 2.
The Committee considered Dr. Van Twyver acceptable or above acceptable in each of the categories evaluated other than in "research and other creative activities" in which he was rated outstanding.
Dr. Van Twyver's application was next considered by members of the tenured faculty of the Department of Psychology. By a vote of four to one the tenured faculty voted against recommending tenure. The lone favorable vote came from Dr. Phillip Tell. The meeting at which the vote was taken was brief, lasting less than ten minutes, and matters other than Dr. Van Twyver's
application were considered. Dr. Abbott, the Department Chairman, stated that the vote should be based upon a determination of whether granting tenure would serve the best interests of the University. Dr. Tell asked what was meant by "best interests of the University". Dr. Abbott answered by reading Paragraph G from the recommendation form utilized by department chairpersons in recommending granting or denying tenure or other promotions. Paragraphs A through E of the form set out criteria for evaluating an applicant which correspond with the criteria for evaluating faculty performance set out in Rule 5.05(2), F.A.C. Paragraph F of the form provides a space for recording the results of the tenured faculty vote. Paragraph G contains the following language:
I (am, am not) satisfied that the nominee has met all of the criteria for (tenure, promotion) of this university and the Board of Regents, and that he/she (has, has not) demonstrated a high degree of competence in his/her professional field. I believe that granting him/her (tenure, promotion)(will, will not) serve the best interests of the institution and the State University System of Florida. I recommend that:
( )tenure
( )promotion to the rank of (be, not be) granted.
The form then provides a space for comments and the chairperson's signature.
Dr. Abbott expressed the view that the criterion "best interests of the institution" was apart from and in addition to the criteria for evaluation listed in paragraphs A through E of the form. The vote of the tenured faculty of the Department was based upon this interpretation as was Dr. Abbott's recommendation that tenure not be granted. A copy of Dr. Abbott's evaluation and negative recommendation for Dr. Van Twyver was received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 3.
It cannot be determined from the evidence whether the tenured faculty would have voted in the same manner, or whether Dr. Abbott would have made the same recommendation if the criterion "best interests of the institution" had not been considered as additional to criteria set out in Paragraphs A through E of Complaining Party's Exhibit 3. It does appear that Dr. Van Twyver was considered at least satisfactory in each of those areas. It cannot be determined from the evidence why the tenured faculty voted against recommending tenure or why Dr. Abbott recommended against tenure unless it was for the reason that the concept of "best interests of the institution" was given some unknown interpretation and applied as an area to be evaluated apart from the other criteria.
The college of Social Sciences Personnel Committee considered Dr. Van Twyver's application. By a vote of three to two it recommended in favor of granting tenure. The Personnel Committee's evaluation was received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 4.
Charles N. Millican, President of the University decided against recommending to the Board Of Regents that Dr. Van Twyver's application for tenure be granted. His decision is set out in a letter dated March 19, 1976. Copies of the letter were received in evidence as Exhibit A to Hearing Officer's
Exhibit 2 and to Complaining Party's Exhibit 1. President Millican set out the following as the basis for his decision:
"A careful review of your file indicates that
80 per cent of the tenured faculty members in your Department voted against your tenure nomination, and in addition, your Department Chairman forwarded a negative recommendation.
"The University President's decision was thus based upon the tenured faculty vote and Dr. Abbott's recommendation, both of which utilized the test of "best interest of the institution" as determinative.
No evidence was presented at the hearing from which it could be determined that constitutionally impermissible criteria were applied to Dr. Van Twyver's application at any stage of the tenure application process.
Dr. Van Twyver did not have an objective expectation of reemployment at the University at the time that he applied for tenured status or at any material time.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to this action and over the subject matter. Florida Statute, 120.57(1).
Procedures for considering applications for tenured status on the faculty of an institution within the State University System of Florida are set out in Chapter 6C-5, F.A.C. Rule 6C-5.08(4)(a) 1. provides that a faculty member may initiate a grievance in order to test a determination by the President that he is not prepared to make a favorable decision with respect to granting tenure. Supporting grounds for such a grievance are that tenure was denied "... because of constitutionally impermissible reasons or as a result of non-compliance with written standards, criteria or procedures proscribed by the Board of Regents or University regulations..." Rule 6C-5.08(4)(a)2. The burden of proving that tenure was denied for constitutionally impermissible reasons, or as a result of non-compliance with written procedures is imposed upon the faculty member. Rule 6C-5.08(3)(g)4.
Dr. Van Twyver has not at any material time possessed an objective expectation of reemployment with the University. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408
U.S. 564 (1972); Megill v. Board of Regents, 541 F.2d 1073 (5 Cir. 1976); Cornwell v. University of Florida, 307 So.2d 203 (1 DCA Fla. 1975). No evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the decision to deny tenure to Dr. Van Twyver was based to any degree upon constitutionally impermissible reasons.
The vote of the tenured faculty of the Department of Psychology, and the negative recommendation of the Department Chairman were based upon the erroneous conclusion that what might constitute the best interests of the University is a criterion for considering tenure beyond the objective criteria set out in the Board of Regents rules. Rule 6C-5.06(4)(a) provides:
"Tenure recommendations shall be based on the institution's evaluation procedures and shall originate with the appropriate department or division officer, who shall obtain the opinions
of the tenured faculty in the department or unit in a secret pool, the results of the balloting shall be forwarded with the recommendation of
the appropriate department or division administrator to the head of the appropriate college, school, or division, for action, and to the president, or designated representative for action ..."(emphasis supplied).
Rule 6C-5.05 sets out procedures for faculty evaluation. Areas of performance to be evaluated are set out in Rule 6C-5.05(2). These are teaching, research and other creative activities, service, and other university duties. A detailed description of matters to be considered are set out in the rule under these headings. The Florida Technological University Plan for Academic Administration contains the same areas to be evaluated, with some additional objective matters to be weighed, and adds a fifth area--professional development. Plan for Academic Administration Paragraph IV D. A copy of the plan was received in evidence as Charging Party's Exhibit 11. In accordance with Rule 5.06(4)(a) the areas of performance to be evaluated in whether tenure should be granted are the same as those applied to faculty evaluations generally. It cannot be determined whether Dr. Van Twyver would have been recommended for tenure if only these areas of performance were considered. It is apparent that the tenured faculty and the Chairman of the Department of Psychology regarded "best interests of the institution" as an additional criterion. Rule 6C-5.06(2) , as it existed at the time that the tenured faculty of the Psychology Department and the Department Chairman considered Dr. Van Twyver's application provided in part:
"Nomination of a faculty member for tenure [by the University President] shall signify the president is satisfied that a high degree of competence has been demonstrated and continuing employment of the faculty member will serve the best interests of the institution and the University System."
This provision does not establish the criteria that should be considered in determining whether tenure should be granted. The criteria is set out in Rule 6C-5.06(4) and Rule 6C-5.05(2). The language "high degree of competence... and ... best interests of the institution ..." contained in Rule 6C-5.06(2) does not establish additional criteria, but merely constitutes an ab- breviated method of referring to the same criteria. Insofar as the language "best interests of the institution" does constitute an additional criterion, it is one confined by the rules to being considered by the President.
It has been suggested that the "best interests of the institution "criterion provides the only mechanism for denying tenure to persons whose objective skills are excellent, but who are morally unfit to serve on a faculty. This argument is without merit. In the first place, as to Dr. Van Twyver, it is nowhere asserted that he is morally unfit to serve on the faculty. Furthermore morally unfit persons would necessarily receive poor teaching evaluations if the language of Rule 6C-5.05(2)(a)3 were applied:
"[Eva1uation shall include consideration of] the faculty members' adherence to accepted standards of professional behavior in meeting his respon- sibilities to his students."
Board of Regents rules and University procedures were not properly followed in considering Dr. Van Twyver's application for tenure. An incorrect criterion was applied by the tenured faculty of the Department of Psychology and by the Department Chairman. The President's decision was based upon these recommendations.
Dr. Van Twyver's application for tenure should be returned to the Department of Psychology so that the tenured faculty can vote on the application and the Department Chairman can make a recommendation based upon the criteria set out in Rule 6C-5.05(2) and the Plan for Academic Administration.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby,
RECOMMENDED
That Dr. Henry B. Van Twyver's application for tenure be reconsidered by the Florida Technological University Department of Psychology tenured faculty, and by the Department Chairman in light of the criteria set out in Rule 6C- 5.05(2) F.A.C. and the Florida Technological University Plan for Academic Administration, Paragraph IV D, and not upon any additional criterion.
DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.
G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1977.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Michael F. Cycmanick, Esquire
120 South Court Avenue, Suite 223 Orlando, Florida 32801
Hartselle Baker, Esquire 1516 East Hillcrest, Suite 202 Orlando, Florida 32803
John D. Mahaffey, Jr., Esquire Legal Counsel
Florida Technological University Post Office Box 25000
Orlando, Florida 32816
Dr. Henry B. Van Twyver Post Office Box 451 Goldenrod, Florida 32733
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HENRY B. VANTWYVER,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 76-1222
FLORIDA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on December 15 and 28, 1976, in Orlando, Florida.
After a careful review of the complete record and upon exanination of the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order, it is the Final Order of the Agency as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
In September, 1970, Dr. Van Twyver was appointed Assistant Professor of Psychology by the University. The appointment was made in accordance with a contract which ran from Septenbsr, 1970 through June, 1971. He was given a similar appointment for the academic year beginning September, 1971. Prior to the academic year beginning September, 1972, Dr. Van Twyver was promoted to the rank of Associate Professor (Complaining Party's Exhibit 8). Dr. Van Twyver received appointments as Associate Professor of Psychology for the academic years beginning in September, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976. Dr. Van Twyver also received several appointments to the same position for summer academic terms. Copies of the various appointments offered to and accepted by Dr. Van Twyver were received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 6. Prior to the appointment for the academic year beginning in September, 1976, each of Dr. Van Iwyver's appointments was to tenure earning positions. The position covered by the appointment for the preaent academic year which commenced in September, 1976, is not a tenure earning position. Dr. Van Thwyver's present contract provides that it is a terminal contract and will not be renewed.
During his fifth year with the University (the academic year beginning September, 1974) Dr. Van Twyver applied for tenured status on the faculty. He was told by the Chairman of the Psychology Department that due to a change in policy he would not be considered for tenured statue until his sixth year. During his sixth year (the academic year beginning September, 1975) Dr. Van Twyver again applied for tenured status. He submitted an application to the Department Chairman.
The application was forwarded to the Department of Psychology Faculty Evaluation of Faculty Committee. The Committee was composed of five members. The members of the Committee originally voted unanimously in favor of recommending Dr. Van Twyver for tenure. The vote was based upon an evaluation in which areas of performance substantially equivalent to those itemized in Rule 6C-5.05(2) F.A.C. were considered. At a meeting of the Committee conducted on October lO, 1975, two members urged that Dr. Van Twyver and other tenure applicants be evaluated based upon an additional criterion, that being whether granting tenure would serve the best interests of the University. Dr. Burroughs who chaired the Committee indicated that Dr. Abbott, the Chairman of the Department, thought the additional criterion should be considered. The other members of the Committee rejected the argument, and at an October 15 meeting the Committee voted to recommend Dr. Van Thwyver for tenure by a vote of three in favor and two abstaining. A copy of the Committee's final evaluation form dated October 15, 1976, was received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 2.
The Committee considered Dr. Van Twyver acceptable or above acceptable in each of the categories evaluated other than in "research and other creative activities" in which he was rated outstanding.
Dr. Van Twyver's application was next considered by members of the tenured faculty of the Department of Psychology. By a vote of four to one the tenured faculty voted against recommending tenure. The lone favorable vote came from Dr. Phillip Tell. The meeting at which the vote was taken wse brief, lasting less than ten minutes, and matters other than Dr. Van Twyver's application were considered. At the meeting Dr. Tell asked what the tenured faculty's vote should be based upon. Dr. Abbott answered by reading Paragraph G from the recommendation form utilized by department chairpersons in recommending granting or denying tenure or other promotions. Paragraphs A through E of the form act out criteria for evaluating an app1icant which correspond with the criteria for evaluating faculty performance set out in Rule 5.05(2), F.A.C. Paragraph F of the form provides a apace for recording the results of the tenured faculty vote. Paragraph G contains the following language:
I (am, an not) satisfied that the nominee has met all of the criteria for (tenure, promotion) of this uni- versity and the Board of Regents, and that he/she (has, has not) demonstrated a high degree of competence in his/her professional field. I believe that granting him/her (tenure, promotion)(will, will not) serve the best interests of the institution and the State uni- versity System of Florida. I recommend that:
( ) tenure
( ) promotion to the rank of (be, not be) granted.
The form then provides a space for comments and the chairperson's signature. A copy of Dr. Abbott's evaluation and negative recommendation for
Dr. Van Twyver was received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 3. Dr. Kissel, Dr. Van Twyver's Dean, also did not recommend Dr. Van Twyver for tenure as evidenced by Complaint's Exhibit #CX-lO.
Paragraph 4 of the Hearing Officer's recommended Findings of Fact is modified to delete the following language: "Dr. Abbott, the Department Chairman, stated that the vote should be based upon a determination of whether granting tenure would serve the best interests of the University. Dr. Tell asked what was meant by best interests of the University.' . . . Dr. Abbott expressed the view that the criterion `best interests of the institution' was apart from and in addition to the criteria for evaluation listed in paragraphs A through E on the form. The vote of the tenured faculty of the Department was based on this interpretation as was Dr. Abbott's," in that a careful examination of the record indicates that Dr. Abbott simply read paragraph G of the Chairman's Recommendation Form for granting or denying tenure or promotion.
There is no portion of the record which would support the statements deleted.
Paragraph 5 of the Findings of Fact is further deleted from the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in its entirety with the exception of the sentence.which reads: "It does appear that Dr. Van Twyver was considered at least satisfactory in each of those areas," for the reason that a careful review of the record reveals no evidence that paragraph 5, with the exception noted above, can be based upon.
The college of Social Sciences Personnel Committee considered Dr. Van Twyver's application. By a vote of three to two it recommended in favor of granting tenure. The Personnel Committee'e evaluation was received in evidence as Complaining Party's Exhibit 4.
Dr. Charles N. Millican, President of the University, decided against recommending to the Board of Regents that Dr. Van Twyver's application for tenure be granted. His decision is set out in a letter dated March 19, 1976. Copies of the letter were received in evidence as Exhibit A to Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2 and to Complaining Party's Exhibit 1. President Millican set out the following as the basis for his decision:
A careful review of your file indicates that 80 percent of the tenured faculty members in your Department voted against your tenure nomination, and in addition, your Department Chairman forwarded a negative recommendation.
Paragraph 7 is modified to add that he (Dr. Millican) was not satisfied "continuing employment of the faculty member will serve the best interests of the institution and the university system" as an additional reason for denial of tenure. This is clearly stated in President Millican's letter of March 19 and attached to the Hearing Officer's Exhibit Number 2. Paragraph 7 is further modified to delete the last sentence thereof which states: "The University President's decision was thus based upon the tenured faculty vote and Dr.
Abbott's recommendation, both of which utilized the test of best interests of the institution' as determinative" for the reason that the record does not support, as stated above, that the sole criterion to be determinative of the tenured faculty vote and the Chairman's decision was the "best interests of the institution."
No evidence was presented at the hearing from which it could be determined that constitutionally impermissible criteria were applied to Dr. Van Twyver's application at any stage of the tenure application process.
Dr. Van Twyver did not hnve an objective expectation of reemployment at the University at the time that he applied for tenured statue or at any material time.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to this action and over the subject matter. Florida Statute, 120.57(1).
Procedure for considering applications for tenured status on the faculty of ore institution within the State Univeraity System of Florida are set out in Chapter 6C-5, F.A.C. Rule 6C-5.08(4)(a)1 provides that a faculty member may initiate a grievance in order to teat a determination by the President that he is not prepared to make a favorable decision with respect to granting tenure. Supporting grounds for such a grievance are that tenure was denied ". . . because of constitutionally impermissible reasons or as aresult of non- compliance with written standards, criteria or procedures prescribed by the Board of Regents or University regulations . . ." Rule 6C-5.08(4)(a)2. The burden of proving that tenure was denied for constitutionally impermissible reasons, or as a result of non-compliance with written procedures is imposed upon the faculty member. Rule 6C-5.08(3)(g)4.
Dr. Van Twyver has not at any material time possessed an objective expectation of reemployment with the University. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408
U.S. 564 (1972); Megill v. Board of Regents, 541 F.2d 1073 (5 Cir. 1976); Cornwell v. University of Florida, 307 So.2d 203 (1 DCA Fla. 1975). No evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the decision to deny tenure to Dr. Van Thwyver was based to any degree upon constitutionally impermisaible reasons.
The vote of the tenured faculty of the Department of Psychology, and the negative recommendation of the Department Chairman were not based upon any erroneous conclusion that what might constitute the best interests of the University is criteria for considering tenure beyond the objective criteria set out in the Board of Regents rules. The reason for adopting this Conclusion of Law which is drastically contrary to that Conclusion drawn by the Hearing Officer in his recommended Conclusions of Law is that the rule cited by the Hearing Officer as determinative of the case, to wit Rule 6C-5.06(4)(a) as set forth in the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order was not in effect at the time of Dr. Van Twyver's tenure decision process. In reality the Board of Regents rule in effect at the time of Dr. Van Twyver's tenure decision process provided:
6C-5.06(4) Procedure for Granting Tenure. The procedure to be followed when a faculty member becomes eligible for the status of permanent member ahall be:
At the time a faculty member becomes eligible for tenure, tne appropriate department or diviaion officer, after consultation wIth tenured members of the depart- ment or unit, and after taking into account other con- siderations such as student evaluations in the case of inatructional positions, shall nominate him for that status or postpone such nomination and, in either case, shall inform him in writing.
Nomination for tenure should originate with the appropriate department or division officer who shall obtain the opinions of the tenured members of the department or unit in a secret poll, the results of which shall be forwarded with the nomination, and to become effective must receive the approval of the head of the appropriate college, school, or division, of the president, and of the Board of Regents following
review by the Chancellor.
The Board of Regents rules and University procedures were properly followed in all respects and at all times during which Dr. Van Twyver's application for tenure was under consideration by the University. The section of the F.A.C. cited by the Hearing Officer as deterninative of the case was, in fact, not in effect at the time of Dr. Van Twyver's tenure decision process. Accordingly, it follows that the Hearing Officer's conclusion that an incorrect criterion was applied in Dr. Van Twyver's tenure application must necessarily fail.
IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED that the initial decision of Florida Technological University to deny Dr. Henry Van Twyver tenured status upon the faculty be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Dated this 4th day of April, 1977.
Charles N. Millican, President Florida Technological University
COPIES FURNISHED:
Steven Pfeiffer Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearing Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Michael F. Cycmanick, Esquire
120 South Court Avenue, Suite 223 Orlando, Florida 32308
F. Hartselle Baker, Esquire 1516 East Hillcrest, Suite 223 Orlando, Florida 32308
Dr. Henry B. Van Twyver
Florida Technological University Post Office Box 25000
Orlando, Florida 32816
John D. Mahaffey, Jr., Esquire Florida Technological University Post Office Box 25000
Orlando, Florida 32816
Dr. Phillip Tell
Florida Technological University Post Office Box 25000
Orlando, Florida 32816
Dr. Deborah Chadbourne
Florida Technological University Post Office Box 25000
Orlando, Florida 32316
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 06, 1977 | Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 16, 1977 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 04, 1977 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 16, 1977 | Recommended Order | Petitioner entitled to have application for tenure reconsidered. Denial was in contravention of the stated criteria of the university. |
